5.

01

Biomass and Biofuels Introduction

DJ Roddy, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

5.01.1
5.01.2
5.01.3
5.01.3.1
5.01.3.2
5.01.4
5.01.5
5.01.5.1
5.01.5.2
5.01.6
5.01.6.1
5.01.6.2
5.01.7
5.01.8
5.01.9
References

Background
Basic Technology
Widespread Deployment of Biomass and Biofuels
Biodiesel
Other Biofuels
Issues, Constraints, and Limitations
Technology Solutions New Processes
Anaerobic Digestion
Advanced Biofuel Processes
Technology Solutions New Feedstocks
Algae
Other Options for Increasing Feedstock Availability
Expanding the Envelope
Recent Developments
The Way Forward for Biomass and Biofuels

1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
9
9

5.01.1 Background
The largest source of renewable energy in use in the world today is biomass [1]. This assertion surprises people who expect the crown
to be worn by wind, solar photovoltaic, or one of the other high-profile technologies. However, when you consider that large parts
of the worlds population are still dependent on firewood for cooking and heating, perhaps it is not so surprising. Recent estimates
place the number of people relying on traditional biomass for their energy needs at 2.5 billion [2]. In many countries, there is the
unfortunate associated problem of household air pollution, leading to 1.3 million premature deaths per year [2].
Biomass is also the most versatile of the renewable resources. This is due in part to the sheer breadth of materials that can be
classified as biomass. Basically, anything that grows and is available in non-fossilized form can be classified as biomass. (Todays
fossil fuels used to be biomass several tens of millions of years ago, but they are obviously not renewable on any relevant timescale,
so it is not helpful to include them.) However, arable crops, trees, bushes, animals, human and animal waste, waste food, and any
other waste stream that rots quickly are all biomass materials. The United Kingdom alone produces around 25 million tonnes of
segregated organic waste per year, equivalent to around 7.5 TWh of energy [3]. The volume and variety of biomass materials
available are truly remarkable.
The other reason for biomass ubiquity is that it can be used to displace all forms of energy: electricity, heating, and transport fuels.
Biomass has been used for heating and cooking since mankind first discovered fire, and technology has evolved ever since through
various high-efficiency combustion technologies on to the gasification and pyrolysis technologies described by Roddy to offer very
high-efficiency heating processes. Using a wood-fired boiler to raise steam for power generation is a very basic idea which has been
refined and scaled up over time to the 800 MWe scale described by Malmgren (Chapter 5.04). The history of converting biomass into
liquid transport fuels is charted in a fascinating fashion by Knothe (Chapter 5.02), going all the way back to Nikolaus August Ottos
work on spark-ignition engines running on ethanol from fermented biomass and early compression-ignition engines running on
vegetable oils, especially in parts of Africa where oil-bearing crops were abundant and used as a wartime fuel. It is interesting to note
that in the early days of the petroleum industry, ethanol was heavily taxed in the United States while the new gasoline fuel was
untaxed.
The very versatility of biomass is arguably also the Achilles heel of the technology, because biomass (in some forms) also
supplies mankinds food needs both directly via food crops and indirectly via animal feed. One could argue that other forms of
biomass provide shelter in the form of wooden construction materials, various types of roofing material, and so on. Inevitably, as
populations expand and renewable resources whose annual availability is ultimately finite start to come under pressure, questions
are asked about what the priorities ought to be for biomass utilization. That very debate is currently slowing the pace of biomass
development activity.
The prime drivers for biomass development vary from country to country. In very, very broad terms, the drivers tend to be
climate change in Europe, national energy security in the United States, and economic development in Asia Pacific. While this
assertion is doubtless an oversimplification, it highlights a number of important features of biomass. In a climate change context,
there is particular interest in growing biomass feedstocks with minimum reliance on chemical fertilizers (whose manufacture can be
energy-intensive), with short distances between feedstock production and use (so that fossil fuels are not consumed in transporting
materials), and processing them in a manner that minimizes fossil energy use. In this way, one can aspire to reach the ideal position

Comprehensive Renewable Energy, Volume 5

doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-087872-0.00501-1

Biomass and Biofuels

in which every tonne of CO2 emitted when a biomass crop is combusted is canceled out by the tonnes of CO2 that are extracted from
the atmosphere during photosynthesis in growing the next seasons biomass crop. The subtleties of the argument are explored in
detail by Mortimer (Chapter 5.09). In a national energy security context, countries whose energy needs exceed their forecast ability
to supply from indigenous coal, oil, and gas are interested in exploring the limits of their ability to cultivate biomass on a large scale.
Developing countries whose agriculture has not yet been developed to the limit of its potential are interested in new biomass and
biofuel markets (which they hope will be predictable, steadily growing, high-value markets) to provide the stimulus for economic
development.
Of course, in practice, there is often an interplay between these various drivers. As Altieri (Chapter 5.03) explains, the story of
bioethanol development in Brazil grew out of necessity at the time of the 1970s oil price shock when crude oil imports became
unaffordable; then it became a huge engine for development of the agricultural economy; and now it is being taken forward in a way
that enables all products and by-products of the sugarcane crop to be used productively without impinging on the rain forest areas
that are so critical to maintaining the worlds CO2 balance.
Before going any further, it is appropriate to say something about terminology. In a field that is as wide as the one outlined
above, it is inevitable that people around the world will use terminology in slightly different ways. Insofar as it has been possible in a
volume that draws upon expertise from all over the world, an attempt has been made to standardize terminology such that the term
biomass refers to solid material while the term biofuel refers to liquid fuels (refined or unrefined) used primarily for transport.
The biomass/biofuels opportunity impinges on the activities of a great many existing interests. People often speculate as to
whether those parties are supportive or unsupportive. Take farming for example. In some countries, the clear priority of small
farmers is first to grow subsistence crops to meet their food needs, and then to grow a crop that they can sell ideally for a reliable
price. For them, the opportunity to supply into growing biofuels markets is potentially attractive provided they can afford to
reinvest in improved agricultural techniques which will secure their food production capability. That is one of several different
perspectives on the so-called food versus fuel debate. Other aspects are explored by Waller (Chapter 5.08). Larger farmers in the
developed world see an opportunity to sell some of their arable crops under long-term contracts while continuing to sell the
remainder on the spot market. Preferences vary. However, there is a noticeable reluctance among landowners to commit to short
rotation willow coppicing (for example) where in order to maximize profit (in theory) you need to commit your land to one end
use for (say) 30 years. The general farmer reaction to biomass and biofuels as a whole is therefore guardedly supportive rather
than enthusiastic.
The oil industrys reaction to biofuels has been the subject of speculation for a long time. In some ways, the early biofuels
industry was too small to fit comfortably with oil industrys aspirations and practices. However, in countries like Brazil, the scale of
the biofuels industry has reached a point where the oil industry embraces it. In other countries, it is interesting to note that when
exploring questions about whether there is an impending peak oil issue [4] or whether the future will look more like a plateau,
future supply-side forecasts are now tending to factor in liquid biofuels and synthetic fuels derived from biomass as part of the
industrys ability to meet forecast demand. More controversial for oil companies is any scheme whereby governments incentivize
biofuel production over fossil fuels. UKPIA (United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association) offers an interesting petroleum
industry perspective on the future of the sector [5].
This volume sets out to provide an up-to-date assessment of the current state of development of an energy technology
whose complexities are many and diverse, as the broad outline above has begun to suggest. In order to provide a structure
for those thinking of delving into the detail, the remainder of this chapter provides a general road map of the main topics covered.

5.01.2 Basic Technology

Fermentation is the basic technology behind bioethanol production. It could be argued that even primitive tribes mastered that
technology a long time ago, brewing up whatever sugar-rich crops were available locally, adding yeast, and allowing the sugar to
then turn to alcohol.
The basic reaction for converting the simple sugar glucose into alcohol is
C6 H12 O6 2C2 H5 OH 2CO2
To make a strong alcohol, it is then necessary to distill the mixture to separate alcohol from water. Whether this is done in a small,
rural (often illegal) still or in a large-scale whiskey/gin/vodka distillery, distillation reaches an azeotropic limit of 96% (by mass)
which is not pure enough for a transport fuel (where the water content must be less than 1%). A different process is therefore needed
for removing the residual water (Harvey, Chapter 5.12).
With more difficult feedstocks it may be necessary first to separate the biomass into different fractions lignin, cellulose, and
hemicelluloses and then process some of those fractions (sometimes via acid hydrolysis) into fermentable sugars before the
simple process described above can work. Refaat (Chapter 5.13) provides detail on how this can be done for a range of feedstocks
including various waste streams. There is also a question as to whether everything should be converted into alcohol or whether some
streams are better used for some other energy-related purpose. Altieri (Chapter 5.03) provides a very practical exposition of this
subject based on experience on a large scale in Brazil.
For biodiesel production, the basic starting technology is transesterification, which involves reaction with an alcohol and an
alkaline catalyst. A typical vegetable oil differs from conventional petroleum-based diesel by being more viscous, less flammable,

Biomass and Biofuels Introduction

and more difficult to atomize reliably [6]. At a molecular level, a vegetable oil contains three so-called fatty acids linked together on
a glycerol backbone. In transesterification, the three fatty acid chains are stripped off and converted into a fatty acid methyl ester
which is the generic biodiesel. The reaction is
triglyceride methanolmethyl ester glycerol
Harvey (Chapter 5.12) explains the process in more detail before going on to highlight the shortcomings of the process and then
develop ideas for addressing them. Meanwhile, the basic process has been used around the world to manufacture biodiesel successfully
as described in the next section. The choice of feedstock varies from country to country. In Europe, for example, the principal feedstock
is oilseed rape. This has moved oilseed rape from being a largely neglected break crop within a crop rotation cycle to a new status as a
significant crop in its own right. Much work has therefore been done to find ways of improving plant yields from 3 to 6 te yr1 ha1 and
possibly more notably in Austria and Germany. In other climates, different feedstocks predominate, for example, palm oil and
sunflower oil. There is increasing interest in Jatropha an oil-bearing bush that grows in semiarid conditions.

5.01.3 Widespread Deployment of Biomass and Biofuels

In broad terms, Europe leads the world in deployment of biodiesel technology; the deployment of bioethanol technology is
dominated by Brazil and the United States; and a number of countries (particularly those with a large tree cover) are achieving
significant levels of biomass use for other purposes such as heating, power generation, and combined heat and power (CHP).
Table 1 shows steady growth in liquid biofuels year-on-year, with bioethanol dominating. World biofuel production increased by
7.4% in 2009 and by 12.9% in 2010. In 2010, it reached around 114 billion liters, representing about 2% of all road transport fuels
consumed. Europes share of biodiesel production was 49.8% in 2009, followed by the Americas with 32.8%. The top five biodiesel
producing countries in the world are Germany, the United States, France, Argentina, and Brazil, producing 68.4% of the world's
biodiesel. Australia is the largest producer of biodiesel in Asia Pacific, followed by China and India [7]. On the bioethanol side, the
United States and Brazil accounted for 86% of world production in 2009.

5.01.3.1

Biodiesel

Biodiesel has been produced on an industrial scale in the European Union since 1992, largely in response to positive signals from the
EU institutions. Today, there are more than 120 plants in the European Union. Whereas plant capacities of around 100 000 te yr1 were
once considered to be the state of the art, there are now some plants with capacities of 250 000 te yr1 (e.g., in Sluiskil in the
Netherlands and in North East England). Germany (where for many years the government provided a very generous incentive for
biodiesel both as a straight fuel and as a blend) has dominated the European biodiesel picture for many years, but Spain, France, Italy,
and the Netherlands are now catching up. Of the 9 million tonnes of biodiesel produced in the European Union in 2009, 28% came
from Germany and 22% from France (source: European Biodiesel Board, http://www.ebb-eu.org). In terms of installed biodiesel
production capacity, the 2010 figures are summarized in Table 2.
Table 1

World biofuel production (in billion liters)

Biofuel

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Ethanol
Biodiesel
Total biofuels

40
5
45

49
8
57

64
12
75

77
16
94

82
18
101

93
21
114

Source: Database OECD/FAO Agricultural Outlook 20112020.

Table 2
EU biodiesel production capacity broken down
by country
Country

Capacity
(kte yr1)

Capacity
(%)

Germany
Spain
France
Italy
Netherlands
Other EU countries
Total

4 933
4 100
2 505
2 375
1 328
6 663
21 904

22.5

18.7

11.4

10.9

6.1

30.4

100

Source: UFOP (2010) Biodiesel 2009/1010 Report on the current

situation and prospects. http://www.ufop.de (accessed 7 March 2011) [8].

Biomass and Biofuels

In recent years, the European Union has moved away from incentives for biodiesel production toward targets and mandates
for biodiesel inclusion in blended fuels. As a result, the European Union has now got an excess of production capacity. From the
22 million tonnes of annual production capacity given in Table 2, only about 10 million tonnes of biodiesel was actually produced
in 2010 [8].
The EU target for biofuels inclusion was raised from 5% to 7% (by volume) in February 2009. Seven percent of EU diesel
consumption equates to around 14 million tonnes per year of biodiesel. The adoption of the new target across the European Union
is proceeding slowly. Prospects for raising the target beyond 7% are impacted by societal reactions to debates about biofuel
sustainability (Waller, Chapter 5.08), although there remains an EU biofuels target for 2020 of 10% (by energy, which is
significantly higher than 10% by volume). There is also an issue with subsidized biodiesel from overseas countries being imported
into the European Union, depressing demand for EU-produced biodiesel.

5.01.3.2

Other Biofuels

Turning to bioethanol, the Brazilian success story is well known. Given the countrys capacity for growing sugarcane, the response to
the oil price shocks of the 1970s was to promote indigenous production of bioethanol from sugarcane. A mandate for blending
bioethanol into gasoline was enacted in 1976, with the current target now standing at 25%. The ability of the Brazilians to find
profitable uses for the various by-product streams led to a very attractive production cost for bioethanol. The combination of
government policy and targets alongside low production costs has encouraged the manufacturers of so-called flex fuel vehicles to
focus on the Brazilian market, with more than 12 million such vehicles now on Brazilian roads. A flex fuel vehicle can run on
bioethanol or conventional gasoline or any blend of the two. The Brazilian success story in the area of bioethanol is told in more
detail by Altieri (Chapter 5.03). The United States has also seen significant levels of bioethanol promotion and bioethanol
investment. There the drivers appear to be a combination of reducing dependence on imported oil for gasoline and support for
the corn production agricultural sector.
There is a long-term desire to extend the deployment of so-called first-generation biofuel technologies by developing
processes that can use more difficult feedstocks such as agricultural straws, fast-growing woody biomass, waste wood, and
various refuse-derived fuels. Some of these materials are already used for producing heating fuels on a small scale. Larger
plants have been developed in recent years for the purposes of power generation and also for CHP. Initially, the biomass
power plants tended to be on a fairly modest scale, for example, 150 000 dry tonnes per year to generate 30 MW. Projects are
now being developed that are 20 times bigger than that as described by Malmgren (Chapter 5.04). The other route to
large-scale use of biomass for power generation is by using it to displace a proportion (say 10%) of the feedstock supplying
a large coal-fired power station (known as biomass cofiring). The development of cofiring technology is covered by Lester
(Chapter 5.05). It is presently unclear whether such demands for millions of tonnes per year of biomass will encourage
developments in biomass supply to the advantage of next-generation transport biofuels, or whether they will compete
directly for limited supplies.

5.01.4 Issues, Constraints, and Limitations

Up until 2006, there was a widespread view that biofuels could provide solutions to many issues associated with climate change.
Levels of investment activity were high, and many countries offered support mechanisms to encourage further investment and
uptake of the products. The constraints and limitations at that time tended to be of a technical nature: how to scale up the
technology; how to widen the feedstock slate; how to develop engines that could handle larger proportions of biofuel in the fuel
blend; how to improve agricultural feedstock yields, and so on. Then serious questions were asked about the sustainability of
biofuels, with some authors reaching broadly negative conclusions and others broadly positive conclusions [9, 10]. The debate has
unfortunately tended to continue more in the popular press than in the scientific literature, and has had the effect of causing
governments to review their levels of support. This, in turn, has had an adverse impact on investor confidence levels. Given that a
typical biofuels project can take up to 10 years to design, build, start up, and then run for long enough to deliver a return on
investment, and given that incentive and regulatory regimes can change very markedly over such a time period, this latter point
about investor confidence becomes very important. Consequently, any list of biofuels issues and constraints today looks quite
different from those of 2006.
One of the most serious challenges is to the carbon-saving claims of biofuels. Governments that are promoting biofuels as a
counter to climate change react strongly to such challenges. There is a lot of interest now in calculating the CO2 impact of biofuels,
looking at CO2 absorption during crop growth, the CO2 impact of harvesting, transporting, and processing a crop, and the CO2
footprint associated with fertilizer use and with supplying heat and electricity into the fuel production process. Processes for
calculating the full life-cycle impact of biofuels from a greenhouse gas perspective are described in detail by Mortimer (Chapter
5.09), drawing a distinction between the type of approach that is appropriate in exploring possible new policies and the type of
approach that is appropriate for regulation once policy has been decided.
Beyond greenhouse gas savings there are additional dimensions to the sustainability claim of biofuels. People now ask about
alternative land uses, water usage rates, impact on biodiversity, and so on. There are also ethical questions relating to land rights,
workers rights, and so on. When public money is used to incentivize adoption of a new technology, it is not surprising to find

Biomass and Biofuels Introduction

people testing the ethics of that technology. The general approach being taken in Europe is to say that only those biofuels that can
provide verifiable evidence of their provenance with respect to carbon and sustainability criteria in a very broad sense will be
allowed to count toward a countys (or a companys) mandated quota. The development of practicable processes for enacting such
requirements is a complex task, which is explored in detail by Waller (Chapter 5.08).
Broad principles concerning carbon and sustainability ultimately translate into hard, physical constraints in a particular country
where land availability is finite, water availability is finite, and so on. To some extent, limitations in one country can be addressed by
importing additional bioresources from countries that have an abundance. Hillring (Chapter 5.06) makes the point that while
traditionally bioenergy markets have been local or regional, in recent years international as well as intercontinental trade in solid
and liquid biofuels has developed. At present, the markets for both liquid and solid biofuels are still a long way from being
globalized to the same extent as the markets for crude oil, but the implications are potentially far-reaching since they extend into
forestry, agriculture, waste management, food, and animal feed markets. Hillring (Chapter 5.06) also examines the current status in
respect of formal and informal barriers to trade.
Meanwhile, the more technical constraints that were being addressed before the upsurge in interest in sustainability issues
continue to receive attention: improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the production processes, and broadening the
prospective feedstock slate to facilitate market expansion.

5.01.5 Technology Solutions New Processes

5.01.5.1

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is arguably not a new process: it has been used for many years for animal manure management.
Increasingly, however, it is now being used as a means of converting waste materials usually wet materials with a high organic
content into a biogas that can be used directly as a heating fuel or upgraded to serve as a replacement for natural gas. At one end of
the technology spectrum, it can be found in the form of a small on-farm unit in (say) China where it is used to convert animal wastes
and vegetable wastes into a cooking fuel. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people in Germany (where there are more than
6000 sizable plants in operation) working on technology for upgrading the gas to be compatible with the standard of their national
gas grids [11], and others working on the efficiency of the AD process itself.
AD is a microbial process in which complex organic materials are broken down into their simpler chemical components by
various enzymes [12]. This occurs in the absence of oxygen and results in the production of biogas and a digestate. Biogas
composition is approximately 60% methane and 40% carbon dioxide. Typical feedstocks for AD reactors often consist of animal
slurries, energy crops, and other agricultural, retail, and industrial wastes. The process can be summarized in four main stages:
1. Hydrolysis. The complex organic materials (e.g., proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates) are broken down into low-molecular-weight
compounds such as amino acids, fatty acids, and simple sugars.
2. Acidogenesis. Acid bacteria promote a process of fermentation, producing volatile fatty acids (VFAs), alcohols, hydrogen, and
carbon dioxide.
3. Acetogenesis. Acetic acid, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen are formed from the VFAs by acid-forming bacteria or acetogens.
4. Methanogenesis. Methanogenic bacteria continue the consumption of the VFAs and produce methane gas [13].
The biogas produced can be used as a renewable fuel for various purposes, for instance in the production of heat and/or power by
direct combustion. The digestate produced can be used as a fertilizer, subject to appropriate storage and application methods to
prevent nitrate leaching [14]. Feedstocks with a high lipid content tend to produce higher methane yields, while feedstocks with a
high carbohydrate content tend to produce more CO2.
Three different forms of bacteria are active during the AD process: fermentative bacteria, acetogens, and methanogens. The
efficiency of these different bacteria, and ultimately therefore the gas yield of the digester, is directly affected by temperature and pH.
It is therefore important to find the right balance to provide a dynamic equilibrium among the three bacterial groups. AD systems
usually operate in one of two main temperature ranges: mesophilic (2040 C) and thermophilic (>40 C). Thermophilic
temperatures have the benefit of providing sanitation by killing more pathogens. The optimum temperature for thermophilic
digestion is around 60 C, although a temperature between 52 and 56 C may be used in practice to allow for variations in
temperature without threatening some of the active microbes [15]. Because the microorganisms active during the different phases of
AD have different requirements, the process is often carried out in two stages, with thermophilic conditions in the first stage and
mesophilic conditions in the second stage [16].
Thermophilic processes require a shorter retention time of up to 20 days compared to mesophilic digestion, which may take over
a month. An increase in process temperature generally increases the metabolic rate of the bacteria. However, this also results in a
higher concentration of free ammonia, which itself inhibits the AD process. Some studies have found that wastes with high
ammonia content (e.g., cow manure) were inhibited at higher temperatures [17]. Fluctuations in temperature can cause instability
in the digestion process, affecting the gas yield. This can result from large variations in outdoor temperature, especially in highland
and northern climates [15, 18].
The United Kingdom is an example of a country where AD technology is currently underexploited but may be about to attract
significant interest under new incentive regimes. The United Kingdom has substantial biomass resources, which could be processed

Biomass and Biofuels

via AD: about 150 million wet tonnes of livestock slurry (pig and cattle), 3.4 million wet tonnes of used poultry litter and excreta,
together with 1 million tonnes of food production residues (vegetable and dairy processing residues). In addition to this, there is
about 90 million tonnes of waste produced in the United Kingdom each year with a high biodegradable fraction of 62%. This
biodegradable waste will produce about 150 m3 tonne1 of biogas at 60% methane concentration. Using a process efficiency of
70%, a 70% load factor, and the known 37 GJ tonne1 energy content for methane, after accounting for the 2040% of energy
needed to maintain the temperature of the processor, AD could provide the United Kingdom with about 1.4 GW of electricity,
representing about 2% of the UKs installed capacity.
UK agriculture contributes 7% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions, including 67% of nitrous oxide and 37% of methane. Main
sources of greenhouse gas emissions are from animals (32%), manure management (20%), and soil breakdown (48%). During
storage of animal manure, significant greenhouse gas emissions occur, particularly of N2O and CH4, as a result of uncontrolled AD
processes. AD exploits this process so that methane can be used as a fuel resulting in reduced emissions of approximately 90%.
A well-managed AD scheme aims to maximize methane generation, but not to release any gas to the atmosphere, thereby reducing
overall emissions. In addition, it provides an energy source with no net release of carbon. AD has considerable potential to contribute
to the production of renewable energy on farms in addition to reducing the overall contribution of agriculture to global warming.
In order to upgrade biogas to make it compatible with natural gas (which is mainly methane with small amounts of higher
hydrocarbons), there is a requirement to remove CO2, hydrogen sulfide, and siloxanes. Hydrogen sulfide levels can be reduced
using biological scrubbing (with alkaline water) or chemical desulfurization (using iron oxides and other iron salts). This would
usually be followed by fine desulfurization in an adsorptive process using activated carbon or possibly zinc oxide [11]. Siloxanes are
usually removed using activated carbon [19]. There are a number of options for CO2 removal, ranging from mature technologies
using chemical solvents (e.g., amine solutions) or physical solvents (e.g., Selexol) to the latest developments in membrane
separation technology [20]. For further information on the upgrading of biogas to make it compatible with natural gas, the reader
is referred to Reference 11.

5.01.5.2

Advanced Biofuel Processes

Much of the interest in advanced bioethanol production processes centers on ways of enabling a wider range of feedstocks to be
used, particularly nonfood feedstocks. A biomass feedstock will consist mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Of the three,
cellulose is the easiest to convert via fermentation into alcohol. The first step in a biochemical route to ethanol production is to
separate the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin [21]. Once these constituents are separated, the cellulose and hemicellulose can be
hydrolyzed to sugars, which are subsequently fermented into alcohols and distilled. Biochemical processes typically employ a
pretreatment process to accelerate the hydrolysis process. Common pretreatment processes include dilute acid treatment, steam
explosion, and ammonia fiber explosion. Following pretreatment, the cellulose and hemicellulose are hydrolyzed into fermentable
sugars using acid hydrolysis or enzyme hydrolysis. The fermentation and purification processes then follow as in a conventional
bioethanol plant. There are several companies working on versions of this technology, including Abengoa, BlueFire Ethanol, Iogen,
Mascoma, and POET. This topic is explored in detail by Refaat (Chapter 5.13), looking in detail at a range of pretreatment options
and at the overall energy balance.
An alternative to the biochemical treatment routes described above is a set of thermochemical routes. Here the first step is to gasify
the biomass to produce synthesis gas: a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. A range of technologies for achieving the
gasification step and the sometimes associated pyrolysis step are presented by Roddy (Chapter 5.10). Starting with synthesis gas (or
syngas), there are several different routes to synthesizing fuels. One option is the catalytic conversion of syngas into alcohols. This
represents a major alternative route to the biochemical production of bioethanol as described above. Alternatively, it can be used to
produce a simpler alcohol, methanol, which is favored by some automotive companies (Pearson, Chapter 5.16). Another option is to
use a methanation process to convert the syngas into methane. Such a process can be seen as an alternative to the AD route described
in the previous section. However, perhaps the best known option for converting syngas into fuels is the FischerTropsch process for
synthesizing long-chain alkanes, typically used to produce an equivalent fuel to diesel. The term advanced biodiesel processes usually
refers to this route also often labeled as BtL or biomass-to-liquids. Evans (Chapter 5.11) provides a detailed treatment of this subject.
It is difficult to predict at this stage which advanced biofuels routes will be commercially successful long-term in converting
particular types of biomass into particular biofuels. Much will depend on how the pilot-scale projects and demonstration projects
described in this volume perform in practice. However, a design approach that cuts across all of these processes is process
intensification. This approach can be applied to individual unit operations in a process or it can be applied to the whole process.
Harvey (Chapter 5.12) explores the process intensification approach for some bioethanol and biodiesel processes.

5.01.6 Technology Solutions New Feedstocks

5.01.6.1

Algae

The quest for alternative feedstocks has led many people to algae. For those who consider that land availability may at some point in
the future become the limiting factor, looking at feedstocks that grow in water holds some attractions especially since the Earths
water surface is significantly greater than its land surface. There are two broad areas of interest: macroalgae (usually known as
seaweed) and microalgae (often found in the form of pond scum).

Biomass and Biofuels Introduction

Since they are autotrophs, algae do not generally need complex nutritional elements such as proteins, lipids, or carbohydrates.
They feed on inorganic salts, water, and carbon dioxide, using the suns energy to synthesize biomolecules from these simple
substrates. In fact, their rapid growth rate can sometimes be a problem as has been found on occasions when water has become
contaminated with excess phosphorus and nitrogen input from sewerage or farmland runoff.
Algae synthesize a variety of complex carbon compounds, which are used as food storage materials. These compounds include
fatty acid esters of glycerol and other lipids and a number of glucose oligomers. Many algal strains have more than 50% lipid in their
body mass. Where this is predominantly triacylglycerides, they provide a good feedstock for transesterification into biodiesel (e.g.,
Chlorella, Dunaliella salina, and Spirulina). One form of algae (Botryococcus braunii) produces a hydrocarbon oil that is similar to crude
oil, so in principle it could serve as a replacement feedstock for the whole petrochemicals chain except that it grows very, very slowly.
With microalgae there are two broad strands of activity. The first is based on open-pond technology, where water is circulated in
pond races and the algae skimmed off the surface. For rapid algal growth, the water needs to be reasonably warm so this version is
favored in tropical climates and also in locations where there is waste industrial heat available. The other is based on photobio
reactor technology, with the algae growing in glass tubes which trap the suns heat. Some have likened these two strands of activity to
growing crops outdoors in a large field compared with growing crops indoors in a small greenhouse, with both approaches having
their place.
Another possibility is to grow algae as a source of carbohydrate, harvest their carbohydrate reserves, and hydrolyze them to
glucose, which when fermented would produce ethanol for use as fuel. Algal biomass waste from fermentation could then be
processed thermochemically as outlined above.
Yet another line of research involves those who cultivate whatever algae that grow naturally in a location, and concentrate on
finding uses for those algae. This contrasts with an alternative line of research that is based on identifying the specific algae that will
exhibit the desired properties for a particular application, and then concentrating on finding ways of making such algae grow.
One of the attractions of algae is that it can grow very fast. It is not unusual for a whole crop to grow in a matter of weeks
(compared with a summer for land-based materials). Some extrapolations from experimental work suggest that production rates of
60 000 l ha1 yr1 should be possible significantly higher than that from land-based oil-bearing crops. One of the drawbacks is that
algal research is at a relatively early stage of development, and total annual production of algal biomass stands at only 9000 tonnes.
While todays agricultural crops and practices have developed over a period of 3000 years, algal development originated about
50 years ago. Much remains to be done in areas such as microalgal chemical ecology, culture, and growth physiology; finding or
developing improved strains of algae; maintaining culture stability; effective harvesting of algae; acceptable provision of nutrients
for macroalgae in the open sea; developing systems that combine water purification with algal production; developing ways of
enabling light to penetrate beyond the surface layer where algae grow; supplying CO2 from industrial processes including
bioethanol production; establishing high levels of thermodynamic efficiency; examining the overall water usage from a life-cycle
perspective; regulating algal biochemical pathways; and aiming for practical productivity rates of more than 100 tonnes ha1 yr1.
For further information on the subject of algal biofuels, the reader is referred to a seminal report on the subject by Benemann et al.
[22] and a more recent report by Darzins et al. [23].

5.01.6.2

Other Options for Increasing Feedstock Availability

A more conventional place to look for additional feedstocks is on land that can support the growth of woody biomass, especially
land that is too uneven to support modern arable crop farming with its combine harvester technology. Quite often the upland areas
that are otherwise used for sheep farming could be suitable for growing woody biomass. One approach is to plant woody crops that
can be coppiced effectively providing a harvest every few years. Another approach is to let the trees grow to an optimum age as
single-stem trees, and then harvest them sustainably. Perlack (Chapter 5.14) provides an in-depth treatment of this subject,
providing a rich source of data on achievable yields under various planting strategies and looking in particular at willow, poplar,
eucalyptus, and pine. He also comments on the extent of feasible planting in the United States, and calculates the contribution that
woody biomass could make to reaching renewable fuel targets under various incentive regimes.
Another obvious option to consider is the use of various types of waste stream as feedstock. While there are many possible
feedstocks, this volume pays particular attention to bioethanol production from lignocellulosic waste and biodiesel production
from waste vegetable oil, looking at the level of pretreatment required in each case (Refaat, Chapter 5.13). The topic of biogas
production from agricultural waste streams has been addressed above.
The other obvious approach is to improve crop yields. Spink (Chapter 5.15) provides data to show how the annual yields of
oilseed rape across the United Kingdom can be increased from 3 to 6.5 tonnes ha1, with the potential possibly to reach
9.2 tonnes ha1. Generalizing his approach, he draws some interesting conclusions about the potential for improving other crop
yields in a similar manner via changes to agronomy and husbandry and improving genetics via plant breeding. The prospects look
particularly promising where the limiting factor is light availability as opposed to water availability.

5.01.7 Expanding the Envelope

In order to improve the overall commercial viability of biomass and biofuel developments, it is informative to examine them in
their broader context, see whether they are overspecified for their intended purpose, whether they can be used for additional

Biomass and Biofuels

purposes in such a way as to accrue benefits of scale during production, and whether the production processes involved can yield
additional high-value products in a way that benefits the overall economics.
It is interesting to see what players from the auto industry ask for in a fuel, and to consider how planned long-term developments
in transport fuels align with planned long-term developments in vehicle technology. Pearson (Chapter 5.16) provides an interesting
perspective in suggesting that targets for vehicle manufacturers should be specified in terms of fuel energy requirements per
kilometer traveled, while targets for fuel suppliers should be specified in terms of grams of fossil-derived CO2 per unit of fuel
energy delivered. This is quite different from the current practice of setting CO2 emission targets for vehicle manufacturers
irrespective of the source of the CO2. His analysis points to methanol as a particularly attractive fuel, especially if used within a
multi-flex-fuel vehicle.
Conventional thinking tends to assign liquid biofuels to transport applications, solid biomass to power generation, and biogas
to heating applications. It is therefore interesting to note how liquid biofuels (in pure form, in blends, and in emulsions) and even
some of their unprocessed feedstocks can be used effectively for CHP applications and for transport (Roskilly, Chapter 5.17). Taken
together with options for dual-fueling bioliquids and biogases, this opens up some new avenues for optimizing the process of
matching feedstocks to end uses.
It is sometimes said that biomass is too good to burn. The same may soon be said of natural gas (which is an important
petrochemicals feedstock) if the worlds population wants a steady supply of fossil fuel-derived plastics and polymers. Considering
the range of very high-value components that are present in various types of biomass, there is a case to be made for extracting some
of them before going through a thermochemical or biochemical biofuels production process that would destroy them. Moreover,
just as a crude oil refining process linked to a downstream petrochemicals industry leads to a wide variety of carbon-containing
products and materials, so too can a biorefining process lead to a wide range of carbon-containing products. The difference is that in
the latter case the carbon is not of fossil origin (derived as it is from a short carbon cycle) and so the fossil carbon content of the final
products is very low. Given that the main drivers behind biomass and biofuel developments are usually linked to climate change
and dwindling oil and gas supplies, the broader biorefining agenda is highly pertinent. This thinking is developed further in a
chapter by Askew which looks at small-volume, high-added-value products and in a chapter by Clark (Chapter 5.20) which looks at
high-volume opportunities.
As a specific example of extracting maximum value from biomass and locking in every benefit, a chapter on biochar has
been included (Chapter 5.20). Biochar is formed in pyrolysis processes and gasification processes. Whether it is labeled as a product,
a coproduct, or a by-product, it has some fascinating properties. Initial interest stemmed from its benefits as a soil improver, leading
to higher yields, displacing fertilizer use, and improving moisture retention in arid areas. More recently, it has been found to trap or
sequester carbon in soils over a timescale of centuries to millennia. If biochar produced in a thermochemical process is used in this
way, it opens up the prospect of a carbon-negative energy supply chain. Brown (Chapter 5.18) provides a review of the current state
of the art in biochar research.
The volume would not be complete without a chapter that explores the societal impact of biomass and biofuels and
the challenge of developing policies to incentivize the intended responses and behaviors. The fact that the point of carbon
absorption and the point of carbon release lie in different locations sometimes different countries and even different
continents introduces a level of complication. This is compounded by the manner in which biomass pervades so
many aspects of life. Thornley (Chapter 5.21) reviews the issues involved and suggests some new frameworks that may
work better.

5.01.8 Recent Developments

In the time since work began on this volume, one of the biggest changes in the bioenergy environment is that interest in the
alternative of electric vehicles (EVs) has accelerated rapidly. The EU target of 10% biofuels (on an energy basis) by 2020 has been
translated into a requirement for 10% renewable energy content in transport fuels specifically to include EVs powered by
renewable electricity. A number of vehicle manufacturers are bringing EVs to market. Unlike the kit cars of old, these are designed
as production cars for the mass market. In order to address the phenomenon of so-called range anxiety, the vehicles are fitted with
sophisticated communication equipment for locating the nearest charging point, and those same technology platforms are offering
attractive new features such as remote communication facilities and sophisticated navigation systems. Priced at the luxury car end of
the spectrum, they will not displace sales of internal combustion engine vehicles overnight, but they have to be seen as serious
competition by proponents of biofueled vehicles.
As for how long it will be until sales of EVs outstrip sales of internal combustion engine vehicles, the year 2050 is often cited
with some saying earlier and others later. The prevalent view is that EVs will penetrate the market for city center runabout vehicles
quite early, with slower progress in the long-distance driving market, and there are serious doubts about whether road freight or air
transport will ever switch to electric propulsion.
There is a related strand of emerging thought which is perhaps best summed up as a move to an all-electric society. With an
expanding array of low-carbon electricity solutions under active development (including nuclear power and coal-fired generation
with carbon capture and storage alongside a maturing set of renewable electricity technologies), and seemingly fewer options for
low-carbon heating and low-carbon transport, governments are starting to speculate about the desired future balance between
electricity, heat, and transport fuels in the overall energy mix.

Biomass and Biofuels Introduction

Interestingly, biomass can supply all three. However, the technologies required to do this cost-effectively are still under
development. There is a short-term challenge for those working in the biomass sector to influence the funders of research and
development activity to continue funding broad-based biomass R&D.

5.01.9 The Way Forward for Biomass and Biofuels

Specific plans for the various biomass technologies are mapped out in the relevant chapters of this volume. Different countries are
progressing at different rates. This is due in part to different starting points in respect of natural resource availability, with countries
tending to play to their strengths. However, it is also due in part to some countries waiting for others to go first in the hope of
benefiting from their experience. As in other parts of the energy sector, there is an increasing reliance on the development of road
maps as a process for building consensus, differentiating between short-term, medium-term, and long-term requirements.
The field of biomass and biofuels has moved in recent years from one of almost unstinting praise through a period of intense
(often ill-informed) criticism, emerging now into an environment where developments are viewed with healthy skepticism. The
chapters of this volume provide some of the science behind the increasingly important sustainability challenge alongside the
signposts for future technology development.

References
[1] Knoef HAM (2005) Handbook of Biomass Gasification. Enschede, The Netherlands: BTG.
[2] International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris (2008) World energy outlook, 2008. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/WEO2008_es_english.pdf (accessed 25 March
2011).
[3] WRAP (2008) Realising the value of organic waste. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Organics_MSR_Final_v2.ef333495.5238.pdf (accessed 25 March 2011).
[4] ITPOES (2010) The oil crunch A wake-up call for the UK economy. International Task Force on Peak Oil & Energy Security. http://peakoiltaskforce.net (accessed 25 March
2011).
[5] Florio N and Vanderwell N (2009) Biofuels in the UK. UK Petrochemical Industries Association (UKPIA), London. http://www.ukpia.com/files/pdf/ukpia-briefing-biofuels-april
2009.pdf (accessed 25 March 2011).
[6] Mittelbach M and Remschmidt C (2004) Biodiesel, the Comprehensive Handbook. Graz, Austria: Martin Mittelbach.
[7] GlobalData (2010) Global biodiesel market analysis & forecasts to 2020. Report code GDAE0112ICR. http://www.globalmarketsdirect.com.
[8] UFOP (2010) Biodiesel 2009/2010 Report on the current situation and prospects. http://www.ufop.de (accessed 7 March 2011).
[9] Roddy DJ (2009) Biofuels Environmental friend or foe? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Energy 162(3): 121130.
[10] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, et al. (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science

319(5867): 12381240.

[11] Graf F and Klaas U (2009) State of biogas injection to the gas grid in Germany. 24th World Gas Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina. http://www.igu.org/html/wgc2009/papers/
docs/wgcFinal00259.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011).
[12] Boyle G (2004) Renewable Energy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press in association with the Open University.
[13] Macias-Corral M, Samani Z, Hanson A, et al. (2008) Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure.
Bioresource Technology 99: 82888293.
[14] Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, and Oleskowicz-Popiel P (2009) The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresource Technology 100: 54785484.
[15] Cavinato C, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, and Pavan P (2010) Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with agro-wastes and energy crops: Comparison of pilot and full
scale experiences. Bioresource Technology 101: 545550.
[16] Deublein D and Steinhauser A (2008) Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An Introduction. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
[17] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, and Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresource Technology 99(10): 40444064.
[18] Alvarez R and Liden G (2008) The effect of temperature variation on biomethanation at high altitude. Bioresource Technology 99: 72787284.
[19] Accettola F, Guebitz GM, and Schoeftner R (2008) Siloxane removal from biogas by biofiltration: Biodegradation studies. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
10: 211218.
[20] Zhu Y and Frey HC (2010) Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant design and technology. In: Roddy D (ed.) Advanced Power Plant Materials, Design and
Technology. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
[21] Black & Veatch (2008) Lignocellulosic ethanol plant in the UK Feasibility study. NNFCC 08-007. http://nnfcc.co.uk (accessed 8 September 2011).
[22] Benemann JR, Goebel RP, Weissman JC, and Augenstein DC (1982) Microalgae as a source of liquid fuels. Final Technical Report to U.S.DOE BER. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/
(accessed 7 March 2011).
[23] Darzins A, Pienkos P, and Edye L (2010) Current status and potential for algal biofuels production. Report T39-T2, IEA Bioenergy Task 39. http://www.task39.org

(accessed 7 March 2011).