View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
FAA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR ALTERNATIVE JET FUELS & ENVIRONMENT
Project Manager: Nathan Brown, FAALead Investigators: M. Wolcott, M. Garcia-Perez, X Zhang
Graduate Student: Abid Tanzil, Scott Geleynse
[April 18, 2017]
Alternative Jet Fuel Supply Chain AnalysisASCENT 1
Opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCENT sponsor organizations.
Conversion Pathways to Alternative Fuels
Evaluation of Bio-refinery Alternatives for the Production of
Alternative Jet Fuels in a Dry Corn Ethanol Plant
2
Task/Subtask Overview
TECHNICAL PROBLEM ADDRESSED:
Up to now all the jet fuel supply chain analyses published
have been limited to standalone jet fuel production
technologies that do not generate bio-products. The
potential techno-economic and environmental benefits of
using existing industrial infrastructure and the
production of co-products on jet fuel production scenarios
have to be considered when developing jet fuel supply
chains.
OUR MAIN LONG-TERM CONTRIBUTION:
The development and implementation of a methodology to
include the effect of using existing infrastructure and the
integration of co-products on jet fuel supply analyses.
3
Plant/Animal
Oils&fats
Lignocellulosic
biomass
Lignocellulosic
biomass
Solid Fraction of
Municipal Solid
Wastes/Coal/
Natural Gas
FeedstocksPrimary Conversion Secondary Conversion Products
Oil Extraction
Ethanol or Butanol
Fermentation
Lipid Fermentation
Hydrotreatment -
Isomerization
Alcohol
OligomerizationPre-treatment
Hydrolysis
Hydrotreatment
and
Isomerization
Pyrolysis-
Catalytic
Pyrolysis/HTL
Gasification
Bio-char
HydrotreatmentBio-oil
Syngas Fischer
Tropsch
Sugars
LipidsWaste Water
(animal manure)Algae
Production
Sugar Rich
Feedstocks
Farnesene
Fermentation, and
Purification
Hydrothermolysis
Aqueous Phase
Reforming/Condensation
Cracking
ARA
HEFA
AMYRIS
GEVO
VIRENT
UOP-Kior
Jet Fuel Approved by ASTM
Under study by ASTM
HydrotreatmentFT-SPK
FT-SKA
HDCJ
ATJ
SK&SAK
DSHC
HEFA
CH
Task/Subtask Overview
4
Example of integrated ATJ
5
Mass balance and ATJ conversion cost
Isobutanol to Jet Ethanol to Jet Guerbet Alcohols to Jet
Total Capital Investment, MM$
64.39 83.81 105.82
OpEx, MM$/yr 4.013 5.690 4.973
Production Rate, MMgal/yr 16.04 12.69 12.27
Conversion Cost, $/gal jet
produced (MFSP)
0.705 1.196 1.377
$/gal alcohol processed 0.540 0.713 0.794
Conversion Cost of jet fuel from alcohol
Isobutanol to Jet Ethanol to Jet Guerbet Alcohols to Jet
Mass Yield 0.766 0.606 0.586
Production Rate, MMgal/yr 16.04 12.69 12.27
Oligomerization Recycle Ratio 0.184 1.889 0.184
Hydrogen Feed Requirement (ton/day) 1.905 1.724 1.457
Mass Balance of Core ATJ Models, Basis: 200 tons/day alcohols processed
“Conversion Cost” represents the added cost to convert existing alcohol to jet fuel (i.e. representsthe MFSP if the production of alcohol is entirely free)
6
Co-products from the integrated process
Feedstock
Handling
(A100)
Pretreatment
&
Conditioning
(A200)
Lignocellulosic
biomass
Enzymatic
Hydrolysis
(A300)
Alcohol
fermentation
Depolymerization
Valorization
Lignin
SugarsATJ
Chemical, fuel, materials
Co-products brings additional
revenue to reduce
sugar/alcohol cost
7
US can be divided in regions dominated by a certain industrial infrastructure that can
be leveraged for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels. This existing infrastructure
may provide economic and technical advantages that could eventually lead to the
development of distinctive bio-refinery technologies in each of these regions.
Location of Industrial Infrastructure
Pulp and paper mills
Petroleum Refineries
Corn ethanol plants
Sugarcane mills
Sugar beet processing plants
CORN
PULP AND
PAPER
MILLS
PETROLEUM
REFINERIES
SUGAR BEET
PROCESSING
PLANTS
Task/Subtask Overview
8
Task/Subtask Overview
Petroleum Refinery
Pulp and Paper Mill
Corn Ethanol
Sugarcane Mill
9
Methodology
Design case of existing InfrastructureDesign case of standalone Alternative jet
fuel technology
Techno-economic
AnalysisLCA
Requirement specifications: cost reduction
Development of Bio-refinery Concepts (BC)
Mass and energy balances of BC
Analysis of Results
10
Standalone Technology Feedstock Product
Case 1: Dry Corn Ethanol Mill Dry grind corn (DGC) Corn grain Ethanol
Case 1A: Virent Virent's BioForming (VB) Corn stover Alternative jet
Case 1B: ATJ Alcohol to Jet (ATJ) Corn stover Alternative jet
Case 1C: DSHC Direct sugar to hydrocarbon (DSHC) Corn stover Alternative jet
Case 1D: FP Fast Pyrolysis (FP) Corn stover Alternative jet
Case 1E: FT Gasification & Fischer – Tropsch (FT) Corn stover Alternative jet
Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A
Dry Corn Ethanol Plant. In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
MethodologyBaseline scenarios
11
Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A
Dry Corn Ethanol Plant. In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
Dry Grind Corn Ethanol Mill (DGCEM)Data acquisition for baseline scenario
Parameter Unit Value Reference
Corn grain kg/hr 94000 Assumed
Composition
Starch Wt.% 60 Mei, 2006
Moisture Wt.% 15 Mei, 2006
Enzyme
Alpha-amylase wt./wt. of mash 0.0005 Karuppiah et al., 2008
Gluco-amylase wt./wt. of mash 0.0012 Karuppiah et al., 2008
Power
Thermal energy requirement Btu/gal (denatured) 43850 Shapouri et al., 2010
Electricity requirement 1.02×0.95(plant size in MGY – 30)/5 Mei, 2006
Water requirement
Initial wash of the feed % of corn grain 50 Karuppiah et al., 2008
Mashing % of corn grain 50 Assumed
Fermentation % of mash 23 Assumed
Scrubber kg/hr 682 Mei, 2006
Steam requirement kg/hr 13636 Mei, 2006
Solid contents
Wet cake wt.% 35 Mei, 2006
Syrup wt.% 40 Mei, 2006
Ethanol conversion % of glucose 51.15 Mei, 2006
CO2 conversion % of glucose 48.85 Mei, 2006
Ethanol purity (from distillation) wt.% 95.6 Mei, 2006
DDGS moisture wt.% 10 Mei, 2006
Year of cost analysis 2006 Assumed
Operating hours hr/year 7440 Assumed
12
DGCEMMaterial balance: Product capacity - 80 million gallons per year
13Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A Dry Corn Ethanol Plant.
In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
Capacity: 83333 kg/h (Dry corn stover)
Initial Moisture Content: 20 %
Feedstock Price: $ 80/dry ton (short)
Case 1A: Virent
Parameter Unit Value Reference
Power
Process requirement MW 35 Davis et al., 2015
Steam consumption kg/hr 233333 Davis et al., 2015
Makeup water kg/hr 159000 Davis et al., 2015
H2 requirement
(stoichiometric)kg/hr 1509 This work
Total purchased
equipment cost (TPEC) MM$ 151.5 Davis et al., 2015
Delivery cost % of TPEC 10 Peters et al., 2004
Variable operational cost MM$ 106.4 Davis et al., 2015
Fuel yield gal/dry kg of
stover0.077 Davis et al., 2015
Year of cost analysis 2011
Operating hours hr/year 7880
Case 1B: ATJ
Parameter Unit Value Reference
Power
Efficiency% of heating
value33
Process requirement MW 28 Humbird et al., 2011
Steam consumption kg/hr 233333 Humbird et al., 2011
Makeup water kg/hr 147000 Humbird et al., 2011
H2 requirement
(stoichiometric)kg/kg ethanol 0.005 Atsonios et al., 2015
Ethanol yieldkg/kg stover
(dry)0.263 Humbird et al., 2011
Total purchased
equipment cost
Ethanol production MM$ 79.3 Humbird et al., 2011
Ethanol upgrading MM$ 13.9 Atsonios et al., 2015
Delivery cost % of TPEC 10 Peters et al., 2004
Variable operational
cost
Ethanol production MM$ 68.7 Humbird et al., 2011
Ethanol upgrading MM$ 50.7 Atsonios et al., 2015
Operating labor MM$ 2.7 Humbird et al., 2011
Fuel yield kg/kg ethanol 0.614 Atsonios et al., 2015
Year of cost analysis 2011
Operating hours hr/year 7440 Atsonios et al., 2015
Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryData acquisition for baseline scenarios
14
Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryMaterial balance
15
Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A
Dry Corn Ethanol Plant. In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
Integration scenarios with DGCEM
16
Co-location: Is a strategy where a separate process unit or a group of process
units is established inside an existing infrastructure in order to utilize part of the
feedstock supply or the infrastructure or even part of the utilities for production of a
different product (de Jong et al., 2015). (Cases 2)
de Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Faaij A, Slade R, Mawhood R, Junginger M: The feasibility of short-term production strategies
for renewable jet fuels – a comprehensive techno-economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining. 2015,
Re-purposing: Assumes a different production scheme in order to produce a
different product using the same existing infrastructure. This may also require
additional units set up in the layout (de Jong et al., 2015). (Cases 3)
Types of Integration
17
Case Description
Case 2 A1 Virent: Corn stover is collected as a waste at a specific farm gate price (only 40%~70% of the
stover can be collected to avoid soil erosion). The corn stover is purchased at the gate.
Case 2 A2 Virent: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the
existing service facilities of DGCEM (sharing electricity distribution facility). Shared land,
buildings and yard improvements. Sharing of Managerial resources.
Case 2 A3 Virent: Same as Case 2 A2 but the lignin stream is sold based on its calorific value. Power
generation avoidance required electricity purchasing through the power distribution facility in
the DGCEM.
Case 2 B1 ATJ: Corn stover is collected as a waste at a specific farm gate price. The rest of the process
is similar to standalone ATJ process.
Case 2 B2 ATJ: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the
existing service facilities of DGCEM. Shared land, buildings and yard improvements. Sharing
of Managerial resources.
Case 2 D1 Pyrolysis: Corn stover at the same gate price.
Case 2 D2 Pyrolysis: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the
existing service facilities of DGCEM (sharing electricity distribution facility). Shared land,
buildings and yard improvements. Sharing of Managerial resources.
Case 2 E1 FT: Uses the corn stover collected at the gate of the plant for hydrocarbon production
Case 2 E2 FT: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the
existing service facilities of DGCEM (sharing electricity distribution facility). Shared land,
buildings and yard improvements. Sharing of Managerial resources.
Co-location cases (Cases 2)
Integration Scenarios
18
Case Description
Case 3 B3 ATJ: The corn stover cellulosic ethanol production facility is established inside the
DGCEM co-utilizing some of the major equipment such as liquefaction tank,
saccharification tank, ethanol fermenter, molecular sieve, beer column, press filter etc.
The ATJ process uses the service facilities, land, building, yard improvements and
labor force. Not to affect the operation of the corn ethanol plant it is necessary to
expand the capacity of these unit operations.
Case 3 B4 ATJ: The repurposing strategy is implemented by directing the corn grain derived
ethanol into the ATJ facility. Hence, ethanol is the feed to the ATJ upgrading facility and
the feed cost was added in terms of the MFSP of ethanol, estimated by our DGCEM
model.
Case 3 C1 DSHC: A repurposed approach between DSHC and DGCEM. Instead of going into the
ethanol production downstream, corn kernel derived sugar stream of glucose is
consumed by the farnesene producing yeast in DSHC process and thus created
several opportunities to utilize the existing facilities in DGCEM. Replacing the mixed
sugar stream with a single sugar stream poses some technical challenges. For
example, low density of sugar stream may hamper the microorganism metabolism.
This prompted to concentrate the single sugar stream into 55 wt.% using the existing
evaporation unit in the DGCEM.
Repurposing cases (Cases 3)
Integration Scenarios
19
Corn farm Dry grind corn ethanol processing
Water Steam Electricity Natural
gas
Corn grain
1.1 million kg/day
0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.7 million kg/dayEthanol
0.38 million kg/day
DDGS 0.33 million kg/day
CO2
0.37 million kg/day
Corn farmAlcohol to Jet (ATJ)Corn stover
2.2 million kg/day
Alternative jet 0.12 million gallon/day
Corn stover1.1 million kg/day
Ethanol Ethanol to Jet
Water Steam Electricity
669 MW/day5.6 million kg/day3.5 million kg/day(make-up)
• Waste stream (corn stover) from the corn grain farm is collected at gate price which is also the case in the ATJ’s
base case. Therefore, no potential cost reduction
• Lang factor: 4.28 (No change from the base case)
ExampleCo-location: ATJ_Case 2_B1
20
Corn farm Dry grind corn ethanol processing
Water Steam Electricity Natural
gas
Corn grain
1.1 million kg/day
0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.7 million kg/dayEthanol
0.38 million kg/day
DDGS 0.33 million kg/day
CO2
0.37 million kg/day
Corn farmAlcohol to JetCorn stover
2.2 million kg/day
Alternative jet 0.12 million gallon/day
669 MW/day5.6 million kg/day3.5 million kg/day(make-up)
Ethanol Ethanol to Jet
Component Fraction Reduction New fraction
Total delivered equipment cost 100% 0% 100%
Buildings (including services) 29% 75% 7%
Yard improvements 12% 30% 8%
Service facilities (installed) 55% 40% 33%
Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 15% 5%
• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land and operating
labor
• Lang factor: 3.8
• 20% reduction in salaries (attributed to the management salaries)
ExampleCo-location: ATJ_Case 2_B2
21
• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land and operating
labor
• Lang factor: 3.8
• 20% reduction in salaries (attributed to the management salaries)
Component Fraction Reduction New fraction
Total delivered equipment cost 100% 0% 100%
Buildings (including services) 29% 75% 7%
Yard improvements 12% 30% 8%
Service facilities (installed) 55% 40% 33%
Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 15% 5%
Corn farm Dry grind corn ethanol processing
Water Steam Electricity Natural
gas
Corn grain
1.06 million kg/day
0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.5 million kg/day
Ethanol 0.36 million kg/day
DDGS 0.31 million kg/day
CO2
0.34 million kg/day
Corn farm Virent’s BioForming processCorn stover
2.2 million kg/day
RDB 0.13 million gallon/day
Naphtha 0.03 million gallon/day
Electricity0.27 million kW/day
850 MW/day5.6 million kg/day3.8 million kg/day(make-up)
ExampleCo-location: ATJ_Case 2_A2
22
Corn farm Dry grind corn ethanol processing
Water Steam Electricity Natural
gas
Corn grain
1.1 million kg/day
0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.7 million kg/dayEthanol
0.38 million kg/day
DDGS 0.33 million kg/day
CO2
0.37 million kg/day
Alcohol to JetAlternative jet
0.12 million gallon/day
Ethanol Ethanol to Jet
Sold at the minimum selling price
• Instead of going into the blending station, the corn ethanol is diverted to the ATJ facilities at the minimum selling price
• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land, contingency and
operating labor
• Lang factor: 3.38
• 20% reduction in salaries (attributed to the management salaries)
Component Fraction Reduction New fraction
Total delivered equipment cost 100% 0% 100%
Buildings (including services) 29% 75% 7%
Yard improvements 12% 50% 6%
Service facilities (installed) 55% 80% 11%
Contingency 37% 50% 19%
Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 60% 2%
ExampleRepurpose: ATJ_Case 3_B3
23
Corn farm Dry grind corn ethanol processing
Water Steam Electricity Natural
gas
Corn grain
1.1 million kg/day
0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.7 million kg/dayEthanol
0.38 million kg/day
DDGS 0.33 million kg/day
CO2
0.37 million kg/day
Direct Sugar Hydrocarbon Alternative jet 0.1 million gallon/day
Sugar stream from pretreatment Farnesene upgrading
• The conc. sugar stream from the corn ethanol mill is diverted to the DSHC facility and thus interrupting the corn
ethanol production.
• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land, contingency and
operating labor
• Lang factor: 3.38
• 20% reduction in salaries (attributed to the management salaries)
Component Fraction Reduction New fraction
Total delivered equipment cost 100% 0% 100%
Buildings (including services) 29% 75% 7%
Yard improvements 12% 50% 6%
Service facilities (installed) 55% 80% 11%
Contingency 37% 50% 19%
Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 60% 2%
ExampleRepurpose: DSHC_Case 3_C1
24
Discounted Cash Flow AnalysisFinancial assumptions
Parameters Assumptions
Finance (Debt/equity) 70%/30%
Loan term 10 year 8% APR
Internal rate of return 10%
Depreciation200% declining balance; MACRS; 7 year
recovery period
Working capital (% of FCI) 15%
Construction time (years) 3
%FCI spent in year -2 8
%FCI spent in year -1 60
%FCI spent in year 0 32
Startup period (year) 0.5
Startup variable expenses 75%
Startup fixed expenses 100%
Federal tax rate 16.9%
Year Of Cost Analysis 2015
Project life (years) 22
25
ResultsImpact on capital cost
26
ResultsImpact on operational cost
27
ResultsImpact on capital cost
28
ResultsImpact on operational cost
29
ResultsCash flow analysis: Virent_Case 2_A2
30
ResultsMinimum fuel selling price (MFSP)
Type Pathways Lang Factor MFSP ($/gal of alt. jet) % change from base
Base Virent_Case 1 4.28 6.13
Co-location Virent_Case 2_A1 4.28 6.13 0%
Co-location Virent_Case 2_A2 3.81 5.7 7%
Co-location Virent_Case 2_A3 3.75 6.27 -2%
Base ATJ_Case 1 4.28 5.06
Co-location ATJ_Case 2_B1 4.28 5.06 0%
Co-location ATJ_Case 2_B2 3.81 4.76 6%
Repurposing ATJ_Case 3_B3 3.63 3.5 31%
Repurposing ATJ_Case 3_B4 3.38 2.88 43%
Base DSHC_Case 1 4.28 14.42
Repurposing DSHC_Case 3_C1 3.49 9.83 32%
Base Fast Pyrolysis_Case 1 4.28 4.53
Co-location FP_Case 2_D1 4.28 4.53 0%
Co-location FP_Case 2_D2 3.81 4.27 6%
Base Fischer Tropsch_Case 1 4.28 6.03
Co-location FT_Case 2_E1 4.28 6.03 0%
Co-location FT_Case 2_E2 3.81 5.57 8%
31
ResultsManufacturing cost distribution
32
ResultsManufacturing cost distribution
33
Design cases were developed for standalone technologies with and without
co-products
Several scenarios were generated and evaluated to take advantage of existing
infrastructure in the Dry corn mills for the production of alternative jet fuels.
Cost reduction opportunities were found in eight of the twelve integrated
concepts studied here.
Repurposed strategies performed well in the economic aspect because of
maximum utilization of infrastructural and process similarities.
Overall, Case 3 B3 ATJ, Case 3 B4 ATJ, Case 2 E1 FT and Case 2 E2 FT
performed better than other scenarios in terms of both economic and
environmental criteria.
Conclusions
34
Questions?
35
Core ATJ process/chemistry
Alcohols Alkenes Olefins Paraffins
Alternative pathway based on Guerbet chemistry
36
Status of ATJ
• Commercial flight tested on ethanol and iso-butanolbased AJF.
• Economic looks promising toward achieving $3/gge goal in near terms.
• However, detail process parameters
• The true cost of alcohol and sugar from renewable biomass?
• Co-products opportunities and co-locating with existing infrastructure.
37
Alcohol conversion cost (from sugar)
Ethanol Fermentation Isobutanol Fermentation (low
cost)
Isobutanol Fermentation (high cost)
Mass Yield 0.46 0.34 0.34
Total Installed Cost (MM$) 17.4 17.4 34.9
Fixed Operating Costs (MM$) 1 1 2
Variable Operating Costs
(MM$)
1 1 1
Fermentation Unit Assumptions
Ethanol Conversion Isobutanol Conversion
(low cost)
Isobutanol Conversion (high cost)
Combined Mass Yield 0.283 0.263 0.263
Alcohols Processed
(ton/day)
200 150 150
Total Capital Investment,
MM$
171.31 107.23 145.78
OpEx, MM$/yr 7.690 6.013 7.013
Production Rate,
MMgal/yr
12.92 12.00 12.00
Conversion Cost, $/gal fuel 2.085 1.511 1.954
$ / ton sugar processed 176.73 118.96 153.83
Sugars to Jet Fuel Conversion Cases, Basis: 435 ton/day sugar
Models for sugars to jet were built to compare ATJ using conventional vs. advanced fermentation processes. Cost details for isobutanol fermentation are not publically available, so two estimates are compared.
38
Case 1C: DSHC (Farnesene)
Parameter Unit Value Reference
Power
Efficiency % of heating value 33
Sugar mixture MW 13.6 Humbird et al., 2011
Farnesene upgrading MW 1.3 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Steam consumption kg/hr 233333 Humbird et al., 2011
Makeup water kg/hr 147000 Humbird et al., 2011
H2 requirement kg/hr 1100 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Sugar mix. concentration wt.% 55 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Total purchased equipment cost
Sugar mix. concentration MM$ 109 Humbird et al., 2011
Farnesene upgrading MM$ 46.6 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Delivery cost % of TPEC 10 Peters et al., 2004
Variable operational cost
Sugar mix. concentration MM$ 98.4 Humbird et al., 2011
Farnesene upgrading MM$ 110.9 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Operating labor
Sugar mix. concentration MM$ 2.7 Humbird et al., 2011
Farnesene upgrading MM$ 5.4 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Farnesene yield kg/kg sugar mix. 0.17
Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013
Aviation yield kg/kg farnesene 0.53
Lights (n-pentane) kg/kg farnesene 0.17
Naphtha kg/kg farnesene 0.28
Diesel kg/kg farnesene 0.08
Year of cost analysis 2011Atsonios et al., 2015
Operating hours hr/year 7920
Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A Dry Corn Ethanol Plant.
In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryData acquisition for baseline scenarios
39
Case 1D: Fast Pyrolysis
Parameter Unit Value Reference
MC after drying wt.% 10Mani et al., 2004
Chopping energy kWh/dry ton 46
Intermediate yield
Mullen et al., 2010Bio oil % of dry biomass 61.6
Bio char % of dry biomass 17
Non condensable gas % of dry biomass 21.9
Bio oil composition
Aqueous phase % of bio oil 38
Oily phase % of bio oil 62 Wright et al., 2010b
Fuel conversion % of oily phase 42
Fuel gas (CH4) % of aqueous phase 16
Electricity requirement kWh/GGE 1.45Jones et al., 2013
H2 requirement for hydrotreatment % of bio oil 5.7
Total purchased equipment cost MM$ 50 Wright et al., 2010b
Delivery cost % of TPEC 10 Peters et al., 2004
Variable operational cost MM$ 97.2 Wright et al., 2010b
Operating labor MM$ 1.8
Fuel yield
Jones et al., 2013
Jet % of total fuel 42
Diesel % of total fuel 40
Gasoline % of total fuel 15
Light % of total fuel 3
Year of cost analysis 2007Wright et al., 2010b
Operating hours hr/year 7440
Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A Dry Corn Ethanol Plant.
In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryData acquisition for baseline scenarios
40
Case 1F: FT
Parameter Unit Value Reference
MC after drying wt.% 10
Power
Total generation MW 31 Swanson et al., 2010b
Process requirement MW 15
Oxygen for gasification % of dry biomass 26
Steam for gasification % of O2 67
Steam for biomass drying % of MC evaporated 900
H2 requirement for hydrocracking % of total FT fuel 1.1
Total purchased equipment cost MM$ 107.5
Delivery cost % of TPEC 10 Peters et al., 2004
Variable operational cost MM$ 64.1
Operating labor MM$ 2.3 Phillips et al., 2007
Fuel yield % of clean syngas 9 Swanson et al., 2010b
Jet % of total fuel 77Diederichs et al., 2016
Naphtha % of total fuel 23
Year of cost analysis 2007 Swanson et al., 2010b
Operating hours hr/year 7440
Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A Dry Corn Ethanol Plant.
In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)
Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryData acquisition for baseline scenarios
Recommended