This document presents a process design for producing ethanol from sugarcane mills. Key aspects of the process include: 1) Cane milling to extract juice from sugarcane, followed by juice clarification to remove impurities. 2) Fermentation of the clarified juice to produce ethanol. Multiple fermenters are used in a fed-batch process. 3) Distillation of the fermented broth using a stripping column and rectifying column to recover ethanol. Mass and energy balances were developed for each section. Major equipment, economic analysis including capital and operating costs, and a safety analysis were also presented. The overall process is designed to produce 124.7 million gallons of ethanol per year

1. Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process
An Le Thuy Tran
ID#: xxxxx7066
Chemical Engineering
CHEG 407-A
Spring 2016
Apr. 14, 2016
Submitted to Dr. Jacob R. Borden

2. 1
Table ofContents
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................3
Flowsheet and Process Description...................................................................................................3
Cane Milling...................................................................................................................................4
Juice Clarification ...........................................................................................................................4
Fermentation...................................................................................................................................5
Ethanol Distillation .........................................................................................................................6
Mass and Energy Balances................................................................................................................7
Major Equipment List......................................................................................................................9
Economic Analysis............................................................................................................................9
ISBL/OSBL.................................................................................................................................. 10
CAPEX........................................................................................................................................ 10
OPEX........................................................................................................................................... 10
NPV/IRR...................................................................................................................................... 11
Safety Analysis................................................................................................................................12
Toxicity/ Flammability/ Auto-ignition ............................................................................................ 12
HAZOP........................................................................................................................................ 13
Boston Square............................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................14

3. 2
Figures
Figure 1: Overall Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process Overview........................................................3
Figure 2: Cane Milling Overview.........................................................................................................4
Figure 3: Juice Clarification Overview .................................................................................................5
Figure 4: Conversion of Sucrose and Inverts to Ethanol.........................................................................5
Figure 5: Fermentation Overview ........................................................................................................6
Figure 6: Ethanol Distillation Overview ...............................................................................................7
Figure 7: Major Equipment List...........................................................................................................9
Figure 8: LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg ..................................................................................13
Figure 9: HAZOP on Multiple Effect Evaporators ..............................................................................13
Figure 10: FMEA Rating Scale..........................................................................................................14
Figure 11: Boston Square for Multiple Effect Evaporators HAZOP......................................................14
Tables
Table 1: Design Basis for Cane Milling Section....................................................................................4
Table 2: Design Basis for Juice Clarification Section ............................................................................5
Table 3: Design Basis for Fermentation Section....................................................................................6
Table 4: Design Basis for Distillation Section.......................................................................................7
Table 5: Mass Balance for Milling Section ...........................................................................................8
Table 6: Mass Balance for Clarifying Section.......................................................................................8
Table 7: Mass Balance for Fermentation Section...................................................................................8
Table 8: Mass Balance for Distillation Section......................................................................................9
Table 9: Overall Economic Results ....................................................................................................10
Table 10: Total Fixed Capital Cost.....................................................................................................11
Table 11: Variables Cost of Production ..............................................................................................11
Table 12: Annual Labor, Maintenance, and Depreciation Cost.............................................................11
Table 13: Variables Cost per Gallon and per Year of Ethanol Production .............................................11
Table 14: Cash Flow and NPV Analysis.............................................................................................12
Table 15: Safety Parameters for Materials Involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process..........13

4. 3
Executive Summary
Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills project is designed for St. Mary Sugar Co-Op, Inc. located in
Jeanerette,LA. In this project, we have evaluated a sugarcane mill that processes 20,000 metric tons per
day (44.1 million lb/day) of cane. With the plant operating at an on-stream factor of 0.50, the annual
output is 420 million pounds (192,000 metric tons or 242 million liters) of ethanol or 64 million gallons.
The on-stream factor is a reflection of our assumption that the mills, fermentation and recovery are
operated during a milling season of 150 days/yr. This plant is estimated to have a ± 100% CAPEX of $
670,000,000 and a ± 50% major equipment cost of $ 120,000,000 (included a Lang factor of 4). Also,
total variables cost per gallon ethanol production is estimated as $ 2.02. A brief safety analysis, HAZOP,
and Boston Square were performed in order to identify and evaluate problems that may present risks to
personnel or equipment, or prevent efficient operation. The MS Excel file, with the shortcut as shown
below, shows all calculations, figures, and tables with detailed examination.
CHEG 407-Case
2-Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process.xlsx
Flowsheet and Process Description
The sugarcane plant is operated 5 months (150 days) a year,and processes 20,000 US ton of raw
sugarcane per day. The ethanol production from sugarcane consists of four process sections: cane milling,
juice clarification, fermentation, and ethanol distillation. The main raw materials involving in this
production are sugarcane and water, besides with other reagents at small quantities. The overall ethanol
from sugarcane mills process overview is provided in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Overall Ethanol fromSugarcane Mills ProcessOverview

5. 4
1. Cane Milling
The sugarcane from field typically contains 15 wt% sucrose,15 wt% fiber, and 70 wt% water and
dirt. Firstly, the cane is unloaded for cleaning, and placed in a large pile. Then, breaking cane is done by
revolving knives and shredder; grinding cane is done by 4 sets of 4-roller mills. Next, conveyors transfer
the cane through knife mill and hammer mill toward roller mills. In order to enhance the extraction of the
juice, imbibition water is added at the roller mills. Lately, bagasse which is removed from the last roller
mill can be recycle to use as fuel. The design basis for Cane Milling section is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Design Basis for Cane Milling Section
Figure 2: Cane Milling Overview
2. Juice Clarification
In the juice clarification section, the raw material is first heated at about 95o
C. Next, calcium
oxide (lime) is added in order to produce organic acids precipitate. The remaining of lime and dirt then
are added to clarifier in order to separate clear juice and heavy precipitate (mud). The mud will undergoes
the vacuum filtering process while the clear juice will go through evaporator which has five heat
exchangers in series in order to produce concentrated juice, using evaporated water. The last heat
exchanger is operated at 2.5 psia and 57o
C. A design basis for juice clarification section can be seen in the
Table 2 below.
Component Value Unit
Raw cane 20000 US ton/day
Sugar in cane 15 %
Extraction yield of sugar 96 %
Bagasse 0.275 lb/lb cane
40 % solid
60 % moisture
Imbibition water 0.307 lb/lb cane
Bagasse composition
Water
6140 US ton/day
Knife mill Hammer mill
20000 US ton/day 4-Roller mills
15 wt% sucrose 6-10" billets 0.5-1" chunks split fiber
15 wt% fiber
70 wt% water, dirt
Raw juice Bagasse
20640 US ton/day 5500 US ton/day
13.95 wt% sucrose 40 wt% solid
60 wt% water
Sugarcane
from field
Wt scale,
transport

6. 5
Table 2: Design Basis for Juice Clarification Section
Figure 3: Juice Clarification Overview
3. Fermentation
Ethanol is produced as a result of fermentation in a series of fed-batch fermenters. Yeast cream
and molasses are fed to the top of the first fermenter. Each stage gives broth at the bottom following to
the middle of the next stage. The fermenters have a conical bottom inclined at 60˚ and an aspect ratio
(height/diameter) of 1.2 in the cylindrical part. Broth is circulated through external coolers to maintain the
fermenter operating temperature between 33 and 35o
C (91 to 95o
F). Liquid kinetic energy at the heat
exchanger outlet is used to agitate liquid in the fermenter. Foam and gasses from the fermenter conduct to
the next fermenter,then washed in a perforated plate column. Carbon dioxide is also produced with the
ethanol and contain some of the vent gasses.
Disk-bowl centrifuges separate biomass from the wine to form a yeast cream containing 70-80%
of cellular mass. Acid treatment vessels received the yeast cream,where water is added to up to 35-40%
of the volume, and concentrated sulfuric acid is added to get the pH of about 2.2. The amount of effective
concentration of ethanol in the wine accounts for about 10 vol%. Figure 4 below shows the conversion of
sucrose and inverts to ethanol.
Type of reaction Stoichiometry
Inversion of Sucrose by Hydrolysis C12H22O11 + H2O → 2C6H12O6
Conversion of Invert Sugars by Yeast 2C6H12O6 → 4C2H5OH + 4CO2
Figure 4: Conversion of Sucrose and Invertsto Ethanol
Component Value Unit
Lime added 0.003 lb/lb cane
Sucrose lost in filtercake 0.7 %
Filtercake 0.0196 lb/lb cane
30 % solid
70 % moisture
Sugar in clear juice 12 %
Filtercake composition
Lime
60 US ton/day Recycle juice
Juice heater
Raw juice
20640 US ton/day
13.95 wt% sucrose
Concentrated juice Clear juice
9533 US ton/day 23832 US ton/day
30 wt% sucrose 12 wt% sucrose
Evaporated water Wash water
14299 US ton/day 3524 US ton/day
Filter cake
392 US ton/day
30 wt% solid
70 wt% water
Mud
centrifuge
Surge
tank
Mixing
vessel
Surge
tank
Clarifier
Surge
tank
Evaporator

7. 6
Table 3: Design Basis for Fermentation Section
Figure 5: Fermentation Overview
4. Ethanol Distillation
Fermented wine (15wt% ethanol) which comes from centrifuges will first go through heater,then
stripping and rectifying columns. In the stripping column, carbon dioxide gas is removed as an overhead
product, while liquid water is removed at the bottom. Then, rectifying column will received the side
stream from stripping column in order to produce hydrous ethanol with 50% in volume. Both columns are
operated at 30 psia and consist of valve trays, overhead condensers, and bottom reboilers. A design basis
for distillation section can be seen in the table 4 below.
Component Value Unit
Fermentation time 8 hours
Waer added 0.13 lb/lb concentrated juice
Fermentation reaction yield 92 %
Bottom stream yield 99 % total ethanol
Total yield of ethanol 91 %
Diluted ethanol concentration 15 %
Reactor temperature 35 degree C
CO2 Water
Concentrated juice Gas
9533 US ton/day 1429 US ton/day Water
30 wt% sucrose
Water 10-Heat exchangers
1239 US ton/day
Yeast cream 9343 US ton/day
15 wt% ethanol
Sulfuric acid
10-Fermentors
Gas
washing
column
Acid treatment unit Centrifuges

8. 7
Table 4: Design Basis for Distillation Section
Figure 6: Ethanol Distillation Overview
Mass and Energy Balances
For the annual output is 420 million pounds (192,000 metric tons or 242 million liters) of ethanol,
the mass flowrate of each component in each section has been calculated and can be seen in Tables 5-8
below.
Component Value Unit
Distillation yield 99 %
CO2 removed 100 %
50 vol%
43 wt%
Ethanol product density 0.93 kg/L
Product stream 3,226 US ton/day
Product capacity 483,966 US ton/year
Overall capacity 124,729,357 gal ethanol/year
0.16 lb product/lb cane
157.37 L product/US ton cane
Ethanol product
concentration
Ratio product
Gas to washing column Ethanol
25 US ton/day 50 vol%
3226 US ton/day
Condenser Condenser
Wine heater
Fermented wine Reboiler
9342 US ton/day
15 wt% ethanol
Reboiler To waste treatment
6091 US ton/day
Stripping
column
Rectification
column

9. 8
Table 5: Mass Balance for Milling Section
Table 6: Mass Balance for Clarifying Section
Table 7: Mass Balance for Fermentation Section
Section Flowrate (US ton/day)
Sucrose 3,000
Fiber 3,000
Water & dirt 14,000
6,140
Sucrose 2,880
Water & dirt 17,760
Solid 2,200
Water 3,300
Component
Sugarcane
feed
Milling
Imbibition water
Raw juice
Bagasse
Section Flowrate (US ton/day)
Sucrose 2,880
Water & dirt 17,760
3,524
60
Sucrose 2,860
Water 20,972
Solid 118
Water 274
Sucrose 2,860
Water 20,972
Sucrose 2,860
Water 6,673
14,299
Clear juice
Lime
Wash water
Raw juice
Component
Decanter
Evaporator Concentrated
juice
Evaporated water
Clear juice
Filter cake
Section Stream Component Flowrate (US ton/day)
Sugar 2,859.84
Water 6,672.96
Added water (from acid treatment) 1,239.26
Ethanol 1,415.54
Water 7,773.75
Unreacted sugar 228.79
CO2 1,353.99
Water 73.02
Ethanol 14.16
CO2 1,342.35
Ethanol 1,401.38
Water 7,700.73
Unreacted sugar 228.79
CO2 11.65
Fermentation
Inlet
Outlet
Top
stream
Bottom
stream

10. 9
Table 8: Mass Balance for Distillation Section
Major Equipment List
No. Equipment Functions
1 Knife mill 1st
step of breaking the hard structure of the cane
2 Hammer mill 2nd
step of breaking the hard structure of the cane
3 Roller mill Grind or mill the crushed cane
4 Settling tank Strain the juice from the mills to remove large particles
5 Vacuum filter Filter the insoluble particulate mass, called “mud”
6 Clarifying column Separate a heavy precipitate from the juice
7 Mix vessel Neutralize the organic acid
8 Juice heater Raise the temperature of the juice to about 200 degree F
9 Mud centrifugal Separate mud from the limed juice
10 Multiple effect evaporators Concentrate the juice in an evaporator station
11 Stripping column
Remove residual carbon dioxide and as little ethanol as possible
overhead
12 Rectifying distillation Tolerate solids well and have a relatively good efficiency
13 Fermenters Produce ethanol
14 External coolers
Maintain each fermenter at operating temperatures by circulating
broth through external coolers
15 Perforated plate column Wash gases and foam released from the fermenter process
16 Disk-bowl centrifuge Separate biomass from the wine to form a yeast cream
17 Acid treatment vessel
Dilute the yeast cream with water and mix with concentrated
sulfuric acid
18 Sulfuric acid tank Contain sulfuric acid
19 Condenser Condense carbon dioxide, ethanol, and water
20 Ethanol storage tank Store pure ethanol
Figure 7: Major Equipment List
Economic Analysis
A major equipment cost is calculated as a total of $ 30,000,000 ± 50% within the accuracy of the
method. The details of estimated cost of each piece of equipment can be seen in Table 9 below. The total
equipment cost was then brought from 2006 US dollars to 2016 US dollars by using cost index found in
Section Stream Component Flowrate (US ton/day)
Ethanol 1,401.38
Water 7,700.73
CO2 11.65
Sugar 228.79
CO2 overhead 11.65
Ethanol overhead 14.01
Water at bottom 5,861.66
Sugar at bottom 228.79
Water in product 1,839.07
Ethanol in product 1,387.37
Distillation
Inlet
Outlet

11. 10
figure 7.3 from Chemical Engineering Design Book (page 337) before being multiplied by a Lang factor
of 4 to get a CAPEXcost of $ 120,000,000 ± 50% within the accuracy of the method.
Year Cost index
2006 1.6 fig. 7.3
2016 1.45 fig. 7.3
Table 9: Overall Economic Results
Compare to the original ± 100% ISBL cost ($ 670,000,000), the calculated CAPEXcost is much
lower ($ 120,000,000). The reason is many pieces of equipment not being accounted for. These
equipment are continuous vacuum pans, batch seed pans, crystallizers, continuous centrifuges, etc. The
difference also might come from the number of reactors used in practice,which will raise the CAPEX
cost significantly.
This project is designed for St. Mary Sugar Coop plant in Jeanerette,Louisiana. The cost analysis
can be done by using ISBL and OSBL method. Based on the total purchased equipment cost, the total
fixed capital cost is estimated as $ 216.9 MM for an investment of 20-year life for a project.
No Equipment Symbol Material Op. parameterOp. value Op. unita b n Material factor Cost $
1 Knife mill S-101 Carbon steel Mass flow 765 t/h 68400 730 1 1 626,850.00$
2 Hammer mill S-102 Carbon steel Mass flow 765 t/h 68400 730 1 1 626,850.00$
3 Roller mills (x4) S-104A-D Carbon steel Mass flow 18000 t/day 250000 500 0.9 1 3,628,432.60$
4 Settling tank S-105 Carbon steel Volume 568 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1 141,370.07$
5 Vacuum filter (x2) S-107A&B Carbon steel Area 3026 m2 -73000 93000 0.3 1 956,778.04$
6 Clarifying column V-102 304SS Volume 492.10 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 166,945.29$
7 Mix vessel V-101 304SS Volume 359.61 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 135,522.00$
8 Mud centrifugal S-106 316SS Diameter 1.30 m 57000 480000 0.7 1.3 822,040.96$
9 Fermenters (x10) R-301-310 304SS Volume 1135.623 m3 623750 5000 1 1 6,301,865.00$
10 Disk-bowl centrifuge S-301A&B 316SS Diameter 0.91 m 57000 480000 0.7 1.3 660,211.09$
11 Acid treatment vessel V-301A-D 316SS Volume 26.50 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 112,644.24$
12 Sulfuric acid tank T-351 Carbon steel Volume 18.93 m3 113000 3250 0.65 1 134,977.95$
13 Ethanol storage tank T-451A&B Carbon steel Volume 3217.5985 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1 462,249.02$
Carbon steel Area 58.06 m2 1600 210 0.95 1 11,552.53$
316SS Duty 8206 kW -14000 1900 0.75 1.3 2,111,387.98$
316SS
Area 743.22
m2
330 36000 0.55 1.3 1,776,096.73$
316SS Duty 18.65 kW 17000 1130 1.05 1.3 53,812.80$
Carbon steel Area 111.48 m2 29000 400 0.9 1 56,832.35$
304SS Duty 21.2 kW 580000 20000 0.6 1.3 916,470.63$
Carbon steel
Area 65.03
m2
30400 122 1.1 1 42,444.82$
304SS Duty 366.34 kW 260000 2700 0.75 1.3 631,914.07$
14 Juice heater E-101
15
Multiple effect
evaporators
E-102A-E
16 External coolers (x10) E-301-304
17 Condensers E-402
No Equipment Symbol Trays/Packing #of trays Height of packing (m) a b n a b n
18 Stripping column C-401 valve trays 34 N/A 210 400 1.9 160,022.85$ 17400 79 0.85 2,197,673.55$
19 Rectifying distillation C-402 valve trays 60 N/A 210 400 1.9 163,477.76$ 17400 79 0.85 2,685,939.58$
20 Perforated plate column C-301 304SS Raschig rings N/A 3.048 0 8000 1 284,671.99$ 17400 79 0.85 1,130,005.67$
Trays/packing parameter Column parameterCost of
tray/packing
Cost of column
26,999,039.58$
Total 2016 Cost of Major Equipment ± 50% 29,792,043.68$ eq. 7.14
4
119,168,174.70$ eq. 7.10
Lang factor
CAPEX ISBL ± 50%
Total 2006 Cost of Major Equipment ± 50%

12. 11
Table 10: Total Fixed Capital Cost
Table 11: Variables Cost of Production
Assume that this sugarcane plant has 25 operators, 6 engineers, and 1 plant manager, in which the
salaries are estimated as $25/hr for operators, $30/hr for engineer, and $35/hr for plant manager. Thus, for
one season,the labor cost of this plant is calculated as around $6,000,000. Maintenance cost and
depreciation cost are estimated as 5% ISBL and 5% total fixed cost, respectively. Total annual cost equals
the sum of labor cost, maintenance cost, and depreciation cost.
Table 12: Annual Labor, Maintenance, and Depreciation Cost
Table 13: VariablesCost per Gallon and per Year of Ethanol Production
Assume the plant is built at time zero, begins operation at full rate in year 1. The rate of corporate
income tax is 35%, and paid tax based on the previous year’s income. The IRR is found as 13.11% by
using Goal seek in Excel. The NPV of this sugarcane plant after 20 years then is calculated as
$106,932,545.09, which is approximately as $107 MM. The payback period is 8 years,and the profit is
earned at the 9th
year. A detail can be seen in Table 14 below.
Major equipment cost 119,168,174.70$
Offsites factor (OS) 0.3
Design and Engineering (D&E) 0.3
Contigency (X) 0.1
Total fixed capital cost 216,886,077.96$
Component Value Unit Cost per unit Cost per day Cost per year
Cooling water 37,857,600 gal/day 0.005$ 189,288.00$ 28,393,200.00$
Electricity 523,872 kWh/day 0.060$ 31,432.32$ 4,714,848.00$
Raw sugarcane 20,000 US ton/day 30.00$ 600,000.00$ 90,000,000.00$
Calcium oxide 60 US ton/day 60.00$ 3,600.00$ 540,000.00$
By product Electricity (from bagasse) 22,723 kWh/day (0.087)$ (47,445.62)$ (7,116,843.60)$
116,531,204.40$
Utilities
Raw material
Consumption/Production
Labor cost 6,000,000.00$
Maintenance 6,235,986.00$ 5% ISBL
Depreciation 10,844,303.90$ 5% total fixed cost
Total annual cost 23,080,289.90$
Cooling water 0.45$
Electricity 0.07$
Raw sugarcane 1.41$
Calcium oxide 0.01$
By product Electricity (from bagasse) (0.11)$
0.09$
0.10$
2.02$ per gal
128,709,825.40$ per year
Maintenance
Utilities
Raw material
Total
Labor

13. 12
Table 14: Cash Flow and NPV Analysis
Safety Analysis
Many hazardous chemicals involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills process are listed in the
Table 6 below. Carbon dioxide is classified as harmful; sucrose, water,ethanol calcium oxide, fructose,
and glucose are considered as non-harmful based on LD50 rate. The LD50 rate expresses the amount of the
specified chemical that it would take to kill 50% of an animal population. A chemical substances may be
very dangerous at high temperature or pressure, though it is not at lower degree of temperature and
pressure. The PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) establishes the ppm limit that should not come into
contact with a person. Appropriate medical care and paperwork should be fulfilled if a person comes into
contact with a chemical beyond its PEL. The Flammability Range in air (vol% in air) suggests that if the
volume percent of the specified material falls between these ranges, an explosion will mostly occur,
especially if there is an ignition source. In order to not falling in the flammability range, the unit needs to
be operated a very safe distance from this range. In our plant, since other chemical’s flammability ranges
do not applicable except ethanol’s, our unit process needs to be run at a very ethanol rich at 32 volume
percent in air or higher; or at a very EDC poor at 1 volume percent in air or lower. In case the
flammability ranges of other chemicals are indicated, our unit needs to be operated at the point more than
the highest volume percent in air of all the upper limits or at the point less than the lowest volume percent
in air of all the lower limits. Auto ignition temperature is shown in the last column, at which the specified
material may spontaneously ignite. Therefore,a unit should have a material operating far from its auto
ignition temperature. In order to do that, extra insulation may be added around process equipment.
Compound
Toxicity data
Toxicity level
Flammability range Auto ignition
temperature
(oC)
PEL
(ppm)
LD50 (mg/kg)
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
Sucrose 27 29,700 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
CO2 5000
1200 Rat
Harmful N/A N/A N/A
1029 Mouse
Year Revenue ($) Cost ($) Gross profit (S)
Depriciation
charge ($)
Taxable income ($) Tax ($)
After tax income
($)
NPV ($) Total NPV to year ($)
1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (216,886,077.96)$ (216,886,077.96)$ (216,886,077.96)$
2 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 41,526,408.14$ (175,359,669.82)$
3 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 36,713,707.06$ (138,645,962.76)$
4 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 32,458,773.73$ (106,187,189.03)$
5 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 28,696,965.71$ (77,490,223.32)$
6 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 25,371,132.24$ (52,119,091.08)$
7 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 22,430,746.09$ (29,688,344.99)$
8 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 19,831,135.84$ (9,857,209.15)$
9 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 17,532,807.30$ 7,675,598.15$
10 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 15,500,843.44$ 23,176,441.59$
11 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 13,704,373.93$ 36,880,815.53$
12 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 12,116,106.17$ 48,996,921.70$
13 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 10,711,910.63$ 59,708,832.33$
14 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 9,470,454.26$ 69,179,286.59$
15 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 8,372,876.42$ 77,552,163.01$
16 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 7,402,502.31$ 84,954,665.31$
17 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 6,544,589.66$ 91,499,254.97$
18 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 5,786,104.75$ 97,285,359.72$
19 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 5,115,524.42$ 102,400,884.13$
20 128,709,825.40$ 52,814,968.57$ 75,894,856.83$ (10,844,303.90)$ 65,050,552.93$ 22,767,693.53$ 53,127,163.30$ 4,522,660.96$ 106,923,545.09$
Rate of corporate tax 35% (0.00)$
IRR 13.11%
Total = Net present value =

14. 13
H2O N/A N/A N/A Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Ethanol 1000
3450 Oral, mouse
Not harmful 3.3% 19% 363
6300 Oral, rabbit
9000 Oral, rat
7060 Oral, rat
CaO 2.2 7340 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Fructose N/A 15000 Rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Glucose N/A 25800 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Source: OSHA
Volume percentage
in air at ambient
conditions
Table 15: Safety Parametersfor Materials Involved in the Ethanol fromSugarcane MillsProcess
LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg
≤ 25 Very toxic
25 to 200 Toxic
200 to 2000 Harmful
Figure 8: LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg
Unaccounted chemical, although all safety solutions are taken, escapes and can cause
unpredictable safety issues. Extra layers of protection should always be used as a backup. A check valve
should be used for process equipment that involves toxic material redundant. For personal safety, a
worker should always wear appropriate protective equipment like respirator, flame retardant clothing,
steel toe boots, and safety glasses. Figure 10 below shows the HAZOP on multiple effect evaporators.
Figure 9: HAZOP on Multiple Effect Evaporators
Scenario
Parameter Guide Word Deviation Possible Causes
Likelyhood
Consequences
Severity
Action
1 Flowrate NO No steam flow
Failure of inlet
pneumatic check valve
to open
5
Process fluid temperature not
heated accordingly
5
Install flowmeter to detect incident and
notice maintenance
2 Flowrate MORE More steam flow
Failure of pneumatic
check valve to close
4
Output of process fluid
temperature too high
7
Install temperature controller to control
steam
3 Flowrate REVERSE
Reverse process
fluid flow
Failure of process fluid
inlet valve
1 Product offset 3 Install check valve
4 Flowrate NO No fluid flow
Electronic control
valve fails
3
No steam to barometric
condenser to provide heat
1
Isolate the gate valve and enable the
bypass
5
Pressure
(shell side)
HIGH
Shell side high
pressure
Exchanger outlet
discharge check valve
closes
2
Exchanger shell side will be over
pressurized up to maximum
pump discharge pressure
4
Rated pump discharge pressure at no
flow should be less than exchanger design
pressure

15. 14
Figure 10: FMEA Rating Scale
Figure 11: Boston Square for Multiple Effect Evaporators HAZOP
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, this project provides a general design for sugarcane mill plant in which the plant is
operated at an on-stream factor of 0.50, and the annual output of ethanol is 420 million pounds (192,000
metric tons or 242 million liters) or 64 million gallons. With the corporate tax is 35% and IRR is 13.11%,
the NPV of this sugarcane plant after 20 years is calculated as approximate as $107 MM. The payback
period is 8 years,and the profit is earned at the 9th
year. Any technical improvement is required to reduce
either the capital investment or the cost of production in order to improve the economic analysis.
Rating Detection
1 Current safeguards adequate
3 High chance that safeguard will detect
5 Moderate chance that safeguard will detect
7 Low chance that safeguard will detect
10 No known method of detection
Severity
FMEA Rating Scale
Likelyhood of Occurrence
Failure will always happen
Effect is insiginificant
Minor disruption, Customer dissatisfied
Major equipment damage
Personal injury
Death likely to occur
Failure is very unlikely
Occasional failure likely
Moderate likelyhood of failure
Failure is very likely
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Severity
Likelyhood
Boston Square
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5