Life cycle cost analysis of fuel ethanol produced from cassava in Thailand

Background, aim, and scopeAs a net oil importer, Thailand has a special interest in the development of biofuels, especially ethanol. At present, ethanol in the country is mainly a fermentation/distillery product of cane molasses, but cassava holds superior potential for the fuel. This study aims to assess the economics of cassava-based ethanol as an alternative transportation fuel in Thailand. The scope of the study includes the cassava cultivation/processing, the conversion to ethanol, the distribution of the fuel, and all transportation activities taking place within the system boundary.Materials and methodsThe life cycle cost assessment carried out follows three interrelated phases: data inventory, data analysis, and interpretation. The functional unit for the comparison between ethanol and gasoline is the specific distance that a car can travel on 1 L ethanol in the form of E10, a 10% ethanol blend in gasoline.ResultsThe results of the analysis show, despite low raw material cost compared to molasses and cane-based ethanol, that cassava ethanol is still more costly than gasoline. This high cost has put an economic barrier to commercial application, leading to different opinions about government support for ethanol in the forms of tax incentives and subsidies.DiscussionOverall, feedstock cost tends to govern ethanol’s production cost, thus, making itself and its 10% blend in gasoline less competitive than gasoline for the specific conditions considered. However, this situation can also be improved by appropriate measures, as discussed later.ConclusionsTo make ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline, the first possible measure is a combination of increasing crop yield and decreasing farming costs (chemical purchase and application, planting, and land preparation) so as to make a 47% reduction in the cost per tonne of cassava. This is modeled by a sensitivity analysis for the cost in the farming phase. In the industrial phase of the fuel production cycle, utilization of co-products and substitution of rice husk for bunker oil as process energy tend to reduce 62% of the price gap between ethanol and gasoline. The remaining 38% price gap can be eliminated with a 16% cut of raw material (cassava) cost, which is more practical than a 47% where no savings options in ethanol conversion phase are taken into account.Recommendations and perspectivesThe life cycle cost analysis helps identify the key areas in the ethanol production cycle where changes are required to improve cost performance. Including social aspects in an LCC analysis may make the results more favorable for ethanol.