Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Bioreneries for the production of rst and second generation ethanol

and electricity from sugarcane
Marina O.S. Dias a,, Tassia L. Junqueira a,b, Otvio Cavalett a, Lucas G. Pavanello a, Marcelo P. Cunha a,
Charles D.F. Jesus a, Rubens Maciel Filho a,b, Antonio Bonomi a,b
a
b

Laboratrio Nacional de Cincia e Tecnologia do Bioetanol CTBE/CNPEM, Caixa Postal 6170, 13083-970 Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil
Faculdade de Engenharia Qumica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Av. Albert Einstein, n 500, 13083-852 Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil

h i g h l i g h t s
 Lignocellulose (bagasse, trash) is generated in large amounts in sugarcane production.
 Bagasse and trash can be used for second generation ethanol or electricity production.
 Flexible biorenery able to divert lignocellulose for fuel/electricity was evaluated.
 Part of surplus electricity is sold in the spot market; revenues are maximized.
 Higher IRR and avoided carbon dioxide emissions are obtained for the exible plant.

a r t i c l e
Article history:
Received 3 October
Received in revised
Accepted 28 March
Available online 25
Keywords:
Ethanol
Biorenery
Sugarcane
Electricity
Simulation
Plant exibility

i n f o
2012
form 27 March 2013
2013
April 2013

a b s t r a c t
Sugarcane trash and bagasse, lignocellulosic materials obtained during sugarcane harvesting and processing, may be used as fuels for electricity production and/or as feedstock for second generation ethanol.
If electricity prices are favorable, more lignocellulosic material may be diverted for production of steam
and electricity, and vice versa when ethanol prices are more attractive. Therefore, some exibility to
divert bagasse and trash for either second generation ethanol or electricity production might help to
maximize revenues. An analysis of the integrated rst and second generation ethanol production process
from sugarcane is presented, evaluating its exibility. A exible biorenery may offer economic and environmental advantages over the conventional bioreneries with xed production capacity.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Increasing demand for biofuels and bioenergy has motivated
the use of lignocellulosic materials as feedstock [1]. In this context,
integrated production of rst and second generation ethanol from
sugarcane is expected to increase the sustainability of the sugarcane production facility, improving its economic and environmental impacts as well as the energy efciency of the whole process
[2,3]. Sugarcane has been used for production of sugar, ethanol
and electricity in Brazil for more than 30 years, but it was not until
the early 2000s that interest on increasing electricity production
from sugarcane residues arose, motivated by changes in the
Brazilian electric sector regulation and the electricity shortage cri Corresponding author. Present address: Instituto de Cincia e Tecnologia,
Universidade Federal de So Paulo (ICT-UNIFESP), Rua Talim, 330, 12231-280 So
Jos dos Campos, SP, Brazil. Tel.: +55 12 33099610; fax: +55 12 39218857.
E-mail address: mdias@unifesp.br (M.O.S. Dias).
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.081

sis in 2001 [4]. In addition, facilities for electricity production from

sugarcane biomass present some advantages over conventional
electricity plants in Brazil, currently based in hydroelectricity generation: quicker construction, lower operational risks and costs
and greater ease in obtaining environmental licenses may be cited
[5]. Electricity is expected to become a product as important as
ethanol and sugar in the sugarcane sector in Brazil [6]; new mills
tend to have higher pressure boilers, when compared to older
plants, and condensing-extraction steam turbines that allow the
production of large amounts of surplus electricity for sale to the
grid [7,8].
In the Brazilian sugarcane industry, large amounts of lignocellulosic materials are readily available, typically produced as byproducts of sugar and ethanol production. Most of the bagasse
produced in the mills, where sugarcane juice is separated from
the ber, is used as fuel in cogeneration systems to supply the energy demand of the bioethanol production process [9], but increased boiler efciency and reduced process steam consumption

M.O.S. Dias et al. / Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

result in an excess bagasse production in the plant. Thus, differently from other bioethanol production facilities using other feedstock [1,10,11], no fossil fuel must be used to supply thermal and
electric energy for the process. Sugarcane trash (comprised by
sugarcane leaves and tops) was usually burnt in the eld to allow
manual harvesting, but since mechanical harvesting is being employed more frequently and sugarcane burning is being prohibited
due to environmental reasons, large amounts of trash will be available for use in the industry [7,12,13], once efcient strategies of
recovery, transportation and storage are developed. The use of
the sugarcane lignocellulosic fraction as feedstock for second
generation ethanol production is partially limited by the process
energy consumption, since sugarcane bagasse is used as fuel to
supply this energy requirement. However, residues of the second
generation ethanol production process (mainly lignin) may also
be used as fuel for the production of steam and electricity [14].
The use of sugarcane lignocellulosic fractions as fuels in
electricity production for sale to the grid is commercially and
technically feasible in Brazil [15]. Taking into consideration that
the same materials may be used as feedstock for second generation
ethanol production (not yet viable in an industrial level), a novel
conguration of sugarcane biorenery with the capacity of diverting lignocellulosic material either for second generation or electricity cogeneration could be an interesting alternative. Naturally, this
biorenery will require higher investments and will always have
some idle equipment, when compared with the conventional integrated rst and second generation ethanol production process
using the entire lignocellulosic material surplus as feedstock for
second generation. Nevertheless, the Brazilian sugarcane industry
has shown over the years that some exibility may be advantageous: the fact that sugarcane may be used either for sugar or
ethanol production, depending on the market demands, is part of
the reason for the success of bioethanol production in the country
[16]. Because rst generation ethanol from sugarcane is largely
used as a vehicle fuel and does not rely on government subsidies,
it is likely that implementation of second generation ethanol production in Brazil will be promoted by economic reasons [17];
hence, the economics of second generation ethanol production
and ways of increasing its competitiveness must be investigated.
Enhanced biomass utilization should be a fundamental feature in
the design of bioreneries, leading to a more efcient and exible
system [18]. Cellulosic ethanol production can have its production

73

cost decreased and benet from the sale of process by-products,

such as electricity, if prices are favorable [19].
Therefore, in order to assess the possible advantages of exibility of electricity generation in an integrated rst and second
generation ethanol production process from sugarcane, a exible
biorenery was evaluated; it produces rst and second generation
ethanol through the biochemical route, and electricity from both a
fraction of the lignocellulosic materials available and process residues (lignin and unreacted cellulose). The exibility of the plant
consists on the capacity of using half of the surplus lignocellulosic
material (bagasse and trash) either as feedstock for second generation ethanol production or as fuel in the cogeneration system.
This exible plant was compared with the conventional rst and
second generation, which uses the entire lignocellulosic material
surplus for second generation, and the plant using half of that fraction (with no exibility). The conditions on which the exible process may present advantages were evaluated, taking into
consideration the spot electricity market. Process simulation was
carried out to compare the different congurations, as well as economic and environmental assessments.

2. Methods
2.1. Integrated rst and second generation ethanol production from
sugarcane
The integrated rst and second generation ethanol production
process consists of the following main steps, as illustrated in
Fig. 1: sugarcane cleaning, extraction of sugars, juice treatment,
concentration and fermentation, distillation, dehydration, cogeneration and pretreatment, delignication and hydrolysis of the surplus lignocellulosic material.
Data for the rst generation bioethanol production process
were obtained mainly in the industry and from the literature.
The mill has a processing capacity of 500 tons of sugarcane TC
per hour (wet basis), equivalent to 2 million TC per year, what
nowadays represents an average mill in Brazil. The main process
parameters employed in this assessment are shown in Table 1.
The adopted rst generation ethanol production process presents
the characteristics of an optimized process, comprised by efcient
high pressure boilers (82 bar), ethanol dehydration by adsorption

Fig. 1. Block ow diagram of the integrated rst and second generation ethanol production process from sugarcane.

74

M.O.S. Dias et al. / Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

Table 1
Main parameters adopted for the rst generation ethanol production process.
Parameter
Sugarcane processed (wet basis)
Days of operation
Sugarcane trash produced (dry basis)
Fraction of trash recovered from the eld
Sugarcane total reducing sugars content (wet basis)
Sugarcane bers content (wet basis)
Sugarcane bagasse/trash cellulose content (dry basis)
Sugarcane bagasse/trash hemicellulose content (dry
basis)
Sugarcane bagasse/trash lignin content (dry basis)
Efciency of juice extraction in the mills
Fermentation efciency (C6 sugars)
Ethanol content of the wine fed in the distillation
columns
Hydrated ethanol purity
Anhydrous ethanol purity
Fraction of bagasse for start-ups of the plant
82 bar boiler efciency LHV basis
82 bar steam temperature
Turbines isentropic efciency
Generator efciency
Steam pressure process
Steam pressure molecular sieves
Process electric energy consumption
Molecular sieves steam consumption
a
b

Table 2
Main parameters adopted for the second generation ethanol production process.

Value
a

500 TC/h
167 days/year
140 kg/TC
50%
15.3%
13%
43.38%
25.63%
23.24%
96%
90%
8.5 GL
93 wt.%
99.6 wt.%
5%
87%
520 C
85%
98%
2.5 bar
6 bar
30 kW h/TC
0.6 kg Steam/
LAEb

TC: metric tons of sugarcane.

LAE: liter of anhydrous ethanol.

on molecular sieves, and reduction on process steam consumption

a 20% reduction on the low pressure (2.5 bar) steam consumption
was assumed; this gure would be attained by thermal integration
of the process [20], but it was not implemented in the simulation.
Composition of the sugarcane bagasse was obtained from the
characterization of 50 bagasse samples from different mills in
Brazil by Rocha et al. [21]. The same composition was assumed
for sugarcane trash, except for the moisture content (50% for bagasse and 15% for trash) [7].
Surplus bagasse and trash are used as feedstock for second generation ethanol production the fraction of lignocellulosic material
diverted for second generation in the conventional integrated
rst and second generation ethanol production process is the
amount that exceeds the one required to be burnt to produce
steam to supply thermal energy, considering that lignin and unreacted cellulose are also burnt.
Lignocellulosic material diverted for second generation ethanol
production undergoes pretreatment by steam explosion, after
which the liquid fraction containing pentoses is separated by ltration; the solid fraction undergoes alkaline delignication, in which
lignin is dissolved and recovered after precipitation and ltration
[2,22]. Cellulose is hydrolyzed, producing glucose which is also
separated from the unreacted fraction by ltration. Pentoses are
fermented in combination with hydrolyzed glucose liquor and sugarcane juice, while recovered lignin and unreacted cellulose are
burnt for production of steam and electricity. Therefore, this technological scenario represents a process that may become feasible
in the medium-long term pentoses fermentation to ethanol, for
instance, is not yet achieved in industrial scale with high yields,
but has been increasingly investigated since it leads to signicant
gains in ethanol production from lignocellulosic materials [23]. A
gradual improvement in second generation ethanol production
technology is expected as pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation processes are developed. Substantial efforts and resources
have been employed in the development of second generation ethanol production technologies around the world, in order to achieve
sustainable production of biofuels without compromising food

Parameter

Value

Pretreatment hemicellulose conversion

Pretreatment cellulose conversion
Pretreatment temperature
Pretreatment reaction time
Alkaline delignication lignin solubilization
Alkaline delignication temperature
Alkaline delignication reaction time
Alkaline delignication solids loading
Alkaline delignication NaOH content
Hydrolysis cellulose conversion
Hydrolysis hemicellulose conversion
Hydrolysis solids loading
Pentose fermentation to ethanol conversion
Filters efciency of solids recovery
Filters soluble solids losses
Electricity consumption

70%
2%
190 C
15 min
90%
100 C
1h
10%
1% (m/V)
70%
70%
15%
80%
99.5%
10%
24 kW h/t LMa

LM: lignocellulosic material for second generation (wet basis).

security [24]. More details about the second generation ethanol

production process are provided in a previous work [2]. The main
parameters of the second generation ethanol production process
are shown in Table 2.
2.2. Process simulation
Simulation was carried out using Aspen Plus, which allows representation of the whole process design in a suitable manner [25].
This software has been successfully used to simulate different biorenery congurations, providing information for energy and mass
balances and economic analysis [2631]. All the unit operations
required to represent the process were inserted in the owsheet,
as illustrated in Fig. 2. The methodology employed in the simulation was described in a previous work [2].
2.3. Evaluated scenarios
Three technological scenarios were evaluated. The rst scenario, 1G2G(+ethanol), has the maximum ethanol production, with
the entire lignocellulosic material surplus used in second generation ethanol production. In scenario 1G2G(+electricity), approximately 50% of the lignocellulosic material used as feedstock in
the rst scenario is diverted for electricity production. The last
scenario, 1G2G(ex) represents the exible process, in which the
entire lignocellulosic material surplus may be used as feedstock
for second generation ethanol production or 50% of this amount
may be diverted for electricity generation. The products mix (second generation ethanol and electricity) of the exible plant varies
over time to maximize plant revenues.
In scenarios 1G2G(+electricity) and 1G2G(ex), the amount of
steam produced exceeds the thermal energy required by the process; therefore, condensing steam turbines were included in their
cogeneration system to condense surplus steam generating more
electricity [20]. In scenario 1G2G(+ethanol), back-pressure steam
turbines are used, since only the amount of lignocellulosic material
required to produce steam to supply thermal energy for the process is burnt.
2.4. Economic analysis
Investment data were provided by the industry (for rst generation) and obtained in the literature (for second generation). The
methodology employed in investment estimation is described in
a previous work [2]. Project lifetime was xed as 25 years, with
2 years for construction and start-up, 10 years linear depreciation
and tax rate of 34%.

M.O.S. Dias et al. / Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

75

Fig. 2. Simulation owsheet of the integrated rst and second generation ethanol production process from sugarcane in Aspen Plus; hierarchy blocks represent extraction of
sugars (MILLS), juice treatment and fermentation (TREATFER), ethanol distillation (DISTILL) and dehydration (DEHYD), cogeneration (COGEN) and second generation (2G).

The adopted sugarcane and anhydrous ethanol prices were obtained from the real prices in Brazil from January 2001 to December 2010, corrected to December 2010 values [32,33]; over the
25 years project lifetime, this 10-year prices cycle is repeated
2.5 times. Sugarcane trash price was estimated by specialists as
US$ 17.05/ton. Enzyme prices were estimated, based on information provided by Novozymes (private communication), as
US$ 0.05/L cellulosic ethanol produced (December 2010 values).
For the scenarios with no exibility, contract prices were
adopted for electricity sale. These prices were dened as the average price paid for electricity produced with biomass in renewable
energy auctions in Brazil (December 2010 value). Two price gures
were adopted for electricity sale in the exible conguration: contract and spot market prices (monthly prices for 20012010 shown
in Fig. 3). Contract prices were adopted when the exible plant
operated at maximum ethanol production (and, consequently,
minimum electricity production); when the exible plant operates
at maximum electricity production, spot market prices were
adopted for the sale of the fraction of electricity exceeding that
of the minimum electricity production. This approach guarantees
that the biorenery has a sale contract on the minimum amount
of electricity it can generate; when the market for electricity
becomes favorable, more electricity is produced by diverting more
lignocellulosic material for cogeneration, and the difference
between the maximum and the minimum electricity production
is sold in the spot market, at the expense of reducing second generation ethanol production.
2.5. Avoided carbon dioxide emissions
The potential of bioenergy to promote reduction in greenhouse
gases emissions is one of the main points behind its promotion

Fig. 3. Monthly spot market prices and average contract prices (from biomass) for
electricity (December 2010 values) from January 2001 to December 2010.

[34,35]; thus, the carbon dioxide emissions of bioenergy systems

should always be compared with fossil reference systems [36].
An estimation of avoided carbon dioxide emissions was carried
out for each scenario considering that renewable energy replaces
equivalent products produced from fossil fuels resources: ethanol
displaces gasoline and electricity from bagasse and trash displaces
electricity from natural gas (marginal thermoelectricity generation) [37]. Climate change benets were measured by the avoided
carbon dioxide equivalent units since it is one of the main driving
factors for biofuels production. Therefore, this evaluation indicates
which alternative would be more interesting in a climate change
point of view, when considering the fossil reference system that
can be replaced by the biorenery products. The usage stage of ethanol and gasoline in a light duty vehicle was also considered in this
assessment, since there are important differences at this life cycle
stage between ethanol and gasoline.
2.6. Life cycle analysis
Life cycle analysis was carried out to compare the environmental impacts of ethanol production in the three scenarios described
in this study. The methodology employed is described in a previous
work [2], and is in accordance with the ISO 14040-14044 standards
and follows the current state of the art of LCA methodology [38,39].
The software package SimaPro7.3 (PR Consultants B.V.) and the
CML 2 (baseline 2000 v2.05) life cycle impact assessment method
have been used in this assessment [40]. The environmental impacts are categorized into ten environmental categories: Abiotic
Depletion (ADP) measured in kg of Sbeq.; Acidication (AP) measured in kg of SO2eq.; Eutrophication (EP) measured in kg of
3
PO4eq:;
Global Warming (GWP) measured in kg of CO2eq.; Ozone
Layer Depletion (ODP) measured in kg of CFC-11eq.; Human Toxicity (HTP) measured in kg of 1,4 DBeq. (dichlorobenzene); Fresh
Water Aquatic Ecotoxicity (FWAET) measured in kg of 1,4 DBeq;
Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity (MAET) measured in kg of 1,4 DBeq.;
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (TET) measured in kg of 1,4 DBeq.; and Photochemical Oxidation (POP) measured in kg of C2H4eq.
According to LCA methodology, allocation is required for multioutput processes. In this study economic allocation based on the
market value of the process output was applied, as described in
the ISO 14040-14044 documents [38,39].
For the environmental assessment of the exible scenario, a
composition of the two xed inventories 1G2G(+ethanol) and
1G2G(+electricity) was used based on the partial contribution
of each of these scenarios on the total revenues of the plant. The
production mix is therefore oriented to maximize plant revenues
and depends on the relative market prices of ethanol and electricity. This consideration was the same as the one employed in the

76

M.O.S. Dias et al. / Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

economic evaluation. This means that the inventory ows of the

exible scenario is basically a mix of the xed scenarios of a plant
operating to produce maximum second generation ethanol
1G2G(+ethanol) or maximum electricity 1G2G(+electricity);
however, a fundamental exception is made for industrial equipment (considered as steel in the life cycle inventory) which is higher in the exible scenario due the idle exible plant capacity. This
higher steel use in the exible scenario was estimated as proportional to the higher investment in this plant.

3. Results and discussion

Simulation provided ethanol and electricity production in each
scenario where exibility is not considered; results are displayed
in Table 3, along with steam consumption and amount of hydrolyzed lignocellulosic material (dry basis).
Because of the high steam demand of the process and the use of
high (82 bar) pressure boilers, surplus electricity is relatively large
(91.7 kW h/TC) even for the scenario with maximum ethanol production (115.7 L/TC) 1G2G(+ethanol). Scenario 1G2G(+electricity) produces nearly 150 kW h/TC, but at the expense of lower
ethanol production (98.3 L/TC), since almost half of the surplus
lignocellulosic material available is diverted for electricity
production.
No efciency loss in the production of electricity as a possible
result of decreased fuel load was assumed for the exible scenario
because sugarcane bioreneries usually have more than one boiler;
if the fuel load is diminished one or more boilers could be turned
down. In addition, a fraction (5%) of the sugarcane bagasse available in the process is stocked and used for boiler start-ups, as indicated in Table 1, so no bagasse that should be diverted for
electricity production is used in a boiler start-up.
Results for the scenario 1G2G(ex) vary between the results for
the two xed scenarios displayed in Table 3, according with electricity prices in the spot market; analysis was carried out considering spot market prices for the past 10 years, corrected to December
2010 prices, assuming that the same prices prole were repeated
over the project lifetime (25 years 2.5 cycles of monthly prices
for the electricity in the spot market). In order to estimate the actual production of the 1G2G(ex) scenario, the revenues obtained
with the sale of ethanol and electricity in each month of the project
lifetime were calculated, and the plant operates at maximum electricity production when revenues from electricity exceed those obtained with maximum ethanol production. Taking into
consideration the prices illustrated in Fig. 3, the plant maximizes
its revenues operating nearly 90% of the period with maximum
ethanol production (diverting all surplus lignocellulosic material
for second generation ethanol) and the remaining 10% with
maximum electricity production (diverting half of the surplus lignocellulosic material for cogeneration).
The investment of the facilities was calculated as US$ 318 million for the scenario 1G2G(+ethanol), US$ 303 million for
1G2G(+electricity) and US$ 330 million for 1G2G(ex). The internal
rate of return (IRR) was calculated for the three scenarios, and the
ex conguration operating at maximum revenues. Avoided CO2

emissions considering ethanol displacing gasoline and electricity

production from biomass displacing natural gas are depicted in
Fig. 4, along with the IRR results.
Maximum ethanol production leads to an IRR higher (18.1%)
than maximum electricity production (17.1%), but the highest
IRR was obtained for the exible biorenery, 1G2G(ex) (18.4%).
Thus, even though the exible biorenery requires a larger investment, the ability to divert more lignocellulosic material for
electricity production when electricity prices in the spot market
are advantageous is benecial to the business.
Avoided carbon dioxide emissions are larger for maximum
ethanol production values obtained for 1G2G(+ethanol) and
1G2G(ex) are similar because the product portfolio is alike for
both scenarios. These results indicate that the biorenery scenario
producing more ethanol to displace gasoline has the possibility of
avoiding more carbon dioxide emissions than a scenario that uses
biomass to displace natural gas to produce electricity.
On Fig. 5 the ethanol production environmental impacts considering the three different biorenery scenarios are compared.
Results shown in Fig. 5 demonstrate that the highest environmental impacts in most of the categories are obtained for the scenario with maximum ethanol production 1G2G(+ethanol). This is
a consequence of the fact that in this scenario, since more second
generation ethanol is produced, more chemicals are required in
the production process. The amount of sodium hydroxide, enzymes
and sulfuric acid consumed in the second generation ethanol process, for instance, are proportional to the amount of lignocellulosic
material hydrolyzed or ethanol produced. Therefore, scenario
1G2G(+electricity) has the lowest environmental impacts in most
of the categories, even though it has higher emissions in the cogeneration system. Scenario 1G2G(+electricity) presented higher impacts in the categories of eutrophication and acidication
because these impacts are mainly related to the fertilizer use at
the agricultural stage. Since less ethanol is produced in the scenario 1G2G(+electricity), there is less ethanol to dilute the environmental impacts related to the sugarcane production system.
In summary, exibility in the evaluated scenarios can be translated by higher investment on equipment that are underutilized,
considering the plant maximum annual processing capacity (i.e.
part of the plant would always be idle). Therefore, the plant design
must be rearranged to afford a rapid change in the process lines,
diverting lignocellulosic material to CHP or to second generation
ethanol production. The exible scenario has environmental impact scores between those of scenarios 1G2G(+ethanol) and
1G2G(+electricity) in most of the categories assessed. The fact that
more equipment is required in the exible scenario, which does
not present the highest environmental impacts, shows that other
parameters have more importance and the amount of steel
required to build the plant has a smaller effect than consumption
of chemicals in the process, for instance.

Table 3
Main results obtained in the simulation of the xed scenarios (TC: tons of sugarcane).
Parameter

1G2G(+ethanol)

1G2G(+electricity)

Anhydrous ethanol (L/TC)

Surplus electricity (kWh/TC)
Steam production (kg/TC)
Lignocellulosic material hydrolyzed
(kg/TC, dry basis)

115.7
91.7
654
100

98.3
149.2
785
47
Fig. 4. Internal rate of return (IRR) and avoided carbon dioxide emissions for each
scenario considered in this study.

M.O.S. Dias et al. / Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

77

Fig. 5. Comparative ethanol environmental impact indicators for each scenario considered in this study.

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analyses: impact of changes in ethanol and electricity prices by a factor K on (a) the internal rate of return (IRR) and on (b) the fraction of time the exible
plant operates at maximum ethanol production.

From an economic point of view, more equipment investment

due to exibility is compensated by higher revenues from the ability to divert more lignocellulosic material for electricity or ethanol
production when prices are advantageous for a specic product.
From the environmental point of view, more steel required for
equipment in the exible plant presents lower impacts in comparison to maximized second generation ethanol production (in the
scenario 1G2G(+ethanol)), and higher impacts in comparison to
the plant maximizing electricity production (1G2G(+electricity)).
However, it is important to mention that, as indicated by the
results from Fig. 4, when the usage stage and displacement of
equivalent products derived from fossil fuels are considered,
scenarios producing more second generation ethanol present better results regarding the global warming impact category. The results indicate that conclusions about the environmental aspects
depend on the way they are assessed: if they are considered only
as comparative values between scenarios or if the displaced fossil
reference system is included in the assessment.
In order to assess the impact of changes in the price trends for
ethanol and electricity on the performance of the exible biorenery, a sensitivity analysis was carried out. In this analysis ethanol
and electricity (spot market) prices were changed, each multiplied
separately by a factor K, so the internal rate of return is calculated
independently for increases in ethanol and electricity prices. Since
product prices change, the operation of the plant changes in order
to maximize revenues. The results obtained for the internal rate of
return (IRR) along with the fraction of the project lifetime the
exible plant operates with maximum ethanol production are
illustrated in Fig. 6.
Changes in ethanol prices have more impact on the exible
biorenery IRR than changes in electricity prices in the spot
market: if ethanol prices were to double during the entire lifetime

of the project, the IRR of the exible plant would be higher than
35%; similarly, if ethanol price was reduced by 50% (K = 0.5), the
IRR would nearly reach 0%. On the other hand, even if electricity
prices in the spot market increase by a factor of 3, the IRR of the
exible plant barely reaches 22%, and only in about 25% of the
project lifetime it is advantageous to reduce ethanol production
and sell electricity in the spot market. It is important to note that
during the period the plant operates with maximum ethanol
production, electricity is sold exclusively by contract; only when
the exible plant operates at maximum electricity production,
electricity is sold in the spot market.
Therefore, even though the exible plant presents a higher
internal rate of return, showing that the possibility of diverting a
fraction of the lignocellulosic material either for second generation
ethanol or electricity production is advantageous, changes in ethanol prices have a much more signicant effect on the outcome of
the project than changes in the electricity spot market prices. If
electricity shortage caused a major (threefold) increase in electricity spot market prices, the IRR of the exible biorenery would be
similar to that obtained if ethanol prices increased only by a factor
of 20% (K = 1.2).

4. Conclusions
Electricity production was evaluated in a rst and second
generation ethanol production process from sugarcane; a exible
biorenery, with the capacity of diverting a fraction of the lignocellulosic material (sugarcane bagasse and trash) either for electricity
production or as feedstock in second generation ethanol was assessed. The exible sugarcane biorenery selling surplus electricity
in the spot market when prices are favorable has a higher internal

78

M.O.S. Dias et al. / Applied Energy 109 (2013) 7278

rate of return than the conventional biorenery using all surplus

lignocellulosic material as feedstock for second generation ethanol
production. The exible biorenery and the plant with maximum
ethanol production lead to the highest avoided carbon dioxide
emissions when usage phase and displacement of fossil products
is considered. However, bioreneries producing more ethanol
present higher environmental impacts per unit of ethanol produced than the conguration with maximum electricity production due the high impacts of chemicals used in the second
generation process.
Even though the exible biorenery has a larger IRR, changes on
ethanol prices affects the IRR more signicantly, when compared
with increases in electricity spot market prices. Thus, if ethanol
prices increase, the xed biorenery operating with maximum ethanol production will be more advantageous.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de So Paulo (FAPESP) for nancial support (contract
grant number 2011/19396-6 under the BIOEN Thematic project
An Integrated Process for Total Bioethanol Production and Zero
CO2 Emission, Grant number 08/57873-8).
References
[1] Snchez-Segado S, Lozano LJ, De Los Ros AP, Hernndez-Fernndez FJ, Godnez
C, Juan D. Process design and economic analysis of a hypothetical bioethanol
production plant using carob pod as feedstock. Bioresour Technol
2012;104:3248.
[2] Dias MOS, Junqueira TL, Cavalett O, Cunha MP, Jesus CDF, Rossell CEV, et al.
Integrated versus stand-alone second generation ethanol production from
sugarcane bagasse and trash. Bioresour Technol 2012;103:15261.
[3] Wu L, Li Y, Arakane M, Ike M, Wada M, Terajima Y, et al. Efcient conversion of
sugarcane stalks into ethanol employing low temperature alkali pretreatment
method. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:111838.
[4] Scaramucci JA, Perin C, Pulino P, Bordoni OFJG, Cunha MP, Cortez LAB. Energy
from sugarcane bagasse under electricity rationing in Brazil: a computable
general equilibrium model. Energy Policy 2006;34:98692.
[5] Grisi EF, Yusta JM, Dufo-Lpez R. Opportunity costs for bioelectricity sales in
Brazilian sucro-energetic industries. Appl Energy 2012;92:8607.
[6] Walter A, Ensinas AV. Combined production of second-generation biofuels and
electricity from sugarcane residues. Energy 2010;35:8749.
[7] Seabra JEA, Tao L, Chum HL, Macedo IC. A techno-economic evaluation of the
effects of centralized cellulosic ethanol and co-products renery options with
sugarcane mill clustering. Biomass Bioenerg 2010;34:106578.
[8] Seabra JEA, Macedo IC. Comparative analysis for power generation and ethanol
production from sugarcane residual biomass in Brazil. Energy Policy
2011;39:4218.
[9] De Paoli F, Bauer A, Leonhartsberger C, Amon B, Amon T. Utilization of byproducts from ethanol production as substrate for biogas production.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:66214.
[10] Nghiem NP, Ramrez EC, McAloon AJ, Yee W, Johnston DB, Hicks KB. Economic
analysis of fuel ethanol production from winter hulled barley by the EDGE
(enhanced
dry
grind
enzymatic)
process.
Bioresour
Technol
2011;102:6696701.
[11] Papong S, Malakul P. Life-cycle energy and environmental analysis of
bioethanol production from cassava in Thailand. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:S1128.
[12] Capaz RS, Carvalho VSB, Nogueira LAH. Impact of mechanization and previous
burning reduction on GHG emissions of sugarcane harvesting operations in
Brazil. Appl Energy 2013;102:2208.
[13] Galdos M, Cavalett O, Seabra JEA, Nogueira LAH, Bonomi A. Trends in global
warming and human health impacts related to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol
production
considering
black
carbon
emissions.
Appl
Energy
2013;104:57682.
[14] Rabelo SC, Carrere H, Maciel Filho R, Costa AC. Production of bioethanol,
methane and heat from sugarcane bagasse in a biorenery concept. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:788795.

[15] Cardona CA, Quintero JA, Paz IC. Production of bioethanol from sugarcane
bagasse: status and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:475466.
[16] Cavalett O, Junqueira TL, Dias MOS, Jesus CDF, Mantelatto PE, Cunha MP, et al.
Environmental and economic assessment of sugarcane rst generation
bioreneries in Brazil. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2012;14:399410.
[17] Ekman A, Wallberg O, Joelsson E, Brjesson P. Possibilities for sustainable
bioreneries based on agricultural residues a case study of potential strawbased ethanol production in Sweden. Appl Energy 2013;102:299308.
[18] Martinez-Hernandez E, Sadhukhan J, Campbell GM. Integration of bioethanol
as an in-process material in bioreneries using mass pinch analysis. Appl
Energy 2013;104:51726.
[19] Starfelt F, Daianova L, Yan J, Thorin E, Dotzauer E. The impact of lignocellulosic
ethanol yields in polygeneration with district heating a case study. Appl
Energy 2011;92:7919.
[20] Dias MOS, Modesto M, Ensinas AV, Nebra SA, Maciel Filho R, Rossell CEV.
Improving bioethanol production from sugarcane: evaluation of distillation,
thermal integration and cogeneration systems. Energy 2011;36:3691703.
[21] Rocha GJM, Gonalves AR, Oliveira BR, Gmez EO, Rossell CEV. Compositional
variability of raw, steam-exploded and delignicated sugarcane bagasse (in
Portuguese). In: Congresso internacional sobre Gerao Distribuda e Energia
no Meio Rural (AGRENER GD 2010); 2010. www.nipeunicamp.org.br/agrener/
anais/2010/14-12/12/63.pdf [retrieved on 29.04.2010].
[22] Alvira P, Toms-Pej E, Ballesteros M, Negro MJ. Pretreatment technologies for
an efcient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: a
review. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:485161.
[23] Dias MOS, Junqueira TL, Rossell CEV, Maciel Filho R, Bonomi A. Evaluation of
process congurations for second generation integrated with rst generation
bioethanol production from sugarcane. Fuel Process Technol 2013;109:849.
[24] Srirangan K, Akawi L, Moo-Young M, Chou CP. Towards sustainable production
of clean energy carriers from biomass resources. Appl Energy
2012;100:17286.
[25] Quintero JA, Cardona CA. Process simulation of fuel ethanol production from
lignocellulosics using Aspen Plus. Ind Eng Chem Res 2011;50:620512.
[26] Davis R, Aden A, Pienkos PT. Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic
microalgae for fuel production. Appl Energy 2011;88:352431.
[27] Dias MOS, Junqueira TL, Jesus CDF, Rossell CEV, Maciel Filho R, Bonomi A.
Improving bioethanol production comparison between extractive and low
temperature fermentation. Appl Energy 2012;98:54855.
[28] He J, Zhang W. Techno-economic evaluation of thermo-chemical biomass-toethanol. Appl Energy 2011;88:122432.
[29] Snchez OJ, Cardona CA. Conceptual design of cost-effective and
environmentally-friendly congurations for fuel ethanol production from
sugarcane by knowledge-based process synthesis. Bioresour Technol
2012;104:30514.
[30] Tao L, Aden A, Elander RT, Pallapolu VR, Lee YY, Garlock RJ, et al. Process and
technoeconomic analysis of leading pretreatment technologies for
lignocellulosic ethanol production using switchgrass. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:1110514.
[31] Villanueva Perales AL, Reyes Valle C, Ollero P, Gmez-Barea A.
Technoeconomic assessment of ethanol production via thermochemical
conversion of biomass by entrained ow gasication. Energy
2011;36:4097108.
[32] UDOP union of biofuel producers. Sugarcane prices; 2011
www.udop.com.br/index.php?item=cana [retrieved 15.03.11].
[33] CEPEA center for advanced studies on applied economics; 2011
www.cepea.esalq.usp.br [retrieved 15.03.11].
[34] Nguyen TLT, Hermansen JE. System expansion for handling co-products in LCA
of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for
ethanol production. Appl Energy 2012;89:25461.
[35] Brjesson P. Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective what
determines this? Appl Energy 2009;86:58994.
[36] Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch
S. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems:
key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl
2009;53:43447.
[37] Seabra JEA, Macedo IC, Chum HL, Faroni CE, Sarto CA. Life cycle assessment of
Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels Bioprod
Bioren 2011;5:51932.
[38] ISO. ISO Norm 14040:2006. Life cycle assessment: principles and framework.
Environmental management. International organisation for standardisation,
Geneva; 2006.
[39] ISO. ISO Norm 14044:2006. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and
guidelines. Environmental management. International organisation for
standardisation, Geneva; 2006.
[40] Guine JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Sleeswijk AW, et al.
Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO
standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.