Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Comparison of combustion and pyrolysis for energy generation

in a sugarcane mill
F. Nsaful, J.F. Grgens , J.H. Knoetze
Department of Process Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 12 March 2013
Accepted 13 July 2013
Available online 9 August 2013
Keywords:
Combustion
Pyrolysis
Biomass
Process modeling
Economic modeling

a b s t r a c t
The study focusses on the comparison of biomass to energy conversion process (BMECP) models to convert sugar mill biomass (bagasse) into energy products via combustion and pyrolysis as thermochemical
pathways. Bagasse was converted to steam and electricity via combustion using 40 bar, 63 bar and 82 bar
Condensing Extraction Steam Turbines (CEST) systems and a 30 bar back pressure steam turbine (BPST)
system. Two BMECPs, namely partial fast pyrolysis and pure fast pyrolysis systems, were modeled for the
pyrolysis pathway. In the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP all the input bagasse stream was converted to pyrolysis products, with subsequent combustion of some of these products to generate steam and electricity
for sugar mill operations. In the partial fast pyrolysis BMECP, a fraction of the bagasse is combusted
directly to supply steam and electricity to the sugar mill, while the remaining fraction is pyrolyzed to
generate pyrolysis products. All process models were simulated in AspenPlus and were assessed on their
ability to supply the energy requirement of to two sugar mill scenarios: More efcient mill and less efcient mill. The economic viability of BMECPs was determined using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer.
Both combustion based and pyrolysis based BMECPs were capable of meeting the energy requirement
of the sugar mill, although the pyrolysis based BMECP had limited steam and electricity production rates
due to the accumulation of energy in pyrolysis products. High energy valued pyrolysis products resulted
in higher overall process efciencies of 85.09% and 87.65% for partial fast pyrolysis and Pure Fast Pyrolysis
BMECPs respectively compared to 77.48% for the most efcient combustion BMECP (82 bar CEST). CO2
savings were higher for the pyrolysis based BMECPs due to the sequestration of carbon in pyrolysis products. The 63 bar CEST combustion system was the most economic viable option, while the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP was the least viable. The increased energy efciency and environmental benets of
pyrolysis-based processes are therefore off-set by increases in production costs.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The increase in the demand for energy caused by the increase in
global industrialization and the rapid rate at which fossil oil reserves are depleting, as well as issues of environmental concern
with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, have encouraged the
search for alternative energy sources, mainly from renewable resources such as biomass [16]. Biomass provides a clean and
renewable source of energy. Converting biomass to energy rich
products has the potential to be CO2 neutral, as any CO2 produced
during the conversion process is reabsorbed from the atmosphere
by plants [7]. Also the emission level of NOx and SOx from biomass
compared to that of fossil based fuels is almost zero, since biomass
contains very low percentages of N and S [8]. Biomass has been
successfully converted to energy sources such as heat, electricity

Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 808 3503; fax: +27 21 808 2059.
E-mail address: jgorgens@sun.ac.za (J.F. Grgens).
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.024

and even transportation-grade fuels through both thermochemical

and biological processes [911].
Sugar production from sugarcane remains as one of the predominant agro-industrial activities in South Africa, producing sugar as the main product and in some instances excess of
electricity after meeting the industrys energy demand. A substantial amount of bagasse is generated in this industry during the
milling process (270 kg bagasse/ton of cane milled) according to
Garcia-Perez et al. [12]. Bagasse is the brous material that remains after juice is extracted from sugarcane during the sugar
manufacturing process. It is made up mainly of cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin and some small fraction of extractives [2,6,1316].
Currently bagasse in South Africa just as in many other sugar producing countries is inefciently combusted as solid fuel in cogeneration systems attached to sugar mills to raise steam and generate
electricity to provide the energy demand of the industry [1719]
leaving very little or no surplus bagasse after meeting mill energy
demand due to the energy intensive nature of the sugar manufacturing process as well as inefciencies within the manufacturing

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

process. According to Smith et al. [20] about 297 kg bagasse/ton of

cane (50% average moisture content) was generated by the South
African sugar industry during the 2010/2011 milling season. Based
on 50% steam on cane mill efciency which is the average for South
African mill [20], only about 15% of this is made available per ton of
cane crushed assuming the rule of thumb of the sugar industry that
2 kg of steam is generated per each kg of bagasse burned [21].
Given the rapidly changing market for sugar and the instability
and uncertainties in the price of sugar, it has become important for
sugar factories to introduce some form of product diversication in
the industry [22,23]. The production of valuable products from bagasse is one way in which sugar factories can bring in added benets. Bagasse has signicant potential as energy source, which has
not been fully exploited by the sugar industry [18]. Among the
diversication that can be introduced into the sugar industry are
the generation of excess power through improvement in efciency
of biomass combustion process and the production of fuels and
specialty chemicals from bagasse by pyrolysis. Exploring the potential of bagasse, however, requires the availability of a sufcient
amount of bagasse and this in turn calls for improvement in process efciencies and the optimal use of energy in sugar mills.
Energy integration in the sugar industry has been identied as a
way of minimizing the waste of energy and ensuring the proper
use of energy [19,22]. The implementation of such measures within the sugarcane milling process will thus make sufcient bagasse
available, since the external thermal energy demand of the mill
will be reduced drastically, implying less bagasse needed for steam
generation. However, storing large quantities of bagasse for future
use is not benecial to the sugar industry in nancial terms. Bagasse has low bulk density [18,21,24], hence requiring large volume for storage, which is very expensive. Moreover, stockpiling
bagasse and other sugarcane residues poses an environmental
threat to sugar mills and their surroundings because bagasse is
self-combustible and may spontaneously combust if stockpiled
for longer periods [18,25]. This means that bagasse must be readily
converted to valuable energy sources such as electricity in highly
efcient cogeneration systems for sale to the grid as, is been done
in Mauritius and Reunion [17]. The one-time use of bagasse implies
that the sugar mills will have to depend on fossil based fuel for energy generation during off-season. Thus the need arises to search
for alternative ways of converting bagasse.
Fast pyrolysis, a thermochemical process, has been used to convert biomass such as bagasse into products (bio-oil and char) with
a high energy density [13]. Unlike other thermochemical processes
such as gasication and combustion where the generated syngas
and heat have to be used immediately on site, the products of pyrolysis can be stored and used later when the need arises [9,10,21].
The bio-oil and biochar produced can be used for electricity and
steam production during both in-season and off-season [21], hence
ensuring all year round electricity production of which surplus can
be offered for sale to the grid to generate extra income for the sugar industry. Bio-oil can be used for specialty chemical production
or upgraded to transport-grade fuels [911] thus introducing product diversication in the sugar industry. Also, char can be upgraded
to activated carbon which can be used in the sugar renery process
to remove color [26]. Char can also be used as soil amendment
agent/soil additive alongside fertilizers on sugarcane plantations
to improve the fertility of the soil [27,28], which subsequently will
lead to increased sugar cane yields. Studies have shown that soils
that receive a combined application of fertilizer and char exhibit
better plant growth resulting in yields of as high as 50% over and
above that which can be obtained from soils that are given only
fertilizer [29,30]. Aside these benets, pyrolysis also has the ability
to supply the thermal and electrical energy needed to run the sugarcane milling/sugar production process. Due to the high temperatures at which the technology of fast pyrolysis operates, as much

525

energy as possible can be harnessed in the form of high pressure

steam during pyrolysis products recovery, to provide steam and
electricity for the sugar mill plant. Thus through the implementation of efcient and effective energy integration networks within
the sugar mill, the sugar industry can benet from producing valuable products (bio-oil and char) from fast pyrolysis, while also
meeting its thermal and electrical needs from the heat recovered
from the pyrolysis plant and even generating surplus electricity
for sale.
This work therefore seeks to develop process models (using Aspen Plus simulation software) for the efcient conversion of sugar
mill biomass to energy (steam and electricity) and/or energy products. Notably, models are developed for combustion (the current
technology used in the sugar industry) and pyrolysis process technologies, with the aim of investigating the possible introduction of
pyrolysis into the sugar mill to convert sugar mill biomass (bagasse) into energy dense products, while also meeting the electricity and steam demand of the mill. Though research into pyrolysis
has received signicant attention in recent times, most studies
have only concentrated on the use of pyrolysis as a stand-alone
process solely for the production of bio-oil and biochar from biomass and the application of the technology as an integral part of
the sugar mill to simultaneously supply the energy (steam and
electricity) requirement of the sugar mill and to generate pyrolysis
products from sugar cane bagasse has not received much attention
especially in the context of South Africa. On the basis of process
modeling, the combustion and pyrolysis processes will be compared in terms of provision of the required process steam and electricity for low- and high-efciency sugar mill scenarios, the
environmental impact in terms of CO2 savings and reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, the energy efciency of the conversions,
as well as the economic viability as an investment case.
2. Materials and methods
For the conceptual design and the analysis of the biomass-toenergy conversion processes (BMECP) modeled in this study, the
following steps were followed: (i) selection of process design scenarios; (ii) process ow sheet development and generation of mass
and energy balances using Aspen Plus; (iii) sizing of equipment
and economic evaluation of process scenarios by use of Aspen Icarus and cost data from literature and vendor quotations.
The block ow diagram (BFD) of the BMECP plant as depicted in
Fig. 1 was assumed in this study to be a single power plant that
provides all of the steam and electricity requirements of the sugar
mill. The energy demands (steam and electricity) are met by the
BMECP, while excess energy is offered for sale. The sugar mill in
turn supplies the BMECP plant with bagasse and condensate for
its operation.
2.1. Choice of scenarios
Three main scenarios of the BMECP were selected in this study
as the technological pathways for the conversion of sugar mill biomass into energy and energy and energy products. The rst scenario referred herein as combustion BMECP (Fig. 2), models the
current technological pathway used in the sugar industry for the
generation of electricity and steam to run the sugar milling process. Here sugar cane bagasse from the sugar mill is fed to a biomass combustor/steam-turbine cycle to cogenerate electricity
and low pressure (LP) steam for the sugar mill.
In the second scenario all of the bagasse from the sugar milling
process is fed to a fast pyrolysis plant, where it is converted into
pyrolysis products (bio-oil and biochar). Part of the pyrolysis products is combusted to supply the energy for pyrolysis and also to

526

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

Process Electricity

Sugar Cane

Bagasse
BMECP (Combustion/Pyrolysis)

Sugar Mill
Condensate

Export Electricity

LP Steam

Fig. 1. Schematic block ow diagram of a BMECP plant.

Fig. 2. Combustion BMECP BFD.

Fig. 3. Pure fast pyrolysis BMECP BFD.

Fig. 4. Partial fast pyrolysis BMECP BFD.

cogenerate electricity and steam in a steam-turbine cycle for sugar

mill operations. This scenario was referred herein as Pure Fast
Pyrolysis BMECP (Fig. 3).
The third scenario also referred herein as Partial Fast Pyrolysis
BMECP (Fig. 4) is a variant of the Pure Fast pyrolysis process. Here
bagasse feed from the sugar mill is split into two fractions. One
fraction, which is sufcient to provide the energy requirement of
the sugar mill, is combusted in a biomass combustor/steam turbine
cycle to generate steam and electricity for the sugar mill operation.
The remaining fraction is fed to a fast pyrolysis plant to produce
bio-oil and biochar as nal products. No fraction of the pyrolysis
product is combusted. Heat for pyrolysis is also provided by the
biomass combustor.
For this study, two cases of a sugar mill were considered for
each of the BMECP scenarios. These include (1) a sugar mill operating on 50% mass of steam to the mass of cane crushed (less efcient
mill) and, (2) a sugar mill operating on 40% mass of steam to the

mass of cane crushed (more efcient mill). The 50% steam on cane
was chosen to reect the current state of steam consumption in
most South African sugar mills. The 40% steam on cane was chosen
as a hypothetical case of an efcient sugar mill in order to determine the effect of process steam efciency on the energy production capacity of a BMECP plant and the economics thereof. It is
envisioned that sugar mill efciency of about 38% steam on cane
is achievable in the near future as sugar mills across the world
implement energy integration measures in the mills to cut down
on steam usage [31,21]. For both sugar mill efciencies, each
BMECP scenario was assessed on its ability to supply the energy
demands of the mill and possible generation of excess energy/energy products.
A 30 bar pressure Back Pressure Steam Turbine (BPST) turboalternator cogeneration system was chosen as the base case for
the combustion BMECP. Three other combustion BMECP process
models operating at pressures of 40 bar, 63 bar and 82 bar were

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

527

Eelec power
Eth biomass fuel

developed to study the effect of boiler operating pressure on the

production of steam and electricity. Though higher pressures could
have been chosen, a study by Mbohwa [17] shows that at steam
pressures beyond 160 bar, there is a drop in process efciency
due to the severe decrease in latent heat of steam, which subsequently decreases the rate of heat transfer and hence the electricity
production. Magasiner et al. [32] in their study also found that
there is a build-up of carbon and ash on the water side of boiler
tubes when operating at higher pressures, which might lead to
problems such as reduced heat transfer rate, blockage, slagging,
and eventual tube failure due to corrosion. Another reason is that
operating at higher pressures comes with an extra cost of the
power generating system as materials with special properties are
needed, hence, the selection of the above pressures. The two pyrolysis-based processes were modeled for only 40 bar pressure.
2.2. Development of mass and energy balances
The Aspen Plus simulation software was used to model and
generate the mass and energy ows of all the BMECP models. All
process ow sheets were modeled to accommodate the highest level of energy integration possible in a particular process in order to
minimize the waste of energy and guarantee improved process
efciency. The throughput to each model in this study was 81 tons
of bagasse/h (50% moisture content) estimated from the average
cane crushing rate (approximately 300 tons of cane/h) of South
African sugar mills for the 2010/2011 milling season [20] and on
the assumption of 270 kg bagasse/ton of cane crushed [16]. Table 1
shows the composition of sugarcane bagasse as used in this study
[33]. Due to the complex nature of bagasse, the physical property
data for most of its components could not be found in the Aspen
Plus property databases. Hence physical property data for Lignin,
cellulose, extractives, and hemicellulose were taken from the inhouse Aspen Plus property database developed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [34] for biomass feed stock
and used in this study.
2.3. Analysis of process model performances
The performance of all BMECP models were analyzed and compared based on the following criteria: steam and electricity production rates, electrical and overall process efciencies and
environmental impact. Steam and electricity production rates were
obtained directly from the Aspen Plus simulations, while the electrical and overall process efciencies were calculated using Eqs. (1)
and (2) respectively according to the method of Mani et al. [35]
based on the lower heating value (LHV) of bagasse. The LHV was
estimated according to the method of Phyllis [36], assuming a
higher heating value (HHV) of 18.65 MJ/kg for dry bagasse [33].

Table 1
Bagasse composition [33].
Component

Value, %

Moisture
Lignin (dry basis)
Cellulose (dry basis)
Extractives (dry basis)
Ash (dry basis)
Hemicelluloses (dry basis)

50
25.5
40.6
7.5
3.6
22.8

Elemental composition
C
H
O
N
S

50.3
6.3
43.1
0.3
0.07

gelectrical
gov erall

Eelec power Eth process

Eth biomass fuel

where Eelec power = net electric power output (MWelec); Eth biomass
fuel = thermal energy in the input bagasse feed (MWth); Eth process = net thermal energy output of process (MWth).
Net electric/power output is the difference between the gross
electricity generated by the process and the sum of all electrical
power used by the process to run process equipment such as
pumps. The net thermal energy output is calculated by subtracting
the thermal input to the process such as the energy contained in
boiler feed water from the total thermal energy output of the process (thermal energy contained in products such as process steam
and/or liquid/solid fuels).
The environmental impacts for the BMECP models were estimated in terms of savings in CO2. It was assumed that all electrical
power/LP steam/energy products generated by a particular BMECP
could have been produced by a similar power generating plant
running on fossil based fuel as its source of energy input [37]. In
this study a coal red power plant was considered as the alternative to power generation from biomass in the BMECP plant since
about 93% of current electricity generation in South Africa comes
from coal [38]. Hence CO2 savings was calculated based on the
assumption that the bagasse electricity displaces electricity produced from coal. Also, the amount of coal equivalent to all thermal
products (LP steam and/or bio-oil and biochar) was calculated for
each scenario using the respective heating values of each thermal
product and coal, after which the CO2 savings was calculated and
added to that obtained from electricity generation. The coal assumed in this study is a South African bituminous coal with an
average heating value of 26 MJ/kg [38]. From literature [39,40], it
was estimated that approximately 0.5 kg of coal is required for
each kilowatt hour of electricity produced which results in CO2
emissions of 2.62 kg [39] and 2.325 kg [40] per kilogram of coal.
For consistency, the average value of 2.47 kg CO2/kg coal was used
for this study and all CO2 savings were thus estimated based on
this value. Because sugarcane bagasse is a renewable fuel, the CO
2 emitted by the BMECP plant itself was not taken into account
based on the assumption that this would be reused by sugarcane
plants for photosynthesis during the sugarcane planting season
[7]. Although some fossil fuel is consumed during the growing, harvesting and transportation of sugar cane, the carbon released from
this source was also not taken into account as it would have been
in a full LCA studies.
2.4. Process economics
For this study, the economic model analyses for the various
BMECP plants were done using the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer V7.1 software developed by Aspen Technology, Inc. In all
the economic models the Total Capital Investment (TCI), total operating cost and economic viability of each BMECP technology were
determined based on an nth plant approach assuming that the
technologies applied in the various BMECP models have attained
application in already established commercial plants and are well
understood [41], even though fast pyrolysis application for steam
and electricity production has yet to attain commercial status.
To determine the TCI associated with each BMECP model, Aspen
Plus process model ow sheets of the various BMECP together
with their mass and energy balances were imported into the software. Cost for standard equipment such as pumps, heat exchangers, and compressors. were estimated by the software based on
user dened specications. This was done by rst mapping such

528

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

equipment to standard equipment in the equipment model library

of Aspen Process Economic Analyzer and sizing them using the sizing expert tool of the software as well as standard sizing methods
outlined in the Chemical Engineers Handbook [42]. Costs for nonstandard equipment like biomass combustor, pyrolysis equipment
and feed preparation equipment together with their installation
factors were determined from published cost data used in other
techno-economic analysis studies [4345] and from vender quotes
and added to the quoted equipment cost library of the software for
total capital cost estimation.
Operating costs include cost for raw materials, charges relating
to waste handling and treatment, by-product credits, utilities and
chemicals and credits from product sales. Table 2 lists the cost
associated with the raw material, products and by-products
streams as used in this study for the economic evaluation. The bagasse price was estimated using the formula developed by Jenkins
[46] and assuming a 50 km radius travelling distance to and from
the mill for delivery [47]. The formula taken from the work of Pippo et al. [21] assumes that bagasse cost can be estimated through
the cost of fuel oil since it is used as a substitute for #6 fuel oil in
boilers. However, in the context of South Africa, mills usually use
coal as an alternative fuel in place of bagasse. Hence the formula
was modied to accommodate the properties (LHV and price) of
coal instead of those of #6 fuel oil and the cost of bagasse determined as the value of coal of equivalent energy content. The price
of $56/dry ton (28/wet ton) of bagasse compares very well with
values reported in literature for biomass cost. Pippo et al. [21] obtained a bagasse price of $27.7/wet ton (50% moisture) in their
study. Similarly Humbird et al. [45] estimated a feedstock price
of $58.5/dry ton for corn stover, which is an agricultural residue
with similar properties as sugar cane bagasse. In energy terms,
the $56/dry ton price translates to approximately $7.47/GJ which
is also similar to the $7.7/GJ used by the National Energy Regulator
of South Africa (NERSA, 2011) [48] to estimate the Levelised Cost of
Electricity (LCOE) for cogenerated electricity using sugar cane bagasse as fuel.
The electricity cost was assumed to be the same as the LCOE
estimated by NERSA for bagasse derived electricity. Similar to the
assumption made by Leibbrandt [49], it was assumed that biochar
will replace coal as boiler fuel. By comparing the energy value of
char 24.65 MJ/kg [33] to the energy value of export grade bituminous coal 24.726 MJ/kg [38], it is seen that biochar is equivalent
to coal on energy basis hence its price was set to be the same as
that of coal which, sold for an average price of $120/ton between
July 2011December, 2011 [50].
Since the bio-oil in this study will be used as combustion fuel, it
was also assumed that it will replace #6 fuel oil, a commonly used
industrial heating fuel. However, due to the lack of a readily established market for bio-oil, its price was assumed to be 70% of that of
#6 fuel oil [49]. Fuel oil #6 sold for $2.159/gal ($13.375/GJ) in 2011
[51]. Given the soaring increases in crude oil price over the past
years, it is not envisioned that the price of #6 fuel oil (a derivative
from crude oil) will drop signicantly below the 2011 price level,
thus the price of $2.159/gal ($13.375/GJ) was used, which translates into a bio-oil price of $170/ton used in this study for the economic modeling. In all the economic models, labor costs were

Table 2
Cost data for feedstock, products and by-products.
Stream

Cost

Bagasse
Electricity
Biochar
Bio-oil

56 $/dry ton
0.248 $/kW h
120 $/ton
170 $/ton

estimated by Aspen Process Economic Analyzer, while cost for

maintenance, operating charges, plant overheads and G and A expenses were estimated as percentages of the total labor cost in
consistent with the specication of Peters and Timmerhaus [41].
Economic viability of the various BMECP technologies were
evaluated through a discounted cash ow rate of return (DCFROR)
analysis after the determination of TCI and total operating cost. In
all cases, the following indictors: net present value (NPV), internal
rate of return (IRR), payout period (PO) and protability index (PI)
were used to establish the protability of the models. Plant economic life period was set at 20 years to commensurate with what
is commonly used in literature [5254] for techno-economic analysis of various biomass to energy projects. Plant start-up time was
set at 25% of the respective construction time for each plant in
accordance with the suggestion of Perry et al. [42]. The tax rate
was at 28%; the highest tax rate at which companies operating in
South Africa are taxed [55,56]. The interest rate of 10% was chosen
according to the recommendation of Short et al. [57] and is in close
range with the prime interest rate (PIR) of South Africa which has
remained constant at 9% since November, 2010. Working capital
was estimated at 5% of TCI [58] and plant operating hours was
set at 8000 h per year.

3. General overview of process models

3.1. Combustion-based BMECP
The model as built in Aspen Plus was based on the Rankine cycle of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant, which was modied to accommodate steam extraction at sugar mill conditions of
2 bar pressure and 120 C. It consists mainly of the biomass combustor; steam generator (boiler) and turbo-alternator (Fig. 5).
In this process, bagasse fuel (at given moisture content) and
combustion air are fed to the biomass combustor. Hot combustion
gasses generated after combustion are used to generate steam in
the boiler/steam generator through indirect heat exchange with
boiler feed water. The combustor was modeled as a stoichiometric
reactor (RSTOIC) in Aspen Plus and, all combustion reactions as
well as the yield of combustion products are generated by the simulation software. Prior to exiting into the atmosphere, the ue
gases are cleaned to remove ash and particulate matter. It was assumed in this study that all the energy required for steam production is solely supplied by the bagasse feed from the sugar mill;
hence no external heat source to the biomass combustor was included and the combustor was thus modeled to operate at adiabatic conditions. Combustion air is preheated with ue gas in the
air pre-heater to raise its temperature to 250 C prior to being
fed to the combustor. Air was supplied in excess (4050% excess)
to ensure complete combustion [17] and also to make sure that
the percentage volume of oxygen in the ue gas is at least 6% so
as to meet environmental standards as set out in the Department
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Air Quality Act (2008).
In the steam generator, hot combustion gasses from the combustor exchanges heat with boiler feed water through indirectcontact heat transfer, resulting in the generation of high pressure
(HP) steam. The quantity of HP steam produced depends on the
heat available as well as the quality (superheated conditions) of
the HP steam required. To ensure efcient generation of steam,
the feed water to the boiler is pre-heated. All heat for the steam
generation is supplied by the hot combustion gasses.
HP steam from the boiler is expanded in a turbo-alternator,
Back-Pressure Steam Turbine (BPST) or Condensing Extraction
Steam Turbine (CEST), depending on the pressure of the steam,
to produce electricity and an amount of low pressure (LP) steam
that is extracted and sent to the sugar mill for use as process steam.

529

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

Bagasse

LP steam

Flue gas
Hot
combustion
gases

Biomass
combustor

HP steam

Steam
generator/boiler

Process
Electricity

Feedwater

Air

Export
Electricity

Turboalternator

Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the combustion process.

Heated dryer air

Char
product

Process air Process

Water

Pretreatment
Bagasse

Grinding
Drying

Pyrolysis

Biocrude

Char

Condensation
Oil scrubber
Electrostatic
precipitator

Recycled gas
for fluidisation

Process power LPsteam

Combustor/Steam
turbine

Export
electricity

Feedwater

Air

Product
recovery

Bio-oil
product

Fig. 6. Schematic representation of the pyrolysis process.

All turbine systems used in this study were modeled as isentropic

turbines working at an isentropic efciency of 85% and a power
loss of 2% was assumed for the power generation systems.
3.2. Pyrolysis-based BMECP
Fig. 6 shows a general overview of the two pyrolysis-based
BMECP models. It consists of the following subsection; pre-treatment, pyrolysis, condensation and oil recovery and a combustion/steam turbine cycle. Both models were based on previous
process model developed by Leibbrandt [49] with modications
for steam extraction for downstream sugar mill operations. The
pre-treatment section involves the drying of bagasse feedstock
from 50% moisture content as received to between 7% and 10%
moisture content using preheated process air; this is then followed
by grinding to reduce the particle size to about 2 mm, which is the
recommended particle size for fast pyrolysis. Drying of the feedstock is done in order to reduce the nal moisture content of the
bio-oil produced. Higher moisture content reduces the heating value and quality of bio-oil [6,9,54]. For the Partial Fast Pyrolysis
BMECP, only excess bagasse after separation of the quantity required to supply the energy need of the sugar mill, is pre-treated
for pyrolysis.
Dried bagasse is sent to the pyrolysis reactor where it undergoes pyrolysis at 500 C temperature and atmospheric pressure
yielding, char, condensable biocrude components and non-con-

densable gases. The reactor was modeled as a yield reactor and

the yields of products were calculated from the experimental results of Hugo [33] and set as the output of the reactor. Char is separated from the condensable and non-condensable gases using a
cyclone that follows directly after the reactor. The char in the case
of the Partial Fast pyrolysis BMECP is stored as nal product. For
the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP model it is combusted together with
the off-gas from the reactor to supply the energy needed to run the
pyrolysis process. Some reactor gas is recycled for use as a uidizing medium in the reactor.
In the condensation and oil recovery section, gas product exiting the cyclone is immediately cooled to recover bio-oil. Cooling
is rst done using water followed by the use of air in condensers.
This results in the generation of some steam as well as hot air,
which is then used for bagasse drying during pre-treatment. An
oil scrubber following the condensers recovers almost all the
remaining bio-crude components in the non-condensable gasses.
Vapor phase exiting the scrubber is then sent to an electrostatic
precipitator for further oil recovery. All bio-crude recovered is sent
to the product recovery section where it is cooled to room temperature and stored. Here, a small fraction is recycled to the scrubber
to enhance oil recovery.
After the recovery of bio-crude components, the remaining noncondensable gas is sent to product recovery section where a part is
removed and sent to the pyrolysis reactor as a uidizing medium
and the rest combusted together with a biochar and/or bagasse

530

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

in the combustion and steam turbine section to generate HP steam.

The reactor here was also modeled as a stoichiometric reactor with
the software generating all the combustion reactions as well as the
yields of combustion products. Air is supplied in excess (4050%
excess) to ensure complete combustion [17]. The HP steam is then
expanded in a steam turbine to generate electricity with LP steam
extraction for use by the sugar mill as process steam. Steam produced during quenching is added to the one produced in this section before electricity generation. Electricity for sugar mill
operations is also supplied by the BMECP before any excess electricity is offered for sale.

4. Results and discussion

The objective of the study was to compare the technical, environmental and economic performance of combustion and pyrolysis
as technological pathways for the efcient conversion of sugar mill
biomass to energy and/or energy products based on the energy
requirement of two sugar mill scenarios as outlined in Table 3. This
objective was achieved through process and economic modeling,
including the development of complete mass- and energy-balances
from the BMECPs under investigation.

4.1. Technical performance of BMECP models

The technical and economic performance of the various BMECP
technologies under both the more efcient and less efcient mill
conditions of the sugar mill are summarized in Tables 4 and 5
respectively and are discussed. The simulated BMECP models results show that the combustion based BMECPs are better suited
for steam production. These BMECPs could produce steam very
much over and above the requirement of the sugar mills compared
to the pyrolysis based models, which could only produce just a little above the quantity required by the mills. This is especially the
case when considering the efcient mill (Table 4). The thermal energy needed to supply the energy required to run the pyrolysis
reactors as well as the capturing of energy into pyrolysis products
limits the steam and electricity production rates of the two pyrolysis based BMECPs. Electricity production rates for the combustion
BMECPs are seen to be higher due to the high mass ow rate of
steam going to their turbines. This resulted in their higher electrical efciencies compared to the two pyrolysis based BMECPs. Electricity output and hence electrical efciencies of the pyrolysis base
models are not only limited by their steam production rates but
also by the consumption of part of the electricity by auxiliary
equipment in the pyrolysis process itself (electricity is consumed
to run equipment such as pumps and compressors and also to
grind bagasse to <2 mm particle size). This explains why the electricity output and electrical efciency of the Partial Fast Pyrolysis
BMECP are higher than those of the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP as
seen in both Tables 4 and 5. The Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP pyrolyzed all input bagasse feed and hence more electricity is spent
to grind bagasse than is spent in the Partial Fast Pyrolysis BMECP
where only a fraction of the bagasse input is taken through
pyrolysis.

Table 3
Hourly process energy consumption of two sugar mills.
Process energy

Steam @ 2 bar &120 C, tons/h

Electricity, MW
KW/tch

Type of sugar mill

Less efcient mill

More efcient mill

150
6
20

120
6
20

Although the electrical efciency of both the Partial and Pure

Fast Pyrolysis BMECP are lower, their overall process efciencies
are greater than those of the combustion based models due to
the storage of feedstock energy in the pyrolysis products. These
pyrolysis based BMECP plants produce bio-oil and biochar in addition to steam and electricity. The bio-oil could be further processed
into transportation-grade fuels, electricity or used as a feedstock
for specialty chemicals production. Biochar could be processed into
activated carbon, electricity or biochar fertilizer for soil amendment thus the sugar mill can benets from the sales of pyrolysis
products or their derivatives as well savings in income which
otherwise would have been used to purchase fertilizers and chemicals for sugar processing. These pyrolysis products (bio-oil and
biochar) are high energy value products and therefore have higher
thermal energy output hence the high overall process efciencies
recorded by the pyrolysis based BMECPs. Tables 4 and 5 shows that
the overall process efciencies obtained for the various BMECP
models fall within the range of 6085% reported for CHP systems
[59]. It is also shown from Tables 4 and 5 that the two pyrolysisbased process technologies contribute more towards the mitigation of global warming and hence are more environmental friendly
than combustion technology. This is so due to the storage of carbon
in the pyrolysis products.
The highest amount of pyrolysis products that could be
achieved from the pyrolysis based BMECPs was limited by the energy demands of the sugar mill. For instance, to fully satisfy the energy requirement of the sugar mill, 70% of the input bagasse feed to
the Partial Fast Pyrolysis BMECP is combusted under the efcient
mill scenario (Table 4), while 80% is combusted under the less efcient mill scenario (Table 5). In the case of the Pure Fast Pyrolysis
BMECP energy for pyrolysis and steam production is provided
through the combustion of all the biochar produced in the process
hence leaving a net biochar production of zero. However, the pyrolysis process placed a limitation on the quantity of heat available
for steam production, due to its own heat requirement (heat is extracted to the pyrolysis reactor to run the pyrolysis process). Thus,
in the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP 46.5% and 61% of total bio-oil produced, alongside with all of the biochar, are consumed to meet the
energy needs of the efcient mill and the less efcient mill respectively. Thus for an integrated pyrolysis process within the sugar
mill it is recommended that sugar mills invest in energy integration measures such as improved heat exchanger network systems
to recover enough waste energy within the milling process. This
will lead to improved mill efciency and hence an increase in overall net pyrolysis products for sale. Also improvement in the efciency of the bagasse dewatering mill used in the sugar milling
process will ensure that bagasse leaving the mill is at a lower moisture content which directly implies an improvement in heating value/energy content. With this improvement combustion efciency
will be greatly enhanced implying that less quantity of bagasse will
be required to generate steam and electricity for sugar mill operations especially in the case of the partial fast pyrolysis BMECP thus
freeing more bagasse for the production of pyrolysis products and/
or surplus electricity for sale.
4.2. Economic performance of BMECP models
By comparing economic data for the BMECPs as presented in Tables 4 and 5, it is shown that the TCI costs for the combustion CEST
systems are signicantly greater than that of the BPST system. The
cost increases as the operating pressure of the CEST system is increased from 40 bar to 82 bar. For example, while there is about
30.75% increment in capital cost for the 40 bar CEST, the capital
cost more than double for a 82 bar CEST system (103.77% increment) under the efcient mill condition as shown in Table 4. Similar observations are also seen under the condition of the less

531

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

Table 4
Comparison of BMECP technologies performances for efcient mill.
Combustion

a
b
c

Partial Fast Pyrolysis

Pure Fast Pyrolysis

BPST

CEST

CEST

CEST

30 bar

40 bar

63 bar

82 bar

40 bar

40 bar

Steam, tons/h

161.73

159.56

153.15

150.59

128.72

123.73

Electricity
Total, MW
Export, kW/tch
CO2 savings, tons/h

24.42
61.40
27.83

27.61
72.04
31.48

31.03
83.44
35.38

31.81
86.02
36.26

16.58
35.28
40.44

11.05
16.85
41.30

By-product, tons/h
Bio-oil
Biochar

9.36
2.32

16.69 (31.20)a
0.00 (7.73)b

Energy efciency
Electrical, %
Overall, %

14.63
68.68

16.54
70.60

18.60
72.65

19.10
73.11

9.96
85.09

6.62
87.65

Economics
TCI, $ million
NPV, $ million
IRR, %
PO, yrs
PI
Total biomass, tons/h

68.54
256.16
36.31
5.01
1.49
81.00

89.65
316.81
35.39
5.14
1.53
81.00

116.58
389.97
34.51
5.26
1.58
81.00

139.67
364.64
29.98
6.08
1.50
81.00

104.72
127.44
20.76
9.10
1.23
81.00 (56.70)c

130.10
25.93
13.80
16.32
n/a
81.00

Value in bracket indicates the total bio-oil produced.

Value in bracket indicates total biochar produced from the pyrolysis reactor.
Quantity of bagasse combusted to meet mill and pyrolysis reactor energy demand.

Table 5
Comparison of BMECP technologies performances for less efcient mill.
Combustion

Pure Fast Pyrolysis

CEST

82 bar

40 bar

40 bar

150.59

152.92

152.90

28.68
75.60
32.70

30.50
81.68
34.77

20.78
49.27
38.05

15.29
30.96
38.35

6.24
1.55

12.17 (31.20)a
0.00 (7.73)b

12.82
72.03

15.14
74.34

17.17
76.38

18.28
77.48

12.45
84.36

9.16
85.86

67.80
164.71
28.38
6.46
1.34
81.00

89.39
261.35
31.64
5.89
1.47
81.00

116.43
329.95
30.80
5.91
1.49
81.00

139.03
353.49
29.62
6.16
1.50
81.00

105.94
197.74
25.42
7.26
1.34
81.00 (64.80)c

138.53
78.62
15.30
12.34
n/a
81.00

CEST

30 bar

40 bar

63 bar

161.73

159.56

153.15

21.40
51.32
24.39

25.26
64.20
28.80

By-product, tons/h
Bio-oil
Biochar
Energy efciency

Electrical, %
Overall, %
Economics
TCI, $ million
NPV, $ million
IRR, %
PO, yrs
PI
Total biomass, tons/h

Steam, tons/h
Electricity
Total, MW
Export, kW/tch
CO2 savings, tons/h

Partial Fast Pyrolysis

CEST

BPST

Value in bracket indicates the total bio-oil produced.

Value in bracket indicates total biochar produced from the pyrolysis reactor.
Quantity of bagasse combusted to meet mill and pyrolysis reactor energy demand.

efcient mill. This observation is due mainly to the high cost associated with condensing extraction systems as well as high metallurgy cost associated with operating at high pressure and
temperature since specialized materials of construction are required to withstand such elevated condition of pressure and temperature [41]. The TCI for the Partial and Pure Fast Pyrolysis models
are $104.72 million and $130.10 million, respectively, under the
efcient mill and $105.94 million and $138.53 million, respectively, under the less efcient mill. These costs are greater than
those of the combustion based BMECPs except for the two advanced CEST systems operating at 63 bar and 82 bar pressures. This
is due to the cost of additional unit operation equipment required

by the two pyrolysis based processes for bio-oil and biochar production aside those needed for steam and electricity generation
(as used in the combustion processes). For this study, a 40 bar CEST
system was used for the steam and electricity generation section of
the pyrolysis based BMECP process models which, is a possible reason why their overall total capital investment cost are lower than
those of the 63 bar and 82 bar advanced combustion systems. The
installation of advanced steam and electricity generation systems
would therefore make the TCI of both the Partial and Pure Fast
Pyrolysis BMECP plants to also exceed those of the two advanced
combustion based BMECP plants. Besides the use of advanced
higher pressure boilers in the pyrolysis models would impact

532

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

Fig. 7. Response of BMECP models to changes in bagasse and electricity prices (A bagasse price; B electricity price).

negatively on the amount of bagasse available for pyrolysis and

hence the amount of pyrolysis products generated as more bagasse/pyrolysis products would be required for combustion to satisfy the higher operating conditions of these systems.
Analysis of the investment indicators in Table 4 (efcient mill)
shows that under the economic assumptions used in this study,
the 63 bar CEST combustion based BMECP is the most favorable
option while the least favorable option is the Pure Fast Pyrolysis
BMECP based on NPV. The ranking order based on IRR and PO approaches places the 30 bar BPST combustion based models as the
most protable option followed by the 40 bar, 63 bar and 82 bar
CEST combustion based models, the Partial Fast Pyrolysis model
and the least being the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP model with
IRR of 13.8% and PO of 16.32 years. Based on PI approach, the
63 bar CEST system has the highest value of 1.58, making it the
most protable while the Pure Fast Pyrolysis models is the least
protable. Results under the less efcient mill scenario (Table 5)
puts the 82 bar CEST combustion based BMECP as most favorable
based on NPV approach. The IRR and the PO approaches favor
the 40 bar CEST BMECP, while PI tends to favor both the 63 bar
CEST and the 82 bar CEST BMECP models. Again the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP is the least economic viable option recording lowest
values of about $79 million, 15.3% and 12.34 years for NPV, IRR
and PO respectively. Comparison of the protability indicators of
the two pyrolysis based BMECPs to those of the combustion based
BMECPs indicate the pyrolysis based BMECPs are less economical.
The Partial Fast Pyrolysis BMECP is the most economic viable option to consider as far as pyrolysis implementation in the sugar
mill for steam, electricity and pyrolysis products production is
concern.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to study the response of
the various BMECP plants to changes in bagasse and electricity

prices. For both bagasse and electricity prices, a 30% change with
respect to initial values (see Table 2) was assumed and used to estimate the corresponding changes in NPV. The results are shown in
Fig. 7, which indicates that the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP is the
most susceptible to changes in bagasse and electricity prices due
to its associated high capital cost and low electricity production
rate. The 63 bar CEST BMECP is the least affected.
5. Conclusions
The study modeled and compared BMECP models based on
combustion and pyrolysis for the efcient utilization of bagasse
aimed at producing energy from bagasse to run the operations of
two sugar mill congurations (efcient and less efcient mill). Detailed BMECP models were developed in Aspen Plus and compared based on their technical and economic performances.
Process simulation in Aspen plus allowed for easy modication
and comparison of various process models and process conditions
without having to physically do pilot plant runs thus saving time
and economic value.
It was found that both the combustion based and pyrolysis
based BMECP could adequately supply the energy requirement of
the sugar mill and generate excess electricity and/or pyrolysis
products. However, the steam and electricity generation rates of
the pyrolysis based BMECP models were limited by their own energy requirement to run the pyrolysis process as well as the storage of feed energy in pyrolysis products. On the other hand,
increasing operating pressure impacted positively on electricity
production and negatively on steam production for the combustion
based BMECP models. The amounts of nal pyrolysis products from
the two pyrolysis based BMECPs were found to be dependent on
sugar mill efciency. 46.5% and 61% of total bio-oil produced by

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

the Pure fast pyrolysis BMECP under the efcient and less efcient
mill conditions respectively were consumed within the process
alongside all biochar produced to generate steam and electricity
for mill operations. For Partial fast pyrolysis BMECP, 70% and 80%
of input bagasse feed was consumed to supply the steam and electricity requirement of the efcient and less efcient mill operations
respectively. The combustion based technology proved to be the
most appropriate option when on-season or immediate electricity
production from sugar mill biomass is required as it produces more
electricity than the two pyrolysis-based technologies, especially
when advanced steam/electricity generating turbo-alternator
operating at higher pressure is used. However this technology contributes less towards CO2 savings and produces no additional high
energy valued products for off-season power production. The Partial Fast pyrolysis BMECP proved to be the most preferred option
when considering both in-season and off-season electricity production. The Pure Fast pyrolysis BMECP was found to be the least
economic viable BMECP option under current economic conditions
in South Africa, responding the most to uctuations in bagasse and
electricity prices.
References
[1] Goyal HB, Seal D, Saxena RC. Bio-fuels from thermochemical conversion of
renewable resources: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:50417.
[2] Dias OSM, Ensinas AV, Nebra SA, Filho RM, Rossell CEV, Maciel MRW.
Production of bioethanol and other bio-based materials from sugarcane
bagasse: integration to conventional bioethanol production process. Chem
Eng Res Dev 2009;87:120616.
[3] Nguyen TT, Hermansen JE, Sagissaka M. Fossil energy potential of sugar cane
bio-energy systems. Appl Energy 2009;86:1339.
[4] Lu Q, Wen-Zhi L, Xi-Feng Z. Overview of fuel properties of fast pyrolysis oils.
Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:137683.
[5] Garcia-Perez M, Shen J, Wang XS, Li Chun-Zhu. Production and fuel properties
of fast pyrolysis oil/bio-diesel blends. Fuel Process Technol 2010;91:296305.
[6] Venderbosch RH, Prins W. Fast pyrolysis technology development review.
Biofuels, Bioprod Bioren 2010;4:178208.
[7] Basu P. Biomass gasication and pyrolysis: practical design and
theory. Burlington, USA: Academic Press (Elsevier Inc.); 2010.
[8] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasication in uidized bed
reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass Energy 2008;32:124554.
[9] Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis biomass and product upgrading.
Biomass Bioenergy 2011:127.
[10] Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of
biomass. Chem Eng J 2003;91:87102.
[11] Bridgwater AV, Czernik S, Piskorz J. An overview of fast pyrolysis. In:
Bridgewater
AV,
editor.
Progress
in
thermochemical
biomass
conversion. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2001. p. 97797.
[12] Garcia-Perez M, Chaala A, Roy C. Vacuum pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse. Fuel
2002;81:893907.
[13] Tsai WT, Lee MK, Chang YM. Fast pyrolysis of rice straw, sugarcane bagasse
and coconut shell in an inductive-heating reactor. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2006;76:2307.
[14] Saxena RC, Adhikari DK, Goyal HB. Biomass-based energy fuel through
biochemical routes: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:16778.
[15] Sluiter JB, Ruiz JO, Scarlata AD, Sluiter AD, Templeton DW. Compositional
analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks. 1 Review and description of methods. J
Agric Food Chem 2010;2010(58):904353.
[16] Howard RL, Abotsi E, Jensen van Rensburg EL, Howard S. Lignocellulose
biotechnology: issues of bioconversion and enzyme production. Afr J
Biotechnol 2003;2(12):60219.
[17] Mbohwa C. Bagasse energy cogeneartion potential in the Zimbabwean sugar
industry. Renew Energy 2003;28:191204.
[18] Pippo AW, Garzone P, Conrnacchia G. Agro-industry sugarcane residues
disposal: the trends of their conversion into energy carriers in Cuba. Waste
Manage (Oxford) 2007;27:86985.
[19] Ensinas AV, Nebra SA, Lozano MA, Serra LM. Analysis of process steam demand
reduction and electricity generation in sugar and ethanol production from
sugarcane. J Energy Conver Manage 2007;48:297887.
[20] Smith GT, Davis SB, Achary M. Eighty fth annual review of the milling
season in southern Africa (20102011). Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist
Assoc 2011;84:3765.
[21] Pippo AW, Luengo CA, Feli FF, Garzone P, Cornacchia G. Energy recovery from
sugarcane biomass residues: challenges and opportunities of bio-oil
production in the light of second generation biofuels. J Renew Sust Energy
2009;1:063102.
[22] Ogden JM, Hochgreb S, Hylton M. Steam economy and cogeneration in cane
sugar factories. Int Sugar J 1990;1099(92):13143.

533

[23] Bansal RC, Donnet JB, Stoekli F. Active carbon. Marcel Dekker: New York; 1988.
In: Devnerain et al. Production of activated carbon from South African
sugarcane bagasse. Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist Assoc 2002;76:477
89.
[24] Bridgwater AV, Meier D, Radlein D. An overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass.
Org Geochem 1999;30:147993.
[25] Lavarack B, Grifn G, Rodman D. The acid hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse
hemicellulose to produce xylose, arabinose, glucose and other products.
Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:36780.
[26] Devnarain P, Arnold D, Davis S. Production of activated carbon from South
African sugarcane bagasse. Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist Assoc
2002;76:47789.
[27] Brown TR, Wright MM, Brown RC. Estimating the protability of two biochar
production scenarios: slow pyrolysis vs fast pyrolysis. Biofuels, Bioprod
Bioren 2011;5:5468.
[28] Carrier M, Hardie AG, Uras U, Gorgens J, Knoetze JH. Production of char from
vacuum pyrolysis of South-African sugar cane bagasse and its characterization
as activated carbon and biochar. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2012;96:2432.
[29] Steiner C, Teixeira W, Lehmann J, Nehls T, de Macedo J, Blum W. Lon term
effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and
fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil
2007;29(1):27590.
[30] Tenebaum D. Biochar: carbon mitigation from the ground up. Environ Health
Perspect 2009;117(2):A70.
[31] Modesto M, Zemp RJ, Nebra SA. Ethanol production from sugarcane: assessing
the possibilities of improving energy efciency through exergetic cost
analysis. Heat Transfer Eng 2009;30(4):27281.
[32] Magasiner N, Alphen C, Inkson MB, Misplon BJ. Characterising fuels for
biomass coal red cogeneration. Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist Assoc
2001:75.
[33] Hugo TJ. Pyrolysis of South African sugar cane bagasse. MScEng thesis,
Department of Process Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa;
2010.
[34] Wooley R, Putsche V. Development of an ASPEN PLUS physical property
database for biofuels components. Report MP-425-20685. NREL; April 1996.
[35] Mani S, Sokhansanj S, Tagore S, Turhollow AF. Techno-economic analysis of
using corn stover to supply heat and power to a corn ethanol plant Part 2:
Cost of heat and power generation systems. Biomass Bioenergy
2010;34:35664.
[36] Phyllis. The composition of biomass and waste denitions used in Phyllis.
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands; 2005. <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/
defs.asp> [retrieved 16.10.11].
[37] Larson ED, Williams RH, Leal MRLV. A review of biomass integrated-gasier/
gas turbine combined cycle technology and its application in sugarcane
industries, with an analysis for Cuba. Energy Sust Dev 2001;1:5576.
[38] Eberhard A. The future of South African coal: market, investment and policy
challenges. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD), Stanford,
Working paper # 100; January, 2011. <http://iss-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23082/
WP_100_Eberhard_Future_of_South_African_Coal.pdf> [retrieved 24.11.11].
[39] Mbohwa C, Fukuda S. Electricity from bagasse in Zimbabwe. Biomass
Bioenergy 2003;25:197207.
[40] European Association of National Metrology Institutes EURAMET. Metrology
for improved power plant efciency. Energy 2009 Topic 5 Version 1.0. <http//
www.emrponline.ev/energycall/docs/srt/srt05.pdf> [retrieved 20.10.11].
[41] Peters M, Timmerhaus K. Plant design and economics for chemical engineers.
5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[42] Perry R, Green D, Maloney J. Perrys chemical engineers handbook. 8th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
[43] van den Broek R, Faaij A, van Wijk A. Biomass combustion: power generation
technologies. Background report 4.1. The Netherlands: Department of Science,
Technology and Society, Utrecht University; 1995.
[44] Mcllveen-Wright DR, Williams BC, Mcmullan JT. A repraisal of wood red
combustion. Bioresour Technol 2001;76:18390.
[45] Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, et al. Process design and
economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol:
dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical, Report, NREL/TP-5100-47764; May
2011.
[46] Jenkins BM. A comment on the optimal sizing of a biomass utilization facility
under constant and variable cost scaling. Biomass Bioenergy 1997;13(1/
2):19.
[47] Botha T, Blottnitz HV. A comparison of the environmental benets of bagassederived electricity and fuel ethanol on a life-cycle basis. Energy Policy
2006;34:265461.
[48] National Energy Regulator of South Africa. Cogeneration Regulatory Rules and
Feed-in Tariffs. NERSA Consultation Paper; January 2011.
[49] Leibbrandt NH. Techno-economic study for sugarcane bagasse to liquid
biofuels in South Africa: a comparison between biological and
thermochemical process routes. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Process
Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa; 2010.
[50] Index mundi commodity prices. <http//www.indexmondi.com/commodities/
?commodity=coal> [retrieved 06.01.12].
[51] Energy Information Administration (January, 2012). <http://tonto.eia.gov/
dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPPR_PWA_NUS_DPG&f=M>
[retrieved 02.01.12].

534

F. Nsaful et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 524534

[52] Kazi FK, Fortman JA, Anex RP, Hsu DD, Aden A, Dutta A, et al. Techno-economic
comparison of process technologies for the biochemical ethanol production
from corn stover. Fuel 2010:19.
[53] Ringer M, Putsche V, Scahill J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: a
technology assessment and economic analysis. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Technical report, NREL/TP-510-37779; November, 2006.
[54] Anex RP, Aden A, Kazi FK, Fortman JA, Swanson RM, Wright MM, et al. Technoeconomic comparison of biomass-to-transportation fuels via pyrolysis,
gasication, and biochemical pathways. Fuel 2010:2935.
[55] GrantThornton South Africa. Companies tax rate; 2011. <http//
www.budget2011.co.za/budget-news/tax-schedules/companies-tax-rates>
[retrieved 05.01.12].

[56] South African Revenue Service. Budget 2009/10 Tax Pocket Guide; 2009.
<http//www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2009/guides/
Budget%20Pocketguid%202009.pdf> [retrieved 05.01.12].
[57] Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T. A manual for the economic evaluation of energy
efciency and renewable energy technologies. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Technical Report, NREL/TP-462-5173. Golden, CO.; March 1995.
[58] Garrett D. Chemical engineering economics. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold; 1989.
[59] US EPA, methods for calculating efciency. <http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/
methods.html> [retrieved 24.10.11].