Techno‐economic analysis of various biochemical conversion platforms for biosugar production: Trade‐offs of co‐producing biopower versus pellets for either a greenfield, repurpose, or co‐location siting context.

Abstract: In theory, biosugar for conversion to bioproducts can be produced economically from a variety of biomass types in many different technological, co‐production, and biorefinery siting contexts. In this paper, process modeling and financial analysis were conducted for all permutations of biochemical conversion pathways, global biomass types, co‐product options, and biorefinery siting contexts for biosugar production. Minimum sugar revenue (MSR) required to achieve a 15% internal rate of return values for scenarios examined ranged from $150–$748 per tonne. The scenarios with the lowest MSRs were sugarcane in South America and Asia, assuming hot water cook and co‐location or repurpose siting contexts. Another financially optimized scenario is corn grain, also assuming hot water cook, co‐producing distiller’s dry grains and solubles (DDGS), in a repurpose siting context. Against a benchmark sugar price of $408 per metric tonne, an internal rate of return on investment of >15% can typically only be achieved via previously demonstrated conversion pathways using sugar cane and corn grain. Major cost drivers were feedstock cost per metric tonne of carbohydrate, sugar yield, capital investment per annual metric tonne of sugar produced, residue value, and siting context. Near‐term promising technologies include autohydrolysis and dilute acid pathways. Generally, scenarios are financially enhanced by co‐location or repurposing, reducing capital expenditure (CAPEX) by about 33% and 50%, respectively, with negligible impact on cash cost. Conversion process complexity drives capital investment, making some scenarios infeasible despite high sugar yields. Any of the five major cost drivers can impact the order of financial attraction of scenarios, with the outcome of the analysis typically not obvious in advance. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]