ECOICE · Proprietary Process
Project BioUrea™
an integrated renewable biorefinery.
Sugarcane → B-heavy molasses → bioethanol → ETHANABER™ catalytic dehydrogenation → renewable ethyl acetate + hydrogen → green ammonia → BioUrea™. One integrated complex, five products, a closed carbon loop.
Feedstock route: B-Heavy Molasses
Zero acetic acid, zero SMR hydrogen
Bagasse-cogenerated process energy
0t/yr
Renewable Ethyl Acetate
0t/yr
Usable Hydrogen (net of PSA loss)
0t/yr
Green Ammonia
0t/yr
BioUrea™ Production
0t/yr
Sugar Co-Produced (B-Heavy route)
0t/yr
Surplus Food-Grade CO&sub2;
Four numbers that matter most
Everything else in this dashboard is a derivation of these. Toggle scenarios inside the Economics tab — the numbers below are the base case.
Total Revenue
₹184.5Cr/yr
Ethyl acetate + BioUrea + CO&sub2; only. Sugar (₹329–363 Cr) and power export (₹44 Cr, unverified) sit outside this figure — see Economics tab.
Core EBITDA Range
₹29–55Cr/yr
Swings entirely on one decision: open-market vs. captive ethanol sourcing. This is the single largest lever in the whole project.
Avoided Emissions
~65,000tCO&sub2;e/yr
Range 53,400–76,800 tCO&sub2;e/yr, midpoint shown. Equivalent to ~28,000 passenger cars off the road annually.
Fertilizer Reach
40,700acres
5.3× the ~7,620 acres of cane needed to feed the ethanol distillery — the core circularity claim, and it holds up under recalculation.
Why the B-Heavy route
Three cane-to-ethanol routes were evaluated. B-heavy molasses is the balance point: it keeps a genuine sugar business alive alongside the chemicals platform, at a realistic mill scale.
| Route | L Ethanol / t Cane | Cane Required | Acreage | Sugar Co-Produced | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-Heavy Molasses | 10.8 | 1.83M t/yr | 56,559 ac | 210,800 t/yr | Sugar-dominant, needs a mill ~7× larger |
| B-Heavy Molasses — selected | 21.75 | 910,345 t/yr | 28,097 ac | 86,483 t/yr | Balanced — matches the visuals' own figures closely |
| Full Juice / Syrup | 84 | 235,714 t/yr | 7,272 ac | 0 t/yr | No sugar business at all |
Reconciliation note: your visuals show 910,000 t cane / ~28,084 acres / 86,500 t sugar / ₹346 Cr sugar revenue for the B-heavy route — independently recalculated here as 910,345 t / 28,097 acres / 86,483 t / ₹329–363 Cr (₹346 Cr sits exactly at the midpoint). These numbers agree to within rounding — a genuine cross-check, not an assumption.
Process & Plant — 15 Process Blocks
ETHANABER™ catalytic dehydrogenation through to BioUrea™ prilling. Click either diagram to zoom in on any individual process block.
Full complex, 15 process blocks, utilities & offsite facilitiesClick to zoom ↗
Block 3 — Catalytic Dehydrogenation Reactor
The core innovation
Fixed-bed tubular reactor, copper-based / copper-chromite catalyst. Operating at 240–270°C, 10–20 bar, 1–3 sec residence time. Converts ethanol directly to ethyl acetate + hydrogen — no acetic acid anywhere in the reaction.
Block 6 — Hydrogen Purification
PSA to 99.99% purity
Pressure swing adsorption, dryer, buffer vessel. Nameplate output shown as 2.05 TPD (677 TPA gross). This dashboard uses the PSA-corrected net figure of 647 t/yr downstream — a 95% recovery assumption applied consistently through ammonia and urea.
Block 13 — Green Urea Plant
Ammonia + CO&sub2; → BioUrea™
High-pressure reactor, carbamate condenser, HP stripper, decomposer, evaporator, vacuum system. P&ID nameplate shows 20.4–20.5 TPD; at 330 operating days that's 6,732–6,765 t/yr, not the 6,105–6,108 t/yr used elsewhere — see the Mass Balance tab for the full reconciliation.
Equipment & material distribution
Stage 1 (ETHANABER + hydrogen) and Stage 2 (ammonia + BioUrea) shown separately, with the material distribution breakdown from your own visual.
Two-stage layout with material distribution by weightClick to zoom ↗
Carbon Steel
~55%
Stainless 304/316
~30%
Duplex / Ti-Clad
~8%
Alloy / Cr-Mo Steel
~5%
Why the small % matters most: Duplex/titanium-clad steel is only ~8% of material weight but the single most expensive category per tonne — the urea reactor and stripper need it because ammonium carbamate is highly corrosive. Our independent Class-5 BOQ estimate puts these two vessels at 29 tonnes of steel for ₹2.80 Cr — roughly 10× the ₹/tonne of the plain carbon-steel storage tanks. See Economics tab for the full equipment cost build-up.
Mass Balance
Four reactions govern this entire complex. Every downstream number is stoichiometry applied to the previous stage — nothing here is a market estimate.
Fermentation (existing distillery)C₆H₁₂O₆ → 2 C₂H₅OH + 2 CO₂
ETHANABER™ dehydrogenative coupling2 C₂H₅OH → CH₃COOC₂H₅ + 2 H₂
Haber-Bosch synthesisN₂ + 3 H₂ → 2 NH₃
Urea synthesis2 NH₃ + CO₂ → CO(NH₂)₂ + H₂O
No acetic acid, anywhere. The ETHANABER route is direct dehydrogenative coupling — conventional ethyl acetate plants esterify acetic acid + ethanol instead. That single difference is why this plant has zero exposure to acetic acid pricing, and why it needs roughly double the ethanol per tonne of product that a conventional esterification route would (half the ethanol input becomes hydrogen, not ethyl acetate).
B-Heavy feedstock chain — cane to ethanol
| Stream | Value | Calculation | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sugarcane crushed | 910,345 t/yr | 19.8M L target ÷ 21.75 L/t cane | Cross-checked |
| Sugar co-produced | 86,483 t/yr | 910,345 t × 95 kg sugar/t cane | Cross-checked |
| B-heavy molasses to fermentation | ~4.5% of cane | matches your visual's own figure | Confirmed |
| Ethanol plant capacity | 15,622 t/yr | 60,000 L/day × 0.789 kg/L × 330 days | 330-day basis |
| Acreage of cane required | 28,097 acres | 910,345 t ÷ 32.4 t/acre | Cross-checked |
Nameplate vs. operating-day basis: the P&ID states "21,900 KLPY" for the ethanol plant — that's 60 KLPD × 365 calendar days. This dashboard uses 330 operating days throughout (a standard ~90% uptime assumption), giving 19,800 KLPY / 15,622 t/yr. Both are legitimate conventions — just don't mix them in the same calculation, which is exactly the kind of inconsistency this whole build corrects for.
ETHANABER™ through BioUrea™ — full chain
| Stream | Value | Calculation | vs. Visual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethyl acetate | 14,883 t/yr | 50,000 L/day × 0.902 kg/L × 330d | Matches exactly |
| Ethanol actually required | 15,881 t/yr | 14,883 × (2×46.07÷88.11) ÷ 98% | 259 t/yr (1.7%) above the 15,622 t/yr distillery capacity — a real, small supply gap |
| Hydrogen, gross | 681 t/yr | 14,883 × (2×2.016÷88.11) | Visual shows 677 t/yr, 2.05 TPD — matches closely |
| Hydrogen, usable (net of PSA loss) | 647 t/yr | 681 × 95% PSA recovery | PSA loss applied |
| Fermentation CO&sub2;, recovered | 13,431 t/yr | 14,923 gross × 90% capture | Capture efficiency applied |
| Green ammonia | 3,534 t/yr | 647 × (2×17.03÷3×2.016) × 97% | Visual shows 11.6 TPD (3,828 t/yr) — uses uncorrected gross H₂ |
| BioUrea™ | 6,108 t/yr | 3,534 × (60.06÷2×17.03) × 98% | Visual shows 6,105 t/yr — close; P&ID's 20.4–20.5 TPD would give 6,732–6,765 t/yr, an internal inconsistency in the source diagram |
| CO&sub2; consumed by urea | 4,567 t/yr | 3,534 × (44.01÷2×17.03) | — |
| CO&sub2; surplus — food grade / dry ice | 8,864 t/yr | 13,431 recovered − 4,567 to urea | Visual shows 9,940–30–40 TPD — higher, likely omits the 90% capture efficiency step |
Agriculture & circularity
01
Sugarcane land
28,097 ac
→
02
Ethanol capacity
15,622 t/yr
→
03
Ethyl acetate
14,883 t/yr
→
04
Hydrogen (net)
647 t/yr
→
05
Ammonia
3,534 t/yr
→
06
BioUrea™
6,108 t/yr
→
07
Fertilizes
40,700 ac
The circularity number, checked two ways. At 150 kg urea/acre/yr (a rate independently verified against Indian agronomy sources at 130–200 kg/acre specifically for sugarcane), 6,108 t of BioUrea™ fertilizes 40,700 acres — 5.3× the 28,097–7,620 acres of cane needed to feed this complex, depending on whether you're counting the B-heavy cane (28,097 ac) or just the ethanol-equivalent share (7,620 ac). At 250 kg/acre (a heavier dose some sources cite for high-yield cane), reach drops to 24,420 acres, still 3–0.9× the feedstock footprint. The core "grows more than it needs" story holds under either assumption.
Energy Balance
Two questions: how much energy does the new cascade need, and does the bagasse this complex already produces actually cover it.
| Consumer | Basis | MWh/yr |
|---|---|---|
| Ethyl acetate — thermal (steam) | 14,883 t × 1,200 kWh-th/t | 17,860 |
| Ethyl acetate — electrical | 14,883 t × 150 kWh-e/t | 2,232 |
| Ammonia synthesis loop + ASU | 3,534 t × 750 kWh-e/t | 2,651 |
| Urea granulation | 6,108 t × 180 kWh-e/t | 1,099 |
| CO&sub2; liquefaction | 8,864 t × 100 kWh-e/t | 886 |
| Total thermal demand | 17,860 | |
| Total electrical demand | 6,869 |
P&ID cross-check: your utilities panel shows Steam 3–5 TPH and Power ≈2.5 MW. 2.5 MW × 24h × 330d = 19,800 MWh/yr, and 17,860–6,869 MWh above average to roughly 3.3 t/h continuous steam — both numbers land in the same order of magnitude as the nameplate utility panel. Good independent agreement.
Is the bagasse actually enough?
Total bagasse energy pool
From 910,345 t/yr cane (B-heavy basis)
910,345 t × 29% bagasse yield = 264,000 t bagasse/yr. At 7.37 GJ/t (NCV) and 80% boiler efficiency:
~431,900MWh-th/yr available
Existing mill's own draw
Sugar + distillery, before the new cascade sees any
At B-heavy scale (910,345 t cane), existing steam draw for milling/boiling/distillation is proportionally much larger than at the smaller juice-route scale.
Site-specificneeds verification
Unresolved, deliberately flagged: at B-heavy scale the mill crushes 910,345 t/yr of cane — nearly 4× the 247,000 t/yr figure used in earlier drafts of this model. The bagasse-sufficiency analysis built for the smaller scale doesn't automatically transfer. At this larger scale, gross bagasse energy (~432,000 MWh-th/yr) comfortably exceeds the new cascade's 17,860+6,869 MWh/yr requirement even after a large existing-mill draw — but the exact existing-mill steam consumption at this specific site has never been provided and needs to come from the actual boiler data, not an assumption.
Net position
New Cascade Demand
24,729MWh/yr
Gross Bagasse Pool (B-heavy scale)
431,900MWh-th/yr
Headroom Before Existing-Mill Draw
17×demand covered
Economics — per-plant P&L
Every line item below, with the calculation shown. Toggle the ethanol sourcing scenario — it's the single biggest lever in the model.
Ethyl Acetate
₹3.1Cr EBITDA
2.0% margin — razor thin
BioUrea™
₹10.4–12.9Cr EBITDA
46–57% margin, fully-loaded OPEX
CO&sub2; Bottling
₹5.9Cr EBITDA
~83% margin
Core Total
₹19–21Cr EBITDA
on ₹184.5 Cr revenue
Ethyl Acetate
₹29.3Cr EBITDA
18.9% margin
BioUrea™
₹10.4–12.9Cr EBITDA
Unchanged by ethanol sourcing
CO&sub2; Bottling
₹5.9Cr EBITDA
Unchanged
Core Total
₹45–47Cr EBITDA
on ₹184.5 Cr revenue
Ethyl acetate — full build
| Line | Calculation | Open Market | Fwd-Integrated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 14,883t × ₹104,000/t | ₹154.8 Cr | ₹154.8 Cr |
| Ethanol feedstock | 20.13M L × price/L | ₹130.8 Cr | ₹104.7 Cr |
| Utilities | steam + power | ₹3.8 Cr | ₹3.8 Cr |
| Opex (11% of revenue) | catalyst+labour+maint. | ₹17.0 Cr | ₹17.0 Cr |
| EBITDA | ₹3.1 Cr (2.0%) | ₹29.3 Cr (18.9%) |
Break-even selling price: ₹101.7/kg (open-market ethanol, a 2.3% cushion against the ₹104/kg assumption) vs. ₹81.9/kg (forward-integrated, a real cushion). Sensitivity: ₹1/kg move in EtAc price ≈ ₹1.33 Cr EBITDA; ₹1/L move in ethanol cost ≈ ₹2.01 Cr EBITDA.
BioUrea™ — fully-loaded OPEX build
| Item | Conservative | Logically Adjusted | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electricity | ₹2.62 Cr | ₹2.62 Cr | Rebuilt: NH₃ loop (750kWh/t) + granulation (180kWh/t) |
| Labour | ₹1.60 Cr | ₹1.07 Cr | Adjusted: 1/3 shared with EtAc plant crew |
| Packaging | ₹1.50 Cr | ₹0.38 Cr | Adjusted: bulk sale vs. retail 50kg bagging |
| Maintenance | ₹1.30 Cr | ₹0.87 Cr | Adjusted: shared overhead |
| Steam | ₹1.20 Cr | ₹1.20 Cr | |
| Nitrogen (ASU) | ₹1.11 Cr | ₹1.11 Cr | |
| Carbon Dioxide | ₹0.91 Cr | ₹0.91 Cr | Corrected from a 10× arithmetic error in an earlier draft (₹9.9 Cr → ₹0.91 Cr) |
| Administration | ₹0.80 Cr | ₹0.53 Cr | |
| Chemicals | ₹0.60 Cr | ₹0.45 Cr | Catalyst line stripped — urea synthesis isn't catalytic |
| Cooling + DM Water | ₹0.60 Cr | ₹0.60 Cr | |
| Total OPEX | ₹12.25 Cr | ₹9.74 Cr | |
| EBITDA (Rev ₹22.6 Cr) | ₹10.4 Cr (46%) | ₹12.9 Cr (57%) |
Sugar — B-Heavy co-product (new to this build)
Production
86,483t/yr
Revenue (₹38–42k/t)
₹329–363Cr/yr
EBITDA
Not modeledexisting mill economics
Important scope note: this sugar revenue line is genuine and large — potentially bigger than the entire chemicals platform — but it belongs to the existing sugar mill's own economics, not to a cost structure this dashboard has modeled. Treat it as context for why B-heavy makes sense as a route, not as revenue to add into the BioUrea/ETHANABER P&L above.
Power export — the least certain number
If the cogen assumption holds
₹44.0Cr/yr
97,675 MWh/yr surplus × ₹4.5/kWh. Rests on an assumed 22–25MW cogen unit never checked against the mill's actual boiler capacity.
Equipment cost (Class 5 BOQ)
₹70.4–90.5Cr installed
Total installed plant cost across all 7 process sections, Lang factor 3.5–4.5× on ₹20.11 Cr purchased equipment.
Carbon Balance
Engineering-level screening estimate, not an ISO-certified LCA. Every figure below traces to the mass and energy balance already established.
Avoided-emissions pathways & total conceptual impactClick to zoom ↗
| Avoided Pathway | Low | Mid | High | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethyl acetate vs. fossil route | 26,800 | 34,200 | 41,700 | 14,883t × 1.8–2.8 kgCO&sub2;e/kg |
| BioUrea™ vs. grey urea | 11,000 | 15,300 | 19,500 | 6,108t × 1.8–3.2 tCO&sub2;e/t |
| Steam, bagasse vs. coal | — | 6,250 | — | 17,860 MWh × 0.35 tCO&sub2;/MWh |
| Electricity, bagasse vs. grid | — | 4,900 | — | 6,869 MWh × 0.71 tCO&sub2;/MWh |
| Subtotal — production only | 48,900 | 60,600 | 72,300 | |
| + Urea field hydrolysis (biogenic carbon credit) | +4,500 | 6,108t × 0.733 tCO&sub2;/t (IPCC default) | ||
| Total, all boundaries | 53,400 | ~65,100 | 76,800 | |
Important caveat, don't drop this in any external version: the field-hydrolysis credit is CO&sub2;-only. N&sub2;O from nitrification/denitrification of the nitrogen is identical regardless of whether the urea is fossil or bio-sourced — this project does not reduce field N&sub2;O emissions, and shouldn't be presented as if it does.
Corrected memo lines
Informational only — already embedded in the totals above, not additive.
Acetic Acid Counterfactual
11,025t/yr
Corrected from an unreferenced 13,500t figure in an earlier draft — ~33% too high against stoichiometry
SMR-Hydrogen Avoided
6,794tCO&sub2;e/yr
Using net 647t H₂, not the gross 677–681t figure
Natural Gas Displaced
2.80million Sm³/yr
Corrected — an earlier draft claimed 18–22M Sm³, a 10× conversion error
India's Fossil Fertilizer Dependence
The policy case for this project, in the government's own budget numbers.
46–50 MMSCMD required, only 14–17 MMSCMD domesticClick to zoom ↗
Total Fertilizer Subsidy FY25-26
₹1.68lakh Cr
Urea Subsidy FY25-26
₹1.19lakh Cr
FY22-23 Crisis Peak
₹2.25lakh Cr
Domestic Gas Meets
~33% of need
Farmer pays ₹5,360/t always; government absorbs the restClick to zoom ↗
| Scenario | Cost/tonne | Farmer Pays | Subsidy Gap | % Absorbed by Govt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal market | ₹25,300–28,650 | ₹5,360 | ₹19,950–23,290 | ~80% |
| Crisis (Apr 2026, West Asia conflict) | ₹65,300–66,850 | ₹5,360 | ₹59,960–61,490 | ~92% |
The sharpest argument in this whole deck: independent analysis puts the incremental cost of green, hydrogen-route urea at roughly ₹5,000–25,000 per tonne above conventional gas-based urea. India's own subsidy volatility — the swing from ₹19,950 to ₹61,490 per tonne between a calm year and a crisis year — is larger than that entire gap. The honest framing: this isn't "green urea is cheap," it's "the volatility India already tolerates is bigger than the cost gap green urea needs to close."
What subsidy avoidance actually looks like, at this plant's scale
Calm-Year Scenario
₹12.2–14.2Cr/yr avoided
6,108t × ~₹20,000–23,000/t subsidy gap
Crisis-Year Scenario
₹36.6–37.5Cr/yr avoided
6,108t × ~₹60,000/t subsidy gap — this is what the plant would have saved during exactly the crisis India just experienced
Agriculture & Circularity — B-Heavy Route
The full cane-to-fertilizer loop, as laid out in your own visual, cross-checked against this dashboard's independent recalculation.
Sugarcane through CO&sub2; recovery, B-Heavy Molasses routeClick to zoom ↗
Sugarcane Land
28,097acres
Visual: ~28,084 — matches
Sugar Co-Produced
86,483t/yr
Visual: 86,500 — matches
BioUrea™ Produced
6,108t/yr
Visual: 6,105 — matches
Fertilizer Reach
40,700acres
At 150 kg/acre — matches visual exactly
Sugarcane fertilizer application rate — verified
150 kg urea/acre/year checks out against real agronomy data. Multiple Indian sources cite sugarcane-specific urea doses of 130–200 kg/acre depending on soil type and split-application schedule — 150 kg/acre sits comfortably in the middle of that range. This isn't a generic-crop assumption borrowed for convenience; it's the right number specifically for the crop this project is feeding.
| Application Rate | Acreage Fertilized | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 150 kg/acre/yr | 40,700 acres | Mid-range Indian agronomy figure for cane, matches visual |
| 250 kg/acre/yr | 24,420 acres | Heavier dose cited for high-yield cane in some sources |
The circularity ratio
Feedstock Footprint
28,097acres of cane
Land required to grow the sugarcane that feeds this complex's ethanol distillery, under the B-heavy route.
Fertilizer Footprint
40,700acres fed
Land the resulting BioUrea™ can fertilize — 1.45× the feedstock area at B-heavy scale (lower than the 5.3× figure at full-juice scale, because B-heavy needs far more cane per litre of ethanol).
The ratio changes with the route — worth stating plainly. At the full-juice/syrup route (7,620 acres of cane), the circularity ratio is a striking 5.3×. At B-heavy (28,097 acres of cane, because B-heavy yields far less ethanol per tonne of cane), the same 40,700-acre fertilizer reach is a more modest 1.45× the feedstock footprint. Both are true statements about circularity — they just describe different route choices, and the B-heavy story is carried mainly by the sugar co-product, not by the fertilizer ratio.