Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Green Chemistry.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
1
Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI)
2
Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of the utilization
3
of bio-oil components for the production of three chemicals
4
5 Ji-Lu Zheng a, Ya-Hong Zhu a, Ming-Qiang Zhu a, b*, Guo-Tao Sun b, Run-Cang Sun c
6
7
a
Shaanxi 712100, China
8
9
College of Forestry, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling,
b
Western Scientific Observation and Experiment Station of Development and
10
Utilization of Rural Renewable Energy of Ministry of Agriculture, Northwest A&F
11
University, Yangling 712100, China.
12
13
c
Beijing Key Laboratory of Lignocellulosic Chemistry, Beijing Forestry University,
Beijing, China.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 *Corresponding authors. Address: Northwest A&F University, 712100, Yangling,
21 China. Tel.: +86-029-87082230; Fax: +86-029-87082216.
22 E-mail address: zmqsx@nwsuaf.edu.cn (M. Q. Zhu).
1
24 Contents
25 1
The procedures of the techno-economic-environmental analysis..............................................3
26
1.1
Methodology for estimation of the total-capital investment..........................................3
27
1.2
Methodology for estimation of the operating cost and direct production cost ..............5
28
1.3
Methodology for estimation of cash flow and IRR .......................................................6
29
1.4
The average delivery distance........................................................................................8
30 2
Investment and production cost .................................................................................................9
31
2.1
The investment...............................................................................................................9
32
2.2
The production cost......................................................................................................10
33 3
Some background data for this LCA study..............................................................................13
34
3.1
LCI data for petrochemical production of phenol - formaldehyde resins (PF)............13
35
3.2
LCI data for petrochemical production of calcium acetate..........................................13
36
3.3
The GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for some chemicals and utilities .........................13
2
37 1
The procedures of the techno-economic-environmental analysis
38 1.1 Methodology for estimation of the total-capital investment
39
Table S1 Methodology for total-capital investment for nth plant
Item
Percent of TDEC
Total purchased equipment-delivered
(TPEC)
Purchased equipment installation
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
cost 100%
39%
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
13%
Piping (installed)
31%
Electrical systems (installed)
10%
Buildings (including services)
29%
Yard improvements
10%
Service facilities (installed)
55%
Total installed cost (TIC)
287%
Land (if purchase is required)
6%
Engineering and supervision
32%
Construction expenses
34%
Total direct and indirect plant costs (TDIC)
359%
Contractor’s fee (CF)
5% of TDIC
Contingency (CO)
10% of TDIC
Fixed-capital investment (FCI)
TDIC+CF+CO
Working capital
15% of FCI
Total capital investment
475%
The total installed equipment cost is part of the total capital investment. The total
capital investment for all processes consists of fixed-capital investment for physical
equipment and facilities in the plant plus working capital which must be available to
pay salaries, keep raw materials and products on hand, and handle other special items
requiring a direct cash outlay. This method for estimating the total-capital investment
is based on the percentage of delivered-equipment cost. Namely, the determination of
the delivered-equipment cost is required firstly. The other items included in the fixedcapital investment are estimated as percentages of the delivered-equipment cost , and
the working capital amounts to 15 percent of the fixed-capital investment.1 The items
included in the total-capital investment and the corresponding ratio factors based on
delivered equipment cost are listed in Table S1. Unit process principles are used to
determine the equipment specifications,1, 2 and then the delivered-equipment cost of
each piece of the process equipments can be estimated from appropriate
manufacturers' bulletins, published cost data, empirical rules1-3 or e-commerce
websites (such as Alibaba) as listed in Table S2.
3
56
Table S2 The delivered-equipment cost of each piece of the process equipments
Equipments
Sub 1
Chopper
Biomass Chopping Screen
Grinding Hammer Mill
Biomass Grinding Screen
Belt Press
Bale Moving Forklift*4
Concrete Storage Slab
Discharge Conveyor
Bale Transport Conveyor
Bale Unwrapping Conveyor
Continuous Spray Rotary Drum
Rotary Dryer
Biomass Feeding Bin
Screw Feeder
Pyrolysis Fluid Bed
Non-condensible Gas Blower
Pyrolysis Vapor Cyclones*2
Bio-oil Condenser*2
Electro-Static Precipitator
Condenser Water Pump*3
Ice making machine
Condenser Oil Pump
Cooling Tower
Wash Percolater
Solids Combustor
Combustor Cyclones
Combustion Gas Blower
Sub 2
Settling Tank
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Vacuum pump
Settling Tank
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Vacuum pump
Mixer
Vacuum freeze dryer
Mixer
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Evaporation crystallizer
Settling Tank
Specification
Deliveredequipment cost
50 kw/ton
60 ton/day
50 kw/ton
60 ton/day
5.5 kw
1.25 ton/h
30 m*29 m*3.5 m
0.75 kw/ton
90 w/ton
5.5 kw
2.2 kw, 2.5 ton/h
2.2 kw
Φ1.5*4.3 m
0.75 kw/ton
Φ1.2 m*2 m
90 kw
3600 m3 of gas per hour
600 m2 of heat transfer area
30 kw
90 kw
53 /kw, 592 kg of ice per hour
5 kw
Φ 8.8m*6.5m
4 m3
Φ0.3 m*0.8 m
3360 m3 of gas per hour
85 kw
$44,137
$3,286
$44,137
$3,359
$19,425
$14,021
$87,631
$9,785
$77,845
$29,210
$185,089
$99,519
$6,047
$23,733
$122,099
$31,357
$184,316
$291,722
$42,705
$62,527
$20,000
$6,952
$438,898
$31,459
$35,680
$161,343
$9,084
3 m3
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
3 m3
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
10 kw, 3m3
130 kw, 1.2 ton water per hour
10 kw, 3 m3
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
1000 kg of acetic ether per
3hour
m3
$35,965
$185,089
$28,655
$35,965
$185,089
$28,655
$73,805
$365,261
$73,805
$185,089
$452,879
$35,965
4
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Vacuum pump
Sub 3
Mixer*2
Sub 4
Evaporator
Mixer
Evaporator
Mixer*4
Filter, vacuum rotary drum*4
Vacuum pump*4
Evaporator*2
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
$185,089
$28,655
10 kw, 3 m3
$147,610
600 kg of water per hour
10 kw, 3 m3
600 kg of water per hour
3 kw, 0.8 m3
3 kw, 75 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
50 kg of methanol per hour
$349,285
$73,805
$349,285
$104,268
$212,611
$114,620
$190,110
57 1.2 Methodology for estimation of the operating cost and direct production cost
58 Table S3 Variable costs employed in the estimation of the direct production costs
59 (Source: www.alibaba.com and refs). 4-6
Item
60
61
62
63
64
Value
Cotton straw
$83/metric ton
Fertilizer
$400/metric ton
Transport
$0.71/(ton.mile)
Sulfuric acid 98 wt.%
$300/metric ton
Process water
$1.0/metric ton
Activated carbon
$1500/metric ton
Calcium hydroxide
$110/metric ton
Hydrochloric acid 32 wt.%
$190/metric ton
Ethyl acetate
$1200/metric ton
Calcium oxide
$160/metric ton
Methanol
$700/metric ton
Sodium hydroxide
$500/metric ton
Phenol
$1300/metric ton
Formaldehyde 37 wt.%
$400/metric ton
Cooling water from river
$0.15/metric ton
Average hourly wage
$21/h
Electricity
$0.061/kwh
Steam (6 bar)
$20/metric ton
Solids disposal cost
$22.23/metric
ton
Waste water disposal cost
$1.30/metric ton
The operating cost is divided into three classifications as follows: (1) direct
production costs, which mainly involve expenditures for raw materials, direct
operating labor, supervisory and clerical labor directly connected to the
manufacturing operation, utilities, plant maintenance and repairs. Some variable cost
parameters, such as the prices of cotton straw, phenol, and utilities, average hourly
5
65 wage and water treatment cost, are listed on the Table S3; (2) fixed charges,
66 essentially include expenses directly associated with depreciation, property taxes,
67 insurance. Some assumptions for the estimation of fixed charges, such as depreciation
68 period, type of depreciation and property tax rate, are listed on the Table S4; (3)
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
plant-overhead costs, which are used for medical services, warehouses, safety services,
warehouses and so on. The estimation of fixed charges and plant-overhead costs can
be based on the method of 'Percentage of total-capital investment'.7 However the
estimation of direct production costs is slightly complex. Chemical engineering
principles, such as material balance and energy balance, and the methodology
proposed by Overcash et.al are used for calculation of the expenditures for raw
materials and utilities.8 The method of estimating labor requirements is based on
adding up the various principal processing steps on the flow sheet and plant capacity,
and the cost for direct supervisory and clerical labor averages about 15 percent of the
cost for operating labor.1 The method for estimation of the expenditures for plant
maintenance and repairs is the same as that for estimation of fixed charges.
Table S4 Assumptions for the estimation of the fixed charges
80
Item
Equipment depreciation period
Building depreciation period
Amortization period
Type of depreciation or amortization
Property tax rate
Insurance rate
Value/method
20 years
40 years
5 years
Straight-line
2% of FCI
1% of FCI
81 1.3 Methodology for estimation of cash flow and IRR
Table S5 Assumptions or parameters for the calculation of IRR
82
Item
Value
Service life
20 years
Construction period
1 years
Income tax rate
39%
Annual capacity in the first year
30%
Annual capacity in the second year
50%
Annual capacity in the third year
80%
Salvage value at end of service life
Levoglucosan
Working capital+land+salvage value of buildings
15$/kg
Renewable phenol resin
2800$/metric ton
Road de-icer
700$/metric ton
83
6
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
The 20-year facility IRR is calculated on the basis of a cash flow sheet in order
to perform a profitability evaluation.1 The determination or estimation of the market
prices for the three chemicals is important for calculation of IRR. Levoglucosan is
advertised for sale at $1500/kg and $20~90/kg on the carbosynth's Web site and the
Alibaba Web site, respectively.9, 10 The purity of the levoglucosan sold at the
carbosynth's Web site is 3% higher than that of the levoglucosan produced via the
process. Moreover, from an economic perspective, mass production will lower the
cost. Therefore, the price of the levoglucosan produced via the process is set at $15/kg
in this analysis. The phenolic resins from America are priced around $4000/ton
(¥25.5/kg) on the Guidechem Web site.11 Considering that about 50wt% of the phenol
used in the renewable phenol resin produced via the process is replaced and the
phenolic resin is not as good as those phenolic resins based on petrochemical
synthesis in quality and performance, the renewable phenol resin was valued at
$2800/ton. Food grade calcium acetate is priced at about $1200/ton on the Alibaba
Web site.12 The deicer produced via the process is, at best, an industrial grade mixture
of calcium salts. Hence the mixture is pegged at $700/ton. Some necessary parameters
for the calculation of the cash flow sheet, such as construction period, income tax rate
101 and product prices, are showed in Table S5.
102
Moreover, the cash flow sheet also involves so-called general expenses. The
103 general expenses, including research and development, administrative, distribution,
104 marketing expenses etc, are estimated at about 4% of the operating costs per year.8
105 The cash flow sheet is listed in Table S6.
Table S6 The cash flow sheet
106
Yea
r
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Annual capacity
Cash flow
0
30%
50%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
-$26,240,599
-$12,199,189
$2,381,781
$13,413,186
$15,232,873
$15,232,873
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
7
17
18
19
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$26,701,958
107 1.4 The average delivery distance
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Since the biorefinery plant is located at the center of a square rural area, where
cotton straw is uniformly distributed, the distance traveled by a truck delivering the
cotton straw is uncertain and should be a random variable. Therefore, the average
transportation distance to this plant, namely the random variable expectation, will be
supposed to be the actual distance traveled by trucks delivering all the cotton straw. A
formula of computation of the average delivery distance was given by Brown et al,
but the deduced method and details of this formula was not provided.13 We give a
following deduced method and steps of this formula.
131
Fig. S1 A square with a side of length 2
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Firstly, if F is the feedstock delivered annually to the plant, Y is the annual yield
of cotton straw and f is the fraction of the acreage around the plant devoted to
feedstock production, the square rural area should has a side of length (F/(Y*f))0.5.
Suppose that the average distance from a random point in the square to the center of
the square is rave if the horizontal and vertical ordinate of the point all follow U (-1, 1).
Secondly, a square with a side of length 2 is considered as depicted in Fig. S1.
The average distance from a random point in the square to the center of the
square (I) can be calculated as following if the horizontal and vertical ordinate of the
point all follow U (-1, 1):
1 1
1 1
2
2
x
y
dxdy
x 2 y 2 dxdy
*
*
1 1
0
0
2 2
Let : x r cos , y sin
1
I
1
So :
I d
4
0
sec
0
8
r dr d
2
2
4
1
I ( 2 Ln(1 2 ))
csc
0
r 2 dr
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
Finally, the two squares are similar.
F
Yf
r
Q ave
I
2
1 F
rave
( 2 Ln(1 2 ))
6 Yf
152
153
154
155
156
157
A ‘tortuosity factor’ τ is defined as the ratio of actual distance to the straight-line
158 distance from the plant. Therefore, the average delivery distance, which is expressed
159 as rsquare in this following formula, should be:
160
1
F
( 2 Ln(1 2 ))
rsquare
161
6 Yf
162
163
In this study, F, Y, f and τ are assumed to be 18000 ton/year, 5 ton/acre per year,
164 60% and 1.5, respectively. Therefore, the average delivery distance is 1.76 miles.
165 2
Investment and production cost
166 2.1 The investment
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
$30,000,000
land use
$26,240,599
$25,000,000
Working Capital
Project contingency
Total indirect Cost
$20,000,000
Total installed equipment cost
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
Total capital investment
181
182
Fig. S2 Total capital investment of the process
183
184
As showed in Fig. S2, which represents total capital investment as the
185 summation of total installed equipment cost, total indirect cost, project contingency,
9
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
working capital cost, and land use, the total capital investment for the biorefinery
process amounts to $26.2 million, while the total installed equipment cost of the
whole process is $15.7 million. Such a scale of investment is one order smaller than
the investment scale of biofuel plants.5, 14, 15 However, Chemicals have normally
higher added value than fuels. And this allows chemical plants can be operated with
smaller scale of economies than fuel plants when the two kinds of plants have the
same profit margin. Since the biorefinery process consists of four sub-processes, it is
important to know the percentage of the total installed equipment cost for each subprocess.
Fig. S3 shows the relative weightings (percentage) of the four sub-processes
represented in the total installed equipment cost of the whole process. Bio-oil
preparation and separation (sub 1), extraction of levoglucosan (sub 2) and preparation
of deicer (sub 4) separately contribute 38%, 34% and 25% of the total installed
equipment cost, respectively. The really amazing thing about this figure is that
production of renewable phenol resin (sub 3) is the smallest (only 3%) contributor to
the total installed equipment cost. The reason is that the production of renewable
phenol resin requires a minimum number of unit operations or equipments in
comparison with other three sub-processes. From an economic point of view, the subprocess 4, the preparation of deicer, seemingly is not feasible or cost-effective
because the total installed cost for the sub-process 4 accounts for 25% of the total but
the selling price ($700/ton) and the production rate (37kg/h) of the deicer are all
comparatively low. On the other hand, it can be expected that the extraction of
levoglucosan and the production of renewable phenol resin are all cost-effective
because levoglucosan is a high added-value product and the production of renewable
phenol resin needs relatively small equipment investment.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
25%
38%
3%
Sub 1
Sub 2
Sub 3
Sub 4
34%
Fig. S3 The percentage of the total installed equipment cost for each sub-process
225 2.2 The production cost
226
Determination of the necessary capital investment is only one part of a complete
10
227 cost estimate. Another equally important part is the estimation of costs for operating
228 the plant or process. Fig. S4 shows the annual direct production costs for cotton straw
229 to levoglucosan, renewable phenol resin and deicer. Similar to Fig. S3, the direct
230 production cost of the whole process is breakdown to each sub-process area in Fig. S4.
231
232 $5,000,000
Waste Disposal
233
$4,535,761
$4,500,000
Maintenance
234
$4,191,794
235 $4,000,000
Utilities
$3,766,348
236
Labor
237 $3,500,000
$3,199,225
Operating Supplies
238 $3,000,000
Biomass
239
240 $2,500,000
241 $2,000,000
242
243 $1,500,000
244 $1,000,000
245
246 $500,000
247
$0
248
Sub 1
Sub 2
Sub 3
Sub 4
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
Fig. S4 The annual direct production costs
The direct production costs of the four sub-processes vary from around $3.2
million/year to $4.5 million/year, and total up to $15.7 million/year. There is not
much difference between the annual direct production cost of sub 4 (preparation of
deicer) and the annual direct production cost of sub 2 (extraction of levoglucosan) or
sub 3 (production of renewable phenol resin). However, in consideration of the yearly
outputs and product prices of the three chemicals, it can be also inferred that sub 4
(preparation of deicer) is not cost-effective. The labor costs of sub 1 (bio-oil
preparation and separation), 2 (extraction of levoglucosan) and 4 (preparation of
deicer) are the largest contributors to the annual direct production costs of the three
sub-processes, respectively. This is because each of the three sub-processes contains
quite a number of unit operations or equipments, which require a number of operating
labor and a certain amount of direct supervisory and clerical labor for operation. On
the basis of the same reason, the maintenance costs of the three sub-processes account
for the certain proportion of the annual direct production costs of the three subprocesses. The operating supplies of sub 3 (production of renewable phenol resin)
comprise the vast majority of the annual direct production cost of this sub-process
because a substantial number of phenol and formaldehyde are used in the sub-process.
Direct production cost is only part of operating cost. The operating cost includes all
expenses directly connected with the manufacturing operation or the physical
equipment of a process plant itself. However, unlike direct production cost, operating
11
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
cost is not appropriate for being breakdown to process area because it includes plantoverhead costs, which are reserved for hospital and medical services, safety services,
salvage services and warehouse facilities, etc.
As shown in Fig. S5, the operating cost of the whole process is around $22.2
million/year. The annual direct production cost, fixed charge and plant-overhead cost
of the whole process account for about 71%, 12% and 17% of the operating cost,
respectively. These percents are basically similar to other techno-economic analyses
of some biorefinery processes via fast paralysis.5, 6 However, the labor cost of the
whole process occupies about 29% of the operating cost; In comparison with
production of biofuels,5, 6, 15 this percent is remarkably higher. There could be three
reasons to explain this. Firstly, production of chemicals usually needs more
purification steps or equipments than production of fuels. Secondly, not one chemical
but three chemicals are produced in this birefinery process. Finally, mass production
of biofuels usually is a continuous process, while the production of the three
chemicals contains some batch steps. These reasons could result in more labor
requirement in this birefinery process.
$25,000,000
$22,245,283
Plant-overhead costs
$20,000,000
Fixed Charges
Waste Disposal
Maintenance
$15,000,000
Utilities
Labor
Operating Supplies
$10,000,000
Biomass
$5,000,000
$0
Operating cost
Fig. S5 The operating cost of the whole process
12
314
315
316
317 3
Some background data for this LCA study
318 3.1 LCI data for petrochemical production of phenol - formaldehyde resins (PF)
319
Wilson et al. has developed an life-cycle inventory of formaldehyde-base resins
320 used in wood composites in terms of resources, emissions, energy and carbon.16 The
321 LCI for the production of PF is shown in Table S7, in which the environmental
322 burdens of the delivery of chemicals to the resin plants are ignored.
Table S7 LCI data for conventional PF production route
323
Materials, Energy and Emissions
Phenol
Methanol
Sodium hydroxide
Process water
Cooling water from river (20℃)
Electricity
Natural gas
Propane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Value
2.44E-01
2.09E-01
6.10E-02
3.34E-01
1.56E-02
Units
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
3.56E-02
8.21E-03
2.93E-06
1.76E-02
3.81E-05
kWh /kgPF
Nm3 /kgPF
L /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
324 3.2 LCI data for petrochemical production of calcium acetate
325
Overcash et al has presented gate-to-gate process energy use for a calcium
326 acetate manufacturing process, in which calcium hydroxide and acetic acid were used
327 as raw materials.17 On the basis of the work of Overcash et al, LCI data for
328 petrochemical production of calcium acetate is shown in Table S8.
329
Table S8 LCI data for petrochemical production of calcium acetate
Materials, Energy and Emissions
Value
Units
Calcium hydroxide
4.69E-01
Acetic acid
7.59E-01
kg /kgCalcium acetate
kg /kgCalcium acetate
Steam (6bar)
1.53E+00
MJ /kgCalcium acetate
Electricity
1.05E-03
MJ /kgCalcium acetate
Natural gas
9.32E-01
MJ /kgCalcium acetate
Carbon dioxide
5.22E-02
kg /kgCalcium acetate
13
330 3.3 The GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for some chemicals and utilities
331
Cradle-to-gate LCIA results according to the GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for
332 some chemicals and utilities used in this process are listed in Table S9. All the data is
333 mainly based on ecoinvent 2.2 database, and a few of the data is derived from some
334 LCA documents. These LCA documents are listed in the last row in Table S9.
335 Table S9 The GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for some chemicals and utilities
Substance
GWP100a
(kgCO2-eq/kg)
CEDnon-renewable
(MJeq/kg)
EI-99
(Points/kg)
1.66E+00
1.20E-01
2.45E-05
2.94E-01
9.90E-01
2.93E+01
2.02E+00
2.79E-04
5.92E+00
5.50E+00
1.66E-01
4.00E-02
1.83E-06
1.76E-02
3.00E-02
8.53E-01
1.75E+01
6.00E-02
3.14E+00
1.10E+00
3.48E+00
4.14E-01
1.31E+00
7.64E-01
9.63E+01
2.14E+01
1.21E+02
1.82E+01
7.30E+00
4.08E+01
3.36E-01
6.00E-01
4.40E-01
6.25E-02
2.80E-02
1.35E-01
1.29E-02
4.90E-01
1.00E-01
1.20E+00
9.87E+00
1.56E+00
6.43E-03
2.00E-02
5.77E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.19E-02
1.34E-02
2.42E-01
6.52E-01
5.00E-04
4.22E-02
Materials
Fertilizer a
Sulfuric acid (98 wt. %)
Process water
Activated carbon b
Calcium hydroxide
Hydrochloric acid (32 wt.
%)
Ethyl acetate c
Sodium hydroxide
Phenol
Formaldehyde (37 wt.%) c
Calcium oxide d
Methanol c
Energy
e
Diesel
Electricity e
Steam (6 bar) e
Cooling water from river
(20℃)
Waste treatment
Waste liquid f
Solid waste f
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
a Values
based on the work of Hasler et al.18
b Values based on the work of Arena et al.19
c Values based on the work of Amelio et al.20
d Values based on the works of Huijbregts et al. and Alvarez-Gaitan et al.21, 22
e Functional unit for diesel as well as steam is MJ and for electricity kWh
f Values based on the works of Rerat et al.23
14
343
Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI)
344
Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of the utilization
345
of bio-oil components for the production of three chemicals
346
Ji-Lu Zheng a, Ya-Hong Zhu a, Ming-Qiang Zhu a*, Guo-Tao Sun a, Run-Cang Sun b
347
a
Key Laboratory of Exploitation and Utilization of Economic Plant Resources in
348
Shaanxi Province, Western Scientific Observation and Experiment Station of
349
Development and Utilization of Rural Renewable Energy of Ministry of
350
Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China.
351
352
b
Beijing Key Laboratory of Lignocellulosic Chemistry, Beijing Forestry University,
Beijing, China.
353
354
355
356
357
358
359 *Corresponding authors. Address: Northwest A&F University, 712100, Yangling,
360 China. Tel.: +86-029-87082230; Fax: +86-029-87082216.
361 E-mail address: zmqsx@nwsuaf.edu.cn (M. Q. Zhu).
15
363 Contents
364 1
The procedures of the techno-economic-environmental analysis..............................................2
365
1.1
Methodology for estimation of the total-capital investment..........................................2
366
1.2
Methodology for estimation of the operating cost and direct production cost ..............4
367
1.3
Methodology for estimation of the operating cost and direct production cost ..............5
368
1.4
The average delivery distance........................................................................................6
369 2
Investment and production cost .................................................................................................8
370
2.1
The investment ...............................................................................................................8
371
2.2
The production cost........................................................................................................9
372 3
Some background data for this LCA study..............................................................................11
373
3.1
LCI data for petrochemical production of phenol - formaldehyde resins (PF)...........11
374
3.2
LCI data for petrochemical production of calcium acetate.........................................11
375
3.3
The GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for some chemicals and utilities..........................12
16
377 4
The procedures of the techno-economic-environmental analysis
378 4.1 Methodology for estimation of the total-capital investment
379
Table S1 Methodology for total-capital investment for nth plant
Item
Percent of TDEC
Total purchased equipment-delivered
(TPEC)
Purchased equipment installation
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
cost 100%
39%
Instrumentation and controls (installed)
13%
Piping (installed)
31%
Electrical systems (installed)
10%
Buildings (including services)
29%
Yard improvements
10%
Service facilities (installed)
55%
Total installed cost (TIC)
287%
Land (if purchase is required)
6%
Engineering and supervision
32%
Construction expenses
34%
Total direct and indirect plant costs (TDIC)
359%
Contractor’s fee (CF)
5% of TDIC
Contingency (CO)
10% of TDIC
Fixed-capital investment (FCI)
TDIC+CF+CO
Working capital
15% of FCI
Total capital investment
475%
The total installed equipment cost is part of the total capital investment. The total
capital investment for all processes consists of fixed-capital investment for physical
equipment and facilities in the plant plus working capital which must be available to
pay salaries, keep raw materials and products on hand, and handle other special items
requiring a direct cash outlay. This method for estimating the total-capital investment
is based on the percentage of delivered-equipment cost. Namely, the determination of
the delivered-equipment cost is required firstly. The other items included in the fixedcapital investment are estimated as percentages of the delivered-equipment cost , and
the working capital amounts to 15 percent of the fixed-capital investment.1 The items
included in the total-capital investment and the corresponding ratio factors based on
delivered equipment cost are listed in Table S1. Unit process principles are used to
determine the equipment specifications,1, 2 and then the delivered-equipment cost of
each piece of the process equipments can be estimated from appropriate
manufacturers' bulletins, published cost data, empirical rules1-3 or e-commerce
websites (such as Alibaba) as listed in Table S2.
17
396
Table S2 The delivered-equipment cost of each piece of the process equipments
Equipments
Sub 1
Chopper
Biomass Chopping Screen
Grinding Hammer Mill
Biomass Grinding Screen
Belt Press
Bale Moving Forklift*4
Concrete Storage Slab
Discharge Conveyor
Bale Transport Conveyor
Bale Unwrapping Conveyor
Continuous Spray Rotary Drum
Rotary Dryer
Biomass Feeding Bin
Screw Feeder
Pyrolysis Fluid Bed
Non-condensible Gas Blower
Pyrolysis Vapor Cyclones*2
Bio-oil Condenser*2
Electro-Static Precipitator
Condenser Water Pump*3
Ice making machine
Condenser Oil Pump
Cooling Tower
Wash Percolater
Solids Combustor
Combustor Cyclones
Combustion Gas Blower
Sub 2
Settling Tank
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Vacuum pump
Settling Tank
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Vacuum pump
Mixer
Vaccum freeze dryer
Mixer
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Evaporation crystallizer
Settling Tank
Specification
Deliveredequipment cost
50 kw/ton
60 ton/day
50 kw/ton
60 ton/day
5.5 kw
1.25 ton/h
30 m*29 m*3.5 m
0.75 kw/ton
90 w/ton
5.5 kw
2.2 kw, 2.5 ton/h
2.2 kw
Φ1.5*4.3 m
0.75 kw/ton
Φ1.2 m*2 m
90 kw
3600 m3 of gas per hour
600 m2 of heat transfer area
30 kw
90 kw
53 /kw, 592 kg of ice per hour
5 kw
Φ 8.8m*6.5m
4 m3
Φ0.3 m*0.8 m
3360 m3 of gas per hour
85 kw
$44,137
$3,286
$44,137
$3,359
$19,425
$14,021
$87,631
$9,785
$77,845
$29,210
$185,089
$99,519
$6,047
$23,733
$122,099
$31,357
$184,316
$291,722
$42,705
$62,527
$20,000
$6,952
$438,898
$31,459
$35,680
$161,343
$9,084
3 m3
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
3 m3
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
10 kw, 3m3
130 kw, 1.2 ton water per hour
10 kw, 3 m3
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
1000 kg of acetic ether per
3hour
m3
$35,965
$185,089
$28,655
$35,965
$185,089
$28,655
$73,805
$365,261
$73,805
$185,089
$452,879
$35,965
18
Filter, vacuum rotary drum
Vacuum pump
Sub 3
Mixer*2
Sub 4
Evaporator
Mixer
Evaporator
Mixer*4
Filter, vacuum rotary drum*4
Vacuum pump*4
Evaporator*2
397
398
3 kw, 600 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
$185,089
$28,655
10 kw, 3 m3
$147,610
600 kg of water per hour
10 kw, 3 m3
600 kg of water per hour
3 kw, 0.8 m3
3 kw, 75 kg of filtrate /(m2.h)
10 kw
50 kg of methanol per hour
$349,285
$73,805
$349,285
$104,268
$212,611
$114,620
$190,110
4.2 Methodology for estimation of the operating cost and direct production
cost
399 Table S3 Variable costs employed in the estimation of the direct production costs
400 (Source: www.alibaba.com and refs). 6-8
Item
401
402
403
404
405
Value
Cotton straw
$83/metric ton
Transport
$0.71/(ton.mile)
Sulfuric acid 98 wt.%
$300/metric ton
Process water
$1.0/metric ton
Activated carbon
$1500/metric ton
Calcium hydroxide
$110/metric ton
Hydrochloric acid 32 wt.%
$190/metric ton
Ethyl acetate
$1200/metric ton
Calcium oxide
$160/metric ton
Methanol
$700/metric ton
Sodium hydroxide
$500/metric ton
Phenol
$1300/metric ton
Formaldehyde 37 wt.%
$400/metric ton
Cooling water from river
$0.15/metric ton
Average hourly wage
$21/h
Electricity
$0.061/kwh
Steam (6 bar)
$20/metric ton
Solids disposal cost
$22.23/metric
ton
Waste water disposal cost
$1.30/metric
ton
The operating cost is divided into three classifications as follows: (1) direct
production costs, which mainly involve expenditures for raw materials, direct
operating labor, supervisory and clerical labor directly connected to the
manufacturing operation, utilities, plant maintenance and repairs. Some variable cost
parameters, such as the prices of cotton straw, phenol, and utilities, average hourly
19
406 wage and water treatment cost, are listed on the Table S3; (2) fixed charges,
407 essentially include expenses directly associated with depreciation, property taxes,
408 insurance. Some assumptions for the estimation of fixed charges, such as depreciation
409 period, type of depreciation and property tax rate, are listed on the Table S4; (3)
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
plant-overhead costs, which are used for medical services, warehouses, safety services,
warehouses and so on. The estimation of fixed charges and plant-overhead costs can
be based on the method of 'Percentage of total-capital investment'.4 However the
estimation of direct production costs is slightly complex. Chemical engineering
principles, such as material balance and energy balance, and the methodology
proposed by Overcash et.al are used for calculation of the expenditures for raw
materials and utilities.5 The method of estimating labor requirements is based on
adding up the various principal processing steps on the flow sheet and plant capacity,
and the cost for direct supervisory and clerical labor averages about 15 percent of the
cost for operating labor.1 The method for estimation of the expenditures for plant
maintenance and repairs is the same as that for estimation of fixed charges.
Table S4 Assumptions for the estimation of the fixed charges
421
Item
Equipment depreciation period
Building depreciation period
Amortization period
Type of depreciation or amortization
Property tax rate
Insurance rate
Value/method
20 years
40 years
5 years
Straight-line
2% of FCI
1% of FCI
422 4.3 Methodology for estimation of the operating cost and direct production cost
Table S5 Assumptions or parameters for the calculation of IRR
423
Item
Value
Service life
20 years
Construction period
1 years
Income tax rate
39%
Annual capacity in the first year
30%
Annual capacity in the second year
50%
Annual capacity in the third year
80%
Salvage value at end of service life
Levoglucosan
Working capital+land+salvage value of buildings
15$/kg
Renewable phenol resin
2800$/metric ton
Road de-icer
700$/metric ton
424
20
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
The 20-year facility IRR is calculated on the basis of a cash flow sheet in order
to perform a profitability evaluation.1 The determination or estimation of the market
prices for the three chemicals is important for calculation of IRR. Levoglucosan is
advertised for sale at $1500/kg and $20~90/kg on the carbosynth's Web site and the
Alibaba Web site, respectively.9, 10 The purity of the levoglucosan sold at the
carbosynth's Web site is 3% higher than that of the levoglucosan produced via the
process. Moreover, from an economic perspective, mass production will lower the
cost. Therefore, the price of the levoglucosan produced via the process is set at $15/kg
in this analysis. The phenolic resins from America are priced around $4000/ton
(¥25.5/kg) on the Guidechem Web site.11 Considering that about 50wt% of the phenol
used in the renewable phenol resin produced via the process is replaced and the
phenolic resin is not as good as those phenolic resins based on petrochemical
synthesis in quality and performance, the renewable phenol resin was valued at
$2800/ton. Food grade calcium acetate is priced at about $1200/ton on the Alibaba
Web site.12 The deicer produced via the process is, at best, an industrial grade mixture
of calcium salts. Hence the mixture is pegged at $700/ton. Some necessary parameters
for the calculation of the cash flow sheet, such as construction period, income tax rate
442 and product prices, are showed in Table S5.
443
Moreover, the cash flow sheet also involves so-called general expenses. The
444 general expenses, including research and development, administrative, distribution,
445 marketing expenses etc, are estimated at about 4% of the operating costs per year.5
446 The cash flow sheet is listed in Table S6.
Table S6 The cash flow sheet
447
Yea
r
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Annual capacity
Cash flow
0
30%
50%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
-$26,240,599
-$12,199,189
$2,381,781
$13,413,186
$15,232,873
$15,232,873
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
21
17
18
19
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$20,350,000
$26,701,958
448 4.4 The average delivery distance
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
Since the biorefinery plant is located at the center of a square rural area, where
cotton straw is uniformly distributed, the distance traveled by a truck delivering the
cotton straw is uncertain and should be a random variable. Therefore, the average
transportation distance to this plant, namely the random variable expectation, will be
supposed to be the actual distance traveled by trucks delivering all the cotton straw. A
formula of computation of the average delivery distance was given by Brown et al,
but the deduced method and details of this formula was not provided.13 We give a
following deduced method and steps of this formula.
472
Fig. S1 A square with a side of length 2
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
Firstly, if F is the feedstock delivered annually to the plant, Y is the annual yield
of cotton straw and f is the fraction of the acreage around the plant devoted to
feedstock production, the square rural area should has a side of length (F/(Y*f))0.5.
Suppose that the average distance from a random point in the square to the center of
the square is rave if the horizontal and vertical ordinate of the point all follow U (-1, 1).
Secondly, a square with a side of length 2 is considered as depicted in Fig. S1.
The average distance from a random point in the square to the center of the
square (I) can be calculated as following if the horizontal and vertical ordinate of the
point all follow U (-1, 1):
1 1
1 1
2
2
x
y
dxdy
x 2 y 2 dxdy
*
*
1 1
0
0
2 2
Let : x r cos , y sin
1
I
1
So :
I d
4
0
sec
0
22
r dr 2 d
2
4
1
I ( 2 Ln(1 2 ))
csc
0
r 2 dr
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
Finally, the two squares are similar.
F
Yf
r
Q ave
I
2
1 F
rave
( 2 Ln(1 2 ))
6 Yf
493
494
495
496
497
498
A ‘tortuosity factor’ τ is defined as the ratio of actual distance to the straight-line
499 distance from the plant. Therefore, the average delivery distance, which is expressed
500 as rsquare in this following formula, should be:
501
1
F
( 2 Ln(1 2 ))
rsquare
502
6 Yf
503
504
In this study, F, Y, f and τ are assumed to be 18000 ton/year, 5 ton/acre per year,
505 60% and 1.5, respectively. Therefore, the average delivery distance is 1.76 miles.
506 5
Investment and production cost
507 5.1 The investment
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
$30,000,000
land use
$26,240,599
$25,000,000
Working Capital
Project contingency
Total indirect Cost
$20,000,000
Total installed equipment cost
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
Total capital investment
522
523
Fig. S2 Total capital investment of the process
524
525
As showed in Fig. S2, which represents total capital investment as the
526 summation of total installed equipment cost, total indirect cost, project contingency,
23
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
working capital cost, and land use, the total capital investment for the biorefinery
process amounts to $26.2 million, while the total installed equipment cost of the
whole process is $15.7 million. Such a scale of investment is one order smaller than
the investment scale of biofuel plants.7, 14, 15 However, Chemicals have normally
higher added value than fuels. And this allows chemical plants can be operated with
smaller scale of economies than fuel plants when the two kinds of plants have the
same profit margin. Since the biorefinery process consists of four sub-processes, it is
important to know the percentage of the total installed equipment cost for each subprocess.
Fig. S3 shows the relative weightings (percentage) of the four sub-processes
represented in the total installed equipment cost of the whole process. Bio-oil
preparation and separation (sub 1), extraction of levoglucosan (sub 2) and preparation
of deicer (sub 4) separately contribute 38%, 34% and 25% of the total installed
equipment cost, respectively. The really amazing thing about this figure is that
production of renewable phenol resin (sub 3) is the smallest (only 3%) contributor to
the total installed equipment cost. The reason is that the production of renewable
phenol resin requires a minimum number of unit operations or equipments in
comparison with other three sub-processes. From an economic point of view, the subprocess 4, the preparation of deicer, seemingly is not feasible or cost-effective
because the total installed cost for the sub-process 4 accounts for 25% of the total but
the selling price ($700/ton) and the production rate (37kg/h) of the deicer are all
comparatively low. On the other hand, it can be expected that the extraction of
levoglucosan and the production of renewable phenol resin are all cost-effective
because levoglucosan is a high added-value product and the production of renewable
phenol resin needs relatively small equipment investment.
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
25%
38%
3%
Sub 1
Sub 2
Sub 3
Sub 4
34%
Fig. S3 The percentage of the total installed equipment cost for each sub-process
566 5.2 The production cost
567
Determination of the necessary capital investment is only one part of a complete
24
568 cost estimate. Another equally important part is the estimation of costs for operating
569 the plant or process. Fig. S4 shows the annual direct production costs for cotton straw
570 to levoglucosan, renewable phenol resin and deicer. Similar to Fig. S3, the direct
571 production cost of the whole process is breakdown to each sub-process area in Fig. S4.
572
573 $5,000,000
Waste Disposal
574
$4,535,761
$4,500,000
Maintenance
575
$4,191,794
576 $4,000,000
Utilities
$3,766,348
577
Labor
578 $3,500,000
$3,199,225
Operating Supplies
579 $3,000,000
Biomass
580
581 $2,500,000
582 $2,000,000
583
584 $1,500,000
585 $1,000,000
586
587 $500,000
588
$0
589
Sub 1
Sub 2
Sub 3
Sub 4
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
Fig. S4 The annual direct production costs
The direct production costs of the four sub-processes vary from around $3.2
million/year to $4.5 million/year, and total up to $15.7 million/year. There is not
much difference between the annual direct production cost of sub 4 (preparation of
deicer) and the annual direct production cost of sub 2 (extraction of levoglucosan) or
sub 3 (production of renewable phenol resin). However, in consideration of the yearly
outputs and product prices of the three chemicals, it can be also inferred that sub 4
(preparation of deicer) is not cost-effective. The labor costs of sub 1 (bio-oil
preparation and separation), 2 (extraction of levoglucosan) and 4 (preparation of
deicer) are the largest contributors to the annual direct production costs of the three
sub-processes, respectively. This is because each of the three sub-processes contains
quite a number of unit operations or equipments, which require a number of operating
labor and a certain amount of direct supervisory and clerical labor for operation. On
the basis of the same reason, the maintenance costs of the three sub-processes account
for the certain proportion of the annual direct production costs of the three subprocesses. The operating supplies of sub 3 (production of renewable phenol resin)
comprise the vast majority of the annual direct production cost of this sub-process
because a substantial number of phenol and formaldehyde are used in the sub-process.
Direct production cost is only part of operating cost. The operating cost include all
expenses directly connected with the manufacturing operation or the physical
equipment of a process plant itself. However, unlike direct production cost, operating
25
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
cost is not appropriate for being breakdown to process area because it includes plantoverhead costs, which are reserved for hospital and medical services, safety services,
salvage services and warehouse facilities, etc.
As shown in Fig. S5, the operating cost of the whole process is around $22.2
million/year. The annual direct production cost, fixed charge and plant-overhead cost
of the whole process account for about 71%, 12% and 17% of the operating cost,
respectively. These percents are basically similar to other techno-economic analyses
of some biorefinery processes via fast paralysis.7, 8 However, the labor cost of the
whole process occupies about 29% of the operating cost; In comparison with
prodcution of biofuels,7, 8, 15 this percent is remarkably higher. There could be three
reasons to explain this. Firstly, production of chemicals usually needs more
purification steps or equipments than production of fuels. Secondly, not one chemical
but three chemicals are produced in this birefinery process. Finally, mass production
of biofuels usually is a continuous process, while the production of the three
chemicals contains some batch steps. These reasons could result in more labor
requirement in this birefinery process.
$25,000,000
$22,245,283
Plant-overhead costs
$20,000,000
Fixed Charges
Waste Disposal
Maintenance
$15,000,000
Utilities
Labor
Operating Supplies
$10,000,000
Biomass
$5,000,000
$0
Operating cost
Fig. S5 The operating cost of the whole process
26
655
656
657
658 6
Some background data for this LCA study
659 6.1 LCI data for petrochemical production of phenol - formaldehyde resins (PF)
660
Wilson et al. has developed an life-cycle inventory of formaldehyde-base resins
661 used in wood composites in terms of resources, emissions, energy and carbon.16 The
662 LCI for the production of PF is shown in Table S7, in which the environmental
663 burdens of the delivery of chemicals to the resin plants are ignored.
Table S7 LCI data for conventional PF production route
664
Materials, Energy and Emissions
Phenol
Methanol
Sodium hydroxide
Process water
Cooling water from river (20℃)
Electricity
Natural gas
Propane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Value
2.44E-01
2.09E-01
6.10E-02
3.34E-01
1.56E-02
Units
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
3.56E-02
8.21E-03
2.93E-06
1.76E-02
3.81E-05
kWh /kgPF
Nm3 /kgPF
L /kgPF
kg /kgPF
kg /kgPF
665 6.2 LCI data for petrochemical production of calcium acetate
666
Overcash et al has presented gate-to-gate process energy use for a calcium
667 acetate manufacturing process, in which calcium hydroxide and acetic acid were used
668 as raw materials.17 On the basis of the work of Overcash et al, LCI data for
669 petrochemical production of calcium acetate is shown in Table S8.
670
Table S8 LCI data for petrochemical production of calcium acetate
Materials, Energy and Emissions
Value
Units
Calcium hydroxide
4.69E-01
Acetic acid
7.59E-01
kg /kgCalcium acetate
kg /kgCalcium acetate
Steam (6bar)
1.53E+00
MJ /kgCalcium acetate
Electricity
1.05E-03
MJ /kgCalcium acetate
Natural gas
9.32E-01
MJ /kgCalcium acetate
Carbon dioxide
5.22E-02
kg /kgCalcium acetate
27
671 6.3 The GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for some chemicals and utilities
672
Cradle-to-gate LCIA results according to the GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for
673 some chemicals and utilities used in this process are listed in Table S9. All the data is
674 mainly based on ecoinvent 2.2 database, and a few of the data is derived from some
675 LCA documents. These LCA documents are listed in the last row in Table S9.
676 Table S9 The GWP100a, CED, EI-99 metric for some chemicals and utilities
Substance
Materials
Sulfuric acid (98 wt. %)
Process water
Activated carbon a
Calcium hydroxide
Hydrochloric acid (32 wt.
%)
Ethyl acetate b
Sodium hydroxide
Phenol
Formaldehyde (37 wt.%) b
Calcium oxide c
Methanol b
Energy
d
Diesel
Electricity d
Steam (6 bar) d
Cooling water from river
(20℃)
Waste treatment
Waste liquid e
Solid waste e
677
678
679
680
681
682
GWP100a
(kgCO2-eq/kg)
CEDnon-renewable
(MJeq/kg)
EI-99
(Points/kg)
1.20E-01
2.45E-05
2.94E-01
9.90E-01
2.02E+00
2.79E-04
5.92E+00
5.50E+00
4.00E-02
1.83E-06
1.76E-02
3.00E-02
8.53E-01
1.75E+01
6.00E-02
3.14E+00
1.10E+00
3.48E+00
4.14E-01
1.31E+00
7.64E-01
9.63E+01
2.14E+01
1.21E+02
1.82E+01
7.30E+00
4.08E+01
3.36E-01
6.00E-01
4.40E-01
6.25E-02
2.80E-02
1.35E-01
1.29E-02
4.90E-01
1.00E-01
1.20E+00
9.87E+00
1.56E+00
6.43E-03
2.00E-02
5.77E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.19E-02
1.34E-02
2.42E-01
6.52E-01
5.00E-04
4.22E-02
a
Values based on the work of Arena et al.18
b Values based on the work of Amelio et al.19
c Values based on the works of Huijbregts et al. and Alvarez-Gaitan et al.20, 21
d Functional unit for diesel as well as steam is MJ and for electricity kWh
e Values based on the works of Rerat et al.22
28
References
1
K. A. Kobe, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, McGraw-Hill,
1991.
2
G. Towler and R. K. Sinnott, Chemical engineering design: principles, practice
and economics of plant and process design, Elsevier, 2012.
3
R. Snow, T. Allen, B. Ennis and J. Litster, Perry's chemical engineers’ handbook,
2008.
4
M. Morales, M. Ataman, S. Badr, S. Linster, I. Kourlimpinis, S.
Papadokonstantakis, V. Hatzimanikatis and K. Hungerbuhler, Energy Environ.
Sci., 2016, 9, 2794-2805.
5
Q. Li, Y. Zhang and G. Hu, Bioresour. Technol., 2015, 191, 88-96.
6
Y. Zhang, T. R. Brown, G. Hu and R. C. Brown, Bioresour. Technol., 2013, 127,
358-365.
7
E. Henrich, N. Dahmen and E. Dinjus, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref., 2009, 3, 28-41.
8
C. Jiménez-González, S. Kim and M. R. Overcash, Int. J. Life. Cycle. Ass., 2000,
5, 153-159.
9
Alibaba, Levoglucosan, https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Levoglucosan498-07-7_521299548.html?spm=a2700.7724838.0.0.rlFtq8, accessed 05/01/2017,
2017.
10
Carbosynth, Levoglucosan,
http://www.carbosynth.com/carbosynth/website.nsf/(wproductdisplay)/186B041DE4AA69F080256D8F003304BA, accessed
05/01/2017, 2017.
11
Guidechem, The phenolic resin 551 from America,
http://china.guidechem.com/trade/pdetail7363823.html, accessed 05/01/2017,
2017.
12
Alibaba, Calcium Acetate BP/USP, https://www.alibaba.com/productdetail/Calcium-Acetate-BPUSP_60154097956.html?spm=a2700.7724838.0.0.Ds8gK7&s=p, accessed
05/01/2017, 2017.
29
13
M. M. Wright, R. C. Brown and A. A. Boateng, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref., 2008,
2, 229-238.
14
M. Wright and R. C. Brown, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref., 2007, 1, 191-200.
15
Y. N. Zhang, T. R. Brown, G. P. Hu and R. C. Brown, Biomass Bioenergy, 2013,
51, 99-108.
16
J. B. Wilson, Wood Fiber Sci., 2010, 42, 125-143.
17
S. Kim and M. Overcash, J. Chem. Technol. Biot., 2003, 78, 995-1005.
18
N. Arena, J. Lee and R. Clift, J. Clean Prod., 2016, 125, 68-77.
19
A. Amelio, G. Genduso, S. Vreysen, P. Luis and B. Van der Bruggen, Green
Chem., 2014, 16, 3045-3063.
20
J. P. Alvarez-Gaitan, G. M. Peters, H. V. Rowley, S. Moore and M. D. Short, Int.
J. Life. Cycle. Ass., 2013, 18, 1291-1301.
21
M. A. Huijbregts, S. Hellweg, R. Frischknecht, H. W. Hendriks, K.
Hungerbühler and A. J. Hendriks, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44, 2189-2196.
22
C. Rerat, S. Papadokonstantakis and K. Hungerbühler, J. Air Waste Manage.,
2013, 63, 349-366.
30