Techno-economic analysis and climate change impacts of sugarcane biorefineries considering different time horizons

Table 1 Main characteristics of the evaluated scenarios

Scenarios^a	1G-base	1G-ST	1G2G-ST	1G-MT	1G2G-MT	1G-LT	1G2G-LT
Sugarcane processing (10⁶ t/year)^b	2	4	4	4	4	4	4
Straw recovery (%)^c	–	50	50	60	60	70	70
Energy cane processing (10⁶ t/year)	–	–	–	1.72^d		4.17^e
1G technology level	Base	Optimized (high-pressure boilers and reduced steam consumption)
2G yield (L/t LCM)^f	–	–	~240	–	~295	–	~350
Vinasse biodigestion efficiency (%)^g	–	–	–	72	72	80	80

^aST, MT, and LT stand for technologies in the short, medium, and long terms, respectively
^bSugarcane is processed during the sugarcane harvesting season (200 days/year)
^cThe recovery percentage relates to the amount of straw produced in the field. Baling for longer distances (50% of total area) and integral harvesting for short distances (50% of total area). Even with the increment in the sugarcane straw recovery percentages over time, higher projected biomass yields would allow maintaining the same amount of straw in the field (compared to the short term scenarios)
^dEnergy cane is processed only in the off-season (130 days), using the idle equipment used for conventional sugarcane during season, after some minor adjustments
^eEnergy cane is processed all-year round. The facility is designed to process both sugarcane and energy cane during the season (200 days). In the off-season (130 days), all installed capacity is employed to process only energy cane
^fThis yield is a result of process simulation based on the assumptions for 2G process in each time horizon. LCM refers to dry lignocellulosic material pretreated in the 2G process
^gProduced biogas is purified and used to replace diesel limited to 70% in the agricultural operations and transport. Surplus biogas is burnt in internal combustion engines for electricity production

ISSN: 2731-3654