Accepted Manuscript: Bioresource Technology
Accepted Manuscript: Bioresource Technology
Accepted Manuscript: Bioresource Technology
Review
PII: S0960-8524(14)00987-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.022
Reference: BITE 13667
Please cite this article as: Ho, D.P., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., A mini review on renewable sources for biofuel, Bioresource
Technology (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.022
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
A mini review on renewable sources for biofuel
a
Advanced Water Management Centre, School of Chemical Engineering, University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
b
Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007,
Australia.
Sydney (UTS), P.O. Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 9514 2745; Fax: +61 2 9514
Abstract
Rapid growth in both global energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions associated
with the use of fossil fuels has driven the search for alternative sources which are
renewable and have a lower environmental impact. This paper reviews the availability
and bioenergy potentials of the current biomass feedstocks. These include (i) food crops
such as sugarcane, corn and vegetable oils, classified as the first generation feedstocks,
and (ii) lignocellulosic biomass derived from agricultural and forestry residues and
faces major constraints to full commercial deployment. Key technical challenges and
opportunities of the lignocellulosic biomass-to-bioernegy production are discussed in
comparison with the first generation technologies. The potential of the emerging third
1. Introduction
As global demand for energy continues to rise, carbon dioxide emissions are expected
(IPCC, 2013). The need for climate change adaptation and the growing concerns over
energy security are the main drivers behind the policies of many countries (belonging to
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) that encourage
the growth of renewable energy. Today, renewable energy contributes 13% of the total
(Figure 1). Bioenergy refers to the energy content in solid, liquid and gaseous products
derived from biological raw materials (biomass) (IEA, 2010). This includes biofuels for
transport (e.g. bioethanol and biodiesel), products to produce electricity and heat (e.g.
wood chips and pellets), as well as biogas (e.g. biomethane and biohydrogen) produced
from processing of biological materials from municipal and industrial waste (IEA,
2013).
Figure 1
worldwide. Biofuels are primarily produced from food crops with high content of sugar
and starch, such as corn and sugarcane to produce ethanol, and oil seeds to produce
biodiesel (IEA, 2010). These first generation technologies have been the first significant
step of transition away from the traditional fossil fuels. It has then moved forward to the
crops or forestry production (e.g. forest thinning, sawdust, etc.), dedicated energy crops
industrial solid waste, and algal biomass (Gupta et al., 2014; Sims et al., 2010).
More than two-thirds of bioenergy comes from the first generation land-based
feedstocks (Figure 1), leading to growing concerns over competition for land and water
for food and fibre production and other environmental issues related to land-use changes
(Gasparatos et al., 2013; IEA, 2010). Therefore, the use of residues and wastes for
bioenergy production has attracted more interest as they are often readily and locally
depends on the type, abundance and cost of biomass feedstocks, efficiency of the
available processing technologies, and the pattern of energy demand. This paper
Biofuel production has been increasing rapidly in the last decade and currently supplies
3.4% of global road transport fuel requirements, with a considerable share in Brazil
(21%), and an increasing share in the United State (US; 4%) and the European Union
(EU; 3%) (IEA, 2013). Around 40 million gross hectares (2.5% of global cropland)
(FAOSTAT, 2011) are used for bioenergy crops, mainly for biofuel production as
bioethanol and biodiesel, and biogas, all involving arable food crops. The traditional
feedstocks for first generation biofuels can be categorised as starch and sugar crops (for
The first generation bioethanol is produced by fermentation of crops high in sugar (e.g.
steps for starchy crops (e.g. corn, wheat, and cassava). Corn-based ethanol is
dominating the global market with approximately 60 billion litres produced in 2012
billion litres produced mainly by Brazil (REN21, 2013). Other marginal feedstocks that
are used to produce bioethanol include but are not limited to sugar beet (EU), maize,
sweet sorghum (China, US, Brazil), cereal (Canada, EU), and cassava (Nigeria, Brazil,
Table 1
The process to convert sugar-based biomass to ethanol is rather simple, involving the
cerevisiae or Zymomonas mobilis (Lin & Tanaka, 2006). Fermentation of starch is more
fermentable sugars with the aid of enzymes (α-amylase) (Lin & Tanaka, 2006). As a
result, the energy requirement for starch-based ethanol is significantly greater than that
for sugar-based ethanol. The by-products of ethanol conversion processes, such as dried
distillers’ grains and solubles (DDGS), can be used as protein-rich sources for animal
There are about 650 ethanol plants operating globally, together providing a total
annual capacity of 100 billion litres (REN21, 2013). A litre of ethanol contains
approximately 66% of the energy that provided by a litre of petrol (Wang et al., 1999).
Ethanol can be burned directly or blended with petrol to improve fuel combustion in
vehicles, resulting in lower CO2 emission, reduction in petroleum use as well as fossil
energy use. In particular, the use of E10, a commercial product having 10% ethanol
GHG emissions, and 3% reduction in fossil energy use (Wang et al., 1999).
Biodiesel can be produced by combining oil extracted from seeds and oil-rich nuts with
2010). The most common oil crops are rapeseed in EU, soybean in US and Latin
America, and palm and coconut oil in tropical Asian countries (such as Malaysia and
Indonesia). The oil content in rapeseed and soybean is 35% and 21%, respectively
(Ramos et al., 2009). Palm oil with 40% of oil content has the highest oil yield per area
(~5 tons per ha) as compared to other oilseeds (e.g. 1 ton/ha for rapeseed and 0.52
tons/ha for soybean) (Balat & Balat, 2010). Additionally, beef tallow and used cooking
oil can also be used as feedstocks for biodiesel conversion. Global biodiesel production
in 2012 was 22.5 billion litres, with the EU (led by Germany) accounted for 41% of
total production, followed by the US (16%), Argentina, Brazil and China (>10% each)
(REN21, 2013).
The major difference between various oil feedstocks is the types of fatty acids
saturation/unsaturation and molecular structure (Ramos et al., 2009). All these factors,
in turn, affect production processes, quality and costs of the biodiesel products (Ramos
with an alcohol (mostly methanol) to form esters and glycerol in the presence of catalyst
(Balat & Balat, 2010). Thus, the majority of biodiesel can be produced using alkali-
processing temperature and pressure while achieving a 98% conversion yield (Balat &
Balat, 2010). On the other hand, Enzyme-catalysed processes are gaining interest due to
low energy consumption, reduced soap formation and high purity of glycerol
(Christopher et al., 2014). However, high enzyme cost and low reaction rate are two
typically yields valuable by-products such as glycerol for food and pharmaceutical uses
Similar to bioethanol, biodiesel can be used as pure fuel or blended with petroleum-
based diesel for use by compression-ignition diesel engines. The most common
biodiesel blended products are B2 (2% biodiesel and 98% petroleum diesel), B5 (5%
biodiesel and 95% petroleum diesel), and B20 (20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum
diesel). Biodiesel is not currently cost competitive with petroleum-based diesel due to
the increasing prices of the vegetable oils (made up 45-70% of overall production cost).
Hence, improving process efficiency and increasing use of the by-products can reduce
The production of biomass feedstocks and its conversion to bioenergy have numerous
socio-economic and environmental impacts. Although the first generation biofuels have
sustainability has been questioned based on the competition with food crops and the
effects on the environment and climate change (Gasparatos et al., 2013). Biofuel use
represents an increasingly important share of global cereal, sugar and vegetable oil
production. By 2020, bioethanol share will increase to 13% of annual global corn
production compared to 11% on the average over the 2008-2010 period, and 35% of
global sugarcane production compared to 21% over the baseline period of 2008-2010
(OECD-FAO, 2011). The share of vegetable oil to be used for biodiesel production at
the global level is expected to reach 16% compared to 9% over the baseline period of
about the impact of biofuel on food prices and food supply. A study of Fischer et al.
(2009) predicted that biofuel expansion may further increase the price of agricultural
commodities by 8-34% (cereals), 9-27% (other crops), and 1-6% (livestock) by 2020.
Furthermore, reduction in water and soil quality due to intensive use of fertilisers and
agrochemicals has also been linked to the increased biofuel production, in particular to
(Gasparatos et al., 2013). Therefore, increased biofuels production also reduces water
availability to food production, and add more pressure on water resources in countries
facing increased risk of water scarcity such as India (OECD-FAO, 2011). Other impacts
of biofuel production and use include greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, air pollution,
biodiversity loss, deforestation and rural development, among several others (Cherubini
& Strømman, 2011; Gasparatos et al., 2013; Popp et al., 2014). The cumulative
environmental and social impacts of biofuel production derived from food crops have
stimulated an interest toward less expensive and readily available biomass such as
Under the pressure of food security versus elevating global energy demand,
lignocellulosic materials which can be divided into three main groups: (i) homogeneous,
such as wood chips from energy crops with a price value of US$100-120/ton, (ii) quasi-
between US$0-60/ton (Lee & Lavoie, 2013). In the past few years, there have been
extensive research on potential feedstocks and significant progresses for improving the
second generation technologies (Balat & Balat, 2010; Christopher et al., 2014; Gupta et
al., 2014; Sims et al., 2010). However, several technical and economic hurdles still need
to be addressed before they can be widely deployed. In 2012, about one-third of total
bioenergy production was derived from agricultural and forestry residues (REN21,
2013). In particular, China has produced 3 million litres of ethanol from corn cobs and
used in blends with gasoline; US has also made progress on advanced biofuels with the
production in 2012 reaching 2 million litres, and projected to 36 million litres in 2013,
partly for the military use (REN21, 2013). Several demonstration plants have been built
Energy crops, developed and grown specifically for fuel, include perennial grasses
(such as miscanthus, switchgrass and reed canary) and short rotation forestry (such as
willows and poplar). These crops can be grown on poor or degraded soils while
providing higher energy yields (Table 2) and a steady supply stream, avoiding costly
Table 2
a. Perennial grasses
Switchgrass which originated from North America and miscanthus from Southeast Asia
are among the best choices in terms of low input bioenergy production in the US and
EU because of their tolerance for cool temperature, relatively low water and nutrition
requirements, and their ability to grow on a broad range of land types using
3 years to reach productive maturity and produce dry matter yields reportedly between
5-19 tons/ha/year, corresponding to 0.8-3.0 toe (ton of oil equivalent) per ton (Heaton et
al., 2004). Similarly, Miscanthus take 2-3 years to obtain full production and requires
established stands, however, can maintain productivity for at least 14 years with high
biomass yields ranging from 5 to 43 tons/ha/year (Cadoux et al., 2012). Crop yields of
perennial grasses strongly depend on local conditions, e.g. climate and land quality, and
Other potential herbaceous crops include reed canary grass, giant reed and alfalfa
also effective for carbon sequestration and soil stabilisation, thus helping reduce
erosion, and improving water quality and wildlife habitat (Lewandowski et al.,
2003). Intercropping of perennial crops and annual food crops such as alfalfa and corn
has been demonstrated to increase crop yields and to improve land-use efficiency
Some fast growing trees have also shown promise for biofuel production because of
their high yield, wide geographical distribution, low costs, and less labour consuming
comparing to annual crops (Hauk et al., 2014). Among the species, poplar, willow
(abundant in temperate regions) and eucalyptus (mostly in tropical regions) are most
frequently mentioned. Willow and poplar are used in short rotation of about 3-4 years
and the yield can reach up to 8-10 tons dry matter/ha/year, whereas the rotation cycles
for eucalyptus are 4-6 years with an average of 12 tons/ha/year (Hauk et al., 2014).
While the advantages of short rotation forestry and perennial grasses over annual
agricultural crops are clear, these dedicated energy crops are still land-based, and thus
not entirely escaping the food versus fuel debate. Only where food and fibre crops are
c. Jatropha
Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) has been seen as an ideal crop for cheap biodiesel
tree that grows well on degraded or marginal land, and has seeds with high oil content
(~40%) (Koh & Mohd. Ghazi, 2011). Therefore, it benefits semi-arid and remote areas
of developing countries. In the last 5-7 years, approximately 1.5 to 2 million hectares of
Jatropha have been planted each year, resulted in a total of approximately 13 million
hectares by 2015, distributed across India (73%), South-East Asia (21%), and Africa
(6%) (Carriquiry et al., 2010). Jatropha oil can be used locally for fuel vehicles, diesel
generators, or cooking stoves without a transesterification into biodiesel (Koh & Mohd.
Ghazi, 2011). Some other species with biodiesel potential include pongamia, mahua,
castor and linseed. Their potential seed and biofuel yields are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3
biomass for biofuel production without the need for additional land cultivation.
Agricultural residues include wheat straw, corn stove (leaves, stalks, and cobs), and
bagasse (sugarcane waste), while forestry residues are comprised of logging residues,
fuel wood extracted from forestlands, and primary and secondary wood-processing mill
residues. It is estimated that annually around 5.1 billion dry tons of agricultural residues
and 501 million of forestry residues are produced globally (IEA, 2010). However, only
10-25% of these could be used for bioenergy production. The technical potential from
available annual supplies, therefore, has been estimated in terms of energy at over 100
hemicellulose (a mix of hexose and pentose sugars, 20-35%) and lignin (Singh et al.,
2010). These components are more resistant to being broken down than starch, sugar
and oils in the conventional food crops, making the conversion processes more
Table 4
Approximately 1.3 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) comprising primarily
of putrescibles, papers, cardboards and plastics has been produced in 2012 (IEA
Bioenergy, 2013). While the composition of MSW is highly variable, its major fraction
is biodegradable with a significant calorific (heat) value and makes it suitable to energy
GJ, one-third of the calorific value of coal and generate about 600 kWh of electricity
(Chang et al., 1997). In addition, the food and paper industries also produce a large
number of residues and by-products that can be used as biomass for bioenergy
production. Industrial solid wastes include but are not limited to peelings and scraps
from fruit and vegetables, meat and poultry waste, pulp and fibre from sugar and starch
extraction, coffee grounds, etc., and all can be utilised as an energy source. The waste-
to-energy approach is closely linked to the recent waste management practices which
have moved away from disposal towards recovery, reuse, recycling and reduction. It
offers numerous bioenergy applications replacing fossil fuels with the potential
environmental benefits such as landfill space savings, and reduction in GHG emission.
While lignocellulosic biomass is the most abundant and renewable resource available
for human exploitation their variable compositions and recalcitrance contents represent
some technical and economic challenges. The conversion process of lignocellulosic
biomass can be divided into two main routes, namely bio-chemical and thermo-
pretreated to remove the recalcitrance (i.e. lignin) and to increase accessibility of the
varying from physical (e.g. mechanical comminution, milling and ultrasound), chemical
(e.g. ammonia fibre explosion, acid or alkali addition) to biological (e.g. enzyme
addition) processes, each having different temperatures and reaction times (Gupta et al.,
2014; Sims et al., 2010). The pretreatment process is the major cost component of the
overall biofuel conversion process (Nichols et al., 2010; Sims et al., 2010), and
selection of the suitable method depends on the characteristics of the residue biomass.
Figure 2
by the use of cellulase and xylanase enzyme systems of bacteria and fungi (Lee &
Lavoie, 2013). While the acid hydrolysis approach is comparatively cheap, its
application is limited due to low yields and unfavourable environmental issues involved
with the use of strong acids. On the other hand, the enzymatic hydrolysis has the
dispose of at the end of the process; however, the cost of cellulose may account for up
there has already been significant improvement to the cost of enzymes, reported in the
range of US$0.1-0.4 per gallon of ethanol produced (Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2012;
competitive to the first generation enzymes for hydrolysis of starch, which remains
(550-750 oC) and gasification (750-1200 oC) in which biomass is heated and converted
into different types of liquid (bio oil) and gaseous fuel (syngas) (Lee & Lavoie, 2013)..
Bio oil requires further treatment via hydro-processing to produce hydrocarbon fuels
and other by-products, whereas syngas can be used as a fuel for heat supply, or as a feed
to manufacture a wide range of long carbon chain biofuels, such as synthetic diesel,
aviation fuel, or methanol via the Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) platform (Sims et al., 2010).
While potential exists on both large and small scales for GTL, this technology faces a
number of challenges including high technical complexity, high capital costs, and
financial risks associated with the process reliability, and natural gas and crude oil price
volatility (Yue et al., 2014). In general, when compared with biochemical route which
can essentially convert all the organic components of the biomass into a range of
products. Both conversion routes can potentially convert 1 tonne of dry biomass
(heating value of 19.5 GJ/t) to around 6.5 GJ/t of energy carrier in the form of biofuels,
which is equivalent to a biomass to biofuel conversion ratio of 1:3 (Mabee et al., 2006).
The economics of the existing processes could be enhanced when surplus heat-
power (syngas) and co-product generation (bio-oil and long-chain hydrocarbons) are
of biomass into a spectrum of marketable products (e.g. food, feed, materials, and
chemicals) and bioenergy (e.g. fuels, power and heat) (IEA Bioenergy, 2013). As a
result, the biorefinery approach can maximise biomass conversion efficiency, minimise
raw material requirements, while at the same time enhance the economic values of
various market sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, chemical and energy) (IEA Bioenergy,
Feedstock, and Thermo Chemical Biorefineries which are still in R&D stage involve
technologies and types of feedstocks. As a result, these facilities offer high processing
flexibility and reduce the risk of investment (Gnansounou & Dauriat, 2010).
source which can be used for heating of residential and industrial facilities, for
production of electricity with co-generators and combined heat and power (CHP) units
to generate electricity with efficiency up to 42% and productive heat with a thermal
compressed (compressed natural gas, CNG) or liquefied (liquefied natural gas, LNG)
with energy content of approximately 10 kWh, corresponding to one litre of petrol. The
market for natural gas vehicles (NGVs) has been increasing in many countries due to a
combination of low-cost natural gas and higher prices for gasoline and diesel. At the
end of 2012, there were about 16.7 million NGVs operating globally in all classes of
vehicles including motorcycles, cars, buses and trucks (NGV Global, 2014).
2.2.1. Technical and economic challenges for commercialisation
Substantial progress has been made over recent years for the core technologies (e.g.
larger scale advanced biofuels plants are in operation and the first commercial scale
plants in the US and EU were recently commissioned (REN21, 2013). However, the
feedstocks has been slower than previously projected. The main obstacle for its
deployment is high investment requirements (35-50% of the total cost) combined with
several operational and political/policy uncertainties (Yue et al., 2014). The capital cost
for a commercial scale plant is estimated to be in the order of $300-600 million, which
is 2-3 times higher than the investment cost for a corn-ethanol plant (Popp et al., 2014).
In addition, feedstock supply chain and technology are yet proven at large-scale,
supply and logistics, including seasonal nature and annual variability of biomass, their
spatial distribution, and costs associated with preprocessing, storage and transport. A
(IEA, 2010)) and the lack of supporting policies and mandates has limited market
acceptance and competition for the second generation biofuels at the current stage.
The potential of algae to provide biomass for biofuel production has been widely
accepted. Algae are aquatic photosynthetic microorganisms that grow rapidly on saline
water, coastal seawater, municipal wastewater or on land unsuitable for agriculture and
farming (Chen et al., 2011; Pittman et al., 2011). They are capable of converting light
and carbon dioxide through cellular activities to produce a variety of chemicals
including carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, vitamins, and pigments that have numerous
applications in chemical and pharmaceutical industries, cosmetics, health food and feed
supplements (Costa & de Morais, 2011; Ugwu et al., 2008). Microalgal species
accumulate mostly lipids (e.g. TAG). Species such as Botryococcus and Chlorella have
high lipid content (50-80%) which is adequate for biodiesel production (Costa & de
Algae can double their biomass in 2-5 days, which is a significant advantage when
compared with other feedstocks harvested once or twice a year (Costa & de Morais,
(Moheimani & Borowitzka, 2006). This productivity from algae is five times higher
than that achieved from oil palm, the highest yielding oil crop plant (Day et al., 2012).
In addition, algae have no lignin and low hemicellulose levels, resulting in an increased
hydrolysis efficiency, higher fermentation yields and thus reduced cost (Li et al., 2014).
Algal biomass can be used to produce different types of renewable biofuels other than
biodiesel and bioethanol. Biohydrogen is another a popular product which can be used
in fuel cells whereas biomethane produced as a part of integrated processes can be used
for transportation, electricity generation or for heating purposes (Costa & de Morais,
2011).
There are still many challenges associated with algal-biofuel production which
development. Generally, cultivation can be done either on open bonds requiring low
capital costs but having low biomass yield, or in closed bioreactors or hybrid systems
with high capital costs and high yield (Chen et al., 2011; Costa & de Morais, 2011).
Therefore, there is a trade-off between investment cost and algal biomass productivity.
In addition, algal species and strains vary greatly in terms of growth rate, productivity,
conditions (John et al., 2011). When screening algal strains for commercial biofuel
production, high biomass yield with high carbohydrate and lipid contents are the
desirable criteria. However, in order to maximise the production of lipids, cells growth
(Day et al., 2012; John et al., 2011). Addressing this problem might require intensive
3. Future outlook
Bioenergy is certainly becoming a greater part of the global energy mix and is projected
2013). Biofuel production for transport has, and will, exhibited the most rapid growth,
fostered by government support. In order to meet the ambitious targets in the New
Policies Scenario, the supply of all types of biomass will need to increase several folds,
posing major challenges for agriculture and forestry activities and raising concerns over
infrastructure and markets, it is criticised for its land use implications on food prices and
production. In the New Policies Scenario, the share of traditional biomass (sugar/starch
crops and oil seeds) in total primary energy demand is expected to drop from 5.7%
On the other hand, the advanced biofuels derived from lignocellulosic and algal
biomass offers the prospect of increasing biofuels supply with less land requirement
while enhancing green-house gas mitigation. At the current stage, the second generation
technologies are relatively mature, with a few commercial scale units and around 100
plants at pilot and demonstration scale worldwide whereas the third generation
technologies are still under research and development. In the New Policies Scenario,
although advanced biofuels are expected to gain market share after 2020 and reach 20%
of biofuel supply in 2035 (IEA, 2013), there are still some technical and policy barriers
investment expenditure and high unit production cost make lignocellulosic biofuels less
practical option to reduce the investment costs and technological risks. To achieve
lower production costs, a consistent and sustainable supply of cheap raw materials is
essential. Furthermore, all components of the biomass including intermediates and by-
products should also be considered and utilised in a biorefinery system to enhance the
4. Conclusion
To meet strong demand growth in the New Policies Scenario, the bioenergy supply
chain cannot rely solely on one source but a combination of different biomass
feedstocks including both food and non-food crops. Widespread development of the
second and third generation technologies will require lower costs achieved via further
technological progress and a continual policy support. The transition toward next
generation biofuels will offer medium- to long-term solutions to the depletion of fossil
Acknowledgements
Treatment and Reuse Technologies, Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater
Sydney (UTS).
References
1. Balat, M., Balat, H., 2010. Progress in biodiesel processing. Appl. Energy. 87,
1815-1835.
2. Cadoux, S., Riche, A.B., Yates, N.E., Machet, J.M., 2012. Nutrient requirements
4. Chang, N.-B., Chang, Y.-H., Chen, W.C., 1997. Evaluation of heat value and its
5. Chen, C.-Y., Yeh, K.-L., Aisyah, R., Lee, D.-J., Chang, J.-S., 2011. Cultivation,
systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 437-
451.
11. Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E., Prierlder, S., Shah, M., van Velthuizen, H., 2009.
Biofuels and food security. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
12. Gasparatos, A., Stromberg, P., Takeuchi, K., 2013. Sustainability impacts of
Advances and Applications, (Eds.) V.K. Gupta, M.G. Tuohy, C.P. Kubicek, J.
15. Hauk, S., Knoke, T., Wittkopf, S., 2014. Economic evaluation of short rotation
coppice systems for energy from biomass - A review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
29, 435-448.
16. Heaton, E., Voigt, T., Long, S.P., 2004. A quantitative review comparing the
17. IEA, International Energy Agency. 2013. World Energy Outlook 2013,
20. IPCC, Intergovernmental panel on climate change, 2013. Climate change 2013 -
21. John, R.P., Anisha, G.S., Nampoothiri, K.M., Pandey, A., 2011. Micro and
102, 186-193.
22. Klein-Marcuschamer, D., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., Simmons, B.A., Blanch, H.W.,
23. Koh, M.Y., Mohd. Ghazi, T.I., 2011. A review of biodiesel production from
24. Lee, R.A., Lavoie, J.-M., 2013. From first- to third-generation biofuels:
25. Lennartsson, P.R., Erlandsson, P., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2014. Integration of the
first and second generation bioethanol processes and the importance of by-
26. Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E., Christou, M., 2003. The
27. Li, K., Liu, S., Liu, X., 2014. An overview of algae bioethanol production.
28. Lin, Y., Tanaka, S., 2006. Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: current
29. Mabee, W.E., Gregg, D.J., Arato, C., Berlin, A., Bura, R., Gilkes, N.,
Mirochnik, O., Pan, X., Pye, E.K., Saddler, J.N., 2006. Update on softwood-to-
30. Moheimani, N., Borowitzka, M., 2006. The long-term culture of the
32. Nichols, N.N., Dien, B.S., Cotta, M.A., 2010. Fermentation of bioenergy crops
34. Pittman, J.K., Dean, A.P., Osundeko, O., 2011. The potential of sustainable algal
35. Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., Fári, M., 2014. The effect of bioenergy
expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 32, 559-
578.
36. Prochnow, A., Heiermann, M., Plöchl, M., Amon, T., Hobbs, P.J., 2009.
37. Ra, K., Shiotsu, F., Abe, J., Morita, S., 2012. Biomass yield and nitrogen use
37, 330-334.
38. Ramos, M.J., Fernández, C.M., Casas, A., Rodríguez, L., Pérez, Á., 2009.
39. REN21. 2013. Renewables 2013 - Global status report, REN21 Secretariat.
Paris.
40. Sims, R.E.H., Mabee, W., Saddler, J.N., Taylor, M., 2010. An overview of
41. Singh, A., Pant, D., Korres, N.E., Nizami, A.-S., Prasad, S., Murphy, J.D., 2010.
42. Ugwu, C.U., Aoyagi, H., Uchiyama, H., 2008. Photobioreactors for mass
43. Wang, M., Saricks, C., Santini, D., 1999. Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-
44. Yue, D., You, F., Snyder, S.W., 2014. Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply
chain optimization: Overview, key issues and challenges. Comput. Chem. Eng.
66, 36-56.
45. Zhang, G., Yang, Z., Dong, S., 2011. Interspecific competitiveness affects the
total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crops Res.
124, 66-73.
Table 1. First generation crop, biofuel and co-product yields
Biofuel type Crop Leading Crop yield Biofuel yield Co-product yield
Feedstocks Residue/ Dry matter Cl. Hc. Lg. Heating value Biofuel
(L/ton)
Forest residues
Agricultural residues
Solid waste
Plastics - 65 15 7.5 34 -
Sources: Chang et al. (1997), Singh et al. (2010), Carriquiry et al. (2010), and Choi et al.
(2014).
FIGURE CAPTIONS AND FIGURES
Figure 1 World primary energy demand in 2011 (left; IEA, 2013) and share of solid
biomass supply for biofuels and power generation by feedstocks in 2011 and in the New
Sugar/starch
Coal/ crops
Oil, 31.5 2011
peat, Lignocellulosic
28.8
crops
0 50 100
Percentage (%)
13,113 Mtoe
*
Other includes geothermal, solar, wind, heat, etc.
Figure 1
Hydroprocessing Gasoline
Pyrolysis Bio-oil
/FCC
Agricultural
Biodiesel
residuesi
Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis Jet fuels
Forestry
Gasification Syngas MeOH synthesis Methanol
residuesi
Water-gas shift Biohydrogen Algae
Energy
Syngas
crops fermentation
Trans-
Fermentation esterification
Biochemical Sugar Lipids/oil
Catalysis/ Hydroprocessing
Bioforming /FCC
Sugar/starch
Hydrolysis Vegetable oil
crops
Figure 2
Highlights
- The use of food-crop related biomass for 1st generation biofuel is unsustainable