processes

Article
Economic Analysis of Cellulosic Ethanol Production
from Sugarcane Bagasse Using a Sequential
Deacetylation, Hot Water and
Disk-Refining Pretreatment
Ming-Hsun Cheng 1 , Zhaoqin Wang 1 , Bruce S. Dien 2 , Patricia J. W. Slininger 2 and
Vijay Singh 1, *
1 Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA; minghsun@illinois.edu (M.-H.C.); wangzhaoqinhan@gmail.com (Z.W.)
2 Bioenergy Research Unit, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, USDA-ARS,
Peoria, IL 61604, USA; bruce.dien@ars.usda.gov (B.S.D.); pat.slininger@ars.usda.gov (P.J.W.S.)
* Correspondence: vsingh@illinois.edu; Tel.: +1-217-333-9510




Received: 23 August 2019; Accepted: 17 September 2019; Published: 20 September 2019


Abstract: A new process for conversion of sugarcane bagasse to ethanol was analyzed for production
costs and energy consumption using experimental results. The process includes a sequential
three-stage deacetylation, hot water, and disk-refining pretreatment and a commercial glucose-xylose
fermenting S. cerevisiae strain. The simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SScF) step
used was investigated at two solids loadings: 10% and 16% w/w. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted for the major operating parameters. The minimum ethanol selling price (MESP)
varied between $4.91and $4.52/gal ethanol. The higher SScF solids loading (16%) reduced the total
operating, utilities, and production costs by 9.5%, 15.6%, and 5.6%, respectively. Other important
factors in determining selling price were costs for fermentation medium and enzymes (e.g., cellulases).
Hence, these findings support operating at high solids and producing enzymes onsite as strategies to
minimize MESP.

Keywords: sugarcane bagasse; sequential three-stage pretreatment; simultaneous saccharification

and co-fermentation (SScF); production cost; minimum ethanol selling price

1. Introduction
Currently, transportation is the largest generator of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy
and consumption by this sector is estimated to increase 60% by 2030, in part due to global population
growth [1]. In this regard, bioethanol is considered a promising, environmentally friendly alternative
for petroleum-based fuels. The most abundant feedstock for bioethanol production is in the form of
lignocellulose (e.g., cellulosic biomass). Globally, the energy supply generated from cellulosic materials
is estimated to be 60 EJ, accounting for greater than 10% of the total annual energy supply [2].
Numerous types of cellulosic materials have been investigated as feedstocks for ethanol production,
including crop residues (corn stover, sugarcane bagasse, wheat straw), herbaceous biomass (switchgrass,
prairie cordgrass, hay), hardwood (poplar, pine) and municipal solid wastes (office paper). Generally,
lignocellulose contains 55% to 75% carbohydrates (cellulose and hemicellulose) and 10% to 30%
lignin. The complex plant cell wall structure is recalcitrant to extraction of carbohydrates and their
depolymerization to monosaccharides, as is necessary for subsequent ethanol fermentation. Therefore,
pretreatment is essential for enzymatic hydrolysis [3]. Pretreatments are graded according to multiple
targets, including degree of particle size reduction, fermentable sugar (hexose/pentose) recovery,

Processes 2019, 7, 642; doi:10.3390/pr7100642 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2019, 7, 642 2 of 15

inhibitor formation (e.g., “fermentability”), energy and water consumption, as well as operating cost
and environmental footprint.
Dilute-acid pretreatment is one of the most effective methods to reduce biomass particle size
and increase cellulose accessibility for cellulases. However, the use of harsh chemicals leads to
sugar losses from degradation, formation of fermentation inhibitors, additional chemical usage for
post-pretreatment pH adjustment, and corrosion of equipment, which increases operating costs and
creates environmental concerns. On the other hand, mild pretreatments, such as liquid hot water
(LHW), avoid the formation of excess inhibitors that would otherwise require conditioning hydrolysates
prior to fermentation. The major disadvantage of pretreating with LHW is the low yield of sugars
following enzymatic hydrolysis. One strategy is to combine LHW with disk refining. LHW followed
by disc refining improved sugar yields compared to either pretreatment used alone in the case of
herbaceous biomass; as demonstrated for: rice straw [4], corn stover [5] and sugarcane bagasse [6].
However, adding a disc mill significantly inflates capital costs and pretreatment is already the single
most expensive unit operation [7]. Therefore, determining the full merits of LHW disc refining requires
an economic analysis.
Numerous pretreatments have been researched over the past decades. The pretreatment technology
chosen affects operating costs related to utility consumption (steam, electricity), labor and wastewater
treatment. Feedstock and chemical costs are similar among various pretreatment options and these
make up 60% of the total production costs [8]. An economic comparison of leading pretreatment
technologies, using the same process assumptions, found that LHW pretreatment has higher production
cost than dilute acid and ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) due to lower ethanol yields and higher
energy inputs [8,9]. However, the pretreatment operating conditions play an important role in
determining production cost, especially utility cost. As reported by da Silva (2016) the total energy
usage of LHW pretreatment increased from 232.3 to 393.6 MW when pretreatment solids loading
(SL) decreased from 20% to 13% [10]. Heat accounts for over 70% of the total energy requirement
in the LHW process because high temperatures are required to achieve targeted sugar yields. After
feedstock, enzymes (e.g., cellulase) are the next largest material cost item (>20%) [9,11]. Onsite enzyme
production is considered as a promising approach to reduce enzyme costs [8], albeit an onsite enzyme
production facility inflates fixed capital costs by 13%.
As reported by Kazi et al., (2010), the minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) ranges from $2 to
$7/gal depending on pretreatment and fermentation strategies [9]. Basic (mostly AFEX) and LHW
(i.e., hydrothermal and liquid hot-water) pretreatments have higher MESP ($3.69 to $5.08/gal) than
dilute acid pretreatments ($3.40 to $4.38/gal) [9,12]. However, there are other factors that could affect
ethanol production costs, including solids content during hydrolysis and fermentation, fermentation
technologies, material and equipment suppliers, and biorefinery site selection [8]. Therefore, under a
very conservative scenario, the MESP for dilute-acid pretreatment increased to $7.08/gal [9]. These
results were for switchgrass, a report on ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse using dilute acid
steam explosion pretreatment estimated the MESP as $1.91 to $2.37/gal [13].
Chen (2015) [14] reported a process that combined dilute alkaline deacetylation and disk refining
(DDR) that achieved high sugars and ethanol titers. Economic analysis of the DDR process predicted
a minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) of 2.24 to $2.54/gal ethanol, for the case of enzymatic
hydrolysis at 15% solids. The majority of cellulosic ethanol studies operated at low solids (5% to 10%
w/w) saccharification and fermentation that favor high yields. However, realistically for distillation,
ethanol concentrations should be greater than 4% [15], which requires high solids (≥15% w/w) loading
hydrolysis and fermentation [16]. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics feasibility
of a new cellulosic ethanol process that implements deacetylation followed by combined LHW-disc
refining of sugarcane bagasse.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 3 of 15

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Process
Processes 2019,Description
7, 642 3 of 15

The
Thecellulosic
cellulosicethanol
ethanolprocess
processusing
usingsugarcane
sugarcanebagasse
bagassewas
wasdesigned
designedtotoprocess
process2000
2000metric
metric
tonnes/day.
tonnes/day. The detailed process model was modified from NREL (National RenewableEnergy
The detailed process model was modified from NREL (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory)/TP
Laboratory)/TP(technical
(technicalreport)-6A2-46588
report)-6A2-46588 [17]
[17]and
andethanol
ethanolproduction
productionfrom
fromsugarcane
sugarcanebagasse
bagasse
with
withsequential
sequentialpretreatment
pretreatmentand andsimultaneous
simultaneoussaccharification
saccharificationand
andco-fermentation
co-fermentationreported
reportedby by
Wang
Wanget al., (2019)
et al., [18]. The
(2019) [18].process includes includes
The process biomass handling,
biomass deacetylation, hot water pretreatment,
handling, deacetylation, hot water
disk milling, onsite
pretreatment, diskenzyme
milling,production, saccharification
onsite enzyme and co-fermentation,
production, saccharification ethanol distillation
and co-fermentation, and
ethanol
steam generation (Figure 1).
distillation and steam generation (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Overall workflow for production of cellulosic ethanol production using a sequential
Figure 1. Overall
deacetylation, workflow
hot water for production
and disk-milling of cellulosic
pretreatment ethanol production using a sequential
process.
deacetylation, hot water and disk-milling pretreatment process.
2.1.1. Sugarcane Bagasse
2.1.1.
TheSugarcane Bagassebagasse contains (%w/w, oven dry basis): 37% glucan, 20% xylan, 20% lignin,
dried sugarcane
8% extractives,
The dried 4% ash, andbagasse
sugarcane 2% acetyl group(%w/w,
contains [18]. The
ovenamounts of glucan
dry basis): 37% and xylan
glucan, were
20% used20%
xylan, to
calculate theextractives,
lignin, 8% ethanol conversion efficiency
4% ash, and based
2% acetyl on the
group [18].theoretical ethanol
The amounts yields.and xylan were used
of glucan
to calculate the ethanol conversion efficiency based on the theoretical ethanol yields.
2.1.2. Biomass Handling and Deacetylation
2.1.2. Biomass Handling
Harvested sugarcaneand Deacetylation
bagasse was transported to the mill, where the biomass was shredded to
2.0 mm to improve
Harvested the sugar
sugarcane release
bagasse and
was ethanol yields
transported inmill,
to the subsequent
where theprocesses.
biomass Impurities
was shredded wereto
removed from the shredded bagasse by using a magnetic separator.
2.0 mm to improve the sugar release and ethanol yields in subsequent processes. Impurities were
The shredded
removed from the and cleaned
shredded biomass
bagasse was deacetylated
by using by soaking in 0.1M NaOH at 10% solids
a magnetic separator.
loading ◦
at shredded
80 C for 3and h with continuous agitation at 70 rpm. The chemical
The cleaned biomass was deacetylated by soaking incompositions
0.1M NaOH of at sugarcane
10% solids
bagasse before and after deacetylation process was reported by Wang et al., (2019)
loading at 80°C for 3 h with continuous agitation at 70 rpm. The chemical compositions of sugarcane [18] and listed in
Table 1. Inbefore
bagasse the deacetylation process, 87.63%
and after deacetylation of mass
process was was recovered,
reported about
by Wang et 65.75% acetyl
al., (2019) [18]group, 0.58%
and listed in
ofTable
AIL 1.(acid insoluble lignin) and 0.3% ASL (acid soluble lignin) were removed by
In the deacetylation process, 87.63% of mass was recovered, about 65.75% acetyl group, 0.58%alkaline treatment.
Additionally, xylan content
of AIL (acid insoluble was
lignin) reduced
and from
0.3% ASL 20.40%
(acid to 15.88%
soluble lignin) due
weretoremoved
removal by of alkaline
acetyl group. The
treatment.
deacetylated
Additionally, biomass was washed
xylan content by water
was reduced at a 20.40%
from 1:1 solids:liquid
to 15.88%ratio.
due toInremoval
the washing process,
of acetyl group.about
The
0.63% of ash was removed. The waste-water was recycled for steam generation in
deacetylated biomass was washed by water at a 1:1 solids:liquid ratio. In the washing process, aboutthe utility generation
section.
0.63% of Theashwashed biomass was
was removed. Thefedwaste-water
into the hot waswaterrecycled
pretreatment reactor.
for steam generation in the utility
generation section. The washed biomass was fed into the hot water pretreatment reactor.

Table 1. Composition (% w/w, dry basis) of raw and dacetylated sugarcane bagasse.

Mass Extractive Glucan Xylan AILa ASLb Ash Acetyl

Processes 2019, 7, 642 4 of 15

Table 1. Composition (% w/w, dry basis) of raw and dacetylated sugarcane bagasse.

Mass Recovery Extractive Glucan Xylan AIL a ASL b Ash Acetyl Group
Raw NA 7.82 ± 0.88 37.31 ± 1.72 20.40 ± 2.61 18.18 ± 0.48 2.22 ± 0.04 3.65 ± 0.47 2.16 ± 0.18
Deacetylated 87.63 ± 0.48 NA 34.40 ± 0.88 15.88 ± 1.32 17.60 ± 1.91 1.92 ± 0.08 3.02 ± 0.36 0.74 ± 0.02
a AIL: acid insoluble lignin (Klason lignin). b ASL: acid soluble lignin.

2.1.3. Hot Water Pretreatment and Disk Refining

The sugarcane bagasse was pretreated using hot water pretreatment with 20% solids loading
at 180 ◦ C for 10 min [6]. The reactor was heated by high pressure steam. Because hydrothermal
pretreatment was at 180 ◦ C, there were no furans generated from glucose and xylose degradation [18].
After the hot water pretreatment, the unwashed biomass was disk milled. The energy consumption
for disk milling was set at 315 kwh/ODMT (oven dried metric tonne) based on Chen et al.’s study
(2015) [14]. The mass loss of bagasse from disk milling was set to 6% as per laboratory results [18].

2.1.4. Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation (SScF)

After the hot water pretreatment and disk milling, the pretreated biomass was cooled and fed into
the fermenter. The C5/C6 yeast M11205 seed (Lallemand Inc., Milwaukee, WI, USA) was cultured in a
medium containing 40% glucose at 32 ◦ C. Additionally, cellulase used in the process was assumed to
be produced on-site using the seed culturing facility.
The SScF was carried out with 10% w/w substrates loading (pH 5, 32 ◦ C for 72 h), in which cellulase
Cellic® Ctec2 (protein content: 76.3 mg/mL by bovine serum albumin (BSA) analysis) (Novozymes
North America, Inc., Franklinton, NC, USA) at 0.215 mL/g dry substrate basis (in fermentation broth)
were applied to ferment hexoses and pentoses into ethanol. The conversion factor of glucan to glucose
and xylan to xylose were 85% and 80% (based on raw bagasse chemical compositions), respectively,
and the fermentation efficiency from sugars to ethanol was 94.3% [18].

2.1.5. Ethanol Distillation and Evaporation

Ethanol is recovered and purified subsequently from the fermentation beer using a combination
of distillation columns and molecular sieves. In the distillation process, ethanol is first separated
in a distillation column as overheated ethanol-enriched vapors, which contain equal amounts of
ethanol and water. The ethanol purity is further enriched in the rectification and stripper columns.
However, an azeotrope mixture of water and ethanol forms in the rectification and stripper columns,
and ethanol cannot be separated using distillation. Molecular sieves are used to separated ethanol
from the azeotrope mixture to a final ethanol purity of >99% [19,20].

2.1.6. Steam Production

Solid residues after fermentation, known as stillage, consist mainly of lignin and unfermented
structural carbohydrates, which are burned and the heat used to generate process steam with the
water recycled from the washing step after deacetylation. In this section, a combustor and a boiler
are the major pieces of equipment. The stillage fed into the combustor contains 50% moisture. The
process design and technical inputs used in this section are based on the cellulosic ethanol model
developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [9,17]. The heating value of the
stillage was calculated according to the element composition using the software model-embedded
combustor module. The efficiency of boiler for steam generation was set at 80% [20]. The steam is
extracted at 1.48 MPa and 268 ◦ C, which is used in hot water pretreatment process. Because the total
steam generated from stillage in this section cannot meet the steam requirement for the whole process,
especially for the hot water pretreatment step, stream was not used to generate electricity unlike the
NREL model.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 5 of 15

2.1.7. Scenarios
In this study, solids loadings of 10% and 16% in the fermentation were investigated according to
the experimental data reported by Wang et al., (2019) [18]. For these two scenarios, the plant capacity
was kept the same (2000 metric tonnes/day of sugarcane bagasse).

2.2. Economic Analysis

Economics of the three stage deacetylation, hot water, and disk milling pretreatment for ethanol
production from sugarcane bagasse was estimated using SuperPro Designer (Version 9.5, Intelligen
Inc., Scotch Plains, NJ, USA, 2017) process modeling software (Supplementary Figure S1). The major
economic parameters are listed in Table 2. The plant was assumed to be located in Illinois. For each
unit operation, relevant processing equipment were selected from the SuperPro Designer database.
However, some processing units were modelled using component splitters because of its unavailability
in the software library. The main non-design parameters used for the economic profitability analysis
were selected from the NREL/TP-6A2-46588 [9,17] report on ethanol production from lignocellulosic
biomass and Huang et al. (2016) [19].

Table 2. Major economic parameters for analysis of ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse.

Parameter Value
Project lifetime 20 years
Salvage value of equipment 0
Construction and startup time 2 years
1st year TCI a allocation 40%
2nd year TCI allocation 60%
Depreciation life 10 years with straight-line method
Income tax 35%
Interest 10%
a TCI: total capital investment.

2.2.1. Fixed Capital Investment

Equipment costs were used to estimate total fixed capital cost according to literature [17,19]. Where
equipment capacity was re-scaled from prior studies, an exponential scaling expression (n = 0.4 to 0.8)
was used with the power term set according to literature (Equation (1)). The equipment costs used in
this analysis are listed in Table 3 and are adjusted to 2017 US dollars using a standard inflation index.
!n
New scale
New cost = (Base cost) (1)
Base scale

The total fixed capital cost was calculated by multiplying the machine purchase cost by the Lang
factor, which is the estimated ratio of the fixed capital cost (e.g., installation) to the machine purchase
fee. Capital costs included plant direct costs (installation, process piping, instrumentation etc.), plant
indirect costs (engineering and construction fees), and contractor’s and contingency fees. The Lang
factor was set to 3, which is the standard value for a biorefinery facility [17,19,21]. Working capital and
startup cost were set to 20% of the total fixed cost. Total fixed capital investment was the sum of the
fixed capital, working capital and startup costs.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 6 of 15

Table 3. Main equipment cost of the ethanol production form sugarcane bagasse (2017 price).

Process Section Equipment Base Scale Base Cost New Scale n* Adjusted Cost
Shredder 300 MT/h 1,932,000 100 MT/h 0.6 1,001,000
Biomass handling Conveyor 300 MT/h 333,900 100 MT/h 0.6 334,000
Magnetic separator 720 MT/h 30,000 100 MT/h 0.6 9,000
Blending tank 250,000 gal 4,032,000 925,000 gal 0.6 9,597,000
Deacetylation Centrifuge + n/a n/a 90,000 hL/h 0.49 253,000
Washing tank + n/a n/a 420 MT/h 0.6 1,833,000
Reactor # 83.33 MT/h 22,585,680 167 MT/h 0.6 34,028,000
Hot water pretreatment
Cooling system 400 m2 194,250 3000 m2 0.8 974,000
Disk milling Disk mill 420 MT/h 315,000 370 MT/h 0.6 292,000
Seed fermenter # 300 m3 456,570 240,000 gal 1 1,381,000
Centrifuge 1200 MT/h 569,100 1200 MT/h 0.49 569,100
Blending tank # 200 m3 131,100 1500 m3 0.5 359,000
Saccharification and fermentation
Fermenter 1000 m3 657,300 1900 m3 0.6 996,100
Gas absorber 4m 1,668,000 4m 0.7 1,668,000
Disk-stack centrifuge 1200 MT/h 569,100 800 MT/h 0.49 467,000
Distillation column 4m 505,000 4m 0.6 505,000
Rectifier column 2m 110,250 4m 0.6 167,000
Stripping column 2m 198,000 2m 0.6 198,000
Ethanol distillation Molecular sieve 25 MT/h 2,222,850 42 MT/h 0.6 3,034,200
Heat exchanger 200 m2 52,500 750 m2 0.6 116,000
Product tank 14,158 m3 408,450 5820 m3 0.7 219,000
Ethanol pump 720 MT/h 5250 720 MT/h 0.8 5,250
Evaporator 900 m2 2,186,000 900 m2 0.7 2,186,000
Utility (steam generation)
Steam boiler 400 MT/h 33,297,000 100 MT/h 0.6 14,496,000
The data of base scale are collected from Huang et al.’s study (2016) [19], Humbird et al.’s study (2011) # [17], and SuperPro Designer database + . * n: exponential scaling factor.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 7 of 15

2.2.2. Operating Cost

Production cost included variable and fixed operating costs. Materials and utilities account for
most of the variable operating costs. Fixed operating costs include labor and facility-related maintenance
fees, which are incurred in full regardless of the production rate. For labor cost, eight operators and two
laboratory technicians are assigned to pretreatment, seed culture, ethanol fermentation and distillation
operations. All operating costs are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Operating cost inputs.

Costs Cost Citation

Feedstock Sugarcane $0.05/kg Kazi et al., 2010 [9]
Chemicals NaOH $0.15/kg SuperPro Designer *
Citrate buffer (1M) $0.01/L
Glucose $0.56/kg
(NH4 )2 SO4 $0.96/kg
Utility Electricity $0.07/kwh US EIA [22]
Steam $2.6/MT US DOE [23]
High pressure steam $20/MT US DOE [23]
Water $0.001/L Cheng et al., (2017) [24]
Labor Operator $15.12/h US BLS [25]
Fermentation operator $22.79/h
Laboratory technician $22.87/h
Facility related Maintenance 7% of facility purchase price Cheng et al., (2017) [24]
* SuperPro Designer: date input were collected from SuperPro Designer database. US EIA: US Energy Information
Administration; US DOE: US Department of Energy; US BLS: US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2.3. Sensitivity Analysis

Economic models are valuable in predicting the commercial feasibilities of new technologies.
They can also help to select among different designs and determine sensitivities to design changes,
changes in material costs, or when targets are not fully achieved.
The efficiency of pretreatment (energy usage, fermentable sugar yields) and solids loading used in
fermentation determine the final ethanol yield. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying energy
consumption used in disk milling, hydrolysis efficiency and solids loading to the fermentation tank to
investigate how these affect ethanol yield and profitability. Feedstock costs may be difficult to predict
and will vary depending upon location. Therefore, feedstock cost (±40% based on the base scenario) is
also included in the sensitivity analysis.
There are no reports in literature regarding enzyme production costs when manufactured onsite.
Therefore, a purchase cost estimation was substituted. According to the study from Gubicza et al.,
(2016), the purchased enzymes for cellulosic ethanol production is $1/kg enzyme [13].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Fermentation Efficiecncy and Ethanol Yields

An economic analysis of sugarcane bagasse to ethanol was conducted using prior research results
using the three-stage pretreatment and SScF process. The SScF was operated at 10% and 16% solids
and all other operating parameters were kept constant. Fermentation results from these two processes
are summarized in Table 5. Low solids loading (10%) achieved the highest ethanol yield (0.33 g/g
biomass) and conversion efficiency (94%). At 16% solids, the ethanol conversion efficiency was reduced
to 91%. However, high solids loading is required for fermentation to achieve the minimum ethanol
concentration needed for efficient distillation. Therefore, two ethanol efficiencies and responding solids
loading (10% and 16%) were used to compare the effect of solids loading on the minimum ethanol
selling price (MESP).
 Processes 2019, 7, 642 8 of 15

and responding solids loading (10% and 16%) were used to compare the effect of solids loading on
Processes 2019, 7, 642 8 of 15
the minimum ethanol selling price (MESP).

Table
Table 5. 5.Fermentation
Fermentationefficiency
efficiency and
and ethanol
ethanol yields.
yields.

Exp.
Exp. BS BS HS HS
SScF time
SScF(hr)
time (h) 96
96 72 72 72 72
Solid loadings (%) (%)
Solid loadings 10
10 10 10 16 16
EthanolEthanol conversion
conversion (%) (%) 94.33±±2.84
94.33 2.84 94 94 91 91
EthanolEthanol
yieldsyields (g/g
(g/g of of pretreated
pretreated biomass)
biomass) 0.343±±0.009
0.343 0.009 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30
Exp:
Exp: experimentaldata
experimental data(Wang
(Wang et
etal.,
al.,2019)
2019)[18]; BS:BS:
[18]; base scenario;
base HS: higher
scenario; solids solids
HS: higher loading.loading.

3.2. Fixed Capital Investment of Process Plant

3.2. Fixed Capital Investment of Process Plant
Fixed capital cost for a plant with an annual capacity of 54.2 million gal was calculated to be
Fixed
$398.94 capitalwhere
million, cost for
the amajority
plant with
of theaninvestment
annual capacity of 54.2
comes from unitmillion gal was
operations calculated
for (listed to
in order):
beSScF
$398.94 million,
(42.99%), LHWwhere the majority(28.17%),
pretreatment of the investment comes from
steam generation unit operations
(14.84%), for (listed
deacetyaltion in
(9.64%),
order): SScF (42.99%), LHW pretreatment (28.17%), steam generation (14.84%), deacetyaltion
distillation (3.37%), biomass handling (0.78%), and disk milling (0.21%) (Figure 2). (9.64%),
distillation (3.37%), biomass handling (0.78%), and disk milling (0.21%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Breakdown of the total fixed capital investment.

Figure 2. Breakdown of the total fixed capital investment.

Previous studies reported fixed capital costs for production of cellulosic ethanol are from $185 to
Previous studies reported fixed capital costs for production of cellulosic ethanol are from $185
$253 million [9,17,26], which is lower than that for the three-stage pretreatment process plant. This
to $253 million [9,17,26], which is lower than that for the three-stage pretreatment process plant. This
increase in capital cost is expected because additional processing units were included in this model.
increase in capital cost is expected because additional processing units were included in this model.
The deacetylation and disk milling process increased total capital costs by 9.64% ($35.05 million)
The deacetylation and disk milling process increased total capital costs by 9.64% ($35.05 million) and
and 0.21% ($0.76 million), respectively. Chen et al. (2015) reported the additional high temperature
0.21% ($0.76 million), respectively. Chen et al. (2015) reported the additional high temperature
pretreatment reactor increased the total capital investment by $30.45 million (2017 dollars) [14]. In this
pretreatment reactor increased the total capital investment by $30.45 million (2017 dollars) [14]. In
study, the cost of the high temperature pretreatment reactor was $102 million.
this study, the cost of the high temperature pretreatment reactor was $102 million.
The SScF included seed culturing for enzyme production and ethanol fermentation. In ethanol
The SScF included seed culturing for enzyme production and ethanol fermentation. In ethanol
fermentation, 1000 m3 3fermenters are commonly used. Same size fermenters were used in this study,
fermentation, 1000 m fermenters are commonly used. Same size fermenters were used in this study,
and there were 36 fermenters required. Additionally, the hot water pretreatment does not require extra
and there were 36 fermenters required. Additionally, the hot water pretreatment does not require
costs for anti-corrosion, neutralization, and waste acid water compared to typical acid pretreatment.
extra costs for anti-corrosion, neutralization, and waste acid water compared to typical acid
Therefore, SScF is the major contributor for the fixed capital investment. For distillation, the 3.37% of
pretreatment. Therefore, SScF is the major contributor for the fixed capital investment. For
the total fixed capital investment is comparable to 3–4% of total fixed capital investment for cellulosic
distillation, the 3.37% of the total fixed capital investment is comparable to 3%–4% of total fixed
ethanol plant reported by Gregg et al., (1998) [27] and 1% reported by Humbird et al., (2011) [17].
capital investment for cellulosic ethanol plant reported by Gregg et al., (1998) [27] and 1% reported
The high-solids (HS) scenario, the biomass processing capacity is same as the base scenario (BS)
by Humbird et al., (2011) [17].
and the major difference is the solids fermented and less water loadings in the bioreactor. Hence,
The high-solids (HS) scenario, the biomass processing capacity is same as the base scenario (BS)
the total fermentation volume of HS is smaller than BS resulting in $41.55 million lower in the
and the major difference is the solids fermented and less water loadings in the bioreactor. Hence, the
fermentation section.
total fermentation volume of HS is smaller than BS resulting in $41.55 million lower in the
fermentation section.
 Processes
Processes 2019,
2019, 7, 642
7, 642 9 15
9 of of 15

3.3. Operating Costs

3.3. Operating Costs
Annual operating cost was estimated to be $243.89 million and $220.75 million for BS and HS,
Annual operating
respectively; costare
these costs was estimated
broken downtoinbe $243.89
Figure million and
3. Materials and$220.75
utilitiesmillion
are the for BS and
largest HS,
operating
respectively; these costs are broken down
costs, accounting for 80% of the total. in Figure 3. Materials and utilities are the largest operating
costs, accounting for 80% of the total.

Figure
Figure 3. Breakdown
3. Breakdown of operating
of operating costs.
costs. BS:BS: base
base scenario;
scenario; HS:HS: higher
higher solids
solids loading.
loading.

Among
Among the the material
material costs,costs, feedstock
feedstock bagasse bagasse
and theand seedthe seed culturing/fermentation
culturing/fermentation medium account medium
foraccount
35% and for 35%ofand
45% 45% of
material material
costs, costs, respectively,
respectively, for both scenarios.
for both scenarios. Feedstock Feedstock
is typicallyisthetypically
largestthe
largest
cost cost [8]. this
[8]. However, However,
process this usedprocess
an engineeredused an engineered
glucose and xyloseglucose and xyloseSaccharomyces
co-fermenting co-fermenting
Saccharomyces
yeast strain and yeast strain and refined/expensive
refined/expensive medium was used medium was used
to propagate thetoseed
propagate
culture.theForseedtheculture.
HS
For thehigher
scenario, HS scenario,
materialhigher material
costs were costs were
associated withassociated
preparing with preparingbecause
the inoculum the inoculum
fermenting because
a
fermenting
higher a higher
concentration ofconcentration
solids requiresoflager solids requiresoflager
amounts enzymeamounts of enzyme
and yeast than theandBS.
yeast than the BS.
TheThe utility
utility costscosts
werewere
$90.63$90.63
and and
$75.75$75.75
million million contributing
contributing 37.16% 37.16% and 34.32%
and 34.32% of operating
of operating cost
forcost for BS
BS and HS,and HS, respectively,
respectively, which included
which included normal pressure
normal pressure steam (153 ◦
steam (153°C,
C, 4.43 bar),4.43 bar),water,
cooling cooling
water, electricity
electricity and high(242
and high pressure ◦ C, 13.17
pressure (242°C,
bar) 13.17
steam.bar) steam.
Utility Utility
costs costs are
are itemized initemized in Table 6.
Table 6. Running
theRunning the LHW pretreatment
LHW pretreatment cost the most cost
(inthe most
terms of(in terms of
utilities) utilities)byfollowed
followed by distillation
distillation and disk
and disk milling.
Themilling. The main
main utility cost utility cost associated
associated with LHW with LHW pretreatment
pretreatment is high pressureis highsteam,
pressure steam,
which is thewhich is the
heating
heating agent for the pretreatment reactor. Additionally, after pretreatment,
agent for the pretreatment reactor. Additionally, after pretreatment, the pretreated biomass needs to the pretreated biomass
be needs
cooledtotobe100 ◦ C before
cooled to 100°C beforethe
entering entering
disk mill.the disk
Hence,mill. Hence, combined
combined heating and heating andmake
cooling coolingLHWmake
LHW pretreatment
pretreatment a utility intensive
a utility intensive process. Following
process. Following fermentation, fermentation,
distillationdistillation and evaporation
and evaporation require
require
large largeofamounts
amounts steam and of steam
cooling and cooling
water water for
for ethanol ethanol recovery.
recovery.
Electricity is used for grinding, milling, mixing, pumping, and agitation. From the model results,
the disk refining Itemized listover
Table 6.consumed of the 62%
utilityof costs of BSelectricity
total and HS scenarios (1000$/year).
followed by saccharification and
cofermentation andTotal distillation
Utility
operations.
Electricity
Disk Steam
refining applies shear force (mechanical
High Pressure Steam
approach)
Cooling Water
to defibrillate
Process Section the biomass
BS at
HS the microscope
BS HS level;
BS therefore,
HS it consumes
BS HSlarge amounts
BS of
HSenergy.
For SScF and
Biomass handling distillation,
397 the
397 electricity
397 is
397 consumed
n/a by
n/a bioreactor
n/a agitators
n/a and n/aby pumps
n/a that
transfer biomass and products between unit operations.
Deacetylation 1091 1091 375 375 716 716 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Hot water pretreatment 32,967 32,967 2 2 n/a n/a 32,965 32,965 n/a n/a
Disk milling 8766 8766 8766 8766 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
SScF 11,289 11,336 2375 2533 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8914 8802
Distillation 33,199 19,146 1911 1135 3871 2341 n/a n/a 27,418 15,670
Steam generation 2981 2839 276 268 2706 2571 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total 90,692 76,541 14,103 13,476 7293 5627 32,965 32,965 36,331 24,473
BS: base scenario; HS: higher solids loading.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 10 of 15

Electricity is used for grinding, milling, mixing, pumping, and agitation. From the model results,
the disk refining consumed over 62% of total electricity followed by saccharification and cofermentation
and distillation operations. Disk refining applies shear force (mechanical approach) to defibrillate
the biomass at the microscope level; therefore, it consumes large amounts of energy. For SScF and
distillation, the electricity is consumed by bioreactor agitators and by pumps that transfer biomass and
products between unit operations.
Distillation was the major contributor to cooling water cost, accounting for 75.47% and 64.% in BS
and HS, respectively. In this model, pretreated biomass was cooled to 100 ◦ C before disk refining by
using a heat exchanger, which would save cooling water in the pretreatment section. The distillation
process consisted of beer distillation, ethanol rectification and stripping. Cooling water was required to
recover the purified ethanol, which leads to the higher cost. However, the multiple stage pretreatment
process accounted for over 75% the total utility cost, arising primarily from steam heating.
Comparing BS scenario and HS scenario, HS has 15.6% ($14 million/year) lower utility costs
than BS. Due to the same plant and processing capacity, both scenarios share the same utility costs
from biomass handling, deacetylation, hot water pretreatment, and the disk-milling process. In seed
culturing and SScF process, HS scenario required more electricity for production of enzymes and yeast.
However, the higher ethanol concentration lowers the utility costs associated with ethanol distillation.
Therefore, operating at higher solids (HS) lowers the utility costs by 40% (electricity and steam) for
distillation, which is the reason that operating at high solids is favored by industry.

3.4. Production Cost and the Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (MESP)
For BS, a yield of 205.06 million L (54.17 million gal) is produced yearly from 2000 MT of dry
sugarcane bagasse using this multiple-stage pretreatment process. The 10% solid loading was the
baseline for estimating the production cost and the MESP of the ethanol from sugarcane bagasse. The
gross production cost was calculated by dividing annual operating costs by ethanol production, which
for BS was $4.48/gal ethanol.
Typically, excess heat (generated from combustion of lignin enriched residues) and process
waste-water are expected to be used for cogeneration of electricity at cellulosic ethanol plants. In this
three-stage pretreatment scenario, the water used in the deacetylation and washing steps was reused
for steam generation. However, the steam generated from the steam boiler (650,214 MT high pressure
steam/year) cannot satisfy the total steam consumed (1,648,250 MT high pressure steam/year) in the
HW pretreatment (180 ◦ C for 10 min), resulting in no surplus energy left for electrical cogeneration.
The steam generation and recycled water save operating costs, and net production cost is calculated by
subtracting savings from total operation costs. Therefore, the net production cost was $4.16/gal ethanol
and the MESP was estimated as $4.90/gal ethanol.
Cost and MESP associated with the HS scenario (16% solids in fermentation) are listed in Table 7.
Though the ethanol yield from 16% solid loading in fermentation was lower than the 10% solid
loading, total operating costs were decreased by over $23 million/year. The largest cost savings was for
utilities, which were reduced by 15% (from $90.7 million/year to $76.5 million/year). This utility cost
reduction was mainly from the distillation process due to the high ethanol titer of the beer. Thus, the
net production cost of ethanol from 16% solid loading in the fermentation was $3.83/gal ethanol and
its MESP was $4.23/gal ethanol. MESP was determined when net profit value equals to zero at the
internal rate of 10%. Regardless of solids loading, the payback time is 8.91 years.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 11 of 15

Table 7. Production cost and minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) of ethanol from sugarcane bagasse.

Ethanol Yields Production Cost Net Production Cost MESP Payback Time
Scenario Million gal/year $/gal $/gal $/gal year
BS 54.17 4.48 4.16 4.90 8.91
HS 52.22 4.23 3.83 4.52 8.91
BS: base scenario; HS: higher solids loading.

The MESP of cellulosic ethanol was estimated from $2.38 to $5.15/gal ethanol in 2017 dollars
from various feedstocks and pretreatment technologies [9,28,29]. A similar analysis for a multiple-step
pretreatment approach was investigated by Chen et al., (2015) [14]. Deacetylation of the same treatment
condition combined with the disk-refining process yield from 77 to 89 gal ethanol/MT corn stover,
oven dry basis, and the MESP was from $2.24 to $2.54/gal ethanol. The costs from LHW pretreatment
and the distillation process resulted in a higher MESP in our study. Although the ethanol yield was
increased by 5% compared to the Chen et al. study (2015) [14], the steam and cooling costs were higher
because of the pretreatment and distillation processes. Hence, utilities is an important area to target to
reduce costs.

3.5. Energy Efficiency

Steam and electricity are main energy used to convert biomass to ethanol. The net energy input
(NEI) indicates the energy input required in the process to produce ethanol, and it is defined in
Equation (2), where Ep , Es , Ehs and Ee indicate the energy content of ethanol product, steam, high
pressure steam and electricity, respectively. Additionally, the energy ratio (Equation (3)) represents
the energy efficiency of converting biomass to ethanol. It is measured by dividing NEI by the energy
content of sugarcane bagasse (15.6 MJ/kg) [30]. An energy ratio greater than one means more energy
inputs, higher than biomass energy content, are required for the process to produce ethanol.

NEI = (Es + Ehs + Ee ) − Ep (2)

NEI
Energy Ratio = (3)
Energy content of sugarcane bagasse
Table 8 lists the net energy and energy ratio derived from BS and HS scenarios. BS has higher total
energy input than HS in steam and electricity, which were from distillation process. Though BS has
higher ethanol conversion rate, the lower ethanol titer resulted in higher energy consumption in the
ethanol recovery. For net energy and energy ratio, HS is about 17% lower than BS. However, the energy
ratios are 0.95 and 0.78 for BS and HS, respectively, which are higher than 0.61 reported by NREL of
ethanol production from corn stover using dilute acid pretreatment [17]. From the results, the high
pressure steam, used in LHW pretreatment, is the major contributor to the total energy consumption.
Therefore, improving energy efficiency is the main challenge for applying this multistep pretreatment
in industrial applications.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 12 of 15

Table 8. Net energy and energy ratio for BS and HS scenarios.

Energy Flow (MJ/h)

BS HS
Ethanol 524,300 504,975
Electricity 93,173.04 83,801.92
High-pressure steam 688,851.96 688,851.96
Steam 973,905.56 751,534.38
Net energy input (NEI) 1,231,630.55 1,019,213.25
Sugarcane bagasse 1,300,002.6 1,300,002.6
Energy ratio 0.95 0.78
BS: base scenario; HS: higher solids loading.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 12 of 15

3.6.3.6. Sensitivity
Sensitivity Analysis
Analysis
Sensitivity
Sensitivity analyseswere
analyses wereperformed
performedbased
based on
on BS to to identify
identifythe
thevariables
variablesthat
thatwould
would most
mostaffect
affect
bioethanol
bioethanol productioncosts
production costs(Figure
(Figure4).
4).Among
Among allall the
the factors
factorsanalyzed,
analyzed,enzyme
enzymecosts had
costs hadthethe
largest
largest
effect.
effect. TheThe
net net
costcost of producing
of producing ethanol
ethanol increased
increased to $6.36/gal
to $6.36/gal (53% increase
(53% increase in ethanolin unit
ethanol unit
production
production cost and 48% in total operating costs) if the cellulase was purchased from the market
cost and 48% in total operating costs) if the cellulase was purchased from the market for $1/kg. However, for
$1/kg. However, the enzyme price ($1/kg enzyme) was also an estimated value;
the enzyme price ($1/kg enzyme) was also an estimated value; therefore, the 53% increase in thetherefore, the 53%
increase in the ethanol unit production cost is an approximation, which is 18% higher and 10% lower
ethanol unit production cost is an approximation, which is 18% higher and 10% lower than the base
than the base and pessimistic scenarios reported by Kazi et al., (2010) [9], respectively. From this
and pessimistic scenarios reported by Kazi et al., (2010) [9], respectively. From this result, minimizing
result, minimizing enzyme costs is critical for cellulosic ethanol plants, which favors on-site enzyme
enzyme costs is critical for cellulosic ethanol plants, which favors on-site enzyme production.
production.

Figure4.4.Sensitivity
Figure Sensitivityof
ofthe
the ethanol
ethanol production
productioncost
costtotodifferent
differentparameters.
parameters.

Product
Productcost
costwas
wasmost
mostsensitive toto
sensitive thethecosts forfor
costs fermentation
fermentationsolids
solidsloading,
loading,medium
medium(to (togrow
growthe
theinoculum)
yeast yeast inoculum) and feedstock.
and feedstock. Production
Production costs varied
costs varied to +7.45%
−8.02%−8.02% to +7.45%
when when thecost
the unit unit
ofcost of
medium
medium
ranged fromranged
$0.11 tofrom $0.11($0.19/kg
$0.27/kg to $0.27/kg ($0.19/kg
in BS). However,in BS). However,
it was reportedit that
was there
reported
wasthat there was
alternative yeast
alternative
medium with yeast
lowermedium
cost thatwith
had alower cost
similar that had a on
performance similar
poplar performance on poplar fermentation
SScF [31]. Increasing SScF [31].
Increasing fermentation solids loading had negative effect on conversion efficiency
solids loading had negative effect on conversion efficiency but increased efficiencies for downstream but increased
efficiencies for downstream distillation and evaporation processes. The ethanol yield decreases about
2 million gal/year when increasing solids loading from 10% (54.17 million gal/year) to 16% (52.22
million gal/year). However, higher ethanol titer from 16% solids loading reduced about 42% utility
cost in the distillation process which decreased net ethanol production cost from $4.16/gal to $3.83/gal
and lowered the MESP from $4.90/gal to $4.52/gal. This indicated that high solids saccharification
Processes 2019, 7, 642 13 of 15

distillation and evaporation processes. The ethanol yield decreases about 2 million gal/year when
increasing solids loading from 10% (54.17 million gal/year) to 16% (52.22 million gal/year). However,
higher ethanol titer from 16% solids loading reduced about 42% utility cost in the distillation process
which decreased net ethanol production cost from $4.16/gal to $3.83/gal and lowered the MESP from
$4.90/gal to $4.52/gal. This indicated that high solids saccharification and fermentation are economically
preferred for industrial scale production. We also varied the cost of sugarcane bagasse. The cost of
bagasse for the base case is $0.05/kg and varied between $0.03/kg ($30/MT) and $0.07/kg ($70/MT).
These changes resulted in cellulosic ethanol net production costs of $3.92 to 4.40/gal.
In addition, the price of high-pressure (HP) steam played an essential role in determining ethanol
production costs because of the large amount consumed by this pretreatment process. However, when
the unit price of HP stream varied from $12 to 28/MT, the ethanol net production cost changed ±3.6%.
Also, energy consumption for disk refining was adjusted ±60% [14]. The ethanol net production
cost changed by ±2.33%. Pretreatment temperature was also varied but it had little effect on ethanol
production cost. Based on the results, utility cost is higher for this three-stage pretreatment process.
For lowering the utility costs, higher solids loading (~50%) in the hot water pretreatment process could
be an alternative to improve the energy efficiency. Cheng et al.’s (2019) [32] reported that high solids
loading (50%) pretreatment at 180 to 190 ◦ C resulted in increasing biomass surface area by 65% which
facilitates the following disk-milling process and increases the sugar yields. Hence, the higher solids
loading in hot water pretreatment is expected to lower the total operating cost and MESP.

4. Conclusions
The total fixed capital investment for this three-stage pretreatment ethanol production process
was $399 million with LHW pretreatment, which accounted for 29% of that cost following the SScF
fermentation unit (43%) followed by the utility equipment (15%). The disk-refining process consumed
7% to 10% of the electricity but improved the sugar yield by 20% and increased ethanol production
by 25 L/MT dried biomass. The MESP was 4.52/gal at a solids loading of 16% (HS) and $4.90/gal at
a 10% solids loading SScF (BS). Major operating costs were the large amount of steam consumed by
the LHW reactor. Other significant costs included the seed-culturing medium, feedstock, and process
steam. Therefore, the improvement of heating energy (steam) recovery and reduction in enzyme cost
are critical and required for industrial operations to reduce the ethanol production cost and MESP.
For improving the energy efficiency in pretreatment, higher solids loading (~50%) in the hot water
pretreatment could be an alternative. The economic evaluation of the high solids loading pretreatment
process will be investigated and validated in the pilot-scale operations.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/7/10/642/s1:

Figure S1: Economic model of ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse using three-stage pretreatment and SScF.
Author Contributions: Economic modeling and conceptualization, M.-H.C.; experimental data, Z.W.; data
analysis, M.-H.C. and Z.W.; writing (original draft preparation), M.-H.C.; writing (review and editing), B.S.D.,
P.J.W.S. and V.S.
Funding: This work was funded by the DOE Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research under Award Number
DE-SC0018420). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts
Innovation (CABBI).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Du, C.; Zhao, X.; Liu, D.; Lin, C.S.K.; Wilson, K.; Luque, R.; Clark, J. Introduction: An overview of biofuels
and production technologies. In Handbook of Biofuels Production: Processes and Technologies, 1st ed.; Luque, R.,
Campelo, J., Clark, J., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
Processes 2019, 7, 642 14 of 15

2. Paudel, S.R.; Banjara, S.P.; Choi, O.K.; Park, K.Y.; Kim, Y.M.; Lee, J.W. Pretreatment of agricultural biomass
for anaerobic digestion: Current state and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 1194–1205. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Mosier, N.; Wyman, C.; Dale, B.; Elander, R.; Lee, Y.Y.; Holtzapple, M.; Ladisch, M. Features of promising
technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 673–686. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
4. Hideno, A.; Inoue, H.; Yanagida, T.; Tsukahara, K.; Endo, T.; Sawayama, S. Combination of hot compressed
water treatment and wet disk milling for high sugar recovery yield in enzymatic hydrolysis of rice straw.
Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 104, 743–748. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Kim, S.M.; Dien, B.S.; Tumbleson, M.E.; Rausch, K.D.; Singh, V. Improvement of sugar yields from corn
stover using sequential hot water pretreatment and disk milling. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 216, 706–713.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Wang, Z.; Dien, B.S.; Rausch, K.D.; Tumbleson, M.E.; Singh, V. Fermentation of undetoxified sugarcane
bagasse hydrolyzates using a two stage hydrothermal and mechanical refining pretreatment. Bioresour.
Technol. 2018, 261, 313–321. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Mosier, N.S.; Hendrickson, R.; Welch, G.; Dreschel, R.; Dien, B.; Ladisch, M.R. Corn Fiber Pretreatment
Scale-Up and Evaluation in an Industrial Corn to Ethanol Facility. In Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on
Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 4–7 May 2003.
8. Cheng, M.-H.; Huang, H.; Dien, B.S.; Singh, V. The costs of sugar production from different feedstocks and
processing technologies. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2019, 13, 723–739. [CrossRef]
9. Kazi, F.K.; Fortman, J.; Anex, R.; Kothandaraman, G.; Hsu, D.; Aden, A.; Dutta, A. Techno-Economic Analysis of
Biochemical Scenarios for Production of Cellulosic Ethanol; Technical Report No. NREL/TP-6A24–6588; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2010.
10. Da Silva, A.R.G.; Ortega, C.E.T.; Rong, B.G. Techno-economic analysis of different pretreatment processes for
lignocellulosic-based bioethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 218, 561–570. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Sun, Y.; Cheng, J. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: A review. Bioresour. Technol.
2002, 83, 1–11. [CrossRef]
12. Yang, M.; Rosentrater, K.A. Techno-economic analysis (TEA) of low-moisture anhydrous ammonia (LMAA)
pretreatment method for corn stover. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 76, 55–61. [CrossRef]
13. Gubicza, K.; Nieves, I.; Sagues, W.; Barta, Z.; Shanmugam, K.; Ingram, L. Techno-economic analysis of
ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse using a liquefaction plus simultaneous saccharification and
co-fermentation process. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 208, 42–48. [CrossRef]
14. Chen, X.; Shekiro, J.; Pschorn, T.; Sabourin, M.; Tucker, M.P.; Tao, L. Techno-economic analysis of the
deacetylation and disk refining process: Characterizing the effect of refining energy and enzyme usage on
minimum sugar selling price and minimum ethanol selling price. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 2015, 8, 173. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15. Larsen, J.; Petersen, M.O.; Thirup, L.; Li, H.W.; Iversen, F.K. The IBUS process—Lignocellulosic bioethanol
close to a commercial reality. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, 765–772. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, J.; Wang, M.; Gao, M.; Fang, X.; Yano, S.; Qin, S.; Xia, R. Efficient acetone-butanol-ethanol production
from corncob with a new pretreatment technology—wet disk milling. Bioenergy Res. 2013, 6, 35–43. [CrossRef]
17. Humbird, D.; Davis, R.; Tao, L.; Kinchin, C.; Hsu, D.; Aden, A. Process Design and Economics for Biochemical
Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover;
Technical Report NREL/TP-51004–7764; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2011.
18. Wang, Z.; Dien, B.S.; Rausch, K.D.; Tumbleson, M.E.; Singh, V. Improving ethanol yields with deacetylated
and two-stage pretreated corn stover and sugarcane bagasse by blending commercial xylose-fermenting and
wild type Saccharomyces yeast. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 282, 103–109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Huang, H.; Long, S.; Singh, V. Techno-economic analysis of biodiesel and ethanol co-production from
lipid-producing sugarcane. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2016, 10, 299–315. [CrossRef]
20. Kumar, D.; Long, S.P.; Vijay, S. Biorefinery for combined production of jet fuel and ethanol from lipid-producing
sugarcane: A techno-economic evaluation. GCB Bioenergy 2018, 10, 92–107. [CrossRef]
21. Haas, M.J.; McAloon, A.J.; Yee, W.C.; Foglia, A.T. A process model to estimate biodiesel production cost.
Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 671–678. [CrossRef]
Processes 2019, 7, 642 15 of 15

22. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018 Electricity Annual Retail Price. Available online:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#sales (accessed on 12 March 2019).
23. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2018 Benchmark the Fuel Cost of Steam Generation. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f16/steam15_benchmark.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2019).
24. Cheng, M.H.; Rosentrater, K.A. Economic feasibility analysis of soybean oil production by hexane extraction.
Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 108, 775–785. [CrossRef]
25. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/
oes/tables.htm (accessed on 12 March 2019).
26. Eggeman, T.; Elander, R.T. Process and economic analysis of pretreatment technologies. Bioresour. Technol.
2005, 96, 2019–2025. [CrossRef]
27. Gregg, D.J.; Boussaid, A.; Saddler, J.N. Techno-economic evaluations of a generic wood-to-ethanol process:
Effect of increased cellulose yields and enzyme recycle. Bioresour. Technol. 1998, 63, 7–12. [CrossRef]
28. Klein-Marcuschamer, D.; Oleskowicz-Popiel, P.; Simmons, B.A.; Blanch, H.W. Technoeconomic analysis
of biofuels: A wiki-based platform for lignocellulosic biorefineries. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 1914–1921.
[CrossRef]
29. Gnansounou, E.; Dauriat, A. Technoeconomic analysis of lignocellulosic ethanol. In Biofuels, 1st ed.;
Pandey, A., Larroche, C., Ricke, S.C., Dussap, C.G., Gnansounou, E., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2011; pp. 123–148.
30. Alonso Pippo, W.; Luengo, C.A.; Alonsoamador Morales Alberteris, L.; Garzone, P.; Cornacchia, G. Energy
recovery from sugarcane-trash in the light of 2nd generation biofuels. Part 1: Current situation and
environmental aspects. Waste Biomass Valor. 2011, 2, 1–16. [CrossRef]
31. Kadam, K.L.; Newman, M.M. Development of a low-cost fermentation medium for ethanol production from
biomass. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1997, 47, 625–629. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Cheng, M.-H.; Dien, B.S.; Lee, D.K.; Singh, V. Sugar production from bioenergy sorghum by using pilot scale
continuous hydrothermal pretreatment combined with disk refining. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 289, 121663.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).