Techno-economic comparison of three energy conversion pathways from empty fruit bunches

Published Date
Renewable Energy
May 2016, Vol.90:307–318, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.030

Author 

• Truong Xuan Do ^a,b,
• Young-il Lim ^a,,

• aCoSPE, Department of Chemical Engineering, Hankyong National University, Jungangno 327, Anseong-si, Gyonggi-do 456-749 Republic of Korea
• bSchool of Chemical Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, 1st Dai Co Viet, Hanoi, Viet Nam

Received 1 July 2015. Revised 1 December 2015. Accepted 6 January 2016. Available online 13 January 2016. 

Highlights

• •
  Evaluation of techno-economic feasibility by 4-level economic potential approach.
• •
  Comparison of three energy conversion pathways from 400 t/d wet EFB.
• •
  The three pathways include fast pyrolysis, gasification and bioethanol production.
• •
  The fast pyrolysis and biooil upgrading plant shows the highest economic viability.

Abstract

Empty fruit bunches (EFB) of oil-palm are one of the most recent renewable energy resources. The objective of this study is to find the most economically-feasible pathway among three energy conversions from 400 t/d wet EFB, which are bioethanol and jet fuel by bioconversion, combined heat and power via gasification, and hydrocarbons through fast pyrolysis and biooil upgrading. A hierarchical four-level economic potential approach (4-level EP) was employed to perform the preliminary techno-economic analysis (TEA) for the three pathways. The 4-level EP includes the input/output structure, the flowsheet structure, the heat integration (HI), and the economic feasibility. The economic potential of the three plants was compared at each level, and the most promising process among them was identified at Level 4, where economic criteria including return on investment (ROI), payback period (PBP), and internal rate of return (IRR) were evaluated. It was found that the biooil hydrocarbon plant is most economical due to the highest economic potential, ROI, and IRR. The heat consumption was reduced considerably by HI in the bioethanol and jet fuel plant. The sensitivity analysis informed that the plant size, the product yield, and the total capital investment highly influenced ROI and PBP in all three processes.

Keywords

Empty fruit bunches (EFB)

Fast-pyrolysis

Gasification

Bioethanol

Economic potential

Techno-economic analysis (TEA)

---

Nomenclature

Abbreviations

4-level EP

Four-level hierarchical economic potential

BEJF

bioethanol and jet fuel

BOE

barrel of oil equivalent

CAPEX

capital expenditure

CEPCI

chemical engineering plant cost index

EFB

empty fruit bunches

EP

economic potential

FFB

fresh fruit bunches

FPBU

fast pyrolysis and biooil upgrading

GCHP

gasification for combined heat and power

HHV

higher heating value

HI

heat integration

IRR

internal rate of return, %

LCOE

levelized cost of electricity, $/kWh_e

LHV

lower heating value

NPV

net present value, $

NRTL

non-random two-liquid

OPEX

operational expenditure

PBP

payback period, yr

PR

Peng-Robinson

PFD

process flow diagram

PoS

plot of sensitivity

REC

renewable energy certificate

ROI

return on investment, %

SRK

Soave-Redlich-Kwong

TEA

techno-economic analysis

Symbols

A

capacity, kt/yr

a

installed cost factor

b

indirect cost factor

c

project contingency factor

c_r

cost of the raw material, $/kg

C_AI

annualized total installed cost, $/yr

C_cat

annualized catalyst cost, $/yr

C_dep

depreciation cost, $/yr

C_DI

total direct and indirect costs, $

C_E

purchased equipment costs, $

C_F

fixed capital investment, $

C_fix

fixed costs, $/yr

C_HE

extra heat exchanger capital cost, $

C_I

total installed cost, $

C_ID

indirect cost, $

C_P

project contingency, $

C_RM

raw material cost, $/yr

C_T

total capital investment, $

C_TP

total production cost, $/yr

C_TU

total utility cost, $/yr

C_TU,HI

total utility cost after heat integration, $/yr

C_TUS

total utility saved by heat integration, $/yr

C_W

working capital, $

d

working capital factor

E

economic potential, $/yr

F_p

mass flow rate of product, kg/yr

f

amount of byproduct or raw material per 1 kg of product, kg/kg

i

interest rate, %

I

cost index

L_cat

catalyst life time, yr

L_d

depreciation life, yr

L_p

plant life, yr

N

number of equipment

p_p

market price of product, $/kg

p_bp

market price of byproduct, $/kg

P_ASR

annual sales revenue, $/yr

P_cash

cash flow, $/yr

p_cat

market price of catalyst, $/kg

P_G

gross profit, $/yr

P_N

net profit, $/yr

v_space

weight hourly space velocity, h⁻¹

β

rate of corporation income tax

γ

capacity exponent

η_LHV

energy conversion efficiency based on lower heating value,%

τ

annualizing factor, yr

Fig. 1.

 Table 1

Table 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

 Table 2

Table 2.

 Table 3

Table 3.

Fig. 6.

 Table 4

Table 4.

Fig. 7.

 Table 5

Table 5.

• DOCX (2.8M)

• ∗ 
  Corresponding author.

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116300301