Butanol: next climate-friendly biofuel?

Tom Arnold | June 25, 2006

butanol requires no conversion As the US heads toward a massive expansion in production of ethanol, another interesting biofuel is getting attention — butanol. Our chemist friends describe it is a sweet-smelling solvent, but with a claimed 30% more energy per bushel than the currently hip ethanol, it could be the next big step in introducing biomass into our domestic fuel stream.

Lets see how butanol measures up on some simple tests of biofuel acceptance.

Fuel supply compatability: Very good. Unlike ethanol, butanol is doesn’t attract water, which means it can be shipped in existing fuel piepelines. Also, butanol can be blended at any level gallon for gallon with gasoline.
Intalled base compatability: Very good. Again unlike ethanol, no car modification is required (although modified engine compressions could enjoy the advantage of the higher energy content).
Biomass compatability: Good. A new process pioneered by Environmental Energy supposedly generates at least 30% more energy than ethanol from the same amount of corn. Butanol holds the same promise of being able to made from cellusosic materials.
Carbon impact: Unknown. Butanol is too new for formal data to exist on the total carbon impact of growing, manufacturing, transporting, and using the fuel.
Economics: Unknown/poor. Environmental Energy has raised just $1.5M. Verasun trades at $2B. But BP and Dupont just announced a butanol joint venture in the UK.

The New York Times tells us that despite controversy, we’re on track for 39 new ethanol plants in the next 12 months, and Khosla and Gates are fighting it out in the California ethanol market. It is going to be an interesting road ahead.

Our only disappointment in this is that a carbon-trading regime is not part of the formula for these investment decisions. All of these fuels will qualify under renewable-energy laws, despite their vastly different impact on our global warming problems.

< Previous: Turn your old cell phones and PDAs into TerraPass cash Next: Carbon offsets are going mainstream >

Comments

4 comment(s) on this post. Leave your own!

1. By Anonymous on July 5, 2006 9:04 AM

Dupont calls butanol " Generation 2 " Partner is British petro. and Assoc British Foods. You guessed right all research work to be preformed in Wissington, England, across the pond. Another bit research was done by Univ. of Ill , Ubana by philip Shane. Speaks of 50K batches of anaerobic fermentation process which yields a " biproduct in the bottom of the still require highier temp and energy . Another 'bi product is another solvent known as acetone. Wisconsin Biorefining can get 2.5 gals from every bushel. Thats the rub, lower yields than ethanol.

FUNGUS Among US Just a bit of history , if you are parient. During the WWII in the Philippine Islands our soliders came about a fugus that ate everything tents equipment and even their boots ! The Army gave the task to eliminate this jungle bacterium. instead, he became attached with it . Maybe this or other enzymes are necessary to improve the chemical reaction yield. If you have suggestions contact Dupont

Reply
2. By gecn on July 24, 2006 11:53 PM

Dear sir:
could you tell me whether the biobutanol is the same as the n-butanol?

pls send the ans. to my e-mail,

tks...

Reply
3. By Tom on July 25, 2006 5:56 PM

Yes, although I'd be lying if I claimed I didn't have to look it up.

From the Wikipedia entry on butanol:

"The unmodified term butanol usually refers to the straight chain isomer with the alcohol functional group at the terminal carbon, which is also known as n-butanol or 1-butanol. The straight chain isomer with the alcohol at an internal carbon is sec-butanol or 2-butanol. The branched isomer with the alcohol at a terminal carbon is isobutanol, and the branched isomer with the alcohol at the internal carbon is tert-butanol."

Reply
4. By Mike on March 28, 2008 1:02 PM

Can you tell me what the price of butanol is as produced by the petro chemical industry and how this price corrolates to the price of crude.

Reply