Browsing by Subject "Ethanol production"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Economic comparison of ethanol production technologies(2006-08) Woodson, Matthew Sean.; Jablonowski, Christopher J.Ethanol is a clean, renewable fuel that can be produced from biomass resources in nearly every region of the United States. In the US, the vast majority of ethanol demand is being met by producing ethanol from corn, a practice that relies heavily on subsidies to compete economically with gasoline production and could divert food supplies in the future. The continued growth of the ethanol industry will depend on the development of new processes that convert cellulosic biomass from non-food crops and waste materials into ethanol. The purpose of this research is to compare the economics of producing ethanol using conventional methods from corn to the production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks. Economic modeling (linear programming) techniques are employed to forecast the emergence of new ethanol production technologies, and to analyze the sensitivity of the emerging cellulosic ethanol industry to certain key variables such as energy prices, estimates of social costs, and capital costs.Item Effects of corn processing method on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle fed diets containing sorghum wet distillers grain plus solubles(2008-05) Leibovich, Jose; Galyean, Michael L.; Albin, Robert C.; Brown, Michael S.Two experiments were conducted to study the effects of corn processing method and inclusion of sorghum wet distillers grains plus solubles (SWDGS) in beef cattle finishing diets. In Experiment 1, 160 crossbred steers (BW = 397.6 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of corn processing method on performance and carcass characteristics in the following diets : (1) a dry-rolled corn (DRC)-based diet with no inclusion of SWDGS (DRC-0); (2) a DRC-based diet with inclusion of 15% (DM basis) SWDGS (DRC-15); (3) a steam-flaked corn (SFC)-based diet with 0% SWDGS (SFC-0); and (4) a SFC-based diet with 15% SWDGS (SFC-15). No interactions (P ¡Ý 0.20) were noted for performance and carcass characteristics, except for marbling score and % of carcasses grading USDA Choice or greater. Results showed lower (P < 0.01) G:F with DRC- than for SFC-based diets. Steers fed SFC-based diets had greater fat thickness at the 12th rib (P = 0.03), greater yield grade (P = 0.02), and a smaller LM area (P = 0.08) than steers fed the DRC-based diets. Inclusion of 15% SWDGS resulted in lower G:F (P < 0.01) than for diets without SWDGS. In addition, steers fed SWDGS had lower HCW (P = 0.01) and dressing percent (P = 0.03) than those fed no SWDGS. In Experiment 2, feed samples from Experiment 1 were used to evaluate rate of in vitro gas production, in vitro dry matter disappearance (IVDMD), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations in gas using different types of in vitro fermentation systems. No significant interactions were noted for IVDMD, H2S production, and for mathematically fitted gas production parameters, except for the predicted maximum value of gas production. The SFC-based diets had greater IVDMD (P = 0.01), area under the gas production curve (P < 0.02), and rate (k) of gas production (P < 0.02) than DRC-based diets. Inclusion of 15% SWDGS in the substrates decreased IVDMD (P < 0.01), AUC (P = 0.03), and k value (P = 0.04) vs. 0% SWDGS. No differences in H2S production (P = 0.15) or lag time (P = 0.51) were found at 15% SWDGS. Results of both experiments suggest that the response to 15% (DM basis) SWDGS in finishing diets was not affected by corn processing method. The inclusion of 15% SWDGS decreased G:F and fermentation measurements to approximately the same extent as replacing all the SFC in the diet with DRC.Item Energy analysis of sweet sorghum ethanol using a bottom-up energy return ratio matrix approach(2015-12) Veracruz, John A.; King, Carey Wayne, 1974-; O'Rear, Jerry; Bermann, CelioBetween 2012 and 2013 the world increased biofuel consumption by 6.1% and if forecasts hold, according to the International Energy Agency, by 2050 27% of the world’s transport energy will come from biofuels. Rather than succumb to a shortage of corn, alternative feedstocks must gain the same traction corn has gained within the ethanol production industry. When considering an alternative feedstock what must also be considered it is that energy output from ethanol production exceeds the energy needed to produce one liter of alcohol. With origins traced back to Africa, sweet sorghum, or Sorghum bicolor(L) Moench, has gained traction as a viable ethanol feedstock due to the plant’s ability to reach a harvest maturity in as little as four months. With similarities to that of sugarcane, sweet sorghum’s stalk contains a relatively balanced amount of both insoluble and soluble carbohydrates. Although sweet sorghum will flourish with the appropriate amount of water, its drought resistance provides versatility other ethanol feedstocks do not possess. However, lower inputs, drought resistance, and the ability to grow on fallow land are all meaningless if growers miss a relatively short harvesting window, or even worse, allow fermentable sugars to decay by not expediting fermentation. If sweet sorghum ethanol is to displace any amount of corn and prove its feedstock viability, its energy balance must show more energy is output than is input. By using a bottom-up matrix based approach using energy return ratios (ERRs), a product’s system may be evaluated to determine its usefulness to society. The Brandt et al. framework requires the creation of two matrices; a technology matrix, A, and an intervention matrix, B. Devising information from these matrices requires the use of three main vectors which serve as the foundation for calculating the desired ERR. Using this method in conjunction with four ERRs allows the study of energy processes used to create inputs for sweet sorghum pathways and possibly allude to how this energy is used to eliminate waste or improve efficiency through cleaner energy sources.Item The energy-water nexus : an examination of the water quality impacts of biofuels(2010-05) Twomey, Kelly Marie; Webber, Michael E., 1971-; Lawler, Desmond F.Water and energy share an important relationship since it takes water to produce energy, and likewise, energy to pump, treat, and distribute water. This thesis explores the energy-water nexus in regards to electricity and transportation fuel production, as well as water treatment. It investigates how the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 might affect this interrelationship in the future since increases in corn cultivation for biofuels production are likely to lead to higher nitrate concentrations in US water reservoirs, which could trigger the requirement for additional energy consumption for drinking water treatment. The analysis indicates that advanced drinking water treatment might require an additional 2360 million kWh annually to treat drinking water currently exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) limit of 10 mg per liter of nitrate-nitrogen. This is a 2100% increase in energy consumption for advanced water treatment to meet this MCL in comparison with surface water treatment alone. Although results indicate that most large surface and groundwater drinking water resources are not likely to exceed safe drinking water standards due to the expansion of corn-starch based ethanol production, smaller water reservoirs in agricultural regions are susceptible to nitrate contamination in the future. Consequently, these sources might require energy-intensive drinking water treatment to reduce nitrate levels below 10 mg per liter of nitrate-nitrogen. Based on these results, I conclude that projected increases in nitrate contamination in water may impact the energy consumed in the water treatment sector, because of the convergence of several related trends: (1) increasing cornstarch-based ethanol production, (2) increasing nutrient loading in surface water and groundwater resources as a consequence of increased corn-based ethanol production, (3) additional drinking water sources that exceed the MCL for nitrate, and (4) potentially more stringent drinking water standards for nitrate.