Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process

An Le Thuy Tran

ID#: xxxxx7066

Chemical Engineering

CHEG 407-A

Spring 2016

Apr. 14, 2016

Submitted to Dr. Jacob R. Borden

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................3

Flowsheet and Process Description ...................................................................................................3

Cane Milling................................................................................................................................... 4

Juice Clarification ........................................................................................................................... 4

Fermentation................................................................................................................................... 5

Ethanol Distillation ......................................................................................................................... 6

Mass and Energy Balances................................................................................................................7

Major Equipment List ......................................................................................................................9

Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................9

ISBL/OSBL .................................................................................................................................. 10

CAPEX ........................................................................................................................................ 10

OPEX........................................................................................................................................... 10

NPV/IRR...................................................................................................................................... 11

Safety Analysis................................................................................................................................12

Toxicity/ Flammability/ Auto-ignition ............................................................................................ 12

HAZOP ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Boston Square............................................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................14

2

Figures

Figure 1: Overall Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process Overview........................................................3

Figure 2: Cane Milling Overview.........................................................................................................4

Figure 3: Juice Clarification Overview .................................................................................................5

Figure 4: Conversion of Sucrose and Inverts to Ethanol.........................................................................5

Figure 5: Fermentation Overview ........................................................................................................6

Figure 6: Ethanol Distillation Overview ...............................................................................................7

Figure 7: Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................9

Figure 8: LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg .................................................................................. 13

Figure 9: HAZOP on Multiple Effect Evaporators .............................................................................. 13

Figure 10: FMEA Rating Scale .......................................................................................................... 14

Figure 11: Boston Square for Multiple Effect Evaporators HAZOP...................................................... 14

Tables

Table 1: Design Basis for Cane Milling Section ....................................................................................4

Table 2: Design Basis for Juice Clarification Section ............................................................................5

Table 3: Design Basis for Fermentation Section....................................................................................6

Table 4: Design Basis for Distillation Section .......................................................................................7

Table 5: Mass Balance for Milling Section ...........................................................................................8

Table 6: Mass Balance for Clarifying Section .......................................................................................8

Table 7: Mass Balance for Fermentation Section...................................................................................8

Table 8: Mass Balance for Distillation Section......................................................................................9

Table 9: Overall Economic Results .................................................................................................... 10

Table 10: Total Fixed Capital Cost..................................................................................................... 11

Table 11: Variables Cost of Production .............................................................................................. 11

Table 12: Annual Labor, Maintenance, and Depreciation Cost ............................................................. 11

Table 13: Variables Cost per Gallon and per Year of Ethanol Production ............................................. 11

Table 14: Cash Flow and NPV Analysis ............................................................................................. 12

Table 15: Safety Parameters for Materials Involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process.......... 13

3

Executive Summary

Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills project is designed for St. Mary Sugar Co-Op, Inc. located in

Jeanerette, LA. In this project, we have evaluated a sugarcane mill that processes 20,000 metric tons per

day (44.1 million lb/day) of cane. With the plant operating at an on-stream factor of 0.50, the annual

output is 420 million pounds (192,000 metric tons or 242 million liters) of ethanol or 64 million gallons.

The on-stream factor is a reflection of our assumption that the mills, fermentation and recovery are

operated during a milling season of 150 days/yr. This plant is estimated to have a ± 100% CAPEX of $

670,000,000 and a ± 50% major equipment cost of $ 120,000,000 (included a Lang factor of 4). Also,

total variables cost per gallon ethanol production is estimated as $ 2.02. A brief safety analysis, HAZOP,

and Boston Square were performed in order to identify and evaluate problems that may present risks to

personnel or equipment, or prevent efficient operation. The MS Excel file, with the shortcut as shown below, shows all calculations, figures, and tables with detailed examination.

CHEG 407-Case

2-Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process.xlsx

Flowsheet and Process Description

The sugarcane plant is operated 5 months (150 days) a year, and processes 20,000 US ton of raw

sugarcane per day. The ethanol production from sugarcane consists of four process sections: cane milling,

juice clarification, fermentation, and ethanol distillation. The main raw materials involving in this

production are sugarcane and water, besides with other reagents at small quantities. The overall ethanol from sugarcane mills process overview is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Overall Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process Overview

4

1. Cane Milling

The sugarcane from field typically contains 15 wt% sucrose, 15 wt% fiber, and 70 wt% water and

dirt. Firstly, the cane is unloaded for cleaning, and placed in a large pile. Then, breaking cane is done by

revolving knives and shredder; grinding cane is done by 4 sets of 4-roller mills. Next, conveyors transfer

the cane through knife mill and hammer mill toward roller mills. In order to enhance the extraction of the

juice, imbibition water is added at the roller mills. Lately, bagasse which is removed from the last roller mill can be recycle to use as fuel. The design basis for Cane Milling section is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Design Basis for Cane Milling Section

Figure 2: Cane Milling Overview

2. Juice Clarification

In the juice clarification section, the raw material is first heated at about 95oC. Next, calcium

oxide (lime) is added in order to produce organic acids precipitate. The remaining of lime and dirt then

are added to clarifier in order to separate clear juice and heavy precipitate (mud). The mud will undergoes

the vacuum filtering process while the clear juice will go through evaporator which has five heat

exchangers in series in order to produce concentrated juice, using evaporated water. The last heat

exchanger is operated at 2.5 psia and 57oC. A design basis for juice clarification section can be seen in the Table 2 below.

Component Value Unit

Raw cane 20000 US ton/day

Sugar in cane 15 %

Extraction yield of sugar 96 %

Bagasse 0.275 lb/lb cane

40 % solid

60 % moisture

Imbibition water 0.307 lb/lb cane

Bagasse composition

Water

6140 US ton/day

Knife mill Hammer mill

20000 US ton/day 4-Roller mills

15 wt% sucrose 6-10" billets 0.5-1" chunks split fiber

15 wt% fiber

70 wt% water, dirt

Raw juice Bagasse

20640 US ton/day 5500 US ton/day

13.95 wt% sucrose 40 wt% solid

60 wt% water

Sugarcane

from field

Wt scale,

transport

5

Table 2: Design Basis for Juice Clarification Section

Figure 3: Juice Clarification Overview

3. Fermentation

Ethanol is produced as a result of fermentation in a series of fed-batch fermenters. Yeast cream

and molasses are fed to the top of the first fermenter. Each stage gives broth at the bottom following to

the middle of the next stage. The fermenters have a conical bottom inclined at 60˚ and an aspect ratio

(height/diameter) of 1.2 in the cylindrical part. Broth is circulated through external coolers to maintain the

fermenter operating temperature between 33 and 35oC (91 to 95oF). Liquid kinetic energy at the heat

exchanger outlet is used to agitate liquid in the fermenter. Foam and gasses from the fermenter conduct to

the next fermenter, then washed in a perforated plate column. Carbon dioxide is also produced with the ethanol and contain some of the vent gasses.

Disk-bowl centrifuges separate biomass from the wine to form a yeast cream containing 70-80%

of cellular mass. Acid treatment vessels received the yeast cream, where water is added to up to 35-40%

of the volume, and concentrated sulfuric acid is added to get the pH of about 2.2. The amount of effective

concentration of ethanol in the wine accounts for about 10 vol%. Figure 4 below shows the conversion of

sucrose and inverts to ethanol.

Type of reaction Stoichiometry

Inversion of Sucrose by Hydrolysis C12H22O11 + H2O → 2C6H12O6

Conversion of Invert Sugars by Yeast 2C6H12O6 → 4C2H5OH + 4CO2 Figure 4: Conversion of Sucrose and Inverts to Ethanol

Component Value Unit

Lime added 0.003 lb/lb cane

Sucrose lost in filtercake 0.7 %

Filtercake 0.0196 lb/lb cane

30 % solid

70 % moisture

Sugar in clear juice 12 %

Filtercake composition

Lime

60 US ton/day Recycle juice

Juice heater

Raw juice

20640 US ton/day

13.95 wt% sucrose

Concentrated juice Clear juice

9533 US ton/day 23832 US ton/day

30 wt% sucrose 12 wt% sucrose

Evaporated water Wash water

14299 US ton/day 3524 US ton/day

Filter cake

392 US ton/day

30 wt% solid

70 wt% water

Mud

centrifuge

Surge

tank

Mixing

vessel

Surge

tankClarifier

Surge

tankEvaporator

6

Table 3: Design Basis for Fermentation Section

Figure 5: Fermentation Overview

4. Ethanol Distillation

Fermented wine (15wt% ethanol) which comes from centrifuges will first go through heater, then

stripping and rectifying columns. In the stripping column, carbon dioxide gas is removed as an overhead

product, while liquid water is removed at the bottom. Then, rectifying column will received the side

stream from stripping column in order to produce hydrous ethanol with 50% in volume. Both columns are

operated at 30 psia and consist of valve trays, overhead condensers, and bottom reboilers. A design basis for distillation section can be seen in the table 4 below.

Component Value Unit

Fermentation time 8 hours

Waer added 0.13 lb/lb concentrated juice

Fermentation reaction yield 92 %

Bottom stream yield 99 % total ethanol

Total yield of ethanol 91 %

Diluted ethanol concentration 15 %

Reactor temperature 35 degree C

CO2 Water

Concentrated juice Gas

9533 US ton/day 1429 US ton/day Water

30 wt% sucrose

Water 10-Heat exchangers

1239 US ton/day

Yeast cream 9343 US ton/day

15 wt% ethanol

Sulfuric acid

10-Fermentors

Gas

washing

column

Acid treatment unit Centrifuges

7

Table 4: Design Basis for Distillation Section

Figure 6: Ethanol Distillation Overview

Mass and Energy Balances

For the annual output is 420 million pounds (192,000 metric tons or 242 million liters) of ethanol,

the mass flowrate of each component in each section has been calculated and can be seen in Tables 5-8 below.

Component Value Unit

Distillation yield 99 %

CO2 removed 100 %

50 vol%

43 wt%

Ethanol product density 0.93 kg/L

Product stream 3,226 US ton/day

Product capacity 483,966 US ton/year

Overall capacity 124,729,357 gal ethanol/year

0.16 lb product/lb cane

157.37 L product/US ton cane

Ethanol product

concentration

Ratio product

Gas to washing column Ethanol

25 US ton/day 50 vol%

3226 US ton/day

Condenser Condenser

Wine heater

Fermented wine Reboiler

9342 US ton/day

15 wt% ethanol

Reboiler To waste treatment

6091 US ton/day

Stripping

column

Rectification

column

8

Table 5: Mass Balance for Milling Section

Table 6: Mass Balance for Clarifying Section

Table 7: Mass Balance for Fermentation Section

Section Flowrate (US ton/day)

Sucrose 3,000

Fiber 3,000

Water & dirt 14,000

6,140

Sucrose 2,880

Water & dirt 17,760

Solid 2,200

Water 3,300

Component

Sugarcane

feed

MillingImbibition water

Raw juice

Bagasse

Section Flowrate (US ton/day)

Sucrose 2,880

Water & dirt 17,760

3,524

60

Sucrose 2,860

Water 20,972

Solid 118

Water 274

Sucrose 2,860

Water 20,972

Sucrose 2,860

Water 6,673

14,299

Clear juice

Lime

Wash water

Raw juice

Component

Decanter

Evaporator Concentrated

juice

Evaporated water

Clear juice

Filter cake

Section Stream Component Flowrate (US ton/day)

Sugar 2,859.84

Water 6,672.96

Added water (from acid treatment) 1,239.26

Ethanol 1,415.54

Water 7,773.75

Unreacted sugar 228.79

CO2 1,353.99

Water 73.02

Ethanol 14.16

CO2 1,342.35

Ethanol 1,401.38

Water 7,700.73

Unreacted sugar 228.79

CO2 11.65

Fermentation

Inlet

Outlet

Top

stream

Bottom

stream

9

Table 8: Mass Balance for Distillation Section

Major Equipment List

No. Equipment Functions 1 Knife mill 1st step of breaking the hard structure of the cane

2 Hammer mill 2nd step of breaking the hard structure of the cane 3 Roller mill Grind or mill the crushed cane

4 Settling tank Strain the juice from the mills to remove large particles 5 Vacuum filter Filter the insoluble particulate mass, called “mud”

6 Clarifying column Separate a heavy precipitate from the juice

7 Mix vessel Neutralize the organic acid 8 Juice heater Raise the temperature of the juice to about 200 degree F

9 Mud centrifugal Separate mud from the limed juice 10 Multiple effect evaporators Concentrate the juice in an evaporator station

11 Stripping column Remove residual carbon dioxide and as little ethanol as possible

overhead 12 Rectifying distillation Tolerate solids well and have a relatively good efficiency

13 Fermenters Produce ethanol

14 External coolers Maintain each fermenter at operating temperatures by circulating

broth through external coolers

15 Perforated plate column Wash gases and foam released from the fermenter process 16 Disk-bowl centrifuge Separate biomass from the wine to form a yeast cream

17 Acid treatment vessel Dilute the yeast cream with water and mix with concentrated

sulfuric acid

18 Sulfuric acid tank Contain sulfuric acid

19 Condenser Condense carbon dioxide, ethanol, and water 20 Ethanol storage tank Store pure ethanol

Figure 7: Major Equipment List

Economic Analysis

A major equipment cost is calculated as a total of $ 30,000,000 ± 50% within the accuracy of the

method. The details of estimated cost of each piece of equipment can be seen in Table 9 below. The total

equipment cost was then brought from 2006 US dollars to 2016 US dollars by using cost index found in

Section Stream Component Flowrate (US ton/day)

Ethanol 1,401.38

Water 7,700.73

CO2 11.65

Sugar 228.79

CO2 overhead 11.65

Ethanol overhead 14.01

Water at bottom 5,861.66

Sugar at bottom 228.79

Water in product 1,839.07

Ethanol in product 1,387.37

Distillation

Inlet

Outlet

10

figure 7.3 from Chemical Engineering Design Book (page 337) before being multiplied by a Lang factor of 4 to get a CAPEX cost of $ 120,000,000 ± 50% within the accuracy of the method.

Year Cost index

2006 1.6 fig. 7.3

2016 1.45 fig. 7.3

Table 9: Overall Economic Results

Compare to the original ± 100% ISBL cost ($ 670,000,000), the calculated CAPEX cost is much

lower ($ 120,000,000). The reason is many pieces of equipment not being accounted for. These

equipment are continuous vacuum pans, batch seed pans, crystallizers, continuous centrifuges, etc. The

difference also might come from the number of reactors used in practice, which will raise the CAPEX cost significantly.

This project is designed for St. Mary Sugar Coop plant in Jeanerette, Louisiana. The cost analysis

can be done by using ISBL and OSBL method. Based on the total purchased equipment cost, the total fixed capital cost is estimated as $ 216.9 MM for an investment of 20-year life for a project.

No Equipment Symbol Material Op. parameterOp. value Op. unit a b n Material factor Cost $

1 Knife mill S-101 Carbon steel Mass flow 765 t/h 68400 730 1 1 626,850.00$

2 Hammer mill S-102 Carbon steel Mass flow 765 t/h 68400 730 1 1 626,850.00$

3 Roller mills (x4) S-104A-D Carbon steel Mass flow 18000 t/day 250000 500 0.9 1 3,628,432.60$

4 Settling tank S-105 Carbon steel Volume 568 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1 141,370.07$

5 Vacuum filter (x2) S-107A&B Carbon steel Area 3026 m2 -73000 93000 0.3 1 956,778.04$

6 Clarifying column V-102 304 SS Volume 492.10 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 166,945.29$

7 Mix vessel V-101 304 SS Volume 359.61 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 135,522.00$

8 Mud centrifugal S-106 316 SS Diameter 1.30 m 57000 480000 0.7 1.3 822,040.96$

9 Fermenters (x10) R-301-310 304 SS Volume 1135.623 m3 623750 5000 1 1 6,301,865.00$

10 Disk-bowl centrifuge S-301A&B 316 SS Diameter 0.91 m 57000 480000 0.7 1.3 660,211.09$

11 Acid treatment vessel V-301A-D 316 SS Volume 26.50 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 112,644.24$

12 Sulfuric acid tank T-351 Carbon steel Volume 18.93 m3 113000 3250 0.65 1 134,977.95$

13 Ethanol storage tank T-451A&B Carbon steel Volume 3217.5985 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1 462,249.02$

Carbon steel Area 58.06 m2 1600 210 0.95 1 11,552.53$

316 SS Duty 8206 kW -14000 1900 0.75 1.3 2,111,387.98$

316 SSArea 743.22

m2330 36000 0.55 1.3 1,776,096.73$

316 SS Duty 18.65 kW 17000 1130 1.05 1.3 53,812.80$

Carbon steel Area 111.48 m2 29000 400 0.9 1 56,832.35$

304 SS Duty 21.2 kW 580000 20000 0.6 1.3 916,470.63$

Carbon steelArea 65.03

m230400 122 1.1 1 42,444.82$

304 SS Duty 366.34 kW 260000 2700 0.75 1.3 631,914.07$

14 Juice heater E-101

15Multiple effect

evaporatorsE-102A-E

16 External coolers (x10) E-301-304

17 Condensers E-402

No Equipment Symbol Trays/Packing # of trays Height of packing (m) a b n a b n

18 Stripping column C-401 valve trays 34 N/A 210 400 1.9 160,022.85$ 17400 79 0.85 2,197,673.55$

19 Rectifying distillation C-402 valve trays 60 N/A 210 400 1.9 163,477.76$ 17400 79 0.85 2,685,939.58$

20 Perforated plate column C-301 304 SS Raschig rings N/A 3.048 0 8000 1 284,671.99$ 17400 79 0.85 1,130,005.67$

Trays/packing parameter Column parameterCost of

tray/packingCost of column

26,999,039.58$

Total 2016 Cost of Major Equipment ± 50% 29,792,043.68$ eq. 7.14

4

119,168,174.70$ eq. 7.10

Lang factor

CAPEX ISBL ± 50%

Total 2006 Cost of Major Equipment ± 50%

11

Table 10: Total Fixed Capital Cost

Table 11: Variables Cost of Production

Assume that this sugarcane plant has 25 operators, 6 engineers, and 1 plant manager, in which the

salaries are estimated as $25/hr for operators, $30/hr for engineer, and $35/hr for plant manager. Thus, for

one season, the labor cost of this plant is calculated as around $6,000,000. Maintenance cost and

depreciation cost are estimated as 5% ISBL and 5% total fixed cost, respectively. Total annual cost equals the sum of labor cost, maintenance cost, and depreciation cost.

Table 12: Annual Labor, Maintenance, and Depreciation Cost

Table 13: Variables Cost per Gallon and per Year of Ethanol Production

Assume the plant is built at time zero, begins operation at full rate in year 1. The rate of corporate

income tax is 35%, and paid tax based on the previous year’s income. The IRR is found as 13.11% by

using Goal seek in Excel. The NPV of this sugarcane plant after 20 years then is calculated as

$106,932,545.09, which is approximately as $107 MM. The payback period is 8 years, and the profit is

earned at the 9th year. A detail can be seen in Table 14 below.

Major equipment cost 119,168,174.70$

Offsites factor (OS) 0.3

Design and Engineering (D&E) 0.3

Contigency (X) 0.1

Total fixed capital cost 216,886,077.96$

Component Value Unit Cost per unit Cost per day Cost per year

Cooling water 37,857,600 gal/day 0.005$ 189,288.00$ 28,393,200.00$

Electricity 523,872 kWh/day 0.060$ 31,432.32$ 4,714,848.00$

Raw sugarcane 20,000 US ton/day 30.00$ 600,000.00$ 90,000,000.00$

Calcium oxide 60 US ton/day 60.00$ 3,600.00$ 540,000.00$

By product Electricity (from bagasse) 22,723 kWh/day (0.087)$ (47,445.62)$ (7,116,843.60)$

116,531,204.40$

Utilities

Raw material

Consumption/Production

Labor cost 6,000,000.00$

Maintenance 6,235,986.00$ 5% ISBL

Depreciation 10,844,303.90$ 5% total fixed cost

Total annual cost 23,080,289.90$

Cooling water 0.45$

Electricity 0.07$

Raw sugarcane 1.41$

Calcium oxide 0.01$

By product Electricity (from bagasse) (0.11)$

0.09$

0.10$

2.02$ per gal

128,709,825.40$ per year

Maintenance

Utilities

Raw material

Total

Labor

12

Table 14: Cash Flow and NPV Analysis

Safety Analysis

Many hazardous chemicals involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills process are listed in the

Table 6 below. Carbon dioxide is classified as harmful; sucrose, water, ethanol calcium oxide, fructose,

and glucose are considered as non-harmful based on LD50 rate. The LD50 rate expresses the amount of the

specified chemical that it would take to kill 50% of an animal population. A chemical substances may be

very dangerous at high temperature or pressure, though it is not at lower degree of temperature and

pressure. The PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) establishes the ppm limit that should not come into

contact with a person. Appropriate medical care and paperwork should be fulfilled if a person comes into

contact with a chemical beyond its PEL. The Flammability Range in air (vol% in air) suggests that if the

volume percent of the specified material falls between these ranges, an explosion will mostly occur,

especially if there is an ignition source. In order to not falling in the flammability range, the unit needs to

be operated a very safe distance from this range. In our plant, since other chemical’s flammability ranges

do not applicable except ethanol’s, our unit process needs to be run at a very ethanol rich at 32 volume

percent in air or higher; or at a very EDC poor at 1 volume percent in air or lower. In case the

flammability ranges of other chemicals are indicated, our unit needs to be operated at the point more than

the highest volume percent in air of all the upper limits or at the point less than the lowest volume percent

in air of all the lower limits. Auto ignition temperature is shown in the last column, at which the specified

material may spontaneously ignite. Therefore, a unit should have a material operating far from its auto

ignition temperature. In order to do that, extra insulation may be added around process equipment.

Compound

Toxicity data

Toxicity level

Flammability range Auto ignition temperature

(oC) PEL

(ppm) LD50 (mg/kg)

Lower

limit

Upper

limit

Sucrose 27 29,700 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A

CO2 5000 1200 Rat

Harmful N/A N/A N/A 1029 Mouse

Year Revenue ($) Cost ($) Gross profit (S)Depriciation

charge ($)Taxable income ($) Tax ($)

After tax income

($)NPV ($) Total NPV to year ($)

1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (216,886,077.96)$ (216,886,077.96)$ (216,886,077.96)$

2 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 41,526,408.14$ (175,359,669.82)$

3 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 36,713,707.06$ (138,645,962.76)$

4 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 32,458,773.73$ (106,187,189.03)$

5 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 28,696,965.71$ (77,490,223.32)$

6 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 25,371,132.24$ (52,119,091.08)$

7 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 22,430,746.09$ (29,688,344.99)$

8 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 19,831,135.84$ (9,857,209.15)$

9 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 17,532,807.30$ 7,675,598.15$

10 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 15,500,843.44$ 23,176,441.59$

11 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 13,704,373.93$ 36,880,815.53$

12 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 12,116,106.17$ 48,996,921.70$

13 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 10,711,910.63$ 59,708,832.33$

14 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 9,470,454.26$ 69,179,286.59$

15 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 8,372,876.42$ 77,552,163.01$

16 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 7,402,502.31$ 84,954,665.31$

17 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 6,544,589.66$ 91,499,254.97$

18 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 5,786,104.75$ 97,285,359.72$

19 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 5,115,524.42$ 102,400,884.13$

20 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 4,522,660.96$ 106,923,545.09$

Rate of corporate tax 35% (0.00)$

IRR 13.11%

Total = Net present value =

13

H2O N/A N/A N/A Not harmful N/A N/A N/A

Ethanol 1000

3450 Oral, mouse

Not harmful 3.3% 19% 363 6300 Oral, rabbit

9000 Oral, rat

7060 Oral, rat

CaO 2.2 7340 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A

Fructose N/A 15000 Rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A

Glucose N/A 25800 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A

Source: OSHA Volume percentage in air at ambient

conditions

Table 15: Safety Parameters for Materials Involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process

LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg

≤ 25 Very toxic

25 to 200 Toxic

200 to 2000 Harmful

Figure 8: LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg

Unaccounted chemical, although all safety solutions are taken, escapes and can cause

unpredictable safety issues. Extra layers of protection should always be used as a backup. A check valve

should be used for process equipment that involves toxic material redundant. For personal safety, a

worker should always wear appropriate protective equipment like respirator, flame retardant clothing, steel toe boots, and safety glasses. Figure 10 below shows the HAZOP on multiple effect evaporators.

Figure 9: HAZOP on Multiple Effect Evaporators

Scen

ari

o

Parameter Guide Word Deviation Possible Causes

Lik

ely

ho

od

Consequences

Sev

eri

ty

Action

1 Flowrate NO No steam flow

Failure of inlet

pneumatic check valve

to open

5Process fluid temperature not

heated accordingly5

Install flowmeter to detect incident and

notice maintenance

2 Flowrate MORE More steam flowFailure of pneumatic

check valve to close4

Output of process fluid

temperature too high7

Install temperature controller to control

steam

3 Flowrate REVERSEReverse process

fluid flow

Failure of process fluid

inlet valve1 Product offset 3 Install check valve

4 Flowrate NO No fluid flowElectronic control

valve fails3

No steam to barometric

condenser to provide heat1

Isolate the gate valve and enable the

bypass

5Pressure

(shell side)HIGH

Shell side high

pressure

Exchanger outlet

discharge check valve

closes

2

Exchanger shell side will be over

pressurized up to maximum

pump discharge pressure

4

Rated pump discharge pressure at no

flow should be less than exchanger design

pressure

14

Figure 10: FMEA Rating Scale

Figure 11: Boston Square for Multiple Effect Evaporators HAZOP

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall, this project provides a general design for sugarcane mill plant in which the plant is

operated at an on-stream factor of 0.50, and the annual output of ethanol is 420 million pounds (192,000

metric tons or 242 million liters) or 64 million gallons. With the corporate tax is 35% and IRR is 13.11%,

the NPV of this sugarcane plant after 20 years is calculated as approximate as $107 MM. The payback

period is 8 years, and the profit is earned at the 9th year. Any technical improvement is required to reduce either the capital investment or the cost of production in order to improve the economic analysis.

Rating Detection

1 Current safeguards adequate

3 High chance that safeguard will detect

5 Moderate chance that safeguard will detect

7 Low chance that safeguard will detect

10 No known method of detection

Severity

FMEA Rating ScaleLikelyhood of Occurrence

Failure will always happen

Effect is insiginificant

Minor disruption, Customer dissatisfied

Major equipment damage

Personal injury

Death likely to occur

Failure is very unlikely

Occasional failure likely

Moderate likelyhood of failure

Failure is very likely

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sev

eri

ty

Likelyhood

Boston Square

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5