Explore the vast range of titles available.

Biofuels and the Globalization of Risk offers the reader a fresh analysis of the politics and policies behind the biofuel story, examining the technological optimism. Starting with a brief history of bioenergy policy, this book explores the evolution of biofuels as a policy narrative, as a development ideal and as a socio-technical system through a series of interlinked case studies.

Biofuels and the Globalization of Risk offers a fresh, compelling analysis of the politics and policies behind the biofuels story, with its technological optimism and often-idealized promises for the future. This essential new critique argues that investment in biofuels may reconfigure risk and responsibility, whereby the global South is encouraged to invest its future in growing biofuel crops, often at the expense of food, in order that the global North may continue its unsustainable energy consumption unabated and guilt-free

Biofuels are clean and renewable energy resources gaining increased attention as a potential replacement for non-renewable petroleum-based fuels. They are derived from biomass that could either be animal-based or belong to any of the three generations of plant biomass (agricultural crops, lignocellulosic materials, or algae). Over 130 studies including experimental research, case studies, literature reviews, and website publications related to bioethanol production were evaluated; different methods and techniques have been tested by scientists and researchers in this field, and the most optimal conditions have been adopted for the generation of biofuels from biomass. This has ultimately led to a subsequent scale-up of procedures and the establishment of pilot, demo, and large-scale plants/biorefineries in some regions of the world. Nevertheless, there are still challenges associated with the production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass, such as recalcitrance of the cell wall, multiple pretreatment steps, prolonged hydrolysis time, degradation product formation, cost, etc., which have impeded the implementation of its large-scale production, which needs to be addressed. This review gives an overview of biomass and bioenergy, the structure and composition of lignocellulosic biomass, biofuel classification, bioethanol as an energy source, bioethanol production processes, different pretreatment and hydrolysis techniques, inhibitory product formation, fermentation strategies/process, the microorganisms used for fermentation, distillation, legislation in support of advanced biofuel, and industrial projects on advanced bioethanol. The ultimate objective is still to find the best conditions and technology possible to sustainably and inexpensively produce a high bioethanol yield.

In recent years, population growth and lifestyle changes have led to an increase in energy consumption worldwide. Providing energy from fossil fuels has negative consequences, such as energy supply constraints and overall greenhouse gas emissions. As the world continues to evolve, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and finding alternative energy sources becomes increasingly urgent. Renewable energy sources are the best way for all countries to reduce reliance on fossil fuels while reducing pollution. Biomass as a renewable energy source is an alternative energy source that can meet energy needs and contribute to global warming and climate change reduction. Among the many renewable energy options, biomass energy has found a wide range of application areas due to its resource diversity and easy availability from various sources all year round. The supply assurance of such energy sources is based on a sustainable and effective supply chain. Simultaneous improvement of the biomass-based supply chain's economic, environmental and social performance is a key factor for optimum network design. This study has suggested a multi-objective goal programming (MOGP) model to optimize a multi-stage biomass-based sustainable renewable energy supply chain network design. The proposed MOGP model represents decisions regarding the optimal number, locations, size of processing facilities and warehouses, and amounts of biomass and final products transported between the locations. The proposed model has been applied to a real-world case study in Istanbul. In addition, sensitivity analysis has been conducted to analyze the effects of biomass availability, processing capacity, storage capacity, electricity generation capacity, and the weight of the goals on the solutions. To realize sensitivity analysis related to the importance of goals, for the first time in the literature, this study employed a spherical fuzzy set-based analytic hierarchy method to determine the weights of goals.

Forest biomass is expected to remain a key part of the national energy portfolio mix, yet residual forest biomass is currently underused. This study aimed to estimate the potential availability of waste woody biomass in the Aizu region and its energy potential for local bioelectricity generation as a sustainable strategy. The results showed that the available quantity of forest residual biomass for energy production was 191,065 tons, with an average of 1.385 t/ha in 2018, of which 72% (146,976 tons) was from logging residue for commercial purposes, and 28% (44,089 tons) was from thinning operations for forest management purposes. Forests within the biomass–collection radius of a local woody power plant can provide 45,925 tons of residual biomass, supplying bioelectricity at 1.6 times the plant’s capacity, which could avoid the amount of 65,246 tons of CO2 emission per year by replacing coal-fired power generation. The results highlight the bioelectricity potential and carbon-neutral capacity of residual biomass. This encourages government initiatives or policy inclinations to sustainably boost the production of bioenergy derived from residual biomass.

Increasing energy demand and limited non-renewable energy resources have raised energy security concerns within the European Union. With the EU’s commitment to becoming the first climate-neutral continent, transitioning to renewable energy sources has become essential. While wind and solar energy are intermittent, consistent and reliable green energy sources, such as biogas and biomethane, offer promising alternatives. Biogas and biomethane production from biomass address key challenges, including grid stability (“supply on demand”), decentralized energy production, energy density, and efficient storage and transportation via existing natural gas infrastructure. This study examines technologies for converting woody biomass into biomethane and proposes a conceptual design utilizing the best available technologies. The system, situated in Slovenia’s Kočevje region—one of Europe’s richest forest habitats—was scaled based on the availability of low-quality woody biomass unsuitable for other applications. Combining biomass gasification, catalytic methanation, and biomethanation, supplemented by hydrogen from electrolysis, provides an effective method for converting wood to biomethane. Despite the system’s complexity and current technological limitations in energy efficiency, the findings highlight biomethane’s potential as a reliable energy carrier for domestic and industrial applications.

Giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus Greef and Deuter) and Amur silver grass (Miscanthus sacchariflorus Maxim./Hack) are rhizomatous grasses with a C4 photosynthetic pathway that are widely cultivated as energy crops. For those species to be successfully used in bioenergy generation, their yields have to be maintained at a high level in the long term. The biomass yield (fresh and dry matter [DM] yield) and energy efficiency (energy inputs, energy output, energy gain, and energy efficiency ratio) of giant miscanthus and Amur silver grass were compared in a field experiment conducted in 2007–2017 in North‐Eastern Poland. Both species were characterized by high above‐ground biomass yields, and the productive performance of M. × giganteus was higher in comparison with M. sacchariflorus (15.5 vs. 9.3 Mg DM ha−1 year−1 averaged for 1–11 years of growth). In the first year of the experiment, the energy inputs associated with the production of M. × giganteus and M. sacchariflorus were determined at 70.5 and 71.5 GJ/ha, respectively, and rhizomes accounted for around 78%–79% of total energy inputs. In the remaining years of cultivation, the total energy inputs associated with the production of both perennial rhizomatous grasses reached 13.6–15.7 (M. × giganteus) and 16.9–17.5 GJ ha−1 year−1 (M. sacchariflorus). Beginning from the second year of cultivation, mineral fertilizers were the predominant energy inputs in the production of M. × giganteus (78%–86%) and M. sacchariflorus (80%–82%). In years 2–11, the energy gain of M. × giganteus reached 50 (year 2) and 264–350 GJ ha−1 year−1 (years 3–11), and its energy efficiency ratio was determined at 4.7 (year 2) and 18.6–23.3 (years 3–11). The energy gain and the energy efficiency ratio of M. sacchariflorus biomass in the corresponding periods were determined at 87–234 GJ ha−1 year−1 and 6.1–14.3, respectively. Both grasses are significant and environmentally compatible sources of bioenergy, and they can be regarded as potential energy crops for Central‐Eastern Europe. In northeastern Poland, the biomass yield of Amur silver grass was determined at 9.26 Mg DM/ha, and it was equivalent to 60% dry matter yield of giant miscanthus (average for 11 years). Giant miscanthus produced the highest biomass yield in year 5, and Amur silver grass in year 11. The average energy efficiency of giant miscanthus biomass was determined at 13.6 during the 11 year experiment, whereas the energy efficiency of Amur silver grass was 46% lower. The energy efficiency of giant miscanthus biomass was highest (23.2–23.3) in years 5 and 6, and Amur silver grass was characterized by the highest energy yield in year 11 (14.3).