Integrated Renewable production of ETBE from Switchgrass

Integrated Renewable production of ETBE from Switchgrass Guillermo Galána, Mariano Martín1a Ignacio Grossmannb a b Department of Chemical Engineering University of Salamanca Plz Caídos 1-5, 37008, Spain Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Ave 15213 Pittsburgh PA Abstract In this work, we propose the optimization of a flowsheet for the integrated renewable production of ETBE from ethanol and i-butene from switchgrass A superstructure embedding a number of alternatives is proposed Two technologies are considered for switchgrass pretreatment, dilute acid and a novel ammonia fibre explosion (AFEX), so that the structure of the grass is broken down The glucose and the xylose are used to produce ibutene and ethanol via fermentation respectively Ethanol is purified using a multieffect column followed by molecular sieves and a PSA-membrane system is used to upgrade the i-butene The problem is formulated as an MINLP solved for each pretreatment as NLP Finally, an economic evaluation is performed including a sensitivity analysis Biomass composition determines the byproduct obtained Dilute acid is the selected pretreatment due to the largest yield to sugars and the possibility of adjusting the production of both, i-butene and ethanol for the needs to ETBE For a facility that produces 90 kt/yr of ETBE , the investment adds up to 160 M€ for a production cost of 0.61€/kg Keywords: Energy; Biofuels; i-butene; Mathematical optimization; Ethanol; Switchgrass Corresponding autor:Email address: mariano.m3@usal.es 1 Introduction Biofuels such as ethanol or biodiesel count within their chemical structure with oxygen atoms Their presence improves combustion properties However, gasoline or crude based diesel as well as synthetic fuels such as Fischer – Tropsch are hydrocarbons For years methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) has been added as additive to improve the combustion efficiency increasing the gasoline octane number However, it is difficult to biodegrade and has shown impact on health as well as toxic effects on water and air ETBE provides three times more energy than ethanol, doubles the octane number and reduces the vapor pressure for the mixture among other properties Therefore, ETBE was chosen as a better alternative as fuel oxygenate.1 ETBE can be produced from ethanol and i-butene or tert- butyl alcohol (TBA) The production of ETBE from ethanol and i-butene has been evaluated in the literature The traditional process consists of a catalyzed reaction taking place at 60-90ºC under pressure Puziy et al.3 noted that by operating at temperatures from 80ºC to 180ºC the selectivity to ETBE is increased However, the reaction is an equilibrium In order to improve the conversion, process intensification techniques have been used Instead of using a reactor and a couple of distillation columns, a reactive distillation tower has been evaluated 4-6 and optimized.7,8 Recent studies have compared the traditional and the integrated method resulting in the fact that although the reactive distillation column increased the conversion, the energy consumption was higher.9 However, other studies highlight not only the high conversions but also the low operating costs 5,6,10 However, typically the feed of i-butene contains a number of other chemicals Ethanol has been obtained from renewable sources in first11 and second generation biorefineries.12,13 However, TBA is a by-product from the production of propylene oxide with reduces the raw material costs 14 and ibutene has traditionally been an expensive C4, around $·kg The advantage is that i-butene can be produced from glucose Recently, the company Global Bioenergies has patented a process from sugars for the production of i-butene.15-17 Martin and Grossmann18 developed an optimization framework for the production of i-butene from switchgrass resulting in promising production costs Later, within the same group i-butene was produced from algae starch and used within an integrated facility for the production of biodiesel and glycerol ethers without the need for fossil based intermediates.19 Therefore, it is possible to produce fully renewable ETBE from switchgrass by using C5’s to obtain ethanol and C6’s to produce i-butene In this paper, the production process of ETBE from lignocellulosic raw materials has been evaluated comparing two pretreatments of the lignocellulosic biomass for the simultaneous production of ethanol and ibutene and the later production of ETBE from both in liquid phase We propose a limited superstructure optimization approach where a flowsheet embedding the various process units involved in i-butene and ethanol production from switchgrass is constructed The goal is to optimize the production process of both chemicals simultaneously from biomass to assess its competitiveness with current crude based production The optimization of the system is formulated as a mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem, where the model involves a set of constraints representing mass and energy balances, experimentally based models and rules of thumb for all the units in the system Finally, an economic evaluation is also performed The effect of biomass composition on the operation of the integrated biorefinery is also addressed to guide the selection of biomass towards the renewable production of ETBE The rest of the paper is structured as follows Section describes the integrated process In section the main modeling features are described Section presents the solution procedure Section summarizes the results including a sensitivity analysis on the biomass cost and the evaluation of the biomass composition for the integrated process to operate at its best Overall Process Description Biomass follows a size reduction step before pretreatment There are a large number of alternative pretreatments.20-23 However, among them, the ones that have reached commercial exploitation are (1) dilute acid (H2SO4) pretreatment,24-27 and (2) ammonia fibre explosion (AFEX).21,28,29 Once the physical structure of the switchgrass is broken, we separate cellulose from hemicelluloses sugars It has been experimentally proved that i-butene can be produced from glucose using Saccharomyces cerevisiae.16-18 Therefore, hemicelluloses are used for the production of ethanol Cellulose is hydrolyzed at 45-50ºC for days to obtain glucose 24,25,30-32 The gas phase consists of ibutene together with CO2 and steam First, the water vapor accompanying the gas phase is condensed, and then a PSA separation is suggested Xylose is fermented into ethanol using Z mobilis similar to second generation of ethanol production.12,25 Ethanol is dehydrated using a multieffect distillation column to separate the water – ethanol mixture, followed by a system of molecular sieves.12 Finally, ETBE synthesis is carried out using a reactive distillation column between the i-butene and the ethanol, maximizing the conversion and obtaining a high purity ETBE from the bottoms of the column.4-6 Figure shows the superstructure of the process The biomass composition and the required feed to ibutene and ethanol determine the excess of any of the two products that are by products of the renewable production of ETBE Fig Superstructure for the renewable production of ETBE Mathematical modelling All the operations in the production of ETBE from switchgrass are modelled using mass and energy balances, rules of thumb, experimental yields, thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium 33 as well as surrogate models for particular units such as the pretreatments, the ammonia recovery column, and the reactive distillation column based on detailed simulations and/or experimental data The model for the superstructure is written in terms of total mass flows, component mass flows, component mass fractions, and temperatures of the streams in the network The components in the system belong to the set J = { Water, i-butene, ethanol, ETBE, H2SO4, CaO, Ammonia, Protein, Cellulose, Hemi-Cellulose, Glucose, Xylose, Lignin, Ash, CO2, O2, Cells, Glycerol, Succinic acid, Acetic acid, Lactic acid, gypsum} 3.1.Pretreatment In order for the fermentation to be effective, the bacteria must be able to reach the sugars Any lignocellulosic raw material consists of a matrix of lignocellulose that protects the plant and maintains the structure Within the lignin structure, the hemicelluloses and the cellulose constitutes the structure of the plant This structure must be broken so that the polymers of sugar (cellulose and hemicellulose) can be further used As raw material, switchgrass is considered, a native species in the Eastern part of the United States We assume its composition to be 18.62% moisture, 31.98 % Cellulose, 25.15 % Hemicellulose, 18.3 % Lignin and 5.85% Ash The feedstock is washed and the size of the switchgrass is reduced by grinding 34 so that further pretreatments are more effective.20 Both stages, washing and grinding, are considered only in terms of energy consumption (162 MJ·t-1)34 and cost analysis since they not change the properties of the feedstock Next, the two alternatives indicated above, dilute acid pretreatment and AFEX, are analyzed due to their high capability to degrade this structure.21,35-38 Ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX): This method consists of treating the lignocellulosic material at mild temperature and high pressure with ammonia to break the physical structure of the crop In order to reduce the cost, the ammonia remaining in the slurry after the expansion should be recovered, and the slurry of biomass and water is sent to enzymatic treatment to break the polymers containing sugars 21,28,29,39 The pretreatment is modeled using the following assumptions Garlock et al.39 developed a model based on design of experiments to evaluate the yield of the release of sugars from different switchgrass raw materials as function of the ammonia (kg · kg-1 of biomass) and the water load, the operating temperature (C) and the contact time (min) at 2.0 MPa Table 1.- Range of operating variables for dilute acid pretreatment T (oC) Ammonia added (g·g-1) Water added (g·g-1) Residence time (min) Lower bound 90 0.5 0.5 Upper bound 180 2 30 Yield = 0.01·( −88.7919 + 26.5272·amonia _ ratio − 13.6733·water _ pret + 1.6561·T _ afex + 3.6793·time _ pret − 4.4631·amonia _ ratio − 0.0057·T _ afex −0.0270·time _ pret − 0.4064·amonia _ ratio·time _ pret + 0.1239·water _ pret·T _ afex  −0.0132·T _ afex·time _ pret); (1) Next, the pressure is released and the content of the reactor is discharged to a blowdown tank Since the reactor operates in batch mode, at least two reactors in parallel are fed into an intermediate storage tank to ensure continuous operation.21,40 Next, the ammonia remaining in the slurry is recovered by distillation at high pressure (1.5 MPa).27,41 The distillation column is modeled using surrogate models from rigorous simulations in CHEMCAD In particular, surrogate models are developed to compute the feed, the condenser and the reboiler temperatures as well as the purity and the recovery yield as a function of the feed composition in ammonia and the operating pressure Thus, the column model is as follows: ( Q( HX2) = ∑ m( J,HX2,Col1) ·c p , j · T( HX2,Col1) − T( Valv1,HX2 ) j ) (2) where T( HX2,Col1) = a( NH3 /Water )·P + b( NH3 /Water )·P + c( NH /Water ) a( NH3 /Water ) = 1.0152·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) − 0.3996·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) - 2.118 b( NH3 /Water ) = − 11.344 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 8.6088·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 25.159; c( NH3 /Water ) = 68.912 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) (3) − 174.79·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 59.214 And the purity Purity = a( NH3 /Water ) ·P + b( NH3 /Water ) ·P + c( NH /Water ) a( NH3 /Water ) = −0.5792·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) − 0.9987·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) +1.48 b( NH3 /Water ) = 9.9096 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) − 0.3672·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) − 12.319 (4) c( NH3 /Water ) = −81.468 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 127.72 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 56.404 Purity ≤ 99 Purity ≥ 80 And the recovery yield of ammonia is given by eq (5) Yield = −0.1123·( Load _ Ammonia _ Water ) + 0.2055·( Load _ Ammonia _ Water ) + 99.889; (5) Yield ≤ 99.99 Yield ≥ 99.9 The energy balance to the column is modeled using the following surrogate models for the condenser and the reboiler, respectively (kW) : Qcondenser = ( ( 4.8709·( Load _ Ammonia _ Water ) + 1.4989 ) f c ( water ) [kg / s] ) f c ( water ) [kg / s ] Q Re boiler = 9.4089·( Load _ Ammonia _ Water ) + 2.7523 0.028 0.028 (6) (7) The exit temperatures of the column are computed as follows: T(Col1, Mix 2) = a( NH3 /Water ) ·P + b( NH /Water ) ·P + c( NH /Water ) a( NH3 /Water ) = −15.315·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 13.426·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) − 4.9178 b( NH /Water ) = 127.73 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) − 103.7·( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 47.523 (8) c( NH /Water ) = −238.48 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 116.32 ( Load Ammonia _ Water ) + 25.337  T( Col1,Mix3) = −1.8617·P + 24.16·P + 77.491 (9) The evaporated ammonia is compressed, condensed and mixed with the ammonia recovered in the distillation column and reused again This is the key point in the economics of this process that has been improved over the years to tackle the disadvantage of recompressing ammonia Following these stages, we assume that all of the ammonia is recovered However, the traces that may be left, typically below 0.5%, 40 are used as nutrients for the fermentation Thus, the traces of ammonia in the feed to the second stage of the process are not considered It is assumed that after the pretreatment, the monomer of glucose is generated It will not be the molecule of glucose until the hydrolysis in which the monomer is hydrated, but for the sake of reducing the number of components, a dehydrated glucose is obtained that will be hydrated later on Dilute acid: The yield of the pretreatment depends on the operating conditions In the literature two main approaches have been developed, surface response models,42-44 and mechanistic kinetics.45 For superstructure optimization the first approach is more convenient Recently,44 studied the sugars released from lignocellulosic raw materials using dilute sulfuric acid solutions as a function of the operating temperature, the concentration of the acid the residence time and the enzyme amount used, per gram of glucan, in the hydrolysis stage As in the previous case, it is assumed that after the pretreatment we already have a monomer of glucose, which will be hydrated in the hydrolysis stage to obtain the sugars to be fermented Xylose is already as such after the pretreament Using the experimental data provided in Shi’s paper,44 DOE based models were developed for the yield of the glucose and xylose released.18 Table 2.- Range of operating variables for dilute acid pretreatment o T ( C) Acid concentration (g·g.1) Residence time (min) Enzyme load (g·g-1) Lower bound 140 0.005 0.0048 Upper bound 180 0.02 80 0.0966 The yield of glucose is given by: yield _ cellu = − 0.00055171 + 0.00355819·T _ acid + 0.00067402·conc _ acid _ mix + time _ pret·0.00100531 − enzyme _ add·0.0394809 −0.0186704·T _ acid·conc _ acid _ mix +0.00043556·T _ acid·time _ pret + 0.0002265·T _ acid·enzyme _ add −0.0013224·conc _ acid _ mix·time _ pret −0.00083728·time _ pret·enzyme _ add + 0.044353·conc _ acid _ mix·enzyme _ add + 0.000014412·T _ acid ; (10) The yield of xylose is given by: yield _ hemi = − 0.00015791 − 0.00056353·T _ acid + 0.000694361·conc _ acid _ mix −0.00014507·time _ pret − enzyme _ add·0.01059248  −0.02142606·T _ acid·conc _ acid _ mix +0.000694055·T _ acid·time _ pret + 0.00013559·T _ acid·enzyme _ add −0.00145712·conc _ acid _ mix·time _ pret + 0.04769633·conc _ acid _ mix·enzyme _ add −0.00138362·time _ pret·enzyme _ add + 0.0000059419·T _ acid (11) Next a flash evaporation of water (Flash 1) reduces the amount of water in the slurry and provides energy for the process The slurry is separated in a mechanical centrifuge (Mec Sep 1) The liquid stream is treated with lime, CaO, to adjust the pH to the one needed in the hydrolysis (Reactor 3) 24-26,46 Lime is the cheapest chemical for this reaction due to the low cost of CaO, and also because the precipitation of gypsum (CaSO 4) allows its easy separation from the liquid.47 The residence time in Reactor is 10 Neutralization reactions are exothermic, heating up the exiting stream from reactor CaSO4 (gypsum) precipitates, and can be easily recovered from the liquid stream by filtration (Filter 1) Gypsum can be sold to improve the economics of the process The neutralized liquid stream is mixed adiabatically in Tank with the biomass, and the resulting slurry sent to hydrolysis It is assumed that xylose is already in sugar form after the pretreatment, eq (12), while cellulose still needs a further step before it can be broken down into glucose (C5 H 8O4 ) m + mH O  → mC5 H10O5 ∆H=79.0m kJ·mol −1 (12) 3.2 i-butene production The slurry with at least 50% water is hydrolyzed at atmospheric pressure to generate glucose from cellulose as given by eq (13).24-26,31,48 The batch process lasts for 72 h The temperature must be adjusted to 50 ºC for the reaction to take place using heat exchanger (C6 H10 O5 ) n + nH O  → nC6 H12 O6 ∆H=22.1n kJ·mol −1 (13) It is after the hydration of the liberated monomers when glucose as a molecule is available in the liquid stream We assume that buffer/storage tanks are used to ensure the continuous operation of the process Although they are considered for costing purposes, the dynamics is out of the scope of this paper and the mass balances not account for them The liberated glucose is fermented using a bacterium (S cerevisiae) The reaction time is about 24 h at atmospheric pressure The reaction takes place at 38 ºC 24 and therefore the feed is cooled down Furthermore, 10 The final dehydration of ethanol is carried out in a zeolite bed that is fed with the distillate of the multieffect column It is assumed that at least a fraction of ethanol of 0.8 by weight is required for this stage to be effective The stream is heated up to 95ºC For costing purposes, we consider two beds in parallel so that the second one is regenerated to maintain continuous operation Atmospheric air, with an assumed relative humidity of 70% at 20 ºC, is heated up to 95ºC, it removes the water that saturates the bed, and is cooled down to 25ºC The flow of air required is that which allows a final humidity of 70% 3.7 ETBE synthesis The reaction among i-butene and ethanol is an equilibrium as follows: C4 H + C2 H 5OH € (CH )3 COC2 H (17) It is carried out in liquid phase from 40 to 90ºC depending on the catalyst and the pressure is in the range of 5-10 bar The conventional reactor achieves a conversion above 98% by using an excess of i-butene and requires a set of distillation columns to purify and recover the products and recycle the i-butene 50 However, the conversion can be improved and the excess reduced by using a reactive distillation column that allows driving the equilibrium to products One of the main differences is that when using nafta C4 fraction that contains other chemicals apart from i-butene However, in this case the fermentation does no generate any other hydrocarbon A excess of 5% of ethanol with respect to the stoichiometry ratio is assumed In this case from the top the azeotrope of ethanol and ETBE is reached and from the bottoms ETBE is obtained 6,10 Therefore, the model of this unit is based on the stoichiometry of the reaction assuming 100% conversion, obtaining the azeotrope composition over the top51 and pure ETBE from the bottoms The reflux ratio and the energy involved is obtained as follows4,6,52 Due to the complex energy balance, data from the literature is used to estimate the reboiler energy balance 8.3kW per 0.485 kmol/s of ETBE are typically used To compute the cooling needs of the tower, a reflux ratio of is assumed based on data from the literature Finally, the exit temperatures are, from the bottom, 164 ºC using the vapour pressure computed from Rarey et al 51 From the top, the azeotrope is obtained To compute the azeotropic composition and its temperature, a correlation is developed using the information in the literature.51 Unfortunately a extrapolation to the operating pressure is required since most of the data is up to around bar However, the smooth slope and trend found results in small issues when extrapolating 13 Azeotrope Ratio (ETBE/Ethanol)= 8.0390·1017 (T(K))-6.9905 (18) T(Azeotrope) = 236.9053 (P(kPa))0.0786 (19) Figure 2.- Profile of the temperature of the azeotrope Figure 3.- Azeotrope composition with the temperature Solution procedure For simplicity, due to the presence of only one binary variable, the one related to the selection of the pretreatment, two non-linear optimization models (NLP’s) are solved involving 2400 equations and 3500 variables each The major decision variables are the operating conditions at the pretreatment reactors, feed ratios and 14 temperatures of operation, the split fraction, operating pressures and temperatures at the multieffect distillation column, and the split fraction to adjust the ratio of ethanol to i-butene before the column This last one depends on the yield of each pretreatment as well as the biomass composition The NLP model is solved using a multistart optimization approach in GAMS with CONOPT 3.0 as the preferred solver The objective function is based on a simplified profit including ETBE production and the thermal energy consume, due to the fact that it is the largest variable cost, eq (20): Z = mETBE − PSteam ∑ i Qi λ (20) Next, the heat exchanger network is developed53 and an economic evaluation is performed.54 A sensitivity analysis for the cost of biomass is also carried out, as well as a study on the biomass composition for the optimal operation of this integrated biorefinery Results The production cost involves annualized equipment, chemicals (enzymes, sulfuric acid, CaO, ammonia, and the profit from gypsum), labor, utilities, raw material and the credit that can be obtained from ethanol The cost for the equipment such as heat exchangers, fermentors, tanks, distillation columns, mechanical separation, filters, molecular sieves, is updated from the values calculated using the correlations developed by the authors, see supplementary material of Martín & Grossmann 13 and Almena and Martín 55 The costs for utilities are updated from the literature, 19 $·t-1 Steam, 0.057 $·t-1 cooling water, Electricity: 1.7·10-8 $ ·J-1 56,57 and the base price for biomass is 30€/t Finally, a sensitivity analysis will be performed to evaluate the effect of biomass cost from 30 to 100€/t in the production cost of ETBE A feed of 18 kg/s of biomass is used, typical from bioethanol production facilities.12 5.1.- Facility operation Tables 4-5 summarize the operation of the major units in both processes One important issue is that since the dilute acid pretreatment presents separate yields to cellulose and to hemicellulose, the process involving this pretreatment does not produce any excess of i-butene or ethanol, see Table In terms of the operating conditions, the dilute acid requires a higher temperature, 167ºC vs 132ºC, that together with the feed of acid are used to adjust the ratio of C6 sugars to C5 sugars obtained for the integrated facility to operate optimally 15 In particular, cellulose production is maximized due to the need for i-butene while the yield to hemicelluloses, the source for xylose and ethanol, is maintained low to reduce the energy consumption in its dehydration As a result the operating temperature is maintained in lower limits compared to the production of ethanol or i-butene alone.12,18 Due to the limited information on the performance of the AFEX reactor, an excess of ethanol is obtained so that enough cellulose is available for i-butene production, see Table The excess of ethanol can be later considered as credit for the economic evaluation at the cost of its dehydration The process using dilute acid pretreatment shows larger yield to ETBE, but no additional product is obtained In Tables and the operation of the multieffect column is also reported The operation of the multieffect column is interesting to reduce the consumption of energy within the process.11 Small differences can be found for both examples due to the composition of the feed to the column when fed from either of the pretreatments The additional information on the yield to C6 and C5 sugars in the dilute acid pretreatment, together with the energy consumption involved in the dehydration of the excess of ethanol produced with using the AFEX pretreatment, results in a clear economic advantage of the process that uses dilute acid as pretreatment In both cases lignin is produced The amount of lignin available would make it possible to generate a fair fraction of the needs, if not all However, the humidity typically is an issue to process this lignin as energy source The amount of lignin available would be able to provide up to 3.6 MW/kg of biomass Table 4.- AFEX pretreatment operating conditions Legend: LP: Low pressure: IP: Intermediate pressure: HP: High pressure α: fraction of total feed to LP column β: fraction of total feed to IP column Feed Biomass (kg/s) AFEX reactor Ammonia Ratio (kg/kg dry biomass) Water added ratio (kg/kg dry biomass) Yield to sugars T(ºC) Ammonia recovery column P(bar) T (ºC) Tbot(ºC) Recovery Purity Multieffect column α 22 1.6 0.812 132 4.5 90 148 0.9998 0.84 0.075 16 β P(LP) mmHg LP/IP IP/HP Products Ethanol (kg/kg biomass) I-butene (kg/kg/biomass) Excess (Ethanol) ETBE (kg/kg/biomass) Utilities Thermal Energy (MW) Cooling (MW) Power (MW) 0.226 217 2.56 2.82 0.095 0.077 0.025 0.136 132 90 Table 5.- Dilute acid pretreatment operating conditions Legend: LP: Low pressure: IP: Intermediate pressure: HP: High pressure α: fraction of total feed to LP column β: fraction of total feed to IP column Feed Biomass (kg/s) ACID reactor Acid concentration Water added ratio (kg/kg dry biomass) T(ºC) Enzyme added Yield to Cellulose Yield to hemicellulose Multieffect column α β P(LP) mmHg LP/IP IP/HP Products Ethanol (kg/kg biomass) I-butene (kg/kg/biomass) Excess ETBE (kg/kg/biomass) Utilities Thermal Energy (MW) Cooling (MW) Power (MW) 18 0.5% 1.5 167 44 0.97 0.675 0.084 0.238 150 2.33 2.29 0.078 0.096 0.16 21 19 5.2.- Economic evaluation To compare both processes, a detail economic evaluation is carried out computing the production and investment costs The estimation of the investment is performed using the factor cost method 54 First the equipment cost is estimated using the mass and energy balances resulting from the optimization, and the unit 17 estimation procedure in Martín and Grossmann13 updated by Almena and Martín 55 Next, the investment cost is evaluated as a function of the equipment costs assuming factors of 3.15 and 1.4, corresponding to a facility that processes fluids and solids, for the physical and total fixed costs, respectively.54 For the same production capacity of ETBE, the investment for the ACID based facility adds up to 160 M€, while that for the AFEX increases up to 195 M€ It is assumed that no inhibitory species are generated in the ACID based pretreatment Figure shows the distribution of the cost into the five main sections of the facility, the pretreatment, the production of each species, ethanol and i-butene, the production of ETBE and the heat exchanger network The ACID based process shows an evenly distributed investment among HX, ethanol and i-butene sections, while the AFEX presents a larger contribution of the HX in the equipment cost Afex Acid Figure 4.- Breakdown of the units contribution to investment The production costs involved maintenance, labour, chemicals (H2SO4, CaO, Gypsum, Ammonia), raw material, utilities (Steam, electricity and cooling water) and other expenses including taxes, fees and administration.54 The mass and energy balances compute the utilities, raw materials and chemicals needs for the facility Initially, a biomass price of 30 €/t is used Without any credit due to mayor byproducts, the production cost of ETBE using an ACID based process adds up to 55 M€/yr, representing 0.61 €/kg of ETBE However, using the AFEX process the production costs increase up to 97 M€/yr for a production cost of ETBE of 1.08 €/kg However, in this second process ethanol is also produced Assuming a price of 0.41 €/kg, a credit of M€/yr can be obtained reducing the production cost of 1€/kg A large amount of energy is involved in ammonia recovery Figure shows the breakdown of the costs, where it is possible to see that utilities represent almost 45% of the production costs of ETBE using the AFEX process 18 Acid Afex Figure 5.- Breakdown of the production costs 5.3.- Sensitivity analysis In this section two different topics are covered On the one hand, the effect of the biomass and ethanol price in the final price of the ETBE On the other hand, the effect of biomass composition on the operation of the integrated facility The cost of ETBE will depend on the biomass cost, as well as that of the bioethanol in the case of the process that uses the AFEX pretreatment where it is obtained as a by-product The base price of ethanol was considered at 0.42 €/kg as in recent literature 58 A sensitivity analysis is performed on both variables, bioethanol price and biomass price to evaluate the ETBE production cost, see Figure The ETBE prices in the literature range from values of 0.397 €/kg59 to others as high as $1.3/t 60 or 1.27€/t that have been reported over the last few years In Figure it is possible to see that the renewable based ETBE can be, under certain raw material and byproduct prices, competitive with market prices However, the price of ethanol has to be beyond current market price for the AFEX pretreatment to be selected Note that if larger yield at the reactor is obtained the results may change 19 Figure 6.- Sensitivity analysis for the ETBE production cost Finally, since the composition of the biomass is responsible for the availability of glucose and xylose, and in the end ethanol and i-butene, it is possible to select or engineer a biomass for the optimal production of ETBE It can be considered a simultaneous process and product design problem that can allow selecting the proper biomass for the operation of integrated facilities similar to the work on algae design 61 Note that pretreatment efficiency is sensitive to the composition of the biomass Therefore, it is reasonable to operate within a small range of the original composition (25-40% Cellulose, 20-30% Hemicellulose, 15-20% lignin, 6% and the rest moisture) From the optimization point of view, the model remains similar, but the composition of the biomass is now a variable and the problem is optimized as presented in Section The dilute acid pretreatment is selected due to the availability of different models for glucose and xylose production Table shows a summary of the results The solution targets maximum i-butene production, because it is the limiting factor, and improves the yield to sugars while reducing the fraction of hemicellulose In this case, the freedom in both the composition and the yield from biomass to each of the sugars can be adjusted The production capacity increases by almost 30% if the proper biomass type is selected The cost estimation results in an investment of 165M€ for the production of 112kt/y and a production cost of 0.51€/kg It represents a reduction of 16% in the production cost when using the generic biomass presented in the base case Note that it is purely theoretical and that the results must be validated, especially the possibility of such a biomass to be feasible and the yield of the pretreatment Table 6.- Summary of operating conditions for “best biomass” case 20 Feed Biomass (kg/s) Wa Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin Ash ACID reactor Acid concentration Water added ratio (kg/kg dry biomass) T(ºC) Enzyme added Yield to Cellulose Yield to hemicellulose Multieffect column α β P(LP) mmHg LP/IP IP/HP Products Ethanol (kg/kg biomass) I-butene (kg/kg/biomass) Excess ETBE (kg/kg/biomass) Utilities Thermal Energy (MW) Cooling (MW) Power (MW) 18 15% 40% 21.9% 17.1% 6% 0.5% 1.5 151 44 0.97 0.97 0.087 0.247 150 2.33 2.29 1.75/18 2.064/18 3.613/18 21.5 16.5 This facility is a biorefinery capable of producing ethanol, i-butene and ETBE depending on the biomass type available and the demand of each one of the three Note that the yield of the pretreatments must be validated Conclusions The production of ETBE from lignocellulosic switchgrass has been evaluated within the concept of an integrated biorefinery Both raw materials, the ethanol and the i- butene, are produced from fermentation of sugars Since there are only experimental data to prove the conversion of glucose into i-butene, xylose is devoted to ethanol production We use a superstructure optimization approach to evaluate the renewable production of ETBE Surrogate models for each one of the operations from the pretreatments, including acid dilution and a new AFEX process that reduces the energy consumption by using ammonia absorption in water, hydrolysis of cellulose and 21 sugar fermentation based on experimental data, multieffect distillation column and ethanol dehydration, and ibutene purification and a reduced order model for the reactive distillation column that is used to simultaneously produce and purify ETBE The model is optimized resulting in the selection of dilute acid as the pretreatment of choice due to the larger yield to sugars, and the possibility of adjusting the production of both, i-butene and ethanol for the needs to ETBE, assuming that no inhibitors are produced For a facility that produces 90 kt/yr of ETBE, the investment adds up to 160 M€ for a production cost of 0.61€/kg Integrated facilities operate at their optimum for specific biomass compositions This framework also allows evaluating the best use of each biomass depending on its composition as long as the models for the pretreatments are valid 7.-Nomenclature a,b,c amonia_ratio conc_acid_mix Ci Di,k Dt: enzyme_add F: LoadAmmonia_water m(J, unit,unit1) Pi Pk Q(unit) Qbk Qwk R T(Unit, Unit1) Tbk Tck time_pret (min) T_acid T_afex time_pret water_pret Wi,k W(unit) yield Symbols λ η Fitting parameters for ammonia recovery column operation Ratio of ammonia added vs dry biomass to AFEX pretreatment (g·g-1) Acid concentration at pretreatment in weight percentage Material cost ($ ·g-1 or $·W-1) Flow of component I in distillate of column k Temeprature increment Ratio of enzyme added to hydrolysis for acid pretreatment as function of the glucan (g·g-1 ) Feed to multieffect column Mass ratio between ammonia and water mass flow of component J from unit to unit 1(kg/s) Prices of component i (€/kg - €/kwh) Pressure of column k thermal energy involved in unit (W) Thermal flow in boiler of column k Thermal flow in condenser of column k Reflux ration Temperature of the stream from unit to unit (ºC) Temperature in boiler of column k Temperature in condenser of column k Time for acid pretreatment Operating temperature acid pretreatment (oC) Operating temperature AFEX pretreatment (oC) Time for AFEX pretreatment (min) Ratio of water added to AFEX pretreatment function of the dry biomass(g·g-1) Flow of component I in residue of column k electrical power involved in unit (W) yield of the pretreatment / unit Latent heat steam (J·g-1) Separation ratio in column Appendix Wa: Water Ibut: I-butene 22 EtOH: Ethanol CaO: Lime CaSO4 : gypsum H2SO4 : Sulfuric acid CO2 : Carbon dioxide O2 : Oxygen Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge JCyL grant SA026G18 and USAL PSEM3 for financial support References [1] Yee, K.F.; Mohamed, A.R.; Tan, S.H A review on the evolution of ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) and its future prospects Renew Sust Energy Revs 2013, 22, 604-620 [2] Menezes, E.W.; Cataluña, R Optimization of ETBE (ethyl ter-butyl ether) production process Fuel Process.Technol 2008, 89(11), 1148-1152 [3] Puziy, A.M.; Poddubnaya, O.I.; Kochkin, Y.N.; Vlasenko, N.V.; Tsyba, M.M Acid properties of phosphoric acid activated carbons and their catalytic behavior in ethyl-tert-butyl ether synthesis Carbon, 2010, 48, 706-713 [4] Sneesby M.G.; Tade, M.O.; Datta, R.; Smith, T.N ETBE Synthesis via Reactive Distillation SteadyState Simulation and Design Aspects Ind Eng Chem Res., 1997, 36 (5), 1855–1869 [5] Tian Y.C.; Tadé, M.O Inference of conversion and purity for ETBE reactive distillation Braz J Chem Eng 2000, 17, 4-7 [6] Jhon, YH.; Lee, T.H Dynamic simulation for reactive distillation with ETBE synthesis Sep Purif Technol 2003, 31(3) 301-317 [7] Domingues, L.; Pinheiro, C.I.C.; Oliveira, N.M.C Optimal design of reactive distillation systems: Application to the production of ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) Comp Chem Eng 2014, 64, 81–94 [8] Bernal, D Optimal design and control of a catalytic distillation column Case study: Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) synthesis column MEng Thesis Universidad de los Andes Colombia 2016 [9] Norkobilov, A.; Gorri, D.; Ortíz, I Comparative study of conventional, reactive-distillation and pervaporation integrated hybrid process for ethyl tert-butyl ether production Chem Eng Process 2017, 122, 434-446 [10] Thiel, C.; Sundmacher, K.; Hoffmann, U Synthesis of ETBE: residue curve maps for the heterogeneously catalysed reactive distillation process Chem Eng J 1997, 66, 181–191 [11] Karuppiah R.; Peschel A.; Grossmann, I.E.; Martín, M.; Martinson, W.; Zullo, L Energy optimization of an Ethanol Plant AICHE J 2008; 54, 1499-525 [12] Martín, M.; Grossmann, I.E Energy optimization of lignocellulosic bioethanol production via Hydrolysis of Switchgrass AIChE J 2012 ; 58 (5), 1538-1549 [13] Martín, M.; Grossmann, I.E Energy optimization of lignocellulosic bioethanol production via gasification AIChE J 2011; 57 (12), 3408-3428 23 [14] Assabumrungrat, S.; Kiatkittipong, K.; Sevitoon, N.; Praserthdam, P.; Goto S Kinetics of liquid phase synthesis of ethyl tert-butyl ether from tert-butyl alcohol and ethanol catalyzed by β-zeolite supported on monolith Int J Chem Kinet 2001, 34, 292-299 [15] Marlière, P Production of alkenes by enzymatic decarboxylation of 3-hydroxyalkanoic acids Unitied states Patent US20110165644 A1 2011 Jul [16] Marlière P Method for the enzymatic production of 3-hydroxy- 3-methylbutyric acid from acetone and acetylCoA European Patent EP 2295593 A1 2011 March 24 [17] Marlière P Method for producing an alkene comprising step of converting an alcohol by an enzymatic dehydration step European Patent EP2336341 A1 2011, Jun 22 [18] Martín, M.; Grossmann, I.E Optimization simultaneous production of ethanol and ibutene from Switchgrass J Biomass Bioenerg 2014, 61, 93 -103 [19] De la Cruz, V.; Hernández, S.; Martín M.; Grossmann I.E Integrated synthesis of Biodiesel, Bioethanol, Ibutene and glycerol ethers from algae Ind Eng Chem Res 2014 , 53 (37), 14397–14407 [20] Keshwani, D.R.; Cheng, J.J Switchgrass for bioethanol and other value-added applications: A review Bioresour Technol 2009, 100: 1515–23 [21] Sun, Y.; Cheng, J Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review Bioresour Technol 2002; 83, 1-11 [22] Taherzadeh M.; Karimi, K Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Wastes to improve ethanol and biogas production: A review Int J Mol Sci 2008, 9, 1621-1651 [23] Alvira, P.; Tomás-Pejó, E., Ballesteros, M., Negro, M.J Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: A review Bioresour Technol 2010, 101, 4851–4861 [24] Piccolo, C.; Bezzo, F A techno-economic comparison between two technologies for bioethanol production from lignocelluloses Biomass Bioener 2009, 33, 478 – 491 [25] Zhang, S.; Marechal, F.; Gassner, M.; Perin-Levasseur, Z.; Qi, W.; Ren, Z.; Yan, Y.; Favrat, D Process Modeling and Integration of Fuel Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass Based on Double Acid Hydrolysis Energy Fuels 2009, 23 (3), 1759–1765 [26] Aden, A., Foust, T Technoeconomic analysis of the dilute sulfuric acid and enzymatic hydrolysis process for the conversion of corn stover to ethanol Cellulose 2009, 16, 535-545 [27] Kazi, F.K.; Fortman, J.A.; Anex, R.P.; Hsu, D.D.; Aden, A., Dutta, A.; Kothandaraman, G Technoeconomic comparison of process technologies for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover Fuel 2010, 89, S20S28 [28] Alizadeh, H., Teymouri, F., Gilbert, T.I.; Dale, B.E Pretreatment of switchgrass by ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX) Appl Biochem Biotech 2005, 121-124, 1133-41 [29] Murnen, H.K.; Balan, V.; Chundawat, S.P.S.; Bals, B.; Sousa, L da C.; Dale, B.E Optimization of Ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of Miscanthus x giganteus to Fermentable sugars Biotechnol Progr 2007, 23, 846-50 [30] Hamelinck, C.N.; Hooijdonk, G.V.; Faaij, A.P.C Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long-term Biomass Bioenery 2005, 28, 384-410 24 [31] Gregg, D., Saddler, J.N Bioconversion of lignocellulosic residue to ethanol: Process flowsheet development Biomass Bioener 1995, (1-5), 287-302 [32] Wooley R.; Ruth, M.; Sheehan, J.; Ibsen, K.; Majdeski, H.; Galvez, A Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis current and futuristic scenarios Golden, Colorado, 132 p NREL, 1999 July Report nº: NREL/ TP – 580- 26157 [33] Martín, M Industrial chemical process Analysis and design Elsevier Oxford 2016 [34] Mani, S.; Tabil, L.G.; Sokhansanj, S Grinding performance and physical properties of wheat and barley straws, corn stover and switchgrass Biomass Bioenerg 2004, 27, 339-352 [35] Sierra, R.; Smith, A.; Granda, C.; Holtzapple, M.T Producing Fuel san Chemicals from lignocellulosic Biomass CEP 2008, August: S10-S18 [36] Mosier, N.; Wyman, C.; Dale, B.; Elander, R.; Lee, Y.Y.; Holtapple, M.; Ladish, M Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass Bioresour Technol 2005, 96, 673-86 [37] Kumar, P.; Barrett, D.M.; Delwiche, M.J.; Stroeve, P Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production Ind Eng Chem Res 2009, 48, 3713–3729 [38] Tao, L.; Aden, A.; Elander, R.T.; Pallapolu, V.R.; Lee, Y.Y.; Garlock, R.J, Process and technoeconomic analysis of leading pretreatment technologies for lignocellulosic ethanol production using switchgrass Bioresour Technol 2011, 102, 11105–11114 [39] Garlock, R.J.; Balan, V., Dale, B.E Optimization of AFEX™ pretreatment conditions and enzyme mixtures to maximize sugar release from upland and lowland switchgrass Bioresour Technol 2012, 104, 757–68 [40] Holtzapple, M.T.; Jun, J-A.;, Ashok, G.; Patibandla, S.L.; Dale, B.E The Ammonia Freeze Explosion (AFEX) Process A Practical Lignocellulose Pretreatment Appl Biochem Biotech 1992, 28/29, 59-74 [41] Sendich, E.N.; Lase, M.; Kim, S.; Alizadeh, H.; Laureano-Perez, L.; Dale, B.E.; Lynd, L Recent process improvements for the ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) process and resulting reductions in minimum ethanol selling price Bioresour Technol 2008, 99, 8429–35 [42] Schell, D.J.; Ruth, M,F.; Tucker, M.P Modeling the Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Dilute-Acid Pretreated Douglas Fir Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1999, 77 (1-3), 67-81 [43] Canettier, E.V.; Rocha, G.J.M.; Carvalho, J.A.; de Almeida e Silva, J.B Optimization of acid hydrolysis from the hemicellulosic fraction of Eucalyptus grandis residue using response surface methodology Bioresour Technol 2007, 98, 422–8 [44] Shi, J.; Ebrik, M.A.; Wyman, C.E Sugar yields from dilute sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide pretreatments and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis of switchgrass Bioresour Technol 2011, 102, 8930–8938 [45] Lavarack B.P.; Griffin, G.J.; Rodman, D The acid hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose to produce xylose, arabinose, glucose and other products Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 23, 367-380 [46] Schell D.J.; Farmer J.; Newman, M.; McMillan, J.D Dilute Sulfuric Acid Pretreatment of Corn Stover in Pilot – Scale reactor Appl Biochem Biotech 2003, 105-108, 69-85 [47] National Lime Association Using lime for acid neutralization A proven solution! http://www.lime.org Last accessed June 2012 25 [48] Wooley, R.J.; Putsche, V Development of an ASPEN PLUS Physical Property Database for Biofuels Components NREL/MP-425-20685 1996 http://www.p2pays.org/ref/22/21210.pdf [49] Van Leeuwen, B.N.M.; van der Wupl, A.M.; Duijnstee, I.; van Maris, A.J.A.; Straathof, A.J.J Fermentative production of isobutene Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012, 93, 1377-87 [50] Traiprasertpong, P.; Svang-Ariyaskul, A Process Simulation of Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether(ETBE) Production from Naphtha Cracking Wastes Int Scho Scient.Res Innov 2012, 6(4), 353-358 [51] Rarey, J.; Horstmann, S.; Gmehling, J Vapor-Liquid Equilibria and Vapor Pressure Data for the Systems Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether + Ethanol and Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether + Water J Chem Eng Data, 1999, 44, 532-538 [52] Al-Arfaj, M A.; Luyben, W L Control study of ETBE reactive distillation, Ind Eng Chem Res 2002, 41, 3784–3796 [53] Yee, T.F., Grossmann, I.E Simultaneous optimization models for heat integration – II Heat exchanger networks synthesis Comput Chem Eng 1990, 28, 1165-1184 [54] Sinnot, R.K Coulsons and Richardson Vol Elsevier Oxford 1999 [55] Almena, A.; Martín, M Techno-economic analysis of the production of epiclorhidrin from glycerol Ind Eng Chem Res 2015, 55 (12), 3226-3238 [56] Balat, M.; Balat, H.; Öz, C Progress in bioethanol processing Progress Energ Comb Sci 2008, 34 (5), 551-573 [57] Franceschin, G.; Zamboni, A.; Bezzo, F.; Bertucco, A Ethanol from corn: a technical and economical assessment based on different scenarios Chem Eng Res Des 2008, 86, 488-498 [58] Monsenzadeh, A.; Zamani, A.; Taherzadeh, M Bioethylene Production from Ethanol: A Review and Techno‐ economical Evaluation ChemBioEng Reviews, 2017, (2), 75-91 [59] Ballerini, D.Biofuels: Meeting the Energy and Environmental Challenges of the transportation section TECHNIP, France 2013 [60] https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2015/09/04/9921145/seven-week-etbe-price-slide-ends-on-mtbe-lift/ [61] Martín, M.; Grossmann, I.E Optimal engineered algae composition for the integrated simultaneous production of bioethanol and biodiesel AIChE J 2013, 59 (8), 2872–2883 26 For Table of Contents Use Only Integrated Renewable production of ETBE from Switchgrass Guillermo Galána, Mariano Martín2a Ignacio Grossmannb Renewable ETBE is produced from lignocellulosic raw materials via i-butene and ethanol production from glucose and xylose and its further reaction Corresponding autor:Email address: mariano.m3@usal.es 27 ... are by products of the renewable production of ETBE Fig Superstructure for the renewable production of ETBE Mathematical modelling All the operations in the production of ETBE from switchgrass are... for the integrated simultaneous production of bioethanol and biodiesel AIChE J 2013, 59 (8), 2872–2883 26 For Table of Contents Use Only Integrated Renewable production of ETBE from Switchgrass. .. performed to evaluate the effect of biomass cost from 30 to 100€/t in the production cost of ETBE A feed of 18 kg/s of biomass is used, typical from bioethanol production facilities.12 5.1.- Facility