Alternative Jet Fuel Supply Chain Analysis ASCENT 1

FAA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR ALTERNATIVE JET FUELS & ENVIRONMENT

Project Manager: Nathan Brown, FAALead Investigators: M. Wolcott, M. Garcia-Perez, X Zhang

Graduate Student: Abid Tanzil, Scott Geleynse

[April 18, 2017]

Alternative Jet Fuel Supply Chain AnalysisASCENT 1

Opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCENT sponsor organizations.

Conversion Pathways to Alternative Fuels

Evaluation of Bio-refinery Alternatives for the Production of

Alternative Jet Fuels in a Dry Corn Ethanol Plant

2

Task/Subtask Overview

TECHNICAL PROBLEM ADDRESSED:

Up to now all the jet fuel supply chain analyses published

have been limited to standalone jet fuel production

technologies that do not generate bio-products. The

potential techno-economic and environmental benefits of

using existing industrial infrastructure and the

production of co-products on jet fuel production scenarios

have to be considered when developing jet fuel supply

chains.

OUR MAIN LONG-TERM CONTRIBUTION:

The development and implementation of a methodology to

include the effect of using existing infrastructure and the

integration of co-products on jet fuel supply analyses.

3

Plant/Animal

Oils&fats

Lignocellulosic

biomass

Lignocellulosic

biomass

Solid Fraction of

Municipal Solid

Wastes/Coal/

Natural Gas

FeedstocksPrimary Conversion Secondary Conversion Products

Oil Extraction

Ethanol or Butanol

Fermentation

Lipid Fermentation

Hydrotreatment -

Isomerization

Alcohol

OligomerizationPre-treatment

Hydrolysis

Hydrotreatment

and

Isomerization

Pyrolysis-

Catalytic

Pyrolysis/HTL

Gasification

Bio-char

HydrotreatmentBio-oil

Syngas Fischer

Tropsch

Sugars

LipidsWaste Water

(animal manure)Algae

Production

Sugar Rich

Feedstocks

Farnesene

Fermentation, and

Purification

Hydrothermolysis

Aqueous Phase

Reforming/Condensation

Cracking

ARA

HEFA

AMYRIS

GEVO

VIRENT

UOP-Kior

Jet Fuel Approved by ASTM

Under study by ASTM

HydrotreatmentFT-SPK

FT-SKA

HDCJ

ATJ

SK&SAK

DSHC

HEFA

CH


4

Example of integrated ATJ

5

Mass balance and ATJ conversion cost

Isobutanol to Jet Ethanol to Jet Guerbet Alcohols to Jet

Total Capital Investment, MM$

64.39 83.81 105.82

OpEx, MM$/yr 4.013 5.690 4.973

Production Rate, MMgal/yr 16.04 12.69 12.27

Conversion Cost, $/gal jet

produced (MFSP)

0.705 1.196 1.377

$/gal alcohol processed 0.540 0.713 0.794

Conversion Cost of jet fuel from alcohol

Isobutanol to Jet Ethanol to Jet Guerbet Alcohols to Jet

Mass Yield 0.766 0.606 0.586

Production Rate, MMgal/yr 16.04 12.69 12.27

Oligomerization Recycle Ratio 0.184 1.889 0.184

Hydrogen Feed Requirement (ton/day) 1.905 1.724 1.457

Mass Balance of Core ATJ Models, Basis: 200 tons/day alcohols processed

“Conversion Cost” represents the added cost to convert existing alcohol to jet fuel (i.e. representsthe MFSP if the production of alcohol is entirely free)

6

Co-products from the integrated process

Feedstock

Handling

(A100)

Pretreatment

&

Conditioning

(A200)

Lignocellulosic

biomass

Enzymatic

Hydrolysis

(A300)

Alcohol

fermentation

Depolymerization

Valorization

Lignin

SugarsATJ

Chemical, fuel, materials

Co-products brings additional

revenue to reduce

sugar/alcohol cost

7

US can be divided in regions dominated by a certain industrial infrastructure that can

be leveraged for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels. This existing infrastructure

may provide economic and technical advantages that could eventually lead to the

development of distinctive bio-refinery technologies in each of these regions.

Location of Industrial Infrastructure

Pulp and paper mills

Petroleum Refineries

Corn ethanol plants

Sugarcane mills

Sugar beet processing plants

CORN

PULP AND

PAPER

MILLS

PETROLEUM

REFINERIES

SUGAR BEET

PROCESSING

PLANTS


8


Petroleum Refinery

Pulp and Paper Mill

Corn Ethanol

Sugarcane Mill

9

Methodology

Design case of existing InfrastructureDesign case of standalone Alternative jet

fuel technology

Techno-economic

AnalysisLCA

Requirement specifications: cost reduction

Development of Bio-refinery Concepts (BC)

Mass and energy balances of BC

Analysis of Results

10

Standalone Technology Feedstock Product

Case 1: Dry Corn Ethanol Mill Dry grind corn (DGC) Corn grain Ethanol

Case 1A: Virent Virent's BioForming (VB) Corn stover Alternative jet

Case 1B: ATJ Alcohol to Jet (ATJ) Corn stover Alternative jet

Case 1C: DSHC Direct sugar to hydrocarbon (DSHC) Corn stover Alternative jet

Case 1D: FP Fast Pyrolysis (FP) Corn stover Alternative jet

Case 1E: FT Gasification & Fischer – Tropsch (FT) Corn stover Alternative jet

Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A

Dry Corn Ethanol Plant. In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)

MethodologyBaseline scenarios

11



Dry Grind Corn Ethanol Mill (DGCEM)Data acquisition for baseline scenario

Parameter Unit Value Reference

Corn grain kg/hr 94000 Assumed

Composition

Starch Wt.% 60 Mei, 2006

Moisture Wt.% 15 Mei, 2006

Enzyme

Alpha-amylase wt./wt. of mash 0.0005 Karuppiah et al., 2008

Gluco-amylase wt./wt. of mash 0.0012 Karuppiah et al., 2008

Power

Thermal energy requirement Btu/gal (denatured) 43850 Shapouri et al., 2010

Electricity requirement 1.02×0.95(plant size in MGY – 30)/5 Mei, 2006

Water requirement

Initial wash of the feed % of corn grain 50 Karuppiah et al., 2008

Mashing % of corn grain 50 Assumed

Fermentation % of mash 23 Assumed

Scrubber kg/hr 682 Mei, 2006

Steam requirement kg/hr 13636 Mei, 2006

Solid contents

Wet cake wt.% 35 Mei, 2006

Syrup wt.% 40 Mei, 2006

Ethanol conversion % of glucose 51.15 Mei, 2006

CO2 conversion % of glucose 48.85 Mei, 2006

Ethanol purity (from distillation) wt.% 95.6 Mei, 2006

DDGS moisture wt.% 10 Mei, 2006

Year of cost analysis 2006 Assumed

Operating hours hr/year 7440 Assumed

12

DGCEMMaterial balance: Product capacity - 80 million gallons per year

13Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A Dry Corn Ethanol Plant.

In Preparation, To be Submitted to Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2017)

Capacity: 83333 kg/h (Dry corn stover)

Initial Moisture Content: 20 %

Feedstock Price: $ 80/dry ton (short)

Case 1A: Virent


Power

Process requirement MW 35 Davis et al., 2015

Steam consumption kg/hr 233333 Davis et al., 2015

Makeup water kg/hr 159000 Davis et al., 2015

H2 requirement

(stoichiometric)kg/hr 1509 This work

Total purchased

equipment cost (TPEC) MM$ 151.5 Davis et al., 2015

Delivery cost % of TPEC 10 Peters et al., 2004

Variable operational cost MM$ 106.4 Davis et al., 2015

Fuel yield gal/dry kg of

stover0.077 Davis et al., 2015

Year of cost analysis 2011

Operating hours hr/year 7880

Case 1B: ATJ


Power

Efficiency% of heating

value33

Process requirement MW 28 Humbird et al., 2011

Steam consumption kg/hr 233333 Humbird et al., 2011

Makeup water kg/hr 147000 Humbird et al., 2011

H2 requirement

(stoichiometric)kg/kg ethanol 0.005 Atsonios et al., 2015

Ethanol yieldkg/kg stover

(dry)0.263 Humbird et al., 2011

Total purchased

equipment cost

Ethanol production MM$ 79.3 Humbird et al., 2011

Ethanol upgrading MM$ 13.9 Atsonios et al., 2015


Variable operational

cost

Ethanol production MM$ 68.7 Humbird et al., 2011

Ethanol upgrading MM$ 50.7 Atsonios et al., 2015

Operating labor MM$ 2.7 Humbird et al., 2011

Fuel yield kg/kg ethanol 0.614 Atsonios et al., 2015

Year of cost analysis 2011

Operating hours hr/year 7440 Atsonios et al., 2015

Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryData acquisition for baseline scenarios

14

Alternative Jet Fuel BiorefineryMaterial balance

15



Integration scenarios with DGCEM

16

Co-location: Is a strategy where a separate process unit or a group of process

units is established inside an existing infrastructure in order to utilize part of the

feedstock supply or the infrastructure or even part of the utilities for production of a

different product (de Jong et al., 2015). (Cases 2)

de Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Faaij A, Slade R, Mawhood R, Junginger M: The feasibility of short-term production strategies

for renewable jet fuels – a comprehensive techno-economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining. 2015,

Re-purposing: Assumes a different production scheme in order to produce a

different product using the same existing infrastructure. This may also require

additional units set up in the layout (de Jong et al., 2015). (Cases 3)

Types of Integration

17

Case Description

Case 2 A1 Virent: Corn stover is collected as a waste at a specific farm gate price (only 40%~70% of the

stover can be collected to avoid soil erosion). The corn stover is purchased at the gate.

Case 2 A2 Virent: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the

existing service facilities of DGCEM (sharing electricity distribution facility). Shared land,

buildings and yard improvements. Sharing of Managerial resources.

Case 2 A3 Virent: Same as Case 2 A2 but the lignin stream is sold based on its calorific value. Power

generation avoidance required electricity purchasing through the power distribution facility in

the DGCEM.

Case 2 B1 ATJ: Corn stover is collected as a waste at a specific farm gate price. The rest of the process

is similar to standalone ATJ process.

Case 2 B2 ATJ: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the

existing service facilities of DGCEM. Shared land, buildings and yard improvements. Sharing

of Managerial resources.

Case 2 D1 Pyrolysis: Corn stover at the same gate price.

Case 2 D2 Pyrolysis: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the



Case 2 E1 FT: Uses the corn stover collected at the gate of the plant for hydrocarbon production

Case 2 E2 FT: Infrastructure and intellectual property shared utilization; will take advantage of the



Co-location cases (Cases 2)

Integration Scenarios

18

Case Description

Case 3 B3 ATJ: The corn stover cellulosic ethanol production facility is established inside the

DGCEM co-utilizing some of the major equipment such as liquefaction tank,

saccharification tank, ethanol fermenter, molecular sieve, beer column, press filter etc.

The ATJ process uses the service facilities, land, building, yard improvements and

labor force. Not to affect the operation of the corn ethanol plant it is necessary to

expand the capacity of these unit operations.

Case 3 B4 ATJ: The repurposing strategy is implemented by directing the corn grain derived

ethanol into the ATJ facility. Hence, ethanol is the feed to the ATJ upgrading facility and

the feed cost was added in terms of the MFSP of ethanol, estimated by our DGCEM

model.

Case 3 C1 DSHC: A repurposed approach between DSHC and DGCEM. Instead of going into the

ethanol production downstream, corn kernel derived sugar stream of glucose is

consumed by the farnesene producing yeast in DSHC process and thus created

several opportunities to utilize the existing facilities in DGCEM. Replacing the mixed

sugar stream with a single sugar stream poses some technical challenges. For

example, low density of sugar stream may hamper the microorganism metabolism.

This prompted to concentrate the single sugar stream into 55 wt.% using the existing

evaporation unit in the DGCEM.

Repurposing cases (Cases 3)

Integration Scenarios

19

Corn farm Dry grind corn ethanol processing

Water Steam Electricity Natural

gas

Corn grain

1.1 million kg/day

0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.7 million kg/dayEthanol

0.38 million kg/day

DDGS 0.33 million kg/day

CO2

0.37 million kg/day

Corn farmAlcohol to Jet (ATJ)Corn stover

2.2 million kg/day

Alternative jet 0.12 million gallon/day

Corn stover1.1 million kg/day

Ethanol Ethanol to Jet

Water Steam Electricity

669 MW/day5.6 million kg/day3.5 million kg/day(make-up)

• Waste stream (corn stover) from the corn grain farm is collected at gate price which is also the case in the ATJ’s

base case. Therefore, no potential cost reduction

• Lang factor: 4.28 (No change from the base case)

ExampleCo-location: ATJ_Case 2_B1

20



gas

Corn grain

1.1 million kg/day


0.38 million kg/day


CO2

0.37 million kg/day

Corn farmAlcohol to JetCorn stover

2.2 million kg/day

Alternative jet 0.12 million gallon/day



Component Fraction Reduction New fraction

Total delivered equipment cost 100% 0% 100%

Buildings (including services) 29% 75% 7%

Yard improvements 12% 30% 8%

Service facilities (installed) 55% 40% 33%

Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 15% 5%

• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land and operating

labor

• Lang factor: 3.8

• 20% reduction in salaries (attributed to the management salaries)

ExampleCo-location: ATJ_Case 2_B2

21

• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land and operating

labor








Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 15% 5%



gas

Corn grain

1.06 million kg/day

0.3 million kg/day 120 MW/day 7219 million BTU/day3.5 million kg/day

Ethanol 0.36 million kg/day


CO2

0.34 million kg/day

Corn farm Virent’s BioForming processCorn stover

2.2 million kg/day

RDB 0.13 million gallon/day

Naphtha 0.03 million gallon/day

Electricity0.27 million kW/day


ExampleCo-location: ATJ_Case 2_A2

22



gas

Corn grain

1.1 million kg/day


0.38 million kg/day


CO2

0.37 million kg/day

Alcohol to JetAlternative jet

0.12 million gallon/day


Sold at the minimum selling price

• Instead of going into the blending station, the corn ethanol is diverted to the ATJ facilities at the minimum selling price

• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land, contingency and

operating labor








Contingency 37% 50% 19%

Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 60% 2%

ExampleRepurpose: ATJ_Case 3_B3

23



gas

Corn grain

1.1 million kg/day


0.38 million kg/day


CO2

0.37 million kg/day

Direct Sugar Hydrocarbon Alternative jet 0.1 million gallon/day

Sugar stream from pretreatment Farnesene upgrading

• The conc. sugar stream from the corn ethanol mill is diverted to the DSHC facility and thus interrupting the corn

ethanol production.

• Cost reduction opportunities: buildings, yard improvements, installed service facilities, land, contingency and

operating labor








Contingency 37% 50% 19%

Land (4-8% of TDEC) 6% 60% 2%

ExampleRepurpose: DSHC_Case 3_C1

24

Discounted Cash Flow AnalysisFinancial assumptions

Parameters Assumptions

Finance (Debt/equity) 70%/30%

Loan term 10 year 8% APR

Internal rate of return 10%

Depreciation200% declining balance; MACRS; 7 year

recovery period

Working capital (% of FCI) 15%

Construction time (years) 3

%FCI spent in year -2 8

%FCI spent in year -1 60

%FCI spent in year 0 32

Startup period (year) 0.5

Startup variable expenses 75%

Startup fixed expenses 100%

Federal tax rate 16.9%

Year Of Cost Analysis 2015

Project life (years) 22

25

ResultsImpact on capital cost

26

ResultsImpact on operational cost

27

ResultsImpact on capital cost

28

ResultsImpact on operational cost

29

ResultsCash flow analysis: Virent_Case 2_A2

30

ResultsMinimum fuel selling price (MFSP)

Type Pathways Lang Factor MFSP ($/gal of alt. jet) % change from base

Base Virent_Case 1 4.28 6.13

Co-location Virent_Case 2_A1 4.28 6.13 0%

Co-location Virent_Case 2_A2 3.81 5.7 7%

Co-location Virent_Case 2_A3 3.75 6.27 -2%

Base ATJ_Case 1 4.28 5.06

Co-location ATJ_Case 2_B1 4.28 5.06 0%

Co-location ATJ_Case 2_B2 3.81 4.76 6%

Repurposing ATJ_Case 3_B3 3.63 3.5 31%

Repurposing ATJ_Case 3_B4 3.38 2.88 43%

Base DSHC_Case 1 4.28 14.42

Repurposing DSHC_Case 3_C1 3.49 9.83 32%

Base Fast Pyrolysis_Case 1 4.28 4.53

Co-location FP_Case 2_D1 4.28 4.53 0%

Co-location FP_Case 2_D2 3.81 4.27 6%

Base Fischer Tropsch_Case 1 4.28 6.03

Co-location FT_Case 2_E1 4.28 6.03 0%

Co-location FT_Case 2_E2 3.81 5.57 8%

31

ResultsManufacturing cost distribution

32

ResultsManufacturing cost distribution

33

Design cases were developed for standalone technologies with and without

co-products

Several scenarios were generated and evaluated to take advantage of existing

infrastructure in the Dry corn mills for the production of alternative jet fuels.

Cost reduction opportunities were found in eight of the twelve integrated

concepts studied here.

Repurposed strategies performed well in the economic aspect because of

maximum utilization of infrastructural and process similarities.

Overall, Case 3 B3 ATJ, Case 3 B4 ATJ, Case 2 E1 FT and Case 2 E2 FT

performed better than other scenarios in terms of both economic and

environmental criteria.

Conclusions

34

Questions?

35

Core ATJ process/chemistry

Alcohols Alkenes Olefins Paraffins

Alternative pathway based on Guerbet chemistry

36

Status of ATJ

• Commercial flight tested on ethanol and iso-butanolbased AJF.

• Economic looks promising toward achieving $3/gge goal in near terms.

• However, detail process parameters

• The true cost of alcohol and sugar from renewable biomass?

• Co-products opportunities and co-locating with existing infrastructure.

37

Alcohol conversion cost (from sugar)

Ethanol Fermentation Isobutanol Fermentation (low

cost)

Isobutanol Fermentation (high cost)

Mass Yield 0.46 0.34 0.34

Total Installed Cost (MM$) 17.4 17.4 34.9

Fixed Operating Costs (MM$) 1 1 2

Variable Operating Costs

(MM$)

1 1 1

Fermentation Unit Assumptions

Ethanol Conversion Isobutanol Conversion

(low cost)

Isobutanol Conversion (high cost)

Combined Mass Yield 0.283 0.263 0.263

Alcohols Processed

(ton/day)

200 150 150

Total Capital Investment,

MM$

171.31 107.23 145.78

OpEx, MM$/yr 7.690 6.013 7.013

Production Rate,

MMgal/yr

12.92 12.00 12.00

Conversion Cost, $/gal fuel 2.085 1.511 1.954

$ / ton sugar processed 176.73 118.96 153.83

Sugars to Jet Fuel Conversion Cases, Basis: 435 ton/day sugar

Models for sugars to jet were built to compare ATJ using conventional vs. advanced fermentation processes. Cost details for isobutanol fermentation are not publically available, so two estimates are compared.

38

Case 1C: DSHC (Farnesene)


Power

Efficiency % of heating value 33

Sugar mixture MW 13.6 Humbird et al., 2011

Farnesene upgrading MW 1.3 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013

Steam consumption kg/hr 233333 Humbird et al., 2011

Makeup water kg/hr 147000 Humbird et al., 2011

H2 requirement kg/hr 1100 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013

Sugar mix. concentration wt.% 55 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013

Total purchased equipment cost

Sugar mix. concentration MM$ 109 Humbird et al., 2011

Farnesene upgrading MM$ 46.6 Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013


Variable operational cost

Sugar mix. concentration MM$ 98.4 Humbird et al., 2011


Operating labor

Sugar mix. concentration MM$ 2.7 Humbird et al., 2011


Farnesene yield kg/kg sugar mix. 0.17

Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013

Aviation yield kg/kg farnesene 0.53

Lights (n-pentane) kg/kg farnesene 0.17

Naphtha kg/kg farnesene 0.28

Diesel kg/kg farnesene 0.08

Year of cost analysis 2011Atsonios et al., 2015


Tanzil A, Zhang X, Wolcott M, Garcia-Perez M: Evaluation of Bio-refinery Concepts for the Production of Alternative Jet Fuels in A Dry Corn Ethanol Plant.



39

Case 1D: Fast Pyrolysis


MC after drying wt.% 10Mani et al., 2004

Chopping energy kWh/dry ton 46

Intermediate yield

Mullen et al., 2010Bio oil % of dry biomass 61.6

Bio char % of dry biomass 17

Non condensable gas % of dry biomass 21.9

Bio oil composition

Aqueous phase % of bio oil 38

Oily phase % of bio oil 62 Wright et al., 2010b

Fuel conversion % of oily phase 42

Fuel gas (CH4) % of aqueous phase 16

Electricity requirement kWh/GGE 1.45Jones et al., 2013

H2 requirement for hydrotreatment % of bio oil 5.7

Total purchased equipment cost MM$ 50 Wright et al., 2010b


Variable operational cost MM$ 97.2 Wright et al., 2010b

Operating labor MM$ 1.8

Fuel yield

Jones et al., 2013

Jet % of total fuel 42

Diesel % of total fuel 40

Gasoline % of total fuel 15

Light % of total fuel 3

Year of cost analysis 2007Wright et al., 2010b





40

Case 1F: FT


MC after drying wt.% 10

Power

Total generation MW 31 Swanson et al., 2010b

Process requirement MW 15

Oxygen for gasification % of dry biomass 26

Steam for gasification % of O2 67

Steam for biomass drying % of MC evaporated 900

H2 requirement for hydrocracking % of total FT fuel 1.1

Total purchased equipment cost MM$ 107.5


Variable operational cost MM$ 64.1

Operating labor MM$ 2.3 Phillips et al., 2007

Fuel yield % of clean syngas 9 Swanson et al., 2010b

Jet % of total fuel 77Diederichs et al., 2016

Naphtha % of total fuel 23

Year of cost analysis 2007 Swanson et al., 2010b





Alternative Jet Fuel Supply Chain Analysis ASCENT 1

Documents

Transcript of Alternative Jet Fuel Supply Chain Analysis ASCENT 1