Technoeconomic Analysis of Biodiesel Production by One-Pot Transesterification of a Blend of Non-Edible Oils

332 Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 332-337 p ISSN: 2635-3342; e ISSN: 2635-3350 Original Research Article Technoeconomic Analysis of Biodiesel Production by One-Pot Transesterification of a Blend of Non-Edible Oils *Oniovosa, R.O., Oiwoh, O., Adetunji, I.A., Avanrenren, G.O., Ugbodu, F.U. and Egberanmwen, W.A. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Benin, PMB 1154, Benin City, Nigeria. *[email protected] http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18061024 ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT Article history: Received 28 Jul. 2025 Revised 12 Oct. 2025 Accepted 19 Oct. 2025 Available online 30 Dec. 2025 The growing demand for renewable and sustainable fuels has intensified research into biodiesel production from non-edible oils. This study evaluated the techno-economic feasibility of biodiesel production using a blend of oils (neem, castor, and waste vegetable oil). The aim was to assess the economic viability of this blend through Aspen Plus simulation. The methodology involved modeling the transesterification reaction using Aspen Plus, incorporating key variables such as methanol-to-oil ratio, reaction temperature, and flow rate using a heterogeneous catalyst. The simulation also integrated economic analysis parameters, including capital investment, operating costs, net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period. The results showed that the production process is economically feasible, with a total capital investment of $7,020,220 (₦10.6 billion), an annual operating cost of $1,793,070 (₦2.71 billion), and yearly revenue of $15,678,800 (₦23.7 billion). This yielded a net present value of $78,295,380 (₦118.18 billion) at a 10% interest rate, an internal rate of return of 28.2%, a payback period of approximately 0.51 years (~6 months), and a profit margin of 88.56%. These results confirm that biodiesel production from an oil blend offers both technical and economic viability, highlighting its potential as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and a strategic solution for energy diversification in Nigeria. © 2025 RJEES. All rights reserved. Keywords: Biodiesel Technoeconomic analysis Transesterification Aspen plus simulation Oil blend 1. INTRODUCTION The increasing global demand for energy has placed immense pressure on natural resources, particularly fossil fuels, which are non-renewable and environmentally detrimental (Shahzad, 2025). Traditional energy sources like coal, oil, and gas have been the dominant drivers of industrial and economic 333 R.O. Oniovosa et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 332-337 development (Wang, 2023). However, their consumption leads to the release of significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), contributing to global warming and climate change (Pei et al., 2022). Among the many alternative energy sources being explored, biofuels have emerged as a potential solution to reduce dependency on fossil fuels while addressing environmental concerns (Mizik & Gyarmati, 2021). Biofuels, specifically biodiesel, are produced from renewable resources such as vegetable oils, animal fats, and waste oils (Pei et al., 2022). Biodiesel has been recognized for its ability to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality, and offer a sustainable solution to the energy crisis. Compared to conventional diesel, biodiesel is biodegradable, non-toxic, and produces fewer harmful emissions, including carbon monoxide (CO) (Ali Ijaz Malik et al., 2024). Biodiesel production utilizes a wide variety of oils, which are classified into two main categories: firstgeneration feedstocks (edible oils) and second-generation feedstocks (non-edible oils). These feedstocks differ in terms of cost, availability, sustainability, and environmental impact, with each offering unique advantages and limitations for biodiesel production (Suhara et al., 2024). The selection of biodiesel feedstock is typically influenced by the climate conditions of a given country (Boichenko et al., 2025). Choosing the appropriate feedstock plays a crucial role in reducing production costs. In this study, the transesterification process was employed. Transesterification is a chemical reaction between alcohol and lipids that results in the formation of fatty acid alkyl esters (FAAE). During this process, triglycerides reacted with alcohol to produce FAAE and glycerol. Initially, triglycerides and alcohol combine to form diglycerides, which are subsequently converted into monoglycerides and glycerol, with each step yielding one methyl ester molecule (Thangaraj et al., 2019). Various types of alcohols, including short-chain, long-chain, and cyclic alcohols, are used in this process. However, methanol is the most widely used due to its polarity, short-chain, and how cheap it is (Farouk et al., 2024). An important factor in biodiesel production is the catalyst used in the transesterification reaction, which converts oils into biodiesel. Traditional homogeneous catalysts like sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and potassium hydroxide (KOH) have been widely used, but they present challenges such as soap formation, toxic waste, and corrosion (Oyekunle et al., 2023). As a result, researchers are turning to heterogeneous catalysts derived from non-traditional sources, such as anthill soil, cow horn ash, and pawpaw stem ash. These catalysts are more environmentally friendly, easier to recover, and can be reused in multiple production cycles, reducing production costs and waste (Oyekunle et al., 2023). A techno-economic analysis (TEA) is essential for determining the financial viability of biodiesel production. It entails a comprehensive evaluation of costs, potential revenues, and overall profitability by factoring in elements such as feedstock expenses, capital requirements, operating costs, and prevailing market rates (Farouk et al., 2024). A TEA serves as a critical tool for assessing the economic feasibility and technical performance of biodiesel production processes. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of key parameters such as feedstock availability and cost, capital investment, operational expenses, process efficiency, and prevailing market conditions. By integrating engineering data with financial metrics, TEA provides valuable insights into the scalability, profitability, and potential risks of deploying biodiesel technologies at a commercial scale. Common indicators used in TEA include net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), payback period, and levelized cost of biodiesel (LCB), all of which guide decision-making for investors, policymakers, and project developers. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the techno-economic feasibility of sustainably producing biodiesel from a blend of non-edible oils using a one-pot transesterification process. The reaction process was optimized using Aspen Plus simulation software, focusing on key parameters such as methanol-to-oil ratio, reaction temperature, and flow rate to achieve efficient biodiesel yield. A detailed techno-economic analysis was carried out to evaluate the financial viability of the production process, including capital investment, operating costs, net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period. 334 R.O. Oniovosa et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 332-337 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Process Modelling This study employed a simulation-based approach using Aspen Plus V11 to model the one-pot transesterification of non-edible oil into biodiesel. Since the work was computational, surrogate model compounds were used to represent key components of the biodiesel production process. Triolein was selected as the model triglyceride to represent non-edible oil feedstock because it is a well-established model compound for simulating the transesterification of vegetable oils in biodiesel production. Chemically, triolein (C₅₇H₁₀₄O₆) is a triglyceride composed of three oleic acid molecules esterified with glycerol, which reflects the dominant fatty acid composition of many non-edible oils such as Jatropha curcas and Neem oil. Since these natural oils are complex mixtures of triglycerides and are not directly available in the Aspen Plus component database, Triolein is commonly employed as a representative model compound. Methanol was used as the alcohol for the transesterification reaction. The products of the reaction, methyl oleate (representing biodiesel) and glycerol, were also included in the simulation. Water and phosphoric acid (H₃PO₄) were incorporated to account for by-product formation and reaction conditions. All chemicals and components were selected from the Aspen Plus component database and were assumed to be of pure analytical quality without impurities. Since Aspen Plus has limited support for custom solid-phase catalyst definitions in stoichiometric reactors, calcium oxide (CaO) was chosen to approximate the catalytic behaviour for the purpose of process flow modelling and techno-economic evaluation. This substitution does not affect the overall economic analysis but simplifies the simulation of reaction kinetics and phase behaviour. 2.2. Reaction Chemistry and Mechanism The transesterification reaction converts triglycerides present in the oils into methyl esters (biodiesel) and glycerol in the presence of methanol and a catalyst. Equation (1) shows the general reaction mechanism. Triglyceride + 3MeOH → 3Fatty Acid Methyl Ester + Glycerol (1) The biodiesel yield was calculated based on the mass of methyl esters (biodiesel) obtained in the simulation relative to the mass of triglycerides (oil) introduced as feedstock. The yield was determined using Equation (2). Biodiesel Yield (%) = (Mass Flowrate of Biodiesel (kg hr) Mass Flowrate of Oil Feedstock (kg hr)) × 100 (2) 2.3. Aspen Plus Simulation Setup The biodiesel production process was simulated using Aspen Plus V11. The process flow diagram, as illustrated in Figure 1, represents a steady-state model of a continuous transesterification system, structured into four primary stages: transesterification, methanol recovery, water washing, and product purification. Initially, the triglyceride feedstock (represented by triolein) was introduced alongside methanol and a homogeneous base catalyst (sodium hydroxide). These feed streams were pre-mixed in dedicated mixers and subsequently pressurized using pumps (PUMP1 and PUMP2). Heat exchangers were employed to raise the temperature of the reactants to the desired reaction conditions before being fed into the reactor. Transesterification occurred within a stoichiometric reactor block, where the triglycerides reacted with methanol to yield fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) and glycerol as co-products. The reactor output stream was directed to a methanol recovery unit, where excess methanol was separated and recycled into the system via a recovery loop (MEOHREC). Following methanol separation, the FAME-rich stream underwent water washing to remove residual catalyst, soaps, and impurities. Water was introduced counter-currently in a wash column, and the resulting mixture was neutralized by the addition of phosphoric acid (H₃PO₄) to facilitate catalyst precipitation. Final purification of the products was carried out through dedicated columns. This systematic modeling approach enabled accurate simulation of the biodiesel production pathway, providing essential insights into yield, purity, and economic performance under optimized reaction conditions. 335 R.O. Oniovosa et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 332-337 Figure 1: Biodiesel flowsheet 2.4. Economic Analysis Framework The economic assessment was conducted within Aspen Plus using the economic analyzer tool. The cost parameters considered were the Capital Costs: Equipment costs (reactor, separators, distillation units), Operating Costs: Raw material costs (oils, methanol, catalyst), energy consumption, and labor, Revenue Estimation (Based on the market price of biodiesel and glycerol) and Profitability Metrics: Payback period (PBP), net present value (NPV), and return on investment (ROI). 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION All economic values presented in Table 1 are expressed in both U.S. Dollars (USD) and Nigerian Naira (₦), converted using an exchange rate of ₦1,511.12 to $1, based on the prevailing market rate at the time of analysis. The simulated process yielded a biodiesel conversion efficiency of 91.3%, calculated using Equation 2, which defines the yield as the ratio of the mass flow rate of methyl esters (FAME) to the mass flow rate of oil feedstock, expressed as a percentage. This high yield reflects favourable reaction conditions and efficient conversion of triglycerides to biodiesel within the model. A high yield is essential for both economic and operational sustainability, as it reduces raw material waste and maximizes product output. The obtained yield served as a key input for the downstream economic evaluation, enabling assessment of process viability and cost-effectiveness. The economic analysis of the proposed biodiesel production process in this study was compared with findings from a previous study by Sangeetha et al. (2023). Both analyses present similar total capital investment values, with this study estimating ₦10,603,000,000, while the referenced study reports $13,124,000 (approximately ₦10.6 billion, assuming an exchange rate of ₦810/$) (Sangeetha et al., 2023). However, notable differences exist in operating costs and revenue projections. In this study, the annual operating cost was calculated to be ₦2,710,000,000, whereas the referenced study reports a significantly higher operating cost of $15,641,000 (₦12.7 billion). Additionally, the estimated utilities cost in this study is ₦194,000,000, while the referenced study reports a much lower value of $11,411 (₦9.2 million) (Sangeetha et al., 2023). Revenue projections also exhibit variations, with this study estimating an annual revenue of ₦23,678,000,000 compared to $20,455,000 (₦30,887,700,810 per year) in the referenced study. This disparity is reflected in profitability metrics, as the margin of profit in this study is calculated to be 88.56%, significantly higher than the 23.54% reported in the referenced study (Sangeetha et al., 2023). Similarly, the return on investment (ROI) in this study is estimated at 197.78%, compared to 35.72% in the referenced study. Furthermore, this study predicts a remarkably short payback period of 0.51 years (6 months), whereas 336 R.O. Oniovosa et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 332-337 the referenced study estimates a payback period of 2.8 years. Despite these differences, both studies report an identical internal rate of return (IRR) of 28.2%. However, the net present value (NPV) calculations show a stark contrast, with this study estimating ₦118,180,000,000, whereas the referenced study reports $19,287,000 (₦15.6 billion) (Sangeetha et al., 2023). Similarly, the study by Karmee et al. (2015) evaluated the techno-economic performance of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil (WCO) using acid, base, and lipase catalysis routes in Hong Kong. Their findings for the base-catalyzed process showed a unit production cost of $1.067/kg, an ROI greater than 74%, and a payback period of approximately 1.07 years. When compared with this study’s unit production cost of ₦1,420/kg (approximately $1.75/kg) and ROI of 197.78%, it becomes evident that although the production cost in this study is higher, the profitability metrics are more favorable. This could be due to the higher selling price used in this study’s simulation and lower utility costs reported. Additionally, the significantly shorter payback period of 0.51 years (6 months) further reinforces the superior economic efficiency of the proposed process. Further comparison with Al-Sakkari et al. (2020), who studied both homogeneous and heterogeneous biodiesel production from waste cooking oil, reveals additional insights. Their analysis showed an ROI above 74%, a payback period of just over one year, and a unit production cost of $1.067/kg for the homogeneous (KOH-catalyzed) route. Although their results align closely with those reported by Karmee et al. (2015), they are still considerably lower than the values obtained in this present study. Notably, while their process may have relied on empirical cost data and batch-scale modelling, the current study modelled a continuous-flow system with assumed ideal behaviour and no catalyst deactivation, which could partially explain the economic advantage. Overall, this study suggests a more financially viable biodiesel production process, with higher revenue, a faster payback period, and a greater return on investment. In contrast, the referenced study presents a more conservative assessment, characterized by higher operating costs and a lower profit margin. These findings reinforce the economic attractiveness of the proposed process, demonstrating its potential for profitability and sustainability. Table 1: Overall economic data of biodiesel production plant Cost element Value ($) Value (₦) Total capital investment $7,020,220 ₦10,603,000,000 Total installed equipment cost $2,721,600 ₦4,111,000,000 Total operating cost $1,793,070 per year ₦2,710,000,000 per year Total utilities cost $128,445 per year ₦194,000,000 per year Total revenue from biodiesel production $15,678,800 per year ₦23,678,000,000 per year Batch size 12,635.23 kg MP 12,635.23 kg MP Cost basis annual rate 16,678,501 kg MP per year 16,678,501 kg MP per year Unit production price $0.94/kg MP ₦1,420.00/kg MP Unit production income $1.23/kg MP ₦1,860.00/kg MP Margin of profit 88.56% 88.56% Investment return 197.78% 197.78% Reimbursement time 0.51 years (6 months) 0.51 years (6 months) Internal rate of return (IRR) after tax 28.2% 28.2% Net present value (NPV) at 10% interest rate $78,295,380 ₦118,180,000,000 4. CONCLUSION This study focused on the technoeconomic analysis of the transesterification reaction of a ternary blend of non-edible oils, with simulations performed in Aspen Plus. The short payback period of 6 months, high net present value (₦118.18 billion), and impressive internal rate of return (28.2%) reflect a financially attractive investment with quick capital recovery. The substantial annual profit (₦20.97 billion) and high profit margin (88.56%) suggest that, with proper implementation and scaling, this process could offer a sustainable and profitable alternative to conventional fossil fuels. The high profit margin of 88.56% reflects an idealized 337 R.O. Oniovosa et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 332-337 simulation environment under optimal economic and technical conditions. Actual implementation may result in lower margins due to market variability and unmodeled real-world costs. These outcomes confirm that the simulated biodiesel production pathway is not only technically viable but also economically attractive. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to acknowledge the supervisor of this project, Engr. (Mrs.) Oiwoh. This work is a result of many long hours involving intensive research and the culmination of a process that included the constant assistance and guidance afforded by her. 6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST There is no conflict of interest associated with this work. REFERENCES Shahzad, U. (2015). The need for renewable energy sources. International Journal of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, 4(4), pp. 16–19. Wang, Y. (2023). What drives sustainable development? Evaluating the role of oil and coal resources for selected resource rich economies. Resources Policy, 80, 103078. Pei, Z., Luo, L., and Neupane, D. (2022). Biofuels from Renewable Sources, a Potential Option for Biodiesel Production. Bioengineering, 10(1), 29. Mizik, T., and Gyarmati, G. (2021). Economic and Sustainability of Biodiesel Production—A Systematic Literature Review. Clean Technologies, 3(1), pp. 19–36. Ali Ijaz Malik, M., Zeeshan, S., Khubaib, M., Ikram, A., Hussain, F., Yassin, H., and Qazi, A. (2024). A review of major trends, opportunities, and technical challenges in biodiesel production from waste sources. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 23, 100675. Suhara, A., Karyadi, and Herawan, S. G., Tirta, A., Idris, M., Roslan, M. F., Putra, N. R., Hananto, A. L., and Veza, I. (2024). Biodiesel sustainability: Review of progress and challenges of biodiesel as sustainable biofuel. Clean Technologies, 6(3), pp. 886–906. Boichenko, S., Yakovlieva, A., Zubenko, S., and Shkilniuk, I. (2025). Physical, chemical, and performance properties of biodiesel fuels: A comparative study of lipid-based feedstocks. Energies, 18(16), 4274. Thangaraj, B., Solomon, P. R., Muniyandi, B., Ranganathan, S., and Lin, L. (2019). Catalysis in biodiesel production — a review. Clean Energy, 3(1), pp. 2–23. Farouk, S. M., Tayeb, A. M., Abdel-Hamid, S. M. S., and Osman, R. M. (2024). Recent advances in transesterification for sustainable biodiesel production, challenges, and prospects: A comprehensive review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(9), pp. 12722-12747. Oyekunle, D. T., Barasa, M., Gendy, E. A., and Tiong, S. K. (2023). Heterogeneous catalytic transesterification for biodiesel production: Feedstock properties, catalysts and process parameters. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 177, pp. 844–867. Sangeetha, B., Mohana Priya, S., Pravin, R., Tamilarasan, K., and Baskar, G. (2023). Process optimization and technoeconomic assessment of biodiesel production by one-pot transesterification of Ricinus communis seed oil. Bioresource Technology, 376, 128880. Karmee, S. K., Patria, R. D., and Lin, C. S. K. (2015). Techno-economic evaluation of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil — a case study of Hong Kong. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16(3), pp. 4362-4371. Al-Sakkari, E. G., Mohammed, M. G., Elozeiri, A. A., Abdeldayem, O. M., Habashy, M. M., Ong, E. S., Rene, E. R., Ismail, I., and Ashour, I. (2020). Comparative technoeconomic analysis of using waste and virgin cooking oils for biodiesel production. Frontiers in Energy Research, 8, 583357.