This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The History and Development of Bioethanol as an Alternative Fuel
Bioethanol is ethanol that has been produced from or by a biological source. The clearest way of demonstrating this production is in
fermentation of sugars in the brewing industry. In this process glucose, along with water, is converted into ethanol, carbon dioxide and water. It’s use as a fuel is realised by the exothermic reaction when burnt, producing CO2 and water.
Bioethanol is used as a fuel because it is non-petroleum based, thereby reducing our dependence on crude oil resources, and is thought to be carbon neutral, thus reducing net carbon emissions that are thought to contribute to climate change. The basis for the thought of a reduced carbon footprint by using bioethanol as a fuel is that the biomass – typically sugarcane or corn – used for conversion into ethanol has already absorbed more CO2 whilst growing than is released from the production and burning of ethanol . The chemical reactions of sugar into ethanol and burning of ethanol, respectively, are described below:
C6H12O6 + H2O 2C2H5OH + 2CO2 +H2O
C2H5OH + 3O2 2CO2 +3H2O
This usage and production of CO2 has been argued to be more beneficial in prevention of climate change than regular petroleum fuels as the carbon utilised and produced is part of the ‘free carbon cycle’ whereas petroleum from crude oil is released from a ‘locked carbon cycle’ into the free carbon cycle. The free carbon cycle involves conversion of carbon into living organic matter by plants and animals, and it’s release back into the atmosphere. The extra carbon released by burning fossil fuels that have been ‘trapped’ for so long upsets this cycle. Developing fuels that reduce the need for petroleum substances or burn with less CO2 production is seen as a major step in battling ongoing climate change. The EU recently passed a bill whereby car manufacturers will have to reduce the carbon emissions of their cars to 120g/km by 2012. With policy increasingly considering the effects that climate change may have, alternative fuels are set to grow in importance and use, with more research into increasing efficiency of production and running of these fuels.
As well as bioethanol, industry is researching into other alternative fuels such as biodiesel, hydrogen power, electricity, natural gas, propane, methanol and p-series fuels. These fuels all have potential as an
alternative fuel, with biodiesel and natural gas currently being used the most, along with bioethanol. Hydrogen looks to be the fuel of the future, eventually replacing biofuels as the main consumer fuel, but depends on overcoming some serious technological limitations.
Current Use of Bioethanol
When examining the current use of biofuels, the obvious starting point is to look at Brazil. Brazil has successfully been industrially producing bioethanol since the 1970’s, when it heavily relied on foreign oil. The Middle Eastern Oil Embargo forced Brazil to look at more sustainable means of fuelling the nation. Although it has not always been problemfree, the Brazilian program is seen as a model success story for sustainable development. Today all cars in Brazil run on at least 25% ethanol mixed with petrol, with 60% of all automobiles being ‘fuelflexible’ (able to run on up to 100% ethanol).
Brazil produces its bioethanol almost exclusively from sugarcane. In this model, 1 ton of sugarcane harvest yields only 72 litres of ethanol. This ethanol may have to be refined further for blended use, or can be used as is in a pure ethanol fuel. It is obvious from these figures that there is a lot
of waste in the conversion of biomass into ethanol. Most of this waste is from lignin and cellulose – cellulose is the most abundant biological compound on the planet – which are not easily converted into sugars and then fermented. The USA is following the lead set by Brazil, investing heavily in its own biofuel
production. The USA currently
Figure 1: Current global fuel usage. New renewables refers to sustainable production, whereas tradtitional biomass refers to labour and cost intesive commercial production. Picture from: Ethanol For A Sustainable Energy Future, Goldemburg et al.
petrol as a blend with 10% ethanol, with
moves to increase this proportion. Also all new vehicles sold in the USA must have the flexible fuel engine type. The EU has also moved to support renewable fuels for the future by legislation stating minimum usage for member states.
As figure 1 shows, the global use of biomass for fuel is about 10%, with a global bioethanol production of 36.5billion litres per year. Due to the high production costs of ‘modern biomass’ it is not as widely used as ‘traditional biomass’. If the traditional biomass is replaced with modern biomass then bioethanol as a fuel will be in good stead to take off as a
genuine consumer fuel. This is already seen in Sweden, where Ford produces a flex-fuel model that outsells its petrol and diesel equivalents.
Advantages of Bioethanol
As an alternative fuel, bioethanol is very attractive.
The need for
alternative fuels comes from the depletion of easy to access reserves of coal, gas and crude oil within the next 150 years, with our oil reserves being depleted before the end of the century. Because of this,
industrialised nation’s governments are offering tax incentives and grants in the commercial development and application of renewable energy in the form of biomass. In Brazil, the government subsidises ethanol
production in order to keep the cost per gallon in line with currently cheap petroleum. The USA is heavily funding ethanol production as a means to reduce its future reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
As a fuel for automobile use, bioethanol was historically the fuel of choice, with the first internal combustion engine designed to run on ethanol. Ethanol has been touted as an extremely beneficial fuel due to its higher octane rating of 113 to that of petrol’s of between 83 and 95. The higher the octane rating, the less likely it is that ‘knocking’ will occur – pre-ignition of the fuel – which damages engines .
The main advantage of bioethanol over petroleum based fuels however, are its renewability and its supposed carbon neutrality. As will be
discussed later, there is debate over whether bioethanol is currently carbon neutral and how it might become so. From the renewable
perspective, it is hard not to agree. Bioethanol is produced from crops, grown and harvested every year, using the sun’s energy as the major source of energy. The argument for it’s carbon neutrality stems from, during photosynthesis plants absorb CO2, and the supposed amount of CO2 produced from burning the ethanol is less than that absorbed during
Figure 2: The net energy balance (NEB) of biofuels, showing a higher output than input. Source: Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels,Hill et al.
growth . The counter-argument states that more energy and fuel is used in production than is produced . Hill et al find that bioethanol has a net energy balance of 1.25 (25% higher output than input), whilst biodiesel
has an energy balance of 1.93 – see figure 2. However, they also note that phosphorous and nitrogen used in production have negative environmental impacts. To improve the overall benefits of they suggest low inputs of agricultural energy, fertiliser and pesticides. These studies focus only on corn grain and soybean however. Over a 10 year period Hill et al discovered that low-input grass (in the form of agricultural techniques such as fertilising) can potentially reduce by 15% the global carbon emissions if utilised as the main biofuel crop, whilst not competing for land used for food crops.
Another advantage of bioethanol is the independence that it offers nations. Nations that do not have access to crude oil reserves are entirely dependent on importing their oil. If these same nations can produce crops for energy uses then they will gain some economic independence. As mentioned earlier, the USA is already investing in its own biofuel programs as a means to reduce any future dependence on foreign oil. There is an argument against the use of crops for fuel as their farming will displace the land used for food farming, however many areas currently unused for farming – either through infertility or geographically unutilised for food farming – could be used for the production of dedicated fuel crops. It may seem count-intuitive that infertile ground could be used for harvesting, however switchgrass is a very robust crop
that can grow in unfertilised ground and would not require intensive farming techniques yet still producing high bioethanol yields.
Disadvantages of Bioethanol
As alluded to earlier, there is still a debate raging as to the extent of the carbon footprint of bioethanol. Much of this is down to the extent to which researchers account for labour, but also due to which source of sugar the researchers are using. On studies focused on the USA, corn is the major source or sugars, whereas in Brazil sugarcane is the major source. Sugarcane has a higher energy ratio than corn. As such there is an obvious need for further funding to both study the net energy balances and also work towards more efficient conversion techniques. Along with different crops having differing energy contents, not all crops can be grown in all regions. The local geography and climate will dictate which crops can be grown and so production may well rely on importing crops or sugar.
As well as geography determining which crops could be grown and harvested for fuel use, so too the land use for dedicated fuel farming. A 5% displacement of petrol with bioethanol would require a 5%
displacement of food crops in the EU. In many developed nations this does not amount to a crisis, as they are net food exporters in certain products. However, the techniques could not then be transferred to
developing nations with large numbers of people living below the poverty line. There is a large argument against the use of biofuels in China, where irrigation of fields is paramount, because of this argument.
Bioethanol is a less efficient fuel than petroleum, having an energy content of about 70% of that of petrol . As such, when used as a fuel, more is needed to achieve the same results as petrol. This is a problem that cannot be changed. As consumers, the debate will be whether it is worth switching to less efficient fuels, meaning that more fuel and ultimately more money will be required to be spent on fuel. For public forms of transport this might mean higher costs of travel, lowering support for alternative fuel initiatives. Currently all new cars sold in the USA are flexible fuel vehicles, meaning that they can run on an ethanolpetrol blend of up to 85% ethanol. However, many older cars are not able to run on high concentrations of ethanol and so a phasing in of ethanol blends would be required and many classic cars would require conversions. This would incur large costs in advertising the change of petrol blend to ensure that everybody had sufficient time to change, with no doubt many protesters.
These increased running costs are also seen in increased production costs to those of petrol. This is seen in the labour-intensiveness of producing bioethanol. Again this is a factor that would increase the price of ethanol fuel. Currently it is economically viable to produce bioethanol due to tax breaks and government grants. However, this cannot continue forever and will likely sway the other way with higher taxation once bioethanol is used widely as a fuel. The most effective ways in reducing this cost would be to utilise economies of scale, coupled with technological innovation.
Bioethanol needs to become more efficient at converting biomass to fuel if it is to become sustainable to replace petrol with. This will involve reducing costs of conversion, increasing yields and potentially increasing the diversity of crops used. The way in which research is currently going for the improvements of bioethanol is by looking at ways to convert cellulose and lignin to sugars for fermentation. An exciting prospect is simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) as described by
Takagi et el. .
However this has some problems, notably with the
different optimum temperatures of saccharification and fermentation. Current methods can obtain conversion of between 50 and 72% ethanol per gram of glucose, limited by the tolerance of the yeast to the ethanol. This suggests that with engineering of yeast strains for high tolerance even more efficiency can be achieved. In this respect biotechnology and microbiology will be extremely useful in the genetic engineering, not just of yeasts, but of other microbes that can hopefully one day convert cellulose and lignin into sugars and then ferment them into ethanol.
Increasing the efficiency will no doubt create a more sustainable fuel technology. However, to replace petrol as a fuel major tracts of land must be used solely for the purpose of fuel crops. As discussed earlier this has lead to opposition of the technology in many countries. Another
possibility would be for the consumers to take control of their own fuel supply. This would involve commercial production of small-scale By recycling all of their
fermenters and distillers for home use.
household waste and converting much of it to biofuels, the energy demand would greatly diminish.
As our technology grows, so other alternative fuels will come to the fore. There is a lot of research into photovoltaic (PV) energy and also
hydrogen energy is seen as a fuel for the long-term future. Figure 3 shows the predicted increase in the importance and use of hydrogen as the prime alternative fuel. Although there is currently not a cheap way of producing hydrogen, there is a lot of research being done in the area.
Of course there are many other alternative energy
sources, such as nuclear, wind and geothermal. It would
seem like an obvious move
Figure 3: Predicted use of alternative fuels until 2050. Percent of alternative fuel consumption on the ordinate axis against years. Source: Glycerol delignification of poplar wood chips in aqueous medium, Adeeb 2004 
for a nations geography to play a large factor in which
alternative fuels they utilise. For example Australia would be able to take advantage of PVs more than the UK. Greenland and Iceland could use geothermal power as an alternative source of energy. As a replacement for petrol rather than a displacement of reliance on petrol, we cannot rely on just one energy source for the near future.
Bioethanol is very much a fuel of the future. It currently stands as the leader of the pack in alternative fuels alongside bio-diesel. As a
substitute for petrol it is the obvious choice in it’s blending ability with petrol, from which it can easily become the fuel of choice. There is a largely positive public opinion about bioethanol, with California, USA leading the way in adoption of it as an alternative fuel. With such public and government opinion, in the foreseeable future bioethanol will be a globally used fuel with a wide user base.
There is much research ongoing into bioethanol, improving our technology and understanding year on year. This can only enhance the standing of bioethanol as a viable and cheap alternative fuel. With the development now of lignocellulosic bioethanol, the efficiency of this fuel looks set to continue to improve. Environmentally, regardless of the current state of opinion, the carbon footprint of bioethanol will undoubtedly decrease, helping reduce global carbon emissions. It would not take too much to persuade the public to domesticate their own bioethanol production, if such a project was economically and technically feasible.
As figure 3 shows, it is projected that hydrogen will be the fuel of choice for our long-term future. This gives bioethanol a short-term life as a major fuel. However, it will be many years before hydrogen fuel is safe and economic enough for its mass use. Until that time there will be a
high demand for bioethanol as an alternative fuel. Even then, hydrogen may not be the fuel of choice for all applications, with bioethanol still taking a role in powering our society.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.