Biofuel

A biofuel is a fuel that is produced through contemporary processes from biomass, rather than a fuel produced by the very slow geological processes involved in the formation of fossil fuels, such as oil. Since biomass technically can be used as a fuel directly (e.g. wood logs), some people use the terms biomass and biofuel interchangeably. More often than not, however, the word biomass simply denotes the biological raw material the fuel is made of, or some form of thermally/chemically altered solid end product, like torrefied pellets or briquettes. The word biofuel is usually reserved for liquid or gaseous fuels, used for transportation. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) follows this naming practice.[1] If the biomass used in the production of biofuel can regrow quickly, the fuel is generally considered to be a form of renewable energy.

Biofuel logo

A bus fueled by biogas.

Biofuels can be produced from plants (i.e. energy crops), or from agricultural, commercial, domestic, and/or industrial wastes (if the waste has a biological origin).[2] Renewable biofuels generally involve contemporary carbon fixation, such as those that occur in plants or microalgae through the process of photosynthesis.

Some argue that biofuel can be carbon-neutral because all biomass crops sequester carbon to a certain extent – basically all crops move CO2 from above-ground circulation to below-ground storage in the roots and the surrounding soil. For instance, McCalmont et al. found below-ground carbon accumulation ranging from 0.42 to 3.8 tonnes per hectare per year for soils below Miscanthus x giganteus energy crops,[3] with a mean accumulation rate of 1.84 tonne (0.74 tonnes per acre per year), [4] or 20% of total harvested carbon per year. [5]

GHG / CO2 / carbon negativity for Miscanthus x giganteus production pathways.
Relationship between above-ground yield (diagonal lines), soil organic carbon (X axis), and soil's potential for successful/unsuccessful carbon sequestration (Y axis). Basically, the higher the yield, the more land is usable as a GHG mitigation tool (including relatively carbon rich land.)

However, the simple proposal that biofuel is carbon-neutral almost by definition has been superseded by the more nuanced proposal that for a particular biofuel project to be carbon neutral, the total carbon sequestered by the energy crop's root system must compensate for all the above-ground emissions (related to this particular biofuel project). This includes any emissions caused by direct or indirect land use change. Many first generation biofuel projects are not carbon neutral given these demands. Some have even higher total GHG emissions than some fossil based alternatives.[6][7][8]

Some are carbon neutral or even negative, though, especially perennial crops. The amount of carbon sequestrated and the amount of GHG (greenhouse gases) emitted will determine if the total GHG life cycle cost of a biofuel project is positive, neutral or negative. A carbon negative life cycle is possible if the total below-ground carbon accumulation more than compensates for the total life-cycle GHG emissions above ground. In other words, to achieve carbon neutrality yields should be high and emissions should be low.

High-yielding energy crops are thus prime candidates for carbon neutrality. The graphic on the right displays two CO2 negative Miscanthus x giganteus production pathways, represented in gram CO2-equivalents per megajoule. The yellow diamonds represent mean values.[9] Further, successful sequestration is dependent on planting sites, as the best soils for sequestration are those that are currently low in carbon. The varied results displayed in the graph highlights this fact. [10] For the UK, successful sequestration is expected for arable land over most of England and Wales, with unsuccessful sequestration expected in parts of Scotland, due to already carbon rich soils (existing woodland) plus lower yields. Soils already rich in carbon includes peatland and mature forest. Grassland can also be carbon rich, and Milner et al. argue that the most successful carbon sequestration in the UK takes place below improved grasslands.[11] The bottom graphic displays the estimated yield necessary to compensate for related lifecycle GHG-emissions. The higher the yield, the more likely CO2 negativity becomes.

The two most common types of biofuel are bioethanol and biodiesel.

Bioethanol is an alcohol made by fermentation, mostly from carbohydrates produced in sugar or starch crops such as corn, sugarcane, or sweet sorghum. Cellulosic biomass, derived from non-food sources, such as trees and grasses, is also being developed as a feedstock for ethanol production. Ethanol can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form (E100), but it is usually used as a gasoline additive to increase octane and improve vehicle emissions. Bioethanol is widely used in the United States and in Brazil.

Biodiesel is produced from oils or fats using transesterification and is the most common biofuel in Europe. It can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form (B100), but it is usually used as a diesel additive to reduce levels of particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons from diesel-powered vehicles.

In 2018, worldwide biofuel production reached 152 billion liters (40 billion gallons US), up 7% from 2017,[12] and biofuels provided 3% of the world's fuels for road transport. The International Energy Agency want biofuels to meet more than a quarter of world demand for transportation fuels by 2050, in order to reduce dependency on petroleum.[12] However, the production and consumption of biofuels are not on track to meet the IEA's sustainable development scenario. From 2020 to 2030 global biofuel output has to increase by 10% each year to reach IEA's goal. Only 3% growth annually is expected.[12]

Here are some various social, economic, environmental and technical issues relating to biofuels production and use, which have been debated in the popular media and scientific journals.

Generations

First-generation biofuels

"First-generation" or conventional biofuels are biofuels made from food crops grown on arable land. With this biofuel production generation, food crops are thus explicitly grown for fuel production, and not anything else. The sugar, starch, or vegetable oil obtained from the crops is converted into biodiesel or ethanol, using transesterification, or yeast fermentation.[13]

Second-generation biofuels
Main article: Second-generation biofuels

Second-generation biofuels are fuels manufactured from various types of biomass. Biomass is a wide-ranging term meaning any source of organic carbon that is renewed rapidly as part of the carbon cycle. Biomass is derived from plant materials, but can also include animal materials.

Whereas first generation biofuels are made from the sugars and vegetable oils found in arable crops, second generation biofuels are made from lignocellulosic biomass or woody crops, agricultural residues or waste plant material (from food crops that have already fulfilled their food purpose).[14][15][16][17][18] The feedstock used to generate second-generation biofuels thus either grows on arable lands, but are just byproducts of the actual harvest (main crop) or they are grown on lands which cannot be used to effectively grow food crops[19] and in some cases neither extra water or fertilizer is applied to them. Non-human food second generation feedstock sources include grasses, jatropha and other seed crops, waste vegetable oil, municipal solid waste and so forth.[20]

This has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that, unlike with regular food crops, no arable land is used solely for the production of fuel. The disadvantage is that unlike with regular food crops, it may be rather difficult to extract the fuel. For instance, a series of physical and chemical treatments might be required to convert lignocellulosic biomass to liquid fuels suitable for transportation.[21][22]

Third-generation biofuels
Main articles: Algaculture and Algae fuel

From 1978 to 1996, the US NREL experimented with using algae as a biofuels source in the Aquatic Species Program.[23] A self-published article by Michael Briggs, at the UNH Biofuels Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biofuels by using algae that have a natural oil content greater than 50%, which Briggs suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants.[24] These oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biofuels, with the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol. The production of algae to harvest oil for biofuels has not yet been undertaken on a commercial scale, but feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to its projected high yield, algaculture – unlike crop-based biofuels – does not entail a decrease in food production, since it requires neither farmland nor fresh water. Many companies are pursuing algae bioreactors for various purposes, including scaling up biofuels production to commercial levels.[25][26] Prof. Rodrigo E. Teixeira from the University of Alabama in Huntsville demonstrated the extraction of biofuels lipids from wet algae using a simple and economical reaction in ionic liquids.[27]

Fourth-generation biofuels

Similarly to third-generation biofuels, fourth-generation biofuels are made using non-arable land. However, unlike third-generation biofuels, they do not require the destruction of biomass. This class of biofuels includes electrofuels[13] and photobiological solar fuels.[28] Some of these fuels are carbon-neutral.

Examples

The following fuels can be produced using first, second, third or fourth-generation biofuel production procedures. Most of these can even be produced using two or three of the different biofuel generation procedures.[29]

Biogas
Pipes carrying biogas
Main article: Biogas

Biogas is methane produced by the process of anaerobic digestion of organic material by anaerobes.[30] It can be produced either from biodegradable waste materials or by the use of energy crops fed into anaerobic digesters to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, digestate, can be used as a biofuel or a fertilizer.

Biogas can be recovered from mechanical biological treatment waste processing systems. Landfill gas, a less clean form of biogas, is produced in landfills through naturally occurring anaerobic digestion. If it escapes into the atmosphere, it is a potential greenhouse gas.

Farmers can produce biogas from manure from their cattle by using anaerobic digesters.[31]

Syngas
Main article: Gasification

Syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other hydrocarbons, is produced by partial combustion of biomass, that is, combustion with an amount of oxygen that is not sufficient to convert the biomass completely to carbon dioxide and water.[32] Before partial combustion, the biomass is dried, and sometimes pyrolysed. The resulting gas mixture, syngas, is more efficient than direct combustion of the original biofuel; more of the energy contained in the fuel is extracted.

Syngas may be burned directly in internal combustion engines, turbines or high-temperature fuel cells.[33] The wood gas generator, a wood-fueled gasification reactor, can be connected to an internal combustion engine.

Syngas can be used to produce methanol, DME and hydrogen, or converted via the Fischer–Tropsch process to produce a diesel substitute, or a mixture of alcohols that can be blended into gasoline. Gasification normally relies on temperatures greater than 700 °C.

Lower-temperature gasification is desirable when co-producing biochar, but results in syngas polluted with tar.

Ethanol
Main article: Ethanol fuel
Neat ethanol on the left (A), gasoline on the right (G) at a filling station in Brazil

Biologically produced alcohols, most commonly ethanol, and less commonly propanol and butanol, are produced by the action of microorganisms and enzymes through the fermentation of sugars or starches (easiest), or cellulose (which is more difficult). Biobutanol (also called biogasoline) is often claimed to provide a direct replacement for gasoline, because it can be used directly in a gasoline engine.

Ethanol fuel is the most common biofuel worldwide, particularly in Brazil. Alcohol fuels are produced by fermentation of sugars derived from wheat, corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, molasses and any sugar or starch from which alcoholic beverages such as whiskey, can be made (such as potato and fruit waste, etc.). The ethanol production methods used are enzyme digestion (to release sugars from stored starches), fermentation of the sugars, distillation and drying. The distillation process requires significant energy input for heat (sometimes unsustainable natural gas fossil fuel, but cellulosic biomass such as bagasse, the waste left after sugar cane is pressed to extract its juice, is the most common fuel in Brazil, while pellets, wood chips and also waste heat are more common in Europe) Waste steam fuels ethanol factory[34] – where waste heat from the factories also is used in the district heating grid.

Ethanol can be used in petrol engines as a replacement for gasoline; it can be mixed with gasoline to any percentage. Most existing car petrol engines can run on blends of up to 15% bioethanol with petroleum/gasoline. Ethanol has a smaller energy density than that of gasoline; this means it takes more fuel (volume and mass) to produce the same amount of work. An advantage of ethanol (CH
3CH
2OH) is that it has a higher octane rating than ethanol-free gasoline available at roadside gas stations, which allows an increase of an engine's compression ratio for increased thermal efficiency. In high-altitude (thin air) locations, some states mandate a mix of gasoline and ethanol as a winter oxidizer to reduce atmospheric pollution emissions.

Ethanol is also used to fuel bioethanol fireplaces. As they do not require a chimney and are "flueless", bioethanol fires[35] are extremely useful for newly built homes and apartments without a flue. The downsides to these fireplaces is that their heat output is slightly less than electric heat or gas fires, and precautions must be taken to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning.

Corn-to-ethanol and other food stocks has led to the development of cellulosic ethanol. According to a joint research agenda conducted through the US Department of Energy,[36] the fossil energy ratios (FER) for cellulosic ethanol, corn ethanol, and gasoline are 10.3, 1.36, and 0.81, respectively.[37][38][39]

Ethanol has roughly one-third lower energy content per unit of volume compared to gasoline. This is partly counteracted by the better efficiency when using ethanol (in a long-term test of more than 2.1 million km, the BEST project found FFV vehicles to be 1–26% more energy efficient than petrol cars, but the volumetric consumption increases by approximately 30%, so more fuel stops are required).

With current subsidies, ethanol fuel is slightly cheaper per distance traveled in the United States.

Other bioalcohols

Methanol is currently produced from natural gas, a non-renewable fossil fuel. In the future it is hoped to be produced from biomass as biomethanol. This is technically feasible, but the production is currently being postponed for concerns that the economic viability is still pending.[40] The methanol economy is an alternative to the hydrogen economy, to be contrasted with today's hydrogen production from natural gas.

Butanol (C
4H
9OH) is formed by ABE fermentation (acetone, butanol, ethanol) and experimental modifications of the process show potentially high net energy gains with butanol as the only liquid product. Butanol will produce more energy than ethanol because of its lower oxygen content[41] and allegedly can be burned "straight" in existing gasoline engines (without modification to the engine or car),[42] and is less corrosive and less water-soluble than ethanol, and could be distributed via existing infrastructures. DuPont and BP are working together to help develop butanol. Escherichia coli strains have also been successfully engineered to produce butanol by modifying their amino acid metabolism.[43] One drawback to butanol production in E. coli remains the high cost of nutrient rich media, however, recent work has demonstrated E. coli can produce butanol with minimal nutritional supplementation.[44]

Biodiesel
Main article: Biodiesel

Biodiesel is the most common biofuel in Europe. It is produced from oils or fats using transesterification and is a liquid similar in composition to fossil/mineral diesel. Chemically, it consists mostly of fatty acid methyl (or ethyl) esters (FAMEs). Feedstocks for biodiesel include animal fats, vegetable oils, soy, rapeseed, jatropha, mahua, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, hemp, field pennycress, Pongamia pinnata and algae. Pure biodiesel (B100, also known as "neat" biodiesel) currently reduces emissions with up to 60% compared to diesel Second generation B100.[45] As of 2020, researchers at Australia's CSIRO have been studying safflower oil as an engine lubricant, and researchers at Montana State University's Advanced Fuel Centre in the US have been studying the oil's performance in a large diesel engine, with results described as a "game-changer".[46]

Targray Biofuels Division railcar transporting Biodiesel.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine when mixed with mineral diesel. It can also be used in its pure form (B100) in diesel engines, but some maintenance and performance problems may then occur during wintertime utilization, since the fuel becomes somewhat more viscous at lower temperatures, depending on the feedstock used.[47]

In some countries, manufacturers cover their diesel engines under warranty for B100 use, although Volkswagen of Germany, for example, asks drivers to check by telephone with the VW environmental services department before switching to B100. In most cases, biodiesel is compatible with diesel engines from 1994 onwards, which use 'Viton' (by DuPont) synthetic rubber in their mechanical fuel injection systems. Note however, that no vehicles are certified for using pure biodiesel before 2014, as there was no emission control protocol available for biodiesel before this date.

Electronically controlled 'common rail' and 'Unit Injector' type systems from the late 1990s onwards may only use biodiesel blended with conventional diesel fuel. These engines have finely metered and atomized multiple-stage injection systems that are very sensitive to the viscosity of the fuel. Many current-generation diesel engines are made so that they can run on B100 without altering the engine itself, although this depends on the fuel rail design. Since biodiesel is an effective solvent and cleans residues deposited by mineral diesel, engine filters may need to be replaced more often, as the biofuel dissolves old deposits in the fuel tank and pipes. It also effectively cleans the engine combustion chamber of carbon deposits, helping to maintain efficiency. In many European countries, a 5% biodiesel blend is widely used and is available at thousands of gas stations.[48][49] Biodiesel is also an oxygenated fuel, meaning it contains a reduced amount of carbon and higher hydrogen and oxygen content than fossil diesel. This improves the combustion of biodiesel and reduces the particulate emissions from unburnt carbon. However, using pure biodiesel may increase NOx-emissions[50]

Biodiesel is also safe to handle and transport because it is non-toxic and biodegradable, and has a high flash point of about 300 °F (148 °C) compared to petroleum diesel fuel, which has a flash point of 125 °F (52 °C).[51]

In the US, more than 80% of commercial trucks and city buses run on diesel. The emerging US biodiesel market is estimated to have grown 200% from 2004 to 2005. "By the end of 2006 biodiesel production was estimated to increase fourfold [from 2004] to more than" 1 billion US gallons (3,800,000 m3).[52]

In France, biodiesel is incorporated at a rate of 8% in the fuel used by all French diesel vehicles.[53] Avril Group produces under the brand Diester, a fifth of 11 million tons of biodiesel consumed annually by the European Union.[54] It is the leading European producer of biodiesel.[53]

Green diesel
Main article: Vegetable oil refining

Green diesel is produced through hydrocracking biological oil feedstocks, such as vegetable oils and animal fats.[55][56] Hydrocracking is a refinery method that uses elevated temperatures and pressure in the presence of a catalyst to break down larger molecules, such as those found in vegetable oils, into shorter hydrocarbon chains used in diesel engines.[57] It may also be called renewable diesel, hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO fuel)[57] or hydrogen-derived renewable diesel.[56] Unlike biodiesel, green diesel has exactly the same chemical properties as petroleum-based diesel.[57][58] It does not require new engines, pipelines or infrastructure to distribute and use, but has not been produced at a cost that is competitive with petroleum.[56] Gasoline versions are also being developed.[59] Green diesel is being developed in Louisiana and Singapore by ConocoPhillips, Neste Oil, Valero, Dynamic Fuels, and Honeywell UOP[56][60] as well as Preem in Gothenburg, Sweden, creating what is known as Evolution Diesel.[61]

Straight vegetable oil
Filtered waste vegetable oil
This truck is one of 15 based at Walmart's Buckeye, Arizona distribution center that was converted to run on a biofuel made from reclaimed cooking grease produced during food preparation at Walmart stores.[62]
Main article: Vegetable oil fuel

Straight unmodified edible vegetable oil is generally not used as fuel, but lower-quality oil has been used for this purpose. Used vegetable oil is increasingly being processed into biodiesel, or (more rarely) cleaned of water and particulates and then used as a fuel.

As with 100% biodiesel (B100), to ensure the fuel injectors atomize the vegetable oil in the correct pattern for efficient combustion, vegetable oil fuel must be heated to reduce its viscosity to that of diesel, either by electric coils or heat exchangers. This is easier in warm or temperate climates. MAN B&W Diesel, Wärtsilä, and Deutz AG, as well as a number of smaller companies, such as Elsbett, offer engines that are compatible with straight vegetable oil, without the need for after-market modifications.

Vegetable oil can also be used in many older diesel engines that do not use common rail or unit injection electronic diesel injection systems. Due to the design of the combustion chambers in indirect injection engines, these are the best engines for use with vegetable oil. This system allows the relatively larger oil molecules more time to burn. Some older engines, especially Mercedes, are driven experimentally by enthusiasts without any conversion. A handful of drivers have experienced limited success with earlier pre-"Pumpe Duse" VW TDI engines and other similar engines with direct injection. Several companies, such as Elsbett or Wolf, have developed professional conversion kits and successfully installed hundreds of them over the last decades.

Oils and fats can be hydrogenated to give a diesel substitute. The resulting product is a straight-chain hydrocarbon with a high cetane number, low in aromatics and sulfur and does not contain oxygen. Hydrogenated oils can be blended with diesel in all proportions. They have several advantages over biodiesel, including good performance at low temperatures, no storage stability problems and no susceptibility to microbial attack.[32]

Bioethers

Bioethers (also referred to as fuel ethers or oxygenated fuels) are cost-effective compounds that act as octane rating enhancers."Bioethers are produced by the reaction of reactive iso-olefins, such as iso-butylene, with bioethanol."[63] Bioethers are created from wheat or sugar beets.[64] They also enhance engine performance, while significantly reducing engine wear and toxic exhaust emissions. Although bioethers are likely to replace petroethers in the UK, it is highly unlikely they will become a fuel in and of itself due to the low energy density.[65] By greatly reducing the amount of ground-level ozone emissions, they contribute to air quality.[66][67]

When it comes to transportation fuel there are six ether additives: dimethyl ether (DME), diethyl ether (DEE), methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME), and tert-amyl ethyl ether (TAEE).[68]

The European Fuel Oxygenates Association (EFOA) identifies methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) as the most commonly used ethers in fuel to replace lead. Ethers were introduced in Europe in the 1970s to replace the highly toxic compound.[69] Although Europeans still use bioether additives, the US no longer has an oxygenate requirement therefore bioethers are no longer used as the main fuel additive.[70]

Today's technology

So-called "drop-in" biofuels can be defined as "liquid bio-hydrocarbons that are functionally equivalent to petroleum fuels and are fully compatible with existing petroleum infrastructure".[71] Drop-in biofuels require no (engine) modification of the vehicle.[72]

Some examples of drop-in biofuels include biobutanol, biodiesel, synthetic paraffinic kerosine,[73][74] and other synthetic fuels.

According to a July 2014 report published by the IEA Bioenergy Task 39, entitled "The Potential and Challenges of Drop-in Biofuels", there are several ways to produce drop-in biofuels that are functionally equivalent to petroleum-derived transportation fuel blendstocks. These are discussed within three major sections of the full report and include:

  • oleochemical processes, such as the hydroprocessing of lipid feedstocks obtained from oilseed crops, algae or tallow;
  • thermochemical processes, such as the thermochemical conversion of biomass to fluid intermediates (gas or oil) followed by catalytic upgrading and hydroprocessing to hydrocarbon fuels; and
  • biochemical processes, such as the biological conversion of biomass (sugars, starches or lignocellulose-derived feedstocks) to longer chain alcohols and hydrocarbons.[75]

A fourth category is also briefly described that includes "hybrid" thermochemical/biochemical technologies such as fermentation of synthesis gas and catalytic reforming of sugars/carbohydrates.

The report concludes by stating:

Tremendous entrepreneurial activity to develop and commercialize drop-in biofuels from aquatic and terrestrial feedstocks has taken place over the past several years. However, despite these efforts, drop-in biofuels represent only a small percentage (around 2%) of global biofuel markets. ... Due to the increased processing and resource requirements (e.g., hydrogen and catalysts) needed to make drop-in biofuels as compared to conventional biofuels, large scale production of cost-competitive drop-in biofuels is not expected to occur in the near to midterm. Rather, dedicated policies to promote development and commercialization of these fuels will be needed before they become significant contributors to global biofuels production. Currently, no policies (e.g., tax breaks, subsidies etc.) differentiate new, more fungible and infrastructure ready drop-in type biofuels from less infrastructure compatible oxygenated biofuels. ... Thus, while tremendous technical progress has been made in developing and improving the various routes to drop-in fuels, supportive policies directed specifically towards the further development of drop-in biofuels are likely to be needed to ensure their future commercial success.[76]

By region
Main article: Biofuels by region
See also: Biodiesel by region
Bio Diesel Powered Fast Attack Craft Of Indian Navy patrolling during IFR 2016. The green bands on the side of the vessel are indicative of the fact that the vessel is powered by biodiesel.

There are international organizations such as IEA Bioenergy,[77] established in 1978 by the OECD International Energy Agency (IEA), with the aim of improving cooperation and information exchange between countries that have national programs in bioenergy research, development and deployment. The UN International Biofuels Forum is formed by Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, the United States and the European Commission.[78] The world leaders in biofuel development and use are Brazil, the United States, France, Sweden and Germany. Russia also has 22% of world's forest,[79] and is a big biomass (solid biofuels) supplier. In 2010, Russian pulp and paper maker, Vyborgskaya Cellulose, said they would be producing pellets that can be used in heat and electricity generation from its plant in Vyborg by the end of the year.[80] The plant will eventually produce about 900,000 tons of pellets per year, making it the largest in the world once operational.

Biofuels currently make up 3.1%[81] of the total road transport fuel in the UK or 1,440 million litres. By 2020, 10% of the energy used in UK road and rail transport must come from renewable sources – this is the equivalent of replacing 4.3 million tonnes of fossil oil each year. Conventional biofuels are likely to produce between 3.7 and 6.6% of the energy needed in road and rail transport, while advanced biofuels could meet up to 4.3% of the UK's renewable transport fuel target by 2020.[82]

Offshore Energy

Offshore Biofuels can be categorized into three subsets being manufacturing, mining, and usage. Mining is used by growing algae or seaweed in floating farms off of coastlines and deep sea farms. Seaweed farms are combining with offshore windmills. Combining offshore windmills with seaweed farms could be an effective method for growing mass amounts of biomass, while using existing structures.Biomass - Offshore wind farms = seaweed = biofuel Using biofuels with cruise liners, shipping, and aircraft for long distance is other ways to implement the biofuels. The United State Navy is currently using biofuels for their ships.Navy Ship Runs on 100% Biodiesel The Navy ship in 2016 took on 180,000 gallons of biodiesel and practiced starts and stops, as well as speed changes to test the very compatibility of biodiesel.

Air pollution
Main articles: Biomass § Environmental impact, and Ethanol_fuel § Air_pollution

Biofuels are similar to fossil fuels in that biofuels contribute to air pollution. Burning produces carbon dioxide, airborne carbon particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides.[83] The WHO estimates 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2016 due to air pollution.[84] Brazil burns significant amounts of ethanol biofuel. Gas chromatograph studies were performed of ambient air in São Paulo, Brazil, and compared to Osaka, Japan, which does not burn ethanol fuel. Atmospheric Formaldehyde was 160% higher in Brazil, and Acetaldehyde was 260% higher.[85]

The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged in April 2007 that the increased use of bioethanol will lead to worse air quality. The total emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides will rise due the growing use of bioethanol. There is an increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to produce the biofuels as well as nitrous oxide from the soil, which has most likely been treated with nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrous oxide is known to have a greater impact on the atmosphere in relation to global warming, as it is also an ozone destroyer.[86]

Debates regarding the production and use of biofuel
Main article: Issues relating to biofuels

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, food prices, poverty reduction potential, energy ratio, energy requirements, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity,[87] impact on water resources, the possible modifications necessary to run the engine on biofuel, as well as energy balance and efficiency.[88] The International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels.[89] "Assessing Biofuels" outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle.

Another issue with biofuel use and production is the US has changed mandates many times because the production has been taking longer than expected. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) set by congress for 2010 was pushed back to at best 2012 to produce 100 million gallons of pure ethanol (not blended with a fossil fuel).[90]

Banning of first-generation biofuels

In the EU, the revised renewable energy directive calls for a complete ban on first-generation biofuels by 2020, as was decided by the EU Parliament in 2016. Particularly fuels made from such oils such as palm oil and soy oil are being targeted.[91][92][93]

Sustainable biofuels

Many of the biofuels that were being supplied in 2008 (using the first-generation biofuel production procedure) have been criticised for their adverse impacts on the natural environment, food security, and land use.[94][95] In 2008, the Nobel-prize winning chemist Paul J. Crutzen published findings that the release of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in the production of biofuels means that overall they contribute more to global warming than the fossil fuels they replace.[96] In 2008, the challenge was to support biofuel development, including the development of new cellulosic technologies, with responsible policies and economic instruments to help ensure that biofuel commercialization is sustainable. Responsible commercialization of biofuels represented an opportunity to enhance sustainable economic prospects in Africa, Latin America and Asia.[94][95][97] Biofuels in the form of liquid fuels derived from plant materials have entered the market, driven by the perception that they reduce climate gas emissions, and also by factors such as oil price spikes and the need for increased energy security.

According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, sound biofuel production practices would not hamper food and fibre production, nor cause water or environmental problems, and would enhance soil fertility.[98] The selection of land on which to grow the feedstocks is a critical component of the ability of biofuels to deliver sustainable solutions. A key consideration is the minimisation of biofuel competition for prime cropland.[99][100]

Greenhouse gas emissions

Some scientists have expressed concerns about land-use change in response to greater demand for crops to use for biofuel and the subsequent carbon emissions.[101] The payback period, that is, the time it will take biofuels to pay back the carbon debt they acquire due to land-use change, has been estimated to be between 100 and 1000 years, depending on the specific instance and location of land-use change. However, no-till practices combined with cover-crop practices can reduce the payback period to three years for grassland conversion and 14 years for forest conversion.[102]

A study conducted in the Tocantis State, in northern Brazil, found that many families were cutting down forests in order to produce two conglomerates of oilseed plants, the J. curcas (JC group) and the R. communis (RC group). This region is composed of 15% Amazonian rainforest with high biodiversity, and 80% Cerrado forest with lower biodiversity. During the study, the farmers that planted the JC group released over 2193 Mg CO2, while losing 53–105 Mg CO2 sequestration from deforestation; and the RC group farmers released 562 Mg CO2, while losing 48–90 Mg CO2 to be sequestered from forest depletion.[103] The production of these types of biofuels not only led into an increased emission of carbon dioxide, but also to lower efficiency of forests to absorb the gases that these farms were emitting. This has to do with the amount of fossil fuel the production of fuel crops involves. In addition, the intensive use of monocropping agriculture requires large amounts of water irrigation, as well as of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. This does not only lead to poisonous chemicals to disperse on water runoff, but also to the emission of nitrous oxide (NO2) as a fertilizer byproduct, which is three hundred times more efficient in producing a greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide (CO2).[104]

Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a "biofuel carbon debt" by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels. Biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands incur little to no carbon debt.[105]

In addition to crop growth requiring water, biofuel facilities require significant process water.[106]

As of January 2020, a bill (H.853) was pending in the Massachusetts Legislature to exclude biomass fuels from the state's Alternative Portfolio Standard for renewable heating sources.[107]

Biofuel Mandates

The Renewable Energy Directive 2009 Union mandated biofuel production for countries within their membership. This led to agricultural expansion and crop substitution, which in turn caused environmental and economic effects. The environmental effects are driven by this land use change while the economic effects led to rising global prices in the crops that were substituted for these newly developed biofuel croplands. Environmental factor (Section on "Socioeconomic Drivers")

Current research

Specially bred mustard varieties can produce reasonably high oil yields and are very useful in crop rotation with cereals, and have the added benefit that the meal left over after the oil has been pressed out can act as an effective and biodegradable pesticide.[108]

The NFESC, with Santa Barbara-based Biodiesel Industries, is working to develop biofuels technologies for the US navy and military, one of the largest diesel fuel users in the world.[109] A group of Spanish developers working for a company called Ecofasa announced a new biofuel made from trash. The fuel is created from general urban waste which is treated by bacteria to produce fatty acids, which can be used to make biofuels.[110] Before its shutdown, Joule Unlimited was attempting to make cheap ethanol and biodiesel from a genetically modified photosynthetic bacterium.

As of 2017, the Wrigley Institute of Environmental Studies was testing kelp farming near Catalina Island to create biofuel by thermochemical liquefaction.[111]

Ethanol biofuels (bioethanol)
Main articles: Ethanol fuel and Cellulosic ethanol commercialization

As the primary source of biofuels in North America, many organizations are conducting research in the area of ethanol production. The National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC) is a research division of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville dedicated solely to ethanol-based biofuel research projects.[112] On the federal level, the USDA conducts a large amount of research regarding ethanol production in the United States. Much of this research is targeted toward the effect of ethanol production on domestic food markets.[113] A division of the US Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has also conducted various ethanol research projects, mainly in the area of cellulosic ethanol.[114]

Cellulosic ethanol commercialization is the process of building an industry out of methods of turning cellulose-containing organic matter into fuel. Companies, such as Iogen, POET, and Abengoa, are building refineries that can process biomass and turn it into bioethanol. Companies, such as Diversa, Novozymes, and Dyadic, are producing enzymes that could enable a cellulosic ethanol future. The shift from food crop feedstocks to waste residues and native grasses offers significant opportunities for a range of players, from farmers to biotechnology firms, and from project developers to investors.[115]

As of 2013, the first commercial-scale plants to produce cellulosic biofuels have begun operating. Multiple pathways for the conversion of different biofuel feedstocks are being used. In the next few years, the cost data of these technologies operating at commercial scale, and their relative performance, will become available. Lessons learnt will lower the costs of the industrial processes involved.[116]

In parts of Asia and Africa where drylands prevail, sweet sorghum is being investigated as a potential source of food, feed and fuel combined. The crop is particularly suitable for growing in arid conditions, as it only extracts one seventh of the water used by sugarcane. In India, and other places, sweet sorghum stalks are used to produce biofuel by squeezing the juice and then fermenting into ethanol.[117]

A study by researchers at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) found that growing sweet sorghum instead of grain sorghum could increase farmers incomes by US$40 per hectare per crop because it can provide fuel in addition to food and animal feed. With grain sorghum currently grown on over 11 million hectares (ha) in Asia and on 23.4 million ha in Africa, a switch to sweet sorghum could have a considerable economic impact.[118]

Jatropha

Several groups in various sectors are conducting research on Jatropha curcas, a poisonous shrub-like tree that produces seeds considered by many to be a viable source of biofuels feedstock oil.[119] Much of this research focuses on improving the overall per acre oil yield of Jatropha through advancements in genetics, soil science, and horticultural practices.

SG Biofuels, a San Diego-based jatropha developer, has used molecular breeding and biotechnology to produce elite hybrid seeds that show significant yield improvements over first-generation varieties.[120] SG Biofuels also claims additional benefits have arisen from such strains, including improved flowering synchronicity, higher resistance to pests and diseases, and increased cold-weather tolerance.[121]

Plant Research International, a department of the Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands, maintains an ongoing Jatropha Evaluation Project that examines the feasibility of large-scale jatropha cultivation through field and laboratory experiments.[122] The Center for Sustainable Energy Farming (CfSEF) is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit research organization dedicated to jatropha research in the areas of plant science, agronomy, and horticulture. Successful exploration of these disciplines is projected to increase jatropha farm production yields by 200–300% in the next 10 years.[123]

Fungi

A group at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, in a 2008 paper, stated they had isolated large amounts of lipids from single-celled fungi and turned it into biofuels in an economically efficient manner. More research on this fungal species, Cunninghamella japonica, and others, is likely to appear in the near future.[124] The recent discovery of a variant of the fungus Gliocladium roseum (later renamed Ascocoryne sarcoides) points toward the production of so-called myco-diesel from cellulose. This organism was recently discovered in the rainforests of northern Patagonia, and has the unique capability of converting cellulose into medium-length hydrocarbons typically found in diesel fuel.[125] Many other fungi that can degrade cellulose and other polymers have been observed to produce molecules that are currently being engineered using organisms from other kingdoms, suggesting that fungi may play a large role in the bioproduction of fuels in the future.[126]

Animal gut bacteria

Microbial gastrointestinal flora in a variety of animals have shown potential for the production of biofuels. Recent research has shown that TU-103, a strain of Clostridium bacteria found in Zebra feces, can convert nearly any form of cellulose into butanol fuel.[127] Microbes in panda waste are being investigated for their use in creating biofuels from bamboo and other plant materials.[128] There has also been substantial research into the technology of using the gut microbiomes of wood-feeding insects for the conversion of lignocellulotic material into biofuel.[129]

Part of a series on
Renewable energy
Part of a series about
Sustainable energy
Overview
Energy conservation
Renewable energy
Sustainable transport
  •  Renewable energy portal
  •  Environment portal
gollark: A gigabyte is probably a thousand books or more.
gollark: F
gollark: I think we generally underestimate how much a gigabyte actually *is* in terms of raw text and not "big-data" stuff like videos or images.
gollark: (minus images, revision history and talk pages and whatnot)
gollark: So I checked, and Wikipedia is actually 16.5GB now.

See also

References
  1. The IEA states: "Biofuels are transportation fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel that are made from biomass materials." https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=biofuel_home
  2. "What is biofuel? definition and meaning". BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved 30 May 2015.
  3. «[…] it seems likely that arable land converted to Miscanthus will sequester soil carbon; of the 14 comparisons, 11 showed overall increases in SOC [soil organic carbon] over their total sample depths with suggested accumulation rates ranging from 0.42 to 3.8 Mg C ha-1 yr-1. Only three arable comparisons showed lower SOC stocks under Miscanthus, and these suggested insignificant losses between 0.1 and 0.26 Mg ha-1 yr-1.» McCalmont, J. P., Hastings, A., McNamara, N. P., Richter, G. M., Robson, P., Donnison, I. S. and Clifton‐Brown, J. (2017), Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. GCB Bioenergy, 9, page 493. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12294  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  4. «The correlation between plantation age and SOC can be seen in Fig. 6, […] the trendline suggests a net accumulation rate of 1.84 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 with similar levels to grassland at equilibrium.» McCalmont, J. P., Hastings, A., McNamara, N. P., Richter, G. M., Robson, P., Donnison, I. S. and Clifton‐Brown, J. (2017), Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. GCB Bioenergy, 9, page 496. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12294  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  5. Given the EU average yield of 18.8 tonnes dry matter per hectare per year (see Clifton-Brown, above), and 48% carbon content (see Kahle et al., above).
  6. «The environmental costs and benefits of bioenergy have been the subject of significant debate, particularly for first‐generation biofuels produced from food (e.g. grain and oil seed). Studies have reported life‐cycle GHG savings ranging from an 86% reduction to a 93% increase in GHG emissions compared with fossil fuels (Searchinger et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2009; Liska et al., 2009; Whitaker et al., 2010). In addition, concerns have been raised that N2O emissions from biofuel feedstock cultivation could have been underestimated (Crutzen et al., 2008; Smith & Searchinger, 2012) and that expansion of feedstock cultivation on agricultural land might displace food production onto land with high carbon stocks or high conservation value (i.e. iLUC) creating a carbon debt which could take decades to repay (Fargione et al., 2008). Other studies have shown that direct nitrogen‐related emissions from annual crop feedstocks can be mitigated through optimized management practices (Davis et al., 2013) or that payback times are less significant than proposed (Mello et al., 2014). However, there are still significant concerns over the impacts of iLUC, despite policy developments aimed at reducing the risk of iLUC occurring (Ahlgren & Di Lucia, 2014; Del Grosso et al., 2014).» Whitaker, J., Field, J. L., Bernacchi, C. J., Cerri, C. E., Ceulemans, R., Davies, C. A., DeLucia, E. H., Donnison, I. S., McCalmont, J. P., Paustian, K., Rowe, R. L., Smith, P., Thornley, P. and McNamara, N. P. (2018), Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10: 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12488  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  7. «The impact of growing bioenergy and biofuel feedstock crops has been of particular concern, with some suggesting the greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of food crops used for ethanol and biodiesel may be no better or worse than fossil fuels (Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger et al., 2008). This is controversial, as the allocation of GHG emissions to the management and the use of coproducts can have a large effect on the total carbon footprint of resulting bioenergy products (Whitaker et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2013). The potential consequences of land use change (LUC) to bioenergy on GHG balance through food crop displacement or 'indirect' land use change (iLUC) are also an important consideration (Searchinger et al., 2008).» Milner, S., Holland, R. A., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Hastings, A., Smith, P., Wang, S. and Taylor, G. (2016), Potential impacts on ecosystem services of land use transitions to second‐generation bioenergy crops in GB. GCB Bioenergy, 8: 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12263  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  8. «While the initial premise regarding bioenergy was that carbon recently captured from the atmosphere into plants would deliver an immediate reduction in GHG emission from fossil fuel use, the reality proved less straightforward. Studies suggested that GHG emission from energy crop production and land-use change might outweigh any CO2 mitigation (Searchinger et al., 2008; Lange, 2011). Nitrous oxide (N2O) production, with its powerful global warming potential (GWP), could be a significant factor in offsetting CO2 gains (Crutzen et al., 2008) as well as possible acidification and eutrophication of the surrounding environment (Kim & Dale, 2005). However, not all biomass feedstocks are equal, and most studies critical of bioenergy production are concerned with biofuels produced from annual food crops at high fertilizer cost, sometimes using land cleared from natural ecosystems or in direct competition with food production (Naik et al., 2010). Dedicated perennial energy crops, produced on existing, lower grade, agricultural land, offer a sustainable alternative with significant savings in greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon sequestration when produced with appropriate management (Crutzen et al., 2008; Hastings et al., 2008, 2012; Cherubini et al., 2009; Don- dini et al., 2009a; Don et al., 2012; Zatta et al., 2014; Rich- ter et al., 2015).» McCalmont, J. P., Hastings, A., McNamara, N. P., Richter, G. M., Robson, P., Donnison, I. S. and Clifton‐Brown, J. (2017), Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. GCB Bioenergy, 9, page 490. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12294  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  9. «A life‐cycle perspective of the relative contributions and variability of soil carbon stock change and nitrogen‐related emissions to the net GHG intensity (g CO2‐eq MJ−1) [gram CO2-equivalents per megajoule] of biofuel production via select production pathways (feedstock/prior land‐use/fertilizer/conversion type). Positive and negative contributions to life‐cycle GHG emissions are plotted sequentially and summed as the net GHG intensity for each biofuel scenario, relative to the GHG intensity of conventional gasoline (brown line) and the 50% and 60% GHG savings thresholds (US Renewable Fuel Standard and Council Directive 2015/1513); orange and red lines, respectively. Default life‐cycle GHG source estimates are taken from Wang et al. (2012) and Dunn et al. (2013); direct N2O emissions from Fig. 1; and soil carbon stock change (0–100 cm depth) from Qin et al. (2016). See Appendix S1 for detailed methods.» Whitaker, J., Field, J. L., Bernacchi, C. J., Cerri, C. E., Ceulemans, R., Davies, C. A., DeLucia, E. H., Donnison, I. S., McCalmont, J. P., Paustian, K., Rowe, R. L., Smith, P., Thornley, P. and McNamara, N. P. (2018), Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10: 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12488  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  10. «Whilst these values represent the extremes, they demonstrate that site selection for bioenergy crop cultivation can make the difference between large GHG savings or losses, shifting life‐cycle GHG [green house gas] emissions above or below mandated thresholds. Reducing uncertainties in ∆C [carbon increase or decrease] following LUC [land use change] is therefore more important than refining N2O [nitrous oxide] emission estimates (Berhongaray et al., 2017). Knowledge on initial soil carbon stocks could improve GHG savings achieved through targeted deployment of perennial bioenergy crops on low carbon soils (see section 2). […] The assumption that annual cropland provides greater potential for soil carbon sequestration than grassland appears to be over‐simplistic, but there is an opportunity to improve predictions of soil carbon sequestration potential using information on the initial soil carbon stock as a stronger predictor of ∆C [change in carbon amount] than prior land use.» Whitaker, J., Field, J. L., Bernacchi, C. J., Cerri, C. E., Ceulemans, R., Davies, C. A., DeLucia, E. H., Donnison, I. S., McCalmont, J. P., Paustian, K., Rowe, R. L., Smith, P., Thornley, P. and McNamara, N. P. (2018), Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10: 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12488  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  11. «Fig. 3 confirmed either no change or a gain of SOC [soil organic carbon] (positive) through planting Miscanthus on arable land across England and Wales and only a loss of SOC (negative) in parts of Scotland. The total annual SOC change across GB in the transition from arable to Miscanthus if all nonconstrained land was planted with would be 3.3 Tg C yr−1 [3.3 million tonnes carbon per year]. The mean changes for SOC for the different land uses were all positive when histosols were excluded, with improved grasslands yielding the highest Mg C ha−1 yr−1 [tonnes carbon per hectare per year] at 1.49, followed by arable lands at 1.28 and forest at 1. Separating this SOC change by original land use (Fig. 4) reveals that there are large regions of improved grasslands which, if planted with bioenergy crops, are predicted to result in an increase in SOC. A similar result was found when considering the transition from arable land; however for central eastern England, there was a predicted neutral effect on SOC. Scotland, however, is predicted to have a decrease for all land uses, particularly for woodland due mainly to higher SOC and lower Miscanthus yields and hence less input.» Milner, S., Holland, R. A., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Hastings, A., Smith, P., Wang, S. and Taylor, G. (2016), Potential impacts on ecosystem services of land use transitions to second‐generation bioenergy crops in GB. GCB Bioenergy, 8: 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12263  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. (The CC BY 4.0 licence means that everyone have the right to reuse the text that is quoted here, or other parts of the original article itself, if they credit the authors. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
  12. "Transport biofuels – Tracking Transport 2019 – Analysis". IEA.
  13. "What are – and who's making – 2G, 3G and 4G biofuels? : Biofuels Digest - biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol, algae, jatropha, green gasoline, green diesel, and biocrude daily news". 21 May 2010. Archived from the original on 21 May 2010.
  14. An example here is rapeseed, of which the oil is used as waste fuel, and of which the actual produce (for which the crop is grown) is fodder.
  15. Coconut oil is another example, if it is extracted in such a way that the meat and milk can still be used for human and/or animal consumption.
  16. "Barley grain can be used to produce ethanol, says scientists with USDA : Biofuels Digest".
  17. Service, R. F. (2007). "CELLULOSIC ETHANOL: Biofuel Researchers Prepare to Reap a New Harvest". Science. 315 (5818): 1488–1491. doi:10.1126/science.315.5818.1488. PMID 17363642.
  18. Adelabu, Blessing Adebola; Kareem, Sarafadeen Olateju; Oluwafemi, Flora; Abideen Adeogun, Idowu (2019). "Bioconversion of corn straw to ethanol by cellulolytic yeasts immobilized in Mucuna urens matrix". Journal of King Saud University - Science. 31: 136–141. doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2017.07.005.
  19. i.e. arid lands in case of jatropha, or hilly terrain not accessible by tractor, ... in case of grasses, woody crops ...
  20. "Biofuels – Second Generation Biofuels". biofuel.org.uk. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  21. Ramirez, Jerome; Brown, Richard; Rainey, Thomas (2015). "A Review of Hydrothermal Liquefaction Bio-Crude Properties and Prospects for Upgrading to Transportation Fuels". Energies. 8 (7): 6765–6794. doi:10.3390/en8076765.
  22. "The potential and challenges of drop-in fuels (members only) | IEA Bioenergy Task 39 – Commercializing Liquid Biofuels". task39.sites.olt.ubc.ca. 13 January 2014.
  23. Sheehan, John; et al. (July 1998). "A Look Back at the U. S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program: Biofuels from Algae" (PDF). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
  24. Briggs, Michael (August 2004). "Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae". UNH Biodiesel Group (University of New Hampshire). Archived from the original on 24 March 2006. Retrieved 2 January 2007.
  25. "Valcent Products Inc. Develops "Clean Green" Vertical Bio-Reactor". Valcent Products. Archived from the original on 18 June 2008. Retrieved 9 July 2008.
  26. "Technology: High Yield Carbon Recycling". GreenFuel Technologies Corporation. Archived from the original on 21 August 2007. Retrieved 9 July 2008.
  27. R. E. Teixeira (2012). "Energy-efficient extraction of fuel and chemical feedstocks from algae". Green Chemistry. 14 (2): 419–427. doi:10.1039/C2GC16225C.
  28. Aro, EM (2016). "From first generation biofuels to advanced solar biofuels". Ambio. 45 Suppl 1: S24–31. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0730-0. PMC 4678123. PMID 26667057.
  29. Ethanol for instance can be produced using 1G, 2G and 3G procedures
  30. Redman, G., The Andersons Centre. "Assessment of on-farm AD in the UK", National Non-Food Crops Centre, 9 June 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-11.
  31. "BIOGAS: No bull, manure can power your farm." Farmers Guardian (25 September 2009): 12. General OneFile. Gale.
  32. Evans, G. "Liquid Transport Biofuels – Technology Status Report", National Non-Food Crops Centre, 14 April 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-11.
  33. Electricity from wood through the combination of gasification and solid oxide fuel cells, PhD Thesis by Florian Nagel, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 2008
  34. Energikunskap | Lär dig mer om energi – E.ON
  35. Bio ethanol fires information bio ethanol fireplace. (2009)
  36. see "Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol"
  37. Brinkman, N. et al., "Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Advanced/Vehicle Systems", 2005.
  38. Farrell, A.E.; et al. (2006). "Ethanol can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals". Science. 311 (5760): 506–8. Bibcode:2006Sci...311..506F. doi:10.1126/science.1121416. PMID 16439656.
  39. Hammerschlag, R (2006). "Ethanol's Energy Return on Investment: A Survey of the Literature 1999-Present". Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (6): 1744–50. Bibcode:2006EnST...40.1744H. doi:10.1021/es052024h. PMID 16570592.
  40. Börjesson.P. et al. 2013, REPORT f3 2013:13, p 170
  41. Schmidt-Rohr, K. (2015). "Why Combustions Are Always Exothermic, Yielding About 418 kJ per Mole of O2", J. Chem. Educ. 92: 2094–2099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333
  42. "ButylFuel, LLC Main Page". Butanol.com. 15 August 2005. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  43. Evans, Jon (14 January 2008). "Biofuels aim higher". Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining (BioFPR). Retrieved 3 December 2008.
  44. Pontrelli, Sammy; Fricke, Riley C.B.; Sakurai, Sana Subhan Memon; Putri, Sastia Prama; Fitz-Gibbon, Sorel; Chung, Matthew; Wu, Hsin-Yi; Chen, Yu-Ju; Pellegrini, Matteo; Fukusaki, Eiichiro; Liao, James C. (2018). "Directed strain evolution restructures metabolism for 1-butanol production in minimal media". Metabolic Engineering. 49: 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2018.08.004. PMID 30107263.
  45. "Perstop Press release: Verdis Polaris Aura – second generation B100 – The advanced green one". Archived from the original on 4 August 2014. Retrieved 21 June 2014.
  46. Lee, Tim (7 June 2020). "Safflower oil hailed by scientists as possible recyclable, biodegradable replacement for petroleum". ABC News. Landline. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 7 June 2020.
  47. "BIODIESEL".
  48. "ADM Biodiesel: Hamburg, Leer, Mainz". Biodiesel.de. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  49. RRI Limited for Biodiesel Filling Stations. "Welcome to Biodiesel Filling Stations". Biodieselfillingstations.co.uk. Archived from the original on 14 July 2018. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  50. Nylund.N-O & Koponen.K. 2013. Fuel and Technology Alternatives for Buses. Overall Energy Efficiency and Emission Performance. IEA Bioenergy Task 46. Possibly the new emission standards Euro VI/EPA 10 will lead to reduced NOx-levels also when using B100.
  51. "Biofuels Facts". Hempcar.org. Archived from the original on 20 May 2011. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  52. THE FUTURIST, Will Thurmond. July–August 2007
  53. (Avril Group : Activity Report 2014, p. 58)
  54. (EurObserv’ER 2014, p. 4)
  55. Brown, Robert; Jennifer Holmgren. "Fast Pyrolysis and Bio-Oil Upgrading" (PDF). Retrieved 15 March 2012.
  56. "Alternative & Advanced Fuels". US Department of Energy. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
  57. Knothe, Gerhard (2010). "Biodiesel and renewable diesel: A comparison". Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  58. "Green Diesel v. Biodiesel".
  59. Jessica, Ebert. "Breakthroughs in Green Gasoline Production". Biomass Magazine. Retrieved 14 August 2012.
  60. Albrecht, KO; Hallen, RT (March 2011). "A Brief Literature Overview of Various Routes to Biorenewable Fuels from Lipids for the National Alliance of Advanced Biofuels and Bio-products NAAB Consortium" (PDF). Prepared by the US Department of Energy. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  61. "Preem makes major investment in green diesel at the Port of Gothenburg – Port of Gothenburg". August 2014. Archived from the original on 1 August 2014.
  62. "Wal-Mart To Test Hybrid Trucks". Sustainable Business. 3 February 2009.
  63. Rock, Kerry; Maurice Korpelshoek (2007). "Bioethers Impact on the Gasoline Pool". Digital Refining. Retrieved 15 February 2014.
  64. "Biofuels - Types of Biofuels - Bioethers". biofuel.org.uk.
  65. "Biofuels – Types of Biofuels – Bioethers". Retrieved 30 May 2015.
  66. "Council Directive 85/536/EEC of 5 December 1985 on crude-oil savings through the use of substitute fuel components in petrol". Eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  67. "Microsoft Word - IA 55 EN.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  68. Sukla, Mirtunjay Kumar; Thallada Bhaskar; A.K. Jain; S.K. Singal; M.O. Garg. "Bio-Ethers as Transportation Fuel: A Review" (PDF). Indian Institute of Petroleum Dehradun. Retrieved 15 February 2014.
  69. "What are Bio-Ethers?" (PDF). . The European Fuel Oxygenates Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 March 2014.
  70. "Gasoline". Environmental Protection Agency.
  71. Karatzos, Sergios; McMillan, James D.; Saddler, Jack N. (July 2014). The Potential and Challenges of Drop-in Biofuels (PDF). IEA Bioenergy Task 39. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-910154-07-6. Report T39-T1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 November 2017. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
  72. "Alternative Fuels Data Center: Renewable Hydrocarbon Biofuels". afdc.energy.gov.
  73. Canada, Natural Resources (13 July 2018). "Readiness of Producing and Deploying Liquid Drop-In Fuels in Canada". nrcan.gc.ca.
  74. B. S., Journalism and Production Agriculture. "Discovering The Many Types of Drop-In Fuels". ThoughtCo.
  75. Karatzos, Sergios; McMillan, James D.; Saddler, Jack N. (July 2014). The Potential and Challenges of Drop-in Biofuels (PDF). IEA Bioenergy Task 39. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-910154-07-6. Report T39-T1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 November 2017. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
  76. Karatzos, Sergios; McMillan, James D.; Saddler, Jack N. (July 2014). The Potential and Challenges of Drop-in Biofuels (PDF). IEA Bioenergy Task 39. pp. 177, 182. ISBN 978-1-910154-07-6. Report T39-T1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 November 2017. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
  77. "IEA bioenergy". IEA bioenergy. Archived from the original on 26 May 2010. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
  78. "Press Conference Launching International Biofuels Forum". United Nations Department of Public Information. 2 March 2007.
  79. Greenpeace – The Russian Forests Archived 25 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine
  80. "World's Largest Pellet Plant to Start by Year-End". Moscow Times
  81. "UK falls short of biofuel targets for 2010/2011". Retrieved 30 May 2015.
  82. National Non-Food Crops Centre. "Advanced Biofuels: The Potential for a UK Industry, NNFCC 11-011" Archived 31 January 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 17 November 2011
  83. "404" (PDF).
  84. "Ambient (outdoor) air pollution". World Health Organization. 2 May 2018. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
  85. Nguyen, Ha (June 2001). "Atmospheric alcohols and aldehydes concentrations measured in Osaka, Japan and in São Paulo, Brazil". Atmospheric Environment. 35 (18): 3075–3083. Bibcode:2001AtmEn..35.3075N. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00136-4.
  86. Haerens, Margaret (2012). Biofuels. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 978-0-7377-5553-4.
  87. Fletcher Jr., Robert J.; Bruce A Robertson; Jason Evans; Patrick J Doran; Janaki RR Alavalapati; Douglas W Schemske (2011). "Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9 (3): 161–168. doi:10.1890/090091. hdl:10919/24366. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
  88. Cotton, Charles A. R.; Jeffrey S. Douglass; Sven De Causmaeker; Katharina Brinkert; Tanai Cardona; Andrea Fantuzzi; A. William Rutherford; James W. Murray (2015). "Photosynthetic constraints on fuel from microbes". Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 3: 36. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2015.00036. PMC 4364286. PMID 25853129.
  89. "Publications – International Resource Panel". Archived from the original on 11 November 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2015.
  90. Bracmort, Kelsi. "Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Mandate for Cellulosic Biofuels:Questions and Answers" (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
  91. "MEPs vote to ban the use of palm oil in biofuels". The Guardian. 4 April 2017.
  92. Simon, Frédéric (10 January 2018). "EU heading for 'zero palm oil' in transport by 2021".
  93. "EU to phase out palm oil from transport fuel by 2030". Reuters. 14 June 2018.
  94. The Royal Society (January 2008). Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges, ISBN 978-0-85403-662-2, p. 61.
  95. Gordon Quaiattini. Biofuels are part of the solution Archived 5 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, 25 April 2008. Retrieved 5 October 2017.
  96. Crutzen, P. J.; Mosier, A. R.; Smith, K. A.; Winiwarter, W. (2008). "N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels". Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8 (2): 389–395. doi:10.5194/acp-8-389-2008.
  97. EPFL Energy Center (c2007). Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels Archived 10 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  98. Rocky Mountain Institute (2005). Winning the Oil Endgame Archived 16 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine p. 107. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  99. The Royal Society (2008). p. 2.
  100. Growing Sustainable Biofuels: Common Sense on Biofuels, part 2 World Changing, 12 March 2008. Retrieved 24 December 2008.
  101. Searchinger, Timothy; Ralph Heimlich; R.A. Houghton; Fengxia Dong; Amani Elobeid; Jacinto Fabiosa; Simla Tokgoz; Dermot Hayes; Tun-Hsiang Yu (2011). "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change". Science. 319 (5867): 1238–1240. doi:10.1126/science.1151861. PMID 18258860.
  102. Kim, Hyungtae; Seungdo Kim; Bruce E. Dale (2009). "Biofuels, Land Use Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Some Unexplored Variables". Environmental Science. 43 (3): 961–967. Bibcode:2009EnST...43..961K. doi:10.1021/es802681k. PMID 19245043.
  103. Alves Finco, Marcus V.; Doppler, Werner (2010). "Bioenergy and Sustainable Development: The Dilemma of Food Security and Climate Change in the Brazilian Savannah". Energy for Sustainable Development. 12 (3): 194–199. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2010.04.006.
  104. Runge, Ford; Senauer, Benjamin (2007). "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor". Foreign Affairs. 86 (3): 41–53. JSTOR 20032348.
  105. fargione, Joseph; Jason Hill; David Tilman; Stephen Polasky; Peter Hawthorne (2008). "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt". Science. 319 (5867): 1235–1238. Bibcode:2008Sci...319.1235F. doi:10.1126/science.1152747. PMID 18258862.
  106. The National Academies Press (2008). "Water Issues of Biofuel Production Plants". The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12039. ISBN 978-0-309-11361-8. Retrieved 18 June 2015.
  107. McKibben, Bill (25 January 2020). "2 simple steps to address climate change". CommonWealth Magazine. Retrieved 1 February 2020.
  108. "Mustard Hybrids for Low-Cost Biofuels and Organic Pesticides" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 July 2011. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
  109. Future Energies (30 October 2003). "PORT HUENEME, Calif: U.S. Navy to Produce its Own Biofuels". Future Energies. Archived from the original on 11 July 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2009.
  110. "Newsvine – Ecofasa turns waste to biofuels using bacteria". Lele.newsvine.com. 18 October 2008. Retrieved 17 October 2009.
  111. Monika Evstatieva; Ari Shapiro (22 August 2017). "Scientists Hope To Farm The Biofuel of the Future in the Pacific Ocean".
  112. Ethanol Research (2 April 2012). "National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC)". Ethanol Research. Archived from the original on 20 March 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
  113. American Coalition for Ethanol (2 June 2008). "Responses to Questions from Senator Bingaman" (PDF). American Coalition for Ethanol. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 October 2011. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
  114. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2 March 2007). "Research Advantages: Cellulosic Ethanol" (PDF). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 January 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
  115. Pernick, Ron and Wilder, Clint (2007). The Clean Tech Revolution p. 96.
  116. HLPE (2013). "Biofuels and food security" (PDF).
  117. "Sweet Sorghum : A New "Smart Biofuel Crop"". Agriculture Business Week. 30 June 2008. Archived from the original on 27 May 2015.
  118. Sweet sorghum for food, feed and fuel New Agriculturalist, January 2008.
  119. B.N. Divakara; H.D. Upadhyaya; S.P. Wani; C.L. Laxmipathi Gowda (2010). "Biology and genetic improvement of Jatropha curcas L.: A review" (PDF). Applied Energy. 87 (3): 732–742. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.013.
  120. Biofuels Digest (16 May 2011). "Jatropha blooms again: SG Biofuels secures 250K acres for hybrids". Biofuels Digest. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
  121. SG Biofuels (8 March 2012). "Jmax Hybrid Seeds". SG Biofuels. Archived from the original on 26 February 2011. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
  122. Plant Research International (8 March 2012). "JATROPT (Jatropha curcas): Applied and technical research into plant properties". Plant Research International. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
  123. "Energy Farming Methods Mature, Improve". Biofuels Magazine. 11 April 2011. Archived from the original on 27 July 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
  124. Sergeeva, Y. E.; Galanina, L. A.; Andrianova, D. A.; Feofilova, E. P. (2008). "Lipids of filamentous fungi as a material for producing biodiesel fuel". Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology. 44 (5): 523–527. doi:10.1134/S0003683808050128.
  125. Strobel, G.; Knighton, B.; Kluck, K.; Ren, Y.; Livinghouse, T.; Griffin, M.; Spakowicz, D.; Sears, J. (2008). "The production of myco-diesel hydrocarbons and their derivatives by the endophytic fungus Gliocladium roseum (NRRL 50072)". Microbiology. 154 (Pt 11): 3319–3328. doi:10.1099/mic.0.2008/022186-0. PMID 18957585.
  126. Spakowicz, Daniel J.; Strobel, Scott A. (2015). "Biosynthesis of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds by fungi: bioengineering potential". Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 99 (12): 4943–4951. doi:10.1007/s00253-015-6641-y. PMC 4677055. PMID 25957494.
  127. Kathryn Hobgood Ray (25 August 2011). "Cars Could Run on Recycled Newspaper, Tulane Scientists Say". Tulane University news webpage. Tulane University. Archived from the original on 21 October 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  128. "Panda Poop Might Help Turn Plants into Fuel". National Geographic. 10 September 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
  129. Sun, Jian-Zhong; Scharf, Michael E. (2010). "Exploring and integrating cellulolytic systems of insects to advance biofuel technology". Insect Science. 17 (3): 163–165. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7917.2010.01348.x.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.