Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 March 2013
Accepted 13 July 2013
Available online 9 August 2013
Keywords:
Combustion
Pyrolysis
Biomass
Process modeling
Economic modeling
a b s t r a c t
The study focusses on the comparison of biomass to energy conversion process (BMECP) models to convert sugar mill biomass (bagasse) into energy products via combustion and pyrolysis as thermochemical
pathways. Bagasse was converted to steam and electricity via combustion using 40 bar, 63 bar and 82 bar
Condensing Extraction Steam Turbines (CEST) systems and a 30 bar back pressure steam turbine (BPST)
system. Two BMECPs, namely partial fast pyrolysis and pure fast pyrolysis systems, were modeled for the
pyrolysis pathway. In the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP all the input bagasse stream was converted to pyrolysis products, with subsequent combustion of some of these products to generate steam and electricity
for sugar mill operations. In the partial fast pyrolysis BMECP, a fraction of the bagasse is combusted
directly to supply steam and electricity to the sugar mill, while the remaining fraction is pyrolyzed to
generate pyrolysis products. All process models were simulated in AspenPlus and were assessed on their
ability to supply the energy requirement of to two sugar mill scenarios: More efcient mill and less efcient mill. The economic viability of BMECPs was determined using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer.
Both combustion based and pyrolysis based BMECPs were capable of meeting the energy requirement
of the sugar mill, although the pyrolysis based BMECP had limited steam and electricity production rates
due to the accumulation of energy in pyrolysis products. High energy valued pyrolysis products resulted
in higher overall process efciencies of 85.09% and 87.65% for partial fast pyrolysis and Pure Fast Pyrolysis
BMECPs respectively compared to 77.48% for the most efcient combustion BMECP (82 bar CEST). CO2
savings were higher for the pyrolysis based BMECPs due to the sequestration of carbon in pyrolysis products. The 63 bar CEST combustion system was the most economic viable option, while the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP was the least viable. The increased energy efciency and environmental benets of
pyrolysis-based processes are therefore off-set by increases in production costs.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The increase in the demand for energy caused by the increase in
global industrialization and the rapid rate at which fossil oil reserves are depleting, as well as issues of environmental concern
with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, have encouraged the
search for alternative energy sources, mainly from renewable resources such as biomass [16]. Biomass provides a clean and
renewable source of energy. Converting biomass to energy rich
products has the potential to be CO2 neutral, as any CO2 produced
during the conversion process is reabsorbed from the atmosphere
by plants [7]. Also the emission level of NOx and SOx from biomass
compared to that of fossil based fuels is almost zero, since biomass
contains very low percentages of N and S [8]. Biomass has been
successfully converted to energy sources such as heat, electricity
Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 808 3503; fax: +27 21 808 2059.
E-mail address: jgorgens@sun.ac.za (J.F. Grgens).
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.024
525
526
Process Electricity
Sugar Cane
Bagasse
BMECP (Combustion/Pyrolysis)
Sugar Mill
Condensate
Export Electricity
LP Steam
mass of cane crushed (more efcient mill). The 50% steam on cane
was chosen to reect the current state of steam consumption in
most South African sugar mills. The 40% steam on cane was chosen
as a hypothetical case of an efcient sugar mill in order to determine the effect of process steam efciency on the energy production capacity of a BMECP plant and the economics thereof. It is
envisioned that sugar mill efciency of about 38% steam on cane
is achievable in the near future as sugar mills across the world
implement energy integration measures in the mills to cut down
on steam usage [31,21]. For both sugar mill efciencies, each
BMECP scenario was assessed on its ability to supply the energy
demands of the mill and possible generation of excess energy/energy products.
A 30 bar pressure Back Pressure Steam Turbine (BPST) turboalternator cogeneration system was chosen as the base case for
the combustion BMECP. Three other combustion BMECP process
models operating at pressures of 40 bar, 63 bar and 82 bar were
527
Eelec power
Eth biomass fuel
Table 1
Bagasse composition [33].
Component
Value, %
Moisture
Lignin (dry basis)
Cellulose (dry basis)
Extractives (dry basis)
Ash (dry basis)
Hemicelluloses (dry basis)
50
25.5
40.6
7.5
3.6
22.8
Elemental composition
C
H
O
N
S
50.3
6.3
43.1
0.3
0.07
gelectrical
gov erall
where Eelec power = net electric power output (MWelec); Eth biomass
fuel = thermal energy in the input bagasse feed (MWth); Eth process = net thermal energy output of process (MWth).
Net electric/power output is the difference between the gross
electricity generated by the process and the sum of all electrical
power used by the process to run process equipment such as
pumps. The net thermal energy output is calculated by subtracting
the thermal input to the process such as the energy contained in
boiler feed water from the total thermal energy output of the process (thermal energy contained in products such as process steam
and/or liquid/solid fuels).
The environmental impacts for the BMECP models were estimated in terms of savings in CO2. It was assumed that all electrical
power/LP steam/energy products generated by a particular BMECP
could have been produced by a similar power generating plant
running on fossil based fuel as its source of energy input [37]. In
this study a coal red power plant was considered as the alternative to power generation from biomass in the BMECP plant since
about 93% of current electricity generation in South Africa comes
from coal [38]. Hence CO2 savings was calculated based on the
assumption that the bagasse electricity displaces electricity produced from coal. Also, the amount of coal equivalent to all thermal
products (LP steam and/or bio-oil and biochar) was calculated for
each scenario using the respective heating values of each thermal
product and coal, after which the CO2 savings was calculated and
added to that obtained from electricity generation. The coal assumed in this study is a South African bituminous coal with an
average heating value of 26 MJ/kg [38]. From literature [39,40], it
was estimated that approximately 0.5 kg of coal is required for
each kilowatt hour of electricity produced which results in CO2
emissions of 2.62 kg [39] and 2.325 kg [40] per kilogram of coal.
For consistency, the average value of 2.47 kg CO2/kg coal was used
for this study and all CO2 savings were thus estimated based on
this value. Because sugarcane bagasse is a renewable fuel, the CO
2 emitted by the BMECP plant itself was not taken into account
based on the assumption that this would be reused by sugarcane
plants for photosynthesis during the sugarcane planting season
[7]. Although some fossil fuel is consumed during the growing, harvesting and transportation of sugar cane, the carbon released from
this source was also not taken into account as it would have been
in a full LCA studies.
2.4. Process economics
For this study, the economic model analyses for the various
BMECP plants were done using the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer V7.1 software developed by Aspen Technology, Inc. In all
the economic models the Total Capital Investment (TCI), total operating cost and economic viability of each BMECP technology were
determined based on an nth plant approach assuming that the
technologies applied in the various BMECP models have attained
application in already established commercial plants and are well
understood [41], even though fast pyrolysis application for steam
and electricity production has yet to attain commercial status.
To determine the TCI associated with each BMECP model, Aspen
Plus process model ow sheets of the various BMECP together
with their mass and energy balances were imported into the software. Cost for standard equipment such as pumps, heat exchangers, and compressors. were estimated by the software based on
user dened specications. This was done by rst mapping such
528
Table 2
Cost data for feedstock, products and by-products.
Stream
Cost
Bagasse
Electricity
Biochar
Bio-oil
56 $/dry ton
0.248 $/kW h
120 $/ton
170 $/ton
529
Bagasse
LP steam
Flue gas
Hot
combustion
gases
Biomass
combustor
HP steam
Steam
generator/boiler
Process
Electricity
Feedwater
Air
Export
Electricity
Turboalternator
Pretreatment
Bagasse
Grinding
Drying
Pyrolysis
Biocrude
Char
Condensation
Oil scrubber
Electrostatic
precipitator
Recycled gas
for fluidisation
Combustor/Steam
turbine
Export
electricity
Feedwater
Air
Product
recovery
Bio-oil
product
530
Table 3
Hourly process energy consumption of two sugar mills.
Process energy
150
6
20
120
6
20
531
a
b
c
BPST
CEST
CEST
CEST
30 bar
40 bar
63 bar
82 bar
40 bar
40 bar
Steam, tons/h
161.73
159.56
153.15
150.59
128.72
123.73
Electricity
Total, MW
Export, kW/tch
CO2 savings, tons/h
24.42
61.40
27.83
27.61
72.04
31.48
31.03
83.44
35.38
31.81
86.02
36.26
16.58
35.28
40.44
11.05
16.85
41.30
By-product, tons/h
Bio-oil
Biochar
9.36
2.32
16.69 (31.20)a
0.00 (7.73)b
Energy efciency
Electrical, %
Overall, %
14.63
68.68
16.54
70.60
18.60
72.65
19.10
73.11
9.96
85.09
6.62
87.65
Economics
TCI, $ million
NPV, $ million
IRR, %
PO, yrs
PI
Total biomass, tons/h
68.54
256.16
36.31
5.01
1.49
81.00
89.65
316.81
35.39
5.14
1.53
81.00
116.58
389.97
34.51
5.26
1.58
81.00
139.67
364.64
29.98
6.08
1.50
81.00
104.72
127.44
20.76
9.10
1.23
81.00 (56.70)c
130.10
25.93
13.80
16.32
n/a
81.00
Table 5
Comparison of BMECP technologies performances for less efcient mill.
Combustion
82 bar
40 bar
40 bar
150.59
152.92
152.90
28.68
75.60
32.70
30.50
81.68
34.77
20.78
49.27
38.05
15.29
30.96
38.35
6.24
1.55
12.17 (31.20)a
0.00 (7.73)b
12.82
72.03
15.14
74.34
17.17
76.38
18.28
77.48
12.45
84.36
9.16
85.86
67.80
164.71
28.38
6.46
1.34
81.00
89.39
261.35
31.64
5.89
1.47
81.00
116.43
329.95
30.80
5.91
1.49
81.00
139.03
353.49
29.62
6.16
1.50
81.00
105.94
197.74
25.42
7.26
1.34
81.00 (64.80)c
138.53
78.62
15.30
12.34
n/a
81.00
CEST
30 bar
40 bar
63 bar
161.73
159.56
153.15
21.40
51.32
24.39
25.26
64.20
28.80
By-product, tons/h
Bio-oil
Biochar
Energy efciency
Electrical, %
Overall, %
Economics
TCI, $ million
NPV, $ million
IRR, %
PO, yrs
PI
Total biomass, tons/h
Steam, tons/h
Electricity
Total, MW
Export, kW/tch
CO2 savings, tons/h
BPST
efcient mill. This observation is due mainly to the high cost associated with condensing extraction systems as well as high metallurgy cost associated with operating at high pressure and
temperature since specialized materials of construction are required to withstand such elevated condition of pressure and temperature [41]. The TCI for the Partial and Pure Fast Pyrolysis models
are $104.72 million and $130.10 million, respectively, under the
efcient mill and $105.94 million and $138.53 million, respectively, under the less efcient mill. These costs are greater than
those of the combustion based BMECPs except for the two advanced CEST systems operating at 63 bar and 82 bar pressures. This
is due to the cost of additional unit operation equipment required
by the two pyrolysis based processes for bio-oil and biochar production aside those needed for steam and electricity generation
(as used in the combustion processes). For this study, a 40 bar CEST
system was used for the steam and electricity generation section of
the pyrolysis based BMECP process models which, is a possible reason why their overall total capital investment cost are lower than
those of the 63 bar and 82 bar advanced combustion systems. The
installation of advanced steam and electricity generation systems
would therefore make the TCI of both the Partial and Pure Fast
Pyrolysis BMECP plants to also exceed those of the two advanced
combustion based BMECP plants. Besides the use of advanced
higher pressure boilers in the pyrolysis models would impact
532
Fig. 7. Response of BMECP models to changes in bagasse and electricity prices (A bagasse price; B electricity price).
prices. For both bagasse and electricity prices, a 30% change with
respect to initial values (see Table 2) was assumed and used to estimate the corresponding changes in NPV. The results are shown in
Fig. 7, which indicates that the Pure Fast Pyrolysis BMECP is the
most susceptible to changes in bagasse and electricity prices due
to its associated high capital cost and low electricity production
rate. The 63 bar CEST BMECP is the least affected.
5. Conclusions
The study modeled and compared BMECP models based on
combustion and pyrolysis for the efcient utilization of bagasse
aimed at producing energy from bagasse to run the operations of
two sugar mill congurations (efcient and less efcient mill). Detailed BMECP models were developed in Aspen Plus and compared based on their technical and economic performances.
Process simulation in Aspen plus allowed for easy modication
and comparison of various process models and process conditions
without having to physically do pilot plant runs thus saving time
and economic value.
It was found that both the combustion based and pyrolysis
based BMECP could adequately supply the energy requirement of
the sugar mill and generate excess electricity and/or pyrolysis
products. However, the steam and electricity generation rates of
the pyrolysis based BMECP models were limited by their own energy requirement to run the pyrolysis process as well as the storage of feed energy in pyrolysis products. On the other hand,
increasing operating pressure impacted positively on electricity
production and negatively on steam production for the combustion
based BMECP models. The amounts of nal pyrolysis products from
the two pyrolysis based BMECPs were found to be dependent on
sugar mill efciency. 46.5% and 61% of total bio-oil produced by
the Pure fast pyrolysis BMECP under the efcient and less efcient
mill conditions respectively were consumed within the process
alongside all biochar produced to generate steam and electricity
for mill operations. For Partial fast pyrolysis BMECP, 70% and 80%
of input bagasse feed was consumed to supply the steam and electricity requirement of the efcient and less efcient mill operations
respectively. The combustion based technology proved to be the
most appropriate option when on-season or immediate electricity
production from sugar mill biomass is required as it produces more
electricity than the two pyrolysis-based technologies, especially
when advanced steam/electricity generating turbo-alternator
operating at higher pressure is used. However this technology contributes less towards CO2 savings and produces no additional high
energy valued products for off-season power production. The Partial Fast pyrolysis BMECP proved to be the most preferred option
when considering both in-season and off-season electricity production. The Pure Fast pyrolysis BMECP was found to be the least
economic viable BMECP option under current economic conditions
in South Africa, responding the most to uctuations in bagasse and
electricity prices.
References
[1] Goyal HB, Seal D, Saxena RC. Bio-fuels from thermochemical conversion of
renewable resources: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:50417.
[2] Dias OSM, Ensinas AV, Nebra SA, Filho RM, Rossell CEV, Maciel MRW.
Production of bioethanol and other bio-based materials from sugarcane
bagasse: integration to conventional bioethanol production process. Chem
Eng Res Dev 2009;87:120616.
[3] Nguyen TT, Hermansen JE, Sagissaka M. Fossil energy potential of sugar cane
bio-energy systems. Appl Energy 2009;86:1339.
[4] Lu Q, Wen-Zhi L, Xi-Feng Z. Overview of fuel properties of fast pyrolysis oils.
Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:137683.
[5] Garcia-Perez M, Shen J, Wang XS, Li Chun-Zhu. Production and fuel properties
of fast pyrolysis oil/bio-diesel blends. Fuel Process Technol 2010;91:296305.
[6] Venderbosch RH, Prins W. Fast pyrolysis technology development review.
Biofuels, Bioprod Bioren 2010;4:178208.
[7] Basu P. Biomass gasication and pyrolysis: practical design and
theory. Burlington, USA: Academic Press (Elsevier Inc.); 2010.
[8] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasication in uidized bed
reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass Energy 2008;32:124554.
[9] Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis biomass and product upgrading.
Biomass Bioenergy 2011:127.
[10] Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of
biomass. Chem Eng J 2003;91:87102.
[11] Bridgwater AV, Czernik S, Piskorz J. An overview of fast pyrolysis. In:
Bridgewater
AV,
editor.
Progress
in
thermochemical
biomass
conversion. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2001. p. 97797.
[12] Garcia-Perez M, Chaala A, Roy C. Vacuum pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse. Fuel
2002;81:893907.
[13] Tsai WT, Lee MK, Chang YM. Fast pyrolysis of rice straw, sugarcane bagasse
and coconut shell in an inductive-heating reactor. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis
2006;76:2307.
[14] Saxena RC, Adhikari DK, Goyal HB. Biomass-based energy fuel through
biochemical routes: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:16778.
[15] Sluiter JB, Ruiz JO, Scarlata AD, Sluiter AD, Templeton DW. Compositional
analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks. 1 Review and description of methods. J
Agric Food Chem 2010;2010(58):904353.
[16] Howard RL, Abotsi E, Jensen van Rensburg EL, Howard S. Lignocellulose
biotechnology: issues of bioconversion and enzyme production. Afr J
Biotechnol 2003;2(12):60219.
[17] Mbohwa C. Bagasse energy cogeneartion potential in the Zimbabwean sugar
industry. Renew Energy 2003;28:191204.
[18] Pippo AW, Garzone P, Conrnacchia G. Agro-industry sugarcane residues
disposal: the trends of their conversion into energy carriers in Cuba. Waste
Manage (Oxford) 2007;27:86985.
[19] Ensinas AV, Nebra SA, Lozano MA, Serra LM. Analysis of process steam demand
reduction and electricity generation in sugar and ethanol production from
sugarcane. J Energy Conver Manage 2007;48:297887.
[20] Smith GT, Davis SB, Achary M. Eighty fth annual review of the milling
season in southern Africa (20102011). Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist
Assoc 2011;84:3765.
[21] Pippo AW, Luengo CA, Feli FF, Garzone P, Cornacchia G. Energy recovery from
sugarcane biomass residues: challenges and opportunities of bio-oil
production in the light of second generation biofuels. J Renew Sust Energy
2009;1:063102.
[22] Ogden JM, Hochgreb S, Hylton M. Steam economy and cogeneration in cane
sugar factories. Int Sugar J 1990;1099(92):13143.
533
[23] Bansal RC, Donnet JB, Stoekli F. Active carbon. Marcel Dekker: New York; 1988.
In: Devnerain et al. Production of activated carbon from South African
sugarcane bagasse. Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist Assoc 2002;76:477
89.
[24] Bridgwater AV, Meier D, Radlein D. An overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass.
Org Geochem 1999;30:147993.
[25] Lavarack B, Grifn G, Rodman D. The acid hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse
hemicellulose to produce xylose, arabinose, glucose and other products.
Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:36780.
[26] Devnarain P, Arnold D, Davis S. Production of activated carbon from South
African sugarcane bagasse. Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist Assoc
2002;76:47789.
[27] Brown TR, Wright MM, Brown RC. Estimating the protability of two biochar
production scenarios: slow pyrolysis vs fast pyrolysis. Biofuels, Bioprod
Bioren 2011;5:5468.
[28] Carrier M, Hardie AG, Uras U, Gorgens J, Knoetze JH. Production of char from
vacuum pyrolysis of South-African sugar cane bagasse and its characterization
as activated carbon and biochar. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2012;96:2432.
[29] Steiner C, Teixeira W, Lehmann J, Nehls T, de Macedo J, Blum W. Lon term
effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and
fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil
2007;29(1):27590.
[30] Tenebaum D. Biochar: carbon mitigation from the ground up. Environ Health
Perspect 2009;117(2):A70.
[31] Modesto M, Zemp RJ, Nebra SA. Ethanol production from sugarcane: assessing
the possibilities of improving energy efciency through exergetic cost
analysis. Heat Transfer Eng 2009;30(4):27281.
[32] Magasiner N, Alphen C, Inkson MB, Misplon BJ. Characterising fuels for
biomass coal red cogeneration. Proc Southern Afr Sugar Technologist Assoc
2001:75.
[33] Hugo TJ. Pyrolysis of South African sugar cane bagasse. MScEng thesis,
Department of Process Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa;
2010.
[34] Wooley R, Putsche V. Development of an ASPEN PLUS physical property
database for biofuels components. Report MP-425-20685. NREL; April 1996.
[35] Mani S, Sokhansanj S, Tagore S, Turhollow AF. Techno-economic analysis of
using corn stover to supply heat and power to a corn ethanol plant Part 2:
Cost of heat and power generation systems. Biomass Bioenergy
2010;34:35664.
[36] Phyllis. The composition of biomass and waste denitions used in Phyllis.
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands; 2005. <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/
defs.asp> [retrieved 16.10.11].
[37] Larson ED, Williams RH, Leal MRLV. A review of biomass integrated-gasier/
gas turbine combined cycle technology and its application in sugarcane
industries, with an analysis for Cuba. Energy Sust Dev 2001;1:5576.
[38] Eberhard A. The future of South African coal: market, investment and policy
challenges. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD), Stanford,
Working paper # 100; January, 2011. <http://iss-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23082/
WP_100_Eberhard_Future_of_South_African_Coal.pdf> [retrieved 24.11.11].
[39] Mbohwa C, Fukuda S. Electricity from bagasse in Zimbabwe. Biomass
Bioenergy 2003;25:197207.
[40] European Association of National Metrology Institutes EURAMET. Metrology
for improved power plant efciency. Energy 2009 Topic 5 Version 1.0. <http//
www.emrponline.ev/energycall/docs/srt/srt05.pdf> [retrieved 20.10.11].
[41] Peters M, Timmerhaus K. Plant design and economics for chemical engineers.
5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[42] Perry R, Green D, Maloney J. Perrys chemical engineers handbook. 8th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
[43] van den Broek R, Faaij A, van Wijk A. Biomass combustion: power generation
technologies. Background report 4.1. The Netherlands: Department of Science,
Technology and Society, Utrecht University; 1995.
[44] Mcllveen-Wright DR, Williams BC, Mcmullan JT. A repraisal of wood red
combustion. Bioresour Technol 2001;76:18390.
[45] Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, et al. Process design and
economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol:
dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical, Report, NREL/TP-5100-47764; May
2011.
[46] Jenkins BM. A comment on the optimal sizing of a biomass utilization facility
under constant and variable cost scaling. Biomass Bioenergy 1997;13(1/
2):19.
[47] Botha T, Blottnitz HV. A comparison of the environmental benets of bagassederived electricity and fuel ethanol on a life-cycle basis. Energy Policy
2006;34:265461.
[48] National Energy Regulator of South Africa. Cogeneration Regulatory Rules and
Feed-in Tariffs. NERSA Consultation Paper; January 2011.
[49] Leibbrandt NH. Techno-economic study for sugarcane bagasse to liquid
biofuels in South Africa: a comparison between biological and
thermochemical process routes. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Process
Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa; 2010.
[50] Index mundi commodity prices. <http//www.indexmondi.com/commodities/
?commodity=coal> [retrieved 06.01.12].
[51] Energy Information Administration (January, 2012). <http://tonto.eia.gov/
dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPPR_PWA_NUS_DPG&f=M>
[retrieved 02.01.12].
534
[52] Kazi FK, Fortman JA, Anex RP, Hsu DD, Aden A, Dutta A, et al. Techno-economic
comparison of process technologies for the biochemical ethanol production
from corn stover. Fuel 2010:19.
[53] Ringer M, Putsche V, Scahill J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: a
technology assessment and economic analysis. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Technical report, NREL/TP-510-37779; November, 2006.
[54] Anex RP, Aden A, Kazi FK, Fortman JA, Swanson RM, Wright MM, et al. Technoeconomic comparison of biomass-to-transportation fuels via pyrolysis,
gasication, and biochemical pathways. Fuel 2010:2935.
[55] GrantThornton South Africa. Companies tax rate; 2011. <http//
www.budget2011.co.za/budget-news/tax-schedules/companies-tax-rates>
[retrieved 05.01.12].
[56] South African Revenue Service. Budget 2009/10 Tax Pocket Guide; 2009.
<http//www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2009/guides/
Budget%20Pocketguid%202009.pdf> [retrieved 05.01.12].
[57] Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T. A manual for the economic evaluation of energy
efciency and renewable energy technologies. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Technical Report, NREL/TP-462-5173. Golden, CO.; March 1995.
[58] Garrett D. Chemical engineering economics. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold; 1989.
[59] US EPA, methods for calculating efciency. <http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/
methods.html> [retrieved 24.10.11].