Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review

Ayhan Demirbas *
Sila Science, Trabzon, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Current energy policies address environmental issues including environmentally friendly technologies to
Received 3 January 2009 increase energy supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use, and address air pollution,
Received in revised form 21 April 2009 greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change. The biofuel policy aims to promote the use in
Accepted 22 April 2009
transport of fuels made from biomass, as well as other renewable fuels. Biofuels provide the prospect
Available online 22 May 2009
of new economic opportunities for people in rural areas in oil importer and developing countries. The
This article is sponsored by the Asian central policy of biofuel concerns job creation, greater efficiency in the general business environment,
Development Bank as part of the and protection of the environment. Projections are important tools for long-term planning and policy set-
Supplement ‘‘Biofuels in Asia’’. tings. Renewable energy sources that use indigenous resources have the potential to provide energy ser-
vices with zero or almost zero emissions of both air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Biofuels are
Keywords: expected to reduce dependence on imported petroleum with associated political and economic vulnera-
Biofuel bility, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, and revitalize the economy by increasing
Policy demand and prices for agricultural products.
Economy Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environment
Impacts

1. Introduction
It is well known that transport is almost totally dependent on
fossil particularly petroleum based fuels such as gasoline, diesel
fuel, liquefied petroleum gas, and compressed natural gas. As the
amount of available petroleum decreases, the need for alternate
technologies to produce liquid fuels that could potentially help
prolong the liquid fuels culture and mitigate the forthcoming ef-
fects of the shortage of transportation fuels increases. There are
several reasons for biofuels to be considered as relevant technolo-
gies by both developing and industrialized countries. They include
energy security reasons, environmental concerns, foreign exchange
savings, and socioeconomic issues related to the rural sectors of
all countries in the world. Biofuels have become more attractive
recently because of its environmental benefits [1–7].
The benefits of biofuels over traditional fuels include greater en-
ergy security, reduced environmental impact, foreign exchange
savings, and socioeconomic issues related to the rural sector.
Furthermore, biofuel technology is relevant to both developing
and industrialized countries. For these reasons, the share of biofuels
in the automotive fuel market is expected to grow rapidly over the
next decade. Biofuels could be peaceful energy carriers for all coun-
tries. They are renewable and available throughout the world. Pol-
icy-makers will need to pay more attention to the implications for
the transition to biofuel economy. The concept of sustainable devel-
* Tel.: +90 462 230 7831; fax: +90 462 248 8508.
E-mail address: ayhandemirbas@hotmail.com.
opment embodies the idea of the inter-linkage and the balance be-
tween economic, social and environmental concerns [8–11].
Biofuel is a renewable energy source produced from natural
(biobased) materials, which can be used as a substitute for petro-
leum fuels. The most common biofuels, such as ethanol from corn,
wheat or sugar beet and biodiesel from oil seeds, are produced
from classic food crops that require high-quality agricultural land
for growth. However, ethanol is a petrol additive/substitute that
can be produced from plentiful, domestic, cellulosic biomass re-
sources such as herbaceous and woody plants, agricultural and for-
estry residues, and a large portion of municipal and industrial solid
waste streams. Production of ethanol from biomass is one way to
reduce both the consumption of crude oil and environmental pol-
lution. There is also a growing interest in the use of vegetable oils
for making biodiesel, which is less polluting than conventional
petroleum diesel fuel [12,13,5,14–21].
The term biofuel is referred to as solid (bio-char), liquid (etha-
nol, vegetable oil and biodiesel) or gaseous (biogas, biosyngas
and biohydrogen) fuels that are predominantly produced from
biomass [22–26]. Liquid biofuels may offer a promising alternative.
Liquid biofuels are substitute fuel sources to petroleum; however
some still include a small amount of petroleum in the mixture.
The biggest difference between biofuels and petroleum feedstocks
is oxygen content [27–30].
Biofuels production costs can vary widely by feedstock, conver-
sion process, scale of production and region. For biofuels, the cost
of feedstock (crops) is a major component of overall costs. Total
biofuel costs should also include a component representing the

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.036
 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117 S109

impact of biofuels production on related markets, such as food. In
particular, the cost of producing oil-seed-derived biodiesel is dom-
inated by the cost of the oil and by competition from high-value
uses like cooking [13,15,31].
In 2004, 3.4 billion gallons of fuel ethanol were produced from
over 10% of the corn crop. Ethanol demand is expected to more
than double in the next 10 years. For the supply to be available
to meet this demand, new technologies must be moved from the
laboratories to commercial reality [32]. The world ethanol produc-
tion is about 60% from feedstock from sugar crops.
Biodiesel is a synthetic diesel-like fuel produced from vegetable
oils, animal fats or waste cooking oil. It can be used directly as fuel,
which requires some engine modifications, or blended with petro-
leum diesel and used in diesel engines with few or no modifications
[33–35,16,36,37]. At present, biodiesel accounts for less than 0.2% of
the diesel consumed for transport [38]. Biodiesel has become more
attractive recently because of its environmental benefits [39–41].
The cost of biodiesel, however, is the main obstacle to commercial-
ization of the product. With cooking oils used as raw material,
the viability of a continuous transesterification process and recov-
ery of high quality glycerol as a biodiesel by-product are primary
options to be considered to lower the cost of biodiesel [42–45,34].
Advantages of biofuels are the following: (a) biofuels are easily
available from common biomass sources, (b) they represent a car-
bon dioxide-cycle in combustion, (c) biofuels have a considerable
environmentally friendly potential, (d) there are many benefits to
the environment, economy and consumers in using biofuels and
(e) they are biodegradable and contribute to sustainability
[46,47]. The benefits include greenhouse gas reductions including
reduced carbon dioxide emissions, which will contribute to domes-
tic and international targets, the diversification of the fuel sector,
biodegradability, sustainability, and an additional market for agri-
cultural products. Biofuels help to protect and create jobs. Table 1
shows the major benefits of biofuels.
Table 1
Major benefits of biofuels.
Economic impacts Sustainability
Fuel diversity
Increased number of rural manufacturing jobs
Increased income taxes
Increased investments in plant and equipment
Agricultural development
International competitiveness
Reducing the dependency on imported petroleum
Environmental impacts Greenhouse gas reductions
Reducing of air pollution
Biodegradability
Higher combustion efficiency
Improved land and water use
Carbon sequestration
Energy security Domestic targets
Supply reliability
Reducing use of fossil fuels
Ready availability
Domestic distribution
Renewability
The scope of this review is political, economic and environmen-
tal impacts of two liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel).
2. Methodology
A number of studies with comparisons of gasoline, ethanol and
gasoline/ethanol blends; diesel, ethanol and diesel/ethanol blends;
and diesel, natural gas and diesel/biodiesel blends bus emissions
have been published previously [48–56]. The basis for these com-
parisons, the choice of vehicles and even the outcome vary signif-
icantly. The studies have been conducted to develop a
methodology for the generation of driving and duty cycles for re-
fuse vehicles matching the statistical metrics and distributions of
the generated cycles to the collected database [57,58]. These cycles
can be utilized in the development and computer simulation of fu-
ture refuse vehicle designs, specifically liquid biofuel fuelled vehi-
cles. Other comparisons include a chassis-based testing program to
document emission reduction (NOx, SOx, HC, CO and PM) perfor-
mance from a fleet of vehicles accumulating mileage or applying
standard driving cycles [59,60]. Methodology is also based on land
use changes over time. A certain amount of land is needed to meet
the required production for biofuel raw materials. The surplus
available land can possibly be used for biofuel production. Several
theoretical concepts have been applied in the development of the
method. A general overview of methodology and data requirement
for biofuels is shown in Table 2.
3. Land availability
The land availability for producing biofuels in a well-estab-
lished infrastructure makes an impact in the energy economy.
The well-established infrastructure contains a sustainable truck
traffic system, where a well-established railroad system is avail-
able, trucks would only take the biomass to collection centers
and then it would be railed to the biorefinery. Assuming that high
yield sugar crop is planted all around the biorefinery, the longest
pratical trip a truck would need to make would be a 45 km round
trip [14].
4. Production of ethanol and biodiesel in the world
There are two global liquid transportation biofuels that might
replace gasoline and diesel fuel; these are ethanol and biodiesel,
respectively. Transport is one of the main energy consuming sec-
tors. It is assumed that biodiesel is used as a petroleum diesel
replacement and that ethanol is used as a gasoline replacement.
The EU production of biofuels amounted to around 2.9 billion li-
ters in 2004, with ethanol totalling 620 million liters and biodiesel
the remaining 2.3 billion liters. The feedstocks used for ethanol
production are cereals and sugar beet, while biodiesel is manufac-
tured mainly from rapeseeds. In 2004, EU biodiesel production
used 27% of EU rapeseed crop. In the same year, ethanol production
used 0.4% of EU cereals production and 0.8% of EU sugar beet pro-
duction. The EU is by far the world’s biggest producer of biodiesel
with Germany producing over half of the EU’s biodiesel. France and

Table 2
General overview of methodology and data requirement for biofuels.

Inputs Outputs
Design Cost factors Data analysis Political impact Economic impact Environmental impact
Literature review Capital cost
Feedstock price Cost data Benefits Combustion efficiency Emission reducing
Chemicals
Raw materials Investment support process Scenarios
Comparisons Land use subsidy and credit Future view
S110 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117

Italy are also important biodiesel producers, while Spain is the EU’s Table 3
leading ethanol producer [38]. Total biofuel support estimates for US and EU in 2006 (billions of US$).

Fig. 1 shows the world productions of ethanol and biodiesel be- Biodiesel Ethanol Total biofuels
tween 1980 and 2007. Between 1991 and 2001, world ethanol pro- The United States (US) 0.60 5.96 6.70
duction rose from around 16 billion liters a year to 18.5 billion Europe Union (EU) 3.11 1.61 4.82
liters. From 2001 to 2007, production is expected to have tripled, Total of world 3.65 7.85 11.79
to almost 60 billion liters a year. Brazil was the world’s leading eth-
anol producer until 2005 when US production roughly equaled
Brazil’s. The United States became the world’s leading ethanol pro- Table 4
ducer in 2006. (the) People’s Republic of China holds a distant but Fuel economy impacts of biodiesel use.
important third place in world rankings, followed by India, France,
Percent of biodiesel in diesel fuel % Reduction in miles/gallon
Germany and Spain. Fig. 2 shows the top five ethanol producers in
20 0.9–2.1
2006.
100 4.6–10.6
Between 1991 and 2001, world biodiesel production grew stea-
dily to approximately 1 billion liters. Most of this production was
in OECD Europe and was based on virgin vegetable oils. Small
plants using waste cooking oils started to be built in other OECD rate. As a result, between 2001 and 2007, biodiesel production will
countries by the end of the 1990s, but the industry outside Europe have grown almost tenfold, to 9 billion liters.
remained insignificant until around 2004. Since then, governments
around the world have instituted various policies to encourage 5. Political impacts of biofuels
development of the industry, and new capacity in North America,
south-east Asia and Brazil has begun to come on stream at a brisk Policy drivers for renewable liquid biofuels have attracted par-
ticularly high levels of assistance in some countries given their
promise of benefits in several areas of interest to governments,
60 including agricultural production, greenhouse gas emissions, en-
ergy security, trade balances, rural development and economic
opportunities for developing countries. Total biofuel support esti-
50 mates for US and EU in 2006 is given in Table 3 [61].
Total world production, billion liters

Ethanol can be used directly in cars designed to run on pure eth-

anol or blended with gasoline to make ‘‘gasohol”. Anhydrous etha-
40 Ethanol nol is required for blending with gasoline. No engine modification
Biodiesel is typically needed to use the blend. Ethanol can be used as an oc-
tane-boosting, pollution-reducing additive in unleaded gasoline.
30 World production of ethanol from sugar cane, maize and sugar
beet increased from less than 20 billion liters in 2000 to over 40
billion liters in 2005. This represents around 3% of global gasoline
20
use. Production is forecasted to almost double again by 2010 [38].
Biodiesel is a synthetic diesel-like fuel produced from vegetable
oils, animal fats or waste cooking oil. It can be used directly as fuel,
10
which requires some engine modifications, or blended with petro-
leum diesel and used in diesel engines with few or no modifica-
0 tions. At present, biodiesel accounts for less than 0.2% of the
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 diesel consumed for transport [38]. Biodiesel has become more
Years attractive recently because of its environmental benefits. The cost
of biodiesel, however, is the main obstacle to commercialization
Fig. 1. World production of ethanol and biodiesel, 1980–2007. of the product. With cooking oils used as raw material, the viability
of a continuous transesterification process and recovery of high
quality glycerol as a biodiesel by-product are primary options to
be considered to lower the cost of biodiesel [42,43]. The possible
5
impact of biodiesel on fuel economy is positive as given in Table
4.5 4 [62].
4 Many farmers who raise oilseeds use a biodiesel blend in trac-
tors and equipment as a matter of policy, to foster production of
3.5 biodiesel and raise public awareness. It is sometimes easier to find
Billion gallon

3 biodiesel in rural areas than in cities. Additional factors must be ta-

ken into account, such as the fuel equivalent of the energy required
2.5
for processing, the yield of fuel from raw oil, the return on cultivat-
2 ing food, and the relative cost of biodiesel versus petrodiesel.
1.5 Biodiesel policy should reflect that theme by aggressively elim-
inating the government imposed barriers to its success. Biodiesel
1 policy should be based firmly in the philosophy of freedom. Given
0.5 the history of petroleum politics, it is imperative that today’s policy
decisions ensure a free market for biodiesel. Producers of all sizes
0
must be free to compete in this industry, without farm subsidies,
USA Brazil (the) PRC India France
regulations and other interventions skewing the playing field.
Fig. 2. The top five ethanol producers (billion gallons) in 2006. The production and utilization of biodiesel are facilitated firstly
 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117 S111

through the agricultural policy of subsidizing the cultivation of Table 6

non-food crops. Secondly, biodiesel is exempt from the oil tax. Average international prices for common biocrude, fat, crops and oilseed as feedstock
for biofuel production in 2007 (US$/ton).

6. Costs, prices and economic impacts of biofuels
In previous economic studies of biodiesel production, the main
economic factors such as capital cost, plant capacity, process tech-
nology, raw material cost and chemical costs were determined
[43]. The major economic factor to consider for input costs of bio-
diesel production is the feedstock, which is about 75–80% of the to-
tal operating cost. Other important costs are labor, methanol and
catalyst, which must be added to the feedstock [63]. Using an esti-
mated process cost, exclusive of feedstock cost, of US$0.158/l for
biodiesel production, and estimating a feedstock cost of
US$0.539/l for refined soy oil, an overall cost of US$0.70/l for the
production of soy-based biodiesel was estimated [64]. Palm oil is
the main option that is traded internationally, and with potential
for import in the short term [65]. Costs for production from palm
oil are estimated; the results are shown in Table 5 [65].
The oil in the vegetable seeds is converted into biodiesel
through oil extraction, oil refining, and transesterification. The cost
of biodiesel can be lowered by increasing feedstock yields, devel-
oping novel technologies, and increasing economic return on glyc-
erol production by finding other uses for this by-product, which, at
the moment, due to oversupply is sold for little or no value. Alter-
natively, the use of cosolvents, such as tetrahydrofuran, can make
the alcohol–oil–ester–glycerol system into a single phase, thereby
reducing the processing costs [10]. However, these improvements
still would not make biodiesel economically competitive at the
current stage.
Biofuels production costs can vary widely by feedstock, conver-
sion process, scale of production and region. On an energy basis,
ethanol is currently more expensive to produce than gasoline in
all regions considered. Only ethanol produced in Brazil comes close
to competing with gasoline. Ethanol produced from corn in the US
is considerably more expensive than from sugar cane in Brazil, and
ethanol from grain and sugar beet in Europe is even more expen-
sive. These differences reflect many factors, such as scale, process
efficiency, feedstock costs, capital and labor costs, co-product
accounting, and the nature of the estimates.
The cost of large-scale production of bio-based products is cur-
rently high in developed countries. For example, the production
cost of biofuels may be three times higher than that of petroleum
fuels, without, however, considering the non-market benefits. Con-
versely, in developing countries, the costs of producing biofuels are
much lower than in the OECD countries and very near to the world
market price of petroleum fuel [38]. Average international prices
for common biocrude, fat, crops and oils used as feedstock for bio-
fuel production in 2007 are given in Table 6 [10]. The cost of feed-
stock is a major economic factor in the viability of biodiesel
production. Nevertheless, the price of waste cooking oil is 2.5–
3.5 times cheaper than virgin vegetable oils, thus can significantly
Biocrude 167
Maize 179
Sugar 223
Wheat 215
Crude palm oil 543
Rapeseed oil 824
Soybean oil 771
Refined cottonseed oil 782
Crude corn oil 802
Crude peanut oil 891
Crude tea seed oil 514
Waste cooking oil 224
Yellow grease 412
Poultry fat 256
reduce the total manufacturing cost of biodiesel (Table 6). Biodiesel
obtained from waste cooking vegetable oils has been considered a
promising option. Waste cooking oil is available with relatively
cheap price for biodiesel production in comparison with fresh veg-
etable oil costs.
Economic advantages of a biofuel industry would include value
added to the feedstock, an increased number of rural manufactur-
ing jobs, an increased income taxes, investments in plant and
equipment, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced a country’s
reliance on crude oil imports and supported agriculture by provid-
ing a new labor and market opportunities for domestic crops. In
the recent years, the importance of non-food crops increased sig-
nificantly. The opportunity to grow non-food crops under the com-
pulsory set-aside scheme is an option to increase the biofuel
production.
Renewable liquid fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, green diesel,
and green gasoline are important because they replace petroleum
fuels. The renewable liquid fuels are generally considered as offer-
ing many priorities, including sustainability, reduction of green-
house gas emissions, regional development, social structure and
agriculture, and security of supply [5].
The socioeconomic impacts on the local economy arising from
providing power through renewable resources instead of conven-
tional generation technologies are very important. These impacts
include direct and indirect differences in the jobs, income, and
gross output. There are significant socioeconomic impacts associ-
ated with the investment in a new power plant, including increases
in employment, output, and income in the local and regional econ-
omy. Increases in these categories occur as labor is directly em-
ployed in the construction and operation of a power plant, as
local goods and services are purchased and utilized.
The potential for reduced costs of renewable liquid fuels and
conservation of scarce fuel resources results in significant reduc-
tions in fuel usage. In addition to these economic benefits, develop-
ment of renewable resources will have environmental, health,
safety and other benefits.

Table 5
Costs of biodiesel production.

Plant size (million liters) Capital costs Feedstock Methanol Other Glycerol credit Distribution and blending Total
Tallow fat ($/l)
6 0.33 0.40 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.85
23 0.15 0.40 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.66
46 0.11 0.40 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.61
69 0.08 0.40 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.64
137 0.06 0.40 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.60
Palm oil ($/l)
60 0.09 0.73 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.88
71 0.08 0.73 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.86
143 0.06 0.73 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.82
S112 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117

Agriculture ethanol is at present more expensive than synthe- the energy needed to run the conversion facility is an important
sis-ethanol from ethylene. The simultaneous production of bio- (and in some cases quite variable) component. Capital cost recovery
methanol (from sugar juice) in parallel to the production of represents about one-sixth of total cost per liter. It has been showed
ethanol, appears economically attractive in locations where hy- that plant size has a major effect on cost [69]. The plant size can
dro-electricity is available at very low cost (0.01 $ Kwh) [66]. reduce operating costs by 15–20%, saving another $0.02–$0.03 per
Currently there is no global market for ethanol. The crop types, liter. Thus, a large plant with production costs of $0.29 per liter
agricultural practices, land and labor costs, plant sizes, processing may be saving $0.05–$0.06 per liter over a smaller plant [70].
technologies and government policies in different regions consid- Biodiesel from animal fat is currently the cheapest option ($0.4–
erably vary ethanol production costs and prices by region. The cost $0.5/l) while traditional transesterification of vegetable oil is at
of producing ethanol in a dry mill plant currently totals US$1.65/ present around $0.6–$0.8/l [71]. Rough projections of the cost of
gallon. Corn accounts for 66% of operating costs while energy (elec- biodiesel from vegetable oil and waste grease are, respectively,
tricity and natural gas) to fuel boilers and dry DDG represents $0.54–$0.62/l and $0.34–$0.42/l. With pre-tax diesel priced at
nearly 20% of operating costs [67]. $0.18/l in the United States and $0.20–$0.24/l in some European
Ethanol from sugar cane, produced mainly in developing coun- countries, biodiesel is thus currently not economically feasible,
tries with warm climates, is generally much cheaper to produce and more research and technological development will be needed
than ethanol from grain or sugar beet in International Energy [72].
Agency (IEA) countries. For this reason, in countries like Brazil
and India, where sugar cane is produced in substantial volumes,
7. Environmental impacts of biofuels
sugar cane-based ethanol is becoming an increasingly cost-effec-
tive alternative to petroleum fuels. Ethanol derived from cellulosic
A number of studies with comparisons of diesel, natural gas and
feedstock using enzymatic hydrolysis requires much greater pro-
diesel/biodiesel blends bus emissions have been published previ-
cessing than from starch or sugar-based feedstock, but feedstock
ously [48–50,73–77]. Biodiesel, has a good energy return because
costs for grasses and trees are generally lower than for grain and
of the simplicity of its manufacturing process, and has significant
sugar crops. If targeted reductions in conversion costs can be
benefits in emissions as well. It could also play an important role
achieved, the total cost of producing cellulosic ethanol in OECD
in the energy economy if higher crop productivities are attained
countries could fall below that of grain ethanol.
[10].
Estimates show that ethanol in the EU becomes competitive
Table 8 shows the emissions of biodiesel (B20 and B100) for
when the oil price reaches US$70 a barrel while in the United
same model compression–ignition (diesel) vehicles [78]. Emissions
States it becomes competitive at US$50–60 a barrel. For Brazil
of NOx increase with increasing biodiesel amount in the blends.
the threshold is much lower – between US$25 and US$30 a barrel.
The properties of biodiesel and diesel fuels, in general, show many
Other efficient sugar producing countries such as Pakistan, Swazi-
similarities, and therefore, biodiesel is rated as a realistic fuel alter-
land and Zimbabwe have production costs similar to Brazil’s [68].
native to diesel. There are several ways to control NOx in a biodie-
Anhydrous ethanol, blendable with gasoline, is still somewhat
sel engine run the engine very lean, which lowers the temperature,
more expensive. Prices in India have declined and are approaching
or very rich, which reduces the oxygen supplies, decrease the burn
the price of gasoline.
time or lower the engine. Emissions of NOx increase with the com-
The generally larger United States conversion plants produce
bustion temperature, the length of the high temperature combus-
biofuels, particularly ethanol, at lower cost than plants in Europe.
tion period, and the availability of biodiesel, up to a point.
Production costs for ethanol are much lower in countries with a
Alcohols have been used as a fuel for engines since the 19th
warm climate, with Brazil probably the lowest-cost producer in
century. Among the various alcohols, ethanol is known as the most
the world. Production costs in Brazil, using sugar cane as the feed-
suited renewable, bio-based and eco-friendly fuel for spark-igni-
stock, have recently been recorded at less than half the costs in
tion (SI) engines. The most attractive property of ethanol as an SI
Europe. Production of sugar cane ethanol in developing countries
engine fuel is that it can be produced from renewable energy
could provide a low-cost source for substantial displacement of
sources such as sugar, cane, cassava, many types of waste biomass
oil worldwide over the next 20 years. Table 7 shows the top 10 eth-
materials, corn and barley. In addition, ethanol has higher evapora-
anol producers [66].
tion heat, octane number and flammability temperature therefore
For biofuels, the cost of crop feedstock is a major component of
it has positive influence on engine performance and reduces ex-
overall costs. In particular, the cost of producing oil-seed-derived
haust emissions. The results of the engine test showed that ethanol
biodiesel is dominated by the cost of the oil and by competition
addition to unleaded gasoline increase the engine torque, power
from high-value uses like cooking. The largest ethanol cost compo-
and fuel consumption and reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and
nent is the plant feedstock. Operating costs, such as feedstock cost,
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions [55].
co-product credit, chemicals, labor, maintenance, insurance and
The biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions varied depending on
taxes, represent about one third of total cost per liter, of which
the type of biodiesel and on the type of conventional diesel. Blends
of up to 20% biodiesel mixed with petroleum diesel fuels can be
Table 7 used in nearly all diesel equipment and are compatible with most
The top 10 ethanol producers (billion gallons).

Country 2004 2005 2006 Table 8

Emissions of biodiesel for same model diesel vehicles.
USA 3.54 4.26 4.85
Brazil 3.99 4.23 4.49 Vehicle or engine Fuel Emissions, g/km
(the) PRC 0.96 1.00 1.02
NOx CO CH PM SOx
India 0.46 0.45 0.50
France 0.22 0.24 0.25 Peugeot Partner B100 2.05 9.37 0.54 2.68 0
Germany 0.07 0.11 0.20 Peugeot Partner B20 1.86 17.73 1.32 4.71 0.004
Russia 0.20 0.20 0.17 Renault Kangoo B100 2.23 9.22 0.49 3.06 0
Canada 0.06 0.06 0.15 Renault Kangoo B20 1.92 17.36 1.26 5.63 0.003
South Africa 0.11 0.10 0.10 Dacia Pickup B100 2.15 9.42 0.56 2.59 0
Thailand 0.07 0.08 0.09 Dacia Pickup B20 1.91 18.29 1.35 4.63 0.005
 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117
storage and distribution equipment. Using biodiesel in a conven-
tional diesel engine substantially reduces emissions of unburned
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfates, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and par-
ticulate matter. These reductions increase as the amount of biodie-
sel blended into diesel fuel increases. In general, biodiesel increases
NOx emissions when used as fuel in diesel engine. The fact that NOx
emissions increase with increasing biodiesel concentration could
be a detriment in areas that are out of attainment for ozone. The
pollutant emissions of ethanol–gasoline blends of 0%, 5%, 10%,
15% and 20% were experimentally analyzed in a four-stroke (SI) en-
gine. The concentration of CO and HC emissions in the exhaust pipe
were measured and found to be decreased when ethanol blends
were introduced. This was due to the high oxygen percentage in
the ethanol. In contrast, the concentration of CO2 and NOx was
found to be increased when ethanol is introduced [56].
Oxygenated diesel fuel blends have a potential to reduce the
emission of particulate matter (PM) and to be an alternative to die-
sel fuel. Results obtained showed that the addition of ethanol to
the diesel fuel may be necessary to decrease diesel PM generation
during combustion [54,60]. The total number and total mass of the
PM of the ethanol–diesel blend fuels were decreased by about
11.7–26.9% [52].
An experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate the
effects of using blends of ethanol with conventional diesel fuel,
with 5% and 10% (by vol.) ethanol, on the performance and exhaust
emissions of a fully instrumented, six-cylinder, turbocharged and
after-cooled, heavy duty, direct injection (DI), Mercedes–Benz en-
gine. Fuel consumption, exhaust smokiness and exhaust regulated
gas emissions such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and total
unburned hydrocarbons are measured. The differences in the mea-
sured performance and exhaust emissions of the two ethanol–die-
sel fuel blends from the baseline operation of the engine, i.e. when
working with neat diesel fuel, were determined and compared
[57]. Diesel emissions were measured from an automotive engine
using anhydrous ethanol blended with conventional diesel, with
10% ethanol in volume and no additives. The resulting emissions
were compared with those from pure diesel [58].
The results of the statistical analysis suggest that the use of E10
results in statistically significant decreases in CO emissions
(16%); statistically significant increases in emissions of acetalde-
hyde (108%), 1,3-butadiene (16%), and benzene (15%); and no sta-
tistically significant changes in NOx, CO2, CH4, N2O or
formaldehyde emissions. The statistical analysis suggests that the
use of E85 results in statistically significant decreases in emissions
of NOx (45%), 1,3-butadiene (77%), and benzene (76%); statis-
tically significant increases in emissions of formaldehyde (73%)
and acetaldehyde (2540%), and no statistically significant change
in CO and CO2 emissions [59].
Biofuels are important because they replace petroleum fuels.
There are many benefits for the environment, economy and con-
sumers in using biofuels. The advantages of biofuels such as biodie-
sel, vegetable oil, ethanol, biomethanol, biomass pyrolysis oil as
engine fuel are liquid nature-portability, ready availability, renew-
ability, higher combustion efficiency, lower sulfur and aromatic
content and biodegradability [79]. The biggest difference between
biofuels and petroleum feedstocks is oxygen content. Biofuels have
oxygen levels from 10% to 45% while petroleum has essentially
none making the chemical properties of biofuels very different
from petroleum. Oxygenates are just pre used hydrocarbons hav-
ing structure that provides a reasonable antiknock value. Also, as
they contain oxygen, fuel combustion is more efficient, reducing
hydrocarbons in exhaust gases. The only disadvantage is that oxy-
genated fuel has less energy content.
The combustion is the chemical reaction of a particular sub-
stance with oxygen. Combustion represents a chemical reaction,
S113
during which from certain matters other simple matters are pro-
duced, this is a combination of inflammable matter with oxygen
of the air accompanied by heat release. The quantity of heat
evolved when one mole of a hydrocarbon is burned to carbon diox-
ide and water is called the heat of combustion. Combustion to car-
bon dioxide and water is characteristic of organic compounds;
under special conditions it is used to determine their carbon and
hydrogen content [80]. During combustion the combustible part
of fuel is subdivided into volatile part and solid residue. During
heating it evaporates together with a part of carbon in the form
of hydrocarbons combustible gases and carbon monoxide release
by thermal degradation of the fuel. Carbon monoxide is mainly
formed through the following reactions (a) from reduction of CO2
with unreacted C,
CO2 þ C ! 2CO ð1Þ
and (b) from degradation of carbonyl fragments (–CO) in the fuel
molecules at 600–750 K temperature.
The combustion process is started by heating the fuel above its
ignition temperature in the presence of oxygen or air. Under the
influence of heat, the chemical bonds of the fuel are cleaved. If
complete combustion occurs, the combustible elements (C, H and
S) react with the oxygen content of the air to form CO2, H2O and
mainly SO2.
If not enough oxygen is present or the fuel and air mixture is
insufficient then the burning gases are partially cooled below the
ignition temperature and the combustion process stays incom-
plete. The flue gases then still contain combustible components,
mainly carbon monoxide (CO), unburned carbon (C) and various
hydrocarbons (CxHy).
The standard measure of the energy content of a fuel is its heat-
ing value (HV), sometimes called the calorific value or heat of com-
bustion. In fact, there are multiple values for the HV, depending on
whether it measures the enthalpy of combustion (DH) or the inter-
nal energy of combustion (DU), and whether for a fuel containing
hydrogen product water is accounted for in the vapor phase or
the condensed (liquid) phase. With water in the vapor phase, the
lower heating value (LHV) at constant pressure measures the en-
thalpy change due to combustion [81]. The heating value is ob-
tained by the complete combustion of a unit quantity of solid
fuel in an oxygen-bomb colorimeter under carefully defined condi-
tions. The gross heat of combustion or higher heating value (GHC
or HHV) is obtained by oxygen-bomb colorimeter method as the
latent heat of moisture in the combustion products is recovered.
7.1. Combustion efficiencies of biofuels
Biofuels are oxygenated compounds. The oxygenated com-
pounds such as ethanol, methanol and biodiesel provide more effi-
cient combustion, and cleaner emissions. At a stoichiometric air/
fuel ratio of 9:1 in comparison with gasoline’s 14.7:1, it is obvious
that more ethanol is required to produce the chemically correct
products of CO2 and water.
Ethanol has a higher octane number (108), broader flammabil-
ity limits, higher flame speeds and higher heats of vaporization
than gasoline. These properties allow for a higher compression ra-
tio, shorter burn time and leaner burn engine, which lead to theo-
retical efficiency advantages over gasoline in an internal
combustion engine. The octane number of ethanol allows it to sus-
tain significantly higher internal pressures than gasoline, before
being subjected to pre-detonation.
Disadvantages of ethanol include its lower energy density than
gasoline, its corrosiveness, low flame luminosity, lower vapor pres-
sure, miscibility with water, and toxicity to ecosystems.
Methanol also is possible to take advantage of the higher octane
number of methyl (114) alcohol and increase the engine compres-
S114 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117

sion ratio. This would increase the efficiency of converting the po- Table 10
tential combustion energy to power. Finally, alcohols burn more Emission impacts of 20% by vol. soybean-based biodiesel added to an average base
petrodiesel.
completely, thus increasing combustion efficiency. Some technical
properties of fuels are presented in Table 9. Percent change in emissions
Biofuels such as ethanol, biomethanol, biohydrogen and biodie- NOx (nitrogen oxides) +2.0
sel generally results to lower emissions than those of fossil based PM (particular matter) 10.1
engine fuels. Many studies on the performances and emissions of HC (hydrocarbons) 21.1
CO (carbon monoxide) 11.0
compression–ignition engines, fuelled with pure biodiesel and
blends with diesel oil, have been performed and are reported in Source: Ref. [86].
the literature [82,83].
Vegetable oils have become more attractive recently because of Table 11
their environmental benefits and the fact that it is made from Average biodiesel emissions (%) compared to conventional diesel, according to Ref.
renewable resources. Dorado et al. [83] describe experiments on [62].
the exhaust emissions of biodiesel from olive oil methyl ester as Emission type Pure 20% Biodiesel + 80%
alternative diesel fuel fuelled in a Diesel direct injection Perkins biodiesel petrodiesel
engine [84]. B100 B20
The methyl ester of vegetable oil was evaluated as a fuel in
Total unburned hydrocarbons (HC) 67 20
compression-ignition engines (CIE) by researchers [85]. They con- Carbon monoxide 48 12
cluded that the performance of the esters of vegetable oil did not Particulate matter 47 12
differ greatly from that of diesel fuel. The brake power was nearly NOx +10 +2
the same as with diesel fuel, while the specific fuel consumption Sulfates 100 20
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsa 80 13
was higher than that of diesel fuel. Based on crankcase oil analysis, Ozone potential of speciated HC 50 10
engine wear rates were low but some oil dilution did occur. Carbon
a
deposits inside the engine were normal, with the exception of Average reduction across all compounds measured.

intake valve deposits.

The results showed the transesterification treatment decreased
the injector coking to a level significantly lower than that observed
with diesel fuel [86]. Although most researchers agree that vegeta-
ble oil ester fuels are suitable for use in CIE, a few contrary results
have also been obtained. The results of these studies point out that
most vegetable oil esters are suitable as diesel substitutes but that
more long term studies are necessary for commercial utilization to
become practical.
The use of biodiesel to reduce N2O is attractive for several rea-
sons. First, biodiesel contains little nitrogen, as compared with die-
sel fuel which is also used as a re-burning fuel. The N2O reduction
was strongly dependent on initial N2O concentration and only
slightly dependent upon temperature, where increased tempera-
ture increased N2O reduction. This results in lower N2O production
from fuel nitrogen species for biodiesel. In addition, biodiesel con-
tains virtually trace amount of sulfur, so SO2 emissions are reduced
in direct proportion to the diesel fuel replacement. Biodiesel is a
regenerable fuel; when a diesel fuel is replaced by a biodiesel,
there is a net reduction in CO2 emissions. As an energy source used
in a diesel engine it reduces the consumption of diesel fuels and
thereby reduces the greenhouse effect. Additional effects are a
reduction of the ash volume and the SOx and NOx emissions of a
biodiesel fuelled CIEs. Neat Biodiesel (BD) and BD blends reduce
particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions and increase nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions
compared with diesel fuel used in an unmodified diesel engine
[67]. The emission impacts of 20% by vol. soybean-based biodiesel
added to an average base petrodiesel is given in Table 10.
The total net emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) is considerably
less than that of diesel oil and the amount of energy required for
the production of biodiesel is less than that obtained with the final
product. In addition, the emission of pollutants is somewhat less.
CO2, one of the primary greenhouse gasses, is a trans-boundary
gas, which means that, after it is emitted by a source, it is quickly
dispersed in our atmosphere by natural processes. Biodiesel
reduces CO2 emissions. Table 11 shows the average biodiesel emis-
sions compared to conventional diesel, according to US Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) [87]. Table 12 shows the average
changes in mass emissions from diesel engines using the biodiesel
mixtures relative to the standard diesel fuel.
Results indicate that the transformities of biofuels are greater
than those of fossil fuels, thus showing that a larger amount of re-
sources is required to get the environmental friendly product. This
can be explained by the fact that natural processes are more effi-
cient than industrial ones. On the other hand, the time involved
in the formation of the fossil fuels is considerably different from
that required for the production of the biomass [88].
Different scenarios for the use of agricultural residues as fuel for
heat or power generation are analyzed. Reductions in net CO2
emissions are estimated at 77–104 g/MJ of diesel displaced by bio-
diesel. The predicted reductions in CO2 emissions are much greater
than values reported in recent studies on biodiesel derived from
other vegetable oils, due both to the large amount of potential fuel
in the residual biomass and to the low-energy inputs in traditional
coconut farming techniques. Unburned hydrocarbon emissions
from biodiesel fuel combustion decrease compared to regular
petroleum diesel.
Biodiesel, produced from different vegetable oils, seems very
interesting for several reasons: it can replace diesel oil in boilers
and internal combustion engines without major adjustments; only
a small decrease in performances is reported; almost zero emis-
sions of sulfates; a small net contribution of CO2 when the whole
life-cycle is considered; emission of pollutants comparable with
that of diesel oil. For these reasons, several campaigns have been

Table 9
Some technical properties of fuels.

Fuel property Gasoline Diesel no. 2 Isooctane Methanol Ethanol

Cetane number – 50 – 5 8
Octane number 96 – 100 114 108
Auto-ignition temperature (K) 644 588 530 737 606
Lower heating value (MJ/Kg) 44 43 45 20 27
 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117
Table 12
Average changes in mass emissions from diesel engines using the biodiesel mixtures relative to the standard diesel fuel (%).
Mixture CO NOx
B20 13.1 +2.4
B100 42.7 +13.2
planned in many countries to introduce and promote the use of
biodiesel [88].
The brake power of biodiesel was nearly the same as with diesel
fuel, while the specific fuel consumption was higher than that of
diesel fuel. Based on crankcase oil analysis, engine wear rates were
low but some oil dilution did occur. Carbon deposits inside the en-
gine were normal, with the exception of intake valve deposits.
Although most researchers agree that vegetable oil ester fuels are
suitable for use in CIE, a few contrary results have also been ob-
tained. The results of these studies point out that most vegetable
oil esters are suitable as diesel substitutes but that more long term
studies are necessary for commercial utilization to become practi-
cal [89].
Several results related to influence of micro nutrition on yield of
oil have been reported on soil changes impacts [90–94]. Suitable
climatic and soil conditions have increased plant oil yields [93].
Biomethane generated from grass requires four times less land
than biodiesel from rapeseed to produce the same gross energy
[90]. Grass is a low-energy input crop and it is a carbon negative
crop [90,91].
8. Biofuel regulation issues in EU, including the environmental
sustainability criteria
Biofuel consumption in the EU is growing rapidly but major ef-
forts will need to be undertaken if the EU’s objectives for 2010 and
beyond are to be achieved. Current and future policy support
therefore focuses on creating favorable economic or legal frame-
works to accelerate the market penetration of biofuels. The Mem-
ber States of EU will promote specific types of biofuels, depending
on their main objectives and natural potentials. This will require
complementary instruments such as subsidies for production facil-
ities, user incentives or feedstock subsidies [95]. The main EU
directives which have impact on sustainable energy development
are directives promoting energy efficiency and use of renewable
energy sources, directives implementing greenhouse gas mitiga-
tion and atmospheric pollution reduction policies and other policy
documents and strategies targeting energy sector. Promotion of
use of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency improve-
ments are among priorities of EU energy policy because the use
of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency improvements
has positive impact on energy security and climate change mitiga-
tion [96]. In the EU climate change has been the principal policy
driver for promoting the use of energy from renewable resources.
The spring European Council of 2007 set ambitious targets by
2020 of a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) com-
pared to 1990 levels, a 20% renewables share in the EU’s final en-
ergy consumption including a 10% share of biofuels in each
Member State. The GHG emission savings from the use of biofuels
shall be at least 35% compared to fossil fuel.
On January 23, 2008, the Proposal for a Directive of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use
of Energy from Renewable Resources was issued. Article 15 of this
proposal defined environmental sustainability criteria that both
domestic and imported biofuels must satisfy. These criteria include
a minimum GHG reduction requirement, limits on the types of land
where conversion toward biofuel crop production is acceptable,
and reinforcing best agricultural practices. The first sustainability
criterion defined in the European proposal is a 35% reduction in
S115
SO2 Particular matter Volatile organic compounds
20 8.9 17.9
100 55.3 63.2
GHG emissions for biofuels relative to their fossil fuel counterpart.
The second sustainability criterion relates to the preservation of di-
verse ecosystems. The greenhouse gas emission saving from the
use of biofuels and other bioliquids shall be at least 35%. Biofuels
and other bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained
from highly biodiverse land and from land with high carbon stock.
Agricultural raw materials cultivated in the community and used
for the production of biofuels and other bioliquids shall be ob-
tained in accordance with the requirements and standards under
the provisions, and in accordance with the minimum requirements
for good agricultural and environmental condition.
Specifically for biofuels and bioliquids the draft directive estab-
lishes environmental sustainability criteria to ensure that biofuels
that are to count towards the target are sustainable. They must
achieve a minimum level of greenhouse gas emission reduction
(35%) and respect a number of binding requirements related to
environmental impact and biodiversity. The sustainability criteria
aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to prevent loss of
valuable biodiversity and undesired land use changes.
For the foreseeable future the EU will have to rely on first gen-
eration biofuels to achieve the 10% target in 2020: vegetable oils
for biodiesel and sugar and starch crops for ethanol. These import
requirements may be between 30% and 50%. The sustainability cri-
teria under discussion in the EU constitute an important step for-
ward notwithstanding their shortcomings. They should be
implemented in a nondiscriminatory way without conferring un-
due competitive advantage to domestic producers and allowing
developing countries export opportunities for ethanol and bio-
mass. A speedy transition to second generation biofuels is of partic-
ular importance. Sustainability criteria should progressively ensure
that only advanced biofuels are available for end-users.
9. Conclusion
Today, the world is facing three critical problems: (1) high fuel
prices, (2) climatic changes and (3) air pollution. Currently there
are several important problems to be resolved worldwide: (1) high
need for energy, (2) high depletion of non-renewable energy re-
courses and (3) high local and global environmental pollution
[97,98]. Discussions on biofuels include energy security reasons,
environmental concerns, foreign exchange savings, and socioeco-
nomic issues related to the rural sector. The biggest difference be-
tween biofuels and petroleum feedstocks is oxygen content.
Biofuels have oxygen levels from 10% to 45% while petroleum
has essentially none making the chemical properties of biofuels
very different from petroleum. Oxygenates are just pre used hydro-
carbons having structure that provides a reasonable antiknock va-
lue [99].
Most traditional biofuels, such as ethanol from corn, wheat, or
sugar beets, and biodiesel from oil seeds, are produced from classic
agricultural food crops that require high-quality agricultural land
for growth. Ethanol is a petrol additive/substitute. Production of
ethanol from biomass is one way to reduce both the consumption
of crude oil and environmental pollution.
Biodiesel is an environmentally friendly alternative liquid fuel
that can be used in any diesel engine without modification. There
has been renewed interest in the use of vegetable oils for making
biodiesel due to its less polluting and renewable nature as against
the conventional petroleum diesel fuel.
S116 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117
Biofuels have become more attractive recently because of its
environmental benefits. Ethanol addition to gasoline has increased
the engine torque, power and fuel consumption and reduced car-
bon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. In general,
biodiesel increases NOx emissions when used as fuel in diesel en-
gine. The emissions of biodiesel (B20 and B100) for same model
compression–ignition (diesel) vehicles have increased from 1.86
to 2.23, respectively. The fact that NOx emissions increase with
increasing biodiesel concentration could be a detriment in areas
that are out of attainment for ozone. Oxygenated diesel fuel blends
have a potential to reduce the emission of particulate matter (PM)
and to be an alternative to diesel fuel.
Biofuels production costs can vary widely by feedstock, conver-
sion process, scale of production and region. The major economic
factor to consider for input costs of biodiesel production is the
feedstock, which is about 75–80% of the total operating cost. Other
important costs are labor, methanol and catalyst, which must be
added to the feedstock. In particular, the cost of producing oil-
seed-derived biodiesel is dominated by the cost of the oil and by
competition from high-value uses like cooking.
On an energy basis, ethanol is currently more expensive to pro-
duce than gasoline in all regions considered. Only ethanol pro-
duced in Brazil comes close to competing with gasoline. Ethanol
produced from corn in the US is considerably more expensive than
from sugar cane in Brazil, and ethanol from grain and sugar beet in
Europe is even more expensive. The simultaneous production of
biomethanol (from sugar juice) in parallel to the production of eth-
anol, appears economically attractive in locations where hydro-
electricity is available at very low cost. Production costs for ethanol
are much lower in countries with a warm climate, with Brazil
probably the lowest-cost producer in the world. Production costs
in Brazil, using sugar cane as the feedstock, have recently been re-
corded at less than half the costs in Europe. The generally larger US
conversion plants produce biofuels, particularly ethanol, at lower
cost than plants in Europe.
Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are two alternative fuels
promoted with potential to reduce dependence on fossil fuel im-
ports. They also have the potential to reduce GHG emissions into
the atmosphere, although the extent of this reduction is still de-
bated and depends on a variety of factors including the type of crop
input used and the choice of production processes. Europe’s sus-
tainability and biodiversity criteria related to biofuels are:
The sustainability criteria aimed to ensure:
 A minimum GHG saving.
 Avoid loss of high biodiversity land.
 Avoid loss of high carbon-stock land.
 Environmental requirements for agriculture.
 Diversification of feedstocks.
Biodiversity criteria aimed to ensure:
No use of raw material from:
 forest undisturbed by significant human activity,
 highly biodiverse grassland,
 nature protection areas, unless compatible with nature
protection.
References
[1] Balat M. New biofuel production technologies. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A
2009;22:147–61.
[2] Demirbas C. The global climate challenge: recent trends in CO2 emissions from
fuel combustion. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:179–93.
[3] Humbad A, Kumar S, Babu BV. Carbon credits for energy self sufficiency in rural
India – a case study. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:187–97.
[4] Dincer K. Lower emissions from biodiesel combustion. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:963–8.
[5] Demirbas A, Dincer K. Sustainable green diesel: a futuristic view. Energy
Sources Part A 2008;30:1233–41.
[6] Hacisaligoglu S. Ethanol–gasoline and ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Energy Educ
Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:133–46.
[7] Demirbas B. Biofuels for internal combustion engines. Energy Educ Sci Technol
Part A 2009;22:117–32.
[8] Balat M. An overview of biofuels and policies in the European Union. Energy
Sources Part B 2007;2:167–81.
[9] Demirbas A. Recent progress in biorenewable feedstocks. Energy Educ Sci
Technol 2008;22:69–95.
[10] Demirbas A. Economic and environmental impacts of the liquid biofuels.
Energy Educ Sci Technol 2008;22:37–58.
[11] Demirbas T. Overview of ethanol from biorenewable feedstocks: technology,
economics, policy and impacts. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:
163–77.
[12] Demirbas A. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global
biofuel projections. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:2106–16.
[13] Demirbas A. Present and future transportation fuels. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:1473–83.
[14] Demirbas A. New liquid biofuels from vegetable oils via catalytic pyrolysis.
Energy Educ Sci Technol 2008;21:1–59.
[15] Demirbas A. Bio-fuels from agricultural residues. Energy Sources, Part A
2008;30:101–9.
[16] Sigar CP, Soni SL, Mathur J, Sharma D. Performance and emission
characteristics of vegetable oil as diesel fuel extender. Energy Sources Part A
2009;31:139–48.
[17] Demirbas A. The sustainability of combustible renewables. Energy Sources
Part A 2008;30:1114–9.
[18] Keskin A. Biodiesel production from free fatty acids obtained with
neutralization of the crude glycerin. Energy Sources Part A 2009;31:17–24.
[19] Demirbas A. Alternatives to petroleum diesel fuel. Energy Sources Part B
2007;2:343–51.
[20] Chhetri AB, Islam MR. Towards producing a truly green biodiesel. Energy
Sources Part A 2008;30:754–64.
[21] Demirbas A. Progress and recent trends in biodiesel fuels. Energy Convers
Manage 2009;50:14–34.
[22] Kong L, Li G, Zhang B, He W, Wang H. Hydrogen production from biomass
wastes by hydrothermal gasification. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:
1166–78.
[23] Demirbas A. Biohydrogen generation from organic wastes. Energy Sources Part
A 2008;30:475–82.
[24] Balat M. Hydrogen-rich gas production from biomass via pyrolysis and
gasification processes and effects of catalyst on hydrogen yield. Energy
Sources Part A 2008;30:552–64.
[25] Demirbas A. Hydrogen production from carbonaceous solid wastes by steam
reforming. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:924–31.
[26] Balat M. Possible methods for hydrogen production. Energy Sources Part A
2009;31:39–50.
[27] Demirbas A. Biomethanol production from organic waste materials. Energy
Sources Part A 2008;30:565–72.
[28] Demirbas A. Conversion of corn stover to chemicals and fuels. Energy Sources
Part A 2008;30:788–96.
[29] Demirbas A. The importance of ethanol and biodiesel from biomass. Energy
Sources Part B 2008;3:177–85.
[30] Balat M. Progress in biogas production processes. Energy Educ Sci Technol
2008;22:15–36.
[31] Demirbas A. Partial hydrogenation effect of moisture contents on combustion
heats of oils via pyrolysis from biomass. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:
508–15.
[32] Bothast RJ. New technologies in biofuel production. Agricultural Outlook
Forum (AOF), February, 24, 2005. <www.usda.gov/oce/forum/speeches/
Bothast.pdf>.
[33] Demirbas A. Biodegradability of biodiesel and petrodiesel fuels. Energy
Sources Part A 2009;3:169–74.
[34] Balat M. Biodiesel fuel production from vegetable oils via supercritical ethanol
transesterification. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:429–40.
[35] Demirbas A. Production of biodiesel from algae oils. Energy Sources Part A
2009;31:163–8.
[36] Demirbas A. Oils from hazelnut shell and hazelnut kernel husk for biodiesel.
production. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:1870–5.
[37] Ilkilic C, Yucesu HS. The use of cottonseed oil methyl ester on a diesel engine.
Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:742–53.
[38] UN (United Nations). The emerging biofuels market: regulatory, trade and
development implications. United Nations conference on trade and
development, New York and Geneva, 2006.
[39] Demirbas A. Biodiesel production via rapid transesterification. Energy Sources
Part A 2008;30:1830–4.
[40] Lv P, Wang X, Yuan Z, Tan T. Conversion of soybean oil to biodiesel fuel with
immobilized Candida lipase on textile cloth. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:
872–9.
[41] Demirbas MF. Pyrolysis of vegetable oils and animal fats for the production of
renewable fuels. Energy Educ Sci Technol 2008;22:59–67.
[42] Ma F, Hanna MA. Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour Technol 1999;70:
1–15.
 A. Demirbas / Applied Energy 86 (2009) S108–S117
[43] Zhang Y, Dub MA, McLean DD, Kates M. Biodiesel production from waste
cooking oil: 2. Economic assessment and sensitivity analysis. Bioresour
Technol 2003;90:229–40.
[44] Balat M. Production of biodiesel from vegetable oils: a survey. Energy Sources
Part A 2007;29:895–913.
[45] Utlu Z. Evaluation of biodiesel fuel obtained from waste cooking oil. Energy
Sources Part A 2007;29:1295–304.
[46] Puppan D. Environmental evaluation of biofuels. Periodica Polytechnica Ser
Soc Man Sci 2002;10:95–116.
[47] Demirbas A. Biodiesel fuels from vegetable oils via catalytic and non-catalytic
supercritical alcohol transesterifications and other methods: a survey. Energy
Convers Manage 2003;44:2093–109.
[48] Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency. Study of
CNG and diesel transit bus emissions. Air Resources Board; 2002.
<www.arb.ca.gov/research/cng-diesel/cng-diesel.html>.
[49] Ozkurt I. Qualifying of safflower and algae for energy. Energy Educ Sci Technol
Part A 2009;23:145–51.
[50] Ayala A, Kado NY, Okamoto A, Holmén BA, Kuzmicky PA, Kobayashi R, Stiglizt
KE. Diesel and CNG heavy-duty transit bus emissions over multiple driving
schedules: regulated pollutants and project overview. SAE technical paper,
2002-01-1722.
[51] Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR. Green house gases emissions in the
production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006
averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:
582–95.
[52] Kim H, Choi B. Effect of ethanol–diesel blend fuels on emission and particle
size distribution in a common-rail direct injection engine with warm-up
catalytic converter. Renew Energy 2008;33:2222–8.
[53] Yu S, Tao J. Simulation based life cycle assessment of airborne emissions of
biomass-based ethanol products from different feedstocks planting areas in
(the) PRC. J Cleaner Prod 2009;17:501–6.
[54] Ozkurt I. Qualifying of safflower and algae for energy. Energy Educ Sci Technol
Part A 2009;23:145–51.
[55] Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Tavakoli T, Buttsworth DR, Yusaf TF, Faizollahnejad
M. Performance and exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine with ethanol
blended gasoline fuels using artificial neural network. Appl Energy 2009;86:
630–9.
[56] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG. Effects of ethanol–
diesel blends on the performance and exhaust emissions of heavy duty DI
diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:3155–62.
[57] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Herreros JM. Emissions from a diesel–ethanol blend in
an automotive diesel engine. Fuel 2008;87:25–31.
[58] Graham LA, Belisle SL, Baas CL. Emissions from light duty gasoline vehicles
operating on low blend ethanol gasoline and E85. Atmos Environ
2008;42:4498–516.
[59] Corro G, Ayala E. Ethanol and diesel/ethanol blends emissions abatement. Fuel
2008;87:3537–42.
[60] Granda CB, Zhu L, Holtzapple MT. Sustainable liquid biofuels and their
environmental impact. Environ Prog 2007;26:233–50.
[61] EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). A comprehensive analysis of
biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions. Draft technical report, EPA420-P-02-
001, October 2002.
[62] Balat M, Balat H. A critical review of bio-diesel as a vehicular fuel. Energy
Convers Manage 2008;49:2727–41.
[63] Haas MJ, McAloon AJ, Yee WJ, Foglia TA. A process model to estimate biodiesel
production costs. Bioresour Technol 2006;97:671–8.
[64] Dene T, Hole J. Enabling biofuels: biofuel economics. Final report. Auckland,
New Zealand: Minister of Transport, Covec Ltd.; June 2006.
[65] Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). Ethanol Industry Statistics, Washington
(DC, USA); 2007.
[66] Grassi G. Modern bioenergy in the European Union. Renew Energy 1999;16:
985–90.
[67] Urbanchuk JM. Economic impacts on the farm community of cooperative
ownership of ethanol production, LECG, LLC, Wayne, PA, February 13, 2007.
<www.verasun.com/pdf/RFA>.
[68] Dufey A. Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development: emerging
issues. Environmental Economics Programme, Sustainable Markets Discussion
Paper No. 2, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED),
London, September, 2006.
[69] Whims J. Corn based ethanol costs and margins. Attachment 1, AGMRC, Kansas
State U, 2002. <http://www.agmrc.org/corn/info/ksueth1.pdf>].
S117
[70] IEA (International Energy Agency). Biodiesel statistics. IEA energy technology
essentials, OECD/IEA, Paris, January; 2007.
[71] Bender M. Economic feasibility review for community-scale farmer
cooperatives for biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 1999;70:81–7.
[72] Tzirakis E, Karavalakis G, Zannikos F, Stournas S. Impact of Diesel/biodiesel
blends on emissions from a diesel vehicle operated in real driving conditions.
SAE technical paper, 2007-01-0076.
[73] Janulis P. Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle.
Renewable Energy 2004;29:861–71.
[74] Krahl J, Knothe G, Munack A, Ruschel Y, Schröder O, Hallier E, et al. Comparison
of exhaust emissions and their mutagenicity from the combustion of biodiesel,
vegetable oil, gas-to-liquid and petrodiesel fuels. Fuel 2009;88:1064–9.
[75] Soltic P, Edenhauser D, Thurnheer T, Schreiber D, Sankowski A. Experimental
investigation of mineral diesel fuel, GTL fuel, RME and neat soybean and
rapeseed oil combustion in a heavy duty on-road engine with exhaust gas
aftertreatment. Fuel 2009;88:1–8.
[76] Coronado CR, de Carvalho Jr JA, Silveira JL. Biodiesel CO2 emissions: a
comparison with the main fuels in the Brazilian market. Fuel Process
Technol 2009;90:204–11.
[77] Demirbas AH. Inexpensive oil and fats feedstocks for production of biodiesel.
Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;23:1–13.
[78] Demirbas A. Modernization of biomass energy conversion facilities. Energy
Sources Part B 2007;2:227–35.
[79] Demirbas A. Theoretical heating values and impacts of pure compounds and
fuels. Energy Sources, Part A 2006;28:459–67.
[80] Jenkins BM, Baxter LL, Miles Jr TR, Miles TR. Combustion properties of biomass.
Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:17–46.
[81] Laforgia D, Ardito V. Biodiesel fuelled IDI engines: performances, emissions
and heat release investigation. Bioresour Technol 1994;51:53–9.
[82] Cardone M, Prati MV, Rocco V, Senatore A. Experimental analysis of
performances and emissions of a diesel engines fuelled with biodiesel and
diesel oil blends. In: Proceedings of MIS–MAC V, Roma; 1998. p. 211–25 [in
Italian].
[83] Dorado MP, Ballesteros EA, Arnal JM, Gomez J, Lopez FJ. Exhaust emissions
from a Diesel engine fueled with transesterified waste olive oil. Fuel
2003;82:1311–5.
[84] Dunn RO. Alternative jet fuels from vegetable-oils. Trans ASAE 2001;44:
1151–757.
[85] Shay EG. Diesel fuel from vegetable oils: status and opportunities. Biomass
Bioenergy 1993;4:227–42.
[86] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A comprehensive analysis of
biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions. Draft technical report, EPA420-P-02-
001, October 2002.
[87] Carraretto C, Macor A, Mirandola A, Stoppato A, Tonon S. Biodiesel as
alternative fuel: experimental analysis and energetic evaluations. Energy
2004;29:2195–211.
[88] Demirbas A. Global biofuel strategies. Energy Educ Sci Technol 2006;17:27–63.
[89] Thamsiriroj T, Murphy JD. Is it better to import palm oil from Thailand to
produce biodiesel in Ireland than to produce biodiesel from indigenous Irish
rape seed? Appl Energy 2009;86:595–604.
[90] Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high
diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006;314:1598–600.
[91] Thamsiriroj T. Optimal biomass and technology for production of biofuel as a
transport fuel. Master Thesis, University College Cork; 2007.
[92] Rasamee-thamawong P. Oil palm: sustainable energy production for the
future. Bangkok: Petchkarat Publishing; 2007.
[93] Nithedpattrapong S, Srikul S, Korawis C, Onthong J. Influence of N, P, K and Mg
on yield of oil palm grown on Kohong soil series. Thai Agric Res J
1995;13:164–74.
[94] Wiesenthal T, Leduc G, Christidis P, Schade B, Pelkmans L, Govaerts L, et al.
Biofuel support policies in Europe: lessons learnt for the long way ahead.
Renew Sust Energy Rev 2009;13:789–800.
[95] Streimikiene D, Šivickas G. The EU sustainable energy policy indicators
framework. Environ Int 2008;34:1227–40.
[96] Demirbas A. Energy concept and energy education. Energy Educ Sci Technol
Part B 2009;1:85–101.
[97] Demirbas A. Future energy sources: part I. Future Energy Source 2009;1:1–95.
[98] Ulusarslan D, Gemici Z, Teke I. Currency of district cooling systems and
alternative energy sources. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;23:31–53.
[99] Kan A. General characteristics of waste management: a review. Energy Educ
Sci Technol Part A 2009;23:55–69.