ZUCKERINDUSTRIE 139(2)_2014

Provided for non-commercial research and education use.

Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.

For doubts or consulting, please contact the author at:

[email protected]

This article was published in a Sugar Industry journal. The attached copy is furnished to the author for

non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing

with colleagues and providing to institution administration. Other uses, including reproduction and

distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are

prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex

form) to their personal website or institutional repository.

mailto:[email protected]�

97

No. 2 (2014) Sugar Industry 139 | 97–104

Technology/Technologie

The sugar and alcohol industry in the biofuels and cogeneration era: a paradigm change (part II)*

Die Zucker- und Alkoholindustrie im Zeitalter der Biokraftstoffe und Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung: ein Paradigmenwechsel (Teil II)

Electo Eduardo Silva Lora, Mateus Henrique Rocha, José Carlos Escobar Palacio, Osvaldo José Venturini, Maria Luiza Grillo Renó and Oscar Almazán del Olmo

10 Animal feed production

Another way to use vinasse is the production, by means of biotechnology, of a protein concentrate, which can be used as fodder. This approach provides a great opportunity to solve the dilemma of food versus biofuels.Vinasse contains carbon compounds and nitrogen assimilable by the microorganisms and therefore could be used for pro-duction of microbial biomass. This biomass could be used as a protein supplement, called Single Cell Protein (SCP) for animal feed. Vinasse offers the added advantage that it is relatively free of toxins and fermentation inhibitors. SCP is normally considered to be a valuable source of protein but it also con-tains nucleic acids, carbohydrates, cell wall material, lipids, minerals and vitamins (Silva et al., 2011).First laboratory studies about the utilisation of vinasse for the propagation of microbial biomass can be traced back to the late 1960s. The reduction of organic load and at the same time the production of valuable protein is the best feature of this process. Vinasse being an environmental threat could become a precious advantage, when to be a source of energy and car-bon for the biosynthesis of microbial biomass by the aerobic propagation of yeast cells (Otero et al., 2007).Optimal conditions for SCP production and COD reduction of vinasse have been specified for different species of micro-organisms in continuous cultures. Under these conditions the COD reduction levels ranges from 40 to 70% (Silva et al., 2011; Shojaosadati et al., 1999; Nudel et al., 1987). Although the use of vinasse as culture media not only increases the production of a rich protein biomass and also reduce the COD of the wastes, its application will always depends on the evalu-ation of its economic feasibility. So, the most appropriate way will be to combine the alternative of protein biosynthesis with fertirrigation. Biogas from vinasse biodigestion could be used for yeast drying.To give an idea of the numbers involved, an ethanol distillery with a capacity of 200,000 L/d will give enough vinasse for the operation of a protein synthesis installation of 50 t/d of a pro-

Paper presented at the XXVIII Congress of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 24–27 June 2013 and published here with the agreement of the Society.

tein concentrate of 92% dry matter, 45% crude protein. In an average distillery, 4.0–6.0 kg of yeast per each 100 L of ethanol (100%) can be recuperated (de Souza et al., 2012).Vinasse yeast has a protein content of 45% and cattle feed-ing grass have a protein content of 6–10%. The yeast SCP can partially substitute a fraction of the grass in the feed of cattle grazing on pasture and thereby potentially release land (land substitution) for increased sugarcane production, with mini-mal land use change effects. It is possible to state that a posi-tive land release is the resulting advantage of the use of the vinasse for SCP production. The production of SCP for animal feeding, from the waste vinasses, in a factory of a capacity of 22 t/d, it is equivalent to 1800 ha of land devoted to pasture; if this area is devoted to sugarcane cultivation it will give 144,000 t of sugarcane per year, considering the mean yield of crop in Brazil of 80 t of cane/ha. A conservative approach indicates that the land for cattle grazing in Brazil could be reduced by 50% by SCP production in the alcohol distillers (de Souza et al., 2012).

11 Process integration

The production of co-products should be combined, when pos-sible, with the sugar production through “integrated techno-logical schemes”, linked together from the technological point of view, energy and services/utilities (Escobar et al., 2011).Escobar (2010) conducted an integrated assessment of a cogen-eration plant and a distillery in an autonomous distillery using Aspen Plus™ and Gate-Cycle™ softwares. The study involved the simultaneous evaluation of the influence of various steam parameters of the cogeneration plant, different types of mill drives and changes in the ethanol production technology over the plant performance measured through overall efficiency indicator. Figures 9(a) and 9(b) show the processes integra-

* Continued from Sugar Industry 139 (2014), pp. 28–36

98

Sugar Industry 139 (2014) No. 2 | 97–104


tion schemes in an alcohol distillery and Tables 3 and 4 summarise the evaluated scenarios. A few alternatives were evalu-ated for each scenario. For example C6: DF-MST-AD means 4.2 MPa and 300 °C as steam parameters, an extraction with diffusers (DF), multiple stage steam tur-bines (MST) and atmospheric ethanol distillation (AD).The income from the sale of surplus electricity for steam parameters of 4.2 MPa and 420 °C and different technolo-gies used in the ethanol production was determined. Assuming USD68.00/MWh as sales price for the surplus elec-tricity the income generated from the sale of ethanol at a price of USD0.30/L is USD30.95/t cane on average (Fig. 10).Atmospheric ethanol distillation (AD) and multi-pressure distillation pro-cesses (MD) are considered as two dif-ferent scenarios referred to the reduc-tion of the steam consumption in the plant. Figure 11 shows the overall exer-getic efficiency for the different evalu-ated scenarios of the distillery.It is possible to note that the use of sys-tems based on MST combined with a MD system (scenario C8) gives incre-ments of 2% in the overall efficiency of the plant in relation to the base case. Implementation of mills driven by a commercial available electric motors (EM) equipped with an AD and MD systems allows increases in the overall efficiency of 0.3 and 1.4%, respectively. When technological alternatives such as DF-MST-AD and DF-EM-AD are consid-ered the increase in the efficiency is 1%. The overall efficiency could be increased by 3% through the use of the DF-MST-MD and DF-EM-MD systems of the sce-nario C8 in relation to the base case.It is possible to note that the use of sys-tems based on MST-MD (scenario C9) gives increments of 2% in the overall efficiency of the plant in relation to the base case. When the technological alter-native EM-AD is used the increase in the overall efficiency is 0.3%. The over-all efficiency could be increased by 2% through the use of the EM-MD system, 1.5% for the use of the technological alternative DF-MST-AD, 3% for DF-MST-MD technological alternative, 2% for DF-EM-AD and 3% for DF-EM-MD technological alternative system of the scenario C9 in relation to the base case.In relation to the technological alterna-

Fig. 9a: Process integration scheme in an alcohol distillery – cogeneration plant

Fig. 9b: Process integration scheme in an alcohol distillery – distillery

Fig. 10: Specific income of

technological alternatives

considered in scenery C6

99



tive MST-AD in scenario C6, the incorporation of techno-logical alternatives DF-MST-AD, MST-MD and DF-MST-MD increases the specific income through the sale of surplus elec-tricity of the plant by 12%, 11% and 22%, respectively. For scenarios C7, C8 and C9 the best specific incomes are obtained when the technological alternative utilised is DF-EM-MD. In these scenarios the incomes are 26%, 23% and 22% higher in comparison to the scenario MST-AD.Another factor that contributes to the reduction in process steam consumption and to the reduction in the volume of vinasse produced is the alcohol content in the fermented wine. For an AD system, increases in alcohol content of wine from 7% to 9% enable a decrease of approximately 18% in the spe-cific consumption of steam in the system (kg/L of hydrated ethanol).For a MD system, it is possible to obtain a decrease of approxi-mately 3% in the specific steam consumption of the system for every 0.5% of increase in alcohol content of wine. It can be seen in Figure 12 that the vinasse production per litre of the Hydrated Ethylic Alcohol (HEA) produced decreases by approximately 6% for every 0.5% increase in alcohol content of wine.

12 Biorefineries: The materialisation of the pro-cess integration

The biorefinery concept is analogous to the oil refinery one: a facility that produces multiple fuels and products from petroleum. However, unlike the oil refinery, a biorefinery uses renewable resources and its wastes in an integral and diversi-fied way. Based on the thermochemical, biochemical platforms or a mixture of both, the biorefineries can produce a wide range of products (chemicals, fuels, fertilisers, plastics, etc.) and energy with a minimum waste generation and very low pollutant emission. Figure 13 shows the main possible routes to be implemented in a sugarcane based biorefinery.Among the main advantages of implementing this type of sys-tem in the sugar and alcohol industry, are the energy efficiency increase, the production of alternative fuels (e.g. methanol),

Table 3: Analysed scenarios C1–C5 (Escobar, 2010)Equipment and parameters C1* C2 C3 C4 C5Boiler2.0 MPa, 300 °C ×4.2 MPa, 420 °C ×6.0 MPa, 490 °C ×8.0 MPa, 510 °C ×12.0 MPa, 520 °C ×Electric generatorsBackpressure turbines ×Condensing-extraction steam turbines (CEST) × × × ×MillsSingle stage turbine (SST) ×Multistage turbines (MST) × × × ×EvaporationMultiple effects evaporator (MEE) × × × × ×DistillationAtmospheric distillation (AD) × × × × ×* Base case

Table 4: Analysed scenarios C6–C9 (Escobar, 2010)Equipment and parameters C6 C7 C8 C9Boiler4.2 MPa, 300 °C – CEST ×6.5 MPa, 490 °C – CEST ×8.0 MPa, 510 °C – CEST ×12.0 MPa, 520 °C – CEST ×Electric generatorsBackpressure turbinesCondensing-extraction steam turbines (CEST) × × × ×MillsMultistage turbines (MST) × × × ×Electric motor (EM) a × × ×Diffuser – multistage turbines (DF-MST) × × × ×Diffuser – electric motors (DF-EM) × × ×EvaporationMultiple effect evaporator (MEE) × × × ×DistillationAtmospheric distillation (AD) × × × ×Multi-pressure distillation (MD) × × × ×a It is not economically feasible (Pistore and Lora, 2006).

Fig. 11: Comparison of exergetic efficiency of ethanol plants with different technologies. Left: Comparison of the overall plant efficiency for scenario C4 and base case scenario considering different technological alternatives in milling and destillation stages. Right: C9 and base case.

100



and the lower emission levels, all at reduced costs. In Brazil, the program PAISS (Technological Innovation for the Energy and Biochemical Production from Sugarcane) of BNDES (Bra-zilian Development Bank) and FINEP (Studies and Projects Funding) provided the funds for the construction of 12 pilot plants and 7 industrial plants.Figures 14 and 15 present the results of the mass and energy

Fig. 12: Specific vinasse production in the plant related to the alcohol content in the distillation of fermented wine

Fig. 13: Main possible routes in a sugarcane based biorefinery. Adapted and complemented from Ambrósio (2011)

balances of a sugarcane biorefinery model, based on the thermochemical platform (gasification), which produces biomethanol, bioethanol and electricity for the grid, consisting of an autono-mous distillery, cogeneration plant and annexed methanol plant (Case 2). Figure 15 includes a BIG/GT system (Case 4). In this analysis, the exergy of energy and product mass flows, a measure of their intrinsic quality, is used to define a refined efficiency criteria. Figure 16 shows the results of the overall exergetic efficiency of processing sugarcane under biorefineries systems (Renó, 2011) for the following four cases:– Autonomous distillery, cogeneration

plant and autonomous methanol plant (Case 1).

– Autonomous distillery, cogeneration plant and annexed methanol plant (Case 2).

– Sugar and alcohol factory, cogen-eration plant and annexed methanol plant (Case 3).

– Sugar and alcohol factory, cogenera-tion plant, annexed methanol plant and BIG/GT (Case 4).

Figure 16 shows the total available exergy calculated as the sum of the product mass exergy (methanol, etha-nol and electricity) pointed out in the shaded area of the circle for each of the analyzed cases and the overall exergy destruction (unavailable exergy that is the sum of the destroyed and the lost exergies) pointed out in the white area

of the circles. All the analysed cases showed the feasibility of the productive integration in the structural framework of the sugar and alcohol factories. It is noteworthy that the exergy analysis showed that the sugarcane energy use efficiency is increased due to the complementation and diversification of products within the biorefineries.

13 Industrial ecology

The return of nutrients to the soil through vinasse fertirriga-tion (Fig. 17), or use of the anaerobic digestion sludge and/or the ash from vinasse incineration are ways of integrating the sugar and alcohol industry to the terrestrial geochemical cycles and a true contribution to the mitigation of the soil degradation. On the other hand the production of protein concentrates for animal feed is the best way to a more rational utilisation of the available land in cattle raising.The fertirrigation system allows the irrigation according to the needs of the crop and drastically increases land productivity and sugarcane production. These practices have demonstrated their effectiveness in substituting chemical fertilizers.

101



14 Sustainability evaluation: LCA

In the sugar and alcohol industry, as in any other human activity, the sustain-ability evaluation is presently manda-tory. LCA is considered the standard tool for sustainability studies despite its inconsistencies (Lora et al., 2011). The real possibility of the implementation of “environmentally based” trade barri-ers and certification systems forced the funding of projects and research to solve the bottlenecks of sustainability evalua-tion methodologies.Two main indicators are used: the Out-put/Input Index also know as Energy Ratio (Renewable Energy/Fossil Energy Relation) and the reduction in Green-house Gases (GHG) emissions of a biofuel when compared with the sub-stituted fossil fuel (for example etha-nol and gasoline). The best sugar and

Fig. 14: Mass and energy balances in an autonomous distillery with an annexed conventional cogeneration and methanol plant (Case 2)

Fig. 15: Mass and energy balances in a sugar and alcohol factory with an annexed BIG/GT cogeneration and methanol plant (Case 4)

Fig. 16: Exergetic overall efficiency of the sugarcane energy utilisation in different thermochemical platforms biorefinery schemes

102



alcohol factories in Brazil and other countries show excellent values in both indexes; otherwise it is necessary to carry out these studies for different geographical and technological sce-narios for process improvements or alternatives selection.The energy ratio and the reduction in life cycle GHG emissions of the ethanol production resulted from different studies are shown in Table 5.

15 Conclusions

The sugarcane agro-industry is the base and the indispensable support for the implementation of large scale energy cogen-eration systems and biofuel production. Also, any strategy must keep in mind that sugar is more than a sweetener; it is the simplest, purest, safest and cheapest source of energy that human beings have.For that reason the cogeneration and biofuels goals – in an economic and ecological coherent development – will be based on the lignocellulosic residues, forcing parametric and techno-logical changes which, in a few years, can lead to a completely different sugarcane, sugar and fuel industry. The changes shall be so radical as to present a novel profile, forcing a new para-digm for the increase of the sugarcane energy, food and safe world contribution.Technological development will allow the advancement from the current option, limited to bioethanol (1st generation biofu-els), to cellulosic bioethanol, methanol, DME, biobutanol, bio-diesel (jet fuel) and diesel/gasoline (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) all obtained from biochemical and thermochemical conversion platforms of lignocellulosic residues (2nd generation biofuels). This will allow the use of huge amounts of raw material (sug-arcane trash) and the reduction of the impact on food produc-tion. More investments in RD&I programs are necessary so that the technologies for the production of 2nd generation biofuels can reach a commercial stage.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Brazilian National Research and Development Council (CNPq). The Research Support Founda-tion of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and the Coordi-nating Body for the Improvement of Postgraduate Studies in Higher Education (CAPES) for the funding of Research and Development projects and for the support through graduate students and reseach productivity grants that allowed the accomplishment of the research projects whose results are included in this paper. Thanks also to ISSCT for the invitation to present this paper as a lecture in the XXVIII ISSCT Congress plenary session.

Table 5: Energy ratio and GHG emissions of ethanol productionReference GHG emissi-

ons in kg CO2/kg ethanol

GHG reduction in %

Energy ratio

Brazilian studiesCavalett et al. (2013) 0.672 –76.0 –Seabra et al. (2011) 0.597 –78.7 9.0Walter et al. (2011) 1.035 –63.1 –Luo et al. (2009) 0.378 –86.5 –Macedo et al. (2008) 0.553*

0.438**–80.3–84.4

9.3*11.6**

Other countriesArgentina (Acreche and Valeiro, 2013) 1.420 –49.3 3.4Mexico (García et al., 2011) 2.582 –7.8 2.1Thailand (Silalertruksa and Gheewala, 2009) 0.869 –68.9 3.0Petroleum gasoline (Wang et al., 2011)*** 2.80 – –* 2005 scenario. ** 2020 scenario. *** The European value of petroleum gasoline life cycle GHG emissions is 83.8 kg CO2-eq/GJ and the USA value ranges between 90 and 110 kg CO2-eq/GJ (Wang et al., 2011).

Fig. 17: Integration of the sugarcane agro-industry to geochemical cycles through fertirrigation (Rocha et al., 2010)

103



Abbreviations

1G First Generation Ethanol Distillery2G Second Generation Ethanol DistilleryAD Atmospheric Distillation process BIG/CC Biomass Integrated Gasification with Combined

CycleBIG/GT Biomass Integrated Gasification with Gas TurbineBNDES Brazilian Development BankBOD Biochemical Oxygen DemandCAPES Coordinating Body for the Improvement of Post-

graduate Studies in Higher EducationCEST Condensing-Extraction Steam TurbineCGEE Center for Strategic Studies and ManagementCNPq Brazilian National Research and Development

CouncilCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandCTC Sugarcane Technology Centerd.b. Dry BasisDF DiffuserDME Dimethyl EtherDRH Dedini Rapid HydrolysisEM Electric MotorFAPEMIG Research Support Foundation of the State of Minas

GeraisFDCA Furan Dicarboxylic AcidFINEP Studies and Projects Funding AgencyGHG Greenhouse GasesHEA Hydrated Ethylic AlcoholHMF Hydroxymethylfurfural ICIDCA Cuban Research Institute of Sugarcane Co-productsICSB International Consortium for Sugarcane Biotech-

nologyISBUC International Sugarcane Biomass Utilization Con-

sortiumISSCT International Society of Sugar Cane TechnologistsLCA Life Cycle AssessmentLLDPE Linear Low Density PolyethyleneMD Multi-pressure Distillation processMEE Multiple Effects EvaporatorMST Multiple Stage Steam TurbineNEST Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed

GenerationPAISS Technological Innovation for the Energy and Bio-

chemical Production from SugarcanePE PolyethylenePLA Polylactic AcidPP PolypropyleneRD&I Research, Development and InnovationSCP Single Cell ProteinSOFC Solid Oxide Fuel CellSSCF Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermenta-

tion ProcessesSSF Simultaneous Saccharification and FermentationSST Single Stage Steam TurbineUNICA Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association

References

Acreche, M.M.; Valeiro, A.H. (2013): Greenhouse gasses emissions and energy balances of a non-vertically integrated and ethanol supply chain: A case study in Argentina. Energy 54 (6), 146–154

Albert-Thenet, J. (1991): Steam economy in cane sugar factories. Proceedings of the International Conference on Energy from Sugarcane, Hilo, Hawaii, 223–243

Almazán, O.; González, L; Galvez, L. (1998): Maurice Paturau Memorial Lec-ture, Keynote Address, The sugar cane, its by-products and co-products. Proc. of the Third Annual Meeting of Agricultural Sciences. University of Mauritus, Réduit, Mauritus, 17–18th November, 13–15

Ambrósio. W. (2011): A Usina de Cana-de-açúcar como Exemplo de Biorefinar-ia. In: Vaz Jr., S. (ed.): Biorrefinarias: Cenários e Perspectivas. Brasília, DF: Embrapa Agroenergia, 69–79 http://www.cnpae.embrapa.br/publicacoes/livros1/Biorrefinarias_CenariosPerspectiva.pdf

Avram, P.; Morgenroth, B.; Pfau, S. (2007): Integrated beet cane sugar process-ing with high cogeneration efficiency. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 27, 1321–1333

Avram, P.; Morgenroth, B; Seemann, F. (2004): Benchmarking concept for an in-tegrated sugar, ethanol and cogeneration plant. Zuckerind. 129, 875–879

Bassetto, N.Z. (2006): SEPPA – Sistema Especialista para Planta de Produção de Álcool. Dissertação de Mestrado em Engenharia Química, Faculdade de Engenharia Química, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, 77

Cavalett, O.; Chagas, M.F.; Seabra, J.E.A.; Bonomi, A. (2013): Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Interna-tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18 (3), 647–658

CGEE (2009): Center for Strategic Studies and Management. Bioetanol com-bustível: Uma oportunidade para o Brasil. Centro de Gestão e Estudos Es-tratégicos (CGEE), Brasília, 536

Chang, K.W.; Wing, A.L.; Guness, D.; Hoi, L.W.S. (1999): Optimising steam utilisation at a typical sugar factory. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 24, 270–279

Coutinho, P. (2011): Biorrefinarias: Tecnologias e Produtos Segundo a Visão da Braskem. In: Vaz Jr., S. (ed.): Biorrefinarias: Cenários e Perspectivas. Brasília, DF: Embrapa Agroenergia, 101–116 http://www.cnpae.embrapa.br/publicacoes/livros-1/Biorrefinarias_CenariosPerspectiva.pdf

Cruz, S.H. (2006): Produção de etanol a partir de resíduos celulósicos. In: Anais do II Workshop de Gestão de Energia e Resíduos na Agroindústria Sucroalcooleira (GERA). Pirassununga, São Paulo, 12–13 de junho

Dias, M.O.S.; Cunha, M.P. da; Maciel Filho, R.; Bonomi, A.; Jesus, C.D.F.; Rossell. C.E.V. (2011): Simulation of integrated first and second generation bioeth-anol production from sugarcane: comparison between different biomass pretreatment methods. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotech-nology 38 (8), 955–966

DOW (2007): Around Dow 13(11), 1–14; Downloaded from: http://www.dow.com/PublishedLiterature/dh_0191/0901b80380191026.pdf?filepath=news/pdfs/noreg/162-02356.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

Ensinas, A.V.; Nebra, S.A.; Lozano, M.A.; Serra, L.M. (2007): Analysis of process steam demand reduction and electricity generation in sugar and ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Conversion and Management 48 (11), 2978–2987

Escobar, J.C.P.; Lora, E.E.S.; Venturini, O.J.; Santos, V.A.; Renó, M.L.G. (2011): Cogeneration options for improving the competitiveness of a cane-based ethanol plant in Brazil. Int. Sugar J. 113, 509–515

Escobar, J.C.P. (2010): Análise Termoeconômica Integrada das Plantas de Cogeração e Etanol em uma Destilaria Autônoma. Tese de Doutorado em Engenharia Mecânica, Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade Federal de Itajubá, 260

Escobar, J.C.P.; Lora, E.E.S.; Venturini, O.J.; Yáñez, E.E.; Castillo, E.F.; Almazán, O. (2009): Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security. Renew-able and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (6–7), 1275–1287

Fischer, G.; Teixeira, E.; Hizsnyik, E.T.; Velthuizen H. van (2008): Land use dy-namics and sugarcane production. In: Zuurbier, P.; de Vooren, J. van (Eds.): Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change mitigation and the environment. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Neth-erlands, 29–62

García, C.A.; Fuentes, A.; Hennecke, A.; Riegelhaupt, E.; Manzini, F.; Masera, O. (2011): Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sug-arcane ethanol production in Mexico. Applied Energy 88 (6), 2088–2097

Hassuani, S.J.; Leal, M.R.L.V.; Macedo, I.C. (Eds.) (2005): Biomass power gen-eration: Sugarcane bagasse and trash. Pathways to Sustainability Series. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Copersucar Techno-logical Centre (CTC). UNDP-CTC, Piracicaba, 216 pp

104



Häussler, B. (2001): Quena–Successful start-up of the world´s most modern bagasse paper mill. Twogether Magazine. Voith Technical Paper, 40–48; Downloaded from: http://www.voithpaper.com/applications/twogether/vp_tw12_quena_en.pdf

ICIDCA (2000): La indústria de los Derivados de la Caña de Azúcar (Hand-book of sugarcane derivatives). 3rd ed. Editorial Científico Técnica. Havana:ICIDCA.

IFC (2012): Applications of furfural. Downloaded from: www.furan.com/ furfural_applications_of_furfural.html

Lima, M.A.P.; Bonomi. A.A. (2011): Indústria Brasileira de Cana-de-açúcar: Ambiente Favorável à Introdução de Tecnologias de Produção de Etanol Lignocelulósico. In: Vaz Jr., S. (Ed.): Biorrefinarias: Cenários e Perspectiv-as. Brasília, DF: Embrapa Agroenergia, 81–100. Downloaded from: http://www.cnpae.embrapa.br/publicacoes/livros-1/Biorrefinarias_Cenarios Perspectiva.pdf

Lora, E.E.S.; Venturini, O.J. (2012): Biocombustíveis. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Interciência 2 (1), 1158

Lora, E.E.S.; Escobar, J.C.P.; Rocha, M.H.; Renó, M.L.G.; Venturini, O.J.; Almazán, O. (2011): Issues to consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sus-tainability assessments. Energy 36 (4), 2097–2110

Lora, E.E.S.; Zampieri, M.; Venturini, O.J.; Santos, J.J.C.S. (2008): A sugar Mill cogeneration plant repowering alternatives: Evaluation through the combination of thermodynamic and economic concepts. Int. Sugar J. 110, 488–495

Lora, E.E.S.; Zampieri, M.; Nogueira, L.A.H.; Leal, M.R.L.V.; Cobas, V.M. (2006): Thermodynamic limits for the production of ethanol and electricity from sugarcane. Sugar Industry/Zuckerind. 131, 759–765

Lora, E.E.S.; Arrieta, F.R.P.; Carpio, R.C.; Nogueira, L.A.H. (2000): Clean pro-duction: efficiency and environment. Int. Sugar J. 102, 343–351

Luo, L.; Voet E. van der; Huppes, G. (2009): Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (6–7); 1613–1619

Macedo, I.C.; Seabra, J.E.A.; Silva, J.E.A.R. (2008): Green house gases emis-sions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (7), 582–595

Moncada, J.; El-Halwagi, M.M.; Cardona, C.A. (2013): Techno-economic analy-sis for a sugarcane biorefinery: Colombian case. Bioresource Technology 135 (5), 533–543

Murphy, R.; Woods, J.; Black, M.; McManus, M. (2011): Global developments in the competition for land from biofuels. Food Policy 36 (S1), S52–S61

Nudel, B.C.; Waehner, R.S.; Fraile, E.R.; Giulietti, A.M. (1987): The use of single and mixed cultures for aerobic treatment of cane sugar stillage and SCP production. Biological Wastes 22 (1), 67–73

Obando, D.S.; Gualdrón, M.A.; Renó, M.L.G.; Lora, E.E.S. (2010): Techno-eco-nomic indicators for the thermochemical and biochemical routes for bio-fuels production using sugarcane bagasse as feedstock. Sugar Industry/Zuckerind. 135, 601–606

Ojeda, K.; Ávila, O.; Suárez, J.; Kafarov, V. (2011): Evaluation of technological alternatives for process integration of sugarcane bagasse for sustainable biofuels production – Part 1. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 89 (3), 270–279

Otero, M.A.R.; Laria, G.S.; Valdivielso, J.A.M.; Almazán, O.O. (2007): Fodder yeast production: a new approach for distillery vinasse treatment. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 27, 1127–1133

Pant, D.; Adholeya, A. (2007): Biological approaches for treatment of distillery wastewater: A review. Bioresources Technology 98 (12), 2321–2334

Paturau, J.M. (1969): By-products of the Cane Sugar Industry. Elsevier, Am-sterdam, 274 pp

Pistore, T.T.; Lora, E.E.S. (2006): Economic, technical and environmental as-sessment on cogeneration in the sugar/alcohol industry. Int. Sugar J. 108, 441–453

Renó, M.L.G. (2011): Avaliação do Balanço Energético e dos Impactos Ambi-entais do Processo de Produção de Metanol a partir do Bagaço de Cana-de-açúcar, utilizando a ACV. Tese de Doutorado em Engenharia Mecânica, Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade Federal de Itajubá, Ita-jubá, 176 pp

Renouf, M.A.; Wegener, M.K.; Nielsen, L.K. (2008): An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugar for fermentation. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (12), 1144–1155

Rocha, M.H.; Lora, E.E.S.; Venturini, O.J.; Escobar, J.C.P.; Santos, J.J.C.S.; Moura, A.G. (2010): Use of the life cycle assessment (LCA) for comparison of the environmental performance of four alternatives for the treatment and dis-posal of bioethanol vinasse. Int. Sugar J. 112, 611–622

Rocha, M.H.; Lora, E.E.S.; Venturini, O.J. (2008): Life Cycle Analysis of differ-ent alternatives for the treatment and disposal of ethanol vinasse. Sugar Industry/Zuckerind. 133, 88–93

Salomon, K.R.; Lora, E.E.S.; Rocha, M.H.; Almazán, O.O. (2011): Cost calcula-tions for biogas from vinasse biodigestion and its utilization. Sugar Indus-try/Zuckerind. 136, 217–223

Salomon, K.R.; Lora, E.E.S. (2009): Estimate of the electric energy generating potential for different sources of biogas in Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (9), 1101–1107

Seabra, J.E.A.; Macedo, I.C.; Chum, H.L.; Faroni, C.E.; Sarto, C.A. (2011): Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and en-ergy use. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 5 (5), 519–532

Silalertruksa, T.; Gheewala, S.H. (2009): Environmental sustainability assess-ment of bio-ethanol production in Thailand. Energy 34 (11), 1933–1946

Silva, C.F.; Arcuri, S.L.; Campos, C.R.; Vilela, D.M.; Alves, J.G.L.F.; Schwan, R.F. (2011): Using the residue of spirit production and bio-ethanol for protein production by yeasts. Waste Management 31 (1), 108–114

Shojaosadati, S.A.; Khalilzadeh, R.; Jalilzadeh, A.; Sanaei, H.R. (1999): Biocon-version of molasses stillage to protein as an economic of this effluent. Re-sources, Conservation and Recycling 27 (1–2), 125–138

Soccol, C.R.; Faraco, V.; Karp, S.; Vandenberghe, L.P.S.; Thomaz-Soccol, V.; Woiciechowski, A.; Pandey, A. (2011): Lignocellulosic bioethanol: Current status and future perspectives. Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Con-version Processes. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 101–122

Souza, G.F. de; Palacio, J.C.E.; Orozco, D.J.R.; Almazán, O.; Lora, E.E.S. (2012): Polygeneration System in the Sugar and Alcohol Industry. In: Proceedings of XIV Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering (ENCIT). Rio de Janeiro, 18–22 de Novembro

Tewari, M.; Singh, V.K.; Gope, P.C.; Chaudhary, A.K. (2012): Evaluation of me-chanical properties of bagasse-glass fibre reinforced composite. Journal of Materials & Environmental Science 3 (1), 171–184

Walter, A.; Dolzan P.; Quilodrán, O.; Oliveira, J.G. de; Silva, C. da; Piacente, F.; Segerstedt, A. (2011): Sustainability assessment of bio-ethanol production in Brazil considering land use change, GHG emissions and socio-economic aspects. Energy Policy 30 (10), 5703–5716

Wang, M.Q.; Han, J.; Haq, Z.; Tyner, W.E.; Wu, M.; Elgowainy, A. (2011): Energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic ethanol with technology improvements and land use changes. Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (5), 1885–1896

Youngquist, J.A.; English, B.E.; Scharmer, R.C.; Chow, P.; Shook, S.R. (1994): Lit-erature review of use of nonwood plant fibres for building materials and panels. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-80. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Products Laboratory, 146 pp, Downloaded from: http://128.104.77.228/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr80.pdf

Authors’ addresses: Electo Eduardo Silva Lora (corresponding author), Mateus Henrique Rocha, José Carlos Escobar Palacio, Osvaldo José Venturini, Maria Luiza Grillo Renó, NEST – Excel-lence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed Generation, Federal University of Itajubá, Mechanical Engineering Insti-tute (IEM), Av. BPS 1303, Postal Box 50, Itajubá/MG, Brazil; Oscar Almazán del Olmo, ICIDCA – Cuban Research Institute of Sugarcane Co-products, Via Blanca y Carretera Central 804, San Miguel del Padrón, A.P. 4036, La Habana, Cuba; e-mail: [email protected]

ZUCKERINDUSTRIE 139(2)_2014

Documents

Transcript of ZUCKERINDUSTRIE 139(2)_2014