Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(2008)
Addressing consumptive water use for sustainable biofuel development
A. Hector (2008)
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt.
M. Wright, Robert Brown (2007)
Comparative economics of biorefineries based on the biochemical and thermochemical platformsBiofuels, 1
(2007)
Water usage for current and future ethanol production
B. Dale, M. Allen, M. Laser, L. Lynd (2009)
Protein feeds coproduction in biomass conversion to fuels and chemicalsBiofuels, 3
C. Piccolo, F. Bezzo (2009)
A techno-economic comparison between two technologies for bioethanol production from lignocellulose.Biomass & Bioenergy, 33
M. Laser, Haiming Jin, Kemantha Jayawardhana, L. Lynd (2009)
Coproduction of ethanol and power from switchgrassBiofuels, 3
(2008)
Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change
(2008)
Hydrogen infrastructure pathways analysis using HYPRO, in Analysis of the transition to fuel cell vehicles and the potential hydrogen energy infrastructure requirements, ed by McQueen S
W. Einfeld, C. Cameron, R. Pate, M. Hightower (2007)
Emerging energy demands on water resources.
May Wu, Ye Wu, Michael Wang (2006)
Energy and Emission Benefits of Alternative Transportation Liquid Fuels Derived from Switchgrass: A Fuel Life Cycle AssessmentBiotechnology Progress, 22
Jenny Wikberg, E. Ögren (2003)
Interrelationships between water use and growth traits in biomass-producing willowsTrees, 18
(2009)
Early Release
L. Lynd, M. Laser, D. Bransby, B. Dale, B. Davison, R. Hamilton, M. Himmel, M. Keller, J. McMillan, J. Sheehan, C. Wyman (2008)
How biotech can transform biofuelsNature Biotechnology, 26
L. Johnson, M. Mintz, Margaret Singh, K. Stork, A. Vyas, Michael Wang (1998)
Assessment of PNGV fuels infrastructure phase 2 report : additional capital needs and fuel-cycle energy and emissions impacts.
E. Kelly, Ray (2014)
an update on
A. Condon, Robert Richards, G. Rebetzke, G. Farquhar (2004)
Breeding for high water-use efficiency.Journal of experimental botany, 55 407
Fargione (2008)
Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt.Science, 319
(2004)
diesel’s role in the race for clean cars
M. Laser, Haiming Jin, Kemantha Jayawardhana, B. Dale, L. Lynd (2009)
Projected mature technology scenarios for conversion of cellulosic biomass to ethanol with coproduction thermochemical fuels, power, and/or animal feed proteinBiofuels, 3
L. Lynd, E. Larson, Nathanael Greene, M. Laser, J. Sheehan, B. Dale, S. McLaughlin, Michael Wang (2009)
The role of biomass in America's energy future: framing the analysisBiofuels, 3
(2003)
Consumptive water use for US power production
Hatfield Hatfield, Sauer Sauer, Prueger Prueger (2001)
Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency: a review.Agron J, 96
(2005)
Water reduction and reuse in the petroleum industry. Presented at 69th meeting of the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum; Annapolis
K. So, Robert Brown (1999)
Economic analysis of selected lignocellulose-to-ethanol conversion technologiesApplied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 79
Shapouri (2002)
The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update.
Haiming Jin, E. Larson, Fuat Celik (2009)
Performance and cost analysis of future, commercially mature gasification‐based electric power generation from switchgrassBiofuels, 3
S. Sokhansanj, S. Mani, A. Turhollow, Amit Kumar, D. Bransby, L. Lynd, M. Laser (2009)
Large‐scale production, harvest and logistics of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) – current technology and envisioning a mature technologyBiofuels, 3
G. Polley, H. Polley (2000)
Design Better Water NetworksChemical Engineering Progress, 96
K. Hedegaard, K. Thyø, H. Wenzel (2008)
Life cycle assessment of an advanced bioethanol technology in the perspective of constrained biomass availability.Environmental science & technology, 42 21
(2006)
Feasibility study for a biodiesel refi ning facility in the regional municipality of Durham. BBI Biofuels
S. McLaughlin, J. Kiniry, C. Taliaferro, D. Ugarte (2006)
Projecting Yield and Utilization Potential of Switchgrass as an Energy CropAdvances in Agronomy, 90
Michael Lewis, C. Bamforth (2006)
Water and Energy
J. Hatfield, T. Sauer, J. Prueger (2001)
Managing Soils to Achieve Greater Water Use EfficiencyAgronomy Journal, 93
E. Larson, Haiming Jin, Fuat Celik (2009)
Large‐scale gasification‐based coproduction of fuels and electricity from switchgrassBiofuels, 3
R. Wallace, K. Ibsen, A. Mcaloon, W. Yee (2005)
Feasibility study for co-locating and integrating ethanol production plants from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks
Fourteen mature technology biomass refining scenarios – involving both biological and thermochemical processing with production of fuels, power, and/or animal feed protein – are compared with respect to process efficiency, environmental impact – including petroleum use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and water use–and economic profitability. The emissions analysis does not account for carbon sinks (e.g., soil carbon sequestration) or sources (e.g., forest conversion) resulting from land‐use considerations. Sensitivity of the scenarios to fuel and electricity price, feedstock cost, and capital structure is also evaluated. The thermochemical scenario producing only power achieves a process efficiency of 49% (energy out as power as a percentage of feedstock energy in), 1359 kg CO2 equivalent avoided GHG emissions per Mg feedstock (current power mix basis) and a cost of $0.0575/kWh ($16/GJ), at a scale of 4535 dry Mg feedstock/day, 12% internal rate of return, 35% debt fraction, and 7% loan rate. Thermochemical scenarios producing fuels and power realize efficiencies between 55 and 64%, avoided GHG emissions between 1000 and 1179 kg/dry Mg, and costs between $0.36 and $0.57 per liter gasoline equivalent ($1.37 – $2.16 per gallon) at the same scale and financial structure. Scenarios involving biological production of ethanol with thermochemical production of fuels and/or power result in efficiencies ranging from 61 to 80%, avoided GHG emissions from 965 to 1,258 kg/dry Mg, and costs from $0.25 to $0.33 per liter gasoline equivalent ($0.96 to $1.24/gallon). Most of the biofuel scenarios offer comparable, if not lower, costs and much reduced GHG emissions (>90%) compared to petroleum‐derived fuels. Scenarios producing biofuels result in GHG displacements that are comparable to those dedicated to power production (e.g., >825 kg CO2 equivalent/dry Mg biomass), especially when a future power mix less dependent upon fossil fuel is assumed. Scenarios integrating biological and thermochemical processing enable waste heat from the thermochemical process to power the biological process, resulting in higher overall process efficiencies than would otherwise be realized – efficiencies on par with petroleum‐based fuels in several cases. © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining – Wiley
Published: Mar 1, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.