Keywords

9.1 Introduction

Energy is essential for all social-economic activates. The energy improves the standard of life and comfort. The rapid population growth, manmade activities, and urbanization increase the energy demands day by day. With pace of time, the energy consumption pattern changes. The emphases are on more energy production, energy sources, availability, losses, and end use efficiency (Ramchandra et al. 2000). Prior to the sources of energy were only the fossil fuels such as coal, coke, and petroleum products. Now the concept was diversified and focused on energy generation from nonrenewable sources.

The advancement of technologies and modernization enhanced the energy consumption in both industrial and domestic levels. The vehicles consumed the liquid petroleum fuels. The transport sector is a key component of social stability and economic growth (Nap 2009). The concerned is raised about the depletion of nonrenewable sources and future energy scarcity in Pakistan (Moriartv and Honnerv 2016).

The world now being explores the ethanol as best substitute of petroleum fuel. In regard Governments of various countries facilitate the production, promotion, and adoption of biofuels, especially ethanol and ethanol blend petroleum fuels. It is reported that forty countries already include ethanol in their energy matrix (Timilsina et al. 2011). Hence, the remarkable budget is allocated, given subsidy and exempted the tax exemption to promote the ethanol production in their counties (Sorda et al. 2010).

The main cause of switching to renewable sources is the depletion of fossil deposits, the remedies of greenhouses gases in climate, energy supply security and impending peaks and employment opportunities.

9.2 Sources of Ethanol Production in Pakistan

The biofuels are classified into first and second generation. The first-generation biofuels are produced from food crops, grains, edible and nonedible seeds and vegetable oils. The second generations are the residues such as corn stalks, cotton straw, wheat straw rice straw, leaves, and other ethanol bearing agrowastes. The ethanol produced from biosources is termed as bioethanol. The seasonal availability of various feeds stalks in Pakistan.

The corn gains are most popular for bioethanol production because of sugar, sucrose, and starch content. The other edible first-generation seeds are sunflower, rapeseed, mustard seed, and wheat grain. The nonedible seeds are jatropha, soap seed, and linseed. The main issue of first-generation biofuels production is that they are used as food or food stalks hence the production of bioethanol causes the shortage and scarcity (Naik et al. 2010). In this regard, worldwide various studies of different researchers are conducted and found that first-generation biofuels are not sustainable because it creates the potential stress on food commodities. However, the second-generation biofuels are more suitable and feasible (Sorda et al. 2010). As the second generations are the residue of agrowaste so they could possess the low procurement cost, high abundance, and current underutilization (Welfle et al. 2014). From energy security and environmental criteria, the production of ethanol from lingo cellulose is better than first-generation biofuels. The selection of feed stalk for bioethanol production strictly depends upon its composition including the cellulose, lignin, and ash content. The composition of various feeds stalks is given in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Composition (dry basis) and maximum potential yields of different feeds talks (Bhutto et al. 2015)
Full size table

According to the life cycle analysis, the ethanol production from lingo cellulose by biochemical reaction yields better. Further, the issue with lignocellulose is its tough and recalcitrant nature which increase the production cost. However, the cost should be reduced by enzymatic treatment and fermentation process. But prior pretreatment is mandatory (Bhutto et al. 2014). The number of researchers conducted research on production of ethanol from lignocellulose feedstock. Bhutto et al. (2014) reported that the process of ethanol production from feed stalks is more expensive. The researcher argued that the production steps increase the cost of operation. Another researcher addressed the issues and limitation raised during the process. These are the handling and transportation of biomass, efficient and effect process of separation of lignin from lingo cellulose agrowaste. These upraised the cost (Liew et al. 2014). It was reported that ethanol production from lingo cellulose stalks would not be feasible and suitable in every respect. Hence could not be recommended on commercial scale in near future (Carriquiry et al. 2010).

The source of ethanol production is molasses as well. The molasses is by-product of sugar industry. Pakistan is on world’s 7th rank of sugarcane growing country and sugar industrial sector is second-largest industrial sector of the country (Khan 2007). The ethanol is produced from molasses by fermentation process. The carbon content is very low so can generate the greenhouses gases in very low quantity (Dufey and Greig-Gran 2010). Ethanol synthesized from sugarcane emerged as a leading renewable fuel for transportation in USA (Araújo et al. 2017) It is also blended with gasoline and can reduce petroleum usage (Dias De Oliveira et al. 2005). Approximately 80% of cane molasses is used for production of alcohol in the world.

9.3 Ethanol Prospectus in Pakistan

In Pakistan, 48.7% petroleum products were consumed in transport sector in the year 2013–2014. Government of Pakistan imports the petroleum fuels of cost 4·3109 USD in 2014 in order to meet the country’s demand (Karim and Shahid 2018). The oil reservoirs deposits are depleting day by day. The country is running on deficit budget. Hence, this huge amount puts the financial burden to economy. The bioethanol production profile is shown in Fig. 9.2

Fig. 9.1
figure 1

Seasonal availability various feed stalks in Pakistan (Bhutto et al. 2015)

Full size image
Fig. 9.2
figure 2

Bioethanol production (%) in Pakistan (Dufey and Greig-Gran 2010)

Full size image

Today’s need is to explore, to develop the indigenous sources of ethanol production so to resolve the problem of energy crisis and to establish the well-develop technologies on commercial scale. It also matters to fix the stable ethanol prices in local market. The Pakistan State Oil (PSO) imported the blend contents 10% anhydrous ethanol and 10% gasoline in 2010 and started its marketing in Karachi (Bhutto et al. 2015). The price was fixed by Pakistan Gasoline Regulating Authority (OGRA) 4% less than regular gasoline to facilitate the public. This offer exhibited positive impacts now the demands of ethanol in the country became 364·106. Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) is taking keen interest in development of the bioethanol advancement program. The Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock (MINFAL) has also urged to find out other sources of raw material for bioethanol production such as wheat, potatoes, rice, and sorghum (Asif 2009). Production of bioethanol from cane sugar is economically friendly than other sources (Canilha et al. 2012).

Presently molasses is placed the prominent position in ethanol production. The quality of molasses matters roughly 1-ton molasses produced 240–270 L ethanol. The production of 500 million tons ethanol per annum contributes to 36% gasoline consumption in transportation sector of the country (Harijan et al. 2009; Harijan 2008, PhD thesis).

Asif (2009) reported that there were thirteen distilleries for ethanol production. The three distilleries were not attached with sugar industries having annual capacity of 6.5 million liters. The remaining distilleries are attached but two of them are not working. The annual ethanol production rate was about 143 million liters verses the molasses consumption 0.560 million tons. The current production of ethanol is 274 million annuals (Asif 2009). A report of 2007 showed that only 6 sugar mills had a facility of processing of molasses into ethanol from the total sugar mills. With the current production level of sugarcane crop, Pakistan has a potential to produce over 400,000 tons of ethanol (Balat 2009).

9.4 Impact of Bioethanol Production

It is the fact that last five years the biofuel consumption rapidly increases and its growth into a global industry. Many rich, low, and middle countries planned to enhance the production, strength the technology and improve the process. Globally the policies and ambitious target planned to promote the significant growth. In 2007, globally 1% biofuel was reserved for transport sector, however, the estimated biofuel production was 54 billion liters (Dufey and Grieg-Gran 2010).

The main aim of biofuel production especially industrially developed countries was to mitigate the greenhouse gas. On the other side, in the less developed low and middle countries the driven force is to get rid from energy scarcity, earn foreign exchange by export the biofuel and provide the employment to local population. Also, to support the rural development programs. It provides the greater energy security.

The liquid biofuel can be produced from wide range of agricultural commodities. The controversial opinions are developed by various organizations. In the report 2008 of Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), it was reported that next decade and beyond the biofuels will be produced from agricultural commodities which put the stress on consumer market. The stakeholders, local growers, public, and NGOs have raised their concerns in this regard.

Besides these, the other issues have also been associated with production of ethanol on large scale. These are the intensive agricultural puts the adverse effects on environment. The soil erosion would be possible. The high use of water causes the water scarcity in the region. The uses of agrochemicals can disturb the ecosystem. The biodiversity would happen. The agricultural run-off pollutes the water bodies. The use of palm oil and soy causes deforestation in Asia and Latin America.

In contrast, another study urged that biofuel is beneficial to climate change. It is the mitigation to climate change. The biofuel accounts the processing and cultivation process also taken part to cope up the energy shortage.

The extensive use of biofuel production matters the rise up in food prices and puts impacts on food security. The studies examined that the food prices impact will be 3–75%. With median range 30–40% for a maze and somewhat less for other basic commodities (FAO 2009).

The commercial cultivation of food commodities for bioethanol production would cause the displacement poor people who depend on land. This is a social issue observed in many parts of the country.

9.5 Bioethanol Trends

The consumption of biofuels increases day by day. The developed world such as United States, Brazil, and member countries of European Union put the hands together to make the biofuel program successful. The faxable polices, agricultural reforms, and tax reduction/exemption facilitate the bioethanol producers. Due to Government intervention, globally the bioethanol demand will increase by 125 billion liters in 2020 (Demirbas and Karslioglu 2007).

The Global production of bioethanol increase from 2000 to 2007 was 17.25 billion liters (Balat 2007a, b) to 46 billion liters, respectively. The global consumption of gasoline was 13 billion liters in 2007 from that the 4% consumption was of bioethanol. The United State is the largest bioethanol producer. It contributes globally 47% of total bioethanol production. The total production in 2005 was 15 billion liters (Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) 2008) and in 2006 it reaches to 18.3 billion liter (Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) 2007). The Energy Policy Act 2012 (EP Act) target was 57 billion liters (Balat and Balat 2009).

Brazil is the second largest bioethanol producer country and topmost bioethanol exporter. Most of the fuel used domestically is only 20% exported to European Union, United State, and other markets (https://agb.east.asu.edu/workingpapers/0207.pdf). In Brazil, most of bioethanol produced is from sugarcane industry and fulfills the 40% Brazil petroleum consumption (https://www.greenergy.com). Between the Brazil and United states, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed in March 9, 2007. Both countries agreed in mutual cooperation and coordination. The advancement in research will be shared. Both countries pledged to switch their industries to biofuels and efforts the worldwide development of biofuel (Seelke and Yacobucci 2007).

9.6 Policy Drivers for Bioethanol

Brazil is the topmost bioethanol producing country. The history starts up since long. Currently, the country is self-sufficient and highly capable in technology. The workers are skilled and fully potent in bioethanol production.

This happened in 1975 when the national alcohol program (ProAlcool) was initiated in Brazil. The aim and objective of that program was to reduce or minimize the use of gasoline and to discover the best alternate of the gasoline. As the gasoline is deplete and scare. The prices rise up to sky and are emitting the greenhouse gases. Hence, the attention was paid to biofuels especially bioethanol. The Government took interest and made the effective steps in this regard. The Government legalizes, mandates the legislation, design policies, and plans, provides facility and finance, encourages the venders and bioethanol producers, creates the skill development opportunities. The Government gives the subsidy and tax exemption to bioethanol producers. These Government efforts were creating new spirits and bioethanol industry to move toward success. The demand of bioethanol was going to increase and the industry gradually scale up. The more advancement in this field was incorporated.

Till 1984, the new cars fueled by anhydrous ethanol were introduced in the market. In anhydrous ethanol content, 96% is ethanol, the rest would be the water (Kline et al. 2008). In 1993, the Government law was passed according to that the venders were bound to sell the blended ethanol 20–25% in market (Martines-Filho et al. 2006). In 1999, The Pro Alcohol program was on way to success and some changes were made as the public participation was increased their rights were reserved and offered more incentives. The Government interventions were minimized. The public was authorized for price allocation verses profit margin. By the support of Government, the flexible-fuel cars were introduced in markets. The rising prices of gasoline pushed toward the utilization of bioethanol. The other options were also in queue including the bioethanol production from sugar industry. That was why the sugarcane production and sugar industry strengthened in 2000 (Kline et al. 2008). Currently, the Brazil automobile industry manufactured 80% flexible fuel cars. Among that the 30% was done in 2004. As the bioethanol is environment friendly and viable hence 32,000 stations provide the services to public. The public avails the facility according to their will and wish. They have the option of anhydrous bioethanol/gasoline and 25% bioethanol/gasoline (Coyle 2007).

The European Commission (EC) is promoting the bioethanol industry in their member countries. The scope was to mitigate the greenhouses gases emitted from gasoline and transport sector is topmost contributor. Secondly to gripe the issue of energy scarcity and improve the energy security. Thirdly to develop the rural areas by means of employment, health, and education (Balat 2007a, b; Jansen 2003). It emphases to reduce or get rid of gasoline fuel and minimize the dependency on it. The transport sector fuel consumption accounts for 30% of total energy and it goes high. This is because of mobility and good transportation. According to European Union white paper (https://www.europa.eu.int), there should be the need to implement and enforce the viable plans and practice the sound strategy to switch to the alternative fuels (Malça & Freire, 2006). In that regard the directives (2003/30/EU) set by European Union that in transport sector 5.76% biofuel were consumed (European Commission (EC). Directive 2003). The member countries unanimously agreed and included in their national objectives. Some countries were ambitious and set their target such as France (Wiesenthal et al. 2009) and Belgium (European Commission (EC). Green Paper 2006) set its target as 7% in 2010. In 2015, the target was 10% by France (Wiesenthal et al. 2009).

The various strategies that were in records more focused on alternative fuel and reduction in greenhouse gases. The green papers “A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy” Published in March 2006 by the European commission (European Commission (EC). Green Paper 2006). And the next year that was January 2007 the energy review report “An Energy Policy for Europe” was cited (European Commission (EC), Jan 2007, Strategic energy review). It is said that to make the environment more friendly, open the new doors for alternative fuels and promote in markets to ensure the progress, prosperity, and growth in all sectors of life (European Commission (EC) 2008). The purpose was to achieve the target of 10% renewable energy set by European Union extended to 20% in 2020. Also issued the fuel quality directives in 2010 beneficent to save up to 35% greenhouse gas emissions (Pfuderer and Castillo 2008; Thamsiriroj and Murphy 2009). By the tax exemptions, lenient financial policies the bioethanol industries grown-up (Jacquet et al. 2007). The magnitude of excise tax levied on petroleum products was high compared to bioethanol. This made the better consumer choice of bioethanol.

The fiscal instrument depends upon the reduction in excise tax on biofuel and makes the bioethanol consumption viable. This required high tax exemption on bioethanol and less tax reduction in petroleum products (Kojima et al. 2007).

The European Union directs its member countries about the taxation framework. It allows the tax reduction in the favor of electricity and renewable energy. European Union said that loss in tax revenue generation were covered from biofuel intended for transportation and it may not less be than 50% of normal excise duty (Schnepf 2006). In European Union countries, the tax reduction is as high as US$ 0.84 per lit (Kojima et al. 2007).

The Chinese run their renewable fuel program by making amendments in law. They made the legislation regarding the tax levied, tax exemption or reduction, price limits, and subsidies (Wang et al. 2006). In 2001, the Chinese Government initiated two programs about renewable energy with aim to improve the rural and domestic environment and bioenergy generation (Gnansounou et al. 2005). The more improvements were incorporated in law and promulgated. These strengthen the bioethanol industry and make it self-sufficient (US International Trade Commission July 2008). In Feb 2005, the renewable energy act was passed according to that the 10% energy will be biofuel since 2010 (World watch Institute. State of the World 2006). The government set the selling price of bioethanol US$ 0.84 per lit. This is 91.1% selling price of gasoline (Yang and Lu 2007).

The Pakistan Government pledged to switch the alternate source in order to overcome the shortage of energy within the country. The Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan (HDIP) is working on that grounds and conducting the feasibility survey. In support, the Pakistan State Oil (PSO) lounged the pilot plant outlets in major cities of Pakistan such as Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore to monitor the 25 preidentified vehicles for six-month period. The outlet provides the 10% blended bioethanol fuel (https://www.dawn.com/2006/07/28/nat1.htmS).

The United States (US) gave the bioethanol production at its priority list particularly from maize. They reform in agricultural sector since 1980 and revitalize their agricultural policies in farming sectors (Jull et al. 2007). The new vehicles are marketed which performed on blended fuel (E85). The E85 contents 15 and 85% gasoline and bioethanol, respectively. This consumed 1% of total bioethanol produced in United States (Yacobucci and Schnepf 2007).

The US congress promulgated the use of the bioethanol and other alternatives fuels. The legislations and amendments were passed in terms of incentives and promotion. The significant step was the enforcement of The Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct) (Hoekman 2009). In that connection, the legislation The Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) was set. For 2012 targeted the consumption of 5% gasoline verses the 28.4 billion bioethanol (Jank et al. 2007). In 2008, this act offered the more incentive to the production of bioethanol and biodiesel from the cellulosic materials. The small producers of biodiesel were levied the income tax US$0.03 per liter (Kojima et al. 2007). The gasoline consumption became high in 2007 and records 9.7 billion per day In December 18, 2007, the US Congress passed the legislation Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) undersigned by President of United State unanimously agreed to improve the fuel economy and reduce the dependence on foreign fuels. This act also represents the standards of carbon fuel cycle and notify the 20% carbon intensity reduction (Kojima et al. 2007). The Cooperate Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) were introduced. According to that by 2020 the light trucks and car the fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. This act also notifies that in 2008 the 34 billion liters biofuels specially ethanol and in 2012 the 57.5 billion liters in 2020 the 136 billion liters would be required.

9.6.1 Socio-economic Impact of Bioethanol Production

The social-economic impacts of ethanol production industry refer to these issues relevant to establishment of bioethanol industry and their consequences on individuals and as well whole.

9.6.2 Live Hood Services

It plays the vital role in development, progress, and prosperity of people. It puts the long-lasting socio-economic impacts. The sustainable and eco-friendly way would improve the standard of life and give comfort to life while nonsustainability will charge the price and one have to pay. This may be long term or short term and depends on process followed.

The bioethanol plant prominently puts the direct and indirect effects on rural development. It provides the job opportunities to local resident. The employment will improve the skills and play role in capacity building. The employs would get incentives and salary which makes their life happy, satisfied and improves the life standards such as diet, health, and education. The new hospitals equipped with latest machinery and advanced diagnostic centers will be possible to establish. The drug storage facilities, sterilization, and pathological labs will be improved.

By the production of bioethanol, the governments will overcome the issue of energy crises. Besides all direct benefits, there are indirect benefits as well. Those include the establishment of new industries which consume directly the bioethanol in their products also those industries who consume the end product and residue of bioethanol industry. This scenario implies that new job vacancies would be generated. In 2017, the unemployment rate in Pakistan was 5.9% by this way the unemployment rate would be reduced. More people would engage in various jobs. The doors would be open to new organizations who involve in marketing of bioethanol. The bioethanol production will strengthen the other sectors of national development like transport, communications, and infrastructure in educational, health, and other sectors.

This is general practice that people displace from low developed areas to high. The establishment of bioethanol industry would mitigate the migration from rural to urban areas that make the urban load balanced.

The bioethanol production will boost the economy and provide the financial support. By this way, the things would be improved toward the betterment. When economy improves the purchasing power will also increase. Hence the buy and purchase activities increase. This generates the revenue and government will receive in terms of taxes.

The consumption and demand of local goods will increase. The people will hire the local services which support and strengthen the local industry. And their positive impacts would convey to local people.

The extension of bioethanol industry compelled the local farmer for more production to cultivate the diversified seeds. This can generate the competitive environment and increase the profit margin. This causes more foreign exchange when commodity possessed the high cost in foreign market. The highly satisfied and financially stable life leads to high purchasing power. The selling and buying will generate more revenue and government gets more taxes. The agrochemical products such as pesticides, fumigates, manures, plant enhancers, insecticides, and fertilizers industries would be grown-up. Further, the agrotool’s demand will be increased.

9.7 Biofuel Policies in Major Biofuel Producing Countries

The great foresight, vision and professional experience are mandatory to design viable biofuel policy for the long interest of the countries. It should be compactable and sustainable in long run. Secondly, it should be reviewed, revised, and amended subject to the condition in order to meet the goal. The point of view is to switch to renewable source, to save the nonrenewable source, to reduce their depletion, to minimize the greenhouse gas emission, and develop the stability between food and fuel chain. Here, we are going to discuss the policies of various countries (Chun Sheng Goh 2010).

9.7.1 Malaysia

Malaysia started its journey in 1979 by announcement of its National Energy policy, with clear objectives of supply, utilization, and environment (Hitam 1999). In 1980, the Depletion Policy was run to conserve the energy sources. In 1981, Fuel Diversification Policy was implemented to avoid the dependency on single energy source. In broad spectrum, four fuels were incorporated in energy matrix. The renewable sources were kept on priority. The dependency and consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas were reduced from 80% to less than 10% during 1980–2003. The substantive issue was the excess emission of greenhouse gas that was 237% more than the permissible limit. As the part of UN Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, it was mandatory to reduce the greenhouse gases. In this regard, the Malaysian Government more focused and induced the renewable source as fifth in energy matrix. In 1999, the 8th Malaysia Plan (2001–2005) was on table in which it was emphasized to generate the 5% energy from renewable sources. This would save the amount of RM 5 billion (Leo-Moggie 1996).

As the matter of fact, the renewable energy infrastructure in Malaysia was under developing stage when it runs full at its optimum capacity, it would minimize the fossil fuel dependency and would cause the clean environment. This planning was strengthened by accomplishment of Small Renewable Energy Power Program in 2001. According to that the Electricity was generated by renewable source and supply the same to Electricity generation Unit to enhance its generation capacity up to 352 M. The renewable energy sources mean solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, and biomass (Ministry of Energy, Telecommunications and Multimedia) 2004]. It was worthful that among all renewable sources the biomass was most feasible in a manner that huge amount of agricultural waste was generated annually. The utilization of agriculture waste would be safe and economical. Under the umbrella of Government of Malaysia, the biomass power generation and cogeneration project were run in October 2002. This not only reduces the greenhouse gas content in environment but also effective utilization of palm oil waste cogeneration (PTM (Malaysia Energy Centre) 2004). Through cogeneration second-generation stalks are utilized as palm oil residue and other agricultural wastes. This would make more applicable and practicable by proper planning, specific strategy, technical expertise, and legislation (Mohamed and Lee 2006).

It is noteworthy to mention here the example of Brazil. In 1975, Brazil launched the Brazilian Alcohol Program (ProAlcohol) in connection to reduce the 80% fossil fuel consumption (Tan et al. 2008). The concurrently scenario indicated that surplus bioethanol production come up in Brazil that was 164 million m3 verse to consumption of 141 million m3 gasoline (Goldemberg et al. 2004). Malaysia and other countries would have to adopt such a wide policy that they would be self-sustained countries. Toward the strengthening, it is suggested to offer attractive package to Bioethanol Producers as subsidy and low markup loans/interest-free loans. Also, award the funding on research and development projects. Encourage the growers of second-generation lignocellulose and provide them storage and transportation facility. It is mandatory to provide technical assistance and develop the coordination plan.

Besides all the firm planning and efforts, the Government of Malaysia did not achieve the goal of 5% bioethanol blending. The National Biofuel Policy stated that failure lies because of disorganized and disordered policy played by Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities, 2006. The main reason was unstable and fluctuated prize of volatile palm oil in national and international markets. The insecurity of raw material supply created the uncertainty in economic Policy. The streamline and definite availability of raw material for bioethanol industry is very important to reduce risk factor for investors.

In Malaysia, the 91 companies were registered but only 2 were involved in bioethanol industry (Nagarajan 2008). Their interest and attraction in bioethanol production are not looking so high. On the contrary, the automobile industries did not letdown their dependency on coal and petroleum products. They turned to other cost effective and economical source as hydroelectricity and coal power plants (PTM 2008). The implementation of renewable energy matrix in country was not succeeded. The need was The Kyoto Protocol should be promoted as well as pragmatic planning should be followed (UNFCC 2008).

The bioethanol is hydroscopic in nature and has lower boiling point fuel and enables the corrosion in engines. Hence, it should be consumed in blended form. Because of inherent property to hold water molecule it creates difficulty to start the engine. The engine should be modified prior to use the bioethanol. The lower boiling point causes the vapor lock during the hot weather. The special measure is needed during transportation and storage. Only the flexible fuel vehicle permits the high percentage of bioethanol in blend.

The flexible fuel vehicles are most popular in Brazil the 70% of total sale volume while 3% in USA (Tan et al., 2008). This happens by mutual guardianship of Government and public acceptance and support.

The Proton Berhad and Perodua Sdn. Bhd big car manufacturing companies of Malaysia committed to manufactured the flexible fuel vehicles in future with aim to provide the luxury to consumer and to switch on bioethanol.

9.7.2 Brazil

Brazil is famous for bioethanol production. The bioethanol demand in 2012 was 83.1 billion liters holistically among that the 3% consumed by transportation sector. Brazil produced 1% and remaining by Europe, China from corn and Latin America (REN21 2013).

Brazil cultivated 51% sugarcane to meet the demand (Brazil 2012a) and planned to increase its production from 21 to 61.6% billion liters till 2020 (Brazil 2012b). The 27 countries of world were aimed to switch to renewable energy sources but only Brazil and USA would firmly implement the policy and acquire the result. It was assumed that bioethanol was produced from second generation so as to reduce load of food chain but the matter was there was no full-fledged technology still developed to convert the lignocellulose material to bioethanol on economical basis.

Brazil preferred to produce from sugarcane because large cultivated land was available. It was aimed to increase the capacity of ethanol the USA, Brazil, and other countries were planned to enhance their production 79.8, 24.2, and 138.8% up to 2021 categorically. In 2015, the existed capacity of these countries was 57.1%, 37.4%, and 138.8%, respectively.

The point of ponder was well-justified land used policy for cultivation of energy crops (HLPE 2013). No doubt the world population rapidly increases simultaneously the food, water, and energy required for life. In this regard, the sustainable policy was formulated for security of food chain and energy crops (RES-D 2009).

Brazil took solid steps toward the sustainable path and stood at prominent position among hundred countries (FAO 2013). The global economy was adopting the sustainable and renewable roadmaps (Goldemberg 2007). This was because the full dependency of fossil fuels was not feasible for them. The fossil fuel reservoirs are depleting day by day (Kerr 2011). Possibility that their production will decline in coming decades (Hallock et al. 2004, 2014). Other than fossil fuel dependency were increase the choice of customer and increase the security of energy (Chu and Majumdar 2012). Also eliminates the greenhouse gas emission release during combustion of fossil fuels. Besides all the improve the better social economic environment, creates the job opportunities, provide employment and open the new horizons. The foremost contribution would be the favorable support to our ecoservices as food, water, and others. This happens when comprehensive and widespread practices are adopted, do not deforest as it leads to biodiversity (Cerri et al. 2009).

The Government of Brazil implemented the National Plan on Climate Change in 2019 to reduce the greenhouse gases emission. According to this, the farmers were encouraged to adopt the best agricultural practices. The Local Control and Accountability Plan were introduced to offer US$ 90 billion loan to growers in account to enhance their productivity till 2020. It was aimed to develop the grassland and pastures of degraded land. It was noted that 7.6% land in 2011 was barded and undeveloped. This was included in planning that with integration of livestock the 4 Mha land was cultivated.

The reason behind that was to improve the soil quality by addition of animal manure to give rise the nitrogen content. This increases the crop yields by 11% and pasture supporting capacity by 1.76% prior it was 1.05 (Landers 2007). This was promoting the reforestation and more land available for agriculture.

9.7.3 European Union

In 1983, in Italian Ferruzzi group emphases the Production of biofuel from agricultural residue, grain, straw, and wine waste and to exterminate the lead content fuel (Londo and Deurwaarder 2007). Generally, the lead is added in the fuel to enhance the octane number of fuel and to generate the anti-knocking properties of fuel.

The European Commission started its beginning innings to discover the scope and opportunities of biofuels in the region. In 1990, the efforts were more focused. In the same year, Austria developed the first commercial Biofuel Plant (Körbitz et al. 2003). Sweden took step in 1991 with the support of rural Sweden farmers in order to secure the availability of raw material for biofuel industry (Grahn 2004). In Germany, the biofuel blended with mineral oil was completely tax exempted. In British, the tax was not exempted as it was the contravention of European Energy Tax Directive Contravention.

The European Commission in 1997 published the White paper about Renewable Energy and termed as Energy of Future. The tax was exempted 2% in blended biofuels for transportation sector. Resulting biofuel consumption increase in 2010 was 18 Mtoe (Thuijl and Deurwaarde 2006). It was the great scope of biofuel in Energy sector and would place in prominent position in energy matrix. It should be considered as best substitute for fossil fuel. By induction of biofuel, it managed the consistent supply of Energy to consumer. Energy shortfall should be covered specially in Developing Projects.

In the year 2000, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries puts restriction in oil exports so the oil prices raised to $30 per barrel. At that time the European Commission explores the alternative fuel in order to ensure the security and continuous supply of fuel. For the year of 2020, it was targeted to consume 20% bioethanol of the total fuel (European Commission 2000). The tax was exempted and facilitates the vendors and producers of biofuel.

The transportation sector is major consumer of fossil fuel hence in 2001 Policy of Biofuel was formulated in the way to unfold the scope of alternative fuels so as to ensure the security and supply of fuel and minimize the dependency. It was planned that alternative fuel contribution was up to 2% and with increment rate of 0.75% in five years from 2005 to 2010 (European Commission 2001).

To enhance the production, the tax was exempted and encourages the member countries even those who provide the assistance to developing countries should also be exempted. The execution of such practice was not fully supported and liked by France and Germany as there were the largest biofuel generating countries. The other member countries such as Spain, Italy, and Austria set their target and planned strategies but finally it was realized that the capability and potential vary hence the countries should plan and implement by themselves. Keeping in view their resources, potential, manpower and technical expertise (Aantjes 2007).

On the platform of Kyoto framework, the Energy security supply was again ensured. The relevant issue such as supply of raw material, technology frame work, effects on climate, imports of oils, and economic issues were addressed in 2003. It was also kept on board the development issue of rural areas, changes in climatic and emission of greenhouse gases. It was notifying that bioethanol industry should meet the standard from production to end user (European Parliament, 2003).

It was worthful to declare here that only Germany and Sweden achieved the target of 2% set by European commission while the other member countries were stood on 1%. The plan was not fully succeeded. The reason behind was the variant environmental conditions and social circumstance. Hence, it was stated that instead of following the directives of European Union the individual countries should plan according to their own expertise. The European Union again presented “Biomass Action Plan” for large-scale biofuel production, consumption, and measures (European Commission 2005).

9.7.4 Thailand

The biofuels abundantly consumed in transport sector. Its consumption increases day by day. This increment was recorded up to 23% from 2001 to 2007 (Yan and Lin, 2009). The various concerns were related to biofuel productions on commercial scales. These were land use, effect of soil quality, and security of food crops. It was a general observation that if farmers and growers get more incentives, highest crop rate, encouragement, and friendly polices from government and corporate sector of bioethanol producers then there is possibility of scarcity, inadequate, and insufficient food crop supply observed in long term. In that context, the poor countries would face more consequences and the food price increases. The need was to execute the policy which explores the viable solution (Ewing and Msangi 2009). The excess cultivation of crop causes the soil infertility and nonarable (WBGU 2010; UNEP 2008). It was assumed that agricultural waste and inedible crops were taken into account for biofuel production. The aim of Government of Thailand in 2004 was to reformation and strengthen the rural area and lower down the oil imports. At the beginning, the Cassava and molasses were under process. The ethanol blends in Thai market were E10, E20, and E85. The E10 and E 20 mean 10% and 20% of ethanol blended in Petroleum introduced in 2004 and 2008, respectively. After August 2008, the E85 was induced in Thai Market. It is fact that bioethanol market from 2006 to 2009 was from 0.37 M liter/day to 1.03 M liter/(DEDE 2009a). It was lined up in 15 years plan from 2008 to 2020 that attention should be paid on bioethanol production. The short term up to 2011, midterm up to 2016, and long term 2022 policy were formulated. It was planned that up to 2011, 2016, and 2021 the 3 M, 6.2, and 9 L/day were achieved, respectively. Thailand is major food exporter country. The country totals 51.31 million hectares. In 2007, the 20.85 million hectares are reserved for agricultural. This stood 40% of total land (OAE 2008). The rice is major crop covers 48%, fruit 22% and sugarcane, Cassava and other fruits 21% of total of agricultural crops. For bioethanol production, the Cassava and sugarcane were considered for commercial production because of their surplus harvesting in country. The Thailand official data (2008) of 46 sugar mills reveals that 46 kg molasses, 104 kg sugar were generated from the processing of one-ton sugarcane (OCSB 2009). The 78% molasses was locally consumed among which the 37% to Bioethanol Industries and 30% to distilleries. The surplus was exported (DEDE 2009b). The 12.5–14.3 kg sugarcane generate per liter ethanol (Macedo et al. 2008). After Brazil, Thailand is one of topmost sugarcane producing country (OAE 2008). In Thailand, the sugarcane cultivation harvesting period is 10–12 months. The harvesting time is 3–4 months starts from December to March. There are three cultivation region northern, northeastern, and Central region yields 37%, 38%, and 35%, respectively. All these three regions exist on tropical and subtropical region.

The Cassava is used for bioethanol production. It is also considered as energy crop. It exists in sweet and bitter taste. This is because of presence of hydrocyanic acid. The sweet Cassava is edible and has low content percentage of hydrocyanic acid. While the bitter is vise versa. The sweet Cassava is not commercially cultivated and have no demand in local market. It is cultivated in house and small farm houses (TTDI 2004). The Cassava is the most suitable energy plant that contains high-quality carbohydrate, has high resistant against climate and low cost of cultivation. It is important that around the year in all seasons it can be cultivated. The nonedible Cassava is most feasible and the starch content was converted by acid treatment/fermentation/eczematic treatment into sugar. It is used as sweetener (Sriroth and Piyachomkwan 2008).

The Cassava fresh roots and in dried form is used for ethanol production. The dried is more viable. The starch content in Cassava roots was 25%, through fermentation and saccharification converts into one-liter ethanol. This is most feasible for commercial-scale production (Sriroth and Piyachomkwan 2008). Thailand known by the agricultural crop production including the energy crops such as maize, Cassava, sugarcane, and sweet Sorghum. Among all the sugarcane and Cassava are most feasible. The Cassava is highly cultivated in Thailand and captured the 70% of total market. Though the Sweet Sorghum possessed high potential content the Saccharose and Fructose, its cultivation trend is low. On positive aspect of Thailand is that the country has high scope to generate the bioethanol from second-generation crops and agricultural waste such as rice husk, wheat straw, corn stalk, cane trash, and palm oil fruit bunches and trunks. It is expected that in 2022 the total capacity of bioethanol production would lie between 3.6 and 17.6 M liter ethanol/day relevant to energy crop yield. The Cassava and sugarcane are the most potential crops for bioethanol production. In 2008, the 92% bioethanol were produced from sugarcane molasses remaining from Cassava. In the country, the Cassava is the most abundantly grown-up about 3.5% surplus. In 2016, 24 Cassava-bioethanol plants were in operational. In 2016 and 2022, the shortfall of Cassava was observed at about 6.95 and 20.63 M ton compensated by decrease in export by 24–55%. There are 19 bioethanol plants out of 48 who have capacity of 3.43 M liter ethanol/day run on either on sugarcane/Cassava or both simultaneously. The complete dependency on sugarcane is not feasible on long run, however, gives the price stability to sugarcane growers. The bioethanol from sugarcane would give more opportunity as sugar compared to Cassava. The concrete economic policy and market mechanism to ensure the prices of bioethanol, sugar, and all other supplementary items (Kaltner et al. 2005). The social acceptability of bioethanol is high. The results showed that bioethanol produced from Cassava and molasses reduced the greenhouse gases emission by 64% and 49%, respectively. It bit varies depend upon various factors including the operating condition, processing parameters, methodology, and conversion factor (Silalertruksa et al. 2009).

The agriculture residue or second generation most attractive offer because no need of any extra land for cultivation of energy crop. The bulk residue is generated in fields and often not utilized usefully in value-added products. The conversion in biofuel tends to safe disposal of agricultural waste. It is important that it does not put any burden on food chain. The food chain is either intercept or interrupt in long run. Could improve the diversification of feedstocks. The residue availability is 28.2, 21.9, and 9.6 M ton/year. It was perceived that oil palm fronds, sugarcane trash, leaves, and tops left in agricultural fields can be burnt to prepare the land for new crops. The burning smoke is an environmental concern (Robertson 2003).

It was endorsed in 15 years plan from 2008 to 2022 that major feed stalks for bioethanol production would be molasses, sugarcane, and Cassava. The other aspects were the cycles of greenhouse gas emission and feed stalk supply. The surplus availabilities and the net feedstock balances indicate that the total capacity of bioethanol production in Thailand in the year 2022 could vary from 3.6 to 17.6 M liter ethanol/day. It was documented that life cycle of greenhouse gas emission was 64%, 49%, and 87% when bioethanol was produced from molasses, Cassava, sugarcane juice, respectively.

9.8 Conclusion

It is concluded that bioethanol plays a prominent role in energy sector. The fossil fuel is depleting day by day. The consumption is increasing because of rapid population growth and technology boom. The only dependency on fossil fuel is not applicable in future. The induction of bioethanol in energy market would overcome the shortfall of energy.

There are various energy crops for bioethanol production including the sugarcane molasses, Cassava, and others. The bioethanol from sugarcane has more opportunities to produce sugar and other products. The matter is to formulate the long-term policy to ensure the sugar price in national and international markets.

It was recommended that second generation is more feasible for bioethanol generation. Specially the agricultural waste and residue. For stable long run, bioethanol production is possible when the feedback supply is streamlined. The bioethanol production plant should have dual and multiple option to deal with agricultural waste and lignocellulosic material at a time or switch to either one.

The bioethanol is hydroscopic in nature, causes corrosion because it holds the inherent water molecule. That is why it is not viable to use separately. The blend with petroleum is feasible. In different countries, it is available with various brand names.

The blend bioethanol can be used in petroleum-fueled vehicles and need no alternation, however, the lower boiling point causes the vapor lock during hot summer season and cannot start the engine promptly. It was a suitable option to vehicle manufacturer to design the flexible fuel vehicle in connection to consume the blended bioethanol.

The petroleum products rise up the greenhouse gases in environment. The use of bioethanol minimizes the level and creates the environment clean.

The concern raised by environmentalist that excess cultivation of energy crop would damage the agricultural land. This issue is resolved by specifying the area for particular crop and the establishment of livestock forms. The animal dung would be utilized as natural manure and enhanced the nitrogen level of soil.

The bioethanol production plant would accelerate the progress wheel. The GDP of countries would boost. The new employment opportunity increases. The rural areas go toward progress and prosperity.