IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pae/wpaper/06-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic And Technical Analysis Of Ethanol Dry Milling: Model Description

Author

Listed:
  • Rhys T. Dale
  • Wallace E. Tyner

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Purdue University)

Abstract

Ethanol, the common name for ethyl alcohol, is fuel grade alcohol that is predominately produced through the fermentation of simple carbohydrates by yeasts. In the United States, the carbohydrate feedstock most commonly used in the commercial production of ethanol is yellow dent corn (YDC). The use of ethanol in combustion engines emits less greenhouse gasses than its petroleum equivalent, and it is widely hoped that the increased substitution of petroleum by ethanol will reduce US dependence on imported oil and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Production of ethanol within the United States is expected to double, from 3.4 billion gallons in 2004, to about seven billion gallons in the next five years. Two processes currently being utilized to produce ethanol from YDC are dry milling and wet milling. The wet mill process is more versatile than the dry mill process in that it produces a greater variety of products; starch, corn syrup, ethanol, Splenda, etc., which allows for the wet mill to better react to market conditions. However, the costs of construction and operation of a wet mill are much greater than those of a dry mill. If ethanol is the target product, then it can be produced at a lower cost and more efficiently in a dry mill plant than in a wet mill plant, under current economic conditions. Of the more than 70 US ethanol plants currently in production, only a few are of the wet mill variety. A descriptive engineering spreadsheet model (DM model) was developed to model the dry mill ethanol production process. This model was created to better understand the economics of the ethanol dry mill production process and how the profitability of dry mill plants is affected under different conditions. It was also developed to determine the economic and environmental costs and benefits of utilizing new and different technologies in the dry mill process. Specifically, this model was constructed to conduct an economic analysis for novel processes of obtaining greater alcohol yields in the dry mill process by conducting a secondary fermentation of sugars converted from lignocellulosics found in the dry mill co-product, distiller’s grains. This research is being conducted at Purdue University, Michigan State, Iowa State, USDA, and NCAUR under a grant from the US Department of Energy. The DM model is more technically precise, and more transparent, than other models of the dry mill process that have been constructed for similar purposes. The Tiffany and Eidman model (TE model) uses broad generalities of the dry mill process, based on the current state of production, to approximate the sensitivities of the process to changes in variables. The TE model parameters were well researched, but the model suffers from several drawbacks. The main limitations of this model are that the results are very sensitive to the input values chosen by the user. Unlike the DM model, complex manipulations, such as determining the effect of new technologies would require accurate parameter estimates using the TE model. The McAloon model [11].uses highly technical engineering software (ASPEN) that acts essentially as a “black box” in the dry mill production process. This very exact model does not allow for a more general examination of the dry mill process. Changes in the production process would necessitate precise engineering plans. Similar to the TE and McAloon models, the DM model is a spreadsheet model, but unlike the McAloon model it is completely self-contained. The DM model is a feed backward model, input requirements (corn, enzymes, chemicals, utilities, etc) are calculated based on the user entered values for annual production and process parameters. The mass flow rates, in pounds per hour were then calculated and used in estimating the size, in dimension or power, of each major piece of equipment. The cost associated with each piece of major equipment was then calculated as an exponential function of its corresponding size. Total capital costs associated with a dry mill plant were then estimated using the percentage of equipment costs method [13]. It was found that the DM model estimates of the total capital costs associated with medium to large dry mill plants (those with the capacity to produce between 10 and 100 million gallons of ethanol a year) were within 5% of total fixed costs estimated by BBI [2]. Operating costs were compared with the 2002 USDA survey results and also found to be very close [15]. A companion document, “Economic and Technical Analysis of Dry Milling: Model User’s Manual,” staff paper no 06-05, explains how the model is used to conduct analysis of dry milling alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhys T. Dale & Wallace E. Tyner, 2006. "Economic And Technical Analysis Of Ethanol Dry Milling: Model Description," Working Papers 06-04, Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:pae:wpaper:06-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/28674/1/sp060004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tiffany, Douglas G. & Eidman, Vernon R., 2003. "Factors Associated With Success Of Fuel Ethanol Producers," Staff Papers 14155, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tamás Mizik, 2020. "Impacts of International Commodity Trade on Conventional Biofuels Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Stanisław Bielski & Kęstutis Romaneckas & Anastasija Novikova & Egidijus Šarauskis, 2019. "Are Higher Input Levels to Triticale Growing Technologies Effective in Biofuel Production System?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Jinho Jung & Juan Sesmero & Ralph Siebert, 2022. "A structural estimation of spatial differentiation and market power in input procurement," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 613-644, March.
    4. Jinho Jung & Juan Sesmero & Ralph Siebert, 2020. "Spatial Differentiation and Market Power in Input Procurement: Evidence from a Structural Model of the Corn Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 8088, CESifo.
    5. Deverell, Rory & McDonnell, Kevin & Ward, Shane & Devlin, Ger, 2009. "An economic assessment of potential ethanol production pathways in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3993-4002, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schlosser, Janet A. & Leatherman, John C. & Peterson, Jeffrey M., 2008. "Are Biofuels Revitalizing Rural Economies? Projected Versus Actual Labor Market Impacts in the Great Plains," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6123, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Tiffany, Douglas G. & Jordan, Brendan & Dietrich, Erin & Vargo-Daggett, Becca, 2006. "Energy and Chemicals from Native Grasses: Production, Transportation and Processing Technologies Considered in the Northern Great Plains," Staff Papers 13838, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    3. Miranowski, John A, 2007. "Biofuel Incentives and the Energy Title of the 2007 Farm Bill," ISU General Staff Papers 200705170700001565, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Winchester, Niven & Reilly, John M., 2015. "The feasibility, costs, and environmental implications of large-scale biomass energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 188-203.
    5. Doering, Otto C., III, 2004. "U.S. Ethanol Policy: Is It the Best Energy Alternative?," CAFRI: Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, issue 5, pages 1-8, December.
    6. Carlberg, Jared G. & Ward, Clement E. & Holcomb, Rodney B., 2006. "Success Factors for New Generation Cooperatives," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20.
    7. Richardson, James W. & Lemmer, Wessel J. & Outlaw, Joe L., 2007. "Bio-ethanol Production from Wheat in the Winter Rainfall Region of South Africa: A Quantitative Risk Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24.
    8. Ali, Tariq & Huang, Jikun & Yang, Jun, 2013. "Impact assessment of global and national biofuels developments on agriculture in Pakistan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 466-474.
    9. Eidman, Vernon R., 2007. "Economic Parameters for Corn Ethanol and Biodiesel Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Dale, Rhys T. & Tyner, Wallace E., 2006. "Economic And Technical Analysis Of Ethanol Dry Milling: Model User'S Manual," Staff Papers 28658, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Eidman, Vernon R., 2007. "The Evolving Ethanol Industry in the United States," Annual Meeting, 2007, July 29-August 1, Portland, Oregon 9305, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Amigun, Bamikole & Petrie, Daniel & Görgens, Johann, 2011. "Economic risk assessment of advanced process technologies for bioethanol production in South Africa: Monte Carlo analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 3178-3186.
    13. Outlaw, Joe L. & Burnquist, Heloisa Lee & Ribera, Luis A., 2007. "Bioenergy--Agricultural Issues and Outlook," 2007 NAAMIC Workshop IV: Contemporary Drivers of Integration 163901, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    14. Boukis, Ioannis & Vassilakos, Nikos & Kontopoulos, Georgios & Karellas, Sotirios, 2009. "Policy plan for the use of biomass and biofuels in Greece: Part II: Logistics and economic investigation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 703-720, May.
    15. Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy, 2005. "Bio-ethanol production in South Africa: An objective Analysis," BFAP Reports 279778, Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy (BFAP), BFAP Reports.
    16. Andrian, Leandro Gaston, 2010. "Essays on energy economics: Microeconomic and macroeconomic dimensions," ISU General Staff Papers 201001010800002725, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Farzad Taheripour & Wallace E. Tyner, 2010. "Biofuels, Policy Options, and Their Implications: Analyses Using Partial and General Equilibrium Approaches," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Madhu Khanna & Jürgen Scheffran & David Zilberman (ed.), Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy, chapter 0, pages 365-383, Springer.
    18. Finco, Adele & Padella, Monica & Spinozzi, Romina & Benedetti, Andrea, 2010. "Biofuel And Policy Alternatives: A Farm Level Analysis," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188088, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    19. Viju, Crina & Kerr, William A., 2013. "Taking an option on the future: Subsidizing biofuels for energy security or reducing global warming," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 543-548.
    20. Kebede, Ellene & Duffy, Patricia A. & Zabawa, Robert, 2006. "The Effect of Ethanol Production on Agricultural Production in the State of Alabama," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35415, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ethanol; DDGS; Dry Milling; Biochemical Process Engineering; Economic Modeling; Financing; Fermentation Process Modeling;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pae:wpaper:06-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Debby Weber (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dapurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.