Articles & Issues
- Language
- korean
- Conflict of Interest
- In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Publication history
-
Received May 9, 2006
Accepted June 15, 2006
-
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © KIChE. All rights reserved.
All issues
촉매반응에 의한 에탄올 생산공정의 전 과정 평가
Life Cycle Assessment of Ethanol Production Process Based on Catalytic Reaction
서울시립대학교 화학공학과, 130-743 서울시 동대문구 전농동 90 1한양대학교 화학공학과, 133-791 서울시 성동구 행당동 17 2한국과학기술연구원 나노환경연구센터, 136-791 서울시 성북구 하월곡동 39-1
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Seoul, 90, Cheonnong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-743, Korea 1Department of Chemical Engineering, Hanyang University, 17, Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, Korea 2Eco-Nano Research Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, 39-1, Hawolgok-dong, Sungbuk-gu, Seoul 136-791, Korea
Korean Chemical Engineering Research, June 2006, 44(3), 323-327(5), NONE Epub 19 July 2006
Download PDF
Abstract
이 논문에서는 전 과정 평가 기법을 이용하여 촉매반응에 의한 에탄올 생산공정의 환경적 가치를 평가하고 발효에의한 에탄올 생산공정과 그 환경성을 비교하였다. 평가의 목적은 두 공정의 환경성 비교를 통하여 보다 환경 친화적인 공정 개발을 위한 방안을 마련하는데 있었다. 두 공정에서 생산되는 에탄올의 소비 및 폐기 과정은 모두 동일하다고 가정하고 원료물질의 획득으로부터 제품의 생산 과정에 대한 전 과정 평가를 실시하였다. 촉매공정에 대한 전 과정 목록분석을 통해 중간 원료인 메탄올의 생산 과정에서 발생하는 이산화탄소가 주요 환경오염인자라는 것을 확인하였다. 두 공정에 대한 영향평가의 결과 비교를 통하여 발효에 의한 에탄올 생산이 촉매반응에 의한 것보다 환경 친화적이라는 것을 확인하였다. 전 과정 평가의 결과를 바탕으로 공정의 환경성 개선을 위한 방안을 제시하였다.
In this paper, the methodology of life-cycle assessment was applied to an ethanol production process based on catalytic reaction. The environmental performance of the process was quantified and compared with that of the fermentation process. The purpose of the assessment was to develop design guidelines for the environmentally better ethanol production. The assessment was carried only on the stages of raw material acquisition through ethanol manufacture since it was assumed that ethanol from two processes had the same environmental impacts through its use and discard. The inventory analysis of the catalytic process resulted in that carbon dioxide from methanol production was the major environmental impact. The impact assessment showed that the fermentation process was environmentally better than the catalytic one. Suggestions for environmental improvement of the catalytic process were prepared based on the assessment results.
Keywords
References
Uhm SJ, Han SH, Oh JW, Joo OS, Jung KD, Baek JY, “Process for the Preparation of Ethanol from Methanol,” U.S. Patent No. 5,414,161 (1995)
Hwang I, Chung Y, Theor. Appl. Chem. Eng., 6(2), 2993 (2000)
Hwang I, “Design and Life-Cycle Assessment of Chemical Ethanol Process,” M.S. Thesis, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea (2001)
Chung Y, Hwang I, Kim IW, Moon I, Yeo YK, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 44(3), 319 (2006)
International Standard Organization, ISO 14040, 1st ed., International Standard Organization (1997)
Vigon BW, Tolle DA, Cornaby BW, Latham HC, Harrison CL, Boguski TL, Hunt RG, Sellers JD, Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles, EPA/600/R-92/245, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C. (1993)
Fava JA, Denison R, Jones B, Curran MA, Vigon B, Selke S, Barnum J, Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessments, SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1991)
Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B, A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1993)
Fava J, Jensen AA, Lindfors L, Pomper S, De Smet B, Warren J, Vigon B, Life Cycle Assessment Data Quality: Conceptual Framework, SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1994)
IKP, GaBi 3.0 User’s Manual, IKP (1998)
Pre, SimaPro 5.0 User’s Manual, Pre (2001)
Ecobilan, TEAM 3.0 User’s Manual, Ecobilan (1999)
Goedkoop, M., Eco-indicator 95, NOH Report 9523, PRe (1995)
U. S. EPA, Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, EPA/310-R-99-006, U. S. EPA Office of Compliance, Washington, D.C. (2000)
Ben Amor H, Halloin VL, Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(10), 1419 (1999)
Joo OS, Jung KD, Moon I, Rozovskii AY, Lin GI, Han SH, Uhm SJ, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 38(5), 1808 (1999)
Hwang I, Chung Y, Theor. Appl. Chem. Eng., 6(2), 2993 (2000)
Hwang I, “Design and Life-Cycle Assessment of Chemical Ethanol Process,” M.S. Thesis, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea (2001)
Chung Y, Hwang I, Kim IW, Moon I, Yeo YK, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 44(3), 319 (2006)
International Standard Organization, ISO 14040, 1st ed., International Standard Organization (1997)
Vigon BW, Tolle DA, Cornaby BW, Latham HC, Harrison CL, Boguski TL, Hunt RG, Sellers JD, Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles, EPA/600/R-92/245, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C. (1993)
Fava JA, Denison R, Jones B, Curran MA, Vigon B, Selke S, Barnum J, Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessments, SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1991)
Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B, A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1993)
Fava J, Jensen AA, Lindfors L, Pomper S, De Smet B, Warren J, Vigon B, Life Cycle Assessment Data Quality: Conceptual Framework, SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1994)
IKP, GaBi 3.0 User’s Manual, IKP (1998)
Pre, SimaPro 5.0 User’s Manual, Pre (2001)
Ecobilan, TEAM 3.0 User’s Manual, Ecobilan (1999)
Goedkoop, M., Eco-indicator 95, NOH Report 9523, PRe (1995)
U. S. EPA, Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, EPA/310-R-99-006, U. S. EPA Office of Compliance, Washington, D.C. (2000)
Ben Amor H, Halloin VL, Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(10), 1419 (1999)
Joo OS, Jung KD, Moon I, Rozovskii AY, Lin GI, Han SH, Uhm SJ, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 38(5), 1808 (1999)
