Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Economic evaluation of synthetic ethanol production by using domestic MARK

biowastes and coal mixture
⁎
You Ra Gwak, Ye Bin Kim, In Seop Gwak, See Hoon Lee
Department of Mineral Resources and Energy Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biowastes, such as cow manure, waste paper, and wood waste, are recognized as an essential source of re-
Biomass waste newable energy, and their importance increased significantly over time. However, the insufficient supply of
Conversion biowastes for commercial thermochemical conversion processes is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
Alcohol Therefore, the co-utilization of biowastes and coal has been developed globally. In this study, we investigated the
Feasibility study
feasibility of biowaste and coal mixtures in an ethanol conversion process. A commercial-scale thermochemical
Sensitivity analysis
process consisting of a dual fluidized bed gasifier, compressor, tar reformer, catalytic reactor, and auxiliary
facilities was used and analyzed. In particular, the effects of material costs including both transportation and
collection costs of biowastes and mix percentages on the economic value of synthetic ethanol were analyzed. In
addition to the limitations of biowaste collection, the scale of co-utilization processes could be a critical factor
for the commercialization of converting biowaste and coal mixtures to ethanol.

1. Introduction available, and conversion into secondary energy carriers is feasible

Global energy demands have continued to increase because of the
development of industries and societies in countries. Consequently,
more fossil fuels are required to meet future demands. However, the
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from the in-
creasing usage of fossil fuels is changing the global climate, causing sea
level rise and increases in the annual average global temperature. For
these reasons, many countries have committed to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. In addition, sustainable sources of renewable energy are
being actively developed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and re-
place fossil fuels. Furthermore, a new generation of energy plants can
capture carbon dioxide has been globally developed and adopted [1–3].
Biomass, which is derived from organic materials, is one of the more
important potential sources for the production of green power and
synthetic fuels. Biomass can be classified into forestry biomass (gener-
ated or produced in wood and wood products industries); agricultural
wastes (generated as a byproduct of crops, agro-industries, and animal
farms); energy crops (i.e., crops and trees dedicated to energy pro-
duction); and municipal solid waste (generated in human society).
Biomass resources are considered to be environmentally friendly fuel
because there is no net increase in CO2 as a result of burning biomass
resources. Biomass has received increased public and scientific atten-
tion, driven by factors such as oil price spikes and the need for in-
creased energy security. Moreover, biomass is often regionally
without high capital investments [4–6].
Biomass resources have been used as fuels for electricity production,
heat generation, and chemical production. Additionally, biomass re-
sources can be converted into biofuels, such as biodiesel or bioethanol
[7,8]. Bioethanol, which has been commercially produced in the United
States and Brazil, is a valuable energy resource that can partially re-
place gasoline [9,10]. In the United States, a renewable fuel standard
sets the minimum requirements for the use of renewable fuels such as
ethanol, and approximately 14 billion gallons of ethanol were added to
the gasoline consumed in 2015. Moreover, bioethanol could be one
promising option for meeting the 2015 Korean Renewable Fuel Stan-
dard [4,9].
The most common ethanol production processes today use yeast to
ferment the sugars and starch in corn, sugar cane, or sugar beets. The
starch in corn is fermented into sugar, which is then fermented into
alcohol. Sugar crops are the most convenient resources for conversion
into alcohol, because alcohol is created by fermenting sugar [9]. The
increasing bioethanol production has led to the increased planting of
these crops, even though the production of biomass resources is limited
by the amount of available arable land, as well as the nutrient and land
degradation. Additionally, competition with food resources has in-
creased the price of these crops. Therefore, non-edible biomass re-
sources, such as forestry biomass, agricultural wastes, energy crops, and
municipal solid wastes, are considered as suitable substitute biomass

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: donald@jbnu.ac.kr (S.H. Lee).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.101
Received 24 March 2017; Received in revised form 17 October 2017; Accepted 24 October 2017
Available online 02 November 2017
0016-2361/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.R. Gwak et al.
resources for producing biofuels. Research on the energy conversion of
non-food biomass resources has led to the modification of thermo-
chemical conversion processes such as pyrolysis, combustion, gasifica-
tion, and liquefaction. Compared with other thermochemical processes,
gasification has been recognized as a key process for a new generation
of energy plants that can produce electricity, chemicals, hydrogen,
substitute natural gas, and synthetic fuels [11–16].
The shift from edible biomass to non-edible biomass for bioethanol
production is challenging because an economically feasible thermo-
chemical conversion process is required for the massive scale of non-
edible biomass resources. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of biomass
availability makes energy production from biomass-only thermo-
chemical conversion processes difficult [4,11]. The massive fuel sup-
plies necessary for commercial-scale production will incur significant
collection costs, which is a major concern for biomass energy conver-
sion. Additionally, there are many types of biomass resources, which
are widely distributed and which have different harvesting periods.
This makes it difficult to estimate the amount of biomass that will be
available for energy production.
In order to overcome the fuel supply challenges facing commercial
bioenergy plants, co-gasification of biomass and coal, petroleum coke,
and combustible wastes can be considered as a reasonable solution
[11–16]. In particular, the co-gasification of non-edible biomass re-
sources and coal, which plays an important role in world energy supply,
has been widely developed, because it reduces CO2 emissions, and can
even lead to net CO2 reduction, if CO2 capture is incorporated as a part
of the process. In addition, biomass resources could help to reduce fossil
fuel dependency [11,13,17]. Synthesis gas obtained from the co-gasi-
fication is further used for synthetic ethanol production, too.
Given the numerous applications of biomass and coal, collection
costs remain the biggest hurdle for thermochemical biomass energy
conversion. To commercialize biomass energy conversion, it is essential
to evaluate the costs of collecting domestic biomass resources. By using
a domestic biomass resource map, it is possible to quantify the usable
biomass resources available in Korea [3]. Because of the broad dis-
tribution of biomass resources, an increase in plant scale would result in
a shortage of raw materials and an increase in the cost of fuel.
In this study, we conducted a techno-economic evaluation of the
domestic biowastes, that are annually generated in Korea, and coal
mixture to synthetic ethanol conversion based on a published biomass
resource map and database [2,3]. The economic evaluation of bio-
ethanol production processes was carried out using data from the re-
ports of the Ministry of Environment [18]. In particular, we evaluated
the effect of biowaste-coal mixing ratios, biowaste collecting costs, and
other variables on ethanol prices. Our economic feasibility analysis of
synthetic ethanol production using domestic biowaste and coal mix-
tures could be used as valuable data for national energy resource
planning, industrial development, and policy decision-making.
2. Process description and economic analysis
2.1. Description of synthetic ethanol production process
Fig. 1 shows a flow diagram for the proposed process for converting
a domestic biowaste–coal mixture to synthetic ethanol, via gasification
and alcohol synthesis. The synthetic ethanol production process in-
troduced and analyzed by the National Renewable Energy Research
Institute [19] and Gwak et al. [4] was modified and used for this study.
Similar to previous studies, the proposed synthetic ethanol production
process can be divided into drying, co-gasification, syngas cleanup,
conditioning, alcohol synthesis, separation, and heat and power gen-
eration. The drying process involves the removal of moisture from
domestic biowastes, delivery of dried biowastes, short-term storage of
biowastes on-site, and preparation of feedstock for processing in the
gasifier [4]. As shown in Fig. 1, coal is injected into the co-gasification
process without drying. A dual circulating fluidized bed gasifier,
116
Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122
suggested by Batel [20], is composed of a combustor, a gasifier, cyclone
separators, and a scrubber. The gasification block converts the mixture
of dry biowastes and coal into syngas and char. The mass balance from
the gasification block operating at 1160 K and 1.58 atm is presented in
Table 1. The mass flow rates and gas composition were calculated on
the basis of a 2000 dry-ton/day scale. Similar to previous studies [4],
the carbon conversion defined in Eq. (1) was fixed and used for mass
flow in this study, because there was no available published data for the
gasification of domestic biowaste–coal mixtures.
Moles of carbon in products
Carbon conversion efficiency =
Moles of carbon in raw material (1)
The syngas produced by the gasification process is refined and re-
formed before being compressed for injection into an ethanol synthesis
reactor [19]. Undesired hydrocarbon materials such as CH4, C2H6,
C2H4, and tars in syngas are reformed to produce additional CO and H2.
Particulates are removed by quenching to increase the yield of ethanol.
The tar reforming stage is composed of a bubbling fluidized tar re-
former, a quench chamber, an acid gas scrubber, and a compressor.
After the acidic gases (CO2 and H2S) are removed, the purified syngas
should be compressed for ethanol synthesis. Hydrogen and carbon
monoxide increase with a decrease in the undesired hydrocarbon ma-
terials in syngas. To convert reformed syngas into synthetic ethanol, the
pressure of the reformed syngas should be increased to suitable pressure
conditions for alcohol synthesis (68 atm). In this study, a modified
molybdenum-disulfide (MoS2) base with alkali metal salts was used
because of its relatively high ethanol selectivity and linear alcohol
productivity [4,19].
The product is then cooled, allowing the mixed alcohols to condense
and separate from the unconverted syngas, which is recycled to the tar
reformer. The methanol stream in the mixed alcohol products is used to
back-flush the molecular sieve drying column, and is then recycled to
the inlet. The ethanol and mixed higher-molecular-weight alcohol
streams are cooled and sent to the product storage tanks. Because this
process requires a lot of energy to produce synthetic ethanol, it was
assumed that all byproducts (except synthetic ethanol) should be used
to produce heat and power with the steam turbine/generator. The plant
energy balance was managed to generate only the amount of electricity
required by the plant [4,19]. The ethanol outputs for each condition are
shown in Fig. 2. The final carbon conversion calculated in this study
was approximately 33%, and the daily ethanol outputs ranged from 100
to 350 L/dry-ton. According to the IEA report, ethanol production
ranges from 120 to 160 L/dry-ton [21] and ethanol production in var-
ious technologies ranges from 110 to 300 L/dry-ton according to the
International Renewable Energy Agency report [22]. Therefore, the
ethanol production calculated in this study was reasonable and could be
used for the techno-economic evaluation of commercial plants.
The ultimate and proximate analyses results for the biowastes and
coal used in this study are presented in Table 2. Korean waste paper
(WP), waste wood (WW), and cow manure (CM) were selected, because
the daily production of these biowastes exceeds 2000 ton/day and they
are enough to be used in commercial biowaste-to-synthetic ethanol
production processes if they are gathered throughout the country. Be-
cause of the lack of approximate analysis result based on moisture-free
condition, this study used the properties of air-dried cow manure. To
overcome the drawbacks of biowaste, bituminous coal imported to
Korea was selected and used for the techno-economic evaluation. In
Table 2, the proximate and ultimate analysis results of coal indicate that
its carbon content is higher than that of other biowastes. In this study,
the mixing ratios of coal to biowastes defined in Eq. (2) are 0, 0.25, and
0.5.
Coal weight
Mixing ratio =
Biomass weight + Coal weight (2)
Y.R. Gwak et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122

Fig. 1. Ethanol production process flowchart.

Table 1
Gasifier operating conditions and results.

Fuel (Mixing ratio) WP(0) WP(0.25) WP(0.5) WW(0) WW(0.25) WW(0.5) CM(0) CM(0.25) CM(0.5)

Temperature (K) 1160 1160 1160 K 1160 1160 1160 1160 1160 1160
Pressure (atm) 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58
Mass flow (kg/day)
H2 29,032 36,834 446,366 33,216 39,972 46,728 35,977 38,861 41,749
CO2 315,539 400,334 485,129 361,005 434,434 507,863 391,013 422,363 453,753
CO 678,501 860,836 1,043,170 776,267 934,161 1,092,054 840,793 908,203 975,702
H2O 518,378 688,673 875,810 640,807 793,769 742,251 235,013 332,894 483,480
CH4 139,725 177,274 214,823 159,859 192,374 224,889 173,147 187,029 200,929
C2H2 6015 7631 9247 6881 8281 9681 7453 8051 8649
C2H4 66,393 84,235 102,076 75,959 91,410 106,860 82,273 88,870 95,474
C2H6 3470 4403 5335 3970 4778 5585 4300 4645 4990
C6H6 4511 5723 6936 5161 6211 7261 5590 6038 6487
Tar (C10H8) 14,805 18,784 22,763 16,939 20,384 23,829 18,347 19,818 21,290
NH3 2950 3742 4535 3375 4061 4747 3655 3948 4241
H2S 138 175 212 157 190 222 171 184 198
N2 178,249 236,806 301,155 220,347 272,945 225,230 80,811 114,469 166,249
Total 1,957,705 2,525,449 3,115,827 2,303,943 2,802,967 3,027,198 1,878,543 2,135,372 2,463,192

2.2. Economic analysis where Cn is the total annualized cash flow for a given period n, i is the
annual real interest rate or the discount rate, and N is the project life-
An economic evaluation of the conversion of a domestic biowaste- time.
coal mixture to synthetic ethanol was calculated using the net present The values of investment cost and operating cost must be calculated
value (NPV) method. Additionally, the internal rate of return (IRR) and in order to determine the NPV, IRR, and payback period. The cost
payback period were calculated. NPV is a commonly used method for factors used in the economic feasibility analysis were the investment
calculating economic feasibility. It is defined as the sum of the present cost (including construction costs), annual facility maintenance costs,
value of incoming and outgoing cash flows over a period of time and repair costs, as well as management and labor costs. These can be
[1,4,19,26–28]. Because there was very limited information about divided into fixed costs (which are not proportional to production le-
proposed plant type, location, and capacity, and because few research vels), and variable costs (which are proportional to production levels).
results have previously been published, a Class 5 estimation grade Initial investment costs are those incurred before the start of operations.
economic analysis was used in this study [4,29,30]. NPV is calculated Management costs include the purchase costs of raw materials and
using Eq. (3): catalysts, as well as the variable costs of labor, sales, and marketing.
The economic feasibility was analyzed by comparing the fixed costs,
N variable costs, and production costs. However, these costs are con-
Cn
NPV = ∑ fidential, and thus, a detailed information on them is not widely
n=0
(1 + i)n (3) available. In this evaluation, investment costs consisted of construction

117
Y.R. Gwak et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122

800 Total cost = Investment cost + Operating cost (4)

WP Depending on inflation or deflation over time, all factors in the
WW economic evaluation should be recalculated. In particular, the con-
CM struction cost for each unit changes with time and global economic
600 conditions. An easy estimation method for present costs uses the che-
Ethanol output ( kl / day )

mical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI) published by the Chemical

Engineering [31]. Because the plant scales between this study and re-
ference data were different, all costs were recalculated using the scaling
factors for thermochemical facilities defined by the U.S. Ministry of
400 Energy [32]. The scaling factors for the dryer, gasifier, reformer, al-
cohol synthesis reactor, and auxiliary facilities were 0.65, 0.65, 0.6,
0.62, and 0.68, respectively. For cases involving separate heat and
power generation, the scaling factors were 0.92 and 0.55. Finally, the
present costs for the 2000 ton/day scale process were calculated using
200 the following equation [4,19,33,34]:
n
S
C2 = C1 ⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ ⎟

⎝ S1 ⎠ (5)
Here, n = scaling factor, C2 = total cost of the production capacity of
0 the factory as S2, C1 = total cost of the production capacity of the
0 0.25 0.5
factory as S1.
Mixing ratio (-) The economic analysis was conducted using inflation rate, 15-year
Fig. 2. Daily ethanol production with mixing ratios. equal amortization, income tax, and an operating rate of 95%, which
was assumed considering a domestic specific refiner corresponding to
Korean regulatory conditions. All economic factors were taken from
Table 2
domestic oil companies [4]. These factors would be reasonable for
Ultimate and proximate analysis results of raw materials.
economic evaluation, because the annual rate of gross domestic product
Raw material in Korea is approximately 2.5% [35]. After the construction of a new
synthetic ethanol production process plant, the income from synthetic
Coal [23] WP[24] WW[24] CM[25]
ethanol production sales is set against various costs. The costs of a 2000
Ultimate analysis (wt%, C 71.6 42.32 44.81 43.31 dry-ton/day scale domestic biowaste-coal mixture to synthetic ethanol
dry basis) H 4.0 5.85 6.09 5.33 process were recalculated, as presented in Table 3. The operating costs
N 1.78 0.37 0.11 1.49 for various conditions are shown in Table 4. Generally, an IRR value of
S 0.35 0.12 0.0 0.36
approximately 9–10% is required when revaluating investment feasi-
O 11.12 38.9 42.55 43.42
Cl 0.0 0.24 0.9 0.67
bility [4]. In this study, an IRR of 10% was used as a reference condi-
ASH 11.15 12.2 5.53 – tion, and the assumptions for the economic feasibility analysis are as
Proximate analysis (wt Moisture 9.82 18.0 11.4 10.99 follows:
%, as received Volatile 26.73 72.0* 83.7* 63.3
basis) Matter
– A new construction was assumed for the production of synthetic
Fixed 54.35 14.38
Carbon ethanol from a domestic biowaste–coal mixture.
Ash 9.1 10.0 4.9 11.33 – Land purchase costs and compensation costs were excluded.
– Operation and maintenance costs were applied across the entire
* Sum of fixed carbon and volatile matter content. operational period for a one year standard.
– Based on carbon conversion efficiencies from previous data [4,19],
costs, indirect costs, and costs related to project fund preparation. all material balances were calculated and modified according to
Operating costs comprised raw material costs, catalyst costs, fixed costs domestic conditions.
associated with labor, and other costs. All cost data were based on costs – The waste paper and waste wood were generated in the Gyeonggi
from previous economic evaluations [4,19]. Therefore, the total cost region of Korea. Therefore, it was assumed that the plant was
was calculated using the following Eq. (4):

Table 3
Present investment costs with different mixing ratios.

Process Mixing ratio

WP WW CM

0.0 0.25 0.50 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.0 0.25 0.50

Investment costs (Unit: $1 million)

Dryer 13.80 8.27 11.16 13.80 11.16 8.27 13.80 11.16 8.27
Gasification 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77
Reforming 65.30 92.90 79.12 74.47 86.25 87.56 53.69 61.28 71.36
Synthesis Process 25.52 36.79 31.14 29.24 34.06 34.59 20.84 23.89 27.98
Separation Process 9.00 13.97 11.34 10.53 12.66 12.91 7.21 8.37 10.00
Heat & Power 20.70 29.31 25.02 23.57 27.24 27.65 17.08 19.45 22.60
Other Process 4.43 5.92 5.18 4.93 5.56 5.64 3.78 4.21 4.76

118
Y.R. Gwak et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122

Table 4
Present operating costs with different mixing ratios.

Process Mixing ratio

WP WW CM

0.0 0.25 0.50 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.0 0.25 0.50

Operating costs (Unit: 1 million$)

Catalysts 0.20 0.25 0.31 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.27 0.29
Olivine 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.46 0.55 0.65 0.50 0.54 0.58
Other Raw materials 0.30 0.38 0.46 0.34 0.41 0.48 0.37 0.40 0.43
Waste Disposal 0.30 0.38 0.46 0.34 0.41 0.48 0.37 0.40 0.43
Fixed Costs 12.15 15.41 18.67 13.90 16.72 19.55 15.05 16.26 17.46

Table 5 15.0
Transport costs of various biowastes according to coal mixing ratio. WP
WW
Raw material Mixing ratio(–) Distance (km) Cost ($/ton) CM
14.5

Transfer Cost of biomass ( $ / ton )

WP 0.0 80 12.65
0.25 80 12.65
0.50 80 12.65
14.0
WW 0.0 260 14.15
0.25 140 13.07
0.50 80 12.65
CM 0.0 140 13.91 13.5
0.25 140 13.56
0.50 140 12.87

13.0
constructed in the Gyeonggi region. The transport cost for each
biowaste was different because of the collection distance and
quantity of each biowaste [36]. The results are given in Table 5. 12.5
– The plant operator may not pay the cost for domestic biowastes, and
may only pay the transport cost, because the generators of domestic
biowastes have already paid the cost for the collection and disposal 12.0
of such biowastes. 0 0.25 0.5
– An inflation rate of 3% was assumed and depreciation costs were Mixing ratio (-)
given a 15-year equal amortization.
– The income tax on the plants was assumed to be 24.2%, with an (a) Transport cost change with mixing ratios
operating rate of 95%.

40000
3. Results and discussion

3.1. Economic analysis

Raw material cost ( 1000 $ / year )

30000
A techno-economic feasibility analysis was performed using the
NPV method for the production of synthetic ethanol from a domestic
biowaste–coal mixture. The investment and operating costs for different
mix ratios are presented in Tables 3 and 4. As indicated in Table 4, the
total investment costs increased with increasing mixing ratios, because 20000
hydrogen and carbon monoxide concentrations increased with in-
creasing coal input. Then, the scale of reforming, synthesis process,
separation process, heat and power, and auxiliary facilities could in-
crease. The reforming process accounted for the highest proportion.
Synthesis, separation, and heat and power processes also incurred high 10000
construction costs. Although the scale of the dryer decreased with in- WP
creasing coal inputs (resulting in a decrease in dryer costs of almost WW
CM
40%), total investment costs increased by up to 30%.
Operating costs increased with increasing coal input because of the
0
increasing syngas flow rate. This was also due to the assumption that 0 0.25 0.5
domestic biowastes have a purchase price of zero, and only the trans-
portation of the raw materials was considered as a cost, as presented in Mixing ratio (-)
Table 5 and shown in Fig. 3. Because the quantities of each biowaste (b) Total raw material costs with mixing ratios
required for synthetic ethanol production were different, the collection
distances and transport costs per distance were different for each of the Fig. 3. Transport costs of domestic biowaste-coal mixtures. (a) Transport cost change
with mixing ratios. (b) Total raw material costs with mixing ratios.
biowastes. Therefore, the total raw material costs for the biowastes and

119
Y.R. Gwak et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122

2.0

WP WP(0.25)
WW
CM
1.5
WP(0.50)
Ethanol Price ( $/L )

WW(0.25)

1.0
WW(0.50)

CM(0.25)

CM(0.50)
0.5

0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10

Ratio of Ethanol Price (-)
0.0
0 0.25 0.5 (a) Changing coal prices
Mixing ratio (-)
(a) Ethanol prices
WP (0.0)
1000 WP (0.25)
WP WP (0.50)
WW
CM WW (0.0)
800
WW (0.25)
NPV ( 100 million won )

WW (0.50)
600
CM (0.0)

CM (0.25)

400 CM (0.50)

0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15

200
Ratio of Ethanol Price (-)
(b) Changing biowaste costs
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis of raw material costs. (a) Changing coal prices. (b) Changing
biowaste costs.
0
0 0.25 0.5
Mixing ratio (-) income [4]. As can be observed in Table 4, the fixed costs made up the
(b) NPVs highest proportion of costs, because the maintenance costs and labor
costs were higher compared with other costs [4].
Fig. 4. Ethanol prices and NPVs based on an IRR of 10%. (a) Ethanol prices. (b) NPVs. The output of synthetic ethanol increased with the increasing
mixing ratios shown in Fig. 2. As can be observed in Table 1, the flow
coal increased with the increasing mixing ratios shown in Fig. 3. Ad- rates for syngas (particularly hydrogen and carbon monoxide) in-
ditionally, the cost of waste wood was lower than that for other bio- creased, although the input quantity remained at 2000 dry-ton/day.
wastes. The labor cost was calculated as M$2.6 per year and the sales Because the carbon content of coal is almost 1.5 times higher than that
and marketing costs were assumed to represent 3% of the annual of other biowastes, the syngas flow increased with increasing coal

Table 6
NPVs, payback periods, and ethanol prices with mixing ratios based on IRR of 10%.

Mixing ratio WP WW CM
(–)
NPV (1million Payback period Ethanol price NPV (1million Payback period Ethanol price NPV (1million Payback period Ethanol price
$) (year) ($/L) $) (year) ($/L) $) (year) ($/L)

0.0 50 8.78 0.519 54 8.78 0.433 45 8.78 1.454

0.25 56 8.78 0.499 59 8.78 0.414 48 8.78 1.075
0.50 61 8.78 0.478 59 8.78 0.373 51 8.78 0.780

120
Y.R. Gwak et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122

annual sales were calculated by multiplying the annual production by

Drying the price of ethanol. The payback period, NPV, and ethanol price were
calculated based on an IRR of 10%, and these results are shown in Fig. 4
Gasification and presented in Table 6. As can be observed in Fig. 4 and Table 6, the
ethanol prices decreased whereas the NPVs increased with increasing
Reforming mixing ratios.
Although the investment and operating costs increased with in-
Synthesis Process
creasing mix ratios, the NPVs almost increased, because of increasing
Separation Process
synthetic ethanol output. The NPVs for waste paper, waste wood, and
cow manure were M$50, M$54, and M$45, respectively. In the case of
Heat & Power waste wood, the NPV did not increase with the increasing mixing ratio.
This was because of the sharply increasing cost of waste wood trans-
Other Process port, which indicates that the collection costs of domestic biowastes
could affect the economic efficiencies. However, the increase in syn-
.45 .46 .47 .48 .49 .50 .51
thetic ethanol production might be significant factor in case of waste
paper and cow manure. Ethanol sale prices between $0.48/L and
Ethanol Price ( $/l )
$1.45/L are close to the retail price of gasoline in Korea. A mix of ga-
(a) Waste paper soline and bioethanol will therefore be economical as a domestic
transportation fuel.

Drying 3.2. Sensitivity analysis

Gasification Because the economic analysis is sensitive to changes in several

factors, a sensitivity analysis was performed for changes in transport
Reforming
costs, investment costs, and operating costs. Based on an IRR of 10%,
the most sensitive parameters were identified in this study. The change
Synthesis Process
in ethanol sale prices based on an IRR of 10% is shown in Fig. 5. If the
Separation Process
cost of coal changes by up to ± 30%, the ethanol prices change by up
to ± 7–8%, as shown in Fig. 5. In the case of cow manure, the ethanol
Heat & Power prices would change in the range of ± 14%. However, the effects of
changing waste paper and waste wood prices on ethanol price could be
Other Process lower than those for other variables. Therefore, a higher coal cost could
be a more important factor than higher waste paper and waste wood
.35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .40 costs.
Ethanol Price ( $/l )
The effect of investment costs for each process (including drying,
gasification, reforming, alcohol synthesis, separation, heat and power,
(b) Waste wood
and other processes) on ethanol prices is shown in Fig. 6. Regardless of
the mixing ratio of domestic biowastes and coal, the sensitivity order
(from most to least sensitive) is as follows: reforming, synthesis, heat
Drying and power, gasification, drying, separation, and other processes. From
the results, it can be concluded that the most sensitive process is the
Gasification
reforming stage, which consisted of a tar reformer, acid gas remover,
Reforming and compressor. If the cost of the reforming process were changed
by ± 30% for a mixing ratio of 0.5, then the ethanol price due to waste
Synthesis Process paper, which was $0.478/L would be changed in the range from
$0.453/L to $0.504/L. Although the reforming process had the highest
Separation Process sensitivity of the major operating costs, it was less sensitive than
changes in raw material costs, as in previous studies [4]. The prevailing
Heat & Power
price of gasoline in the domestic market is approximately $1.3/L [38].
Other Process
When ethanol prices from the proposed process fall below retail gaso-
line prices, then its economic feasibility would be superior, and the
process would be worthy of commercialization.
.75 .76 .77 .78 .79 .80 .81
Ethanol Price ( $/l ) 4. Conclusion
(C) Cow manure
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis of process costs. (a) Waste paper. (b) Waste wood. (C) Cow
In this study, a mixture of domestic biowastes and coal could be
manure. economically converted into synthetic bioethanol using a hybrid pro-
cess consisting of a dual fluidized bed gasifier and an alcohol synthesis
reactor. To evaluate the economic efficiencies of waste paper, waste
input. These increases resulted in higher synthetic ethanol production.
wood, and cow manure, which are domestically generated in Korea, a
The 2000 dry-ton/day plant had investment costs between
2000 dry-ton/day scale process was chosen. Additionally, coal was used
$153,000 and $266,000 and operating costs of between $13,350/year
to improve the economic efficiency of the process. Although the cost of
and $21,500/year. The purchase cost of coal was $53.5/ton [37]. The
fuel increased with increasing coal mixture ratios, the economic effi-
transport costs of biowastes ranged from $12.65/ton to $14.15/ton,
ciency of the biowaste-to-synthetic-ethanol conversion process in-
and the differences in transport costs resulted in different total raw
creased because of an increase in final products. The ethanol prices for
material costs ranging from $10 million/year to $34 million/year. The
ethanol from waste paper, waste wood, and cow manure (for an IRR of

121
Y.R. Gwak et al.
10%) were $0.433/L, $0.519/L, and $1.454/L, respectively. The eco-
nomic feasibility of waste wood and coal mixtures was higher than that
of other biowastes and coal mixtures for all conditions. The sensitivity
analysis showed that coal mixing could be a solution for the costly
conversion of domestic biowastes to energy.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by research funds from the Basic Science
Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
(2017R1D1A3B03033160) and by a National Research Council of
Science & Technology (NST) Grant from the Korean government (MSIP)
(No. CRC-15-07-KIER).
References
[1] Trop P, Anicic B, Goricanec D. Production of methanol from a mixture of torrefied
biomass and coal. Energy 2014;77:125–32.
[2] Kook JW, Lee SH. Analysis of biomass energy potential around major cities in South
Korea. Appl Chem Eng 2015;26:178–83.
[3] Kook JW, Jeon SJ, Park SY, Yoo HS, Shin JH, Lee SH. Analysis of energy potential
from biomass resource map. J. Korea Soc Waste Manage 2013;30(5):505–11.
[4] Gwak IS, Hwang JH, Sohn JM, Lee SH. Economic evaluation of domestic biowaste to
ethanol via a fluidized bed gasifier. J Ind Eng Chem 2017;47:391–8.
[5] Jeong HJ, Park SS, Hwang J. Co-gasification of coal-biomass blended char with CO2
at temperatures of 900–1100 °C. Fuel 2014;116:465–570.
[6] Verma M, Loha C, Sinha AN, Chatterjee PK. Drying of biomass for utilizing in co-
firing with coal and its impact on environment – a review. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2017;71:732–41.
[7] Van den Broek R. Sustainability of biomass electricity systems. An assessment of
costs, macro-economic and environmental impacts in Nicaragua, Ireland and the
Netherlands. J Energy Policy 2002;30:167–9.
[8] Petersen AM, Daful AG, Gorgens JF. Technical, economic, and greenhouse gas re-
duction potential of combined ethanol fermentation and biofuel gasification-
synthesis at sulphite pulping mills. Energy Fuels 2016;30(9):7387–99.
[9] US Energy Information Administration. Biofuels: Ethanol and Biodiesel explained.
http://www.eia.gov (accessed on March 16, 2017).
[10] Barrera I, Amezcua-Allieri MA, Estupiňan L, Martinez T, Aburto J. Technical and
economical evaluation of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic residues in
Mexico: case of sugarcane and blue agave bagasses. Chem Eng Res Des
2016;107:91–101.
[11] Jeong HJ, Park SS, Hwang J. Co-gasification of coal-biomass blended char with CO2
at temperature of 900–1000 °C. Fuel 2014;116:465–70.
[12] Jeong HJ, Hwang IS, Park SS, Hwang J. Investigation on co-gasification of coal and
biomass in Shell gasifier by using a validated gasification model. Fuel
2017;196:371–7.
[13] Howaniec N, Smolinski A. Effect of fuel blend composition on the efficiency of
hydrogen-rich gas production in co-gasification of coal and biomass. Fuel
2014;128:442–50.
[14] Baloch HA, Yang T, Sun H, Sabzoi JL, Li R, Kou Z, et al. Parametric study of pyr-
olysis and steam gasification of rice straw in presence of K2CO3. Korean J Chem Eng
122
Fuel 213 (2018) 115–122
2016;33:2567–74.
[15] Benedikt F, Fuchs J, Schmid Johannes Christian, Muller Stefan, Hofbauer Hermann.
Advanced dual fluidized bed steam gasification of wood and lignite with calcite as
bed material. Korean J Chem Eng 2017;34:2548–58.
[16] Lim MS, Bang JH, Yoon YS. Analysis of hydrogen production cost by production
method for comparing with economics of nuclear hydrogen. Korean Hydrogen New
Energy Soc 2006;17(2):218–26.
[17] Rizkiana J, Guan G, Widayatno WB, Hao X, Huang W, Tsutsumi A, et al. Effect of
biomass type on the performance of cogasification of low rank coal with biomass at
relatively low temperatures. Fuel 2014;134:414–9.
[18] Ministry of Environment. www.me.go.kr (accessed on March, 01, 2017).
[19] Phillips S, Aden A, Jechura J, Dayton D. Thermochemical ethanol via indirect ga-
sification and mixed alcohol synthesis of lignocellulosic biomass technical report.
2007; NREL/TP-510:41168.
[20] Nexant, Inc., Equipment Design and Cost Estimation for Small Modular Biomass
Systems, Synthesis Gas Cleanup, and Oxygen Separation Equipment. Task 9: Mixed
Alcohols from Syngas- State of Technology. Technical Report 2006;NREL/SR-
510:39947.
[21] Smith R, Taylor M. From 1st-to 2nd-generation biofuel technologies an overview of
current industry and rd & d activities. IEA Bioenergy; 2008.
[22] Production of Liquid Biofuels Technology Brief. IEA-ETSAP and IRENA; 2013.
[23] Han KH, Hyun JS, Choi WK, Lee JS. A study of co-combustion characteristics of
North Korean anthracite and bituminous coal in 2MWe CFBC power plant. Korean
Chem Eng Res 2009;47(5):580–6.
[24] Yoon YS, Min JH, Kim DJ, Park YS, Gu JH, Min JH, et al. Characteristics of the
syngas quality by air ratio in the pilot-scale fixed bed gasifier for MSW. J Korea Soc
Waste Manage 2015;32(6):574–82.
[25] Lee SH, Yu BK, Ju SY, Kang YG, Jung GW. Characteristics of solid fuel from cattle
manure. New Renewable Energy 2016;12(4):64–9.
[26] Hernandez-Torres D, Bridier L, David M, Lauret P, Ardiale T. Technic-economical
analysis of a hybrid wave power-air compression storage system. Renewable Energy
2015;74:708–17.
[27] Meerman JC, Knoope MMJ, Ramires A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Technical and
economic prospects of coal- and biomass-fired integrated gasification facilities
equipped with CCS over time. Int J Green Gas Control 2013;16:311–23.
[28] Zhang C, Jun KW, Gao R, Lee YJ, Kang SC. Efficient utilization of carbon dioxide in
gas-to-liquids process: Process simulation and techno-economic analysis. Fuel
2015;157:285–91.
[29] Amos SJ. Skills and knowledge of cost engineering AACE international; 2007.
[30] Han W, Fang J, Liu Z, Tang J. Techno-economic evaluation of a combined bio-
process for fermentative hydrogen production from food waste. Bioresour Technol
2016;202:107–12.
[31] Gwak IS, Hwang JH, Lee SH. Techno-economic evaluation of and ethanol produc-
tion process for biomass waste. Appl Chem Eng 2016;27:171–8.
[32] National Energy Technology Laboratory. Capital cost scaling methodology; 2013.
DOE/NETL-013113.
[33] Bibber LV, Shuster E, Haslbeck J, Rutkowski M, Olson S, Kramer S. Technical and
economic assessment of small-scale fischer-tropsch liquids facilities. USA; 2007.
DOE/NETL-1253.
[34] Lee JM, Kim DW, Kim JS, Kim JJ, Kim HS. Economic feasibility of conversion of the
pulverized coal firing boiler using korean anthracite into a circulating fluidized bed
boiler. Korean Chem Eng Res 2006;44(5):489–97.
[35] www.bok.or.kr (accessed on March 01, 2017).
[36] www.kiep21.or.kr (accessed on March 01, 2017).
[37] www.kcoal.or.kr/info/info05.php (accessed on March 01, 2017).
[38] http://www.kdhc.co.kr/module/downFile.do?cmsCd=CM4323&ntNo=2&fno=1
(accessed on March, 01, 2017).