Techno-Economic Analysis of Integrating Sweet Sorg

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/263893666
Techno-economic analysis of integrating sweet sorghum into sugar mills: The

Central American case
Article in Biomass and Bioenergy · September 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.06.011
CITATIONS READS
15 6,367
2 authors:
Luis Cutz Domingo Santana

Delft University of Technology University Carlos III de Madrid
12 PUBLICATIONS 200 CITATIONS 129 PUBLICATIONS 1,896 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Análisis de tensiones y deformaciones en los receptores solares centrales View project
Safe operation of solar tubular receivers by means of inverse thermo-elasticity methods (SOSreceiver) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Domingo Santana on 10 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Techno-economic analysis of integrating sweet sorghum
into sugar mills: The Central American case
L. Cutza,∗, D. Santanaa
a
Department of Thermal and Fluids Engineering, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Av.
Universidad 30 - 28911 Leganés (Madrid) - Spain
Abstract
This paper aims to evaluate the potential for electricity and ethanol produc-
tion in Central America using sweet sorghum, performing a techno-economic
analysis. The study proposes the integration of sweet sorghum into Central
American sugar mills, by using the existing machinery to process this crop
during off-season. A process simulation and a cost model were developed to
estimate the technical and economical feasibility of sweet sorghum integra-
tion. The data on various parameters used for techno-economic assessment
were collected from an existing sugar mill and distillery in Central Amer-
ica. The results show that a sugar mill operating 2 months during off-season
could obtain an average revenue of US$ 3M for a crushing rate of 6 500
t/d. Ethanol production costs are estimated to be 24.76 ¢US$/L. In case a
new CHP plant is built, a sugar mill operating under the integrated scenario
would have a payback period of 4.49 years, as compared to 7.47 years for a
sugar mill using sugarcane bagasse as the only fuel. Although several studies
highlight the potential of sweet sorghum for ethanol production, the results
from this work prove that sweet sorghum must also be seen as a viable feed-
stock for electricity production. A sensitivity analysis was also performed to
determine the variation of the average cost of electricity and ethanol with
the variables used in the economic analysis. For all analyzed scenarios the
effects of installed capacity and crop yield prevailed over the increasing costs
of land and transportation.
Keywords: Biomass; Central America; Sweet sorghum; Electricity;
∗
Corresponding author. Tel:+34-916248371
Email address: lcutz@ing.uc3m.es (L. Cutz)
Preprint submitted to Elsevier March 17, 2015

Ethanol.
1. Introduction
Fossil fuels provide about 35% of the total electricity supply in Central
America, where about 78% of this energy comes from diesel and fuel oil gen-
erators [1]. This dependence on fossil fuels leaves the region in a vulnerable
position in front of the rise of fuel prices and supply shocks.
In recent years, the search for alternative energy sources has gained a
lot of importance to ensure global energy security, especially the use of local
resources such as biomass for energy production. There are a total of 62
countries in the world currently producing electricity from biomass [2]. In
2008, the United States was the top biomass-based electricity producer with
26% of world production, followed by Germany (15%), Brazil and Japan
(both 7%) [2]. In the long term, it is expected that biomass will play an
important role in the world’s energy portfolio, primarily in Latin America
due to its availability and low cost [3]. So far, biomass resources (sugarcane
bagasse) provide about 4% of Central America’s energy through Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) plants [4]. This technology has become an important
part of the Central American energy matrix over the last years. This is part
due to the fact that with the collapse of the sugar market in 1998 [5], sugar
mills were pushed to focus on the use of sugarcane by-products (bagasse
and molasses) for the creation of value-added products, i.e., electricity and
ethanol. As a result of this, in the decade of 2000 to 2011, Central America’s
cogeneration installed capacity grew enormously from 205 to 759 MW [4],
which represented an increase of 369%. However, in the case of CHP plants
that rely on biomass to operate, which is the case of sugar mills, the produc-
tion of electricity and ethanol strongly depend on the length of the sugarcane
crushing season, which varies between 100 and 200 days. Therefore, in recent
years, the sugar industry has become interested in the use of supplemental
feedstocks that would enable them to operate more flexibly and to extend
their operation period.
The studied feedstocks vary from fast-growing tree species to short ro-
tation agricultural crops [6]. The main disadvantage of forestry species is
that with the current technology in Central America they can only be pro-
cessed for electricity generation. Meanwhile, among the agricultural crops,
sweet sorghum stands out due to its short growing cycle and because its by-
products (bagasse and molasses) can be used in the same manner as sugar-
2
cane’s to produce process heat, power and ethanol [7]. Sweet sorghum-based
electricity can be sold to the national grid, while ethanol can be employed
for transport purposes.
From an industrial point of view, the major benefit of sweet sorghum is
that it can be processed using the harvesting, transport and processing equip-
ment of sugar mills [8, 9, 10]. Therefore, sugar factories in Central America
could benefit from the use of a short-rotation agricultural crop to extend
their energy production period once sugarcane season is over. This increase
will not only lead to higher annual revenues for the sugar factories but will
also help to create job opportunities. For example, only in Guatemala, the
sugar industry generates around 65 000 full-time jobs which support around
250 000 people [11]. Approximately 50% of these jobs are for sugarcane
harvesters, which only work during the harvesting season [11]. Thus, by ex-
tending the sugar mills’ operation, job positions related to the harvesting
process would be able to earn extra income during sorghum season.
It should be pointed out that sweet sorghum here is not considered as
a dedicated energy crop due to the fact that a higher value product such
as sweet juice or molasses (raw material for syrup or ethanol production) is
obtained before firing bagasse to generate electricity.
This paper focuses on determining the potential production of a sugar
mill processing sweet sorghum, performing a techno-economic analysis. The
primary aims are to (1) use equipment which is not used for sugarcane during
off-season and (2) evaluate whether the production and use of sweet sorghum
is technical and economical feasible under Central American conditions. The
calculation method presented here can be used as a tool to estimate the
potential juice, molasses, ethanol and electricity production of a sugar mill.
This evaluation was conducted using typical operating parameters and cost
data of existing sugar mills in Central America. To determine the weight
and effect of the variables considered in the economic model, a sensitivity
analysis was also performed.
1.1. Sweet sorghum

Usually sweet sorghum is cultivated in areas where the rain is not abun-
dant for crops like maize to grow, and where the temperature is too high to
obtain profitable productions [12]. The crop can also be grown successfully
on clay (vertisols) or in moderately leached soils (alfisols) [13], and it has bet-
ter tolerance to drought, soil salinity and water logging [14]. Sweet sorghum
3
is considered a high biomass and sugar yielding gramineous crop, which con-
tains approximately equal quantities of soluble (glucose and sucrose) and
insoluble carbohydrates (cellulose and hemicelluloses) [15].
As sugarcane is the reference crop to produce sugar, ethanol, process
heat and power in Central America, Table 1 presents a comparison between
sugarcane and sweet sorghum.
[Table 1 about here.]
As can be seen from Table 1, sugarcane is an annual crop (under Central

American conditions), while sweet sorghum has a 3.5 month crop cycle and
can be harvested three times per year. Although, according to studies made
by PRAJ Industries Ltd., higher yields can be obtained when sweet sorghum
is harvested twice a year [16].
Besides its short rotation cycle, sweet sorghum cultivars also have the
ability to produce during their second rotation extremely high stalk yields
of up to 110 t/ha/cycle and a yield of fermentable sugars of up to 12.4
t/ha/cycle. Note that these values are significantly higher than the values
reported for sugarcane (Table 1).
The crop also requires minimal water and fertilizer for its cultivation,
about four and two times less than sugarcane, respectively. These character-
istics allow sweet sorghum to grow on marginal or non-arable lands. Accord-
ing to Calvino and Messing [17], sweet sorghum can be cultivated with little
or no N application without having a negative impact on sugar yield. This
is one of the most remarkable crop characteristics of sweet sorghum due to
nitrogen fertilizer accounts for a big portion of energy consumed by arable
crops, attaining 50% of total energy inputs [18]. The low agronomic require-
ments of sweet sorghum translate into low production costs, which make it a
very interesting crop for the production of electricity and biofuel. The cost
of cultivating sweet sorghum is about 50% less than sugarcane (Table 1).
2. Material and methods

2.1. Integrating sweet sorghum into a sugarcane mill
This integration refers to using the existing machinery found in a typical
sugar mill in Central America to process sweet sorghum. In order to evaluate
this integration, sugarcane production has to be compared with a theoretical
mill processing sorghum. For this purpose, the techno-economic assessment
4
is carried out comparing a sugar mill with a milling capacity of 6 500 t/d in
7 possible scenarios (Fig. 1):
[Figure 1 about here.]
Note that this work takes into account a variety of scenarios or plant
configurations that could be encountered in the Central American region
when it comes to sugar production. These scenarios are analyzed and com-
pared based on a process simulation carried out for each stage of the sugar
mill’s production chain including the CHP plant and distillery. The aim is
to simulate the juice, molasses, sugar, ethanol and electricity production of
a conventional sugar mill processing sweet sorghum.
A simplified flowsheet of the simulation process can be seen in Fig. 2.
This layout presents a standard plant with unit operations and equipment
found in a typical plant in Central America. The operating and process
parameters used as inputs for the simulation are listed in Table 2. These
parameters are employed to determine the mass flows through the production
chain.
Data for each stage of the sugar process have been collected from the
Montelimar sugar mill in Nicaragua. Data for sweet sorghum were obtained
from the literature, and based on expert opinion.
The first step of the calculation involves a mass, sucrose and bagasse bal-
ance of the milling and juice clarification process (see Supplemental Mate-
rial ). This calculation will allow to determine the (1) thin juice flow entering
the evaporation system, which is used as a raw material for sugar and ethanol
production, and (2) bagasse produced in the milling stage, which is used as
fuel in the CHP plant to cogenerate.
At the same time, as the sugar mill relies on steam to operate, the steam
consumption of the overall process has to be determined. The plant equip-
ment which require steam as the heating source are: heaters, evaporators
and vacuum pans.
The sugar mill incorporates 4 heaters for heating the alkalized juice, 1
heater for the clarified juice and 1 heater for thick juice. In order to deter-
mine the heat transferred and steam flow required by the heaters, an energy
5
balance is imposed to each heater individually (see Supplemental Material ).
This energy balance is responsible for determining the amount of vapor re-
quired by the heat exchanger. Note that as the density of juice changes
significantly through the process, the specific heat (Cp ) for each type of juice
entering the heaters has to be calculated. Correlations to estimate the spe-
cific heat of sucrose solutions can be extracted from [19].
With respect to the evaporation stage, the sugar mill incorporates a quin-
tuple effect arrangement with vapor bleeding from four vessels (Fig. 1-B).
The vapor bleeding is used for heating purposes in the heat exchangers and
pan floor. The mass flows and steam required for the evaporation process
are estimated by imposing a heat balance across each effect individually, and
a material balance over the hole system (see Supplemental Material ). The
approach to calculate the steam requirement and the amount of water evap-
orated in the multiple-effect evaporation system consists on solving a set of
simultaneous algebraic equations (see Supplemental Material ). It is impor-
tant to mention that because the working fluid of the evaporation system is
juice and not water, changes in the boiling point (e) should be taken into
account. Correlations for computing e can be extracted from [19].
With respect to the crystallization stage, the batch vacuum pans operate
with a double-magma scheme or CBA scheme [19]. The production of sugar
is calculated using data reported by the Montelimar sugar mill for solids and
sucrose concentration of the different flows involved in the crystallization
process. The sugar mill produces a crystalline sugar of 99.6% purity. The
mass flows of the crystallization process (proportion of syrup, massecuite and
molasses) are estimated by imposing a material balance across each vacuum
pan individually (see Supplemental Material ). On the other hand, the steam
required for the vacuum pans can be assessed by imposing a heat balance
over the hole system (see Supplemental Material ). The mass and energy
balance calculation is based on [19].
Once the steam demand of all process units is determined, it has to be
ensured that the amount of steam required to satisfy the sugar mill needs
is in balance with that required by the steam turbine for power generation.
On this basis, the electricity output of the CHP plant can be assessed (see
Supplemental Material ).
The conventional power plant incorporates a high-pressure boiler for the
production of steam, in which bagasse produced in the mills is used as fuel.
Based on data reported by the Montelimar sugar mill [20], 5% of the bagasse
produced is stocked and used for start-ups. For the CHP system it is con-
6
sidered a steam cycle operating with live steam at 538 ◦ C and 8.273 MPa,
using a Condensing Extraction Steam Turbogenerator (CEST) with an in-
stalled capacity of 42.5 MW. The CEST inlet conditions are assumed equal
to the boiler outlet. The steam extracted from CEST is specified at 0.165
MPa and it is used as process heat in the sugar mill. The steam expansion
in the turbine results in saturated steam at -0.090 MPa. It is considered
that the electricity produced by CEST satisfies the sugar mill requirements
and the surplus is sold to the national grid. The units that require process
steam to operate are: evaporators, dearetor and distillery. The total elec-
tricity available for sale is calculated by subtracting the sugar mill electricity
consumption from the total electricity generated. The power consumption of
a sugar mill running under the different scenarios considered in this work is
listed on Table 3.
The operating conditions for the CHP plant firing sweet sorghum bagasse
are kept the same as in the sugarcane case.
With respect to the distillery, data used to estimate the potential ethanol
production was given by the Palo Gordo sugar mill in Guatemala. In the
case of sweet juice, the amount of ethanol produced is based on the stoichio-
metric conversion of sugars into ethanol (0.511 L of ethanol/kg of sugars),
considering an 88% efficiency for the fermentation process and 99.2% for the
distillation process. A simplified flowsheet of ethanol production is presented
in Figure 3. This figure is based on data provided by the Palo Gordo sugar
mill.
It is assumed for all scenarios that the sugar factory incorporates an

annexed distillery for the production of ethanol, except for scenario J-ElSS ,
where it is considered that ethanol is produced in an autonomous distillery.
Thus, for the latter, the steam requirements of the distillery should not be
taken into account in the energy balance calculations. Based on data reported
by the Palo Gordo sugar mill [21], the annexed distillery consumes 11 kWh
per tonne crushed.
It should be noted that the ethanol (96%) produced by the Palo Gordo
distillery is for industrial use. This plant was originally designed for the
7
production of fuel-grade ethanol but due to the lack of a local biofuel mar-
ket, the distillery started to manufacture ethanol for industrial purposes. In
case this plant is oriented to fuel-ethanol production, a dehydration column
should be added right after the demetallization process (Figure 3). Under
this scheme, the overhead vapor of the column would be a ternary azeotrope
of ethanol-water-benzene, while anhydrous fuel-ethanol would be produced
at the bottom. The azeotrope would be separated by distillation and benzene
recycled to the system.
2.2. Cost assessment

The methodology to evaluate the technical feasibility of sweet sorghum
has been presented in the previous section, but questions still remain about
its economical competitiveness with sugarcane. Hence, it is necessary to
determine whether such a production is economically feasible under Central
American conditions.
For this purpose, 3 configurations are studied and compared, i.e., a sugar
mill producing electricity-ethanol from sugarcane (S-ElSC , S-Et-ElSC ), a sugar
mill producing electricity-ethanol from sorghum (S-ElSS , S-Et-ElSS , Et-ElSS ,J-
ElSS ) and a sugar mill producing electricity-ethanol from sugarcane (regular
basis) and sweet sorghum during off-season (SC-SS ). This comparison has
been made on the basis of their cost including a minimum desired profit
margin. The data used for economic assessment of electricity and ethanol
production were collected from the Montelimar and Palo Gordo sugar mill,
respectively.
The approach used to assess the cost of electricity production using sug-
arcane or sweet sorghum bagasse is based on van den Broek et al. [22]. The
Costs per kWh of Electricity (CoE ) are determined by Eq. 1.
it
n

P P f i (y)
3.6 ecci (1+dr)y
i=1 y=1
CoE = n +
P fyld (y)
ηnet ∗ LHVdb ∗ 1000 ∗ yld ∗ rot (1+dr)y
y=1
jt
n

P P f j (y)
ppcj ∗ (1+dr)y
j=1 y=1
n (1)
P f e (y)
Pnet ∗ Op ∗ 1000 ∗ lf (1+dr)y
y=1
8
On the other hand, a new approach has been taken to estimate the Costs
per L of Ethanol (CoEt). Eq. 2 incorporates the term “T RSf ” which refers
to the total reducing sugars available for fermentation in 1 tonne of feed,
while the term “Cz ” stands for the L of EtOH that can be produced from 1
tonne of sugarcane or sweet sorghum.
it
n

P P f i (y)
ecci (1+dr)y
i=1 y=1
CoEt = n +
P fyld (y)
ηdist ∗ T RSf ∗ Cz ∗ yld ∗ rot (1+dr)y
y=1
jt
n

P P f j (y)
edcj ∗ (1+dr)y
j=1 y=1
n (2)
P f e (y)
Cinst ∗ Op (1+dr)y
y=1
Both equations are based on the NPV (Net Present Value) of the costs
and of the revenues [22].
The first part of Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 represent the energy crop costs, while
the second one refers to the power plant/distillery cost. To estimate the
energy crop costs, van den Broek et al. [22] propose to calculate the NPV
of the frequency that a cost item occurs during the total project lifetime.
The frequency of the cost items is presented in Table 4 and represents the
parameters fi (y), fj (y), fyld (y) and fe (y) of Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. It has been
assumed that sweet sorghum can only be ratooned once in a calendar year.
To be able to assess the energy crop costs, cost data from agricultural ac-
tivities (establishment, maintenance of plantation and harvesting) and yield
data of sugarcane and sweet sorghum plantations are required. With respect
to the power plant and distillery cost, data of installed capacity, operation
days, efficiency, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, labor costs, chem-
ical costs and power cost to operate the plants are necessary. The energy
crop items (ecci ) and plant cost (ppcj and edcj ) for the considered scenarios
are derived from Table 5.
9
It should be noted that for the integrated scenario (SC-SS ), it is consid-
ered that the sugar mill is operated continuously for a period of 223 days
in a year. That is, a sugarcane crushing season of 163 days and a sorghum
crushing season of 60 days. It has also been assumed that for all scenarios the
land where sugarcane and sweet sorghum is grown is rented. With respect
to ethanol production, it has been assumed that the distillery cost (edcj ) for
producing ethanol 96% is the same as for producing fuel-grade ethanol.
In addition, as currently in Central America not all sugar mills have a
CHP plant, this study compares and evaluates two possibilities. The first,
considers the integration of sweet sorghum into a power plant (42.5 MW)
that is already generating process heat and power from bagasse. Thus, no
investment is required. The second scheme, however, considers the construc-
tion of a new CHP plant to produce electricity by firing bagasse. All the cost
items involved in the construction of a CHP plant with an installed capacity
of 42.5 MW have been summarized in Table 6.
The total capital investment is evaluated as the sum of all the items listed
in Table 6. On this basis, it was calculated that the construction of a CHP
plant with an installed capacity of 42.5 MW for the production of 8.27 MPa
steam requires an investment of around US$ 42 million. Note that under this
scenario, an integer 1 has to been introduced in the investment column of
Table 4 in order to calculate CoE.
In order to estimate the Profit per kWh of Electricity sold (PoE ) to
the national grid, it is assumed an average sale price of electricity of 11.50
c$/kWh [23]. With respect to the Profit per L of EtOH produced (PoEt),
the anhydrous ethanol price is set to 0.6058 US$/L [24], while the price of
ethanol 96% is set to 0.825 US$/L [21].
All data presented in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 related to sugarcane
and CHP plant were obtained from the Montelimar sugar mill. Data for the
distillery were obtained from the Palo Gordo sugar mill. For those parame-
ters where data was not available, assumptions were made based on expert
opinion and secondary literature review for financial analysis. Due to numer-
ous costs change depending on the country (cost labour, fertilizer, etc.), this
publication encourage the readers to utilize their own update costs in Table
5 to obtain more precise values for CoE and CoEt.
10
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Technical evaluation of integrating sweet sorghum into a sugar mill
The results of simulations attained with sugarcane and sweet sorghum
for all scenarios considered here are summarized in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The
process simulation developed in this work was run initially at Montelimar
sugar mill conditions to insure that the calculation methodology could dupli-
cate Montelimar’s results. Then, changes were made in various parameters
to reflect the physicochemical properties of sweet sorghum. Subscripts “sc”
and “ss” reffer to sugarcane and sweet sorghum, respectively.
For scenario S-ElSC , it can be seen that a sugar mill can produce 0.11
tonnes of sugar and 106 kW per tonne of cane crushed, while a sugar mill
having both a CHP plant and distillery can produce 0.11 tonnes of sugar,
9 L of EtOH and 94 kW per tonne crushed (Fig. 4). On the other hand,
a sugar mill processing sweet sorghum (S-ElSS ) could produce 0.076 tonnes
of sugar and 112 kW per every tonne of sorghum fed to the mill, while for
scenario S-Et-ElSS , a sugar mill could produce 0.076 tonnes of sugar, 14 L of
EtOH and 101 kW per tonne crushed (Fig. 5).
In case no crystalline sugar is produced, from the direct use of sweet
juice, a sugar mill could produce 72 L of EtOH and 132 kW/t (Fig. 5).
Scenario J-ElSS evaluates the production of a sugar factory oriented only
to cogeneration and sweet juice production. The sweet juice produced from
the crushing could be sold to distilleries for further processing. Under this
scheme, simulation results show that a sugar factory could produce 143 kW
per every tonne of sweet sorghum crushed (Fig. 5). No sugar will be produced
under this scenario.
The results for the integrated scenario SC-SS can be extracted from Fig.
4 and Fig. 5. That is, for a sugar mill processing both sugarcane and sweet
sorghum in a year, the yields obtained for scenario S-Et-ElSC are valid for the
cane season and the values presented for scenario Et-ElSS can be expected
for sweet sorghum season.
In order to evaluate in more detail the sugar production performance of
both feedstocks, a mass balance approach was used to estimate how much
11
molasses and sugar is produced in the crystallization stage (Fig. 1-C). The
results for sugar production for all scenarios considered in this work are
presented in Table 7. The first column in the table is used to indicate which
stage of the process depicted in Fig. 1 corresponds to the calculated summary
value. This table presents the flowrate of massecuites, molasses, B sugar, C
sugar and commercial sugar produced through the crystallization process for
a crushing rate of 6 500 t/d.
A typical sugar mill processing sugarcane can produce about 715 tonnes
of sugar per day (S-ElSC ; S-Et-ElSC ), while a factory using sweet sorghum as
raw material could produce 492 t/d of commercial sugar (S-ElSS ; S-Et-ElSS ).
The use of sweet sorghum to manufacture sugar represents a decrease of 31%
in sugar production compared with sugarcane.
The process simulation also produces a convenient indicator to show the
performance of both crops towards sugar production. As can be observed
from Table 7, sugarcane reports a sugar yield of 110 kg of sugar/t of cane,
while sweet sorghum would only be able to produce 76 kg of sugar per tonne
of sorghum crushed. Based on the results presented above, it can be inferred
that sugarcane is the most suitable crop to produce sugar due to higher yields
can be achieved, and as will be discussed later, problems related to sucrose
crystallization in sweet juice can be avoided.
With respect to molasses production, as aforementioned, distilleries at-
tached to sugar mills in Central America produce ethanol by fermentation of
C-molasses. The results presented on Table 7 show that a conventional sugar
mill could produce 251 tonnes of C-molasses from sugarcane (S-ElSC ; S-Et-
ElSC ), while a factory processing sweet sorghum could produce 173 tonnes
of molasses per day (S-ElSS ; S-Et-ElSS ). That is, for every tonne of sweet
sorghum crushed by the mill, 12 kg less of C-molasses are produced compared
with sugarcane. Despite there is a decrease in molasses production, unlike
cane-based ethanol, ethanol from sweet sorghum is usually produced from
sweet juice rather than molasses. Annexed distilleries in Central America do
not produce ethanol from sugarcane juice due to a higher value product can
be extracted from it, i.e, sugar. The results obtained for the case when a
sugar mill is only oriented to ethanol production are summarized in Table 8.
12
The results for scenarios S-Et-ElSC and S-Et-ElSS represent the potential
ethanol production from sugarcane and sweet sorghum molasses, respectively.
Meanwhile, the results for scenario Et-ElSS represent the potential ethanol
production if only sweet juice was processed.
With respect to the CHP plant, simulations results for each of the studied
scenarios are presented in Table 9. The first column in the table is used to
indicate which stage of the process depicted in Fig. 1 corresponds to the
calculated summary value.
As can be seen from Table 9, sweet sorghum reports a bagasse production

24% higher than sugarcane. For scenario S-ElSS , a sugar mill producing sugar
and electricity would need to consume around 51% of bagasse production
to meet the on-site needs of steam (80 700 kg/h). Under this scheme, a
sugar mill processing 6 500 t/d of sweet sorghum could produce 38 097 kWh.
Taking into account that the electrical consumption of the plant is 7 771
kWh, the CHP plant would be able to generate 30 326 kWh of electricity for
sale to the national grid.
For scenario S-Et-ElSS , a sugar mill producing sugar, ethanol and elec-
tricity could produce 27 295 kWh of electricity for sale to the public grid.
Note that for all scenarios oriented to sugar production, as was expected,
the evaporation station is the major user of exhaust steam and determine
the overall vapor consumption of the sugar factory. It should also be noted
that variations of steam requirements in a sugar factory strongly depend on
changes in brix loading.
For scenario Et-ElSS , a sugar mill producing ethanol and electricity con-
sumes around 1 878 kg/h of steam. In this case, electricity production reaches
42 500 kWh. It is estimated that a plant of these characteristics requires 6
778 kWh to operate. Thus, a sugar mill could produce 35 791 kWh of elec-
tricity for sale to the grid.
For scenario J-ElSS , a sugar mill producing sweet juice and electricity
could produce 38 791 kWh of electricity for sale to the national grid.
From the results presented in this section, it can be inferred that four
properties of sweet sorghum contributed to the variation in production effi-
ciency. The first and second are related to the ◦ Brix and Polarity in sweet
sorghum. The last two properties involved are related to the fibre percentage
(fibre %) and Lower Heating Value (LHV).
13
The decrease in sugar yield of sweet sorghum scenarios (S-ElSS and S-
Et-ElSS ) with respect to sugarcane’s can be explained by the fact that sweet
sorghum juice has lower levels of sucrose than sugarcane. This can be easily
seen from Table 2, which displays the ◦ Brix and Pol values for both crops.
Usually, both of these parameters are used to describe raw sugar productivity
through a variable known as “purity”. The sucrose purity of a sugar solution
is defined as the ratio of the sucrose content to the dissolved solids in the
solution (pol/brix). On this basis, it can be derived from Table 2 that sweet
sorghum has a purity of 63%, which is 27% lower than the value reported
for sugarcane by the Montelimar sugar mill [20]. Thus, considering that
being sucrose which is crystallized into sugar, sugar crystallization from sweet
juice becomes an inefficient process compared with sugarcane. According to
Woods [8], although it is possible to produce crystalline sugar below purities
of 75%, it may not be economically viable.
Feasible solutions in a no longer future could be the creation and use
of high yielding varieties of sweet sorghum. According to a study made by
Reddy and Reddy [25] there are sweet sorghum varieties that can yield 18.45
◦
Bx and Purity of 77.3%. More practical solutions could be performing a
mix between sugarcane and sorghum juice in order to increase sugar pro-
ductivity. The resultant mixture would be a solution of higher purity than
sweet sorghum itself. According to a pilot study by Shree Renuka Sugars
Ltd., Karnataka, India, sweet sorghum can be blended up to 10% in sugar-
cane juice without affecting the crystallization process [26]. Based on a study
made by Reddy and Reddy [25], sorghum juice and sugarcane juice mixed in
the ratio of 1:5 can increase the solids content from 18.45 ◦ Bx to 19.30 ◦ Bx
and Purity from 77.3% to 79.3%.
Besides the low level of sucrose in sorghum there are other factors that
difficult sucrose crystallization. That is, the presence of aconitic acid, starch
and the relatively higher content of total reducing sugars (TRS) in sweet
juice compared with sugarcane. However, according to Huilgol et al. [27],
it is this last factor the one that makes sweet sorghum most suitable for
ethanol manufacture. Therefore, it can be inferred that the parameters to
take into account for sweet sorghum processing will depend strongly on the
final products required, i.e., ethanol only, or sugar and ethanol. If only
ethanol is to be produced, “TRS” rather than sugar quality is the important
parameter [7]. However, if sugar is to be produced, “sucrose purity” becomes
essential to the evaluation [7].
14
Note that the present simulation does not suggest that sugar can be easily
extracted from sweet sorghum. Thus, for those cases where sucrose crystal-
lization is not feasible, producers could explore the production of other value-
added products such as syrup. In case sweet sorghum production is taken to
the pan stage, the syrup resultant from this process can be destined to the
food industry (liquid sweetener) and pharmaceutical companies. Under this
scheme, like cane-based sugar process, the only option for using the sucrose
available in the remaining molasses would be the production of ethanol.
With respect to electricity production, it was shown that sweet sorghum is
able to produce more bagasse than needed for the plant’s own consumption.
Despite the increase in bagasse production, which is related to the high fibre
content in sorghum (Table 2), the total steam generation is slightly 2% higher
than sugarcane. This can be explained by the fact that the LHV of sweet
sorghum bagasse is lower than sugarcane’s (Table 2), i.e, less energy can be
extracted from the same amount of mass. For instance, for scenario S-ElSS ,
the sugar mill consumed around 9% more bagasse than scenario S-ElSC to
meet the sugar mill steam requirements.
The high bagasse consumption is also attributed to the highly energy-
demanding evaporation process, which requires a lot of steam to concentrate
sweet juice to the desired ◦ Brix. For example, a sugar mill processing sweet
sorghum (S-ElSS ) feeds to the evaporation system 7% less clarified juice than
a factory processing sugarcane (S-ElSC ) and it only requires 10% less steam
to concentrate it to the desired concentration (Table 9).
In summary, although several studies highlight the potential of sweet
sorghum for ethanol production, the results from this work prove that sweet
sorghum must also be seen as a viable feedstock for electricity production.
The use of sweet sorghum bagasse for electricity generation reports higher
yields than a CHP plant using sugarcane bagasse ( S-ElSS ; Table 9).
3.2. Cost assessment

The economic performance and profitability of electricity from sugarcane
and sweet sorghum bagasse has been evaluated and compared for an installed
capacity of 42.5 MW. In order to illustrate the results for a sugar mill process-
ing sugarcane/sweet sorghum bagasse (S-ElSC , S-Et-ElSC , S-ElSS , S-Et-ElSS ,
Et-ElSS , J-ElSS ), the cost (CoE ) and profit (PoE ) of electricity was varied in
terms of the crop yield. For the integrated scenario (SS-SC ), CoE and PoE
were varied in terms of sweet sorghum yield, while the costs associated to a
given sugarcane yield remained constant. Under this scheme, the lowest yield
15
achievable for sugarcane was assumed to be 40 t/ha and the maximum yield
140 t/ha. With respect to ethanol production, the economic performance
of sorghum-based ethanol has been evaluated and compared for an installed
capacity of 120 000 L/d.
3.2.1. Integrating sweet sorghum into a sugar mill CHP plant already gener-
ating process heat and power
The results of the economic study for all considered scenarios for a power
plant already generating heat and electricity are presented in Figure 6.
As can be seen from Figure 6, for a sugarcane yield of 100 t/ha, the CoE
and PoE of sugarcane bagasse is 3.22 and 8.27 ¢US$/kWh, respectively.
Meanwhile, for a sweet sorghum yield of 49 t/ha, the CoE and PoE of
sweet sorghum bagasse is 3.56 and 7.93 ¢US$/kWh, respectively. From these
results, it can be seen that producing electricity from sweet sorghum would
cost 10% more than the electricity from sugarcane.
Trends of improvement are observed for the integrated scenario (SC-SS ).
For example, assuming a sweet sorghum yield of 49 t/ha, a sugar mill could
produce electricity from bagasse between 4.37-3.22 ¢US$/kWh. This pro-
duction would report to the sugar mill a PoE between 7.12-8.27 ¢US$/kWh.
Despite this electricity still would cost more than using solely sugarcane, note
that for a fixed sugarcane yield of 103 t/ha, high yielding varieties of sweet
sorghum (> 62 t/ha) could produce electricity at lower prices than a sugar
factory just firing sugarcane bagasse.
The increase in the cost of sorghum-based electricity with respect to sug-
arcane is related to differences in LHV and agricultural activities cost. The
effect caused by the difference in LHV was discussed in the previous sec-
tion. With respect to the agricultural activities cost, it was observed that
the establishment of the plantation and fungicide application are the most
cost-consuming ones, accounting for 48% of the total inputs. Based on data
presented in Table 5, it is estimated that producing sweet sorghum (33.15
US$/t) under Central American conditions cost 21% more than sugarcane
(25 US$/t). Loading and transport costs to the sugar mill are included
in the aforementioned value. It should be pointed out that sweet sorghum
production cost was estimated considering that the land for cultivation is
rented. For those cases where sweet sorghum is grown on land owned by the
16
sugar mill and the loading and transportation costs are not considered, sweet
sorghum cost would fall to 30.30 US$/t. The major advantage of sugarcane
with respect to production costs is that it can be replanted every 5 years,
while sweet sorghum has to replanted every year, increasing the crop costs
along the project lifetime (First term - Eq. 1).
Despite of this, the results presented in this section reveal that sweet
sorghum-based electricity can be produced at competitive prices compared
with other studied feedstocks. For example, van den Broek et al. [22] reports
that a sugar mill can produce electricity from biomass for 6.8 ¢US$/kWh1
and an oil fired plant for 8.1 ¢US$/kWh2 . Meanwhile, the electricity cost
generation from bagasse, as calculated in this study, is 101% lower for the
integrated scenario (SC-SS ). Furthermore, by extending the operation period
in 2 months, a sugar mill could sell about one-third more electricity to the
national grid. This improvement activity will result in an increase of annual
revenue from energy sales result of sweet sorghum integration. For instance, a
CHP plant firing sorghum bagasse during off-season (2 months) could obtain
an average revenue of US$ 3 798 929 for a crushing rate of 6 500 t/d (132
kW/t - scenario Et-ElSS ).
3.2.2. Integrating sweet sorghum into a new sugar mill CHP plant
For the case where a new CHP plant has to be built to generate process
heat and power, the results obtained for CoE and PoE from sugarcane and
sweet sorghum bagasse are displayed in Figure 7.
As can be seen from Figure 7, a sugar mill can produce electricity from
sugarcane bagasse (103 t/ha) for 6.00 ¢US$/kWh, while a plant processing
sweet sorghum (49 t/ha) for 6.34 ¢US$/kWh.
For the integrated scenario (SC-SS ), considering a sweet sorghum yield of
49 t/ha, a sugar mill could produce electricity from bagasse between 5.76-4.61
¢US$/kWh. Note that the benefits of sweet sorghum integration are more
evident under this scheme due to the sugar mill would be able to produce
more electricity in a year, reducing the effect of the investment cost over the
cost of electricity. For example, for a sugarcane yield of 103 t/ha and a sweet
sorghum yield of 49 t/ha, the cost of electricity decrease from 6.00 to 4.77
¢US$/kWh.
17
3.2.3. Integrating sweet sorghum into a sugar mill distillery
The results for the cost (CoEt) and profit (PoEt) of ethanol from sugar-
cane and sweet sorghum are presented in Figure 8. Here, the cost of ethanol
is presented as a function of sweet sorghum yield.
As aforementioned, in Central America, ethanol is produced from a residue

of the sugar process (C-molasses). Thus, the cost of growing and harvesting
sugarcane does not need to be taken into account when calculating the cost
of producing ethanol. Therefore, the first term of Eq. 2 is always zero for
molasses-based ethanol.
The results show that a sugar mill distillery can produce ethanol from
sugarcane molasses for 4.55 ¢US$/L, which exactly corresponds to the value
reported by the Palo Gordo sugar mill [21]. The same results could be ex-
pected for CoEt from sweet sorghum molasses as this value only depends on
the distillery costs.
In case ethanol is produced from the direct use of sweet juice (Et-ElSS ),
for a sorghum yield of 49 t/ha, a sugar mill distillery could produce ethanol
from sorghum for 44.97 ¢US$/L. For the integrated scenario (SC-SS ), a sugar
mill could produce ethanol at an average price of 24.76 ¢US$/L. Despite pro-
ducing ethanol from sweet juice is expensier than cane molasses, processing
sweet sorghum varieties above 35 t/ha could still be profitable for a sugar
mill.
3.2.4. Sensitiviy analysis

Three sensitivity analyses are performed here using the information gen-
erated in the previous section. By comparing to the sugarcane scenario, these
analyses determine the impact of the changes in crop yield, installed capac-
ity, lower heating value, land cost, discount rate and transportation distance
on the cost of electricity and ethanol from sweet sorghum. All analyses have
been conducted assuming as reference values the data presented in Table 5
for both sugarcane and sweet sorghum. That is, sugarcane yield of 103 t/ha,
sweet sorghum yield of 49 t/ha, discount rate of 6.5%, net installed capacity
of 42.5 MW, etc.
The maximal and minimal percent changes relative to the results of the
base case are plotted in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11.
18
With respect to electricity production, looking at the overall results it
can be inferred that the cost of electricity from bagasse is most sensitive to
crop yield, installed capacity and LHV.
If the installed capacity of the CHP plant was 52 MW, the CoE from
sorghum bagasse would fall from 3.56 to 3.22 ¢US$/kWh and decrease from
3.38 to 3.04 ¢US$/kWh for SC-SS scenario. The same trend occurs in the
case where a new CHP plant is built, the cost of electricity from sorghum
bagasse falls from 6.34 to 5.46 ¢US$/kWh, while for the integrated scenario
(SC-SS ), the value of CoE drops from 4.77 to 4.16 ¢US$/kWh.
With respect to the crop yield, it can be seen that an increase in the yield
of sorghum varieties results in better economic performance. For instance, if
sorghum yields increase by 25% (starting from the standard yield of 49 t/ha),
the value of CoE falls to 3.24 ¢US$/kWh for a CHP plant already generating
electricity from bagasse. This trend is also observed in scenario SC-SS, where
the cost of electricity drops from 3.51 to 3.23 ¢US$/kWh. In the case where
a new CHP plant has to be built, the cost of electricity from sorghum bagasse
decreases from 6.34 to 6.02 ¢US$/kWh, while for the integrated scenario, a
CHP plant could produce electricity firing bagasse for 4.62 ¢US$/kWh.
On the other hand, as can be seen from Figure 9b the impact of land cost,
discount rate and distances of transfer over CoE is relatively low. Meanwhile,
for the scenario when electricity is generated in a new CHP plant (Figure
10b), variables such as the discount rate are crucial in the attractiveness of
sweet sorghum projects.
If it is considered that the land dedicated to cultivation is owned by the
sugar mill, the cost of producing electricity from sugarcane would be 3.14
¢US$/kWh (103 t/ha). Meanwhile, for a CHP plant processing sorghum
bagasse (49 t/ha), the cost of electricity falls from 3.56 to 3.47 ¢US$/kWh
and for the integrated scenario to 3.30 ¢US$/kWh. The same trend occurs
in the case where electricity is generated in a new CHP plant, a sugar mill
firing sorghum bagasse could produce electricity for 6.25 ¢US$/kWh, while
for scenario SC-SS, the value of CoE is 4.69 ¢US$/kWh.
Significant impacts over the cost of electricity are obtained when the
distances of transfer are over 100 km. Under this conditions, the cost of elec-
tricity increases from 3.56 to 4.14 ¢US$/kWh for a sugar mill firing sorghum
19
bagasse, while for scenario SC-SS, the value of CoE raises from 3.38 to 3.94
¢US$/kWh. The same trend occurs in the case where electricity from bagasse
is generated in a new CHP plant, a sugar mill processing sorghum could pro-
duce electricity for 6.92 ¢US$/kWh, while for the sugarcane/sweet sorghum
system, the value of CoE increases from 4.77 to 5.33 ¢US$/kWh.
With respect to the discount rate, the cost of generating electricity in
a sugar mill that already has a power plant is not affected by significant
changes in the discount rate. Meanwhile, the reverse situation occurs when
electricity from bagasse is produced in a new CHP plant. By increasing the
discount rate to 20%, for a sugar mill firing sweet sorghum bagasse, the value
of CoE raises from 6.34 to 9.14 ¢US$/kWh. Meanwhile, for the integrated
scenario (SC-SS ) the cost of electricity from bagasse increases from 4.77 to
6.18 ¢US$/kWh.
With respect to ethanol production, it can be seen from Figure 11 that
the variables that influence the most the cost of ethanol are the same that
affected CoE.
If the installed capacity of the distillery was 210 000 L/d, the CoEt from
sorghum would fall from 44.97 to 43.01 ¢US$/L and decrease from 24.76 to
22.81 ¢US$/L for SC-SS scenario.
With respect to the crop yield, it can be seen that an increase in the yield
of sorghum varieties could also help to increase the revenue of the sugar mill
from selling ethanol. For instance, if sorghum yields increase by 25% (starting
from the standard yield of 49 t/ha), the value of CoEt falls to 37.81 ¢US$/L.
This trend is also obtained for scenario SC-SS, where the cost of ethanol
drops from 24.76 to 21.18 ¢US$/L.
With respect to the land cost (Figure 11b), if it is considered that the
cultivation land is owned by the sugar mill, the cost of producing ethanol
from sorghum would be 42.89 ¢US$/L, while for the integrated scenario (SC-
SS ) the value of CoEt would drop to 23.72 ¢US$/L.
Again, the greatest effects are seen when the distances of transfer are over
100 km. Under this conditions, the cost of ethanol from sorghum would rise
to 58.27 ¢US$/L, while for the integrated scenario (SC-SS ), the values of
CoEt would increase from 24.76 to 31.41 ¢US$/L.
Finally, it is observed from Figure 11b that significant changes on the
discount rate do not affect the cost of ethanol. For both of the studied cases,
20
i.e., electricity and ethanol production, minimal changes were observed in
CoE and CoEt when no investments are made during the project lifetime.
Also, the smaller changes in the discount rate are connected with the short
rotation cycle of sweet sorghum, which enables the sugar mill to produce more
bagasse or ethanol in a year than a sugar mill processing only sugarcane.
4. Conclusions
The results obtained in this study reveal clear advantages for the inte-
gration of sweet sorghum into Central American sugar mills. The analysis
presented here was carried out for Central American conditions, but the ap-
proach can be easily applied to other countries to assess the technical and
economic feasibility of any sugar crop processed by a sugar mill.
Compared to other regions, Central America has a historical background
of producing sugar and sweet sorghum can take advantage of the sugar-power-
ethanol infrastructure and experience of sugarcane millers. These character-
istics offer a big opportunity for large-scale sorghum energy production in the
region. The short growing period of sweet sorghum would allow sugar mills
to extend their operation season, while sugarcane production is unaffected.
It should be pointed out that this production will be strongly limited by the
wet season. The heavy rains in Central America could limit the harvesting
and transporting of sorghum from the fields to the processing plant. For this
reason, a year-round production from sweet sorghum cannot be considered
as a feasible scenario. This paper proposes to process sweet sorghum, one
month before, and one month after the sugarcane season. Under such scheme,
an efficient maintenance program should be considered due to the increase
in the operation period will shorten the schedule of seasonal maintenance
leading to possible mechanical failures during crushing season.
The findings of the techno-economic analysis highlight that sweet sorghum
can compete with respect to energetic and economic performance with sug-
arcane. The simulations performed using data of the Montelimar sugar
mill demonstrate the enhancement of electricity yield (kW/t) using sweet
sorghum as raw material. For example, under scenario S-ElSS , a sugar mill
CHP plant can produce 112 kW/t, while a sugar mill oriented only to cogen-
eration can produce 143 kW per tonne of sorghum crushed.
It should be noted that this paper does not considered feasible the produc-
tion of sugar from sweet sorghum due to technical difficulties and low sugar
21
production yields. Unless the purity of sweet sorghum could be increased ei-
ther by mixing with sugarcane juice or genetic enhancement of sweet sorghum
varieties, sugar production is discarded in short-term. In such case, although
sweet juice can be taken to the pan stage for syrup production, this does not
insure that sorghum-based syrup can be easily commercialized in the Central
American markets. Thus, consumer reactions to sorghum syrup consumption
should be further investigated.
On the other hand, the findings from the economic analysis show that
sweet sorghum by-products can be produced at a competitive price under
Central American conditions. Between the analyzed alternatives, the results
showed that scenario SC-SS, which couples sugarcane with sorghum produc-
tion during off-season, improves the profitability of the sugar mill. Under
this scheme, a sugar mill could produce electricity from bagasse for an aver-
age of 3.79 ¢US$/kWh in a CHP plant that is already generating heat and
power, as compared to 3.22 ¢US$/kWh for electricity from a sugar mill using
sugarcane bagasse as the only fuel. In case a new CHP plant has to be built,
a sugar mill could produce electricity from bagasse for an average of 5.18
¢US$/kWh, as compared to 6.00 ¢US$/kWh from a sugar mill processing
only sugarcane. With respect to ethanol production, a distillery can produce
ethanol for 24.76 ¢US$/L.
Crucial variables determining the cost of electricity and ethanol are the
installed capacity of the plant and crop yield. The economic performance of
power and ethanol production from sweet sorghum increases with increas-
ing scales and yields. In addition, from the results presented here for both
electricity and ethanol production it can be inferred that any change in
sorghum properties (crop yield and LHV) will affect the attractiveness of
sweet sorghum projects.
Despite electricity and ethanol production costs are higher than sugar-
cane, sweet sorghum would help the sugar mill to obtain extra revenue from
energy and ethanol sale by extending its operation by 2 months. The increase
in renewable electricity and ethanol production will have a profound effect on
Central America’s energy security reducing dependence on petroleum deriva-
tives. Furthermore, the bet on crops such as sweet sorghum will not only
diversy agriculture but also help to boost rural economies by creating em-
ployment opportunities.
In terms of climate change values, sweet sorghum is an attractive low-cost
option among the feedstocks studied in the region to generate power-ethanol
and reduce carbon emissions produced from fossil fuel utilization.
22
Notation
Cz = ethanol conversion factor [L/kg of TRS];
Cinst = distillery installed capacity [L/d];
CoE = cost of electricity [US$/kWh];
CoEt = cost of ethanol [¢US$/L];
dr = discount rate ;
ecci = cost of energy crop cost item i [$/ha] ;
edcj = cost of ethanol distillery cost item [US$] ;
fyld (y) = binary figure (0 or 1) to indicate wether the energy crop is harvested
in year y;
fe (y) = binary figure (0 or 1) to indicate wether power is produce in year y
(h);
fi (y) = number of times per hectare that cost item i occurs in year y in the
plantation;
fj (y) = number of times that cost item j occurs in year y in the power plant;
it = number of energy crop cost items with different time pattern;
jt = number of power plant cost items with different time pattern ;
LHVbagasse = Low Heating Value of bagasse (kJ/kg)
LHVdb = lower heating value on dry basis of bagasse as fired [GJ/t];
lf = load factor [h];
n = total number of years in the project lifetime;
Op = number of hours per year the plant is operated [h];
ppcj = cost of power plant cost item [US$] ;
PE = electricity selling price [¢US$/kWh]
PET = anhydrous ethanol selling price [¢US$/L]
Pnet = net installed electric capacity of the power plant [MWe];
PoE = profit of electricity per KWh [¢US$/kWh]
PoEt= profit ot ethanol per L of EtOH [¢US/$L]
rot = harvest rotation cycle [yr];
T RSf = total reducing sugars per tonne of feed [kg of TRS/t of feed];
yld = average anual yield of energy crop [t/ha/yr] ;
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the kind support of the Spanish Agency for Interna-
tional Development Cooperation (AECID) in the development of this re-
search project. We would also especially like to acknowledge Montelimar
23
and Palo Gordo sugar mill’s personnel for providing all the information re-
garding the sugar process.
5. Supplementary material
5.1. Annex A - Sugar production process
5.2. Annex B - Energy and mass balance for a sugar mill
24
Table footnotes
1
Data updated to 2013 - 4.9 ¢US$/kWh (1999).
2
Data updated to 2013 - 5.8 ¢US$/kWh (1999).
25
References
[1] UN CEPAL SSeM. Centroamérica: Estadı́sticas del sector subélectrico,
2010. Tech. Rep.; CEPAL; 2011.
[2] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Sustainability considerations for elec-

tricity generation from biomass. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2010;14(5):1419 –27. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1364032110000183.
[3] Heinimo J, Junginger M. Production and trading of biomass for energy

an overview of the global status. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33(9):1310
–20. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S096195340900107X.
[4] ECLAC . The economics of climate change in central america: Summary

2010. Tech. Rep.; Mexican Office of the Economic Council for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC); 2010.
[5] S. Gudoshnikov L. Jolly DS. Tech. Rep.; The World Sugar MarketCRC
Press; 2004.
[6] Cutz L, Sanchez-Delgado S, Ruiz-Rivas U, Santana D. Bioenergy pro-

duction in central america: Integration of sweet sorghum into sugar
mills. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;25(0):529
S1364032113003109.
[7] Woods J. Integrating sweet sorghum and sugarcane for bioenergy. mod-
elling the potential for electricity and ethanol production in se zimbabwe.
Ph.D. thesis; Kings College London; 2000.
[8] Woods J. The potential for energy production using sweet sorghum
in southern africa. Energy for Sustainable Development 2001;5(1):31
S0973082609600181.
[9] Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Wyman C. Refining sweet sorghum to

ethanol and sugar: economic trade-offs in the context of north china.
Bioresource Technology 2005;96(9):985 – 1002. URL http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852404003402.
26
[10] Misook Kim , Day D. Composition of sugar cane, energy cane, and
sweet sorghum suitable for ethanol production at louisiana sugar mills.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 2011;38:803–7.
[11] Tay K. Gain report: Guatemala, sugar annual. Tech. Rep.; USDA
Foreing Agricultural Service; 2011. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/
Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Sugar%20Annual_Guatemala%
20City_Guatemala_3-22-2011.pdf.
[12] Masera O, N. R, Lazcano I, Horta L, Macedo I, Trinidade S, et al. Poten-
ciales y Viabilidad del uso del Bioetanol y Biodiesel para el Transporte
en Mexico. Tech. Rep.; SENER/BID/GITZ; 2006.
[13] Rao S, Reddy B, Blmmel M, Subbarao G, Chandraraj K, Reddy
S, et al. Sweet sorghum as a biofuel feedstock: Can there
be food-feed-fuel tradeoffs? Tech. Rep.; 2009. http://www.
corpoica.gov.co/sitioweb/Documento/JatrophaContrataciones/
SWEETSORGHUMASABIOFUELSFEEDSTOCK.pdf.
[14] Almodares A, Hadi MR. Production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum:
A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2009;4(9):772–80.
[15] Yu J, Zhang T, Zhong J, Zhang X, Tan T. Biorefinery of sweet
sorghum stem. Biotechnology Advances 2012;(0):. URL http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975012000274.
[16] PRAJ . Sweet sorghum to ethanol: Technology, plant & machin-
ery. Tech. Rep.; PRAJ Industries LTd.; 2011. http://www.praj.net/
media/sweetsorghum.pdf.
[17] Calvino M, Messing J. Sweet sorghum as a model sys-
tem for bioenergy crops. Current Opinion in Biotechnology
2012;23(3):323 –9. ¡ce:title¿Energy biotechnology Environmen-
tal biotechnology¡/ce:title¿; URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/
[18] Barbanti L, Grandi S, Vecchi A, Venturi G. Sweet and fibre sorghum
(sorghum bicolor (l.) moench), energy crops in the frame of environ-
mental protection from excessive nitrogen loads. European Journal of
Agronomy 2006;25(1):30 –9. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/
27
[19] Hugot E. Handbook of cane sugar enginnering. Elsevier; 1986.
[20] Chávez F. Personal communication. 2013. Montelimar Sugar mill.
[21] Mena V. Personal communication. 2013. Palo Gordo Sugar mill.
[22] van den Broek R, van den Burg T, van Wijk A, Turkenburg W.
Electricity generation from eucalyptus and bagasse by sugar mills
in nicaragua: A comparison with fuel oil electricity generation on
the basis of costs, macro-economic impacts and environmental emis-
sions. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000;19(5):311 –35. doi:\bibinfo{doi}
{10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00034-9}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0961953400000349.
[23] Vanegas M. Personal communication. 2012. Montelimar Sugar mill.
[24] CEPEA . Center for advanced studies on applied economics. 2013.

http://cepea.esalq.usp.br/etanol/.
[25] Reddy B, Reddy P. Sweet sorghum: Characteristics and potential. In-

ternational Sorghum and Millets Newsletter 2003;14:26–8.
[26] Reddy B, Ramesh S, Reddy P, Ramaiah B, Salimath P, Kachapur R.

Sweet sorghum, a potential alternate raw material for bio-ethanol and
bioenergy. Int Sorghum Millets Newslettt 2005;46:79–86.
[27] Huilgol R, Ramkrishna , Misale G. A trial with sweet sorghum 2004;CFC

Technical Paper No. 34:333–7.
[28] Soltani A, Almodares A. Evaluation of the investments in sugar beet and

sweet sorghum production. National Convention of Sugar Production
from Agriculture Products 1994;Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz,
Iran.
[29] Reddy BVS, Ramesh S, Kumar AA, Wani SP, Ortiz R, Ceballos H,
et al. Bio-fuel crops research for energy security and rural development
in developing countries. BIOENERGY RESEARCH 2008;1(3-4):248–58.
[30] Bocci E, Carlo AD, Marcelo D. Power plant perspectives for sugarcane
mills. Energy 2009;34(5):689 –98.
[31] Vargas M. Personal communication. 2013. Montelimar Sugar mill.
28
[32] Alvarez J, Helsel Z. Economic potential of sweet sorghum for ethanol
production in south florida. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
2011;Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) FE896; URL http:
//http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe896.
[33] Linton JA, Miller JC, Little RD, Petrolia DR, Coble KH. Economic
feasibility of producing sweet sorghum as an ethanol feedstock in the
southeastern united states. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35(7):3050
S0961953411002091.
[34] Ratnavathi C, Suresh K, Kumar BV, Pallavi M, Komala V, Seetharama

N. Study on genotypic variation for ethanol production from
sweet sorghum juice. Biomass and Bioenergy 2010;34(7):947 –
52. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0961953410000577.
29
List of Figures
1 The LOF caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2 The LOF caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 Schematic representation of the Palo Gordo process for ethanol
production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4 Schematic representation of scenarios considered for sugarcane 34
5 Schematic representation of scenarios for sweet sorghum . . . 35
6 Cost and profit of electricity generation from sugarcane and
sweet sorghum bagasse in a CHP plant already generating heat
and electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7 Cost and profit of electricity generation from sugarcane and
sweet sorghum bagasse in a new CHP plant . . . . . . . . . . 37
8 Cost and profit of ethanol production from sweet sorghum in
a sugarcane mill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9 Sensitivity analysis of the cost of bagasse electricity in a CHP
plant already generating heat and electricity . . . . . . . . . . 39
10 Sensitivity analysis of the cost of bagasse electricity in a new
CHP plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11 Sensitivity analysis of the cost of ethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
30
Process
Sugar
heat
1 S-Elsc
Sugarcane 2 S-Et-Elsc
7 SC-SS
Electricity Ethanol
Process
Sugar
heat
3 S-Elss
31
4 S-Et-Elss
Sweet sorghum
5 Et-Elss
6 J-Elss
Electricity Ethanol
1
Figure 1: Diferent scenarios considered for sugarcane and sweet sorghum processing.
1. Use of sugarcane to produce sugar, process heat and power (S-ElSC ).

2. Use of sugarcane to produce sugar, ethanol, process heat and power (S-Et-ElSC ).
3. Use of sweet sorghum to produce sugar, process heat and power (S-ElSS ).
4. Use of sweet sorghum to produce sugar, ethanol, process heat and power (S-Et-ElSS ).
5. Use of sweet sorghum to produce ethanol, process heat and power (Et-ElSS ).
6. Use of sweet sorghum to produce sweet sorghum juice, process heat and power (J-ElSS ).
7. Use of sugarcane to produce sugar, process heat and power during milling season and use of sweet sorghum to produce
ethanol, process heat and power during off-season (SC-SS ).
High pressure steam
A MILLING D
Bagacillo filter Imbibition Water (CS-5)
CANE PREPARATION (CS-3)
CEST (CS-6)
Bagasse (CS-2)
(CS-1)
Exhaust steam
Mixed juice Boiler (CS-4)
Raw juice Fuel
CHP PLANT
Mixed juice Cane milling Vacuum Exhausted Vegetable steam
Mixed juice tank Filtered juice JUICE Filtered juice steam B
Lime
Barometric
CLARIFICATION Bagacillo
Limed juice condenser
Water
Liming tank
Heater Filtercake
Heater Clarified juice
Clarifier
Thin juice EVAPORATION
Vegetable steam Mud Thick juice Condensate
Heater
reciever tank
C CRISTALLIZATION
B-Sugar C-Sugar
C-Cristal
32
A-Pan B-Pan C-Pan
Thick juice Thick juice

(VP-1) A-Molasses
A-Massecuite A-Molasses B-Massecuite B-Molasses C-Massecuite

(VP-2) (VP-5) (VP-3) (VP-6) (VP-4)
Blackstrap molasses
A-Sugar
(VP-7)
B-Sugar C-Sugar
Dryer
(VP-9) (VP-10)
Sugar
(VP-8)
2
Figure 2: Sugar production process.
can be found in Supplemental material - Annex B
A detailed description of the sugar production process can be found in Supplemental material - Annex A.
More detailed diagrams showing the inlets and outlets of boxes A, B, C and D in Fig. 2.
Distillation Rectification Demetallization
(Column A/A1/D) (Column B) (Column Q)
Blackstrap
molasses
Dilution
C-Sugar Steam Steam

Decanter
centrifuge
Yeast treatment
Fermentation
HCl
Water
Vinasse
Distillation Rectification
Dem. condensate
condensate condensate
33
(Cond. I-I1 – I2)
Must (Cond. R-R1) (Cond. E2)
Centrifuge 2nd Dist.

Alcohol
Yeast
2nd Dist. Ethanol

Alcohol storage 96%
Figure 3: Schematic representation of the Palo Gordo process for ethanol production
Scenario S-ElSC
Sugarcane Milling Clarification Evaporation Cristallization Sugar

1 ton 0.958 ton 0.978 ton 0.209 ton 0.110 ton
Bagasse Electricity
0.292 ton 106 kW/ton
1
Scenario S-Et-ElSC
Sugarcane Milling Clarification Evaporation Cristallization Sugar

1 ton 0.958 ton 0.978 ton 0.209 ton 0.110 ton
Ethanol
9L
EtOH/ton
Bagasse Electricity
0.292 ton 94 kW/ton
Figure 4: Schematic representation of scenarios considered for sugarcane
34
Scenario S-ElSS
Sweet
Milling Clarification Evaporation Cristallization Sugar
sorghum
0.888 ton 0.908 ton 0.144 ton 0.076 ton
1 ton
Bagasse Electricity
Scenario S-Et-ElSS
1
Sweet
Milling Clarification Evaporation Cristallization Sugar
sorghum
0.888 ton 0.908 ton 0.144 ton 0.076 ton
1 ton
Ethanol
14 L
EtOH/ton
Bagasse Electricity
Scenario Et-ElSS
Sweet Ethanol
Milling Fermentation Distillation
sorghum 72
0.888 ton Dehydration
1 ton L EtOH/ton
Bagasse Electricity
1
Scenario J-ElSS
Sweet
Milling Sweet juice
sorghum
0.888 ton
1 ton
Bagasse Electricity
Figure 5: Schematic representation of scenarios for sweet sorghum
35
PoE - Sugarcane PoE - Sweet sorghum PoE - SC.Y 40 PoE - SC.Y 140
6.00 9.00
5.50 8.50
5.00 8.00
CoE (¢US$/kWh)
PoE (¢US$/kWh)
4.50 7.50
4.00 7.00
3.50 6.50
3.00 6.00
2.50 5.50
CoE - Sugarcane CoE - Sweet sorghum CoE - SC.Y 40 CoE - SC.Y 140
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Y ield (t/ha)
Figure 6: Cost and profit of electricity generation from sugarcane and sweet sorghum
bagasse in a CHP plant already generating heat and electricity
36
1
8.00
9.00
PoE - Sugarcane PoE - Sweet sorghum PoE - SC.Y 40 PoE - SC.Y 140
7.50
8.50
7.00
6.50
8.00
6.00
7.50
5.50
5.00
7.00
CoE (¢US$/kWh)
PoE (¢US$/kWh)
4.50
6.50
4.00
3.50
6.00
3.00
5.50
2.50
5.00 2.00
1.50
4.50
1.00
4.00 0.50
CoE - Sugarcane CoE - Sweet sorghum CoE - SC.Y 40 CoE - SC.Y 140
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Y ield (t/ha)
Figure 7: Cost and profit of electricity generation from sugarcane and sweet sorghum
bagasse in a new CHP plant
37
1
PoEt - Sweet sorghum PoEt - Integrated scenario (SC-SS )
100.00 60.00
90.00 50.00
40.00
80.00
30.00
70.00
20.00
CoEt (¢US$/L)
PoEt (¢US$/L)
60.00
10.00
50.00
0.00
40.00
−10.00
30.00
−20.00
20.00 −30.00
−40.00
10.00
CoEt - Sweet sorghum CoEt - Integrated scenario (SC-SS )
20 40 60 80 100 120
Y ield (t/ha)
Figure 8: Cost and profit of ethanol production from sweet sorghum in a sugarcane mill
38
1
3.8
9
8.5
Y ield − sugarcane
Y ield − s. sorghum 3.7
Y ield − s. sorghum (SC − SS)
8
W net − sugarcane
W net − s. sorghum
7.5 W net − s. sorghum (SC − SS) 3.6
LHV − sugarcane
7 LHV − s. sorghum
LHV − s. sorghum (SC − SS) 3.5
6.5
6 3.4
5.5
3.3
5
CoE (¢US$/kWh)
CoE (¢US$/kWh)
39
4.5
3.2
4 Land cost − sugarcane

Land cost − s. sorghum
3.5 3.1 Land cost − s. sorghum (SC − SS)

Discount rate − sugarcane
Discount rate − s. sorghum
3 Discount rate − s. sorghum (SC − SS)
3 Distance − sugarcane
2.5 Distance − s. sorghum
Distance − s. sorghum (SC − SS)
2 2.9
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Relative variation of parameter(%) Relative variation of parameter(%)
(a) (b)
Figure 9: Sensitivity analysis of the cost of bagasse electricity in a CHP plant already generating heat and electricity
1
Land cost − sugarcane
11
20
Y ield − sugarcane Land cost − s. sorghum
Y ield − s. sorghum Land cost − s. sorghum (SC-SS)
Y ield − s. sorghum (SC-SS) Discount rate − sugarcane
W net − sugarcane
18
Discount rate − s. sorghum
W net − s. sorghum 10 Discount rate − s. sorghum (SC-SS)
W net − s. sorghum (SC-SS) Distance − sugarcane
LHV − sugarcane Distance − s. sorghum
16 LHV − s. sorghum Distance − s. sorghum (SC-SS)
LHV − s. sorghum (SC-SS) 9
14
8
12
CoE (¢US$/kWh)
CoE (¢US$/kWh)
10
40
7
5
4
2
4
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Sensitivity analysis of the cost of bagasse electricity in a new CHP plant
50
160
48
46
Y ield − s. sorghum
140 Y ield − integrated scenario (SC-SS)
44
Cinst − s. sorghum
Cinst − integrated scenario (SC-SS)
120 T RS − s. sorghum 42
T RS − integrated scenario (SC-SS)
40
100
38
Land cost − s. sorghum
36
Land cost − integrated scenario (SC-SS)
80 Discount rate − s. sorghum
34 Discount rate − integrated scenario (SC-SS)
41
Distance − s. sorghum
CoEt (¢US$/L of EtOH)

CoEt (¢US$/L of EtOH)
32 Distance − integrated scenario (SC-SS)
60
30
40 28
26
20
24
22
0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) (b)
Figure 11: Sensitivity analysis of the cost of ethanol

List of Tables
1 Comparison between sugarcane and sweet sorghum . . . . . . 43
2 Sugar mill operating and process parameters . . . . . . . . . . 44
3 Power consumption of the sugar mill to operate . . . . . . . . 45
4 Timing of various cost items in the sweet sorghum and sugar
cane plantations (left) and the power plant and distillery (right).
Symbols used are according to Eq. 26 and Eq. 27 . . . . . . . 46
5 Financial, physical and cost data on the cultivation of sugar-
cane and sweet sorghum cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6 Components of total investment for the CHP plant . . . . . . 48
7 Potential sugar production in a sugar mill for all scenarios
considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8 Potential ethanol production in a sugar mill for all scenarios
considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
9 Potential electricity production in a sugar mill for all consid-
ered scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
42
Table 1: Comparison between sugarcane and sweet sorghum
Parameters Unit Sugarcane Sweet sorghum

Harvesting cyclea months 10-12 3.5
No. of cycle in a yeara 1 2
Water requirementb m3 36 000 8 000 over two crops
Fertilizer requierement (N:P:K) 100:20:35g 100:50:50c
Cost of cultivationd US$/ha 1 079/ crop 435 over two crops
Yielda t/ha/yr 70 60
Brixa % juice 13-15 11-13
Stalk productionc t/ha/cycle 65 - 80 42 - 55 for one cycle/yr
84 - 110 for two cycles/yr
Fermentable sugar concentration in stalkc %w/w 10.0 - 14.0 9.0 - 12.0
Yield of fermentable sugarc t/ha/cycle 6.0 - 10.5 3.6 - 6.2 for one cycle/yr
7.2 - 12.4 for two cycles/yr
By-products Bagasse Bagasse
Molasses Molasses
43
Co-products Electricity Electricity
Ethanol Ethanol
Bagasse (50% w/w moisture)c t/ha/cycle 19 - 24 (30% on cane weight) 10 - 14 for one cycle/yr
20 - 28 for two cycles/yr
Bagasse LHV MJ/kg 7.5e 7.6f
Ethanol yield (100% basis)c L/ha/cycle 3 400 - 6 000 2 020 - 3 500 for one cycle/yr
4 000 - 7 000 for two cycles/yr
Cost of ethanold US$/ha 0.37 0.32
a
[10].
b
[28].
c
[16].
d
[29].
e
[7].
f
[30].
g
[31].
Table 2: Sugar mill operating and process parameters
Parameter Sugarcanea Sweet sorghum

Brix of primary juice 18.5 13.12
3
Pol of Primary juice 16.19 8.30
Fibre (% sugarcane/sorghum) 13.50 16.43b
Specific heat (kJ/kg) 21 419.27 17 691.60b
Imbibition (% sugarcane/sorghum) 25.00 25.00a
Bagasse (% sugarcane/sorghum) 29.24 36.22
Bagasse moisture % 51.00 50.00b
Bagasse pol 2.19 2.58c
Fibre in bagasse 46.16 45.37
Juice extraccion 95.75 88.78
Liming (% sugarcane/sorghum) 0.75 0.75a
Filtrated juice (% sugarcane/sorghum) 15.00 15.00a
Alcalized juice (% sugarcane/sorghum) 111.50 104.53
Filtercake to filters (% sugarcane/sorghum) 13.70 13.70a
Bagacillo (% sugarcane/sorghum) 0.30 0.30a
Cake washing water (% sugarcane/sorghum) 4.00 4.00a
Filtercake (% sugarcane/sorghum) 3.00 3.00a
Filtercake pol 2.50 2.94a
Clarified juice (% sugarcane/sorghum) 97.80 90.83
Thick juice (% sugarcane/sorghum) 21.31 14.67
a
Data obtained from the Montelimar sugar mill [20].
b
[7].
c
[27].
44
Table 3: Power consumption of the sugar mill to operate
Scenario Power consumption (kWh)

S-ElSC 7 771a
S-Et-ElSC 10 771ab
S-ElSS 7 771a
S-Et-ElSS 10 771ab
Et-ElSS 6 708ab
J-ElSS 3 708a
SC-SS 10 771ab
a
Data obtained from the Montelimar sugar mill [20].
b
Data obtained from the Palo Gordo sugar mill [21].
45
Table 4: Timing of various cost items in the sweet sorghum and sugar cane plantations (left) and the power plant and distillery
(right). Symbols used are according to Eq. 26 and Eq. 27
Cost items of sugarcane and sweet sorghum plantations (ecci) Power plant and distillery cost items (p pcj)
Planting Manual weedinga Mechan. Weedinga Harvestb Land costc Harvestd Investment O&M
Year f1,RS (y), f1,SA (y), f2,RS (y), f2,SA (y), f3,RS (y), f3,SA (y), f4,RS (y), f4,SA (y), f5,RS (y), f5,SA (y), fyld,RS (y), fyld,SA (y), f1,RS (y), f1,SA (y), f2,RS (y)=fe (y), f2,SA (y)=fe,SA (y),
1 1, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
2 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
3 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
4 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
5 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
6 1, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
7 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
8 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
9 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
10 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
46
11 1, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
12 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
13 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
14 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
15 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
16 1, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
17 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
18 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
19 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
20 0, 1 3, 2 3, 2 1, 2 1, 1 1, 1 0, 0 1, 1
a Refers to the number of turns that the plantations have to be weeded each year.
b Harvest include all logistic activities such as stacking and transport to the power plant.
c In this cost calculation, harvest for sugarcane and sweet sorghum is undertaken once every 11 and 5 months, respectively.
d Indicate if the cop if harvested in the year.
Table 5: Financial, physical and cost data on the cultivation of sugarcane and sweet sorghum cultivation
Parameter Value Unit Parameter Value Unit

S-ElSC , S-Et-ElSC S-ElSS , S-Et-ElSS , Et-ElSS ,J-ElSS SC-SS S-ElSC , S-Et-ElSC S-ElSS , S-Et-ElSS , Et-ElSS ,J-ElSS SC-SS
General financial data Micronutrients - 40.48 [32] -/40.48 US$/ha
Requiered IRR 6.5 [23] 6.5 [23] 6.5 % Chemical applications - 21.16 [32] -/21.16 US$/ha
Total sugarcane area 3 631 [23] - - ha Herbicide 28.90 [31] 16.46 [33] 28.90/16.46 US$/ha
Land owned 3 521 [23] - - ha Herbicide application 3.00 [31] - 3/- #/yr
Land rent 110 [23] - - ha Insecticide 12.00 [31] 22.54 [33] 12/22.54 US$/ha
Land rent cost 139.78 [23] 139.78 [23] 139.78 US$/ha/yr Insecticide application 2.00 [31] - 2/- #/yr
Interes rate for rents 0 [23] 0 0 % Fungicide 0.00 169.34 [32] -/169.34 US$/ha
Working days per year 163 [23] 163 223 d/yr Fungicide application 0.00 - - #/yr
Irrigation 37.84 [31] - 37.84/- L/ha
General physical data Irrigation cost 0.00 [31] 0.00 0/0 US$/L
Sugarcane/sweet sorghum yield 103 [31] 49 [9] 103/49 t/ha/yr Harvesting labour 58.47 [23] 58.47 [23] 58.47/58.47 US$/ha
Density plantation 78 650 [31] 90 000 [34] 78 650/90 000 plants/ha Labour cost of activities related to harvesting 82.06 [23] 82.06 [23] 82.06/82.06 US$/ha
M.c sugarcane/sweet sorghum at harvest 75 [31] 75 75/75 %w Loading cost 0.50 [31] 0.50 [31] 0.50/0.50 US$/ha
Density of sugarcane/sweet sorghum 0.96 [31] 1.40 0.96/1.40 t/m3 Transportation cost per km 0.12 [31] 0.12 [31] 0.12/0.12 US$/km/t
LHV of sugarcane/sweet sorghum bagasse 17.90 [20] 16.50 17.9/16.50 MJ/kg Average distance between field and plant 26.00 [31] 26.00 [31] 26/26 km
Volume truck-trailer 49.79 [31] 49.79 [31] 49.79/49.79 m3
Establishment Effective load truck 30.00 [31] 30.00 [31] 30/30 t
Land preparation 285.67 [31] 285.67 [31] 285.67/285.67 US$/ha
Tractor; deep ploughing 100.00 [31] 100.00 [31] 100/100 US$/ha CHP Plant Data
Tractor for ploughing 100.00 [31] 100.00 [31] 100/100 US$/ha Net electrical capacity 42 [20] 42 [20] 42 MWe
47
Tractor for egalising 28.00 [31] 28.00 [31] 28/28 US$/ha Net electrical efficiency 35 [20] 35 [20] 35 %
Removal old ratoon 57.67 [31] 57.67 [31] 57.67/57.67 US$/ha Days with bagasse as fuel 163 [20] 163 [20] 223 d/yr
Seed cost 214.25 [31] 39.91 39.91/39.91 US$/ha Load factor 80 [20] 80 [20] 80 %
Transport of seed 37.00 [31] 37.00 [31] 37/37 US$/ha O&M; labour 1 156 117 [23] 1 156 117 [23] 1 579 086 US$/yr
Lime (dolomite) application - 13.22 [32] -/13.22 US$/ha O&M; materials 294 698 [23] 294 698 [23] 402 515 US$/yr
Lime material - 148.17 [32] -/148.17 US$/ha Fixed costs; electricity 58 813 [23] 58 813 [23] 80 329 US$/yr
Seed cost 214.25 [31] 71.44 [32] 214.25/71.44 US$/ha Fixed costs; security 14 400 [23] 14 400 [23] 19 668 US$/yr
Soil insecticide - 71.44 [32] -/71.44 US$/ha Fixed costs; transport 71 738 [23] 71 738 [23] 97 984 US$/yr
Transport of seed 37.00 [31] 37.00 [31] 37/37 US$/ha Fixed costs; insurance 233 840 [23] 233 840 [23] 319 391 US$/yr
Fixed costs; others 101 900 [23] 101 900 [23] 139 180 US$/yr
Maintenance of plantation Total variable Costs 417 173 [23] 417 173 [23] 569 798 US$/yr
Manual Weeding 11.00 [31] 11.00 [31] 11/11 US$/ha
Transport of personnel 37.00 [31] 37.00 [31] 37/37 US$/ha Distillery Data
Mechanical weeding 28.90 [31] 28.90 [31] 28.90/28.90 US$/ha Installed capacity 120 000 [21] 120 000 [21] 120 000 L/d
Distillery efficiency 96 [21] 96 [21] 96 %
Harvesting Operation days 108 [21] 108 [21] 168 d/yr
Cultivation labour 202.19 [23] 202.19 [23] 202.19/202.19 US$/ha Operation costs; labour 95 000 [21] 95 000 [21] 147778 US$/yr
Transport of personnel 37.00 [31] 37.00 [31] 37/37 US$/ha Operation costs; materials 260 000 [21] 260 000 [21] 404444 US$/yr
Fertilizer 252.82 [31] 130.65 [33] 252.82/130.65 US$/ha Maitenance costs; labour 45 000 [21] 45 000 [21] 70000 US$/yr
Fertilizer application 5.00 [31] - 5/- #/yr Maitenance costs; materials 190 000 [21] 190 000 [21] 295556 US$/yr
Data obtained from [32] and [33] have been updated to 2013.
Table 6: Components of total investment for the CHP plant
Equipment US$/MW
Boiler 8.27 MPa, 538 C
Boiler 211,764.71
Electric lightning 705.88
Assembly of structures, platforms, ladders, etc. 9,411.76
Assembling 70,588.24
Chimney 12,941.18
Civil works 17,647.06
Electrical installation, instrumentation and control 15,294.12
Diesel Generator 5,411.76
Others 78,952.94
Coal handling
Stock 11,764.71
Detroit stocker 13,176.47
Buildings 11,294.12
Coal conveyors and tripper 7,058.82
Shredders, electromagnet and tower 3,058.82
Civil works for hopper conveyor 1,176.47
Others 3,364.71
Condensation Extraction Steam Turbogenerator 42.5 MW

Turbogenerator 36.5 MW 145,884.23
Civil works 9,411.76
Room equipment and controls 9,411.76
Assembling 11,764.71
Electrical installation, instrumentation and control 11,764.71
Boiler steam line to turbogenerator 9,882.35
Turbogenerator steam line to sugarmill (20 psig) 5,882.35
Data acquisition and communication system 1,176.47
Others 16,435.39
Condensate-Feedwater system
Pumps 2,352.94
Pipes and accessories 5,882.35
Assembling 7,058.82
Condensate storage tank 2,823.53
Others 905.88
Electrical substation and power bars

Transformer 50 MVA, 13.8/138 kV 35,294.12
Auxiliary transformer 4 MVA, 13.8/4.16 kV 5,882.35
Power transformer for the sugar mill 10 MVA 13.8/4.16 kV 5,294.12
Electrical substation infrastructure and civil works 24,705.88
Power bars and switchboards 10,588.24
Power cables 15 kV 4,058.82
Switches and electrical equipment 8,117.65
Emergency system 2,823.53
Assembling 5,882.35
Transmission lines to substation 138 kV 39,705.88
Others 9,588.24
Bagasse-Ash handling system

Bagasse conveyor belt 7,529.41
Ash conveyor belt 2,352.94
Bagasse scales 1,176.47
Ash handling system 4,705.88
Assembling 4,705.88
Others 1,023.53
Cooling and Fire fighting system

Cooling tower 30,588.24
Pipes and accessories 8,235.29
Pumps 2,352.94
Cooling water treatment 11,294.12
Chemical laboratory equipment 4,235.29
Fire protection and detection system 14,117.65
Assembling 5,647.06
Others 3,823.53
Buildings
Buildings 11,764.71
Others 588.24
Pre-Inversion
Feasibility study 7,886.95
Environmental impact study 1,607.84
Electricity generation license 1,058.82
Others 18,108.68
Source: Data obtained from the Montelimar sugar mill [20]
48
Table 7: Potential sugar production in a sugar mill for all scenarios considered
Units S-ElSC ; S-Et-ElSC S-ElSC ; S-Et-ElSC Et-ElSS ; J-ElSS

(VP-1) Thick juice t/d 1357 934 -
(VP-2) A-Massecuite t/d 1424 980 -
(VP-3) B-Massecuite t/d 507 349 -
(VP-4) C-Massecuite t/d 429 296 -
49
(VP-5) A-Molasses t/d 794 547 -
(VP-6) B-Molasses t/d 351 242 -
(VP-7) Blackstrap Molasses t/d 251 173 -
(VP-8) Sugar production t/d 715 492 -
(VP-9) B-Sugar t/d 243 167 -
(VP-10) C-Sugar t/d 230 158 -
Sugar yield kg of sugar/t of feed 110 76 -
Table 8: Potential ethanol production in a sugar mill for all scenarios considered
Units S-ElSC S-Et-ElSC S-ElSS S-Et-ElSS Et-ElSS J-ElSS
50
Ethanol production L - 61 266 - 88 466 474 661 -
Ethanol yield L/t of feed - 9 - 14 72 -
View publication stats
Table 9: Potential electricity production in a sugar mill for all considered scenarios
Units S-ElSC S-Et-ElSC S-ElSS S-Et-ElSS Et-ElSS J-ElSS

Crushing rate TCD 6 500 6 500 6 500 6 500 6 500 6 500
Factory loss % 7 7 7 7 7 7
Pressure MPa 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27

Bagasse production kg/h 71 861 71 861 88 980 88 980 88 980 88 980
Bagasse consumed during stops kg/h 3 593 3 593 4 449 4 449 4 449 4 449
Bagasse available kg/h 68 268 68 268 84 531 84 531 84 531 84 531
Bagasse consumption for on-site needs kg/h 39 494 39 660 43 075 43 277 973 777
51
Sugarmill steam consumption kg/h 89 580 89 958 80 700 81 078 1 878 1 500
Exhaust steam production to evaporators kg/h 88 080 88 080 79 200 79 200 0 0
Surplus (shortage) of bagasse kg/h 0 0 0 0 3 944 3 997
Steam demand - CEST kg/h 156 804 156 792 160 697 160 685 149 741 149 628
Electricity generation - CEST kWh 36 373 36 342 38 097 38 066 42 500 42 500
Electric power demand - electrical equipment kWh 7 771 10 771 7 771 10 771 6 708 3 708
Electricity for sale kWh 28 602 25 571 30 326 27 295 35 791 38 791
Potential electricity for sale during crushing season MWh 104 340 93 282 110 628 99 571 130 566 141 510
Ratio of electricity sale kW/t 106 94 112 101 132 143

Techno-Economic Analysis of Integrating Sweet Sorg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Techno-Economic Analysis of Integrating Sweet Sorg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Techno-economic analysis of integrating sweet sorghum into sugar mills: The

Article in Biomass and Bioenergy · September 2014

Luis Cutz Domingo Santana

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Análisis de tensiones y deformaciones en los receptores solares centrales View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Preprint submitted to Elsevier March 17, 2015

1.1. Sweet sorghum

[Table 1 about here.]

As can be seen from Table 1, sugarcane is an annual crop (under Central

2. Material and methods

[Figure 1 about here.]

[Figure 2 about here.]

[Table 3 about here.]

[Figure 3 about here.]

It is assumed for all scenarios that the sugar factory incorporates an

2.2. Cost assessment

[Table 4 about here.]

[Table 5 about here.]

[Table 6 about here.]

[Figure 4 about here.]

[Figure 5 about here.]

[Table 7 about here.]

[Table 8 about here.]

[Table 9 about here.]

As can be seen from Table 9, sweet sorghum reports a bagasse production

3.2. Cost assessment

[Figure 6 about here.]

[Figure 7 about here.]

[Figure 8 about here.]

As aforementioned, in Central America, ethanol is produced from a residue

3.2.4. Sensitiviy analysis

[Figure 9 about here.]

[Figure 10 about here.]

[Figure 11 about here.]

[2] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Sustainability considerations for elec-

[3] Heinimo J, Junginger M. Production and trading of biomass for energy

[4] ECLAC . The economics of climate change in central america: Summary

[6] Cutz L, Sanchez-Delgado S, Ruiz-Rivas U, Santana D. Bioenergy pro-

[9] Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Wyman C. Refining sweet sorghum to

[20] Chávez F. Personal communication. 2013. Montelimar Sugar mill.

[21] Mena V. Personal communication. 2013. Palo Gordo Sugar mill.

[23] Vanegas M. Personal communication. 2012. Montelimar Sugar mill.

[24] CEPEA . Center for advanced studies on applied economics. 2013.

[25] Reddy B, Reddy P. Sweet sorghum: Characteristics and potential. In-

[26] Reddy B, Ramesh S, Reddy P, Ramaiah B, Salimath P, Kachapur R.

[27] Huilgol R, Ramkrishna , Misale G. A trial with sweet sorghum 2004;CFC

[28] Soltani A, Almodares A. Evaluation of the investments in sugar beet and

[31] Vargas M. Personal communication. 2013. Montelimar Sugar mill.

[34] Ratnavathi C, Suresh K, Kumar BV, Pallavi M, Komala V, Seetharama

1. Use of sugarcane to produce sugar, process heat and power (S-ElSC ).

Thick juice Thick juice

A-Massecuite A-Molasses B-Massecuite B-Molasses C-Massecuite

C-Sugar Steam Steam

Centrifuge 2nd Dist.

2nd Dist. Ethanol

Sugarcane Milling Clarification Evaporation Cristallization Sugar

Sugarcane Milling Clarification Evaporation Cristallization Sugar

Figure 4: Schematic representation of scenarios considered for sugarcane

Figure 5: Schematic representation of scenarios for sweet sorghum

20 40 60 80 100 120 140