Advertisement

Future Perspectives of Sugarcane Biofuels

  • Luís Augusto Barbosa Cortez
  • Telma Teixeira Franco
  • Antonio Bonomi
Chapter

Abstract

Biofuels need to be sustainable, with low GHG emissions, no use of forest lands, and no competition with food production, and should still be produced at low and competitive cost. The requirements for biofuels to fulfill are somehow “not fair” because they need not only to help reducing GHG emissions but also satisfy requirements they simply were not designed for. Nevertheless, the two most important modern biofuel production systems are the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and the US corn ethanol. One may ask, what happened with ethanol in these two countries that made their production systems a success? Somehow, in both systems the environment aspect is considered satisfactory, and there is no competition with food production. However, what makes them a success is the economics involved in both cases. Biofuels need to be produced sharing its cost with its coproducts, animal feed (DDG) for the corn ethanol case and sugar and electricity in the case of sugarcane ethanol. Brazil became the first world sugar exporter because of its sugarcane ethanol program, and the United States produced a quite strong beef industry in great part due to its correspondent DDG production largely used as animal feed. However, in both cases, DDG in the United States and sugar in Brazil are relatively saturated. In both countries, a new model will need to be invented. This chapter intends to analyze these issues and discuss the advantages of different production models. Also, the future perspectives of sugarcane biofuels are analyzed in the light of contributing to the global GHG emissions reduction and technology development of the most important biofuel alternatives.

Keywords

Sugarcane biofuels Future perspectives of cane bioenergy Production models GHG emission Ethanol 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for supporting sugarcane bioenergy research “Bioenergy Contribution of Latin America, Caribbean and Africa to the GSB Project – LACAf-Cane.”

References

  1. Agência Nacional do Petróleo Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (2010) Resolução ANP No 52, de 29.12.2010 – DOU 30.12.2010. http://legislacao.anp.gov.br/?path=legislacao-anp/resol-anp/2010/dezembro&item=ranp-52%2D%2D2010. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  2. Andrew A, Bracmort K, Brown JT, Else DH (2012) The Navy biofuel initiative under the defense production act. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42568.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  3. ASTM – ASTM International (2011) ASTM D7566-11a: standard specification for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons. Available at: https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/D7566-11.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  4. ASTM – ASTM International (2012) ASTM D1655-12: standard specification for aviation turbine fuels. https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/D1655-12.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  5. Biorefineries Blog (2017) Corn fiber ethanol – examining 1.5G technologies https://biorrefineria.blogspot.com/search?q=1.5G+ethanol. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
  6. Bonomi A, Cavalett O, Cunha MPD, Lima MAP (2016) Virtual biorefinery: an optimization strategy for renewable carbon valorization. In: Green energy and technology. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Braunbeck OA, Magalhães PSG (2010). Technological evaluation of sugarcane mechanization. In: Cortez LAB (ed) Sugarcane bioethanol: R&D for productivity and sustainability. Edgard Blucher, 992p. São Paulo. . ISBN 978-85-212-0530-2. https://openaccess.blucher.com.br/article-details/technological-evaluation-of-sugarcane-mechanization-19261
  8. Cruz CH de Brito, Cortez LAB, Souza GM (2014) Future energy: improved, sustainable and clean options for our planet. Letcher TM (ed) Biofuels for transport., 2nd edn, Elsevier, London. http://find.lib.uts.edu.au/;jsessionid=B944BE4C8E2E60E5C1BDB7274F25240F?R=OPAC_b2845998
  9. Chiong MC, Chong CT, Ng JH, Lam SS, Tran MV, Chong WWF, Mohd Jaafar MN, Valera Medina A (2018) Liquid biofuels production and emissions performance in gas turbines: a review. Energy Convers Manag 173:640–658. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/114275. Accessed 9 Dec 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chong KJ, Bridgwater AV (2016) Fast pyrolysis oil fuel blend for marine vessels. Wiley Online Library, 1–8. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ep.12402. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  11. Cortez LAB (ed) (2010) Sugarcane bioethanol: R&D for productivity and sustainability. Edgard Blucher, São Paulo, p 992Google Scholar
  12. Cortez LAB (2012) From the sustainability that we have to the sustainability we should have. In: Poppe MK, Cortez LAB (eds), Sustainability of sugarcane bioenergy, CGEE, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  13. Cortez LAB (ed) (2014) Roadmap for sustainable biofuels for aviation in Brazil, Sao Paulo, Brazil. http://openaccess.blucher.com.br/article-list/roadmap-aviation-272/list#articles. p 272. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  14. Cortez LAB, Cruz CH d B (2014) An assessment of Brazilian government initiatives and policies for the promotion of biofuels through research, commercialization, and private investment support. In: da SSS, Chandel AK (eds) Biofuels in Brazil: fundamental aspects, recent developments, and future perspectives. Springer, Cham, p 435Google Scholar
  15. Cortez LAB, Cruz CH d B, Souza GM (2016) Universidades e empresas: 40 anos de ciência e tecnologia para o etanol brasileiro, Edgard Blucher 2016, São Paulo, p 224. http://openaccess.blucher.com.br/article-list/proalcool-universidades-e-empresas-40-anos-de-ciencia-e-tecnologia-para-o-etanol-brasileiro-310/list#articles. (in Portuguese)
  16. Cortez LAB (2018) In: Leal MRLV, Nogueira LAH (eds) Sugarcane bioenergy for sustainable development: expanding production in Latin America and Africa, Routledge studies in bioenergy. Taylor & Francis, London/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunha MP, Souza LGA, Argollo AT, Cunha JVN, Nogueira LAH (2018) Sustainable bioenergy production in Mozambique as a vector for economic development. In: Cortez LA, Leal MRLV, Nogueira LAH (eds) Sugarcane bioenergy for sustainable development: expanding production in Latin America and Africa, Routledge studies in bioenergy. Taylor & Francis, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Demirbas A (2017) Tomorrow’s biofuels: goals and hopes. Energy Source, Part a: Recovery, utilization, and environmental effects 39(7):673–679.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2016.1252815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization (2011) Agricultural land. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  20. Fulton L (2013) The need for biofuels to meet global sustainability targets, BIOEN-BIOTA-PFPMCG-SCOPE Joint Workshop on Biofuels & Sustainability, 26 Feb 2013, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  21. Fulton LM, Lynd LR, Körner A, Greene N, Tonachel L (2015) The need for biofuels as part of a low carbon energy future. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 9(5):476–483.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galindo R, Baldassim R, Franco TT (2018) Ternary blends of renewable fast pyrolysis bio-oil-advanced bioethanol and marine gasoil offer potential to reduce greenhouse gases emission, Submitted to Energy FuelsGoogle Scholar
  23. Gysel NR, Russell RL, Welch WA, Cocker DR, Ghosh S (2014) Impact of sugarcane renewable fuel on in-use gaseous and particulate matter emissions from a marine vessel. Energy Fuel 28(6):4177–4182.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef500457xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsieh PY, Abel KR, Bruno TJ (2013) Analysis of marine diesel fuel with the advanced distillation curve method. Energy Fuel 27(2):804–810.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef3020525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. International Energy Agency (2017) Energy technology perspectives Catalyzing energy technology transformations. https://www.iea.org/etp2017/. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  26. International Chamber of Shipping (2014) Shipping, world trade and the reduction of CO2. http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/resources/policy-tools/shipping-world-trade-and-the-reduction-of-co2-emissionsEE36BCFD2279.pdf?sfvrsn=20. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  27. International Maritime Organization (2014) Third IMO greenhouse gas study 2014 http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/Environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/Documents/Third Greenhouse Gas Study/GHG3 Executive Summary and Report.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  28. Junqueira TJ, Chagas MF, Gouveia VLR, Rezende MCAF, Watanabe MDB, Jesus CDF, Cavalett O, Milanez AY, Bonomi A (2017) Techno-economic analysis and climate change impacts of sugarcane biorefineries considering different time horizons. Biotechnol Biofuel 10(50):1–12Google Scholar
  29. Klein BC, Chagas MF, Junqueira TL, Rezende MCAF, Cardoso TF, Cavalett O, Bonomi A (2018) Techno-economic and environmental assessment of renewable jet fuel production in integrated, Brazilian sugarcane biorefineries. Appl Energy 209:290–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korhonen JS, PaTari S, Toppinen A, Tuppura A (2014) The role of environmental regulation in the future competitiveness of the pulp and paper industry: the case of the sulfur emissions directive in Northern Europe.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lack DA, Cappa CD, Langridge et al (2011) Impact of fuel quality regulation and speed reductions on shipping emissions: implications for climate and air quality. Environ Sci Technol 45(20):9052–9060.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es2013424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leite RCC (2018) The Future of fuel ethanol. In: Cortez LAB, Leal MRLV, Nogueira LAH (eds) Sugarcane bioenergy for sustainable development: expanding production in Latin America and Africa. Routledge studies in bioenergy. Taylor & Francis, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Li M, Zhang M, Yun Y, Wu H (2018) Ternary systems of pyrolytic lignin, mixed solvent, and water: phase diagram and implications. Energy Fuel 32(1):465–474.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lu C, Christian CJ (2018) When will biofuels be economically feasible for commercial flights? Considering the difference between environmental benefits and fuel purchase costs, Tainan, Taiwan. J Clean Prod 181:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MARPOL (2010) MARPOL – International convention for the prevention of the pollution from ships: Annex VI http://www.marpoltraining.com/MMSKOREAN/MARPOL/Annex_VI/index.htm. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
  36. Matsuoka S, Kennedy A, Dos Santos G, Tomazela A, Rubio L (2014) Energy cane: its concept, development, characteristics and prospects. Adv Bot:Article ID 597275.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/597275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mawhood R, Gazis E, de Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Slade R (2016) Production pathways for renewable jet fuel: a review of commercialization status and future prospects. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 10:462–484. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGill R, Remley W, Winther K (2013) Alternative fuels for marine applications. Report from the IEA advanced motor fuels implementing agreement. http://www.iea-amf.org/app/webroot/files/file/AnnexReports/AMF_Annex_41.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2018
  39. Milanez AY et al (2015) De promessa a realidade: como o etanol celulósico pode revolucionar a indústria da cana-de-açúcar: uma avaliação do potencial competitivo e sugestões de política pública. BNDES Setorial 41:237–294. https://web.bndes.gov.br/bib/jspui/handle/1408/4283. Accessed 9 Dec 2018. (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  40. Nicodème T, Berchem T, Jacquet N, Richel A (2018) Thermochemical conversion of sugar industry by-products to biofuels. Renew Sust Energ Rev 88:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Qu W, Wei L, Julson J (2013) An exploration of improving the properties of heavy bio-oil. Energy Fuel 27(8):4717–4722.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400418pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Righi M, Klinger C, Eyring V, Hendricks J, Lauer A, Petzold A (2011) Climate impact of biofuels in shipping: Global model studies of the aerosol indirect effect. Environ Sci Technol 45:3519–3525.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es1036157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosillo-Calle F, Johnson FX (eds) (2010) Food versus Biofuels: an informed introduction to biofuels. Zed Books, London, p 232. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/F/bo20849376.htmlGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva FV (2012) Panorama e perspectivas do etanol lignocelulósico. Revista Liberato 13(20):01–16. (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  45. Silva G da (2013) Aprendizado do etanol celulósico no Brasil: O caso do projeto Dedini hidrólise rápida (DHR), MSc Dissertation, University of Campinas. (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  46. da Silva SS, Chandel AK (eds) (2014) Biofuels in Brazil: fundamental aspects, recent developments, and future perspectives. Springer, Berlin, p 435Google Scholar
  47. Souza GM, Victoria R, Joly C, Verdade L (eds) (2015) Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps, vol 72. SCOPE, Paris, p 779. ISBN 978-2-9545557-0-6Google Scholar
  48. Staš M, Kubička D, Chudoba J, Pospíšil M (2014) Overview of analytical methods used for chemical characterization of pyrolysis bio-oil. Energy Fuel 28(1):385–402.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef402047yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taljegard M, Brynolf S, Grahn M, Andersson K, Johnson H (2014) Cost-effective choices of marine fuels in a carbon-constrained world: Results from a global energy model. Environ Sci Technol 48(21):12986–12,993.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es5018575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tao L, Fairley D, Kleeman MJ, Harley RA (2013) Effects of switching to lower sulfur marine fuel oil on air quality in the San Francisco Bay area. Environ Sci Technol 47(18):10171–10,178.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es401049xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2009) Multi-year expert meeting on transport and trade facilitation: Maritime transport and the climate change challenge, Geneva. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dtltlb20091_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
  52. Wang C, Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ (2007) Cost-effectiveness of reducing sulfur emissions from ships. Environ Sci Technol 41(24):8233–8239.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es070812wCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Winebrake JJ, Corbett JJ, Green EH, Lauer A, Eyring V (2009) Mitigating the health impacts of pollution from oceangoing shipping: An assessment of low-sulfur fuel mandates. Environ Sci Technol 43(13):4776–4782.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es803224qCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Zafar S (2018) Salient features of sugar industry in Mauritius. https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/sugar-industry-mauritius/. Accessed 5 Nov 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Augusto Barbosa Cortez
    • 1
  • Telma Teixeira Franco
    • 2
  • Antonio Bonomi
    • 3
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Center for Energy Planning (NIPE)University of Campinas, UNICAMPCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Faculty of Chemical Engineering (FEQ)University of Campinas, UNICAMPCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory (CTBE)Brazilian Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations