Technoeconomic and life-cycle analysis of single-step catalytic conversion of wet ethanol into fungible fuel blendstocks

Technoeconomic and life-cycle analyses are presented for catalytic conversion of ethanol to fungible hydrocarbon fuel blendstocks, informed by advances in catalyst and process development. Whereas prior work toward this end focused on 3-step processes featuring dehydration, oligomerization, and hydrogenation, the consolidated alcohol dehydration and oligomerization (CADO) approach described here results in 1-step conversion of wet ethanol vapor (40 wt% in water) to hydrocarbons and water over a metal-modified zeolite catalyst. A development project increased liquid hydrocarbon yields from 36% of theoretical to >80%, reduced catalyst cost by an order of magnitude, scaled up the process by 300-fold, and reduced projected costs of ethanol conversion 12-fold. Current CADO products conform most closely to gasoline blendstocks, but can be blended with jet fuel at low levels today, and could potentially be blended at higher levels in the future. Operating plus annualized capital costs for conversion of wet ethanol to fungible blendstocks are estimated at $2.00/GJ for CADO today and$1.44/GJ in the future, similar to the unit energy cost of producing anhydrous ethanol from wet ethanol ($1.46/GJ). Including the cost of ethanol from either corn or future cellulosic biomass but not production incentives, projected minimum selling prices for fungible blendstocks produced via CADO are competitive with conventional jet fuel when oil is$100 per barrel but not at $60 per barrel. However, with existing production incentives, the projected minimum blendstock selling price is competitive with oil at$60 per barrel. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions for CADO-derived hydrocarbon blendstocks closely follow those for the ethanol feedstock

Robust paths to net greenhouse gas mitigation and negative emissions via advanced biofuels

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Dennis Ojima and Daniel L. Sanchez for their encouragement on this topic. The authors gratefully acknowledge partial support as follows: J.L.F., L.R.L., T.L.R., E.A.H.S., and J.J.S., the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP grant# 2014/26767-9); J.L.F., L.R.L., K.P., and T.L.R., The Center for Bioenergy Innovation, a U.S. Department of Energy Research Center supported by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the DOE Office of Science (grant# DE-AC05-00OR22725); L.R.L., the Sao Paulo Research Foundation, and the Link Foundation; J.L.F. and K.P., USDA/NIFA (grant# 2013-68005-21298 and 2017-67019-26327); T.L.R., USDA/NIFA (grant# 2012-68005-19703); D.S.L. and S.P.L., the Energy Biosciences Institute. Data availability The DayCent model (https://www2.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/daycent/) is freely available upon request. Specification of DayCent model runs and automated model initialization, calibration, scenario simulation, results analysis, and figure generation were implemented in Python 2.7, using the numpy module for data processing and the matplotlib module for figure generation. Analysis code is available in a version-controlled repository (https://github.com/johnlfield/Ecosystem_dynamics). A working copy of the code, all associated DayCent model inputs, and analysis outputs are also available in an online data repository (https://figshare.com/s/4c14ec168bd550db4bad; note this URL is for accessing a private version of the repository, and will eventually be replaced with an updated URL for the public version of the repository, which will only be accessible after the journal-specified embargo date).Peer reviewedPostprintPublisher PD

Short-term efficacy of physical interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Treatment efficacy of physical agents in osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK) pain has been largely unknown, and this systematic review was aimed at assessing their short-term efficacies for pain relief. METHODS: Systematic review with meta-analysis of efficacy within 1-4 weeks and at follow up at 1-12 weeks after the end of treatment. RESULTS: 36 randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified with 2434 patients where 1391 patients received active treatment. 33 trials satisfied three or more out of five methodological criteria (Jadad scale). The patient sample had a mean age of 65.1 years and mean baseline pain of 62.9 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Within 4 weeks of the commencement of treatment manual acupuncture, static magnets and ultrasound therapies did not offer statistically significant short-term pain relief over placebo. Pulsed electromagnetic fields offered a small reduction in pain of 6.9 mm [95% CI: 2.2 to 11.6] (n = 487). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS, including interferential currents), electro-acupuncture (EA) and low level laser therapy (LLLT) offered clinically relevant pain relieving effects of 18.8 mm [95% CI: 9.6 to 28.1] (n = 414), 21.9 mm [95% CI: 17.3 to 26.5] (n = 73) and 17.7 mm [95% CI: 8.1 to 27.3] (n = 343) on VAS respectively versus placebo control. In a subgroup analysis of trials with assumed optimal doses, short-term efficacy increased to 22.2 mm [95% CI: 18.1 to 26.3] for TENS, and 24.2 mm [95% CI: 17.3 to 31.3] for LLLT on VAS. Follow-up data up to 12 weeks were sparse, but positive effects seemed to persist for at least 4 weeks after the course of LLLT, EA and TENS treatment was stopped. CONCLUSION: TENS, EA and LLLT administered with optimal doses in an intensive 2-4 week treatment regimen, seem to offer clinically relevant short-term pain relief for OAK