![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of three product portfolios from a biomass fast pyrolysis biorefinery: biofuel, biochemicals, and hydrocarbon chemicals. The biorefinery design is based on the fast pyrolysis and five-stage fractionation system developed by Iowa State University. It can produce drop-in transportation fuels (biofuel scenario); infrastructure materials such as bioasphalt and bio-cement, and dextrose (biochemicals scenario); and hydrocarbon aromatics and olefins (hydrocarbon chemicals scenario). Bio-oil is fractionated into five stage-fractions and upgraded through different pathways based on the chosen portfolio. Minimum product-selling prices (MPSP) are calculated using a 30-year discounted cash flow rate of return analysis spreadsheet. Uncertainty analysis via Monte-Carlo analysis is used to determine the maximum investment cost (MIC) and the net present value (NPV) distribution.
We estimate MPSPs of US$3.09/gallon for biofuels, $433.7/MT for biochemicals, and $773.5/MT for hydrocarbon chemicals. The mean MICs are $162 MM, $610 MM, and $366.24 MM, and the net present value distributions are $-243.42±268.9 MM, $503.83±429 MM, and $242.44±30.1. Biofuel, biochemical, and hydrocarbon chemical portfolios have 18%, 100%, and 100% chance that net present values are positive respectively, which indicates that producing biochemicals and hydrocarbon chemicals could be more competitive than producing biofuels alone.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the NSF EPSCoR [grant number EPS-1101284] and the Bioeconomy Institute at Iowa State University.
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2016.1151999).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.