Capital costs

Estimates of capital costs for biofuel plants (or any other developing technology) are uncertain due to the many influencing factors. An example is the 18 million litres/yr CHOREN bioethanol plant whose costs escalated from €500 million in early 2007 to €1000 million in early 2008 (Bridgwater, 2009). Nevertheless, several estimates are available for different biofuel technologies. One of the most comprehensive and consistent studies currently available, carried out by DENA (2006), puts the cost of thermo-chemical plants between €525 and €650 million for plants treating 1 million tonnes of wet biomass and producing 105 000-120 000 tonnes of biofuel per year. In addition to the economic benefits, this option provides operational and organisational synergies and significantly lowers the plant availability risk. Integration into an existing refinery or chemical plant can also accelerate the planning procedure and can lower investment costs by around 25% (DENA, 2006).

Table 3.6 shows the process options considered, and Table 3.7 shows the breakdown of costs. Processing route 1 appears to be economically the most sustainable option.

Table 3.6 Process options considered in the DENA study

Mechanical

treatment

Thermal

pre-treatment

Gasification

Gas

purification

Synthesis

Product

conditioning

Decentralised

1

Centralised

Milling

Entrained-

flow

gasification

Gas

purification

FT

synthesis

Product

conditioning

Decentralised

2

Shredding

Fast pyrolysis

Centralised

Entrained-

flow

gasification

Gas

purification

FT

synthesis

Product

conditioning

Decentralised

3

Shredding

Fluidised

bed

gasification

Gas

purification

Methanol

synthesis

Centralised

Product

conditioning

Decentralised

4

Shredding

Centralised

Pyrolysis

Entrained-

flow

gasification

Gas

purification

FT

synthesis

Product

conditioning

Decentralised

5

Shredding

Centralised

Pyrolysis

Entrained-

flow

gasification

Gas

purification

Methanol

synthesis

Product

conditioning

It is interesting to note that integration into an existing refinery or chemical plant is the most cost-effective option across the different processing routes. In addition to the economic benefits, this option provides operational and organisational synergies and significantly lowers the plant availability risk. Integration into an existing refinery or chemical plant can also accelerate the planning procedure and can lower investment costs by around 25% (DENA, 2006).

Even fewer estimates are available for the capital costs of bio-chemical plants. A recent study by the U S EPA (2009) estimates the costs for a bio-chemical plant producing 56 million gallons/yr of ethanol from 849 385 dry tonnes/yr of corn stover at $133 million/yr (for the year 2010). With other costs added (including site development, project contingency, etc.), the total project investment costs are estimated at $232 million/yr (US EPA, 2009). For the years 2015 and 2020, the annual costs are predicted to go down to $220 million and $198 million, respectively.

Table 3.7 Investment costs for different technology options in the DENA study

Case

1

1 Ref

2

2 Ref

3

4

4 Ref

5

5 Ref

Storage and preparation

55

55

60

60

55

50

50

50

50

Pyrolysis

0

0

86

86

0

90

90

90

90

Gasification and cleaning

90

90

79

79

97

90

90

90

90

Gas

conditioning

33

33

30

26

68

31

30

31

30

Fischer — Tropsch and conditioning

84

88

78

79

0

84

80

0

0

Lurgi Mt synfuel

0

0

0

0

96

0

0

84

81

Oxygen

production

47

0

45

0

54

45

0

45

0

Power plant

24

0

21

0

28

23

0

23

0

Auxiliary plant infrastructure

81

43

131

90

110

89

57

89

56

Planning cost

74

60

90

71

82

71

57

71

57

Contingency

37

35

38

32

39

39

34

39

34

Total

525

398

658

523

629

612

488

612

488

Dry biomass input

700 000

700 000

700 000

700 000

700 000

700 000

700 000

700 000

700 000

Product output,

hydrocarbons,

t/yr

114 000

114 000

106 400

106 400

104 000

118 300

118 300

118 300

118 300

Note: Ref — integrated into refinery; option 3 not considered worthwhile integrating into a refinery. Source: Bridgewater (2009) and DENA (2006).