Global Biodiesel Production The State

Prévia do material em texto

Chapter 1
Global Biodiesel Production: The State
of the Art and Impact on Climate
Change
Mahbod Rouhany and Hugh Montgomery
Abstract Biodiesel is a diesel-equivalent alternative fuel derived from biological
sources such as edible and nonedible oils, animal fats, and waste cooking oils
through processing. In addition to being a transportation fuel, biodiesel is also used
in some jurisdictions for electricity generation in engines and turbines. The world’s
biodiesel supply grew from 3.9 billion liters in 2005 to 18.1 billion liters in 2010
and is expected to exceed 33 billion liters in 2016 and reach 41.4 billion liters in
2025, a 25% increase over 2016 levels. Biodiesel prices have been facing down-
ward pressure due to low global petro-diesel prices, however, blending mandates
have largely sheltered the biodiesel market by lending consistency to demand.
International prices of biodiesel are expected to increase in nominal terms over the
next 10 years driven by the recovery of crude oil markets and prices of biofuel
feedstock. It should be mentioned that the majority of countries producing biodiesel
feedstock also have a vibrant domestic market and most or all of their supply is
used to meet domestic mandate-driven demand. This dual role, as both producer
and consumer, partially explains the limited international trade in biodiesel feed-
stocks. Most of the limited biodiesel trade over the next 10 years is expected to be
composed of Argentina’s exports to the US. While there is a debate on the sus-
tainability of biodiesel, many studies using lifecycle assessment (LCA) have
demonstrated that biodiesel results in 20–80% less greenhouse emissions when
compared to petro-diesel. As crude oil becomes more energy intensive to extract
and refine, expected efficiency gains in biodiesel feedstock production and refining,
the commercialization of second-generation biodiesel using nonfood feedstocks,
combined with the growing market share of biodiesel will result in further reduction
of harmful climate-impacting emissions by replacing petro-diesel with biodiesel.
M. Rouhany (&)
Strategic Carbon Management Inc., Vancouver, BC V5Z 1Z1, Canada
e-mail: mrouhany@gmail.com
H. Montgomery
Division of Medicine, Centre for Human Health and Performance, University College
London, London, UK
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
M. Tabatabaei and M. Aghbashlo (eds.), Biodiesel,
Biofuel and Biorefinery Technologies 8,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00985-4_1
1
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-030-00985-4_1&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-030-00985-4_1&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-030-00985-4_1&domain=pdf
mailto:mrouhany@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00985-4_1
1.1 Introduction
Biodiesel, derived from processing biological sources such as edible and nonedible
oils, animal fats, and waste cooking oils, has similar properties to petro-diesel. It
can be used to enhance certain characteristics of petro-diesel, such as lubricity,
aiding fuel performance, and extending engine life (Traviss 2012; Pacini et al.
2014). Compared to petro-diesel, it has a higher cetane number (and thus better
ignition quality) but a lower heating value, higher density, and higher viscosity
(Taher and Al-Zuhair 2017) and is thus less suitable for colder climates due to
gelling, clouding, and overall reduced cold weather performance (Traviss 2012).
Biodiesel can be blended in all ratios and many jurisdictions use these, from farm
level to industrial scale, in preference to pure biodiesel. The quality of biodiesel is
determined by the quality of feedstock oil, the processing technology used, and the
process parameters (Knothe et al. 2010; Rathore et al. 2016). Biodiesel and ethanol
make up the majority of the renewable share of the world road and marine trans-
portation sector’s energy demand (REN21 2016). Biodiesel is also utilized in sta-
tionary machinery and in some jurisdictions for heat and electricity generation
(Rathore et al. 2016).
The net environmental benefit of biodiesel is a topic of continuing debate.
Biodiesel is biodegradable. Whether used pure or as a petro-diesel blend, it can
provide air quality benefits namely lower loads of carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
and volatile organic compounds (Pacini et al. 2014). In many cases, net greenhouse
gas emissions are reduced. The majority of criticism targets the negative impacts
that biodiesel sourced from agriculture-based biomass feedstock farming have on
forests and grasslands, food and animal feed prices, loss of biodiversity due to
mono-cropped fields, water resource management, food security, and air quality. To
date, edible oilseeds such as soybean and rapeseed have been the dominant bio-
diesel feedstocks. Biofuels developed from food or animal feed crops are referred to
as “first generation” or conventional biofuels. Developing biodiesel from crops that
can be grown on land that is not suitable for growing food, from biomass sources
that are less dependant on the availability of land, or from nonedible feedstocks or
by-products, can alleviate many of the sustainability concerns. Biofuels that are
developed from nonedible biomass except algae are known as “second generation”
or advanced biofuels. Biodiesel produced from microalgae would be considered a
“third generation” biofuel. Algae, municipal and industrial organic waste, sugar
cane bagasse, corn stover, perennial grasses, cereal straw, as well as forestry and
agricultural waste are examples of more sustainable feedstock. These sources, while
not yet produced at commercial scale, are receiving considerable attention due to
their smaller environmental footprint (Rathore et al. 2016; Anuar and Abdullah
2016; Royal Academy of Engineering 2017).
Important challenges for the biodiesel industry come from low petro-diesel
prices, fuel–food competition resulting in reciprocal price increases and destabi-
lization of the feedstock market, as well as negative socio-environmental impacts of
the feedstock oilseeds (Anuar and Abdullah 2016). The implementation of biofuel
2 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
supporting policies and legislation, selection of low-cost sustainable nonedible
feedstock, and production process improvements for better quality and cheaper
production costs could eventually lead to a worldwide replacement of petro-diesel
with biodiesel.
1.2 Brief History
The first known transesterification of a vegetable oil was conducted by E. Duffy and
J. Patrick in 1853. This was four decades before Rudolf Diesel’s engine first ran
independently in Augsburg Germany on August 10, 1893 (Abdalla and Oshaik
2013). The diesel engine, since its inception, could run on a variety of fuels
including vegetable oils. One of the first publicly demonstrated uses of biodiesel in
a diesel engine was in the year 1900 when, during the Paris exposition, the French
company Otto operated a small diesel engine on peanut oil. According to Rudolf
Diesel’s papers, published in 1912 and 1913, in addition to research by the French
on peanut oil, experiments were being conducted in St. Petersburg using castor oil
and train-oil (oil obtained from the blubber of marine animals) with excellent
results. France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the UK had varying interests in fuels
from vegetable oils during the first half of the twentieth century (Knothe et al.
2010). Triglycerides from easily available oil-rich feedstocks were contenders for
being the main fuel source for the diesel engine in its early years. However, natural
oils are viscose with relatively low cetane numbers compared to petro-diesel, which
resulted in them gradually being replaced by petroleum oil (Taher and Al-Zuhair
2017).
The petroleum industry has commonly dominated the global fuel market with its
cheaper production and price. Generally, when petroleum fuel supplies are plentiful
and inexpensive, interest in bio-sourced oils has been low. Disruption of petroleumfuel supplies during World War II drove countries like Argentina, Brazil, India, and
China to use vegetable oil as fuel (Van Gerpen et al. 2007).
The petroleum oil embargo of the 1970s led to a renewed interest by the United
States, Austria, and South Africa in vegetable oils and their direct use in diesel
engines as fuel. Since the 1920s, diesel engine manufacturers had altered their
designs to match the lower viscosity of petroleum diesels (Van Gerpen et al. 2007;
Abdalla and Oshaik 2013). Thermal cracking, pyrolysis, transesterification, the
formation of microemulsions, and dilution of oils with solvent were, thus, experi-
mented with to address the viscosity limitations of vegetable oils. With the emer-
gence of suitable catalysts, the transesterification with short-chain alcohols, such as
methanol and ethanol, became the preferred and most commonly used method to
convert bio-oils to biodiesel (Taher and Al-Zuhair 2017). The term biodiesel was
most likely first used around 1984. The commercial production of biodiesel started
in the early 1990s and the first standard for biodiesel was published in 2001, the
ASTM D6751.
1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art … 3
1.3 State and Future of Biodiesel Demand and Supply
The world’s market share of diesel in transportation fuels has been increasing in
comparison to gasoline and this share is expected to continue to grow globally at
varied rates mainly driven by non-OECD countries. Biodiesel production growth
has been following this trend and is increasing faster than that of ethanol.
International trade in biodiesel has also been considerably higher than the trade in
ethanol and, despite its small share compared to production, the international
biodiesel trade has been paramount in the development of the biodiesel industry in
developing economies. Pro-biodiesel policies in the EU and USA have driven the
development and expansion of biodiesel industries for export in agricultural
countries with established oilseed industries, namely palm-based biodiesel in
Indonesia and Argentina’s soy-based biodiesel (Naylor and Higgins 2017). Global
fuel demand in conjunction with domestic policies and trade interactions are the
main drivers for the global biodiesel sector.
Between 2005 and 2015, global biodiesel production expanded by more than
20% per year, which resulted in a sevenfold expansion in a single decade. This
occurred parallel to a rise in petro-diesel prices during the same period. Diesel and
oil prices have been in decline since mid-2014 and lower petroleum prices stimulate
petro-diesel use. However, despite the downward pressure from recent low oil
prices and policy uncertainty in some markets, biofuel production and demand
continued to increase in 2016, and ethanol and biodiesel still comprised the
majority of the renewable share of global energy demand for transportation with
roughly 4% of the world road transport fuel (REN21 2017; Naylor and Higgins
2017).
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and
the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization 2016 Agricultural Outlook, global
biodiesel use is expected to gradually increase over the next 10 years. The largest
demand increase will be from developing countries, mainly Indonesia, Brazil, and
Argentina, with an estimated 68% increase in 2025 compared to 2015 (OECD/FAO
2016).
The European Union and the United States are, together, the largest influencers
of biofuel demand. Implementation of biofuel mandates has led to an increase in
biofuel use in the United States. The current maize-based ethanol mandate is
expected to decline after 2018 and be replaced by an increase in the advanced
mandate covering biofuels from sources other than maize. This would result in
lower ethanol use and an increase in biodiesel use in the United States. In the
European Union, the Renewable Energy Directive target has to be met by 2020
which is expected to sustain an expansion of ethanol and biodiesel fuel use until
then. Thereafter, a decrease is expected in line with lower gasoline and diesel use
prospects. Palm oil is expected to decline as a feedstock in European biodiesel.
In developing countries, biodiesel use is also expected to expand steadily with
Indonesia, Brazil, and Argentina leading the way due to their domestic mandates.
Biofuel demand is expected to remain low in Central Asia and Eastern Europe as
4 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
these regions are either oil and gas producers or lack biofuel incentive policies for
producers or blending mandates for consumers (OECD-FAO 2015). Global bio-
diesel supply grew from 3.9 billion liters in 2005 to 30.8 billion liters in 2016 and is
expected to reach 41.4 billion liters in 2025, a 34% increase over 2016 levels
(Onguglo et al. 2016; REN21 2016; OECD/FAO 2016). An estimated 72% of
biofuel production (in energy terms) was fuel ethanol, 23% was biodiesel, and 4%
was hydrotreated vegetable oil (REN21 2017). More than 80% of the world’s
biodiesel production is from vegetable oils, with the majority produced from
European canola and soybeans from the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.
Indonesian palm oil and other sources such as jatropha and coconut make up a
small share of vegetable-based biodiesel. Waste-based biodiesel accounted for 8%
of the global supply in 2015 (OECD/FAO 2016; REN21 2016). In 2015, biodiesel
was responsible for 162,600 direct and indirect jobs in Brazil while in the same year
the U.S. biodiesel sector provided 49,486 direct and indirect jobs (REN21 2016).
Whilst spread across many countries, biodiesel production is dominated by only
a few In 2016, the EU was the largest producer (with a 26% share of global
production), and 76% of the world’s fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel was
produced by the EU, United States, Brazil, Argentina, and Indonesia. No other
country outside of this group had a share larger than 5% (REN21 2016, 2017)
(Fig. 1.1).
The domestic policy incentives in the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and
Indonesia and, to a lesser extent, the fulfillment of the Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) target in the European Union, are the main drivers for global biodiesel
production (OECD/FAO 2016).
The EU is experiencing a decline in investment in new biodiesel capacity mainly
due to a continuing decrease in policy and public support for first-generation
United States, 
17.9%
Brazil, 12.3%
Argentina, 9.7%
Thailand, 4.5%
Indonesia, 9.7%
EU-28, 26.0%
Other countries, 
19.8%
Fig. 1.1 Major biodiesel-producing countries in 2016 (REN21 2017)
1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art … 5
biofuels, including biodiesel, as a result of environmental concerns and an
increasing interest in electric mobility. Among individual countries, the US remains
the world leader in biodiesel production supported by its agricultural policy and by
the federal renewable fuel standard. Brazil is solidifying its place as the second
largest producer of biodiesel with 13% of the global share in 2016 (REN21 2017).
Figure 1.2 demonstrates the trends in US biodiesel production, consumption,
imports, and exports from 2001 to 2015 (U.S. EIA 2017). The peak in 2008 was
largely due to a biodiesel tax credit in the European Union, which drove up US
exports and production. Exports dropped after the tax credit was phased out. The
increase in production and consumption from 2010 onward was largely to meet the
requirements of the second phase of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS
is a federal mandate that requires a minimum volume of renewable fuels to be
blended in the transportation fuel sold in the United States. Its second phase
required the use of 34 billion liters of renewables in 2008 increasing to 136 billion
liters in 2022 with a cap on the share of corn-starch ethanol and a minimum
requirement for the share of cellulosic biofuels.
In 2013, the consumption of biodiesel in the US surpassed its production, and
the volume of biodiesel imported by the US exceeded exports and has continuedto
increase. The growth in consumption and imports since then is likely due to the
favorable regulatory framework and increased efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
With its substantial biodiesel production capacity, Argentina has been a leading
supplier of imported biodiesel for the EU, the United States, and other countries
since 2010. In 2013, the EU imposed a heavy anti-dumping import tax on
Argentinian biodiesel which resulted in Argentina’s biodiesel manufacturing
capacity being underutilized despite growing domestic demand (REN21 2017).
0 
1000 
2000 
3000 
4000 
5000 
6000 
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P
RO
DU
CT
IO
N
 A
N
D 
CO
N
SU
M
PT
IO
N
 =
 M
IL
LI
O
N
 G
AL
LO
N
S
IM
PO
RT
 A
N
D 
EX
PO
RT
S 
= 
TH
O
U
SA
N
D 
BA
RR
EL
S U.S. Biodiesel Production, Exports, 
Imports, and Consumption
Production Exports Consumption Imports
Fig. 1.2 U.S. biodiesel 10-year production, consumption, imports, and exports from 2001 to 2015
(U.S. EIA 2017)
6 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
Most biodiesel-feedstock-producing countries also have an active domestic
market and most or all of their supply is used to meet domestic mandate-driven
demand. This dual role, as both producer and consumer, partially explains the
limited international trade in biodiesel feedstocks. The European Union mostly
imports vegetable oil-based biodiesel from countries such as Argentina, Indonesia,
and Malaysia (Onguglo et al. 2016). Most of the limited biodiesel trade is com-
posed of Argentina’s exports to the US (Pacini et al. 2014). Figure 1.3 provides a
10-year overview of global biodiesel production, consumption, and exports from
2007 to 2016.
Biodiesel price is influenced by the type of feedstock, production volume,
production process, government incentives, food prices, and research and devel-
opment costs. As edible oils comprise more than 80% of the world’s biodiesel
feedstock, biodiesel prices closely follow vegetable oil prices. Policies which
support prices of vegetable oil also influence the demand for biodiesel (OECD/FAO
2016).
Biodiesel prices have been facing downward pressure due to low global
petro-diesel prices; however, blending mandates have largely sheltered the biodiesel
market by lending consistency to demand (REN21 2016). Figure 1.4 provides an
overview of the average U.S. Diesel and B99/B100 Biodiesel price over the last
10 years. International prices of biodiesel are expected to increase in nominal terms
over the next 10 years driven by the recovery of crude oil markets and prices of
biofuel feedstock (OECD/FAO 2016).
0.00 
5,000.00 
10,000.00 
15,000.00 
20,000.00 
25,000.00 
30,000.00 
35,000.00 
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 
M
IL
LI
O
N
S 
O
F 
LI
TR
ES
 B
IO
DI
ES
EL
Exports consump on Produc on
Fig. 1.3 Global biodiesel production, consumption, and exports 10-year overview (OECD/FAO
2016)
1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art … 7
1.4 The Biodiesel Policy Landscape
The impressive growth of the global biodiesel market and industry during the last
decade at rates exceeding 20% per year despite downward pressure from low fossil
fuel prices is primarily driven by policies enhancing production and demand at the
national and regional level. Blending mandates, tax exemptions, subsidies, fuel
quality standards, import tariffs, and investment backings are examples of such
supportive regulations. Such policies are, in turn, driven and influenced by a
combination of factors, such as a desire for increased energy security, environ-
mental concerns and climate-related targets, lobby groups, feedstock availability,
effective use of co-products, enhancing rural development, and increasing the
demand and price for vegetable oils (REN21 2016; Cadham 2015; Naylor and
Higgins 2017).
Examples where biodiesel production has been profitable in the absence of
additional financial incentives are very few. Studies show that this has only been
achieved with palm oil as the feedstock and during times when feedstock prices
were low and oil prices were high. To improve the overall financial and opportunity
costs, governments often accompany quantitative targets with other policies such as
blending mandates, subsidies, and tax credits (Naylor and Higgins 2017).
The policy instrument that is most commonly used across various countries and
regions is the blend mandate. A blend mandate specifies a share or volume of
biodiesel to be blended with petro-diesel. Blending mandates lead to consistency in
demand which is instrumental in protecting biodiesel markets from the effects of
$0.00 
$0.50 
$1.00 
$1.50 
$2.00 
$2.50 
$3.00 
$3.50 
$4.00 
$4.50 
$5.00 
U
SD
 C
O
ST
 P
ER
 G
AS
O
LI
N
E 
G
AL
LO
N
 E
Q
U
IV
AL
EN
T 
(G
G
E)
B99/B100 Diesel
Fig. 1.4 Average U.S. diesel and B99/B100 biodiesel 10-year price overview (USDoE 2017)
8 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
low global petro-diesel prices. By the end of 2015, biodiesel blend mandates were
in place at the national level in 18 countries (REN21 2016).
The majority of mandates are in place in the EU, where its Renewable Energy
Directive requires a 10% renewable content in fuel by 2020. RED establishes
sustainability requirements for liquid biofuels, including greenhouse gas
(GHG) reductions, land use changes, and other environmental, social and economic
criteria. A 7% limit on the share of food-crop-based transportation biofuels to the
EU’s 10% renewable mandate and the exclusion of biofuels grown on land with
peat or high carbon stocks was introduced in the amendments to RED. Adoption of
second-generation biofuels is further incentivised through a 0.5% voluntary target
and by allowing the contribution of nonfood crop-based biofuels to be
double-counted toward meeting the overall EU target (Naylor and Higgins 2017;
Araújo et al. 2017).
Agricultural support and the expansion of renewable fuels and climate mitigation
have been the main motivations driving biodiesel policies in the EU. Recently, a
stronger focus on sustainability and reducing GHG emissions has resulted in
changes in EU policies regarding feedstock sourcing. The current regulations
require that all biofuels from existing plants must result in a 50% reduction in
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to fossil fuels, beginning in 2018.
New plants should demonstrate a 60% reduction in GHG emissions in their biofuel
product considering emissions from cultivation, processing, and transport. A 2015
amendment to RED requires that calculations of indirect land use change (iLUC)
emissions associated with biodiesel feedstock be incorporated in GHG emission
calculations by fuel suppliers. iLUC emissions do not officially count in the GHG
reduction targets. As the majority of current biodiesel feedstocks will not meet the
50% reduction in GHG emissions target, EU member states are increasingly con-
sidering alternative feedstocks such as waste oils which provide significant GHG
emission reductions compared to fossil fuels and do not have land-use change
impacts. It is expected that the legislation that will replace the RED after it expires
in 2020 will have more stringent sustainability criteria, namely further limits on
GHG emissions, on the use of food crop feedstocks, and on land-use change
impacts. A reduction in the food crop share from the current 7 to 3.8% in 2030 and
raising the minimum greenhouse gas savings over fossil fuel alternatives to 70% by
2021 was proposed in the European commission in late 2016 (Naylor and Higgins
2017).
In the EU, petro-diesel is the primary fuel used for road transportation which
accounted for roughly 75% of the energy used in transportation in the EU in 2016.
The share of diesel fuel in the EU’s road transport grew from 52% in 2000 to 70%
in 2014. Historically, the European biodiesel industry was developed in order to
provide a substitute for petro-diesel. The EU introduced the Renewable Energy
Directivein 2009, which required 10% of all transportation energy to come from
renewable resources by 2020. RED allows member states flexibility in selecting
their own policies for meeting the target. Between 2005 and 2015, the EU’s bio-
diesel production tripled, and its production capacity expanded more than fivefold.
1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art … 9
In 2016, 80% of the EU biofuels market was composed by biodiesel and ethanol
held the remaining 20% (EEA 2016; Naylor and Higgins 2017).
The EU has implemented a 3.5% import duty on biodiesel blends of B30 (30%
biodiesel content) and under, and a 6.5% import duty on B30–B100 (pure biodiesel
with no blending) fuels to protect its domestic rapeseed and biodiesel production.
Other EU trade policies include anti-dumping tariffs on biodiesel imports from the
USA, Canada, Argentina, and Indonesia. In September 2016, the EU terminated its
anti-dumping duties against Argentina and Indonesia (Naylor and Higgins 2017).
In the United States under the Renewable Fuel Standard, the Environmental
Protection Agency releases annual biomass-based diesel volume requirements. By
the end of 2015, biodiesel blend mandates were in place in 27 jurisdictions (REN21
2016). For 2017, the volume requirement for biomass-based diesel was 7.6 billion
liters (2.0 billion gallons). The RFS places a cap on the share of corn-starch ethanol
and a minimum requirement for the share of cellulosic biofuels. A $1-per-gallon
biodiesel blending tax credit was implemented in 2005, which expired at the end of
2016. Furthermore, the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017
was introduced in the US Senate on April 26, 2017 to replace the Biodiesel
blending credit. The bill modifies and extends the income tax credit for biodiesel
and renewable diesel used as fuel, and the excise tax credit for biodiesel fuel
mixtures. The Act proposes a $1-per-gallon production credit for biodiesel pro-
duced in the United States from December 2016 until December 2020 and an
additional 10 cent-per-gallon credit for small US biodiesel producers (under 15
million gallons/year). The small producer credit would be available to biodiesel
produced from all feedstocks (Library of Congress 2017).
The political context within each nation forms its policy priorities, goals,
instruments, and methods. While national biodiesel policy implementation in major
producing countries seems to address a wide range of interests across several
objectives, in reality, the support of specific sectors and interests, such as farm
lobbies and energy groups, often determines policy design and implementation.
Large agricultural economies often install policies that indirectly support local
agriculture by enhancing the use of domestic oil crops for biodiesel feedstock to
support farm revenues throughout their agricultural supply chain. Consequently, all
large biodiesel producing nations are using their domestic agricultural products as
the main feedstock for biodiesel production, resulting in a complex interaction of
energy and agricultural interests. These interests provide the drive for governments
to maintain and even enhance their support for the biodiesel sector during the
current era of low crude oil prices (Naylor and Higgins 2017). In addition, there are
national and international interests in reducing fossil fuel use so as to reduce GHG
emissions and meet climate targets. Fossil fuel lobbies and political forces working
to expand fossil fuel use, as is currently seen in play in the US, are opposing and
complicating factors. This creates a state of affairs in which uncertainties exist that
could significantly change the projections for biofuel markets over the next decade.
US and EU policies on climate mitigation, feedstock sourcing, blending mandates,
and trade barriers together with fuel prices and the biodiesel sector’s ability to
10 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
commercialize nonfood-based biodiesel will be the main factors determining the
future of biodiesel (OECD/FAO 2016; Naylor and Higgins 2017).
1.5 Biodiesel, the Environment, and Climate Change
At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC)
22nd Conference of the Parties (COP22) in Marrakesh, Morocco in late 2016, more
than 100 countries had officially agreed to limit global warming to below 2 °C
under the Paris agreement. Additionally, leaders of 48 developing countries com-
mitted jointly to work toward achieving 100% renewable energy in their respective
nations under the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) (REN21 2016, 2017).
Given the real and imminent threat of climate change, it is now an issue high on
the agenda of governments and citizens around the globe. To meet the challenge of
increasing energy access and reducing poverty while reducing GHG emissions
enough to meet the COP22 target of limiting global temperature increase, extraction
of remaining fossil fuel reserves will have to stop altogether and the use of
renewable energy and energy efficiency instruments will have to be significantly
increased.
There are many drivers and advantages for the use of biofuels but due to the
increased global focus on biofuels’ environmental threats and social impacts, the
sustainability of biodiesel is more carefully considered and assessed today than was
the case when biofuels first became commercially available. There are a large
number of studies assessing the sustainability of biodiesel that come to a wide range
of conclusions, which is fueling the debate on biodiesel’s sustainability. The
diversity and sometimes conflict in results arise from differences in methodologies,
feedstock sources, land use and land use change impacts, selection of system
boundaries, and functional units, as well as allocation methods.
The controversy over the environmental and social impacts of first-generation
biodiesels commonly centers around the food versus fuel debate and the negative
climate impacts of land-use change (REN21 2017). There is little agreement on the
magnitude of the impact of biodiesel on food security. Using edible oils as biodiesel
feedstock could act as a buffer on the impact of food crop production variations in
different years (Naylor and Higgins 2017).
Greenhouse gas emissions from biodiesel are commonly assessed using a life-
cycle assessment (LCA). Such assessments calculate the amount of greenhouse
gases that are emitted per unit of fuel over its lifecycle from production to use. For
biodiesel, this includes emissions and/or carbon sequestration, in addition to
land-use changes from the growing of feedstock and allocation of by-products,
when applicable (Pacini et al. 2014).
The potential impact of biodiesel feedstock sources on indirect land use changes
(iLUC), such as deforestation, is a cause of concern for the sustainability and more
specifically the GHG emission savings of biodiesel. This could even, in some cases,
result in biodiesel generating more lifecycle GHG emissions than petro-diesel.
1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art … 11
In one of the most extensive studies to date, the UK’s Royal Academy of
Engineering conducted an assessment of over 250 separate studies on the GHG
emission reductions of biofuels versus fossil fuels (Naylor and Higgins 2017).
In the UK study, the GHG emissions per unit of energy generated for
first-generation biodiesels produced from common feedstocks displayed a large
variation ranging from 4 to 505 grams of CO2 equivalent-per-Mega Joule (gCO2e/
MJ) across different LCA studies. As a point of comparison, it should be noted that
the carbon intensity of EU petro-diesel is around 84 gCO2e/MJ. However, the
average biodiesel GHG emissions from all the feedstocks considered were lower
than emissions from fossil diesel if no land use change (LUC) was involved. The
only type of first-generation biodiesel that would meet the EU RED requirement for
50% less GHG emissions compared to conventional diesel was palm oil biodiesel
without LUC (Naylor and Higgins 2017).Where land-use change-related carbon emissions are included in the calcula-
tions, all varieties of first-generation biodiesels considered in the study had a higher
average carbon footprint than petro-diesel. Soybeans had the largest negative GHG
emission impact, which could be due to soybean cultivation in South and Central
America actuating both direct and indirect land use change (iLUC). Biodiesel
produced from palm oil harvested from peat and forest lands in Indonesia and
Malaysia demonstrated 3–40 times higher GHG emissions per unit of energy
compared to petro-diesel. A large variability was observed in results of the assessed
studies including LUC-related GHG emissions. This is due to the differences in
LUC GHG estimation methods and emission factors and the fact that some studies
included either direct or indirect LUC-related emissions and others included both
(Naylor and Higgins 2017).
The average GHG emissions per unit of energy for second-generation biodiesels
from nonedible feedstocks are considerably lower than petro-diesel, with the values
ranging from −88 to 80 gCO2e/MJ. Negative values are a result of credits for
co-products. The three feedstocks evaluated were Jatropha, Camelina and used
cooking oil/tallow. The average carbon intensity of Jatropha, used cooling oil/
tallow, and Camelina are, respectively, 26, 27, and 33 gCO2e/MJ. Similar to
first-generation biodiesels, the range of these results varied broadly due to regional
differences in yield and different estimation methods particularly in regard to
co-product allocation. In most of the studies assessed by the Royal Academy of
Engineering biodiesel from tallow and used cooking oil showed 60–90% lower
carbon intensity than petro-diesel. The average GHG intensity value for
third-generation microalgae biodiesel was 3.5 times higher than conventional diesel
also with a large variation in the individual results. Due to costly and
energy-intensive production, biodiesel produced from algae at its current phase of
development results in more GHG emissions than its petroleum counterpart and is
not yet a viable choice (Naylor and Higgins 2017).
Agriculture phase LUC is the major contributor to biodiesel GHG emissions
followed by the transesterification process. The EU is intent on a continuous
reduction in the share of first-generation biofuels in transport fuel and increasing the
share of climate-friendly advanced biofuels (REN21 2017). As crude oil becomes
12 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
more energy intensive to extract and refine, the commercialization of
second-generation biodiesel using nonedible feedstocks, paired with efficiency
gains in production and refining techniques, will potentially result in further
reduction of harmful climate impacting emissions by replacing petro-diesel with
biodiesel (Pacini et al. 2014).
In terms of other pollutants, biodiesel can favorably reduce particulate matter by
nearly 88% relative to petro-diesel while in terms of NOx there are varied results,
with some claiming biodiesel emits greater amounts of nitrogen oxides than
petro-diesel. Using 100% biodiesel in heavy-duty highway engines produces on
average almost 70% less hydrocarbons, 50% less particulates and carbon monoxide,
and 10% more NOx emissions. Biodiesel has negligible sulfur oxide emissions and
half the ozone-forming potential of petro-diesel (Araújo et al. 2017).
References
Abdalla BK, Oshaik FOA (2013) Base-transesterification process for biodiesel fuel production
from spent frying oils. Agric Sci 4:85–88
Anuar MR, Abdullah AZ (2016) Challenges in biodiesel industry with regards to feedstock,
environmental, social and sustainability issues: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
58:208–223
Araújo K, Mahajan D, Kerr R, Silva MD (2017) Global biofuels at the crossroads: an overview of
technical, policy, and investment complexities in the sustainability of biofuel development.
MDPI AG, Basel
Cadham WJ (2015) Biomass for bioenergy and/or transportation biofuels: exploration of key
drivers influencing biomass allocation, Master of Science edn. University of British Columbia,
Vancouver BC
EEA (2016-last update) Transport in Europe: key facts and trends, European Environment
Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2016/articles/transport-in-europe-key-
facts-trends. Accessed August 2017
Knothe G, Krahl J, van Gerpen J (2010) The biodiesel handbook, 2nd edn. AOCS Press, Urbana
Illinois
Library of Congress CG (2017-last update) S.944—American renewable fuel and job creation act
of 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/944. Accessed 28 July 2017
Naylor RL, Higgins MM (2017) The political economy of biodiesel in an era of low oil prices.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 77:695–705
OECD/FAO (2016) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2016–2025. Data for tables extracted on 04
Jul 2017 from OECD. Stat. OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD-FAO (2015) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2015–2024. OECD Publishing, Paris
Onguglo B, Pacini H, Kane M, Lleander l, Paredes I, Payosova T, Dent R, Czinar M, Grisoli R,
Bartocci Liboni L, Elias dos Santos M, Rodrigues Alves MF, Pacheco LM, Garcia de
Oliveira B, Horta LA, Rogan R, Kennedy H, Golden J, McDonald J, Poirrier A, Strapasson A,
Dupont J, Desplechin E, Maniatis K, Aguiar R, Thomaz LF, Hardjakusumah C, Ostheimer G,
Ramakrishna YB, Søgaard J, Coleman B, Ayuso M, Boshell F, Nakada S, Guardabassi P,
Neeft J (2016) Second-generation biofuel markets: state of play, trade and developing country
perspectives. UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2015/8. United Nations—UNCTAD
Pacini H, Sanches-Pereira A, Durleva M, Kane M, Bhutani A (2014) The state of the biofuels
market: regulatory, trade and development perspectives. Trade Environment, Climate Change
and Sustainable Development Branch, DITC, UNCTAD
1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art … 13
https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2016/articles/transport-in-europe-key-facts-trends
https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2016/articles/transport-in-europe-key-facts-trends
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/944
Rathore D, Nizami A, Singh A, Pant D (2016) Key issues in estimating energy and greenhouse gas
savings of biofuels: challenges and perspectives. Biofuel Res J 3(2):380–393
REN21 (2017) Renewables 2017 global status report (Paris: REN21 Secretariat).
REN21-Renewable energy policy network for the 21st century
REN21 (2016) Renewables 2016 global status report (Paris: REN21 Secretariat).
REN21-renewable energy policy network for the 21st century
Royal Academy of Engineering (2017) Sustainability of liquid biofuels. Royal Academy of
Engineering, London UK
Taher H, Al-Zuhair S (2017) Emerging green technologies for biodiesel production. Front
Bioenergy Biofuels
Traviss N (2012) Breathing easier? The known impacts of biodiesel on air quality. Biofuels 3
(3):285–291
U.S. EIA (2017-last update) U.S. energy information administration monthly energy review. http://
www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#renewable. Accessed 28 July 2017
USDoE A (2017-last update) U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC),
Clean cities alternative fuel price reports. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html.
Accessed 07 May 2017
Van Gerpen JH, Peterson CL, Goering CE (2007) Biodiesel: an alternative fuel for compression
ignition engines. ASAE Distinguished Lecture No. 31 2007, pp 1–22
14 M. Rouhany and H. Montgomery
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#renewable
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#renewable
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html
	1 Global Biodiesel Production: The State of the Art and Impact on Climate Change
	Abstract
	1.1 Introduction
	1.2 Brief History
	1.3 State and Future of Biodiesel Demand and Supply
	1.4 The Biodiesel Policy Landscape
	1.5 Biodiesel, the Environment, and Climate Change
	References