Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Biofuels in the U.S. – Challenges and Opportunities

S. Kent Hoekman*
Desert Research Institute, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA

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

Article history: Biofuels are of rapidly growing interest for reasons of energy security, diversity, and sustainability – as
Received 10 January 2008 well as for greenhouse gas mitigation. In recent years, the U.S. has enacted regulations – and adopted
Accepted 7 April 2008 aggressive goals – to encourage increased usage of biofuels. Individual States (especially California) have
Available online 9 July 2008
taken even stronger positions with respect to biofuels. Initial efforts have focused mainly on ethanol,
produced via fermentation of sugars from grains (especially corn). Today’s R&D focus is on ‘‘2nd Gen-
Keywords: eration Biofuels’’ that are produced from a variety of biomass feedstocks utilizing a wide range of
Biofuels
conversion technologies. This paper summarizes policy and regulatory drivers for biofuels in the U.S.,
Ethanol
Biodiesel
describes usage trends and projections, and highlights major R&D efforts to promote development and
Renewable fuels commercialization of 2nd Generation Biofuels. R&D is being conducted in many areas, including biomass
Energy policy resource assessment, development of new biomass feedstocks, improved conversion technologies, and
integration of systems. Other important considerations include fuel quality and specifications, as well as
requirements for blending, distribution, and storage. Considerable R&D, policy, and regulatory efforts are
also focused on the energy and environmental consequences of biofuels. This includes not only direct
emissions associated with vehicular uses, but also the fuels’ life-cycle impacts with respect to total
energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and multi-media effects. Due to the wide diversity of biomass
feedstocks, conversion technologies, and systems integration approaches, the life-cycle impacts of bio-
fuels can vary widely.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President George W.
Bush stated that ‘‘America is addicted to oil’’ [1]. At the same
time, he introduced the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) to
help overcome this dependence and to promote development
of breakthrough energy technologies, such as cellulosic
biofuels.
Biofuels offer the promise of numerous benefits related to
energy security, economics, and the environment. At the same
time, several challenges must be overcome to realize these benefits.
Table 1 identifies some of the major benefits and challenges in each
of these areas.
2. Policy drivers for biofuels
Long before the President’s 2006 declaration of America’s ad-
diction, the problem was widely recognized, and numerous policy
and regulatory actions had been taken to address it. At the na-
tional level, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) is one of
* Tel.: þ1 775 674 7065; fax: þ1 775 674 7016.
E-mail address: kent.hoekman@dri.edu
the most significant steps [2]. This $14 billion national energy plan
contains numerous provisions related to energy efficiency and
conservation, modernization of energy infrastructure, and pro-
motion of both traditional energy sources and renewable
alternatives.
EPAct 2005 contains many provisions to spur development of
biofuels. Title IX (pertaining to R&D) includes several sections
encouraging collaboration among government, industry, and
academic institutions to develop advanced technologies for pro-
duction of biofuels. This title also includes production incentives for
cellulosic biofuels derived from non-edible plant material, to en-
sure that an annual production of 1 billion gallons/year (bg/y) is
achieved by 2015.
Title XV of EPAct 2005 includes a Renewable Fuels Standard
(RFS) that requires 4 bg/y of ethanol to be blended into gasoline by
2006, ramping up to 7.5 bg/y by 2012. Furthermore, beyond 2012,
at least 0.25 bg/y of this ethanol must come from cellulosic
sources.
In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush
announced a much more aggressive program to reduce gasoline
consumption and further increase use of biofuels [3]. The so-called
20-in-10 Plan calls for a 20% reduction in the consumption of
conventional fuels by the year 2017. This reduction will result from
a combination of increased fuel efficiency and increased use of

0960-1481/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.030
 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22 15

Table 1 Table 2
Potential benefits and challenges of biofuels Goals in California alternative fuels plan

Improved energy security Economic productivity Environmental impacts Year Alternative fuels Reduction of
 Domestic supply  Price stability  Land and water use volumes (bg/y) conventional fuels (%)
 Distributed resources  Increased rural  Criteria air pollutants 2012 2.4 9
 Supply reliability development  Greenhouse gases 2017 3.7 11
 Petroleum reduction  Reduced trade  Wildlife habitat 2022 5.3 26
deficit  Biodiversity 2030 – 30
 Improved global  Carbon sequestration 2050 – 50
competitiveness

the first time, the 2007 Energy Act includes the concept of a low
carbon fuel standard (similar to California) requiring renewable
renewable and alternative fuels.1 This 20-in-10 Plan also sets an fuels to have at least a 20% reduction in carbon intensity over the
Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS) of 35 bg/y by 2017 – over 4 times fuels’ life-cycle.
the requirement set by EPAct 2005.
Several States within the U.S. have also taken steps to promote
3. Biofuel trends and projections
development and increased use of biofuels – most notably, Cal-
ifornia. In response to state legislation in 2000 [4], the California
In the U.S., renewable energy in all forms represents a small, but
Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Air Resources Board
growing fraction of total energy use. The most recent compilation
(CARB) prepared a joint agency report, Reducing California’s Petro-
from DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that
leum Dependence [5]. This report recommended increasing alter-
renewables constitute 6.6% of total U.S. energy consumption [12].
native fuel usage to constitute 20% of total on-road transportation
Of these renewables, biomass accounts for about 45%, but only
fuels by 2020, and 30% by 2030.
a small fraction of this (about 10%) is attributed to biofuels, with
In 2005, the California Legislature passed an Assembly Bill
larger shares due to industrial uses of wood/wood waste, municipal
(AB-1007, Pavley) which required the CEC to partner with CARB to
solid waste (MSW), and landfill gases. Fig. 1 provides a visual
‘‘develop and adopt a State Alternative Fuels Plan (AFP) to in-
summary of biomass usage in 2005.2
crease the use of alternative fuels’’ in California [6]. Furthermore,
Although currently comprising a very small fraction of total fuel
this AFP must establish specific goals for alternative fuel usage in
consumption, the use of biofuels has increased rapidly over the
2012, 2017, and 2022, while ‘‘ensuring no net material increase in
past few years, and is projected to increase much more in the fu-
air pollution, water pollution, or other substances known to
ture. This growth is driven largely by the biofuels policies, regu-
damage human health.’’ This AFP has now been developed [7]. It
lations, and incentives described above. At present, the U.S.
includes a combination of regulations, incentives, and market
biofuels market is dominated by corn-derived ethanol. As shown in
instruments to achieve increased penetration of alternative and
Fig. 2, ethanol production has grown from about 1.5 bg/y in 1999 to
non-petroleum fuels; not just for the 3 years specified in AB-1007,
6.4 bg/y in 2007. Approximately, 14% of the U.S. corn crop was used
but also for the longer term of 2030 and 2050. A summary of
to produce ethanol in 2006. Still, this large volume of ethanol
goals within the AFP is presented in Table 2. The main biofuels
represents only about 4% of total gasoline used in the U.S. (on an
included in this plan are ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and
energy basis).
biomethane.
Further increases in corn-produced ethanol are projected, but
Also in California, Governor’s Executive Order S-01-07 requires
this growth will be restrained by the availability of agricultural
fuel suppliers and distributors to reduce the carbon intensity of
land, water resources, and the food vs. fuel tradeoff which is already
their fuels 10% (on a life-cycle basis) by the year 2020 [8]. Achieving
causing concern at the present level of ethanol production. Thus,
this goal will necessitate increased use of biofuels. CARB is currently
substantial future growth of fuel ethanol will depend upon
developing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for the State, in
development of cellulosic ethanol processes.
accord with this Executive Order.
The U.S. DOE EIA projects continued strong growth of renewable
Furthermore, the Governor’s Executive Order S-03-05 [9],
fuels – from 2.5% of total energy consumption at present to 3.1% in
followed by legislative action with AB-32 [10], established green-
the year 2030 [13]. These projections anticipate impacts of enacted
house gas (GHG) reduction goals for California. These goals call for
legislative requirements already in place, such as the RFS within
statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010,
EPAct 2005. However, they are generally regarded as overly con-
the 1990 level by 2020, and 80% below the 1990 level by 2050.
servative, since they do not include future policy-driven
Achieving these goals will require various aggressive measures,
requirements (such as the 36 bg/y figure within the 2007 Energy
including extensive use of biofuels.
Act), carbon taxes, carbon trading schemes, or dramatic changes in
Very recently, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President
technology.
signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [11].
In a future carbon-constrained world, it is anticipated that
This bill establishes a much more stringent RFS compared to EPAct
numerous changes will be necessary at all stages of energy pro-
2005, requiring 36 bg/y of renewable fuel by 2022. Furthermore, 21
duction, distribution, and use. Consequently, biofuels are expected
of the 36 bg/y must come from ‘‘advanced biofuels,’’ meaning non-
to play an increasingly important role throughout the 21st century.
edible plant materials, but excluding non-conventional fossil-
Useful discussions of future biofuels scenarios are presented in
based fuels. Most of this advanced biofuel will be derived from
several U.S. DOE documents including the Genomics-to-Life (GTL)
cellulosic material. For the first time, biodiesel fuel is specifically
Roadmap [14], Biomass multi-year program plan [15], and Biomass
included in the RFS, with a requirement of 1 bg/y by 2012. Also for
to biofuels workshop [16]. Fig. 3 shows the important contribution
that biomass energy must make (on a global basis) to achieve CO2

1
‘‘Alternative’’ fuels include non-conventional, but fossil-based fuels, such as
coal-to-liquids and natural gas-to-liquid fuels. ‘‘Renewable’’ fuels are derived from
non-fossil sources. The term ‘‘conventional fuel’’ is used interchangeably with
‘‘fossil fuel’’.
2
U.S. energy statistics are normally reported in units of quadrillion British
Thermal Units (BTUs), or Quads. To convert to SI units, 1 Quad ¼ 1.055 Exajoule.
(1 Exajoule ¼ 1018 joules).
16 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22

Fig. 1. Annual U.S. energy consumption in 2005, Quads. Source: DOE Renewable Energy Annual 2005 (July 2007).

stabilization at a concentration of 550 ppmv. Note that in this
scenario, total energy derived from biomass at the end of the 21st
century would approximately equal total fossil-derived energy at
the beginning of the century. However, despite this large increase
in use of biomass – as well as increased use of solar and wind en-
ergy – fossil energy usage is also projected to increase throughout
this century.
4. Biomass feedstocks for biofuels
The currently dominant feedstock for biofuels in the U.S. is corn,
used to produce ethanol. (Soy oil is the largest feedstock for bio-
diesel. Although growing rapidly, the total amount of biodiesel
currently produced in the U.S. is small at about 0.45 bg/y, or about
7% of ethanol production.) For biofuels to play a significant role in
satisfying U.S. transportation fuel demands will require utilization
of larger and more diverse feedstocks.
Recently, the U.S. DOE and USDA conducted a joint biomass re-
source assessment study to determine whether the land resources of
the U.S. are capable of producing a sustainable supply of biomass
sufficient to displace at least 30% of the country’s present petroleum
consumption [17]. Forestry and agricultural resources were consid-
ered – both in their present form and under various future scenarios
involving modifications to current practice. A summary of the bio-
mass resource base considered is shown in Table 3.
Currently, the U.S. utilizes approximately 142 million dry tons/
year (mdt/y) of forest-derived biomass. The largest contributions
are fuel wood (residential and industrial), paper pulping, and wood
processing waste (lumber mills). The ‘‘Billion-Ton Study’’ concluded
that the U.S. could sustain a 2.5-fold increase in total tonnage of
forest biomass resources. This would require modest growth of
current uses, and introduction of new sources – particularly logging
residues and forest thinning for fire reduction. Challenges to
overcome in developing these new uses include accessibility to the
resources, transportation costs, labor availability, improved har-
vesting equipment, and environmental mitigation. The amount of
potentially available forest biomass resources identified in this
report is shown in Fig. 4.
Much larger potential growth in biomass resources is possible in
the agricultural sector. Several scenarios were developed, having
different assumptions regarding crop yields, land use changes,
harvesting efficiency, tillage practices, and introduction of peren-
nial crops for biomass.
Scenario 1 represents the current U.S. agricultural situation. The
amount of biomass available (though most is not currently used) is
194 mdt/y. This could be increased substantially, as determined in
scenarios 2 and 3 (see Fig. 5). Scenario 2 continues to use con-
ventional crops only, but assumes moderate to high increases in
crop yields. (These yield increases are roughly equivalent to
expected yields in 2020 and 2040.) Scenario 3 assumes the
introduction of perennial crops (trees and grasses) and an increase

Fig. 2. U.S. renewable fuels production and requirements.

 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22 17

biomass in amounts that are attractive for use as an energy feed-

stock. However, the biomass composition varies widely from place-
to-place. For example, assessments of California’s biomass
resources have determined a much higher fraction of municipal
waste (and lower fraction of forest material) as compared to the
national figures [18,19].

5. Biomass conversion technologies

Numerous approaches are being investigated to convert bio-

Fig. 3. Potential role of biomass fuels in stabilizing global CO2 at 550 ppmv. Source: US
DOE Genomics-to-Life (GTL) Roadmap (August 2005).
mass to biofuels. In the U.S., current biofuels production is domi-
nated by ethanol from fermentation of sugars originating from corn
kernels. However, R&D efforts are now focused mainly on pro-
ducing fuels from various lignocellulosic feedstocks, or from tri-
glycerides (animal fats and oils). Collectively, these are sometimes
called ‘‘2nd Generation Biofuels.’’
5.1. Lignocellulose-to-biofuels

Although the distinctions are not entirely clear-cut, lignocellu-

in residue-to-grain ratios from conventional crops. In both sce- lose-to-biofuel technologies can be broadly categorized according
narios 2 and 3 it is assumed that all anticipated food/feed demand to two pathways: (1) biochemical and (2) thermochemical. The
for grain will be met before additional grain is used for biofuels biochemical pathway involves several unit operations similar to
production. those used today in corn-to-ethanol plants, but also requires ad-
Achieving the high levels of biomass production projected in ditional processing steps. For example, the lignocellulosic feedstock
these scenarios will require significant changes in crop yields and must be pre-treated (usually with strong acid) to break down the
agricultural practice, resulting from continued research and de- hemi-cellulose fraction and make the remaining cellulose material
velopment of new technologies. more accessible for subsequent saccharification. Cellulase enzymes
However, as shown in Table 4, no changes in total acreage are are then introduced to hydrolyze the carbohydrate material, pro-
anticipated, and only modest changes in land allocations. Other viding a variety of sugars which are fermented to produce ethanol.
potential concerns arising from this large increase in agriculturally The lignin portion of the original biomass feedstock is generally
derived biomass are the following. unreacted throughout this biochemical process, and can be
recovered and used as a fuel or feedstock for thermochemical
 Long-term impacts of removing large quantities of crop conversion processes.
residues. Major technical challenges and barriers to the biochemical
 Impacts of nutrient removal from soils (and subsequent pathway include dealing with the variability of biomass feedstocks,
replenishment). general recalcitrance of lignocellulosic materials to chemical and/or
 Insufficient water availability. biological degradation, and the need for improved effectiveness of
 Increased runoff of nutrients and agricultural chemicals. cellulose enzymes and fermentation organisms.
 Ecosystem impacts. Thermochemical pathways for biofuel production generally
utilize either gasification or pyrolysis technologies. Gasification
This USDA/DOE report concludes that the combined forest and involves high temperature thermal decomposition of lignocellu-
agricultural land resources have the potential of sustainably sup- losic material, followed by partial oxidation to produce raw syn-
plying more than 1/3 of the nation’s current petroleum consumption, thesis gas (consisting mainly of CO and H2). Following cleanup and
without compromising the supply of food, feed, and conventional conditioning of the syngas, it is reacted catalytically to produce
forest products. The time period required to achieve this 1.3 bdt/y mixed alcohols or Fischer–Tropsch hydrocarbons. Pyrolysis also
biomass level is roughly 20–40 years, which matches the expected involves thermal decomposition, but it is done at somewhat lower
time frame for development of a large-scale biorefinery industry. temperatures, and in the absence of oxygen, to produce a liquid bio-
One of the benefits of biomass is its widely distributed abun- oil. Following cleanup and stabilization, this bio-oil is a suitable
dance. Nearly every area within the U.S. contains some form of feedstock for a petroleum refinery.
As compared to biochemical pathways, both gasification and
Table 3
pyrolysis can be viewed as ‘‘brute force’’ approaches. These
Biomass resource base in U.S. processes do not require enzymes or microorganisms, they are
applicable over a wide range of feedstocks, and they are
Forest Resources Agricultural Resources
generally compatible with conventional petroleum processing
Primary  Logging residues  Crop residues
technologies.
 Forest fuel treatment  Grain
 Fuel wood  Perennial grasses However, important technical challenges still remain with these
 Woody crops thermochemical approaches. Pre-treatment of the biomass and
Secondary  Mill residues  Animal manures
physical feeding into thermal processing units are challenging. For
 Pulping liquors  Food/feed processing residues gasification, other challenges include minimization of tar forma-
 Wood processing tion, syngas cleanup, and development of effective catalysts. For
residues pyrolysis, major challenges include cleanup of the bio-oil and suf-
Tertiary  Construction debris  Municipal solid waste (MSW) ficient stabilization of it for practical delivery and use in a petro-
 Demolition debris  Landfill gases leum refinery.
 Urban tree trimmings The U.S. DOE is currently supporting development of six com-
 Packaging waste
mercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants, as summarized in Table 5
18 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22
Fig. 4. U.S. forest biomass resources, million dry tons/year (mdt/y). Source: DOE/USDA, the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply (April 2005).
[20]. The $385 million provided by DOE will be combined with even
larger in-kind investments from the grant recipients (over a 5-year
period) to develop fully operating commercial scale plants that will
produce (collectively) about 130 million gallons/year of ethanol.
Both biochemical and thermochemical pathways are included. In
addition to these near-term technologies, DOE is encouraging
development of more experimental feedstocks and processing
technologies, and has allocated $200 million to support several
smaller pilot plants (10% commercial scale) focusing on longer-term
approaches [21].
Although these biochemical and thermochemical processes are
currently being developed and improved as separate operations,
eventually they are expected to be integrated into a biorefinery
concept such as that shown in Fig. 6. This scheme allows for great
flexibility by combining elements of both thermochemical and
biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass, along with
conventional starch-to-ethanol plants and petroleum refining
processes.
To further accelerate R&D leading to breakthroughs in making
biofuels cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels, DOE has selected
three Bioenergy Research Centers that they intend to fund with
$375 million over the next 5 years [22]. These Centers (identified in
Table 6) bring together 18 Universities, 7 DOE national labs, and
several private companies. A major focus will be on understanding
how to re-engineer biological processes to develop new and more
efficient methods for converting lignocellulosic material into eth-
anol and other biofuels.
Fig. 5. Potential U.S. agricultural biomass resources, million dry tons/year. Source: DOE/USDA, the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply (April 2005).
5.2. Triglycerides-to-biofuels
While much of today’s R&D effort is directed towards pro-
duction of ethanol from biomass, other biofuels are of growing
interest. The U.S. currently has about 170 biodiesel plants, with this
number continuing to grow [23]. At present, soy oil is the dominant
feedstock, but numerous other seed oils are being investigated –
including canola, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, palm, jatropha,
and others. In addition, many biodiesel plants utilize animal fats
and waste cooking oils as feedstocks. Though not yet widely prac-
ticed commercially, there is also interest in utilizing algal oils as
a biodiesel feedstock. Algae offers the promise of much higher oil
production per acre, and growth with low quality water.
Most biodiesel in the U.S. is used as low concentration blends
with petroleum diesel – typically 5% blends (B5) or 20% blends
(B20). Some early usage of biodiesel has led to poor engine oper-
ability and/or fuel handling difficulties. Many of these problems are
believed to result from inadequate product quality control and poor
fuel system ‘‘housekeeping’’ [24]. To ensure satisfactory perfor-
mance with biodiesel and its blends, strict adherence to ASTM
product specifications is necessary – ASTM D6751 for biodiesel;
ASTM D975 for petroleum diesel.
All the above-mentioned biodiesel feedstocks are triglycerides,
which can be transesterified with methanol (or ethanol) to produce
biodiesel and free glycerol. Increasing production of biodiesel fuel is
creating a glut of glycerol, prompting considerable R&D efforts to
discover new uses for this by-product. A processing approach that
 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22 19

Table 4 The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and

U.S. agricultural land allocation under biomass scenarios, million acres Technology (NACEPT) has also begun studying the topic of biofuel
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 sustainability. NACEPT recently advised the U.S. EPA Administrator
(current (moderate and high (moderate yield (high yield that ‘‘the nation has the capacity to create a biofuel system that can
allocation) yield increase) increase) increase) help meet energy needs over the generations ahead without
Active cropland 344 344 339 319 degrading the natural resources of soil and water,’’ but they caution
Idle land 37 37 27 27
that this outcome will not be automatic, easy, or inexpensive [27].
Pasture 68 68 43 43
Perennial crop 0 0 40 60 There has been considerable debate within the U.S. and else-
where about the life-cycle GHG effects (and energy balance) of
Total 449 449 449 449
ethanol fuel. Numerous studies have reported widely differing
results, largely because of different assumptions regarding agri-
cultural practices, fossil energy sources used in producing ethanol,
avoids glycerol formation involves catalytic hydroprocessing of the allocation of GHG emissions (and energy inputs) to co-products
triglyceride feedstocks to produce renewable diesel (or Green that are manufactured along with the ethanol and the extent and
Diesel), which contains no oxygen and is identical to petroleum- impacts of land use changes. In a recent study, Farrell et al. [28]
derived diesel fuel. A commercial example of this is the product developed a biofuel analysis model and applied it to several prior
called NExBTL, developed by Neste Oil [25]. studies in an attempt to provide consistency in boundaries and
assumptions. Based upon adjustments made using this model, the
6. Environmental considerations authors concluded that the single best point estimate today is that
corn ethanol reduces petroleum use by 95% compared to gasoline,
Presumed environmental benefits are important drivers for but reduces GHG emissions by only 13%. For larger GHG reductions,
greater use of biofuels – particularly the benefits of reduced GHG cellulosic ethanol is required. In a somewhat similar retrospective
emissions. Yet, no fuel system is free of environmental concerns. analysis of previous ethanol studies, Hammerschlag computed
Some of the major concerns in the U.S. deal with water implica- a term called energy return on investment, rE, and determined
tions. A thorough study of this was recently published by the small energy and GHG benefits for most corn ethanol processes,
National Academies of Science [26], which concluded that ‘‘Cur- and much larger benefits from cellulosic processes [29].
rently, biofuels are a marginal additional stress on water supplies at Farrell et al. also used their model to determine GHG emissions
the regional to local scale. However, significant acceleration of and energy inputs for three ethanol cases compared to gasoline.
biofuels production could cause much greater water quantity The results shown in Fig. 7 indicate that the ‘‘corn ethanol today’’
problems depending on where the crops are grown.’’ Concerns scenario results in only small GHG reductions compared to gaso-
about both water quantity and quality are most severe in scenarios line, while the ‘‘CO2 intensive’’ scenario results in slightly higher
where increased biofuels come primarily from corn. Compared GHG emissions than gasoline. (This scenario assumes that corn is
with most other crops, increased corn is likely to lead to higher transported large distances before being converted into ethanol
application rates of nitrogen and pesticides (potentially increasing using coal as the primary energy source.) However, the ‘‘cellulosic
nutrient pollution of waterways) and greater erosion – though ethanol’’ scenario reduces GHGs by over 85% compared to the
some of these impacts could be mitigated by improved agricultural gasoline baseline.
practices. Biofuels from lignocellulosic crops or from triglycerides Very recently, several reports have suggested that biofuels may
have similar, though generally less severe, water concerns. have significant adverse GHG impacts [30–32]. This stems largely

Table 5
DOE-supported biomass-to-ethanol commercial plants

Process category Lead company Collaborators Feedstocks Process details Project location Expected products
Biochemical Abengoa Bioenergy  Antares Corp. 700 t/d Ag. residues Enzymatic hydrolysis, Kansas Ethanol (15 mg/y)
 Taylor Engineering (corn stover, wheat saccharification, Heat, power
straw, switchgrass) fermentation
Blue Fire Ethanol  Waste management 700 t/d Landfill green Concentrated acid California Ethanol (19 mg/y)
 JGC Corp. waste and wood waste hydrolysis, Heat, power
 MECS Inc. fermentation
 PetroDiamond
Broin (now called  DuPont 840 t/d Ag. residues Hydrolysis, Iowa Ethanol (30 mg/y)
Poet)  Novozymes (corn fiber, cobs, and saccharification,
 NREL stalks) fermentation
Iogen Biorefinery  Goldman Sachs 700 t/d Ag. residues Hydrolysis, Idaho Ethanol (18 mg/y)
 Royal Dutch Shell (wheat and barley saccharification,
straw, corn stover, fermentation
switchgrass, etc.)

Thermochemical Alico  Bioengineering 770 t/d Yard waste, Gasification, Florida Ethanol (14 mg/y)
Resources wood waste, and fermentation of syngas H2 (8.8 t/d)
 Washington Group Intl. vegetative waste Ammonia (50 t/d)
 GeoSyntec Heat, Power
 BG Katz Corp.
Range fuels  Merrick 1200 t/d Wood Gasification, catalytic Georgia Ethanol (40 mg/y)
 Western Research Inst. residues, woody crops reaction of syngas Methanol (9 mg/y)
 Georgia Forestry Heat, power
Commission
 BioConversion Technol.
 Khosla Ventures
 CH2MHill

Notes: t/d ¼ dry tons per day (English units); mg/y ¼ million gallons/year.
20 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22

Fig. 6. Integrated biorefinery elements. Source: NREL (2006).

from concerns that changes in land use patterns can increase GHG
emissions, and these increases are not treated properly in LCA
models. Although many LCA studies have considered – at least par-
tially – the impacts of direct land use changes (for example, growing
more corn at the expense of soy beans or pasture land) they have not
generally accounted for indirect land use changes (for example,
clearing rainforests to grow crops to satisfy food/feed requirements
that have been disrupted by U.S. renewable fuel policies).
Other important considerations are the specific cropping prac-
tices being utilized to grow the biofuel feedstocks, and the impacts
of these practices upon GHG emissions – particularly nitrous oxide
(N2O) [33,34].
All these issues regarding biofuels’ life-cycle GHG impacts
remain controversial, and areas for on-going study.
7. Other biofuel commercialization considerations
Development of a robust and sustainable biofuels industry will
require a large and complex supply chain. Five major elements in
this supply chain are shown in Fig. 8 [15].

1. Feedstock production: large industries must develop to pro-

Table 6 duce sufficient volumes (and sustainable supplies) of biomass
U.S. DOE-supported bioenergy research centers feedstocks. Waste materials can contribute a significant portion
Name Lead Other Areas of
organization(s) participants emphasis
DOE Bioenergy Oak Ridge  Georgia Tech  Biomass
Science Center National Lab  NREL formation
 University of and structure
Georgia  Biomass
 Dartmouth recalcitrance
College  Poplar and
 University of switchgrass
Tennessee energy crops

DOE Great Lakes University of  Pacific  Plant fiber

Bioenergy Wisconsin/ Northwest breakdown
Research Center Michigan State NL  Maximizing
University  Lucigen production of
Corp. starches and oils
 University of  Environmental
Florida and economic
 Oak Ridge sustainability
National Lab
 Illinois State
University
 Iowa State
University

DOE Joint Lawrence  Sandia  Microbial-based

BioEnergy Berkeley National Lab synthesis of fuels
Institute National Lab  Lawrence beyond EtOH
Livermore NL  Rice and
 University of Arabidopsis as
California model energy
Berkeley crops
 University of
California
Davis
 Stanford
University
Fig. 7. Life-cycle energy and GHG impacts of ethanol. Source: Farrell et al.
 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22
Fig. 8. Biomass-to-biofuels supply chain. Source: DOE biomass multi-year program plan (2007).
initially, but with increasing demand, more deliberately grown
feedstocks will be required. Bioengineering will be necessary to
develop improved crops (lower water requirements, faster
growth, disease resistant, improved harvestability, etc.).
2. Feedstock logistics: new crops (switchgrass, forest thinnings,
algae, etc.) require development of equipment and methodol-
ogies for cost-effective harvesting, storage, and pre-processing.
Transportation costs are a current barrier. Year-around
production of biofuels requires constant, reliable feedstock
supply. Effective separation of waste feedstocks remains
problematic.
3. Biofuels production: further processing improvements are
necessary for cost-effective operation. Integrated biorefineries
must be developed and deployed. Effective utilization of co-
products (including heat and electrical power) is necessary for
economic operation.
4. Biofuels distribution: compatibility with current infrastructure
components (storage, blending, transportation, and dispens-
ing) is critical. Quality control procedures must be imple-
mented to ensure that biofuels meet all applicable product
specifications.
5. Biofuels end use: availability of biofuels-compatible vehicles
must be expanded. To encourage consumer satisfaction, these
vehicles must offer performance equivalent to conventional
vehicles.
A final, overriding consideration in this entire supply chain is
economics. For biofuels to become commercially successful on
a large scale will require favorable economics at each point along
this chain.
8. Summary and conclusions
The U.S. biofuels industry is undergoing rapid growth and
transformation. Driven largely by concerns over energy security
and greenhouse gases, national and state policies are being
developed and implemented to promote much greater utilization
of biofuels. At the present time, biofuels are dominated by corn-
derived ethanol, but much greater emphasis is now being directed
towards ‘‘2nd Generation Biofuels’’ produced from lignocellulosic
material and triglycerides.
Both thermochemical and biochemical conversion technologies
for producing biofuels are advancing rapidly. Further improve-
ments are expected in the near future as a result of substantial
investments by both public and private sectors. No single best ap-
proach for biofuels is likely to emerge, since optimization depends
upon regional feedstocks, existing infrastructure, integration with
other industrial plants (including petroleum refineries) and other
considerations which vary from place-to-place.
U.S. natural resources are sufficient to produce a substantial
amount of 2nd Generation Biofuels; perhaps enough to displace
30–50% of current petroleum-derived fuels over the next 30–50
21
year period. However, extreme care must be exercised to ensure
that this transformation to biofuels will be sustainable and
affordable, with minimal adverse environmental consequences.
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful discussions and
suggestions from Dr. John G. Watson of the Desert Research In-
stitute (DRI) and Dr. Dennis Schuetzle of the Renewable Energy
Institute, International (REII). Additionally, the expert assistance of
Vicki Hall (DRI) is acknowledged in preparation of figures and the
electronic submission process.
References
[1] Bush GW. State of the Union Address. Available from: www.whitehouse.gov/
stateoftheunion/2006/; January 2006. Washington DC.
[2] US Congress. Energy Policy Act of 2005. Available from:www.epa.gov/OUST/
fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf.p. 109–58.
[3] Bush GW. State of the Union Address. Available from: www.whitehouse.gov/
stateoftheunion/2007/; January 2007. Washington DC.
[4] Assembly Bill 2076 (Pavley), Chapter 936, California Statutes of 2000.
[5] Reducing California’s petroleum dependence. California Energy Commission
and California Air Resources Board; August 2003. Joint Agency Report, Publi-
cation No. P600-03-005.
[6] Assembly Bill 1007 (Pavley). Chapter 371, California Statutes of 2005.
[7] State alternative fuels plan. California Energy Commission and California Air
Resources Board; October 2007. Joint Agency Report, CEC-600-2007-011.
[8] Schwarzenegger A. Executive order S-01-07 on low carbon fuel standard.
Sacramento, CA; 2007.
[9] Schwarzenegger A. Executive order S-03-07 on climate change. Sacramento,
CA; 2005.
[10] Assembly Bill 32 (Nunez/Pavley), Chapter 488. The California global warming
solutions act of 2006, California Statutes of 2006.
[11] U.S. Congress. Energy independence and security act of 2007.
[12] Renewable energy annual. 2005 ed. US DOE Energy Information Administra-
tion. Available from: www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html; July 2007.
[13] Annual energy outlook 2007: with projections to 2030. US DOE Energy In-
formation Administration; February 2007. DOE/EIA-0383.
[14] Genomics: GTL roadmap: systems biology for energy and environment. US
DOE Office of Science. Available from: http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/
roadmap/pdf/GenomicsGTL_Roadmap_highres.pdf; August 2005.
[15] Biomass multi-year program plan. US DOE Office of the Biomass Program;
October 2007.
[16] Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol – a joint research agenda.
US DOE Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy; June 2006. DOE/SC-0095.
[17] Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical
feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. A joint study sponsored by US DOE
and USDA, DOE/GO-102005-2135. Available from: http://feedstockreview.ornl.
gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf; April 2005.
[18] Biomass resource assessment in California. California Biomass Collaboration;
April 2005. California energy commission report CEC-500-2005-066.
[19] A preliminary roadmap for the development of biomass in California. Cal-
ifornia Biomass Collaboration; December 2006. California energy commission
report CEC-500-2006-095.
[20] DOE Office of Public Affairs Press Release, 28 February 2007. Available from:
www.energy.gov/print/4827.htm.
[21] DOE Office of Public Affairs Press Release. Available from: www.energy.gov/
print/5031.htm; 1 May 2007.
[22] DOE Office of Public Affairs Press Release. Available from: www.energy.gov/
print/5172.htm; 26 June 2007.
[23] National Biodiesel Board, January 2008. Available from: www.biodiesel.org/.
22 S.K. Hoekman / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 14–22
[24] Mazzoleni C, Kuhns HD, Moosmüller H, et al. A case study of real-world
tailpipe emissions for school buses using a 20% biodiesel blend. Sci Tot Environ
2007;385:146–59.
[25] Rantanen L, Linnaila R, Aakko P, Harju T. NExBTL – biodiesel fuel or
the second generation. Society of Automotive Engineers; 2005. SAE Paper
2005-01-3771.
[26] National Research Council of the National Academies. Water implications of
biofuels production in the United States. The National Academy Press; 2007.
[27] National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. Letter to
EPA administrator. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/reports/
pdf/final-energy-letter-3-nov-19.pdf; 19 November 2007.
[28] Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM. Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 2006;311:506–8.
[29] Hammerschlag R. Ethanol’s energy return on investment: a survey of the
literature 1990 – present. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:1744–50.
[30] Scharlemann JPW, Laurance WF. How green are biofuels? Science 2008;319:
43–4.
[31] Fergione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthoren P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008;319:1235–8.
[32] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of U.S. croplands for biofuels increase greenhouse gases through emissions
from land use change. Science 2008;319:1238–40.
[33] Kim S, Dale BE. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for
producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass Bioenerg 2005;29:426–39.
[34] Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-
gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 2007;17:675–91.