Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Why Isn't Butanol More Prevalent?

By Scott Sklar
September 12, 2006   |   18 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
There has been little to no effort to promote butanol as an alternate fuel because of historically low yields and low concentrations of butanol compared to those of ethanol; that is, for each bushel of corn you would garner (1.3) gallons of butanol (0.7) gallons of acetone and (0.13) gallons of ethanol with concentrations of 1-2%.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
September 13, 2006
Is there any info available on Environmental Energy Inc, EEI ?
Comment
2 of 18
September 13, 2006
Butanol has excellent attributes as a fuel alternate for gasoline rich mixtures and the advent of efficient means to produce it from biomass is encouraging news. One attribute that I have not read about lately is the subjective issue of odor. (Have you smelled it yet?) Pure butanol has a characteristic fairly pungent (fusel oil-like) but not unpleasant odor, whereas butyric acid (oxidized butanol) has a rancid odor.
Comment
3 of 18
September 13, 2006
Butanol looks to be an excellent transition
renewable for all those cars that won't be able to
use biodiesel, which appears to be the choice of the future, or electricity, if a practical battery is ever invented.
Comment
4 of 18
September 13, 2006
This view looks set to change with the ABF/DuPont/BP initiative to convert sugar to Butanol in the UK. This is the first commercial biobutanol plant - although in practice first commercial really means pilot. Much like production from cellulose until some technical problems and scale is achieved costs will be high but it would be expected that this will not be for long. Butanol is very exciting because it provides another cheap way of moving crop. For example think of the Alaskan pipelines and cellulose supply, but there are interesting areas of the world where sugar plants may also be sited.
Comment
5 of 18
September 14, 2006
The other thing which is wrong with the Butanol is Congress has not declared it an Alternative Fuel Source. I specifically asked for a clarification on this from the IRS guy who was in charge of this type of program and the education surrounding this. He specifically pointed to the legislation and the wording. Butanol in order to get a credit needs to be included on the list. At the present time only petroleum based alternative fuels are included on the list. Alcohol, diesel, kerosene, etc. Ethanol is not one of the alternatives which surprised me. And then it did not surprise me because of the Petroleum lobby efforts.
Comment
6 of 18
September 14, 2006
As butanol consists of 4 carbon atoms,more CO2 will be generated compare to Methane.

Hence from CO2 point of view Methane is preferred over Butanol.

Further Hydrogen is preferred to Methane.

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com
Comment
7 of 18
September 18, 2006
For those interested in reading Environmental Energy Inc's report, here's a link to to it in the DOE's Office of Scientific & Technical Information database:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=843183
Comment
8 of 18
September 18, 2006
Hum begs too question how much carbon does a 4 carbon fuel cause a vehicle to spew into the atmosphere?

Butanol also still has the potential to starve the world to feed our machines. Alternative energy is not just about finding a replacement for gasoline it is about making our earth greener and polluting it less. Butanol to me has no place in our quest.

D~W
Comment
9 of 18
September 21, 2006
We have lost our way regarding our use of ethanol. It made some sense as an MTBE replacement, but makes no sense as a wholesale gasoline replacement.

When you see ADM and Cargill lining up at the trough you can bet that the broad benefits to rural communities will be stolen by the carpetbaggers.

Butanol has a lot of promise, but is currently not politically correct. It ought to be. It addresses a broad range of problems, produces more energy per unit of input (H2 and butanol are outputs), will cost less than ethanol, can be made from any biomass, contaning starches/sugars, has high energy content, lhigh octane, ow vapor pressure, low corrosivity, have potential for use as a hydrogen carrier (10 H atoms per molecule), is renewable, could be produced in distributed biorefineries scattered across the landscape, and can be used in 1-100% blends without modification to existing fuel systems/engines and without loss of performance. Read around at butanol.com).
Comment
10 of 18
October 21, 2006
1. Any word on butanol from cellulose? This should be available, since at least some ethanol from cellulose processes are two-stage (the first stage makes fermentable sugars from the cellulose).<p>
2. When the fuels (and hence their carbon atoms) come from biomass (and hence CO2 in the air), the additional carbon atoms in a molecule of butanol (vs. ethanol) should not cause additional overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Comment
11 of 18
October 31, 2007
The website: www.butanol.com has some very interesting information on a bioreaction process that is superior to ABE fermentation that BP/Dupont is using in several ways. It can produce more butanol per bushel of corn and produces excess hydrogen that can be collected and sold as a byproduct. I do not see why there isnt more extensive research going into this process.
Comment
12 of 18
October 31, 2007
You are very right, Ron. Nobody here should be complaining about the fact that butanol, having more Carbon chains than Ethanol, will release more CO2 into the air. What is not realized is that because the source for butanol comes from plants which extract CO2 from the atmosphere, the net amount of CO2 gas released into the atmosphere is either none or very little. I say very little because I cannot deny the fact that some energy will be used up in the manufacturing process. However, the amount of pollution in comparison to gasoline is very little.
Comment
13 of 18
December 4, 2007
Problems with butanol:
The fermentation and purification is not as trivial as EEI makes it sound. The microbes (various Clostridia spp.) only produce butanol up to around 2% before they die off.
Although butanol does not mix with water very well it does mix with water up to 7.7 - 9.1% requiring an energy intensive step to separate the butanol and water.

That being said: some of the Clostridia spp. have some endogenous cellulase activity, although its not as efficient as the enzymes being developed by iogen/verenium-cellunol etc. All in all it seems like it requires more research. We are toying with the idea of starting a company researching it more: karmafuel.com.
Mike Hannon
Comment
14 of 18
March 30, 2008
<p>The previous comment does not reflect what EEI is doing. The quoted numbers reflect old science, not the process that David Ramey has prototyped. Ethanol has no chance of replacing sufficient liquid fuels, fast enough, to keep industrial economies from going down hard. Too little, too late. Where will the fuel come from to run the gasoline fueled trucks and cars that cannot use ethanol above ~10%? We don't have decades left to play around in the laboratory&nbsp;or to&nbsp;replace the existing vehicle inventory.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
15 of 18
February 2, 2009
I was wondering about the benefits about using butanol with fuel cells?
Comment
16 of 18
December 5, 2011
Im a little confused about this statement.... ['There has been little to no effort to promote butanol as an alternate fuel because of historically low yields and low concentrations of butanol compared to those of ethanol; that is, for each bushel of corn you would garner (1.3) gallons of butanol (0.7) gallons of acetone and (0.13) gallons of ethanol with concentrations of 1-2%.'...] Can anyone explain how the the yeild of butanol is lower than ethanol when it says right here that yeilds of ethanol are at 0.13 vs butanol at 1.3 gallons??? Is this a typo or does the 1-2% have something to do with it? What am I missing here?

Also I read that the A.B.E process with Clostridium Acetobutylicum yeilds 3,6,1 with 6 parts being the butanol and the 1 part ofcourse being the ethanol. So wth?

Also, is anyone here familiar with how to use a fiberous bed reactor to make butanol from clostridium acetobutylicum?
Comment
17 of 18
December 5, 2011
Im not sure that butanol would be a better fuel for fuel cells than hydrogen or if butanol is cheaper than hydrogen, but I havent looked into it. Though I will say that if we can make butanol commercially viable enough to power fuel cells while including the cost of expensive fuel cells, then I think it would just be cheaper to use butanol as subsitute for gasoline in cars but find some way to capture the carbon to have the same environemntal benefits of hydrogen fuel cells. Is there studies being carried out with butanol and fuel cells that you know of or was is this still a concept? Could you send me the link if so?
Comment
18 of 18
December 5, 2011
Also considering that nature is a closed system why are we trying to burn clean fuel from hydrogen when CO2 laden emissions provide nutrients for fuel producing organisms??? As we burn fuel the car is releasing energy in the form of co2 and other nutrients that feed algae. Hydrogen may be more efficient and a great fuel for the future but still very expensive to produce, transport, and consume, and will require huge infrastructural modifications and new development. The current infrastructure has us driving cars that burn dirty fuels that release their 'leftovers' into the atmosphere. Not only is it be bad for the atmosphere if its being emitted at a faster rate than it is being mitigated, but the driver is also losing money in my opinion because only a percentage of that fuels total energy that was purchased is being utilized. So why instead of only looking to burn cleaner fuel, (which is still good) why dont we just keep burning the dirty fuel we have better access to and find ways to consume the emissions as they are being released from the vehicle? It seems to me that Co2 is a blessing in disguise here. Coal firing plants have realised this and so will the oil companies. Can anyone guess where Im going with this? If so send me a private message.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Scott Sklar

View Scott Sklar's Profile
About: Scott, founder and president of The Stella Group, Ltd., in Washington, DC, is the Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves... more »

Advertise With Us

Richardson RFPD, Inc. North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Talesun Solar 3TIER Rich Hessler Solar Business Development Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems UnThink Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters