Cost of Deconstruction Depots for Diversified, Waste-Based Lignocellulosic Sugars Using Distillable Solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitioning to a bioeconomy that makes use of low-emission and waste feedstocks requires greater flexibility to accommodate seasonal variations and mitigate long-term storage challenges, such as material loss and fire risk. To achieve this goal, biomass deconstruction technologies must efficiently handle diverse feedstocks. Here, we assess the cost of using butylaminea distillable solventto deconstruct 22 different biomass feedstocks: 7 herbaceous, 9 woody, 4 food processing residues, and 2 blends. Lignocellulosic sugar production costs, based on current empirical data, range from $1.3 to 6.1/kg, suggesting that substantial improvements are required to compete with conventional sugars. The high solvent loading (850 g/kg of whole slurry) is a process bottleneck. Lowering the solvent loading to 59 g/kg of whole slurry, demonstrated in an L-scale reactor using poplar biomass, reduces the minimum sugar selling price by 33%. Solvent loading and recovery, solid loading, sugar yield, enzyme use, and delivered biomass cost all play key roles in reaching sugar production costs of $0.45-0.79/kg. Strategic feedstock blending to maximize carbohydrate content, process optimization to improve conversion efficiency, and the selection of low-cost feedstocks are important to advancing feedstock-flexible biorefineries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".