4.7 Article

An economic and environmental comparison of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion processes

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 547-565

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-009-9317-x

关键词

Biofuel; Biochemical; Thermochemical; Biomass; Feedstock; Ethanol; Corn stover; Gasification; Catalyst; Fuel synthesis; Pretreatment; Enzymatic hydrolysis; Fermentation; Energy efficiency; Emission; Inhibitor; Recycle; Mixed alcohol

资金

  1. US DOE Office of the Biomass Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the world's focus on rapidly deploying second generation biofuels technologies, there exists today a good deal of interest in how yields, economics, and environmental impacts of the various conversion processes of lignocellulosic biomass to transportation fuels compare. Although there is a good deal of information regarding these conversion processes, this information is typically very difficult to use on a comparison basis because different underlying assumptions, such as feedstock costs, plant size, co-product credits or assumed state of technology, have been utilized. In this study, a rigorous comparison of different biomass to transportation fuels conversion processes was performed with standard underlying economic and environmental assumptions so that exact comparisons can be made. This study looked at promising second-generation conversion processes utilizing biochemical and thermochemical gasification technologies on both a current and an achievable state of technology in 2012. The fundamental finding of this study is that although the biochemical and thermochemical processes to ethanol analyzed have their individual strengths and weaknesses, the two processes have very comparable yields, economics, and environmental impacts. Hence, this study concludes that based on this analysis there is not a distinct economic or environmental impact difference between biochemical and thermochemical gasification processes for second generation ethanol production.

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

4.7
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