subject

LCA

LCA: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: osti. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

DOE OSTI2026

Cost-effective valorization of 2,3-butanediol to high-value chemicals and jet fuel

Here, this work outlines an optimized process for converting 2,3-butanediol (BDO) into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and C4 chemicals. BDO is reactively separated from fermentation broth by forming dioxolanes, which are converted to isobutyraldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and 1,3-butadiene. These intermediates are reduced and dehydrated over Cu/ZSM-5 to form alkenes, which can be oligomerized and hydrotreated to jet-range alkanes. Previous BDO-dioxolane-alkene processes are limited by the requirement for a continuous aldehyde source for dioxolane formation. Brønsted acidic zeolites catalyze dioxolane deacetalization to form isobutyraldehyde and MEK in a >2:1 molar ratio, providing an internal, recyclable aldehyde source. Dioxolane formation optimization was performed to achieve >95% dioxolane yields over Amberlyst-15 and minimize isobutyraldehyde recycle. The overall BDO-dioxolane-fuel process yields an alkane mixture that enables at least a 50% v/v blend with Jet-A. Techno-economic analyses and life cycle assessments for this BDO-dioxolane-fuel process yield scenarios with <$2.50 per gallon gas equivalent and >58% reduction in CO2 emissions.

2,3-butanediol↗

DOE OSTI2026

Evaluating alternative steam generation pathways in the food industry

Steam generation in the food sector requires substantial energy and cost expenditures, requiring nearly half of its energy intake. Here, we used life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment to investigate the cost and energy impacts of steam generating alternatives: NG, biomass and hydrogen boilers and grid-supplied and self-generated electric steam generation systems (electric boilers, renewable thermal energy storage and industrial heat pumps). The analysis starts with a set of average U.S. conditions, where biomass boilers are the most cost-competitive alternative to NG. In a series of scenarios beyond average conditions, the analysis shows energy procurement costs dominate the total life cycle cost for all technologies and, unfortunately, are highly variable geographically and temporally, significantly affecting the viability of the alternatives. Results show that site-energy consumption ranges from 0.3 MMBtu/klb for industrial heat pumps to 1.6 MMBtu/klb for biomass boilers, with heat pumps achieving up to 78% lower energy use compared to natural gas systems. For the steam costs, the results show a range between $\$$8 and $\$$50/klb for NG, with biomass following closely ($\$$11 – $\$$44/klb) and grey hydrogen and IHP next ($\$$13 – $\$$33/klb and $\$$6 - $\$$78/klb), with cost reductions if IHP's cooling is utilized. Factors like operating hours, the need for cooling, and the ability to negotiate utility rates complicate the decision, making site-specific analyses critical. Therefore, we present a decision-making matrix to help manufacturers identify which steam generating technology is the best business decision for their situation. Overall, these results highlight the importance of steam generation for the facility's organizational goals, as well as the criticality of conducting individual site analyses.

Biomass boilers↗

Compare source metadata on this page

Work	Published	Source identifier	Source
Cost-effective valorization of 2,3-butanediol to high-value chemicals and jet fuel	2026-11-18	AC05-00OR22725; 89233218CNA000001; AC36-08GO28308	osti
Evaluating alternative steam generation pathways in the food industry	2026-08-01	AC05-00OR22725	osti

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.