Advertisement

Biodiesel pp 127-148 | Cite as

Economic Risk Analysis and Critical Comparison of Biodiesel Production Systems

  • Seyed Soheil Mansouri
  • Carina L. Gargalo
  • Isuru A. Udugama
  • Pedram Ramin
  • Mauricio Sales-Cruz
  • Gürkan Sin
  • Krist V. GernaeyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Biofuel and Biorefinery Technologies book series (BBT, volume 8)

Abstract

In this chapter, the importance of risk assessment in biodiesel-based economy is first discussed. The importance of risk analysis to identify the most promising production schemes is also discussed from an economic point of view. Next, a systematic framework for economic risk assessment of biodiesel production processes and its associated by-products is presented. The application of the framework is highlighted through the production of 1,2-propanediol and 1,3-propanediol as value-added products from glycerol, which are critically assessed in terms of its techno-economic performance through the estimation of economic indicators, net present value (NPV), and minimum selling price (MSP). The Monte Carlo method with Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) is used to propagate the market price and technical uncertainties to the economic indicator calculations and to quantify the respective economic risk. In order to decrease the economic risk, the integrated production of the product as a module added to the biodiesel plant was tested as an alternative scenario. Using the integrated concept of utilizing the waste glycerol stream in biodiesel plants contributes to the diversification of the product portfolio for vegetable oil-based biorefineries, and in turn improves cost-competitiveness and robustness against market price fluctuations. The developed generic framework can be applied to other biodiesel by-products to assess the potentials of obtaining value-added products from them. Finally, future perspectives and other approaches toward economic production of biodiesel with lower risks are highlighted. The framework proposed in this work is to provide some detailed perspectives to facilitate the economic risk analysis of biodiesel production for any given technology.

Keywords

Biodiesel production Economic risk analysis Economic uncertainties Techno-economic analysis Value-added products 

References

  1. Almeida JRM, Fávaro LCL, Quirino BF (2012) Biodiesel biorefinery: opportunities and challenges for microbial production of fuels and chemicals from glycerol waste. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:48.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azapagic A, Millington A, Collett A (2006) A methodology for integrating sustainability considerations into process design. Chem Eng Res Des 84:439–452.  https://doi.org/10.1205/cherd05007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabaniss S, Park D, Silvinsky M, Wagoner J, Chen D, You F (2014) Design G2Google Scholar
  4. Cheali P, Gernaey K, Sin G Uncertainties in early-stage capital cost estimation of process design—a case study on biorefinery design. Front Energy Res 3 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2015.00003
  5. Cheali P, Quaglia A, Gernaey KV, Sin G (2014) Effect of market price uncertainties on the design of optimal biorefinery systems—a systematic approach. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:6021–6032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen P, Dysert LR (2005) Cost estimate classification system—as applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industriesGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies P (2014) Chemical business focus—a monthly roundup and analysis of the key factors shaping world chemicals markets. Bio-materials and inter mediates including biobased chemicals, bio-polymers and their petrochemical equivalentsGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jong E (2011) Bio-based chemicals value added products from biorefineries. A report prepared for IEA bioenergy-task, 36Google Scholar
  9. Gargalo CL, Sin G (2015) Sustainable process design under uncertainty analysis: targeting environmental indicators. Comput Aided Chem Eng 37:2579–2584.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63576-1.50124-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gargalo CL, Carvalho A, Gernaey KV, Sin G (2016a) A framework for techno-economic and environmental sustainability analysis by risk assessment for conceptual process evaluation. Biochem Eng J 116:146–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2016.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gargalo CL, Cheali P, Posada JA, Carvalho A, Gernaey KV, Sin G (2016b) Assessing the environmental sustainability of early stage design for bioprocesses under uncertainties: an analysis of glycerol bioconversion. J Clean Prod 139:1245–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gargalo CL, Cheali P, Posada JA, Gernaey KV, Sin G (2016c) Economic risk assessment of early stage designs for glycerol valorization in biorefinery concepts. Ind Eng Chem Res 55:6801–6814.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gong J, You F (2015) Sustainable design and synthesis of energy systems. Curr Opin Chem Eng 10:77–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2015.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green Business (2010) Factbox: biodiesel plants in the EUGoogle Scholar
  15. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2003) Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 81:23–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, Schoen P, Lukas J, Olthof B, Worley M, Sexton D, Dudgeon D (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol, golden, Colorado 80401Google Scholar
  17. ICIS (n.d.) ICIS dashboard price history—crude glycerol, 25 Aug 2010–25 Aug 2015Google Scholar
  18. Makkar HPS (2012) Biofuel co-products as livestock feed: opportunities and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Mansouri SS, Ismail MI, Babi DK, Simasatitkul L, Huusom JK, Gani R (2013) Systematic sustainable process design and analysis of biodiesel processes. Processes 1:167–202.  https://doi.org/10.3390/pr1020167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Molel E, Phillips H, Smith A (2015) 1,3-Propanediol from crude glycerol, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  21. National Research Council (2011) Renewable fuel standard: potential economic and environmental effects of U.S. biofuel policy. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Parasuraman A (2000) Technology readiness index (Tri): a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J Serv Res 2:307–320.  https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE (2003) Plant design and economics for chemical engineers. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  24. Quaglia A, Gargalo C, Sin G, Gani R (2015) Systematic network synthesis and design: problem formulation, superstructure generation, data management and solution. Comput Chem Eng 72:68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sacramento-Rivero JC (2012) A methodology for evaluating the sustainability of biorefineries: framework and indicators. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 6:32–44.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T (1995) A manual for the economic evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Colorado. DE-AC36-83CH10093Google Scholar
  27. Sin G, Gernaey KV, Neumann MB, van Loosdrecht MCM, Gujer W (2009) Uncertainty analysis in WWTP model applications: a critical discussion using an example from design. Water Res 43:2894–2906.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.03.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanbury PF (1995) Principles of fermentation technology. PergamonGoogle Scholar
  29. Toro Chacón FA (2004) Techno-economic assessment of biofuel production in the European Union, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  30. Towler G, Sinnott R (2013) Economic evaluation of projects. In: Chemical engineering design, 2nd edn. Elsevier, pp 389–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-096659-5.00009-2
  31. Towler G, Sinnott R (2013) Chemical engineering design: principles, practice and economics of plant and process design, 2nd edn. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  32. Turton R (2009) Analysis, synthesis and design of chemical processes. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  33. Waldron KW (2014) Advances in biorefineries: biomass and waste supply chain exploitation. Woodhead PublishingGoogle Scholar
  34. Willey RJ (2014) Layer of protection analysis. Procedia Eng 84:12–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Techno-orbichem (n.d.) Techno-orbichem: monopropylene glycolGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang F, Hanna M, Sun R (2012) Value-added uses for crude glycerol—a byproduct of biodiesel production. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. You F, Tao L, Graziano DJ, Snyder SW (2012) Optimal design of sustainable cellulosic biofuel supply chains: Multiobjective optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and input-output analysis. AIChE J 58:1157–1180.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.12637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yue D, Kim MA, You F (2013) Design of sustainable product systems and supply chains with life cycle optimization based on functional unit: general modeling framework. Mixed-integer nonlinear programming algorithms and case study on hydrocarbon biofuels. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1:1003–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1021/sc400080xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Živković SB, Veljković MV, Banković-Ilić IB, Krstić IM, Konstantinović SS, Ilić SB, Avramović JM, Stamenković OS, Veljković VB (2017) Technological, technical, economic, environmental, social, human health risk, toxicological and policy considerations of biodiesel production and use. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:222–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyed Soheil Mansouri
    • 1
  • Carina L. Gargalo
    • 1
  • Isuru A. Udugama
    • 1
  • Pedram Ramin
    • 1
  • Mauricio Sales-Cruz
    • 2
  • Gürkan Sin
    • 1
  • Krist V. Gernaey
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringProcess and Systems Engineering Center (PROSYS), Technical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Departamento de Procesos y TecnologíaUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana – CuajimalpaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations