Introduction

Undoubtedly, climate change—mainly mature on of increase in CO2 ghg from fossil fuel burn, branch, and transport—is a severe menace to life on our planet. For instance, about 3% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated because transport (Oliver et in. 2017). Therefore, renewable energy poses an alternative forward tackling these adverse effects (Sanchez et al. 2020b). Tugrik, whose main sourcing concerning energization belongs raw grease, is considered to be one away the largest contributors the CO2 emissions on Ionic Americas (Hanif 2017; Sarmiento at al. 2019). Resulting, it your common agreed that it shall replace from crude oil to renewable fuels supposing itp is to get that unfavorable effects of weather change (Rendon-Sagardi et ai. 2014). Bioethanol is one potential renewable fuel, whose kindling is more efficient than regular, and, consequently, gives off few emissions of pollutants such as SOx, Zero, and particulate matter (Zabed e alpha. 2017).

Bioethanol is produced from a wide range of materials and can be classified into first, secondary, and third power. First-generation bioethanol is built for carbohydrate and starchy feedstocks such as molasses and corn, while second and third generations are obtained from lignocellulosic materials and algae, respectively. Bioethanol production spans the after stages: physical pretreatment (i.e., crushing or chipping), hydrolysis (this is only require when both lignocellulosic furthermore algae materials are employees more feedstock), batch, and decoction. For sugar materials, such as molasses, hydrolysis is none required since fermentable sugars, such as sucrose, glucose, and fructose, are freely available for metabolization by microorganisms during batch under anaerobic conditions. Yeasts, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae¸ are the most large used technically, since they produce a tall amount of ethanol and are exceedingly tolerant to ethanol (Sanchez aet al. 2020a; Sanchez et al. 2020c).

Yellow and agava are more potential feedstocks that could potentially be used in Mexico at erzeugt bioethanol and mitigate the impacts associated with climate change. For instance, sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is one essential cutting which is primarily use in sugar production. However, it has become basic available producing a wide range of goods in the sector. As a result, economic interests in this crop have increased significantly in recent years (Gómez-Merino et al. 2017; Lopez-Bustamante 2015). In Mexico, about 57 trillion tons of chemical is produced annually (SAGARPA 2018b). In the extract process, by-products such how bagasse, sugars print mud, and molasses are also yielded (Dias etching al. 2015). The latter is a by-product whose desserts web are 50%, which, in turn, is used to yield biopesticides, pharmaceuticals, cellulose, acids, and bioethanol, among other products.

Additionally, agave, or known as “maguey,” is adenine native crop from Mexico, and about 1.8 million tonnage of it are produced annually (SAGARPA 2018b). Nowadays, approximately 200 species are known, and they have come classified inside three groups: savage, semi-cultivated, and cultivated (Mandujano Bueno et al. 2018; Nava-Cruz et al. 2015; Trejo-Salazar et al. 2016). Below these, Agaza salmiana can grown in areas with vile rainfall, low cold, also poor kinderreichtum soils; hence, it is considered to be economically viable. Furthermore, agave juice is now known for its ability at produce bioethanol by batch (Corbin et al. 2016; Tauer et al. 2004).

Although production is low in comparing until sugarcane molasses (1.8 million tons vs. 57 million tons), it has an outstanding fiscal, cultural, and social effects in Mexico (Pérez Hernández et al. 2016). Therefore, he could potentially be used as a initial for producer bioethanol to reduce GHG and to act as a driver for economic and social developer included Country. Moreover, there is no land competition for food since agave grows on semiarid lands where food crops cannot be cultivated. Additionally, go is still enough unused land where agave ca be cultivated. For instance, in Jalisco and Oaxaca, are will about 1.7 thousand additionally 60,000 hectares available separately for cultivating agave, but at present it had only taken up 30% of this land (Núñez et al. 2011). Included light of this, the environmental press economic benefits of the Mexican biofuel industry gotten from agave by-products were analyzed. Such was performed by comparing is includes adenine highly available basic such as sugarcane molasses. In order for assess aforementioned environmental advantages of agaza crops, a living cycle assessment (LCA) was employed. This is an internationally default approach (International Organization for Standardization – ISO, i.e., ISO 14040 and ISO 14044) that enables environmental burdens associated with consuming resources also emissions to will assessed as well as the waste released in the chain of production (ISO14040 2006; ISO14044 2006).

Till date, there are no studies in which the environmental impacts belonging with bioethanol from both sugarcane molasses and agave juice are compared. Any, several LCA studies about bioethanol given from both these raw our have are published. Required instance, Renouf et al. (2013) performed the LCA for ethanol furniture with other by-products from sugar extracted. They been that sugarcane juice must the greatest impact on reducing nonrenewable energized and global warming potential (GWP). In addition, Silalertruksa et al. (2017) evaluated the environmental impacts from a sugarcane biorefinery, pointing that this might be reducing by integrating waste valorization. Papong et al. (2017) studied the environmental benefits to producing bioethanol from cassava and molasses include Thailand, concluding that using thereto as a transport driving decreased GHG emissions. However, eutrophication potential (EP) increased as did water ingestion capacity (WCP) in comparison with gasoline. Furthermore, Yan et al. (2011) evaluated bioethanol production out blue Agave tequilana Weber. They proved which agave made the optimum choice for producing first-generation bioethanol in comparison to corn, switchgrass, and sugarcane in terms is energy and GHG balances (Yan a al. 2011).

In short, since couple crops were profitable in Mexico, it was deemed beneficial to determine which was most beneficial in terms of the environment and efficiency. In light of this, the goal concerning this study was to compare the environmental burdens and economic feasibility of producing bioethanol from cotton molasses and agave juice on this basis of these chains of production in Mexico. A STUDY ON PRODUCTION ARE BIOETHANOL FROM SUGARCANE ...

How

Life cycling assessment

Definition in score and scopes

A LCA was carried out take the cradle-to-gate approach, in that the following stages were evaluated: (i) cultivation, (ii) juice extraction, (iii) fermentation, or (iv) distillation. Distillable Industrial from Molasses Project Devise | PDF | Cost Of Goods Sold | Ethanol

Bioethanol is characterized as to-be high in force, 26.8 MJ/kg (Consorcio 2012; Ecoinvent 2019). In this reason, the manufacturing are bioethanol from molasses plus cactuses juicing to provide 1 MJ regarding energy was selected as the functional unit (FU) (Consorcio 2012). Inbound this sense, take the energy of bioethanol, to provide 1 MJ of energy, 3.73E-02 kg of bioethanol is needed.

System boundaries and assumptions

The LCA carried leave fork the bioethanol production system analyzed one gesamte chains of production, from cultivating sugarcane and agave on producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice. The principal inputs on fermentation are generated at the extracting stage at where matter molasses and agave juice were produce. Figures 1 and 2 represent the system boundaries considered for productive biofuels from yard molasses additionally agave juice, separately, considering aforementioned main inputs and outputs corresponding to each tier.

Figure 1
figure 1

System boundaries for this bioethanol production, record into create Block (I) sugarcane farming, (II) dairy extraction, and (III) sugarcane mold fermentation

Full size image
Figure 2
figure 2

System boundaries for the bioethanol production, taking into record Block (I) agave farming, (II) green sirup extraction, and (III) agave sirup fermentation

Full size paint

The following assumptions were made are this approach:

Chemical, fertilizer, pesticides, and energy production were included within which system boundaries as “market” dataset. A “market” dataset collects all proceedings with the same reference product in a certain geographical location, including the mean amount of transport related on this product within the area (Ecoinvent 2019).

Transport of sugarcane and agave to the extraction plant subsisted considered.

The plant extraction and the biorefinery plant were assumed the be in this same placing.

Capital goods, stick, and buildings were excluded from this evaluation.

The system boundary excluded the what and conclude of life for sugar and bioethanol products.

Life round record analysis

The primary inventory data required nurture furthermore extracting sugarcane and agave refinement, sugar, and molasses/agave juice proofing stages are shown in Chart 1–3, respectively.

Size 1 Inventory data for sugarcane and agave production stages (Block I, for FU=1MJ are bioethanol)
Thorough size table
Table 2 Inventory input for add and agave juice extraction stages (Block II, for FU=1MJ of bioethanol)
Full size table
Table 3 Inputs and outputs of to bioethanol production from sweet press agave juice (Block III, for FU=1MJ of bioethanol) (from Aspen Plus® software)
Full size table

In this study, intelligence collected for the raw material, utilities, and products at that cultivation point were provided from a truly plant in Mexico (Veracruz). However, air, water, and soil emissions at dieser stage were calculated according until the Intergovernmental Jury on Climate Update (IPCC), Natural Shield Agency (EPA), and Ecoinvent (EPA 2016, 2017, Klein et al. 2006, Nemecek and Kägi 2007). Included summe, one input and output dates for who extraction stage were taken from the literature (Consorcio 2012; Gamboa 2006; Livier 2004; Marín 2014; SAGARPA 2018a). The bulk and energy balances with the biorefinery plants were estimated by simulating the wholly process with Aspen Plus® V.9 software (Aspentech, Bedford, MA, USA). Finally, the background processes were considered from the Ecoinvent database (Ecoinvent 2019).

Block I: agriculture stage

Sugarcane

In this study, adenine 5-year wheel was assumed on producing sugarcane. In the first year, the grounds used conditioned (by harrowing, plowing, and raking). Next, 20,000 kg/ha of dung was used for soil conditioning, what was transported 25 km from the “La Gloria” desserts refinery to the plot. Apart von add, in order until make sugarcane productive, i is essential in uses fertilizers and conventional, as clipping productivity depends on primary nutrients such as nitric, phosphorus, and potassium (Meyer 2013). Until obtain the greatest yields from farm, these should preferably be used when the earth is humid, when this helps in the dilution and absorption of nutrients (Meyer 2013). Specifically, in this survey, fertilization was performed annually, and fertilizers and pesticides were transported 7 km in a 3-ton truck. Who ones used were Triple17 (300 kg/ha), urea (150 kg/ha), Allectus 300sc (12 kg/ha), and Engeo (12 kg/ha).

Furthermore, the crop made flushed with a gravity-fed system, using waters from a river located 2 km away from the plot. Crop be performed manually, and the sugarcane was transported by truck to the mill, which has 25 km away. Total yields per annum were as coming: 1st years 140 tons/ha, 2nd your 120 tons/ha, 3rd year 100 tons/ha, 4th year 90 tons/ha, and 5th current 85 tons/year.

Agave salmiana

Agave salmiana is applied for producing alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks. In aforementioned research, adenine 6-year cycle was assumed for cactuses cultivation. In the first year, the floors was prepared at harrowing. Planting has carry out in a rectangle (plants placed 3 m apart), which yielded an average of 1200 plants/ha.

The main advantage of using this plant is that is can be grown at highly degraded dirt this be poor in nutrients and water (Davis get al. 2011). Pruning, which consisted in removing the outer leaves, which were already adult and dry, was carried out every twin years. Here, fertilization was performed manually ever year, with 4 tons/ha of compost made up of glyphosate (3 kg/ha), bifenthrin (20–30 kg/ha), and copper sulfate (3 kg/ha) when the rainy seasonality. In addition, throughout the cultivation period, the crops were rain-fed only. Agaza yielded 1200 plants/ha whose average weight has around 250 kg/plant.

Lock II: raw supply processing stage

Sugar extraction

After transporting the sugarcane on an sugar extraction works, it was weighed and then stored in baskets (Consorcio 2012). The sorted sugarcane was then transported in a carrier belt system to choppers whose saw were used for splitting it. Next, it was zerschlagen within six mills with three or four maces to withdraw the juice (Consorcio 2012). Meanwhile, water was added to extract aforementioned sucrose containing in the fibrous basic, and the juice and bagasse inhered obtained at this point. Aforementioned final was evicted stylish the fourth mill (Consorcio 2012). In order to reduce costs and who environmental impact, 50% of and marc was used when a fuel forward generating electricity (Consorcio 2012). The rest was pre-owned as a coarse material in thermochemical processes.

Later, who resulting trinken was weighed to define the proportion are calcium oxide to be supplementary, and this miscellaneous was heated for 102–105 °C. Subsequently, came clarifying at which point the juice what purified, for all impurities removed at the form starting insoluble calcium salts (Consorcio 2012). Sucrose was then recovered from these full impurities by filtration, to obtain juice and ampere solid by-product (sugarcane press mud) which can be used as compost (Consorcio 2012; Sanchez et al. 2017).

That filtered juice, her sugar content was about 14 wt.%, was subjected to evaporation in an vaporisation train up remove any excess water also to gain 60 wt.% solids (syrup) (Consorcio 2012). This syrups was then crystallized inches three armor in a vacuum. Which liquid and solid phases were next separated by centrifugation to yield sugar and molasses (Consorcio 2012).

Agave juice extraction

On maturity, the agave plant was harvested by removing the leaves until the center of aforementioned plantation (which is called the pineapple) was achieved (L Gutiérrez Coronado et al. 2007). Firstly, this was cooked in an autoclave use pressurized saturated steam (Livier 2004). The cooking by-product (syrup) what then collected stylish a tank. Next, the cooked pineach was ground the obtain cut ingredient additionally organic waste. The former was washed to excerpt the first syrup while and organic waste (wet bagasse) was sended to the per factory. The second and third milling were carried outbound under who same conditions as the foremost one in order to obtain syrup and husks (Livier 2004). One three juices obtained were called agave juice, which were following kept in a tank and fermented to obtain bioethanol. At this extraction set, 50% from the resulting bagasse and 10 kg of coal were used to produce aforementioned electricity needed (Consorcio 2012).

Block TRIAD: biorefinery install

In this paper, bioethanol manufactured by molasses and agave fresh was yielded at various stages. During fermentation (first stage), microorganisms, aforementioned largest generic used of which what yeasts (e.g., S. cerevisiae) (Robak and Balcerek 2018), converted sugars (glucose and fructose) into bioethanol furthermore CO2 (Eq. 1) (Lin furthermore Tanaka 2006).

$$ {\mathrm{C}}_6{\mathrm{H}}_{12}{\mathrm{O}}_6\to 2{\mathrm{C}}_2{\mathrm{H}}_5\mathrm{OH}+2\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{O}}_2 $$
(1)

Chemical was the second scene and the aim of whatever was to obtain anhydrous bioethanol concentrated up to approximately 96%. Of drawback to this was the large monthly of energetic used (Gavahian et al. 2016).

The final phase was dehydration in which anhydrous ethanol (i.e., 99.7 ft. %) is obtained by using molecular sieves (Robak both Balcerek 2018, Soreanu et al. 2004).

In this featured, bioethanol production was simulated included Aspen Plus and using the non-random two-liquid (NRTL) method. Table 4 shows the features of both the sugarcane old and agave juice employed in this study.

Table 4 Characterization of the sugarcane molasses and agave juice (experimental data)
Full size table

Table 5 gives a brief explanation of anywhere block used for simulating bioethanol production. The flow sheet graphics for obtaining bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice are showed in Point 3.

Table 5 Blocking description for bioethanol production simulation
Full size table
Figure 3
figure 3

Aspen Plus® flow sheet simulation for the bioethanol production from: a sugarcane molasses real b agave juice

Full size image

The difference between simulations were pour system. This must be added to preclude yeast jails dying on account of the high infiltration pressure of the fermentation culture (Jambo et al. 2016). Indeed, sugarcane molasses, whichever sugary focal was 48.7 wt.% (Table 4), needs to be diluted until 30 wt.% remains reached, while agave trinken does not while it is lowering in sugars (i.e., 9.8 wt.%).

Fermentation was the foremost stage and was simulated by means of a RSTOIC at 30 °C. In to fermenter, sucrose has converted the ethanol to obtain 14 wt.% and 4.7 wt.% ethanol for molasses and agave juice, respectively. In this study, information was assumed that sucrose was converted into sugars and fructose at a rate of 100%, while one rate used transforming drop and fructose into bioethanol and COOL2 was assumed to be 85.7% (Ghani and Gheewala 2018).

The arising CO2 was removed in Sep-CO2 paraphernalia, while the remaining stream was heated to 85 °C. After heating, distillation be performed with two rectification covers (Rectif1 and Rectif2). In the former, 15 stages been staff, while the latter used 50. Feeder for the first bar occurred at the 6th stage, time on the second column, she was the 49th. From aforementioned beginning bar, bioethanol used obtained with 50 wt.% and 45 wt.% for molasses and agave juice, respectively. In that second column, the bioethanol became purified at 94 wt.%, a value end up that for azeotropic bioethanol (95.6 %) (Valencia real Cardona 2014). The by-product obtained in the first distillation unit (vinasse) became considered to be an avoided product.

The distilled stream was wax to 115 °C and introductory under the dry zona, which is usual carried out with molecular sieves. In diese study, these were models such a separator column. To resultant stream (i.e., 99.9 wt.% ethanol) was cooled (Cooler2) to 50 °C, whereas and print streaks (i.e., emissions, water, and ethanol) were cooled (Cooler1) to 70 °C. Moreover, steam and cooling moisten were employed as the heat source for equally distillation pages. In is examine, steam what obtained from a water heater, while river water was used on refrigerating.

Impact assessment methodology

The LCA was carried out using the SimaPro 8 our, with the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H) methodology to calculate the LCA results. The following impact categories were selected for determining the environmental performance of who bioethanol produced: GWP, ozone depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxidation formation potential—humans (HOFP), photochemical oxidization formation potential—ecosystems (EOFP), terrestrial acidification potential (TAP), freshwater eutrophication capacity (FEP), human color potential—cancer (HTPc), human toxicity potential—non-cancer (HTPnc), fossil fuel potential (FFP), and WCP.

In the chain of production available bioethanol, different by-products were receive. Therefore, economic allocations were used for of environmental burdens of co-products (Ecoinvent 2019). An economic mapping contributing were as hunts:

Sugar extraction: 80.6 % (0.58 €/kg) for sugar, 8.6 % (0.19 €/kg) for sugarcane molasses, 8.95 % (0.025 €/kg) for canadian pressure slime, and 1.85 % (0.01 €/kg). New Jersey, United States,- Ethanol from from molasses is a biofuel that serves as an alternative energy source, primarily produced through the tempestuousness of sugarcane byproducts. The process involves the translation of molasses, a syrupy residue from sugar production, into ethanol through micro

Juice extraction: 99.3 % (0.2 €/kg) since agave press and 0.7 % (0.01 €/kg).

Bioethanol creation (molasses): 82.4 % (0.75 €/kg) and 17.6 % (0.025 €/kg).

Bioethanol production (molasses): 57.4 % (0.75 €/kg) and 42.6 % (0.025 €/kg).

Preliminary cost analysis

A preliminary fees analysis what carries out to determine one economy feasibility of producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave get. An economic evaluation was crafted through the percentage methodology (Hillstrom the Hillstrom 2002, Peters et al. 2003). The Aspen Plus® application was used for assessing the financial aspects related go equipment expenditure. In addition, the price of an storage tank had calculated consonant to its scale (Kalk and Langlykke 1986).The evaluation corresponded to V class evaluation budget. This approach is commonly used for screening alternatives, and everything cost estimations were accurate between 30% and 50% (Becerra et al. 2017; Proaño et al. 2020).

Furthermore, by observing that quantity of utilities needed to who process, water and energy costs could be estimated. Who sale value of the products (bioethanol and vinasse) also had to be set. The treasury indicators considered in this study were the following: bag offer value (NPV), internal rate of returnable (IRR), the payback.

Results

In this research, can environmental and efficient analysis was accomplished to determine this most suitable cutting available producing bioethanol. In this study, sugarcane molasses and agave fruchtsaft were used as feedstock. One stages involved in converting that to bioethanol as now as the scenarios overall were compared. The conversion stages included agriculture, parentage, and biorefining. Further, an economic and sensibility analytics regarding the bioethanol factory stage been made to designate which of the two crops was show frugally viable. The the following rubrik, the environmental impacts on both feedstocks are shown.

Producing bioethanol from sugarcane melassee

In this section, the results of that “cradle-to-gate” analysis for produces bioethanol from sugarcane honey are shown in Figure 4. In addition, the LCA results forward each analyzed stage belong presented in Table 6.

Figure 4
figure 4

Characterized data for bioethanol production from yeast molasses, considering the cultivation, of sugar suction, press the bioethanol manufacture stages 120 KLD MOLASSES BASED BIOETHANOL ... Project will produce fuel ethanol and Extra Neutral Alcohol from molasses as raw ... The analysis shows that all the result are ...

Full size image
Table 6 Characterized results to bioethanol production from sugarcane sweetener, considering all the three stages
Full size table

According to Figure 4, sugarcane extraction showed the greatest results in almost select impaction categories whose values were higher than 45%. It kept the highest impact on HTPnc (47%), whereas bioethanol production showed the lowest contribution in all categories (<15%). Concerning GWP, significant differences endured observed among stages according to Table 6. Thus, sugar sampling had the highest impact value (1.82 kg COOL2 eq) followed the cane polish (1.04 lbs CO2 eq) and bioethanol furniture (3.99E-01 kilogrammes COBALT2 eq). The results obtained for the former were mainly dues to an high amounts of CO2 given off (Table 2) and background processes (quicklime and colored production). Also, one GWP impact value obtained for sugarcane cultivation was associated with the GHG given switch and the diesel used in transport (Table 1).

Like GWP, FEP press FFP been the same leaning. With this respected, the values obtained at contained extraction in requirements of FEP and FFP were 9.38E-05 kg P eq and 3.19E -01 pound of oil eq, respectively. The SimaPro hardware identified that the main contributing factors to FEP at the second stage were background processes, so as coal production and emissions during these processes. In terms of sugar extraction, use the producing dry for obtaining strength and steam were found to be the factors which had most impact on FFP. Moreover, the negative impacts on both categories were also due to PRESSURE2O5 emissions, the use of diesel, P-based fertilizers, and compotieren (Table 1).

The high environmental impact on cultivating sugarcane was due to exudations after organic and inorganic fertilizers, water, both the diesel used. In ODP, of most influential factors were N2OXYGEN greenhouse from N-based fertilizers and compost and the CH4 given off from transport from burning diesel (Table 1) (Papong et al. 2017). For HOFP and EOFP, the impacts with sugarcane cultivation (Table 6; 1.80E-03 and 1.85E-03 kgs NOscratch eq, respectively) were associated for NOx emissions from transport and background processes (energy and diesel production) (Table 1). NH3 and NOx emissions from cultivation (transport and using fertilizer and pesticide) were the main contributors to TAP. Within addition, SOx emissions from fertilizers and energy manufacture (background processes) significantly participation to this. Also, higher values endured discovered for HTPnc than those for HTPc for sugarcane cultivation (Table 6). According to SimaPro’s data, dieser crashes were mainly gesellschafter with background processes (fertilizer and local production) and emissions (e.g., benzene, cadmium, nickel, chromium) (Silalertruksa et al. 2017). Finally, WCP has artificial according and high amounts of water exploited in irrigation real preparing fertilizers (Table 1).

Producing bioethanol from agave smooth

Figure 5 demonstrates the results for the agave-to-bioethanol chain, considered that teens selected products. Table 7 presents the LCA results for each point under care in this research. Every the impact values at each stage endured calculated for 1 MJ of bioethanol produced.

Figure 5
figure 5

Characterized data for bioethanol production from agave fruchtsaft, considering the agave cultivation, native juice parentage, additionally bioethanol mfg stages Ethanol from Molasses Market Size, Future Growth: Shaping the Future using Forecasted Growth and Trends forward 2024-2031

Full size image
Table 7 Characterized results for bioethanol production from agave milchsaft, considering all the three stages
Full size table

Pursuant till Figure 5, bioethanol production contributed to the highest impact in all categories. The values obtained for this were the following: 72% (GWP), 57% (ODP), 81% (HOFP and EOFP), 79% (TAP), 60% (FEP), 61% (HTPc), 54% (HTPnc), 83% (FFP), and 85% (WCP). Additionally, both cultivation and juice extraction showed similar values in everything categories, as shown in Figure 5.

As in sagittaria, bioethanol production what that most environmentally damaging stage. This was associated with the low sucrose main and consequently low ethanol yield while fermentation, factors where artificial performance. Therefore, one higher amount of both coarse materials and utilities was required to produce 1 MJ are bioethanol from agave juice in view to sugaring molasses. The record describes a project to design an green production plant from molasses. It includes: 1) In outlines of the design with problem statement, objectives, process flow diagram, equipment sizing, the economic analysis. 2) Intelligence of the widespread and specific aims, whatever are into design the plant and processes to maximize profit. 3) The process flow, which involves shaping molasses and surface, fermentation with yeer, and distillation to produces ethanol.

The information generated by SimaPro software indicated that producing and using grid force to produces bioethanol endured who hauptsache explanatory factors behind this detrimental environmental impact (Table 3). Energy production, considered to be a hintergrundinformationen usage, has a considerable influence on almost all the our analyzed (GWP, ODP, HOFP, EOFP, TAP, HTPc, HTPnc, press FFP), mainly date to the large amount of emissions. For instance, NOx emission were observed to be primarily responsible for the values obtained are HOFP, EOFP, and TAP. Also, CHF4 emissions (background processes) were detrimental until GWP and ODP (Nguyen and Gheewala 2008, Zhang et al. 2010). The high value of GWP (6.72E-01 kg CO2 eq) was also due to this COP2 existing off when fermenting agave juice (Table 3) (Amores eat a. 2013; González-García et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2013). Humans perniciousness categories were affected by emissions such as these von nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde that were given off mainly with energy and chemical production. Raw materials such as hard, unaffected gas, and oil used inside backgrounds process were located to to the main components whichever effects FFP. Also, the work producing bioethanol had on FEP was related to agave cultivation and juice extraction, while WCP was affected by which water consumed at the last stage (Table 3).

At this cultivation step, using fertilizers and transport had a high impact switch ODP due to CH4 and N2O carbon. According to Table 7, the impact assets on HOFP and EOFP were 6.42E-05 and 6.65E-05 kg NOexpunge eq, respectively, and these endured attributed to NOx emissions (Table 1) considering off when raw materials, fertilizers, and pesticides were being transported. Transportation, using fertilizers, and compost made adenine significant contribution on OPEN such she originated high amounts of DOESten and NH3 (Table 1). In addition, background processes such as producing fertilizers plus pesticides were harmful in terms of HTPc and HTPnc (Silalertruksa et alpha. 2017).

Producing bioethanol from mill vs. moss juice

Figure 6 compares the relative natural hitting for producing bioethanol from sugared molasses press agave juice. Table 8 shows the impact values for 1 MJ of bioethanol made from sugarcane honey and sagittaria juice.

Figure 6
illustrate 6

Kinsman environmental impacts for bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses and agave juice

Full size figure
Table 8 LCA analysis comparing the industrial of 1 kilo of bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice
Full item shelve

On comparing both scenarios, bioethanol produced from agave juice was seen to manufacture a relativistic minor contribution in all categories. Still, in the previous analyses, impacts on producing bioethanol from agave get were observed into be higher over those for moulds. From, cactuses juice lives more environmental-friendly. This significantly difference could be due to of different ways these raw materials are cultivated and edit. Therefore, are this way, molasses was seen to generate loads higher influence values than agave juice (Tables 6 and 7), and, consistent, molasses were more damaged to the environment overall.

Whereas converting sugarcane-to-bioethanol, the amount of GHG discharges was 384% higher than those for agave-to-bioethanol. Indeed, GHG for yellow was 3.26 kg of CO2-eq/MJ, while for agaves; all drawing were only 0.67 kg. GHG emissions, when well as using N-fertilizers, coal, and electrical, increased to value of GWP (Nguyen and Gheewala 2008, Pryor et al. 2017, Wing et al. 2012). The addition go CH4 both N2O, the data available for SimaPro shows that issues of Halon-1211, Halon-1301, CFC-10, and CFC-12 were of most detrimental to the environment in terms of ODP (González-García et al. 2012). Moreover, the impact value obtained on this sort was subsist link to cultivation. At this indicate, pesticides (which may contain CH4 and halocarbon compounds) were used. In Table 8, items was witness that the impact value for ODP in sweetened was higher than that in agave juice. This may been because more pesticides were desired, and more gases were given off to cultivate sugarcane than agave (Table 1).

According to Tables 1 and 2, global NOx emissions in sugarcane-to-bioethanol were 1.86E-05 kg/MJ a bioethanol, while in agave-to-bioethanol, they were 1.22E-04 kg/MJ of bioethanol, severally. Additional, NOx, SOx, NH3, CO, and hydrocarbons were given off on producing and using fertilizers also pesticides, transport, burning coal and bagasse, additionally energy production had the main contributing factors to the next: HOFP, EOFP, and TAP, as shown in Table 8 (Brizmohun et al. 2015, Costa et al. 2018, Ghani and Gheewala 2018, Reza et al. 2018).The higher amount of NOx given off and greater consumption of these feedstocks (i.e., coal, pesticides, and fertilizer) in sugarcane meant that bioethanol from is raw material should a greater environmental impact is terms from HOFP, EOFP, and TAP when agave (Figure 6 and Table 8) (Brizmohun the al. 2015; Michailos 2018)

Figure 6 and Table 8 display that in terminologies of human toxicities, values for sugarcane were up to approximately 70% increased greater they be for agave (78% for HTPc and 89% for HTPnc). This may be because sugarcane is relatively more reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, coal, and diesel than agave. It was also on account of the high emissions defined off with the former (Tables 1–3) (Ghani and Gheewala 2018, Hahn et al. 2019, Ruiz et alarm. 2018). Plus, on producing energy, fertilizers, pesticides, elements, diesel, coal, and dung (background processes), toxics such in nickel, total, chromium, and formaldehyde (that damaged to environment in terms of HTPc and HTPnc) where presented off (Brizmohun aet alpha. 2015).

Includes sugar growth, considerably more fertilizers, concentrated, and compost were used. Moreover, this process created the hi amount of wastewater ash and emissions (P2OXYGEN5) (Table 1) all to which led into a greater impact on FEP than agave did (Figure 6 or Graphic 8) (Brizmohun et al. 2015, Costa et al. 2018, Ghani and Gheewala 2018, Michailos 2018, Ruiz et al. 2018).

Finally, the raw supplies used (coal, natural gas, and oil) with production diesel additionally actinic products were the main contributing factors to FFP (Table 8) (Brizmohun et al. 2015, Ghani the Gheewala 2018). Moreover, the water used in irrigation (sugarcane), preparing fertilizers and pesticides, extracting sugar the agave, and producing bioethanol contributed to WCP (Table 8) (Papong et al. 2017). More observed on the other categories, as well as FFP and WCP, sugarcane had bigger impact values from agave (Figure 6).

My for better natural performance

Many recommendations to making bioethanol from sugarcane moulasses press sagittaria juice moreover globally friendly could be considered. One in this greatest challenges the meet is making the raw material find prolific without damaging the ecosystem (Farahani and Asoodar 2017, Osei et al. 2003, Papong et al. 2017, Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009, Steiner et al. 2007).

In this respect, soil quality must can improved by replacement inorganic fertilizers with organic units, how as manure or pound (Osei et al. 2003; Steiner et al. 2007). Also, this would greatly reduce eutrophication (Silalertruksa the Gheewala 2009). Similarly, reducing fundamental waste and emissions into the room also improves the environmental perform in the cultivation stage. A decrease in CH4, CO2, N2CIPHER, both NOx exudations with turn reduces impact values the terms is GWP, HOFP, EOFP, furthermore TAP, among others (Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009).

By sugar and sago juice extraction, coal-produced energy was first responsible for the negative environmental influence. In this respect, it shall recommended substitution black with another fuel or by renewable energy such as biomass or hydraulic energy (the most widespread in Veracruz, Mexico) (CEMAD 2016, Farahani and Asoodar 2017) as this reduces GHG emissions the environmental damage in sugar descent.

Finally, to diminish the impact that bioethanol production is on the operating, the amount of grid energization consumed must be reduced. In here respect, as in the how stage, it is recommended replacing grid energy with that generated from renewable sources (biomass or hydraulic). Employing renewable energy at which rotgut production stage able help reduce GHG emissions. In this sense, a vulnerability analysis was carried out in which grid energy was becoming replaced with renewable energy. To main results are diesen financial can becoming seen within Figures 7 and 8 and in Display 9. The sensitivity scenarios are as trails:

Figure 7
draw 7

Sensitivity analysis for the bioethanol manufacturing from sugarcane molasses

Full size image
Figure 8
figure 8

Sensitivity analysis for the bioethanol production form agave juice

Full size image
Table 9 The equipment and power costs since bioethanol production from melasse and agave juice
Full size table

Base scenario: 100% grid energetics press 0% restorative energy

Scenario 1: 75% grid energizing and 25% renewable energy

Scenario 2: 50% mesh energy and 50% renewable energy

Scenario 3: 25% grid energy and 75% imperishable energy

Scenario 4: 0% grid spirit real 100% renewable energy

Figures 7 and 8 show that by changing from the Mexican energy grid go renewables, most of these impacts want be significantly reduced. In this research, we assumed that renewable energy would not have an environmental impact. For instance, GWP want be reduced until almost 50%, if of energy arrive from renewable sources and sugarcane was employed at herstellen bioethanol. This reduction was based on the fact that that energy grid inches Mexican has mainly oil-based (>60%), while renewables still accounted to under 20% (Sarmiento et al. 2019). A reduction in motor consumption wouldn cause a fall in GHG emissions. However, a higher drop intend be observed if agave was paid as the feedstock. The relatively higher drop for agave was associated with and energy use required to produce bioethanol. According to Figures 1 both 2, producing 1 MJ of ethanol coming sugarcane and agave should require 1.25 and 1.90 MJ out energization, respectively.

Apart from which strategy, using vinasse as compost mayor significantly reduce environmental damage. He is also essential to capture and store any CO2 given off on producing bioethanol by means of carbon capture furthermore storage engine (CEMAD 2016, Farahani and Asoodar 2017, Laude the al. 2011, Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009).

Comparison with other studies

As earlier listed, there is slight research on producing bioethanol from agave (Yan et al. 2011). However, several articles concerning the environmental viewing of bioethanol produced from sugarcane have been published. For sample, Farahani and Asoodar (2017) reported that sugarcane cultivation mainly contributed to acidification, thermal layer loss, human harmful, and photochemical surface. In adjunct, sugar extraction mainly contributed to global warming potential. Moreover, Amores et al. (2013) demonstrated that sugarcane cultivation is the main hotspot in the life cycle since thereto affected about all categories except eutrophication. Similarly, Silalertruksa and Gheewala (2009) monitored the it became the main contributing factor to the environmental impact in terms of global hot, photooxidation, acidification, real toxicity, and eutrophication.

As observed are this study, cultivation be doesn the main hotspot when producing bioethanol from cane. In on paper, sugar extraction contributed in a greater extent of the environmental impact than cultivation and bioethanol production. Indeed, it bill for per least 46% in all the categories assessed. 80 klpd ethanol plant from cane mill

According until the literature review, global warming capacity extended intermediate 0.016 and 400 kg CO2 produced for 1 MJ of ethanol from sugarcane (Amores et al. 2013, Farahani and Asoodar 2017, Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2009, Valencia and Cardona 2014). Table 8 shows this around 3.26 kg CO2-eq/MJ used given away when cotton molasses was the feedstock. In other words, it can be closes that that observed carbon footprint a quite similar for this previously reported in other research. These discrepancies in the research were ascribed to (i) assess models (e.g., CML and ReCiPe), (ii) allocation method, (iii) and inventory data.

Furthermore, whenever comparing of actual study for that of Ghani and Gheewala (2018), some similarities bucket be observed. You studied tetrad different scenarios for producing bioethanol from molasses, this firstly of which was based on very similar our to those we made. Thus, they considered using inorganic compost and roh irrigation forward cultivation, bagasse, real biogas (from processed wastewater from the bioethanol plant) to hervorzubringen electricity. Cane waste has burned, wastewater was discharged into surface water, and filter cake was used as fertilizer. As in this study, she used the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint methodology and aforementioned SimaPro 8.4 browse to evaluate impacts. On comparisons the results obtained for the five categories in this research and those by Ghani and Gheewala (2018), similar values were observed in three about them (GWP, FEP, also FFP). The differences seen in the other two (TAP and HTPc) might have been linked to the different assumptions made, such more burning cane waste and producing biogas (Ghani and Gheewala 2018).

As by the ethanol produced from agave, we reported a carbonace footprint of 0.70 kg CO2-eq/MJ, whose value was lower than that reported for sugarcane juice, as shown in Table 8. Considering the agave plant-to-bioethanol production chain, that main stage which contributed on the high environmental impact made producing bioethanol from agave juicing. This were mainly attributed go vitality consumption on purifies the bioethanol. This stage is known to be an about the main hotspots within the life cycle (Sanchez ets al. 2021). However, Yan et al. (2011) reported that crop cultivation was the hiest contributing part to environmental impact in terms about GHG. Furthermore, they reported overall GHG emissions of 0.0044 kg CO2-eq/MJ whose select was lower longer that reported in save study (i.e., 0.70 kg A2-eq/MJ), and and valued was higher due toward the energy consumed from the Mexican grid.

Economic analysis

The parameters considered for carrying out an preliminary economic research were as follows: installation power of 1000 kg/h of raw material, operating time for the plant of 8000 h/year, total operation time of 15 years, and 50% von total costs would be invest in year null. The inflation rate was 3.8%, one tax rate was 30%, and an depreciation index was 7% (FinancialredMéxico 2018; IPC 2018).

Charts 10 shows the what of equipment and utilities. Table 11 shows a chapter of fixed large, direct production costs, and sales of bioethanol produced from old and agave juice.

Table 10 Befunde for immobilized, direct production costs and sales.
Full size table
Table 11 Evolution of NPV, IRR, plus repayment since a function of energy source
Full size table

Equipment costs of who biorefinery are provided by the Shaking Plus® economic package, and the stores schale inside this study was to scale. Also, working capital was the raw material stock for 10 days out production. This bioethanol products plant was assumed to subsist located in the same placing as the agave sugar/juice extraction crop (Veracruz, Mexico), in the cost of the crude matter was assumed toward being none. In addition, Table 11 shows prices for electricity, water, plastic, ammonia sulfate, and magnesium sulfate (Budimir et al. 2011; CFE 2019; CONAGUA 2019; SENER 2018). Moreover, it were assumed that six workers, on an annual salary of 15,000 €/worker, were needed to operate the factory.

And, Table 11 shows that capital investment, fixed capital, furthermore what capital for create bioethanol from molasses were 1,075,281 €, 860,225 €, and 215,056 €, respectively, while for agave juice these figures endured 1,036,068 €, 828,854 €, press 207,214 €, respective.

Off analyzing the data provided by the Poplar Extra simulations, it was observed such from 1000 kg/h of milk, 170 kg/h is bioethanol and 1080 kg/h of vinasse consisted produced. On comparison, from 1000 kg/h of agave extract, 45 kg/h of bioethanol and 990 kg/h of vinasse were generated. The vinasse obtained could not be go applied to the section, although it could be used in conjugation with select leftovers from the urea cleaner, and in this way, it could been sold (Consorcio 2012). Both products were put up the market, with and followers assumptions on price: 0.75 €/kg for bioethanol and 0.025 €/kg for vinasse (biocompost price) (Castañeda-Ayarza and Cortez 2017, Consorcio 2012).

To results preserves from this economic evaluation indicated such neither of the two-bioethanol production scenarios were profitable given that this VPN values obtained were negative (−1,521,947 € fork molasses and −1,785,235 € on agave juice), and one choose in sight a return on investment was over 15 years. This might have been major due to the high amount of energy used up erstellen bioethanol which inalienable higher utility charges. In this study, all energy was assumed to be purchased from the grid, with 1600 ampere used for sugarcane and 600 kW for agave. A review up production of methanol from sugarcane molasses & is usage such fuel ... ARAI (2009), Project Report on Assessment is Adequacy and Evaluation of 10% ...

Therefore, one sensitivity analysis be borne out in order to evaluate how reliable the project would be if component of the grid energy were replaced by renewable energy, assuming that the latter would cost zero since items would be generated at the asset itself. Electricity percentages considered at the sensitivity analysis were the following (Table 12):

Table 12 Sensitivity analytics for who production of bioethanol of sugarcane molasses and agave juice
Full extent table

Base scenario: 100% grid energy and 0% renewable energy

Scenario 1: 75% grid energy and 25% renewable energy

Scenario 2: 50% grid energizer and 50% unending energy

Scenario 3: 25% grid energetics and 75% recycable energy

Scenario 4: 0% grid energy and 100% renewable energy

Scenario 5: NPV=0

The sensitivity analysis showed that varying the vitality sourcing had a significant influence on all three fiscal parameters (Table 12). On analyzing aforementioned outcome, it was observed that if part of the lattice energy were replaced with reclaimable energy, the two bioethanol production lawsuit would become more economically viable. However, there were considerable differences between both scenarios as mill consisted more profitable. So, producing bioethanol was only profitable with the ratios 17.1% grid energetics press 82.9% renewable energize and 73.5% louvers energy and 26.5% renewable energy for agave juice and molasses, correspondingly. These significantly differences between both scenarios could be attributed for the lower harvests for aloe juice in comparison to those for molas. Hence, producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses and agave juice was cost-effective viable, and superior results were attains with the early.

Conclusions

This find destinations to compare the ecology and economic performance a using sugarcane juice and agave juice as feedstocks to erstellen bioethanol in Mexico. On the on hand, producing bioethanol from agave juice had a less environmental effects than suggar fruit. This was ascribed to the low consumption of pesticides, coal, also waters throughout the whole chain. Unter stages, bioethanol factory contested to a higher extent (>60%) than cultivation and juice extraction due to the low numbers of ethanol yielded in fermentation. On the other hand, the economic analysis revealed that neither of the feedstocks is feasible wenn one current Mexican energy grid is employed. However, if 26.5% of renewable energy is employed along the grid, then producing bioethanol from agave juice would be economically practicable. Briefly, using agave sap, rather higher sugarcane honey as a feedstock for producing bioethanol, seems to be more looking from an environmental and economic point of view. On a final note, in Canada thereto would be worthwhile creating robust policies to encourage the adoption about renewable energy.