Biofuel Assignment

7/28/2019 Biofuel Assignment

1/29

Introduction

Energy is an important factor of production in the global economy, and 90% of the commercially

produced energy is from fossil fuels such as crude oil, coal, and gas, which are non-renewable in

nature. Much of the energy supply in the world comes from geo-politically volatile economies.In order to enhance energy security, many countries, including the US, have been emphasizing

production and use of renewable energy sources such as biofuels, which is emerging as a growth

industry in the current economic environment. Biofuel is known as a potential replacement of

fossil fuel nowadays. Biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon

fixation. Biofuels include fuels derived from biomass conversion, as well as solid biomass, liquid

fuels and various biogases. Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient carbon fixation, they

are not considered biofuels by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that

has been "out" of the carbon cycle for a very long time. Biofuels are gaining increased public and

scientific attention, driven by factors such as oil price spikes, the need for increased energy

security, concern over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and governmentsubsidies.

Biofuel is also known as agrofuel, these fuels are mainly derived from biomass or bio waste.

These fuels can be used for any purposes, but the main use for which they have to be brought is

in the transportation sector. Most of the vehicles require fuels which provide high power and are

dense so that storage is easier. These engines require fuels that are clean and are in the liquid

form. The most important advantage of using liquid as fuel is that they can be easily pumped and

can also be handled easily. This is the main reason why almost all the vehicles use liquid form of

fuels for combustion purpose. For other forms of non transportation applications there are other

alternative solid biomass fuel like wood. These non transportation applications can bring into use

these solid biomass fuels as they can easily bear the low power density of external combustion.

Wood has been brought into use since a very long period and is one of the major contributors of

global warming. Biofuels are the best way of reducing the emission of the greenhouse gases.

They can also be looked upon as a way of energy security which stands as an alternative of fossil

fuels that are limited in availability. Today, the use of biofuels has expanded throughout the

globe. Some of the major producers and users of biogases are Asia, Europe and America.

Theoretically, biofuel can be easily produced through any carbon source; making the

photosynthetic plants the most commonly used material for production. Almost all types of

materials derived from the plants are used for manufacturing biogas. One of the greatest


2/29

problems that is being faced by the researchers in the field is how to covert the biomass energy

into the liquid fuel. There are two methods currently brought into use to solve the above

problem. In the first one, sugar crops or starch are grown and through the process of

fermentation, ethanol is produced. In the second method, plants are grown that naturally produce

oil like jatropha and algae. These oils are heated to reduce their viscosity after which they are

directly used as fuel for diesel engines. This oil can be further treated to produce biodiesel which

can be used for various purposes. Most of the biofuels are derived from biomass or bio waste.

Biomass can be termed as material which is derived from recently living organism. Most of the

biomass is obtained from plants and animals and also include their by products. The most

important feature of biomass is that they are renewable sources of energy unlike other natural

resources like coal, petroleum and even nuclear fuel. Some of the agricultural products that are

specially grown for the production of biofuels are switchgrass, soybeans and corn in United

States. Brazil produces sugar cane, Europe produces sugar beet and wheat while, China produces

cassava and sorghum, south-east Asia produces miscanthus and palm oil while India produces

jatropha. Liquid biofuels (biodiesel and bio-ethanol), as an alternative to fossil fuels. Other

biofuels that are more common in developing countries (such as wood, dung and biogas) are not

included. Biofuels are fuels that are directly derived from biological sources. Sources that lead to

specific end products in biofuel production are usually classified into four groups. Of these, the

first two are in common use while the latter two are still experimental:

Cereals, grains, sugar crops and other starches that can fairly easily be fermented to produce

bio-ethanol, and can be used in their pure state or blended with fuels.

Oilseed crops, such as sunflower, rape seeds, soy, palm and jatropha, that can be converted into

methyl esters (biodiesel) and blended with conventional diesel or burnt as pure biodiesel.

Cellulosic materials, including grasses, trees and various waste products from crops and wood

processing facilities as well as municipal solid waste, that can be converted into a newer

generation of bio-ethanol (via enzymatic breakdown or acid hydrolysis, followed by

fermentation).

New biodiesel technologies, such as the FischerTropsch process, that synthesise diesel fuels

from different biomasses (such as organic waste material) via gasification.

Bio-ethanol is the most widely used biofuel, accounting for some 94 per cent of global biofuel

production worldwide in 2006. Around 60 per cent of bio-ethanol comes from sugarcane and the


3/29

remainder comes from other crops, mostly maize. Brazil was the worlds largest bio-ethanol

producer for a long period, but in 2006 the USA took over as leading bio-ethanol producer .

Brazil still stands out as the most successful producer of biofuels due to its low production

costs, advanced technology and management systems, hybrid sugar/ethanol complexes

and favourable CO2 reduction rate. China ranks third, but in contrast to Brazil and the USA

Chinese national policies have been more restrictive in expanding ethanol production, mainly for

food security reasons. Bio-ethanol made from sugarcane is much more effective in reducing

greenhouse gas emissions (producing around 80 per cent less CO2 emission per energy unit than

petrol) than maize based bio-ethanol (that produces around 2040 per cent less). It is also much

cheaper to produce, both in Brazil and Australia, the two leading producing countries

(International Energy Agency 2004). In Europe, Germany, France and Italy dominate biofuel

production and were significantly ahead of other countries in 2006. In Southeast Asia biodiesel is

mainly produced from palm oil, in the USA and Brazil mainly from soy. In the EU biodiesel

(produced mainly from rapeseed and some sunflower seed) accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel

production, while much less bio-ethanol is produced in this region than in the USA and Brazil.

There are four main reasons behind this recent remarkable increase in the attention attracted by

biofuels and the correspondingly related increase in biofuel production, R&D programmes,

policy initiatives and debates, although not all reasons for this are the same in every country and

region (Munckhof 2006). Firstly, the continuing concern about the role of fossil fuels in climate

change via the release of greenhouse gasses during their exploitation, transport and, especially,

their use, has created favourable conditions for increased attention into all kinds of renewable

energy alternatives. The recent enforcement of the Kyoto protocol, the implementation

of national targets for biofuels in various countries2 and Al Gores campaign around his Oscar-

winning movie An Inconvenient Truth (2006) has intensified that interest. Secondly, the

dependence of a number of major fossil-fuel-importing countries (most notably the USA and the

EU) on unstable fossil-fuel-producing and exporting regions (notably Russia, the Middle East

and Venezuela) has triggered these former countries into launching programmes to lower their

dependence on fossil fuel and thus increase their national energy security. A number of events in

2005 and 2006 sensitised oil and gas importing OECD countries to this feature of their

dependence on fossil fuel. Thirdly, and partly related to the former consideration, the oil price

increases that started in 2004 gave a further boost to biofuel interests, especially since many


4/29

projections of oil price decreases had not been met up to mid-2007, thus making biofuels

increasingly cost-effective.4 This comes together with the fact that biofuel can to a significant

extent use existing the infrastructure of conventional petroleum fuels (such as distribution and

retailing systems, cars and combustion systems [Doering2004]), making it far more competitive

than, for example, hydrogen. Lastly, an ongoing crisis in the rural areas of many OECD

countries following the over-production of agricultural commodities, low prices, land continually

taken out of production (set asides) and low income levels for farmers has provided fertile

ground for a new market for agricultural commodities, especially but not only in largescale,

capital-intensive agricultural areas (such as the USA). In the USA, the EU and Brazil

governments have heavily subsidised farmers and agribusiness to get involved in biofuel

production. In addition, although one can also witness various drivers for biofuel expansion in

the developing countries (including reduced oil imports, rural development and export

opportunities), these countries have generally not been driving the recent biofuel expansion.

Consequently, from the early 2000s we have witnessed sharp increases and spatial proliferation

in the production of biofuel, almost quadrupling between 20022006, according to OECD

estimates.5 While most biofuel production is still consumed domestically (90 per cent in 2005,

with Brazil as the largest exporter), global trade is expanding rapidly, triggered by biofuel targets

set in various countries in combination with uneven conditions for feedstock and biofuel

production.6 This increase and globalisation of biofuels has led to sharp debates on the

proclaimed environmental sustainability of biofuels and the social vulnerability for notable two

groups: the poor in developing countries and small farmers. But the common understanding

among economic and political elites is that if biofuels are going to make a significant

contribution to climate change mitigation, energy security and rural development, then biofuel

production and consumption needs to globalise further, to become part of the global space of

(energy) flows. This might, however, further endanger specific localities, interests and

sustainabilities: most notably, the interests of small farmers and the poor in developing countries

and specific local environmental sustainabilities (rather than global climate change).


5/29

First generation biofuels

'First-generation' or conventional biofuels are biofuels made from sugar, starch, and vegetable

oil.

1) Bioalcohols

Biologically produced alcohols, most commonly ethanol, and less commonly propanol and

butanol, are produced by the action of microorganisms and enzymes through the fermentation of

sugars or starches (easiest), or cellulose (which is more difficult). Biobutanol (also called

biogasoline) is often claimed to provide a direct replacement for gasoline, because it can be used

directly in a gasoline engine (in a similar way to biodiesel in diesel engines). Ethanol fuel is the

most common biofuel worldwide, particularly in Brazil. Alcohol fuels are produced by

fermentation of sugars derived from wheat, corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, molasses and any sugar

or starch that alcoholic beverages can be made from (like potato and fruit waste, etc.). The

ethanol production methods used are enzyme digestion (to release sugars from stored starches),

fermentation of the sugars, distillation and drying. The distillation process requires significant

energy input for heat (often unsustainable natural gas fossil fuel, but cellulosic biomass such as

bagasse, the waste left after sugar cane is pressed to extract its juice, can also be used more

sustainably). Ethanol can be used in petrol engines as a replacement for gasoline; it can be mixed

with gasoline to any percentage. Most existing car petrol engines can run on blends of up to 15%

bioethanol with petroleum/gasoline. Ethanol has a smaller energy density than does gasoline; this

fact means that it takes more fuel (volume and mass) to produce the same amount of work. An

advantage of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) is that it has a higher octane rating than ethanol-free

gasoline available at roadside gas stations which allows an increase of an engine's compression

ratio for increased thermal efficiency. In high altitude (thin air) locations, some states mandate a

mix of gasoline and ethanol as a winter oxidizer to reduce atmospheric pollution emissions.

Ethanol is also used to fuel bioethanol fireplaces. As they do not require a chimney and are

"flueless", bio ethanol fires are extremely useful for new build homes and apartments without a

flue. The downside to these fireplaces, is that the heat output is slightly less than electric and gas

fires. In the current corn-to-ethanol production model in the United States, considering the total

energy consumed by farm equipment, cultivation, planting, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and

fungicides made from petroleum, irrigation systems, harvesting, transport of feedstock to

processing plants, fermentation, distillation, drying, transport to fuel terminals and retail pumps,


6/29

and lower ethanol fuel energy content, the net energy content value added and delivered to

consumers is very small. And, the net benefit (all things considered) does little to reduce

imported oil and fossil fuels required to produce the ethanol. Although corn-to-ethanol and other

food stocks have implications both in terms of world food prices and limited, yet positive, energy

yield (in terms of energy delivered to customer/fossil fuels used), the technology has led to the

development of cellulosic ethanol. Methanol is currently produced from natural gas, a non-

renewable fossil fuel. It can also be produced from biomass as biomethanol. The methanol

economy is an interesting alternative to get to the hydrogen economy, compared to today's

hydrogen production from natural gas. But this process is not the state-of-the-art clean solar

thermal energy process where hydrogen production is directly produced from water.[12]

Butanol (C4H9OH) is formed by ABE fermentation (acetone, butanol, ethanol) and experimental

modifications of the process show potentially high net energy gains with butanol as the only

liquid product. Butanol will produce more energy and allegedly can be burned "straight" in

existing gasoline engines (without modification to the engine or car),[13] and is less corrosive

and less water soluble than ethanol, and could be distributed via existing infrastructures. DuPont

and BP are working together to help develop Butanol. E. coli have also been successfully

engineered to producebutanol by hijacking their amino acid metabolism.

2) Biodiesel

Is an easy-to-make, clean burning diesel alternative made from vegetable oil or fats, has great

promise as an energy industry that could be locally-produced, used, and controlled. Biodiesel is

an alternative fuel that is relatively safe and easy to process when conscientiously approached.

Biodiesel is made from vegetable oil or animal fat that can be used in any diesel engine without

any modifications. Chemically, it is defined as the mono alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids

derived from renewable lipid sources. Biodiesel is typically produced through the reaction of a

vegetable oil or animal fat with methanol in the presence of a catalyst to yield glycerin and

biodiesel (chemically called methyl esters). Boasting an overall 92% reduction in toxic emissions

compared to diesel, Biodiesel is by far the best alternative fuel option at present. Biodiesel is the

only alternative fuel currently available that has an overall positive life cycle energy balance. It is

renewable, sustainable, and domestically produced.The only by-product of this form of Biodiesel

is glycerin, which can be easily used to make soap or other products. Biodiesel can also be

produced from other biologically derived oils such as soybean oil, canola oil, sunflower oil,


7/29

hemp oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, palm oil, corn oil, mustard oil, flaxseed oil, new or waste

cooking oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, beef tallow, pork lard, as well as other types of animal

fat. Biodiesel is actually as old as the diesel engine itself. Rudolf Diesel, the 19thcentury

originator of diesel technology, used refined peanut oil to run his invention. Diesels workhorse

engine took off, but the rise of cheap crude oil killed his vision of farmers growing their own

fuel.

3) Green diesel

Green diesel, also known as renewable diesel, is a form of diesel fuel which is derived from

renewable feedstock rather than the fossil feedstock used in most diesel fuels. Green diesel

feedstock can be sourced from a variety of oils including canola, algae, jatropha and salicornia in

addition to tallow. Green diesel uses traditional fractional distillation to process the oils, not to be

confused with biodiesel which is chemically quite different and processed using

transesterification. Green Diesel as commonly known in Ireland should not be confused with

dyed green diesel sold at a lower tax rate for agriculture purposes, using the dye allows custom

officers to determine if a person is using the cheaper diesel in higher taxed applications such as

commercial haulage or cars.

4) Vegetable oil

Straight unmodified edible vegetable oil is generally not used as fuel, but lower quality oil can

and has been used for this purpose. Used vegetable oil is increasingly being processed into

biodiesel, or (more rarely) cleaned of water and particulates and used as a fuel. Also here, as with

100% biodiesel (B100), to ensure that the fuel injectors atomize the vegetable oil in the correct

pattern for efficient combustion, vegetable oil fuel must be heated to reduce its viscosity to that

of diesel, either by electric coils or heat exchangers. This is easier in warm or temperate climates.

Big corporations like MAN B&W Diesel, Wrtsil, and Deutz AG as well as a number of

smaller companies such as Elsbett offer engines that are compatible with straight vegetable oil,

without the need for after-market modifications. Vegetable oil can also be used in many older

diesel engines that do not use common rail or unit injection electronic diesel injection systems.

Due to the design of the combustion chambers in indirect injection engines, these are the best

engines for use with vegetable oil. This system allows the relatively larger oil molecules more

time to burn. Some older engines, especially Mercedes are driven experimentally by enthusiasts

without any conversion, a handful of drivers have experienced limited success with earlier


8/29

pre-"Pumpe Duse" VW TDI engines and other similar engines with direct injection. Several

companies like Elsbett or Wolf (http://www.wolf-pflanzenoel-technik.de/) have developed

professional conversion kits and successfully installed hundreds of them over the last decades.

Oils and fats can be hydrogenated to give a diesel substitute. The resulting product is a straight

chain hydrocarbon with a high cetane number, low in aromatics and sulfur and does not contain

oxygen. Hydrogenated oils can be blended with diesel in all proportions Hydrogenated oils have

several advantages over biodiesel, including good performance at low temperatures, no storage

stability problems and no susceptibility to microbial.

5) Bioethers

Bio ethers (also referred to as fuel ethers or oxygenated fuels) are cost-effective compounds that

act as octane rating enhancers. They also enhance engine performance, whilst significantly

reducing engine wear and toxic exhaust emissions. Greatly reducing the amount of ground-level

ozone, they contribute to the quality of the air we breathe.

6) Biogas

Biogas is methane produced by the process of anaerobic digestion of organic material by

anaerobes. It can be produced either from biodegradable waste materials or by the use of energy

crops fed into anaerobic digesters to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, digestate, can

be used as a biofuel or a fertilizer. Biogas can be recovered from mechanical biological treatment

waste processing systems.

Note: Landfill gas is a less clean form of biogas which is produced in landfills through naturally

occurring anaerobic digestion. If it escapes into the atmosphere it is a potential greenhouse gas.

Farmers can produce biogas from manure from their cows by using an anaerobic digester (AD).

7) Syngas

Syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other hydrocarbons is produced by partial

combustion of biomass, that is, combustion with an amount of oxygen that is not sufficient to

convert the biomass completely to carbon dioxide and water. Before partial combustion the

biomass is dried, and sometimes pyrolysed. The resulting gas mixture, syngas, is more efficient

than direct combustion of the original biofuel; more of the energy contained in the fuel is

extracted. Syngas may be burned directly in internal combustion engines, turbines or high-

temperature fuel cells. The wood gas generator is a wood-fueled gasification reactor mounted on

an internal combustion engine. Syngas can be used to produce methanol, DME and hydrogen, or


9/29

converted via the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce a diesel substitute, or a mixture of alcohols

that can be blended into gasoline. Gasification normally relies on temperatures >700C. Lower

temperature gasification is desirable when co-producing biochar but results in a Syngas polluted

with tar.

Second generation biofuels (advanced biofuels)

Second generation biofules are biofuels produced from sustainable feedstock. Sustainability of a

feedstock is defined among others by availability of the feedstock, impact on GHG emissions

and impact on biodiversity and land use. Many second generation biofuels are under

development such as Cellulosic ethanol, Algae fuel, biohydrogen, biomethanol, DMF, BioDME,

Fischer-Tropsch diesel, biohydrogen diesel, mixed alcohols and wood diesel. Cellulosic ethanol

production uses non-food crops or inedible waste products and does not divert food away from

the animal or human food chain. Lignocellulose is the "woody" structural material of plants. This

feedstock is abundant and diverse, and in some cases (like citrus peels or sawdust) it is in itself a

significant disposal problem. Producing ethanol from cellulose is a difficult technical problem to

solve. In nature, ruminant livestock (like cattle) eat grass and then use slow enzymatic digestive

processes to break it into glucose (sugar). In cellulosic ethanol laboratories, various experimental

processes are being developed to do the same thing, and then the sugars released can be

fermented to make ethanol fuel. In 2009 scientists reported developing, using "synthetic

biology", "15 new highly stable fungal enzyme catalysts that efficiently break down cellulose

into sugars at high temperatures", adding to the 10 previously known. The use of high

temperatures, has been identified as an important factor in improving the overall economic

feasibility of the biofuel industry and the identification of enzymes that are stable and can

operate efficiently at extreme temperatures is an area of active research. In addition, research

conducted at TU Delft by Jack Pronk has shown that elephant yeast, when slightly modified can

also create ethanol from nonedible ground sources (e.g. straw). The recent discovery of the

fungus Gliocladium roseum points toward the production of so-called myco-diesel from

cellulose. This organism (recently discovered in rainforests of northern Patagonia) has the unique

capability of converting cellulose into medium length hydrocarbons typically found in diesel

fuel. Scientists also work on experimental recombinant DNA genetic engineering organisms that


10/29

could increase biofuel potential. Scientists working in New Zealand have developed a

technology to use industrial waste gases from steel mills as a feedstock for a microbial

fermentation process to produce ethanol.


11/29

Advantages of biofuel production and use

1)Production of Biofuels for the Transport Sector

Biofuels have an organic origin as opposed to fossil fuel-based origin, and because

they are liquid, they are compatible with vehicle engines and blendable with current fuels.

They can be derived from agricultural sources such as sugarcane, beets, maize, energy-rich

herbaceous plants, vegetable oils, agriculture waste, lumber offcuts, and manure. The two

most prevalent biofuels are ethanol (an alcohol fermented from sugars, starches, or from

cellulosic biomass) and biodiesel (produced from vegetable oils or animal fats). Ethanol is

mixed with gasoline, and blends typically vary from 5% to 85%, the lower blends being

compatible with conventional gasoline engines. Similarly, biodiesel is to be used in various

blends with petroleum diesel or as a substitute of that. Although the use of biofuels is not

limited to the transport sector alone, application in this sector gained a lot of attention over

the last decades due to soaring oil prices, successful application of sugarcane-based ethanol

in Brazil, and the increasing share of the transport sector in worldwide GHGs. Besides,

only a small amount of biofuels is used for non-transportation purposes. In the developing world,

the undisputable leader in the biofuel market is Brazil, with production of approximately 15

billion liters of bioethanol from sugarcane, 38% of worldwide production (Dufey 2006). Brazil

was the pioneer in biofuels since the 1970s and has

taken advantage of the learning curve effect with regard to bioethanol production. Thus,

other developing countries are interested in replicating Brazils successful experience and

increase the production and use of biofuels. Some countries, such as Colombia, India,

Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand, have adopted targets for increasing the contribution

of biofuels to their transport fuel supplies (Kojima and Johnson 2006). Significant

volumes of bioethanol are already being produced in China and India (Coelho 2005). On

the other hand, biodiesel production lacks scale in the developing world, and only recently,

there have been efforts for large-scale production. Latin American countries, such as Brazil,

Argentina, and Colombia, have set up targets for the production and use of biodiesel. Also,

countries in South-East Asia have started or are exploring opportunities for producing

biodiesel either for domestic use or for exporting it. The same applies for various African


12/29

countries interested in biofuel production in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and

take advantage of the expected environmental and socio-economic benefits. Examples of

these countries are South Africa, Kenya, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Ghana, and others (Dufey

2006; Winkler 2005).

There are several benefits of using biofuels for transport. Besides the apparent one

of reducing harmful pollutants from vehicle exhaust (Kojima and Johnson 2006) and those

applicable to most renewable energies like reducing CHG emissions, decreasing dependence

on fossil fuels, and diversifying energy portfolio, there are important socio-economic benefits to

be expected. Examples include new jobs in rural areas, the improvement of

income distribution (Islas, Manzini, and Masera 2007), and reduced poverty. Biofuel production

is responsible for creating jobs in feedstock production, biofuel manufacture, and

the transport and distribution of feedstock and products (Kojima and Johnson 2006). Only

in Brazil, the sugarcane sector is responsible for approximately 700,000 direct and 3.5 million

indirect jobs. Compared with other energy sectors, the ratio of jobs created per unit of

energy produced is very high (Coelho 2005). According to Berndes and Hansson (2007),

liquid biofuels for transport produced from agricultural crops in the EU are typically about

210 and 2550 times as employment intensive as biomass use for electricity and heat,

respectively. Furthermore, rural areas and developing countries can benefit the most from

energy crop production for biofuels, since most of these jobs involve poor populations in

rural regions and the quality of their jobs gets better due to increasing wages over time and

lower seasonality (Dufey 2006).

There are quite a few obstacles standing in the way of widespread use of biofuels.

Some of them relate to biodiversity and landscape conservation, soil health and maintenance

(Panoutsou 2008), intensive farming, fertilizers, and use of chemicals. Availability

of feedstock for their production is another problem, while concerns also exist about the

issues of intensive land use, competition for land, and the possible conflict with food

production (Faaij and Domac 2006; Hall and House 1994). As regards biofuel use for

transport, there are some technical drawbacks having to do with the adaptation of vehicles

to different fuel qualities and engine performance (Kavalov 2004), an issue being addressed

by research activities on flex-fuel vehicles that use different blends of ethanol and gasoline.

Even though the developments with regard to the world price of oil have acted as


13/29

drivers for the use of biofuels, oil prices usually act as barriers since external costs of oilderived

products are not taken into account, a fact that makes biofuels more expensive than

competing fuels. Lack of policy support, technology transfer methodologies, and financing

opportunities are some other issues to be addressed in most countries, as is the case with

other biomass applications. Lastly, international trade barriers, such as transport tariffs and

varying standards, among different countries have negatively influenced the worldwide

diffusion of biofuels.

The potential for the use of biofuels is very large, something that has been proven by

the Brazilian case where bioethanol production costs have decreased significantly and are

competitive to those of gasoline. The climates and ecosystems of most developing countries

are quite favorable for biomass production. This fact, along with low land and labor costs,

could help these countries reap the significant benefits of biofuel production and export

opportunities if the abovementioned barriers are removed. The high costs of production in

Europe are limiting the biofuel market, although favorable policies have been put in place

in some countries. Studies have shown that the best potential for bioenergy production

and biofuel exports in Europe is in Central and Eastern European countries where higher

yields can be achieved on better land (van Dam et al. 2007). Moreover, second-generation

biofuel production (based on lingocellulosic feedstock) is a quite promising technology

and is expected to become commercially viable in the long term.

Although there have been examples of cooperation between industrialized and developing

countries in the field of biofuels either in the form of carbon credits purchases or

trading of biofuels, there is very limited activity in the CDM arena. No projects are currently

registered for biofuels, and there are only seven projects at the validation stage for

biodiesel and none for bioethanol (URC 2008a). One of the reasons might be that the

project baselines taken into account for CDM include emissions from combustion of coal,

oil, or natural gas, CH4 recovery through enhanced animal waste management, or agricultural

residues that would be burnt in the field, cases that are not the most usual for some

developing countries where fossil fuels are not easily accessible and the only fuels used

are in most cases biomass fuels (Schlamadinger and Jrgens 2004). However, regulatory

barriers should be removed, as there is not only large potential for reduction of GHG emissions

but biofuel production is also far less expensive in some developing countries and


14/29

can contribute to their socio-economic development.

Biodiesel is needed for Malaysia future, toward the vision 2020. Since it's made domestically, it

reduces countrys dependence on foreign oil. Using Biodiesel keeps fuel buying dollars at home

instead of sending it to foreign countries. This reduces Malaysia trade deficit and creates jobs.

It's sustainable & non-toxic. We have face the fact that this country going to run out of oil

eventually. Biodiesel is 100% renewable because it will never run out, besides it is nearly

carbon-neutral, meaning it contributes almost zero emissions to global warming. Biodiesel also

dramatically reduces other emissions fairly dramatically. According to previous research, it

reduces engine wear by as much as one half, primarily because it provides excellent lubricity.

Due to the increase in the world petroleum price every day and the environmental concerns about

pollution coming from the vehicle gases, Biodiesel is becoming a developing area of high

concern research. Biodiesel is an alternative fuel for diesel engines that is produced by

chemically reacting a vegetable oil or animal fat with an alcohol such as methanol. Biodiesel

derived from a renewable, domestic resource, thereby relieving reliance on petroleum fuel

imports. It is biodegradable and proven less toxic than ordinary diesel fuel. Compared to

petroleum-based diesel, Biodiesel has a more positive combustion emission profile, such as low

emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter and unburned harmful hydrocarbons, such as

Carbon Monoxide. Carbon dioxide produced by combustion of Biodiesel can be recycled

naturally by photosynthesis, which can lower the impact of Biodiesel combustion on the

greenhouse effect . Biodiesel has a relatively high flash point (150 C), which makes it less

volatile and safer to transport or handle than petroleum diesel . It provides lubricating properties

that can reduce engine wear and extend engine life. In brief, these merits of Biodiesel make it

the best alternative to petroleum based fuel and have led to its use in many developing

countries, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. Vegetable oils, especially palm oil have

become more attractive research recently because of their environmental benefits and the fact

that it is made from renewable resources. More than 100 years ago, Rudolph Diesel tested

vegetable oil as the fuel for his engine. Palm oils have the great potential for substitution of the

petroleum distillates and petroleum based petrochemicals in the future. Others vegetable oil fuels

are not now petroleum competitive fuels because they are more expensive than petroleum fuels.

However, with the recent increases in petroleum prices and the uncertainties concerning


15/29

petroleum availability, there is renewed interest in using vegetable oils in Diesel engines. The

Diesel boiling range material is of particular interest because it has been shown to reduce

particulate emissions significantly relative to petroleum Diesel . There are more than 350 oil

bearing crops identified, among which only Palm oil, sunflower, safflower, soybean, cottonseed,

rapeseed and peanut oils are considered as potential alternative fuels for Diesel engines .


16/29

Barriers

Examples of such barriers could be limited affordability of the technology due to relatively high

implementation costs, energy costs, and limited availability of local and regional financial

resources; the existing domestic legal and institutional framework, bureaucracy (e.g., in favor of

conventional energy sources), non-transparent decision-making procedures, large-scale state

ownership of enterprises, availability of cheaper alternative technologies; lack of investment

protection, lack of knowledge of technology operation and management as well as limited

availability of spare parts and maintenance expertise; negative impact on community social

structures, etc.


17/29

Issues with biofuel production and use

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production

and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include:

the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon

emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of

biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency. The

International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert

advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its

first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels . In it, it

outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the

relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform

equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that

environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle. Total net

savings from using first-generation biodiesel as a transport fuel range from 25-82% (depending

on the feedstock used), compared to diesel derived from crude oil . Producing lignocellulosic

biofuels offers greater greenhouse gas emissions savings than those obtained by first generation

biofuels. Lignocellulosic biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 90% when

compared with fossil petroleum, in contrast first generation biofuels were found to offer savings

of 20-70%. Biofuels currently appear to be one of the major controversies in the agriculture/

environment nexus, not unlike genetically modified organisms. While some countries (such as

Brazil) have for quite some time supported successful large-scale programmes to improve the

production and consumption of biofuels, policy-makers and research institutions in most

developed and developing countries have only recently turned their attention to biofuels. Threat

of climate change, new markets for agricultural output, reduced dependencies on OPEC

countries and high fossil fuel prices are driving this development. But opposition to biofuels is

growing, pointing at the various vulnerabilities not in the least for developing countries that

come along with large-scale energy plantations. Against this background this article analyses

the sustainability and vulnerability of biofuels, from the perspective of a sociology of networks

and flows. Current biofuel developments should be understood in terms of the emergence of a

global integrated biofuel network, where environmental sustainabilities are more easily

accommodated than vulnerabilities for marginal and peripheral groups and countries, irrespective


18/29

of what policy-makers and biofuel advocates tell us.


19/29

Biofuel controversies

Arguably, Brazils biofuels network was the first that could be understood as a fullfledged

national biofuel region, with an active governmental policy towards sugarcane

cropping and rural development, an elaborated infrastructure of hybrid ethanol/sugar

plants, a flex-fuel car7 development and production programme, the integration of

petrol companies and a policy mandating the mixing of bio-ethanol with petrol. There

has always been debate on the Brazilian biofuel programme in the 1970s and 1980s

(Dufey 2006), but that was largely an internal debate on its environmental, economic

and social dimensions. Currently, with the major growth and ambitions of biofuel

production and consumption under conditions of globalisation, criticism of thenational biofuel

regions in various countries has become more widespread, vivid, pointed and global in nature.

The debate encompasses several frontiers (such as its impact on the environment, development,

economics, trade and power relations) and an increasing number of participants. We will not

review the entire debate with respect to biofuels, but focus on sustainability claims and the

vulnerability of particular groups in this respect, leaving partly aside technical discussions on

economics and climate change gains. While initially biofuels were celebrated as an alternative to

fossil fuels for their contribution to combating climate change (and a range of other air pollution

problems

such as particulates, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide; although biofuels

often increase nitric oxide [NOx] emissions), more recently critics started to question

the environmental profile of biofuels on various points.

There is considerable diversity in greenhouse gas savings from biofuel use,

depending on the type of feedstock, its cultivation methods, conversion technologies

used and energy efficiency assumptions made. While the Brazilian sugarcane-based

bio-ethanol and Malaysian oil-palm-based biodiesel indeed contribute significantly to

lowering carbon dioxide emissions, this is either not the case or only partly the case

(depending on which analyst is speaking, for US maize-based biofuels (for example,

Pimentel and Patzek 2005; McElroy 2006). It is also questioned whether biofuels are

a cost-effective carbon dioxide emission abatement strategy, as other investments

towards a low carbon economy are more cost-efficient (Worldwatch Institute 2006a,

p. 19; Frondel and Peters 2007).


20/29

In addition, several other environmental problems have recently been associated

with biofuels: deforestation and a decrease in biodiversity, monocropping, land degradation

and water pollution. Oil palm plantations inMalaysia and Indonesia were the

target of environmentalists in recent years (with the orang-utan as symbol mobiliser;

see also Painter, [2007]), but soy production also faces criticism for threatening the

savannah and tropical forests in north-east Brazil, and soil and water conservation are

endangered in the corn belt states of the USA. It is for these reasons that the NGO

network Biofuelwatch has called on the EU to abandon their targets on biofuel use in

petrol and diesel. New generation (FischerTropsch) biofuels are received more

favourably, especially when they are based on waste biomass or cellulose.

These debates have been directed mainly at national biofuel regions and hardly at

all at local biofuel regions, where small-scale oilseed production is converted by

farmer co-operatives in biofuels, to be consumed within the same locality. Production

of low-input biofuels crops such as jatropha on marginal land is perceived to be a

positive contribution to local soil improvements, providing biofuels (and farmer

income) through simple processing methods (Dufey 2006). But energy balances and

cost structures show remarkable inefficiencies of these local biofuel regions in developing

countries (van Eijck and Romijn 2006), making them attractive only in peripheral

localities that are not well served by conventional fossil-fuel infrastructure.8

Secondly, various impacts of biofuel systems on developing countries and poverty

have met with criticism. Arguably the most criticised of these, by well-known spokespersons

such as Noam Chomsky and Lester Brown, is the potential impact of largescale

biofuel production on food supplies, food prices and food scarcity. With the

development of local biofuel regions to national biofuel regions and the expansion ofnational

biofuel regions in an increasing number of countries, these impacts are

spreading globally. US large-scale biofuel production in particular is believed to

increase food prices (such as that of maize in Mexico,9 sugarcane in Brazil and even

of beer in Europe10) as well as the availability of food to the poor (Runge and Senauer

2007a, 2007b). With growing demand for biofuels on the world market, and thus the

development of a GIBN, cropping patterns in developing countries, as well as the exports of food

crops from them, will change, further jeopardising the availability of food crops in


21/29

developing countries. For instance, Janket al. (2007, p. 25) estimate that the EU will

have to import 40 per cent of its biodiesel needs by 2012 to fulfill its targets, as

insufficient cropping areas are available within the EU. For ethanol the need for

imports is less clear until 2012, but it might still be substantial. Currently, we also see major

commitments of Malaysia and Indonesia (and to a lesser extent, Thailand) towards the expansion

of oil palm, and of India and Indonesia towards jatropha. This might all interfere with the local

biofuel regions in developing and developed countries, disturbing and transforming small-scale

biofuel networks by integrating them into national biofuel regions. Proponents of free trade and

large-scale biofuel programmes make contrasting evaluations of such developments. Such

scholars celebrate the potential for developing countries to enter into new export markets, to

provide local farmers with better opportunities and incomes and the boosting of national

economies via a model of both import substitution (of fossil fuels) and export growth (of

biomass/biofuels).11 The favourable natural conditions, widespread availability of land and low

labour costs in tropical countries, and the fact that sugarcane and oil palm (the most cost-efficient

and greenhouse gas-saving crops, according to Worldwatch [2006b, p. 8]) grow best in

tropical conditions should provide developing countries in tropical regions a comparative

advantage in growing biofuel feedstock. IFPRI (von Braun and Pachauri 2006) and to a lesser

extent the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) seem to

take a middle position in celebrating biofuels for their potential to serve the environment and the

poor, but acknowledging at that same time that careful management and governance of biofuel

production and trading is needed in order to develop pro-poor biofuel programmes. Policies and

measures on feedstock, geographies, increasing productivity, waste reuse and scale optimisation

in processing such fuels should allow winwin situations to be created and require publicprivate

partnerships in biofuel development (von Braun and Pachauri 2006). This winwin goal appears

to be easier to attain if the value-added stages of biofuel production, notably processing and

refining, take place in the developing regions themselves. But the Brazil case teaches that to

achieve this end a well-developed scape is needed. This is certainly not available in many sub-

Saharan and other less developed countries (Kojima and Johnson 2005). This would result in

developing countries becoming biomass rather than biofuel exporting regions, or in large

foreign companies investing in biofuel production facilities, preferably in developing countries


22/29

with better infrastructure (such as South Africa). Second-generation biofuels from cellulose-rich

organic material interferes less with the food economy and might have less negative

consequences for the environment, but these require even more advanced technical processes,

higher capital investments and large facilities, thus diminishing the comparative advantage of

developing countries. Generally speaking, these debates come together with two developments.

Firstly, there is the proliferation of national biofuel regions, starting with Brazil but spreading

to a still growing number of developed and developing countries. These national biofuel regions

result in large-scale monocropping biofuel production and the increasingly centralised,

homogenised production and refining of these crops, while local biofuel regions are losing their

relevance. Secondly, there is a clear tendency towards the development of a GIBN in which

production, trade investment, consumption, control and governance lies beyond the control of

nationstates (Worldwatch Institute 2006b). These developments result in major changes in the

making in the networks and scapes that structure the biofuel flows. While initially farmers, co-

operatives and individual processors were the main players in the local biofuel regions,

increasingly nowadays large companies and conglomerates (of major agribusiness such as

Cargill and Archer Daniels for the global grain trade12, conventional oil companies such as

Total and Shell13 and car companies such as Toyota and DaimlerChrysler) are moving to the

fore as powerful players that are both part of and the architects of biofuel scapes. Sometimes

these conglomerates are actively constructed by state agencies through round tables. In France

major oil companies, car industries and agroindustry and farmers associations met to discuss

progress in biofuels. In the UK the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership is a similar conglomerate of

some 250 organisations, including the automotive and fuel industries, the environmental sector

and government. In the USA the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition brings similar interest

groups together. Whether these round tables are actively constructed by state agencies or not,

large-scale farms, agribusiness and other major companies in the biofuels networks increasingly

manage to capture government subsidy programmes in both developed and in many developing

countries (Kojima and Johnson 2005). And they are also moving into developing countries. For

instance, in 2007 Swedish Scanoil was procuring land in Indonesia to grow jatropha as a

feedstock for biofuel. All the same the ownership of and access to the sources for biofuels, and

even production facilities for them, are much more diversified and small scale, compared


23/29

to conventional fossil fuel scapes. For instance, in Minnesota (USA) and So Paulo (Brazil)

(Worldwatch Institute 2006b, p. 15) farmer co-operatives are still dominant in bio-ethanol

production facilities. Furthermore, oil extraction facilities are more dispersed compared to highly

concentrated petroleum refining facilities. This is partly related to the nature of feedstocks that

disadvantages long-distance transport and thus large-scale production facilities and requires less

capital compared to conventional oil.14 But the trend is definitely towards concentration and

capturing farmers in fixed contracts. In 2005 Archer Daniels Midland produced about 25 per cent

of ethanol in the USA and was the second largest biodiesel producer in Europe (Worldwatch

Institute 2006a, p. 72). It is not just that an emerging GIBN intrudes on the specific local space

of place where local biofuel production systems (in both developed and developing countries)

are undermined and local environmental conditions are endangered (especially withadvanced

technical processes, higher capital investments and large facilities, thus diminishing the

comparative advantage of developing countries. Generally speaking, these debates come together

with two developments. Firstly, there is the proliferation of national biofuel regions, starting with

Brazil but spreading to a still growing number of developed and developing countries. These

national biofuel regions result in large-scale monocropping biofuel production and the

increasingly centralised, homogenised production and refining of these crops, while local biofuel

regions are losing their relevance. Secondly, there is a clear tendency towards the development

of a GIBN in which production, trade investment, consumption, control and governance lies

beyond the control of nationstates (Worldwatch Institute 2006b). These developments result in

major changes in the making in the networks and scapes that structure the biofuel flows. While

initially farmers, co-operatives and individual processors were the main players in the local

biofuel regions, increasingly nowadays large companies and conglomerates (of major

agribusiness such as Cargill and Archer Daniels for the

global grain trade12, conventional oil companies such as Total and Shell13 and car companies

such as Toyota and DaimlerChrysler) are moving to the fore as powerful players that are both

part of and the architects of biofuel scapes. Sometimes these conglomerates are actively

constructed by state agencies through round tables. In France major oil companies, car industries

and agroindustry and farmers associations met to discuss progress in biofuels. In the UK

the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership is a similar conglomerate of some 250 organisations,


24/29

including the automotive and fuel industries, the environmental sector and government. In the

USA the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition brings similar interest groups together. Whether

these round tables are actively constructed by state agencies or not, large-scale farms,

agribusiness and other major companies in the biofuels networks increasingly manage to capture

government subsidy programmes in both developed and in many developing countries (Kojima

and Johnson 2005). And they are also moving into developing countries. For instance,

in 2007 Swedish Scanoil was procuring land in Indonesia to grow jatropha as a feedstock for

biofuel. All the same the ownership of and access to the sources for biofuels, and even

production facilities for them, are much more diversified and small scale, compared to

conventional fossil fuel scapes. For instance, in Minnesota (USA) and So Paulo (Brazil)

(Worldwatch Institute 2006b, p. 15) farmer co-operatives are still dominant in bio-ethanol

production facilities. Furthermore, oil extraction facilities are more dispersed compared to highly

concentrated petroleum refining facilities. This is partly related to the nature of feedstocks that

disadvantages long-distance transport and thus large-scale production facilities and requires less

capital compared to conventional oil.14 But the trend is definitely towards concentration and

capturing farmers in fixed contracts (Table 1; Worldwatch Institute 2006a). In 2005 Archer

Daniels Midland

produced about 25 per cent of ethanol in the USA and was the second largest biodiesel

producer in Europe (Worldwatch Institute 2006a, p. 72).

It is not just that an emerging GIBN intrudes on the specific local space of place,

where local biofuel production systems (in both developed and developing countries)

are undermined and local environmental conditions are endangered (especially with

respect to soil and water degradation through large-scale, high-input, monocropping

farming), food availability and affordability for place-based locals (rather than the

mobile cosmopolitans) are jeopardised and local marginal farmers become increasingly

dependent on powerful global players in the GIBN. The emerging and increasingly

dominant GIBN also supports and takes on board the increasing global mobility

of biofuels, technologies, standards and so on, and prefers to tackle the environmental

worries and problem definitions of the cosmopolitans (such as climate change) rather

than those of the locals (who are concerned with water and soil degradation). The

Worldwatch Institute (2006a p. 68), for instance, points to the fact that in Brazil


25/29

biofuels do improve the quality of life of the urban cosmopolitans (through lower air

emissions from traffic), at the costs of those in the rural areas. The Global Integrated

Biofuels Network also enhances the global sourcing for scarce (non-fossil fuel) energy

resources. But all this is no evolutionary, deterministic development. Then, how can

the biofuel governance structure develop in a GIBN to modify these tendencies?


26/29

Conclusion

It is clear that energy from biomass has a very important role to play in combating

global warming. It can also help countries gain independence from fossil fuels, not only

in the developed world but also in developing regions of Asia, Latin America, and sub-

Saharan Africa. The fact that some of the poorest countries of the planet are net importers

of oil or, in some cases, fully dependent on imports (Biopact 2007) makes energy diversification

even more compelling. Social and economic benefits can also be expected, mostly

in rural areas. The use of global mechanisms such as the CDM can help take advantage

of some of the abovementioned benefits in a less expensive manner. Moreover, the

need for sustainable and economically feasible bioenergy technologies in developing countries

can lead to significant export opportunities for technologies, know-how, and services,

particularly for small and medium capacity plants (EREC 2008).

From the current study, we have concluded that even though utilizing the CDM for

the three bioenergy options examined (biomass combustion, biomass gasification, and biofuels

for transport) has considerable benefits, it is to a large extent restricted by a number of

barriers. Barriers of economic nature exist in some cases, such as for biomass gasification,

but they are expected to be diminished as technology develops. In the mean time, favorable

policies should be introduced to boost the industry and make investments more affordable

and less risky. Dissemination of information regarding successful projects is also needed

to make bioenergy projects under the CDM more attractive to investors. Nevertheless, in

most cases, there are additional barriers of social, environmental, regulatory, and financing

nature.

The market is hampered by the lack of financial instruments that could make

investors more interested in these kinds of projects. Especially in poor rural areas, it is

very difficult for the population to take advantage of the CDM for household applications

and for applications related to agriculture since they have no cash, and even if financing

schemes exist, they are not familiar with the procedures. Also, high transaction costs and

regulatory barriers are obstacles for most small-scale applications that could otherwise be

certified for CDM. It is proposed that the idea of programmatic CDM activities (Flamos

et al. 2008) could be used in these circumstances to split transaction costs among several

projects that by themselves are too small to be handled under the CDM.


27/29

Technology transfer is difficult not only due to the unfamiliarity of investors with

bioenergy projects and CDM procedures but also because of different standards for

biomass production among countries and the lack of clear methodologies. One idea that

has been proposed by Kishore, Bhandari, and Gupta (2004) and could be a solution to the

latter problem is to use Energy Service Companys (ESCO) to manage bioenergy projects

in rural areas. These organizations could facilitate replicability among projects, provide

technological know-how, and take care of procedures with which interested parties are

unfamiliar. As for standards, further research is required in this field to make sure that

biomass is used in a sustainable way, without harming the local environment or causing

negative socio-economic implications. Policies to remove international trade barriers for

biomass resources are also needed, as is the case with liquid biofuels. Moreover, it is

important that research in areas that are not yet cost-effective or widely deployed, such as

gasification, second-generation biofuels, and flex-fuel vehicles, is continued and supported

in order for them to be ready for large market deployment in the near future.

Biofuels represent the first serious challenge to petroleum-based fuel for a century,

but it will take at least two more decades before biofuels will seriously challenge the

oil economy. However, the architecture of a global biofuel scape is already emerging.

While the US Renewable Fuels Association (2006) only recently captured the development

of biofuels in the title of their annual report: From niche to nation, it will not

be long before a revision will follow: From nation to global. With the proliferation

and globalisation of biofuels comes a proliferation and intensification of the debate on

its merits. Environmental sustainability and vulnerabilities stand out as two of the

most critical issues in the development of a GIBN. Such a network highlights both the

inclusion of places of biofuel production and consumption into global structures and

the increased mobility of biofuel flows and systems.

It is not too difficult to imagine that environmental sustainability will be integrated

in designing the socio-material infrastructure that will structure global

biofuel flows or how this may happen. Indeed, if we use the language of mobile

sociology, environmental sustainability can be seen as an attractor that will trigger

and structure the biofuel scape, increasingly merging with and transforming the

conventional fossil fuel scape. This is certainly true in that climate change is one of


28/29

the main drivers behind biofuels, but it is also likely that some of the other environmental

aspects will do so in the future. But it is much more difficult to see the

inclusion and mitigation of new social vulnerabilities in future GIBNs, especially

those related to smaller farmers and the poorer developing countries. The highly

technological, capital intensive nature of the global socio-material infrastructure in

the making (with standardised products, advanced logistics and management and

global actors) does not easily provide these vulnerable actors access, power and

representation in such a GIBN. As long as the emerging GIBN takes on too many of the

characteristics of the current fossil fuel GIN, we cannot expect a fuel switch to result in better

positions for such vulnerable actors. But at the same time, other vulnerabilities are being

mitigated, such as the dependence of fuel-consuming nations on the OPEC countries and the

vulnerable justifications of major oil companies and car producers in the increasingly

dominant debates on climate change. Thus, it is not that the scapes and networks

must remain equal to current structures when moving to a more biofuel-based global

integrated fuel network, but that the position, power and security of some of the most

vulnerable actors is not likely to change for the better. In coining the biofuel developments in

GIN spatialities I deliberately avoided discussion on a liquid post-national, completely

deterritorialised and footloose framing of biofuels as global fluids. Hence, I do not foresee that

biofuels will easily become truly boundless. Interpreting biofuels in terms of global fluids (as

disorganised, boundless, non-directional and non-governable timespace constellations)

requires a refocusing on carbon flows rather than biofuels. Then, indeed, the boundaries

of nations and walled routes, and those between fuels, feed, food and gasses like

methane and carbon dioxide will melt into thin air, the directionality of (carbon) flows

will become meaningless and there will no longer be an obligatory point of passage.

Flows will then become mobilities that mutate and vary in their configuration (Law

and Mol 2003). Carbon configurations switch between food, feed, fuel and air. While

this is also true with respect to fossil fuels in a glacial time frame, the time horizons

are notably shorter when biofuels become common. But it can be questioned what

such a global fluids analysis could contribute to understanding current vulnerabilities

and sustainabilities.


29/29

References:

Alexander, C. and C. Hurt (2007) Biofuels and Their Impact on Food Prices.

Bioenergy, Purdue Extension, ID-346-W.

Doering, O.C. 3rd (2004) Energy policy: is it the best energy alternative? Current Agriculture,

Food & Resource Issues 5 pp. 204211

Demirbas, A.H., and I. Demirbas. 2007. Importance of rural bioenergy for developing countries.

Energy Conversion & Management48: 23862398.

EU (2003) Promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport. Available

online at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/legislation/biofuels_en.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20

Ortmeyer, T.H. and P. Pillay, 2001. Trends in transportation sector technology energy use and

greenhouse gas emissions, Proc. I.E.E.E. 89 (12):18371846.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

Biofuel Assignment

Documents

Transcript of Biofuel Assignment