4.5 Article

Comparative techno-economic analysis and reviews of n- butanol production from corn grain and corn stover

Journal

BIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 342-361

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1462

Keywords

techno-economic analysis; n-butanol; biofuel; lignocellulosic feedstocks; integrated process; hybrid reaction separation; continuous fermentation

Funding

  1. US Department of Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work presents a detailed review and comparative analysis of the process design and economics of n-butanol production using corn grain and corn stover. This includes reviewing the most recent n-butanol technologies; demonstrating the impact of key parameters (e.g. plant capacity, raw material pricing, yield) on the overall n-butanol process economics; and comparing how cellulosic biomass conversion technologies and challenges differ from traditional sugar-based n-butanol conversion technology. A major challenge of n-butanol production is the low n-butanol yield (compared to ethanol), resulting in higher production costs. However, recent research efforts have achieved significant yield improvements using a combination of genetic engineering, fermentation techniques, and integrated process development using continuous fermentation with online stripping to remove n-butanol during fermentation. This study presents the advances in n-butanol research for both sugar-based (corn) and cellulosic (corn stover) feedstocks, and also provides a comparison of overall process technologies and process economics. In addition, the results of a sensitivity analysis comparing various technologies, sugar yields, and coproduct distributions are discussed in order to provide research guidance. (c) 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available