Lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint and minimum selling price of renewable diesel and jet fuel from fermentation and advanced fermentation production technologies

Staples, Mark D.; Malina, Robert; Olcay, Hakan; Pearlson, Matthew N.; Hileman, James; Boies, Adam M.; Barrett, Steven R. H.

doi:10.1039/c3ee43655a

Cited by 96 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The remainder is driven by utility requirements for fuel conversion. 62 Compared to a mean value of 70% in this paper, prior studies estimate a 70-89% reduction in GHG emissions for corn-stover ethanol relative to conventional gasoline. 25,75,89,90 Differences in results are primarily attributable to differences in assumed rates of corn stover removal, rates of nutrient replacement and assumed yields of ethanol.…”

Section: Discussion Of Lifecycle Ghg Emissions Of Corn-stover Derivedmentioning

confidence: 88%

Environmental and economic tradeoffs of using corn stover for liquid fuels and power production

Trivedi

Malina

Barrett

2015

Energy Environ. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using agricultural residues, such as corn stover, as feedstocks for liquid fuel or electricity generation has the potential to offset anthropogenic climate impacts associated with conventional utilities and transportation fuels. In this paper, the environmental and economic costs and benefits associated with the usage of corn stover for different applications are calculated. Combined heat and power (CHP), ethanol, FischerTropsch (FT) middle distillate (MD) fuels (i.e. diesel and jet), and advanced fermentation (AF) MD fuels are considered. The net societal costs or benefits of different corn stover usages are calculated as the difference between the sum of monetized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the supply costs of a certain corn stover usage, and the sum of these metrics for the conventional commodity that is assumed to be displaced by the renewable alternative. Uncertainty associated with the analysis is captured using a Monte Carlo approach.It is found that corn stover derived electricity and fuels, compared to their conventional counterparts, reduce GHG emissions by 21-92%. The mean reduction for electricity in a CHP plant is 89% compared to the US gridaverage, 70% for corn stover ethanol compared to conventional US gasoline and 85% and 55% for FT MD and AF MD compared to conventional US MD, respectively. Mean supply costs for corn stover-derived utilities and liquid fuels are B9% and B1% lower than the conventional counterparts for electricity and FT MD, respectively, and B45% and B300% higher for ethanol and AF MD, respectively. Using corn stover for CHP yields a net mean societal benefit of $131.23 per t of corn stover, which decreases by two-thirds if only electricity is produced, while FT MD production presents a mean societal benefit of $27.70 per t of corn stover. Using corn stover for ethanol and AF MD results in a mean societal cost of $24.86 per t and $121.81 per t of corn stover use, respectively, driven by higher supply costs compared to their conventional counterparts. Broader contextBiomass can be used for different purposes such as the production of transportation fuels or electricity and heat. Given this choice, a key question from a societal perspective is to determine the environmentally and economically optimal use of the resource. Our analysis quantifies the societal benefit of different possible bioenergy-related uses of corn stover, which is the largest source of agricultural residue in the United States and one that is currently largely left unutilized. We find a net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions benefit from using corn stover derived transportation fuels compared to fossil transportation fuels. We also find that the GHG emissions benefit of corn stover derived electricity and heat is significantly larger than that of corn stover transportation fuels. This is because of the relative ease of corn stover conversion into electricity and heat, and relatively high GHG emissions of current grid electricity in the US. When factoring in differences in production costs, we find that for so...

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Lifecycle Ghg Emissions Of Corn-stover Derivedmentioning

confidence: 88%

Environmental and economic tradeoffs of using corn stover for liquid fuels and power production

Trivedi

Malina

Barrett

2015

Energy Environ. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This potentially reduces competition for scarce land with food or feed purposes compared to growing oily crops or grains for fuel production. Moreover, due to relatively high conversion efficiencies and low fossil fuel input requirements during processing, lifecycle GHG emissions can be significantly lower than emissions for other biofuels such as those from oily crops or grains (Staples et al, 2014). This increases the potential for emissions reductions from using aviation biofuels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We choose switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as perennial grass feedstock since its agro-economic properties are relatively well studied compared to other perennial grasses. In our analysis, conversion efficiencies, product slates (the mix of products produced), and material requirements for growing switchgrass and converting it into AF jet fuel follow a recent analysis by Staples et al (2014).…”

Section: Advanced Fermentation Biofuelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to uncertainty in the development of AF production, we consider alternative parameterizations of the production function for this technology. Staples et al (2014) estimate AF costs under alternative assumptions regarding the product slate, the energy efficiency of biomass conversion, and capital costs. We capture the range of these estimates by representing six alternative specification.…”

Section: Advanced Fermentation Fuel In the Eppa-a Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, significant uncertainties remain about the properties of AF processes as they are yet to be implemented at commercial scale. Building on results from Staples et al (2014), we consider a range of capital costs, energy conversion efficiencies and product slate cases to capture uncertainties associated with fuel production costs using a nascent technology such as AF. …”

Section: Advanced Fermentation Biofuelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of advanced biofuels on aviation emissions and operations in the U.S.

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change combines cutting-edge scientific research with independent policy analysis to provide a solid foundation for the public and private decisions needed to mitigate and adapt to unavoidable global environmental changes. Being data-driven, the Program uses extensive Earth system and economic data and models to produce quantitative analysis and predictions of the risks of climate change and the challenges of limiting human influence on the environment-essential knowledge for the international dialogue toward a global response to climate change.To this end, the Program brings together an interdisciplinary group from two established MIT research centers: the Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR). These two centers-along with collaborators from the Marine Biology Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole and short-and longterm visitors-provide the united vision needed to solve global challenges.At the heart of much of the Program's work lies MIT's Integrated Global System Model. Through this integrated model, the Program seeks to: discover new interactions among natural and human climate system components; objectively assess uncertainty in economic and climate projections; critically and quantitatively analyze environmental management and policy proposals; understand complex connections among the many forces that will shape our future; and improve methods to model, monitor and verify greenhouse gas emissions and climatic impacts.This reprint is one of a series intended to communicate research results and improve public understanding of global environment and energy challenges, thereby contributing to informed debate about climate change and the economic and social implications of policy alternatives.

show abstract

Chemicals manufacture from fermentation of sugarcane products

Robins

Speight

2016

Sugarcane‐Based Biofuels and Bioproducts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugar (or more specifically sucrose) is one of the major food carbohydrate energy sources in the world. It is used as a sweetener, preservative, and colorant in baked and processed foods and beverages and is one of lowest cost energy sources for human metabolism. On an industrial scale, sucrose is produced from two major crops-sugarcane, grown in tropical and subtropical regions of the world, and sugar beet, grown in more temperate climates. Sugarcane, however, accounts for the vast majority of global sugar production. For much of the history of sugarcane production, sugar was a scarce and highly valued commodity. Sugarcane processing focused on extracting sucrose as efficiently as possible for the lucrative markets in the United Kingdom and Europe. The potential for the production of alternative products from sugarcane, however, has long been recognized. The key process by-products including bagasse, molasses, mud, and ash have all been investigated as a basis for the production of alternative products (Rao 1997, Taupier and Bugallo 2000). Sugarcane is believed to have originated in southern Asia, and migrated in several waves following trade routes through the Pacific to Oceania and Hawaii and through India into Europe. Sugarcane was introduced and spread through the Americas following the expansion by British, Spanish, and Portuguese colonies in the 15th and 16th centuries (Barnes 1964). While various methods of juice extraction and sugar production have been used over centuries to produce sugar, substantial innovations in sugar chemistry and processing technologies throughout the 18th and 19th centuries have formed the basis of modern sugar production methods (Bruhns et al. 1998). Dramatic improvements in processing efficiency, sugar quality, and automation and control characterized sugar processing throughout the 20th century.

show abstract

Lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint and minimum selling price of renewable diesel and jet fuel from fermentation and advanced fermentation production technologies

Abstract: A techno-economic analysis of the environmental and economic feasibility of middle distillate fuel productionviafermentation and advanced fermentation technologies.

Cited by 96 publications

References 46 publications

Environmental and economic tradeoffs of using corn stover for liquid fuels and power production

Environmental and economic tradeoffs of using corn stover for liquid fuels and power production

The impact of advanced biofuels on aviation emissions and operations in the U.S.

Chemicals manufacture from fermentation of sugarcane products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About