Biorefining-Powerpoint Presentation

Biorefining-Powerpoint Presentation - Biorefining...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Biorefining Biorefining Chemical Engineering Team Tejas Patel, John Truong, Tony Tran, Trenika Iland, Bambo Ibidapo-Obe, Jeremy Constantino, Adam Adler, Blake Adams Presentation Outline Presentation Purpose – What is biorefining Plant Design – – – – – Fermentation processes Purification processes Utilities Waste Economics of each process Business Plan Proposal – Mathematical Model – – – – Model Description Inputs into the Model Results of Model Sensitivity and Risk of Model Overview of Biorefining Overview What is a bio based product? – Made from renewable resources – Plant material as main ingredient – Biodegradable Why bio-refining? – National and local policies promote bio-refining – Strict environmental regulations Increased cost of products made from fossil fuels – Extraction, processing, disposal – Advantages Rural economic development, lower economic costs, environmentally safe http://www.pnl.gov/biobased/docs/prodplas.pdf Scope of Project Scope Figure 1: Chemicals, Microorgansims, and End Products of Fermentation Processes Each of these acids are generated using nearly identical fermentation processes with different bacteria which dictate the end result Scope of Process Scope http://www.pnl.gov/biobased/docs/prodplas.pdf Market Analysis / Demand Market www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles.htm Market Demands for Products Years 2005-2025 8000 7000 Acetic Acid 5000 Citric Acid Fumaric Acid 6 Mass (10 lbm) 6000 4000 Succinic Acid Lactic Acid Ethanol 3000 Propionic Acid 2000 1000 0 2005 2010 2015 Year Assumptions: -growth due to environmental profile -industrial applications increase due to biodegradable advantages 2020 2025 3 Price Projections for Products Years 2005-2025 Price per Unit Mass (US$/lb ) m 2.5 2 Acetic Acid Citric Acid Fumaric Acid 1.5 Succinic Acid Lactic Acid Ethanol Propionic Acid 1 0.5 0 2005 Assumptions: 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year -an increase in demand will result in over capacity and competition among suppliers -as a result, a reduction of prices with a corresponding increase in the amount of sales is expected -more competition will drive prices down and supply up Process Description Process Simulations for Fermentation/Purification – Model Descriptions Fermentation – Formation of each acid – Bacteria Considerations Conversions Simulations – Outline of Fermentation – Outline of Purification Processes Models Models Citric Acid Succinic Acid Propionic Acid Fumaric Acid Acetic Acid Fermentation Fermentation Glucose + Water Bacteria Clostridium thermocellum Anaerobiospirillum Propionibacterium Aspergillus niger Rhizopus succiniciproducens acidipropionici Bacteria Name Acid Fumaric Acid PropionicAcid Acetic Acid Acid Citric Succinic Our Scope Yield Product Clostridium thermocellum 100% Acetic Acid Aspergillus niger 66.7% Citric Acid Anaerobiospirillum succiniciproducens 87% Succinic Acid Propionibacterium acidipropionici 66.7% Propionic Acid Rhizopus 69% Fumaric Acid Saccharomyces cerevisiae 66.7% Ethanol Lactobacillus delbrueckii 95% Lactic Acid Similar processes Formation – 10:1 mass ratio of water to glucose – Heat sterilization – Compressed Air – Ammonia – Batch Reaction Ethyl Lactate Subgroup Bacteria Bacteria All the fermentation processes are catalyzed by the appropriate bacteria They are grown along with inoculum seeds in small laboratory vessels Once the nutrients and inoculum seeds are grown sufficiently, they form a slurry which is transferred to the fermentors Cost of using bacteria was found to be $0.80 per ton Process Description Process Citric Acid Fermentor Capacity: 350,000L Sterilizer Blending/Storage Units:Capacity: 21,000 gal 5 Units: 3 Rotary Drum27 bacteria Cost: Units:Million $1.2 3 2C6H$200,000 2 Cost: 12 65 m2 Capacity:O6 + 2 O2 → C6H8O7 +6CO +8H2O Cost: $110,000Throughput: 80m3/hr Units: 2 Cost : $ 115,250 Exit Stream Mass % Byproducts – 7.1% Glucose – 0.4 Stream to Purification Water – 85.9 Citric Acid – 3.78 Ammonia: 62489.3 kg/batch Flowrate – 1,400,000 kg/batch Water – 1249786 kg/batch Air: 6242930 kg/batch Ion Exchange Column Cost: $75,000 Glucose – 112480.7 kg/batch, 89.9%mass Salts – 12525 kg/batch, 10.1% Nutrients waste Purification Processes Purification Citric Acid Succinic Acid Propionic Acid (Sodium Propionate) Fumaric Acid Acetic Acid Citric Acid Citric Capacity: 30,000L 100,000 kg/batch Water: Water: 10,000 kg/batch Units: Citric Acid: 56975.4 kg/batch 1 Water: 75236.6 kg/batch Cost: $35,000 47 m2 Capacity: Calcium Citrate: Units: 2 80363.9 kg/batch Sulfuric Acid: 75000$91,200 Cost: kg/batch 48.06 % Sulfuric Acid: 32061.7 kg/batch Water: 155303 kg/batch Ca Citrate: 4018.2 kg/batch Ca(OH)2: 35000 kg/batch Air: 237.1 kg/batch Citric Acid: 54268.7 kg/batch 23.2 %mass Gypsum: Ca(OH)2 waste: 20.36% Product Precipitation Water: Capacity: 27,500 L 65 m3 Capacity: Acid Product: 79.64% 40146.5 kg/batch Citric 45.4 mass% Total 18125.5 kg/batch 35,000L Units: 3 Capacity:2 Units: Units: 7 54268.7 kg/batch Formation Cost: $323,000 $115,250 Gypsum Cost: Cost: $364,200 Acetic Acid Acetic Acetic Acid: 1780 kg/hr Water: 1591 kg/hr Acetic Acid: 64.7 lbmol/hr Water: 333 lbmol/hr EtAc: 777.9 lbmol/hr EtAc: 68600 lb/hr Water: 2500 lb/hr Units: 1 Cost: $60,000 Water: 30.2 lb/hr Acetic Acid: 2.23 lb/hr Water: 333 lbmol/hr EtAc: 777.9 lbmol/hr Units: 1 Trays: 10 Cost: $95,000 Acetic Acid: 64.4 lbmol/hr Water: 2.33 lbmol/hr 96.5% Purity Citric Acid Citric FCI vs Capacity 160 y = 1.6241x + 4.3017 R2 = 0.9955 140 F C I (M M 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Capacity (MM lb) 60 70 80 90 Annual Operating Cost Annual Citric Acid Capacity 35 MM lb 35 Raw materials 12.68 Operating labor 1.34 Utilities 3.01 Maintenance and repairs 4.43 Operating supplies 1.01 Total ($ MM) 22.50 Operating cost breakdown Maintenance Supplies 5.5 % Operating labor 19.7 % 56 % 5.9 % 13.4 % Utilities Raw materials Citric Acid Citric Operating cost vs Production 30 y = 0.31x + 0.652 Operating cost (M M $ 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Capacity (MM lb/yr) 60 70 80 90 Model Considerations Model Acetic Acid Succinic Acid Citric Acid Propionic Acid Fermentation Broth Mass (%) 4.83 4.24 3.79 2.97 Final Conversion to Sell(%) 63.3 59.9 66.0 48.1 Mathematical Model? Mathematical Venture Design Options – Irreducible Structure – Reducible Superstructure Raw Material Markets Raw Material Markets Plant Locations Plant Locations 7 Products Begin Operations 7 Products 3 Product Markets 3 Product Markets Begin Operations Mathematical Model? Mathematical 30 Raw Material Markets 45 Plant Locations 3 Product Markets 28,350 Combinations •Minimize Operating Cost •Maximize Net Present Value •GAMS Optimization Software 7 Products Business Plan Business (Mathematical Model) Input FCI based on Capacity Operating Costs based on Capacity Raw Materials & Chemicals Locations & Distances Demand Material & Mass Balances Product Prices Output Plant location Plant capacity Plant expansion (2 year intervals) Product markets Raw materials NPW Mathematical Model Mathematical Deterministic –Maximizes the Net Present Value –Disregards possible variation in Inputs Stochastic 3 –Maximizes the Net Present Value –Considers Variations in inputs –Scenario Generation –Risk Assessment 2.5 0.8 2 1.5 Probability R aw Material Price ($) 1 1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0 2000 0.6 2005 2010 2015 2020 Time Scenarios Mean 2025 2030 0 250000000 270000000 290000000 310000000 330000000 NPV ($) 350000000 370000000 Mathematical Models Mathematical Two mathematical models: Biorefining – Seven different processes Ethyl lactate – Research analysis on one product (ethyl lactate) Mathematical Model Mathematical Mathematical Model: Locations Mathematical Most economic raw material Potential plant locations Possible market locations Raw Material Locations Raw Raw material density graphs were used to determine potential locations of raw material supply USDA-NASS: Crop yield by county for 2002 Data was obtained for each of the 5 raw materials considered http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/cropmap.htm – – – – – Wheat Oats Corn Rice soybeans Raw Material Locations Raw 30 locations were considered as possible sources for raw material supply Locations were chosen based on crop yield of raw materials Pheonix, Yuma, Bakersfield, Fresno, Napa, Greeley, Pueblo, Louisville, Cedar-Rapids, Dubuque Pheonix, CedarMountain-Home, Danville, Peoria, Quincy, Evansville, Fort-Wayne, Meade, Bastrop, Denton, Billings MountainFortLexington, Clovis, Las-Cruces, Roswell, Cincinatti, Dayton, Heppner, Dumas, El-Paso, Yakima LasCincinatti, El- Potential Plant Locations Potential Economic growth of cities was used to determine potential plant locations Plant locations considerations – – – http://www. www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/reports/lma.pdf Population Number of existing companies in area Expected rate of area growth Potential Plant Locations Potential 46 Potential plant locations Location choices Based on: – – Agricultural supply Economic growth of location Anniston, Tuscaloosa, Gadsden, Talladega, Hot-Springs, Los-Angeles, Dubuque, Ottumwa, Fort-Wayne HotLosFortSouth-Bend, Columbus, Monroe, Detroit, Grand-Rapids, Kalamazoo, Minneapolis, St-Cloud, Fergus-Falls SouthGrandStFergusMankato, Joplin, Tupelo, Greensboro, Hickory, Manchester, Keene, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo Youngstown, Findlay, Tulsa, Eugene, Medford, Greenville, Dallas, Ft-Worth, Waco, Longview, Lufkin FtSherman, Milwaukee, Racine, Green-Bay, Appleton, Wasau, Sheboygan GreenWasau, Product Market Locations Product Markets broken down by the following Regions: West Central East – – – West Central East The markets are for all 7 processes Mathematical Model: Locations Mathematical Mathematical Model: Process Mathematical Most profitable plant Which of the 7 processes to develop Plant Capacity: Reactant & product flow rates Material Balance Equations Material aA + bB cC + dD cC Mass flow rate of product/reactant = stoichiometric product/reactant coefficient * mass flow rate of reactant reactant Mass flow rate of product/reactant = Σ of the process’ product/reactant mass flow rate of chemicals from one process to another + Σ of mass flow rate of sold/purchased chemicals sold/purchased Reactants Reactants Process Succinic Acid Citric Acid Lactic Acid Ethanol Acetic Acid Propionic Acid Fumaric Acid H2O 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.1 Glucose 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reactants Salt Air 0.36 4.22 3.14 6.14 3.10 5.41 3.10 5.41 2.05 3.37 1.30 4.13 2.36 5.18 Cal Hyd 1.65 2.93 - Sulf Acid 3.93 3.69 - This relationship is based on the reaction coefficient of each material Compared to the main chemical & the conversion data for the reaction. Products Products Process Succinic Acid Citric Acid Lactic Acid Ethanol Acetic Acid Propionic Acid Fumaric Acid Product 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Products CO 2 Gypsum 0.067 0.63 0.141 0.74 0.101 0.101 0.069 0.134 0.101 - Calcium 0.089 - Relationship between the main chemical and other products in the reaction The relationship is based on mass balance rather than mole balance All the main chemical will have mu value of 1 mu Mathematical Model: Process Mathematical Mathematical Model: NPW Mathematical Net Present Worth Plant expansion Selling price of product How much to invest (TCI) Model Constraints Model Constraint on Capacity: Capacity of the process ≥ mass flow rate of the product Constraint on expansion: it must be over Constraint $10,000 FCI Supply of chemicals ≥ sum of the process’ mass flow rate of purchased chemicals Demand of chemicals ≥ sum of the process’ mass flow rate of sold chemicals Limit on TCI: Manually defined for set maximum TCI Model Equations Model Cash Flow = Revenue – (Revenue – Depreciation)*Taxes Revenue = Sales – Total Costs Total Costs = Raw Material Costs + Operating Costs Operating Costs = operation cost based on Operating capacity ($/lbm) * mass flow rate of product + fixed investment + transportation costs Objective Function to Maximize Objective NPW = ∑ plant (∑ tp CF plant ,tp (1 + i ) tp + (Vs plant + Iw plant ) * FCI plant (1 + i ) tp CF = Cash Flow tp = time period, 1 time period is 2 years total of 11 time periods from 20052027 i = nominal interest rate, 5% Vs = salvage value, 10% of FCI Iw = working capital, 15% of FCI Project Lifetime – 22 years − TCI plant ) Ethyl Lactate Overview Ethyl Extension of Previous Study 2 Processes: Ethanol & Lactic Acid – Esterification-Pervaporation Ethyl Lactate Create Real World Fit Model – Biomass/Waste Water – CO2 Production/Disposal – Mathematical Model Considerations – Provide insight to large process model Biomass/Waste Water Biomass/Waste Biomass Waste Possibilities Biomass – Return to fermentation unit for reuse – Sale biomass product to markets Waste Water – Capital cost for water purification exceed storage cost – Municipal water storage $100,000/yr Mathematical Model Input – Biomass sales and waste water costs Net Increase in NPV by 0.1% CO2 Analysis CO Analysis Sale and Shipping of CO2 – 500 ton/yr CO2 - $75/ton Minimal profit – CO2 Recovery unit $20 million capital cost Release CO2 into Atmosphere – Aug. 23, 2003, President Bush: Clean Air Act says that CO2 can’t be Clean regulated as a pollutant – Petroleum based products emit 4000X ethanol processes Model Considerations Model Raw materials – Corn, wheat, barley, oat, beets, rice Cost at markets – Raw material to glucose conversions Transportation Modeling Transportation Transportation Cost – Cost to ship raw materials and products Linearly variable with distance – Distance to raw material and product markets determined – Amount shipped Market Demand/Capacity Market Demand – Determined for each product market – 1 year later More competition – Assumed 80% of Demand Supplied to Market – Actual demand determined by model Capacity Constraints/Expansion – No expansion first two years – Cannot expand 2 years consecutively Depreciation/Investing Depreciation/Investing Depreciation – Continuous straight line depreciation – Equipment depreciable for 10 year period Capital Investments – 1 initial capital investment – Revenue used to re-invest in capital investments for future expansions Estimated Sale Price Estimated 1.1 Selling Price ($/lb) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0 5 10 Time (yr, 1 = 2005) 15 20 Results Results Single Raw Material: – Corn Build three plants immediately: – Youngstown, OH – Toledo, OH – Anniston, AL Build one plant in year #5: – Dayton, OH NPW = $38.8 million Investment = $40.2 million ROI = 4.8% Locations Locations Total Product Flow Rate Total 45 40 Toledo million lb/year 35 Dayton 30 25 Youngstown 20 Anniston 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 year (1 = 2005) 20 25 Capacity vs. Flow - Anniston Capacity Million lb/year 20 18 Total Capacity 16 14 12 10 Product Flow 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 Year (1 = 2005) 20 25 Plant Operating Costs Plant 12 Toledo Million $/year 10 Dayton 8 Youngstown 6 Anniston 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 Year (1 = 2005) 20 25 Uncertainty Results Uncertainty Single Raw Material: – Corn Build three plants immediately: – Toledo, OH – Dayton, OH – Anniston, AL ENPV = $34.4 million ICI = $44.0 million ROI = 3.9% Value at Risk at 5% = $14.3 million Locations Locations Product Flow Rate Product 45 Dayton Million lb/year . 40 35 Toledo 30 25 20 Anniston 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 Year (1 = 2005) 15 20 Risk Analysis – Ethyl Lactate Risk Cumulative Probability 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 20000000 40000000 NPV ($) 60000000 80000000 10000000 14000000 18000000 22000000 26000000 30000000 34000000 38000000 42000000 46000000 50000000 54000000 58000000 62000000 More Frequency Risk Histogram – Ethyl Lactate Risk 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% .00% NPV ($) Ethyl Lactate Conclusion Ethyl With uncertainty – 3 plants – NPV = $34.4 million – ICI = $44.0 million Use this model for all processes Mathematical Model Results Mathematical Plant Location – Dubuque, Iowa Raw Material – Corn Maximum Initial Capital Available – $150 million Net Present Value – $295 million Return on Investment – 10% Potential Plant Production Potential 7 Potential Products Venture Will Include Production of 4 Plant Production Specifications Plant Succinic Acid – – – Annual Production: 63 million pounds Fixed Capital Investment: $120,000,000 Annual Operating Cost: $40,000,000 Plant Production Specifications Plant Ethanol – – – Annual Production: 81 million pounds Fixed Capital Investment: $130,000,000 Annual Operating Cost: $42,000,000 Plant Production Specifications Plant Propionic Acid – – – Annual Production: 13 million pounds Fixed Capital Investment: $9,600,000 Annual Operating Cost: $3,000,000 Plant Production Specifications Plant Fumaric Acid – – – Annual Production: 3 million pounds Fixed Capital Investment: $2,200,000 Annual Operating Cost: $600,000 Plant Production Plant 300.00 Prodcut Flow Rate (MM lbm) 250.00 Succinic Acid 200.00 Ethanol Propionic Acid Fumaric Acid 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 Market Distribution Market 21% 62% 17% Capital Investment Distribution Capital Propionic Acid, $9,588,000, 4% Ethanol, $125,780,000, 49% Fumaric Acid, $2,156,200, 1% Succinic Acid, $117,960,000, 46% Revenue From Product Sales Revenue $1,200,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $800,000,000 $600,000,000 $400,000,000 $200,000,000 $0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 Uncertainty Analysis Uncertainty Probability 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 250000000 270000000 290000000 310000000 330000000 NPV ($) 350000000 370000000 Risk Histogram-Biorefining Risk Histogram 100.00% 35 Frequency 30 90.00% Expected NPV = $321 MM 80.00% 25 70.00% 20 60.00% 50.00% 15 40.00% 10 30.00% 20.00% 5 10.00% 0 .00% 250000000 280000000 320000000 NPV ($) 360000000 More Conclusion Conclusion Expected Product AgriculturalNPW Plant Location: Plant Productionof $321 million $321 million – Specification – – Corn Capital: $150 Dubuque, IA Initial – Succinic Acid million – Ethanol – Propionic Acid – Fumaric Acid Further Questions… Further ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/31/2011 for the course CHE 4273 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '10 term at Oklahoma State.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online