Abstract
The global expansion of the bioenergy industry raises concerns, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation and sustainable management. To facilitate this, life cycle assessments beyond greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance are essential, along with the standardization of assessment methodologies to enable meaningful comparisons. Here, we review life cycle assessment, chemical aspects, and policy implication of bioenergy production. We discuss life cycle assessment in terms of concepts, methods, impacts, greenhouse gases, land use, water consumption, bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas, and techno-economic analysis. Chemical aspects comprise reaction processes and means to improve efficiency. Concerning policies, tools, and frameworks that encourage sustainable energy production are presented. We found that carbon dioxide removal ranges from 45 to 99% in various bioenergy processes. The review also emphasizes the importance of chemistry in advancing sustainable bioenergy production for a more sustainable and secure energy future.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sustainable bioenergy production stands at the intersection of profound global challenges, signaling a transition to low-carbon, renewable energy sources that can combat climate change, reinforce energy security, and foster environmental sustainability. Thus, the exploration of life cycle assessment (LCA), techno-economic analysis (TEA), and their associated policy implications in the context of sustainable bioenergy production are crucial (Osman et al. 2021). The urgency of addressing climate change has never been more apparent; increasing global temperatures, extreme weather events, and the irrevocable transformation of ecosystems demand a re-evaluation of our energy landscape (Chen et al. 2023; Rashwan et al. 2023). Fossil fuels, with their accompanying emissions of greenhouse gases, are a principal cause behind these shifts. To counter this extreme trajectory, the world is shifting to renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and bioenergy plays a pivotal role in this transformation (Osman et al. 2023b; Tawfik et al. 2023). Particularly when produced from organic matter of agricultural residues, fast dedicated energy crops, and algae, this offers a potential pathway to a substantial reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels when managed sustainably.
Furthermore, bioenergy strengthens the pillars of energy security by diversifying energy sources, diminishing dependence on finite fossil fuel resources, and enhancing supply risks and price volatility (Duarah et al. 2022). It contributes to local and regional energy self-sufficiency, thus enhancing resilience in the face of external energy shocks (Bouoiyour et al. 2023). Beyond its contribution to mitigating climate change and securing energy supply, bioenergy aligns with broader sustainability goals. It fosters rural development, facilitates job creation, and bolsters sustainable land use and biodiversity preservation. Bioenergy pathways encompass a variety of chemical transformations, from fermentation to gasification, pyrolysis, and catalytic conversion, which are mainly thermochemical or biological routes into energy or energy carriers (Jha et al. 2022). A profound understanding of these reactions and processes is essential for optimizing efficiency and sustainability in bioenergy production (Sharma et al. 2022a). Developing innovative materials and technologies, including catalysts and reactor designs, can substantially enhance bioenergy conversion rates while mitigating environmental impacts. These chemical advancements are pivotal in making bioenergy production both economically viable and environmentally sustainable.
The novelty of this review is to explore and integrate the analytical tools and methodologies, such as life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis, to assess and elevate the sustainability and viability of bioenergy production, as shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, we thoroughly investigate the policy instruments and frameworks that frame the landscape of sustainable bioenergy production.
Life cycle assessment of bioenergy production
Life cycle assessment concept
The feasibility of a bioenergy project is contingent upon a precise evaluation of the biomass resource, cost-efficient logistical planning, and a thorough consideration of potential environmental impacts (Hiloidhari et al. 2017). It is vital to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of bioenergy production, considering the environmental uncertainties involved. The assessment should be conducted from the perspective of life cycle assessment. Life cycle assessment is a methodology used to quantify and evaluate the environmental burdens associated with the use of energy, materials, and waste emissions throughout the entire lifecycle of a product, process, or activity. (Hiloidhari et al. 2017). The life cycle of biofuels and bioproducts, from cradle to grave, encompasses a series of interconnected stages that reflect their environmental and societal impact. It begins with the cultivation and harvesting of biomass, such as crops, algae, or forestry residues, which serve as the primary raw materials. Once harvested, these feedstocks undergo conversion processes, such as fermentation, pyrolysis, or enzymatic digestion, to transform them into biofuels, bioenergy, or bioproducts. These products then enter the utilization phase, where they are consumed for energy production or incorporated into various applications, such as transportation fuels, electricity generation, or biodegradable plastics. As biofuels and bioproducts are used, their environmental and social performance is monitored and assessed, considering factors like greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and economic benefits. Finally, at the end of their life cycle, biofuels and bioproducts are either recycled, repurposed, or disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. This holistic approach to evaluating their life cycle helps us understand the broader implications of these renewable alternatives and make informed decisions to promote sustainability and reduce the environmental footprint. Figure 2 shows the life cycle of biofuels and bioproducts from cradle to grave, illustrating the byproducts and environmental burden at the processing stage.
The deployment of energy-intensive agricultural machinery for tasks such as irrigation, land preparation, planting, harvesting, collection, and feedstock transportation results in significant greenhouse gas emissions and various environmental consequences within any bioenergy production system (Jeswani et al. 2020). The synthesis, application, and utilization of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers lead to emissions and have a profound impact on soil and water quality, as previously highlighted (Harun et al. 2021). Reports indicated that within the realm of sugarcane-based bioenergy production, the agricultural phase exerted the most detrimental environmental effects. This is primarily due to land usage, fuel consumption, and the application of agrochemicals. However, it's worth noting that bagasse derived from sugarcane holds the potential for the production of bioethanol and bioelectricity, offering a more sustainable outcome.
In contrast to using bagasse for co-generation-based power, either compared to bagasse bioethanol or fossil energy systems, it has been suggested that the former may lead to lower energy-related emissions (Khatri and Pandit 2022). Furthermore, there are claims that producing bagasse bioethanol through a combination of first and second-generation processes is more environmentally sustainable than the traditional first-generation production method (Ayodele et al. 2020). Tsiropoulos et al. (2014) found that Indian bioethanol generally results in lower or comparable greenhouse gas emissions, non-renewable energy consumption, human health impacts, and ecological damage when compared to Brazilian bioethanol in a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. India's bioethanol program predominantly relies on sugarcane molasses, a byproduct of sugar production. Consequently, the environmental impacts are distributed between the main product (sugar) and the byproduct (molasses), potentially accounting for the lower emissions observed. It is essential to distinguish between cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave life cycle assessments, with the former covering the evaluation from resource extraction to the factory gate and the latter encompassing the entire life cycle assessment process, from resource extraction to waste disposal (Theuerl et al. 2019).
Life cycle assessment method overview
In line with ISO 14042 standards, the choice of impact categories should encompass comprehensive environmental considerations relevant to the product system under study, considering its objectives and scope. The selection of impact categories, indicators, and characterization modeling should adhere to internationally recognized standards, often based on international conventions or endorsed by authoritative international bodies. Impact assessment methods fall into two categories: midpoint and endpoint methods. Midpoint methods within environmental impact assessment aim to categorize and characterize the outcomes of inventory analysis, yielding various environmental impact indicators (Cano-Londoño et al. 2023). Well-known midpoint methods include Center for Environmental Studies Leiden (CML), Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI)—2005, Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP)—1997, and Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP)—2005 (Reyes et al. 2020). On the other hand, endpoint environmental impact indicators offer a more intuitive comprehension of the environmental harm caused by products. In endpoint environmental impact assessment methods, characterization factors, also referred to as damage factors, convert the results of inventory analysis into damage-centric indicators. Common endpoint analysis methods encompass EPS 2000, Impact 2002, and Eco-indicator 99 (Carvalho et al. 2019).
The assessment of life cycle impacts involves the compilation of impacts generated by various potential methods using SimaPro 8.5.0.0 software. These impacts are then cross-referenced in an Excel spreadsheet to select prospective impacts for comparative analysis among methods, taking into consideration the units and categories of these impacts. The primary effects associated with these approaches encompass eutrophication, land usage, global warming, acidification, and toxicity, as previously noted (Carvalho et al. 2019).
Employing diverse available methods for impact assessment enables the quantification of emissions, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere, as well as nitrogen and phosphate emissions into water, along with land use considerations, as presented in Table 1. Emissions to the atmosphere are primarily linked to categories such as global warming, photochemical smog, and acidification, while nitrogen and phosphorus emissions into water pertain to the eutrophication category (Jeswani et al. 2020).
Life cycle assessment impacts
Recent academic and environmental policy discussions have increasingly emphasized resource efficiency and the concept of a circular economy. The circular economy introduces a specific geographic dimension where the value of waste takes center stage and can act as a catalyst for productive restoration (Sariatli 2017). This concept is underpinned by a commitment to reducing waste, energy consumption, and water use. Moreover, it demands that associated environmental pressures meet specified targets or constraints (Vlachokostas et al. 2020). The bioeconomy's primary objectives revolve around the efficient use of biomass and bio-waste, with a strong focus on adding substantial value to raw materials in fundamental production processes, spanning various sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Notably, the bioeconomy aims to harness the enormous potential of biomass to support the European Union in achieving its renewable energy objectives (Vlachokostas et al. 2020). This transition toward a circular bioeconomy not only promotes waste reduction but also contributes to resource efficiency and sustainability, playing a crucial role in environmental conservation and the attainment of renewable energy targets.
Greenhouse gas emissions
Global warming potential (GWP) primarily centers around the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. It quantifies the contribution of various emission factors to global warming using coefficients expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents. These coefficients are based on the recommended global warming potential factors by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as illustrated in Table 2. The IPCC defines global warming potential as a metric designed to measure the impact of different greenhouse gas emissions on global warming. It signifies the cumulative effect of a unit mass of emitted gas on global warming over a specified time horizon. The evaluation of climate change potential has long been a central focus of research in life cycle assessment (Jungbluth and Meili 2019; Jones et al. 2023).
The concept of global warming potential centers on understanding the combined impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the strength of their infrared radiation outward. This assessment model for global warming potential utilizes characterization factors that align with IPCC recommendations, typically considering a time horizon of 100 years (Pacheco and Silva 2019). For instance, during the cultivation process, corn straw absorbs 0.71–2 kg of carbon dioxide, and the production of solid biomass fuel is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as shown in Table 2.
In 2016, bioenergy ranked fourth among global energy sources, after coal, oil, and natural gas, contributing to 9.5% of the world's primary energy supply and a substantial 69.5% of the world's renewable energy supply (Kang et al. 2020). Projections from the International Energy Agency suggest that the worldwide biomass resource potential may reach between 100 and 600 exajoule by 2050, representing 15% to 65% of the world's primary energy consumption (Kang et al. 2020). Bioenergy is increasingly recognized as the most promising alternative to fossil fuels due to its potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It stands out as the only renewable energy source that relies on a carbon supply, making it an integral part of the renewable energy mix. Typically, the carbon in bioenergy is sourced from atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed during the biomass's photosynthesis (Staples et al. 2017). Consequently, if combined with carbon capture and storage, bioenergy could render carbon emissions neutral or even negative. The development of bioenergy chains centers on assessments of biomass resource availability and their associated greenhouse gas reduction potential, crucial steps as we transition to a low-carbon future.
In conclusion, the escalating issue of increased energy consumption is certainly linked to greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, careful management and cultivation of energy crops on unused or marginal lands offer a substantial opportunity to curtail emissions from other sources by sequestering atmospheric carbon. Although quantifying this offsetting effect poses certain challenges at the present stage, it remains an endeavor of utmost importance. Energy crops, when cautiously grown on marginal lands, have the unique capacity to transform atmospheric carbon dioxide into biomass without disrupting regular agricultural output. Consequently, harnessing marginal land for energy crop cultivation necessitates a comprehensive assessment, encompassing the net impact of soil carbon removal and greenhouse gas emissions from the bioenergy cropping system. Indeed, the cultivation of energy crops presents a viable avenue to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and mitigate the consequences of increased energy consumption (Kumar et al. 2023a).
Land use
The future of sustainable bioenergy feedstock production is expected to rely heavily on energy crops, which may necessitate additional land and water resources to meet the growing demand for plant biomass bioenergy (Guzman et al. 2019). Traditional grain-based feedstocks like corn and sugarcane are challenged to provide bioenergy without risking food security and soil quality, given the increasing demand (Guzman et al. 2019). Evidently, the substantial increase in the production of ethanol from corn in the USA since the mid-2000s has established the USA as the foremost producer of fuel ethanol globally. However, these biofuel initiatives have instigated and are projected to bring about alterations in land utilization patterns in other nations. Studies show that the growth of corn ethanol production in the USA could lead to the extensive transformation of native forests and grasslands into bioenergy crops on a worldwide level, particularly in countries such as Brazil, where established crops like soybeans may be displaced (Miyake et al. 2012).
To address concerns regarding limited land and water resources, particularly where bioenergy crops compete with food production, a strategy that combines arable land for both food and feed production with the cultivation of low-input perennial vegetation on marginal soils has emerged (Mehmood et al. 2017). Marginal lands are typically characterized by low soil fertility, soil quality, and limited economic returns, rendering food production unsustainable. In addition to biomass production and climate change mitigation via carbon sequestration, energy crops grown on marginal lands also contribute significantly to the restoration of these areas (Mehmood et al. 2017). It is noteworthy that the impacts of land-use changes associated with bioenergy production can vary, resulting in either positive or negative effects on natural resources, contingent on specific contextual factors at each location.
Humpenöder et al. (2018) employed the global multi-region land-use optimization model MAgPIE (Model of Agricultural Production and its Impact on the Environment) to demonstrate that negative environmental externalities gradually rise with the increasing yields of bioenergy crops over the twenty-first century. The projection for 2100 suggests that the global bioenergy crop cultivation area will expand to 636 hundred million hectares, leading to issues related to carbon dioxide emissions from land use and land-use change, nitrogen losses, and unsustainable water resource use (Humpenöder et al. 2018). To accommodate the additional production of food, feed, and bioenergy crops, global cropland expansion is inevitable, with an expected absolute increment of 441 hundred million hectares between 2010 and 2030, equivalent to 27% of the relative increase in cropland (Humpenöder et al. 2018).
In conclusion, a multitude of variables shape the impacts of bioenergy land-use transformations, including deployment levels, prior land usage, the choice of bioenergy crops, soil quality, local climate, and management practices (Cherubin et al. 2021). For instance, confining bioenergy development to marginal or degraded lands, such as Brazil's extensive and inefficient pastures, may offer environmental benefits (Bordonal et al. 2018; Oliveira et al. 2019). Additionally, when land conversion for bioenergy production is combined with best management practices through appropriate scale and implementation, it can have positive effects (Werling et al. 2014; Romeu-Dalmau et al. 2018; Cherubin et al. 2019). Consequently, solutions for land-use transformations with minimal impacts and the adoption of best management practices are essential to maintain the sustainability of the overall production system.
Water consumption
The concept of the water footprint serves as a measure to quantify the freshwater utilized, polluted, and consumed along a product's entire production chain (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2021). This measurement is further categorized into different types. The “green” water footprint denotes rainwater consumption or evaporation. The “blue” water footprint reflects the net extraction of blue water and represents the consumption, or evaporation, of surface and groundwater. The “gray” water footprint, on the other hand, signifies the volume of freshwater necessary to absorb a pollution load, according to environmental water quality regulations. This classification aids in the analysis of water consumption within supply chains, enabling the identification of areas with water-related issues and highlighting priorities. Water footprint assessments can be conducted for various entities, including individuals, entire countries’ consumption, or specific products such as food or energy. Studies examining water footprint data for particular crops and agricultural products are available (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011). It is also possible to evaluate the water footprint of heat and electricity generated by biomass combustion, assuming a 100% efficiency, based on the higher heating value of the feedstock (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2009). While electricity can be produced using alternative conversion processes, such as gasification, prior research on the water footprint of biomass power generation has predominantly concentrated on combustion (Mathioudakis et al. 2017).
Table 3 offers several examples of water usage in the context of bioenergy. Cheroennet and Suwanmanee (2017) employed a life cycle assessment approach to calculate the overall water footprint of a corn-based ethanol production chain, yielding a result of 3.67 m3 per L of ethanol. Using a hybrid life cycle assessment technique, Yang et al. (2018) found that China's biomass pyrolysis system consumes 3.89 L per MJ of water. Direct combustion of corn stover had the lowest water demand coefficient (260 L per kWh for consumption and 260–387 for outflows) in a life cycle assessment (Ali and Kumar 2017). Mathioudakis et al. (2017) examined combustion, gasification, bioethanol fermentation, and bio-oil pyrolysis using a water footprint assessment approach and found that agricultural leftovers were water-efficient and better for oil than ethanol. Nogueira Junior et al. (2018) observed that producing 1 kg of algae in ponds needed 1564 L of water, whereas utilizing ponds and photobioreactors required just 372 L. The boundary of the whole life cycle model of the nitrogen-doped catalytic process is shown in Fig. 3.
In conclusion, the global expansion of the bioenergy production industry has sparked concerns regarding its wide-ranging impacts. The production and utilization of biomass for bioenergy can result in a complex interplay of positive synergies, negative side effects, and potential risks. These include implications for sustainable development goals, issues related to land degradation, concerns about water scarcity, impacts on food security, and considerations about greenhouse gas emissions (Cherubin et al. 2021). This complex web of interactions necessitates careful evaluation and sustainable management to ensure that bioenergy contributes positively to global energy needs while minimizing adverse effects.
Recent life cycle assessment studies of bioenergy products
Bioenergy encompasses various products, including bioethanol, biodiesel, advanced alcohols, bio-liquid fuels, biomethane, biohydrogen, and bioelectricity. When compared to fossil fuels, synthetic bioenergy offers several notable advantages. It primarily relies on renewable biomass resources for feedstock, making it a sustainable alternative. When these bioenergy sources are combusted, they are carbon neutral in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, and if properly managed, could be even negative carbon emission technology. This has made the development of synthetic bioenergy a strategic choice for many major economies worldwide, aimed at ensuring energy security, environmental quality, and economic development. Table 4 provides an overview of published literature on life cycle environmental impacts, highlighting a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in almost every study.
Bioethanol
The development of biofuels, particularly bioethanol, has played a significant role in renewable energy strategies. After biodiesel, bioethanol is the primary renewable energy source in Europe and is made from a range of biomass feedstock, such as lignocellulosic biomass and energy crops. The USA is the world's largest bioethanol producer, followed by the European Union and Brazil (Singh et al. 2022). While Brazil primarily uses sugarcane and Europe focuses on maize for bioethanol production, corn is the predominant crop for bioethanol production in the USA (Soleymani Angili et al. 2021). The first generation of bioethanol, produced from food crops containing starch or sugar, marked the initial shift away from fossil fuels. However, this raised concerns about global food security (Vohra et al. 2014). As a result, research and development efforts have been directed toward the second generation of bioethanol, which is based on non-food sources like lignocellulose.
Environmental assessments of bioethanol production methods vary depending on the feedstock. When corn is used as the substrate for acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation, it results in the highest associated environmental damages at the midpoint or endpoint assessment level. In contrast, when wheat starch replaces corn, the environmental impact is lower. This suggests that producing acetone-butanol-ethanol from wheat starch is a more ecologically sustainable approach for producing 1-butanol. The distribution of environmental burdens associated with oxidative synthesis in this scenario is split between the two acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation solutions, depending on whether a mass-based or value-based allocation method is employed (Ingrao et al. 2021). According to Brito and Martins (2017), the global environmental impacts related to acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation processes (corn versus wheat starch) significantly increase in this scenario due to the reduced economic value of the gases generated during fermentation. This scenario considers carbonyl synthesis as a more environmentally friendly approach for producing 1-butanol.
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a long-chain fatty acid methyl / ethyl ester produced through the esterification of plant, animal, or microbial oils / fats with short-chain alcohols (methanol and ethanol). When conducting life cycle assessment studies to evaluate the environmental impact of biodiesel, one of the primary focuses is estimating and assessing carbon dioxide emissions. Zhao et al. (2021) and others found that the esterification step is responsible for a significant portion of biodiesel production emissions. In the case of biodiesel produced from waste cooking oil, it was calculated to have emissions of 1383 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per ton (from "cradle to gate"). Based on a "well-to-wheels" method, Dufour and Iribarren (2012) determined that each ton of waste cooking oil biodiesel emits approximately 652.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere. This assessment indicated that the esterification phase significantly contributes to carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
Incorporating enzymatic catalysis into the biodiesel production process, as noted by Peñarrubia Fernandez et al. (2017), led to the generation of 388 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per ton of waste cooking oil biodiesel. Mendecka et al. (2020) compared standard esterification processes utilizing sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and sulfuric acid catalysts to a non-catalytic supercritical methanol method in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in another research. Sulfuric acid had the greatest carbon dioxide equivalent (813 kg/ton waste cooking oil), while sodium hydroxide had the lowest (234 kg/ton waste cooking oil). Another research assessed the overall carbon footprint for one ton of waste cooking oil biodiesel at 553 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (Foteinis et al. 2020). According to de Pontes Souza et al. (2012), each ton of waste cooking oil biodiesel produced 2323.35 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent. The esterification process accounted for 54% of the total carbon dioxide equivalent, followed by the combustion step (46%).
In addition to the esterification processes, the utilization of biomass as a source of energy that may be converted into solid or liquid fuels is an exciting new development. Biofuels, when employed as substitutes for fossil fuels, have the potential to significantly reduce human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. However, making decisions about biofuel policies should be based on evidence that the production of biofuels can be carried out sustainably (Balajii and Niju 2019). Research has indicated that tracking the origins of biofuels, such as biodiesel and biochar, can help mitigate the negative environmental impacts associated with the use of fossil fuels (Peng et al. 2020). In other words, the use of biofuels can help counteract the increasing demand for fossil fuels and reduce the pressure on non-renewable resources. Nevertheless, it is crucial to assess the actual benefits of utilizing biofuels compared to traditional energy sources through rigorous, scientific, and applicable methods (Chamkalani et al. 2020). Life cycle assessment is a recognized comprehensive approach for quantifying the environmental consequences of the entire biofuel production chain (Collotta et al. 2019).
Biogas
Low-quality organic waste, encompassing materials like agricultural, forestry, and food processing waste, livestock manure, and kitchen waste, which is rich in carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and other components, can be anaerobically fermented and converted into biogas (methane) and other biofuels. In the production of biogas, life cycle assessment can also be used to analyze the environmental impacts related to products, processes, or services by identifying the energy requirements, materials used, and emissions released into the environment. Environmental impacts can be measured at the endpoint of the life cycle assessment cause-and-effect chain. Therefore, life cycle assessment techniques can be used to identify possibilities for enhancing the environmental performance of the system. On the other hand, life cycle-based environmental assessments are comprehensive approaches that can demonstrate biogas power generation as a clean and safe technology. Consideration should be given to composting the digestate generated from biogas production and using natural coagulants for the treatment of wastewater from bioprocessing to ensure process sustainability (Amin et al. 2022). Therefore, as a holistic approach, life cycle assessment is a fundamental tool that should be applied to biogas plants to assess the environmental performance of the biogas produced.
To unlock the future potential of biogas utilization, aligning with the principles of the circular economy is imperative. Implementing an intelligent strategy to minimize process waste and integrate it into the biodigester system can be achieved through an organizational competitive advantage. This approach not only has the potential to reduce environmental impacts but also enhance economic benefits by effectively closing the materials and energy loop within the organization.
In conclusion, conducting a comprehensive life cycle assessment is essential for the reliable evaluation of bioenergy systems. Effective life cycle assessment studies should encompass various indicators of environmental sustainability, going beyond greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance. Standard requirements should cover functional units, system boundaries, allocation mechanisms, and environmental indicators. Currently, differing standards in various research areas hinder comparisons across bioenergy life cycle assessment studies. Adopting a unified methodology would enable such comparisons. It is essential for both the academic and business communities to engage in detailed life cycle assessments and to have access to streamlined and cost-effective versions of this tool. While potent, life cycle assessment should remain adaptable and continuously improved as scientific knowledge evolves.
Bioenergy sustainability evaluation using life cycle assessment
The assessment of environmental impacts associated with converting biomass into biofuels (e.g., hydrogen and methane) or bioproducts (e.g., cellulase and hydrolysate) can be effectively conducted using life cycle assessment. Life cycle assessment results play a crucial role in pinpointing opportunities for advancing biorefineries. In this context, life cycle assessment serves as a macro-level decision support tool capable of influencing significant policy changes and infrastructure developments, such as the establishment of biorefineries. Research indicates that life cycle assessment is a valuable tool for comparing emerging biorefining concepts with conventional waste disposal methods, such as landfilling (Escamilla-Alvarado et al. 2017). Nonetheless, there remains potential for applying similar studies to novel processes to identify areas for further research and development. To bolster the findings presented in this study, it is essential to gather operational data similar to the hexamethyldisilazane process. Additionally, comparing hexamethyldisilazane biorefineries with alternative waste treatment and disposal methods like anaerobic digestion, composting, and vermicomposting can establish benchmarks for researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers to select and implement environmentally sound technologies for urban solid waste management in specific geographical regions.
Life cycle assessment procedures, according to ISO 14040:2006, measure environmental elements and possible environmental consequences connected with goods, processes, or services. Life cycle evaluation encompasses extraction and refinement of raw materials, transportation, manufacture, usage, and end-of-life disposal, depending on the system boundaries. Life cycle assessment accuracy is heavily dependent on the quality and accuracy of the underlying data and assumptions utilized to conduct the study (Velasquez-Orta et al. 2018; Torkayesh et al. 2022). Despite the interest in bioenergy life cycle evaluation, there is a distinct shortage of research employing real-world primary data from manufacturing plants. In fact, most bioenergy life cycle assessment studies are based on hypothetical industrial facilities then extrapolated or theoretically estimated. Data sources vary, stemming from small-scale laboratory studies and scholarly literature.
In addition to data gaps, life cycle assessment in bioenergy production encounters several challenges. A significant issue inherent to life cycle assessment, in general, is the lack of comparability among seemingly similar assessments. While ISO 14040 and 14,044 provide an overarching framework and standards for conducting standardized LCA, they do not prescribe methodologies for making distinct choices within a life cycle assessment. Practitioners have discretion in defining functional units, boundary conditions, and impact categories, leading to considerable disparities in assumptions, methodologies, and data quality among ostensibly similar LCA, rendering them non-comparable (Valente et al. 2019; Sills et al. 2020). Moreover, certain elements of ISO 14040 and 14,044, like the scope of effect categories to be evaluated, are frequently disregarded.
Molina-Besch (2022) performed a detailed critical examination of 40 LCA papers published between 2019 and 2021, including techniques and study results, to understand the most recent improvements in environmental impact assessments of biofuel production. Only eight studies were found to cover all three phases of biofuel production, including biomass cultivation, biofuel manufacturing techniques, biofuel usage, and end-of-life management. This incompleteness limits the comprehensive assessment of the overall sustainability of bioenergy production.
In conclusion, sustainability tools depend on environmental assessments such as life cycle assessments to mitigate pollution and negative impacts on ecosystems. Conducting LCA for newly developed materials or technologies remain.
Techno-economic analysis of bioenergy production
Techno-economic analysis methodology and its applications in bioenergy production
Fossil fuels are used to produce energy for the generation of heat and electricity as well as for transportation, which are responsible for around 80% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The consumption of fossil fuels is rising along with the population and is anticipated to reach 90% by 2050 (Antar et al. 2021). Biomass, a natural, non-fossil organic material rich in chemical energy, has emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, offering the potential to mitigate their emissions (Rozzi et al. 2020). Biomass energy sources include materials from forestry, agriculture, and urban waste, such as wood, sawdust, straw, manure, paper waste, and household waste. Biomass is considered an alternative energy source with a heat value of approximately 3 × 106 kcal/mg (Brosowski et al. 2019). Assume that the ratio of fossil fuels is around 33% diesel and 50% coal. In that situation, the need for developing and implementing sustainable biomass production techniques to establish a thriving and sustainable bioeconomy should expand. The best ways to combat global warming and greenhouse gas emissions while meeting our energy needs are green technologies, such as biofuels and bioproducts.
The techno-economic analysis is a methodology used to calculate, compare, and evaluate various technical plans and strategies to find the optimal combination of technology and economic feasibility. The techno-economic analysis involves comparing the costs of different technological approaches with the revenues generated by the most cost-effective and economically viable schemes. This analysis considers both the costs incurred and the income generated by a program (Beaucamp et al. 2022). In practical applications, techno-economic analysis helps measure both tangible and intangible benefits (Pan et al. 2023).
The techno-economic analysis offers a multifaceted evaluation, taking into account various aspects of technology, economics, and market dynamics, thus providing a comprehensive assessment (Salimbeni et al. 2023). Moreover, it has the capability to embed sustainability considerations into its evaluation framework. The bioenergy sector faces extreme competition from fossil fuels, with bioenergy feedstock transitioning from primary food crops to agricultural residues and non-food crops to mitigate competition in the food markets. Techno-economic analysis harnesses the concept of agro-economy and sustainability, which can help bioenergy make more informed choices regarding raw materials and, in turn, garner support from governing bodies, potentially securing economic subsidies to drive down costs (Deep Singh et al. 2022).
The techno-economic analysis is instrumental in assessing the economic viability of biomass production methods, determining the minimum selling price of biofuels, and identifying the primary cost drivers for each process. Common applications of techno-economic analysis in bioenergy production include cash flow analysis, sensitivity analysis, technology assessment, environmental cost evaluation, and market analysis, as shown in Fig. 4.
Techno-economic analysis plays a crucial role in assessing the economic viability of bioenergy production. It involves calculating essential financial metrics like net present value, internal return, and return period, considering various factors such as investment costs, operating costs, energy output, and related income (Martínez et al. 2022). Several factors within the bioenergy production process influence the project's economic feasibility, including raw material prices, energy costs, and operating expenditures. Furthermore, the pre-treatment of raw materials and the associated chemical transformations affect product efficiency, yield, reliability, and environmental impacts (Meenakshisundaram et al. 2021).
The insights derived from techno-economic analysis aid bioenergy producers in selecting the most profitable technology options. For instance, Li et al. (2023) suggested the utilization of microalgae from urban sewage through anaerobic fermentation to produce fuel. The techno-economic analysis divided biomass dehydration treatment into closed and open systems. The cost of producing dehydrated, dry substances in both scenarios were 5.54 and 4.65 US dollars/kg, respectively. At the same time, the productivity was 0.8 kg/m3 per day and 0.6 kg/m3 per day, respectively (Somers et al. 2021). As a result, the production costs of open systems were lower than those of closed systems for bioenergy producers. From a sensitivity analysis point of view, the most significant cost for bioenergy production was the depreciation of labor, which represented 39% to 42% of all the total operating costs (Ighalo et al. 2022).
Additionally, techno-economic analysis helps in evaluating different raw materials and treatment methods. Take alkaline treatment as an example; compared to untreated straw, sodium hydroxide pre-treatment of corn straw led to a significant increase in methane production by 73.4% (Zdeb et al. 2023). However, it also revealed that for low lignin biomass, the costs of wastewater treatment could outweigh the profit gained from higher methane production, suggesting that alkaline treatment is more suitable for raw materials with higher lignin content.
Furthermore, cash flow analysis and market analysis provide valuable insights for companies' development strategies. For instance, biogas, a key component of bioenergy, can be a cost-effective alternative to natural gas, typically produced from domestic and agricultural waste (Keerthana Devi et al. 2022). While the process is relatively simple, the collection, transport, and storage of raw materials can incur high costs. From a cash flow and market analysis perspective, constructing biogas reactors within community units was proposed as a means to minimize production expenses and supply biogas directly to the community (Ali et al. 2021a). Thus, techno-economic analysis can significantly influence the layout and strategy of biorefinery projects.
In conclusion, techno-economic analysis is a critical tool for evaluating the feasibility and profitability of bioenergy production. With the various methods of bioenergy production having distinct cost structures, profitability, and environmental implications, techno-economic analysis systematically combines these parameters to assist producers in making informed decisions regarding key financial metrics such as net present value, internal return, and return on investment. It serves as an essential guide for sustainable bioenergy development in the transition from fossil fuels (Hosseinzadeh et al. 2022).
Key economic factors for the viability of bioenergy production
Bioenergy holds substantial economic promise by efficiently utilizing abundant waste resources. It offers a sustainable alternative to the traditional disposal methods of incineration or landfilling for agricultural waste, effectively transforming this waste into a valuable substitute for fossil fuels. Not only does bioenergy contribute to the carbon cycle, but it also enriches the energy matrix, making it a highly attractive prospect (Cavalcanti et al. 2020). One of the primary concerns for businesses engaged in bioenergy production is ensuring profitability. To address this concern, techno-economic analysis plays a critical role. It involves the assessment of various bioenergy methods, considering aspects like design, process description, process simulation models, and cost estimation (Sarker et al. 2023). The feasibility of biofuel production is determined through modeling, and sensitivity analysis identifies the most expensive and environmentally detrimental steps within the production process. By optimizing these steps, costs can be reduced, and the overall feasibility of bioenergy production can be enhanced. This approach contributes to making bioenergy a more economically viable and sustainable option in the energy landscape.
In bioenergy production, understanding the raw materials required and the methods for bioenergy generation is crucial. As suggested by Ahn et al. (2023), there are several pathways to transform biomass into biofuels and other valuable byproducts. These pathways include enzymatic conversion, heat conversion, and catalytic conversion, with catalytic conversion being particularly promising. This is due to the ability to control production rates using chemical reagents, resulting in lower operational costs (Kim et al. 2020). To assess the economic viability of these processes, techno-economic analysis is often employed. Specialized software like Aspen Plus v12 and SuperPro Designer v9.0 is used for simulating the entire experimental process (Sarker et al. 2022). This software allows for the creation of a comprehensive list of components involved in the process and the application of a thermodynamic model. By defining the relevant production parameters and simulating the reaction processes, techno-economic analysis can evaluate the feasibility of bioenergy production. This analysis considers critical economic factors that impact the overall viability of bioenergy production.
The economic factors that significantly impact bioenergy production can be categorized into three key areas: capital costs, operating costs, and market demand. These factors play a pivotal role in determining the overall cost of bioenergy production and the expected profitability in the future. Capital expenditure in bioenergy production revolves around the distinction between plant and production pipeline costs, often referred to as total fixed costs. As indicated by Sarker et al. (2023), total fixed capital can be further subdivided into direct and indirect fixed costs. Plant direct fixed costs encompass expenses associated with plant equipment, processing facilities, piping, and other infrastructure. In contrast, indirect fixed costs comprise expenditures related to engineering and construction (Manouchehrinejad et al. 2021). To assist in estimating capital expenditure parameters and assumptions, a valuable resource is Table 5, which has been compiled based on the work of Sarker et al. (2022) and Parkinson et al. (2017). This table offers a means of pre-budgeting capital expenses by building upon equipment costs, enabling better financial planning.
Operating costs are a crucial component of bioenergy production, encompassing the expenses incurred in the process, particularly the costs related to materials and processing. Bioenergy production typically relies on agricultural waste as raw materials, which are relatively cost-effective, ranging from approximately 27.90 to 232.48 US dollars per ton of dry biomass (Clauser et al. 2021). However, these raw materials come with inherent challenges as follows:
-
Collection, transportation, and storage costs: raw materials for bioenergy, such as straw and bagasse, are subject to various processing steps, including collection, transportation, and storage. These steps add to the operational costs of biorefineries, as they involve expenses and logistics. Additionally, materials like straw and bagasse can be challenging due to issues like scattering, low density, and perishability, which further increase the complexity and cost of bioenergy production (Sun et al. 2021b).
-
Conversion and processing costs: bioenergy production involves the conversion of raw materials into useful biofuels and products. Traditional processing methods may suffer from low efficiency. For example, the theoretical production of biological hydrogen and biomethane from bagasse is estimated at 336 L/kg of dry bagasse and 440 L/kg of dry bagasse, but actual production often falls short, yielding 150 and 200–300 L/kg of dried sugarcane bagasse (Pan et al. 2022). This indicates a substantial profit potential if the efficiency of raw material utilization can be improved through pre-treatment.
-
Pre-treatment costs: enhancing the efficiency of raw material utilization often involves pre-treatment. Conventional heat treatment methods can be energy-intensive and environmentally unfriendly. To mitigate these issues, cheaper acids and alkali reagents, such as sodium hydroxide, are commonly employed for biomass pre-treatment (Baral et al. 2021). For instance, pre-treatment of sugarcane bagasse with sodium hydroxide has been shown to reduce fermentation costs by 41.3%.
-
Water use and wastewater management: lignocellulosic materials from agricultural waste are not water-soluble. Consequently, the production process, which includes pre-treatment, saccharification, and fermentation, requires a substantial amount of water to cleanse pollutants and manage wastewater (Yuan et al. 2021). As a result, water usage constitutes a significant cost component in biofuel production, accounting for approximately 2% of the total direct cost. Efficient wastewater management and measures to reduce water usage are essential to control these operational costs.
Operational costs are a substantial part of the total cost of bioenergy production. Efficient management of these costs, particularly through the optimization of raw material collection and processing, can greatly influence the economic feasibility of bioenergy production. In addition to operational costs, market demand for bioenergy significantly impacts the profitability of bioenergy producers:
-
Market demand for bioenergy: the demand for bioenergy is closely connected to market conditions, especially the pricing of fossil fuels. During periods when fossil fuels are relatively expensive, there is an increased shift in energy demand toward biofuels. This shift allows bioenergy producers to achieve higher profits (Sajid 2021). According to Wu et al. (2022), the average production cost per gallon of cellulose biofuel for low, medium, and high conversion rates is 3.72–3.86 US dollars per gallon, 3.23–3.26 US dollars per gallon, and 2.85–2.92 US dollars per gallon, respectively. The current cost of gasoline is 3.70–4.10 US dollars per gallon (Bautista-Herrera et al. 2021). In cases where the price of gasoline decreases significantly (2–3 US dollars), large biorefineries may remain economical, while small and medium-sized biorefineries might require tax incentives and subsidies to maintain profitability and competitiveness. Producers can enhance market demand by optimizing production processes and increasing conversion efficiency, thereby reducing prices.
Furthermore, biorefineries can enhance their resilience to market volatility by adopting multi-product revenue strategies. When the demand for bioenergy decreases due to falling fuel prices, biorefineries can shift production to alternative products, providing a buffer against market fluctuations (Katakojwala and Mohan 2020).
In conclusion, the operational costs in bioenergy production significantly impact the feasibility of the production process. Key components of these costs include raw material collection, transportation and processing, pre-treatment expenses, and water use and wastewater management. Efficient management of these costs is essential for the economic viability of bioenergy production. Moreover, market demand, which is closely related to the pricing of fossil fuels, plays a critical role in determining the profitability of bioenergy producers (Shah et al. 2022). Policies, such as government subsidies, can further support bioenergy production, and ongoing optimization of production processes is essential to reduce costs and attract more energy companies to the bioenergy sector (Akindipe et al. 2022).
Critical analysis of recent techno-economic analysis studies on bioenergy feedstocks and production technologies
Recent studies have investigated various bioenergy feedstocks and production technologies, analyzing their economic feasibility and sustainability with a critical analysis of some of the key findings in these studies reported herein. Studies highlight that biorefineries using starch-based feedstocks, such as sugar and starch fermentation, have well-established technologies that are proven to be profitable (Tena et al. 2022). However, the excessive use of this raw material by biorefineries that use food as a feedstock for cash crops, such as maize, increases the price of the raw material market due to competition. Therefore, although the technology of producing bioenergy using starch as a raw material is well-established, prices always fluctuate due to competition (Yang et al. 2020).
Lignocellulose is considered a more sustainable and accessible feedstock for bioenergy production. It does not compete with food sources, making it an attractive option (Rajesh Banu et al. 2021). Various treatment methods, such as fermentation and anaerobic digestion, can be applied to lignocellulose to produce bioethanol efficiently (Okolie et al. 2021). The mechanical treatment of lignocellulose can result in high-density biomass fuel that can be used in power generation alongside coal. However, a major challenge in using lignocellulose as a feedstock is the collection, transportation, and preservation of this material. Due to its low density and susceptibility to decay, the collection process is complex. Efficient preprocessing during collection can address these issues and make the use of lignocellulose more viable (Anand et al. 2022). It is important to note that different raw materials, such as starch-based and lignocellulosic feedstocks, require distinct treatments. These variations can lead to different outputs in terms of energy or biofuel production. The choice of treatment methods has economic implications, as certain treatments may be more cost-effective and yield higher returns, as shown in Table 6.
In conclusion, the choice of bioenergy feedstocks and production technologies is influenced by various economic and sustainability factors. While starch-based feedstocks have established profitable technologies, the competition for these resources can lead to price fluctuations. Lignocellulose, on the other hand, offers a more sustainable option, but its efficient collection and preprocessing are significant challenges. Additionally, different treatments of raw materials can result in varying outputs. These studies emphasize the importance of considering the entire supply chain, from feedstock collection to the end product, when assessing the economic feasibility of bioenergy production. Such analysis is crucial for making informed decisions in the transition to sustainable and economically viable bioenergy production.
The techno-economic analysis employs specific economic indicators, such as net present value, internal rates of return, and return on investment periods. These metrics enable decision-makers to gage the feasibility of bioenergy projects. It allows for a quantitative assessment of different feedstocks; for example, it can reveal that bioethanol production from mango residues is not financially viable, while bioethanol derived from algae proves to be a highly competitive option (Stewart et al. 2023). By conducting sensitivity analysis, techno-economic analysis identifies and evaluates risk factors and pivotal elements in bioenergy projects. For instance, in the case of ethanol refineries, it reveals that the cost of producing ethanol for transportation comprises around 2% to 4% of the total expenditure. An additional insight it provides is that if ethanol refineries are situated close to the location where ethanol is needed, it can reduce costs (Kumar et al. 2023b). In essence, techno-economic analysis empowers decision-makers with comprehensive insights by integrating the economic merits of the project with the applicable technologies involved.
While techno-economic analysis is invaluable in supplying bioenergy producers with essential data for informed decision-making, it does have limitations. A significant constraint is the reliability of the data it relies on. The precision and trustworthiness of the technical and economic analysis are heavily reliant on the quality of the data available, which can often be challenging to obtain with certainty in bioenergy production (Deivayanai et al. 2022). For example, the transport of raw materials faced restrictions due to the impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while equipment depreciation and labor costs persisted. This unforeseen challenge was further compounded by a 10% to 30% increase in raw material prices due to transportation disruptions, introducing unpredictability into the profitability of biorefineries and associated uncertainties (Duc Bui et al. 2023). Moreover, techno-economic analysis demands a wealth of data that is not always universal and is influenced by regional policies (Deivayanai et al. 2022). In regions where financial constraints are high, governments may be less inclined to favor biofuels, thus reducing the demand for bioenergy.
In conclusion, the viability of bioenergy production is contingent on various factors, including the choice of raw materials and their distinct processing requirements. For this reason, bioenergy producers need to conduct thorough assessments of their environments when establishing biorefineries to optimize collection and transportation costs (Ranjbari et al. 2022). Techno-economic analysis, through quantitative evaluation, offers predictions regarding the competitiveness of biorefineries relative to fossil fuels and provides policymakers with the quantitative insights necessary for sustainable bioenergy production. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge the constraints of techno-economic analysis to prevent analysis errors that could pose risks to investors.
Chemical aspects of bioenergy production
Reaction process in bioenergy production
As shown in Fig. 5, thermochemical and biochemical conversion are the two main routes of biomass conversion in the production process of bioenergy (Gnanasekaran et al. 2023). The former approach entails the application of heat or oxidation to biomass, leading to the generation of syngas. Subsequently, this syngas can be further transformed into high-value products. Various technologies are employed in this process, including direct combustion, torrefaction, hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis, and gasification (Osman et al. 2021). Through chemical or thermal conversion processes, organic waste can be converted into bioenergy for reuse (Wang et al. 2020). Thermal conversion has two methods: advanced thermal conversion and conventional incineration (Dong et al. 2018). The advanced thermal method includes gasification and pyrolysis methods. Gasification involves the conversion of solid biomass into syngas, a versatile gas mixture used in various applications. Pyrolysis is particularly well-suited for breaking down carbonaceous biomass components, making it a common choice in bioenergy production (Dhanya et al. 2020). Pyrolysis is considered to be one of the most commonly used thermochemical schemes for the degradation of carbonaceous biomass, such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (Aravind et al. 2020).
Biofuels can be classified based on their different production materials. Edible biomass such as sugars, starch, and vegetable oil are classified as the first generation of biofuels (Luiza Astolfi et al. 2020). The residues of agricultural and forestry raw materials, such as sugarcane leaves, are the main components of second-generation biofuels (Jutakridsada et al. 2019). The second generation of biofuels, mainly based on agricultural raw materials, is mainly composed of lignocellulosic biomass (Westensee et al. 2018). Microalgae have excellent capabilities in manufacturing important chemical and nutritional products and are an important component of third-generation biofuels (Kumar et al. 2018). High oil content, high carbon dioxide fixation efficiency, growth potential in limited space, and environmentally friendly characteristics make microalgae become one of the popular biomass energy sources. The fourth generation of biofuels is mainly obtained through bioengineering. Algae, fungi, and crops are all potential raw materials for fourth-generation biofuels, which are still in the development process (Sikarwar et al. 2017).
Algae, particularly microalgae, have been considered as one of the potential biomass reagents for pyrolysis due to their high biological yield (Aravind et al. 2020). Table 7 lists the conversion of different algae into biofuels using different technologies. Based on temperature, algae thermal degradation can be separated into three processes. Algae undergo dehydration at temperatures below 200 °C and devolatilization at temperatures between 200 °C and 500 °C. This is the main process of pyrolysis, and solid decomposition occurs at temperatures above 550 °C (Das et al. 2021). As the temperature changes, the biochemical components in algae also change accordingly. During the pyrolysis process of algae, the decomposition of proteins and carbohydrates usually occurs at temperatures below 400 °C. When the temperature rises to 550 °C, lipids begin to decompose. When the temperature increases to 600 °C, larger molecular weight hydrocarbons in biomass will decompose into smaller hydrocarbons (Pourkarimi et al. 2019). The transformation of algal biomass into bioenergy is mainly through three transformation technologies: biochemical, thermochemical, and chemical processes, each with its unique characteristics and applications (Chew et al. 2017).
Hydrothermal carbonization is a method used to simulate the natural formation of coal to achieve a balanced approach to generating, storing, and producing sustainable clean energy materials through innovative technology (Nicolae et al. 2020). Lignocellulosic biomass primarily consists of three key components: cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Lignin, under hydrothermal conditions, stands out as the most stable and least susceptible to hydrolysis, typically necessitating temperatures exceeding 250 °C for decomposition to commence (Wikberg et al. 2015). Nevertheless, biomass often contains a significant lignin component, which can impede the hydrolysis of long sugar chains under hydrothermal conditions, thereby diminishing the conversion rates of soluble and insoluble products (Dinjus et al. 2011). The degradation of cellulosic materials under hydrothermal conditions can be described into several fundamental steps: cellulose and hemicellulose chains are hydrolyzed, yielding glucose and other hexoses and pentoses. Hexoses dehydrate into 5-hydroxymethyl furfural, pentoses dehydrate into furfural, and further breakdown into lower molecular weight compounds occurs, alongside condensation and aromatization reactions, leading to the production of hydrothermal carbon (Steinbach et al. 2017). Buendia-Kandia et al. (2018) explored the decomposition of microcrystalline cellulose at temperatures of 180 °C, 220 °C, and 260 °C, revealing that extended cellulose chains were initially hydrolyzed into smaller glucose oligomers or monomers.
Biochemical transformation involves the generation of fermentable carbohydrates using specific microbial populations, converting them into liquid fuels like ethanol and butanol, or into gaseous molecules such as methane (Gautam et al. 2020). Biochemical conversion is a vital and cost-effective method for producing fuels, chemicals, and materials derived from biomass (Wang et al. 2019). The most common form of biochemical conversion centers on the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic polysaccharides, such as cellulose and hemicellulose, into monosaccharides, subsequently fermenting them into fuels like ethanol. This process is crucial for the commercial utilization of lignocellulose as a raw material, given its compact and rigid structure, which resists degradation by bacteria and other microorganisms (Rastogi and Shrivastava 2017). Due to this inherent hardness, cost-effective conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into sugars and, ultimately, biofuels presents a challenge. Ethanol and biohydrogen are derived from fermentable biomass through ethanol fermentation and dark fermentation/photobiology, respectively, while biogas is produced via anaerobic digestion (Osman et al. 2023a).
Anaerobic digestion, ethanol fermentation, and photobiological hydrogen production are all part of the biochemical conversion process, which is the process of converting biomass into biofuel for energy conversion (Gnanasekaran et al. 2023). Anaerobic digestion facilitates the transformation of organic waste into biogas, with algal biogas holding a high energy value and recovery rate comparable to cellular lipids (Ayala-Parra et al. 2017). Fermentation, be it aerobic fermentation in the presence of air or anaerobic fermentation in the absence of air, is a biologically-driven process (Karimi et al. 2021). In ethanol fermentation, microorganisms' enzymatic activity leads to the metabolic transformation of organic substrates. Yeast, for instance, converts biomass resources containing sugars, cellulose, or starch into ethanol (Gumisiriza et al. 2017).
Different fermentation modes include photo fermentation, wherein various photosynthetic bacteria drive the fermentation and conversion of organic substrates to produce biogenic hydrogen (Wang and Yin 2019). These processes occur through a series of metabolic activities categorized into three stages of anaerobic conversion. The distinction between light and dark fermentation is based on whether they operate under illuminated or dark conditions, respectively. Another type of fermentation driven by yeast is ethanol fermentation. Fermentation entails the conversion of sugars into cellular energy, resulting in the production of ethanol and carbon dioxide. This process is classified as anaerobic integration since it transpires in the absence of oxygen. Heterotrophic algae and yeast can convert sugars into lipids within cells, and suitable solvents are employed to rupture the cells (Łukajtis et al. 2018).
Photobiological hydrogen production, harnessing algae, entails the conversion of water into hydrogen and oxygen. Algae undergo photosynthetic growth and are cultivated under anaerobic conditions to stimulate hydrogen gas production. Photosynthesis leads to the generation of both hydrogen and oxygen (Iqbal et al. 2022). Ester exchange, involving the formation of fatty acid chains and glycerol between triglycerides and alcohols in the presence of a catalyst (Sulaiman et al. 2020), can produce fatty acid methyl ester from methanol and ethanol. The production of biodiesel via alkali-catalyzed transesterification is an economical process, as the low-temperature reactions involved in the process enable high conversion rates. Notably, alkali-catalyzed transesterification typically proceeds faster than acid-catalyzed transesterification (Melero et al. 2015). However, the presence of oil impurities and catalyst properties may restrict the transesterification process. Factors such as temperature and reaction time, which define the reaction conditions, can also influence the ester exchange process (Guan et al. 2017; Xie and Wang 2020). Moreover, the supercritical state of transesterification can weaken the hydrogen bonding of alcohol, accelerating chemical kinetics and ensuring the complete conversion of triglycerides into esters (Deshpande et al. 2017).
Means of improving bioenergy production efficiency
Enhancing bioenergy production efficiency is a crucial objective in bioenergy processes, and one highly effective approach is pre-treatment. Conventional pre-treatment methods include physical, chemical, and biological approaches (Zhao et al. 2022). Pre-treatment plays a pivotal role in the conversion of lignocellulose into energy, rendering lignocellulose more flexible for subsequent utilization. The current view offers a multitude of pre-treatment techniques tailored for diverse lignocellulosic feedstocks. As shown in Table 8, different pre-treatment technologies have different advantages and disadvantages, as well as different energy production efficiency. While biological pre-treatment may pose challenges like prolonged treatment duration and reduced efficiency, when combined with chemical pre-treatment, it can, to some extent, mitigate these limitations. Emerging pre-treatment technologies, for instance, deep eutectic solvents, offer the potential to not only attain high bioenergy yields but also ensure minimal environmental impact, positioning themselves as promising pre-treatment methods (Sharma et al. 2022b).
Physical pre-treatment is a conventional method involving physical methods, encompassing techniques such as grinding, shearing, and stirring. It is commonly used for biomass with low lignin content, like wheat straw, and involves procedures like extrusion grinding, cutting, and ball milling. These methods effectively reduce the size and degree of biomass polymerization (Bai et al. 2018). Dahunsi (2019) explored methane production from six types of lignin subjected to mechanical pre-treatment in two stages, revealing a 22% increase in methane production compared to untreated biomass, demonstrating the effectiveness of pre-treatment. Ultrasonic pre-treatment, known for its high energy and penetration, is often combined with chemical pre-treatment to enhance biomass delignification (Mankar et al. 2021). Subhedar et al. (2018) found that after ultrasonic pre-treatment, the degree of delignification of peanut shells, coconut shells, and open-heart fruit shells increased to 71.1%, 89.5%, and 78.9% compared to 41.8%, 45.9%, and 38% of conventional alkali treatment, almost achieving an 80–100% increase.
Heat pre-treatment enhances the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose, improving the solubility of substances like xylan, arabinose, and mannan (Wang et al. 2018). For the thermochemical processing of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels, methods like pyrolysis and gasification are common, while the latter is considered a cost-effective and efficient technology for bioenergy production (Sikarwar et al. 2017). Ahorsu et al. (2019) found that the conversion efficiency of cellulose from walnut shells treated with microwave radiation can reach 96.4%. Mazzoni et al. (2017) applied the plasma co-gasification method, which is regarded as an effective energy recovery method for urban solid waste and carbon-containing waste. By using plasma co-gasification to process 1338 tons of mixed waste consisting of 90% urban solid waste and 10% petroleum hydrocarbon waste per day, 81 megawatts of electricity are generated, with an efficiency of 33.63%, surpassing traditional waste incineration technologies. Perna et al. (2018) applied plasma gasification technology to advanced power plants, studying trash power generation and energy storage generated by litter power generation. In the second factory equipped with comprehensive hydrogen plasma gasification fuel cells, the efficiency of solid fuel cells reached 53.2%, and the efficiency of power plants was 44.9%, exceeding the 33% of traditional waste power plants and the 29% of the second factory integrated with air plasma gasification fuel cells.
Chemical pre-treatment involves the use of different chemical substances to disrupt lignocellulose's rigid structure. Acid reagents, like sulfuric acid, acetic acid, and phosphoric acid, can dissolve cellulose, hemicellulose, and some lignin, promoting fermentable sugar release (Lorenci Woiciechowski et al. 2020). Sulfuric acid, acetic acid, and phosphoric acid are commonly used acid treatment reagents (Rezania et al. 2020). Alkaline reagents, such as sodium hydroxide, dissolve the lignin and part of hemicellulose, effectively reducing cellulose crystallinity (Lorenci Woiciechowski et al. 2020). Oxidation, too, is an effective method, where excess hydroxyl generated after hydrogen peroxide decomposition inhibits biodegradation and biotransformation of lignin (Kumar et al. 2020). Ozone can form free radicals that react with lignin to make hemicellulose (Tan et al. 2021). Advanced oxidation processes are increasingly applied in bioenergy, especially for the pre-treatment of biogas production substrates (M'Arimi et al. 2020). These processes are also used to increase biodiesel production during ester exchange. Algae cells are often disrupted through grinding and homogenization, enabling biodiesel production from algae substrates (Islam et al. 2014).
Biological pre-treatment utilizes microorganisms or enzymes to break down lignin and hemicellulose in lignocellulose. While having low operating costs and reducing byproduct formation, its efficiency is relatively lower. Ma et al. (2021b) pretreated poplar with Peniophora incarnate T-7, after 7 days of fermentation, the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin in poplar decreased by 16%, 48% and 70%, respectively. Enzymes secreted by microorganisms are effective in reducing lignocellulosic polymerization. Chen et al. (2021c) treated banana residue with Acetobacter orientalis, and the cellulose decomposition efficiency of the control group was 46.08%, while the cellulose decomposition efficiency increased to 76.24% after treatment. In addition to bacteria and fungi, researchers have found that termites also play an excellent role in the pre-treatment of lignocellulose. Dumond et al. (2021) performed treatment of wheat straw by intestinal microbes of termites Nasuitermes ephratae, Nasuitermes lujae, Microcerotermes parvus, and Termes. It was observed that 80% of delignification was due to the removal of lignin, and the rest was due to the removal of hydroxycinnamic acid and trioctylic acid.
Physical and chemical pre-treatments effectively remove lignin and reduce cellulose crystallinity. Steam explosion, alkali-heat pre-treatment, and ammonia fiber expansion are commonly used methods. Tanpichai et al. (2019) used steam explosion to remove over 80% of lignin from pineapple leaves within 5 minutes. Thus, steam explosion treatment is a promising alternative process for the rapid extraction of cellulose fibers (Ge et al. 2018). Alkali heat pre-treatment refers to the use of alkaline reagents such as sodium hydroxide to assist in heat treatment at 75–125 °C to dissolve lignin. Zhang et al. (2020) used different pre-treatment methods to treat corn straw and found that the corn straw pretreated with 2% sodium hydroxide had the largest cumulative hydrogen production. Ammonia fiber expansion is one of the leading pre-treatment technologies in the field of lignocellulosic biorefining. Ammonia fiber expansion mainly enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis by removing lignin/xylan, but there was no significant change in cellulose isomorphism. At the same time, anhydrous ammonia fiber expansion enhances enzymatic hydrolysis through fine physical, chemical, and ultrastructural modifications of the cell wall, including reducing the crystallinity of cellulose or modifying cellulose homomorphous structure (Zhao et al. 2020).
Extrusion pre-treatment employs thermal and mechanical performances to change the physical and chemical structure of lignocellulose. It increases temperature and pressure within closed containers through shear forces applied between biomass, screws, and machine barrels. Extrusion pre-treatment enhances corn straw's maximum sugar output by 421.77% (Yan et al. 2019). Emerging pre-treatment methods include biochemical pre-treatment, ionic liquid pre-treatment, deep eutectic solvent pre-treatment, and supercritical fluid pre-treatment. Biochemical pre-treatment combines the advantages of biological and chemical pre-treatments, partially compensating for the low effectiveness of biological pre-treatment and the inhibition of compound formation by chemical pre-treatment. The mechanism of particle liquid-lignocellulose interaction is based on the specific binding of anions and cations, which breaks the β-O-4 link and produces an ionic dipole bond (Zhang et al. 2021). As a new generation of green organic solvents, deep eutectic solvents are expected to replace ionic liquids (Ma et al. 2021a). Deep eutectic solvents, which are formed by the interaction of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, exhibit physical and chemical properties comparable to ionic liquids. The effects of different combinations of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors on lignocellulose pre-treatment vary (Satlewal et al. 2018). Supercritical carbon dioxide is currently the most often utilized supercritical fluid, which can lower the pH of a solvent by dissolving carbon dioxide in it, improve the solubility of polar compounds in various solvents, and aid in the hydrolysis of lignocellulose (Patil et al. 2018).
Impact of the bioenergy production process on the environment
The production of bioenergy from various biomass sources has several environmental implications, both positive and negative. One of the significant environmental advantages of bioenergy is its lower carbon footprint. Biomass is considered a carbon-neutral energy source because the carbon dioxide released during combustion is roughly equal to the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plants during their growth. This can help reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, particularly when compared to fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas (Chen et al. 2021b). Solid is one of the most common forms of biomass fuel, but solid biomass often has high hygroscopicity, high resistance to biodegradation, and low calorific value. Researchers discovered that torrefaction, a thermochemical conversion method, can efficiently upgrade biomass and increase the quality of solid biomass-generated fuel after years of research (Kota et al. 2022). The global warming potential index can represent the equivalent effects of a certain greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide and can be used to compare greenhouse effects (Abernethy and Jackson 2022).
Treated biomass, produced through the torrefaction process, offers some environmental advantages compared to other thermochemical processes. Torrefaction tends to have a lower global warming potential in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are both positive and negative aspects to consider. On the positive side, the global warming potential of thermally treated biomass resulting from torrefaction is relatively low, and it means a smaller impact on global warming. Additionally, during the conversion of biofuel, the process can generate surplus electricity, often due to the higher calorific value of the gas produced during torrefaction. This surplus electricity can have positive implications, especially if it is fed back into the grid or used for other applications (Thengane et al. 2022). On the downside, there is a concern that torrefaction, especially when conducted at temperatures between 200 and 350 °C, may result in the generation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofuran. These pollutants can have detrimental environmental effects and should be minimized. Furthermore, torrefaction can increase the ash content in the final product, limiting its use in combustion and gasification processes (Niu et al. 2019). To mitigate these negative aspects, cleaning pre-treatment methods have been explored. These techniques aim to reduce pollutant emissions during the torrefaction process and remove excess ash from the treated biomass, making torrefaction a more environmentally friendly process overall (Chen et al. 2021a).
When considering the environmental and economic aspects of waste management, power generation from garbage using both biochemical and thermochemical processes emerges as an effective solution, especially for mixed wastes that are challenging to recycle or reuse. In the context of this waste-to-energy transformation, two fundamental approaches are employed. In biochemical processes, microorganisms play a pivotal role in breaking down municipal solid waste into smaller, more convenient molecules. However, it is essential to recognize that this biochemical transformation process is relatively slow compared to thermochemical methods and is primarily suitable for degrading and biodegradable waste (Shi et al. 2016). From an economic feasibility and environmental impact perspective, lignocellulose biorefineries have gained significant attention. These refineries are focused on producing valuable products like ethanol and electricity from lignocellulosic materials. It is noteworthy that these biological refining processes typically generate excess lignin, and the surplus electricity generated can be supplied to the grid. While these methods offer advantages, reducing net operational costs and curbing fossil fuel usage, it is essential to recognize that there are substantial capital costs associated with establishing joint production systems (Awasthi et al. 2022). In the scope of thermochemical processes for solid waste treatment, two prominent methods are combustion and gasification. Combustion is presently the most established and widely adopted method for converting waste into energy. It excels in significantly reducing the quantity and quality of waste, a critical aspect of waste management, as recently demonstrated (Felix et al. 2022).
Gasification represents the conversion of solid waste into environmentally friendly gaseous fuels, distinguished from combustion by its primary objectives. While combustion primarily aims to reduce solid waste volume through on-site power generation, gasification's focus is on transforming waste into clean gas fuels, generating inert slag, and recovering energy and valuable metals (Pressley et al. 2014). Gasification stands out as a cleaner and more eco-conscious alternative to traditional incineration. In particular, thermal plasma gasification is called one of the most successful and environmentally friendly techniques in the field of waste treatment and gasification (Ruj and Ghosh 2014). This method, distinct from conventional thermochemical processes, operates at exceptionally high temperatures exceeding 4000 °C under neutral, reducing, or oxidizing conditions. This high-temperature plasma provides the necessary heat for the efficient gasification of waste. Consequently, organic molecules are thermally fragmented into their fundamental elements, resulting in the production of materials free from tar and the vitrification of inorganic substances into dense, inert, and non-leachable products. The gas generated primarily consists of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, a valuable energy source (Perna et al. 2018). The use of thermal plasma for gasification brings notable advantages. This method is characterized by the absence of tar and ash production, a smaller installation size compared to traditional waste treatment systems for a given capacity, and the ability to process a wide range of heterogeneous and low-calorific-value materials, including hazardous waste and low-level waste, highlighting its versatility and efficiency (Materazzi et al. 2016).
Anaerobic digestion technology has proven highly effective in converting organic matter into bioenergy, primarily utilized for treating industrial wastewater and the organic fraction of urban solid waste. Notably, when compared to other bioenergy processes, anaerobic digestion stands out for its capacity to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane and carbon dioxide (Vasco-Correa et al. 2018). This process is particularly suitable for organic waste with high water content, making it highly efficient. In contrast, incineration is better suited for waste with low moisture content, necessitating the removal of moisture before the incineration process. The merits of anaerobic digestion in an environmental context become evident in its contribution to reduced energy demand, mitigation of global warming, and curbing resource consumption. From a global warming perspective, anaerobic digestion systems can positively impact the environment by minimizing methane leakage from digestion plants and digester storage, consequently reducing methane emissions and their associated global warming potential. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that in comparison to alternatives like natural gas or power grids featuring renewable energy sources, anaerobic digestion systems may not always be the primary choice (Tian et al. 2021).
In conclusion, biomass energy holds significant promise as a vital component in modern agriculture, the environmental protection industry, and resource recycling. Its potential remains substantial, especially in the domains of algae and lignin fiber conversion for biofuels. Enhancing the efficiency of bioenergy production focuses on embracing innovative pre-treatment technologies, such as biochemical and physicochemical approaches, which can overcome the limitations of conventional techniques like biological, physical, and chemical pre-treatments. Recent statistics from the International Energy Agency in 2022 indicate that bioenergy's share in the renewable energy sector stands at 55%, surpassing the combined contribution of traditional renewable sources like wind, solar, hydropower, and geothermal energy. The growth of biomass waste power generation remains robust and offers considerable global potential.
Policy implications for sustainable bioenergy production
Key policy tools and frameworks that encourage sustainable bioenergy production
Renewable energy standards
As humanity raced to meet its growing energy demands since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, natural resources bore the brunt of exploitation. This pursuit of ceaseless novelty, coupled with the emergence of "planned obsolescence," led to the swift removal of older products from the market, fueling a consumer culture hungry for the latest offerings. In this consumption frenzy, excessive production and wastage became the norm, aggravating the rift between human society and our finite natural resources. Pressing global concerns such as environmental pollution, resource depletion, climate change, and social inequality bear testament to the consequences of this trend. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 7 underscores the necessity of developing accessible, dependable, and sustainable modern energy solutions for all (Munro et al. 2017). Amid a backdrop where product lifecycles are affectedly restrained, the adoption of effective design strategies has emerged as a promising avenue to cutting waste and harnessing renewable energy, thereby mitigating our environmental footprint.
Sustainable energy systems have rapidly evolved, significantly contributing to our fight against climate change. However, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected to the energy industry (Hosseini 2020). The economic recession led to the shutdown of numerous industries, causing a marked reduction in energy consumption. The pandemic-induced disruption of the global economic supply chain posed challenges to the transition to sustainable low-carbon energy systems (Tsao et al. 2021). Yet, these trying times have presented a pivotal moment to redesign energy systems with a focus on efficiency while considering carbon emissions. The investments to be made in the post-pandemic recovery phase offer a unique opportunity to steer toward green development, especially within the energy sector (Kuzemko et al. 2020). Gasoline prices bear a profound connection to electricity demand, given their significant role in the existing energy production landscape (Hoang et al. 2021). Investments in renewable energy are intrinsically influenced by the price fluctuations of oil and gas. The pandemic has underscored the cost-effectiveness and safety of renewable energy for both consumers and investors. Considering the vulnerabilities in relying on natural gas supply and the upward trajectory of natural gas costs, a surge in investments in renewable energy is a logical expectation. As a result, the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 7 and other energy-related objectives is ready to gain momentum (Ayyildiz 2022).
Carbon capture
The integration of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) offers a promising avenue for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, with the potential to offset and even reverse the upward route of global warming through net-negative emissions. Negative emission technologies (NETs) hold a pivotal role in the spectrum of strategies for achieving temperature control targets along with emission reduction technologies (Rogelj et al. 2016). Projections indicate that, by mid-century, the world will need to remove approximately 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually through NETs, with this figure climbing to a reduction of 20 billion tons per year by the century's end (National Academies of Sciences et al. 2018). Among the various technologies capable of attaining negative emissions are BECCS, afforestation, biochar, direct air capture, enhanced weathering, underground mineralization, ocean alkalization, and other methods (National Academies of Sciences et al. 2018). In light of feasibility and scalability, BECCS technology, along with biochar, has garnered considerable attention (Heck et al. 2018).
While the possibility of achieving the 2 °C or 1.5 °C temperature control targets through rapid and deep decarbonization measures is declining (Luderer et al. 2013), reliance on negative emission technologies, particularly BECCS, is increasingly essential for substantial emission reductions. However, the overreliance on BECCS as a means to continue fossil fuel use would render climate change action ineffective. This is due to the current immaturity of BECCS technology, coupled with various uncertainties that hinder its large-scale and sustainable deployment across environmental, economic, social, and sustainable development dimensions. Factors such as the biomass supply chain's impact on carbon intensity, water resources, and land requirements (Yang et al. 2019a), the influence of biomass conversion and carbon capture and storage retrofits in coal-fired power plants on overall economic viability (Yi et al. 2018), the effects of carbon capture and storage projects on local safety and employment (Pawar et al. 2015), and strategies for promoting the deployment of BECCS projects through policy incentives pose significant challenges. Thus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive assessment of BECCS projects, evaluating their environmental, economic, and social aspects to facilitate large-scale and sustainable deployment. Furthermore, the lack of available indicators, data, and characterization methods for assessing economic and social impacts, despite the standardization of environmental life cycle assessment theory and methods by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), is a focal challenge in current research.
Sustainability certification schemes
Sustainability certification schemes are widely used in agriculture to uphold eco-friendly and sustainable farming practices, ensuring the production of safer and healthier agricultural products. These certification programs encompass a range of critical aspects, including sustainable farming techniques, pesticide management, safety and health measures, and food traceability. Their primary focus is on addressing environmental concerns (Osmundsen et al. 2020). Notably, there is a growing effort to establish sustainability certification systems tailored to the production of biofuel feedstocks in tropical regions, including palm oil, sugarcane, and soybean. While tropical biofuels, such as sugarcane ethanol or palm oil biodiesel, yield greater outputs and exhibit more favorable greenhouse gas balances than temperate biofuels, they also carry a higher risk of adverse environmental consequences. Hence, the development of specific certification methods for biofuel feedstocks in tropical regions is crucial to tackle the numerous sustainability challenges they pose (Tröster and Hiete 2018).
In conclusion, vital policy tools and frameworks supporting the advancement of sustainable bioenergy encompass renewable energy standards, carbon capture technology, and sustainability certification programs. The thorough examination and exploration of environmental, economic, social, and sustainable development aspects are imperative for the effective deployment of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Additionally, sustainability certification schemes are of great importance, especially in tropical regions where specialized feedstocks such as palm oil and sugarcane are utilized. These certification programs contribute to the ethical production of biofuel feedstocks and aid in addressing sustainability issues. Overall, these policy frameworks and instruments are designed to facilitate the transition to sustainable bioenergy production while giving due consideration to social, environmental, and resource efficiency considerations.
Challenges and opportunities for bioenergy production policy
To foster the production of biodiesel from Jatropha curcas, the Indian government has passed various policies, including allocating land in four states for Jatropha cultivation and setting up related processing facilities, along with plans to establish biodiesel procurement centers (Kothari et al. 2020). However, the uncertain establishment of Jatropha cultivation institutions, a lack of proper zoning for cultivation, and insufficient financial support have hindered the success of India's biodiesel promotion plans (Kothari et al. 2020). In Pakistan, the government has introduced policies like tax exemptions and incentives to stimulate the development of bioenergy, especially bioenergy power generation using bagasse (Ali et al. 2021b). Nevertheless, these policies confront several challenges, including inadequate long-term planning and policy formulation, low profitability in bioenergy power generation, and underdeveloped infrastructure (Ali et al. 2021b).
In China, the government has taken measures to promote bioenergy based on crop residues. These initiatives include banning straw burning in the Air Pollution Prevention Law of 2000 and conducting public awareness campaigns to discourage straw burning (Zhang et al. 2022). The Chinese government's policy has helped to expand bioenergy based on crop residues. Nonetheless, Zhang et al. (2022) pointed out that the Chinese government's policy still faces obstacles due to financial constraints. Moreover, in 2017, multiple departments in China jointly announced the "Implementation Plan for Expanding Ethanol Production and Promotion of Transportation Fuels" to promote the production of bio-based ethanol (Yong and Wu 2022). Then, in 2018, a subsidy of 98.51 US dollars per ton was given to producing advanced cellulosic ethanol. However, from 2017 to 2020, the production of cellulosic biofuels in China dropped from 30 million liters to zero million liters (Yong and Wu 2022).
In Malaysia, the government supports bioenergy enterprises with tax exemptions, financial subsidies, and incentives to encourage bioenergy production. However, this approach is plagued by several challenges (Rashidi et al. 2022). Firstly, Malaysia lacks advanced bioenergy technologies, resulting in the need to import most of these technologies, leading to high production and maintenance costs (How et al. 2019; Nevzorova and Kutcherov 2019). Furthermore, the vast distances of bioenergy projects and distribution systems in East Malaysia led to substantial capital investments due to infrastructure limitations. Moreover, there is a shortage of local technical expertise in bioenergy. Secondly, economic challenges arise from the high capital investment and long payback periods needed for constructing bioenergy facilities, posing a burden on developers (Hamzah et al. 2019; Seetharaman et al. 2019).
In contrast, bioenergy receives lower subsidies compared to traditional energy sources in Malaysia (Rashidi et al. 2022). Indonesia promotes bioenergy through strategies such as purchasing electricity from biomass power plants, specifying the use of biofuels to replace fossil fuels, and covering the difference in the cost of raw materials for biofuels (Amelia et al. 2023). However, several challenges have surfaced in the implementation of this policy, including an unbalanced focus on biofuel over other bioenergy sectors, unattractive tariffs, unbalanced risk allocation eroding investor confidence, and regulations that create barriers to installation (Amelia et al. 2023).
In summary, India's bioenergy policy faces challenges related to Jatropha cultivation, zoning issues, and financial support. Pakistan's bioenergy policy grapples with problems like a lack of long-term planning, profitability concerns in bioenergy power generation, and infrastructure development. China's crop residue-based bioenergy policy encounters financial constraints, while bio-based ethanol production policies have witnessed a decline in production. Malaysia's bioenergy policy contends with technical and economic challenges due to the importation of advanced technologies and the lengthy payback periods. Indonesia's bioenergy policy faces issues such as an imbalance in bioenergy sector focus, unattractive tariffs, imbalanced risk allocation, and regulatory barriers. The opportunities and challenges of bioenergy policies in different countries and fields are shown in Table 9 below.
Overall, bioenergy production policies in these countries strive to encourage bioenergy development in various sectors, encompassing biodiesel, bioethanol, and bagasse-driven bioenergy power generation. However, each policy also faces its unique set of challenges, with only China's crop residue-based bioenergy policy offering opportunities.
Effectiveness of bioenergy policy
After statistical analysis of the bioenergy status, policies, and other variables in the United Kingdom and the Nordic countries, the researchers found that the renewable energy quota system, carbon tax and price floor, and feed-in tariffs are all effective in the United Kingdom’s bioenergy policy. The feed-in tariff in the United Kingdom is an important factor in promoting the development of the anaerobic digestion industry (Cross et al. 2021). Carbon taxes on fuels and feed-in tariffs are also considered effective in Finland’s bioenergy policy. In Sweden’s bioenergy policy, the fuel carbon tax and the renewable energy quota system have also been proven to promote the bioenergy industry (Cross et al. 2021). Additionally, researchers from China developed two dynamic agricultural sector models to analyze how changes in land fertility affect bioenergy crops. The analysis results suggested that direct subsidies and tax credits can sustain the expected yields of bioenergy crops (Kung 2018). However, changes in the discount rate and program scope of direct subsidies and tax credits strongly impact policy effectiveness (Kung 2018).
Furthermore, in an analysis of bioenergy policies in three Canadian communities, the researchers found that increasing direct incentives such as supplier and center incentives will not impact the amount of bioenergy generation (Vazifeh et al. 2023). On the other hand, indirect incentives such as increased supply capacity and improved bioenergy conversion capacity have significantly impacted the share of bioenergy generation (Vazifeh et al. 2023). Indirect incentives for bioenergy conversion provide or improve the necessary infrastructure. In summary, the renewable energy quota system, carbon tax and price floor, feed-in tariff are effective in the United Kingdom's bioenergy policy, carbon tax and feed-in tariff are effective in Finland’s bioenergy policy, and in Sweden's bioenergy carbon taxes on fuels and renewable energy quota systems in the policy are effective. In addition, direct subsidies and tax credits have proven to be effective bioenergy policies in China. Furthermore, indirect incentives are ineffective in Canadian bioenergy policy, while indirect ones are ineffective.
The researchers used a system dynamics model to evaluate the biofuel subsidy policy in Taiwan and China and found that the subsidy policy for biofuels is effective (Kuo et al. 2019). In addition, researchers designed a two-stage stochastic programming and pursuit model for bioenergy production in China for analysis (Kung et al. 2022). Kung et al. (2022) pointed out that low-cost green bond investments in bioenergy development can improve development efficiency in the face of stringent environmental regulations and emissions management. Green bonds are an effective bioenergy policy. Moreover, to promote the use of straw for bioenergy power generation, the Chinese government has issued regulations prohibiting the burning of straw. Researchers summarizing straw disposal in rural northeastern China have found that laws banning straw burning are ineffective (Hou et al. 2019). However, subsidizing and promoting residue shredders and setting up demonstration projects to train farmers are considered to be effective policies for reducing straw burning (Kuhn et al. 2018; Hou et al. 2019).
Furthermore, after modeling and analyzing China's bioenergy policies to encourage biomass cogeneration, support biomass heating, develop biofuel technology, establish a raw material collection system, and prioritize using bio-natural gas (Wang et al. 2022). Wang et al. (2022) pointed out that the development of biofuel, the most vigorous promotion of biofuels, is the preferred policy for developing bioenergy. Prioritizing the use of bio-natural gas can better promote the development of biomass power generation (Wang et al. 2022). Additionally, after analyzing carbon pricing and subsidies for bioenergy plants in Germany through an energy system model, Meurer et al. (2023) found that higher carbon dioxide prices and policies with specific bonuses can promote the flexible operation of bioenergy plants. Overall, subsidies for biofuels, green bonds, biofuel technologies development, and biogas' priority use are effective bioenergy technologies in China. Moreover, regulations banning straw burning in Northeast China are ineffective, but subsidizing and promoting residue shredders and establishing demonstration projects to train farmers are effective bioenergy policies. Furthermore, Germany's higher carbon dioxide prices and specific bonuses are also valid bioenergy policies.
After modeling bioenergy policy and forest bioenergy installed capacity in the USA using a fixed-effects framework, the researchers found that tax incentives, especially tax credits, positively affect forest bioenergy development, so tax incentives are considered effective (Ebers Broughel 2019). Other policies, such as production incentives, project financing, and regulations, did not significantly impact installed forest bioenergy capacity (Ebers Broughel 2019). In addition, information policy has a negative impact. However, Ebers Broughel (2019) pointed out that even if individual policies did not show an identifiable impact on productivity, individual policies could still have a boosting effect when aggregated. Furthermore, Austria’s biofuel policy includes reduced or exempted biofuel taxes, reduced permit fees, and tax exemptions for purchasing vehicles using biofuels. Since 2006, the production and use of ethanol in Austria have increased at a rate of 70% and 25% per year, respectively, and the production and use of biodiesel in Austria have grown at an average rate of 14% and 5% per year, respectively (Ebadian et al. 2020). Reduced or exempted biofuel taxes, reduced permit fees, and tax exemptions for purchasing vehicles that run on biofuels are considered valid in the biofuel policy (Ebadian et al. 2020).
In addition, the Danish government has adopted the policy of exempting biofuels from the carbon tax, appropriating funds to promote the production of advanced biofuels, and providing guarantees for biofuel companies (Ebadian et al. 2020). However, the Danish biofuel policy is ineffective since the annual biodiesel production in Denmark has remained unchanged since 2010, and there is no ethanol production in Denmark (Ebadian et al. 2020). In short, tax incentives, especially tax credits, are effective in United States bioenergy policy, but production incentives, project financing, regulations, and information policies are ineffective if implemented individually and are effective when multiple policies are implemented simultaneously. In addition, reduced or exempted taxes on biofuels, reduced permit fees, and tax exemptions for purchasing vehicles running on biofuels are valid in Austria’s bioenergy policy. Moreover, Denmark’s bioenergy policy exempts biofuels from carbon taxes, allocates funds to promote the production of advanced biofuels, and guaranteed biofuels company are invalid.
Overall, bioenergy production policies in most countries are effective. Nevertheless, some countries have ineffective bioenergy production policies, such as China's banning of straw burning, Denmark's biofuel policy, and Canada's direct incentive policy.
Conclusion
This review explores the life cycle assessment and techno-economic assessment of bioenergy. The careful cultivation of energy crops on marginal lands holds the potential to significantly mitigate emissions by sequestering atmospheric carbon. Bioenergy land-use transformations encompass a myriad of variables, including deployment scale, prior land usage, crop selection, soil quality, climate, and management practices. When combined with best management practices and thoughtful scaling, land conversion for bioenergy production can yield positive outcomes. Thus, minimizing the environmental impact while embracing best management practices is vital for the overall sustainability of the production system.
The rapid global growth of the bioenergy industry raises concerns about its complex effects, including both positive synergies and adverse impacts on sustainable development, land degradation, water scarcity, food security, and greenhouse gas emissions. The complexity of these interactions underscores the need for careful evaluation and sustainable management to ensure that bioenergy plays a constructive role in meeting global energy needs. A robust evaluation of bioenergy systems necessitates a comprehensive life cycle assessment. This assessment should encompass a diverse array of environmental sustainability indicators, moving beyond the focus on greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance. The current variability in standards across research areas inhibits meaningful comparisons of life cycle assessments. Standardizing methodology would enable such comparisons and provide valuable insights to academia and businesses, facilitating cost-effective assessments that evolve with scientific knowledge. Sustainability tools heavily rely on life cycle assessments to mitigate pollution and adverse impacts on ecosystems. Challenges, such as data limitations and future uncertainties, persist in conducting life cycle assessments for new materials or technologies. Comprehensive, standardized life cycle assessments are vital for informed decision-making and advancing the sustainability of bioenergy systems.
Techno-economic analysis proves invaluable for assessing the feasibility and profitability of bioenergy production. Given the distinct cost structures, profitability, and environmental implications associated with various bioenergy production methods, techno-economic analysis systematically amalgamates these aspects. It aids producers in making informed decisions based on critical financial metrics such as net present value, internal return, and return on investment. This analysis is indispensable in guiding the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable bioenergy. Operational costs significantly affect the feasibility of bioenergy production. Efficient management of raw material collection, transportation, processing, pre-treatment, water use, and wastewater is essential for economic viability. Market demand, influenced by fossil fuel pricing, plays a pivotal role in determining profitability. Government subsidies can provide additional support, while ongoing production process optimization remains essential to reduce costs and attract more energy companies to the bioenergy sector. Selecting bioenergy feedstocks and production technologies is influenced by both economic and sustainability factors. While starch-based feedstocks have proven profitable, competition for these resources can lead to price fluctuations. Lignocellulose presents a more sustainable option, but efficient collection and preprocessing are challenging. Varied raw material treatments result in varying outputs. Assessing the entire supply chain, from feedstock collection to the end product, is critical for informed decision-making during the transition to sustainable and economically viable bioenergy production.
Vital policy tools, including renewable energy standards, carbon capture technology, and sustainability certification programs, offer comprehensive solutions to promote sustainable bioenergy. Effective deployment of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage hinges on a detailed examination of environmental, economic, social, and sustainable development aspects. Sustainability certification schemes are particularly important in regions using specialized feedstocks. They contribute to the ethical production of biofuel feedstocks and address sustainability challenges. These policy frameworks and instruments facilitate the transition to sustainable bioenergy, considering social, environmental, and resource efficiency. Challenges exist in various countries, including India, Pakistan, China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, due to issues such as cultivation concerns, planning, profitability, infrastructure, and regulatory barriers. Subsidies, green bonds, technological development, and priority use of biogas are shown to be effective in the Chinese bioenergy landscape. Conversely, Germany's high carbon dioxide prices and specific bonuses demonstrate effectiveness as well. In conclusion, the bioenergy sector provides a substantial avenue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance sustainability, and meet global energy demands. Careful management of energy crops on marginal lands, life cycle assessments, and techno-economic analysis all contribute to the advancement of sustainable bioenergy systems. As this industry continues to evolve, a comprehensive understanding of its complexities and the adoption of effective policy tools are essential for achieving a more sustainable and greener future.
References
Abernethy S, Jackson RB (2022) Global temperature goals should determine the time horizons for greenhouse gas emission metrics. Environ Res Lett 17:024019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4940
Ahn B, Jin G, Kim J, Won W (2023) Integrated process design and analysis for co-production of biofuels with adipic acid and tetrahydrofuran. Ind Crops Prod 200:116830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116830
Ahorsu R, Cintorrino G, Medina F, Constantí M (2019) Microwave processes: a viable technology for obtaining xylose from walnut shell to produce lactic acid by Bacillus Coagulans. J Clean Prod 231:1171–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.289
Akindipe D, Olawale OW, Bujko R (2022) Techno-economic and social aspects of smart street lighting for small cities—a case study. Sustain Cities Soc 84:103989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103989
Al Afif R, Wendland M, Amon T, Pfeifer C (2020) Supercritical carbon dioxide enhanced pre-treatment of cotton stalks for methane production. Energy 194:116903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.116903
Ali B, Kumar A (2017) Development of water demand coefficients for power generation from renewable energy technologies. Energy Convers Manag 143:470–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.028
Ali S, Paul Peter A, Chew KW, Munawaroh HSH, Show PL (2021a) Resource recovery from industrial effluents through the cultivation of microalgae: a review. Biores Technol 337:125461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125461
Ali Z, Liaquat R, Husain Khoja A, Safdar U (2021b) A comparison of energy policies of Pakistan and their impact on bioenergy development. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 46:101246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101246
Almomani F, Bhosale RR, Khraisheh MAM, Shawaqfah M (2019) Enhancement of biogas production from agricultural wastes via pre-treatment with advanced oxidation processes. Fuel 253:964–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.05.057
Amelia A, Nadiya P, Esy G, Hanafi K, Mochamad Syahreza R, Saut S, Niken P (2023) Assessment of policy implementation for palm oil-based bioenergy development in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on smart and innovative agriculture (ICoSIA 2022) https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-122-7_18
Amin MA, Shukor H, Yin LS, Kasim FH, Shoparwe NF, Makhtar MMZ, Yaser AZ (2022) Methane biogas production in Malaysia: challenge and future plan. Int J Chem Eng 2022:2278211. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2278211
Anand A, Pathak S, Kumar V, Kaushal P (2022) Biochar production from crop residues, its characterization and utilization for electricity generation in India. J Clean Prod 368:133074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133074
Antar M, Lyu D, Nazari M, Shah A, Zhou X, Smith DL (2021) Biomass for a sustainable bioeconomy: an overview of world biomass production and utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 139:110691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110691
Aravind S, Kumar PS, Kumar NS, Siddarth N (2020) Conversion of green algal biomass into bioenergy by pyrolysis. Rev Environ Chem Lett 18:829–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00990-2
Awasthi MK, Sindhu R, Sirohi R, Kumar V, Ahluwalia V, Binod P, Juneja A, Kumar D, Yan B, Sarsaiya S, Zhang Z, Pandey A, Taherzadeh MJ (2022) Agricultural waste biorefinery development towards circular bioeconomy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 158:112122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112122
Ayala-Parra P, Liu Y, Field JA, Sierra-Alvarez R (2017) Nutrient recovery and biogas generation from the anaerobic digestion of waste biomass from algal biofuel production. Renew Energy 108:410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.085
Ayodele BV, Alsaffar MA, Mustapa SI (2020) An overview of integration opportunities for sustainable bioethanol production from first- and second-generation sugar-based feedstocks. J Clean Prod 245:118857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118857
Ayyildiz E (2022) Fermatean fuzzy step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and its application to prioritizing indicators to achieve sustainable development goal-7. Renew Energy 193:136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.021
Bai X, Wang G, Yu Y, Wang D, Wang Z (2018) Changes in the physicochemical structure and pyrolysis characteristics of wheat straw after rod-milling pretreatment. Biores Technol 250:770–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.085
Bai Y, Zhou L, Irfan M, Liang T-T, Cheng L, Liu Y-F, Liu J-F, Yang S-Z, Sand W, Gu J-D, Mu B-Z (2020) Bioelectrochemical methane production from CO2 by Methanosarcina barkeri via direct and H2-mediated indirect electron transfer. Energy 210:118445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118445
Balajii M, Niju S (2019) Biochar-derived heterogeneous catalysts for biodiesel production. Environ Chem Lett 17:1447–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00885-x
Baral P, Munagala M, Shastri Y, Kumar V, Agrawal D (2021) Cost reduction approaches for fermentable sugar production from sugarcane bagasse and its impact on techno-economics and the environment. Cellulose 28:6305–6322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03940-5
Bautista-Herrera A, Ortiz-Arango F, Álvarez-García J (2021) Profitability using second-generation bioethanol in gasoline produced in Mexico. Energies 14:2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082294
Bazdar E, Roshandel R, Yaghmaei S, Mardanpour MM (2018) The effect of different light intensities and light/dark regimes on the performance of photosynthetic microalgae microbial fuel cell. Biores Technol 261:350–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.026
Beaucamp A, Muddasar M, Amiinu IS, Moraes Leite M, Culebras M, Latha K, Gutiérrez MC, Rodriguez-Padron D, del Monte F, Kennedy T, Ryan KM, Luque R, Titirici M-M, Collins MN (2022) Lignin for energy applications—state of the art, life cycle, technoeconomic analysis and future trends. Green Chem 24:8193–8226. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2GC02724K
Bordonal RdO, Carvalho JLN, Lal R, de Figueiredo EB, de Oliveira BG, La Scala N (2018) Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. Rev Agron Sustain Dev 38:13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0490-x
Bouoiyour J, Gauthier M, Bouri E (2023) Which is leading: renewable or brown energy assets? Energy Econ 117:106339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106339
Brandão M, Ekvall T, Poulikidou S, Johansson K, Nilsson J, Nojpanya P, Wikström A, Rydberg T (2022) RED, PEF, and EPD: conflicting rules for determining the carbon footprint of biofuels give unclear signals to fuel producers and customers. Front Clim 4:192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.988769
Brito M, Martins F (2017) Life cycle assessment of butanol production. Fuel 208:476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.050
Brosowski A, Krause T, Mantau U, Mahro B, Noke A, Richter F, Raussen T, Bischof R, Hering T, Blanke C, Müller P, Thrän D (2019) How to measure the impact of biogenic residues, wastes and by-products: development of a national resource monitoring based on the example of Germany. Biomass Bioenerg 127:105275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105275
Buendia-Kandia F, Mauviel G, Guedon E, Rondags E, Petitjean D, Dufour A (2018) Decomposition of cellulose in hot-compressed water: detailed analysis of the products and effect of operating conditions. Energy Fuels 32:4127–4138. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02994
Bulle C, Margni M, Patouillard L, Boulay A-M, Bourgault G, De Bruille V, Cao V, Hauschild M, Henderson A, Humbert S, Kashef-Haghighi S, Kounina A, Laurent A, Levasseur A, Liard G, Rosenbaum RK, Roy P-O, Shaked S, Fantke P, Jolliet O (2019) IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1653–1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0
Cano-Londoño NA, Capaz RS, Hasenstab C, Velásquez HI, McIntyre N, Corder GD, Posada JA (2023) Life cycle impacts assessment of two gold extraction systems in Colombia: open-pit and alluvial mining. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28:380–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02141-5
Carvalho FS, Fornasier F, Leitão JOM, Moraes JAR, Schneider RCS (2019) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from solaris seed tobacco. J Clean Prod 230:1085–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.177
Cavalcanti EJC, Carvalho M, da Silva DRS (2020) Energy, exergy and exergoenvironmental analyses of a sugarcane bagasse power cogeneration system. Energy Convers Manag 222:113232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113232
Chaluvadi S, Ujjwal A, Singh RK (2019) Effect of torrefaction prior to biomass size reduction on ethanol production. Waste Biomass Valorization 10:3567–3577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0389-4
Chamkalani A, Zendehboudi S, Rezaei N, Hawboldt K (2020) A critical review on life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: current challenges and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 134:110143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110143
Charles W, Cord-Ruwisch R, Ho G (2021) Novel microbial-electrochemical filter with a computer-feedback pH control strategy for upgrading biogas into biomethane. Biores Technol 332:125137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125137
Chauhan DS, Goswami G, Dineshbabu G, Palabhanvi B, Das D (2020) Evaluation and optimization of feedstock quality for direct conversion of microalga Chlorella sp. FC2 IITG into biodiesel via supercritical methanol transesterification. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 10:339–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00432-2
Chen C-Y, Chen W-H, Hung C-H (2021a) Combustion performance and emissions from torrefied and water washed biomass using a kg-scale burner. J Hazard Mater 402:123468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123468
Chen W-H, Lin B-J, Lin Y-Y, Chu Y-S, Ubando AT, Show PL, Ong HC, Chang J-S, Ho S-H, Culaba AB, Pétrissans A, Pétrissans M (2021b) Progress in biomass torrefaction: principles, applications and challenges. Prog Energy Combust Sci 82:100887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100887
Chen Y, Wang W, Zhou D, Cai B, Zhang M, Qi D, Jing T, Zang X, Zhang L, Xie J (2021c) Acetobacter orientalis XJC-C with a high lignocellulosic biomass-degrading ability improves significantly composting efficiency of banana residues by increasing metabolic activity and functional diversity of bacterial community. Biores Technol 324:124661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124661
Chen L, Chen Z, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Osman AI, Farghali M, Hua J, Al-Fatesh A, Ihara I, Rooney DW, Yap P-S (2023) Artificial intelligence-based solutions for climate change: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:2525–2557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01617-y
Cheroennet N, Suwanmanee U (2017) Net energy gain and water footprint of corn ethanol production in Thailand. Energy Procedia 118:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.003
Cherubin MR, Lisboa IP, Silva AGB, Varanda LL, Bordonal RO, Carvalho JLN, Otto R, Pavinato PS, Soltangheisi A, Cerri CEP (2019) Sugarcane straw removal: implications to soil fertility and fertilizer demand in Brazil. BioEnergy Res 12:888–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10021-w
Cherubin MR, Carvalho JL, Cerri CE, Nogueira LA, Souza GM, Cantarella H (2021) Land use and management effects on sustainable sugarcane-derived bioenergy. Land. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010072
Chew KW, Yap JY, Show PL, Suan NH, Juan JC, Ling TC, Lee D-J, Chang J-S (2017) Microalgae biorefinery: high value products perspectives. Biores Technol 229:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.006
Clauser NM, Felissia FE, Area MC, Vallejos ME (2021) A framework for the design and analysis of integrated multi-product biorefineries from agricultural and forestry wastes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 139:110687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110687
Collotta M, Champagne P, Tomasoni G, Alberti M, Busi L, Mabee W (2019) Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: an analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 115:109358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358
Cortes JE, le Coutre PD, Gambacorti-Passerini C, Hjorth-Hansen H, Raanani P, Garcia-Gutiérrez V, Kota V, Purcell S, Viqueira A, Leip E, Brümmendorf TH (2020) Long-term cardiac, vascular, and hypertension safety of bosutinib (BOS) versus imatinib (IMA) for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): results from the bfore trial. Blood 136:34–35. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-134912
Cross S, Welfle AJ, Thornley P, Syri S, Mikaelsson M (2021) Bioenergy development in the UK & Nordic countries: a comparison of effectiveness of support policies for sustainable development of the bioenergy sector. Biomass Bioenergy 144:105887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105887
Dahunsi SO (2019) Mechanical pretreatment of lignocelluloses for enhanced biogas production: methane yield prediction from biomass structural components. Biores Technol 280:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.006
Das P, Chandramohan VP, Mathimani T, Pugazhendhi A (2021) Recent advances in thermochemical methods for the conversion of algal biomass to energy. Sci Total Environ 20(766):144608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144608
de Pontes SD, Mendonça FM, Alves Nunes KR, Valle R (2012) Environmental and socioeconomic analysis of producing biodiesel from used cooking oil in Rio de Janeiro. J Ind Ecol 16:655–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00517.x
Deep Singh A, Gajera B, Sarma AK (2022) Appraising the availability of biomass residues in India and their bioenergy potential. Waste Manag 152:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.08.001
Deivayanai VC, Yaashikaa PR, Senthil Kumar P, Rangasamy G (2022) A comprehensive review on the biological conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into hydrogen: pretreatment strategy, technology advances and perspectives. Biores Technol 365:128166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128166
Deshpande SR, Sunol AK, Philippidis G (2017) Status and prospects of supercritical alcohol transesterification for biodiesel production. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ 6:e252. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.252
Dhanya BS, Mishra A, Chandel AK, Verma ML (2020) Development of sustainable approaches for converting the organic waste to bioenergy. Sci Total Environ 723:138109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138109
Díaz I, Fdz-Polanco F, Mutsvene B, Fdz-Polanco M (2020) Effect of operating pressure on direct biomethane production from carbon dioxide and exogenous hydrogen in the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Appl Energy 280:115915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115915
Dinjus E, Kruse A, Tröger N (2011) Hydrothermal Carbonization—1. Influence of Lignin in Lignocelluloses. Chem Eng Technol 34:2037–2043. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201100487
Dong J, Tang Y, Nzihou A, Chi Y, Weiss-Hortala E, Ni M (2018) Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy technologies: theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants. Sci Total Environ 626:744–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.151
Duarah P, Haldar D, Patel AK, Dong C-D, Singhania RR, Purkait MK (2022) A review on global perspectives of sustainable development in bioenergy generation. Biores Technol 348:126791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126791
Duc Bui V, Phuong VuH, Phuong Nguyen H, Quang Duong X, Tuyen Nguyen D, Tuan Pham M, Quy Phong Nguyen P (2023) Techno-economic assessment and logistics management of biomass in the conversion progress to bioenergy. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 55:102991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102991
Dufour J, Iribarren D (2012) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from free fatty acid-rich wastes. Renew Energy 38:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.016
Dumond L, Lam LPY, van Erven G, Kabel M, Mounet F, Grima-Pettenati J, Tobimatsu Y, Hernandez-Raquet G (2021) Termite gut microbiota contribution to wheat straw delignification in anaerobic bioreactors. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 9:2191–2202. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c07817
Durocher C, Thiffault E, Achim A, Auty D, Barrette J (2019) Untapped volume of surplus forest growth as feedstock for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 120:376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.024
Ebadian M, van Dyk S, McMillan JD, Saddler J (2020) Biofuels policies that have encouraged their production and use: an international perspective. Energy Policy 147:111906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111906
Ebers Broughel A (2019) Impact of state policies on generating capacity for production of electricity and combined heat and power from forest biomass in the United States. Renew Energy 134:1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.058
Escamilla-Alvarado C, Poggi-Varaldo HM, Ponce-Noyola MT (2017) Bioenergy and bioproducts from municipal organic waste as alternative to landfilling: a comparative life cycle assessment with prospective application to Mexico. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:25602–25617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6939-z
Fasahati P, Dickson R, Saffron CM, Woo HC, Liu JJ (2022) Seaweeds as a sustainable source of bioenergy: techno-economic and life cycle analyses of its biochemical conversion pathways. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 157:112011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.112011
Felix CB, Ubando AT, Chen W-H, Goodarzi V, Ashokkumar V (2022) COVID-19 and industrial waste mitigation via thermochemical technologies towards a circular economy: a state-of-the-art review. J Hazard Mater 423:127215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127215
Foteinis S, Chatzisymeon E, Litinas A, Tsoutsos T (2020) Used-cooking-oil biodiesel: life cycle assessment and comparison with first- and third-generation biofuel. Renew Energy 153:588–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.022
Gao H, Wang Y, Yang Q, Peng H, Li Y, Zhan D, Wei H, Lu H, Bakr MMA, Ei-Sheekh MM, Qi Z, Peng L, Lin X (2021) Combined steam explosion and optimized green-liquor pretreatments are effective for complete saccharification to maximize bioethanol production by reducing lignocellulose recalcitrance in 1-year-old bamboo. Renewable Energy 175:1069–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.016
Gautam P, Neha USN, Dubey SK (2020) Bio-methanol as a renewable fuel from waste biomass: current trends and future perspective. Fuel 273:117783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117783
Ge S, Chen X, Li D, Liu Z, Ouyang H, Peng W, Zhang Z (2018) Hemicellulose structural changes during steam pretreatment and biogradation of Lentinus edodes. Arab J Chem 11:771–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.12.022
Ge B, He J, Zhang Q, Wei Y, Xi L, Khan NU, Huang F (2019) Evaluation of various sulfides for enhanced photobiological H2 production by a dual-species co-culture system of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and Thiomonas intermedia. Process Biochem 82:110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2019.03.028
Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH (2009) The water footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:10219–10223. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812619106
Gerbens-Leenes W, Berger M, Allan JA (2021) Water footprint and life cycle assessment: the complementary strengths of analyzing global freshwater appropriation and resulting local impacts. Water 13(6):803. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060803
Ghiami S, Khallaghi N, Borhani TN (2021) Techno-economic and environmental assessment of staged oxy-co-firing of biomass-derived syngas and natural gas. Energy Convers Manag 243:114410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114410
Gnanasekaran L, Priya AK, Thanigaivel S, Hoang TKA, Soto-Moscoso M (2023) The conversion of biomass to fuels via cutting-edge technologies: explorations from natural utilization systems. Fuel 331:125668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125668
Guan Q, Li Y, Chen Y, Shi Y, Gu J, Li B, Miao R, Chen Q, Ning P (2017) Sulfonated multi-walled carbon nanotubes for biodiesel production through triglycerides transesterification. RSC Adv 7:7250–7258. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA28067F
Gumisiriza R, Hawumba JF, Okure M, Hensel O (2017) Biomass waste-to-energy valorisation technologies: a review case for banana processing in Uganda. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0689-5
Guzman JG, Ussiri DAN, Lal R (2019) Soil physical properties following conversion of a reclaimed minesoil to bioenergy crop production. CATENA 176:289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.01.020
Hamzah N, Tokimatsu K, Yoshikawa K (2019) Solid fuel from oil palm biomass residues and municipal solid waste by hydrothermal treatment for electrical power generation in Malaysia: a review. Sustainability 11(4):1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041060
Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Aziz NIHA (2021) An LCA-based environmental performance of rice production for developing a sustainable agri-food system in Malaysia. Environ Manag 67:146–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01365-7
Heck V, Gerten D, Lucht W, Popp A (2018) Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat Clim Chang 8:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y
Hiloidhari M, Baruah DC, Singh A, Kataki S, Medhi K, Kumari S, Ramachandra TV, Jenkins BM, Thakur IS (2017) Emerging role of geographical information system (GIS), life cycle assessment (LCA) and spatial LCA (GIS-LCA) in sustainable bioenergy planning. Biores Technol 242:218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.079
Hoang AT, Sandro N, Olcer AI, Ong HC, Chen W-H, Chong CT, Thomas S, Bandh SA, Nguyen XP (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy system and the shift progress to renewable energy: opportunities, challenges, and policy implications. Energy Policy 154:112322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112322
Hossain N, Zaini J, Indra Mahlia TM (2019) Life cycle assessment, energy balance and sensitivity analysis of bioethanol production from microalgae in a tropical country. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 115:109371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109371
Hosseini SE (2020) An outlook on the global development of renewable and sustainable energy at the time of COVID-19. Energy Res Soc Sci 68:101633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101633
Hosseini SM, Aslani A, Kasaeian A (2022) Energy, water, and environmental impacts assessment of electricity generation in Iran. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 52:102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102193
Hosseinzadeh A, Zhou JL, Li X, Afsari M, Altaee A (2022) Techno-economic and environmental impact assessment of hydrogen production processes using bio-waste as renewable energy resource. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 156:111991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111991
Hou L, Chen X, Kuhn L, Huang J (2019) The effectiveness of regulations and technologies on sustainable use of crop residue in Northeast China. Energy Econ 81:519–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.04.015
How BS, Ngan SL, Hong BH, Lam HL, Ng WPQ, Yusup S, Ghani WAWAK, Kansha Y, Chan YH, Cheah KW, Shahbaz M, Singh HKG, NaR Y, Shuhaili AFA, Rambli J (2019) An outlook of Malaysian biomass industry commercialisation: perspectives and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 113:109277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109277
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2017) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y
Humpenöder F, Popp A, Bodirsky B, Weindl I, Biewald A, Lotze-Campen H, Dietrich J, Klein D, Kreidenweis U, Müller C, Rolinski S, Stevanovic M (2018) Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ Res Lett 13(2):024011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e3b
Ighalo JO, Dulta K, Kurniawan SB, Omoarukhe FO, Ewuzie U, Eshiemogie SO, Ojo AU, Abdullah SRS (2022) Progress in microalgae application for CO2 sequestration. Clean Chem Eng 3:100044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clce.2022.100044
Ingrao C, Matarazzo A, Gorjian S, Adamczyk J, Failla S, Primerano P, Huisingh D (2021) Wheat-straw derived bioethanol production: a review of life cycle assessments. Sci Total Environ 781:146751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146751
Iqbal K, Saxena A, Pande P, Tiwari A, Chandra Joshi N, Varma A, Mishra A (2022) Microalgae-bacterial granular consortium: striding towards sustainable production of biohydrogen coupled with wastewater treatment. Biores Technol 354:127203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127203
Islam A, Taufiq-Yap YH, Chan E-S, Moniruzzaman M, Islam S, Nabi MN (2014) Advances in solid-catalytic and non-catalytic technologies for biodiesel production. Energy Convers Manag 88:1200–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.037
Jeswani HK, Chilvers A, Azapagic A (2020) Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review. Proc r. Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 476:20200351. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351
Jha S, Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK (2022) A review of biomass resources and thermochemical conversion technologies. Chem Eng Technol 45:791–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.202100503
Jones MW, Peters GP, Gasser T, Andrew RM, Schwingshackl C, Gütschow J, Houghton RA, Friedlingstein P, Pongratz J, Le Quéré C (2023) National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Scientific Data 10:155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02041-1
Jungbluth N, Meili C (2019) Recommendations for calculation of the global warming potential of aviation including the radiative forcing index. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:404–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1556-3
Jutakridsada P, Saengprachatanarug K, Kasemsiri P, Hiziroglu S, Kamwilaisak K, Chindaprasirt P (2019) Bioconversion of Saccharum officinarum leaves for ethanol production using separate hydrolysis and fermentation processes. Waste Biomass Valorization 10:817–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0104-x
Kang Y, Yang Q, Bartocci P, Wei H, Liu SS, Wu Z, Zhou H, Yang H, Fantozzi F, Chen H (2020) Bioenergy in China: evaluation of domestic biomass resources and the associated greenhouse gas mitigation potentials. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 127:109842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109842
Karimi S, Karri RR, Tavakkoli Yaraki M, Koduru JR (2021) Processes and separation technologies for the production of fuel-grade bioethanol: a review. Environ Chem Lett 19:2873–2890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01208-9
Katakojwala R, Mohan SV (2020) Microcrystalline cellulose production from sugarcane bagasse: Sustainable process development and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 249:119342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119342
Keerthana Devi M, Manikandan S, Oviyapriya M, Selvaraj M, Assiri MA, Vickram S, Subbaiya R, Karmegam N, Ravindran B, Chang SW, Awasthi MK (2022) Recent advances in biogas production using agro-industrial waste: a comprehensive review outlook of techno-economic analysis. Biores Technol 363:127871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127871
Khang DS, Tan RR, Uy OM, Promentilla MAB, Tuan PD, Abe N, Razon LF (2017) Design of experiments for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: the case of biodiesel in Vietnam. Resour Conserv Recycl 119:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.016
Khatri P, Pandit AB (2022) Systematic review of life cycle assessments applied to sugarcane bagasse utilization alternatives. Biomass Bioenerg 158:106365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106365
Khounani Z, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Nizami A-S, Sulaiman A, Goli SAH, Tavassoli-Kafrani E, Ghaffari A, Rajaeifar MA, Kim K-H, Talebi AF, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M (2020) Unlocking the potential of walnut husk extract in the production of waste cooking oil-based biodiesel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 119:109588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109588
Kim H, Lee S, Ahn Y, Lee J, Won W (2020) Sustainable production of bioplastics from lignocellulosic biomass: technoeconomic analysis and life-cycle assessment. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8:12419–12429. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c02872
Kota KB, Shenbagaraj S, Sharma PK, Sharma AK, Ghodke PK, Chen W-H (2022) Biomass torrefaction: an overview of process and technology assessment based on global readiness level. Fuel 324:124663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124663
Kothari R, Vashishtha A, Singh HM, Pathak VV, Tyagi VV, Yadav BC, Ashokkumar V, Singh DP (2020) Assessment of Indian bioenergy policy for sustainable environment and its impact for rural India: strategic implementation and challenges. Environ Technol Innov 20:101078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.101078
Kouchaki-Penchah H, Bahn O, Vaillancourt K, Levasseur A (2022) The contribution of forest-based bioenergy in achieving deep decarbonization: insights for Quebec (Canada) using a TIMES approach. Energy Convers Manag 252:115081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115081
Kuhn L, Hou L, Chen X, Huang J (2018) Agricultural machinery for cleaner air an analysis of the effectiveness of three policy measures for reducing residue burning in Northern China. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.277374
Kumar V, Nanda M, Joshi HC, Singh A, Sharma S, Verma M (2018) Production of biodiesel and bioethanol using algal biomass harvested from fresh water river. Renew Energy 116:606–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.016
Kumar B, Bhardwaj N, Agrawal K, Chaturvedi V, Verma P (2020) Current perspective on pretreatment technologies using lignocellulosic biomass: an emerging biorefinery concept. Fuel Process Technol 199:106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.106244
Kumar V, Singh P, Sharma J, Saini S, Sharma P, Sharma A (2023a) Rice straw management through biofuel, biochar, mushroom cultivation, and paper production to overcome environmental pollution in North India. Waste Dispos Sustain Energy 2023:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-023-00152-4
Kumar V, Vangnai AS, Sharma N, Kaur K, Chakraborty P, Umesh M, Singhal B, Utreja D, Carrasco EU, Andler R, Awasthi MK, Taherzadeh MJ (2023b) Bioengineering of biowaste to recover bioproducts and bioenergy: a circular economy approach towards sustainable zero-waste environment. Chemosphere 319:138005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138005
Kung S-S, Li H-L, Li S-R, Zhang L-G, Kung C-C (2022) Effects of green bonds on bioenergy development under climate change: a case study in Taiwan province, China. Adv Clim Change Res 13:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2021.12.003
Kung C-C (2018) A dynamic framework of sustainable development in agriculture and bioenergy. Agric Econ 64(10):445–455. https://doi.org/10.17221/281/2017-AGRICECON
Kuo TC, Lin S-H, Tseng M-L, Chiu ASF, Hsu C-W (2019) Biofuels for vehicles in Taiwan: using system dynamics modeling to evaluate government subsidy policies. Resour Conserv Recycl 145:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.005
Kuzemko C, Bradshaw M, Bridge G, Goldthau A, Jewell J, Overland I, Scholten D, Van de Graaf T, Westphal K (2020) Covid-19 and the politics of sustainable energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 68:101685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101685
Lee J, Sohn D, Lee K, Park KY (2019) Solid fuel production through hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge and microalgae Chlorella sp. from wastewater treatment plant. Chemosphere 230:157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.066
Li S, Chang H, Zhang S, Ho S-H (2023) Production of sustainable biofuels from microalgae with CO2 bio-sequestration and life cycle assessment. Environ Res 227:115730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115730
Liu Y, Zheng X, Tao S, Hu L, Zhang X, Lin X (2021) Process optimization for deep eutectic solvent pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse for cellulosic ethanol fermentation. Renew Energy 177:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.131
Lorenci Woiciechowski A, Dalmas Neto CJ, de Souza P, Vandenberghe L, de Carvalho Neto DP, Novak Sydney AC, Letti LAJ, Karp SG, Zevallos Torres LA, Soccol CR (2020) Lignocellulosic biomass: acid and alkaline pretreatments and their effects on biomass recalcitrance—conventional processing and recent advances. Biores Technol 304:122848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122848
Lu D, Liu X, Apul OG, Zhang L, Ryan DK, Zhang X (2019) Optimization of biomethane production from anaerobic Co-digestion of microalgae and septic tank sludge. Biomass Bioenerg 127:105266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105266
Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Bertram C, Kriegler E, Meinshausen M, Edenhofer O (2013) Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ Res Lett 8:034033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033
Luiza Astolfi A, Rempel A, Cavanhi VAF, Alves M, Deamici KM, Colla LM, Costa JAV (2020) Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of Spirulina sp. and corn starch for the production of bioethanol and obtaining biopeptides with high antioxidant activity. Bioresour Technol 301:122698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122698
Łukajtis R, Hołowacz I, Kucharska K, Glinka M, Rybarczyk P, Przyjazny A, Kamiński M (2018) Hydrogen production from biomass using dark fermentation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 91:665–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.043
Ma C-Y, Gao X, Peng X-P, Gao Y-F, Liu J, Wen J-L, Yuan T-Q (2021a) Microwave-assisted deep eutectic solvents (DES) pretreatment of control and transgenic poplars for boosting the lignin valorization and cellulose bioconversion. Ind Crops Prod 164:113415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113415
Ma J, Yue H, Li H, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Wang X, Gong S, Liu G-Q (2021b) Selective delignification of poplar wood with a newly isolated white-rot basidiomycete Peniophora incarnata T-7 by submerged fermentation to enhance saccharification. Biotechnol Biofuels 14:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-021-01986-y
Mana AA, Allouhi A, Ouazzani K, Jamil A (2021) Feasibility of agriculture biomass power generation in Morocco: techno-economic analysis. J Clean Prod 295:126293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126293
Manhongo TT, Chimphango A, Thornley P, Röder M (2021) Techno-economic and environmental evaluation of integrated mango waste biorefineries. J Clean Prod 325:129335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129335
Mankar AR, Pandey A, Modak A, Pant KK (2021) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass: a review on recent advances. Biores Technol 334:125235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125235
Manouchehrinejad M, Bilek EMT, Mani S (2021) Techno-economic analysis of integrated torrefaction and pelletization systems to produce torrefied wood pellets. Renew Energy 178:483–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.06.064
M’Arimi MM, Mecha CA, Kiprop AK, Ramkat R (2020) Recent trends in applications of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in bioenergy production: review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 121:109669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109669
Martínez M, Rodríguez A, Gea T, Font X (2022) A simplified techno-economic analysis for sophorolipid production in a solid-state fermentation process. Energies 15:4077. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15114077
Materazzi M, Lettieri P, Taylor R, Chapman C (2016) Performance analysis of RDF gasification in a two stage fluidized bed–plasma process. Waste Manag 47:256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.016
Mathioudakis V, Gerbens-Leenes PW, Van der Meer TH, Hoekstra AY (2017) The water footprint of second-generation bioenergy: a comparison of biomass feedstocks and conversion techniques. J Clean Prod 148:571–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.032
Mazzoni L, Ahmed R, Janajreh I (2017) Plasma gasification of two waste streams: municipal solid waste and hazardous waste from the oil and gas industry. Energy Procedia 105:4159–4166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.882
McGauran T, Dunne N, Smyth BM, Cunningham E (2021) Feasibility of the use of poultry waste as polymer additives and implications for energy, cost and carbon. J Clean Prod 291:125948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125948
Meenakshisundaram S, Fayeulle A, Leonard E, Ceballos C, Pauss A (2021) Fiber degradation and carbohydrate production by combined biological and chemical/physicochemical pretreatment methods of lignocellulosic biomass—a review. Biores Technol 331:125053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125053
Mehmood MA, Ibrahim M, Rashid U, Nawaz M, Ali S, Hussain A, Gull M (2017) Biomass production for bioenergy using marginal lands. Sustain Prod Consum 9:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.08.003
Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2011) The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011
Melero JA, Bautista LF, Morales G, Iglesias J, Sánchez-Vázquez R (2015) Acid-catalyzed production of biodiesel over arenesulfonic SBA-15: insights into the role of water in the reaction network. Renew Energy 75:425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.027
Mendecka B, Lombardi L, Kozioł J (2020) Probabilistic multi-criteria analysis for evaluation of biodiesel production technologies from used cooking oil. Renew Energy 147:2542–2553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.037
Meurer F, Bucksteeg M, Weber C (2023) Incentivizing flexible operation of bioenergy power plants–subsidies, markets, or both? Markets, or both. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4317714
Miyake S, Renouf M, Peterson A, McAlpine C, Smith C (2012) Land-use and environmental pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: a review. J Rural Stud 28:650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.09.002
Mokomele T, da Costa SL, Balan V, van Rensburg E, Dale BE, Görgens JF (2019) Incorporating anaerobic co-digestion of steam exploded or ammonia fiber expansion pretreated sugarcane residues with manure into a sugarcane-based bioenergy-livestock nexus. Biores Technol 272:326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.049
Molina-Besch K (2022) Use phase and end-of-life modeling of biobased biodegradable plastics in life cycle assessment: a review. Clean Technol Environ Policy 24:3253–3272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02373-3
Moreno PM, Sproul E, Quinn JC (2022) Economic and environmental sustainability assessment of guayule bagasse to fuel pathways. Ind Crops Prod 178:114644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114644
Muñoz-Páez KM, Buitrón G (2022) Bioconversion of H2 and CO2 from dark fermentation to methane: effect of operating conditions on methane concentration. Chemosphere 308:136305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136305
Munro P, van der Horst G, Healy S (2017) Energy justice for all? Rethinking sustainable development goal 7 through struggles over traditional energy practices in Sierra Leone. Energy Policy 105:635–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.038
National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine, Division on E, Life S, Ocean Studies B, Board on Chemical S, Technology, Board on Earth S, Resources, Board on A, Natural R, Board on E, Environmental S, Board on Atmospheric S, Climate, Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide R, Reliable S (2018) Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. https://doi.org/10.17226/25259
Nevzorova T, Kutcherov V (2019) Barriers to the wider implementation of biogas as a source of energy: a state-of-the-art review. Energy Strategy Rev 26:100414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100414
Nicolae SA, Au H, Modugno P, Luo H, Szego AE, Qiao M, Li L, Yin W, Heeres HJ, Berge N, Titirici M-M (2020) Recent advances in hydrothermal carbonisation: from tailored carbon materials and biochemicals to applications and bioenergy. Green Chem 22:4747–4800. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0GC00998A
Niu Y, Lv Y, Lei Y, Liu S, Liang Y, Wang D, Se H (2019) Biomass torrefaction: properties, applications, challenges, and economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 115:109395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109395
Nogueira Junior E, Kumar M, Pankratz S, Oyedun AO, Kumar A (2018) Development of life cycle water footprints for the production of fuels and chemicals from algae biomass. Water Res 140:311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.046
Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2021) Chemistry and specialty industrial applications of lignocellulosic biomass. Waste Biomass Valorization 12:2145–2169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-020-01123-0
Oliveira DMS, Cherubin MR, Franco ALC, Santos AS, Gelain JG, Dias NMS, Diniz TR, Almeida AN, Feigl BJ, Davies CA, Paustian K, Karlen DL, Smith P, Cerri CC, Cerri CEP (2019) Is the expansion of sugarcane over pasturelands a sustainable strategy for Brazil’s bioenergy industry? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 102:346–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.012
Osman AI, Mehta N, Elgarahy AM, Al-Hinai A, AaH A-M, Rooney DW (2021) Conversion of biomass to biofuels and life cycle assessment: a review. Environ Chem Lett 19:4075–4118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01273-0
Osman AI, Deka TJ, Baruah DC, Rooney DW (2023a) Critical challenges in biohydrogen production processes from the organic feedstocks. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 13:8383–8401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00965-x
Osman AI, Lai ZY, Farghali M, Yiin CL, Elgarahy AM, Hammad A, Ihara I, Al-Fatesh AS, Rooney DW, Yap P-S (2023b) Optimizing biomass pathways to bioenergy and biochar application in electricity generation, biodiesel production, and biohydrogen production. Environ Chem Lett 21:2639–2705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01613-2
Osmundsen TC, Amundsen VS, Alexander KA, Asche F, Bailey J, Finstad B, Olsen MS, Hernández K, Salgado H (2020) The operationalisation of sustainability: sustainable aquaculture production as defined by certification schemes. Glob Environ Chang 60:102025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102025
Pacheco R, Silva C (2019) Global warming potential of biomass-to-ethanol: review and sensitivity analysis through a case study. Energies 12(13):2535. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12132535
Pan S, Zabed HM, Li Z, Qi X, Wei Y (2022) Enrichment and balancing of nutrients for improved methane production using three compositionally different agro-livestock wastes: process performance and microbial community analysis. Biores Technol 357:127360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127360
Pan S, Zabed HM, Zhao M, Qi X, Wei Y (2023) Techno-economic and life cycle assessments for bioenergy recovery from acid-hydrolyzed residues of sugarcane bagasse in the biobased xylose production platform. J Clean Prod 400:136718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136718
Parkinson B, Greig C, McFarland E, Smart S (2017) Techno-economic analysis of a process for CO2-free coproduction of iron and hydrocarbon chemical products. Chem Eng J 313:136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.059
Patil PD, Dandamudi KPR, Wang J, Deng Q, Deng S (2018) Extraction of bio-oils from algae with supercritical carbon dioxide and co-solvents. J Supercrit Fluids 135:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2017.12.019
Patowary D, Baruah DC (2018) Effect of combined chemical and thermal pretreatments on biogas production from lignocellulosic biomasses. Ind Crops Prod 124:735–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.08.055
Pavlovic A, Nikolic D, Jovanović S, Boskovic G, Skerlic J (2019) Life cycle assessment of the car tire with eco indicator 99 methodology. Mobil Vehicle Mech. https://scidar.kg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/18336
Pawar RJ, Bromhal GS, Carey JW, Foxall W, Korre A, Ringrose PS, Tucker O, Watson MN, White JA (2015) Recent advances in risk assessment and risk management of geologic CO2 storage. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:292–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.06.014
Peñarrubia Fernandez IA, Liu D-H, Zhao J (2017) LCA studies comparing alkaline and immobilized enzyme catalyst processes for biodiesel production under Brazilian conditions. Resour Conserv Recycl 119:117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.009
Peng L, Fu D, Chu H, Wang Z, Qi H (2020) Biofuel production from microalgae: a review. Environ Chem Lett 18:285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00939-0
Perna A, Minutillo M, Lubrano Lavadera A, Jannelli E (2018) Combining plasma gasification and solid oxide cell technologies in advanced power plants for waste to energy and electric energy storage applications. Waste Manag 73:424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.022
Pourkarimi S, Hallajisani A, Alizadehdakhel A, Nouralishahi A (2019) Biofuel production through micro- and macroalgae pyrolysis—a review of pyrolysis methods and process parameters. J Anal Appl Pyrol 142:104599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2019.04.015
Pressley PN, Aziz TN, DeCarolis JF, Barlaz MA, He F, Li F, Damgaard A (2014) Municipal solid waste conversion to transportation fuels: a life-cycle estimation of global warming potential and energy consumption. J Clean Prod 70:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.041
Rajesh Banu J, Preethi KS, Tyagi VK, Gunasekaran M, Karthikeyan OP, Kumar G (2021) Lignocellulosic biomass based biorefinery: a successful platform towards circular bioeconomy. Fuel 302:121086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121086
Ranjbari M, Shams Esfandabadi Z, Shevchenko T, Scagnelli SD, Lam SS, Varjani S, Aghbashlo M, Pan J, Tabatabaei M (2022) An inclusive trend study of techno-economic analysis of biofuel supply chains. Chemosphere 309:136755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136755
Rashidi NA, Chai YH, Yusup S (2022) Biomass energy in Malaysia: current scenario, policies, and implementation challenges. BioEnergy Res 15:1371–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-022-10392-7
Rashwan AK, Bai H, Osman AI, Eltohamy KM, Chen Z, Younis HA, Al-Fatesh A, Rooney DW, Yap P-S (2023) Recycling food and agriculture by-products to mitigate climate change: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:3351–3375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01639-6
Rastogi M, Shrivastava S (2017) Recent advances in second generation bioethanol production: an insight to pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 80:330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.225
Reyes T, Gouvinhas RP, Laratte B, Chevalier B (2020) A method for choosing adapted life cycle assessment indicators as a driver of environmental learning: a French textile case study. AI EDAM 34:68–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060419000234
Rezania S, Oryani B, Cho J, Talaiekhozani A, Sabbagh F, Hashemi B, Rupani PF, Mohammadi AA (2020) Different pretreatment technologies of lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: an overview. Energy 199:117457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117457
Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534:631–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307
Romeu-Dalmau C, Gasparatos A, von Maltitz G, Graham A, Almagro-Garcia J, Wilebore B, Willis KJ (2018) Impacts of land use change due to biofuel crops on climate regulation services: five case studies in Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. Biomass Bioenerg 114:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.05.011
Rozzi E, Minuto FD, Lanzini A, Leone P (2020) Green synthetic fuels: renewable routes for the conversion of non-fossil feedstocks into gaseous fuels and their end uses. Energies 13:420. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13020420
Ruj B, Ghosh S (2014) Technological aspects for thermal plasma treatment of municipal solid waste—a review. Fuel Process Technol 126:298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.05.011
Sadhukhan J, Gadkari S, Martinez-Hernandez E, Ng KS, Shemfe M, Torres-Garcia E, Lynch J (2019) Novel macroalgae (seaweed) biorefinery systems for integrated chemical, protein, salt, nutrient and mineral extractions and environmental protection by green synthesis and life cycle sustainability assessments. Green Chem 21:2635–2655. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9GC00607A
Sajid Z (2021) A dynamic risk assessment model to assess the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on the sustainability of the biomass supply chain: a case study of a US biofuel industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 151:111574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111574
Salimbeni A, Lombardi G, Rizzo AM, Chiaramonti D (2023) Techno-Economic feasibility of integrating biomass slow pyrolysis in an EAF steelmaking site: a case study. Appl Energy 339:120991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120991
Sariatli F (2017) Linear economy versus circular economy: a comparative and analyzer study for optimization of economy for sustainability. Visegrad J Bioecon Sustain Dev 6:31–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/vjbsd-2017-0005
Sarker TR, Nanda S, Meda V, Dalai AK (2022) Process optimization and investigating the effects of torrefaction and pelletization on steam gasification of canola residue. Fuel 323:124239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124239
Sarker TR, German CS, Borugadda VB, Meda V, Dalai AK (2023) Techno-economic analysis of torrefied fuel pellet production from agricultural residue via integrated torrefaction and pelletization process. Heliyon 9:e16359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16359
Satlewal A, Agrawal R, Bhagia S, Sangoro J, Ragauskas AJ (2018) Natural deep eutectic solvents for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment: recent developments, challenges and novel opportunities. Biotechnol Adv 36:2032–2050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.08.009
Seetharaman MK, Patwa N, Saravanan GY (2019) Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 5:e01166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166
Shah AV, Singh A, Sabyasachi Mohanty S, Kumar Srivastava V, Varjani S (2022) Organic solid waste: biorefinery approach as a sustainable strategy in circular bioeconomy. Biores Technol 349:126835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126835
Sharma P, Sivaramakrishnaiah M, Deepanraj B, Saravanan R, Reddy MV (2022a) A novel optimization approach for biohydrogen production using algal biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy 52:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.09.274
Sharma V, Tsai M-L, Chen C-W, Sun P-P, Patel AK, Singhania RR, Nargotra P, Dong C-D (2022b) Deep eutectic solvents as promising pretreatment agents for sustainable lignocellulosic biorefineries: a review. Biores Technol 360:127631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127631
Shi H, Mahinpey N, Aqsha A, Silbermann R (2016) Characterization, thermochemical conversion studies, and heating value modeling of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 48:34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.036
Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Fennell PS, Shah N, Anthony EJ (2017) Progress in biofuel production from gasification. Prog Energy Combust Sci 61:189–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.04.001
Sills DL, Van Doren LG, Beal C, Raynor E (2020) The effect of functional unit and co-product handling methods on life cycle assessment of an algal biorefinery. Algal Res 46:101770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101770
Singh S, Kumar A, Sivakumar N, Verma JP (2022) Deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: Recent advances and future prospects. Fuel 327:125109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125109
Soleymani AT, Grzesik K, Rödl A, Kaltschmitt M (2021) Life cycle assessment of bioethanol production: a review of feedstock technology and methodology. Energies 14(10):2939. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102939
Somers MD, Chen P, Clippinger J, Cruce JR, Davis R, Lammers PJ, Quinn JC (2021) Techno-economic and life-cycle assessment of fuel production from mixotrophic Galdieria sulphuraria microalgae on hydrolysate. Algal Res 59:102419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102419
Staples MD, Malina R, Barrett SRH (2017) The limits of bioenergy for mitigating global life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Nat Energy 2:16202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.202
Steinbach D, Kruse A, Sauer J (2017) Pretreatment technologies of lignocellulosic biomass in water in view of furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural production—a review. Biomass Conv Biorefinery 7:247–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-017-0243-0
Stewart DW, Cortés-Peña YR, Li Y, Stillwell AS, Khanna M, Guest JS (2023) Implications of biorefinery policy incentives and location-specific economic parameters for the financial viability of biofuels. Environ Sci Technol 57:2262–2271. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c07936
Subhedar PB, Ray P, Gogate PR (2018) Intensification of delignification and subsequent hydrolysis for the fermentable sugar production from lignocellulosic biomass using ultrasonic irradiation. Ultrason Sonochem 40:140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.01.030
Sulaiman NF, Hashim ANN, Toemen S, Rosid SJM, Mokhtar WNAW, Nadarajan R, Bakar WAWA (2020) Biodiesel production from refined used cooking oil using co-metal oxide catalyzed transesterification. Renew Energy 153:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.158
Sun H, Luo Z, Li S, Xue S, Zhou Q, Wei T, Du L (2021a) Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuel production via corn stover: fermentation to ethanol, pyrolysis to bio-oil, and gasification to jet fuel. Biomass Conv Biorefinery 2021:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-02054-z
Sun Y, Wang Y, Yang B, Zheng Z, Wang C, Chen B, Li S, Ying J, Liu X, Chen L, Mu W (2021b) Emergy evaluation of straw collection, transportation and storage system for power generation in China. Energy 231:120792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120792
Tan J, Li Y, Tan X, Wu H, Li H, Yang S (2021) Advances in pretreatment of straw biomass for sugar production. Front Chem 9(2021):696030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.696030
Tanpichai S, Witayakran S, Boonmahitthisud A (2019) Study on structural and thermal properties of cellulose microfibers isolated from pineapple leaves using steam explosion. J Environ Chem Eng 7:102836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.102836
Tawfik A, Eraky M, Osman AI, Ai P, Zhou Z, Meng F, Rooney DW (2023) Bioenergy production from chicken manure: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:2707–2727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01618-x
Tena M, Buller LS, Sganzerla WG, Berni M, Forster-Carneiro T, Solera R, Pérez M (2022) Techno-economic evaluation of bioenergy production from anaerobic digestion of by-products from ethanol flex plants. Fuel 309:122171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122171
Thengane SK, Kung KS, Gomez-Barea A, Ghoniem AF (2022) Advances in biomass torrefaction: parameters, models, reactors, applications, deployment, and market. Prog Energy Combust Sci 93:101040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2022.101040
Theuerl S, Herrmann C, Heiermann M, Grundmann P, Landwehr N, Kreidenweis U, Prochnow A (2019) The future agricultural biogas plant in germany: a vision. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030396
Tian H, Wang X, Lim EY, Lee JTE, Ee AWL, Zhang J, Tong YW (2021) Life cycle assessment of food waste to energy and resources: centralized and decentralized anaerobic digestion with different downstream biogas utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 150:111489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111489
Torkayesh AE, Rajaeifar MA, Rostom M, Malmir B, Yazdani M, Suh S, Heidrich O (2022) Integrating life cycle assessment and multi criteria decision making for sustainable waste management: key issues and recommendations for future studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 168:112819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112819
Tröster R, Hiete M (2018) Success of voluntary sustainability certification schemes—a comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 196:1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.240
Tsao Y-C, Thanh V-V, Chang Y-Y, Wei H-H (2021) COVID-19: government subsidy models for sustainable energy supply with disruption risks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 150:111425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111425
Tsapekos P, Kougias PG, Angelidaki I (2018) Mechanical pretreatment for increased biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass; predicting the methane yield from structural plant components. Waste Manag 78:903–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.017
Tsiropoulos I, Faaij APC, Seabra JEA, Lundquist L, Schenker U, Briois J-F, Patel MK (2014) Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India in comparison to Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0714-5
Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J (2019) How do methodological choices affect the carbon footprint of microalgal biodiesel? A harmonised life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 207:560–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.020
Vasco-Correa J, Khanal S, Manandhar A, Shah A (2018) Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy production: global status, environmental and techno-economic implications, and government policies. Biores Technol 247:1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.004
Vazifeh Z, Mafakheri F, An C (2023) Coordination of bioenergy supply chains under government incentive policies: a game-theoretic analysis. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2023:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02498-z
Velasquez-Orta SB, Heidrich O, Black K, Graham D (2018) Retrofitting options for wastewater networks to achieve climate change reduction targets. Appl Energy 218:430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.168
Vlachokostas C, Achillas C, Agnantiaris I, Michailidou AV, Pallas C, Feleki E, Moussiopoulos N (2020) Decision support system to implement units of alternative biowaste treatment for producing bioenergy and boosting local bioeconomy. Energies 13(9):2306. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092306
Vohra M, Manwar J, Manmode R, Padgilwar S, Patil S (2014) Bioethanol production: feedstock and current technologies. J Environ Chem Eng 2:573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.10.013
Wang J, Yin Y (2019) Progress in microbiology for fermentative hydrogen production from organic wastes. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 49:825–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1487226
Wang Z, Dien BS, Rausch KD, Tumbleson ME, Singh V (2018) Fermentation of undetoxified sugarcane bagasse hydrolyzates using a two stage hydrothermal and mechanical refining pretreatment. Biores Technol 261:313–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.018
Wang M, Dewil R, Maniatis K, Wheeldon J, Tan T, Baeyens J, Fang Y (2019) Biomass-derived aviation fuels: challenges and perspective. Prog Energy Combust Sci 74:31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2019.04.004
Wang S, Yu S, Lu Q, Liao Y, Li H, Sun L, Wang H, Zhang Y (2020) Development of an alkaline/acid pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion (APAD) process for methane generation from waste activated sludge. Sci Total Environ 708:134564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134564
Wang G, Liao Q, Zhang H, Liang Y (2022) How government policies promote bioenergy’s permeability in national-level energy supply chain: a case of China. Appl Energy 324:119750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119750
Werling BP, Dickson TL, Isaacs R, Gaines H, Gratton C, Gross KL, Liere H, Malmstrom CM, Meehan TD, Ruan L, Robertson BA, Robertson GP, Schmidt TM, Schrotenboer AC, Teal TK, Wilson JK, Landis DA (2014) Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:1652–1657. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1309492111
Westensee DK, Rumbold K, Harding KG, Sheridan CM, van Dyk LD, Simate GS, Postma F (2018) The availability of second generation feedstocks for the treatment of acid mine drainage and to improve South Africa’s bio-based economy. Sci Total Environ 637–638:132–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.410
Wikberg H, Ohra-aho T, Pileidis F, Titirici M-M (2015) Structural and morphological changes in kraft lignin during hydrothermal carbonization. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 3:2737–2745. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00925
Wu JS, Tseng H-K, Liu X (2022) Techno-economic assessment of bioenergy potential on marginal croplands in the US southeast. Energy Policy 170:113215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113215
Xie W, Wang H (2020) Immobilized polymeric sulfonated ionic liquid on core-shell structured Fe3O4/SiO2 composites: A magnetically recyclable catalyst for simultaneous transesterification and esterifications of low-cost oils to biodiesel. Renew Energy 145:1709–1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.092
Xu W, Fu S, Yang Z, Lu J, Guo R (2018) Improved methane production from corn straw by microaerobic pretreatment with a pure bacteria system. Biores Technol 259:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.02.046
Yan X, Wu Z-Z, Li M-Y, Yin F, Ren K-X, Tao H (2019) The combined effects of extrusion and heat-moisture treatment on the physicochemical properties and digestibility of corn starch. Int J Biol Macromol 134:1108–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.05.112
Yang Q, Liang J, Li J, Yang H, Chen H (2018) Life cycle water use of a biomass-based pyrolysis polygeneration system in China. Appl Energy 224:469–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.009
Yang B, Wei Y-M, Hou Y, Li H, Wang P (2019a) Life cycle environmental impact assessment of fuel mix-based biomass co-firing plants with CO2 capture and storage. Appl Energy 252:113483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113483
Yang Y, Ni J-Q, Bao W, Zhao L, Xie GH (2019b) Potential reductions in greenhouse gas and fine particulate matter emissions using corn stover for ethanol production in China. Energies 12:3700. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12193700
Yang Y, Ni J-Q, Zhu W, Xie G (2019c) Life cycle assessment of large-scale compressed bio-natural gas production in china: a case study on manure co-digestion with corn stover. Energies 12:429. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030429
Yang M, Baral NR, Simmons BA, Mortimer JC, Shih PM, Scown CD (2020) Accumulation of high-value bioproducts in planta can improve the economics of advanced biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:8639–8648. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000053117
Yi Q, Zhao Y, Huang Y, Wei G, Hao Y, Feng J, Mohamed U, Pourkashanian M, Nimmo W, Li W (2018) Life cycle energy-economic-CO2 emissions evaluation of biomass/coal, with and without CO2 capture and storage, in a pulverized fuel combustion power plant in the United Kingdom. Appl Energy 225:258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.013
Yong KJ, Wu TY (2022) Second-generation bioenergy from oilseed crop residues: recent technologies, techno-economic assessments and policies. Energy Conv Manag 267:115869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115869
Yuan H-w, Tan L, Kida K, Morimura S, Sun Z-Y, Tang Y-Q (2021) Potential for reduced water consumption in biorefining of lignocellulosic biomass to bioethanol and biogas. J Biosci Bioeng 131:461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2020.12.015
Zahoor WW, Tan X, Imtiaz M, Wang Q, Miao C, Yuan Z, Zhuang X (2021) Rice straw pretreatment with KOH/urea for enhancing sugar yield and ethanol production at low temperature. Ind Crops Prod 170:113776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113776
Zainan NH, Srivatsa SC, Li F, Bhattacharya S (2018) Quality of bio-oil from catalytic pyrolysis of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. Fuel 223:12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.166
Zdeb M, Bis M, Przywara A (2023) Multi-criteria analysis of the influence of lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment techniques on methane production. Energies 16:468. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010468
Zhang T, Jiang D, Zhang H, Lee D-J, Zhang Z, Zhang Q, Jing Y, Zhang Y, Xia C (2020) Effects of different pretreatment methods on the structural characteristics, enzymatic saccharification and photo-fermentative bio-hydrogen production performance of corn straw. Biores Technol 304:122999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122999
Zhang J, Zhang X, Yang M, Singh S, Cheng G (2021) Transforming lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels enabled by ionic liquid pretreatment. Biores Technol 322:124522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124522
Zhang J, Oosterveer P, Ye Li, Greene M (2022) Bioenergy versus soil improvement: policy coherence and implementation gaps in crop residue-based bioenergy development in China. Water 14(21):3527. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213527
Zhao C, Shao Q, Chundawat SPS (2020) Recent advances on ammonia-based pretreatments of lignocellulosic biomass. Biores Technol 298:122446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122446
Zhao Y, Wang C, Zhang L, Chang Y, Hao Y (2021) Converting waste cooking oil to biodiesel in China: environmental impacts and economic feasibility. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 140:110661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110661
Zhao L, Sun Z-F, Zhang C-C, Nan J, Ren N-Q, Lee D-J, Chen C (2022) Advances in pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for bioenergy production: challenges and perspectives. Biores Technol 343:126123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126123
Zhuo Q, Sun R, Gou LY, Piao JH, Liu JM, Tian Y, Zhang YH, Yang XG (2013) Total energy expenditure of 16 Chinese young men measured by the doubly labeled water method. Biomed Environ Sci 26:413–420. https://doi.org/10.3967/0895-3988.2013.06.001
Ziaei-Rad Z, Fooladi J, Pazouki M, Gummadi SN (2021) Lignocellulosic biomass pre-treatment using low-cost ionic liquid for bioethanol production: an economically viable method for wheat straw fractionation. Biomass Bioenerg 151:106140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106140
Acknowledgements
Dr. Ahmed I. Osman wishes to acknowledge the support of The Bryden Centre project (Project ID VA5048), which was awarded by The European Union’s INTERREG VA Program, managed by the Special EU Programs Body (SEUPB), with match funding provided by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland and the Department of Business, Enterprise, and Innovation in the Republic of Ireland. Dr. Mohamed Farghali and Prof. Ikko Ihara wish to acknowledge the support from Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows Grant Number JP22KF0257.
Funding
The views and opinions expressed in this review do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the Special EU Programs Body (SEUPB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Osman, A.I., Fang, B., Zhang, Y. et al. Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of sustainable bioenergy production: a review. Environ Chem Lett 22, 1115–1154 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01694-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01694-z