4.8 Article

Probabilistic Lifecycle Assessment of Butanol Production from Corn Stover Using Different Pretreatment Methods

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 24, 页码 14528-14537

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05176

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recalcitrant nature of lignocelluloses requires a pretreatment process before the fermentative butanol production. The commonly used pretreatment processes, such as steam explosion, sulfuric acid, ammonia fiber explosion, ionic liquid (IL), and biological, require different quantities and types of process chemicals, and produce different quality and quantity of fermentable sugars. This study determines life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) these pretreatment methods by developing a system-level process model including corn stover feedstock supply system and the downstream butanol production process. This study further evaluates the uncertainty associated with energy use and GHG emissions for each stage of the entire butanol production chain and provide the future optimization opportunities. Probabilistic results of these analyses describe a distribution of GHG emissions with an average of 18.09-1056.12 gCO(2e)/MJ and a 95% certainty to be less than 33.3-1888.3 gCO(2e) /MJ. The highest GHG emissions of IL-pretreatment of 1056.12 gCO(2e)/MJ reaches to 89.8 gCO(2e)/MJ by switching IL-recovery from 80 to 99 wt %, which is the most influential parameter for IL-pretreatment. Additionally, credits from excess electricity, butanol yield, nitrogen replacement, and diesel fuel for transportation and harvesting were the most influential parameters. Based on the current state of technologies, apart from ionic liquid and biological pretreatments, other pretreatment processes have similar metrics of sustainability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据