View
234
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Ethanol Production in US
Vijay SinghAssociate Professor
Department of Agricultural & Biological EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Waste Management & Research CenterOctober 17, 2007
CollaboratorsCollaborators
Ron Belyea University of MissouriMike Cotta NCAUR/ARS/USDABruce Dien NCAUR/ARS/USDADavid Johnston ERRC/ARS/USDABob Moreau ERRC/ARS/USDAEberhard Morgenroth University of IllinoisGanti Murthy Oregon State UniversityKent Rausch University of IllinoisVijay Singh University of IllinoisMike Tumbleson University of Illinois
Presentation OutlineEthanol Production Process (Video)Ethanol Industry
Ethanol Production CapacityGrowth in Industry
Issues Facing Ethanol IndustryEmerging Dry Grind Ethanol ProcessesFuture of Ethanol Industry
Cellulosic Ethanol
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
Year
Eth
anol
(Bill
ion
gallo
ns/y
r)
2004: 3.4 billion gallons 2006: 5.6 billion gallons 2008: 8.9 billion gallons
Ethanol Production in US
Plants Under Construction (79)
Plants in Production (115)
U.S. Dry Grind Corn FacilitiesU.S. Dry Grind Corn Facilities
Benefits of EthanolBenefits of Ethanol
Reduces dependence on foreign oil importsExtend the domestic supplies of gasolineEnvironment friendly, reduces green house gasesIncrease octane rating of gasolineClean burning fuelIncreases demand for corn, stabilizes pricesRural Development
Issues Related To Ethanol IndustryIssues Related To Ethanol Industry
Water UsedApproximately 4 gallon water/gallon of ethanol produced
Emissions/OdorFood versus Fuel
Corn is also used for human consumptionLow Coproduct ValueEnergy Independence
Ethanol from corn is limited by corn productionConverting all the corn in the US into ethanol will only meet 20 to 25% of the annual gasoline demand
2.7 gal (10.2 L) of Ethanol
15 lb (6.8 kg) of DDGS
Ruminant Food
Corn Dry Grind Facility
One bushel of Corn(24.5 kg or 56 lb)
Corn Dry Grind Ethanol Process
Conventional Dry Grind Process
Saccharification& Fermentation
Yeast& Glucoamylase
CO2
Liquefaction
Mash
Corn
Water
Grinding (Hammermill)
BlendingOverhead product(Recycled back)
Dehydrationcolumn
Stripping/Rectifyingcolumn
Ethanol
CentrifugeThinStillage
Wet Grains Syrup
DDGS
Evaporator
Alpha-Amylase
DDGS Utilization (2005)
45 4644 45 46
35
3937 37
42
5 4 3 5 3
15
11
1613
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dairy Beef Poultry Swine
% U
se a
s Fee
d
Source: Steve Markham, Commodity Specialists Company
Coproduct valuesCoproduct values
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Cop
rodu
ct V
alue
($/t
on)
.
corn DDGS
Economic Research Service 2005: www.ers.usda.gov/db/feedgrains/
Wet Corn Fractionation: Enzymatic Dry Grind Corn Process (E-Mill)
2.6 gal(9.84 L) Ethanol
3.7 lb(1.68 kg) Residual DDGS
3.3 lb (1.49 kg) Germ 4 lb
(1.81 kg) Pericarp Fiber
4 lb(1.81 kg)
Endosperm Fiber
Nonruminant Food
Ruminant Food
Corn Dry Grind FacilityBushel of Corn(24.5 kg or 56 lb)
DensitySeparation
DensitySeparation
SizeSeparation
Other Benefits of Fractionation Process: Recovery of Valuable Coproducts
Recovery of germ, pericarp and endosperm fiber as valuable coproducts
GermCorn Germ Oil
Pericarp and Endosperm FiberCorn Fiber OilCorn Fiber GumEthanol
Fiber Gum
Fiber Oil
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fermentation Time
Eth
anol
Con
c. (%
v/v)
Conv E-Mill Conv R E-Mill R
Fermentation Profiles: Conventional and E-Mill Processes
Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Naidu, K., Rausch, K.D., Belyea, R.L. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison ofmodified dry grind corn processes for fermentation characteristics and DDGS composition. Cereal Chem. 82:187-190.
DDGS Composition: Conventional and E-Mill Processes
Conv. E-Mill Soy CGMMeal
Crude Prot. 28.50 58.50 53.90 66.70(%)
Crude Fat 12.70 4.53 1.11 2.77(%)
Ash (%) 3.61 3.24 ---- ----
Acid Det. 10.8 2.03 5.95 6.88Fiber (%)
Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Naidu, K., Rausch, K.D., Belyea, R.L. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison ofmodified dry grind corn processes for fermentation characteristics and DDGS composition. Cereal Chem. 82:187-190.
Transgenic Corn for Dry Grind Process
Saccharification& Fermentation
Yeast & Glucoamylase
CO2
Liquefaction
Mash
Water
Grinding (Hammermill)
BlendingOverhead product(Recycled back)
Dehydrationcolumn
Stripping/Rectifyingcolumn
Ethanol
CentrifugeThinStillage
Wet Grains Syrup
DDGS
Evaporator
Alpha-amylase
Transgenic Corn
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 24 48 72
Control3%5%10%
Fermentation Time (hr)
Etha
nol C
onc.
% (v
/v)
500 ml FermentationsControl vs 3, 5 and 10% amylase corn addition
Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Aux, G.W., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Dry grind processingof corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes. Cereal Chem. 83:317-320.
02468
101214161820
0 24 48 72
Fermentation Time (hr)
Etha
nol C
onc.
(%v/
v)
Control1%2%3%
500 ml FermentationsControl vs 1, 2 and 3% amylase corn addition
Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Aux, G.W., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Dry grind processingof corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes. Cereal Chem. 83:317-320.
DDGS Composition
Components 3% amylase corn addition
Control Treatment
Crude Protein (%)Crude Fat (%)Crude Fiber (%)Ash (%)
26.1 ± 0.214.1 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.1
3.78 ± 0.1
25.8 ± 0.113.6 ± 0.26.8 ± 0.1
3.35 ± 0.1
No significant difference in composition of DDGS for 3% amylase cornaddition and control treatment
Singh, V. and Graeber, J.V. 2005. Effect of corn hybrid variability and planting location on ethanol yields. Trans. ASAE 48:709-714
Feedstock Development: Transgenic CornFeedstock Development: Transgenic Corn
Reduces requirement of exogenous alpha amylaseOnly 3% amylase corn addition is required with dent corn for complete liquefactionNo differences in DDGS composition between 3% amylase corn treatment and conventional treatment
Raw Starch Hydrolyzing Enzymes
Saccharification &Fermentation
Glucoamylase
CO2
Liquefaction
Mash
Corn
Water
Grinding (Hammermill)
BlendingOverhead product(Recycled back)
Dehydration column
Stripping/Rectifying column
Alpha-Amylase
Yeast &
+ RSH Enzyme
Ethanol
CentrifugeThinStillage
Wet Grains Syrup
DDGS
Evaporator
Granular Starch Hydrolyzing (GSH) EnzymesGranular Starch Hydrolyzing (GSH) Enzymes
These enzymes have high granular starch (raw starch or native starch) hydrolyzing activityCan Liquefy and saccharify starch into glucose at low temperature (< 48°C)
Stargen 001, Genencor InternationalBPX, Novozymes NA
Wang, P., Singh, V., Xue, H., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E.2006. Comparison of raw starch hydrolyzing enzyme with conventional liquefactionand saccharification enzymes in dry grind corn processing. Cereal Chem. 84(1):10-14.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
0 20 40 60 80Time (hr)
Eth
anol
Con
c. (v
/v%
)
GSH EnzDG 1DG 2
Results: Ethanol Concentration
Results: Glucose Concentration
0.02.04.06.08.0
10.012.014.016.018.020.0
0 20 40 60 80Time (hr)
Glu
cose
Con
c. (w
/v%
)
GSH EnzDG 1DG 2
Wang, P., Singh, V., Xue, H., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E.2006. Comparison of raw starch hydrolyzing enzyme with conventional liquefactionand saccharification enzymes in dry grind corn processing. Cereal Chem. 84(1):10-14.
Results: Maltose Concentration
0.00.20.4
0.60.81.01.2
1.41.61.8
0 20 40 60 80Time (hr)
Mal
tose
Con
c. (w
/v%
)
GSH EnzDG 1DG 2
Wang, P., Singh, V., Xue, H., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E.2006. Comparison of raw starch hydrolyzing enzyme with conventional liquefactionand saccharification enzymes in dry grind corn processing. Cereal Chem. 84(1):10-14.
Results: Maltotriose Concentration
0.00.20.4
0.60.81.01.2
1.41.61.8
0 20 40 60 80Time (hr)
Mal
tose
Con
c. (w
/v%
)
GSH EnzDG 1DG 2
Wang, P., Singh, V., Xue, H., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E.2006. Comparison of raw starch hydrolyzing enzyme with conventional liquefactionand saccharification enzymes in dry grind corn processing. Cereal Chem. 84(1):10-14.
Results: DP4+ Concentration
0.0
0.51.0
1.5
2.0
2.53.0
3.5
4.0
0 20 40 60 80Time (hr)
DP4
+ C
onc.
(w/v
%)
GSH EnzDG 1DG 2
Wang, P., Singh, V., Xue, H., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E.2006. Comparison of raw starch hydrolyzing enzyme with conventional liquefactionand saccharification enzymes in dry grind corn processing. Cereal Chem. 84(1):10-14.
Granular Starch Hydrolyzing Enzymes
Final ethanol yield with GSH enzymes is comparable to conventional enzymesGlucose, maltose and maltotriose concentrations are consistently low with GSH enzymes throughout fermentationGSH enzymes work at same temperature conditions as conventional SSF
With GSH enzymes simultaneous liquefaction, saccharification andfermentation can be conducted
Dry GrindProcess
Boiler
PlantFeed
MM/GSFilters
Plant Output
Process Out
Boiler Makeup
SteamCoolingTower BD
RO Reject
ProcessNon RO
Cooling Tower
Deaerator
Storage Tank
ROProduct
Tank
Process RO
Boiler BD
Reverse Osmosis
Softner Regen
Water Use in Dry Grind Ethanol Plant
Wood chipsSwitchgrass/Miscanthus
Corn stover
Sugarcane
CottonwoodsPaper
Future: Ethanol from LignocellulosicFeedstocks
Recommended