Technoeconomic Analysis for the Production of Mixed Alcohols via Indirect Gasification of Biomass Based on Demonstration Experiments

Abstract

An integrated biomass-to-mixed alcohol process was demonstrated at the pilot scale, including indirect gasification, tar and hydrocarbon reforming, gas conditioning, and gas to liquids operations. Additional bench-scale experiments were conducted to gather insights into reforming and fuel synthesis operations under more extensive conditions. Data from these experiments were combined with tools and knowledge owned by industrial partnersRentech and The Dow Chemical Companyto validate a conceptual commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol refinery. Results suggest that both reforming and mixed alcohol processes are scalable and economical, with a modeled mature plant ethanol production cost of $0.54/L ($0.82/L of gasoline equivalent). Sustainability metrics for the conversion process are also presented.

A techno-economic review of thermochemical cellulosic biofuel pathways

“…The increased MFSP is especially notable since the 2012 analysis assumes that the biorefinery remains operational for 30 years instead of the 20 year period assumed in the 2007 (Phillips, 2007) and 2009 analyses. Finally, Dutta et al (2014) presents the most recent update of the model which is based on the results of a combination of bench-and pilot-scale experiment performed by NREL, Dow Chemical, and Rentech. This analysis concludes that it is possible based on current technology to achieve the $3.33/gge ($0.88/lge) MFSP calculated by Dutta et al (2012), although it again assumes a 30-year biorefinery lifespan.…”

Early sustainability assessment for potential configurations of integrated biorefineries. Screening of bio‐based derivatives from platform chemicals

“…). Additionally, previous studies reported that in the mixed alcohols route, special attention should be paid to the valorization of co‐products to be competitive from an economic point of view …”

A critical analysis of thermochemical cellulosic biorefinery capital cost estimates

“…Second, it introduces capital cost uncertainty into the Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, it replaces the gasification and acetic acid synthesis and enzymatic hydrolysis pathways in the previous analysis with three new pathways: catalytic pyrolysis and hydrotreating, hydropyrolysis and hydroprocessing, and gasification and mixed alcohols synthesis …”

“…The Module factor method is employed in an early National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) design case TEA on cellulosic ethanol production via enzymatic hydrolysis and in part in a more recent NREL design case TEA for the production of cellulosic biofuels via gasification and mixed alcohols synthesis …”

“…Finally, the PDEC method explicitly models working capital, which is oft en accounted for in a diff erent manner than the direct and indirect cost categories but still comprises the TCI. Th e PDEC method and its variations have been employed in TEAs of the catalytic pyrolysis and hydrotreating, 26 fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing, 5,9 fast pyrolysis and gasifi cation, 46 gasifi cation and MTG synthesis, 31 gasifi cation and mixed alcohols synthesis, 45,47 gasifi cation and FT synthesis, 29 gasifi cation and S2D, 32 hydropyrolysis and hydroprocessing, 33 and solvent liquefaction 34 pathways. Despite relying upon the same general method, however, the capital cost estimation ratios employed in the TEAs vary across a range of ±32% ( Table 2).…”