ATTENTION: The software behind KU ScholarWorks is being upgraded to a new version. Starting July 15th, users will not be able to log in to the system, add items, nor make any changes until the new version is in place at the end of July. Searching for articles and opening files will continue to work while the system is being updated. If you have any questions, please contact Marianne Reed at mreed@ku.edu .

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPfromm, Peter H.
dc.contributor.authorAmanor-Boadu, Vincent
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Richard
dc.contributor.authorVadlani, Praveen
dc.contributor.authorMadl, Ronald
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-21T16:07:30Z
dc.date.available2022-11-21T16:07:30Z
dc.date.issued2010-04
dc.identifier.citationPeter H. Pfromm, Vincent Amanor-Boadu, Richard Nelson, Praveen Vadlani, and Ronald Madl. 2010. Bio-butanol vs. bio-ethanol: A technical and economic assessment for corn and switchgrass fermented by yeast or Clostridium acetobutylicum, Biomass and Bioenergy 34(4): 515-524.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/33674
dc.description.abstractFermentation-derived butanol is a possible alternative to ethanol as a fungible biomass-based liquid transportation fuel. We compare the fermentation-based production of n-butanol vs. ethanol from corn or switchgrass through the liquid fuel yield in terms of the lower heating value (LHV). Industrial scale data on fermentation to n-butanol (ABE fermentation) or ethanol (yeast) establishes a baseline at this time, and puts recent advances in fermentation to butanol in perspective. A dynamic simulation demonstrates the technical, economic and policy implications.

The energy yield of n-butanol is about half that of ethanol from corn or switchgrass using current ABE technology. This is a serious disadvantage for n-butanol since feedstock costs are a significant portion of the fuel price. Low yield increases n-butanol's life-cycle greenhouse gas emission for the same amount of LHV compared to ethanol. A given fermenter volume can produce only about one quarter of the LHV as n-butanol per unit time compared to ethanol. This increases capital costs. The sometimes touted advantage of n-butanol being more compatible with existing pipelines is, according to our techno-economic simulations insufficient to alter the conclusion because of the capital costs to connect plants via pipeline.
en_US
dc.publisherBiomass and Bioenergyen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953409002645en_US
dc.titleBio-butanol vs. bio-ethanol: A technical and economic assessment for corn and switchgrass fermented by yeast or Clostridium acetobutylicumen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.12.017en_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4226-7489en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record