RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Final Feasibility of a Corn

Stover to Jet Fuel Plant
Bio-fuel Cant Melt Steel Beams
Scott Altern, Katherine Clemente, Quentin Leitz, Seth Ludwig
Group 11
Chemical Process Design: CHME-4050-01
Instructor: Professor Bequette
Report Submitted: May 18, 2016

Executive Summary
Our companys goal is to produce commercial-grade jet fuel from corn stover at a rate of 9,870 bbl/day.
The plant will be located near Fulton, Illinois, an area with access to freshwater, railway transportation, and
corn stover from farms in Iowa and Illinois, as well as access to major airports in Chicago. In our process corn
stover will initially be dried, milled, then subjected to gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and a series of
refining steps. Quality control procedures will be implemented to ensure that our product meets the standards
for grade A jet fuel, which are provided by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Once the process was selected, we created a preliminary design of the stover-to-jet fuel gasification
plant in Aspen. Using that design, we performed an initial economic analysis. Several design changes were
made in order to increase the economic feasibility of the plant, and key risks were identified by a sensitivity
analysis. Following these iterations, we find that the distributed cash flow rate of return on the investment is
15.4%, significantly higher than the projected financing costs of 6.5%. Based on an initial capital expenditure of
$1.2 billion, the cumulative net present value of the projected future cash flow is $1.05 billion. However, this
ignores a substantial number of process, economic and political risks that could have a significant impact on
plant operations and profitability.
At this time, we do not recommend investing into the proposed plant. While our economic analysis of
the process is promising, there are substantial risks to the design basis which are outlined in detail within the
report. These risks include technological advances in gasification technology, changes in the availability of
government subsidies, and a severely depressed price of crude oil. Over the short and medium term, these
risks make the investment less attractive relative to potential alternatives. Furthermore, we believe that a
significant delay in the initial investment could substantially decrease risks for the project without compromising
the potential return.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... 1
Foreman Report ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Project Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Process Design ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Economic Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Cost and Design Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 11
Plant Layout .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Recommendations........................................................................................................................................... 16
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendices...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A ASTM Tests for Jet Fuel Quality............................................................................................. 22
Appendix B.1 Stream Tables for Figure 4.................................................................................................. 23
Appendix B.2 Stream Tables for Figure 4 Cont. ........................................................................................ 24
Appendix C Corn Stover Modeling as a Nonconventional Component ...................................................... 25
Appendix D Additional Gasifier Information ............................................................................................... 25
Appendix E Additional Water Gas Shift and F-T Synthesis Information ..................................................... 26
Appendix F.1 Additional Fractionation Column Design Information ........................................................... 27
Appendix F.2 Fractionation Column Profiles.............................................................................................. 28
Appendix F.3 Fractionation Column Diameter and Area Profiles ............................................................... 30
Appendix G Rigorous Heat Exchanger Information ................................................................................... 31
Appendix H.1 Capital Costs of Major Process Equipment ......................................................................... 32
Appendix H.2 Capital Costs of Miscellaneous Process Equipment............................................................ 33
Appendix I Fixed and Variable Costs of Production ................................................................................... 34
Appendix J Process Revenue Streams ..................................................................................................... 34
Appendix K.1 Plant Cash Flow Statement ................................................................................................. 35
Appendix K.2 Plant Cash Flow Statement (Cont.) ..................................................................................... 36
Appendix L Net Present Value vs. Time for the Original Plant Scale ......................................................... 37
Appendix M Effect of Plant Scale Up on Gross and Net Margins............................................................... 37
Appendix N Machinery and Reactor Vessel Sizing .................................................................................... 38

Foreman Report
Scott Altern | Scott Altern | Task leader for Economics

Wrote Economic Analysis

Wrote Cost and Design Analysis
Formatted economics graphs and tables
Proofread and edited

Katherine Clemente | Katherine Clemente | Task leader for Final Feasibility

Helped with References

Proofread and edited

Quentin Leitz | Quentin Leitz | Task leader for Scoping

Wrote Project Scoping

Wrote Plant Layout
Wrote References
Formatted the final report
Proofread and edited

Seth Ludwig | Seth Ludwig | Task leader for Preliminary Process Design

Wrote Executive Summary

Wrote Process Design
Wrote Recommendations
Formatted process design appendices
Proofread and edited

Project Scope
Corn stover will be purchased from local
growers in Illinois and Iowa and shipped via freight
train to our facility in Fulton, Illinois. Assuming a
maximum of five days downtime per year and 5%
feedstock losses, roughly 3.3 million tonnes/year
of corn stover will be shipped to our facility. The
total corn stover production in Iowa is found to be
67 million tonnes/year, of which the plant will
consume approximately 5%. On a country-wide
basis roughly 196 million tonnes/year are
produced, of which we will consume approximately
1.7%. The availability of corn stover is displayed
graphically in Figure 1, which makes it clear that
our plant is located at the heart of U.S. stover
production.
Corn is harvested between September and
November in Iowa, and the stover will need to be
stored for the rest of the year to allow for
continuous plant operation. Rather than collect all
of the stover at our plant, which would require an
infeasible amount of space for silos, farmers in the
area will store their stover on-site in personal silos
and ship it to us when required throughout the year.
Corn stover feedstock (9,170 tonnes/day) will be
processed into 9,780 bbl/day of jet fuel in our
facility. The main consumer of our jet fuel product
will be airlines operating out of local Chicago
OHare International Airport, the third largest airport
in the United States. We plan to ship all of our jet
fuel via freight train to Chicago to be sold to airlines
operating out of OHare, in accordance with the
IATA Aviation Fuel Supply Model Agreement. This
information is shown concisely in our value chain
(Figure 2).
As jet fuel will be going directly from our
plant to a local commercial airport, quality control
will be extremely important. The American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has supplied
Upstream: Feedstock

Figure 1 Map of Corn Stover Production in the United

States. The largest production rates (red districts) are
concentrated around our plant location in Fulton, IL.

comprehensive standards for grade A jet fuel in the

United States, covering quality aspects ranging
from acidity to sulfur content to conductivity. ASTM
has also developed rigorous testing methods to
ensure that a given sample of jet fuel meets all
specifications, and we will require a section of the
facility completely dedicated to running these tests.
A full list of necessary tests can be found in
Appendix A, and a detailed list of procedures for
each test can be found on the ASTM Compass
website.
Investigating the market potential for our
plant, we find that the total available worldwide
market for jet fuel is approximately 5.2 million
bbl/day. Assuming that the price of jet fuel
recovers from its current 10 year lows to return to
$126/bbl or $3/gal, the worldwide market is worth
$239 billion/year. Geographically the plant will
address the largest available segment of that
market in the United States, which consumes 1.4
million bbl/day and is worth $64.4 billion/year.
Due to the relatively small size of our plant and

Refining

Downstream: Distribution

Plantation

Transport

Milling

Conversion
to Jet Fuel

Jet Fuel
Distribution

Jet Fuel
Consumption

Corn Stover
sourced in
Illinois from
local growers

Shipped to
facility via
freight train

Ground up
before later
processing
steps

Gasification
& FischerTropsch
Synthesis

Shipped via
freight train to
Chicago
OHare

Sold to airlines
such as
American,
United & Delta

Figure 2 The value chain for our process. We receive corn stover from upstream growers in Illinois, refine it into jet fuel at the plant,
and then ship it to Chicago OHare International Airport for distribution.

Gasification

FischerTropsch

WATER3

40

Refining
Stages
Figure 3 Aspen Plus flowsheet of corn stover to jet fuel process. The red box contains steps involved in
pretreatment of corn stover and gasification, the green box contains the water gas shift, Rectisol acid gas
removal and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and the blue box contains the fractionation column and fuel refining
steps.

transportation
logistics,
our
serviceable
addressable market will be limited to the state of
Illinois, which has both an abundance of corn
stover as well as the sixth highest state jet fuel
consumption of 65 thousand bbl/day. This
translates to a market of almost $3 billion/year.
Roughly 15% of that market will be captured with
the singular plant, with a jet fuel revenue stream of
$444 million/year.
We expect the future growth of the aviation
industry to be beneficial towards our renewable jet
fuel sales. Currently, aviation is one of the
strongest growing transport sectors in the United
States. We expect this trend to continue for the
foreseeable future based on market forecasts,
which suggest that global aviation will grow by 5%
per year prior to 2030. The aviation industry is on
an undeniable path towards growth, and as

demand for traditional fuels increases so too will

government mandates regarding the use of
renewable and carbon neutral fuels. These
mandates will catalyze demand for our products.

Process Design
Our plant aims to efficiently convert waste
biomass, specifically corn stover, into liquid fuels
with properties comparable to currently used fuels.
Jet fuel was chosen as the target end product
because of the growing demand in both the military
and commercial sectors, as well as the current low
level of production relative to renewable energy
goals in the U.S. and Europe. Relative to bio-based
gasoline and diesel fuels, the energy density of jet
fuel is significantly more important to the industry to
maintain adequate levels of safety and flight range
5

in commercial and military aircrafts. Therefore,

biological fuel production through engineered
organisms cannot currently meet the need for
renewable jet fuel, as production of longer carbon
chains is inefficient. As such, our process uses
gasification of corn stover to produce a high energy
syngas, which can be converted to hydrocarbon
fuels by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Aspen Plus
was used to model and predict the performance of
our plant, based on a variety of theoretical and
experimental results reported in literature. The
process is split into three major areas as shown in
Figure 3: gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis,
and refining.
Gasification occurs when air and steam
react at high temperatures (>800 C) with available
carbon in biomass or other carbonaceous material.
The result is a mixture of gases (including but not
limited to CO, CO2, H2, CH4 and H2S), unreacted
solid char and ash. The supply of oxidants is
deliberately kept lower than would be required for
stoichiometric combustion, and thus CO and H2 are
preferentially produced.
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis is a catalytic
reaction converting syngas (CO and H2) into a
mixture of linear olefins and paraffins. Prior to the
FT reaction, the composition of syngas is adjusted
so that the molar ratio of H2 to CO is approximately
2.1:1 using the water gas shift reaction. Sulfur
compounds (mostly H2S) and CO2 are also
removed to avoid deactivating the catalysts used in
FT synthesis.
In the refining steps, the hydrocarbon
mixture produced by FT synthesis is modified to
increase the production of kerosene, which is the
major component of jet fuel. Further modifications
required to meet ASTM Jet Grade A material
specifications include alkylation and isomerization
to reduce the freezing point and adjust viscosity,
and aromatization to meet minimum aromatic
content.
The Aspen simulation used Peng-Robinson
with Boston-Mathias alpha function to estimate
physical properties of components. The PR-BM
EOS is recommended for mildly polar mixtures, and
gives reasonable results at all temperatures and
pressures. Details on pressure, temperature, and
mass and energy flows within the process can be
found in Appendix B.
Pretreatment of Corn Stover
Corn Stover was modeled as a
nonconventional component with ultimate and
proximate analysis shown Appendix C. Enthalpy
and density for corn stover were calculated with the
HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT Aspen methods.

Figure 4 Diagram of the internally circulating steam blown

fluidized bed gasifier used in the gasification process.
Biomass enters the gasification zone (GZ) where it
undergoes steam gasification. Char leaves the bottom of the
GZ and enters the combustion zone (CZ) where it is burned in
air. Hot solids from the CZ reenter the GZ, providing energy
to drive the process.

Moisture was removed prior to gasification by

drying the corn stover at a temperature of 150 C.
Initially, corn stover size was reduced by cutting it
into uniform 150 mm lengths to prevent a decrease
in grinding efficiency. The corn stover was then
sent through a hammer mill which ground with a
total specific energy of 103.7 MJ/Mg, hammer tip
speed of 86 m/s and a hammer thickness of 6.44
mm. Hammer mill screens of size 6.4, 3.2 and 1.6
mm were used in grinding the biomass.
Gasification of Corn Stover
The gasifier chosen was as an internally
circulating steam-blown fluidized bed gasifier, a
diagram of which is shown Figure 4. This design
separates the gasification and combustion zones
(GZ and CZ), which has the advantage of using a
heated air feed to provide oxygen for combustion
while avoiding N2 dilution of the product syngas.
High levels of N2 in the syngas will significantly
decrease the efficiency of the FT synthesis, as well
as increase the cost of compressors and heat
exchangers. Biomass is fed into a fluidized bed
reactor GZ where it is pyrolyzed and gasified with
steam. Char leaves the GZ and enters a second
fluidized bed (CZ) where it is combusted with air.
Flue gas is separated from the solids with a
cyclone, and the heated solids are returned to the
GZ, where they provide the heat to drive the
endothermic steam gasification reaction. The
Aspen Plus model of the gasifier was based on the
6

following assumptions: steady state and isothermal

operation (850 C), constant atmospheric pressure
within the gasifier, char consists only of carbon and
ash, and pyrolysis is instantaneous compared to
gasification. Further assumptions about the fluid
dynamics and solid particle size within both of the
fluidized beds were included within the kinetic
models.
The Aspen flowsheet of the gasifier is
depicted in Figure 3. In the simulation corn stover
was ground and dried then fed into an RSTOIC
reactor, which decomposed the corn stover into
elemental components based on its ultimate
analysis. A separator then sent the gaseous
components and a portion of the carbon and sulfur
to an RGIBBS reactor, which simulated initial
pyrolysis of the biomass. The remaining carbon and
sulfur, as well as unreactive ash, were sent to a
CSTR along with air and steam streams. This
reactor simulated the combustion and steam
gasification of corn stover in the CZ and lower half
of the GZ. The reaction rates and residence time
were adjusted based on experimental results of
similar gasifiers. These two processes were
combined into a single reactor due to inaccuracies
in Aspen enthalpy calculations of solid and
nonconventional components. Products of the
combustion reaction and remaining solids were
removed from this CSTR in the SOLIDS stream,
while the products of steam gasification were sent
to a second CSTR, along with the output of the
RGIBBS. The second CSTR modeled the portion of
the GZ above the fluidized bed, and therefore had
very low (our model assumes zero) solids
concentration.
The
resulting
syngas
was
approximately 39% H2, 37% CO, 12% CO2, and 9%
water with small amounts of other components,
comparable with experimental results. Additional
information on gasifier modeling can be found in
Appendix D.
F-T Synthesis of Syngas
After syngas was produced in the gasifier, it
was mixed with steam to produce a gas stream that
contained approximately 1 mole of water for every
2 moles of CO, which was directed to a water gas
shift reactor. The flow rate of steam added can be
adjusted
based
on
gas
chromatography
measurements of the H2 to CO ratio exiting the
water gas shift reactor. The water gas shift
reaction, which consumes water and CO to
produce CO2 and H2, is used to adjust the H2 to CO
ratio to ~1.9:1. The reactor was assumed to
operate isothermally at 600 C with a pressure of
1.01 bar. The reactor was modeled as a plug flow
reactor 5.3 ft in diameter and 21.2 ft long, and

was filled with an iron catalyst with a void fraction of

0.6. Details on the kinetic model for the water gas
shift reaction can be found in Appendix E.1.
Following water gas shift, a Rectisol
separation unit was used to remove sulfur and CO2
prior to entering the FT reactor. This both protected
the catalysts used in the FT reactor from damage
due to CO2 and H2S, and lowered the sulfur levels
in the final product to meet ASTM specifications.
Rectisol is commonly used for syngas cleaning,
and involves absorption of CO2 and sulfur
compounds by liquid methanol at high pressure and
low temperatures. The Aspen model for the
absorption column chosen was a RADFRAC
column operated at 35 bar with 10 theoretical
stages. The syngas was compressed and cooled
to -30 C prior to entering the bottom of the column.
A methanol stream at -35 C entered the top of the
column, with a mass flow rate approximately twice
that of the gas. The column removed 96% of the
CO2 and greater than 99% of sulfur in the liquid
stream, while retaining greater than 99% of H2 and
CO in the gas stream. Methanol can be
regenerated by a series of flashes at lower
pressures with small solvent losses.
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis converts CO and
H2 into hydrocarbons by the FT synthesis reaction
(Reaction 1 in Appendix E.1). It can be carried out
with either iron, cobalt or ruthenium-based
catalysts, and at either low (<300 C) or high (>450
C) temperatures. A low temperature reaction using
an iron catalyst was chosen for our process based
on the higher selectivity for kerosene range
products and significantly lower catalyst cost.
Furthermore, iron catalysts can carry out both FT
synthesis and the water gas shift reaction in
parallel, allowing a lower H2:CO inlet ratio and
therefore a smaller reactor to be used for the earlier
water gas shift reaction. FT synthesis is most
commonly
considered
as
a
methylene
polymerization reaction, where CO and H2 initially
react to form the methylene monomer. However,
the exact mechanism of the reaction is not well
understood. As such, an accepted rigorous kinetic
chain growth model for FT synthesis is not readily
available at this time.
A variety of simplifying assumptions have
been shown in literature to produce results in good
agreement with reported data from both
experimental and industrial sources. The basic
assumptions made for modeling the reactor were:
steady state and isothermal conditions, negligible
resistance to mass and heat transfer between the
catalyst and gas phase, negligible concentration
and temperature gradients within the catalyst, gas
7

and liquid phases in equilibrium, hydrogenation of

CO by H2 to produce the methylene monomer is
rate limiting, only linear hydrocarbons are
produced, and all alkenes produced are 1-alkenes.
Further, it is assumed that no secondary reactions
occur. That is, hydrocarbon chains that have
desorbed from the catalyst do not re-adsorb onto
the catalyst and continue reacting.
Based on these assumptions, the overall
rate of reaction was assumed to be dependent
primarily on the rate of consumption of CO through
both the FT synthesis reaction and the water gas
shift reaction. The rate of consumption of CO for
both sets of reactions is well understood and
characterized in the literature for a variety of
reaction conditions. For the water gas shift, the rate
of consumption of CO is equivalent to the rate of
product formation. FT synthesis produces a range
of hydrocarbon products. A separate model was
used to characterize the FT products with respect
to the chain length (carbon number) and the
olefin/paraffin ratio at each carbon number. It was
found that beyond 20 carbons in length (C21+), the
model predicted very low production, so
hydrocarbons beyond C20 were ignored. Individual
reactions were then built into Aspen for each
hydrocarbon product (C1-20, alkanes and 1alkenes), and reaction rate for each was scaled to
match the product distribution and CO consumption
rate. Details on kinetic modeling can be found in
Appendix E.2.
The gas exiting the Rectisol process was
adjusted to 10 bar and 270 C prior to entering the
FT reactor, which was modeled as an RPLUG
reactor. The reactor operated isothermally at 270
C, and was filled with an iron catalyst with a void
fraction of 0.65. The Beggs-Brill pressure drop
correlation was used in Aspen to calculate a
pressure drop of 0.5 bar through the reactor.
Fractionation of Bio-crude
The bio-crude products of Fischer-Tropsch
Synthesis then enter a fractionation column,
designed to separate components based on their
boiling points. This was modelled in Aspen using a
rigorous PETROFRAC block. The inlet feed
conditions were 245 C and 17 bar, conditions inline with literature regarding fractionation columns.
Three additional steam feeds were present at
different locations along the column, including the
bottom stage of the main column and the bottom
stages of the two 10-stage sidestrippers. This
steam was superheated at 315 C and 5.15 bar,
and served to increase column vapor flows. The
amounts of steam varied significantly by input
location, and were determined by scaling down a

Table 1 Results from the preliminary fractionation column

design. Three columns in series were solved for the number
of stages required at different reflux ratios.

Nmin
Rmin
R=1
R=2
R=3

Column 1
21
0.448

Column 2
9
0.394

Column 3
4
0.171

Overall
34
1.012

29
25
24

13
11
10

6
5
5

48
41
39

larger fractionation column based on our flow rates.

These flows were 2,702 kg/hr of steam to the
bottom of the fractionator, 1,187 kg/hr to one
sidestripper, and 752 kg/hr to the second.
To determine the number of stages and
locations of the various feeds/product streams for
the column, the fractionation process was initially
treated as three separate distillation columns in
series (Appendix F.1). These distillation columns
had target product stream purities of 85%-95%, and
target stream recoveries of 85%-99% based on
results from a non-rigorous simulation with an
SCFRAC block. The compositions of these
streams, combined with K-values obtained by
flashing the crude feed at different temperatures
according to component boiling points, allowed for
calculation of the minimum number of stages and
minimum reflux ratio for each of the three distillation
columns. These calculations were done using the
equations shown in Appendix F.1, and the resulting
column parameters are shown in Table 1 along with
the actual number of stages necessary for larger
reflux ratios, found via the Erbar-Maddox
Correlation. It was found that increasing the reflux
ratio from 1 to 2 reduced the number of stages by
15% and increased liquid flow throughout the
column; so, we proceeded with R = 2 and N = 41 in
our rigorous column design. We also determined
the feed location to be at stage 28 via the Kirkbride
Equation.
However, upon fully specifying the
PETROFRAC block in Aspen, we found that our
column specifications would be infeasible due to
the addition of superheated steam to the column.
These feeds increased vapor flows significantly
more than predicted from our non-rigorous
correlations, to the point where stages within the
column dried up and the Aspen simulation failed to
converge. To counteract this effect we increased
the reflux ratio to R = 3 and added two
pumparounds,
which
reduced
the
liquid
temperature at specified column stages and
increased the overall flow of liquids. The resulting
8

Table 2 Results from the rigorous fractionation column design. Stream purities of 85% are observed following simple
water decants, with stream recoveries ranging from 70% to 99.9%. It is clear that separating the middle key components
was the most difficult step, and further optimization could be performed to improve results.

Components
Tops (C1-C2)
Mids (C3-C5)
Mids2 (C6-C8)
Bottoms (C9-C20)
Water

Units
FTPRODS
KMOL/HR
532.32
KMOL/HR
390.26
KMOL/HR
179.907
KMOL/HR
200.812
KMOL/HR
0
Recovery
Purity
Purity w/o H2O

fully specified column generated profiles shown in

Appendix F.2, with stream purities and recoveries
shown in Table 2.
Some additional important quantities were
found following proper convergence of the
fractionation column. Chief among these was the
kettle reboiler heat duty of 28.7 MMBTU/hr and
partial condenser heat duty of 30.8 MMBTU/hr.
These were in the range expected for a
fractionation column handling our amount of
hydrocarbons. The partial condenser for the
fractionator was rigorously designed using Aspens
Exchanger Design tool. A BEL type heat exchanger
with hot fluid on the tube side was designed based
on the specifications calculated from the
PETROFRAC block, using 40% ethylene glycol at 40 C as the coolant. Additional information on heat
exchanger sizing can be found Appendix G. For the
fractionation column, we were also able to
determine dimensions through Aspens Tray Sizing
utility. The column diameter was found to be 3.3 m,
and the height was found to be 25 m. We took a
fractional approach to flooding of 0.85, a
downcomer area fraction of 0.12, and a system
over-design factor of 1.2. Sieve trays were used
for all column stages, and the diameter profile can
be found in Appendix F.3.
Alkylation of Light Key Fractionation Components
Products of the aromatization process need
to be alkylated to reach the freezing point
specifications of jet fuel. This process was modeled
by an equilibrium reactor in which C3-C5 alkenes
reacted with aromatics over a solid phosphoric acid
catalyst at 160 C and 34 bar. We assumed that
oligomerization of alkenes could be neglected and
that alkenes would react with the least sterically
hindered location on the benzene ring. Based on
the literature, it is reasonable to assume that all

BOTTOMS
4.975E-11
1.236E-05
3.194E-01
180.944
2.6366
0.9010646
0.9839264
0.998238

MIDS2
7.95E-07
2.9365
127.033
19.8674
18.388
0.706105
0.755137
0.847809

MIDS
0.7162
303.56
52.554
1.66E-06
43.166
0.777849
0.75891
0.850715

TOPS
531.60
83.760
0.000812
1.39E-14
0.0278
0.998655
0.863845
0.863884

alkylation will occur on the 2-carbon of the 1alkene.

Oligomerization of Mid Key Components
Oligomerization extends alkenes in the
range of C3-C9 by contacting them over a solid
phosphoric acid catalyst at 185 C and 50 bar,
conditions specified in the patent for our refining
process. We modeled these reactions using an
RYIELD reactor, and assumed 85% alkene
conversion for C3-C7 which has been shown in
literature. This source also stated that very little
alkene conversion takes place at C10 and above;
so, we assumed there would be no conversion for
C10+ and intermediate conversions for C8-C9 of
57% and 28% respectively.
Hydrocracking of Heavy Key Components
Hydrocracking breaks alkanes in the C20+
range while promoting isomerization of alkanes in
the C11-C20 range. Isomerization is necessary to
lower the freezing point to meet jet fuel
specifications. The process is carried out at 45 bar
and 330 C over a PT/SiO2 catalyst and an
H2/C10+ ratio of 0.1 kg/kg. We assumed that only
C20+ were cracked, and that isomerization took
place for C11-C20 with yields described in the
literature. Side chains were assumed to form on the
3 carbon.
Aromatization of Processed Crude
Aromatization reactions were incorporated
to meet product specifications for aromatic content.
Due to the number and complexity of the reactions
involved, an RGIBBS reactor was used in Aspen for
conversion of C1-C8 hydrocarbons into benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (including the
ortho, meta and para stereoisomers). Naphthalene
was not produced as an end product due to its
negative effect on the smoke point of jet fuel
product.
9

Hydrotreatment of Processed Crude

A hydrotreatment unit was implemented into
our process as a refining step to hydrogenate
medium to heavy key effluent carbon products
(C9+). The hydrotreatment unit also effectively
removed oxygenates, resulting in a higher quality
kerosene product. The hydrogenated C6-C8
naphtha stream leaving the hydrotreater was also
used as a feed to the aromatization unit. This
process was carried out at 300 C and 40 bar using
an RSTOIC reactor block in Aspen.

Economic Analysis
Our company determined the total fixed
capital cost of a 9,870 bbl/day throughput jet fuel
facility to be $1.2 billion. This included all costs
inside battery limits (ISBL), and outside battery
limits (OSBL), as well as engineering, contingency,
and working capital for the plant. ISBL costs were
based on a combination of Aspen Plus Economic
Analysis feature, existing cost correlations from a
variety of sources, and custom-made cost
correlations from data for similar unit operations.
Some literature sources specified costs which
included uninstalled and installed costs within the
calculations; uninstalled and installed costs for
these operations appear as N/A within the capital
cost table in Appendix H.1, and only total costs are
reported. Inflation was accounted for based on
publication dates of source material when
applicable.
Materials
were
chosen
for
cost
effectiveness as well as safety. The cheapest
construction material (material factor of 1) is carbon
steel, which is used for a large portion of the
various operations. This material was insufficient
for some operations, including the gasifier due to
high temperatures, the acid-gas absorption column
due to the presence of corrosive hydrogen sulfide,
and the alkylation unit due to the corrosive solid
phosphoric acid catalyst. For these operations,
materials were chosen to withstand the operating
conditions and maintain the safety of our operators.
In Appendix H.2, there are more details
regarding the costs contained within the
Miscellaneous Equipment section of the table in
Appendix H.1. These costs come from Aspen Plus
Economic Analysis feature. Chains of compressors
and heat exchangers were designed to keep feeds
within
safe
operating
temperatures
for
compressors, and ensured that safety was
maintained.

Table 3 Corn stover to jet fuel plant estimated capital

expenditures. ISBL costs were determined by cost
correlations, and others as a percentage of ISBL.

Inside Battery Limits (ISBL)

$582,000,000
Outside
BatteryLimits
Limits (OSBL)
$233,000,000
Inside Battery
$582,000,000
Engineering
$163,000,000
Outside Battery Limits
$233,000,000
Contingency
$122,000,000
Engineering
$163,000,000
Working
Capital
$87,300,000
Contingency
$122,000,000
Total
Capital
Expend.
Working
Capital

$1,187,300,000
$87,300,000

Total Capital Expend.

$1,187,300,000
multiplying
the
appropriate
Table By
3 Corn
stover to jet
fuelISBL
capital by
expenditures,
factors,
calculated
webycalculated
multiplyingthe
ISBLOSBL
cost byas
appropriate
well as costs
factors.
associated
with the engineering of our plant, shown
in Table 3. Additionally, we calculated contingency
costs to account for delays in scheduling and last
minute changes, and working capital costs for
purchasing feedstock, catalysts, etc. This working
capital will be returned at the end of the plants life,
assuming that it remains relatively constant over
the 20 year period. A plot of capital costs as a
function of feedstock consumption for similar
gasification plants is provided in Figure 5, and
shows that our capital cost estimates are
comparable to existing plants. It should be noted
here that our plant is larger than most biomass
gasification plants, but smaller than their coal
based analogs.
Yearly fixed and variable costs of production
were estimated at $118.5 million and $240.1
million respectively (Appendix I). Maintenance
costs were calculated assuming 5% of ISBL per
year for unit operations involving solids handling
(pretreatment and gasification), and 3% per year for
all other units. Property taxes were calculated at
2% of capital costs. The number and compensation
for plant operators, as well as shipping costs, were
determined by correlations in Towler and Sinnott.
All other costs, including utilities, catalysts,
feedstock and solvents were based on a mixture of
market data and existing cost correlations.
Revenue streams of kerosene and various
side products were estimated at $572.1
million/year (Appendix J). Selling prices were
estimated based on average prices during the time
between 2008 and 2014, which correspond to
approximately $3/gallon of jet fuel. We assumed
that recent weakness in the price of crude oil would
not persist long term, and that prices would revert
back towards $100/bbl of crude oil during plant
operation. Continued weakness in crude prices
would delay plant operations indefinitely. Also
included in this table are the tax credits (federal
biofuel subsidies), which currently amount to
$1/gallon for kerosene and naphtha products.
10

Capital Cost (MM$)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000

500

y = 4.659x0.5896
R = 0.9325

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Plant Size (Tonnes Biomass Fed/Day)

Figure 5 Plot of capital costs as a function of feedstock consumption for similar gasification plants. At the
top of the plant size range are primarily coal gasification plants, while at the bottom of the range are primarily
biomass gasification plants. Our plant is represented by the red square.

gross margin of 36% in 2013. While not directly

comparable due to differences in feedstock, scale
and location, similar margins lend some support to
the fidelity of the economic analysis.
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
($500)
($1,000)
($1,500)

NCCF
NPV

Cumulative Cash Flow

(MM$)

Assuming that subsidies remain constant, they

account for an additional $180.3 million/year in
revenue. The future of these subsidies is uncertain,
as they are scheduled to expire at the end of 2016.
The extent to which these subsidies are available in
the future will be strongly dependent on the future
political and fiscal environment in the US. Total
annual revenue including subsidies was $752.5
million.
Financing for the plant was assumed to
consist of 70% debt and 30% equity. The debt is
paid off over the 20 year life of the plant at an
annual interest rate of 5%, and the loan repayment
period is included in Appendix K. The cost of equity
financing was assumed to be 10%, giving a
weighted average cost of capital of 6.5%.
Construction of the plant was assumed to take 3
years, with capital costs split 30%, 50% and 20%
between each respective year. Plant operations are
slated to begin during the second year of
construction at 30% of planned throughput, with full
operation beginning in year 4.
Cumulative yearly cash flows for the plant
design are presented in Figure 6. Net cumulative
cash flows (NCCF) over the planned 20 year life of
the plant are estimated to be $3.3 billion. The net
present value (NPV) of the plant is estimated to be
$1.05 billion based on a discount rate of 6.5%. The
payout period is approximately 10 years, and the
discounted cash flow rate of return is 15.4%.
Calculated gross and net margins based on a 40%
nominal tax rate are 36.1% and 30.8%. Sasol Ltd.,
which operates coal-to-liquids gasification facilities
in South Africa, reported that its synfuels unit had a

10

15

20

Year
Figure 6 Cumulative yearly cash flows for our plant over 20
years of operation. The break-even point based on Net Present
Value is approximately 10 years. The small spike at year 20 is
due to the return of our working capital.

Cost and Design Analysis

Included here is a summary of plant design
modifications made based on the initial economic
analysis. Potential modifications were evaluated
based on their effects on both the economic and
process design considerations. Several changes
were implemented to improve the economic
feasibility of the plant design.
11

60%

% Change in NPV

40%
20%
0%
-100%
-20%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

-40%

Sale Price
Production Rate
Byproducts
Subsidies

-60%
-80%
-100%

% Change in Input

% Change in NPV

100%
50%
0%
-100%
-50%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

-100%
-150%
-200%

Fixed Capital Cost

-250%

Construction Time

-300%

Interest Rate

% Change in Input
20%

% Change in NPV

After the initial process design and

economic analysis was completed, an analysis of
the sensitivity of the Net Present Value (NPV) to
changes
in
a
variety
of
factors
was
performed. Figure 7 shows the effects of a variety
of factors relating to revenues, capital costs and
manufacturing costs on the plant NPV. The NPV is
most strongly affected by changes in capital costs,
followed by production rate and fuel sale prices.
The strong effect on NPV from capital costs
suggested that modifying the process to reduce
capital costs would improve economic feasibility. It
was also observed that production rate had a
stronger effect on NPV than variable costs of
production (based on feedstock and utilities, which
make up majority of variable costs). This suggested
that increasing the plant throughput could further
improve profitability, provided that we could take
advantage of the flattening capital cost curve.
In order to reduce capital costs, our plant
was re-designed to eliminate a power generation
system as well as an air separation unit. The
overall cost of the power generation unit, taking into
account principal and interest payments over the 20
year plant life, was found to greatly exceed its
economic returns through energy savings. It was
removed from the plant design as a result, reducing
ISBL costs by 32%. The air separation unit was
originally used to provide a pure oxygen feed to the
gasifier, which allowed combustion and steam
gasification to occur in the same reactor bed
without diluting the syngas with N2. Removing it
reduced gasification efficiency by 10% due to
separate the combustion chamber, but this
drawback was accounted for through a 10%
increase in corn stover feedstock requirements
which was less expensive over the plant life than
the air separation unit. Removal of air separation
resulted in an 8% reduction in ISBL costs. These
reductions are shown concisely by Figure 8, where
the air separation unit is included within the
gasification capital costs.
The impact of increasing plant throughput
was initially investigated by estimating capital and
operating costs for plants with throughput scaled up
by factors of 7.5, 15 and 25 respectively. Larger
scaling factors were not considered due potential
difficulties in procurement and storage of corn
stover feedstock. Current production of corn stover
in the state of Iowa is 67 million tonnes/year, of
which we would consume as much as 5% at a
scale-up factor of 25. Due to uncertainties related
to production rates related to the process changes
mentioned, initial estimates for scaled up capital
costs were based a power law growth with an

10%
0%
-100%
-10%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

-20%
-30%
-40%

Feedstock Cost
Utilities

-50%

% Change in Input
Figure 7 Sensitivity of the corn stover to jet fuel plants 20year Net Present Value (NPV) to changes in factors related to
revenues (top), capital investment (middle) and manufacturing
costs (bottom). The plant is most sensitive to changes in
capital costs, production rate, and fuel prices.

12

Pre-Corrections

Power gen.
Gasification
Refining
Misc. Equip.
F-T
Pretreatment
Water-Gas Shift
Acid-Gas
Frac Col

$1,000.00

NPV (MM $)

Post-Corrections

$500.00
$0.00
($500.00)
1x
7.5x
15x
25x

($1,000.00)
($1,500.00)
$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

exponent of 0.7 in an effort to provide a wider

margin for error. Manufacturing costs were scaled
linearly by the scale-up factor. Resulting estimates
for NPV are shown in Figure 9, in which increasing
throughput significantly improves the NPV, which
we attribute to the flattening capital cost curve. A
scaling factor of 25 was chosen due to the
substantial improvement in profitability and wider
margin of safety.
Following these estimates, the process was
modified in Aspen to take into account the
elimination of the air separation and power
generation unit operations and scaled up by a
factor of 25. The revised Aspen process flows were
used to recalculate capital and manufacturing
costs. It was found that capital costs increased from
$142 million to $1.2 billion after the scale-up.
Yearly fixed costs of production rose from $9.9
million to $118 million, while variable costs of
production rose from $8 million to $240 million, so
that overall manufacturing costs increased by a
factor of 20. Total yearly revenue (not including
subsidies) increased from $24 million to $572
million, a factor of close to 24. Including subsidies,
the NPV of the plant after 20 years went from a loss
of $103 million to a gain of $1.05 billion.
We also investigated the dependence of the
plant on government subsidies. Our economic
analysis assumes that subsidies remain near the
$1/gallon rate for biofuels. It was found that the
breakeven point of our plant based on NPV
requires subsidies of at least $0.37/gallon. As a
result, it is vital for our operation that the current
political climate in the United States supports the
green energy agenda. Additionally, an analysis of
fuel prices was performed. Relative to our

10

15

20

Year

Capital Costs ($)

Figure 8 Reduction in plant ISBL costs after removal of
power generation and an air separation unit. These two
changes resulted in a 40% reduction in ISBL costs,
significantly increasing plant viability.

Figure 9 Estimate of Net Present Value (NPV) over 20 years of

operation given various scale-up factors. Scaling up the plant
has a positive effect on the quality of the investment.

economic analysis, which assumed fuel prices of at

least $3/gallon of jet fuel, the NPV breakeven point
occurs at a price of $2.19/gallon jet fuel.

Plant Layout
To produce the final layout of our plant,
shown in Figure 10, two major considerations were
weighted. First and foremost among these
considerations was safety. At Bio-fuel Cant Melt
Steel Beams, we believe that the safety of both our
operators as well as the surrounding communities
should be our highest priority. For that reason, care
was taken throughout design to ensure that risks
were mitigated and a superb level of safety was
maintained. Another important consideration was
efficiency. While subscribing to safety regulations,
we wanted our plant to be as efficient as possible in
order to minimize losses and in turn generate a
profit for our stockholders. We weighted these two
design tenets responsibly, and we feel the resulting
plant layout remains true to both.
The first major decision during plant design
was location. We were primarily concerned with
adequate access to both feedstock as well as
consumers at our specified market of Chicago
OHare International Airport. We additionally
needed to ensure that our plant had access to
various utilities necessary for operation, including
electricity, fresh water, and other social services.
The simplest and most efficient solution to this
problem was to locate the plant near a large city,
capable of providing the services required.
However, the plant could not be placed too close to
the city or it might compromise the safety of those
13

WGS, Acid-gas,
and F-T syn.

Product Train

Pretreatment
and Gasification

Stover Storage

Feedstock
Train

Control Room
Quality Testing
Laboratory

Fuel Storage
Area

Remaining four
refining steps and
Control Room

Fractionation and
Hydrocracking

Cantina, Change
House, and
Stover Testing
Laboratory

Scale 500 ft long

and 50 ft wide
Firehouse
Visitor Lot and
Security Checkpoint

Figure 10 Aerial view of the corn stover to jet fuel plant layout. The plant runs North-South, parallel to a set of train tracks
which are not shown. All machinery components and reactor vessels were created to scale (sizes in Appendix N) in Google
SketchUp 2016, along with all other ancillary buildings necessary for plant operation. These vessels were placed in order to
maximize both safety and efficiency, while adhering to government regulations. Also not shown are the flare stacks, which
burn off hydrocarbons in the event of a plant malfunction.

living nearby. Weighing the risks and rewards, we

decided to locate the plant five miles southeast of
Fulton, Illinois, on a plot of land adjacent to two
railroads as well as U.S. Route 30. With this
location we have access to sufficient transportation
for our feedstock and products, utilities from Fulton,
and most importantly are preserving the safety of
those adjacent to our plant.
Another important quality of our specified
plant location is empty space. Because our plant
will be located in what is currently a large corn field,
the area surrounding our plant is empty for
approximately one thousand feet in all directions
except for the farm from which we will be
purchasing the land. This emptiness is beneficial
for both our business as well as the surrounding
community. For the business, additional space
means that there is ample room for further plant
development and expansion. This is a feature
severely lacking at many chemical refineries
around the world, and we want to take a
preventative stance against limited design space
from the plants inception. For the surrounding
community, surplus space is beneficial for safety
reasons. In the event of any kind of leak or fire, the
few inhabitants of the surrounding area will have
more time to escape the potentially dangerous
situation; chemical diffusion into the surrounding
area will take more time. Extra space will also help
reduce noise pollution on a day-to-day basis,

minimizing the disruption our plant might cause to

our neighbors in Fulton.
With the location chosen, we began laying
out the major operations of the plant. This was
done using a common heuristic for plant layouts,
which states that process units should be laid out to
give an economical flow of materials and
personnel. With this in mind, we selected an overall
direction of flow from feedstock to products which
would take place in the plant. The primary
consideration with this decision was convenience,
where we wanted a logical flow of materials parallel
to the north-south railroad adjacent to our plant.
Using that vector we started laying out plant
operations, initially by their respective sizes which
are shown in Appendix N. The first of these
operations was the transport of feedstock, which
required an on-property main railway with a loading
platform for transfer from train cars to our corn
stover silos. According to safety regulations, an onproperty railway must be at least 100 feet from
storage facilities handling flammables. For this
reason we positioned our silos 150 feet from the
train landing which, in addition to reducing process
fire hazards, allowed space for the miscellaneous
equipment necessary to handle the solid feedstock.
The next step was to lay out the remainder
of the pretreatment and gasification processes, the
first major units in our plant (Figure 3). The key
consideration with these decisions was the space
14

between different machinery components: three

dryers, two hammer mills, and three gasifiers.
These needed to be sufficiently far apart to allow
for more solids handling equipment and the
reduction of fire hazards, but relatively close to
ensure that process efficiency did not suffer. A
distance of 50 feet was chosen between all units of
these three operations, with an additional 50 feet
between units and the on-site roadway. The control
room was located within the same quadrant of the
plant, 150 feet from any major piece of equipment
in order to ensure the safety of the operators. Some
space was left unused to allow for potential future
expansion.
The next plant operation was FischerTropsch synthesis, which required a water-gas shift
reactor, two acid-gas absorption columns, and
three FT reactor vessels. In designing this
operation the key consideration was efficiency, as
none of the units were particularly high risk. For this
reason the acid-gas absorption columns and water
gas shift reactor, which can share various pipes,
pumps, and heat exchangers, were located more
closely to one another. Distances between these
units range from 30 to 40 feet, with a distance of
50 feet to any of the three large-footprint FT reactor
vessels. An area of 60 by 65 feet was allocated for
a methanol recycling unit, its size based on
overhead photographs of other chemical plants. In
compliance with safety regulations, all of these
units were located at least 50 feet from the nearest
on-site roadway. The control room for these units
was positioned across the roadway in our next
plant quadrant, which keeps all units within an easy
walking distance of 200 feet. It should be noted that
while there is little room remaining in the FT
synthesis quadrant, the operation is largely modular
and capacity could be expanded through
construction of an additional unit to the east.
The next plant operation consisted of a
fractionation column followed by a multitude of
refining steps. While the column was one of the
tallest units of our design, it did not have a large
plant footprint. For that reason, it was positioned 40
feet from the nearest on-site roadway, with a small
amount of space for its pumparounds, condenser
and reboiler, and two sidestrippers. Additional room
was allocated for more fractionation columns such
that our capacity could be at least doubled if
necessary; and, there was still sufficient space
available for one refining operation on the same
plot of land. Hydrocracking of the high temperature
(381 C) bottom fractionation products was
selected due to its need for special pipes and
safety precautions. Limiting these conditions to one

specific area of the plant both reduced risk for our

operators and reduced costs because we could
purchase fewer of the highly resistant and
expensive pipes.
The other refining steps, which were highly
interconnected by design, were positioned to allow
for the most logical flow of materials through the
system. The aromatization reactor, which uses the
products of hydrocracking as its inputs, was
positioned as close as possible to the hydrocracker.
The next two units were the alkylation and
oligomerization reactors, which manipulate the
lighter and heavier mid-key fractions from the
fractionation column, respectively. These were
positioned near the fractionator, again to minimize
the amount of piping necessary and reduce capital
costs. The final refining operation was the
hydrotreatment unit, which had a very large plant
footprint due to its long residence time and its
connections to many of the other operations. This
was given additional floor space to compensate,
and sits on a plot of about 125 by 180 feet. The
control room for all of the refining stages was
positioned 50 feet away from the limits of operation
piping and at least 100 feet away from all reactor
vessels. Additionally, the operations were placed at
least 50 feet away from any on-site roads. While
there is little free space within the laid-out refinery
plot for extra units, more machinery could be added
to the east or west where there is an abundance of
free space.
The final part of the plant layout was
storage and shipment of products. Typical storage
requirements for several days of plant capacity
were fulfilled using a series of large tanks, which
were significantly over-designed to reduce the risk
of overflow in the event of mistakes with train
scheduling. These tanks were positioned at least
25 feet apart from one another and at least 50 feet
from the nearest road in accordance with safety
regulations. For the tanks closest to the refining
stages of our plant, we stipulated a minimum
distance of 200 feet between tanks and refinery
reactor vessels. This ensured that our storage
tanks would remain intact in the event of a
malfunction within a previous unit. A second on-site
main railway with a loading bay was positioned
adjacent to the chemical storage tanks for
convenient loading, with a distance of 175 feet
between the tank and railway areas to reduce fire
hazards.
To
complete
our
design,
a
few
miscellaneous structures were added throughout
the plant. The most important of these was the
firehouse, which retains a crew of trained fire safety
15

officers year-round to ensure that flammability risks

within our plant are mitigated. This building was
positioned adjacent to the main roadway of the
plant and located roughly 400 feet from the
gasifiers, the main fire hazards in the plant. Two
other key structures were the quality testing labs,
one of which was located near the incoming
feedstock train and the other of which was located
near the fuel storage and outgoing product train.
These monitor the chemical composition of the
biomass feedstock and the product fuels,
respectively, and ensure that our products meet the
standards set by the American Society for Testing
and Materials. Not shown in Figure 10 is the
multitude of flare stacks, which will be constructed
at least 200 feet downwind of the rest of the plant.
These will work to burn off any excess
hydrocarbons in the event that other valves need to
be shut or vessel pressures need to be reduced.
Other important facilities include a security
checkpoint, a visitor lot for guests to the plant,
appropriately spaced employee parking lots, and
fire hydrants every 200 feet according to fire
prevention regulations. Several small, blast
resistant safe zones were added throughout the
plant, which serve to protect our operators in the
event of malfunctions.

Recommendations
Based on the design basis described in this
report, the distributed cash flow rate of return on
the investment is 15.4%, substantially higher than
our projected financing costs of 6.5%. Based on an
initial capital investment of $1.2 billion, the
cumulative net present value of the projected future
cash flows are $1.05 billion. However, this
number ignores a substantial number of process,
economic and political risks that could have a
significant impact on plant operations and
profitability.
Our plant design, based on conversion of
solid biomass to liquids via gasification and
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, is an efficient method of
producing liquid hydrocarbons. Compared to
ethanol, which makes up the majority of current
biofuel production, longer hydrocarbons have a
higher energy density. Our process, therefore,
eliminates the dilution of the energy density of
existing fuels (a common problem in ethanolgasoline mixtures), which is essential for jet fuel
applications to maintain range and cargo capacity
of commercial/military aircrafts. In addition, our
process produces biofuels that meet the same
specifications as traditional jet fuel sources,

eliminating the need for lengthy compatibility testing

and potential redesign of engines prior to use.
Gasification also allows efficient use of waste
biomass (such as corn stover) as a feedstock, a
common problem with other ethanol processes
which use corn grain.
An overall energy analysis of the process
was performed, which included energy usage for
plant operations, transportation of feedstock and
products, and growth and harvesting of corn stover
for our process. The energy cost of the overall
process is approximately 25,000 BTU/kg products
(where products include mainly jet fuel, but also
naphtha, propane and natural gas produced as
byproducts). The energy content of fuels produced
by the plant is 41,800 BTU/kg, of which
approximately 60% comes from jet fuel. The net
energy production of the gasification process is
approximately
16,800
BTU/kg
products.
Considering the purpose of our plant is to produce
fuel, strong positive net energy production is an
important benefit of the process.
Important risks of our proposed process
include both health and safety hazards as well as
technical aspects of the plant design. Every stage
of the process includes significant fire hazards, and
risk mitigation strategies must adapt to the
changing process conditions. Corn stover will be
stored separately from the majority of plant unit
operations. Standard storage silos will be airtight to
limit the amount of oxygen available should an
internal fire start. Drying and grinding the corn
stover into particles will occur as needed to feed
the gasifiers to further reduce fire hazards. Since
energy for gasification is provided by combustion,
the air stream to the combustion zone will have a
fail close valve to help prevent rapid temperature
increases. The outlet gas streams will have fail
open valves leading to flare towers to prevent
pressure buildup, and multiple redundant pressure
sensors will be installed.
Syngas produced by the gasifier is both a
fire hazard (due to hydrogen) and a toxicity hazard
(due to carbon monoxide). Close monitoring of
temperature and pressure of the syngas during the
process is vital, particularly as it may auto-ignite
above 600 C. Carbon monoxide detectors installed
around the equipment should give early warning of
potential leaks. Long term storage of syngas is not
recommended, and flare stacks should be placed to
burn off excess gas if pressure or temperature
increase substantially. Similar precautions should
be taken during the refining stages. Storage
conditions of hydrocarbon liquids and natural gas
should be setup to bleed off excess pressure or
16

temperature into empty tanks, and then to

additional flare towers using fail open valves.
Beyond ensuring the safety of our plant
operators, we also want to protect the surrounding
community. The plant does not operate in a
vacuum, and we have an obligation to our
neighbors in Fulton, Illinois to perform our
processes in good faith without causing them any
unnecessary harm. For that reason we recommend
that safety alarms be placed throughout the
surrounding community, and that its members be
informed of the meanings of different alarms. In the
event of any hazardous situation we want the
community members to understand what is
happening and be able to protect themselves, while
we work to resolve the problem within the plant.
Gasifier efficiency is also a significant risk to
the process. Our gasifier simulation was built on
data from mostly small-scale gasifiers and
theoretical models. In particular, transport
properties within the gasifier were only partially
considered. Combined with potentially highly
variable corn stover compositions, the carbon
conversion efficiency and syngas composition may
vary widely during actual operation. Regular
measurement of syngas composition by gas
chromatography could be used for the adjustment
of later unit operations to mitigate the effects of
these fluctuations. A further analysis of transport
properties and dynamics of gasifiers is also
essential to ensure effective control of the
gasification unit.
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is another area
where significant deviations from our model may
occur. Hydrocarbon product distributions vary
widely with the reactor conditions, catalyst
effectiveness and syngas composition. Regularly
adjusting syngas composition using the prior water
gas shift reactor and Rectisol column is one
method to reduce the variability of FT synthesis.
Specifically, syngas composition after the water gas
shift can be used to control the steam flow rate, and
a valve should be positioned to allow syngas to
bypass the water gas shift reactor. A strong
process understanding of the refining stages can
also be used to adjust for variations in FT product
distributions. In addition, a closer analysis of
catalyst effectiveness and lifetime should be
undertaken.
The major risks for our process are
economic and political risks related to technology
changes, fuel costs, and green energy policies. As
biofuels and green energy are a newly emerging

industry with limited historical data, the industry is

characterized by rapid technology changes. While
we are confident that gasification is a viable
process for biofuel production in the current
technological environment, it is probable that
significant advances in the next 10-15 years could
rapidly change the viability of gasification for fuel
production.
Furthermore, the price of crude oil has
dropped by over half its previous value in the last
two years; and, while it has recently recovered, the
price is still significantly lower than historical norms.
While it is possible that oil prices will recover their
losses over the next few years, the increase in
alternative oil sources, such as fracking, and the
recent disarray in OPEC members suggests that it
may take years for prices to recover to previous
highs. As the economic viability of the gasification
plant relies on crude prices recovering to near
$100/bbl, delaying the project until oil prices begin
to recover is recommended. For example, jet fuel
prices need to triple from their current levels of
roughly $1/gallon jet fuel for the plant to be viable.
At minimum, we recommend an in-depth analysis
of economic factors affecting fuel prices over the
next few decades.
Finally, our reliance on subsidies introduces
significant political risks to the potential return of the
biofuels plant. The political environment in the US
has been friendly to green energy initiatives for
several years, but budget constraints and changes
in political leadership may jeopardize some or all of
the subsidies currently offered to biofuel
producers. One potential drawback to gasification
in this area is the relatively high level of CO2
emissions, which may cause problems if future
political efforts focus on reducing greenhouse
gases rather than establishing renewable fuel
sources. Though our process can remain profitable
at subsidies 40% lower than currently provided, it
would be prudent to wait until a clearer view of
future green energy initiatives is available.
At this time, we do not recommend
commencing final design and construction on a
biomass to liquids plant using corn stover as a
feedstock for jet fuel refining. While our economic
analysis of the process is promising, there are
substantial risks to the design basis over the short
and medium terms which make the investment less
attractive relative to potential alternatives. A
significant delay in the initial investment could
substantially decrease risks for the project without
compromising the potential return.

17

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.

13.

14.
15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Agricultural Statistics Board. (1997, December). Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S. Field Crops. Retrieved February 7, 2016,
from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/planting/uph97.pdf
Accellerase. (2016). Global Sources of Cellulosic Biomass: An Introduction for Non-Scientists. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from
http://accellerase.dupont.com/global-sources-of-biomass/
All Metals & Forge Group. (2013). HASTELLOY C. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://www.steelforge.com/hastelloy-c/
AMC. (2013). Current Chemical Safety Regulations. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Chemical-Safety/Chemical-Safety-Regulations
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2011). 2010 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - An International Code. New
York, NY: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Amos, W. A. (1998). Report on Biomass Drying Technology. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved March 30, 2016,
from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/25885.pdf
ASTM International. (2016). ASTM Compass, Your Portal for Standards, Testing, Learning, & More. Retrieved February 9, 2016,
from http://compass.astm.org/CUSTOMERS/filtrexx40.cgi?index.frm
Bachman, G. (2012, May 24). Water reuse, recycling, conservation in manufacturing. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from
http://sustainablemfr.com/water/water-reuse-recycling-conservation-manufacturing
Basu, P. (2010). Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: Practical design and theory [Knovel]. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Retrieved February 9, 2016, from http://tinyurl.com/z28vwus
Bellussi, G., Mizia, F., Calemma, V., Pollesel, P., & Millini, R. (2012). Oligomerization of olefins from Light Cracking Naphtha over
zeolite-based catalyst for the production of high quality diesel fuel. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 164, 127-134.
Retrieved February 26, 2016, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235642629_Oligomerization_of_olefins_from_Light_Cracking_Naphtha_over_zeolitebased_catalyst_for_the_production_of_high_quality_Diesel_fuel.
Bequette, B. Wayne. Separations Systems Synthesis and Design. RPI LMS. Blackboard, 26 Feb. 2016. Web.
Bibber, L. V., Shuster, E., Haslbeck, J., Rutkowski, M., Olson, S., & Kramer, S. (2007). Technical and Economic Assessment of
Small-Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facilities. Department of Energy. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/DOE-NETL-2007-1253-Small-ScaleFTLiqFacilities-Final.pdf
Bitra, V., . Miu, P., & Igathinathane, C. (2009, March). Direct mechanical energy measures of hammer mill comminution of
switchgrass, wheat straw, and corn stover and analysis of their particle size distributions. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228764882_Direct_mechanical_energy_measures_of_hammer_mill_comminution_of_swi
tchgrass_wheat_straw_and_corn_stover_and_analysis_of_their_particle_size_distributions
Boerrigter, H. (2006). Economy of Biomass-to-Liquids (BTL) Plants. ECN Biomass, Coal & Environmental Research. Retrieved
March 31, 2016, from https://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2006/c06019.pdf
Botes, F. G. (2007). Proposal of a New Product Characterization Model for the Iron-Based Low-Temperature FischerTropsch
Synthesis. Energy & Fuels Energy Fuels, 21(3), 1379-1389. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef060483d
Brown, R. C. (2011). Thermochemical processing of biomass: Conversion into fuels, chemicals and power. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Calemma, V., Gambaro, C., Parker, W. O., Carbone, R., Giardino, R., & Scorletti, P. (2010). Middle distillates from hydrocracking
of FT waxes: Composition, characteristics and emission properties. Catalysis Today, 149(1-2), 40-46. Retrieved February 26,
2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920586109001771
Camprub, M. G., Marn, J. M., & Serra, L. (2009). An algorithm for designing a TEMA J-shell and tube partial condenser. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 29(8-9), 1880-1884. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359431108003712
Carpenter, D. L., Bain, R. L., Davis, R. E., Dutta, A., Feik, C. J., Gaston, K. R., . . . Nimlos, M. R. (2010). Pilot-Scale Gasification of
Corn Stover, Switchgrass, Wheat Straw, and Wood: 1. Parametric Study and Comparison with Literature. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 49(4), 1859-1871. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ie900595m
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP. (2013, May 10). Jet A Aviation Fuel. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from
http://www.cpchem.com/msds/100000014588_SDS_US_EN.PDF
Chmielniak, T., & Sciazko, M. (2012). Cost Estimates of Coal Gasification for Chemicals and Motor Fuels. Retrieved April 14, 2016,
from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/40403.pdf
Choi, G., Tam, S., & Fox III, J. (2013). Baseline Design/Economics For Advanced Fischer-Tropsch Technology. Retrieved April 10,
2016, from http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/_conf_proc/USDOE-COALLIQ&GAS/94008962/de94008962_rpt16.pdf
Davis, B. H. (2003). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: Relationship between iron catalyst composition and process variables. Catalysis
Today, 84(1-2), 83-98. doi:10.1016/s0920-5861(03)00304-3
Department of Energy. (2012, January). Benchmark the Fuel Cost of Steam Generation. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f16/steam15_benchmark.pdf
Department of Energy. (2015, March 17). Steam System Modeler Tool (SSMT). Retrieved April 16, 2016, from
https://www5.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_deployment/amo_steam_tool/equipBoiler
Department of Energy. (2016, March). Gasification Plant Databases. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasification-plant-databases
Drift, A. V., Doorn, J. V., & Vermeulen, J. (2001). Ten residual biomass fuels for circulating fluidized-bed gasification. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 20(1), 45-56. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953400000453
Eia. (2016, April 1). Refiner Petroleum Product Prices by Sales Type. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_refoth_dcu_nus_m.htm

18

29. Eia. (2016, April 20). Natural Gas. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm
30. Eia. (2016, January). Electric Power Monthly. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf
31. Elliott, P. (2001, February). Choose Materials for High-Temperature Environments. Retrieved April 16 2016 from
http://people.clarkson.edu/~wwilcox/Design/matselec.pdf
32. Elsayed, M. A., Matthews, R., & Mortimer, N. D. (2003, March). Carbon and Energy Balances for a Range of Biofuels Options.
Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fr_ceb_0303.pdf/$FILE/fr_ceb_0303.pdf
33. Engineering Toolbox. (2015). Metals and Corrosion Resistance. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html
34. Fatoni, R. (2014). Modeling Biomass Gasification in a Fluidized Bed Reactor. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 1047-1056.
Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://iieom.org/ieom2014/pdfs/243.pdf
35. Gallick, P., Phillippi, G., & Williams, B. (2006). What's Correct For My Application- A Centrifugal or Reciprocating Compressor.
Retrieved April 18, 2016, from http://turbolab.tamu.edu/proc/turboproc/T35/15-GALLICK.pdf
36. Gamba, S., Pellegrini, L. A., Calemma, V., & Gambaro, C. (2010). Liquid fuels from FischerTropsch wax hydrocracking: Isomer
distribution. Catalysis Today, 156(1-2), 58-64. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920586110000118
37. Gasification: Refining Safety. (2012, March 14). Retrieved March 11, 2016, from https://waste-managementworld.com/a/gasification-refining-safety
38. Gera, V., Agarwal, S., & Kaistha, N. (2010). Economic Design and Controllability Evaluation of Alternative Processes for Cumene
Manufacture. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.aidic.it/escape20/webpapers/92Gera.pdf
39. Gorak, A., & Sorensen, E. (2014). Distillation: Fundamentals and principles. London: Elsevier
40. Harrington, K. (2015, July 10). Alt-Air's Bio-Jet Fuel to Power United's Planes This Summer. Retrieved February 12, 2016, from
http://www.aiche.org/chenected/2015/07/alt-airs-bio-jet-fuel-power-uniteds-planes-summer
41. Haynes International, Inc. (2015). Corrosion Resistance of Hastelloy Alloys. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from
http://www.haynesintl.com/pdf/h2000.pdf
42. Hu, J., Yu, F., & Lu, Y. (2012). Application of FischerTropsch Synthesis in Biomass to Liquid Conversion. Catalysts, 2(4), 303326. Retrieved February 9, 2016, from http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/2/2/303
43. Huber, G. W., Iborra, S., & Corma, A. (2006). Synthesis of Transportation Fuels from Biomass: Chemistry, Catalysts, and
Engineering. Chem. Rev, 106, 4044-4098. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cr068360d
44. International Air Transport Association. (2013). Aviation Fuel Supply Model Agreement. Retrieved February 9, 2016, from
http://www.iata.org/policy/Documents/afsma-oct2013-%20f1-complete%20pdf.pdf
45. Isaksson, J., sblad, A., & Berntsson, T. (2013). Influence of dryer type on the performance of a biomass gasification combined
cycle co-located with an integrated pulp and paper mill. Biomass and Bioenergy, 59, 336-347. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953413004248
46. Jet Fuel Consumption by Country. (2016). Retrieved February 6, 2016, from http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jetfuel&graph=consumption&display=rank
47. Jet fuel consumption by State EBTP-SABS. (11, January). Biofuels for Air Transport. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from
http://biofuelstp.eu/aviation-biofuels.html
48. Ju, F., Chen, H., Yang, H., Wang, X., Zhang, S., & Liu, D. (2010). Experimental study of a commercial circulated fluidized bed coal
gasifier. Fuel Processing Technology, 91(8), 818-822. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382009002100?np=y
49. Kersten, S., Prins, W., Drift, A., & Swaaij, W. (2003). Experimental Fact-Finding in CFB Biomass Gasification for ECN's 500 kWth
Pilot Plant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ie020818o
50. Klerk, A. D. (2010). U.S. Patent No. US 20100108568 A1. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
51. Kreutz, T. G., Larson, E. D., Liu, G., & Williams, R. H. (2008). Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass. Princeton
Environmental Institute. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from https://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/Kreutz-et-al-PCC2008-10-7-08.pdf
52. Kumabe, K., Sato, T., Matsumoto, K., Ishida, Y., & Hasegawa, T. (2010). Production of hydrocarbons in FischerTropsch synthesis
with Fe-based catalyst: Investigations of primary kerosene yield and carbon mass balance. Fuel, 89(8), 2088-2095. Retrieved
March 4, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236110000670
53. Kumar, A., Wang, L., Dzenis, Y. A., Jones, D. D., & Hanna, M. A. (2008). Thermogravimetric characterization of corn stover as
gasification and pyrolysis feedstock. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(5), 460-467. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953407002048
54. Kyle. (2014). Convert Cubic Feet Of Natural Gas to British Thermal Units. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from
http://www.kylesconverter.com/energy,-work,-and-heat/cubic-feet-of-natural-gas-to-british-thermal-units
55. Larson, E. D., Jin, H., & Celi, F. E. (2007). Large-Scale Gasification-Based Co-Production of Fuels and Electricity from
Switchgrass. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from https://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/RBAEF-Thermochem-fuelspower-BioFPR-Mar2009-supporting-info.pdf
56. Lee. (2014). Plant Siting and Layout. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from
https://app.knovel.com/web/view/pdf/show.v/rcid:kpLLPPIVH2/cid:kt00BFE0K3/url_slug:plant-sitinglayout/root_slug:leeslossprevention/viewerType:pdf/?jsp=/content/pdf/6097/71890_10.pdf&ekey=f26qw6u3y6CmXwTFpeRvBq6hYDSbja0SCGfFB4r1oYCo#page=6
57. Leibbrandt, N. H., Aboyade, A. O., Knoetze, J. H., & Grgens, J. F. (2013). Process efficiency of biofuel production via gasification
and FischerTropsch synthesis. Fuel, 109, 484-492. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236113002019
58. Lepage, J. (2015, April 8). The 10 Busiest Airports in the United States. Retrieved February 12, 2016, from
http://www.hopper.com/articles/2266/the-10-busiest-airports-in-the-united-states
59. Leser (2012, April 13). Equivalent ASME / Materials. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from
http://frame.leser.com/engineering/file/EHB_en_file_9.7.3-Equivalent-ASME-EN-Materials.pdf

19

60. Lewin, D. (2005). Plant Design. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://tx.technion.ac.il/~dlewin/054410/LECTURE_09.pdf
61. Lewin, D. (2012). Separation Tower Design. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://tx.technion.ac.il/~dlewin/054410/LECTURE_09.pdf
62. Liu, J. A. (2006). Kinetics, catalysis and mechanism of methane steam reforming. WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE.
Retrieved February 13, 2016.https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-011207-151645/unrestricted/James_Master.pdf
63. Luo, Y., Wang, H., & Yuan, X. (2013, June 27). Simultaneous optimization for heat-integrated crude oil distillation system.
Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://www.sps.utm.my/download/PSEAsia2013-140.pdf
64. Mazzone, L., & Fernandes, F. (2006). Modeling of Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in a Tubular Reactor. Latin American Applied
Research, 36th ser., 141-148. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://pdf.easechem.com/pdf/14/v36n3a02.pdf
65. McGill, J. (2014, January). Fire Risk in Corn Stover Storage. Retrieved from https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/Fire-Riskin-Corn-Stover-Storage
66. Mining. (2015). PE Series Jaw Crusher. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from http://shahuniversity.in/products/pe-series-jaw-crusher.html
67. Morey, R., & Hatfield, D. (2013). Fuel properties of biomass feed streams at ethanol plants. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7138&rep=rep1&type=pdf
68. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2014, April 2). Thermochemical Conversion Capabilities. Retrieved February 3, 2016,
from http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/thermochemical_conversion.html
69. Nielsen, R. (1995, September). Questions Relative to Harvesting & Storing Corn Stover. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/pubs/agry9509.htm
70. Overview of Crude Units. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.ou.edu/class/che-design/che548007/Petroleum%20Fractionation-Overview.pdf
71. Pan, Y., Roca, X., Velo, E., & Puigjaner, L. (1999). Removal of tar by secondary air in fluidised bed gasification of residual biomass
and coal. Fuel, 78(14), 1703-1709. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236199001180
72. Partnership for AiR Transportation. (2013, March). Market Cost of Renewable Jet Fuel Adoption in the United States. Retrieved
February 13, 2016, from http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj31/proj31-jetfuel-market-costs.pdf
73. Performance Analysis of an Integrated Fixed Bed Gasifier Model for Different Biomass Feedstocks
74. Perry, R. H., & Green, D. W. (1999). Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook Seventh Edition. The Mc-Graw Hill Companies.
75. Pienaar, A., & Klerk, A. (2008). Upgrading Fischer-Tropsch products by alkylation of benzene over Solid Phosphoric Acid.
Retrieved March 4, 2016, from https://www3.kfupm.edu.sa/catsymp/Symp16th/PDF Papers/07 Pienaar.pdf
76. Platts, McGraw hill financial. (2016). Platts jet fuel. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.platts.com/jetfuel
77. Polin, J. (2013, January 9). Continued Study of Sunflower Dust Properties that Contribute to Combine Fires. Retrieved February
28, 2016, from http://www.sunflowernsa.com/uploads/resources/659/dust-properties_polin_2013.pdf
78. Preciado, J., Ortiz-Martinez, J., Gonzalez-Rivera, J., Sierra-Ramirez, R., & Gordillo, G. (2012). Simulation of Synthesis Gas
Production from Steam Oxygen Gasification of Colombian Coal Using Aspen Plus. Energies, 5(12), 4924-4940. Retrieved March
22, 2016, from http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/12/4924
79. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2015, June). Fuel price volatility: How are airlines responding to the challenge? Retrieved February
16, 2016, from https://www.pwc.be/en/publications/pdf/pwc-airline-fuel-price-volatility.pdf
80. R., R., J., R., & L. (2007, January/February). Current and Potential U.S. Corn Stover Supplies. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from
http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v40_1_07/graham_2007_agronomy_journal.pdf
81. Raje, A. P., & Davis, B. H. (1997). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis over iron-based catalysts in a slurry reactor. Reaction rates,
selectivities and implications for improving hydrocarbon productivity. Catalysis Today, 36(3), 335-345. Retrieved March 19, 2016,
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244320910_Fischer-Tropsch_synthesis_over_ironbased_catalysts_in_a_slurry_reactor_Reaction_rates_selectivities_and_implications_for_improving_hydrocarbon_productivity
82. Ramon, Christine. 2013, Year-End Results Presentation, Sasol Ltd, Johannesburg. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from
http://www.sasol.com/sites/default/files/presentations/downloads/Christine%20Ramon%20Yearend%20Results%20Announcement%20As%20Delivered%2009-09-13.pdf
83. Reed, R. (2007, February 27). Technical and Economic Assessment of Small-Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facilities. Retrieved
April 18, 2016, from http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/DOE-NETL-2007-1253Small-ScaleF-TLiqFacilities-Final.pdf
84. Renewable Energy. (2011, September). Corn Stover for Bioenergy Production: Cost Estimates and Farmer Supply. Retrieved April
11, 2016, from https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/EC/RE-3-W.pdf
85. Revie, R. W. (2011). Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook Third Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
86. Sakuneka, T. M., Klerk, A. D., Nel, R. J., & Pienaar, A. D. (2008). Synthetic Jet Fuel Production by Combined Propene
Oligomerization and Aromatic Alkylation over Solid Phosphoric Acid. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res., 47(6), 1828-1834. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ie0710566?src=recsys
87. Shinners, K., Binversie, B., & Savoie, P. (2013, July). Harvest and storage of wet and dry corn stover as a biomass feedstock.
Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242554349_HARVEST_AND_STORAGE_OF_WET_AND_DRY_CORN_STOVER_AS_
A_BIOMASS_FEEDSTOCK
88. Sigma Aldrich. (2016). Platinum(II) oxide. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/206032?lang=enion=US
89. Steam Cycle Simulation Aspen Plus v8.6. (2015, January 1). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from
http://inside.mines.edu/~jjechura/EnergyTech/Boiler_Steam_Cycle_AspenPlusv8.pdf
90. Sun, L., & Smith, R. (2013). Rectisol wash process simulation and analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 321-328. Retrieved
March 2, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261200282X
91. Swanson, R. M. (2009). Techno-Economic Analysis of Biomass-to-Liquids Production Based on Gasification. Iowa State
University. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1785&context=etd
92. The Engineering Toolbox. (2014). Metals and Corrosion Resistance. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html

20

93. The White House. (2011, August 16). President Obama Announces Major Initiative to Spur Biofuels Industry and Enhance
America's Energy Security. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/16/presidentobama-announces-major-initiative-spur-biofuels-industry-and-en
94. Timmer, K. J. (2008). Carbon Conversion During Bubbling Fluidized Bed Gasification of Biomass. Iowa State University. Retrieved
February 14, 2016, from http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=faculty_work
95. Towler, G., & Sinnott, R. K. (2013). Chemical Engineering Design, Second Edition: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and
Process Design. Waltham, MA: Elsevier.
96. Transparency Market Research. (2014). Jet Kerosene (Fuel) Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Trends, Analysis,
Growth and Forecast 2014 - 2020. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/jet-kerosenemarket.html
97. U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/sasol
98. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2013, January 18). Hydrocracking is an important source of diesel and jet fuel. Retrieved
February 3, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9650
99. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). Jet fuel consumption, price, and expenditure estimates,. Retrieved January 5, 2016,
from http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_jf.pdf
100. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016, January 1). U.S. Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries. Retrieved February
9, 2016, from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm
101. University of Oklahoma (n.d.). Overview of Crude Units. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www.ou.edu/class/chedesign/che5480-07/Petroleum Fractionation-Overview.pdf
102. Van der Laan, G. P. (1999). Kinetics, Selectivity and Scale Up of the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. University of Groningen.
Retrieved February 12, 2016, from http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/9883465/thesis.pdf
103. Van Hardeveld, M., Hamelinck, C., Faaij, A., & Tijmensen, M. (2002). Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fischer
Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 23(2), 129-152. Retrieved February 7, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953402000375
104. Wang, L., Hanna, M. A., Weller, C. L., & Jones, D. D. (2009). Technical and economical analyses of combined heat and power
generation from distillers grains and corn stover in ethanol plants. Energy Conversion and Management, 50(7), 1704-1713.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.03.025
105. Wang, Y., Ma, W., Lu, Y., Yang, J., Xu, Y., Xiang, H., . . . Zhang, B. (2003). Kinetics modelling of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis over
an industrial Fe-Cu-K catalyst. Fuel, 82(2), 195-213. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236102001540?np=y
106. Warren, K. A. (2012). World Jet Fuel Specifications with Avgas Supplement. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from
http://www.xunoil.com/Admin/Product_Files/WorldJetFuelSpec2012_04.pdf
107. Warren, K. A. (2012). World Jet Fuel Specifications with Avgas Supplement. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from
http://www.xunoil.com/Admin/Product_Files/WorldJetFuelSpec2012_04.pdf
108. Waste Management World. (2012, March 14). Gasification: Refining Safety. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://wastemanagement-world.com/a/gasification-refining-safety
109. Winchester, N., McConnachie, D., Wollersheim, C., & Waitz, I. A. (2013, March). Market Cost of Renewable Jet Fuel Adoption in
the United States. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj31/proj31-jetfuel-marketcosts.pdf
110. Worley, M. (2015, March 15). Biomass Drying Technology Uptake. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from
http://www.tappi.org/content/events/11biopro/19.2worley.pdf
111. Worley, M., & Yale, J. (2012, August 3). Biomass Gasification Technology Assessment. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57085.pdf

21

Appendices
Appendix A ASTM Tests for Jet Fuel Quality

22

Appendix B.1 Stream Tables for Figure 4

Name
Units
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Mass Flow Rate Temperature

kg/hr
C
149,219
25.0
149,219
25.0
233,055
850.0
0
0.0
211,537
65.9
444,593
49.7
444,593
850.0
489,631
648.0
489,631
648.0
489,631
100.0
489,631
235.7
489,631
100.0
489,631
200.2
489,631
100.0
489,631
242.3
489,631
110.0
489,631
235.9
489,631
100.0
448,129
-30.0
202,429
-47.8
202,429
-98.1
202,429
270.0
202,430
270.0
83,897
270.0
83,897
275.0
83,897
296.8
83,897
245.0
22,036
50.0
22,036
51.8
26,737
49.0
26,737
160.0
4,933
160.0
21,803
160.0
26,737
160.0
26,737
90.1
19,493
90.1
23
90.1
23
293.5
7,243
90.1
7,243
95.0
16,032
156.2
16,032
185.0

Pressure
bar
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
13.0
13.0
30.0
30.0
35.0
35.0
10.0
10.0
9.5
9.5
10.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
25.0
5.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

Phase
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Missing
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Mixed
Vapor
Vapor
Mixed
Vapor
Vapor
Mixed
Vapor
Vapor
Mixed
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Mixed
Vapor
Liquid
Mixed
Mixed
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid

23

Appendix B.2 Stream Tables for Figure 4 Cont.

Name
Units
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
STEAM1
O2STRM1
SOLIDS
H2OSTRM1
WATER2
METHANOL
ACIDGAS
WATER3
TOPS
H2O
MIDS
MIDS2
BOTTOMS
MIDS1STM
MIDS2STM
MJRSTEAM
NAPHTHA1
H2STRM1
FG1
NAPTHA2
KERO1
H2STRM2
FG2
KERO2
H2STRM3

Mass Flow Rate Temperature

kg/hr
C
11,079
185.0
19,573
162.2
19,573
200.0
1,813
330.0
4,953
185.0
33,883
361.0
40,696
330.0
0
0.0
40,696
330.0
40,696
330.0
40,696
200.0
40,696
177.2
80
177.2
5,056
475.0
5,056
555.5
4,701
25.0
4,701
26.1
61,458
175.0
91,666
130.0
0
0.0
45,038
25.0
41,502
100.0
1,000,000
-40.0
1,245,700
-15.7
116,944
270.0
13,049
-31.0
3,539
-31.0
22,036
60.2
16,032
152.5
33,883
355.2
752
315.0
1,187
315.0
2,703
315.0
19,471
90.1
1,250
200.0
1,128
200.0
0
200.0
16,632
200.0
5,000
330.0
4,789
177.2
35,826
177.2
355
25.0

Pressure
bar
50.0
50.0
50.0
45.0
50.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
50.0
50.0
34.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
30.0
35.0
35.0
9.5
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.2
16.5
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
45.0
25.0
25.0
50.0

Phase
N/A
Liquid
Mixed
Mixed
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Vapor
Missing
Vapor
Vapor
Mixed
Mixed
Liquid
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid
Mixed
Vapor
Vapor
Missing
Liquid
Mixed
Liquid
Mixed
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid
Liquid
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid
Vapor

24

Appendix C Corn Stover Modeling as a Nonconventional Component

Corn Stover Composition
Key Features (wt% received)
Moisture
6.34
Proximate Analysis (wt% dry)
Ash
6.73
Volatiles
66.62
Fixed Carbon
26.65
Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry)
Carbon
45.48
Hydrogen
5.52
Nitrogen
0.71
Oxygen
41.52
Sulfur
0.04

Appendix D Additional Gasifier Information

Reacting
phase
Liquid & solid
Liquid & solid
Liquid & solid
Liquid & solid
Liquid & solid
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor
Vapor

Rxn No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Reaction class
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW
POWERLAW

Reversible
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE

[Ci] basis
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity
Molarity

Rate basis k
E
Units
Reac (vol)
5.7E+09
38200 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol)
5.7E+11
55000 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol)
7.9E+09
52000 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol)
0.00611
80333 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol)
3.4E+14 350000 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol) 3.25E+10 126000 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol)
3E+08 125000 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol) 1.08E+13 1250000 kJ/kmol
Reac (vol)
2780
12600 kJ/kmol

Rxn No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Stoichiometry
C(SOLID) + OXYGEN(MIXED) --> CO2(MIXED)
C(SOLID) + 0.5 OXYGEN(MIXED) --> CO(MIXED)
C(SOLID) + WATER(MIXED) --> CO(MIXED) + HYDROGEN(MIXED)
C(SOLID) + 2 HYDROGEN(MIXED) --> METHANE(MIXED)
C(SOLID) + CO2(MIXED) --> 2 CO(MIXED)
CO(MIXED) + 0.5 OXYGEN(MIXED) --> CO2(MIXED)
METHANE(MIXED) + WATER(MIXED) --> 3 HYDROGEN(MIXED) + CO(MIXED)
0.5 OXYGEN(MIXED) + HYDROGEN(MIXED) --> WATER(MIXED)
CO(MIXED) + WATER(MIXED) --> CO2(MIXED) + HYDROGEN(MIXED)

25

Appendix E Additional Water Gas Shift and F-T Synthesis Information

Reaction 1

Reaction 2

Fischer-Tropsch Kinetic
Parameters
kFTS 0.1106
mol/kg.s.Mpa
a

3.016

kWGS

0.0292

K1
K2

85.81
3.07

mol/kg.s

Fischer-Tropsch Product Distribution Model

k
Tp
To

0.19
0.02
0.35

Where n is the carbon number, an is the chain

growth probability, (O/P)n is the olefin to paraffin
mole ratio, and Mn is the molar formation rate.

Carbon
Number

Paraffin Mole
Fraction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

0.284
0.008
0.013
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004

Olefin Mole
Fraction
0.000
0.097
0.132
0.092
0.066
0.048
0.036
0.027
0.021
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002

26

Appendix F.1 Additional Fractionation Column Design Information

Where is relative volatility, K is vapor-liquid equilibrium

ratio, x is mole fraction, and HK means of the heavy key while
LK means of the light key. Nmin means the minimum number of
stages required for the distillation column at total reflux, and Rmin
means the minimum reflux ratio at an infinite number of stages.
is a value specific to the given column, and is found through
iteration. q is based on the condition of the column feed.
The bottom equation is known as the Fenske Equation,
and is used for determining the feed stage location. Nr is the
number of stages in the rectifying section, while NS is the number
of stages in the stripping section. B and D are bottoms and
distillate flow rates, respectively, and the x values are
concentrations of keys within certain streams.
In the table to the right, C1A represents a 1-Carbon alkane
(methane), C8E represents an 8-carbon alkene (1-Octene) etc.

Component
C1A
C2E
C2A
C3E
C3A
C4E
C4A
C5E
C5A
C6E
C6A
C7E
C7A
C8E
C8A
C9E
C9A
C10E
C10A
C11E
C11A
C12E
C12A
C13E
C13A
C14E
C14A
C15E
C15A
C16E
C16A
C17E
C17A
C18E
C18A
C19E
C19A
C20E
C20A

Boiling Point (C)

-161.49
-103.74
-88.6
-47.7
-42.04
-6.24
-0.5
30.07
36.07
63.48
68.73
93.64
98.43
121.26
125.68
146.868
150.82
170.6
174.155
192.67
195.928
213
216.323
232.84
235.466
251.1
253.577
268.46
270.685
284.87
286.864
300.33
302.15
314.82
316.71
329.02
329.9
342.39
343.78

27

Appendix F.2 Fractionation Column Profiles

28

29

Appendix F.3 Fractionation Column Diameter and Area Profiles

Stage
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Diameter
(m)
2.58
2.53
2.47
2.35
2.43
2.47
2.48
2.48
2.47
2.45
2.41
3.02
3.08
3.10
2.86
2.85
2.86
2.86
2.87
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.84
2.82
2.73
2.48
2.21
2.50
2.72
2.85
2.91
3.02
3.05
3.07
3.11
3.20
3.14
3.06
3.28

Total Area
(m2)
5.23
5.03
4.78
4.32
4.62
4.78
4.83
4.82
4.78
4.70
4.58
7.15
7.47
7.57
6.41
6.40
6.43
6.42
6.47
6.41
6.44
6.41
6.36
6.24
5.86
4.83
3.82
4.92
5.80
6.37
6.66
7.17
7.33
7.39
7.59
8.07
7.77
7.37
8.45

Active Area
per Panel
(m2)
3.97
3.82
3.63
3.29
3.51
3.63
3.67
3.67
3.63
3.57
3.48
5.44
5.68
5.75
4.87
4.86
4.88
4.88
4.92
4.87
4.90
4.88
4.83
4.74
4.45
3.67
2.77
3.61
4.30
4.75
4.97
5.37
5.50
5.54
5.69
6.07
5.82
5.48
6.34

Side
Downcomer
Area (m2)
0.63
0.60
0.57
0.52
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.86
0.90
0.91
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.75
0.70
0.58
0.53
0.65
0.75
0.81
0.85
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.95
1.00
0.97
0.94
1.05

30

Appendix G Rigorous Heat Exchanger Information

Heat Exchanger Design
Parameters
Length
5.85
ID/OD
1.075/1.101
Baffle Number
8
Tubes/Passes
1481/6
Heat Duty
30.84502

Units
m
m
MMBTU/hr

31

Appendix H.1 Capital Costs of Major Process Equipment

Operation
Material
Pretreatment
Drier
Carbon Steel
Grinder
Carbon Steel
Gasification
Solids handling
Carbon Steel
Gasifier
Hastelloy C
Cyclone
Carbon Steel
Water-Gas Shift
Reactor
Carbon Steel
Acid-Gas Absorption
Column
Hastelloy C
F-T Synthesis
Reactor
Carbon Steel
Fractionation
Main Frac. Column Carbon Steel
Sidestripper 1
Carbon Steel
Sidestripper 2
Carbon Steel
Partial Condenser Carbon Steel
Refining Stages
Oligomerization
Carbon Steel
Hydrotreatment
Carbon Steel
Hydrocracking
Carbon Steel
Aromatization
Carbon Steel
Alkylation
304 Stainless Steel
Miscellaneous Equipment
Compressors
Carbon Steel
Exchangers
Carbon Steel
Pumps
Carbon Steel
Total
Full Plant

Number

Uninstalled

1
1

N/A
$378,000

1
1
1

Installed
N/A
$944,000

Cost
$40,100,000
$1,320,000

N/A
N/A
$14,600,000
$33,900,000 $108,000,000 $142,000,000
N/A
N/A
$5,460,000

N/A

N/A

$15,900,000

$8,410,000

$26,900,000

$35,300,000

N/A

N/A

$48,400,000

1
1
1
1

$315,000
$33,400
$36,600
$82,900

$1,010,000
$107,000
$117,000
$265,000

$1,330,000
$140,000
$154,000
$348,000

1
1
1
1
1

$10,300,000
$6,220,000
N/A
$6,400,000
$6,000,000

$32,900,000
$19,900,000
N/A
$20,500,000
$19,200,000

$43,200,000
$26,100,000
$46,400,000
$26,900,000
$25,200,000

9
11
4

$49,400,000
$2,800,000
$247,000

$51,700,000 $101,000,000
$4,720,000
$7,520,000
$468,000
$715,000

41

$582,087,000

32

Appendix H.2 Capital Costs of Miscellaneous Process Equipment

Device

Location

Compressors
Between Gas shift and Acidgas

Between Acidgas and FT

Between FT and Frac. Column
Between Alkyl and Arom.
Between Cracking and Arom.
Within Aromatization
Heat Exchangers
Between Gas shift and Acidgas

Between Acidgas and FT

Between FT and Frac. Column
Before Alkylation
Between Cracking and Arom

Number

Equipment cost

Installed cost

Total cost

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

$13,500,000
$12,300,000
$11,700,000
$7,480,000
$592,000
$1,070,000
$1,230,000
$473,000
$1,080,000

$13,900,000
$12,700,000
$12,100,000
$7,940,000
$838,000
$1,090,000
$1,350,000
$670,000
$1,090,000

$27,400,000
$25,000,000
$23,800,000
$15,400,000
$1,430,000
$2,160,000
$2,580,000
$1,140,000
$2,170,000

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

$1,860,000
$331,000
$154,000
$134,000
$87,300
$133,000
$13,200
$13,900
$10,700
$43,900
$17,300

$2,640,000
$542,000
$288,000
$270,000
$206,000
$281,000
$81,600
$74,100
$57,600
$143,000
$133,000

$4,500,000
$873,000
$442,000
$404,000
$293,300
$414,000
$94,800
$88,000
$68,300
$187,000
$150,000

1
1
1
1
23

$50,800
$61,600
$76,400
$58,100

$89,600
$107,000
$176,000
$95,100

$140,000
$169,000
$252,000
$153,000
$107,138,400

Pumps
Before Alkylation
Before Oligomerization
Before Hydrocracking
Before Hydrotreatment
Total

33

Appendix I Fixed and Variable Costs of Production

Cost Type
Fixed Costs
Maintenance
Property
Operators
Variable Costs
Feedstock
Catalysts
Co-Reactants
Water
Steam
Shipping
Electricity
Total
All COP

Amount ($/year)
$43,800,000
$23,800,000
$51,000,000
$182,000,000
$6,500,000
$535,000
$633,000
$5,400,000
3,090,000
$42,200,000
$358,958,000

Appendix J Process Revenue Streams

Product
Natural Gas
Propane
Naphtha
Kerosene
Tax Credits

Selling
Price
4.6
1.25
2.4
3
-

Units
$/MMBTU
$/gallon
$/gallon
$/gallon
-

Production

Units

Revenue
($/year)

MMBTU/year
$12,900,000
gal/year
$40,500,000
$75,100,000
31,300,000 gal/year
$444,000,000
148,000,000 gal/year
$180,000,000
2,800,000

32,400,000

Total Revenue:

$752,500,000

34

Appendix K.1 Plant Cash Flow Statement

Year

Loan
Outstanding

CAPEX

Principle
Payment

Manufacturing
Costs

Interest

Operating
Costs

Revenue

Depreciation

$831,422,071

$356,323,745

$789,850,967

$41,571,104

$41,571,104

$59,387,291

$593,872,908

$748,279,864

$41,571,104

$39,492,548

$190,553,796

$17,163,717

$171,637,171

$59,387,291

$237,549,163

$706,708,760

$41,571,104

$37,413,993

$286,597,590

$40,048,673

$400,486,731

$59,387,291

$665,137,657

$41,571,104

$35,335,438

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

$623,566,553

$41,571,104

$33,256,883

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

$581,995,450

$41,571,104

$31,178,328

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

$540,424,346

$41,571,104

$29,099,772

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

$498,853,243

$41,571,104

$27,021,217

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

$457,282,139

$41,571,104

$24,942,662

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

10

$415,711,035

$41,571,104

$22,864,107

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

11

$374,139,932

$41,571,104

$20,785,552

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

12

$332,568,828

$41,571,104

$18,706,997

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

13

$290,997,725

$41,571,104

$16,628,441

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

14

$249,426,621

$41,571,104

$14,549,886

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

15

$207,855,518

$41,571,104

$12,471,331

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

16

$166,284,414

$41,571,104

$10,392,776

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

17

$124,713,311

$41,571,104

$8,314,221

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

18

$83,142,207

$41,571,104

$6,235,666

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

19

$41,571,104

$41,571,104

$4,157,110

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

20

$0

$41,571,104

$2,078,555

$358,630,436

$57,212,390

$572,123,902

$59,387,291

35

Appendix K.2 Plant Cash Flow Statement (Cont.)

Year

Taxable
Income

Actual
taxes

Taxes

Tax Credits

Net Income

Cash Flow

Present Value

Net Present
Value

Net Cumulative
Cash Flow

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

($100,958,394)

($40,383,358)

$0

$0

($83,142,207)

($439,465,952)

($412,644,086)

($412,644,086)

($439,465,952)

($134,960,181)

($53,984,073)

$0

$54,093,007

($63,050,987)

($656,923,895)

($579,183,050)

($991,827,136)

($1,096,389,847)

($22,960,816)

($9,184,326)

$0

$126,217,017

$121,072,388

($116,476,775)

($96,425,193)

($1,088,252,329)

($1,212,866,622)

$61,558,347

$24,623,339

$24,623,339

$180,310,024

$235,061,219

$235,061,219

$182,718,513

($905,533,815)

($977,805,403)

$63,636,902

$25,454,761

$25,454,761

$180,310,024

$236,308,352

$236,308,352

$172,476,938

($733,056,878)

($741,497,050)

$65,715,457

$26,286,183

$26,286,183

$180,310,024

$237,555,485

$237,555,485

$162,804,879

($570,251,998)

($503,941,565)

$67,794,012

$27,117,605

$27,117,605

$180,310,024

$238,802,618

$238,802,618

$153,670,969

($416,581,029)

($265,138,947)

$69,872,567

$27,949,027

$27,949,027

$180,310,024

$240,049,752

$240,049,752

$145,045,546

($271,535,483)

($25,089,195)

$71,951,123

$28,780,449

$28,780,449

$180,310,024

$241,296,885

$241,296,885

$136,900,566

($134,634,916)

$216,207,689

10

$74,029,678

$29,611,871

$29,611,871

$180,310,024

$242,544,018

$242,544,018

$129,209,513

($5,425,403)

$458,751,707

11

$76,108,233

$30,443,293

$30,443,293

$180,310,024

$243,791,151

$243,791,151

$121,947,318

$116,521,914

$702,542,858

12

$78,186,788

$31,274,715

$31,274,715

$180,310,024

$245,038,284

$245,038,284

$115,090,281

$231,612,195

$947,581,142

13

$80,265,343

$32,106,137

$32,106,137

$180,310,024

$246,285,417

$246,285,417

$108,615,998

$340,228,193

$1,193,866,559

14

$82,343,898

$32,937,559

$32,937,559

$180,310,024

$247,532,550

$247,532,550

$102,503,291

$442,731,483

$1,441,399,109

15

$84,422,454

$33,768,981

$33,768,981

$180,310,024

$248,779,683

$248,779,683

$96,732,140

$539,463,623

$1,690,178,792

16

$86,501,009

$34,600,404

$34,600,404

$180,310,024

$250,026,816

$250,026,816

$91,283,623

$630,747,245

$1,940,205,609

17

$88,579,564

$35,431,826

$35,431,826

$180,310,024

$251,273,949

$251,273,949

$86,139,854

$716,887,100

$2,191,479,558

18

$90,658,119

$36,263,248

$36,263,248

$180,310,024

$252,521,083

$252,521,083

$81,283,932

$798,171,032

$2,444,000,641

19

$92,736,674

$37,094,670

$37,094,670

$180,310,024

$253,768,216

$253,768,216

$76,699,879

$874,870,911

$2,697,768,857

20

$94,815,229

$37,926,092

$37,926,092

$180,310,024

$433,177,221

$611,339,093

$173,496,218

$1,048,367,129

$3,309,107,950

36

Appendix L Net Present Value vs. Time for the Original Plant Scale

Year
0

10

15

20

Millions of Dollars

$0.00
($20.00)
($40.00)
($60.00)

NPV

($80.00)

NCF

($100.00)

($120.00)
($140.00)
($160.00)
($180.00)

Appendix M Effect of Plant Scale Up on Gross and Net Margins

38.0
36.0

Margin (%)

34.0
32.0
30.0

Gross Margin

28.0

Net Margin

26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
0

10

15

20

25

Plant Size Multiple

37

Appendix N Machinery and Reactor Vessel Sizing

Operation
Pretreatment
Gasification

Process

Flow rate (ft^3/hr)

Residence time (hr)

Volume (ft^3)

Drying

76,003

0.898

68,280

17.3 ft diameter, 97 ft length, 3 of these

Grinding

72,203

16 ft long by 10.3 ft wide by 12.1 ft tall, 2 of these

Dimensions and Quantity

Gasifier

71,096,300

0.00051

36,536

Cyclone

71,096,300

0.00014

126

Within gasifier model

Water Gas Shift

Reactor

908,594

0.0005

454

5.3 ft diameter, 21.2 ft long

Acid-Gas Absorption

Column

F-T Synthesis

Reactor

Fractionation

Main column

10.2 ft diameter, 79.7 ft tall

Sidestripper 1

2.3 ft diameter, 20 ft tall

Sidestripper 2

2.5 ft diameter, 20 ft tall

1,206,180

1.87

15.7 ft diameter, 62.8 ft tall, 3 of these

9 ft diameter, 42 ft tall, 2 of these

2,255,557

16.4 ft diameter, 72.2 ft tall, 3 of these

Oligomerization

Reactor

971

0.542

526

Hydrotreatment

Reactor

17,025

1.75

29,793

Hydrocracker

Reactor

102,169

0.0083

851

Aromatization

Reactor

10,696

0.383

4,100

13.9 ft diameter, 27.7 ft length

Alkylation

Reactor

5,557

1.5

8,336

17.5 ft diameter, 35 ft length

Required Volume
(ft^3/four days)

Individual Tank/Silo
Size (ft^3)

Material Storage

Vessel Type

Kerosene Storage

Tank

219,689

66,356

Naphtha Storage
Propane Storage
Natural Gas Storage
Feed Storage

Tank
Tank
Tank
Silo

48,133
46,434
55,433
4,734,503

66,356
66,356
66,356
1,571,576

7 ft diameter, 13.9 ft length

26.8 ft diameter, 53.5 ft length
8.3 ft diameter, 16.5 ft length

Dimensions and Quantity

65 ft diameter, 20 ft height, 4 of these
65 ft diameter, 20 ft height, 2 of these
65 ft diameter, 20 ft height, 2 of these
65 ft diameter, 20 ft height, 2 of these
156 ft diameter, 112 ft height, 2 of these near gasifiers, 2 offsite

38