Final Paper

2013

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM LIGNOCELLULOSE

ARGUELLES, Nicole

BALAGTAS, Fracelyn

BERMILLO, Marvin

DE LEON, Ralph

JUINIO, Ezekiel

LIZARDO, Ralph

PANGILINAN, Cerf

REYES, Francar

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM LIGNOCELLULOSE 2013

S A V E T H E E A R T H C o .

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES ............................................................................................................................. 2

Bioethanol Application ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Bioconversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol ......................................................................................... 3

Pretreatment .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Enzyme Production ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Cellulose Hydrolysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Glucose Fermentation ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Separation Step................................................................................................................................................................ 5

MARKET STUDY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Corn Production ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Corn Stover Physiology and Value ............................................................................................................................... 7

Estimating Corn Stover Production Rate ................................................................................................................... 7

Estimating Corn Stover Cost ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Bioethanol Production in the Philippines ................................................................................................................. 9

PROCESS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Feedstock and its Composition ................................................................................................................................... 12

Process Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Process and Equipment Design .................................................................................................................................. 21

Feedstock Storage and Handling ........................................................................................................................... 21

Pretreatment and Hydrolyzate Conditioning .................................................................................................. 24

Saccharification and Fermentation ...................................................................................................................... 29

Product Recovery ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Total Capital Investment ............................................................................................................................................... 37

Total Product Cost ............................................................................................................................................................ 39

Cash Flow Analysis and Profitability ........................................................................................................................ 43

SITE SELECTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Site Map ................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

Plant Layout ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46

Minimization of Production Delays ...................................................................................................................... 46

Minimum Equipment Investment ......................................................................................................................... 46



Page ii

Avoidance of Bottlenecks ......................................................................................................................................... 47

Better Production Control ....................................................................................................................................... 47

Improved Utilization of Labor ................................................................................................................................ 47

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 49

Climate .................................................................................................................................................................................. 49

Topography and Geology .............................................................................................................................................. 50

Water Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................ 51

Storm Surge Management............................................................................................................................................. 52

Potential Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 53

Socio Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 53

Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 54

Environmental Action and Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................................... 57

Pre-Construction Phase ............................................................................................................................................ 57

Construction Phase ..................................................................................................................................................... 58

Operation Phase Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 59

Impact Assessment Based on DENR ......................................................................................................................... 60

WASTE WATER TREATMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 68

PLANT SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69

PROCESS CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................................. 74

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................... 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 78

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................................................................. 80

Material Balance around Washer .............................................................................................................................. 81

Material Balance around In-line Mixer .................................................................................................................... 82

Material Balance around Hydrolysis Tank............................................................................................................. 83

Material Balance around Filter Press 1 ................................................................................................................... 84

Material Balance around Neutralization Tank ..................................................................................................... 85


Material Balance around Slurry Tank ...................................................................................................................... 87

Material Balance around Saccharification ............................................................................................................. 88

Material Balance around Fermentation Tanks .................................................................................................... 89

Material Balance around Gas Absorber................................................................................................................... 91


Material Balance around Distillation Column ...................................................................................................... 93

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................................................. 98

Energy Balance on Washer ........................................................................................................................................... 99



Page iii

Energy Balance on Prehydrolysis Tank ............................................................................................................... 100

Energy Balance on Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1 ........................................................................................ 102

Energy Balance on Neutralization Tank .............................................................................................................. 103


Energy Balance on Slurry Tank ............................................................................................................................... 106

Energy Balance on Saccharification Tanks ......................................................................................................... 107

Energy Balance on Fermentation Tanks .............................................................................................................. 108

Energy Balance on Gas Absorption ........................................................................................................................ 110


Energy Balance on Distillation Column ................................................................................................................ 112

APPENDIX C .......................................................................................................................................................................... 113

Design of Feedstock Storage Warehouse ............................................................................................................ 114

Design of Water Storage Tank .................................................................................................................................. 116

Design of Prehydrolysis Tank .................................................................................................................................. 118

Design of Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1 ........................................................................................................... 120

Design of Neutralization Tank ................................................................................................................................. 121


Design of Slurry Tank .................................................................................................................................................. 124

Design of Saccharification Tank .............................................................................................................................. 126

Design of Fermentation Tank ................................................................................................................................... 128


Design of Gas Absorber ............................................................................................................................................... 131

Design of Distilling Column ....................................................................................................................................... 133

Design of Ethanol Storage Tanks ............................................................................................................................ 135

APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................................................................... 137

Pipe from Water Storage Tank to Washer .......................................................................................................... 138

Pipe from Water Storage Tank to Hydrolysis Tank ........................................................................................ 139

Pipe to Ethanol Storage Tank ................................................................................................................................... 140

APPENDIX E .......................................................................................................................................................................... 141

Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ............................................................................................................................... 142

Profitability ...................................................................................................................................................................... 142



Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Corn Production in Isabela from 2007 to 2011. ........................................................................................ 7

Table 2: Estimated Corn Grain and Stover Production in Isabela from 2012 to 2016 ................................ 8

Table 3: Existing Bioethanol Production Plant in the Philippines .................................................................... 10

Table 4: Actual and Production Sale of Biodiesel and Bioethanol in million liters .................................... 11

Table 5: Feedstock Composition ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 6: Materials Selection .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Table 7: Summary of Feedstock Storage Design ...................................................................................................... 22

Table 8: Summary of Water Storage Tanks Design ................................................................................................. 24

Table 9: Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Reactions and Conversions ........................................................................ 26

Table 10: Summary of Prehydrolysis Tank Design ................................................................................................. 26

Table 11: Summary of Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1 Design .......................................................................... 27

Table 12: Summary of Neutralization Tank Design ................................................................................................ 28

Table 13: Summary of Slurry Tank Design ................................................................................................................. 29

Table 14: Summary of Saccharification Tank Design ............................................................................................. 31

Table 15: Saccharification Reaction and Conversion ............................................................................................. 32

Table 16: Fermentation Reactions and Conversions .............................................................................................. 32

Table 17: Summary of Fermentation Tank Design.................................................................................................. 33

Table 18: Summary of Gas Absorber Design .............................................................................................................. 34

Table 19: Summary of Distillation Column Design ................................................................................................. 35

Table 20: Summary of Ethanol Storage Tanks Design ........................................................................................... 36

Table 21: Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index .................................................................................................. 37

Table 22: Individual Equipment Cost Summary ...................................................................................................... 38

Table 23: Estimation of Capital Investment Cost ..................................................................................................... 39

Table 24: Costs of Raw Materials. ................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 25: Energy Requirements and Utilities............................................................................................................ 41

Table 26: Estimation of Total Product Cost ................................................................................................................ 42

Table 27: Summary of Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................. 44

Table 28: Cash Flow ............................................................................................................................................................. 43

Table 29: Water Quality Analysis conducted in the samples of Pinacanauan River ................................. 51

Table 30: Plant Hazards and Mitigating Measure .................................................................................................... 69

Table 31: HAZOP Study ....................................................................................................................................................... 71



Page v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Typical Breakdown of Corn Stover Cost ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Bioethanol Demand and Supply Curve ..................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3: Overall Process of Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass ........................................ 14

Figure 4: Qualitative Flow Diagram of Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass ................... 15

Figure 5: Combined-Detail Flow Diagram of Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass ....... 16

Figure 6: Design of Bale Conveyor ................................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 7: Design of Shredder ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 8: Site map of the production plant ................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 9: Site map of the production plant.. ............................................................................................................... 45

Figure 10: Manufacturing Layout ................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 11: Site Layout.......................................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 12: Average Rainfall for Isabela, Philippines ............................................................................................... 49

Figure 13: Average High/Low Temperature for Isabela....................................................................................... 50

Figure 14: Aerial View of San Mariano, Isabela. ....................................................................................................... 51

Figure 15: Waste Water Treatment Process Overview ......................................................................................... 68

Figure 16: Process Control and Instrumentation .................................................................................................... 75



Page 1

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Energy (DOE) is promoting the development of ethanol

from lignocellulosic feedstock as an alternative to conventional petroleum

transportation fuels. And the one that offers great possibilities in this aspect of

alternative resources of energy are plant biomass. This is due to its abundance and

renewability as well as the possibility of producing various chemical by-products,

fuels, fodder and food products. Biomass includes any kind of plant matter starting

with wood wastes and ending with selected crops rich in organic compounds. The

global production of plant biomass of which over 90% is lignocellulose, amounts to

about 200 x l09 tons per year remains potentially accessible (Fiedurek, 1995).

Lignocellulosic biomass represents the major fraction of most plant matter. It

is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Common examples of

lignocellulosic biomass include agricultural and forestry residues, the paper and

much of the remaining organic fraction of municipal solid waste, industrial

processing residues such as wastes in the paper and pulp industry, and herbaceous

and woody plants grown as feedstock for the production of fuels (Wyman, 1994).

The production of ethanol from this indigenous biomass will stimulate new markets

for the agriculture sector; it can improve energy security; it decreases urban air

pollution, and reduce accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This

lignocellulosic biomass can be converted into useful products both via

physicochemical or biological processing (Clark, 1987).



Page 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

Bioethanol Application

The principle fuel used as a petrol substitute for road transport vehicles is

bioethanol. It can be blended at about 10% levels with gasoline. The major benefits

of blending ethanol to gasoline are (i) gasoline use is reduced, thereby lowering

imported oil requirements; (ii) ethanol increases the octane of the gasoline to which

it is added, improving the performance of the ethanol-gasoline blend, and (iii)

ethanol provides oxygen for the fuel; thus more complete combustion results

(Wyman, 1994). These properties are particularly desirable with the

implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments, which require the addition of

oxygenates to gasoline to reduce the formation of carbon monoxide and ozone in

non-attainment cities. Alternatively, ethanol can be reacted with isobutylene to form

ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), which in addition to providing gasoline

displacement, octane improvement, and oxygenate benefits of direct ethanol blends,

reduces the vapor pressure of the gasoline to which it is added, and further

improves the suitability of gasoline.

Bioethanol has a number of advantages over conventional fuels. By

encouraging bioethanol’s use, the rural economy would also receive a boost from

growing the necessary crops. Bioethanol is also biodegradable and far less toxic that

fossil fuels. In addition, by using bioethanol in older engines can help reduce the

amount of carbon monoxide produced by the vehicle thus improving air quality.



Page 3

Another advantage of bioethanol is the ease with which it can be easily integrated

into the existing road transport fuel system.

Bioconversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol

Biological conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into ethyl alcohol is one of

the possibilities to utilize its energy. Bio based alcohol production is the subject of

intensive research because ethanol can be either blended with gasoline as a fuel

extender and octane enhancing agent, or used as a neat fuel in internal combustion

engines. Biomass-based ethanol production includes the following stages: feedstock

acquisition and pre-processing, biosynthesis of cellulases, enzymatic hydrolysis and

fermentation, and alcohol recovery (Fiedurek, 1995).

Pretreatment

Because lignocellulosic biomass is naturally resistant to the breakdown to its

component sugars, the pretreatment step is needed to open up the structure of the

material, and to make it accessible for enzymes to hydrolyze the cellulose

component at appreciable rates and acceptable yields. A number of options have

been investigated for pretreatment of biomass, including acid-catalyzed steam

explosion (Clark, 1987), steam explosion (Brownell, 1984), ammonia fiber

(Hoitzapple, 1990), organosolv pretreatment (Chum, 1985), supercritical extraction

(Chou, 1986), and dilute acid pretreatment. Currently, the dilute acid process

appears to be in the best position for near-term commercial application. In this

process, about 0.5% sulfuric acid is added to the feedstock, and the mixture is



Page 4

heated to around 140-160°C (280-320°F) for 5-20 min (Grohmann, 1986). Most of

the hemicellulose is hydrolyzed to form xylose and other sugars, leaving a porous

structure of primarily cellulose and lignin that is more accessible to enzymatic

action.

Enzyme Production

The pretreated biomass is slowly added to the enzyme production fermenter

during the growth of the fungus and the production of cellulose (Watson, 1984).

Although a number of organisms, including bacteria and fungi, can produce

cellulase, genetically altered strains of the fungus Trichodermareesei are generally

used for the cellulase production step. Simple batch production of cellulase enzyme

achieves satisfactory results. Contrary to that, experiments with continuous enzyme

production have suffered from lower cellulase productivities (Hendy, 1984).

Cellulose Hydrolysis

Several approaches have been examined for hydrolysis of cellulose and

fermentation of glucose into ethanol. In one approach, typically termed separate

hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), cellulose from the enzyme production step is

added to the bulk of the pretreated material to form glucose from the cellulose

fraction. Upon completion of the hydrolysis reaction, yeasts ferment the glucose into

ethanol. Thus, the SHF process involves distinct process steps for cellulose

production, cellulose hydrolysis, and glucose fermentation (Mandels, 1974). A

second cellulose conversion approach is termed direct microbial conversion (DMC).



Page 5

In this option microorganisms simultaneously produce cellulose enzyme, hydrolyze

cellulose, and ferment glucose into ethanol (Gauss, 1976).

Glucose Fermentation

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the process microorganism used for

the conversion of glucose into ethanol. However, this microorganism is not enabled

to metabolize pentoses produced during the hemicellulose pretreatment, although it

can assimilate the hexoses liberated from this polysaccharide. For a more complete

utilization of all the sugars released during the pretreatment and hydrolysis of

biomass, pentose fermentation is carried out in addition to the fermentation of the

cellulose hydrolyzate. Pentose-fermenting yeasts like Candida shehatae or

Pichiastipitis are used to this end [14]. Before fermentation, detoxification of liquid

streams is required in order to remove the inhibitors formed during the

pretreatment of biomass that can negatively influence on the microorganisms

performance in the course of the fermentation.

Separation Step

Once the fermentation has achieved, the culture broth is directed to the

separation step. The separation includes the conventional distillation of the aqueous

solutions of ethanol using concentration and rectification columns, and the

dehydration of the distillate to obtain anhydrous ethanol. These processes are

energy consuming, especially when only distillation is used to produce absolute

ethanol.



Page 6

MARKET STUDY

The feedstock that will be used in the Ethanol Production Plant is corn stover

which comprised of stalks, leaves, cobs, and husks. It is therefore important to

analyze the production of corn in the Philippines.

Corn Production

Corn is the second most important cereal crop in the Philippines. It is the

staple food of many Filipinos from the south. Five million Filipinos depend on the

commodity for their livelihood. In terms of gross value added (GVA) in agriculture,

corn ranks second overall -- next only to rice (PCARRD, 2012).

Isabela ranked as the number one corn producing province in the country.

Over the years, the province had been a consistent top producer with a national

production share ranging from 9 to 22 percent. In 2008, it posted an impressive

national share of 22%, producing a total volume of 1,052,008 MT. However, in 2010,

provincial production fell by 18%, decreasing its share of the national production to

only 10%. Isabela had to settle for second place in the corn production race due to

dry spells in the early part of the year and flooding in September and December.

The key to Isabela’s productivity is its extensive broad and flood plains. Hilly

areas are also used for planting corn. The crop grows well in the province even

without irrigation infrastructure. Table 1 shows the corn volume of production in

metric tons of Isabela in 2007 to 2011.



Page 7

Table 1: Corn Production in Isabela from 2007 to 2011.

Corn Production 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Area (hectares) 255,789 265,789 271,843 272,863 274,621

Volume (MT/yr) 906,478 1,052,008 1,022,008 863,899 1,049,954

Corn Stover Physiology and Value

Corn fodder is often removed from a field either by baling or through grazing

following grain harvest. Removal of all or some of the corn fodder will remove

nutrients that would otherwise return to the soil and be available to future crops.

When corn fodder is removed, it is important to determine the amount and value of

nutrients removed from the field.

On average, the dry mater weight of a corn plant is split equally between the

grain and stover (stalk, leaf, cob and husk). To determine total stover weight, figure

the total grain removed in metric tonnes. Multiply it by 39.3679 and multiply the

result to 56 lb/bushel. This will equal to grain weight at 15.5% moisture. Multiply

this number by 0.845 to get total dry matter weight. This number will equal to total

dry matter stover (ISU, 2005).

Estimating Corn Stover Production Rate

Plotting the data in Table 1, will result to the trend equation as described below:

.



Page 8

Using this equation, the production of corn in Isabela can be estimated. The

estimated volume of corn grain and stover is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimated Corn Grain and Stover Production in Isabela from 2012 to 2016

Production 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Corn Grain (MT/yr)

1,008,522 1,018,407 1,028,291 1,038,175 1,048,060

Corn Stover (kg/hr)

95,114 96,047 96,386 97,911 98,843

The estimated production rate of the corn stover will be used as the feed rate in our

Ethanol production plant. To be specific, we set the feed rate to be 95,114 kg/hr.

Estimating Corn Stover Cost

Collecting biomass for the plant has two main sources of direct costs; (1) the cost

of baling and staging stover at the edge of the field and (2) the cost of transportation from

the farm to the plant gate. From documented collection schemes of Oak Ridge National

Lab, they have shown an analysis for corn stover life cycle as shown in Figure 4.

Total Delivered Stover Cost = PhP1150/MT = $28.75/MT

Figure 1: Typical Breakdown of Corn Stover Cost



Page 9

These costs represent a specific set of conditions that correspond to scenario such

as warehouse size with storage rate of 2,000 metric tons per day and the plant

equipment that will process 95,114 kilograms per hour of stover. Baling and staging,

at PhP 540 per dry MT, represents almost half the cost of delivered feedstock. The

analysis includes the payment of a premium to farmers of PhP 207 per dry MT. This

payment is above and beyond the cost of stover collection. The costs for fertilizer

requirements are also added because it is associated with the loss of nitrogen,

potassium and phosphorous contained in the removed stover. Transportation cost

in this scenario is PhP 265 per dry MT.

Bioethanol Production in the Philippines

Over 12 countries produce and make use of bioethanol. Such countries are

United States, Indonesia, France, Guatemala, Costa Rica, the Republic of South Africa,

Kenya, Thailand and Sudan with government or private ethanol fuel programs. Our

government was aggressive in promoting the use of alternative fuels like bioethanol.

The first bioethanol manufacturing plant in the Philippines was launched last May

2005, and it was the start of reduced import of gasoline with domestically-produced

fuel ethanol.

Figure 6 shows an investment opportunity of Bioethanol Capacity

Requirement including the production, imports, demand per mandate and demand

per E10 sold. This simply shows that there is a high demand for bioethanol the

previous year.



Page 10

Table 3 shows the existing biofuel refinery plants in the country.

Table 3: Existing Bioethanol Production Plant in the Philippines (Source: DOE Portal)

Bioethanol Plant Capacity

(In Million Liters) Location

Leyte Agri Corp. 9 Ormoc, Leyte

San Carlos Bioenergy Corp. 40 Negros Occidental

Roxol Bioenergy Corp. 30 Negros Occidental

Green Future Innovations, Inc. 54 Isabela Province

Total 133

The table below shows the Production and Actual Sales of Biodiesel and Bioethanol

in the years, 2011 and 2012 (in million liters). For security and economic growth,

the plan to put up a manufacturing plant of ethanol in the Philippines is feasible.

With the assumption of only 2 additional plants will be added within the years, 2012

Figure 2: Bioethanol Demand and Supply Curve (Source: DOE Portal)



Page 11

to 2015. The total supply would be around 212.4 million liters but the demand was

at 379 million liters. This clearly states that additional manufacturing plants must be

put up in order to reduce our imports on bioethanol.

Table 4: Actual and Production Sale of Biodiesel and Bioethanol in million liters (Source: DOE Portal)

2011 2012

Production Actual Sales Production Actual Sales

Biodiesel 132.99 122.97 65.155 67.018

Bioethanol 4.14 2.87 15.742 20.664



Page 12

PROCESS ANALYSIS

Feedstock and its Composition

The feedstock chosen for the process design has a significant impact on the

overall analysis. The type of feedstock used will have a large effect on the feedstock-

handling portion of the process, and the composition will certainly have an impact

on how much ethanol is produced.

The feedstock used for this analysis was corn stover; Table 5 shows the

composition used. This composition is an average of the analyses from Biomass

AgriProducts (B/MAP). Corn stover can vary in its composition and moisture

content due to corn variety, region, weather, soil type, and harvesting and storage

practices.

Table 5: Feedstock Composition

Component Percentage

Glucan 37.4

Xylan 21.1

Lignin 18.0

Moisture 23.5

Process Overview

The process being analyzed here can be described as the hydrolysis of the

lignocellulosic biomass with enzymatic saccharification of the remaining cellulose

and co-fermentation of the resulting glucose and xylose to ethanol. The process

design also includes feedstock handling and storage, product purification,



Page 13

wastewater treatment, product storage, and all other required utilities. In all, the

process is divided into eight areas (see Figure 1).

The feedstock, in this case corn stover (comprised of stalks, leaves, cobs, and

husks), is delivered to the feed handling area, storage and size reduction. From there

the biomass is conveyed to pretreatment and detoxification. In this area, the

biomass is treated with dilute sulfuric acid catalyst liberating the hemicellulose

sugars and other compounds. Separation with washing removes the acid from the

solids for neutralization. Neutralization is required to remove compounds liberated

in the pretreatment that are toxic to the fermenting organism. Detoxification is

applied only to the liquid portion of the hydrolysis stream.

Enzymatic hydrolysis (or saccharification) coupled with co-fermentation of

the detoxified hydrolyzate slurry is carried out in continuous hydrolysis tanks and

anaerobic fermentation tanks in series. A purchased cellulase enzyme preparation is

added to the hydrolyzate in the hydrolysis tanks that are maintained at a

temperature to optimize the enzyme’s activity. The fermenting organism is the

Candida shehatae. The cellulose will continue to be hydrolyzed, although at a slower

rate, at the lower temperature. After several days of separate and combined

saccharification and co-fermentation, most of the cellulose and xylose will have been

converted to ethanol.



Page 14

Figure 3: Overall Process of Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass

SACCHARIFICATION FERMENTATION

NEUTRALIZATION

FEED STOCK HANDLING PREHYDROLYSIS SOLID – LIQUID SEPARATION

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

DISTILLATION

ETHANOL STORAGE

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM LIGNOCELLULOSIC

BIOMASS



Page 15

Figure 4: Qualitative Flow Diagram of Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass

Slurry Tank 2,490.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.6 kg/hr Glucan 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin

2,490.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.6 kg/hr Glucan 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin 44,895.3 kg/hr Water 222.5 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid

Water 20,000 kg/hr

Mixer

222.5 kg/hr H2SO4

1.1% H2SO4

Shredder Washing

95114 kg/hr 37.4% Glucan 21.1% Xylan 18.0% Lignin 23.5% Moisture

Water 20,000 kg/hr

To wastewater 15,056.9 kg/hr

100,000 kg/hr

35,572.6 kg/hr Glucan 20,069.1 kg/hr Xylan 17,120.5 kg/hr Lignin 27,327.8 kg/hr Water

100,000 kg/hr

Feedstock

Prehydrolysis Filter

Press 1

Neutralization Tank

18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,895.3 kg/hr Water 222.5 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid

Lime Storage

Tank 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,936.1 kg/hr Water 308.7 kg/hr CaSO4

Filter Press 2

18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,936.1 kg/hr Water

Saccharification Tank

Trichoderma reesei cellulases

2,487.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.5 kg/hr Glucan 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,936.1 kg/hr Water

Ethanol Fermentation

32,261.4 kg/hr Glucose 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 41,709.9 kg/hr Water

Candida shehatae

Gas Stripping 21,700.8 kg/hr CO2

153.46 kg/hr O2

Filter Press 3

22,687.2 kg/hr Ethanol 736.8 kg/hr Acetic Acid 41,709.9 kg/hr Water 16,264.9 kg/hr Lignin

Lignin

Distillation

22,687.2 kg/hr Ethanol 736.8 kg/hr Acetic Acid 41,709.9 kg/hr Water

Ethanol Storage

Wastewater Treatment

20,526.84 kg/hr Ethanol



Page 16

Figure 5: Combined-Detail Flow Diagram of Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass

Ethanol Fermentor

18,040.5 kg/hr Xylose 45,004 kg/hr Water 968.5 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid

Prehydrolysis Tank

95,114 kg/hr 37.4% Glucan 21.1% Xylan 18.0% Lignin 23.5% Moisture

20,000 kg/hr Water

Water Storage Tank

Feedstock Storage

Shredder

Corn Stover Wash Table

35,572.6 kg/hr Glucan 20,069.1 kg/hr Xylan 17,120.5 kg/hr Lignin 27,327.8 kg/hr Water

Sulfuric Acid Mixing Tank

Sulfuric Acid Storage

222.5 kg/hr H2SO4

20,000 kg/hr Water

15,056.9 kg/hr Wastewater

2,490.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.6 kg/hr Glucan 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin 44,895.3 kg/hr Water 222.5 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid

Filter Press 1

Lime Bin 127.1 kg/hr CaO

Neutralization Tank

18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,936.1 kg/hr Water 308.7 kg/hr CaSO4

18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,936.1 kg/hr Water

2,490.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.6 kg/hr Glucan 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin

Slurry Tank

2,487.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.5 kg/hr Glucan 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 44,936.1 kg/hr Water

Trichoderma reesei cellulases

32,261.4 kg/hr Glucose 16,264.5 kg/hr Lignin 18,062.2 kg/hr Xylose 41,709.9 kg/hr Water


22,687.2 kg/hr Ethanol 736.8 kg/hr Acetic Acid 41,709.9 kg/hr Water 16,264.9 kg/hr Lignin

Lignin

Ethanol Storage Tank

Distillation

21,700.8 kg/hr CO2

153.46 kg/hr O2

20,526.84kg/hr Ethanol



Page 17

Table 6: Materials Selection

Equipment Modes of Operation Characteristics of

Feed/Product

Materials of

Construction Rationale

Water Storage Tanks

Water Storage tanks consists

of large volumes of water

which will be used in the

washing of feedstock and a

utility needed in the mixing

process of sulphuric acid.

Water will be delivered

to process line with an

operating condition of

20m3/hr. water feed.

Stainless Steel We considered cost of

materials, factor of

safety, maintenance,

probable life or

performance and

capacity.

Prehydrolysis and Sulfuric Tank

Converts, by addition of

sulfuric acid, most of the

hemicellulose portion of the

feedstock to soluble sugars.

Glucan in the

hemicellulose and a

small portion of the

cellulose are converted

to glucose by the aid of

sulfuric acid.

Stainless Steel Stainless is preferred

because of its corrosion

resistant property,

making it suitable for

high corrosive fluids

like sulfuric acid.

Pneumapress Pressure Filters

Provides automated batch

liquid-solid separation by

forcing compressed air (8.5

atm) through the biomass

slurry and filter media to

displace liquid.

The slurry fed to the

filter will be separated to

liquid composed of

xylose and water, and

solid containing cellulose

and lignin.

Stainless Steel 316 SS316 because

additional acid

resistance at

temperatures higher

than 100°C is necessary.



Page 18

Filtrate Tank

The liquid product from the

Pneumapress Pressure Filter

will be directed into this tank

before going to other

equipment.

Liquids containing

xylose, sulfuric acid,

calcium sulphate, and

water will passed to this

vessel before

transferring to other

equipment.

Stainless Steel It is selected because of

its corrosion resistant

property.

Neutralization Tank

The filtrate from the

Pneumapress Pressure Filter

will be neutralized by

addition of lime.

Lime is added in the

neutralization tank to

raise the pH to 10. The

residence time is one

hour to allow the

precipitation to occur.

Stainless Steel

Type 304

Taking the corrosive

action of Sulfuric Acid

and Lime into account,

the best choice to use is

Stainless Steel Type

304.

Lime Bins

The lime that will be used for

neutralization is stored in this

vessel.

CaO is stored in this tank

and will be emptied after

a day.

Stainless Steel It is used because of its

corrosion resistant

property.



Page 19

Slurry Tank

After the gypsum is filtered

from the neutralization tank,

the conditioned hydrolyzate

liquid is recombined with

hydrolyzate solids in the

slurry tank.

The conditioned liquid is

composed of Xylose and

Water while the

hydrolyzate solid is

composed of Glucose and

Lignin.

Stainless Steel We considered the cost

of materials, factor of

safety, maintenance,

probable life or

performance and

capacity.

Saccharification Tanks

The saccharification tank will

be responsible for the

conversion of Glucan to

Glucose through cellulose

enzymes.

The slurry from the

slurrying tank will be

added as well as

Trichoderma reesei to

start the reaction.

Stainless Steel

Type 304

This is the best material

to use because it has

qualities like crack-

resistance, corrosion

resistance, plasticity,

toughness and can with

stand high temperature.

Fermentation Tanks

Upon completion of the

hydrolysis reaction in the

saccharification tanks, yeasts

ferment the glucose into

ethanol here in fermentation

tanks.

In the Fermentation

tank, Candida shehatae

strain is added. This

organism is fed along

with Diammonium

Phosphate.

Stainless Steel

Type 304

It has good

characteristics

especially in resistance

to oxidation, corrosion,

and durability.



Page 20

Gas Absorber

One of the products in the

fermentation tank is carbon

dioxide in large volume. This

gas will be treated here in the

Gas Absorber.

Pure carbon dioxide will

be entered as waste gas

and pure water will treat

this gas.

Stainless Steel

Type 304

Type 304 is known to be

tough and durable

which is a requirement

in handling carbon

dioxide and water.

Distilling Column

This will separate most of the

Ethanol in the mixture of

Ethanol, Acetic Acid and

Water.

The Ethanol – Water –

Acetic Acid mixture from

the Pneumapress

Pressure Filter will be

feed into the distilling

column.

Stainless Steel

Type 304

Stainless steels are

widely used and

recognized as cost-

effective and reliable

materials for Ethanol-

producing distilling

column.

Ethanol Storage Tanks

. It will carry processed

ethanol and at the same time

use for the selling and

shipment of product.

The distillate from the

distilling column is

composed of Ethanol.

The ethanol will be

stored in these vessels

Carbon Steel

A285C

A non-critical pressure

vessel with low to

intermediate strength

suitable for storing

liquid ethanol.



Page 21

Process and Equipment Design

The following sections describe in detail the process design for a biomass-to-ethanol

process. Individual equipment information is also summarized in the following

sections. The detailed computation for this equipment is in the Appendix C.

Feedstock Storage and Handling

Overview

Corn Stover bales are received by the plant on truck trailers. As the trucks are

received, they are weighed and unloaded by forklifts. Some bales are sent on the

warehouse while others are taken directly to the conveyors. From there, the bales

are conveyed to a washer, which washes dirt and grit from the corn stover. The

washed stover is then conveyed to primary and secondary shredders where the

material is reduced in size. Finally, the washed and milled stover is conveyed to

prehydrolysis.

Dirty wash water is directed to waste water treatment facilities where it will

be cleaned using a clarifier-thickener system. The wash water is pumped to the

clarifier where clean water is drawn off and recycled back to the water storage

tanks. Because most of the wash water is recycled through this system, the fresh

water requirement is low.

Design Basis

The corn stover feed requirement for the plant is 95,000 kg/hr. The corn

stover bales are wrapped with plastic net to ensure they don’t break apart when



Page 22

handled, and may also be wrapped in plastic film to protect the bale from weather.

The bales are received at the plant from off-site storage on large truck trailers.

Since corn stover is only harvested for a short period each year, long-term

storage is required to provide feed to the plant year-round. A Storage Warehouse

will be designed in able to hold large volume of corn stover bales. It is a concrete

storage room with steels and galvanized iron sheets. Table 7 summarizes the design.

Table 7: Summary of Feedstock Storage Design

Feedstock Storage Warehouse

Con Stover Bale Dimensions

Design Parameters Value Units

Length 1.5

Width 0.9

Height 0.9

Volume 1.215

Density 117.0

Weight 142.155

Blocks of Bales


Length 4.5

Width 5.4

Height 9.0

No. of Bales (X-axis) 3.0 Pieces

No. of Bales (Y-axis) 10.0 Pieces

No. of Bales (Z-axis) 6.0 Pieces

Total No. of Bales 180.0 Pieces

Total No. of Blocks 30.0 Blocks

Warehouse Parameters


Length 81.5

Width 23.5

Height of wall 15.0

Wall Thickness 0.1524

No. of Warehouse 5.0 --

Distance 4.0



Page 23

Bales travel to one of two conveyors which are sized to handle 90 bales each

per hour. It is an open belt conveyor having a width of 42 inches and length of 400 ft

as shown in Figure 6. Water is sprayed on the corn stover as it is conveyed up the

incline. This washes dirt and grit

from the product and allows

water to drain from the stover.

Washing the stover prior to

cutting or shredding minimizes

the amount of moisture that is

absorbed by the product.

The washed stover is then

discharged onto a conveyor and

introduced to a primary shredder and

then a secondary shredder, which

reduces the stover to the proper size for

pre-hydrolysis. This size has not yet

been optimized for prehydrolysis of corn

stover; but the shredders were specified

to produce material that is a maximum of 1.5 inches long. Each shredder is sized to

process 25.2 MT of stover per hour (Figure 7).

Figure 6: Design of Bale Conveyor (Type: Belt Conveyor; Width: 42 inches; Length : 400ft)

Figure 7: Design of Shredder (Capacity: 50 MT/hr)



Page 24

Dirty wash water is sent to treatment to remove the solids. The solids are

primarily topsoil and corn stover fines. This is disposed of via land application to

nearby fields. The treated water will be directed to the water storage tank. Water

Storage tanks consists of large volumes of water which will be used in the washing

of feedstock and a utility needed in the mixing process of sulfuric acid (see Table 8).

It will use high performance pumps to deliver water in the process line with an

operating condition of 20m3/hr water feed.

Table 8: Summary of Water Storage Tanks Design

Pretreatment and Hydrolyzate Conditioning

Overview

Because lignocellulosic biomass is naturally resistant to the breakdown to its

component sugars, the pretreatment step is needed to open up the structure of the

Water Storage Tanks

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 166.300

Working Volume 161.17

Diameter 5.8

Height 6.1

Thickness 31

Pump Parameters

Pump Type: Electric Pump


Inlet Diameter 5.08

Outlet Diameter 5.08

Capacity 24.98

Suction Head 6.1

Total Head Lift 21.34

Weight 27.22

Voltage 120/241



Page 25

material, and to make it accessible for enzymes to hydrolyze the cellulose

component at appreciable rates and acceptable yields. This step converts, by

hydrolysis reactions, most of the hemicellulose portion of the feedstock to soluble

sugars - primarily xylose. Glucan in the hemicellulose and a small portion of the

cellulose are converted to glucose. This conversion is accomplished using dilute

sulfuric acid and high temperature.

Following the pretreatment reactor, the hydrolyzate liquid and solid will be

washed and pressed to separate the liquid portion of the hydrolyzate, containing

sulfuric acid, from the solids. The liquid is then neutralized by adding lime and held

for a period of time. Precipitation of gypsum follows the neutralization step. The

gypsum is filtered out and the hydrolyzate is mixed with the solids (cellulose) and

dilution water before being sent to saccharification and fermentation.

Design Basis

The washed, shredded corn stover is fed to the prehydrolysis tank and mixed

with dilute sulfuric acid until the mixture (total water, steam, acid) in the reactor is

1.1% sulfuric acid. The total stover mixture now constitutes 30% insoluble solids.

The prehydrolysis tank is a screw feeder reactor that operates at 12.1 atm

(177 psia) and 190°C and the total residence time is 10 minutes.

Table 9 summarizes the resulting reactions and the conversions that take

place in the pretreatment hydrolyzer. The conversion value is the fraction of

reactant converted to product.



Page 26

Table 9: Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Reactions and Conversions

Table 10 shows the summary of the design of prehydrolysis tank. The vessel

is a screw feeder reactor to allow the corn stover to travel easily inside the tank.

Table 10: Summary of Prehydrolysis Tank Design

The exiting material from the prehydrolysis tank is flash cooled to 1 atm

before it is conveyed to Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1 to separate the solids and the

Reaction Reactant Fraction Converted to

Product

( ) Glucan 0.07

( ) Xylan 0.90

( ) Lignin 0.05

Preydrolysis Tank

Equipment Type: Screw Feeder Reactor

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 16.67

Working Volume 15.0

Diameter 2.57

Height 3.21

Thickness 7.06

Process Parameters


Temperature 190

Pressure 12.1

Corrosion Allowance

3.8

Solids in the Reactor 30 %

Residence Time 10

Material of Construction

Plate Material: Stainless Steel


Allowable Stress 20



Page 27

liquids. The liquids are separated from the solids to facilitate conditioning of the

liquid portion to reduce acidity of the stream to downstream fermentation. The

Pneumapress Pressure Filter provides automated batch liquid-solid separation by

forcing compressed air through the biomass slurry and filter media to displace

liquid, maximizing the solid content of the cake on the filter. The design of the filter

is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Summary of Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1 Design

The filtrate that will be formed will flow to the filtrate tank. The cake is

washed with liquor that is pumped from the filtrate tank. This final cake is then

conveyed off of the Pnumapress onto a transport conveyor and into the slurrying

tank where it is mixed with conditioned hydrolyzate liquor. On the other hand, the

filtrate will be pump to a neutralization tank where lime is added in order to raise

the pH to 10. The residence time in this tank is one hour to allow for the

precipitation to occur. The agitation is assumed to be 98.5 W/m3. To remove the

Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1

MODEL 30 - 8

Filter Press Parameters


Area 360

Height 3

Width 1.1

Flow Rate 285

Cycles 10

No. of Plates 14 - 16

Cake thickness 5

Process Parameters


Temperature 50

Pressure 9.5



Page 28

precipitate, that is gypsum, the mixture is underwent filtration process where it is

assumed to remove 100% of the precipitates. The design of the neutralization tank

is summarized in Table 12. The reaction is carried out in a stirred tank – flat bottom

cylindrical vessel to achieve good mixing of the reactants.

Table 12: Summary of Neutralization Tank Design

After the gypsum is filtered, the conditioned hydrolyzate is recombined with

hydrolyzate solids (from filter 1). The residence time in this tank is minimal (15

Neutralization Tank

Equipment Type: Stirred Tank – Flat Bottom

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 39.20


Diameter 3.30

Height 4.12

Thickness 13.1

Impeller Parameters

Impeller Type: Rushton Turbine


Diameter 1.10

Width 0.22

Height from bottom 1.10

Length 0.28

Speed 74.0

Tip Speed 3.76

Number of Impellers 6 --

Power Number 6 --

Power Requirement 98.8 ⁄

Process Parameters


Temperature 50

Pressure 1

Corrosion Allowance 8.9

Efficiency 1.0 --

Residence Time 1



Page 29

minutes) just long enough to afford good mixing. The agitation for this vessel is

assumed to be 394 W/m3. The resulting slurry, now conditioned, pH-adjusted, and

properly diluted, is pumped to fermentation tank. The summary of the design of

slurry tank is shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Summary of Slurry Tank Design

Saccharification and Fermentation

Overview

Two different operations are performed in this process area, saccharification

of the cellulose to glucose using cellulose enzymes and fermentation of the resulting

glucose and other sugars to ethanol.

Saccharification step occurs first from the fermentation. It enables the

operation at an elevated temperature to take advantage of increased enzyme

Slurry Tank

Equipment Type: Stirred Tank

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 13.16


Diameter 2.38

Height 2.97

Thickness 6.82

Process Parameters


Temperature 51

Pressure 1 atm

Corrosion Allowance

3.8

Efficiency 1.0 --

Residence Time 10



Page 30

activity. The enzyme used to saccharify the cellulose is purchased from an enzyme

manufacturer. The cellulose enzyme and diluted, detoxified hydrolyzate are

continuously added to three 3000m3 vessels.

Cellulase enzyme is actually a collection of enzymes. This collection is

comprised of: (1) endoglucanases, which attack randomly along the cellulose fiber

to reduce polymer size rapidly; (2) exoglucanases, which attack the ends of cellulose

fibers, allowing it to hydrolyze highly crystalline cellulose; and (3) β-glucosidase,

which hydrolyzes cellobiose to glucose. Several bacteria and fungi naturally produce

these enzymes, including bacteria in ruminant and termite guts and white rot

fungus (Walker, 1991). The most common organism used to produce cellulase

industrially is Trichoderma reesei.

For fermentation, the organism Candida Shehatae is used as biocatalyst. This

will ferment glucose and xylose to ethanol. This organism must be grown in a seed

fermentation vessel. The seed inoculum, nutrients, and saccharified slurry are added

to fermenters and stay there for 1.5 days. The resulting ethanol broth will be

collected and pumped to distillation.

Design Basis

Detoxified and dilute hydrolyzate fed to the saccharification vessel is about

20% total solids. The enzyme loading is determined by the amount of cellulose

present in the hydrolyzate and the target hydrolysis conversion in this process is

shown below. Target conditions, developed with the enzyme manufacturers, take



Page 31

advantage of improved thermal tolerance to reduce the required time and loading.

Saccharification takes place in three 3000-m3 vessels. Because cellulose enzyme is

still being developed, the exact time is not known but it is estimated at 36 hours. The

cellulose is fed at the rate of 12 international filter paper units (IFPU) per gram of

cellulose assuming an enzyme concentration of 50 FPU/mL. The design of the

saccharification tanks is summarized in Table 14.

Table 14: Summary of Saccharification Tank Design


Equipment Type: Stirred Tank – Flat Bottom

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 3,137.7

Working Volume 2,823.93

Diameter 14.22

Height 17.78

Thickness 9.7

Number of Vessels 3 --

Impeller Parameters



Diameter 4.74

Width 0.95

Height from bottom 4.74

Speed 82

Tip Speed 0.076

Power Number 6 --

Power Requirement 60 ⁄

Process Parameters


Temperature 65

Pressure 2.7

Residence Time 1.5

Enzyme: Trichoderma reesei cellulases

Cellulase Loading 12 FPU/g

cellulose



Page 32

Table 15 lists the reaction and conversion taking place in saccharification.

The saccharified slurry contains 12.6% sugars and all of the cellulose hydrolysis is

modeled to take place in the saccharification tank. In this reaction, 90% cellulose to

glucose yield has been achieved at 15 FPU/g cellulose. The use of a better

temperature will allow the optimization of enzyme performance.

Table 15: Saccharification Reaction and Conversion

The product from the saccharification tank is pumped to the fermentation

tank. The fermentation is conducted in three 3000-m3 vessels. The total residence

time is also estimated at 36 hours for the sugar fermentation. It is expected that the

sugars will be converted to ethanol by lowering the temperature. Inoculum from the

seed tank is fed along with Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) as a nutrient at a rate of

0.33 g/L. Table 16 lists the reactions and conversions in fermentation.

Table 16: Fermentation Reactions and Conversions

The design of the fermentation tank is summarized in Table 17. It is a Stirred tank –

flat bottom cylindrical vessel with a 6-blade Rushton turbine.

Reaction Reactant Fraction Converted to Product

( ) Glucan 0.90


Product

Glucose 0.95

Glucose 0.015

Xylose 0.85

Xylose 0.014



Page 33

Table 17: Summary of Fermentation Tank Design

Product Recovery

Overview

Distillation is used to recover ethanol from the raw fermentation that

produce 99.5% ethanol. Distillation is accomplished in two columns since water –

ethanol mixture is azeotropic mixture. The bottoms from the distillation contain all

the unconverted insoluble and dissolved solids. The insoluble solids are dewatered

by a Pneumapress Pressure Filter and sent to the combustor. The distillate

containing most of the ethanol will be stored in the storage tanks.

Fermentation Tank

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 3,231.84

Working Volume 2,908.66

Diameter 4.36

Height 7.95

Thickness 22.04

Number of Vessels 3 --

Impeller Parameters



Diameter 4.79

Speed 0.82

Power Number 6 --

Power Requirement 60 ⁄

Process Parameters


Temperature 41

Pressure 2.7

Residence Time 1.5

Organism: Candida shehatae strain

Nutrients: Diammonium Phosphate

Nutrient Loading 0.33 g/L



Page 34

Fermentation vents containing mostly by carbon dioxide are scrubbed in gas

absorption before it will be released to the atmosphere. The scrubber effluent will

be pumped to the water treatment facilities.

Design Basis

As mentioned above, the vents from the fermentation tank that contains pure

carbon dioxide was sent through a gas absorber. This is a packed column with

Intalox Saddles, Ceramics type of packings. A flow rate of 67.55 kg/hr of well water

is used. The waste gas assumed to be completely absorbed by the water. The design

of the column was summarized in Table 18.

Table 18: Summary of Gas Absorber Design

Gas Absorber

Equipment Type: Packed Column

Column Parameters


Packing diameter 1.46

Packing surface area 1.68

Packing height 4.588

Column height 7.588

Thickness 5

Packing Parameters

Packing Type: Intalox Saddles, Ceramics


Size 50

% voids 0.76 --

Surface area 118

Packing factor 131

Process Parameters


Temperature 25

Pressure 1.5

Corrosion Allowance

2



Page 35

The separation of water – acetic acid – ethanol mixture was accomplished through

distillation. The separation was accomplished with 32 actual trays at 62.6%

efficiency with the feed entering on the fourth tray from the top. The summary of

the design is shown in Table 19.

Table 19: Summary of Distillation Column Design

Distillation Column

Equipment Type: Tray Column Vessel Parameters


Actual No. of Trays 16 --

Efficiency 0.90 --

Vapor Velocity 1.18

Reflux Ratio 6.79

Column Diameter 2.48

Height of Column 16.66

Provisional Plate Design


Cross-sectional Area 4.83 2

Downcomer Area 0.38 2

Net Area 4.44 2

Active Area 4.06 2

Plate Thickness 5

Hole Diameter 5

Weir Height 50

Weir Length 1

Tray Spacing 0.5

Active Holes 5900 --

Tray Thickness 5

Process Parameters


Temperature 80

Pressure 1.5

Bubble Point 94.83

Dew Point 97.45

Condenser Duty 64.81

Reboiler Duty 944.48



Page 36

The bottoms from the distillation column containing the insoluble solids and

the lignin are now fed to the Pneumapress Pressure Filter 3 for separation and then

burn to a combustor. The distillate, on the other hand, will be stored in the Ethanol

storage tanks as summarized in Table 20.

Table 20: Summary of Ethanol Storage Tanks Design

Ethanol Tanks

Equipment Type: Storage Vessel

Vessel Parameters


Vessel Volume 36.21


Diameter 3

Height 5

Thickness 14

Pump Parameters

Pump Type: Electric Pump


Inlet Diameter 3.81

Outlet Diameter 3.81

Capacity .23 to 9

Suction Head 3 to 52

Max Power 1 to 5.5

Working Pressure 1.03



Page 37

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Total Capital Investment

Peters and Timmerhaus (1991) list installation factors that can be applied to

purchased equipment costs to determine the installed cost. They developed a

detailed installation cost estimate using its estimate of the piping and

instrumentation required for each type of equipment. Standards for industries

handling concentrated chemicals and fuels are based (to a significant degree) on the

safety aspects of the process.

Once the installed equipment cost has been determined from the purchased

cost and the installation factor, it can be indexed to the project year being

considered, in our case, we selected 2012. The purchase cost of each piece of

equipment has a year associated with it and it will be indexed to the year of interest

using the Marshall and Swift Equipment Cost Index. The indices are used to

extrapolate to future years when such an analysis is desired. Table 21 gives the

index as a function of date.

Table 21: Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index

Year Index Year Index

1997 1,056.8 2004 1,178.5

1998 1,061.9 2005 1,244.5

1999 1,068.3 2006 1,302.3

2000 1,089.0 2007 1,373.3

2001 1,093.9 2008 1,449.3

2002 1,104.2 2009 1,468.6

2003 1,123.6 2012 1,536.5



Page 38

The total equipment cost in the year of interest has now been determined.

Table 22 summarizes the individual equipment cost that will be used in the

production plant.

Table 22: Individual Equipment Cost Summary

Equipment Name Number Required

Original Equip Cost (per unit)

Base Year

Equip Cost in 2012 ($)

Total Equip Cost in 2012

($)

Transport Conveyor 2 291,200 2007 325,805.58 651,611.16

Shredder 1 302,000 2007 337,889.03 337,889.03

Corn Shover Wash Table 1 104,000 2000 146,736.46 146,736.46

Water Storage Tank 2 50,300 2007 56,277.54 112,555.09

Water Storage Tank Pump 1 25,500 2007 28,530.36 28,530.36

Hydrolysis Tank (Scree Feeder) 1 2,457,487 2000 3,467,335.88 3,467,335.88

Sulfuric Acid Storage Tank 1 23,200 2007 25,957.04 25,957.04

Sulfuric Acid Mixing Tank 1 954,500 2007 1,067,930.71 1,067,930.71

Sulfuric Acid Agitator 1 4,700 2007 5,258.54 5,258.54

Filtrate Tank 2 33,200 2007 37,145.42 74,290.83

Filter Press 3 1,575,000 2007 1,762,169.59 5,286,508.77

Neutralization Tank 1 44,800 1997 65,135.50 65,135.50

Neutralization Tank Agitator 1 21,500 2007 24,055.01 24,055.01

Lime Bin 1 33,300 2007 37,257.30 37,257.30

Slurry Tank 1 44,400 1997 64,553.94 64,553.94

Slurry Tank Agitator 1 4,800 2007 5,370.42 5,370.42

Saccharification Tank 3 493,391 1998 713,904.58 2,141,713.73

Saccharification Tank Agitator 1 21,500 2007 24,055.01 24,055.01

Fermentation Tank 3 493,391 1998 713,904.58 2,141,713.73

Fermentation Tank Agitator 1 21,500 2007 24,055.01 24,055.01

Gas Absorption Column 1 81,400 2007 91,073.40 91,073.40

Distilling Column 2 525,800 1998 760,798.29 1,521,596.57

Distillation Column Condenser 1 29,544 2007 33,054.95 33,054.95

Distillation Column Reboiler 1 29,600 1997 41,218.56 41,218.56

Ethanol Storage Tank 6 55,100 2007 61,647.96 369,887.79

Centrifugal Pumps 12 9000 2007 10,069.54 120,834.49

Total 17,223,895.60



Page 39

Various methods can be employed for estimating capital investment. In our

case, we used the percentages indicated from tables encountered in typical chemical

plants. This technique is used frequently to obtain order-of-magnitude cost

estimates, recognizes that the cost of a process plant may be obtained by

multiplying the equipment cost by some factor to approximate the fixed or total

capital investment. The values are given in Table 23 and it should be noted that the

percentages indicated in the summary of the various costs constituting the capital

investment are approximations applicable to ordinary chemical processing plants.

Table 23: Estimation of Capital Investment Cost (showing individual components)

I Direct Costs 55,815,271.15

A Equipment Cost 36,170,180.77

1 Purchased Equipment 17,223,895.60

2 Installation, including insulation and painting (25 - 55% of purchased equipment cost) 6,028,363.46

3 Instrumentation and Controls, installed (6 - 30% of purchased equipment cost) 2,583,584.34

4 Piping, installed (10 - 80% of purchased equipment cost) 6,889,558.24

5 Electrical, installed (10 - 40% of purchased equipment cost) 3,444,779.12

B Buildings process and auxiliary (10 - 70% of purchased equipment cost) 6,028,363.46

C Service Facilities and Yard Improvements (40 - 100% of purchased equipment cost) 12,056,726.92

D Land 1,560,000.00

II Indirect Costs 25,395,948.37

A Engineering and Supervision (5 -30% of direct cost) 9,767,672.45

B Construction expense and contractor's fee (6 -30% of direct cost) 10,046,748.81

C Contingency (5 - 15% of direct cost) 5,581,527.12

III Fixed Capital Investment (direct cost + indirect cost) 81,211,219.53

IV Working Capital (10 - 20% of total capital investment) 14,331,391.68

V Total Capital Investment (fixed capital + working capital) 95,542,611.21

Total Product Cost

Another major economic analysis is the total of all cost of operating the plant,

selling the products, recovering the capital investment, and contributing to



Page 40

corporate functions such as management and research development. These costs

usually are combined under the general heading of total product cost.

All expenses directly connected with the manufacturing operation of the

production plant are included in the manufacturing cost. And one of the expenses

directly associated with is the expenditures for raw materials. Table 24 lists the raw

materials that will be used in the production plant as well as the corresponding

annual cost.

Table 24: Costs of Raw Materials.

Raw Materials Amount

(MT/day) Cost per

MT ($/MT) Annual Cost

($/yr) References

Feed Stock (Corn Stover) 2,000.00 28.75 20,987,500.00 Oak Ridge National Lab

Sulfuric Acid 23.24 290.00 2,459,954.00 Gold Sailing Chemical Co.

Hydrated Lime 13.30 115.00 558,267.50 Qilu Chemicals Co.

Cellulase Enzyme 0.02 2,500.00 18,250.00 Fine Chemical Industrial Co.

Diammonium Phosphate 0.23 300.00 24,856.50 Tiger International Trade Co.

Total: 24,048,828.00

Other expenses in manufacturing plant are the utilities. The cost for utilities

such as steam, electricity, process and cooling water, compressed air, natural gas,

fuel oil, refrigeration and waste treatment and disposal varies widely depending on

the amount needed, plant location, and source. The utility requirements in this

Ethanol production plant are determined from material and energy balances

calculated from the process. The company will purchase the utilities at a

predetermined rate from an outside source. The energy requirements of the

equipment and the utilities are shown in Table 25.



Page 41

Table 25: Energy Requirements and Utilities

Equipment Energy Utilities Cost ($/unit) Annual Cost

($/yr)

Transport Conveyor (2) 55.93 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 15,188.35

Washer (sensible heat) -968.06 kW Steam $4.4/1000kg 580,353.20

Wash Water Pump (3) 37.06 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 15,096.02

Shredder 1118.56 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 151,878.10

In-line mixer (sensible heat) 37.08 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 5,034.72

Prehydrolysis (sensible heat) 1869.44 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 253,832.60

Sulfuric Tank Pump 1.16 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 157.50

Filter Press (3) -115.92 kW Compressed Air 4.4/1000kg 541,967.20

Filtrate Tank Pump (3) 14.27 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 5,812.74

Neutralization Tank 515 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 69,926.70

Neutralization Tank Agitator 0.544 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 73.86

Slurry Tank -123.31 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 16,743.03

Slurry Tank Agitator 30.24 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 4,105.99

Saccharification Tank (3) 570.28 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 232,297.90

Saccharification Tank Agitator (3) 2.49 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 1,014.28

Saccharification Feed Pump (3) 83.85 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 34,155.46

Saccharification Transfer Pump (3) 122.9 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 16,687.36

Fermentation Tank (3) 249.25 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 101,529.50

Fermentation Tank Agitator (3) 0.38 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 154.79

Fermentation Transfer Pump (3) 345.20 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 140,613.80

Distillation Column Reboiler 944.48 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 128,241.49

Distillation Column Condenser 64.81 kW Electricity $0.0155/kWh 8,799.90

In estimating total product cost, accuracy is important as it is in estimating

total capital investment. The most important contribution to accuracy is to include

all the cost associated with making and selling the product. According to Peters and

Timmerhaus (1991), most companies have extensive records of their operations, so

that quick, reliable estimates of manufacturing costs and general expenses can be

obtained from existing records. Adjustments for increased costs due to inflation

must be made, and differences in plant site and geographic location must be



Page 42

considered. Methods for estimating total product cost in the absence of specific

information are available in texts. And using those methods, the total product cost in

our production plant is estimated. Table 25 shows the total product cost. The

percentages indicated are approximations applicable to ordinary chemical

processing plant.

Table 26: Estimation of Total Product Cost

I Manufacturing Cost 67,280,445.94

A Direct Production Costs 50,886,884.52

1 Raw materials (10 - 80% of TPC) 24,048,828.00

2 Operating labor (10 - 20% of TPC) 12,400,536.33

3 Direct supervisory and clerical labor (10 - 25% operating labor) 2,170,093.86

4 Utilities 2,323,664.47

5 Maintenance and repairs (2 - 10% of FCI) 4,872,673.17

6 Operating supplies (10 - 20% of Maintenance and repair cost) 730,900.98

7 Laboratory charges (10 - 20% operating labor) 1,860,080.45

8 Patents and royalties (0 - 6% of TPC) 2,480,107.27

B Fixed Charges 8,953,239.62

1 Depreciation 974,513.69

2 Local taxes (1 - 4% of FCI) 2,030,280.49

3 Insurance (0.4 - 1% of FCI) 568,478.54

4 Rentals (8 - 12% of value of rented land and buildings) 602,836.35

5 Financing (0 - 10% of TCI) 4,777,130.56

C Plant overhead costs (50 - 70% of cost for operating labor) 7,440,321.80

II General Expenses 16,120,697.23

A Administrative Cost (2 - 5% of TPC) 2,893,458.48

B Distribution and marketing cost (2 - 20% of TPC) 9,093,726.64

C Research and development cost (5% of TPC) 4,133,512.11

III Total Product Cost 83,401,143.16

The equipment, buildings, and other material objects comprising a

manufacturing plant require an initial investment that must be paid back, and this is

done by charging depreciation as a manufacturing expense. This is the reason why



Page 43

depreciation is computed separately. In this case, the method of depreciation

calculation used is the Sinking Fund Method wherein, the rate of depreciation is

assumed to be 10% and the salvage value of the equipment after 20 years is zero.

Cash Flow Analysis and Profitability

Once the major cost areas have been determined, which are the total capital

investment and total product cost, a discounted cash flow analysis can be used to

determine the minimum selling price per gallon of ethanol produced. The

discounted cash flow analysis program iterates on the selling cost of ethanol until

the net present value of the project is zero. This analysis requires that the discount

rate, depreciation method, income tax rates, plant life, and construction start-up

duration be specified. The Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (MESP) is the selling price

of ethanol that makes the net present value of the biomass to ethanol process equal

to zero with a 10% discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFRR) over a 20 year plant

life. The discount rate for this analysis was set at 10%. This rate was selected based

on the recommendation by Short et al. (1997) in his description of how to perform

economic evaluations of renewable energy technologies.

After setting the net present value of the project to zero and DCFRR to 10%,

the calculated MESP is $1.70/gal. From that, the cash flow of the production plant

for 20 years was obtained, as shown in Table 1. It was assumed that the plant will

start selling the product 3 years after its operation. Another profitability measure is

the Return on Investment (ROI) defined as the ratio of profit to investment. The



Page 44

calculated ROI is 24.012%. Based on the suggested values for minimum acceptable

return of investment (mar) on new process technology, the mar should be between

16 – 24 percent per year. And since the ROI is in the range of mar, this means that the

project offers an acceptable rate of return. The payback period computed is

approximately 4 years, this means that the company only needs 4 years to be able to

return the investment.

Table 27: Summary of Economic Analysis

Total Capital Investment (TCI) $95,542,611.21

Total Product Cost (TPC) $83,401,143.16

Production Rate 6872.77gal/yr

Discount Cash Flow Rate of Return (DCFRR) 10%

Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (MESP) $1.98/gal

Sales Volume 18,559.94 m3/yr

Return on Investment (ROI) 25.69%

Payback Period 3.75 years



Page 43

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fixed Capital Investment 80,194,457.93

Working Capital 14,151,963.16

118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49

50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52

Fixed Production Cost

Depreciation 49,912,370.83 48,840,405.77 47,661,244.21 46,364,166.48 44,937,380.99 43,367,916.95 41,641,506.50 39,742,455.01 37,653,498.37 35,355,646.06

Local Taxes 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49

Insurances 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54

Rentals 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35

Finances 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56

Plant Overhead Cost 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80

16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23

83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16

35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33

95,542,611.21

Total Product Cost

Year

Annual Cash Income


Total Annual Sales

Annual Manufacturing Cost

Direct Production Cost

General Expenses

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fixed Capital Investment

Working Capital

118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49 118,852,228.49

50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52 50,886,884.52

Fixed Production Cost

Depreciation 32,828,008.53 30,047,607.24 26,989,165.82 23,624,880.26 19,924,166.14 15,853,380.62 11,375,516.54 6,449,866.05 1,031,650.51

Local Taxes 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49 2,030,280.49

Insurances 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54 568,478.54

Rentals 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35 602,836.35

Finances 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56 4,777,130.56

Plant Overhead Cost 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80 7,440,321.80

16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23 16,120,697.23

83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16 83,401,143.16

35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33 35,451,085.33

Total Product Cost

Annual Cash Income


Year

Total Annual Sales

Annual Manufacturing Cost

Direct Production Cost

General Expenses

“

Table 28: Cash Flow



Page 44

SITE SELECTION

Site Map

In establishing the appropriate location of a plant, we must consider the

effects of a number of tradeoffs. Savings resulting from economies of scale are offset

by increased cost for feedstock transportation. Collection distance for a plant is

highly site specific, but a simple analysis can be done to understand the range of

plant sizes for which overall costs and the impact of feedstock transport are

minimal. This requires understanding both the cost of feedstock transportation and

the effect of plant size on capital and fixed operating costs for the ethanol plant.

As a rough rule of thumb, we have assumed that plants would likely not

collect feedstock outside of a 50-mile radius around the plant. So what we did is to

locate a site huge enough to carry the whole plant and a site near the feedstock area.

The area we have found is in Isabela, specifically in Brgy. Santa Felomina, San

Mariano, Isabela (see Figure 8 and 9). This site covers 11 hectares of land and is

near the corn production area, which we used as source of our raw materials. In fact,

according to Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Isabela is the top producing province

in the country. They were able to produce 1,049,954 metric tons of corn in 2011.

This becomes the basis of our plant’s production rate.



Page 45

Figure 8: Site map of the production plant. Covers 11 hectares of land in San Mariano, Isabela

Figure 9: Site map of the production plant. (Enclosed in yellow box is one of the corn production areas in Isabela and the red box is the plant location.



Page 46

Plant Layout

Operating efficiencies such as economies in the cost of handling materials,

minimization of production delays, and avoidance of bottleneck effect depend on a

proper layout. An ideally laid out plant reduces manufacturing costs through

reduces materials handling, reduced personnel and equipment requirements and

reduced process inventory. Figure 10 and 11 shows the plant layout of the Ethanol

production plant.

Minimization of Production Delays

Every inch of the plant area is valuable. Efforts should therefore be made to

make use of the available area by planning the layout properly. In the plant layout,

the feedstock storage warehouse is near the entrance of the plant site. This can

avoid long distance movements of the trucks carrying the raw materials. The start of

the conveyor is also near the warehouse, this will also shorten the time for the truck

lifts to load the bales.

Minimum Equipment Investment

Investment on equipment can be minimized by planned equipment location.

In our plant layout, the arrangement of the equipment is based on the order of the

process starting from feedstock handling up to ethanol storage. This arrangement

will minimize the handling distances, the time for equipment installation as well as

the equipment loading.



Page 47

Avoidance of Bottlenecks

Bottlenecks refer to any place in a production process where materials tend

to pile up or are produced at a speed, less rapid than the previous or subsequent

operations. Bottlenecks are caused by inadequate machine capacity, inadequate

storage space or low speed on part of the operators. In our case, the storage

warehouse is build huge enough to handle all of the raw materials. The ethanol

storage tanks are also enough to sustain the ethanol that will be produced.

Regarding the fermentation and saccharification tanks, since the residence time in

these tanks is more that a day, we made sure that these tanks are big enough to

handle the mixtures.

Better Production Control

Production Control is concerned with the production of the product of the

right type, at the right time and at a reasonable cost. A good plant layout is a

requisite for good production control and provides the production control officers

with a systematic basis upon which to build organization and procedures

Improved Utilization of Labor

The efficiency of a management lies in utilizing the time for productive

purpose. A good plant layout is one of the factors in effective utilization of labor. It

makes possible individual operations, the process and flow of materials handling in

such a way that the time of each worker is effectively spent on productive

operations.



Page 48

Figure 10: Manufacturing Layout (showing the production area)

Figure 11: Site Layout (showing the whole area)



Page 49

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The plant site is in San Mariano, Isabela. The site covers 11 hectares of land. Its

territory is identified by its surrounding landmarks. In the north is Pinablug Creek, on

the east is the Pinacanauan River popularly known as Dansilan, on the south is the

Zaraga Creek and on the west is the famous open brass land, better known as Ara.

Climate

San Mariano, Isabela receives an average of 164 mm of rainfall per year and

has a distinct rainy period, between the months of June and September. The driest

period occurs from January to March, with less than 38 mm per month (see Figure

12).

Temperatures are relatively constant throughout the year, but range from 250C

to 340C during the hottest months. Relative humidity in this area averages

Figure 12: Average Rainfall for Isabela, Philippines (source: World Weather Online)



Page 50

approximately 73% throughout most of the year but trends upward during the

warmer summer months typically not exceeding 90% for extended periods (see

Figure 13).

Topography and Geology

Of the total land area of the municipality, built-up area constitutes 1,268

hectares or 0.86 percent with the Poblacion as the largest and most densely

populated built-up area. Open grasslands occupy a total area of approximately

20,700 hectares representing about 14.09 percent. Generally, the open grasslands

are flanked by either agricultural areas or forest areas.

Vast forest areas of the municipality are mostly found at its eastern portion,

which covers about 53.39 percent or an approximated area of 78,450.50 hectares.

Figure 13: Average High/Low Temperature for Isabela (source: World Weather Online)



Page 51

About 29,264 hectares or 19.91 percent

are presently devoted to extensive

agricultural activities with corn, rice and

bananas as the major crops. Water bodies,

including banks, buffer or salvage zones

occupy an estimated 11.58 percent while

existing roads and streets cover 2.17

percent of the municipality’s total area.

Water Assessment

Pinacanauan River is the only water source on the site. It is the smallest but

the cleanest among the three tributaries that meet the Cagayan River. The water

analysis of the said river is shown in Table 27.

Table 29: Water Quality Analysis conducted in the samples of Pinacanauan River (source: NEPA)

PARAMETER ANALYTICAL

METHOD RESULTS STANDARD

pH Meter 7.6 6.5 – 8.5 TSS (mg/L) Gravimetric 7 BOD (mg/L) 1.23 <30 mg/L Nitrate (mg/L) 2.2 10 Total Phosphate (mg/L) Spectrophotometer 0.03 5.0 Total Coliform (MPN/100ml) MPN Tubes <3 <500 Conductivity (uS/cm) 4200

The results of the water quality analysis indicate that water quality in the river

is in excellent condition. No parameters were observed above the standards. It is

understood that water quality in the marine environment is highly variable, but this

Figure 14: Aerial View of San Mariano, Isabela.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/San_Mariano_Isabela.JPG



Page 52

analysis provides an understanding of the general water quality in the area, which is

very good. The results from the assessment corroborate that the marine environment

in the area is in a very healthy state, which can only benefit from good water quality.

The development of a production plant is not designed to have any negative

impacts on the marine environment. No treated sewage will be discharged into the

river; the contingency for emergency removal of sewage is to utilize licensed septic

service contractors. In addition, no structures are proposed for construction that

will impact on the sea floor or the marine environment.

Storm Surge Management

According to National Statistics Coordination Board, the region of Isabela

ranks number 2 in the List of Typhoon-prone Areas in the Philippines. Typhoons can

produce torrential rains which can cause heavy flooding. Storm water management

is of concern, primarily to the residents of the community. Drainage patterns and

channeling should be properly managed to reduce the potential for flooding and to

keep rainwater from flowing across the property and into the sea. The storm water

management has the potential to impact groundwater in the area, however, this

impact will be similar to that which occurs under natural circumstances where

rainfall percolates into the subsurface and makes it way to groundwater.

The storm water management is responsible for storm water generated on

their property and it will be the Department of Public Works and Highways’



Page 53

responsibility to control and contain storm water that will be generated on the

roadways.

Potential Environmental Impacts

A development of the production plant has the potential to create a variety of

impacts as it is implemented. These potential impacts can be both positive and

negative depending on the receptors involved and other parameters such as

magnitude and duration. It is anticipated that this project will have significant

positive impacts on areas such as the economy, employment, foreign exchange

earnings among others.

Socio Economic Impacts

Employment - Direct employment of laborers during pre-construction and

construction phases are to be expected. The development will also spawn indirect

employment throughout the surrounding communities and within the tourism

industry as a whole. This represents a significant positive, both direct and indirect,

long-term impact.

Benefit to Economy – The production plant has an estimated total investment

of about $112,756,000 and a long-term source of foreign exchange in keeping with

success of the resort. The region should see increased revenues from Income and

General Consumption Taxes resulting from the development. This is a significant

positive, both direct and indirect, long-term impact on the economy of the

communities and the country.



Page 54

Community Benefits – Other than providing direct and indirect employment

and revenue sources, the development will result in an improvement of

infrastructure and resources in the area (water and electricity) along with improved

property values. These are significant positive, direct, long-term impacts to the

community.

Environmental Impacts

The following tables provide a clear indication of potential environmental

impacts associated with this development, and provide information on potential

receptors, duration, magnitude and mitigation measures. Since these are potential

impacts, there is no certainty that they will materialize, however, the developers

will be prepared to deal with any adverse impacts should they arise during all

phases of development.

Potential Impact Storm water, Erosion, Sedimentation, Silting, Run-Off to Sea

Causing Project

Activities Site Clearance, Vegetation Removal, Excavation

Environmental Receptor Marine/Coastal/Marine Park

Duration Occasional/Long Term (through occupational phase)

Magnitude Medium

Mitigation Measures

Careful Phasing of Activities With Consideration of Rainy

Seasons. Construction Monitoring. Implementation of Control

Devices (Drainage, Silt Fencing, etc.)

Significance Minor Negative/Indirect/Sporadic/Avoidable Impact



Page 55

Potential Impact Removal of Vegetation, Loss of Habitat

Causing Project

Activities Site Clearance

Environmental Receptor Land, Flora, Fauna, Endemic Species

Duration Immediate/Long Term

Magnitude Medium

Mitigation Measures

The removal of vegetation and ecological habitats is

unavoidable and is the main trade-off to be made against the

economic benefits to be derived from project

implementation. By design many mature trees will be left

intact, and by extension, some of the endemic terrestrial

fauna. Species re-introduction should occur naturally in

these areas.

Significance Direct/Minor Negative/Reversible Impact

Potential Impact Sewage and Wastewater (Effluent/Odour)

Causing Project

Activities

Sewage Treatment System, Temporary Sewage Handling during

Construction

Environmental

Receptor Coastal Waters, Groundwater, Human

Duration Long-Term

Magnitude Minor

Mitigation Measures

Operate and Maintain facility in keeping with designs. Quick

Response to issues. Implement contingency plans as needed

(Septic Hauler, etc.). System has no direct discharge to the

environment. Treated effluent goes to irrigation. Utilize licensed

temporary sewage system provider for Portable Toilets and

associated disposal.

Significance Minor Negative, indirect, avoidable impact



Page 56

Potential Impact Flooding Potential, Drainage Patterns, Storm Surge

Causing Project

Activities Incidental Rainfall,Typhoon, Excavation

Environmental Receptor Groundwater, Coastal Waters, Project Area

Duration Occasional/Long Term

Magnitude Medium

Mitigation Measures

Construction Monitoring. Maintain design elevations.

Maintain site drainage mechanisms. Not a typical problem in

the area.

Significance Minor Negative/Indirect/Occasional/Avoidable Impact

Potential Impact Solid Waste Handling and Disposal

Causing Project

Activities Vegetation Removal/Construction Activities

Environmental

Receptor Coastal Waters, Land, Groundwater, Humans, Aesthetic

Duration Occasional/Long-Term

Magnitude Minor

Mitigation Measures

Minimize and reduce quantities of solid waste generated during

site preparation and construction. A waste management plan

should be prepared and followed. If practical, branches and leaves

can be put through a wood chipper to make soil cover for garden

beds, etc. Solid Waste not utilized on site should be disposed of

in a landfill by approved haulers. An approved waste removal

service should be contracted to remove waste produced on site.

Significance Minor negative, direct, avoidable impact



Page 57

Potential Impact Noise, Fugitive Dust, Air Pollution

Causing Project

Activities

Vehicular Traffic (Trucks/Heavy Equipment), Soil

Stockpiles, Construction Activities

Environmental Receptor Humans (Residential)

Duration Occasional/Specific

Magnitude Medium

Mitigation Measures

Appropriate scheduling of activities. Construction Monitoring.

Dust Suppression through sprinkling. Proper Servicing of

Equipment. Quick Response. Communication With

Residents/Resorts.

Significance Minor Negative/Indirect/Sporadic/Avoidable Impact

Environmental Action and Monitoring Plan

The monitoring plan to be devised for the development of the production

plant should be implemented during the pre-construction and construction phases.

Monitoring involves the observation, review and assessment of onsite activities to

ensure adherence to regulatory standards and the recommendations made to

reduce negative impacts. The plan must be comprehensive and address relevant

issues, with a reporting component that will be made available to the regulatory

agencies based on a mutually agreed frequency.

Pre-Construction Phase

During site clearing activities, those trees that will be saved and incorporated

into the facility must be identified and protected. The plants to be retained

should be fenced. (As Observed)



Page 58

Where identified, endemic and rare species should be preserved in place or

collected for transplanting. (As Observed)

Stockpiles of soil and vegetative debris generated during site clearing

activities should be monitored and maintained to eliminate generation of

fugitive dust. (Daily Monitoring)

Noise levels along the perimeters of the project area should be monitored and

recorded to insure that activities at the site are not exceeding standards.

(Daily Monitoring)

Construction Phase

Sewage - Ensure that temporary portable chemical toilets are available for

construction personnel and that the contents are disposed by an approved

waste hauler in an appropriate waste disposal facility. (Weekly Monitoring)

Sand/Aggregate Supply - Routinely monitor sourcing of quarry materials to

ensure supplier is obtaining supplies from licensed operations. (Monthly

Monitoring)

Solid Waste Management - Ensure that solid waste management plan is

prepared, and that workers are aware that no solid waste material should be

scattered around the site. Monitor availability and location of

skips/dumpsters. (Weekly Monitoring)

Monitor the disposal of refuse to insure that skips/dumpsters are not

overfilled. (Weekly Monitoring)



Page 59

Routine collection of solid waste for disposal must be implemented, and

disposal monitored to ensure use of approved disposal facilities. (Weekly

Monitoring)

Exposed soil areas must be monitored to determine potential for erosion,

silting and sedimentation particularly during storm events. (Weekly

Monitoring)

If erosion, silting or sedimentation is a potential or occurs, immediate steps

must be taken to negate the impact on the coastal waters and other receptors

where applicable. (As Needed)

Equipment staging and parking areas must be monitored for releases and

potential impacts. (Weekly Monitoring)

If any cultural heritage resources are unearthed during construction activities,

activities should be stopped and the Archaeological Retrieval Plan included in

this report implemented. (As Needed)

Noise levels along the perimeters of the project area should be monitored and

recorded to insure that activities at the site are not exceeding standards.

(Daily Monitoring)

Operation Phase Monitoring

Sewage - Monitor effluent quality periodically to determine compliance with

regulatory standards and appropriateness for use as irrigation water. (Monthly

Monitoring or as determined by regulatory standards)



Page 60

Solid Waste - Monitor solid waste skips/dumpsters and removal contractor to

ensure proper waste handling and disposal. (Weekly Monitoring)

Drainage - Regular inspections of drainage systems should be performed to

ensure that the drains remain clear of blockages to safeguard against flooding.

(Monthly Monitoring)

Impact Assessment Based on DENR

I. General Information

Project Location: San Mariano, Isabela

Name of Proponent: Save The Earth Co.

II. Project Description

1. Project Ownership:

Single Proprietorship Partnership Corporation

2. Capitalization and Project Cost:

A. Capitalization

Total Capital Investment: $97,016,070.96

Total Product Cost: $74,652,036.26

3. Type of Batching Process: Dry-Type Wet-Type

4. Project Site:

A. Land

a. Total Land Area: 11 hectares

b. Land Area to be Occupied: 8 – 10 heactares

c. Is the area owned or leased: Owned

B. Classification

Industrial Residential



Page 61

Commercial Others (Please specify):

5. Description of Project Phases:

A. Pre-Operation/Construction Phase

a. Construction Schedule

No. Activity Timeframe

1 Design Project 7 months

2 Permits / Clearances 3 months

3 Site Clearing 2 months

4 Excavation 2 months

5 Civil Works 10 months

6 Finishing Site Clearance 3 months

7 Equipment Installation 6 months

8 Commissioning and Start-Up 1 month

B. Operation Phase

a. Production Capacity/Day: 661.75m3 of Ethanol per day

b. Raw Materials

No. Raw Materials Consumption/Year

1 Feed Stock 730,000 MT/yr

2 Sulfuric Acid 8482.6 MT/yr

3 Hydrated Lime 4854.5 Mt/yr

4 Cellulase Enzyme 7.3 MT/yr

5 Diammonium Phosphate 83.95 MT/yr

c. Plant Machinery and Equipment

No. of Units Machinery Specifications

2 Water Storage Tank Type: Storage Vessel

MOC: Stainless Steel



Page 62

Capacity: 166.3 m3

1 Prehydrolysis Tank Type: Screw Feed Reactor


Capacity: 16.67 m3

Maintained Temp: 190

3 Pneumapress Pressure

Filter

Type: Filter Press

MOC: Stainless Steel 316

Maintained Temp: 50

1 Neutralization Tank Type: Stirred Tank


Capacity: 39.20 m3

Maintained Temp: 50

1 Slurry Tank Type: Stirred Tank


Capacity: 13.16 m3

Maintained Temp: 51

3 Saccharification Tanks Type: Stirred Tank


Capacity:

Maintained Temp:

3 Fermentation Tanks Type: Stirred Tank


Capacity:



Page 63

Maintained Temp:

1 Gas Absorber Type: Mass Transfer


Capacity:

Maintained Temp:

1 Distilling Column Type: Mass Transfer


Capacity:

Maintained Temp:

6 Ethanol Storage Tanks Type: Storage Vessels

MOC: Carbon Steel A285C

Capacity:

Maintained Temp:

III. Description of Environmental Setting

1. Physical Environment

A. Description of Terrain (% Slope)

Flat or Level (0-3) Level of Undulating (3-8)

Undulating to Rolling (8-18) Rolling or Moderately Steep (18-30)

Moderately Steep to Steeply Mountainous (30-50)

Very Steeply Mountainous (Above 50)

B. Is the area erosion prone?

If so, what is the status: Slight Moderate Severe

C. Are there existing natural hazards in the area, e.g. landslide, gullying, subsidence, etc?

Yes.



Page 64

D. Is the site situated along a flood prone/storm surge area? Yes.

E. Is the project beside or near the shoreline? No.

F. Are there water bodies found inside or near the project site?

If yes, please enumerate them: Yes. In the north is Pinablug Creek, on the east is the

Pinacanauan River popularly known as Dansilan, on the south is the Zaraga Creek.

G. What is the quality of water? Fresh Brackish Saline

H. What is the quality of air? Poor Fair Good

2. Ecosystem Description

A. Is the project immediately adjacent to a natural ecosystem?

If yes, please check on the appropriate box:

Forest Coastal/Marine Marshland

Grassland Mangrove Wetland

B. Is there any wildlife in the area? No.

C. Are there trees within the project site? Yes.

D. Is there other vegetation within the project site? Yes.

3. Socio-economic Environment

A. Will you employ vulnerable groups?

B. Are there health facilities (e.g. clinic, etc.) within the project site? Yes.

C. Will the local inhabitants be benefited by the project? Yes.



Page 65

IV. Project Impacts

Pre-Construction / Construction Details

Components/Parameters Answers Description of

Impacts

Describe your mitigating/enhancement

measures YES NO

Is there land clearing? X The potential impacts

are the removal of

vegetation and loss of

habitat. The duration

of these impacts is

immediate but can also

have a long term effect.

The removal of vegetation and

the ecological habitats cannot

be avoided and is the main

trade-off to be made against the

economic benefits to be derived

from project implementation.

By design many mature trees

will be left intact, and by

extension, some of the endemic

terrestrial fauna.

Is there vegetation clearing? X

Is there tree cutting? X

Is there topsoil removal/replacement?

X

Is there excavation works and cut & fill activities?

X

Is there other earthmoving activities?

X

Is there stockpiling of sand gravel material in the site?

X

Is there drilling, boring and hammering activities?

X

Is there any slope modification or ground leveling?

X

Is there increased traffic movement in the area?

X

Is the public/community access to/through the area affected?

X

Is there an increased economic activity in the area?

X Employment of laborers represents a significant positive, both direct and indirect, long-term impact.

Other than providing direct and indirect employment and revenue sources, the development will result in an improvement of infrastructure and resources in the area (water and electricity) along with improved property values.

Is there increase in the availability of employment?

X

Operation and Maintenance Phase

Components/Parameters Answers Description of

Impacts

Describe your mitigating/enhancement

measures YES NO

Will the project generate wastewater?

X

Waste water might affect the coastal water or ground water. It has a long term duration and has negative but

Operate and maintain facility in keeping with designs. Implement contingency plans as needed. System has no direct discharge to the environment.



Page 66

avoidable impact. Treated effluent goes to irrigation. Utilize licensed temporary sewage system provider for Portable Toilets and associated disposal.

Is there an effect on the quality of the receiving body of water?

X

Is there increase in water demand?

X

Is there dust emission into the environment?

X

Will it affect the ambient air quality of the area?

X

Is there air pollution source equipment to be installed?

X

The by-product of the equipment is pure carbon dioxide and might pollute the air.

Proper Servicing of Equipment. Quick Response. Communication With Residents/Resorts.

Are hazardous/toxic wastes to be improved in the environment?

X

Is there any pollution complaint from the nearby residents?

X

Is there a generation of solid wastes?

X

The solid waste might also affect the coastal water and ground water. It can also affect the aesthetic of the community. This might be a long-term impact.

A waste management plan should be prepared and followed. Solid Waste not utilized on site should be disposed of in a landfill by approved haulers.

Is there an increase traffic movement in the area?

X

Is there an effect on the road system of the community?

X

Is there an increase in population from migration?

X

Is there an increase in land value?

X

Does the project structure affect or obstruct the view from adjacent areas?

X

Is there an increase in crime/security concern in the area?

X

Does the activity involve the use, storage, release or any

X



Page 67

disposal of any potential hazardous substances?

Is there a generation of sewage?

X

Sewage treatment system during construction can have impact on the sewage. It is a long term but avoidable impact.

Implement contingency plans as needed. . Utilize licensed temporary sewage system provider for Portable Toilets and associated disposal.



Page 68

WASTE WATER TREATMENT

The wastewater treatment section treats process water for reuse to reduce

the plant makeup water requirement. Figure 15 is a simplified flow diagram of the

WWT design chosen. It shows that the plant wastewater (water from washed

feedstock, condensate from distilling column, stripped solution from gas absorber,

and the CIP waste) is initially screened by perforated plates to remove large

particles, which are collected in a hopper and sent to a landfill. Screening is followed

by a grit chamber to remove sand, gravel, and other grits from feedstock washing.

The solids that are not removed will undergo primary sedimentation before going to

the equalization basin. The acid used and formed during the process will be

neutralized by adding a NaOH. It is then followed by aerobic digestion to digest

organic matter in the stream. Aerobic digestion produces a relatively clean water

stream for reuse in the process as well as a sludge that is primarily composed of cell

mass. The sludge will go to the clarifier but some of them will be recycled back to

the aeration tank. The remaining sludge will be burned in the combustor.



Page 68

Plant Wastewater SCREENING

To Landfill

GRIT CHAMBER

To Landfill

PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION

EQUALIZATION

NEUTRALIZATION

NaOH

AERATION TANK

CLARIFIER Water & Sludge

Air & Cells Recycle Sludge

FILTER Sludge

Treated Water

Sludge to burner

Figure 15: Waste Water Treatment Process Overview



Page 69

PLANT SAFETY

Safety is critical in the operation of plant and equipment. You should not

operate any piece of mobile plant or equipment, unless it is part of your job and you

are competent that undergone training to do so. Even if you are a holder of a

certificate of competency or high risk work licence to operate, you must still be

provided with any additional information, instruction, training and supervision that

is necessary for you to be able to safely carry out your work using the plant and

equipment that is available to you.

Lignocellulose that is present in the form of biomass, wood, creates attractive

alternative to alternative lipids and fats and sugars in the production of bioethanol.

Primary routes of exposure are skin contact (prolonged exposure may result in

slight irritation), eye contact (contact with dust may cause redness and irritation to

eyes), ingestion (may irritate mouth, throat and stomach) and inhalation (prolonged

inhalation may result in irritation of the respiratory system).

Table 30: Plant Hazards and Mitigating Measure

HAZARDS MEASURES TO FOLLOW Skin contact to the product Flush contaminated skin with plenty of water.

Wash with mild soap and water. Cover the irritated skin with emollient. Get medical attention if irritation occurs.

Eye contact to the product If there are any, kindly remove contact lenses. Immediately flush with running water for 15 minutes including under eyelids. Treat powder in eyes as a foreign object. Flush with water to remove solid particles. Seek medical help if irritation persists.

When product was accidentally inhaled Quickly remove to fresh air. Give artificial respiration if patient has difficulty in



Page 70

breathing. Seek medical advice if persistent irritation, sever coughing, or breathing difficulties occur.

When product was accidentally ingested Do not induce vomiting unless directed to do so by a medical staff. Rinse mouth out with water. Drink large amounts of water. Quickly loosen tight clothing such as collar, tie, belt or waistband. If the patient is unconscious, never give anything by mouth. When large quantity of the product was swallowed, call a physician immediately. If persistent irritation or symptoms occur seek medical help.

In handling and storage Keep away from sources of direct heat and ignition sources. Maintain good housekeeping to avoid accumulation of the product dust on exposed surfaces. Avoid eye contact. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with skin. Avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of the product. Avoid contact with oxidizing agents, alkali and drying oils.

In case material is released or spilled Sweep up or vacuum spills for recovery or disposal. Avoid creating dusty conditions and sources of ignition. Please recovered product in a container for proper disposal. Use NIOSH-approved filtering face piece respirator (dusk mask) and goggles where ventilation is not possible and exposure limits may be exceeded or for additional worker comfort.

Large spills of the product Use a shovel in putting the material into a convenient waste disposal container. Spread water on to the contaminated surface. Then allow evacuating through the sanitary system. Be alert that the product is not present at a concentration level above TLV. Check TLV on the MSDS and with local authorities.

Chemical into wrong tank giving unacceptable reaction

All tanks/storage bin and storage areas must be properly and clearly marked. Trained transport operatives are accountable to all deliveries and unloading of hazardous chemicals. It must be supervised by a site representative. Following the HSE Guidelines, segregation of raw materials is followed accordingly.

Damage to containment facilities for stored raw materials

Containment facilities must be inspected daily, required as much as possible. Storage will be



Page 71

given on scaled drainage areas; procedures will be in place for cleaning up leaks and spillage.

In case of fire or explosion Fire fighting procedures and accident management plan will be followed. The plant is designed to withstand temperatures and pressures associated with a combustion activity. Waste materials are places in appropriate areas to prevent mixing and potential explosion. Waste acceptance procedures are considered to ensure explosive wastes are not accepted at the facility.

Loss of power Backup mains supply is available when the plant is not generating electricity. Emergency diesel generator may be added to supply on the site with uninterruptible power supply.

The hazard and operability study, commonly referred to as the HAZOP study, is a

systematic technique for identifying all plant or equipment hazards and operability

problems. The HAZOP study of the production plant is shown in Table 30.

Table 31: HAZOP Study

Equipment

Deviations from

operating conditions

What event could cause this deviation?

Consequences of this deviation on

item?

Additional Implications of

this consequences Mitigation

Water Storage Tank

Level

Installing of level indicator

Less Tanks run dry Cavitation in

pumps Damage in pumps

More Unload too much from water source

Tank Overfills Flooding in the area

Pumps Flow

Proper inspection of

the flow control valves

Less Valve fails Cavitation in

pumps Damage in pumps

More Flow control valve fails

Deadhead pump Damage in pumps

Pressure

Installing backup

pressure valve Less

Pressure valve fail Pump cavitates Damage in pumps

More Pressure valve fail Deadhead pump Damage In pumps

Shredder Flow Installing

weight overloading

sensor More

Too much loading of bales

Choking in the shredder

Damage in Shredder



Page 72

Transport Conveyor

Capacity Installing

weight overloading

sensor

More Too much loading of bales

Damage in the conveyor

Damage in Shredder

Prehydrolysis Tank

Temperature

Proper control of injected

steam

Less Injected steam is colder than normal

Reaction will not proceed

Thermal stress in tank

More Injected steam is hotter than normal

Tank fails Thermal stress in tank

Pressure

Regular inspection of

pressure valves

Less Pressure valves fails

Tank implodes Sulfuric acid released

More Pressure valves fails

Tank rupture Sulfuric acid released

Composition Proper

handling of raw materials As well as

Impurity in the reagent

Possible overpressure

Possible damage in tank

Filter Press Pressure

Control of flow of compressed

air

Less Flow of compressed air is below than normal

Low cake recovery

More Flow of compressed air is above than normal

Damage in the filter press

Neutralization Tank

Composition

Proper handling of

raw materials

As well as Impurity in the reagent


Possible rupture in tank

Other than Wrong reagent Possible reaction Possible damage in

tank

Agitation

Inspection of turbine More

Sudden increase in power input

Overheat in the agitator

Possible damage in agitator

Slurry Tank Agitation

Inspection of turbine More

Sudden increase in power input




Composition

Handling of raw materials

Other than Wrong enzyme Possible reaction Possible rupture in

tank

As well as Impurity in the enzyme


Temperature

Inspection of Temperature

gauge

More Flow of heat increases



Agitation Sudden increase in power input



Fermentation Tank

Composition Proper

handling of raw materials Other than

Wrong organism Possible reaction Possible rupture in



Page 73

tank

As well as Impurity in the organism


Temperature

Inspection of Temperature

gauge

More Flow of heat increases



Agitation Sudden increase in power input



Distillation Column

Temperature

Regular inspection of

condenser More

Failure of cooling system

Reduction of condenser capacity

Emission of volatile Ethanol to the atmosphere



Page 74

PROCESS CONTROL

Flow Controller will be installed in the pipes. This will ensure that will ensure

the quantities of the streams are the desired values. When the desired weight is

obtained, the control valve will automatically open and supply the necessary

material to the equipment. Since temperature is a critical parameter in the oxidation

furnace, vaporizer, column still, condenser and oxide burner, feedback control

mechanism consisting of a transducer that will measure the actual value, a

controller that will interpret the error and a transmitter that will do something to

control the error will see to it that the temperature will be maintained at the

operating conditions installed in the plant since it is the easiest, simplest and

require low cost operation. Figure 16 shows the P&ID.

EQUIPMENT LEGENDS:

E-1: Feedstock Storage Warehouse

E-2: Conveyor with washer

E-3: Water Storage Tank

E-4: Shredder

E-5: Hydrolysis Tank

E-6: In-line Mixing

E-7: Sulfuric Acid Tank

E-8: Filter Press 1

E-13: Filter Press 2

E-17: Neutralization Tank

E-18: Slurrying Tank

E-19: Saccharification Tank

E-20: Fermentation Tank

E-21: Gas Absorber

E-22: Filter Press 3

E-23: Distilling Column 1

E-24: Distilling Column 2

E-25: Ethanol Storage Tank



Page 75

Figure 16: Process Control and Instrumentation



Page 76

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The feed rate in our production plant was estimated to be 95,114 kilograms

per hour. It is based on the production of corn stover in Isabela. From that feed rate,

the plant can produced 20,526.84 kilogram per hour of ethanol or approximately

227,902.56 m3 of Ethanol per year.

In establishing the appropriate location and size of a plant, we considered the

effects of a number of tradeoffs like the cost of feedstock transportation.

Considering those factors, the site we found was in Isabela, specifically in Brgy.

Santa Felomina, San Mariano, Isabela. This site covers 11 hectares of land and is

near the corn production area.

The development of the Ethanol production plant has the potential to create a

variety of impacts as it is implemented. These potential impacts can be both positive

and negative depending on the receptors involved and other parameters such as

magnitude and duration. That is why an Environment Assessment was done to show

the harm that the plant might bring up on the environment. Waste Water Treatment

facilities are also installed in the plant to ensure proper treatment of wastes so as to

obey on the standards given by Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

The production plant’s total capital cost will be $95,542,611.21 while its

production cost is $83,401,143.16 per year. Profitability tests showed that the

proposed plant is profitable and will be generating a positive income annually with

ROI of 25.69% and payback period of 3.75 years.



Page 77

It is recommended that the plant comply with its own plant safety rules and

regulations to create a zero accident working zone which is very important to its

employees. To optimize production and profit, annual plant maintenance is also

recommended to check the condition of the equipment. Malfunctioning of

equipment causes delay and decrease in production.



Page 78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Brownell, H. H. & Saddler, J. N. (1984). Steam explosion pretreatment

for enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotech. Bioeng. Symp., 14, 55.

[2] Chou, Y. C. T. (1986). Supercritical ammonia pretreatment of

lignocellulosic materials. Biotech. Bioeng. Symp., 17, 18.

[3] Chum, H. L., Douglas, L. J., Feinberg, D. A. & Schroeder, H. A. (1985).

Evaluation of pretreatments of biomass for enzymatic hydrolysis of

cellulose. SER1/TP-231-2183, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

Golden, CO.

[4] Clark, T. A. & Mackie, K. L. (1987). Steam explosion of the softwood

Pinus radiata with sulfur dioxide addition, 1. Process optimization. J.

Wood Chem. Tech., 7(3), 373.

[5] Fiedurek, J., and Szczodrak, J. Technology for Conversion of

Lignocellulosic Biomas to Ethanol. 1995.

[6] Gauss, W. E, Suzuki, S. & Takagi, M. (1976). Manufacture of alcohol from

cellulosic materials using plural ferments. USPatent 3,990,944, 9

November.

[7] Grohmann, K., Torget, R. & Himmel, M. (1986). Dilute acid pretreatment

of biomass at high solids concentrations. Biotech. Bioeng. Symp., 17,

135.

[8] Hendy, N. A., Wilke, C. R. & Blanch, H. W. (1984). Enhanced cellulase

production in fed-batch culture of Trichoderma reesei C30. Enzyme

Microbiol. Technol., 6, 73.

[9] Hoitzapple, M. T., Jun, J.-H., Ashok, G., Patibandla, S. L. & Dale, B. E.

(1990). The ammonia freeze explosion (AFEX) process: a practical

lignoceilulosic pretreatment. Appl. Biochem. Biotech., 28/29, 59.

[10] IOWA State University of Science and Technology.

[11] Mandels, M. L., Hontz, L. & Nystrom, J. (1974). Enzymatic hydrolysis of

waste cellulose. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 16, 1471.

[12] Olsson L, Hahn-Ha¨ gerdal B. Fermentation of lignocellulosic

hydrolysates for ethanol production. Enzyme Microb Technol

1996;18:312–31.

[13] Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K. (2004). Plant Design and Economics for

Chemical Engineers, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill.

[14] Philippine Council for Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and

Development (PCARRD).



Page 79

[15] Short, W., D.J. Packey, and T. Holt (1995). A Manual for the Economic

Evaluation and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report TP-462-

5173, p.7, March 1995.

[16] Veldhuis, M. K., Christensen, L. M. & Fulmer, E. I. (1936). Production of

ethanol by thermophilic fermentation of cellulose. Ind. Eng. Chem.,

28,430.

[17] Walker, L.P. and D.B. Wilson (1991). “Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulose:

An Overview,” Bioresource Technology 36:3-14, 1991. [18] Watson, T. G., Nelligan, I. & Lessing, L. (1984). Cellulase production by

Trichoderma reesei (RUT-C30) in fedbatch culture. Biotech. Lett., 6, 667.

[19] Wyman, C.E., Ethanol From Lignocellulosic Biomass: Technology,

Economics, and Opportunities. 1994.



Page 80

APPENDIX A

MATERIAL BALANCE

CALCULATIONS



Page 81

Material Balance around Washer

Washer Feedstock T = 25˚C P = 1 atm 95,114 kg/hr 37.4% Glucan 21.1% Xylan 18.0% Lignin 23.5% Moisture

To Hydrolysis T = 25˚C P = 1atm 100,000 kg/hr

Waste Water T = 25˚C P = 1atm

Water Loss to atmosphere T = 25˚C P = 1atm

Water from Storage Tank T = 80˚C P = 1.5atm 20,000 kg/hr

FEEDSTOCK Glucan = (95,114)(0.374) = 35,572.64 kg/hr Xylan = (95,114)(0.211) = 20,069.05 kg/hr Lignin = (95,114)(0.18) = 17,120.52 kg/hr Water = (95,114)(0.225) = 22,351.79 kg/hr

WASTE WATER Waste Water = (20,000 + 95,114) - (100,000 + 57.06) Waste Water = 15,056.94 kg/hr

TO HYDROLYSIS Glucan = 35,572.64 kg/hr Xylan = 20,069.05 kg/hr Lignin = 17,120.52kg/hr Water = 27,237.79 kg/hr

ln(𝑃 )

(𝑃 )

𝑑𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑅

(

𝑇

𝑇 )

ln( )

( )

𝑑𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝

(

)

WATER LOSS TO ATMOSPHERE

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝= 6, 447.1 J/kg

Heat = (20,000) (6,447.51)

Latent heat of water = 2260 KJ/kg

Water loss = (128,950.2)/2260

Water loss = 57.06 kg/hr



Page 82

Material Balance around In-line Mixer

H2O – H2SO4 Mixer

Sulfuric Acid T = 25˚C P = 3.4 atm

H2O – H2SO4 Mixture 1.1% H2SO4 T = 74˚C P = 3atm

Water from Storage Tank T = 80˚C P = 1atm 20,000 kg/hr

%H SO4 mH2SO4

mH2O mH2SO4

× 00

mH2SO4

0 000 mH2SO4

× 00

SULFURIC ACID

mH2SO4 = 222.45 kg/hr



Page 83

Material Balance around Hydrolysis Tank

REACTIONS


Product

( ) Glucan 0.07

( ) Xylan 0.90

( ) Lignin 0.05

Prehydrolysis

To Solid-Liquid Separation T = 53˚C P = 1atm

Dilute Sulfuric Acid T = 80˚C P = 1atm 20,000 kg/hr H2O 222.45 kg/hr H2SO4

From Washer Glucan = 35,572.64 kg/hr Xylan = 20,069.05 kg/hr Lignin = 17,120.52kg/hr Water = 27,237.79 kg/hr

TO SOLID-LIQUID SEPARATION Glucose = 0.07(35,572.64) = 2,490.08 kg/hr Glucan = 35,572.64 – 2,490.08 = 33, 082.56 kg/hr Xylose = 0.90(20,069.05) = 18, 062.15 kg/hr Lignin = 0.95(17,120.52) = 16, 264.49 kg/hr Water = 27,237.79 +20, 000 – 18(2,490.08/256 + 18,062.15/150) = 44,895.25 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid = 222.45 kg/hr Insolubles = 2006.95 + 856.03 = 2862.98 kg/hr



Page 84

Material Balance around Filter Press 1

*Assume 100% Solid – Liquid Separation

Filter Press 1

From Hydrolysis T = 53˚C P = 1 atm 2,490.08 kg/hr Glucose 33, 082.56 kg/hr Glucan 18, 062.15 kg/hr Xylose 16, 264.49 kg/hr Lignin 44,895.25 kg/hr Water 222.45 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid 2862.98 kg/hr Insolubles

To Slurry Tank T = 50˚C P = 1atm 2,490.08 kg/hr Glucose 33, 082.56 kg/hr Glucan 16, 264.49 kg/hr Lignin 2862.98 kg/hr Insolubles

To Filtrate Tank 1 T = 55˚C P = 1atm 18, 062.15 kg/hr Xylose 44,895.25 kg/hr Water 222.45 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid

Air T = 40˚C P = 9.5atm 4,687 kg/hr

Air T = 25˚C P = 1atm 4,687 kg/hr



Page 85

Material Balance around Neutralization Tank

*Assume all reactants will be converted to products

REACTION

4 4

Neutralization

To Filter Press 2 T = 50˚C P = 1atm

Lime P = 1atm

From Filtrate Tank 1 T = 55˚C P = 1atm 18, 062.15 kg/hr Xylose 44,895.25 kg/hr Water 222.45 kg/hr Sulfuric Acid

CaO used

( )

kg

hr

CaSO4

( ) 0

kg

hr

H O

( ) 0

kg

hr

FROM REACTION

TO FILTER PRESS 2 Xylose = 18, 062.15 kg/hr H2O = 44.895 + 44.86 = 44, 936.11kg/hr CaSO4 = 308.71 kg/hr



Page 86


*Assume 100% Solid-Liquid Separation

Filter Press 2

From neutralization tank P=1atm T=500C 18,062.15 kg/hr xylose 44,936.11 kg/hr water 308.71 kg/hr CaSO4

Air T = 40˚C P = 9.5atm 4,687 kg/hr

Air T = 40˚C P = 9.5atm 4,687 kg/hr

To filtrate tank 2 P=1atm T=530C 18,062.15 kg/hr xylose 44,936.11 kg/hr water

To landfill 308.71 kg/hr CaSO4



Page 87

Material Balance around Slurry Tank

Slurry Tank

From Filtrate Tank 2 P=1atm T=530C 18,062.15 kg/hr xylose 44,936.11 kg/hr water

From Filtrate Tank 1 P=1atm T=550C 18,062.15 kg/hr xylose 44,895.25 kg/hr water 222.45 kg/hr sulfuric acid

To Saccharification Tank P=1atm T=530C 18,062.15 kg/hr xylose 44,936.11 kg/hr water 2,487.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.52 kg/hr Glucan 16,264.49 kg/hr Lignin 2,862.98 kg/hr Insolubles



Page 88

Material Balance around Saccharification

REACTION

TO FERMENTATION TANK

Glucose = 33,082.52(0.90) + 2,487.1 = 32,261.37 kg/hr Water = 44,936.11 - (32,261.37/180)(18) = 32,261.37 kg/hr Lignin = 16,264.49 kg/hr Xylose = 18,062.15 kg/hr Insolubles = 2,862.98 + 3,308.25 = 6,171.23 kg/hr

Reaction Reactant Fraction Converted to Product

( ) Glucan 0.90


From slurrying tank P=1atm T=510C 18,062.15 kg/hr xylose 44,936.11 kg/hr water 2,487.1 kg/hr Glucose 33,082.52 kg/hr Glucan 16,264.49 kg/hr Lignin 2,862.98 kg/hr Insolubles

Trichaderma reesei

Trichaderma reesei

To fermentation tank T=410C P=1atm



Page 89

Material Balance around Fermentation Tanks

REACTION

TO FILTER PRESS 3

0

(0 0)( )

0

(0 0 )( 0)

0

0

(0 )( )

0

0

(0 0 )( 0)

TO GAS ABSORBER

0

(0 0 )( ) 0

0

(0 0)( )

0

0

(0 0 )( )

0

0

(0 )( ) 0


Product

Glucose 0.95

Glucose 0.015

Xylose 0.85

Xylose 0.014

Fermentation Tank

To filter press 3 T=410C P=1atm

From Saccharification tank T=410C P=1atm 32,261.37 kg/hr Glucose 32,261.37 kg/hr Water 16,264.49 kg/hr Lignin 18,062.15 kg/hr

To Gas Absorber

Candida shehatae

Candida shehatae



Page 90

TOTAL PRODUCTS 00 0 0



Page 91

Material Balance around Gas Absorber

fi

FROM FERMENTATION TANK CO2 = (21,854.26)(0.9904) = 21,700.8 kg/hr O2 = (21,854.26)(0.00963) = 153.46 kg/hr

TREATED GAS y2=0.2 CO2 = 497.99(0.9904)(1-0.9998)=0.09864(44)=4.3402kg/hr Total moles of treated gas (0.02) = 0.09864 ; Total moles of treated gas = 4.932kmol O2 = 4.795625 kmol (32) = 153.46 kg/hr H2O = 4.932 – 0.09864 – 4.795625 = 0.037735 kmol (18) = 0.67923 kg/hr

X*=102 84216

0 5226

L'min=4 795625(102 84216 0 020408)

196 789

WATER FROM STORAGE TANK Y1 = 102.84216 Y2 = 0.020408 X2 =0 V’(Y1 – Y2) = L’(X1 – X2)

V'=497.99(1-0.99037)=4.795625 kg/hr

L’min=2.5057 L2=1.5(2.5057)=3.75855 kmol/hr WL2=3.75855(18)=67.65 kg/hr

From Fermentation Tank T = 41˚C P = 1 atm 21,854.26 kg/hr 99.04% CO2

0.963% O2

Absorber

Treated Gas T = 22˚C P = 1atm 158.48 kg/hr 2.73 % CO2

96.83% O2

0.42% H20

Water from Storage Tank T = 20˚C P = 1atm 67.65 kg/hr

Waste Water T = 22˚C P = 1atm 21,763.43 kg/hr 99.69% CO2 0.31% H20



Page 92


From fermentation tank P=1atm T=410C 41,709.97 kg/hr water 736.79 kg/hr acetic acid 16,264.49 kg/hr Lignin 12,106.69 kg/hr Insolubles 22,687.23 kg/hr ethanol

Filter Press 3

To filtrate tank 3 P= 0.6 atm T=870C 41,709.97 kg/hr water 736.79 kg/hr acetic acid 22,687.23 kg/hr ethanol

To burner P=1atm T=410C 16,264.49 kg/hr Lignin 12,106.69 kg/hr Insolubles

Air P= 1atm T=250C

Air P= 9.5atm T=400C



Page 93

Material Balance around Distillation Column

*Since ethanol-water mixture is azeotrope, it was assumed that 95.63% of Ethanol is in the

distillate and 97.90% of maleic of water is in the bottom.

Feed Mass Rate Molar Rate Mole Fraction Ethanol 22687.23 kg/hr 493.20 kmol/hr 0.1747 Acetic Acid 736.79 kg/hr 12.28 kmol/hr 0.44 Water 41709.97 kg/hr 2317.22 kmol/hr 0.8209 65133.99 kg/hr 2822.7 kmol/hr 1.00

Assumptions:

Continuous Distillation

PT = 1.5 atm XF Pi (Pa) Ki (Pi/PT) Yi Ethanol 0.1747 276966.3055 1.822297 0.316168 Acetic Acid 0.0044 69779.90601 0.459116 0.001974 Water 0.8209 126100.9217 0.82968 0.682163 Total 1.0000 1.000000 Bubble Point = 94.83oC

Distillation Column

From Filter Press 3

Ethanol = 17.47%

Acetic Acid = 0.44%

Water = 82.09% Bottoms Ethanol = 1.99% Acetic Acid = 0.11% Water = 97.90%

To Storage Tank Ethanol = 95.63% Acetic Acid = 0.33% Water = 4.7%



Page 94

YF Pi (Pa) Ki (Pi/PT) Xi Ethanol 0.1747 302225.4 1.98848875 0.087252 Acetic Acid 0.0044 76155.55 0.50106454 0.008582 Water 0.8209 138151.3 0.90896457 0.904546 Total 1.0000 Dew Point = 97.45oC

Component Distillate Bottoms

Average Ki D Ki B

Water 7.431356637 18.6652711 1.554220885 28.0558613 23.9408083 Maleic Anhydride

0.398138158 1 0.055397368 1 1

Light key Component: Acetic Acid Heavy key Component: Ethanol

Minimum Number of Plates

ln [(

)

(

) ]

ln[ ]

ln [(

4 ) (

)]

ln [ 4 4

]

Nmin = 9.045

Distillate Mass Rate Molar Rate Mole Fraction Ethanol 20562.84 kg/hr 446.24 kmol/hr 0.9640 Acetic Acid 91.65 kg/hr 1.53 kmol/hr 0.0033 Water 272.46 kg/hr 15.14 kmol/hr 0.0327 Total 20962.95 462.90 kmol/hr 1.0000

Bottoms Mass Rate Molar Rate Mole Fraction Ethanol 2160.16 kg/hr 46.96 kmol/hr 0.0199 Acetic Acid 155.75 kg/hr 2.60 kmol/hr 0.0011 Water 41584.40 kg/hr 2310.24 kmol/hr 0.9790 total 43900.31 kg/hr 2359.80 kmol/hr 1.0000



Page 95

Minimum Reflux Ratio ( A) DA

A

( B) DB

B

0 (0 00 )

0

0 (0 0)

0

Rm = 4.5277895 From the rule of thumb: (R is 1.2 to 1.5 times of Rm) m

R = 6.7916835 Actual Number of theoretical stages

0 [

]

0

0 [

]

Nstages = 15.68 Column Efficiency Temperature : 198.05oF viscosity = 0.3091895 cP

0 0 [( A) avetemp.

]

0 0 [( A) ( avetemp.

0 )]

E = 0.90092



Page 96

Actual Number of Plates

A

A

0 00

NA = 16.31 = 16 Feed Plate Location

l g D

B 0 0 l g [

(

)

(( ) ( )

)

]

NB = 15.68 – ND

l g D

D 0 0 l g [

0

0

0

0 00

0 00

0 0

]

ND = 13.25 NB = 2.43 Column Pressure Drop f 0 Assume 170 mm, pressure drop per plate Density of liquid at 25ºC = 784.72 kg/m3 f 0 ( )( ) Pt = 20520.01 kPa Flooding Velocities

0 0 0 (

0)

= 18.35 dynes/cm = 0.01835 N/m Liquid vapour Flow Factor (FLV)= 0.056

R = L/D

L = 1.50 D = 1.50(462.90) = 694.35 kmol/hr Vn = L + D = 1157.25 kmol/hr



Page 97

Density of vapor = 2.82 kg/m3 Density of liquid = 784.72 kg/m3 Vnf = 1.2439 m/s Flooding Velocity : 95% Vn = 0.95(1.2439) = 1.18 m/s Maximum Volumteric Flow Rate Uv = [(Vn/m)(MW)]/pV

Uv = [(1157.21)(46)(1/24)]/2.82 = 18,877.13 m3/hr Net Area Required A = Uv/Vn A = 5.24/1.18 = 4.44 m2

Column Cross Sectional Area Taking down corner area as 8% of total TOP: Ac = 4.44/0.92 = 4.83 m2 Column Diameter

√

D = 2.48 m



Page 98

APPENDIX B

ENERGY BALANCE

CALCULATIONS



Page 99

Appendix B contains the energy balance calculations for the Ethanol production

plant. Each process is analyzed by calculating the sensible heat and heat of reaction

released or consumed depending whether it is an exothermic or endothermic.

Energy Balance on Washer

Heat Capacities (kJ/kg-K)

Water

Heat, Q (kJ)

Water

Heat of Vaporization (kJ)

Water

Heat in the Washer (kJ)

kJ

To 80 273 Tf 25 273 TTo Tf

2 P1 1.5 P2 1 R 8.314

Mass1 15056.94 MW1 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp1C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

MW1 1000

Cp1 4.176

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 3.458 106

H1R

To Tf( ) MW1ln

P2

P1

3.401 103

QT Q1 H1

QT 3.458 106



Page 100

Energy Balance on Prehydrolysis Tank


Sulfuric Acid

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Heat of Formation (kJ/mole)

Sulfuric Acid

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Heat, Q (kJ)

Sulfuric Acid

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Total Heat

Heat of Formation of Reactants (kJ)

Water

Heat of Formation of Reactant

To 25 273.15 Tf 53 273 TTo Tf

2312.075

Cp1 1.8 Mass1 222.45 MW1 97.97

Mass2 44895.25 MW2 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp2C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

MW2 1000

Cp2 4.176

Cp3 1.87 Mass3 18062.15 MW3 150.13

Cp4 1.15 Mass4 2490.08 MW4 180.16

HF1 814.0

HF2 285.83

HF3 1648.0

HF4 1271.0

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 53 74( ) 8.409 103

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 5.221 106

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 Tf To( ) 9.407 105

Q4 Mass4 Cp4 Tf To( ) 7.975 104

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 6.233 106

H2 HF2Mass2

MW2 7.121 10

5

HR H2 7.121 105



Page 101

Heat of Formation of Products (kJ)

Glucose

Xylose

Heat of Formation of Product

Heat in the Hydrolysis Tank (kJ)

kJ

H4 HF4Mass4

MW4 1.757 10

4

H3 HF3Mass3

MW3 1.983 10

5

HP H3 H4 2.158 105

QT Q HP HR

QT 6.729 106



Page 102

Energy Balance on Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1


Sulfuric Acid

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Air


Sulfuric Acid

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Heat, Q (kJ)

Sulfuric Acid

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Air

Total Heat

Heat in the Filter Press (kJ)

kJ

To 53 273 Tf 55 273 TTo Tf

2327

Cp1 1.8 Mass1 222.45 MW1 97.97

Mass2 44895.25 MW2 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp2C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

MW2 1000

Cp2 4.177

Cp3 1.87 Mass3 18062.15 MW3 150.13

Cp4 1.15 Mass4 2490.08 MW4 180.16

Cp5 1.0 Mass5 4687 MW5 29

HF1 814.0

HF2 285.83

HF3 1648.0

HF4 1271.0

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 800.82

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 3.75 105

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 Tf To( ) 6.755 104

Q4 Mass4 Cp4 50 To( ) 7.904 105

Q5 Mass5 Cp5 25 40( ) 7.03 104

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 4.173 105

QT Q

QT 4.173 105



Page 103

Energy Balance on Neutralization Tank


Lime (CaO)

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)

Calcium Sulfate (CaSO4)

Water

Xylose


Lime (CaO)



Water

Xylose

Heat, Q (kJ)

Lime (CaO)



Water

Xylose

Total Heat

To 55 273.15 Tf 50 273 TTo Tf

2

Cp1 0.79 Mass1 127.11 MW1 56.08

Cp2 1.38 Mass2 222.45 MW2 98.02

Cp3 0.27 Mass3 308.71 MW3 136.14

Mass4 44895.25 MW4 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp4C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

MW4 1000

Cp4 4.176

Cp5 1.87 Mass5 18062.15 MW5 150.13

HF1 635.09

HF2 814.0

HF3 1434.52

HF4 285.83

HF5 1648.0

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 517.147

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 1.581 103

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 Tf To( ) 429.261

Q4 Mass4 Cp4 Tf To( ) 9.656 105

Q5 Mass5 Cp5 Tf To( ) 1.739 105

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 1.142 106



Page 104


Lime (CaO)




Water



Heat in the Neutralization Tank (kJ)

kJ

H1 HF1Mass1

MW1 1.439 10

3

H2 HF2Mass2

MW2 1.847 10

3

HR H1 H2 3.287 103

H4 HF4Mass4

MW4 7.121 10

5

H3 HF3Mass3

MW3 3.253 10

3

HP H3 H4

QT Q HP HR

QT 1.854 106



Page 105



Water

Xylose

Calcium Sulfate

Air

Heat, Q (kJ)

Water

Xylose

Calcium Sulfate

Air

Total Heat


kJ

To 50 273.15 Tf 53 273 TTo Tf

2324.575

Mass1 44895.25 MW1 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp1C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

1000MW1

Cp1 4.176

Cp2 1.87 Mass2 18062.15 MW2 150.13

Cp3 0.27 Mass3 308.71 MW3 136.14

Cp4 1.0 Mass4 4687 MW4 29

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 5.343 105

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 9.626 104

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 25 To( ) 2.485 104

Q4 Mass4 Cp4 25 40( ) 7.03 104

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 5.354 105

QT Q

QT 5.354 105



Page 106

Energy Balance on Slurry Tank


Water

Xylose

Glucose

Heat, Q (kJ)

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Total Heat

Heat in the Slurry Tank (kJ)

kJ

To 53 273 Tf 51 273 TTo Tf

2325

Mass1 44895.25 MW1 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp1C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

1000MW1

Cp1 4.176

Cp2 1.87 Mass2 18062.15 MW2 150.13

Cp3 1.15 Mass3 308.71 MW3 180.16

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 3.75 105

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 6.755 104

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 51 55( ) 1.42 103

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 4.439 105

QT Q

QT 4.439 105



Page 107

Energy Balance on Saccharification Tanks


Water

Xylose

Glucose


Water

Xylose

Glucose

Heat, Q (kJ)

Water

Xylose

Glucose

Total Heat


Water



Glucose


Heat in the Saccharification Tank (kJ)

kJ

To 51 273.15 Tf 41 273 TTo Tf

2319.075

Mass1 41709.97 MW1 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116 C5 9.3701106

Cp1C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

1000MW1

Cp1 4.175

Cp2 1.87 Mass2 18062.15 MW2 150.13

Cp3 1.15 Mass3 32261.37 MW3 180.16

HF1 285.83

HF2 1648.0

HF3 1271.0

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 1.768 106

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 3.428 105

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 Tf To( ) 3.766 105

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 2.487 106

H1 HF1Mass1

MW1 6.616 10

5

HR H1 6.616 105

H3 HF3Mass3

MW3 2.276 10

5

HP H3 2.276 105

QT Q HP HR

QT 2.053 106



Page 108

Energy Balance on Fermentation Tanks


Acetic Acid

Ethanol

Carbon dioxide

Water

Xylose

Oxygen

Glucose


Acetic Acid

Ethanol

Carbon dioxide

Water

Xylose

Oxygen

Glucose


Glucose

Xylose


To 41 273.15 Tf 41 273 TTo Tf

2314.075

Cp1 1.15 Mass1 736.79 MW1 60.05

Cp2 2.72 Mass2 22687.23 MW2 46.07

Cp3 0.841 Mass3 21700.83 MW3 44.01

Mass4 41709.97 MW4 18.02

C1 27637 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116 C5 9.3701106

Cp4 C1 C2 T C3 T2

C4 T3

C5 T4

Cp4 1.735 105

Cp5 1.87 Mass5 18062.15 MW5 150.13

Cp6 0.918 Mass6 153.46 MW6 32

Cp7 1.15 Mass7 32261.37 MW7 180.16

HF1 483.5

HF2 276.5

HF3 393.52

HF4 285.83

HF5 1648.0

HF6 0

HF7 1271.0

H7 HF7Mass7

MW7 2.276 10

5

H5 HF5Mass5

MW5 1.983 10

5

HR H5 H7 4.259 105



Page 109


Ethanol

Carbon dioxide

Acetic Acid


Heat in the Fermentation Tank (kJ)

kJ

H2 HF2Mass2

MW2 1.362 10

5

H3 HF3Mass3

MW3 1.94 10

5

H1 HF1Mass1

MW1 5.932 10

3

HP H1 H2 H3 3.361 105

QT HP HR

QT 8.973 104



Page 110

Energy Balance on Gas Absorption

To 41 273Tf 22 273

Ti 20 273 TTo Tf

2

T 304.5

Water

C1 276370

C2 2090.2

Cp2 0.918

C3 8.125

C4 0.01411

C5 9.3701106

Cp3C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

18 1000

Cp3 4.191

CO2 Cp1 0.8561 M1 21644.46

O2 Cp2 0.918 M2 210.46

H20 Cp3 4.191 M3 67.65

Q1 M1 Cp1 Tf To( )

Q2 M2 Cp2 Tf To( )

Q3 M3 Cp3 Tf Ti( )

Q Q1 Q2 Q3

Q 3.552 105

Qt Q

Qt 3.552 105



Page 111



Water

Ethanol

Acetic Acid

Air

Heat, Q (kJ)

Water

Ethanol

Acetic Acid

Air

Total Heat


To 41 273.15 Tf 87 273 TTo Tf

2337.075

Mass1 44895.25 MW1 18.02

C1 276370 C2 2090.1

C3 8.125 C4 0.014116

C5 9.3701106

Cp1C1 C2 T C3 T

2 C4 T

3 C5 T

4

1000MW1

Cp1 4.182

Cp2 2.72 Mass2 18062.15 MW2 46.07

Cp3 1.15 Mass3 308.71 MW3 60.05

Cp4 1.0 Mass4 4687.0 MW4 29.0

Q1 Mass1 Cp1 Tf To( ) 8.608 106

Q2 Mass2 Cp2 Tf To( ) 2.253 106

Q3 Mass3 Cp3 Tf To( ) 1.628 104

Q4 Mass4 Cp4 25 40( ) 7.03 104

Q Q1 Q2 Q3 1.088 107

QT Q

QT 1.088 107



Page 112

Energy Balance on Distillation Column

*See Material Balance for other computation. Condenser Duty

CD ( )dewpt ( )bubbpt. ( )bubbpt.

CD ( ) ( ) 0( )

CD 0

Reboiler Duty

D ( )bubbpt. ( )dewpt. ( )bubbpt.

D 0( ) ( ) ( )

D 00



Page 113

APPENDIX C

EQUIPMENT DESIGN

CALCULATIONS



Page 114

Design of Feedstock Storage Warehouse

Feedstock Storage is a warehouse of corn stover bales consists of large volume of corn

stover biomass which is the raw material in the production of ethanol. It will be delivered in the

process line using forklift trucks with operating condition of 95000 kg/hr biomass feed.

Warehouse Selection: Storage warehouse will be designed in able to hold large volume of corn

stover bales. It is a concrete storage room with steels and galvanized iron sheets.

Selection of MOC: In the selection of material of construction for the feedstock storage room, we

will consider cost of materials, factor of safety, maintenance and probable life.

Corn Stover Bale Design: Since the storage room will hold stover bales, appropriate dimensions

and storing of corn stover bales is appropriate to maximize the warehouse capacity and spaces

having a well arrange blocks of stover bales.

For Biomass Corn Stover Bale

Dimension = .9 x .9 x 1.5 = 1.215m³

Density = 2170 kg/m3

Weight of Stover per bale = 142.155kg

Requirement

95000 kg/hr assume 8hr operation = 760000 kg biomass

Number of stover bales = 5346.3 or 5347 pieces over 8 hrs or 669 pieces per hr.



Page 115

For Forklift Truck:

Carrying capacity = 2500kg

Lift Height = 4.5 meters

In Operation: It should carry 10 Bales (5x2) at a

time

Storing = 10 x 3 x 6 Bales per Block = 180 Bales per Block

Warehouse = 30 Blocks (3x10)

30x180 = 5400 bales

Distance per Block = 2.5 meters (Forklift can be able to pass)

Assuming 5 day operation, 1 Warehouse per day = 5 warehouse (4meter distance per warehouse)

Warehouse Design Materials of Construction: The warehouse will consist of concrete, metals

and galvanized iron sheets.

Height of Walls: 15m

Length of Warehouse: 81.5m

Width of Warehouse: 23.5m

Wall thickness: 6inches

Front View Side View

6 x 0.9m = 5.4m

3 x 1.5m = 4.5m



Page 116

Design of Water Storage Tank

Water Storage tanks consists of large volumes of water which will be used in the washing of

feedstock and a utility needed in the mixing process of sulphuric acid. It will use high performance

pumps to deliver water in the process line with an operating condition of 20m3/hr. water feed.

Water Storage Tank Selection: Storage tanks will be designed in able to hold large volume of

water. It will be constructed with carbon steel and high performance water pumps.

Selection of MOC: In the selection of material of construction for the water storage tanks and

pumps, we will consider cost of materials, factor of safety, maintenance, probable life or

performance and capacity.

Selection of Water Pumps: A high performance industrial water pump is chosen with

specifications

Capacity = 24.98 m3/hr

Assume 20 m3/hr operating condition, therefore 1 pump in the washing process and 1 pump in the

Mixer. Additional Pumps for inlet water storage tanks, total of 4pumps. Plus extra pumps and

storage tank for emergency purposes. Therefore 4 storage tanks with 8 pumps



Page 117

Storage tank Design:

20m3/hr. operation assume 8hr operation = 160m3 volume capacity.

Cylindrical shape

Diameter = 5.8m

Height = 6.1m

( )

Calculating Thickness:

Calculating Pressure:

P gh , Density = 1000kg/m3, g = 9.81m/s2, Height = 6.1 m

59841P Pa

Design P = 59841 + (0.1)(59841) = 65825.1Pa

Double-welded butt joint, E=1.0

Design Stress:

Material: Carbon Steel

Yield Strength = 250MPa

Safety Factor = 4

Design stress = 62.5MPa

Thickness:

(65825.1)(5.8).031 31

2(62500000)(1.0) (1.2)(65825.1)t m mm



Page 118

Design of Prehydrolysis Tank

In the Hydrolysis tank, the corn stover and the diluted sulfuric acid are mixed to proceed to

the hydrolysis reaction. It converts most of the hemicellulose portion of the feedstock to soluble

sugars.

Selection of Equipment: It is a Screw Feeder Reactor allowing corn stover to travel inside the

reactor with ease.

Selection of MOC: The type of Stainless steel used in this vessel is also Stainless Steel.

Mechanical Design Calculation: The reactants are available and so, we have designed the

hydrolysis tank based on the reactant mass.

Product in the Tank Weight (kg) Densities (g/cc)

Corn Stover 100,000.0 1.17

Sulfuric Acid 222.45 1.84

Water 20,000.0 1.00

Total weight of the product = 0

Average density of the product =

Total volumetric flow of the product = 0 ⁄

Residence time in the Hydrolysis Tank is 10 minutes

Residence time, ⁄

0 0

0 0

Assume ⁄ { }

Hence, ( ) ⁄

( ) ⁄ ( × ) ⁄



Page 119

Shell Thickness: In the tank the pressure is atmospheric, hence the maximum pressure will at the

bottom due to the hydraulic pressure. Taking maximum design pressure to be 20 psi.

Shell thickness, ( )

Where

[( 0)( )( 000) ( 0 000)( )] ×



Page 120

Design of Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1

This filter press will separate the slurry to form the filter cake which has glucose, glucan

and lignin, and the filtrate which have components of xylose, water and sulfuric acid. The cake will

go to the slurrying tank while the filter will go to the neutralization tank.

Mechanical Design Calculation: The design of the filter press is based on the rule of thumb used

for the filter press, operating under a pressure and temperature of 9.5atm and 50 , respectively.

Operation in constant Pressure

Volume of sludge to be dewatered per hour = 115,788 kg/hr

Volume of sludge to be dewatered per day = 926,304 kg/day (8 hours operation per day)

Sludge concentration = 204.33 g/L

Amount of dry material to be dewatered per day = V x C/1000 + MS Conditioning = 189,296.7 kg

Number of cycles per day = Te / Tc = 16

Dryness of the cake = 28 %(dry/wet)

Volume of cake produced = 189,296.7 x 100 / 28 x 1.05 = 643,866.3 L

Volume = Cake produced / Number of cycles x 1 = 40,242 L



Page 121

Design of Neutralization Tank

In the neutralization tank lime is added to neutralize the sulfuric acid added in the

hydrolysis tank. Lime is added in this tank to raise the pH to 10. The residence time is one hour to

allow for the overliming reactions to occur. The agitation for this application is assumed to be 98.5

W/m3.

Selection of Equipment: The reaction is carried out in a stirred tank – flat bottom cylindrical

vessel. To achieve the good mixing of the reactants, a Rushton turbine is used with 6 blades.

Selection of MOC: In the selection of material of construction for any vessel, the factors to be

considered are initial cost, corrosive action of the reactants, cost of replacement, maintenance and

probable life. Taking the corrosive action of Sulfuric Acid and Lime into account, the best choice to

use is Stainless Steel Type 304.

Mechanical Design Calculation: Since the reactions and the product are already available, we

have designed the neutralization tank based on the product mass.


Water 44,936.11 1.00

Xylose 18,062.15 1.53

CaSO4 308.71 2.96



Total volumetric flow of the product = 0 ⁄

Residence time in the Neutralization Tank is 1 hour

Residence time, ⁄

0

Assume ⁄ { }

Hence, ( ) ⁄



Page 122

( ) ⁄ ( × ) ⁄




Where

[( 0)( 0)( 000) ( 0 000)( )] ×

Design of the Impeller: Rushton Turbine with 6 blades is the best choice in this tank.

Standard Ratio for Stirred Tank

Impeller ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄

Rushton Turbine 3 1 0.2 0.25

Impeller diameter, 0 ⁄

Impeller speed,

Assume viscosity of slurry

Reynolds Number, ( ) ( × × 0) ( × 0 00 )

Standard Dimensions for Nozzle Requirement

Man Hole 20 x 25 cm diameter

Charging Hole 1.25m diameter

Drain Valve 15 cm diameter

Supports: 4 lug supports, supported at a height of 3m for gravity flow.



Page 123


This filter press will separate CaSO4 from xylose and water mixture. The xylose-water

mixture will then go the slurrying tank.




Volume of sludge to be dewatered per hour = 63,179.85 kg/hr

Volume of sludge to be dewatered per day = 505,438.8 kg/day (8 hours operation per day)




Dryness of the cake = 28 %(dry/wet)


Volume = Cake produced / Number of cycles x 1 = 12,516 L



Page 124

Design of Slurry Tank

In the slurry tank, the solids from the Pneumapress Pressure Filter 1 and the liquid in

filtrate tank 2 are mixed here to agitate the mixture properly. The residence time is 15 minutes to

afford good mixing. The agitation for this application is assumed to be 394 W/m3.

Selection of Equipment: The agitation is carried out in a stirred tank – flat bottom cylindrical

vessel. To achieve the good mixing of the reactants, a Rushton turbine is used with 6 blades.

Selection of MOC: In the selection of material of construction for any vessel, the factors to be

considered are initial cost, corrosive action of the reactants, cost of replacement, maintenance and

probable life. The best choice to use is Stainless.

Mechanical Design Calculation: We have designed the neutralization tank based on the product

mass.


Water 44,936.11 1.00

Xylose 18,062.15 1.53

Glucose 2,487.1 2.96

Glucan 33,082.52 1.96

Lignin 16,264.49 1.30

Total weight of the product =


Total volumetric flow of the product = ⁄ 0

Residence time in the Slurry Tank is 10 minutes.

Residence time, ⁄

0 0

0 0

Assume ⁄ { }

Hence, ( ) ⁄



Page 125

( ) ⁄ ( × ) ⁄




Where

[( 0)( )( 000) ( 0 000)( )] ×





Impeller diameter, ⁄

Impeller speed,

Assume viscosity of slurry

Reynolds Number, ( ) (0 × × 0) ( × 0 00 )







Page 126

Design of Saccharification Tank

In the Saccharification tank, cellulase enzyme is added. This enzyme attacks randomly along

the cellulose fiber to reduce polymer size rapidly and hydrolyze it to glucose. The enzyme used is

Trichoderma reesei cellulases and its loading is determined by the amount of cellulose present in the

hydrolyzate and the target hydrolysis conversion level with the combined residence time of the

saccharification tanks. The agitation for this application is assumed to be 60 W/m3.

Selection of Equipment: Stirred tank – flat bottom cylindrical vessel is used in this tank. Also, a 6-

blade Rushton turbine is used.

Selection of MOC: The type of Stainless steel used in this vessel is Type 304.

Mechanical Design Calculation: The reactants are already available and so, we have designed the saccharification tank based on the reactant mass.

Reactant in the Tank Weight (kg) Densities (g/cc)

Water 44,936.11 1.00

Glucose 2,487.1 1.54

Glucan 33,082.52 1.96

Lignin 16,264.49 1.30

Xylose 18,062.15 1.53

Total weight of the product =


Total volumetric flow of the product = ⁄

Residence time in the Neutralization Tank is 1.5 days

Residence time, ⁄

×

0

Assume ⁄ { }

Hence, ( ) ⁄

( ) ⁄ ( × ) ⁄



Page 127




Where

[( 0)( )( 000) ( 0 000)( )] ×






Impeller height,

Impeller width, × 0

Impeller length, × 0

Impeller speed,







Page 128

Design of Fermentation Tank

In the Fermentation tank, Candida shehatae strain is added. This organism is fed along with

Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) as a nutrient at a rate of 0.33 g/L. The total residence time is

estimated at 36 hours for the ethanol fermentation. The agitation for this tank is also assumed to be

60 W/m3.

Selection of Equipment: Stirred tank – flat bottom cylindrical vessel with a 6-blade Rushton

turbine.

Selection of MOC: The type of Stainless steel used in this vessel is also Type 304.

Mechanical Design Calculation: The reactants are also available and so, we have designed the fermentation tank based on the reactant mass.

Reactant in the Tank Weight (kg) Densities (g/cc)

Water 41,958.4 1.00

Glucose 32,225.0 1.54

Lignin 16,245.0 1.30

Xylose 18,040.5 1.53



Total volumetric flow of the product = 0 ⁄ 0

Residence time in the Neutralization Tank is 1.5 days

Residence time, ⁄

0 × 0

0 0

Assume ⁄ { }

Hence, ( ) ⁄

( ) ⁄ ( × 0 ) ⁄



Page 129




Where

[( 0)( )( 000) ( 0 000)( )] ×






Impeller height,

Impeller width, × 0

Impeller length, × 0

Impeller speed,







Page 130


This filter press will separate Lignin from the Ethanol-Acetic Acid-Water mixture coming

from the ethanol fermenter. The cake mixture will then go to the distillation for the final recovery of

the ethanol.




Volume of sludge to be dewatered per hour = 108,468.9 kg/hr

Volume of sludge to be dewatered per day = 867,751.2 kg/day (8 hours operation per day)




Dryness of the cake = 28 % (dry/wet)


Volume = Cake produced / Number of cycles x 1 = 32,514.84 L



Page 131

Design of Gas Absorber

Carbon dioxide with oxygen gas emitted from the Ethanol Fermentor will go to a gas

absorber with water as its solvent. The treated gas will assumed to have only 2% of carbon dioxide.

Selection of Equipment: The flue gas will go to a packed column gas absorber with an intalox

saddles choice of packing.

Mechanical Design Calculation: The design of the gas absorber is based on the actual mass

entering the equipment with percentages of carbon dioxide and oxygen gas operating under a

pressure of 1.5 atm and a temperature of .

The mass entering the equipment:

Component Mass Rate (kg/hr) Molar

rate(kmol/hr) Mole Percent

Carbon dioxide 21,700.83 493.20 99.04%

Oxygen 153.46 4.80 0.96%

Total 21,854.29 498.0 100%

y1 = 0 0

Y1 = 0

y2 = 0 0

Y2 = 0 0 0 0 ( )( )

% recovery = %

Density of the solvent entering,

Viscocity of the solvent entering, 0

Density of the gas entering,

Mass rate of the gas entering,

Using the operating line equation,

( ) ( )

Molar rate of solute free gas, ( 0 0 )



Page 132

Solving for the minimum molar rate of solvent, 0

Based on the relationship, 0

Molar rate of solvent entering,

Mass rate of solvent

0 00

Based on HB, Fig 14-55, 14-58,

Choice of Packings:

Intalox Saddles, Ceramics

0

0

Solving for the Flooding Velocity,

Superficial gas velocity, 0

Flooding velocity,

Calculating for the surface area of the packed column,

Surface Area, 0

Column diameter,

Solving for the height of packing,

Using the (

) (

), where

,

0

Height of Packing,

Height of column, (Based on Heuristics on Distillation and Gas Absorption, Peters & Timmerhaus)



Page 133

Design of Distilling Column

The amount of feed fed into the filter press is the same amount fed into the distillation process but

without the presence of the lignin which is separated already in the filter press. The expected

amount of ethanol will be relatively low in the distillate since it is an azeotrope process.

Selection of Equipment: Distillation is the necessary equipment in separating the ethanol from

water and acetic acid. It is much cheaper compare to other separation processes. Though at first, a

relatively low amount of recovery can be made since the components are azeotrope. Two

distillation columns must be used instead.

Mechanical Design Calculation: The basis of calculation is from a journal that focused on the

design of distillation column. All values that are assumed in the computation of the distillation

column are all allowable based on the rule of thumb for design in distillation columns.

*See Material Balance for the number of plates and other design considerations.

Provisional Plate Designing Sieve Plate is selected Column Diameter = DC =2.48 m Column Area = AC = 4.83 m2

Downcomer Area = Ad = 0.08 AC = 0.3864 m2

Net Area = An = AC - Ad = 4.44 m2

Active Area = Aa = AC - 2 Ad = 4.06 m2 Hole Area (total) Ah = 0.1 Aa = 0.40572 m2 *Weir length (lW) should be 60 to 85% of column diameter, which is satisfactory. lW/DC = 0.82 lW = 0.80(2.48) = 2.03 m Weir height (hW) = 50 mm Plate thickness = 5 mm Number of Holes Diameter of Hole = 5mm = 0.005m



Page 134

Area of Hole = = 1.963x10-5 m2

No. of holes = Ah/ Al = 0.40572/1.963x10-5 = 20,668.36 Height of Distillation Column No. of Plates = 15.68 =16 Tray Spacing = 0.5 Distance between all plates = 16*0.5 = 8 m Top Clearance = 0.5 m Bottom Clearance = 0.5 m Plate thickness = 5mm/plate = 5x10-3 m/plate Total thickness of plates = 5x10-3*16 = 0.08 m = 9 mm Total column height = 8 m + 0.5 m + 0.5 m + 0.08 m = 9.08 m Mechanical Design Shell material = carbon steel Sieve plate material – stainless steel 316 Operating Pressure = 1.5 atm Design Pressure (40% OP) = 1+.4(1.5) = 1.6 atm Shell diameter = 2.42 m Shell Height = 9.08 m

Shell thickness = (

)

Where: P = 0.140 MPa j = 0.85 C = 2x10-3 m f = 96.26 MPa D = 2.48 m Therefore,

tS = 0.004072 m



Page 135

Design of Ethanol Storage Tanks

Ethanol Storage Tanks will handle volumes of ethanol products in the overall plant

operation. It will carry processed ethanol and at the same time use for the selling and shipment of

product.

Ethanol Storage Tank Selection: Storage tanks will be designed in able to hold large volume of

ethanol. It will be constructed with A285C.

Selection of MOC: In the selection of material of construction for the ethanol storage tanks and

pumps, we will consider cost of materials, factor of safety, maintenance, probable life or

performance and capacity.

Storage tank Design:

35.35m3 volume capacity per tank

Cylindrical shape flat bottom

Diameter = 3m

Height = 5m

( )

Calculating Thickness:

Calculating Pressure:

P gh

Density = 789kg/m3

g = 9.81m/s2, Height = 5 m

38700.45P Pa

Design P = 38700.45 + (0.1)(38700.45) = 42570.495Pa

Double-welded butt joint E=1.0



Page 136

Design Stress:

Material: A258C

Yield Strength = 207MPa

Safety Factor = 4

Design stress = 51.75MPa

Thickness:

No. of Ethanol Storage Tanks = 6

Pump Selection:

Specifications English Units SI Unit

Heads To 10 to 170 ft. 3 to 52 m.

Flows To 1 to 40 gpm 0.23 to 9 m3/hr

Max Power 1 to 7.5 hp. 1 to 5.5 kW

Temp. Range -20 to 250 -29 to 121

Number of Stages 1 stage

Working Pressure 150 psi 10.3 bar

(42570.495)(3)1.6 .014 14

2(5175000)(1.0) (1.2)(42570.495)t mm m mm



Page 137

APPENDIX D

OPTIMIZATION

CALCULATIONS



Page 138

Pipe from Water Storage Tank to Washer

@ 25 deg C

inches

Checking NRe:

(Turbulent flow)

X 2.43n 1.5 J 0.35

1000.035333kg

m3

E 0.50

F 1.4K 0.05 Kf 0.20

Hy 8760hr

yr

c 9.125307952104

Pa s

qf 5.555359268103

m

3

s

Diopt

6.04104

0.0254( )n

qf2.84

0.84

c0.10

K 1 J( ) Hy

n 1 F( ) X E Kf

1

4.84 n

Diopt 0.08 m Diinches

Diopt

0.0254 Diinches 3.131

v1

qf

4Diopt

2

v1 1.118m

s

NRe

Diopt v1

c

NRe 9.747 104



Page 139

Pipe from Water Storage Tank to Hydrolysis Tank

@ 25 deg C

Checking NRe:

(Turbulent flow)

X 2.43n 1.5 J 0.35

1000.035333kg

m3

E 0.50

F 1.4K 0.05 Kf 0.20

Hy 8760hr

yr

c 9.125307952104

Pa s

qf 5.555359268103

m

3

s

Diopt

6.04104

0.0254( )n

qf2.84

0.84

c0.10

K 1 J( ) Hy

n 1 F( ) X E Kf

1

4.84 n

Diopt 0.08 m Diinches

Diopt

0.0254 Diinches 3.131 inches

v1

qf

4Diopt

2

v1 1.118m

s

NRe

Diopt v1

c

NRe 9.747 104



Page 140

Pipe to Ethanol Storage Tank

@ 25 deg C

m

inches

Checking NRe:

(Turbulent flow)

L 19.57 3.08 4.96 8.355( ) 2 10.33( )

L 73.8643028X 2.43

n 1.5 J 0.35 784.7179224

kg

m3

E 0.50

F 1.4Kf 0.20

Hy 8760hr

yr K 0.01550133533

Pa sc 1.07743084610

3

m3

sqf20526.8376

784.71792243600

Diopt

6.04104

0.0254( )n

qf2.84

0.84

c0.10

K 1 J( ) Hy

n 1 F( ) X E Kf

1

4.84 n

Diopt 0.0723934

Diinches

Diopt

0.0254

Diinches 2.850135

v1

qf

4Diopt

2

v1 1.765m

s

NRe

Diopt v1

c

NRe 9.308 104



Page 141

APPENDIX E

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

CALCULATI ONS



Page 142

Minimum Ethanol Selling Price

Profitability

$/gal

$

$

kg/hr

$/gal

dollars/year

years

Given

DCFRR 0.1

MESP 1

TCI 94346421.1

TPC 70257017.47

Ethanol 20526.84

0Ethanol 24 365 MESP 264

789

1 1 DCFRR( )18

DCFRR

1 DCFRR( )2

TCI TPC1 1 DCFRR( )

20

DCFRR

MESP Find MESP( )

MESP 1.698

Depreciation55116465.930.10

1 0.10( )20

1

962312.81

SalesEthanol 24 365 MESP 264

789102166023.26

ROISales 18 TPC Depreciation( ) 20

20 TCI100 24.012

PBTCI

Sales 18 TPC Depreciation( ) 20[ ]

20

Depreciation

3.995

Date post:	11-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	katrine-pacamarra
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

Final Paper

Documents