POTENTIAL OF ADVANCED BIOFUELS FOR ENERGY SECURITY
THESIS
SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
Doctor of Philosophy In Agricultural Economics and Business Management
BY RAHIL AKHTAR USMANI
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROF. AKRAM A. KHAN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH (INDIA)
2018
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I, Rahil Akhtar Usmani, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management certify that the work embodied in this Ph.D. thesis is my own bonafide work carried out by me under the supervision of Prof. Akram A. Khan at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. The matter embodied in this Ph.D. thesis has not been submitted for the award of any other degree.
I declare that I have faithfully acknowledged, given credit to and referred to the research workers wherever their works have been cited in the text and the body of the thesis. I further certify that I have not willfully lifted up some other’s work, para, text, data, result, etc. reported in the journals, books, magazines, reports, dissertations, thesis, etc., or available at web-sites and included them in this Ph.D. thesis and cited as my own work.
Date: (Signature of the Candidate) Rahil Akhtar Usmani (Name of the Candidate)
Certificate from the Supervisor This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of our knowledge.
Signature of the Supervisor Name & Designation: Akram A. Khan, Professor Department: Agricultural Economics and Business Management
(Signature of the Chairman of the Department with seal)
COURSE/ COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION/ PRE-SUBMISSION SEMINAR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. RAHIL AKHTAR USMANI, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management has satisfactorily completed the course work/comprehensive examination and pre-submission seminar requirement which is part of his Ph.D. programme.
Date: ……………. (Signature of the Chairman of the Department)
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
Title of the Thesis: POTENTIAL OF ADVANCED BIOFUELS FOR ENERGY SECURITY Candidate’s Name: RAHIL AKHTAR USMANI
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER
The undersigned hereby assigns to the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, copyright that may exist in and for the above thesis submitted for the award of Ph.D. degree.
(Signature of the Candidate)
Note: However, the author may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce material extracted verbatim from the thesis or derivative of the thesis for author’s personal use provided that the source and the university’s copyright notice are indicated.
Acknowledgements
I would like to pay my humble reverence, first to Almighty Allah, without whose countless blessings the work would not have seen the light of day.
Fortune took the lead that I had Prof. Akram A. Khan as my supervisor. No word can express my gratitude for his encouragement and for allowing me to grow as a researcher. His advice on my research work has been invaluable. Throughout my thesis writing period, he provided encouragement, sound advice, good company and lots of good ideas. One simply could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor. He has been invaluable on both an academic and personal level, for which I am extremely grateful.
I extend special thanks to Prof. Shamim Ahmad, Prof. Saghir Ahmad Ansari, Prof. Raees Ahmad and Mr. Shamsuzzaman, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Aligarh Muslim University for their help and necessary support for carrying out this work.
I am also grateful to all the members of non-teaching staff specially Mr. Tahseen Iqbal Siddiqui, Mr. Matloob-ur-rehman Kirmani, Mr. Md. Asim and Mr. Shahzad Shujai, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Aligarh Muslim University for their cooperation and time to time help during the course of study.
My vocabulary fails to acknowledge the affection, care, inspiration and benediction I received from my parents which lit the flame of learning in me and enabled me to reach the footsteps of my long cherished goal. Amma, you have always believed in your son and given me your love. Papa, you showed me the example of a hardworking man. There are no words that can express my gratitude for your love, affection, patience and sacrifices that you have made on my behalf. Whatever I am today is because of their prayer, love and blessings.
I am overwhelmed to take Asma Rahil Usmani as my wife whose continuous support and encouragement provide me the strength to accomplish this task. No one in world have the patience and love that she has.
i I gratefully acknowledge my brothers Mr. Kamran Akhtar Usmani and Mr. Yasir Jamal Usmani and my Sisters Ms. Sana Akhtar Usmani, Ms. Hijab Akhtar Usmani and Ms. Asra Akhtar Usmani whose presence encouraged me to finish the work successfully.
I would also like to convey my deep feeling of respect to my grandfathers (Late Dr. Alim Usmani and Mr. Wasi Ahmad Siddiqui) whose words enlightened my thoughts, developed my vision and provided me the wisdom necessary for the completion of this work.
I wish to thank my entire extended family, my grandmothers (Mrs. Saeeda and Mrs. Wasikunnisan) my uncles (Dr. Kausar Usmani, Mr. Waquar Alam Siddiqui, Mr. Absar Alam Siddiqui, and Dr. Ahmad), my aunts (Mrs. Tanveer Usmani, Mrs. Yasmeen Javed and Mrs. Zarrin Fatima) and my wonderful cousins Hammad, Khalid, Aquib, Naved, Ahad, Hina, Sayma, Yusra, Adiba and Aqsa.
I would also like to convey my special thanks with lots of love to my uncle Mr. Hasan Mehdi Rizvi who always supported me throughout the work and encouraged me with his love and affection.
I get lucky to have some marvelous personalities as my friends and I would fail in my duty if I do not appreciate the encouraging attitude of Abdul Saboor Mohammad, Dr. Ejaz-ul-Haque, Fariq Khan, Fazil Ahmad Kidwai, Mohd Azhar Siddiqui, Md. Abbas Zaidi, Sharif Masood, Syed Faiz Ahmad Madni, Tanveer Sheikh and Zeeshan Ahsan. Words cannot express how grateful I am to them for all of the moral and mental support that they have extended towards me.
I extend sincere thanks to my respected seniors, Dr. Abuzar Nomani, Dr. Faizan Khan Sherwani, Mr. Md. Jamshed, Dr. Shweta Gupta and Mr. Zia Khan. Without their valuable suggestions and friendly support, the accomplishment of this task seemed to be impossible.
In my daily work, I have been blessed with a friendly and cheerful group of friends and I would fail in my duty if I do not appreciate the encouraging attitude of my friends Asim Hasan, Md. Anis Anwar, Azad Wani, Rather Iqbal and Zainab Hussain for providing a loving and supporting environment for me.
ii I owe my deepest gratitude to Sameer Shakeel Ansari and I have to create some new words if I want to thank him. He was always there for helping me in my PhD work. He helped me in learning various research tools and supported me throughout my doctoral work.
Looking back ten years since I came to Aligarh Muslim University, what an amazing journey it has been for me! Encompassing both good-times, that I will remember forever because it was plenty, and not-so-good times, yet I did not sway from my conscience, this transmogrified hike would not have been accomplished without tremendous help and support. I gratefully received from Aligarh Muslim University.
The Fellowship received from the UGC is greatly acknowledged.
Last but by no means the least, I thank my friends Faiz Warsi, Owais and Md. Naqi.
RAHIL AKHTAR USMANI
iii
POTENTIAL OF ADVANCED BIOFUELS FOR ENERGY SECURITY
ABSTRACT OF THESIS
SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
Doctor of Philosophy In Agricultural Economics and Business Management
BY RAHIL AKHTAR USMANI
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROF. AKRAM A. KHAN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH (INDIA)
2018
ABSTRACT
The term ‘biofuel’ refers to the liquid and/or gaseous fuel, which is produced from biomass. Biofuel is considered as a renewable and sustainable fuel because of its lower greenhouse gasses and particulate emissions after combustion. Ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel are in the category of liquid biofuels whereas hydrogen, methane and synthetic petroleum hydrocarbons are in the category of gaseous biofuels.
Globally, ethanol and biodiesel are the dominant transport biofuels. Ethanol is used for gasoline blending which supply 95% of the fuel used in the road transport whereas biodiesel is used for blending in diesel. Currently, conventional biofuel production processes is dominant for the production of biofuels. The major raw materials used for the production of ethanol and biodiesel are sugar, starch and vegetable oil. The continuous and large scale use of food crops for biofuel production instigate a food versus fuel debate. Furthermore, the environmental sustainability and economic efficiency of the conventional biofuels is also in the question.
Advanced biofuels are the biofuels which are produced from the lignocellulosic biomass. The lignocellulosic feedstock include vegetative grasses (energy crops), residues from crops and wood processing facilities, and municipal solid wastes. The final product i.e., biofuels have same physical and chemical properties either produced from the food biomass or from the lignocellulosic biomass.
Advanced biofuels are considered as more sustainable and environment friendly than conventional biofuels. This is because they are produced from the non- food materials and offer greater benefits in terms of food security. The analysis of FER (fossil energy replacement ratio) of the lignocellulosic biofuels demonstrate their better sustainability.
Conventional biofuels have relatively simple and mature technology and well developed logistical system and supply chain. But advantages like large abundancy and physical availability of the lignocellulosic biomass make it more favorable feedstock for the production of the biofuels.
1 The conversion of the lignocellulosic biomass is relatively more complex and have many high-cost processing steps. The source of this complexity is the physico- chemical structure of lignocellulosic biomass. Their structural and chemical strength helps protect plants from microbial and pest attack and also prevent easy deconstruction of the plant material for pretreatment. Because of these structural complexities, the production cost of the advanced biofuels is higher from the conventional biofuels. Due to its high production cost, still their large scale market application is not feasible.
This study is focused on the estimation of PFE and PAB of biofuels for the energy security. The PFE and PAB are estimated at three levels. (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India. The feedstock used for the estimation of PFE and PAB include three energy crops i.e., (1) Miscanthus, (2) Switchgrass and (3) Mix-crop system and agroforestry residues. The process for the estimation of PFE and PAB from energy crops have the following steps: (1) estimation of marginal land area which is used for the production of energy crops, (2) scenario development, (3) finding the biomass, energy and biofuel yields from the energy crops, and (4) calculation of PFE and PAB.
The process for estimation PFE and PAB from the agroforestry residues include the following steps: (1) estimation of the agroforestry residues, (2) identification of the available residues, (3) estimation of PFE by multiplication with LHV, and (4) estimation of PAB by multiplication with the biofuel yield from these residues.
The result of this study shows that there is enough marginal land area available for all studied region. The PAB from energy crops is sufficient to replace significant amount of gasoline. The agroforestry residues are generated in considerable amount from all the studied regions. The quantity of the residue biomass have sufficient PAB, which will replace significant amount of gasoline.
This study has reinforced the results of positive impacts of advanced biofuels on the environment and economy. The continuous improvement in the understanding of greenhouse gas benefits of the advanced biofuels are observed in this study. It was found that the greenhouse gas benefits are more pronounced for the advanced biofuels
2 and have potential to mitigate climate change if used on a large scale for long time. The potential for income and employment benefits from advanced biofuels are found to be beneficial for the farmers. According to this study, the trade of feedstock have shown considerable positive effects on employment and the income of farmers. If the advanced biofuels industry develops and grows, it will generates new income and employment opportunities in the field agriculture. However, the need for suitable and proper planning along with good policy is still needed.
3
PREFACE
Biofuels are very important for the transport sector and gained measurable importance since the last decade. The concerns for limited and day by day depleting oil reserves and environmental damage are the key drivers for increasing attention towards the biofuels. This study is all about the advanced biofuels and their potential to contribute in the energy security of the transport sector. The quantification of biomass resources is necessary for designing the suitable biofuel policy. This study estimated the marginal land resources and what is the PFE and PAB if this land is use to grow energy crops. The residue biomass from the agroforestry and its PFE and PAB are also quantified in this study. The PFE and PAB are estimated on three levels; (1) global level, (2) regional level (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America) and (3) for India. The study also discussed the environmental, economic and societal impacts of advanced biofuels.
The study has been divided into the six chapters. Chapter- 1 discussed the general introduction of the biofuels, methodology used to estimate the marginal land, quantity of biomass from energy crops and residue biomass from agroforestry. Furthermore, methodology used for the estimation of PFE and PAB was also covered. Chapter- 2 provides the brief review of concerned literature and research gap. Chapter- 3 provide the overview of advanced biofuels and their production process. It also provides an overview of policies of some major biofuel producing countries. Chapter- 4 deals with the analysis part and estimates of PFE and PAB are given in this chapter. Chapter- 5 deals with the evaluation and discussion of sustainability of the advanced biofuels. Chapter- 6 which is the last chapter of this study, concludes the thesis.
iv CONTENTS
Acknowledgement ...... i-iii Preface ...... iv Contents ...... v-xi List of Tables ...... xii-xiv List of Figures ...... xv-xvi Abbreviations ...... xvii
CHAPTER - 1 ...... 1-15
1.1 Introduction ...... 1
1.2 Conceptualizing energy security ...... 3
1.3 Defining ‘potential’ ...... 4
1.4 Objectives of the study ...... 6
1.5 Data & methodology ...... 7
1.5.1 Methodology for estimation of marginal land area ...... 7
1.5.2 Selection of energy crops ...... 8
1.5.3 Scenarios development ...... 8
1.5.4 Estimation of the energy potential ...... 9
1.5.5 Estimation of advanced biofuels potential ...... 9
1.6 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 10
1.6.1 Methodology for estimation of agroforestry residues ...... 11
1.6.2 Process of calculation of energy potential ...... 12
1.6.3 Quantity of dry mass ...... 13
1.6.4 Available biomass ...... 13
1.6.5 Energy potential...... 13
1.6.6 Quantity of advanced biofuel ...... 14
1.7 Need of the study ...... 14
1.8 Significance of the study ...... 14
v 1.9 Limitations of the study ...... 15
1.10 Organisation of the thesis ...... 15
CHAPTER - 2 ...... 16-28
2.2 Literature related with potential ...... 16
2.3 Literature related to environment and socio-economic impacts ...... 22
2.4 Literature related with the techno-economy, policy and issue of land use change ...... 25
2.5 Research gap ...... 27
CHAPTER - 3 ...... 29-53
3.1 Introduction ...... 29
3.2 Biomass as a source of energy ...... 29
3.3 Bioenergy for the transport sector ...... 29
3.4 Need of biofuels ...... 30
3.5 Biofuels for India ...... 31
3.6 Classification of biofuels ...... 31
3.6.1 Conventional biofuels ...... 31
3.6.2 Conversion process for conventional biofuels ...... 31
3.6.2.1 Ethanol production ...... 31
3.6.2.1.1 Sugar-based ethanol production ...... 32
3.6.2.1.2 Starch-based bioethanol production: ...... 32
3.6.2.2 Biodiesel production ...... 33
3.7 Issues with conventional biofuels ...... 33
3.7.1 Food vs fuel ...... 33
3.7.2 Fossil energy replacement (FER) ratio ...... 34
3.7.3 Sustainability ...... 35
3.8 Paradigm-shift: from conventional biofuels to advanced biofuels ...... 36
3.8.1 Advanced biofuels ...... 36
vi 3.8.2 Lignocellulosic biomass for production of advanced biofuels: types & characteristics ...... 37
3.8.2.1 Energy crops ...... 38
3.8.2.2 Agricultural residues ...... 38
3.8.2.3 Forestry & wood processing residues ...... 39
3.9 Scale of biomass potentials ...... 39
3.10 Conversion process of lignocellulosic biomass into advanced biofuels ...... 41
3.10.1 Biochemical route:...... 41
3.10.2 Thermo-chemical route: A n ...... 42
3.11 Detailed process description: thermochemical conversion ...... 42
3.11.1 Feed handling and preparation ...... 43
3.11.2 Gasification ...... 43
3.11.3 Gas clean-up ...... 43
3.11.4 Alcohol synthesis ...... 44
3.11.5 Alcohol separation ...... 44
3.11.6 Fischer Tropsch Conversion ...... 44
3.12 Detailed process description: biochemical conversion ...... 44
3.12.1 Pretreatment ...... 45
3.12.2 Fermentation ...... 45
3.12.3 Ethanol purification: ...... 45
3.13 Present status of advanced biofuels ...... 45
3.14 Outlook for advanced biofuels ...... 46
3.15 Biofuels in major economies: current status of production, policy and planning for advanced biofuels ...... 47
3.15.1 Policy initiatives for advanced biofuels by major biofuel producing countries ...... 47
3.15.1.1 USA...... 47
3.15.1.2 Brazil ...... 48
vii 3.15.1.3 European Union ...... 48
3.15.1.4 China ...... 49
3.15.1.5 Canada ...... 49
3.15.1.6 India ...... 49
3.16 Issues related to advanced biofuels ...... 50
3.16.1 Issues of soil, water and biodiversity ...... 50
3.16.2 Issues of land use change ...... 51
3.16.3 Issue of energy balance ...... 52
3.16.4 Issues related to commercialization ...... 52
3.17 Technical challenges ...... 52
CHAPTER - 4 ...... 54-114
4.1 Background information ...... 54
4.2 Land ...... 55
4.3 Defining marginal land ...... 55
4.4 Results ...... 57
4.4.1 Results for marginal land availability...... 57
4.4.2 Potential from energy crops...... 58
4.4.3 Potential from the agroforestry residues...... 62
4.5 Africa ...... 67
4.5.1 General overview...... 67
4.5.2 Potential from energy crops...... 67
4.5.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 70
4.6 Asia ...... 73
4.6.1 General overview...... 73
4.6.2 Potential from energy crops...... 73
4.6.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 76
4.7 Australia ...... 79
4.7.1 General overview...... 79
viii 4.7.2 Potential from energy crops...... 79
4.7.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 81
4.8 Europe ...... 85
4.8.1 General overview...... 85
4.8.2 Potential from energy crops...... 85
4.8.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 87
4.9 North America ...... 91
4.9.1 General overview...... 91
4.9.2 Potential from energy crops...... 91
4.9.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 93
4.10 South America ...... 97
4.10.1 General overview...... 97
4.10.2 Potential from energy crops...... 97
4.10.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 99
4.11 Global ...... 103
4.11.1 General overview...... 103
4.11.2 Potential from energy crops...... 103
4.11.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 105
4.12: India ...... 109
4.12.1: General overview ...... 109
4.12.1 Potential from energy crops...... 109
4.12.3 Potential from agroforestry residues ...... 111
CHAPTER – 5 ...... 115-134
5.1 Introduction ...... 115
5.2 Environmental impacts ...... 115
5.2.1 GHG emissions and transport sector ...... 115
5.2.2 Advanced biofuels and transport sector ...... 116
ix 5.2.3 GHG emissions and advanced biofuels ...... 116
5.2.4 Carbon sequestration by production of lignocellulosic feedstock ...... 119
5.3 Social impacts ...... 119
5.3.1 Global impacts of biofuel industry on income and employment ...... 121
5.3.2 Income and employment impacts in major biofuel producing countries .. 122
5.3.3 Income and employment effects of biofuel by industry ...... 123
5.3.4 Income and employment impacts of advanced biofuels ...... 124
5.4 Technoeconomy of advanced biofuels ...... 125
5.4.1 Pretreatment ...... 125
5.4.2 Overview of leading pretreatment methods ...... 126
5.4.2.1 Steam explosion...... 126
5.4.2.2 Hot water pretreatment ...... 126
5.4.2.3 Ammonia fibre explosion (AFEX) ...... 126
5.4.2.4 Ionic liquids ...... 127
5.4.2.5 Dilute acid pretreatment ...... 127
5.4.3 Evaluations of the leading pretreatment methods ...... 127
5.4.4 Major improvements in process of dilute acid pretreatment since 2002 ...... 130
5.4.4.1 Ammonium hydroxide instead of overliming ...... 130
5.4.4.2 Improved xylose yields...... 131
5.4.4.3 Milder pretreatment ...... 132
5.4.4.4 Acid pre-impregnation...... 132
5.4.4.5 Cost improvement ...... 132
CHAPTER - 6 ...... 135-143
6.1 Summary ...... 135
6.2 Conclusion ...... 136
6.2.1 For Africa: ...... 137
6.2.2 For Asia: ...... 138
x 6.2.3 For Australia: ...... 138
6.2.4 For Europe: ...... 139
6.2.5 For North America: ...... 139
6.2.5 For South America: ...... 140
6.2.7 For Global scale:...... 140
6.2.8 For India: ...... 141
6.3 Policy suggestions: ...... 142
REFERENCES ...... 144-166
xi LIST OF TABLES
TABLES NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Table 3.1: Proven and recoverable resources of oil 30
Table 3.2: Types of advanced biofuels 37
Table 3.3: Transport biofuels in 2030 & 2050 47
Table 4.4.1.1: Regional availability of the marginal land area 57 Regional distribution of the quantity of the biomass Table 4.4.2.1: 58 from energy crops Table 4.4.3.1: Regional distribution of agroforestry residues 62
Table 4.5.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Africa) 67
Table 4.5.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Africa) 69 Contribution to the transport sector’s energy security Table 4.5.2.3: 67 from energy crops (Africa) Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues Table 4.5.3.1: 70 (Africa) Table 4.5.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Africa) 70 Contribution to the transport sector's energy security Table 4.5.3.3: 71 from energy agroforestry residue (Africa) Regional availability of the biomass from energy crops Table 4.6.2.1: 73 (Asia) Table 4.6.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Asia) 43 Contribution to the transport sector's energy security Table 4.6.2.3: 75 from energy crops (Asia) Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues Table 4.6.3.1: 76 (Asia) Table 4.6.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Asia) 76 Contribution in energy security from energy Table 4.6.3.3: 77 agroforestry residue (Asia) Table 4.7.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Australia) 79
Table 4.7.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Australia) 79 Contribution to the transport sector’s energy security Table 4.7.2.3: 80 from energy crops (Australia) Quantity of biomass from agroforestry residues Table 4.7.3.1: 81 (Australia)
xii Table 4.7.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Australia) 82 Contribution in energy security from agroforestry Table 4.7.3.3: 83 residue (Australia) Table 4.8.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Europe) 85
Table 4.8.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Europe) 85 Contribution to the transport sector's energy security Table 4.8.2.3: 87 from energy crops (Europe) Quantity of Biomass from the agroforestry residues Table 4.8.3.1: 87 (Europe) Table 4.8.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Europe) 88 Contribution in energy security from agroforestry Table 4.8.3.3: 89 residue (Europe) Quantity of biomass from energy crops (North Table 4.9.2.1: 91 America) Potential energy and quantity of advanced biofuels Table 4.9.2.2: 91 from energy crops (North America) Contribution to energy security from energy crops Table 4.9.2.3: 93 (North America) Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues Table 4.9.3.1: 93 (North America) PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (North Table 4.9.3.2: 94 America) Contribution in the energy security from agroforestry Table 4.9.3.3: 95 residue (North America) Quantity of biomass from energy crops (South Table 4.10.2.1: 97 America) Table 4.10.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (South America) 97
Contribution to the transport sector's energy security Table 4.10.2.3: 99 from energy crops (South America) Quantity of Biomass from the Agroforestry residues Table 4.10.3.1: 99 (South America) PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (South Table 4.10.3.2: 100 America) Contribution in energy security from agroforestry Table 4.10.3.3: 101 residue (South America) Table 4.11.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Global) 103
Table 4.11.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Global) 103
xiii Contribution to the transport sector’s energy security Table 4.11.2.3: 105 from energy crops (Global) Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues Table 4.11.3.1: 105 (Global) Global PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues from Table 4.11.3.2: 106 energy crops (Global) Contribution in energy security from agroforestry Table 4.11.3.3: 107 residue (Global)
Table 4.12.1.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (India) 109
Table 4.12.1.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (India) 109 Contribution to the transport sector's energy security Table 4.12.1.3: 111 from energy crops (India) Table 4.12.3.1: Quantity of residue biomass from agroforestry (India) 111
Table 4.12.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (India) 112
Contribution in energy security from agroforestry Table 4.12.3.3: 113 residue (India) GHG emission from ethanol produced by different type Table 5.1: 117 of feedstock
Table 5.2: GHG emission savings from the advanced biofuels 118 Global impacts on income and employment by of Table 5.3: 121 biofuels (2010) Table 5.4: Income and employment impacts of biofuels 123 Income and employment impacts by ethanol industry Table 5.5: 124 (USA) Direct economic impacts of cellulose based ethanol ($ Table 5.6: 125 million) Pretreatment methods and their respective capital Table 5.7: 128 expenditure, yields and production cost Effect of various pretreatment method on cellulosic Table 5.8: biomass and their respective advantages and 129 disadvantages Table 5.9: Advantages of ammonia on overliming 130
Table 5.10: Reduction in sugar losses 131
xiv LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Figure 1.1: Hierarchy of biomass potential 5 Modelling the marginal land area for the Figure 1.2: 8 production of energy crops Figure 3.1: Sectoral consumption of bioenergy (2015) 29
Figure 3.2: Sugar-based production process 32
Figure 3.3: Starch-based production process 32
Figure 3.4: Biodiesel production process 33
Figure 3.5: FER ratio of advanced and conventional biofuels 34
Figure 3.6: Process and types of advanced biofuels 42 Thermo-chemical conversion process to produce Figure 3.7: 43 synthesis gas from lignocellulosic feedstocks Figure 4.4.1.1: Marginal land availability and its distribution 58
Regional PFE from energy crops w.r.t. transport Figure 4.4.2.1: 60 sector energy consumption in different BAS Regional PAB from energy crops w.r.t. regional Figure 4.4.2.2: and global gasoline consumption in different 61 YBAS Regional quantity of biomass from agroforestry Figure 4.4.3.1: 63 residues Regional PFE from agroforestry w.r.t. regional Figure 4.4.3.2: transport sector energy consumption in different 64 BAS Regional PAB in YBAS w.r.t. regional gasoline Figure 4.4.3.3: 66 consumption Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.5.2.1: 68 their contribution in energy security (Africa) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.5.3.1: 72 and their contribution in energy security (Africa) Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.6.2.1: 74 their contribution in energy security (Asia) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.6.3.1: 78 and their contribution in energy security (Asia)
xv Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.7.2.1: 81 their contribution in energy security (Australia) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.7.3.1: 83 and their contribution in energy security (Australia) Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.8.2.1: 86 their contribution in energy security (Europe) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.8.3.1: 89 and their contribution in energy security (Europe) Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.9.2.1: their contribution in energy security (North 92 America) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.9.3.1: and their contribution in energy security (North 95 America) Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.10.2.1: their contribution in energy security (South 98 America) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.10.3.1: and their contribution in energy security (South 101 America) Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.11.2.1: 104 their contribution in energy security (Global) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.11.3.1: 107 and their contribution in energy security (Global) Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and Figure 4.12.1.1: 110 their contribution in energy security (India) Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue Figure 4.12.3.1: 113 and their contribution in energy security (India)
Figure 5.1: Range of GHG emission from different sources 118 Possibilities of job creation in supply chain of Figure 5.2: 120 advanced biofuels Figure 5.3: Improvement in production cost (2007-2012) 133
xvi ABBREVIATIONS
B Balanced bbl Barrel BAS Biomass Availability Scenarios CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate EJ/y Exa-Joules/Year FER Fossil Energy Replacement FRI Field Residue Index Gha Giga Hectares Gt/y Gigaton/Year gCO2-e Gram Carbon Dioxide Equivalent gals Gallons ILs Ionic Liquids iLUC Indirect Land Use Change MJ Mega Joule MT Million Tons Mtoe Million Tons of Oil Equivalent MIEP Minimum Energy Potential MAEP Maximum Energy Potential MIAB Minimum Potential for Advanced Biofuels MAAB Maximum Potential for Advanced Biofuels O Optimistic LCA Life Cycle Analysis P Pessimistic PRI Process Residue Index PFE Potential For Energy PAB Potential For Advanced Biofuels R/P Ratio Reserves-to-Production Ratio RPR Residue-to-Production Ratio RSR Residue-to-Surface Area Ratio tc/ha/y Tone from One Hectare in One Year YBAS Yield and Biomass Availability Scenarios
xvii Chapter - 1
CHAPTER - 1
1.1 Introduction
The group of liquid and gaseous fuels produced by the biomass is known as biofuels, and biofuels explicitly produced from the lignocellulosic biomass is known as advanced biofuels (C. N. Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006) (Tanaka, 2010). The processing of lignocellulosic biomass results in varieties of biofuels such as ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, hydrogen and methane etc. (Eisentraut, 2010a).
The transport sector is the primary consumer of liquid fossil fuels and has growth of rate of 2% per annum (C. Chen, Bian, & Ma, 2014). The growth of the transport sector led to the over-exploitation of crude oil sources and put the supply security at risk. Further, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from the transport sector is responsible for the 23% of the world‘s energy-related emissions (Ribeiro et al., 2007).
Liquid and gaseous biofuels have application for the transport sector. They are considered as the renewable and sustainable transport fuels because of having properties like lesser emissions of greenhouse gasses and particulate matter (Ayhan Demirbas, 2008). The reason for lesser GHG emission is the presence of significant oxygen content (10% - 45%) in biofuels, while fossil fuels do not have oxygen in it. Due to higher oxygen content biofuels have high antiknock value, burn more efficiently with reduced emissions but have lesser energy content than petroleum fuels (A Demirbas, 2009).
Gasoline supplies ~95% of fuel, demanded by the transport sector which increases the importance of ethanol as a biofuel (Ribeiro et al., 2007). Currently, ethanol represents 99% of the total biofuel consumption in USA and 86% in Brazil (Farrell, 2006) (Barros, 2015).
Presently, conventional biofuels are dominating over the market. The credit goes to their relatively simple and mature production technology and well-developed supply chain. The feedstock for the conventional biofuels includes starch (maize, wheat, sweet sorghum) and sugar (sugarcane, sugar beet) containing crops for ethanol production and oilseeds (both edible and non-edible) for biodiesel production (Ayhan
1 Chapter - 1
Demirbas, 2009). The continuous use of food biomass for biofuel production instigates the food versus fuel debate. Conventional biofuels are also not cost- competitive with the existing petroleum fuels without subsidies except for the Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane (Larson & Larson, 2008). Further, their environmental sustainability is in question after considering the emission from the whole supply chain (Araújo, Mahajan, Kerr, & Silva, 2017).
Against this, the advanced biofuels emerged as a more appropriate option because they avoid limitations associated with the conventional biofuels (See Chapter-3). Lignocellulosic biomass is not used as food and is available in large quantity. The 70% of the terrestrial biomass reported as the cell wall, which has lignocellulose as their primary constituent. It is estimated that the worldwide quantity of biomass by terrestrial plants is around 170-200 × 109 Gt (Giga ton) (Pauly & Keegstra, 2008).
Advanced biofuels are considered as more sustainable and environment friendly than the conventional biofuels. It is expected that the use of advanced biofuels will help in reducing transport sector carbon emission. The reason behind that is the cyclic flow of carbon, in which the carbon emitted during fuel combustion is recaptured in photosynthesis (Lee R Lynd, Cushman, Nicholas, & Wyman, 1991). The fossil energy replacement ratio (FER) which represent the ratio of energy output to energy input during the production process is greater than one for the advanced biofuels which demonstrates their better environmental sustainability (Brinkman, Wang, Weber, & Darlington, 2005).
Despite lignocellulosic biomass has variety of benefits but still, there is no commercial production of advanced biofuels due to the absence of cost-efficient technology. The cost of production is very high and not competitive with most of the petroleum and conventional biofuels. The cost is high because the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuel is a relatively complex process and have many cost consuming steps. The source of this complexity is the structural arrangement of the cell wall components in the lignocellulosic biomass. The cellulose chains found tangled with hemicellulose molecules in the cell wall. Intramolecular interactions like hydrogen bonding between the cellulose microfibrils, the β 1-4 glycosidic bond between cellulose molecules, covalent forces between lignin and hemicellulose are the reasons for the enormous strength of cell wall. The strength of the cell wall help in
2 Chapter - 1 protecting plants from microbial and pest attacks and hinders the breaking cell wall for pretreatment (Shen & Gnanakaran, 2009) (Healey, Lee, Furtado, Simmons, & Henry, 2015) (Houghton, Weatherwax, & Ferrell, 2006).
Despite high production cost, the use lignocellulosic biomass to produce biofuels still holds good as it is a renewable energy source and could be a viable alternative to petroleum fuels. Keeping in view that advanced biofuels production has the potential to grow more than hundredfold over a 15-year period (IRENA, 2016).
1.2 Conceptualizing energy security
The term ―energy security‖ gained popularity after the energy shortages and oil price shocks. After realization that increasing dependency on energy imports make a nation more vulnerable to the fluctuation in the outer world, and depletes the country‘s foreign exchange reserves. Continuous energy supply is the essence of national security and economic growth. A nation cannot secure and grow until it does not have a continuous and reliable supply of energy (Secretariat, 2015). As a matter of fact, per capita energy consumption is used as the indicator of measuring economic growth and welfare of any nation (Esen & Bayrak, 2017).
The concept of energy security is continuously evolving, and still, there is no comprehensive definition and methodology for its estimation rather it is contextual and dynamic (Secretariat, 2015). Different countries and organisations define energy security differently (Ang, Choong, & Ng, 2015).
Following are some definitions of energy security:
Khatib defines energy security as ―Energy security—the continuous availability of energy in varied forms, in sufficient quantities, and at reasonable prices—has many aspects‖. It means limited vulnerability to transient or longer disruptions of imported supplies. It also means the availability of local and imported resources to meet, over time and at reasonable prices, the growing demand for energy" (Khatib, Barnes, Chalabi, Steeg, & Yokobor, 2000).
Shaffer defines energy security as"Energy security is defined by three dimensions that is continuity, affordability and environmental friendliness"(Shaffer, 2011).
3 Chapter - 1
Biscop defines energy security as "the uninterrupted physical availability of energy products in the market at an affordable price for all consumers, while respecting environmental concerns and looking towards sustainable development‖ (Biscop & Whitman, 2012).
World Bank defines energy security as "Access to secure supplies of fuel, a competitive market that distributes those fuels, the stability of resource flows and transit points, and efficiency of end-use‖ (de Cendra de Larragán, 2012).
International energy agency defines energy security as ―the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price‖(IEA, 2016).
Jonathan Elkind identified the four elements of energy security, availability, reliability, affordability and sustainability (Pascual & Elkind, 2010). Availability means that ability of users to secure the needed energy; reliability means the extent to avoid supply disruptions, affordability means non-volatile and low equitable prices and sustainability means minimum social, environmental and economic damage (Sovacool, 2010).
However, the definitions of energy security vary from organisation to country, but almost all the above-mentioned definitions agree on the three common points; (1) Continuous supply, (2) Affordable prices and (3) Environmental friendliness.
1.3 Defining ‘potential’
It is important to specify the type of bioenergy potential to avoid ambiguity in the assessment of its actual contribution to energy security. In this study, the theoretical potential of lignocellulosic biomass has been reported after applying the appropriate sustainability criteria.
There are five types of potentials described in the literature (Figure 1.1).
1. Theoretical potential: It is the highest level of potential present in the total primary production of biomass. The natural and climatic conditions determine the maximum utilisation limit for this type of potential. It is at the level where the functioning of the ecosystem remains balanced.
2. Geographical potential: The geographical potential describes the theoretical potential present in the available biomass in that geographical area. The
4 Chapter - 1
geographical potential is restricted by the geography of the region, e.g. land use, land cover.
3. Technical potential: The technical potential is the amount of bioenergy potential that could be harvested at the current state of technology. The value of the technical potential is lower than the geographical potential due to technical limitations.
4. Economic potential: The economic potential is that portion of the technical potential, which could be realised at an economical cost. For instance, there is massive potential in the advanced biofuels for energy security, and technical realisation of this potential is also possible, but still, it is economically not feasible.
5. Ecological potential: The ecological potential takes ecological criteria into consideration like the loss of biodiversity and soil erosion.
6. Ecological-economical potential/Realistic potential: The ecological- economical potential is the amount of bioenergy realised at economical cost without affecting the environment and societal concerns.
Figure 1.1: Hierarchy of biomass potential
Economical- ecological potential/Realist -ic potential
Ecological potential
Economical potential
Technical potential
Geographical potential
Theoretical potential
5 Chapter - 1
1.4 Objectives of the study
Following are the objectives of the study:
1. To estimate the quantity of biomass from energy crops produced on marginal land available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India.
2. To estimate the quantity of biomass from agroforestry residues available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India.
3. To estimate the potential for energy (PFE) and potential for advanced biofuels (PAB) that can be produced from the available biomass from energy crops available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India.
4. To estimate the PFE and advanced biofuels that can be produced from the available residue biomass from agroforestry available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India
5. To analyse the contribution in energy security from the PFE and PAB from energy crops available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India
6. To analyse the contribution in energy security from the PFE and advanced biofuels from agroforestry residues available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India
7. To discuss the sustainability of advanced biofuels.
8. To provide suitable information for policymakers and stakeholders to make the right decision.
First objective is related to estimation of quantity of the biomass from energy crops. The second objective is related to the estimation of the quantity of residue biomass from agriculture and forestry residues. The third objective is related to the estimation of PFE and PAB from energy crops. The fourth objective is related to the estimation of PFE and PAB from agriculture and forestry residues. The fifth and sixth objectives are related to the contribution of PFE and PAB from energy crops and
6 Chapter - 1 agroforestry in energy security. The seventh objective is related to the sustainability of the advanced biofuels. The eighth objective is related to making suitable policy suggestions for the issues related to the production of advanced biofuels.
1.5 Data & methodology
1.5.1 Methodology for estimation of marginal land area
The different estimates of marginal land availability observed in different studies due to varying assumptions of sustainability criteria and agriculture management practices. In this study the bottom-up approach is followed for the estimation of the marginal land area in following steps (Figure 1.2). In the first step, data for the regional availability of marginal land obtained by the rigorous review of the related literature. The data have a high degree of variability and provide different estimates of the marginal land area for the same region. The causes of these variabilities are different estimation methodologies and underlying assumptions regarding population growth, economic growth and dietary patterns.
In the second step, only closely related values were selected for further processing. For obtaining the closely related values the data sets are compared with each other and more deviated values are omitted. After finding the closely related values their mean is taken for obtaining a single value which is considered as the most balanced and realistic estimate for the availability of marginal land.
In the final step, the marginal land is allocated to the production of energy crops according to the ‗availability factor approach‘ suggested by the Johansson and Yamamoto (Johansson, Kelly, Reddy, & Williams, 1993) (Yamamoto, Fujino, & Yamaji, 2001). According to this approach, after estimation of the marginal land area, the available area is multiplied with the fraction of availability. This fraction is either information based or absolutely hypothetical.
7 Chapter - 1
Figure 1.2: Modelling the marginal land area for the production of energy crops
Inputs (Data sets Comparision of Aggregtion of the obtained from the datasets with each common values different studies) other
Final value of the Multiply with Taking mean to availability of the availability factor obtain a single value land
1.5.2 Selection of energy crops
In this study, two energy crops i.e. Miscanthus and Switchgrass and Mix- perennial grasses are selected to produce on the marginal land. They are also known as low input and high-density crops and are tolerant for varying degree of soil and climatic conditions. Miscanthus and Switchgrass are the C4 plant species and have higher light, water and nitrogen use efficiency (B. E. Dale et al., 2006). They do not need nitrogen fertilizer because of the availability of the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in their roots. Miscanthus and Switchgrass also do not need to replant every time after harvesting because of the tuberous root which grows every time after harvesting (Houghton et al., 2006). Furthermore, they do not harm the biodiversity of the region; indeed, they are beneficial by providing cover to the shade tolerant plants, birds and arthropods (Donnelly et al., 2011).
A 14-year trial of Miscanthus for biomass yield shows that despite the removal of total aboveground biomass the yield was continuously maintained throughout the entire period without use of any fertilizer. The quantity of biomass from Miscanthus is 60% more than the well-managed maize crop without using any fertilizer (B. E. Dale et al., 2006). A study on Switchgrass shows that it has 1/8th nitrogen runoff and 1/100th soil erosion (Houghton et al., 2006).
1.5.3 Scenarios development
In this study for the calculation of PFE and advanced biofuels, three biomass availability scenarios and two biofuel yield scenarios are developed;
• Biofuel yield scenarios: Low yield, High yield
8 Chapter - 1
• Biomass availability scenarios: optimistic, balanced, pessimistic
1.5.4 Estimation of the energy potential
A study estimates the energy yield from perennial energy crops is in between 220 - 550 Giga Joule/hectare (GJ/ha) and from grasses 220 - 260 GJ/ha (C. N. Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006). Another study estimates the energy yields from Miscanthus, Switchgrass and Mix-crop system is in between 115 - 590 GJ/ha, 60 - 160 GJ/ha and 60 - 140 GJ/ha, respectively (Cai, Zhang, & Wang, 2011). For calculation of energy potential, the best estimates of energy potential from each of the selected energy crop are considered, which is 352 GJ/ha for Miscanthus, 110 GJ/ha for Switchgrass and 100 GJ/ha for Mix-crop system. The land availability in an optimistic scenario is maximum, i.e. 100%, in a balanced scenario is 50% and in pessimistic scenario is 25%.
For the calculation of the value of energy potential (EV(ec)), the spreadsheet model is developed. The scenarios are modelled by varying the availability of marginal land (ML) by the multiplication with a coefficient of availability (a) and energy yield (EY).
( ) …… (1)
1.5.5 Estimation of advanced biofuels potential
For the calculation of the PAB from the energy crops, the spreadsheet model is developed. The combination of the two approaches has been taken. The first is, per hectare biomass yield from the Miscanthus and Switchgrass which is approximately 33 ton/ha and 11 ton/ha, respectively (Heaton, Boersma, Caveny, Voigt, & Dohleman, 2014). The second is per hectare biofuel yield from Miscanthus and Switchgrass which is approximately 3000 gals/ha and 1050 gal/ha, respectively. The yield of biomass and biofuel from the Mix-crop system is assumed nearly equal to switchgrass but slightly lower. As a feedstock, the yield of Miscanthus surpasses the other competing feedstocks. In terms of biofuels, it is 65% more than the switchgrass, 75% more than the corn stover and 65% more than the corn grain.
9 Chapter - 1
1.6 Potential from agroforestry residues
Agroforestry residues are said to be the most crucial source of lignocellulosic biomass. They mostly left on the production site and generally used for the heating purposes, as a feed for livestock and burnt on the field for maintaining the soil fertility. After meeting these uses, still, there is a substantial quantity of the residue biomass left which can be used for the production of advanced biofuels (Xie, Wang, & Ren, 2010).
Agroforestry residues contain significant PFE and advanced biofuels which is currently underutilised (F Rosillo-Calle, Hall, & FAO, 1999). They possess dual advantage if taken as a source of feedstock by not threating to food security and environmental sustainability (Hughes, Moser, & Gibbons, 2014). A study was done on the production of ethanol from the corn stover in Iowa, USA and concluded that the production does not impact the soil health and provides substantial energy and greenhouse gas benefits (Sheehan et al., 2003). One important benefit associated with agricultural residues is that with growing population, the agriculture production expands which leads to increased agricultural residues generation (E. Smeets, Faaij, & Lewandowski, 2004). Forestry and wood processing residues are generated after the logging operations and processing of wood into final products. Forestry residues are found in a considerable amount where the industrial use of wood is high and have large forest covers (Parikka, 2004).
The extraction of agricultural residues poses a critical question that how much quantity could be extracted for biofuel production. Excessive extraction may have an adverse impact on soil, environment and crop yield. It could affect soil quality by altering soil composition and affect the stability of crop production (L. Yang et al., 2015). Therefore, complete extraction of agricultural residues is not possible because of sustainability issues. For instance, a study reported that 50% - 90% removal of residue causes 6% - 7% decrease in the soil‘s carbon and nitrogen stocks (Villamil & Nafziger, 2015). Another study shows that sustainable straw reaping rates depend on the factors like residue management practices, crop yield and soil types (Andrews, 2006). For example, the non-conservation tillage leaves less than 30% crop residue cover while conservation tillage leaves more than 30% crop residue cover (Fawcett, 2002). Thus, the reasonable extraction is required for avoiding the above-discussed limitations.
10 Chapter - 1
There are several studies which recommends the appropriate quantity of the residues which could be extracted. For instance, after using a sufficient quantity of fertilizer, the sustainable limit of the residue extraction is in between 25% - 75% (Zhao et al., 2015). Another study reported 25% is the sustainable residue extraction range, but with no-tillage practices, it could rise up to 35% (Muth Jr, Bryden, & Nelson, 2013). World bioenergy association recommends 50% limit for thr sustainable extraction of residues (WBA, 2014).
For estimation of forestry residues in this study, only the amount of residues generated from the industrial wood production is considered in this study because of the data availability reasons. During logging operation where wood logs are converted into transportable forms, most part of the wood is wasted and remains in the forest as a residue. It includes branches, barks, twigs and leaves. Generally, less than 66% of the wood volume is collected from the forest for further processing. The sawmilling and plywood industries generate between 40 – 55% of waste from the processing of roundwood. The quantity of wood residue can be calculated by the general assumption, i.e., 40% of all industrial wood is residual waste (Ogunwusi, 2014) (Parikka, 2004).
1.6.1 Methodology for estimation of agroforestry residues
To calculate the amount of agroforestry residues the data on crop and industrial wood production is taken from FAO. For minimizing the effect of yearly fluctuations, the mean of the ten years of production data is taken.
The Residue to Production Ratio (RPR) methodology is used to estimate the amount of residues from agricultural crops. RPR value is different for each crop and depends on the set of factors including crop variety, soil characteristics, water and nutrient supply, and the use of chemical growth regulators etc. Therefore, the mean value of RPR is chosen as suggested by Fischer et al. (2007).
For wood residues, secondary residues are considered, which is generated during wood processing operations. The study does not consider fuelwood for the advanced biofuel production but discusses its energy value, since it is assumed that these residues are already used as a traditional energy source.
11 Chapter - 1
1.6.2 Process of calculation of energy potential
1.6.2.1 Selection of biomass: Almost all the crops which are mentioned in the FAO database are included in the study. The selected biomass is categorized as follows:
1.6.2.1.1 Energy crops: Miscanthus, Switchgrass, Mix perennial grasses
1.6.2.1.2 Agroforestry residues: Fiber crops, Food grains, Oilseeds, Pulses, Horticulture (Fruits, Nuts, Spices, Tuber, Vegetables, Others), Sugarcane and Wood.
1.6.2.2 Estimation of gross biomass (energy crops, agriculture and wood residue)
Gross biomass includes the total quantity of biomass produced by the energy crops and residue generated by the processing of crops and wood. The quantity of gross biomass from energy crops (EC)γ is calculated by equation 2. Where ‗LA‘ is the available marginal land area, Y is the per hectare yield of the selected energy crop, and ‗γ' is the type of selected crop.
(EC)γ = LA× Y(γ) …… (2)
The quantity of gross biomass from the agricultural residue (CR), is calculated by the equation 3. Where (α) is the type of a crop and RPR(α) is the residue to production ratio of crop(α) and P(α) is the quantity of production of the crop(α). For fronds bearing crops like coconut, the quantity of biomass is estimated by taking the amount of tons of fronds generated in per hectare.
퐶푅(훼) = 푅푃푅(훼) × 푃(훼) …… (3)
For the calculation of wood residue (푊푅) equation 4 is used. Only industrial wood (IW) taken into consideration which is available in volumetric terms. The wood volume is converted into weight by multiplying with the appropriate density conversion factor (d). The quantity of wood residue is calculated by the waste factor (β) which is different for different industrial operations.
푊푅 = 퐼푊 × d × 훽…… (4)
12 Chapter - 1
1.6.3 Quantity of dry mass
The quantity of the agricultural dry mass is obtained by discounting the value of available biomass with the moisture content;
WM(훼) = wet mass of crop α
DM(훼) = dry mass of crop α
MC(훼) = moisture content of crop α
( - ( )) 퐷푀 = 푊푀 × …… (5)
1.6.4 Available biomass
Available biomass is the quantity of biomass which is left after meeting other competing uses. It is the only quantity of the residue biomass which could be diverted for the bioenergy production. The amount of available biomass is calculated by the availability factor (휃푛). Here, A(푒푐)γ is the available biomass from the energy crops, BC(훼) is the available biomass from the agricultural residue and AWR is the available biomass from the wood residue.
A(푒푐)γ = 휃푛 × 퐵(푒푐)γ …… (6)
BC(훼) = 휃푛 × 푇퐶푅(훼) …… (7)
A푊푅 = 휃푛 × 푇푊푅 …… (8)
1.6.5 Energy potential
The energy potential of biomass is calculated by the lower combustion heat value (LHV) which is in megajoule/kilogram (MJ/Kg and different for the different type of biomass. The potential from agroforestry residue is calculated by using equation 9. Where EV(훼) is the energy value of crop (훼), AC(훼) is the available biomass of crop (훼), and 퐿퐻푉(훼) is the lower heat value of crop (훼).
EV(훼) = 퐴C(훼) × 퐿퐻푉(훼) ……. (9)
The potential of the wood residue is calculated from equation 10. The LHV of wood is taken as the same for all type of wood residues.
퐸푉푊푅 = 푊푅 × 퐿퐻푉 …… (10)
13 Chapter - 1
1.6.6 Quantity of advanced biofuel
The quantity of the advanced biofuels is calculated by equation 11 - 16 for the two yield scenarios labelled as low yield scenario AB(L) and High yield scenario
AB(H). The values 56.5328 (g/t) and 81.1008 (g/t) in equation 11 and 12 is the conversion factor in gallons per ton (g/t) of biomass. It is later converted into gallon gasoline equivalent for estimation of clearer contribution in energy security.
1.6.6.1 Advanced biofuels from energy crops
AB(L) = 56.5328 (g/t) × A퐵(푒푐)γ …… (11)
AB(H) = 81.1008 (g/t) × A퐵(푒푐)γ…… (12)
1.6.6.2 Advanced biofuels from agricultural residues
AB(L) = 56.5328 (g/t) × ACR(α) …… (13)
AB(H) = 81.1008 (g/t) × ACR(α) …… (14)
1.6.6.3 Advanced biofuels from forestry residues
AB(L) = 56.5328 (g/t) × AWR…… (15)
AB(H) = 81.1008 (g/t) × AWR…… (16)
1.7 Need of the study
Energy security is a very critical issue, and needed to address actively and carefully. Research on advanced biofuel is crucial to meet the future transport fuel demand. This study tries to shed light on some important aspects of advanced biofuels. It attempts to answer the questions; how to harvest biomass energy? In which manner the issues and challenges against the advanced biofuels production to be addressed? This study is an attempt to provide a conceptual overview of advanced biofuels.
1.8 Significance of the study
Advanced biofuel technologies are currently in its initial stage. The understanding about benefits of advanced biofuels on energy security, environment and society not deed. Thus, this study tries to close these knowledge gaps. The study also discusses the biofuel policy initiatives and programs in the major biofuel
14 Chapter - 1 producing countries. Finally, the study tries to put some crucial policy suggestion for India, which might help to formulate their biofuel policy.
1.9 Limitations of the study
This study is able to make some significant useful contributions, but still, it has some limitations. The limitations arise due to time, data, economic constraints and lack of ideal conditions. The major limitations for the study include scarcity of the data on marginal land. Furthermore, all the available agricultural residues are assumed to be converted into advanced biofuels by the common conversion pathway and have same biofuel yields. However, in reality different residues have different yield and therefore, not suitable for the common conversion pathway. The data available for wood logging and processing residues is generally of poor quality due to the wide variety of processing techniques. In practice, it is not possible to collect all residues for bioenergy production due to scattered distribution and technical and environmental constraints. However, rigorous efforts have been made to make this study more detailed, inclusive and expressive but still more location-specific and detailed information is required to estimate more realistic, overall PFE and PAB. These would remain as the limitations of this research, and these limitations need to be addressed in future studies.
1.10 Organisation of the thesis
The study is expanded over six chapters.
1. Chapter-1 includes introduction and objectives of the study.
2. Chapter-2 gives a brief review of the literature.
3. Chapter-3 provides an overview of the advanced biofuels.
4. Chapter-4 deals with the potential of biomass for advanced biofuels and energy security.
5. Chapter-5 covers the environmental, economic and social issues of biofuel and their sustainability.
6. Chapter-6 presents the summary, conclusion and policy suggestions.
15 Chapter - 2
CHAPTER - 2
2.1 Introduction
A review of previous studies on the potential of bioenergy and advanced biofuels is given in this chapter. Sufficient literature is available regarding the energy potential from biomass but the literature on the potential for advanced liquid biofuels is scarce. This chapter is organized into four sections. The first section covers the studies related to the potential of lignocellulosic biomass for energy and advanced biofuel. The second section covers the studies related to environmental, social, and economic effects of advanced biofuel. The third section covers the studies related to the issues of technoeconomy and land use change. The fourth section discusses the research gap.
2.2 Literature related with potential
An evaluation of the global potential of bioenergy production on degraded lands (Nijsen, Smeets, Stehfest, & van Vuuren, 2012) In this study the potential from energy crops produced on degraded lands on a global scale is estimated. The methodology adopted for estimation includes combination different spatial data sets. The yield of energy crops is taken as the function of the quality of degraded land. Lightly degraded land areas are excluded from the study. The study estimated the energy potential from degraded land (forest, cropland or pasture land) amounts 150 EJ/y from grasses and 190 EJ/y from woody energy crops. The energy potential from remaining land covers are estimated in the range of 25 - 31 EJ/y.
Renewable energy outlook (International Energy Agency, 2012b) This report focuses on the use of renewable fuels in future energy supply. According to the study, the use of transport biofuel will increase up to three times in its new policy scenario with dominance of ethanol. The results of the study show that there is no shortage of biomass for biofuel production. However, it is recommended that the use of land resource have to be managed sustainably.
Global biomass fuel resources (Parikka, 2004) This study focuses on the woody biomass for production of densified biofuels. The author used the FAO database and other publications for gathering data on forest products. The study estimated the total sustainable worldwide bioenergy potential of about 104 EJ/y with
16 Chapter - 2 the share of woody biomass around 41.6 EJ/y. The study shows that 55% of the total globally produced wood is used as direct fuel and the remaining 45% is used for industrial purposes. In industrial processing, 40% wood is wasted as processing residue which is considered as a feedstock for densified biofuels.
A quickscan of global bio-energy potentials to 2050 (E. Smeets et al., 2004) In this study, a bottom-up approach is adopted for estimation of theoretical bioenergy potential on a global scale. The key elements for determining the bioenergy potential is identified as: population growth, demand for food and wood, crop yields, natural forest growth and wood production from plantations. An Excel-spreadsheet model was developed for analyzing the effect of these factors on the potential of bioenergy. The key results of the study are: efficient agricultural practice leads to reduced land requirement for food production and hence, the surplus land might be available for energy crops. The quantity of agricultural residues depends on the production of crops, and forestry residues depend on surplus forest growth for wood supply and the rates of plantation establishment.
Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: Availability and distribution (Jiang, Zhuang, Fu, Huang, & Wen, 2012) This study adopted a GIS- based approach for the estimation of the availability and spatial distribution of crop residues in China. The quantity of the crop residues is estimated by residue to production ratio (RPR). For conversion in energy terms, the lower heating value of standard coal is used which is 29.27 MJ/kg. The study estimates that 505.5 MT of crop residues are available which is equal to 253.7 MT standard coal per year (7.4 EJ/year) after considering conservation requirements.
Biomass resources and biofuels potential for the production of transportation fuels in Nigeria (Ben-Iwo, Manovic, & Longhurst, 2016) This study estimates the biomass resources (agricultural, forest, urban, and other wastes) available in Nigeria and their potential for biofuel production. The study estimated 145.6 MT of crop residues by use of RPR methodology, which have energy potential of 1.9 EJ/y.
Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050: An assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials (E. M. W. Smeets & Faaij, 2007) This study makes an assessment of the bioenergy potential from the woody biomass from the forestry for
17 Chapter - 2
2050. The projections were performed by comparing the future demand with the future supply of wood, based on existing databases, scenarios, and other studies. Key variables included in the study are: the demand for industrial wood and wood fuel, the plantation establishment rates, and the various theoretical, technical, economic, and ecological limitations related to the supply of wood from forests. The study adopted a bottom-up analysis for this purpose. The results of the study are for the medium- demand scenario, and found that the surplus wood supply could provide a substantial amount of bioenergy in 2050. The theoretical potential from surplus wood is the maximum, i.e. 71 EJ/y and 8 EJ/y after environmental criteria. Potential from processing residues is 28 EJ/y.
Crop Residues: Agriculture's largest harvest (Smil, 1999a) This study estimates the amount of crop residues on a global scale by the combination of RPR and Harvest index methodology. The study shows that the agriculture residues represent more than half of the phytomass of the world. It estimates 3.75 Gt of agriculture residues are produced globally per year which have the energy potential of 65 EJ/y.
Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry (Daioglou, Stehfest, Wicke, Faaij, & van Vuuren, 2016) The study focused on the long-term supply potential of bioenergy from agriculture and forestry residues with consideration of different limiting factors. The study uses RPR methodology for quantifying the amount of crop residues and RSR (residue to surface area ratio) methodology for the vegetables and fruit crops. The study uses consistent scenarios of agriculture and forestry production, livestock production and fuel use from the spatially explicit integrated assessment model IMAGE. The result of the study shows that the theoretical potential is projected to increase from up to 140 – 170 EJ/y by the year 2100, generally from agricultural production.
Assessment of biomass potentials for biofuel feedstock production in Europe: Methodology and results (Fischer, Hizsnyik, Prieler, & Velthuizen, 2007) This study is focused on determination of the production potential of biofuels in Europe by energy crops. The methodology adopted for this analysis includes a detailed Pan-European resource database and spatially explicit feedstock suitability and productivity modelling framework. Both arable land and grassland have been considered for biofuel feedstock production options. The results show that by 2030, a
18 Chapter - 2 maximum of 65 Mha of cultivated land and 24 Mha of pastures land can be used for the production of energy crops. This amount of land can produce enough biofuels to meet 20% - 50% transport fuel requirement in 2030.
Agricultural waste biomass energy potential in Pakistan (Saeed et al., 2015) This study focuses on the waste biomass for electricity generation. The study adopted RPR methodology for estimation of agricultural residues and calculated 138. 2 MT of residue and calculated 220 MT of wood and forestry residues. By collection efficiency of 35%, they can contribute up to 76% of electricity.
A review on biomass energy resources, potential, conversion and policy in India (A. Kumar, Kumar, Baredar, & Shukla, 2015) The study reviewed biomass resource, potential, conversion and policy for their promotion in India. They found that the utilization of biomass for renewable energy is lower from its actual potential. There are various policy instruments suggested for the promotion of bioenergy like, rural electrification by co-generation of electricity via bagasse, which is beneficial for the rural population and helps in the sustainable development of the nation.
World biofuels production potential understanding the challenges to meet the US renewable fuel standard (Sastri & Lee, 2008) The study estimates the worldwide potential to produce biofuels including their potential for export. The potential assessed for twenty year span, stretching from 2010 - 2030 by using scenarios covering a range of U.S. policy tools (tax credits, tariffs, and regulations), oil prices, feedstock availability, and a global CO2 price.
World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel (R. Lal, 2005) The study investigate the possibilities for using crop residue as a possible source of feedstock for bioenergy production. By adopting of RPR methodology, the study calculates the amount of crop residue from the five major categories, i.e. cereals, legumes, sugars, tubers and oil. The estimated amount of crop residue in USA from 21 crops is 488 MT, which is equal to 1 billion barrel (bbl) of diesel. Globally, for 27 crops, this amount is 3758 MT and equal to 7.5 billion bbl of diesel.
Agricultural residue production and potentials for energy and materials services (Bentsen, Felby, & Thorsen, 2014) This study provide regional and global estimates of the amount of residues from six major crops by RPR methodology. The study shows a global production of residues from six crops as 3.7 Pg/y (Petagram) dry
19 Chapter - 2 matter. Which theoretically have energy potential of 65 EJ/y. This calculated potential is equal to 15% of the global primary energy consumption or 66% of the world‘s transport energy consumption.
Theoretical bioenergy potential in Cambodia and Laos (Akgün, Korkeakoski, Mustonen, & Luukkanen, 2011) This paper investigates theoretical potential energy from agricultural and forestry residues in Cambodia and Laos. The selected agriculture biomass for the study includes rice husk, straw, corn cob, cassava stalk, bagasse and sugarcane trash and forestry biomass include logging residues, sawnwood and plywood residues. The energy potential is calculated by using lower heating values (LHV). The study estimates 1.4 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) of potential in Cambodia and 0.6 Mtoe in Laos. Furthermore, the study also estimates the ethanol production from these residues. In Cambodia about 648 Gl (Giga litre) and in Laos about 355 Gl ethanol can be produced from these residues.
A quantitative assessment of crop residue feedstocks for biofuel in North and Northeast China (L. Yang et al., 2015) This study evaluates the spatial and temporal variation in residue quantities of field crops. The study is focused on five provinces of North China (NC) and three provinces of Northeast China (NEC). The study use FRI (field residue index) and PRI (process residue index) for the calculation of the residue biomass. The results of the study show cereals are the primary source of crop residues.
Land availability analysis for biofuel production (Cai et al., 2011) The study estimated the marginal agricultural land in Africa, China, Europe, India, South America, and United States for possible production of energy crops. The study uses fuzzy logic modelling (FLM) technique to assess land productivity. The study finds plantation of energy crops on abandoned and degraded cropland, and grassland may fulfil 26 - 55% of the current world liquid fuel consumption without affecting the use of land for conventional crops and pasture land.
Integrated analysis of global biomass flows in search of the sustainable potential for bioenergy production (van den Born, van Minnen, Olivier, & Ros, 2014) The study estimates bioenergy potential from current and future efficiencies by using agricultural and wood residues. The obtained data from the FAO and literature survey.
20 Chapter - 2
Biomass resources and bioenergy potentials in Nigeria (Simonyan & Fasina, 2013) The study focused on the electricity generation from the biomass resources available in Nigeria. It evaluates various conversion technologies, benefits, challenges and research gaps in bioenergy utilization. The study finds excellent opportunities for exploitation of different types of biomass in Nigeria with an estimated potential of 2.01 EJ/yr (47.97 MTOE). The study concluded that the energy challenge of Nigeria would be overcome if the abundant biomass resources in the country are tapped and used to generate electricity.
Global bioenergy potentials through 2050 (Fischer & Schrattenholzer, 2001) The study estimates regional bioenergy potentials for the year 1990 and 2050. The scenarios developed in this study represent high economic growth and lower greenhouse gas emission and presents a more realistic bioenergy potential assessment. The study estimated bioenergy potential for the year of 1990, 225 EJ/yr and for the year 2050, between 370 - 450 EJ/yr. In that scenario, bioenergy supplies 15% of global primary energy by 2050.
Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy (Hoogwijk et al., 2003) This study explores the potential of biomass for energy on the global scale. The focus has been put on the factors influencing the biomass availability for energy purposes, and specific attention is paid to the competing biomass use for material. The study estimates the global potential of primary biomass around 33 − 1135 EJ/y and from energy crops on surplus agricultural land around (0 – 988 EJ/y).
Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? (Doornbosch & Steenblik, 2007) The study estimates potentials from energy crops ~110 EJ/y and from residues ~135 EJ/y. In this study, the potential from energy crops which is much lower than estimated by other studies. The high range of potentials are estimated for Latin America and Africa, but low for Europe and North America and negative for Asia. The study includes strict sustainability criteria like inclusion of water stress to determine the estimate for land availability and productivity, and the inclusion of food production which results in the negative potentials in Asia.
The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies (Berndes, Hoogwijk, & Van Den Broek, 2003) This paper discusses the
21 Chapter - 2 contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply. The study is based on a review of 17 earlier studies. The study finds out that the bioenergy demand is sensitive to biomass supply potentials, and total energy demand and competitiveness of alternative sources.
Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass (McKendry, 2002) The study finds out that the use of biomass can play a vital role in reducing the adverse environmental impact of fossil fuels.
2.3 Literature related to environment and socio-economic impacts
Biofuels and their by-products: Global economic and environmental implications (Taheripour, Hertel, Tyner, Beckman, & Birur, 2010) The study finds out that the role of by-products of the conventional biofuel industry was ignored in previous studies. The by-products such as dried distiller grains and oil seed meals are used to feed livestock. They are source of protein and energy which reduces the negative economic impact of biofuel production. More importantly, they reduce the demand for cropland and moderate the indirect land use consequences of conventional biofuels.
Advanced biofuel technologies: status and barriers (J. Cheng & Timilsina, 2010) This is a review based study and talks about the limitations of food crop based biofuels. The study also talks about the current status of several advanced biofuel technologies. The study concludes that technically it is possible to produce a large portion of transportation fuels by using advanced biofuel technologies. The key technical barriers against the advanced biofuel production is low conversion efficiency, limited supply of enzymes and high energy requirements.
The current status of biofuels in the European Union, their environmental impacts and future prospects; EASAC (2012) (Heap, 2012) This report talks about the strategy of EU to combat global warming. The EU plans to reduce GHG by using biofuels in road transport. A policy document known as Renewable Energy Directive (RED) include targets for renewable energy in the road transport sector. According to it, by 2020, 10% of the transport fuel in the EU and each of its member states should come from renewable sources. The directive also prohibits the use of land because of the reasons such as biodiversity or contains high stocks of carbon.
22 Chapter - 2
Sustainable production of second-generation biofuels (IEA 2010) (Eisentraut, 2010b) This study aims to identify opportunities and constraints related to the potential for production of second-generation biofuels. For this, the study focused on the policy framework for a successful second-generation biofuel industry under different economic and geographic conditions. The study further assesses the potential of agricultural and forestry residues as potential feedstock for second-generation biofuels. The study finds out that there is significant potential in second-generation biofuels for energy and environment. The results of this study helps to answer the contribution of second-generation biofuels from residues to the future biofuel demand projected in the IEA scenarios.
World energy outlook 2012 (International Energy Agency, 2012b) This report talks about the uncertainty faced by the energy industry in the shadow of a global economic crisis of 2008 - 2009. The report finds out that there is considerable development in renewable energy uses and technology, but it is not enough to get the desired level to achieve the goal of sustainable energy.
The potential of biomass fuels in the context of global climate change: focus on transportation fuels (Kheshgi, Prince, & Marland, 2000) This is a review based study which evaluates the potential of using biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels. The study recommended that the accurate and detailed life cycle emissions is necessary for actual CO2 mitigation potential of biofuels. The study reported, if ethanol is used to substitute gasoline, then the reduced CO2 emission would be equal to the substituted emissions minus fossil emissions incurred in producing the ethanol from these crops. The result of the study shows the avoided emissions are estimated to be 29% of harvested cane and 14% of harvested corn primary energy.
Backgrounder: Major environmental criteria of biofuel sustainability (Ackom, Emmanuel; Mabee, Warren; Saddler, 2010) The report provides a general overview of biofuel sustainability. The objective of this report is a meta-analysis of the most prominent sustainability criteria. The study finds out that the percent net energy improvement for cellulosic ethanol have the range of 76% - 93% from switchgrass, 76% -100% from wheat straw and 73% - 91% from wood. The average GHG emission reduction by the cellulosic ethanol depends on the type of feedstock.
23 Chapter - 2
For instance, if produced from switchgrass the GHG reduction is (93%), followed by wheat straw which reduces GHG by (87%) and from wood, the GHG reduction is (77%). On an average, the cellulosic ethanol achieved a minimum threshold of atleast 65% reductions relative to gasoline.
Contribution of biofuels to the global economy (Urbanchuk, 2012) This study talks about the contribution of biofuel industry to the economy and society on global scale. The objectives of this study is to examine global production trends in ethanol and biodiesel and estimate the global economic footprint of the biofuels industry. According to the study, the expansion in biofuel industry provide significant benefits to the global economy in terms of income, job creation and environment. The benefits include income to the agriculture sector, rapidly growing domestic markets, reduction in fuel imports and stabilization of the fuel prices which are more pronounced for the developing countries, particularly Africa and Asia.
Contribution of the ethanol industry to the economy of the United States (Urbanchuk, 2009) This study focused on the ethanol industry and its contribution to the American economy. According to the study, despite the problems of recession and oil price shocks in the year 2008, the ethanol industry absorbed this shock with minimal damages and the ethanol production capacity grew 34% from the previous year. Due to this, the ethanol industry makes a significant contribution in the job creation, tax revenue and displacement of imported crude oil.
Contribution of the ethanol industry to the economy of the United States (Urbanchuk, 2010) The study talks about the recovery of ethanol industry after economic shock of 2008. The study reveals, despite facing challenges of the profitability, the ethanol industry successfully maintained its growth and able to meet the targets of Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The study also finds that the ethanol production increased by 14.7 percent from the previous year and the construction of the new facilities was also in line after the economic shock.
24 Chapter - 2
2.4 Literature related with the techno-economy, policy and issue of land use change
An overview of second generation biofuel technologies (Sims, Mabee, Saddler, & Taylor, 2010) The objective of this study is to examine the current state of technological development, production cost, necessary policies for the advanced biofuels with emphasis on cellulosic ethanol. The findings of the study questions the environmental sustainability of conventional biofuels. The study suggests that the advanced biofuels from energy crops are more sustainable only if the energy crops are produced on the marginal lands. The study recommends more investment in research and policy support which is essential for the commercial scale production.
Ethanol from lignocellulosics: A review of the economy (Von Sivers & Zacchi, 1996). This study is a review of the production economics of cellulosic ethanol. The objectives of the study are: to find relations and tendencies observed in different cost estimations and the influence of plant capacities and product yield on the production cost. The study identifies yield as the most critical factor for the economic viability. Other factors that affect the production economics is the feedstock cost, plant capacity and capital expenditure. The result of the sensitivity analysis shows that with an increase in yield, decrease in the feedstock cost and an increase in plant capacity was observed which resulted in a lower production cost.
Economic feasibility of producing ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks (Kaylen, Van Dyne, Choi, & Blase, 2000). The objective of the study is to assess the economic feasibility of the cellulosic ethanol production process. For this, the mathematical programming model known as ‗non-linear optimization model using General Algebraic Modelling System‘ is used. The results of the study show that the low-cost ethanol is only produced if the high value of co-products like furfural are also generated along with ethanol. Further, the study suggests the use of crop residues as feedstock and avoid using energy crops.
What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol (Charles E. Wyman, 2007). This is review based study which focused on the production economics of cellulosic ethanol. The study identifies inadequacy of funds and policy support as two major reasons for high production cost. The study cited high-risk
25 Chapter - 2 perception of private investors as the reason of low private investment in the cellulosic ethanol industry. The study also reveals that the commercialization of the cellulosic ethanol is foreseeable because of improvements in pretreatment process, enzyme production and enzymatic hydrolysis which are the source of economic leverage.
Technoeconomic analysis of biochemical scenarios for production of cellulosic ethanol (F Kabir Kazi, Fortman, & Anex, 2010). The objective of this study is to identify the most suitable biochemical conversion process. The study adopts the criteria of production cost for the identification. The process which have lowest production cost is considered as the most suitable for further research. The study reported that enzyme and feedstock costs are two major cost contributors and production cost is most sensitive to them. Results of the study show that the dilute acid pretreatment process without any downstream process variation had the lowest production cost $3.40/gal of ethanol (which is $5.15/gallon of gasoline equivalent, $2007). The study recommends that high-performance enzymes at a lower price and more research is needed for the economic viability of this process.
Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover (Humbird et al., 2011). This study covers the core conversion and process integration research at NREL and an update over previous studies. It describes the detailed biochemical conversion process for cellulosic ethanol production. The study reported the absolute production cost for ethanol that can be used to assess its market competitiveness. The results of the study show that at the feedstock processing capacity of 2,205 dry ton/day and theoretical ethanol yield of 76% (79 gals/dry ton), the absolute ethanol selling price is $2.15/gal in 2007$.
Cost estimates of cellulosic ethanol production: A review (Zhang, Zhang, Pei, & Wang, 2013). This is a review of the cost estimates of cellulosic ethanol. The study reported that most of the cost studies are focused on some individual process steps and ignoring those that have been studied much lesser than others. The study tries to fill this gap and for this the study reviews the cost estimates of the entire production cycle, i.e. from feedstock plantation to conversion. The study identifies
26 Chapter - 2 several factors which are the cause of variations in the estimation of production cost. It identifies two main reasons for variations. The first is lack of clear cost breakdown structures. The second reason is the lack of reliable transparent cost data.
Achievement of ethanol cost targets: Biochemical ethanol fermentation via dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover (Tao et al., 2014). The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of research on cellulosic ethanol in economic terms. The study uses data of the bench-scale production process by five pilot scale runs. ‗Aspen Plus‘ process simulation software is used to analyze data. The result of the study shows Integrated Biorefinery Research Facility (IBRF) successfully achieved the target of low-cost ethanol, i.e. MESP $2.15/gal (2007$, $58.50/ton feedstock cost) and the conversion target of $1.41/gal because of technoeconomic improvements in production process.
From first to second generation biofuel technologies (Sims Ralph, 2008) This report talks about the technical and economic issues faced by the advanced biofuels. The findings of the study show advanced biofuel technology in the developmental phase and without government support it is impossible to commercialise these technologies.
Biofuels: Policies, standards and technologies (Gadonneix et al., 2010) This study discusses the issues and drivers for the biofuel adoption. Issues include debate on land use, environment, economics. The drivers include increase energy security in current scenario when the energy demand is very high and projected to double by mid-21st century. The study also reported that the expectation from the biofuels is high and they will become an essential part of the global energy mix.
2.5 Research gap
This study is different from the previously done studies in following aspects. Previous studies primarily focused on the estimation of potential of lignocellulosic biomass for energy and its contribution in the total primary energy supply. This study estimates the potential of the lignocellulosic biomass in both terms i.e., (1) potential for energy (PFE) in Exa-Joule/year (EJ/y) and (2) potential for advanced biofuel (PAB) in giga-gallons-gasoline-equivalent (GGE/y). After estimation of the PFE and
27 Chapter - 2
PAB, the potentials are compared with transport sector‘s energy and gasoline consumption. The comparison is done to identify the precise contribution in transport sector‘s energy security from PFE and PAB.
In contrast with the other studies, this study includes three energy crops for produce on marginal land and include every crop mentioned in the FAO database. This study also estimated the potential on three scales i.e., (1) global level, (2) regional level (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America) and (3) for India. To make the study more inclusive, a comparison of PFE and PAB in all selected regions was studied at the same time.
28 Chapter - 3
CHAPTER - 3
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, types, production technologies, issues, and policies concerned with advanced biofuels are discussed. The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the advanced biofuels.
3.2 Biomass as a source of energy
Biomass is a multipurpose energy source that can be converted into solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Globally, biomass provides around 10% of the total primary energy supply (International Energy Agency, 2017a). Around 55% bioenergy is used in traditional way for cooking and heating in developing countries whereas rest is used for heating in buildings (8.6%), industry (15.4%), electricity production (12.4%) and transport (6%) (Figure 3.1) (International Energy Agency, 2017b).
Figure 3.1: Sectoral consumption of bioenergy (2015)
Transport Sector Commercial Heat 6% 1% Electricty and Co- generation Others 12% 1% Heating in Industry 16%
Traditional (Cooking and Heating in Heating) Modern Buildings 55% 9%
Source: (IEA, 2017)
3.3 Bioenergy for the transport sector
Transport sector consumes nearly 100 EJ/y energy mostly from liquid petroleum fuels (Davis et al., 2014). The use of biomass in the transport sector is only possible after converting it into liquid and gaseous form. Since 1990, the production of transport biofuels rose continuously at the rate of 10% per annum. In 2010, biofuels
29 Chapter - 3 supplied the 5% of the global road transport fuel, 5% of the transport fuel in USA and 23% in Brazil, mostly from conventional biofuels (Davis et al., 2014) (IEA, 2013a).
In future, the percentage contribution of biofuels will grow over years and the major contribution will be from advanced biofuels (EISA mandates) (IEA, 2013a). The conversion of agroforestry residue and energy crops in advanced biofuels will become a common form of bioenergy (Van Dam & Junginger, 2011).
3.4 Need of biofuels
Approximately 100 oil fields are producing half of the global petroleum supply and other 25 are producing one quarter (IEA, 2008). It is projected that the liquid transport fuel consumption will grow by the rate of 1.1 percent per year from 2010 to 2040. Another study shows that it will grow at the rate of 2% per annum (Ilyama, M. Kariuki, P., Kristjanson, P., Kaitibie, S., Maitima, 2008) (Sieminski, 2014). The problem is that the supply of petroleum fuels has reached to their maximum level and scope for further expansion is very limited and it seems to enter into the declining phase in near future. Proven oil reserves are only sufficient for 55 years at the 2011 production level (International Energy Agency, 2012b) (Table 3.2). Further, the greenhouse gas emission from fossil fuels are damaging the environment and speeding up the process of climate change (Miller & Sorrell, 2014).
Table 3.1: Proven and recoverable resources of oil
Oil (billion barrels)
Region Proven reserves Recoverable resources
OECD 244 2345
Non-OECD 1450 3526
World 1694 5871
Share of non-OECD 86% 60%
R/P ratio (years) 55 189
Source: (International Energy Agency, 2012b)
30 Chapter - 3
3.5 Biofuels for India
India is a developing country and it is projected that in future the demand for oil will increase. India have very limited oil reserves and the domestic production of crude oil has been more or less stagnant over years. India‘s oil reserves are only able to meet about 20% of oil demand and the rest 80% is imported (CSO, 2017). In the year 2016 - 17, India had imported 213.93 million tons (MT) of crude oil which has import bill of $70.2 billion. In the year 2017-18, the crude oil imports reached 219.15 MT and import bills reached $87.7 billion (PPAC, 2018).
It is estimated that the demand for petroleum fuels in India will rise in the future because of the growing population, increasing number of vehicles and infrastructure development. Due to this, it is projected that India‘s dependence on oil import will increase up to 92 percent by the year 2030 (IEA, 2009a). This growing dependence on oil imports is the key reason for the country to embrace biofuel production on its own. Moreover, various other socio-economic and environmental concerns have also encouraged the shift.
3.6 Classification of biofuels
Biofuels are classified as ―conventional‖ and ―advanced‖ according to the technologies used to produce them and their respective maturity (International Energy Agency, 2012b).
3.6.1 Conventional biofuels
Conventional biofuels uses food crops for their production. They have mature and established production technology and are currently being produced on a commercial scale. These biofuels include sugarcane ethanol, starch-based ethanol, biodiesel, Fatty Acid Methyl Esther (FAME) and Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO).
3.6.2 Conversion process for conventional biofuels
3.6.2.1 Ethanol production
Sugar-based ethanol production
Starch-based ethanol production
31 Chapter - 3
3.6.2.1.1 Sugar-based ethanol production
The process of sugar-based ethanol conversion is depicted in Figure 3.2. The sugarcane, sugarbeet etc., are used as a feedstock in this process. The sugar available in these feedstocks could be fermented into ethanol by yeasts or fermenting bacteria. Extraction of sugar from feedstock is easy and done by simple or mechanical squeezing. Finally, extracted sugar is sent for the fermentation to convert it into ethanol (J. Cheng & Timilsina, 2010).
Figure 3.2: Sugar-based production process
Fermentation Dehydration
Beer Sugarcane Sugar 10 - 15% 90% Ethanol 99% Ethanol Ethanol
Extraction Distillation
3.6.2.1.2 Starch-based bioethanol production:
The starch-based ethanol production is based upon the starchy feedstock like corn, wheat, rice, barley, sorghum, potatoes etc. Conversion of starchy feedstock needs an additional step called saccharification. It is required for breaking the large starch molecule into simple sugar form. The saccharification is accomplished through enzymatic reactions which are catalysed by the enzyme called amylases. The main product of the saccharification process is glucose which is fermented into ethanol by yeasts or other fermenting bacteria (J. Cheng & Timilsina, 2010).
Figure 3.3: Starch-based production process
Fermentation Dehydration
Beer 90% 99% Corn Starch Sugar 10%-15% Ethanol Ethanol Eth-OH
Saccharification Distillation
32 Chapter - 3
3.6.2.2 Biodiesel production
The biodiesel is produced by the transesterification of the fats and vegetable oils by the addition of either methanol or other alcohols. The final products of this process includes biodiesel and glycerin. The feedstock for biodiesel production includes rapeseeds, sunflower seeds, soy seeds, jatropha seeds and palm oil seeds. The oil is extracted from these seeds either chemically or mechanically. In order to expand the feedstock base, recycled cooking oils and animal fats are also considered for the conversion via a new process known as hydrogenation of oils and fats (IEA, 2007).
Figure 3.4: Biodiesel production process
Methanol + Transesterifi Crude Refine Biodiesel Catalyst cation biodiesel
Crude glycerine
Glycerine Methanol Glycerine recovery refining
3.7 Issues with conventional biofuels
3.7.1 Food vs fuel
In a very short span of time, the conventional biofuels industry and specifically ethanol production had grown significantly. Corn is the primary feedstock for producing ethanol. A bushel of corn has a weight of 56 pounds, and one pound of corn potentially contain 1.55 kilocalories of energy (N. Dale, 1994) (Cromwell, 2006). The ethanol yield from the bushel of corn is approximately 2.77 gals, that means a gallon of ethanol have 31.35 kcal of energy (Donner & Kucharik, 2008). The regular gasoline normally contains 10% ethanol by volume, which is equal to 3000 calories. A normal person needs 2100 calories for a day. This signifies that a gallon of
33 Chapter - 3 gasoline has a sufficient amount of food energy, which can sustain a single person for approx. 1.5 day. In 2015, around 15 Billion gallon ethanol produced in USA sacrificed approximately 627 Million people‘s food for a year (Albino, Bertrand, & Bar-Yam, 2012). Further, the diversion of surplus corn to the biofuel production create a shortage of corn grains in the international market, which leads to hike in price as a food. For instance, in the year 2007, protest in Mexico erupted against the corn ethanol due to the rise in price of tortillas. The price of the livestock which uses corn as their feed like chicken also increased (Duffield, Johansson, & Meyer, 2015).
3.7.2 Fossil energy replacement (FER) ratio
It refers to the ratio of energy output to the energy input for production of one unit of biofuel. At the point when energy input exceeds the energy output, biofuel production is not viable. Estimation of FER needs to consider the entire fuel cycle, from feedstock production to final consumption – the so-called ‗well-to-wheels‘ approach. It should also include energy paybacks associated with the co-products - the so-called ‗co-products credits‘ (Dufey, 2006). Energy balances are varied and depends on the type of feedstock and methods of cultivation as well as the conversion technology. There are also differences depending on the methodology which was used to calculate the energy (Cherubini et al., 2009a).
Figure 3.5: FER ratio of advanced and conventional biofuels
18 16.4 16 14
12
10
8 FER FER ratio 6 4 2.89 1.52 2 0 Advanced biofuels (ethanol from Advanced biofuels (ethanol from Conventional biofuels (corn ethanol) thermochemical process) biochemical process)
Source: (Connor, 2013)
34 Chapter - 3
It is found that the FER ratios in case of the biomass-derived fuels are higher than conventional energy sources, which means better sustainability (Hammerschlag, 2006). For instance, the FER ratio of cellulosic ethanol from both processes is better than the conventional ethanol (Figure 3.5). Therefore, it can be said that ethanol derived from lignocellulosic resources has a much higher FER, demonstrating their better sustainability.
3.7.3 Sustainability
It is a general perspective that biofuels will help to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere, but in the light of improved estimation techniques of the well to wheel emissions, the environmental performance of most of the conventional biofuels is lesser than perceived. For instance, in USA the production of corn ethanol puts a negative effect on the environment due to poor energy balance (Agbor, Cicek, Sparling, Berlin, & Levin, 2011).
In future, as the transport grows, the need for biofuels will increase. The increasing demand of biofuel will need more food-based feedstock, which can either be achieved by increase in productivity or by creating a new area for the production. Later is most likely to be used because of the yield barriers. Moreover, the feedstock for conventional biofuels could not be produce on the marginal land. Therefore, there is limited scope of expansion in feedstock supply. Further, sole dependency on the conventional biofuels leads to clearing of forest and other vegetation areas. In reality, the plants and soil contained approximately 3 times more carbon than the atmosphere, which means the GHG emission will increase due to this action. So the benefits offered by the conventional biofuels is limited by:
1. Competition for land and water (Fargione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky, & Hawthorne, 2008).
2. High costs that need subsidies to compete with petroleum products (Doornbosch & Steenblik, 2007).
3. The net greenhouse gas (GHG) is lower than perceived (OECD, 2008).
By the above-mentioned facts, it could be understood that the conventional biofuels have their own limitations for sustainable energy supply and to be used as an
35 Chapter - 3 energy security tool. It is the demand of time that we search another resource which are sustainable, have an abundant supply and does not affect food security.
3.8 Paradigm-shift: from conventional biofuels to advanced biofuels
Despite offering certain environmental and economic benefits, production of biofuels is not free from the controversies. The most important one is food vs fuel. The threat is so grave that the UN presents its special concerns on the special rapporteur on the Right to food which says "biofuels will bring hunger in their wake", arguing that "the sudden, ill-conceived rush to convert food - such as maize, wheat, sugar and palm oil - into fuels is a recipe for disaster" (Ziegler, 2007).
3.8.1 Advanced biofuels
The utility of advanced biofuels is highest for the transport sector which is largely dependent on the gasoline. A variety of liquid and gaseous biofuels could be produced from the lignocellulosic biomass including Methanol, Ethanol, Hydrogen, Dimethyl esters, Fischer-Tropsch Diesel, and Bio-SNG. These fuels are expected to help in decarbonisation of the transport sector and achieve energy security (International Energy Agency, 2012a). Estimates show that the greenhouse gas mitigation from the advanced biofuels are at least 65% better than gasoline. The reason for their high greenhouse gas reduction is the use of residues and often use portions of the biomass as a feedstock (Ackom, Emmanuel; Mabee, Warren; Saddler, 2010).
Ethanol is the most important biofuel of the time and primarily used in gasoline blending. Globally, 75% of the total biofuels is ethanol. In USA, ethanol represents 99% of the total biofuels and 86% in Brazil (Farrell, 2006) (Barros, 2015). Ethanol can be used in vehicles either as a blend with gasoline which work as a fuel extender and octane enhancing agent or neat as a fuel in internal combustion engines (McCarthy & Tiemann, 2006). As a biofuel, ethanol have a number of advantages: such as low toxicity, biodegradable nature, and safer alternative to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), fewer air-borne pollutants and ease of integration into the existing transport infrastructure.
36 Chapter - 3
Table 3.2: Types of advanced biofuels
Biofuels Advantage Problem The problem of cold Methanol Biodegradable start; toxic; harmful to soil's microorganisms. Biodegradable; lesser problem of cold start; up Multiple filters needed Ethanol to 22 % alcohol blend for removing the dirt doesn‘t need engine from ethanol modification needed engine Low NOx emissions; fuel modifications; transport, Hydrogen economy is high. distribution and storage is risky and expensive High cetane number; Synthetic diesel (Fischer- same as conventional
Tropsch diesel) diesel; directly usable in present engines. Biodegradable; similar to Cold start problem; diesel; non-toxic; no Highly volatile Biodiesel emission of sulphur and (maximum 5 months aromatic compounds shelf life) Higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions; not Dimethyl ether (DME) toxic for man; non- carcinogenic. Biodegradable; clean Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) burning, Source: (Eisentraut, 2010a)
3.8.2 Lignocellulosic biomass for production of advanced biofuels: types & characteristics
In the present scenario, when efforts are rising to replace petroleum fuels by the biofuels, the lignocellulosic biomass are of utmost importance. Lignocellulosic biomass are available in substantial quantity almost everywhere except in the areas of extreme climate. It is the world's largest sustainable source of energy. It is estimated that the ~118 billion oven-dry tons of biomass are produced yearly which potentially have 2190 EJ/y of energy. Keeping in mind that most of the below-ground biomass cannot be harvested and must be deducted from the total. After the deduction of the below-ground mass the above-ground biomass is around 67 Giga ton/year (GT/yr) or 1241 EJ/yr (Hans-Holger, 2006). Despite having this massive potential, the use of
37 Chapter - 3 bioenergy is very low as shown by its average coefficient of utilization which is only 0.27% (F Rosillo-Calle et al., 1999).
The reason for using lignocellulosic biomass for the production of advanced biofuels (primarily ethanol) exist in its chemical composition. It is composed of polymeric sugars which include cellulose (40–60%), hemicellulose (20–40%), and a phenolic compound known as lignin (10–25%). The ratio of these constituents vary from plant variety to variety and depends on climate and soil of the area (C. N. Hamelinck, Van Hooijdonk, & Faaij, 2005). The sugars in the lignocellulosic biomass could be fermented in ethanol and in other liquid fuels (Jacobsen & Wyman, 2000).
Cellulose is a linear polymer of cellobiose (glucose–glucose dimer) also known as a glucan. Hemicellulose is also a sugar and contains the branched chains of 5 carbon sugars (xylose, arabinose) and 6 carbon sugars (galactose, glucose and mannose). Lignin is a polymer of phenolic compounds and the reason for water resistivity and cell wall strength. It also contains smaller amounts of acetyl groups (Lee R. Lynd, Wyman, & Gerngross, 1999). Other reasons for using lignocellulosic biomass for producing biofuels include abundant quantity, is not used as a food and have better carbon footprints (Farrell, 2006). The agroforestry residues and energy crops are the leading sources of lignocellulosic biomass which can be used for the production of advanced biofuels. The detailed description of these feedstocks is provided in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
3.8.2.1 Energy crops
Energy crops are also known as a ‗low input high density‘ (LIHD) crops. It includes fast-growing woody plant species (willow, poplar, eucalyptus etc.) as well as herbaceous grasses (Miscanthus, Switchgrass and Johnson grass etc.) (Eisentraut, 2010a). The typical rotation periods for energy crops is three to seven years for woody plants, and one year for herbaceous plant species (Frank Rosillo-Calle & Woods, 2012). When energy crops are used as a source of biomass, the energy potential is found to be considerably larger than the agroforestry residues (McKendry, 2002).
3.8.2.2 Agricultural residues
Agricultural residue comprises more than half of the world's agricultural plant biomass (Smil, 1999b). Normally, these residues are used as an important source of
38 Chapter - 3 energy for domestic and industrial purposes. Some studies point out that complete extraction of the primary residues has a negative impact on the soil fertility and other competing uses. So, the substantial portion of the residues must be left on the field for maintaining of soil productivity (Rattan Lal, 2008).
3.8.2.3 Forestry & wood processing residues
Another category of residue lignocellulosic biomass is forestry and wood processing residues. The residues from the wood industry categorized as logging residues and industrial by-products, generated during the processing of timber, plywood and particleboard etc. (Parikka, 2004). The efficient collection of these residues from wood processing sites and commercial forest could make a significant addition in feedstock inventory.
3.9 Scale of biomass potentials
Biomass constitutes only 10% of the global energy consumption but it is expected to play a vital role in future (Popp, Lakner, Harangi-Rákos, & Fári, 2014). The emission reduction targets and energy security concerns drive the inclusion of bioenergy in energy policy. A review of studies related to bioenergy potential is performed for the identification of ranges and determinants of bioenergy potential. The absolute and relative potentials of bioenergy share in current and future energy supply are presented here.
Different studies reported different bioenergy potentials. The reasons for variability in the potential estimates is assigned to different underlying assumptions and estimation methodologies. Furthermore, there is no standardized method for the estimation of accurate biomass potential (Slade, Saunders, Gross, & Bauen, 2011). Factors including land availability, environmental impact, land-use change, water availability, population and dietary patterns set the maximum consumption limits of bioenergy potentials. The more limitations accepted, the lower estimates of potentials (FAO, 2008a).
Fischer estimated global bioenergy potentials for the year 1990 and 2050. The bioenergy potential was estimated 225 EJ/yr or 5.4 Giga tons of oil equivalent (Gtoe) for the year 1990. In the same year, the actual use of bioenergy was only 46 EJ/yr or 1.1 Gtoe, which is only 20% of the total potential. For the year 2050, the estimate of
39 Chapter - 3
Fischer shows that the bioenergy potential will fall in the range of 370-450 EJ/yr or 8.8-10.8 Gtoe (Fischer & Schrattenholzer, 2001).
Hoogwijk estimated 33 EJ/yr bioenergy potential after imposing strict sustainability measures while Smeets estimated 1548 EJ/yr of bioenergy potentials without considering any sustainability measures for the same period of time (Hoogwijk et al., 2003) (E. Smeets et al., 2004).
A study on the potential of biofuel in Australia estimates that 10% to 140% of the gasoline requirements could be replaced by the biofuels (Herr & Dunlop, 2011).
Doornbosch estimated bioenergy potentials from the energy crops, agricultural and forestry residues which is approximately 110 EJ/yr and 135 EJ/yr, respectively. The regional potential from energy crops is high for Latin America and Africa but low for Europe and North America and negative for Asia. In this study, the estimates of bioenergy potential from energy crops are much lower than the estimation made by other studies. This is because of the inclusion of water stress to determine land availability and productivity. The inclusion of land for food production results in negative potentials for Asia. (Doornbosch & Steenblik, 2007).
Parikka estimated the potential of biomass approximately 104 EJ/yr. The largest contribution comes from the wood residues and energy crops i.e. 41 and 37 EJ/yr, respectively and agricultural residues provide up to 17 EJ/yr. These potentials are concentrated in the regions of North America, Latin America, Africa, Europe and Former USSR. About 40 EJ/yr (60%) of available biomass is used in Asian countries mainly in traditional ways. Compared to this, the biomass use in industrialised areas like North America and Europe is fairly low (Parikka, 2004).
Global Energy Assessment (GEA) by IIASA estimated the range of global bioenergy potentials around 162–267 EJ/yr in the year 2050. This range is obtained after imposing strict criteria related to competing land demands, deforestation, and water availability. The deployment levels in GEA have further reduced these potentials to the 145–170EJ/yr. The most likely range of bioenergy potentials after evaluation of these two estimates is approximately 150–200 EJ/yr in 2050 (Fischer et al., 2007).
40 Chapter - 3
The department of energy USA (USDOE) estimated that in 2030, the biofuels will supply nearly 30% of the amount of gasoline, compared to the one consumed in the year 2010 (World Bioenergy Association, 2010).
The Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation by IPCC estimates that the bioenergy could provide up to 100–300 EJ/yr. In its scenarios 164, the range of bioenergy potentials is 80–190 EJ/yr for the year 2050. The report took account of the criterions of the population, technology, food and fodder demand, climate change, and nature preservation (Edenhofer, Pichs- Madruga, & Sokona, 2011).
McKendry estimates the global bioenergy potentials around 30 EJ/yr from agricultural and forestry residues. In 1992 at the Rio United Nations Conference on environment and development, the renewable intensive global energy scenario (RIGES) suggested that, by 2050, approximately half the world‘s current primary energy consumption i.e. around 400 EJ/yr, could be met by biomass (McKendry, 2002).
International Energy Agency (IEA), estimated the global bioenergy potentials around 53-60 EJ/yr in 2030 in its reference scenario and 450 scenario, respectively. The share of biofuels in transport in these scenarios are 6-12 EJ/yr, respectively. For the year 2050, IEA in its blue map scenario estimated the bioenergy potential up to 84 EJ/yr in which 29 EJ/yr is used for the transport sector (Eisentraut, 2010a).
3.10 Conversion process of lignocellulosic biomass into advanced biofuels
There are two very different processing routes (Biochemical and Thermochemical) by which lignocellulosic biomass can be converted into biofuels. These routes have varying degrees of efficiency and are the subject of ongoing research (Davis et al., 2014). These two routes have nearly same conversion efficiency, but different production economics. The thermochemical process is in practice since long and is economically viable. The biochemical pathway is relatively new and requires more research and development efforts for economic viability.
3.10.1 Biochemical route: The final product of this route is ethanol (Figure 3.5). The first step is the pretreatment. Afterwards, with the help of different enzymes and microorganisms, the cellulose and hemicellulose components of the biomass are converted into sugars and ultimately fermented into ethanol.
41 Chapter - 3
3.10.2 Thermo-chemical route: A number of products are obtained by this route (Figure 3.5). This route is also known as biomass-to-liquids (BtL). Through this route, the production of syngas is achieved by the gasification. Afterwards, it can be converted into variety of fuels including synthetic diesel, aviation fuel and ethanol based on the Fischer–Tropsch conversion.
Figure 3.6: Process and types of advanced biofuels
Lignocellulosic biomass
Thermochemical Biochemical
Gasification Pyrolysis
Pretreatment /Hydrolysis Syngas Bio Oil
Water gas shift + Catalysed separation synthesis Hydrotreating and refining Fermentation
Methanol DME
FT diesel SNG Biodiesel Ethanol H2
Source: Reproduced from (C. N. Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006)
3.11 Detailed process description: thermochemical conversion
Thermochemical pathway converts lignocellulosic biomass into fuels through multiple stages. The first stage is known as gasification. After the gasification, the gases cleaned for further processing. In the second stage, the gases are condensed until they are converted into oils. In the third stage, these oils are conditioned and processed to produce syngas. Syngas is a mixture of Carbon-oxide and Hydrogen and used to produce ammonia, lubricants, and biodiesel through the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process (Sims Ralph, 2008).
42 Chapter - 3
Figure 3.7: Thermo-chemical conversion process to produce synthesis gas from lignocellulosic feedstocks
Feedstock Handling
Dryer
Oxygen Grinder
Homogenous dry particles
Oxygen or air Steam Gasifier
Syngas, tars, ash, inorganics Tar Cracker
Syngas, ash, inorganics Filtration
Ash, inorganics Syngas CO, H2 CH4
3.11.1 Feed handling and preparation
The biomass feedstock is dried to 10 wt% moisture using hot flue gases from the char combustor and tar reformer catalyst regenerator.
3.11.2 Gasification
Gasification is the conversion of biomass into gases via indirect heating at high temperatures and limited oxygen supply. The biomass produces producer gas and charcoal, followed by chemical reduction. The thermally deconstructed biomass forms a syngas (CO, H2, CO2, CH4, etc.), tars, and solid char after the introduction of steam. Cyclones at the exit of the gasifier separate the char and olivine sand from the syngas (Mengjie & Suzhen, 1994).
3.11.3 Gas clean-up
Clean-up includes reforming of tars, methane, and other hydrocarbons followed by cooling, quenching, and scrubbing of the syngas. Gas clean-up is
43 Chapter - 3 necessary because impurities in the syngas can poison the catalysts of the FT process and adversely affect the process economics (Sims Ralph, 2008).
3.11.4 Alcohol synthesis
After cleaning, syngas enters in a centrifugal compressor from where syngas is transferred to the tubular reactor in the presence of sulphide-type mixed alcohol catalyst. It converts a portion of the syngas to oxygenate and hydrocarbon products.
The reactor effluent consists of mixed alcohols and gaseous by-product (CO2 and methane) gas (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2007).
3.11.5 Alcohol separation
Alcohol separation is carried out by the distillation of the effluent. After dehydration, the alcohol stream is introduced to the distillation column. Here it separates methanol and ethanol from the gases because of their different molecular weight (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2007).
3.11.6 Fischer Tropsch Conversion
This is a catalytic conversion of syngas into a variety of liquid hydrocarbons. The reaction is catalysed by the ‗transition metal catalysts‘ based on iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co) (Sims Ralph, 2008). Single-pass FT synthesis produces a wide range of olefins, paraffins, and oxygenated products such as alcohols, aldehydes, acids and ketones with water as the by-product. The proportions of these products can be varied by adjusting temperature, pressure, feed gas composition (ratio of H2/CO), catalyst type and catalyst composition (Spath & Dayton, 2003). The Fischer Tropsch process at high temperature used to produce olefins and gasoline. The low-temperature process, using either iron or cobalt based catalysts at around 230 °C is used to produce kerosene, naphtha and diesel fuel (Hu, Yu, & Lu, 2012).
3.12 Detailed process description: biochemical conversion
Conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into ethanol involves pre-treatment, hydrolysis and fermentation. Pretreatment deconstructs the cell wall which reduces the recalcitrance, shorten the cellulose chain length and cellulose crystallinity (Suhardi, Prasai, Samaha, & Boopathy, 2013) (Humbird et al., 2011). After pretreatment, the next step is hydrolysis which breaks it into monomers (Hendriks & Zeeman, 2009). After hydrolysis, fermentation is the last step for the conversion of
44 Chapter - 3 sugar monomers into the ethanol (Wooley, Ruth, Sheehan, Majdeski, & Galvez, 1999). The hemicellulosic sugars contain acetyl groups which are liberated as acetic acid after hydrolysis as an inhibitory product (A Aden et al., 2002). Removal of these harmful products is necessary and must be performed before the fermentation (Mosier et al., 2005). It is achieved by the processes like conditioning, distillation and filtration (A Aden et al., 2002).
3.12.1 Pretreatment
Pretreatment starts with the addition of dilute sulfuric acid to the biomass at a high temperature for a short time (5-10 minutes) (Humbird et al., 2011) (Wooley et al., 1999) (McAloon, Taylor, Yee, Ibsen, & Wooley, 2000). After application of dilute sulfuric acid, most of the hemicellulose is hydrolyzed in xylose and other sugars, leaving a porous structure of cellulose and lignin which is more accessible to enzyme (C. E. Wyman, 1994) (P. Kumar et al., 2009).
3.12.2 Fermentation
Fermentation is the conversion of sugars into alcohols by microorganisms.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and heat are the by-products of fermentation. Variety of microorganisms are able to ferment hexose sugars but microbes for the fermentation of pentose sugars are scarce. It is recommended that the ethanol must be removed from the equipment because its high concentration is toxic for the fermenting microorganisms (J. J. Cheng & Timilsina, 2011).
3.12.3 Ethanol purification:
The recovered product after fermentation is the mixture of water and ethanol where concentration of ethanol is only 10-15%. At this low concentration, it is not able to be used as a fuel. For fuel-grade ethanol, 99% purity is required which is achieved through distillation and dehydration (J. J. Cheng & Timilsina, 2011).
3.13 Present status of advanced biofuels
The production of advanced biofuels is still not large scale because of the reasons: high production cost and capital expenditure. Yet, globally 71 advanced biofuels production facilities are in operation with a production capacity of 2.53 MT/y. The majority of these production facilities are in the USA. In 2012, advanced biofuels produced from the hydrotreatment of vegetable oils was around 2.19 MT/y. It
45 Chapter - 3 represents 2% - 4% of the global biofuel production (Bacovsky, Ludwiczek, Ognissanto, & Wörgetter, 2013).
The production technology for advanced biofuel is still in the developmental phase and need more private and public support for the commercial scale production. The shortage of private investment is affecting the speed of the development. The reason for sluggish private investment is the low price of fossil fuels in comparison with biofuels and high amount of risk in returns (Meghan Sapp, 2016). Unclear policy measures are the primary barrier against the large flow of private investment. With more risk cover to the investors from the government, it is anticipated that advanced biofuel will be more cost competitive with fossil fuels in near future (Koukoulas, 2016).
3.14 Outlook for advanced biofuels
Currently, the technology and infrastructure for the advanced biofuels is relatively immature and most of the production plants are on a pilot scale or demonstration stage (Sims et al., 2010). The future projections regarding the use of advanced biofuels is optimistic and shows substantial use in the transport sector. The projections show advanced biofuels will starts gaining market share after the year 2020 (E2 Entrepreneurs, 2014).
This increase in the advanced biofuel production is driven by the blending mandates and investment support by the government (IEA, 2013b). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission is one key driver for adoption of blending mandates. In 450 scenario, the share of biofuels in total transport fuel supply reaches around 14%, and more than 60% of these biofuels is advanced biofuel (Table 3.4) (IEA, 2013c). The projections show that in 2050, biofuels will supply 27% of the total transport fuel out of which 90% will be from the advanced biofuels (Table 3.2) (Eisentraut, Brown, & Fulton, 2011).
46 Chapter - 3
Table 3.4: Transport biofuels in 2030 & 2050
Reference Baseline Bluemap 450 scenario scenario scenario scenario (2030) (2030) (2050) (2050) Biofuel use in 167 bn lge (5.6 349 bn lge 133 bn lge (4.5 870 bn lge (4.5 transport EJ) (11.7 EJ) EJ) EJ) % contribution in transport 4% 9.30% 2.20% 26% supply Advanced biofuels share --- 7 EJ --- 26.1 EJ in total biofuels % of total --- 60% --- 90% biofuel use
Source: (IEA, 2009b) (Technology, D., & (Organization), 2008) Values in parenthesis () shows the energy in EJ/y
3.15 Biofuels in major economies: current status of production, policy and planning for advanced biofuels
The fastest growth in the production of biofuels had been observed in the past 10 years because of supportive government policies. The biofuel policy is primarily driven by concerns of energy security, development of rural economy and reduction of CO2 emissions. The most important policy tools for supporting biofuel production is blending mandates and tax incentives.
3.15.1 Policy initiatives for advanced biofuels by major biofuel producing countries
3.15.1.1 USA
The USA produced more than 14.8 billion gallons of ethanol in 2015 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2016). A range of policies are formulated and implemented to promote biofuel production including Biomass Research and Development Act (2000), Farm Bill Act (2002), Energy Policy Act (2005), and Energy Independence and Security Act (2007). The financial incentives to biofuels started after Energy Tax Act (1978). More recently, Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) Act (2004), provide a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol for blenders and retailers. The first quantitative targets for renewable fuels started after Energy Policy Act
47 Chapter - 3
(2005). The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) (2007) also known as the Clean Air Act, established quantitative targets for the blending of 36 billion gallons of renewable transport fuel by 2022 and out of this 21 billion is from advanced biofuels. The EISA 2007 sanctioned US$ 500 million annual grant for the fiscal years of 2008– 15 for the production of advanced biofuels (GreenFacts, 2016).
3.15.1.2 Brazil
Brazil has significant knowledge and expertise in the area of transport biofuels, particularly ethanol (USDA, 2016). Current bioenergy policies in Brazil are guided by the Federal Government‘s Agro-energy Policy Guidelines, prepared by an inter-ministerial team. The Brazilian ethanol mandates remain unchanged at 27% (E27). The zero import tariff for ethanol is fixed until December 31, 2021. Biodiesel, by contrast, is still an infant industry in Brazil, and biodiesel policies are much more recent. But, in March 2016, according to the new policy guidelines, the biodiesel blending mandate should be increased phase by phase from 7% (B7) to 10% (B10) in 2019 (GreenFacts, 2007).
Recently, the partnership between the UK and Brazil pave the way for an integrated biorefinery. The funding (£3.5M from BBSRC with equivalent funding of £1.5M from FAPESP) has been awarded for this partnership. This investment further strengthens the biological research, building on both countries high-quality science base and Brazil‘s expertise in leading biofuels production programs (BBRSC, 2016).
3.15.1.3 European Union
In 2003, the EU passed its first directive known as renewable energy directive (RED I) for the promotion of biofuels with a target of 5.75% share in the transport sector by 2010. Directive of 2009 on renewable energy, converted this target into a blending target of 10% in transport fuel in all EU Member States by 2020 (Jadwiga Ziolkowska, William H. Meyers, Seth Meyer, 2011).
In 2013, European government put a cap on the consumption of conventional ethanol at 6% of fuel demand by 2020. In 2016, the European Commission (EC) published a new legislative proposal (RED II) for the period 2021-2030. The RED II progressively caps the use of food-based biofuels and promote the advanced biofuels for blending. The blending rates for advanced biofuels will be increased stepwise between 2020 and 2030 (Bob Flach, Sabine Lieberz, Marcela Rondon, 2017). The
48 Chapter - 3
Italian government‘s decision is to create a 0.6% advanced biofuels blending mandate by 2018, the first in Europe to set up such a policy to boost demand for next- generation fuels. That figure will increase to 1% by 2022 (Lane, 2013). The EU‘s new proposal on the renewable energy fix the 27% share of the renewable energy in total energy consumption. According to the new provision, the maximum utilization limit of food based biofuels is only 3.8% and ambitious goals for the advanced biofuels have been setup (Lane, 2018).
3.15.1.4 China
China is the world's fourth largest producer of ethanol with blending target of 10% (E10). China aims to expand its ethanol consumption through processor subsidies and import restrictions (Kim & Anderson, 2017). Demand for biodiesel is also growing but production is on small scale and widely scattered (O‘Kray & Wu, 2010).
China also has a growing interest in the advanced biofuels. New energy technologies are listed as 'strategic emerging industries' in China‘s 12th Five-Year Plan. In 2012, TMO (thermophilic microorganism) Renewable signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China to secure long-term large volume biomass feedstock supply for future biofuel production facilities. In May 2011, TMO Renewable announced technology partnerships with COFCO and CNOOC New Energy Investment in China to produce ethanol from cassava (Digest, 2011).
3.15.1.5 Canada
Currently, Canada has a policy mandates which requires 5% ethanol and 2% biodiesel blending in gasoline and diesel mainly from the conventional production technology. In 2009, Enerkem opened a demonstration plant for advanced biofuels in Canada. In 2012, this plant began production of cellulosic ethanol by using wood as a feedstock. Presently, Enerkem completed construction for a 38 million liter cellulosic ethanol plant in Edmonton. Future plans for a full-scale cellulosic ethanol production in Varennes, Quebec have also been announced (Dessureault, 2009).
3.15.1.6 India
The 'National Biofuel Policy' of India aimed to meet 20% of diesel demand in India with biodiesel and proposes to replace 10 - 20% of gasoline production with
49 Chapter - 3 bioethanol. In 2016, India achieved its highest ever ethanol market penetration, a gasoline blend rate of 3.3% on average across the country. For biodiesel, though the market penetration remains low, it will grow if supported by a commercially viable strategy for building a sustainable biodiesel industry (Sindelar & Aradhey, 2017).
India shows great interest in advanced biofuels for harvesting its huge biomass potential. PRAJ Industries engage in the development of technology for cellulosic ethanol. Reliance Life Sciences is also active in developing biodiesel (from Jatropha and other non-food oilseed crops), ethanol (from cellulosic biomass) and bio-butanol. In February 2009, India and the US exchanged a memorandum for cooperation on biofuels development covering the production, utilization, distribution and marketing of biofuels in India (Walker, 2010). The SAHYOG Project (Strengthening Networking on Biomass Research and Biowaste Conversion – Biotechnology for Europe India Integration) aims to actively link research activities implemented within EU research programmes and related programmes by Indian national institutions (Sarma, 2011).
3.16 Issues related to advanced biofuels
Advanced biofuels are also falling in this category and questioned. There are some important issues related to advanced biofuels production are explained like, issues related to the biodiversity, water, soil, environment, society, economics, energy balance land use change (direct and indirect).
3.16.1 Issues of soil, water and biodiversity
The production of advanced biofuels has impacts on soil, water and biodiversity. These impacts could be different in measurements and strength depending on climate, soil and agricultural practices in the area. Extraction of the residues for biofuels production raises concerns for disturbing of the soil‘s carbon and nutritional pool.
The major carbon content in the soil is maintained by the leaves litter and underground roots of the plants. In this context, the losses in soil carbon due to the removal of agricultural residues are considered insignificant. But, using forestry residues and short rotation plants may have an adverse effect on soil‘s carbon and nutritional pool. Because woody plants have a high concentration of nutrients in leaves, branches and bark (Eisentraut, 2010a).
50 Chapter - 3
The production of advanced biofuels needs large amount of water on different steps of production like production and growing of the feedstock, for pretreatment and hydrolysis and for cooling of the equipment. Also, the use of chemicals and fertilizers for feedstock production poses a risk of eutrophication and acidification of the water. Removal of vegetation found on the sides of the water stream have adverse effects on the physical properties of water such as the turbidity, stream temperature and visibility (Lattimore, Smith, Titus, Stupak, & Egnell, 2009).
The production of energy crops for the production of advanced biofuels may result in mono-cropping which is harmful to the biodiversity. But on the other hand, energy crops also have the potential to increase biodiversity if the former agricultural land is reforested and the degraded land is used for growing forest (Lattimore et al., 2009).
3.16.2 Issues of land use change
The issue of LUC emissions arises when above-ground and/or soil carbon stocks decreases and this carbon is release into the atmosphere. This is caused by the extensive clearing of forest for the production of feedstock (Göran Berndes, 2013). The land use change is categorized as Direct LUC (dLUC) and Indirect LUC (iLUC). Direct LUC involves changes in land use on the site used for bioenergy feedstock production. Indirect LUC (iLUC) refers to the changes in land use that take place elsewhere as a consequence of the bioenergy project. The GHG effects of LUC are difficult to quantify with precision in relation to a specific bioenergy project, particularly for iLUC where the causes are often multiple, complex, interlinked and change over time (Berndes Göran, Bird Neil, 2011).
The issue of indirect land use change (iLUC) is the most crucial issue when we talk about the GHG reduction potential from the different biofuels because the benefits offered by the biofuels can be nullified if there is a large emission by the land use change. The land use change usually linked with the production of advanced biofuel because of its close links with agriculture and forestry. As the projections show increased use of advanced biofuel in future, the competition for land between agriculture, forests and urban uses and advanced biofuel feedstock also tend to increase (Dufey, 2006).
51 Chapter - 3
3.16.3 Issue of energy balance
Energy balance refers to the ratio between energy output and input. In case of biofuels, it is the ratio of biofuel output to the fossil fuel input (Larson & Larson, 2008). Estimation of the net energy balance of biofuels is a very complex process. It needs to cover complete production cycle i.e., from feedstock production to final consumption also known as ‗well-to-wheels‘ analysis. The consideration of paybacks associated with the co-products is necessary to obtain more realistic results. Energy balances are different for different biofuels and depend on the type of feedstock, methods of feedstock cultivation and conversion technology (Dufey, 2006).
Ethanol from the lingo cellulose have 5 Fossil energy ratio (FER) and requires little fertilizer and water for feedstock production (Larson & Larson, 2008). According to the US Department of Energy, for every unit of energy available at the fuel pump, only 0.2 units of fossil energy are used to produce cellulosic ethanol (Becker & Francis, 2005).
3.16.4 Issues related to commercialization
Production of advanced biofuels on a commercial scale remains a challenge. The primary constraints include low private investment because of risky return, high capital expenditure for construction of production plant and immature production technology. For instance, setting up a commercial scale advanced biofuels plant of 100 Million litres per year capacity requires an investment of $125 - $250 million. For the mentioned plant capacity, continuous supply of a large amount of lignocellulosic biomass (up to 600000 tonnes per year) is needed which requires complex and well- managed logistics systems for continuous supply of the feedstock at economic price (Eisentraut, 2010a).
3.17 Technical challenges
The chemical composition of the lignocellulosic biomass is the primary reason for the delay in the development of suitable production technology. Lignin, one of the constituents of the lignocellulose is a polymer of phenolic compounds which provide water resistivity and strength to the cell wall (Lee R. Lynd et al., 1999). The phenyl units with hydrogen bonding are the building blocks of lignin. Presence of hydrogen bonding and hemicellulose molecules increases the compositional complexity and enhanced stability of the lignin (Shimada, Hosoya, & Ikeda, 1997).
52 Chapter - 3
Hemicellulose is five-carbon sugar and difficult to convert into the glucose units because of the stable closed ring structure. The yield of biomass is reduced by this low conversion of five carbon sugars (Mosier et al., 2005). On the technological front, the pretreatment process needs to be more efficient in breaking up the cellular structure (A. K. Kumar & Sharma, 2017).
53 Chapter - 4
CHAPTER - 4
4.1 Background information
Use of biomass for the production of heat, electricity, and liquid biofuels represents about 10% of the world's primary energy supply. About 25% of these usages occurs in industrialised countries and other 75% in developing countries (Parikka, 2004) (World Energy Council, 2016). Liquid biofuels, particularly ethanol which is the most widely used motor fuel have gained measurable importance, which is shown by its increasing share in the road transport and start-up of many commercial ethanol production facilities (Demirbaş, 2005) (Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2010). In recent past, interest in liquid biofuels manifested in the energy policies of some developed and developing countries has spiked (See Chapter 3). This is because it has been seen as a solution to the problems of limited fossil fuel supplies, low agricultural and forest commodity prices and climate change (Cherubini et al., 2009b).
The quantification of biomass resource and its potential is crucial for designing a suitable biofuel policy. Therefore, in this chapter, the estimation of quantity of biomass from energy crops produced on the available marginal land area and estimation of biomass from agroforestry residues has been performed. The key elements that determine the potential of advanced biofuels are the size of the area of marginal land which is allocated for producing energy crops, demand and supply of wood, agricultural yields and residue collection efficiency.
In order to identify the contribution of advanced biofuels in energy security it need to answer following questions:
1. How much land could be allocated for the production of energy crops?
2. How much quantity of biomass could be made available for the advanced biofuel production without hurting the sustainability?
3. How much energy is potentially present in the supplied biomass?
4. How much of the gasoline requirement will be replaced by after conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into advanced biofuels?
In this chapter, we try to answer these questions by calculating the biomass quantity, potential energy and PAB.
54 Chapter - 4
4.2 Land
Land is a crucial resource for human sustenance. It is a limiting factor for agriculture-related activities as it cannot be increased beyond its natural existence. The total land area on the earth is about 13 Giga hectares (Gha) out of which 5.0 Gha (38%) is used for agriculture. Forest covers 3.9 Gha (30%) and 4.1 Gha (32%) of the total land area distributed in savannahs, tundra‘s, scrubland, build-up land and barren lands (E. M. W. Smeets, Faaij, Lewandowski, & Turkenburg, 2007).
The production of energy crops on the agricultural, pasture and forest land is not a useful idea because the forest land has a high carbon and biodiversity value whereas pasture land has a very dominant contribution in feeding 3.5 billion ruminant livestock, and use of agricultural land challenges the food security (IIASA, 2013). Furthermore, increasing human population is a key constraint against the allocation of agricultural land to the production of energy crops (Cai et al., 2011).
Number of countries have already begun experiencing pressure mounting on their agricultural lands for increasing food production. In this condition, the most critical question is, from where the extra land can be made available for the cultivation of energy crops without compromising the food security and sustainability concerns. The answer to this question is the ‗marginal land‘, which could be used for producing energy crops.
4.3 Defining marginal land
Marginal land is defined as the land which was previously used for agriculture and allied practices but currently is not in use due to loss in productivity. It can be categorised as abandoned farmland, degraded land, wasteland and idle land on the basis of soil's nutritional contents, chemical properties and uses (FAO, 2017).
One can find different definitions of marginal land in the literature. The definitions vary according to time, space and disciplines (Lewis & Kelly, 2014). For instance, Gelfand describes marginal lands as ―those poorly suited for food crops because of low productivity due to inherent edaphic or climatic limitations or because they are located in areas that are vulnerable to erosion or other environmental risks when cultivated‖ (Gelfand et al., 2013).
55 Chapter - 4
Gopalakrishnan defines marginal land as ―marginal for conventional crops but not marginal for biofuel crops or other functions, based on economic, soil health, and environmental criteria‖ (Gopalakrishnan, Cristina Negri, & Snyder, 2011).
FAO defines marginal land as a ―Land having limitations which in aggregate are severe for sustained application of a given use. Increased inputs to maintain productivity or benefits will be only marginally justified. Limited options for diversification without the use of inputs. With inappropriate management, risks of irreversible degradation‖ (FAO, 2018a).
Wiegmann defines marginal land as ―Marginal land is defined as an area where a cost-effective production is not possible, under given side conditions (e.g., soil productivity), cultivation techniques, agriculture policies as well as macroeconomic and legal conditions‖ (Wiegmann, Hennenberg, & Fritsche, 2008).
From the definitions of the marginal land, it can be concluded that it is overwhelmingly described as not suitable for the conventional agriculture practices because of high risk for economic losses due to low productivity. To use marginal land for agriculture, it requires large amount of fertilizers which increase its economic and environmental cost. However, researches shows that the marginal land is quite capable in producing energy grasses/energy crops without the need of fertilizers (Emery, Mueller, Qin, & Dunn, 2017).
Producing energy crops on the marginal lands provide the benefit of avoiding competition with productive agricultural lands and sensitive habitats which maximizes the net carbon benefits at same time (Gelfand et al., 2013). In that case, many studies proposed the use of marginal land as a sustainable solution for solving the land use change dilemma because one of the primary sustainable quality of energy crops is their capability to grow on the low quality soil (Tilman, Hill, & Lehman, 2006) (Gelfand et al., 2013). Countries like USA, Canada, UK, Australia, India, Indonesia and China have already adopted or engaged in designing the policies for expansion of non-food biofuel crops on degraded or marginal land (OECD/FAO, 2012).
56 Chapter - 4
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Results for marginal land availability
The result of this section answers the question of how much and where the marginal land is available. The numbers in Table 4.4.1.1 represent the land available on a continental scale in a million hectares (Mha). It is found that globally the area covered by marginal lands is approximately 2.2 Gha. It represents 16% of the total global land cover. Continents like South America, Africa and Asia have a significant amount of marginal land, i.e. 690 Mha, 564 Mha and 519 Mha, respectively. They jointly represent 82% of the global marginal land area. Europe, Australia and North America have 178.5 Mha, 103 Mha and 96 Mha of the marginal land area and jointly represent 17% of the marginal land cover. India has 39 Mha of the marginal land (Table 4.4.1.1).
Table 4.4.1.1: Regional availability of the marginal land area
Regions Land availability (Mha) Asia 519 Africa 564 Europe 179 North America 96 South America 690 Australia 104 Total 2151 India 39 Source: Author‘s calculation
Figure 4.4.1.1 represents the availability of the marginal land area and their relative distribution in the studied regions. A large portion of the marginal land is found in the regions of Asia, Africa and South America which respectively represent 22%, 24% and 32% share of the total marginal land. The marginal land area available in Europe, North America and Australia represent 9%, 4% and 5% share of the total marginal land, respectively. India represents 7% of the available marginal land area of Asia (Figure 4.4.1.1).
57 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.1.1: Marginal land availability and its distribution
800 32% 35% 700 30% 26% 600 24%
25% 500 20%
hectare 400 15% 300 8%
Million 7% 10%
200 Distribution% 4% 5% 100 5% 0 0% Asia Africa Europe North South Australia India (% America America shown total of the Asia)
Land Availability (Mha) % availability Source: Author‘s calculation
4.4.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.4.2.1: Regional distribution of the quantity of the biomass from energy crops
Distribution Region Miscanthus Switchgrass Mix-crop (%)
Africa 11 4 3.3 26%
Asia 10.3 3.5 3.1 24%
Australia 2.1 0.7 0.6 5%
Europe 3.5 1.2 1.1 8%
North America 1.91 0.65 0.58 4%
South America 14 5 4 32%
India 0.77 0.26 0.23 2%
Source: Author‘s calculation
58 Chapter - 4
Table 4.4.2.1 shows the estimates of quantity of biomass from the three different energy crops which are evaluated for the production on available marginal land in the studied regions. From the Table 4.4.2.1 it could be said that the largest amount of the biomass could be obtained from the Miscanthus ~14 billion tonnes (BT) in the region of South America. Subsequently, the largest amount of biomass from the other two energy crops is also present in the same region. The highest amount of biomass from all the energy crops in South America because it has the largest availability of the marginal land. The lowest amount of biomass is present in the Australian region ~2 BT from the Miscanthus, 700 million tonnes (MT) from Switchgrass and 600 MT from the Mix-crop system. The lowest estimates of the biomass for the Australian region is due to the lowest availability of the marginal land in the region (Table 4.4.1.1).
The biomass from energy crops in Africa, Asia and South America is 11, 10 and 14 BT from the Miscanthus, 4, 3.5, and 5 BT from the Switchgrass and 3.3, 3.1 and 4 BT from the Mix-crop system. The estimates for potential biomass quantity in these three regions represents 82% of the total biomass. The remaining 18% is distributed in the regions of Australia, Europe and North America. The quantity of biomass in India is 770 MT from Miscanthus, 260 MT from the Switchgrass and 230 MT from the Mix-crop system (Table 4.4.2.1). The detailed description is given in the subsequent sections of regional analysis.
Figure 4.4.2.1 shows the regional potential for energy (PFE) from selected energy crops in three different biomass availability (BAS) and their possible contribution to the energy security in transport sector. It is clear from Figure 4.4.2.1, that the PFE from the Miscanthus in all three scenarios can cover total energy demand in all the selected regions except for North America. For the optimistic scenario, all the three crops can cover total energy demand except in North America. The two other crops, i.e. Switchgrass and Mix-crop system can cover total demand only in Africa, Australia and South America in all three scenarios because these regions have relatively lower energy consumption. In case of India, only Miscanthus can cover more than the 100% of the energy demand only in the optimistic scenario, and the other two crops are only able to cover a part of the energy demand (Figure 4.4.2.1). The detailed description is given in the subsequent sections of regional analysis.
59 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.2.1: Regional PFE from energy crops w.r.t. transport sector energy consumption in different BAS
800 Source: Author‘s calculation
700
600
500
400
EJ/y
60
300
200
100
0
Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic
Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Africa Asia Australia Europe North America South America Global India Miscanthus Switch grass Mix crops Energy consumption in transport sector
Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.2.2: Regional PAB from energy crops w.r.t. regional and global gasoline consumption in different YBAS
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Giga Giga gallons 61
600
400
200
0
Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic
Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Africa Asia Aus Eur NA SA India
Miscanthus Miscanthus Switchgrass Switchgrass Mix crops Mix crops Gasoline consumption regional Global Gasoline consumption
Source: Author‘s calculation
Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.2.2 shows the estimates of regional level potential for advanced biofuels (PAB) from the three selected energy crops in the three different BAS, and two yield and biomass availability scenarios (YBAS). The figure also evaluates the contribution of PAB to the energy security in transport sector in gasoline replacement terms. The dashed line in Figure 4.4.2.2 represents the global gasoline consumption. From the Figure 4.4.2.2, it is clear that the PAB from the Miscanthus in all the three scenarios can cover many times more of the gasoline demand for all the selected continents and even able to surpass the global gasoline consumption in some regions. All the three crops in all scenarios could cover total regional gasoline demand except in North America and India. Only Miscanthus in high yield optimistic scenario can cover total gasoline demand in all scenarios for all the selected regions. The two other crops are able to cover total gasoline demand in Africa, Australia and South America in all the scenarios because these regions have relatively low gasoline consumption. In case of India, only Miscanthus can cover more than 100% of the gasoline demand in the only optimistic scenario and other two crops are only able to cover a part of the energy demand (Figure 4.4.2.2). The detailed description is given in the subsequent sections of regional analysis.
4.4.3 Potential from the agroforestry residues
Table 4.4.3.1: Regional distribution of agroforestry residues
Regions Total residues (MT) % distribution
Africa 306 7%
Asia 2013 46%
Australia 48 1%
Europe 696 16%
NA 770 18%
SA 528 12%
India (of Asia) 452 22%
Source: Author‘s calculation
62 Chapter - 4
Table 4.4.3.1 shows the estimates of agricultural and forestry residues in the selected regions by the agricultural and industrial wood production. Globally, ~4.3 BT agroforestry residue is generated. The lowest quantity of agroforestry residues is generated in Australia which represents only 1% of the total residues. The largest amount of agroforestry residues is generated in the Asiatic region, which represents 46% of the total residues.
From Table 4.4.3.1, it could be said that the large quantity of agricultural residues is present in Asia, North America, Europe, South America and India. The quantity of wood residue depends on the industrial use of wood which is high in the developed regions. That is the reason why the wood residue is relatively higher in the regions of Europe and North America. It shows the higher development status of these regions. Agroforestry residue in India is also available in significant amount and represent about 22% of the total residue generated in Asia (Table 4.4.3.1, Figure 4.4.3.1). The detailed description is given in the subsequent sections of regional analysis.
Figure 4.4.3.1: Regional quantity of biomass from agroforestry residues
13 India 439
31 SA 497
90 NA 681
125 Europe 571
Australi 8 a 41
183 Asia 1830
8 Africa 298
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Million tons
Source: Author‘s calculation WR AR
63 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.3.2: Regional PFE from agroforestry w.r.t. regional transport sector energy consumption in different BAS
60
50
40
30
EJ/y
64
20
10
0
Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic
Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Africa Asia Australia Europe North America South America India Total energy in AFR Energy consumption in transport sector
Source: Author‘s calculation
Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.3.2 shows estimates of PFE from the agroforestry biomass and its possible contribution to the transport sector‘s energy security. From Figure 4.4.3.2, it could be said that in most of the cases the PFE from the agroforestry residues is lesser than the transport sector energy consumption. Australia and India are the only regions in which PFE in the optimistic scenario can cover nearly total energy demand (Figure 4.4.3.2). The detailed description is given in the subsequent sections of regional analysis.
Figure 4.4.3.3 shows the estimates of PAB from agroforestry residues in the three BAS and two YBAS. From Figure 4.4.3.3, it is clear that North America is the only region, which is not able to cover its total gasoline demand in any of the scenarios. The potential in high yield optimistic scenario could be able to cover more than the 100% of the gasoline demand in approximately all scenarios except for India and North America (Figure 4.4.3.3). The detailed description is given in the subsequent sections of regional analysis.
65 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.4.3.3: Regional PAB in YBAS w.r.t. regional gasoline consumption
450
400
350
300
250
66 200
Giga Giga gallons
150
100
50
0
Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic
Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Africa Asia Aus Eur NA SA Global India Low High Gasoline consumption regional
Source: Author‘s calculation
Chapter - 4
4.5 Africa
4.5.1 General overview
Africa is the world‘s second largest continent. The area of Africa is about 3.03 Gha which represent 20% of land mass (Elasha et al., 2006). The climate of Africa ranges from tropical to subarctic on its highest peaks. Africa accounts for 27.4% of land degradation in the world and 500 Mha of land in Africa are moderate to severely degraded (UNEP, 2000).
4.5.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.5.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Africa)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT)
Miscanthus 11.2
Switchgrass 3.8
Mix crops 3.4
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.5.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on the 564 Mha available marginal land in Africa. The biomass from the Miscanthus is highest in the quantity ~11 BT. Switchgrass and Mix- crops system have potential to produce 3.8 and 3.4 BT of biomass (Table 4.5.2.1).
Table 4.5.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Africa)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 199 99 50 1056 528 264 1514 757 379 Switchgrass 62 31 16 360 180 90 517 258 129 Mix-crop system 56 28 14 191 96 48 274 137 69
Source: Author‘s calculation
67 Chapter - 4
Table 4.5.2.2 shows yearly estimates of the global PFE and PAB in Exa-Joules (EJ) and Giga gallons of gasoline equivalent (GGE) from the energy crops on the available marginal land in Africa. From Table 4.5.2.2, it could be said, that tremendous amount of PFE from energy crops could be obtained in Africa. In an optimistic scenario when all the biomass is converted into the energy, Miscanthus has the PFE ~200 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenario when the quantity of biomass is reduced the PFE is also reduced to the 99 - 50 EJ/y, respectively. In an optimistic scenario, Switchgrass and Mix-crops have the PFE 62 EJ/y and 56 EJ/y, respectively. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, they have potential to supply 31 - 16 EJ/y and 28 - 14 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.5.2.2).
The PAB from the energy crops in Africa ranges maximum 1514 Giga GGE/y to the minimum 69 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario and low yield pessimistic scenario. The highest PAB is from Miscanthus due to its relatively higher sugar yields. The PAB from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops range from maximum 517 - 90 Giga GGE/y and 274 - 48 Giga GGE/y, respectively.
Figure 4.5.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution
in energy security (Africa)
(A) (B) 250 1600 109* 200 29*
1200 Miscanthus
Miscanthus
150
800 EJ/y
100 GGE/y
400 50 2* 6.9 3* 13.8 0 0 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Energy potential Quantity of AB Energy consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.5.2.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.5.2.1 covers the whole range of possibilities of potentials for energy and advanced biofuels. The horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. In Africa,
68 Chapter - 4 transport sector‘s gasoline consumption is ~14 Giga gal/y which is equal to ~7 EJ/y in energy terms. The range of minimum energy potential (MIEP) to maximum energy potential (MAEP) from energy crops is able to cover 2 - 29 times of the transport sector‘s energy demand.
The range of minimum potential for advanced biofuels (MIAB) to maximum potential for advanced biofuels (MAAB) from the energy crops could be able to cover 3 - 109 times of the transport sector gasoline consumption (Figure 4.6.2.1).
Table 4.5.2.3: Contribution to the transport sector’s energy security from energy crops (Africa)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 29 14 7 76 38 19 109 55 27.3
Switchgrass 9 5 2 26 13 7 37 19 9
Mix-crop system 8 4 2 14 7 3 20 10 5
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.5.2.3 shows estimates for how many times/percent the PFE and PAB could be able to contribute to the energy security of the transport sector. In Africa, the gasoline consumed by transport sector is 13.8 Giga gals/y which is nearly equal to 6.8 EJ/y in energy terms. The maximum potential for energy security comes from the Miscanthus, which could cover 29 - 7 times of the energy consumption and 109 - 19 times of gasoline consumption. The potential from Switchgrass and Mix-crops system is 9 - 2 times and 8 - 2 times of the energy consumption and 37 - 7 times and 20 - 3 times of the gasoline consumption, respectively (Table 4.5.2.3).
69 Chapter - 4
4.5.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.5.3.1: Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues (Africa)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT) Fibre crops 6 Food grains 171 Horticulture 54 Pulses 14 Oil Crops 47 Sugarcane 6 Wood/Forestry residues 8 Wood Fuel 84
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.5.3.1 shows the source and quantity of the agroforestry residue biomass generated in Africa. In Africa, biomass from the food grains is largest ~171 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, the horticulture and oil crops have the largest share in residue ~54 MT and 47 MT respectively. The share from the fibre crops, sugarcane and pulses are relatively smaller in comparison. In case of wood/forestry residue, the residue from industrial production of wood is only 8 MT while the use of wood fuel the region is 84 MT. A total of 298 MT of the agricultural residues and 8 MT of the forestry residues in the region (Table 4.5.3.1).
Table 4.5.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Africa)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P Agricultural residue 4.4 2.2 1.1 17 8.4 4.2 24 12 6 Forestry and wood residue 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 Total 4.6 2.3 1.14 17.5 8.6 4.3 24.6 12.3 6.2
Source: Author‘s calculation
70 Chapter - 4
Table 4.5.3.2 shows the estimates of PFE and PAB from agriculture and forestry residues. From the Table 4.5.3.2 it could be said that there is a significant amount of energy present in the agroforestry residues. In an optimistic scenario when all the agricultural residues is used for energy generation, the PFE stands to ~4.4 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE generation is around 2.2 - 1.1 EJ/y. The wood and forestry residues are low in quantity and therefore low in energy. In an optimistic scenario, it has only 0.2 EJ/y PFE. In the balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE is reduced to 0.01-0.04 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.5.3.2).
The range of MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residue in Africa is 24 – 4.2 Giga GGE/y in high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario. In case of wood residue, the amount of advanced biofuels is low ~0.6 - 0.1 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively (Table 4.5.3.2).
Table 4.5.3.3: Contribution to the transport sector's energy security from agroforestry residue (Africa)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P
Agroforestry residues 67% 33% 17% 1.3* 62% 31% 1.8* 90% 45%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.5.3.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues is able to contribute to the energy security. In an optimistic scenario, PFE from agricultural residues could cover ~67% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, it could cover 33% - 17% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The PAB from agroforestry residues could contribute 1.8 times of the gasoline consumption in the high yield optimistic scenario and 31% in the low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.5.3.3).
71 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.5.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (Africa)
(A) (B) 8 30 6.9 1.8* 25 6 20
67%
15
4 13.8 EJ/y
10 Giga Giga gallons 2 17% 5 31% 0 0 Range of energy potential Range of energy potential Transport sector energy consumption Transport sector gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.5.3.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.5.3.1 covers the whole ranges of PFE and PAB. The dashed horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. In Africa the gasoline consumed by the transport sector is ~14 Giga gals/y which is ~7 EJ/y. The range for PFE is 1.1 – 4.6 EJ/y which could cover 17% - 67% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The range for MIAB to MAAB is 4.3 – 24.8 Giga GGE/y which could cover 31% - 1.8 times of the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption (Figure 4.5.3.1).
72 Chapter - 4
4.6 Asia
4.6.1 General overview
Asia is the world‘s largest continent. The climate of Asia is very diverse and contains frigid regions of Himalaya to the arid and hot areas of the Arabian Desert and Gobi Desert of Mongolia.
4.6.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.6.2.1: Regional availability of the biomass from energy crops (Asia)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT)
Miscanthus 10.3
Switchgrass 3.5
Mix crops 3.1
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.6.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on 519 Mha of the available marginal land in Asia. The biomass from the Miscanthus is ~10 BT. Switchgrass and Mix-crops system could be able to produce ~3.5 and 3.1 BT of biomass (Table 4.6.2.1).
Table 4.6.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Asia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 182.9 91.5 45.7 971 486 243 1394 697 174
Switchgrass 57.1 28.5 14.3 332 166 83 476 238 119
Mix-crop system 51.9 26.0 13.0 176 88 44 253 126 63
Source: Author‘s calculation
73 Chapter - 4
Table 4.6.2.2 shows estimates of the global PFE and PAB in EJ/y and Giga GGE/y from the energy crops on the available marginal land in Asia. It is clear from Table 4.6.2.2 that there is significantly large amount of PFE is available in energy crops in Asia. In an optimistic scenario, the PFE from the Miscanthus is highest ~183 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE is ~92 and 46 EJ/y, respectively. The PFE from the Switchgrass and Mix-crop in optimistic scenario is ~57 EJ/y and ~52 EJ/y, respectively. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, Switchgrass and Mix-crops have the PFE ~29 - 14 EJ/y and 26 - 13 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.6.2.2).
The range of MIAB to MAAB is 1394 Giga GGE/y - 44 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.6.2.2). The highest PAB is from the Miscanthus due to its relatively higher yields, i.e. 1394 - 243 Giga GGE/y. The range of PAB from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops is 476 - 83 Giga GGE/y and 253 - 44 Giga GGE/y, respectively (Table 4.6.2.2).
Figure 4.6.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution in energy security (Asia)
(A) (B)
60 1500 14.5*
50 53.9
40 59% 1000 30 Miscanthus EJ/y 20 10 500
15% Giga GGE/y 0 46% Agroforestry 95.5 residues 0 Mix-crop system Range of energy potential Quantity of AB Energy consumtion Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.6.2.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.6.2.1 covers the whole range of PFE and PAB. The dashed horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. In Asia, the transport sector energy consumption is ~54 EJ/y and the gasoline consumption is ~95.5 Giga gallons/y. From Figure 4.6.2.1, it is clear that the amount of energy consumption and gasoline
74 Chapter - 4 consumption falls under the range of PFE and PAB. The MIEP to MAEP from energy crops is able to cover 15% - 59% of the transport sector energy demand. The MIAB to MAAB from the energy crops could be able to cover 46% - 14.5 times of the transport sector gasoline consumption (Figure 4.6.2.1).
Table 4.6.2.3: Contribution to the transport sector's energy security from energy crops (Asia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 3.4 1.7 85% 10 5 2.5 15 7 3.6
Switchgrass 1.1 53% 26% 3.5 1.7 90% 5.0 2.5 1.2
Mix-crop system 96% 48% 24% 1.8 90% 50% 2.6 1.3 70%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.6.2.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to energy security by energy crops. In Asia, the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption is ~95.5 Giga gals/y which is equal to ~54 EJ/y in terms of energy. The maximum potential for energy security comes from the Miscanthus, which can supply 85% - 3.4 times of the transport sector‘s energy consumption and 2.5 - 15 times of advanced biofuel consumption. From Switchgrass and Mix-crop, the PFE ranges 26% - 110% and 24% - 96%, respectively. The PAB could cover 90% - 5 times and 50% - 2.6 times of the gasoline consumption from Switchgrass and Mix-crop (Table 4.6.2.3).
75 Chapter - 4
4.6.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.6.3.1: Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues (Asia)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT) Fibre crops 82 Food grains 1164 Horticulture 292 Pulses 29 Oil Crops 216 Sugarcane 45 Wood/Forestry residues 183 Wood Fuel 249
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.6.3.1 shows the estimates of type and quantity of the agroforestry residue which could be available in Asia. In Asia, residues from food grains is largest ~1164 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, horticulture and oil crops have the largest share in residue generation, i.e., ~292 and 216 MT, respectively. In case of wood/forestry residue, residue from the industrial production of wood ~183 MT and the use of wood fuel in the region is 249 MT which is larger than the quantity of wood residue. The possible reason for this low wood residues and large amount of wood fuel consumption is higher number of low income and least developed countries in the region. Total 1830 MT of the agricultural residues, 183 MT of the forestry residue, and 249 MT of wood fuel is present in the region (Table 4.6.3.1).
Table 4.6.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Asia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P Agricultural residue 28 14 7 103 52 26 148 74 37 Forestry and wood residue 3.8 1.9 0.95 10.4 5.2 2.6 15 7.4 3.7 Total 31.8 15.9 8 113.4 57.2 28.6 163 81.4 40.7
Source: Author‘s calculation
76 Chapter - 4
Table 4.6.3.2 shows the estimates for PFE and PAB which could be produced from agriculture and forestry residues in Asia. It is clear from Table 4.6.3.2, that there is a significant PFE and PAB present in the agroforestry residues in Asia. In an optimistic scenario, the agroforestry residues have a PFE of ~28 EJ/y. While in balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE from the agroforestry residue is around 14 - 7 EJ/y, respectively. In an optimistic scenario, from wood and forestry residues the PFE is around ~3.8 EJ/y. In the balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE is only 1.9 - 0.95 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.6.3.2).
The range of MIAB to MAAB from agroforestry residues in Asia is 148 - 26 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively. In case of the wood residues, the amount of advanced biofuels is very low and the range of PAB is only 15 - 2.6 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively (Table 4.6.3.2).
Table 4.6.3.2: Contribution in energy security from agroforestry residue (Asia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P
Agroforestry residues 69% 34% 17% 1.2 60% 30% 1.7 85% 43%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.6.3.2 shows the estimates of how much the PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues is able to contribute to the energy security. These residues in the optimistic scenario could be able to make 69% contribution to energy security in energy terms. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, they can contribute up to 34% - 17%, respectively. In terms of advanced biofuels, agroforestry residues can provide 1.7 times of the gasoline consumption in the high yield optimistic scenario and 30% in low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.6.3.2).
77 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.6.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (Asia)
(A) (B) 60 200 53.9 50 1.7*
150 40
59% 30 100
EJ/y 95.5 20 Giga Giga GGE/y 50 10 15% 29%
0 0 Agroforestry residues Agroforestry Range of energy potential residues Range of AB potential Gasoline consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
The shaded area of Figure 4.6.3.1 shows the range from minimum to maximum for the possibilities in contribution to energy security from PFE (part A) and PAB (part B). The dashed horizontal line in the figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) in the transport sector. In Asia, the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption is ~95.5 Giga gallons/y which is equal to ~54 EJ/y in energy terms. The PFE ranges 8 - 32 EJ/y which could cover up to 15% - 59% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. If converted into advanced biofuels, the minimum to maximum range for contribution in the energy security is 29% to 1.7 times of the gasoline consumption in the transport sector (Figure 4.6.3.1).
78 Chapter - 4
4.7 Australia
4.7.1 General overview
Australia is an island nation which is located in the southern hemisphere. Its total area is 774 Mha, and most of the area is desert. The climate of Australia is arid to semi-arid (Briney, 2018).
4.7.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.7.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Australia)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT)
Miscanthus 2.1
Switchgrass 0.7
Mix crops 0.6
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.7.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops that could be produced on 104 available marginal land in Australia. The biomass from the Miscanthus is highest in the quantity i.e., ~2 BT. Switchgrass and Mix-crops could produce 0.7 and 0.6 BTs of biomass (Table 4.7.2.1).
Table 4.7.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Australia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 36.5 18.3 9.1 194 97 49 278 139 70
Switchgrass 11.4 5.7 2.8 66 33 17 95 48 24
Mix-crop system 10.4 5.2 2.6 35 18 9 50 25 13
Source: Author‘s calculation
79 Chapter - 4
Table 4.7.2.2 shows the yearly estimates of PFE in EJ/y and PAB in Giga GGE/y which could be produced from energy crops on the available marginal land in Australia. It is clear from the Table 4.7.2.2 that there is a significant PFE and PAB in Australia. In an optimistic scenario, Miscanthus have PFE ~37 EJ/y. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario when the quantity of biomass is reduced, the potential is also reduced and reaches to 18 - 9 EJ/y, respectively. The biomass from Switchgrass and Mix-crops, in an optimistic scenario, have PFE ~11 EJ/y and 10 EJ/y, and in balanced and pessimistic scenarios around 6 - 3 EJ/y and 5 - 2.5 EJ/y (Table 4.7.2.2).
The range of MAAB to MIAB from the energy crops in Australia is 278 - 9 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic scenario. The highest PAB is from the Miscanthus which has the range of 49 - 278 Giga GGE/y. The range of potential from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops is 17 - 95 Giga GGE/y and 9 - 50 Giga GGE/y, respectively (Table 4.7.2.2).
Table 4.7.2.3: Contribution to the transport sector’s energy security from energy crops (Australia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P Miscanthus 19 9.5 4.7 90 45 23 129 64 32 Switchgrass 5.9 3 1.5 31 15 8 44 22 11 Mix-crop system 5.4 2.7 1.3 16 8 4 23 12 6
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.7.2.3 shows how many times/percent PFE and PAB could be able to contribute to the energy security by the energy crops. For Australia, the gasoline consumption of transport sector is 2.2 Giga gallons/y which is ~2 EJ/y and in terms of energy. The contribution to energy security from Miscanthus could cover 19 - 4.7 times of the energy consumption and 129 - 23 times of gasoline consumption. From Switchgrass and Mix-crops, the range of PFE is 1.5 - 6 times and 1.3 – 5.4 times of the transport sector‘s energy consumption. The MIAB to MAAB could cover 8 - 44 times from Switchgrass and, 4 - 23 times from Mix-crops (Table 4.7.2.3).
80 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.7.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution
in energy security (Australia)
(A) (B) 300 126* 40 19*
250
Miscanthus
30 Miscanthus 200
20 150 EJ/y 100 10 Giga GGE/y 50 1.3* 4* 2.2 0 1.9 0 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Range of energy potential Range of AB Energy consumption potential
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.7.2.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) and PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.7.2.1 shows the whole range of possibilities of potentials for energy and advanced biofuels. The dashed horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector which is ~2 EJ/y and ~2.2 Giga gallons/y. The MIEP to MAEP from energy crops is able to cover 1.3 - 19 times of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The MIAB to MAAB from the energy crops could be able to cover 4 - 126 times of the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption (Figure 4.7.2.1).
4.7.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.7.3.1: Quantity of biomass from agroforestry residues (Australia)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT) Fibre crops 2 Food grains 29 Horticulture 1 Pulses 1 Oil Crops 4 Sugarcane 2 Wood/Forestry residues 8 Wood Fuel 29 Source: Author‘s calculation
81 Chapter - 4
Table 4.7.3.1 shows the type and quantity of the agroforestry residue biomass in Australia. In Australia, residue biomass from the food grains is largest ~29 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, the oil crops have the largest share ~4 MT. The share from fibre crops, sugarcane and pulses are smaller in comparison. In case of wood/forestry residue, the residue from industrial production of wood is 8 MT. The wood fuel use in the region is ~29 MT which is larger than the wood residues. A total of 41 MT of the agricultural residues and 8 MT of the forestry residues and 29 MT wood fuel is present in the region. On addition of agricultural and forestry residues, 49 MT of total agroforestry residue is present in the region (Table 4.7.3.1).
Table 4.7.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Australia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P
Agricultural residue 1.4 0.7 0.4 2 1.2 0.6 3 1.7 0.8
Forestry and wood residue 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2
Total 1.6 0.8 0.44 2.4 1.4 0.7 3.6 2 1
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.7.3.2 shows yearly estimates of PFE and PAB which could be produced from agriculture and forestry residues. It is clear from Table 4.7.3.2 that there is a significant PFE in the agroforestry residues in Australia. In an optimistic scenario, the PFE is ~1.4 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE is 0.7 and 0.4 EJ/y, respectively. The wood and forestry residue in an optimistic scenario has PFE of only 0.2 EJ/y. While in the balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE is further reduced to 0.1 and 0.01 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.7.3.2).
The range of MIAB to MAAB from agroforestry residues in Australia is 0.6 - 3 Giga GGE/y in the low yield pessimistic scenario to high yield optimistic scenario.
82 Chapter - 4
The advanced biofuels from the wood residue are 2.6 - 15 Giga GGE/y in the low yield pessimistic scenario to high yield optimistic scenario (Table 4.7.3.2).
Table 4.7.3.3: Contribution in energy security from agroforestry residue (Australia)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P Agroforestry residues 1.1 57% 28% 1.3 64% 32% 1.8 91% 46%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.7.3.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to the energy security from agroforestry residues. In an optimistic scenario, agroforestry residues could contribute around 28% - 1.1 times of the transport energy consumption. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios to the potential for energy security is 28% - 57% of the transport sector‘s energy consumption. In terms of advanced biofuels, agroforestry residues can contribute 1.8 of the gasoline consumption in the high yield optimistic scenario to 32% in the low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.7.3.3).
Figure 4.7.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (Australia)
(A) (B) 2 3.5 1.9 1.4* 84% 3 1.5 2.5 2 2.2 1
EJ/y 1.5 0.5 1
23% Giga GGE/y 0.5 5% 0 0 Agroforestry Agroforestry residues residues
Range of energy potential Range of AB potential Energy consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
83 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.7.3.1 shows the range of contribution in energy security in terms of energy (part A) and advanced biofuel (part B). The shaded area of Figure 4.7.3.1 shows the range from minimum to maximum for the possibilities in contribution to energy security in terms of energy (part A) and advanced biofuel (part B). The dashed horizontal line in the figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) in the transport sector. In Australia, the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption is ~2.2 Giga gallons/y which is ~2 EJ/y in terms of energy consumption. The PFE ranges minimum to maximum 8 - 32 EJ/y which can contribute up to the 23% - 84% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. If converted into advanced biofuels the minimum to maximum range for contribution in the energy security is 5% - 1.4 times of the gasoline consumption (Figure 4.7.3.1).
84 Chapter - 4
4.8 Europe
4.8.1 General overview
Europe covers 2% of the land area and 11% population of the earth. The land availability in Europe is 178.5 Mha.
4.8.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.8.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Europe)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT)
Miscanthus 3.5
Switchgrass 1.2
Mix crops 1.1
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.8.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on the 178.5 Mha available marginal land in Europe. The biomass from the Miscanthus is highest ~3.5 BT. The biomass from the Switchgrass and Mix-crop ~ 1.2 and 1.1 BT (Table 4.8.2.1).
Table 4.8.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Europe)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 63 31 16 334 167 84 479 240 120
Switchgrass 20 10 5 114 57 29 164 82 41
Mix-crop system 18 9 4 61 30 15 87 43 22
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.8.2.2 show estimates of the global PFE and PAB in EJ/y and Giga GGE/y from the energy crops on the available marginal land in Europe. From Table
85 Chapter - 4
4.8.2.2, it is clear that there is significant PFE and PAB are available in the energy crops. In an optimistic scenario, Miscanthus has the PFE ~63 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE is 31 - 16 EJ/y. From Switchgrass and Mix-crops, the amount of biomass is nearly same in quantity due to approximately same yields. In an optimistic scenario Switchgrass and Mix-crop have PFE 20 EJ/y and 18 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops is around 10 - 5 EJ/y and 9 - 4.5 EJ/y (Table 4.8.2.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from energy crops in Europe is 479 - 15 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario. The range of PAB from Miscanthus is 479 - 84 Giga GGE/y. The range of PAB from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops is 164 - 29 Giga GGE/y and 87 - 15 Giga GGE/y (Table 4.8.2.2).
Figure 4.8.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution in energy security (Europe)
(A) (B)
600 70 2.6* 500 15.5*
60
50 400
Miscanthus
Miscanthus
40 300
EJ/y 30 24 200 20 Giga GGE/y 100 10 17% 49% 31 0 0 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Range of energy potential Range of AB Energy consumption potential
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.8.2.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.6.2.1 covers the whole range of possibilities of potentials for energy and advanced biofuels. The horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. In Europe, the transport sector‘s energy consumption is ~24 EJ/y which is equal to ~31 Giga gallons/y gasoline consumption. The minimum potential from energy crops is able to cover 17% while the maximum potential is able to cover 2.6 times of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The PAB from the energy crops could be able to cover minimum 49% - 15.5 times of the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption (Figure 4.8.2.1).
86 Chapter - 4
Table 4.8.2.3: Contribution to the transport sector's energy security from energy crops (Europe)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P Miscanthus 2.6 1.3 65% 11 5 3 16 8 4 Switchgrass 81% 41% 20% 4 2 1 5 3 1.3 Mix-crop system 74% 37% 19% 2 1 50% 2.8 1.4 70%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.8.2.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to energy security from energy crops. For Europe, the transport sector‘s energy consumption is ~24 EJ/y and in terms of gasoline consumption, it is ~31 Giga gallons/y. The PFE and PAB is highest from Miscanthus which is ~2.6 times to 65% of the energy consumption and 16 - 3 times of gasoline consumption. For Switchgrass and Mix-crops, the range of PFE is in between 81% - 20% and 74% - 19%, respectively. The PAB is able to cover 5 times to 100% from Switchgrass and 2.8 times to 50% from Mix crop system of the gasoline consumption (Table 4.8.2.3).
4.8.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.8.3.1: Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues (Europe)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT)
Fibre crops 2 Food grains 387 Horticulture 65 Pulses 7 Oil Crops 110 Sugarcane 0.0 Wood/Forestry residues 125 Wood Fuel 321
Source: Author‘s calculation
87 Chapter - 4
Table 4.8.3.1 shows the estimates of type and quantity of the agroforestry biomass that could be available in Europe. In Europe, residue from the food grains is largest at ~387 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, the oil crops have the largest share of ~110 MT. The share from fibre crops and pulses is smaller in comparison. The share from the sugarcane is negligible and its estimation is avoided for Europe. In case of wood/forestry residue, the residue from the industrial production of wood is 125 MT. The use of wood fuel in the region is 321 MT. A total of 571 MT of the agricultural residues, 125 MT of the forestry residues and 321 MT wood fuels is present in the region (Table 4.8.3.1).
Table 4.8.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (Europe)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P Agricultural residue 8.6 4.2 2.1 32 16 8 46 23 12 Forestry and wood residue 2.6 1.3 0.65 7.1 3.5 1.8 10.1 5.1 2.5 Total 11.2 4.5 2.75 39 21 9.8 56 28 14
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.8.3.2 shows the yearly amount of PFE and PAB in EJ/y and Giga GGE/y, which could be produced from agriculture and forestry residues. From Table 4.8.3.2, it is clear that there is a significant amount of energy is present in the agroforestry residues, primarily in the agricultural residues. In an optimistic scenario, the potential in agricultural residues ~8.6 EJ/y. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE from the agricultural residues is 0.7 - 0.4 EJ/y. For wood and forestry residues the amount of residue biomass is low in quantity. In an optimistic scenario, the wood residue have PFE of 0.2 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the potential is further reduced to 0.1 - 0.01 EJ/y (Table 4.8.3.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residues in Europe is 3 Giga GGE/y - 0.6 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario. The PAB from the wood residues is 15 - 2.6 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively (Table 4.8.3.2).
88 Chapter - 4
Table 4.8.3.3: Contribution in energy security from agroforestry residue (Europe)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P
Agroforestry residues 74% 37% 18% 1.3 64% 32% 1.8 91% 46%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.8.3.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to the energy security from agroforestry residues in Europe. In an optimistic scenario, potential contribution in the energy security by the agroforestry residues is around 74% of the energy consumption of transport sector. In the balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the potential for energy security is around 34% - 17%, respectively. In terms of advanced biofuels, agroforestry residues could able to cover 1.8 times to 32% of the gasoline consumption in the high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic scenario.
Figure 4.8.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (Europe)
30 (A) (B) 25 24 60 1.4*
20 50
40 15 31
EJ/y 30 46% 10 20
Giga Giga GGE/y 10 5% 5 11% 0 Agroforestry 0 residues Agroforestry residues Range of AB potential Range of energy potential Gasoline consumption Energy consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
89 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.8.3.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB (B). The shaded area of Figure 4.6.3.1 shows the range of possibilities in contribution to energy security from PFE (part A) PAB (part B). The dashed horizontal line in the figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) by the transport sector which is ~24 EJ/y and ~31 Giga gallons/y. The PFE ranges from 3 - 11 EJ/y that can contribute up to the 11% - 46% of the transport sector‘s energy demand (Table 4.8.3.2, Figure 4.8.3.1). The PAB ranges between 10 - 56 Giga GGE/y that can contribute up to the 5% - 1.4 times of the transport sector‘s the gasoline consumption (Table 4.8.3.2, Figure 4.8.3.1). In both cases, we can see that advanced biofuels have significant potential for meeting the transport sector demand.
90 Chapter - 4
4.9 North America
4.9.1 General overview
The total land area of North America is 2.4 Giga hectares, and the marginal land area is around 96 Mha.
4.9.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.9.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (North America)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT)
Miscanthus 1.91
Switchgrass 0.65
Mix crops 0.58
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.9.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on the 96 Mha of marginal land in North America. The potential for biomass is highest from the Miscanthus ~2 BT. The potential for biomass production from Switchgrass and Mix-crop is around 700 MT and 600 MT (Table 4.9.2.1).
Table 4.9.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (North America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 34 17 8 180 90 45 258 129 64
Switchgrass 11 5 3 61 31 15 88 44 22
Mix-crop system 10 5 2 33 16 8 47 23 12
Source: Author‘s calculation
91 Chapter - 4
Table 4.9.2.2 shows estimates of the PFE and PAB in EJ/y and Giga GGE/y from the energy crops on the available marginal land in North America. From Table 4.9.2.2, it is clear that there is significantly large amount of PFE present in the energy crops. In the optimistic scenario, the potential from Miscanthus is ~34 EJ/y. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE is 17 - 8 EJ/y, respectively. In an optimistic scenario, Switchgrass and Mix-crop have PFE ~11 EJ/y and 10 EJ/y, respectively. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, Switchgrass and Mix-crop have PFE 5 - 3 EJ/y and 5 - 2 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.9.2.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from energy crops in North America is 258 - 8 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario. The highest PAB is from the Miscanthus ~258 - 45 Giga GGE/y. The PAB from Switchgrass and Mix-crops range from maximum to minimum 88 - 15 Giga GGE/y and 47 - 8 Giga GGE/y, respectively (Table 4.9.2.2).
Figure 4.9.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution in energy security (North America)
(A) (B)
300 40 36.6 1.6* 250 93%
30 200 Miscanthus 160.6
20 150 EJ/y Miscanthus 100 10 Giga GGE/y 50 5% 5% 0 0 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Range of energy potential Range of AB Energy consumption potential
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.9.2.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) and PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.9.2.1 shows whole range of possibilities of PFE and PAB. The dashed horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. In North America, the transport sector‘s gasoline consumption is ~160 Giga gallons/y which is equal to~37 EJ/y if measured in energy terms. The range of MIEP to MAEP is 2 - 34 EJ/y that can contribute up to the 5% - 93% of the transport sector‘s energy demand (Table 4.9.2.2,
92 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.9.2.1). The range of MIAB to MAAB is 8 - 258 Giga GGE/y that can contribute up to the 5% - 1.6 times of the transport sector‘s the gasoline consumption (Table 4.9.2.2, Figure 4.9.2.1).
Table 4.9.2.3: Contribution to energy security from energy crops (North America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P Miscanthus 93% 46% 23% 1.1 56% 28% 1.6 80% 40% Switchgrass 29% 14% 7% 38% 19% 10% 55% 27% 14% Mix-crop system 26% 13% 7% 20% 10% 5% 29% 15% 7%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.9.2.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB from energy crops is able to contribute in energy security. For North America the gasoline consumption is 160 Giga gallons/y by the transport sector and in terms of energy it is ~37 EJ/y and in terms of. The maximum PFE and PAB belonged from the Miscanthus, i.e. 93% - 23% of the energy consumption and 1.6 times - 28% of gasoline consumption. From Switchgrass and Mix-crop the PFE ranges 29% - 7% and 26% - 7%, respectively. The range of PAB is 55% - 10% from Switchgrass and 29% - 5% from Mix crop (Table 4.9.2.3).
4.9.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.9.3.1: Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues (North America)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT)
Fibre crops 11 Food grains 434 Horticulture 17 Pulses 8 Oil Crops 209 Sugarcane 1.8 Wood/Forestry residues 90 Wood Fuel 282 Source: Author‘s calculation
93 Chapter - 4
Table 4.9.3.1 shows the estimates of type and quantity of the agroforestry biomass available in North America. In North America, residue biomass from food grains is largest ~434 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, oil crops have the second largest share at around ~209 MT. The share from the fibre crops and pulses is smaller in comparison. The share from the sugarcane is very small i.e., ~1.8 MT. In case of wood/forestry residue, the residue from the industrial production of wood is 90 MT. The use of wood fuel in North America is 282 MT which is larger than the wood residues. A total of 681 MT of the agricultural residues and 90 MT of the forestry residues and 282 MT wood fuels is present in the region (Table 4.9.3.1).
Table 4.9.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (North America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O B P O B P O B P
Agricultural residue 11.2 5.6 2.8 38 19 10 55 28 14
Forestry and wood residue 1.9 0.9 0.47 5.1 2.5 1.3 7.3 3.6 1.8
Total 13.1 6.5 3.27 44 22 11 62 31 16
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.9.3.2 shows the yearly amount of PFE and PAB which could be produced from agriculture and forestry residues in North America. From the Table 4.9.3.2, it is clear that there is significant amount of energy present in the agroforestry residues. In an optimistic scenario when all the biomass is converted into the energy the PFE is ~13 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenario when the quantity of biomass is reduced the PFE is reduced to 5.6 - 2.8 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.9.3.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residues in North America is 62 - 11 Giga GGE/y in high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario. The advanced biofuels from the wood residues 7.3 - 1.3 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively (Table 4.9.3.2).
94 Chapter - 4
Table 4.9.3.3: Contribution in the energy security from agroforestry residue (North America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
YBAS BAS Low High
Residue type O Bal P O B P O B P
Agroforestry residues 52% 26% 13% 27% 14% 7% 39% 19% 10%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.9.3.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB are able to contribute to the energy security from agroforestry residues. In an optimistic scenario, the PFE security is around 52% of the energy demand in the transport sector. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, the potential is around 26% - 13%, respectively. In terms of advanced biofuels, agroforestry residues can provide 39% of the gasoline consumption in the high yield optimistic scenario and 7% in the low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.9.3.3).
Figure 4.9.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (North America)
(A) (B) 40 200
36.6
30 150 160.6
20 100
EJ/y 36% 39% 10 50 9% Giga GGE/y 7% 0 0 Agroforestry Agroforestry residues residues
Range of energy potential Range of AB potential Energy consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
95 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.9.3.1 shows the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB(B). The shaded area in Figure 4.9.3.1 covers the whole range of possibilities of potentials for energy and advanced biofuels. The horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. In North America, the transport sector energy consumption is ~37 EJ/y which is equal to ~160 Giga gallons/y in terms of gasoline consumption. The range of potential in terms of energy is 3.2 - 13 EJ/y that can contribute up to the 9% - 36% of the transport sector‘s energy demand (Table 4.9.3.3, Figure 4.9.3.1). The range of potential in terms of advanced biofuels is 11 - 62 Giga GGE/y that can contribute up to 7% - 39% of the transport sector‘s the gasoline consumption (Table 4.9.3.3, Figure 4.9.3.1).
96 Chapter - 4
4.10 South America
4.10.1 General overview
The total land area of South America is 1.8 Giga hectares, and the marginal land area is around 690 Mha.
4.10.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.10.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (South America)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT)
Miscanthus 14
Switchgrass 5
Mix crops 4
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.10.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on the 690 Mha available marginal land in South America. The potential for biomass production from the Miscanthus is highest in quantity ~14 BT. Switchgrass and Mix-crop have the potential to produce 5 BT and 4 BT of biomass (Table 4.10.2.1).
Table 4.10.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (South America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 243 122 61 1292 646 323 1853 926 463
Switchgrass 76 38 19 441 220 110 632 316 158
Mix-crop system 69.0 34.5 17.3 234 117 59 336 168 84
Source: Author‘s calculation
97 Chapter - 4
Table 4.10.2.2 shows yearly estimates of the PFE in EJ/y and PAB in Giga GGE/y from the energy crops on the available marginal land in South America. From Table 4.10.2.2, it is clear that there is a significantly large amount of PFE is present in the energy crops. In an optimistic scenario, the PFE from the Miscanthus is ~243 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, the PFE is 122 and 61 EJ/y, respectively. From Switchgrass and Mix-crop the PFE in the optimistic scenario is around 76 EJ/y and 69 EJ/y, respectively. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, Switchgrass and Mix-crops have the PFE of 38 - 19 EJ/y and 35 - 17 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.10.2.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from energy crops in South America is 1853 Giga GGE/y to 59 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario. The highest PAB is from the Miscanthus 1853 - 463 Giga GGE/y. The PAB from Switchgrass and Mix-crop have maximum to minimum range of 632 - 110 Giga GGE/y and 336 - 59 Giga GGE/y, respectively (Table 4.10.2.2).
Figure 4.10.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution in energy security (South America)
(A) (B)
2000 40 80*
3*
30 1500
Miscanthus
Miscanthus
20 1000 EJ/y
10 11.1 Giga GGE/y 500 22% 2.5* 0 0 23.3 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Range of energy Range of AB potential potential
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.10.2.1 represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB (B). The shaded area in Figure 4.10.2.1 shows the whole range of possibilities of potentials for energy and advanced biofuels. The dashed horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector which is ~11 EJ/y and is equal to ~23 Giga gallons/y. The range of MIEP to MAEP is 2.5 - 34 EJ/y which could cover 22% - 3 times of the transport sector‘s energy demand (Table 4.10.2.3, Figure 4.10.2.1). The range of MIAB to MAAB is 59 - 1853 Giga
98 Chapter - 4
GGE/y which could cover 2.5 times – 80 times of the transport sector‘s the gasoline consumption (Table 4.10.2.3, Figure 4.10.2.1).
Table 4.10.2.3: Contribution to the transport sector's energy security from energy crops (South America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P Miscanthus 22 11 5.4 55 28 14 80 40 20 Switchgrass 7 3.4 1.7 19 9 5 27 14 7 Mix-crop system 6.2 3 1.6 10 5 3 14 7 4 Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.10.2.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to energy security by the energy crops. For South America, the energy consumption by transport sector is 11 EJ/y, and in terms of gasoline consumption is 23 Giga gallons/y. The maximum PFE is from Miscanthus which is ~22 - 5.4 times of the energy consumption and 80 times to 14 times of gasoline consumption. From Switchgrass and Mix-crop, the range of PFE is 7 - 1.7 times and 6 - 1.6 times, respectively. The range of PAB is 27 - 5 times of the gasoline consumption from Switchgrass and 14-3 times from Mix-crop system (Table 4.10.2.3).
4.10.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.10.3.1: Quantity of Biomass from the agroforestry residues (South America)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT)
Fibre crops 8 Food grains 158 Horticulture 28 Pulses 0.38 Oil Crops 251 Sugarcane 52.5 Wood/Forestry residues 31 Wood Fuel 127 Source: Author‘s calculation
99 Chapter - 4
Table 4.10.3.1 shows the type and quantity of the agroforestry residue biomass which could be available in South America. In South America, residue biomass from the food grains is largest i.e., ~158 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, the oil crops have the largest share of ~251 MT. The share from the fibre crops and pulses is smaller in comparison. The quantity of residue from the sugarcane is 53 MT. In case of wood/forestry, the residue from the industrial production of wood is ~31 MT. The wood fuel use in the region is 127 MT which is larger than the wood residues. A total of 497 MT of the agricultural residues and 31 MT of the forestry residues and 127 MT wood fuels is present in the region (Table 4.10.3.1).
Table 4.10.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (South America)
Energy Advanced biofuels BAS YBAS Low High Crops O B P O B P O B P Agricultural residue 7.6 3.8 1.9 28 14 7 40 20 10 Forestry and wood residue 0.6 0.3 0.16 1.7 0.9 0.4 2.5 1.3 0.6 Total 8.2 4 2 30 15 7 43 21 11
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.10.3.2 shows the PFE and PAB from agriculture and forestry residues. From Table 4.10.3.2, it is clear that there is significant PFE and PAB present in the agroforestry residues, primarily in the agricultural residues. From the agricultural and forestry residues in an optimistic scenario, the PFE is ~8 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the potential is around 4 and 2 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.10.3.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residues in South America is 43 - 7 Giga GGE/y in high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively. In case of the wood residue, the amount of advanced biofuels is very low and only 0.4– 2.5 Gigs GGE/y (Table 4.10.3.2).
100 Chapter - 4
Table 4.10.3.3: Contribution in energy security from agroforestry residue (South America)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Agroforestry residues 98% 49% 25% 1.3 64% 32% 1.8 92% 46%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.10.3.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues are able to contribute to the energy security. It is found that in energy terms, agroforestry could cover 98% of the energy demand of the transport sector in an optimistic scenario. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, agroforestry residue has the potential to cover 49% - 25% of the transport energy demand, respectively. In terms of advanced biofuels, agroforestry residues can provide 1.8 times of the gasoline consumption in the optimistic scenario and 32% in the low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.10.3.3).
Figure 4.10.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (South America)
(A) (B) 12 50 11.1 1.8* 10 74% 40
8 30 6 23.3 EJ/y 20 4
2 18% Giga GGE/y 10 32% 0 0 Agroforestry Agroforestry residues residues
Range of energy potential Range of AB potential Energy consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
101 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.10.3.1 shows the range of contribution in energy security in terms of energy (part A) and advanced biofuel (part B). The shaded area of Figure 4.6.3.1 shows the whole range of possibilities in contribution to energy security in energy terms (part A) and in advanced biofuel terms (part B). The horizontal line in the Figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) in the transport sector. In South America, the transport sector‘s energy consumption is ~11 EJ/y which is equal to ~23 Giga gals/y in terms of gasoline consumption. The range of PFE is in between 2 - 8 EJ/y which could cover 18% - 74% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The range of PAB is 7.5 - 43 Giga GGE/y which could cover up to the 32% – 1.8 times of the transport sector‘s the gasoline consumption (Figure 4.10.3.1).
102 Chapter - 4
4.11 Global
4.11.1 General overview
It is assumed that all the six continents which are taken in this study after addition represent the global PFE and PAB. The global land area is ~13.6 Giga hectares (Gha), and the global marginal land area is around 2.2 Gha.
4.11.2 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.11.2.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (Global)
Crops Biomass quantity (BT) Miscanthus 43 Switchgrass 15 Mix crops 13
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.11.2.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on the 690 Mha available marginal land available on a global scale. The biomass from the Miscanthus is ~43 BT which is highest in quantity. Biomass from Switchgrass and Mix-crops is around ~15 BT and ~13 BT (Table 4.11.2.1).
Table 4.11.2.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (Global)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 758 379 190 4415 2207 1104 6333 3167 1583 Switchgrass 237 118 59 1507 753 377 2162 1081 540 Mix-crop system 215 108 54 730 365 182 1047 523 262
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.11.2.2 shows estimates of the global PFE and PAB in EJ/y and Giga GGE/y from the energy crops on the available marginal land. From Table 4.11.2, it is clear that there is significantly large amount of PFE is available in the energy crops.
103 Chapter - 4
In an optimistic scenario, the PFE from the Miscanthus is highest i.e., ~758 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE 379 and 190 EJ/y, respectively. The PFE from the Switchgrass and Mix-crop, in the optimistic scenario ~237 EJ/y and ~215 EJ/y, respectively. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, Switchgrass and Mix-crops have the PFE ~118 - 59 EJ/y and 108 - 54 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.11.2.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from energy crops on global scale is 6333 Giga GGE/y - 182 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic scenario (Table 4.11.2.2). The highest PAB is from the Miscanthus due to its relatively higher yields, i.e. 6333 - 1104 Giga GGE/y. The range of potential from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops is 2162 - 377 Giga GGE/y and 1047 - 182 Giga GGE/y, respectively (Table 4.11.2.2).
Figure 4.11.2.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their contribution in energy security (Global)
(A) (B)
7000 800 5.6* 17*
6000
600 5000
Miscanthus Miscanthus 4000
400 3000 EJ/y
Giga Giga GGE/y 2000 200 134 1000 50% 40% 366 0 0 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Range of energy potential Range of AB potential Energy consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.11.2.1 graphically represents the minimum to maximum ranges of PFE (A) PAB(B). The shaded area in Figure 4.11.2.1 covers the whole range of possibilities of potentials for energy and advanced biofuels. The horizontal line represents the energy consumption (A) and gasoline consumption (B) by the transport sector. The gasoline consumed by the transport sector is 366 Giga gals/y which is equal to 134 EJ/y in terms of energy. The minimum potential from energy crops is able to cover 40% while the maximum potential is able to cover 5.6 times of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The PAB from the energy crops could be able to cover minimum 50% to the maximum 17 times of the transport sector gasoline consumption (Figure 4.11.2.1).
104 Chapter - 4
Table 4.11.2.3: Contribution to the transport sector’s energy security from energy crops (Global)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 5.6 2.8 1.4 12 6 3 17 9 4
Switchgrass 1.8 88% 44% 4 2 1 6 3 1.5
Mix-crop system 1.6 80% 40% 2 1 50% 3 1.4 70%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.11.2.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to energy security. Global energy consumption by the transport sector is ~134 EJ/y, and the gasoline consumption is ~366 Giga gallons/y. The maximum contribution to the energy security comes from Miscanthus which could cover 5.6 - 1.4 times of the energy consumption, and 17 – 3 of gasoline consumption. From Switchgrass and Mix- crop, the PFE ranges from 1.8 times to 44% and 1.6 times to 40%, respectively. The PAB is able to cover 6 times to 100% of the gasoline consumption from Switchgrass and 3 times to 50% from Mix crop system (Table 4.11.2.3).
4.11.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.11.3.1: Quantity of biomass from the agroforestry residues (Global)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT)
Fibre crops 111 Food grains 2343 Horticulture 458 Pulses 60 Oil Crops 837 Sugarcane 108 Wood/Forestry residues 1047 Wood Fuel 1179 Source: Author‘s calculation
105 Chapter - 4
Table 4.11.3.1 shows the estimates of type and quantity of the agroforestry biomass available on a global scale. Globally, residues from the food grains are largest ~2343 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, oil crops provide the second largest amount of residues, i.e. 837 MT. The smallest quantity of agricultural residues is generated from the pulses. Share from the fibre crops and sugarcane is 111 and 108 MT. In the case of wood/forestry residue, the residue from the industrial production of wood is 1047 MT. The wood fuel use on a global scale is 1180 MT. Totally 4 BT of the agricultural residues and 1 BT of the forestry residues is generated annually on the global scale (Table 4.11.3.1).
Table 4.11.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues from energy crops (Global)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Agricultural residue 60 30 15 221 111 55 318 159 79
Forestry and wood residue 9 5 2 59 30 15 85 42 21
Total 69 35 17 281 140 70 403 201 101
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.11.3.2 shows the PFE and PAB from agriculture and forestry residues. From Table 4.11.3.2, it is clear that there is significant PFE and PAB present in the agroforestry residues, primarily in the agricultural residues. From the agricultural and forestry residues in the optimistic scenario, the PFE is around 69 EJ/y. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, PFE is reduced to 35 - 17 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.11.3.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residues on global scale is 318 - 55 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively. In the case of the wood residues, the amount of advanced biofuels is very low and only 15 - 85 Giga GGE/y (Table 4.11.3.2).
106 Chapter - 4
Table 4.11.3.3: Contribution in energy security from agroforestry residue (Global)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Agroforestry 68 34 17 77 38 19 110 55 27
residues % % % % % % % % %
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.11.3.3 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute to the energy security from agroforestry residues. It is found that in energy terms agroforestry residues cover 68% of the energy demand of the transport sector in an optimistic scenario. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, agroforestry residue has the potential to cover for 34% - 17% of the transport energy demand. The agroforestry residues could be able to cover 11 times to 27% of the gasoline consumption in the high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic (Table 4.11.3.3).
Figure 4.11.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (Global)
(A) (B) 150 500
134 400 1.1* 366
100 51% 300
EJ/y 200 50
Giga Giga GGE/y 100 13% 19% 0 0 Agroforestry Agroforestry residues residues
Range of energy potential Range of AB potential Energy consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
107 Chapter - 4
Figure 4.11.3.1 shows the range of contribution in energy security in terms of energy (part A) and advanced biofuel (part B). The shaded area of Figure 4.11.3.1 shows the range from minimum to maximum for the possibilities in contribution to energy security in terms of energy (part A) and advanced biofuel (part B). The dashed horizontal line in the figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) in transport sector. The gasoline consumed by the transport sector is 366 Giga gals/y which is equal to 134 EJ/y in terms of energy. The potential in terms of energy ranges between 17 - 69 EJ/y which can contribute up to the 13% - 51% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. If converted into advanced biofuels, the minimum to maximum range for contribution in the energy security is 19% to 1.1 times of the gasoline consumption in the transport sector (Figure 4.11.3.1).
108 Chapter - 4
4.12: India
4.12.1: General overview
The total land area of India is 328 Mha, and the marginal land area is around 38.5 Mha.
4.12.1 Potential from energy crops
Table 4.12.1.1: Quantity of biomass from energy crops (India)
Crops Biomass quantity (MT)
Miscanthus 770
Switchgrass 260
Mix crops 230
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.12.1.1 shows the estimates for quantity of biomass from energy crops which could be produced on the 38.5 Mha of available marginal land in India. The potential for biomass production is highest from the Miscanthus ~700 MT. The potential quantity of biomass from Switchgrass and Mix-crop is ~260 MT and ~230 MT (Table 4.12.1.1).
Table 4.12.1.2: PFE and PAB from energy crops (India)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Miscanthus 13.6 6.8 3.4 72 36 18 103 52 26
Switchgrass 4.2 2.1 1.1 25 12 6 35 18 9
Mix-crop system 3.9 1.9 1.0 13 7 3 19 9 5
Source: Author‘s calculation
109 Chapter - 4
Table 4.12.1.2 shows the estimates of the PFE and PAB in EJ/y and Giga GGE/y from the energy crops on the available marginal land in India. From Table 4.12.1.2, it is clear that there is a significantly large amount of PFE and PFA is available in the energy crops in India. In an optimistic scenario, the PFE from Miscanthus is highest ~14 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE is 7 and 3 EJ/y. The PFE from Switchgrass and Mix-crop, in an optimistic scenario is ~4.2 EJ/y and ~3.9 EJ/y, respectively. In balanced and pessimistic scenario, PFE from Switchgrass and Mix-crops is ~2 - 1 EJ/y (Table 4.12.1.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from energy crops in India is ~103 - 3 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to the low yield pessimistic scenario. The highest PAB is from the Miscanthus due to its relatively higher yields, i.e. 103 - 18 Giga GGE/y. The range of potential from the Switchgrass and Mix-crops is 35 - 6 Giga GGE/y and 19 - 3 Giga GGE/y, respectively (Table 4.12.1.2).
Figure 4.12.1.1: Range of PFE and PAB from energy crops and their
contribution in energy security (India)
(A) (B) 120 15 1.6* 1.6*
100
Miscanthus
10 80 Miscanthus
8.5 60 65.5 EJ/y
5 40 Giga Giga GGE/y 20 11% 5% 0 0 Mix-crop system Mix-crop system Range of energy potential Range of AB Energy consumption potential
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.12.1.1 shows the range of MIEP to MAEP contribution in energy security (part A) and MIAB to MAAB (part B). The shaded area of Figure 4.12.1.1 shows the possibilities in contribution to energy security from PFE (part A) and PAB (part B). The dashed horizontal line in the figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) in the transport sector which is ~8.5 EJ/y and in terms of gasoline consumption is nearly equal to ~65.5 Giga gallons/y. The range of PFE is 1 – 13.6 EJ/y which could cover 11% - 1.6 times of the transport
110 Chapter - 4 sector‘s energy demand. The range of PAB is 3 - 103 Giga GGE/y which could cover 5% – 1.6 times of the transport sector‘s the gasoline consumption (Figure 4.12.1.1).
Table 4.12.1.3: Contribution to the transport sector's energy security from energy crops (India)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P Miscanthus 1.6 80% 40% 1.1 55% 28% 1.6 80% 40% Switchgrass 50% 25% 12% 38% 19% 9% 54% 27% 13% Mix-crop system 45% 23% 11% 20% 10% 5% 29% 14% 8% Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.12.1.3 shows how much PFE and PAB from energy crops could able to contribute to the energy security. For India, the energy consumption by the transport sector is 7 EJ/y which is equal to gasoline consumption of 14 Giga gallons/y. The maximum potential for energy security comes from the Miscanthus which could cover 1.6 times - 40% of energy consumption and 1.6 times - 28% of gasoline consumption. From Switchgrass and Mix-crop, the PFE ranges could cover 50% - 12% and 45% - 11% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The PAB from Switchgrass and Mix-crop could cover 44% - 9% and 29% - 5% of the gasoline consumption (Table 4.12.1.3).
4.12.3 Potential from agroforestry residues
Table 4.12.3.1.: Quantity of residue biomass from agroforestry (India)
Agroforestry residues Biomass quantity (MT) Fibre crops 53.7 Food grains 263.9 Horticulture 44.12 Pulses 19.9 Oil Crops 34.4 Sugarcane 22.0 Wood/Forestry residues 19 Wood Fuel 193
Source: Author‘s calculation
111 Chapter - 4
Table 4.12.3.1 shows the type and quantity of the agroforestry residue biomass which could be available in India. In India residue biomass from the food grains is largest ~264 MT in the category of agricultural residues. After that, the horticulture crops ~54 MT and oil crops ~35 MT have the largest share. The share from fibre crops and pulses is smaller in comparison. The share from the sugarcane is 22 MT. In case of wood/forestry residue, residue from the industrial production of wood is 19 MT. The wood fuel use in India is 193 MT. A total of ~439 MT of the agricultural residues and 19 MT of the forestry residues and 193 MT wood fuels is present in the region (Table 4.12.3.1).
Table 4.12.3.2: PFE and PAB from agroforestry residues (India)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P
Agricultural residue 6.9 3.4 1.7 24.8 12.4 6.2 35.6 17.8 8.9
Forestry and wood residue 0.27 0.13 0.07 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.3
Total 7.2 3.5 1.8 26 13 6.4 37 18 9
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.12.3.2 shows the PFE and PAB from agriculture and forestry residues. From Table 4.12.3.2, it is clear that there is a significant amount of PFE and PAB are present in the agroforestry residues. In an optimistic scenario, from the agricultural and forestry residues the PFE is ~7.2 EJ/y. In balanced and pessimistic scenarios, the PFE is reduced to ~3.5 – 1.8 EJ/y, respectively (Table 4.12.3.2).
The MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residue in India is 35.6 - 6 Giga GGE/y in the high yield optimistic scenario to low yield pessimistic scenario, respectively. In case of forestry/wood residues, the amount of advanced biofuels is very low and only 01 - 0.2 Giga GGE/y (Table 4.12.3.2).
112 Chapter - 4
Table 4.12.3.3: Contribution in energy security from agroforestry residue (India)
Energy Advanced biofuels
BAS YBAS
Low High
Crops O B P O B P O B P Agroforestry residues 1.3 66% 33% 39% 19% 10% 56% 28% 14%
Source: Author‘s calculation
Table 4.12.3.2 shows how much the PFE and PAB is able to contribute in energy security from agroforestry residues. It is found, in an optimistic scenario PFE from agroforestry residues could cover 1.3 times transport sector‘s energy demand. In the balanced and pessimistic scenario, PFE could cover 66% - 33% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The range of MAAB to MIAB from agroforestry residues could cover 56% - 10% of the transport sector‘s gasoline demand.
Figure 4.12.3.1: Range of PFE and PAB from agroforestry residue and their contribution in energy security (India)
(A) (B) 10 70.0 65.5 8 8.5 60.0 84% 50.0 6 40.0 56%
EJ/y 4 30.0 20.0
21% Giga GGE/y 2 10.0 10% 0 0.0 Agroforestry Agroforestry residues residues
Range of energy potential Range of AB potential Energy consumption Gasoline consumption
Source: Authors calculation, *Values in the Table represent the times of energy supply potential
Figure 4.12.3.1 shows the range of MIPE to MAPE (part A) and MIAB to MAAB (part B). The shaded area of Figure 4.12.3.1 shows the possibilities in contribution to energy security from PFE (part A) and PAB (part B). The dashed
113 Chapter - 4 horizontal line in the figure represents the energy consumption (part A) and gasoline consumption (part B) in the transport sector which is ~8.5 EJ/y and in gasoline consumption terms it is nearly equal to~65.5 Giga gallons/y. The range of PFE is 1.8 - 7 EJ/y which could cover 21% - 84% of the transport sector‘s energy demand. The range of PAB is 6 – 37 Giga GGE/y, which could cover ~10% to 56% times of the gasoline consumption by the transport sector (Figure 4.12.3.1).
114 Chapter - 5
CHAPTER – 5
5.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the evaluation and discussion of sustainability of the advanced biofuels. It is well known that in today‘s world the success of any industry is evaluated in terms of its positive effects on the environment and society which is as equally important as the economic and monetary gains.
For the evaluation of environmental impacts of advanced biofuels, data on GHGs emission and combustion are collected and evaluated from the available literature. The data availability on the advanced biofuel‘s economic and societal benefit is limited. Therefore, for evaluation of economic and social benefits, it was assumed that the dynamics of these effects are the same as of the conventional biofuels. Mostly, the data and example taken from the conventional biofuel industry.
5.2 Environmental impacts
5.2.1 GHG emissions and transport sector
GHGs include oxides of carbon i.e. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Carbon monoxide (CO), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3) and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG and represents 76% of the total GHGs (combined emission from transport, agriculture and industry). Greenhouse gases (GHGs) traps solar heat and help in maintaining the life- sustaining atmospheric temperature (Change, 2015). Because of the heat-trapping property, the excess of these gases causes the additional rise in the temperature exceeding from the required limit. This unnecessary warming of atmosphere is termed as the ‗global warming‘.
After the industrial revolution, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide escalated by 36%. The burning of fossil fuels in transport and industrial sector is the major cause of rising atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (Change, 2015). Globally, the transport fuel consumption is growing at the rate of 2% per annum and this rate of growth is expected to remain the same in the coming years (Eisentraut et al., 2011). The transport sector is the end user of liquid petroleum fuels and consumes ~95% of the supply. The massive consumption of fossil fuels was responsible for 6.3 Giga tonne (Gt) of carbon dioxide emission in 2004 (Ilyama, M.
115 Chapter - 5
Kariuki, P., Kristjanson, P., Kaitibie, S., Maitima, 2008). Since 1990, the emission from road transport had been increased by 68% and is responsible for ¾ of the transport sector emissions in 2013 (IEA, 2015).
5.2.2 Advanced biofuels and transport sector
Advanced biofuels are produced from the lignocellulosic biomass which is non-edible and available in huge quantity. Approximately, 70% of the total terrestrial biomass is considered as the lignocellulose (Pauly & Keegstra, 2008). An additional source of the lignocellulosic biomass is the purposely grown energy crops which includes Miscanthus, Switchgrass and perennial grasses etc. The energy crops can grow on marginal land without much requirement of input and care. Thus, in their complete life cycle, they could prove to be a better option for GHG mitigation (Larson & Larson, 2008) (Petroleum, 2013).
The blending of transport fuels with biofuels have significant positive impact on the GHG emissions. For instance, the mixing of ethanol in the gasoline resulted in more efficient combustion of gasoline with a lesser emission of particulate matters and GHG (Greene et al., 2004). The blending of ethanol also replaced the requirement of tetraethyl led which is an anti-knocking agent and a pollutant. Blending results in the replacement of petroleum fuels in the same proportion. For example, the 10% blend of ethanol replaces the 10% of the gasoline from the carbon cycle which resulted in 10% less carbon emitted in the atmosphere (Kheshgi et al., 2000) (Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2010).
5.2.3 GHG emissions and advanced biofuels
The lower GHGs emission is the key facet of environmental sustainability of the advanced biofuels. There is a growing recognition that the advanced biofuel technologies are more carbon neutral and promising for GHG mitigation (Eisentraut et al., 2011). As an evidence, the GHG emission from the LCA of cellulosic ethanol is presented here (Table 5.1). It is the most studied advanced biofuel and there is a huge optimism regarding their GHG reduction abilities. The optimism is based upon the fact that cellulosic ethanol requires a lesser quantity of fossil fuel inputs in their production as compared to other conventional biofuels (Eisentraut, 2010c) (Farrell, 2006) (L R Lynd, 1996).
116 Chapter - 5
Table 5.1: GHG emission from ethanol produced by different type of feedstock
GHGs Study Feedstock Source (gCO2 e/MJ) (C. Hamelinck, De Hamelinck 11 Lignocellulose Loveinfosse, & Koper, 2012) (C. Hamelinck et Hamelinck 37 - 64 Corn al., 2012) Lignocellulose (Purohit & Fischer, Purohit 21.6 - 23.1 (straws) 2014) Lignocellulose Eisentraut 22 (Eisentraut, 2010a) (wood, forestry) Corn of which 30 g Eisentraut 77 - 105 CO2-eq/MJ is from (Eisentraut, 2010a) iLUC Eisentraut 95 Gasoline (Eisentraut, 2010a)
Table 5.1 shows the GHG emission for obtaining 1 MJ of energy by the combustion of ethanol produced from different types of lignocellulosic biomass, ethanol from corn and from gasoline. Corn ethanol emits 37 – 105 gCO2-e/MJ (gram carbon dioxide equivalent per mega joule) if the emission from the indirect land use change (iLUC) is included in the LCA. Without the inclusion of iLUC in LCA, the total emission from corn ethanol is 37 – 64 gCO2-e/MJ. Gasoline emits 95 gCO2-e for obtaining the 1 MJ of energy (Table 5.1).
The GHG emission from cellulosic ethanol is in between the range of 11 - 22 gCO2-e/MJ. Franke reported 12.3 - 12.4 gCO2-e/MJ emission for ethanol obtained from lignocellulosic biomass. For the conversion of straws into ethanol, the emission is 21.6 - 23.1 gCO2e/MJ (Table 5.1). The range of emission for ethanol from the lignocellulosic biomass is significantly lower than the ethanol from corn and gasoline. So, from Table 5.1, it could be said that the cellulosic ethanol has lesser GHG emission than the corn ethanol and gasoline.
117 Chapter - 5
Figure 5.1: Range of GHG emission from different sources
110
90
70
50
30
10
Corn (with Corn Lignocellulose Lignocellulose Lignocellulose Lignocellulose Gasoline -10 iLUC) (Straws) (no iLUC)
Figure 5.1 represents the range of the CO2 emission from ethanol produced from different types of biomass and gasoline. It is clear from the Figure 5.1, that the CO2 emission from corn ethanol is approximately equal to the gasoline if emission from the land use change have been taken into consideration. CO2 emission without considering the iLUC is lower than the emission with iLUC for corn ethanol. It means, the indirect clearing of other carbon-intensive areas for production of corn crop have negative effect on the emission savings by corn ethanol. Figure 5.1 also shows that the ethanol from the corn and gasoline have significantly higher emission for the per joule of energy than the ethanol from the lignocellulosic feedstock (Figure 5.1).
Table 5.2: GHG emission savings from the advanced biofuels
Study GHGs savings Source Farrell 88% (Farrell, 2006) (Ackom, Emmanuel; Edwards 76-88% Mabee, Warren; Saddler, 2010) (Groode & Heywood, Grood 93-98% 2007) Unnash 10-102% (Unnasch & Pont, 2007) Wang 86% (Wang, Wu, & Huo, 2007) Zah 80% (Zah, 2007) Pallav 80% (Purohit & Fischer, 2014) Wang 85% (Wang, 2005)
118 Chapter - 5
The GHG saving by the advanced biofuels depends on the production pathway through which the biofuel is produced (Zah, 2007). Table 5.2 shows the mitigation of GHG emission by the cellulosic ethanol reported by different studies. Studies reported the diverse range of GHG savings. The minimum to maximum range of GHGs savings is 10% - 100%. In most of the cases, the GHGs savings is more than 50% and usually around 80% (Table 5.2).
5.2.4 Carbon sequestration by production of lignocellulosic feedstock
Energy crops which produced on marginal lands and afforestation of the deforested areas with fast growing tree species create a carbon sink. As the plantation grow, it captures atmospheric carbon and converts it into biomass. For instance, a study reported the carbon sequestration from Miscanthus is ~1 tone from one hectare in one year (1 tC/ha/yr) (Anderson-Teixeira, Davis, Masters, & Delucia, 2009). Another study reported the carbon sequestration from Miscanthus on the grassland is around 0.4-0.5 tC/ha/yr and 0.55-0.65 tC/ha/yr on pasture land (Dunn, Mueller, Kwon, & Wang, 2013).
Repeated plantation of successional herbaceous plants on marginal land shows a considerable positive effect on GHG savings. For instance, a study reported 800 –
900 gCO2-e mitigation capacity from the production of successional herbaceous plants (Gelfand et al., 2013). In comparison with that, corn vegetation has only 370 – 430 gCO2-e mitigation capacity (Gelfand et al., 2013).
5.3 Social impacts
The social impacts of the biofuel industry could be measured by its positive impact on income and employment. Biofuel industry is making some measurable contributions to the individual and as well as global economy. Potential for job creation along the supply chain of advanced biofuel is significant (Figure 5.2).
Most of the poor countries have sizeable amount of the agroforestry residue and marginal land. Agroforestry residue is considered negligible in terms of economic value. But if used for the production of advanced biofuels, their demand will increase either for domestic biofuel production or for export as a feedstock (International Energy Agency, 2012b). The diversion of agroforestry residue will generate substantial economic value for agroforestry residues by balancing the forces of demand and supply (Eisentraut, 2010a). The increased prices of the agroforestry
119 Chapter - 5 residues will help in raising the income of the farmers and will have positive impact on economic growth, poverty reduction and food security (FAO, 2008b).
Purpose grown feedstock i.e. energy crops have significant positive impact on the income of farming communities. Jobs will be created with the cultivation of the feedstock and most of the jobs will absorb low skilled, poor workers of rural areas (Langevin, 2005). The quality of jobs is better for them because of the lower element of seasonality with the possibility of increasing wages over time (Macedo, 1995). Moreover, the energy crops do not compete with resources used for food production. Indeed, it may contribute to improving the food security which will help in avoiding the pressure on low-income consumers, particularly in developing countries (FAO, 2018b).
Figure 5.2: Possibilities of job creation in supply chain of advanced biofuels
Raw material Payment to growers/far mers
Harvesting Jobs for semi-skilled and unskilled labours Transport tp biorefinary Job for driver and floor workers Processing in Jobs of biorefinary Management and production worker Transport of finished product Job for Income for driver and the owner, floor jobs on workers selling pump Selling at pump
120 Chapter - 5
5.3.1 Global impacts of biofuel industry on income and employment
The information is limited about the income and employment effects of the advanced biofuels because the industry is in the development stage. Therefore, for evaluation of the income and employment effects of the advanced biofuels industry, it is assumed that the dynamics of these effects are the same as the conventional biofuel industry.
Table 5.3: Global impacts on income and employment by of biofuels in 2010
Quantity of Investment on Gross Output Value No. of Biofuels biofuels feedstock in 2010 added jobs (giga litres) (billion USD) (Mil $) output
Ethanol 93 87.3 301,480 125.2 1,088,229
Biodiesel 17.6 21.6 72,952 30.3 291,129
Total 100.16 108.9 374,432 155.5 1,379,358
Source: (Urbanchuk, 2012)
The production of bioethanol has considerable positive effects on global income and employment. For instance, the global production of ethanol in 2010 was around 93 Giga litres. This amount of production demands the investment of $87.3 billion on feedstocks and inputs. The return on this investment has the gross value of around $301.5 billion along with the value added output of $125.2 billion. Moreover, it supports 1.1 million jobs (Table 5.3).
In terms of biodiesel, the global quantity was 17.6 Giga litres in 2010. This amount of production demands the expenditures of about $21.6 billion on feedstocks and other inputs. Production of biodiesel generates $73 billion of gross output, $30.3 billion of values-added output and 30 Lacs job (Table 5.3).
The total amount of biofuels is around 100 Giga litres and demands the total investment of about 109 billion USD. The return on this investment is $375 billion in gross value and $155 billion in terms of value added output (Table 5.3). The number of jobs created by the biofuel industry is around 1.4 million, spread throughout all sectors of the economy on the global scale.
121 Chapter - 5
5.3.2 Income and employment impacts in major biofuel producing countries
Table 5.4 shows the income and employment effects by the production of ethanol and biodiesel in major producing countries. USA and Brazil are the top producers of fuel ethanol. The quantity of ethanol is around 50 Giga litres (Gl) in the USA and 26 Gl in Brazil, which constitutes 54% and 28% of the global ethanol production (Table 5.4). The income and employment generated from this quantity of ethanol is significant and generate gross revenue of $129 billion in the USA and $111 billion in Brazil (Table 5.4). From the production of ethanol in USA and Brazil, around 4 Lacs and 4.4 Lacs are created respectively. The total number of jobs in the USA and Brazil represents 37% and 41% of the global employment created by the ethanol industry, respectively (Table 5.4). Ethanol production in India also have measurable income and employment effects. In 2010, around 2 Gl of ethanol was produced in India which represents 2% of the global ethanol output, 3% of the gross value output and 3% of the global employment creation (Table 5.4).
European Union is the number one producer of the biodiesel preceeding Brazil and USA. In 2010, around 9 Gl of biodiesel was produced in the EU, which represents 52% of the global biodiesel production. The income and employment effects of biodiesel production is significant in the EU. In 2010, $38 billion gross value worth of biodiesel was produced in the EU and 1.5 Lacs jobs were created which represents 52% of the global job creation by biodiesel production (Table 5.4). Biodiesel production in India has measurable income and employment effects. In 2010, around 2 Gl of biodiesel was produced in India. It represents the 1% of the global biodiesel output, 1% of the gross value output and 1% of the global employment generation (Table 5.4).
122 Chapter - 5
Table 5.4: Income and employment impacts of biofuels
Biofuel output Gross output Country No. of Jobs (Million litres) (Million $)
Ethanol Biodiesel Ethanol Biodiesel Ethanol Biodiesel
50.3 1.19 12.92 4.9 400677 19713 U.S. (54) (7) (43) (7) (37) (7)
26.2 1.55 111.35 6.4 444378 25633 Brazil (28) (9) (37) (9) (41) (9)
4.46 9.18 17.4 38 69343 151840 EU-27 (5) (52) (6) (52) (6) (52)
1.89 1.79 8.1 0.74 32088 2967 India (2) (1) (3) (1) (3) (1)
1.04 5.5 35.5 22.8 141743 90976 Other (11) (31) (12) (31) (13) (31)
Total 93 17.6 301 73 1088229 291129
Source: (Urbanchuk, 2012), * the value in parenthesis () shows percentage contribution in total. Value in 2010$
5.3.3 Income and employment effects of biofuel by industry
It is prerequisite to identify the most important and benefited sectors of the economy and sectoral distribution of the income and employment for understanding the income and employment effect of biofuel in the economy. It is clear from Table 5.5, the income and employment impacts of the ethanol production is distributed in approximately all sectors of the economy. From ethanol production in the USA, income of around $23 billion and 3.5 Lacs jobs are generated (Table 5.5).
In terms of income, agriculture sector is the most benefited sector of the economy. It generates income of about $9 billion which represents 39% of the total income generated in the USA via ethanol production. The number of jobs created in agriculture sector via ethanol production is around 81734, which represents 23% of the total jobs (Table 5.5). In terms of job generation, the service sector dominates over
123 Chapter - 5 other economic sectors and creates 1.4 Lacs jobs which represents 41% of the total jobs in the ethanol industry. In terms of income, service sectors generates $7.2 billion which represents 31% of the total income from the ethanol production in USA (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5 Income and employment impacts by ethanol industry (USA)
Income % Share % Share Economic Sectors No. of jobs billion of jobs of income USD Agriculture 81734 9.2 23% 39% Mining 5247 0.36 1% 2% Construction 18514 0.71 5% 3% Manufacturing 27569 2.75 8% 12% Transportation/Public Utilities 22570 1.16 6% 5% Wholesale/Retail Trade 52145 1.92 15% 8% Services 146218 7.28 41% 31% Government 3410 0.22 1% 1% Total 357407 23.5 100% 100%
Source: (Urbanchuk, 2014) values in (2015$)
5.3.4 Income and employment impacts of advanced biofuels
The production of advanced biofuels have a positive impact on the income and employment generation. Although, the industry currently is in a developmental stage but the encouraging future impacts cannot be overseen. The market for advanced biofuels is expected to grow at the CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 41.8% and projected to reach up approximately $100 billion in 2023 from $8.64 billion in 2016 (Stratistics, 2017).
Table 5.5 shows the income and employment impacts of the advanced biofuel industry. For the plant capacity of 50-million-gallon ethanol per year, around $36 million will be needed to invest in the feedstock, which is 68% of the total expenditure. The payment for feedstock represents income to the farmers (Table 5.6). Rest of the sectors of the economy also get benefited but the income effects for farmers are more pronounced. Total 2477 jobs are generated from the mentioned plant capacity. The plant employ 77 workers directly on the payroll of $2.7 million, and around 2400 jobs are spread throughout the supply chain (Table 5.6) (Hodur & Leistritz, 2009).
124 Chapter - 5
Table 5.6: Direct economic impacts of cellulose based ethanol ($ million)
Sector Million USD % share Income distribution
Feedstock purchase 36 68% Feedstock transportation 8.82 17% Retail trade 1.84 3% Finance Insurance and real state 2.16 4% Households 18.45 35% Other 2.56 5% Total 53.01 100%
No. of jobs
Direct employment 77 Indirect employment 2400
Source: (Hodur, Leistritz, & Hertsgaard, 2006)
5.4 Technoeconomy of advanced biofuels
The technoeconomic efficiency of the advanced biofuel industry is still in question. Despite the potential for remarkable energy and environmental benefits, the commercial production is still not getting its flight. The structural complexity of the lignocellulosic biomass is the primary reason for their high cost of production and makes it unfit for the commercial scale production. In this section, the technoeconomic efficiency of the cellulosic ethanol is evaluated.
5.4.1 Pretreatment
Pretreatment is necessary for the removal of structural complexities of the lignocellulosic biomass. It reduces the recalcitrance by the disruption of cell wall, reduction in cellulose chain length and cellulose crystallinity (Suhardi et al., 2013) (Humbird et al., 2011). Without pretreatment, the maximum sugar yield is only 20% of the theoretical value. But after the pretreatment, the yield of sugars increased up to the 90% of the theoretical value (L R Lynd, 1996).
125 Chapter - 5
However, pretreatment helps in reducing the production cost by increasing the sugar yield. But pretreatment in itself is the second largest costly step of the production process (Klein-Marcuschamer, Simmons, & Blanch, 2011). Currently, different variations of the pretreatment process are present. The identification and adoption of appropriate pretreatment process is necessary for making production economically viable. The identification and selection criteria include high yield, lesser degradation products, low capital cost and lesser enzyme and other chemical requirements (Hendriks & Zeeman, 2009).
5.4.2 Overview of leading pretreatment methods
5.4.2.1 Steam explosion
In steam explosion pretreatment, high-pressure steam (0.69–4.83 MPa) is applied on the biomass at a high temperature (160–260 0C) for few minutes (Mosier et al., 2005). After this, the biomass is rapidly brought down to the atmospheric pressure. This sudden change in pressure causes the thermal explosion of the already weakened biomass by high temperature. The process is also known as explosive decompression of biomass (P. Kumar et al., 2009).
5.4.2.2 Hot water pretreatment
The process of hot water pretreatment is very similar to the steam explosion. The major difference is when the explosive decompression is replaced by the controlled cooling to maintain the liquid phase of water (Weil, Westgate, Kohlmann, & Ladisch, 1994). One important benefit of the process is high sugar yield and recovery of approximately 80% of the hemicellulose (Pérez et al., 2008).
5.4.2.3 Ammonia fibre explosion (AFEX)
The process of AFEX is similar to the steam explosion and the only difference is in the use of ammonia instead of steam or hot water. In the AFEX process, biomass is treated with liquid ammonia at high temperature and pressure for a short time, and then the pressure is swiftly reduced (Teymouri, Laureano-Perez, Alizadeh, & Dale, 2005). Ammonia causes the swelling of lignocellulosic biomass which leads to disruption of biomass fibres and limited decrystallization of cellulose (Okano, Kitagawa, Sasaki, & Watanabe, 2005). The efficiency of AFEX processes is very high and recovers about 99% sugars. Furthermore, recycling of ammonia makes process environmentally sustainable and improves economic viability through reducing input cost (ammonia) (Ee, 2005).
126 Chapter - 5
5.4.2.4 Ionic liquids
The most convincing property of ionic liquids (ILs) is selective precipitation by solubilizing lignocellulosic biomass. Ionic liquids are chemically and thermally stable, non-flammable, have low vapour pressure and have a tendency to remain in liquid state at different temperatures (Hayes, 2009). After dissolving lignocellulosic biomass in ionic liquids, the cellulose precipitates from solution by the addition of an anti-solvent (e.g., water or ethanol) while lignin and other solutes remain as it is (Healey et al., 2015). Ionic liquids effectively work on different type of biomass regardless of their composition. Since no toxic or explosive gases are evolved, they are considered as environment-friendly. However, ILs are of very high cost (Pu, Jiang, & Ragauskas, 2017).
5.4.2.5 Dilute acid pretreatment
For the dilute acid pretreatment, sulfuric acid is mostly used for the purpose. During the process, dilute sulfuric acid is added to the lignocellulosic biomass and is left at high temperature for about 5 - 10 minutes (Humbird et al., 2011) (Wooley et al., 1999) (Mcaloon, Taylor, & Yee, 2000). After the application of dilute sulfuric acid, most of the hemicellulose is hydrolysed to form xylose and other sugars. After this process the porous structure of cellulose and lignin is left which is more accessible by the enzyme (C. E. Wyman, 1994).
5.4.3 Evaluations of the leading pretreatment methods
Table 5.7 shows considerable variations in capital expenditure and ethanol yields by different pretreatment methods. In the discussed pretreatment methods, the steam explosion process have lowest capital expenditure, medium sugar yield and lowest production cost. Dilute acid process has the third highest capital expenditure, high yield of sugars and second lowest production cost (Table 5.7).
The two-stage dilute-acid method does not use enzymes for performing hydrolysis so the cost of the enzyme is zero for the process. Moreover, the production cost is highest through this process because of low yields and long retention time for overliming which corrodes reactor vessels and offsets the economic benefits of not using enzymes (F Kabir Kazi et al., 2010).
127 Chapter - 5
Although, the hot water pretreatment has low capital expenditure but low ethanol yield offsets this benefit. Ionic liquids are very costly and need substantial recovery after completion of the process for making the process economically viable. It is found that when cost of the ionic liquid is 2.5 $/Kg, with 97% recovery and IL/Biomass ratio is less than 2, then cost of production is below 5 $/g. But, when the cost of the ionic liquid is 50 $/Kg, then with 96.% recovery and IL/Biomass ratio is 1, the cost of production is more than 6 $/g (Table 5.7) (Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2011).
Table 5.7: Pretreatment methods and their respective capital expenditure, yields and production cost
Capital Yield (Y) Production Pretreatment method expenditure litre/MT cost ($/g) ($ Million) Steam Explosion 230.2 91 3.24 Hot Water 211 361 4.44 Ammonia Fibre Explosion 249.7 386 3.69 Dilute Acid (base case) 288.8 376 3.4 Dilute Acid (high solids) 274.5 389 3.6 Two Stage Dilute Acid 177.5 391 4.38 Ionic Liquids NA 116-153* > $6 to < $5
Source: (Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2011) (Feroz Kabir Kazi et al., 2010) (D. Kumar & Murthy, 2011), * This does not include installation construction maintenance and overhead cost.
128 Chapter - 5
Table 5.8: Effect of various pretreatment method on cellulosic biomass and their respective advantages and disadvantages
Pretreatment SA H L X DP C Advantages Disadvantages method -Not remove lignin -Slightly affect the -Increased surface lignin structure Steam area +++ +++ + + ++ + -Destruction of the Explosion -Remove portion of xylan hemicellulose -Inhibitory compound formation -Increase surface area -Not decrystalise the cellulose Hot Water +++ +++ ++ + +++ + -Remove hemicellulose -Slightly affect the lignin structure
-Increased surface area + -The major effect -Minor effect on on lignin removal and alter the remove Ammonia Fibre hemicellulose +++ + +++ No +++ structure of lignin Explosion -Decrystalise the -Not efficient for cellulose biomass with high lignin content -Does not produce inhibitors
-Long retention -Increased surface time area -Alter the structure Dilute Acid +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ -Remove of lignin hemicellulose -Inhibitory compounds -Corrosion -Environment- friendly -Low melting point -Very costly -Toxicity towards Ionic Liquids NA NA NA NA NA +++ -High thermochemical the microorganisms stability -Selective dissolution property
SA=Surface area, H= Hemicellulose, L=Lignin, X=Xylose, DP=Degradation product, C=cellulose, NA=Not available, Highly effective=+++, Moderately effective=++, Less effective=+
129 Chapter - 5
Table 5.8 shows a comparison among the discussed pretreatment methods. The comparison is based on their respective effects on the covered surface area and lignin, yield of cellulose and hemicellulose and degradation products. From Table 5.8 it is clear that the pretreatment through the dilute acid has the highest positive effects on all the evaluative parameters. Most importantly, it has a substantial recovery of hemicellulosic sugars, which significantly increase the overall sugar yields.
On the basis of information generated in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8, it can be said that pretreatment via dilute acid pathway (base case) appears to be closest for the near-term commercial application. The dilute acid proved more efficient and inexpensive and have higher xylose yield in comparison with other pretreatment methods (C. Wyman, 1996). By using dilute sulphuric acid (H2SO4) for the pretreatment, 80% to 90% of hemicellulosic sugars can be recovered (B. Yang & Wyman, 2008). In general, high recovery of hemicellulose sugars have dual advantages i.e., higher ethanol yield and lower formation of fermentation inhibitory products (L R Lynd, 1996).
5.4.4 Major improvements in process of dilute acid pretreatment since 2002
5.4.4.1 Ammonium hydroxide instead of overliming
Initially, overliming was used for conditioning of the pretreated biomass. For overliming, the biomass needs to separate into solid and liquid fractions where only the liquid portion of slurry could be conditioned. Overliming results in high pH that requires further addition of sulfuric acid for neutralization. The neutralization of slurry leads to the precipitation of gypsum (a degradation product) which is a byproduct. In this process, a significant amount of sugars (as much as 13%) is lost due to side reactions occurring at high pH or forced out with the wet gypsum (Humbird et al., 2011) (Bain, 2007).
Table 5.9: Advantages of ammonia on overliming
Characteristics Overliming Ammonia pH elevation X Neutralization X The requirement for extra acid X Sugar loss X Addition of more acid for lowering pH X Solid-liquid separation X
130 Chapter - 5
Table 5.9 shows the advantages of using ammonia over lime. Ammonia easily and uniformly spreads over the hydrolysate slurry. Due to this, the need for the separation of liquid and solid part of the slurry is eliminated. The requirement of extra acid for lowering pH is also eliminated which results in the significant reduction in sugar loss. The sugar losses reduced from 12% to 0.6% (glucose) and 13% to 1.8% (xylose), (Table 5.9). Besides, the use of ammonia also eliminates the need for neutralization, which is necessary after overliming and hence, gypsum disposal cost is also eliminated (Table 5.9). Improvement in fermentation yield was also observed when ammonium hydroxide was used rather overliming (Andy Aden & Foust, 2009).
Table 5.10 Reduction in sugar losses
Conversion Reactions 2005 2007 Glucose sugar loss 12.00% 0.60% Xylose sugar loss 13.00% 1.80% Arabinose sugar loss 20.00% 1.80% Mannose sugar loss 0% 0.60% Galactose sugar loss 28.00% 0.60%
Source: (F Kabir Kazi et al., 2010)
5.4.4.2 Improved xylose yields
In 2002, only 20% solid loading was the maximum limit. But just after 2 years, 30% solid loading was achieved with no loss in xylose yield which resulted in the 12% decrease in Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (Andy Aden & Foust, 2009). By using dilute acid pretreatment, the 2005 state of technology documented 63% xylan to xylose monomeric conversion. In 2007, conversion of 75% xylan into xylose was achieved. In 2008, mild conversion of secondary xylose oligomer into monomeric xylose reduced the quantity of degradation products.
Subsequently, in 2009 optimization in operating conditions lead to an improvement in overall xylan-to-xylose conversion of 54% with 6% loss to furfural (Humbird et al., 2011). In 2010, further process optimization leads to 85.3% yield of monomeric xylose. In 2011, xylan-xylose conversion further improved to 88%. However, in 2012, the targeted yield of monomeric xylan to xylose was 90% but only 81% conversion of monomeric xylose was achieved. Even though the monomeric xylose yield is below the target of 90%, it considered as satisfactory progress in the process (Tao et al., 2014).
131 Chapter - 5
5.4.4.3 Milder pretreatment
High-severity pretreatments by using high temperature and concentrated reagents, demand more controllable environment than the milder pretreatment. Although severe pretreatment may produce more monomeric xylose but the risk of forming large amounts of degradation products is also high (Tao et al., 2014). In 2011, the reaction conditions go milder when only 15 mg acid/dry gram of biomass is needed instead of 38 mg/g in 2007. The prior de-acetylation further lowered the reaction severity. The reaction condition further goes milder in 2012, when only 9 mg/g of acid loading (Humbird et al., 2011).
5.4.4.4 Acid pre-impregnation
In 2012, the important improvement is the pre-impregnation of the deacetylated biomass with additional acid. Most of this acid is recovered when the soaked biomass is dewatered and does not enter in the reactor. The direct economic benefit of this step is realised in the form of lower acid loading and lesser ammonia requirement for neutralization. The formation of inhibitory products such as HMF and furfural also reduced (Tao et al., 2014).
5.4.4.5 Cost improvement
The improvement in the production cost over time is shown in (Figure 5.3 (A)). Figure 5.3 represents cumulative impacts of different cost contributors i.e. ammonia and acid loadings (Figure 5.3 (B, C)), formation of xylose to degradation products (Figure 5.3 (D)), xylan to xylose yield (Figure 5.3 (E)) and xylose loss (Figure 2 (F)) on the production cost (Figure 5.3 (A)).
In 2007-08, 15% lesser formation of xylan to degradation products and 21% reduction in acid loadings lead to 2% reduction in the production cost. In the year 2008-09, 12% increment in xylan to xylose yield, 45% lesser formation of xylan to degradation products, 18% reduction in acid loadings and 24% reduction in ammonia loading lead to 12% improvement in production cost.
In 2009-10, 1% increment in xylan to xylose yield, 10% reduction in acid loadings and 51% reduction in ammonia loading lead to 12.8% improvement in production cost. In the year 2010-11, 3.5% increment in xylan to xylose yield, 38% lesser formation of xylan to degradation products, 32% reduction in acid loadings, 20.8% reduction in ammonia loading and 50% reduction in Xylose sugar loss lead to 7.5% improvement in production cost.
132 Chapter - 5
In the year 2011-12, 40% reduction in acid loadings, 20.8% reduction in ammonia loading, 100% reduction in xylose sugar loss and removal of secondary oligomer conversion step lead to 16% improvement in production cost.
During 2007-12, overall 8% increment in xylan to xylose yield, 63% lesser formation of xylan to degradation products, 100% improvement in xylose and glucose sugar loss, 76% reduction in acid loadings and 87% reduction in ammonia loading lead to 41% improvement in overall production cost.
Figure 5.3 Improvement in production cost (2007-2012)
(A) (B) 4.0 40
36 3.6 32 Production Cost ($/g) Acid Loading (mg/g) 3.2 28 24
2.8 20
16 2.4 12
2.0 8 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(C) (D) 14 14
12 12 10 Percentage of Xylan to Ammonia Loading 10 Degradation Products 8 (g/L of hydrolysate)
6 8 4 6 2
0 4 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(E) (F) 92 3
88 Percentage of Percentage of Xylose Sugar Loss 2 Xylan to Xylose 84
80 1
76
72 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: based on (Tao et al., 2014)
133 Chapter - 5
5.5 Present state of technology and the cost of production
The dramatic progress has been made in reducing the production cost of cellulosic ethanol. The production cost is affected by the size of the production plant, the type of the biomass, conversion pathway and pretreatment method. Till now, several milestones are achieved such as in 2007 where the acid neutralization was modified by the use of ammonia instead of calcium hydroxide (Humbird et al., 2011). In 2011, the replacement of horizontal pretreatment reactors with vertical pretreatment reactors which is less expensive. Further, In 2012, deacetylation prior pretreatment brought yield improvement in glucose and xylose. Hence, overall ethanol production was also increased (Tao et al., 2014) (X. Chen et al., 2012). Deacetylation increased yield by the removal of acetate in biomass which is detrimental for the conversion (Kothari, 2012). Despite these tremendous improvements in technology and cost, the market price of cellulosic ethanol is still higher than the corn ethanol and gasoline and needs to be subsidised to compete with them.
134 Chapter - 6
CHAPTER - 6
6.1 Summary
Globally, bioenergy provides ~10% of the total primary energy supply. Presently, biofuel used in the transport sector represents very small proportion, but in future it is expected that biofuel will make a significant contribution in the fulfilment of transport sector‘s fuel demand.
Concerns for mitigation of climate change thorough decarbonisation of the transport sector as well as fulfilling the fuel demand can be achieved through increased biofuel use. Currently, conventional biofuels are dominant in the transport sector. Ethanol which represents ~95% of the total fuel consumed by the transport sector, is of paramount importance to the transport sector because of its easy miscibility with the gasoline. Although, the conventional biofuels are dominating the market but the industry challenged the three most important aspects of energy security. The first is, continuous supply which is challenged by the food vs fuel debate, second is affordability, which is challenged by the need of subsidies for competing with petroleum fuels, and the third is, detailed LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) of supply chain which put its environmental sustainability in question.
As a solution for above-mentioned problems, advanced biofuels is recommended. The use of advanced biofuels in the transport sector will bring down the carbon emission by creating the carbon sink. Advanced biofuels have better energy ratios than the conventional biofuels and fossil fuels. However, despite these advantages advanced biofuels still fall short on the economic front and suffers from the high production cost. Structural complexities of lignocellulosic biomass and lack of proper policy framework are the major barriers against the commercial success of advanced biofuels. It is anticipated that in future with suitable policy support advanced biofuel will become cost competitive with fossil fuels and conventional fuels.
Advanced biofuels hold much promise for providing indigenously produced renewable energy that can be a viable alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Based on this optimism, the future market for advanced biofuels is expected to grow at the CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 41.8% and projected to reach up to ~100 billion USD in 2023 from $8.64 billion in 2016. With increasing market growth, the benefits for economy, environment and energy security is expected to increase.
135 Chapter - 6
From the recent technoeconomic developments, it could be said that the progress made in the pretreatment process is remarkable. The substantial recovery of hemicellulose sugars, lesser formation of degradation products and lesser quantity and cost of chemical inputs, decrease in cost of equipment are some factors responsible for the lower production cost of cellulosic ethanol. In future, expectation and chances for more process improvements are very high which will lead to further reduction in production cost.
6.2 Conclusion
The present study has been undertaken the following objectives to estimate the potential of advanced biofuels for energy security;
Following are the objectives of the study:
1. To estimate the quantity of biomass from energy crops produced on marginal land available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India.
2. To estimate the quantity of biomass from agroforestry residues available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India.
3. To estimate the potential for energy (PFE) and potential for advanced biofuels (PAB) that can be produced from the available biomass from energy crops available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India.
4. To estimate the PFE and advanced biofuels that can be produced from the available residue biomass from agroforestry available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India
5. To analyse the contribution in energy security from the PFE and PAB from energy crops available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India
6. To analyse the contribution in energy security from the PFE and advanced biofuels from agroforestry residues available at three different levels: (1) Global, (2) Continent and (3) India
7. To discuss the sustainability of advanced biofuels.
8. To provide suitable information for policymakers and stakeholders to make the right decision.
136 Chapter - 6
The quantification of biomass resources is essential for designing a suitable policy framework to support the advanced biofuels industry. The key elements that determine the potential of advanced biofuels are the area of marginal land allocated to the energy crops, demand and supply of industrial wood, agriculture productivity and residue collection efficiency. For estimation of the potential for energy security, following questions need to be answered:
1. How much land would be allocated to the production of energy crops?
2. How much quantity of biomass from energy crops and agroforestry residues made available to the advanced biofuel production without hurting the sustainability?
3. How much quantity of gasoline would be replace by advanced biofuel produced from the available biomass?
From the results the following points are concluded for the studied regions:
6.2.1 For Africa:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (564 Mha) available in Africa that could be used for production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in Africa is 3.4 BT - 11.2 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in Africa is ~306 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 5 times to the 109 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 31% to 1.8 times of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that Africa has a substantial level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
137 Chapter - 6
6.2.2 For Asia:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (519 Mha) available in Asia that could be used for the production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in Asia is 3.1 BT - 10.3 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in Asia is ~2013 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 50% to 15 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 31% to 1.8 times of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that Asia has a substantial level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
6.2.3 For Australia:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (104 Mha) available in Australia that could be used for the production of large quantity of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in Australia is 0.6 BT - 2.1 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in Australia is ~49 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 4 times to the 129 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 32% to 1.8 times of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that Australia has a substantial level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
138 Chapter - 6
6.2.4 For Europe:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (179 Mha) available in Europe that could be used for the production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in Europe is 1.1 BT - 3.5 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in Europe is ~696 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 50% to the 16 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 32% to 1.8 times of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that Europe has a substantial potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
6.2.5 For North America:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (96 Mha) available in North America that could be used for the production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in in North America is 0.6 BT - ~2 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in North America is ~770 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 7% to the 1.6 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 10% to 27% of the gasoline demand.
6. The potential seems to be lower in comparison with other regions because of the lower availability of marginal land area and high gasoline consumption.
7. Finally, it could be said that North America has a moderate level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
139 Chapter - 6
6.2.5 For South America:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (690 Mha) available in South America that could be used for the production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in South America is 4 BT minimum to 14 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in South America is ~528 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 4 times to the 80 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 32% to 1.8 times of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that South America has a substantial level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
6.2.7 For Global scale:
1. There is a large amount of marginal land (2.2 Gha) available on global scale that could be used for the production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops on global scale is 13 BT - 43 BT maximum.
3. The estimated global residue from the agroforestry residues is ~ 4964 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 50% to the 17 times of the global gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 19% to 1.1 times of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that on a global scale, there is a substantial level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
140 Chapter - 6
6.2.8 For India:
1. There is a substantial amount of marginal land (38.5 Mha) available in India that could be used for the production of energy crops.
2. The minimum to maximum range of estimates for the potential of biomass quantity from the energy crops in India is 0.23 BT - 0.77 BT maximum.
3. The estimated residue from the agroforestry residues in South America is ~452 MT.
4. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from energy crops can cover more than 5% to the 1.6 times of the gasoline demand.
5. The minimum to maximum range for the potential of advanced biofuels from agroforestry residue can cover 10% to 56% of gasoline demand.
6. Finally, it could be said that India has a substantial level of potential for energy security from energy crops and agroforestry residues, if converted into advanced biofuels.
Finally, it could be said there is enough marginal land available in all studied regions that could use for production of energy crops. The potential of biomass from the energy crops is sufficient to produce enough amount of advanced biofuels that can replace significant amount of gasoline. There is enough amount of agroforestry residue available in all the studied regions for the production of enough advanced biofuel to replace the significant amount of gasoline.
This study has reinforced the notion of positive effects of advanced biofuels on the environment and economy. The continuous improvement in understanding of greenhouse gas benefits of the advanced biofuels is observed in the study. The climatic benefits of the advanced biofuels are more pronounce and have the potential to mitigate climate change if used on a large scale for long time. The potential for income and employment benefits from advanced biofuels is found to be more beneficial for the farmers. The feedstock trade place considerable positive effect on the employment and income for farmers. It generates new income and employment opportunities in agriculture. Further, the proper planning and policy support is needed for the development of advanced biofuel as an industry which will ultimately offer the following benefits:
141 Chapter - 6
1. Oil imports will be reduced and hence, improvement in the trade balance and less vulnerability to supply shortages and oil price shock.
2. Creation of employment and wealth for indigenous people.
3. It is clean and carbon neutral and helps in mitigation of GHGs, hence, helps in reducing the disastrous effect of climate change.
6.3 Policy suggestions:
Overall, maximization of benefits from advanced biofuels is most likely to occur only in the presence of a proper policy framework. For this, the following policy suggestions based on the results of the study are presented here for possible incorporation:
1. The inclusion of target/mandates for biofuel blending in the policy will help in creation of biofuel‘s demand.
2. The promotion of flex-fuel vehicles will help to increase the biofuel‘s demand.
3. Increase the private investment in the advanced biofuel industry by inclusion of the provision for risk cover to the private investors by the government.
4. Logistics for efficient residue collection and transportation to ensure and maintaining the efficiency of the supply chain must be developed and manage by the government.
5. The government must allow foreign investment in the biofuel industry for increased flow of knowledge, information and technology.
6. The government should provide subsidy for the construction of biofuel production facility and provide decent incentives and subsidies to the feedstock growing farmer.
7. There is a strong need to make technoeconomic information open and easily accessible to the public, policymakers, and political activists.
8. The institutional setup for providing information, credit and other support needed for the advanced biofuel industry, must be developed by the government.
142 Chapter - 6
9. The exchange of information between public and scientific community should be smoothened so that both could become aware of each other's demands and problems.
10. Sustainability criteria and ensuring best land use practices for producing feedstock must be well defined and implemented by the government.
11. The government should spread the climate and air quality benefits of the advanced biofuel through advertisement and inclusion into the lower to higher levels of course curriculum.
12. The government must make efforts for creating awareness about the economic benefits of the alternative use of the agroforestry residue among the farmers by organising seminars and other conventional rural media tools.
143 References
REFERENCES
Ackom, Emmanuel; Mabee, Warren; Saddler, J. (2010). Backgrounder: Major Environmental Criteria of Biofuel Sustainability, (June), 39.
Aden, A., & Foust, T. (2009). Technoeconomic analysis of the dilute sulfuric acid and enzymatic hydrolysis process for the conversion of corn stover to ethanol. Cellulose, 16(4), 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-009-9327-8
Aden, A., Ruth, M., Ibsen, K., Jechura, J., Neeves, K., Sheehan, J., … Lukas, J. (2002). Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. National Renewable Energy Laboratory-NREL. https://doi.org/NREL/TP-510-32438
Agbor, V. B., Cicek, N., Sparling, R., Berlin, A., & Levin, D. B. (2011). Biomass pretreatment: Fundamentals toward application. Biotechnology Advances, 29(6), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.05.005
Akgün, O., Korkeakoski, M., Mustonen, S., & Luukkanen, J. (2011). Theoretical Bioenergy Potential in Cambodia and Laos. In World Renewable Energy Congress Sweden Bioenergy Technology (pp. 8–11). https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp11057335
Albino, D. K., Bertrand, K. Z., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2012). Food for fuel: The price of ethanol. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1210.6080.
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Davis, S. C., Masters, M. D., & Delucia, E. H. (2009). Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. GCB Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2008.01001.x
Andrews, S. S. (2006). Crop residue removal for biomass energy production: Effects on soils and recommendations. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington.
Ang, B. W., Choong, W. L., & Ng, T. S. (2015). Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 1077–1093.
144 References
Araújo, K., Mahajan, D., Kerr, R., & Silva, M. da. (2017). Global Biofuels at the Crossroads: An Overview of Technical, Policy, and Investment Complexities in the Sustainability of Biofuel Development. Agriculture, 7(4), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7040032
Bacovsky, D., Ludwiczek, N., Ognissanto, M., & Wörgetter, M. (2013). Status of advanced biofuels demonstration facilities in 2012. In IEA Bioenergy Task (Vol. 39).
Bain, R. L. (2007). World Biofuels Assessment; Worldwide Biomass Potential: Technology Characterizations (Milestone Report). Osti.Gov, (December). https://doi.org/10.2172/921804
Barros, S. (2015). Brazil-Biofuels Annual: Ethanol and Biodiesel. GAIN Report Number: BR15006. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN Report), USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. US Department of Agriculture: São Paulo, 31p. Retrieved from https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent GAIN Publications/Biofuels Annual_Sao Paulo ATO_Brazil_8-4-2015.pdf
BBRSC. (2016). 19 October 2016 - £5M awarded for new UK-Brazil joint projects in advanced biofuels and biorefinery research - BBSRC. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/fundamental- bioscience/2016/161019-pr-new-uk-brazil-projects-advanced-biofuels- biorefinery-research/
Becker, K., & Francis, G. (2005). Bio-diesel from Jatropha plantations on degraded land. Research Project, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Ben-Iwo, J., Manovic, V., & Longhurst, P. (2016). Biomass resources and biofuels potential for the production of transportation fuels in Nigeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 63, 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.050
Bentsen, N. S., Felby, C., & Thorsen, B. J. (2014). Agricultural residue production and potentials for energy and materials services. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 40(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2013.09.003
Berndes, G., Hoogwijk, M., & Van Den Broek, R. (2003). The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: A review of 17 studies. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00185-X
145 References
Berndes Göran, Bird Neil, C. A. (2011). Bioenergy, Land Use Change and Climate Change Mitigation. Retrieved from http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/Bioenergy-Land-Use-Change-and-Climate-Change- Mitigation-Background-Technical-Report.pdf
Biscop, S., & Whitman, R. (2012). The Routledge handbook of European security. Routledge.
Bob Flach, Sabine Lieberz, Marcela Rondon, B. W. and C. T. (2017). Biofuels Annual. GAIN.
Briney, A. (2018). Geography of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/geography-of-australia-1434351
Brinkman, N., Wang, M., Weber, T., & Darlington, T. (2005). Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems - A North American Study of Energy Use. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions.
Cai, X., Zhang, X., & Wang, D. (2011). Land Availability Analysis for Biofuel Production. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(January), 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103338e
Change, I. P. on C. (2015). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C., Bian, L., & Ma, J. (2014). From traces to trajectories: How well can we guess activity locations from mobile phone traces? Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies (Vol. 46). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.07.001
Chen, X., Shekiro, J., Franden, M. A., Wang, W., Zhang, M., Kuhn, E., … Tucker, M. P. (2012). The impacts of deacetylation prior to dilute acid pretreatment on the bioethanol process. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 5(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-8
Cheng, J. J., & Timilsina, G. R. (2011). Status and barriers of advanced biofuel technologies: A review. Renewable Energy, 36(12), 3541–3549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.031
Cheng, J., & Timilsina, G. R. (2010). Advanced biofuel technologies: status and barriers.
146 References
Cherubini, F., Bird, N. D., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B., & Woess- Gallasch, S. (2009a). Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(8), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.03.013
Cherubini, F., Bird, N. D., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B., & Woess- Gallasch, S. (2009b). Energy-and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(8), 434–447.
Connor, D. O. (2013). Advanced Biofuels – GHG Emissions and Energy Balances, a report to IEA bioenergy task 39, (May), 1–142.
Cromwell, G. L. (2006). Benefits of high oil corn for swine. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture(2006 ).
CSO. (2017). Indian Enegy Statistics 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Daioglou, V., Stehfest, E., Wicke, B., Faaij, A., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2016). Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry. GCB Bioenergy, 8(2), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12285
Dale, B. E., Elander, R. T., Holtzapple, M. T., Kumar, R., Ladisch, M. R., Lee, Y. Y., & Mosier, N. (2006). Pretreatment Fundamentals Biomass Refining Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation ( CAFI ):
Dale, N. (1994). Relationship between bushel weight, metabolizable energy, and protein content of corn from an adverse growing season. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/3.1.83
Davis, S.C., Hay, Pierce, W., & J. (2014). Biomass in the energy industry : An introduction. BP International Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.ener- supply.eu/downloads/ENER_handbook_en.pdf%5Cnwww.bp.com/energysust ainabilitychallenge%5Cnhttp://cigr.org/documents/CIGRHandbookVol5.pdf de Cendra de Larragán, J. (2012). Tying the Knot of Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation: A Tale of Solidarity? Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 22(1), 76–109. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvs069
147 References
Demirbas, A. (2008). Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projections. Energy Conversion and Management, 49(8), 2106–2116.
Demirbas, A. (2009). Combustion efficiency impacts of biofuels. Energy Sources, Part A, 31(7), 602–609.
Demirbas, A. (2009). Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review. Applied Energy, 86(SUPPL. 1), S108–S117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.036
Demirbaş, A. (2005). Bioethanol from cellulosic materials: A renewable motor fuel from biomass. Energy Sources, 27(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310390266643
Dessureault, D. (2009). Canada biofuels annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report Number CA9037, approved by US Embassy (Vol. 30).
Digest, B. (2011). Advanced Biofuels in China: TMO, COFCO, CNOOC New Energy join fast-growing ranks. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/05/10/advanced-biofuels-in- china-tmo-cofco-cnooc-new-energy-join-fast-growing-ranks/
Donner, S. D., & Kucharik, C. J. (2008). Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708300105
Doornbosch, R., & Steenblik, R. (2007). BIOFUELS: IS THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE? (Vol. 33).
Dufey, A. (2006). Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development: emerging issues. IIED. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=BTgsK75Tx8wC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq =biofuels+are+expected+to+contribute+around+20+to+30+per+cent+of+global+e nergy+demand&source=bl&ots=7Ns07eb_NW&sig=RSJyEW3upYb-ut6foQs- CoM5JtE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRmPbJwvTWAhUMwI8KHTih
Duffield, J. A., Johansson, R., & Meyer, S. (2015). US ethanol: an examination of policy, production, use, distribution, and market interactions. Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov/oce/energy/EthanolExamination102015.pdf
148 References
Dunn, J. B., Mueller, S., Kwon, H., & Wang, M. Q. (2013). Land-use change and greenhouse gas emissions from corn and cellulosic ethanol. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 6(1), 51.
E2 Entrepreneurs. (2014). E2 Advanced Biofuel Market Report 2014, 6–13. Retrieved from https://www.e2.org/ext/doc/E2AdvancedBiofuelMarketReport2014.pdf
Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., & Sokona, Y. (2011). IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.
Ee, Y. Y. L. (2005). Pretreatment of Corn Stover by Soaking AND. File:///C:/Users/AEBM/Desktop/10.1007%252Fs12010-007-9041-7.Ri, 121.
Eisentraut, A. (2010a). Sustainable Production of Second- generation Biofules. IEA Energy Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264084247-en
Eisentraut, A. (2010b). Sustainable Production of Second Generation Biofuels. IEA Bioenergy. Paris.
Eisentraut, A. (2010c). Sustainable Production of Second Generation Biofuels. Paris.
Eisentraut, A., Brown, A., & Fulton, L. (2011). Technology roadmap: biofuels for transport. International Energy Agency. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.330
Elasha, B. O., Medany, M., Niang-Diop, I., Nyong, T., Tabo, R., & Vogel, C. (2006). Impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Africa. In Bacground paper for the African Workshop on Adaptation Implementation of Decision (Vol. 1).
Emery, I., Mueller, S., Qin, Z., & Dunn, J. B. (2017). Evaluating the Potential of Marginal Land for Cellulosic Feedstock Production and Carbon Sequestration in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(1), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04189
Esen, Ö., & Bayrak, M. (2017). Does more energy consumption support economic growth in net energy-importing countries? Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 22(42), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-01- 2017-0015
FAO. (2008a). The state of food and agriculture, 2008. Food and Agriculture Organization of United States. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a- i0100e.pdf
149 References
FAO. (2008b). The State of Food and Agriculture. Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities. FAO Report.
FAO. (2017). Chapter 2 - Definitions and Context. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tac/x5784e/x5784e05.htm
FAO. (2018a). Chapter 2 - Definitions and Context. Retrieved May 14, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tac/x5784e/x5784e05.htm
FAO. (2018b). Energy. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/energy/bioenergy/en/
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152747
Farrell, A. E. (2006). Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science, 311(5760), 506–508. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121416
Fawcett, R. (2002). Consevation Tillage and plant biotechnology-How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow. Http://Www. Ctic. Purdue. Edu/.
Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E., Prieler, S., & Velthuizen, H. Van. (2007). Assessment of biomass potentials for bio- fuel feedstock production in Europe : Methodology and results. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd =1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanra n_storage/www.res2020.eu/ContentPages/43315751.pdf&ei=nkxWU9SBEK WCzAPgsIHYDg&usg=AFQjCNGu2K275nslV3U4PfoKzq-bW
Fischer, G., & Schrattenholzer, L. (2001). Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass and Bioenergy, 20(3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961- 9534(00)00074-X
Gadonneix, P., de Castro, F. B., de Medeiros, N. F., Drouin, R., Jain, C. P., Kim, Y. D., … Teyssen, J. (2010). Biofuels: Policies, Standards and Technologies. World Energy Council.
Gelfand, I., Sahajpal, R., Zhang, X., Izaurralde, R. C., Gross, K. L., & Robertson, G. P. (2013). Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature, 493(7433), 514–517. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11811
150 References
Gopalakrishnan, G., Cristina Negri, M., & Snyder, S. W. (2011). A novel framework to classify marginal land for sustainable biomass feedstock production. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(5), 1593–1600.
Göran Berndes, S. C. T. (2013). Biomass Feedstocks for Energy Markets. Retrieved from http://task43.ieabioenergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/Task_43_Overview_report_2013.pdf
Greene, N., Celik, F. E., Dale, B., Jackson, M., Jayawardhana, K., Jin, H., … MacKenzie, D. (2004). Growing energy: How biofuels can help end America‘s oil dependence (Natural Resources Defense Council). New York.
GreenFacts. (2007). Box 3: Biofuel policies in Brazil - Figures and Tables. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biofuels/figtableboxes/biofuel-brazil.htm
GreenFacts. (2016). Box 4: Biofuel policies in the United States of America. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://www.greenfacts.org/en/biofuels/figtableboxes/biofuel-policies-usa.htm
Groode, T. A., & Heywood, J. B. (2007). Ethanol: A look ahead. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Hamelinck, C., De Loveinfosse, I., & Koper, M. (2012). Renewable energy progress and biofuels sustainability. Ecofys, London, 450.
Hamelinck, C. N., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2006). Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy (Vol. 34). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.012
Hamelinck, C. N., Van Hooijdonk, G., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2005). Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: Techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long-term. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(4), 384–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.09.002
Hammerschlag, R. (2006). Ethanol‘s energy return on investment: A survey of the literature 1990 - Present. Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es052024h
Hans-Holger, R. (2006). Energy resources and potentials. Global Energy Assessment—Toward a Sustainable Future, 425–512.
151 References
Hayes, D. J. (2009). An examination of biorefining processes, catalysts and challenges. Catalysis Today, 145(1–2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2008.04.017
Healey, A. L., Lee, D. J., Furtado, A., Simmons, B. A., & Henry, R. J. (2015). Efficient Eucalypt Cell Wall Deconstruction and Conversion for Sustainable Lignocellulosic Biofuels. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 3(November), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00190
Heap, B. (2012). The current status of biofuels in the European Union, their environmental impacts and future prospects.
Heaton, E. A., Boersma, N., Caveny, J. D., Voigt, T. B., & Dohleman, F. G. (2014). Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) for biofuel production. Extension America’s Researche–based Learning Network SUA.
Hendriks, A. T. W. M., & Zeeman, G. (2009). Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 100(1), 10– 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.05.027
Herr, A., & Dunlop, M. (2011). Bioenergy in Australia: an improved approach for estimating spatial availability of biomass resources in the agricultural production zones. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), 2298–2305.
Hodur, N. M., Leistritz, F. L., & Hertsgaard, T. (2006). Contribution of the North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission programs to the state economy. North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
Hodur, N. M., & Leistritz, L. (2009). Economic impacts of biofuel development. AgMRC Renewable Energy Newsletter. February.
Hoogwijk, M., Faaij, A., Van Den Broek, R., Berndes, G., Gielen, D., & Turkenburg, W. (2003). Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961- 9534(02)00191-5
Houghton, J., Weatherwax, S., & Ferrell, J. (2006). Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda. EERE Publication and Product Library. Retrieved from https://genomicscience.energy.gov/biofuels/2005workshop/2005low_lignocellulosi c.pdf
152 References
Hu, J., Yu, F., & Lu, Y. (2012). Application of Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis in Biomass to Liquid Conversion. Catalysts, 2(4), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal2020303
Hughes, S. R., Moser, B. R., & Gibbons, W. R. (2014). Convergence of Food Security, Energy Security and Sustainable Agriculture (Vol. 67). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55262-5
Humbird, D., Davis, R., Tao, L., Kinchin, C., Hsu, D., Aden, A., … Dudgeon, D. (2011). Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol. Renewable Energy, 303(May), 147. https://doi.org/10.2172/1013269
IEA. (2007). IEA Technology essentials-biofuel production. International Energy Agency. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:IEA+Energ y+technology+essentials+-+Biofuel+production#0
IEA. (2008). World Energy Outlook 2008. IEA/OECD.
IEA. (2009a). Transport Energy and CO2: Moving Towards Sustainability. OECD Publishing.
IEA. (2013a). Electricity Information. IEA Statistics. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/10.1787/electricity-2011-en
IEA. (2013b). World Energy Outlook 2013. International Energy Agency. https://doi.org/10.1787/20725302
IEA. (2013c). World energy outlook special report. International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2015). Recent trends in world CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/media/news/2015/news/151104_webarticle_CO2_FINAL .pdf
IEA. (2016). What is energy security? Retrieved May 3, 2018, from https://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/whatisenergysecurity/
IEA, I. E. A. (2009b). World energy outlook. International Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France.
153 References
IIASA. (2013). GAEZ. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/EcosystemsServi cesandManagement/GAEZ.en.html
Ilyama, M. Kariuki, P., Kristjanson, P., Kaitibie, S., Maitima, J. (2008). Transport and its infrastructure. In Journal of International Development (Vol. 20, pp. 380– 397). https://doi.org/10.1002/jid
International Energy Agency. (2012a). Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013. Technology, 1–82. https://doi.org/10.1787/energy_tech-2014-en
International Energy Agency. (2012b). World Energy Outlook 2012. IEA. https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2012-en
International Energy Agency. (2017a). Key Energy Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
International Energy Agency. (2017b). Technology Roadmap: Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy, 94.
IRENA. (2016). Innovation Outlook Advanced Liquid Biofuels. Retrieved from http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Innovation_ Outlook_Advanced_Liquid_Biofuels_2016.pdf
Jacobsen, S. E., & Wyman, C. E. (2000). Cellulose and hemicellulose hydrolysis models for application to current and novel pretreatment processes. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 84–86, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:84-86:1-9:81
Jadwiga Ziolkowska, William H. Meyers, Seth Meyer, and J. B. (2011). Targets and Mandates: Lessons Learned from EU and US Biofuels Policy Mechanisms. AgBioForum, 13(4). Retrieved from http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n4/v13n4a13-ziolkowska.htm
Jiang, D., Zhuang, D., Fu, J., Huang, Y., & Wen, K. (2012). Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: Availability and distribution. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(3), 1377–1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.012
Johansson, T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N., & Williams, R. H. (1993). A renewables-intensive global energy scenario. Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity. Washington, DC: Island Press.
154 References
Kaylen, M., Van Dyne, D. L., Choi, Y. S., & Blase, M. (2000). Economic feasibility of producing ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks. Bioresource Technology, 72(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00091-7
Kazi, F. K., Fortman, J. A., Anex, R. P., Hsu, D. D., Aden, A., Dutta, A., & Kothandaraman, G. (2010). Techno-economic comparison of process technologies for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover. Fuel, 89(SUPPL. 1), S20–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.01.001
Kazi, F. K., Fortman, J., & Anex, R. (2010). Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochemical Scenarios for Production of Cellulosic Ethanol. National Renewable Energy Laboratory-NREL, (June), 102. https://doi.org/NREL/TP- 6A2-46588
Khatib, H., Barnes, A., Chalabi, I., Steeg, H., & Yokobor, K. (2000). Energy security. World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, 111– 134.
Kheshgi, H. S., Prince, R. C., & Marland, G. (2000). The potential of biomass fuels in the context of global climate change: focus on transportation fuels. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), 199–244.
Kim, G., & Anderson, L. (2017). Biofuels Demand Expands, Supply Uncertain. Biofuels Annual - Peoples Republic of China.
Klein-Marcuschamer, D., Simmons, B. A., & Blanch, H. W. (2011). Techno- economic analysis of a lignocellulosic ethanol biorefinery with ionic liquid pre-treatment. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 5(5), 562–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.303
Kothari, U. D. U. (2012). Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: Deacetylation, pretreatment, and enzymatic hydrolysis, 1–189.
Koukoulas, A. A. (2016). A Critical Look at Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Advanced Biofuels. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/12/12/a-critical-look-at- cellulosic-ethanol-and-other-advanced-biofuels/
Kumar, A. K., & Sharma, S. (2017). Recent updates on different methods of pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks: a review. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0137-9
155 References
Kumar, A., Kumar, N., Baredar, P., & Shukla, A. (2015). A review on biomass energy resources, potential, conversion and policy in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.007
Kumar, D., & Murthy, G. S. (2011). Impact of pretreatment and downstream processing technologies on economics and energy in cellulosic ethanol production. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 4, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754- 6834-4-27
Kumar, P., Kumar, P., Barrett, D. M., Barrett, D. M., Delwiche, M. J., Delwiche, M. J., … Stroeve, P. (2009). Methods for Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Ef cient Hydrolysis and Biofuel Production. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (Analytical Edition), 48(8), 3713–3729. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie801542g
Ladanai, S., & Vinterbäck, J. (2010). Biomass for energy versus food and feed, land use analyses and water supply. Retrieved from https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/5562/1/ladanai_et_al_110104.pdf
Lal, R. (2005). World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environment International, 31(4), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.09.005
Lal, R. (2008). Crop Residues and Soil Carbon. In Proceedings of the Conservation Agriculture Carbon Offset Consultation, Lafayette, IN, USA (pp. 1–14). FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/Carbon Offset Consultation/CARBONMEETING/3FULLPAPERSBYCONSULTATIONSP EAKERS/PAPERLAL.pdf
Lane, J. (2013). Biofuel mandates around the world: 2014 – Biofuel digest. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/01/03/biofuels-mandates-around- the-world-2016/
Lane, J. (2018). Biofuels Mandates Around the World 2018. Retrieved from https://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2018/01/01/biofuels-mandates- around-the-world-2018/21/
156 References
Langevin, M. (2005). Fuelling Sustainable Globalization: Brazil and the Bioethanol Alternative. InfoBrazil, Sept, 17–23.
Larson, D. E., & Larson, E. D. (2008). Biofuel production technologies : status , prospects and implications for trade and development. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Geneva. https://doi.org/http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200710_en.pdf
Lattimore, B., Smith, C. T., Titus, B. D., Stupak, I., & Egnell, G. (2009). Environmental factors in woodfuel production: Opportunities, risks, and criteria and indicators for sustainable practices. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(10), 1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.06.005
Lewis, S., & Kelly, M. (2014). Mapping the Potential for Biofuel Production on Marginal Lands: Differences in Definitions, Data and Models across Scales. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 3(2), 430–459. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi3020430
Lynd, L. R. (1996). Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass: Technology, economics, the environment, and policy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21, 403–465. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.21.1.403
Lynd, L. R., Cushman, J. H., Nicholas, R. J., & Wyman, C. E. (1991). Fuel Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass. Science, 251(4999), 1318–1323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.251.4999.1318
Lynd, L. R., Wyman, C. E., & Gerngross, T. U. (1999). Biocommodity engineering. Biotechnology Progress, 15(5), 777–793. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp990109e
Macedo, I. d C. (1995). Converting biomass to liquid fuels: making ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil. Energy As An Instrument for Socio-Economic Development. J. Goldemberg and TB Johansson, United Nations Development Program, New York, USA.
Mcaloon, A., Taylor, F., & Yee, W. (2000). Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic. National Renewable Energy Laboratory-NREL, 2008(October), 44. https://doi.org/NREL/TP-580-28893
157 References
McAloon, A., Taylor, F., Yee, W., Ibsen, K., & Wooley, R. (2000). Determining the cost of producing ethanol from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28893.pdf
McCarthy, J. E., & Tiemann, M. (2006). MTBE in gasoline: clean air and drinking water issues.
McKendry, P. (2002). Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresource Technol, 83(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00118-3
Meghan Sapp. (2016). GAO report says advanced biofuel production far below RFS requirements : Biofuels Digest. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/11/29/gao-report-says-advanced- biofuel-production-far-below-rfs-requirements/
Mengjie, W., & Suzhen, D. (1994). A potential renewable energy resource development and utilization of biomass energy. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/t4470e/t4470e0n.htm
Miller, R. G., & Sorrell, S. R. (2014). The future of oil supply. The Royal Society.
Mosier, N., Wyman, C., Dale, B., Elander, R., Lee, Y. Y., Holtzapple, M., & Ladisch, M. (2005). Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 96(6), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.06.025
Muth Jr, D. J., Bryden, K. M., & Nelson, R. G. (2013). Sustainable agricultural residue removal for bioenergy: A spatially comprehensive US national assessment. Applied Energy, 102, 403–417.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2007). Leads the Cellulosic Ethanol, 1–8.
Nijsen, M., Smeets, E., Stehfest, E., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2012). An evaluation of the global potential of bioenergy production on degraded lands. GCB Bioenergy, 4(2), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01121.x
O‘Kray, C., & Wu, K. (2010). Biofuels in China: development dynamics, policy imperatives, and future growth. In Energy Forum-InternationalAssociation for Energy Economics (IAEE), Rio de Janeiro (pp. 6–9).
158 References
OECD/FAO. (2012). Overview of the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook- 2012-4-en
OECD. (2008). Biofuel support policies: An economic assessment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ogunwusi, A. A. (2014). Wood waste generation in the forest industry in Nigeria and prospects for its industrial utilization. Civil and Environmental Research, 6(9), 62–69.
Okano, K., Kitagawa, M., Sasaki, Y., & Watanabe, T. (2005). Conversion of Japanese red cedar ( Cryptomeria japonica ) into a feed for ruminants by white-rot basidiomycetes, 120, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.02.023
Parikka, M. (2004). Global biomass fuel resources. Biomass and Bioenergy, 27(6), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.07.005
Pascual, C., & Elkind, J. (2010). Energy security: economics, politics, strategies, and implications. Brookings Institution Press.
Pauly, M., & Keegstra, K. (2008). Cell-wall carbohydrates and their modification as a resource for biofuels. Plant Journal, 54(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03463.x
Pérez, J. A., Ballesteros, I., Ballesteros, M., Sáez, F., Negro, M. J., & Manzanares, P. (2008). Optimizing Liquid Hot Water pretreatment conditions to enhance sugar recovery from wheat straw for fuel-ethanol production. Fuel, 87(17), 3640–3647. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2008.06.009
Petroleum, B. (2013). BP biofuels fact sheet. Retrieved from www.bp.com/content/dam/bp-alternate.../en/.../bp-biofuels-factsheet.pdf
Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., & Fári, M. (2014). The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056
PPAC. (2018). Petroleum Planning & Analysis Cell. Retrieved from http://ppac.org.in/content/212_1_ImportExport.aspx
159 References
Pu, Y., Jiang, N., & Ragauskas, A. J. (2017). Ionic Liquid as a Green Solvent for Lignin Ionic Liquid as a Green Solvent for Lignin, 3813(August). https://doi.org/10.1080/02773810701282330
Purohit, P., & Fischer, G. (2014). Second-generation biofuel potential in India: Sustainability and cost considerations.
Ribeiro, S. K., Kobayashi, S., Beuthe, M., Gasca, J., Greene, D., Lee, D. S., … Zhou, P. J. (2007). Transportation and its Infrastructure. In IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698189351?accountid=10297%5Cnhttp:/ /sfx.cranfield.ac.uk/cranfield?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=preprint&sid=ProQ:P roQ%3Aabiglobal&atitle=Transportation+and+its+Infrastructure&title=
Rosillo-Calle, F., Hall, D., & FAO. (1999). The multifunctional character of agriculture and land: the energy function. Background paper 2: Bioenergy. Energy. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris- search/search/display.do?f=2004/XF/XF04084.xml;XF2000393633
Rosillo-Calle, F., & Woods, J. (2012). The biomass assessment handbook: bioenergy for a sustainable environment. Earthscan.
Saeed, M. A., Irshad, A., Sattar, H., Andrews, G. E., Phylaktou, H. N., Gibbs, B. M., & A. (2015). Agricultural Waste Biomass Energy Potential in Pakistan. Proceedings of the International Bioenergy Exhibition and Asian Bioenergy Conferance, 37, 3370–3374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5071/IBSCE2015-1CO.1.2
Sarma, P. M. (2011). Strengthening Networking on Biomass Research and Biowaste Conversion - Biotechnology for Europe - India Integration.
Sastri, B., & Lee, A. (2008). World biofuels production potential understanding the challenges to meeting the US renewable fuel standard. DOEPO (USDOE Office of Policy (PO)).
Secretariat, E. C. (2015). International Energy Security–A Common Concept for Energy Producing, Consuming and Transit Countries. Energy Charter Secretariat.
160 References
Shaffer, B. (2011). Energy Politics. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=1uGn_I5q-ycC
Sheehan, J., Aden, A., Paustian, K., Killian, K., Brenner, J., Walsh, M., & Nelson, R. (2003). Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(3‐ 4), 117–146.
Shen, T., & Gnanakaran, S. (2009). The stability of cellulose: A statistical perspective from a coarse-grained model of hydrogen-bond networks. Biophysical Journal, 96(8), 3032–3040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2008.12.3953
Shimada, K., Hosoya, S., & Ikeda, T. (1997). Condensation reactions of softwood and hardwood lignin model compounds under organic acid cooking conditions. Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773819708003118
Sieminski, A. (2014). International energy outlook. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (Vol. 18).
Simonyan, K. J., & Fasina, O. (2013). Biomass resources and bioenergy potentials in Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(40), 4975–4989. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.6726
Sims, R. E. H., Mabee, W., Saddler, J. N., & Taylor, M. (2010). An overview of second generation biofuel technologies. Bioresource Technology, 101(6), 1570–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.046
Sims Ralph, T. M. (2008). From 1st-to 2nd-Generation BioFuel technoloGies. An overview of current industry and RD&D activities. IEA-OECD.
Sindelar, S., & Aradhey, A. (2017). India Biofuels Annual 2017. USDA Foreign Agriculture Service. https://doi.org/IN7075
Slade, R., Saunders, R., Gross, R., & Bauen, A. (2011). Energy from biomass: the size of the global resource. Energy. Retrieved from https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/12650/4/GlobalBiomassReport_LO LO.pdf
Smeets, E., Faaij, A., & Lewandowski, I. (2004). A quickscan of global bio-energy potentials to 2050 An analysis of the regional availability of biomass resources for export in relation to the underlying factors. Most (Vol. Report NWS). Retrieved from http://www.riaed.net/IMG/pdf/A_quickscan_of_global_bioenergy_potentials_to_2 050.pdf
161 References
Smeets, E. M. W., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2007). Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050: An assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Climatic Change, 81(3–4), 353–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9163-x
Smeets, E. M. W., Faaij, A. P. C., Lewandowski, I. M., & Turkenburg, W. C. (2007). A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 33(1), 56–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2006.08.001
Smil, V. (1999a). Crop Residues : Agriculture ‘ s Largest Harvest. BioScience, 49(4), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313613
Smil, V. (1999b). Crop Residues: Agriculture‘s Largest Harvest. BioScience, 49(4), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313613
Sovacool, B. K. (2010). The Routledge handbook of energy security. Routledge.
Spath, P. L., & Dayton, D. C. (2003). Preliminary screening--technical and economic assessment of synthesis gas to fuels and chemicals with emphasis on the potential for biomass-derived syngas. National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO.(US).
Stratistics. (2017). Advanced Biofuels - Global Market Outlook (2017-2023). Retrieved from https://www.strategymrc.com/report/advanced-biofuels-market
Suhardi, V. S. H., Prasai, B., Samaha, D., & Boopathy, R. (2013). Evaluation of pretreatment methods for lignocellulosic ethanol production from energy cane variety L 79-1002. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 85, 683–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.03.021
Taheripour, F., Hertel, T. W., Tyner, W. E., Beckman, J. F., & Birur, D. K. (2010). Biofuels and their by-products: Global economic and environmental implications. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(3), 278–289.
Tanaka, N. (2010). World energy outlook 2010. International Energy Agency. Paris: IEA. Retrieved from https://www.energy.eu/publications/weo_2010-China.pdf
Tao, L., Schell, D., Davis, R., Tan, E., Elander, R., Bratis, A., … Bratis, A. (2014). NREL 2012 achievement of ethanol cost targets: Biochemical ethanol fermentation via dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.2172/1129271
162 References
Technology, I. E. A. O. of E., D., R. &, & (Organization), G. of E. (2008). Energy technology perspectives. International Energy Agency.
Teymouri, F., Laureano-Perez, L., Alizadeh, H., & Dale, B. E. (2005). Optimization of the ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX) treatment parameters for enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Bioresource Technology, 96(18 SPEC. ISS.), 2014– 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.01.016
Tilman, D., Hill, J., & Lehman, C. (2006). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science, 314(5805), 1598–1600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133306
U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10331
UNEP, G. E. O. (2000). Global environment outlook. Report GEO-5.(UNEP, 2012).
Unnasch, S., & Pont, J. (2007). Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts: Preparation for the AB 1007 (Pavley) Alternative Transportation Fuels Plan Proceeding. California Energy Commission.
Urbanchuk, J. M. (2009). Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States.
Urbanchuk, J. M. (2010). Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States.
Urbanchuk, J. M. (2012). Contribution of biofuels to the global economy.
Urbanchuk, J. M. (2014). Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States.
USDA, F. A. S. (2016). Biofuels annual report 2016. Brazil (Vol. 2015). Retrieved from http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent GAIN Publications/Biofuels Annual_Sao Paulo ATO_Brazil_8-12-2016.pdf%0D%0A
Van Dam, J., & Junginger, M. (2011). Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4051–4066.
163 References van den Born, G. J., van Minnen, J. G., Olivier, J. G. J., & Ros, J. P. M. (2014). Integrated analysis of global biomass flows in search of the sustainable potential for bioenergy production.
Villamil, M. B., & Nafziger, E. D. (2015). Corn residue, tillage, and nitrogen rate effects on soil carbon and nutrient stocks in Illinois. Geoderma, 253, 61–66.
Von Sivers, M., & Zacchi, G. (1996). Ethanol from lignocellulosics: A review of the economy. Bioresource Technology, 56(2–3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(96)00018-1
Walker, G. M. (2010). Bioethanol: Science and technology of fuel alcohol. Bookboon. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=1xUYPY6JfnYC
Wang, M. (2005). Energy and greenhouse gas emissions impacts of fuel ethanol. In Center for transportation research energy system division, Argonne National Laboratory. NGCA Renewable fuels forum, the national Press club (Vol. 23).
Wang, M., Wu, M., & Huo, H. (2007). Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environmental Research Letters, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024001
WBA. (2014). WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2014. World Bioenergy Association, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-232X(80)90063-4
Weil, J., Westgate, P., Kohlmann, K., & Ladisch, M. R. (1994). Cellulose pretreaments of lignocellulosic substrates. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 16(11), 1002–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0229(94)90012-4
Wiegmann, K., Hennenberg, K. J., & Fritsche, U. R. (2008). Degraded Land and Sustainable Bioenergy Feedstock Production. Joint International Workshop on High Nature Value Criteria and Potential for Sustainable Use of Degraded Lands, Paris.Oeko-Institut (Vol. 49).
Wooley, R., Ruth, M., Sheehan, J., Majdeski, H., & Galvez, A. (1999). Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Futuristic Scenarios Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current D. Contract, (July), 132. https://doi.org/NREL/TP-510-32438
164 References
World Bioenergy Association. (2010). Annual Report 2010. Retrieved from https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/WBA_Annual Report 2010.pdf
World Energy Council. (2016). World Energy Resources Bioenergy 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-232X(80)90063-4
Wyman, C. (1996). Handbook on Bioethanol: Production and Utilization. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=KziEzu--D7oC
Wyman, C. E. (1994). Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: Technology, economics, and opportunities. Bioresource Technology, 50(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(94)90214-3
Wyman, C. E. (2007). What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol. Trends in Biotechnology, 25(4), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.02.009
Xie, G., Wang, X., & Ren, L. (2010). China‘s crop residues resources evaluation. Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao= Chinese Journal of Biotechnology, 26(7), 855–863.
Yamamoto, H., Fujino, J., & Yamaji, K. (2001). Evaluation of bioenergy potential with a multi-regional global-land-use-and-energy model. Biomass and Bioenergy, 21(3), 185–203.
Yang, B., & Wyman, C. E. (2008). Pretreatment: The key to unlocking low-cost cellulosic ethanol. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.49
Yang, L., Wang, X. Y., Han, L. P., Spiertz, H., Liao, S. H., Wei, M. G., & Xie, G. H. (2015). A quantitative assessment of crop residue feedstocks for biofuel in North and Northeast China. GCB Bioenergy, 7(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12109
Zah, R. (2007). Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Product: Environmental Assessment of Biofuels-Executive Summary. EMPA, 2007.
Zhang, P. F., Zhang, Q., Pei, Z. J., & Wang, D. H. (2013). Cost Estimates of Cellulosic Ethanol Production: A Review. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 135(2), 21005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023377
165 References
Zhao, G., Bryan, B. A., King, D., Luo, Z., Wang, E., & Yu, Q. (2015). Sustainable limits to crop residue harvest for bioenergy: maintaining soil carbon in Australia‘s agricultural lands. Gcb Bioenergy, 7(3), 479–487.
Ziegler, J. (2007). The right to food Note by the Secretary-General. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/third/62/docslist.shtml
166