Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Goal of Study
The goal of this case study is:
to perform cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of bio-ethanol production from hemicellulose extraction process to evaluate the potential human health and ecological impacts associated with the products system
2
System Description
A technical analysis is performed for a new process at FBRI that isolates
chemical feedstock (mainly hemicellulose material) from the hardwood in addition to hardwood Kraft pulp production.
This new process termed the near neutral hemicellulose extraction
process, involves the extraction of wood hemicellulose using green liquor and white liquor prior to Kraft pulping.
The extracted material is cooked and converted into bio-ethanol, acetic acid
Ethanol
E. Coli K011
Pulp/Paper
3
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,
Acetic Acid
Wood Yard
Wood Extraction
Kraft Pulping
Washing
PULP PRODUCTION
Steam
Steam
Split
Evaporation
10 Black Liquor
Sodium Sulfate 11
Lignin 27
Flash Tanks
E10 E11
Green Liquor
Wash water Dregs
Smelt
Recovery Boiler
Steam
Electrivity
12
E5 Steam Steam E9
E6 Electrivity
Evaporation
Lime Burning
Dregs wash
Acid Hydrolyze
Mineral Landfill
14
Solvent 25
Steam E8
CaO
18
24
Micro-Organisums
33 Dregs
Lignin Filtration
15
Fermentation
20
27
16 Acetic Acid
17 Furfural
26 Waste
19 Gypsum
21 CO2
Lignin
Functional Unit
One (1) tonne of bio-ethanol production
of cellulose 42.6%, hemicelluloses 29.6%, lignin 27.5%, & ash 0.2% on dry weight basis; 46% moisture content based on wet weight; hardwood virgin logs from Northeastern part of the United States.
5
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
System Boundaries
Anthraquinone Steam Fresh Water Logs
Wood Yard
Wood Chips
Wood Extraction
Wash Water
Kraft Pulping
Washing
PULP PRODUCTION
WL
Recycle
Steam
Steam
Split
Evaporation
Flash Tanks
Steam Electrivity
Recovery Boiler
Re-burn
Steam
Electrivity
Steam
Evaporation
Fuel
Lime Burning
Dregs wash
Water
Waste water
H2SO4
TRANSPORTATION
Acid Hydrolyze
Solvent Steam
Ethanol
Lignin Filtration
Fermentation
Acetic Acid
Lignin Gypsum
Mineral Landfill
CO2
Dregs
SOLID WASTE
ENERGY RECOVERY
Micro-Organisums
Black Liquor
Sodium Sulfate
BY-PRODUCTS
Green Liquor
Steam
Steam
Ash
product boundaries cover cradle-to-gate activities and assumptions made as follow. Energy produced from the Hog Fuel Boiler and Recovery Boiler is assumed to be used internally. Electricity consumption used for working activities is not included. Furfural (co-product) is used internally and therefore it is not assumed to be marketed. Gypsum (co-product), Ash disposal (Hog Fuel Boiler) and dregs (causticizing) are assumed to be landfilled in a mineral landfill. Industrial water (demineralized) is assumed to be used in washing, slaking and extraction process. Wastewater from the causticizing process is neglected. Odor from sulfide is neglected. Internal transportation & other small activities are not included. Working environment is not included.
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,
Disposal Material Transportation
Note: 1. Measurements 2. Computation (from mass balance consideration and input data for process of concern 3. Data obtained from similar type or technology 4. Data obtained from different type or process 5. Approximation Productspecific data: Processes specifically concern with the handling of gold Site-specific data: Data of interest obtained from actual sites in the product system of gold, but inventory of process data is not specified. General data: All others
Transportation
Results (Normalized)
Life Cycle Assessment of bio-ethanol (Cradle-to-Gate) Raw Material & Manufacturing Stage Landfill (Ash & Gypsum) 10% improvement optimization 76% 24% in landfill materials: Gypsum, Ash
Impact Categories
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,
Results (Normalized)
LCA of bio-ethanol (Compare the Extraction Process)
Allocation
Impact categories
11
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,
Results (Normalized)
LCA of bio-ethanol (Compare Processes)
Processes:
Wood yard (Red), Lime burning (light Blue), Recovery boiler (Green),
Extraction (Blue).
Impact categories
12
Extraction.
13
Impact categories
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,
Conclusions
We have learned from the study that wood yard, wood extraction, lime
burning and recovery boiler are the significant processes in the system:
Wood yard (raw materials stage) is a main contributor (29%). Fuel
consumption (transportation and cutting activities) is the main material that contributes to all significant impact categories. The fuel oil consumption in the lime burning process contribute significantly (ethane & methane) to human toxicity. Anthraquinone (AQ) material used in the extraction process contributes human toxicity and radioactive waste. Heavy metals emission (dioxin, lead, arsenic, nickel etc) in the recovery boiler process contributes to human toxicity.
The gypsum co-product (landfill material) contributes to bulk waste and
14
Ash disposal contributes to human toxicity and others impact categories. Overall bio-ethanol contributes to 4.8PE, 3.1PE and 2.6PE to human toxicity, soil, air and water, 3.8PE to bulk waste, 2.2PE to global warming and 1.4PE to ozone depletion and formation and 1.9PE to radioactive waste.
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,
Further Improvements
Most of the data are used from the different databases. Site-
15
specific data collection will be the first priority. Research will also be extended on wood chip production and site specific data will be collected from contractors & other sources. The lime burning process data and assumptions will be improved. Anthraquinone (AQ) material input is an optional input to the extraction process, avoiding AQ material will improve the extraction process significantly. Outputs emissions data will be improved for the recovery boiler process and new air emission cleaning techniques will be evaluated. Bio-ethanol production will be compared with its fossil based and agricultural based counterparts.
Gurbakhash S. Bhander PhD, Eng. Eng.
School of Forest Resources, 5755 Nutting Hall,