Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

“Drop-in” fuel production from biomass: Critical review on

techno-economic feasibility and sustainability
Hannah Kargbo, Jonathan Stuart Harris, Anh N. Phan *
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper reviews the technological and economical feasibilities as well as sustainable assessment of approaches
Biomass (thermochemical and biochemical) applied for sustainable “drop-in” fuel production from lignocellulosic sour­
“Drop-in” fuels ces. The challenges for each pathway to produce “drop-in” fuels are covered. Currently “drop-in” fuel production
Techno-economic analysis
cost is approximately 2 times (~5–6$/gallon) higher than fossil fuels (3$/gallon), especially with the use of 2nd
Life cycle assessment
Conversion technologies
generation feedstocks. The primary sources of cost with “drop-in” fuel production are feedstock cost (40–60% of
the total production cost), syngas cleaning and conditioning to meet Fischer-Tropsch synthesis requirement
(12–15% of the total production cost) and bio oil upgrading (14–18% of the total production cost) in the case of
pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). The most influential factors on the life cycle analysis (LCA) were
biomass cultivation, harvesting, biomass pre-treatment, and transportation. Therefore, robust processes that can
use local waste biomass are far more environmental and economically viable, especially as biofuel from second
generation have a greater potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (50–100%) than first generation biofuels
(50–90%) when land use changes are omitted in the LCA. The sustainability of biofuels is pre-dominantly
dependant on the sustainability of the initial biomass, with 2nd generation feedstocks being more sustainable
than 1st generation. Gasification-FTS is considered as the most promising technique for “drop-in” fuel production
over pyrolysis and HTL due to its flexibility towards feedstock acceptance and the ability to produced high yields
of liquid fuel together with other economically viable biofuels such as electricity and heat. Biochemical routes (i.
e.fermentation) to “drop-in” fuels are still in their early development stages, and therefore require more studies
and pilot-scale experiments in order to discover an economic and sustainable means of using these methods.

feedstock.
The European Council mandated that at least 27% of its entire energy
1. Introduction
consumption must come from renewable sources such as biomass in
which at least 0.5% of the fuel supply in transport must come from
The combination of depleting fossil fuels reserves, environmental
second generation biofuels by 2030 [12]. Similar goals were set by the
concerns, increasing industrialisation has promoted interest in the pro­
US (an aggregate of 36 billion gallons of renewables must be used in
duction of sustainable liquid fuels to replace fossil fuels. Substantial
transport fuels by 2022), Colombia (in 2001 the government mandated a
research has been carried out to find sustainable and renewable alter­
10% bioethanol blend in cities with a population above 500,000 in­
natives, aiming to develop a fuel that has similar properties to conven­
habitants. In 2009, 75% of total gasoline consumed in Colombia had
tional fuels such as gasoline [1–3], diesel [4–8], jet fuel [9–11] etc.
10% ethanol content) and other developing countries such as Indonesia
These fuels are referred to as “drop-in” fuels. They are biomass based
(15% ethanol is required in gasoline by 2025) [13]. To ensure future
liquid fuels that conforms to existing petroleum derived hydrocarbon
work is directed more effectively, a complete review from feedstock type
fuels (diesel, gasoline, kerosene etc.) specifications. This allows the fuel
to use of product of all existing methods is required, with a focus on their
to be directly substituted for fossil fuels without the need for costly
relative advantages and current challenges.
engine modifications. To date, no commercially viable approaches for
Biomass conversion to biofuels can be grouped into two distinct
producing “drop-in” fuels from biomass have been developed but a wide
paths i.e. thermochemical and biochemical methods. Thermochemical
range of methods for producing sustainable liquid fuels exist which are
methods produce gases (gasification) and liquids (pyrolysis and HTL) as
adopted industrially mainly 1st generation biofuels using food-grade

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anh.phan@newcastle.ac.uk (A.N. Phan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110168
Received 19 December 2019; Received in revised form 12 July 2020; Accepted 25 July 2020
Available online 4 August 2020
1364-0321/Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Kargbo et al.
List of abbreviations
ADP Abiotic depletion potential
AP Acidification potential
AFEX Ammonia fibre explosion
ATP Aquatic toxicity potential
AROI Average return on investment
BTL Biomass to liquid
CED Cumulative energy demand
DME Dimethyl ether
EP Eutrophication potential
FPH Fast pyrolysis hydrotreatment
FCC Fluid catalytic cracker
FT Fisher-Tropsch
FTS Fisher-Tropsch synthesis
GGE Gallon gasoline-equivalent
GJ Giga joules
GWP Global worming potential
their main products but which require further upgrading to liquid fuels
("drop-in" fuels) and other valuable chemicals. The main product from
biochemical conversion paths are liquids fuels (e.g. ethanol) and biogas
which can also be upgraded to "drop-in" fuels. Today, "drop-in" biofuels
have been deemed by many as appropriate features replacement for
fossil fuels. However, the currently high costs of these processes and
their requirements for not currently available advanced technical
knowledge to produce "drop-in" fuels has prevented commercialisation
to date.
These economic and technical barriers together with the environ­
mental impacts related to “drop-in” fuel production has been yet to be
fully understood in order to aid research towards improving existing
biofuel paths for "drop-in" fuel production. The economic feasibility of a
potential process is normally assessed based on results obtained from
techno-economic analyses (TEA) and the environment aspect are
assessed by performing a life cycle analysis (LCA). Most of the published
review papers are limited to either TEA or LCA of a specific path, with
only few reviewers specifically handling both techno-economic and life
cycle analysis aspect. Even with those authors, the reviews scope is
normally limited to either thermochemical or biochemical techniques.
Moreover, almost all the available reviews focused just on the biofuels
produced upstream. The upgrading processes downstream to ‘drop-in’
fuels with their challenges are often ignored. Therefore, this paper aims
to fully review techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment
studies of "drop-in" fuel production from both thermochemical and
biochemical pathways with the following objective:
• The major biofuel production pathways (Gasification-FTS, Pyrolysis-
upgrading, HTL and Fermentation) will be described and the tech­
nical barriers unique to certain methods will be explained.
• The major economic considerations of biofuel production will be
discussed, with analysis of how best to reduce these costs.
• TEA and LCA studies from different researchers will be evaluated and
discussed to allow comparison of the major pathways.
This review paper will draw comparisons between the many TEA and
LCA analyses performed on each of the 4 main pathways and use this to
produce a set of desirable aims for future work.
2. Biomass feedstock
Biofuel feedstock are typically grouped into three categories i.e. first
generation, second generation and third generation based on the ease of
use and the sustainability of the feedstock, as shown in Fig. 1.
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
GHG Greenhouse gases
HT High temperature
HTL Hydrothermal liquefaction
HVO Hydrotreated vegetable oil
IRR Internal rate of return
LC Land competition
LCA Life cycle Assessment
LT Low temperature
MAE Marine aquatic Eco-toxicity
MT Metric tonnes
$MM Million dollar
ODP Ozone layer depletion
POFP Photochemical oxidant formation
PV Product value
SOT State-of-earth
TEA Techno-economic analysis
TRL Technology readiness level
The 1st generation feedstock are agricultural products (wheat, sugar
cane, maize, nuts and vegetable oils) and mainly used for bioethanol and
biodiesel production (known as 1st generation biofuels). Although 1st
generation biofuels have indicated a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, they also have numerous negativities: competition with food
crops, high total production costs with the exclusion of government
grants and subsidies, reliance on non-sustainable fertilizers which could
limit the reduction of greenhouse gases, promotion of deforestation for
agricultural land and resulting loss of biodiversity and competition for
available clean water [15–17]. Most of the aforementioned problems
related to 1st generation biofuels can be partly if not completely
addressed by producing biofuels from non-food crops, agricultural and
forest waste/residues (categorised as 2nd generation biofuels) [18].
The development of 2nd generation biofuels was investigated using
agricultural waste (e.g. husks) [19,20], non-food crops (e.g. elephant
grass) [21] and industry waste (e.g. sawdust) [22], which are normally
sent to landfill or incinerated once the useful portion has been extracted
[23]. 2nd generation biofuels have been anticipated to have significant
impact on cost reductions and increased productivity efficiency. With
rapid advancement in technology in the near feature, depending
partially on fossil fuel prices, they are therefore expected to be part of
the solution to the challenge of moving the transport sector towards
sustainable and environmentally friendly sources [24–26]. However,
producing 2nd generation biofuels comes with its own challenges due to
biomass complexity and problems associated with its production,
transportation, harvesting and pretreatment prior to biofuel production.
3rd generation biofuels from algae are a relatively novel develop­
ment. Algae has several advantages over terrestrial biomass sources,
notably an order of magnitude increase in growth rate, limited use of
land, few fertilisers or pesticides required, utilisation of waste source as
nutrient and little seasonal variation [27–29]. However, the challenge
with algae as a feedstock is the separation of water from the biomass
(>99% water) due to small algal cells (2–10 μm in length and 2–8 μm in
width) [30]. In addition, retrieving a useful biofuel requires lysis of the
algae cell wall to release glycerides, carbohydrates and other valuable
feedstock, which can be challenging due to the abundance of highly
stable cellulose in the cell wall. These challenges also complicate solu­
tions for each other, as more fragile algae can be used but are harder to
separate, and vice versa for tougher algae. Methods for producing 3rd
generation biofuels are currently predominantly conceptual but has
great potential if the challenges can be overcome [31,32].
H. Kargbo et al.
Fig. 1. Biomass feedstock. Adopted from Ref. [14].
3. Economic considerations
Biofuels have many advantages over fossil fuels, notably lower
sulphur content, sustainability and lower carbon emissions (80–90%
lower than fossil fuels) [33–35]. However, the production cost of bio­
fuels is currently greater than that of fossil fuels. The primary sources of
cost with producing biofuels are: feedstock [36], feedstock trans­
portation [37], densification and storage [38] and pretreatment pro­
cesses [39,40]. Fig. 2 shows a breakdown of the total cost and energy
expenses of a typical biomass supply chain from the feedstock cultiva­
tion stage to the biorefinery gate.
In biorefineries, there are major processing procedures involve in the
biomass supply chain including collection, pre-processing (densification
either by compaction, briquetting and pelleting etc.), storage, trans­
portation, post-processing etc. which can directly impact the overall
feedstock delivery cost. For instance, lignocellulosic biomass trans­
portation to refineries may need a critical evaluation due to low bulk
density. In addition, transportation cost can be influenced by the feed­
stock moisture content, distance between the field to the bio refinery,
Fig. 2. Breakdown of the total cost of a typical pelleted biomass supply chain. Adopted from Refs. [41].
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
transportation type (rail, road or ship), existing infrastructure and on-
site technology [42], low bulk density/heterogenous nature [43] sea­
sonal availability [44] and wide distribution areas [45].
Lignocellulosic biomass is a complex structure composed of cellulose
(35–50%), hemicellulose (20–35%), lignin (15–20%), and other minor
components (15–20%) such as ash, protein, minerals, pectin etc
(15–20%) [46]. The rate at which biomass decomposes naturally is very
slow e.g. several months for complete degradation to break the
hemicellulose-lignin complex for an ease of access to the cellulose and
hemicellulose. Various pretreatment methods can be used including
physical pretreatment (size reduction by milling or grinding [46,47],
extrusion pretreatment at high temperature [46], chemical pretreatment
(in a basic environment such as ammonia percolation treatment, soaking
the feedstock in sodium hydroxide solution etc.), physiochemical
pre-treatment (supercritical CO2, steam explosion in acidic medium)
and biological pretreatment. These pretreatment processes have cost
implications and have their own advantages and disadvantages [46,48].
These issues need to be considered when choosing a feedstock for biofuel
production. Table 1 shows a variety of potential feedstock with their
H. Kargbo et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168

Table 1
Capital costs for biomass handling process.
Biomass type Typical Heating Value, Price Price (USD/ Cost Structure Location Reference
moisture LHV (MJ/Kg) (USD/GJ) ton)
Content

Forest Residues 30%–40% 11.5 1.30–2.61 15–30 Harvesting, collection, chipping, loading, USA [49]
transportation and uploading. stumpage fee and
return for profit and risk
Wood wastes 5%–15% 19.9 0.50–2.51 10–50 Cost may vary from zero (where there would USA [49,50]
otherwise be disposal cost) to quite high (where
there is an established market for their used in the
region)
Agricultural residues 20%–35% 11.35–11.55 1.73–4.33 20–50 Collecting, premium paid to farmers and USA [49,50]
transportation
Energy Crop 10%–30% 14.25–18.25 4.51–6.94 39–60 Not disclosed USA [49,50]
Landfill gas – 18.6–29.8 0.94–2.84 0.017–0.051 Gas collection and flare USA [49,50]
Wood chips from local – – 5.2–8.2 60–94 Collection and transportation Europe [49,50]
energy crops
Scandinavian forest – – 8.6–10.1 98–115 Harvest and transportation Europe [49,50]
residues to continental
Europe
Local Agricultural – – 4.8-6-0 55–68 Harvest and transportation Europe [49,50]
residues
Pellets imported from 6.0–7.1 100–119 Palletisation and transportation Europe [49,50]
USA
Bagasse 40%–55% 5600–8900 1.3–2.3 11–13 – Brazil [49,50]
Bagasse 40%–55% 5600–8900 1.4–2.5 12–14 – India [49,50]
Woodchips – 7745 9.30 71 – Brazil [49,50]
Charcoal Mill – 18,840 5.31 95 – Brazil [49,50]
Rice husk 11% 12,960 – 22–30 – India [49,50]
Wheat straw – – – 19.53 Transportation – [51]
Corn Stover – – – 19.64 Transportation – [51]
Lignocellulosic Biomass – – – 11.26–14.01 Harvesting and transporting – [52]
Herbaceous energy – – – 51 Production, delivery, and storage Oklahoma [53]
crops (Miscanthus)
Poplar – – – 110–132 Cultivation and harvesting Italy [54]
Corn Strover – – – 164 Feedstock pretreatment with dilute acid – [55,56]
Corn Strover – – – 156 Feedstock pretreatment with hot water – [55,56]
Corn Strover – – – 174 Feedstock pretreatment via extrusion – [55,56]
Corn Strover – – – 173 Feedstock pretreatment via two stage dilute Acid – [55,56]
Corn Strover – – – 167 Feedstock pretreatment via ammonia fiber – [56]
explosion (AFEX)

associated costs. 3.1. Feedstock cost

The cost of biomass feedstock contributes a greater share (about

40–90%) of the biofuel production cost for 1st generation fuels than 2nd

Fig. 3. Production cost of biofuel (per litter) from various feedstocks. Adopted from [62].

4
H. Kargbo et al.
and 3rd generation fuels (Fig. 3). Biomass price is directly proportional
to the agricultural yield, which has a direct relationship to the location,
genetics and fertility of the soil. Numerous genetic engineering and
breeding techniques are presently applied to potential energy feedstock
such as poplar [57], switch grass [58,59], miscanthus [60] and sorghum
[61] to increase product yield. These processes have some cost impli­
cations and subsequently increase the overall production cost of bio­
fuels. Fig. 3 shows how the production cost of biofuels varies depending
on the types of feedstock.
Harvesting and processing of biomass entails significant energy input
and involves different processes, such as threshing, which is cost
involving (15–25 € per tonne) and thus reflect on the overall feedstock
price (35–100€ per tonne) [63]. Woody biomass is harvested as
felled-timber and then fragmented/cut into different lengths or shape,
while energy crops are generally harvested based on three basic steps
(cutting, raking, and baling) [64,65]. Agricultural residues are har­
vested by collection then baled. In most cases, residual moisture con­
ditioning is completed in the field before baling [64]. The differences in
the harvesting and processing methods from one feedstock to the other
affect the price of the biomass. Moreover, the quantity of harvested
biomass is related to the fertility and tilling conditions of the soil and its
moisture content, which can be influenced by weather conditions during
growth [66].
3.2. Biomass densification
Densification of biomass is typically carried out after feedstock size
reduction. The common densification techniques are briquette, pellet
mills, extruders and roller presses in which the screw press has been
reported for its high energy consumption [67,68]. Densification via
briquette has the advantage of tolerating a wide range of particle size
and moisture content. Briquetting is normally performed with the used
of hydraulic, roller and mechanical presses and can be done without
binders for feedstock moisture content up to 22% [69]. A pelletizer is
somewhat similar to briquetting but uses smaller particles sizes and
smaller dies, where as an extruder is suitable for the formation of ho­
mogenous briquettes for combustion applications. Another densification
technique in most industries is the agglomeration technique which in­
volves particle size increment by sticking powder particles tightly
together [44,70].
Overall, in terms of energy consumption the densification technique
which requires more pushing and compression, consumes the highest
energy (about 40% of the energy is needed for material compression and
some energy for overcoming friction during compression) [71]. Biomass
chemical constituents (cellulose, protein, hemicelluloses, lignin, starch,
fat and ash) can significantly contribute in the densification process of
biomass. During high temperature compression, the starch and protein
plasticizes behaves as binders, thereby increasing pellet strength. High
temperature and pressure during densification can lead to lignin soft­
ening, which subsequently improves the binding efficiency of the
biomass [68]. In addition to high heat supply, pressure and milling
speed have significant influence on the quality of pellets [44,70].
There are a number of challenges when it comes to the densification
of biomass feedstock such as energy consumption requirement, analysis
of the correct densification method to be used, correct infrastructural
requirement must be cater for, closeness of the densification facility to
the transportation point (may sometimes involve the creation of new
transportation path ways such as new rail lines for economic trans­
portation of biomass) [44,70]. All these factors will contribute to overall
production cost of the biofuel.
3.3. Biomass transportation
Woody biomass can be transported as either bundle, wood chip,
whole tree residue or pellet. On the other hand, the transportation of
agricultural biomass can be done by either in pelleted, baled, chopped or
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
loose form. Transportation cost can be greatly influenced by the overall
biomass density [72,73]. For instance the density of biomass in the
pellets can be as high as ten times that of loose agricultural biomass and
eight times for woody biomass [72]. In addition, transportation mode
can also affect the cost of transportation. Biomass transportation can
negatively affect the environment due to emissions release during
movements and traffic congestion. Table 2 shows the cost, emission and
traffic congestion effect of biomass transportation via different mode.
Transportation cost greatly depends on the distance from the bio re­
finery to biomass storage location and the mode of transportation [74].
Transportation by trucks has been seen to be more economical especially
for small scale transportation and short distance between the collection
point to the biorefinery [75]. However, due to environmental issues,
transportation by rail is preferred but has limitation in their geograph­
ical reach e.g. rail lines are often not located in adequate proximity to
the biomass collection and drop-off point [42]. Pipeline transportation
on the other hand, is limited to only liquid feedstock such as slurry
mixture (eg. sewage sludge).
4. Biofuel production routes
Food-grade crops are currently used for 1st generation biofuels.
Lignocellulosic feedstock has high level of structural and chemical in­
tricacies causing incomplete chemical conversion during biofuel pro­
duction. As a result, conversion technologies for obtaining useable liquid
biofuels from these feedstocks require the integration of specialised
technologies. These conversion technologies can be categorised into
biochemical and thermochemical. The most suitable processing method
depends on the quantity and type of the raw biomass, the desired form of
energy, any end-use requirements, environmental standards, economic
considerations and the product specification [16,77]. In addition, the
efficiency of the process is strongly dependent on the feedstock particle
size and the reactor design [16].
Biochemical conversion involves breaking down the hemicellulose to
permit enzymes to access the cellulose in which lignin remains
unreacted and can be recovered and used as chemicals or fuels in sub­
sequent thermochemical conversion process [16,77]. Thermochemical
conversion processes includes direct combustion [78], gasification [79],
pyrolysis [80], and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) [81]. Currently
four major routes are or under investigation for the production of
“drop-in” fuels i.e. pyrolysis, gasification, HTL and pre­
treatment–hydrolysis (fermentation) [5,82] as shown in Fig. 4 below.
Gasification transforms lignocellulosic feedstock to synthesis gas (a
mixture of CO and H2) in a tightly controlled oxidation environment
(air/oxygen and/or steam etc.), which is then used for “drop-in” fuel
production via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis [83]. The syngas can be also
used as feedstock for dimethyl ether (DME) [84], methanol [85],
ammonia [86] synthesis etc. This conversion route is normally referred
to as the biomass to liquid transformation (BTL). Pyrolysis is the thermal
decomposition of biomass in an inert environment (i.e. nitrogen) to
produce liquid (bio oil), gas and solid (char). The fractions (liquid, gas
and char) are dependent upon the process conditions (heating rate, final
temperatures, residence time) and nature of feedstock to maximise
liquid fraction which can later be subjected to series of catalytic
Table 2
Biomass transportation mode and its effect on cost, emission and traffic
congestion. Adopted from [76].
Options/criteria Cost Emissions (Kg Traffic Maturity of
($/MT) C/MT) congestion technology
Truck 25.62 2.68 Very high Very high
transportation
Rail 64.65 1.40 Average High
transportation
Pipeline 73.20 8.22 Very low Average
transportation
H. Kargbo et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168

Fig. 4. Conversion pathways to “drop-in” fuels for the transportation sector. Adopted from [82].

upgrading techniques to obtain a “drop-in” fuel [80,87]. Pyrolysis must
be carried out at high heating rates (~20 ◦ C − 200 ◦ C/sec) and low
residence time of volatiles (less than 2s), which is known as fast pyrol­
ysis [80]. The third pathway (pretreatment–hydrolysis) entails series of
pretreatment and then hydrolysis to obtained C5 and C6 sugars solutions
from lignocellulosic biomass feedstock, which is then selectively trans­
form (fermentation) to vital chemicals and liquid hydrocarbon fuels
with properties and structures suitable for gasoline [88], biodiesel [89],
and jet fuel [90].
Despite the diverse technologies potentially suitable for transforming
lignocellulosic wastes to “drop-in” fuels, only a few of these techniques
are readily in operation. Most are at an earlier development stage, such
as pyrolysis and HTL with only a few developers operating with these
technologies [82,91].
This section will review each conversion pathway including their
status and techno-economic challenges involve in the production of
“drop-in” fuels (diesel, jet and gasoline). Fig. 4 shows an overview of the
various technologies available for “drop-in” fuels and their current
readiness level presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Technology readiness level (TRL) of available advance biofuel technologies. Adopted from [82].

6
H. Kargbo et al.
4.1. Thermochemical methods
There are three main pathways for producing biofuel thermochem­
cially, which are hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis and gasification.
In all cases, the resulting liquid fuel requires further processing to be
useable without resulting in excessive engine corrosion, except gasifi­
cation which would only result in gaseous fuels without additional
processing. These routes are illustrated in more details (Fig. 6) and
discussed further below.
4.1.1. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL)
Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) involves the application of tem­
peratures ranging from 250 ◦ C to 550 ◦ C with pressure range from 5 to
25Mpa to the biomass feedstock under aqueous conditions. The abun­
dant water under these conditions can act as both a reactant and a
catalyst (conventional catalysts can be added if required) for biomass
depolymerisation to produce an energy dense bio crude [92–95].
Although this technique has some resemblance to pyrolysis, the tech­
niques differ in the quality of the bio-crude oil produced. Typically, HTL
produces higher quality oils once the water is extracted (much lower
oxygen contents, higher energy contents (33–36 MJ/kg), and more
stable) and therefore require less extensive upgrading process than py­
rolysis bio-oils [93]. They are suitable for biodiesel production due to
their high molecular weight distribution (~Mn 250) [96] but hydro­
cracking is required to produce jet fuel and/or gasoline [97]. HTL is also
advantageous as it can be used for wet feedstock with moisture content
of up to 80% (such as sewage sludge, manure, and macro and micro
-algae wet biomass residues, etc.) without the need of drying or other
pretreatments [98]. However, the composition of the feedstock can
significantly influence the overall bio-oil yield relative to chars,
water-soluble organics and gases. Feedstock with high hemicelluloses
and cellulose content can produced more bio-oil because the repoly­
merization and cyclization of the lignin fragments in the liquid oil can
significantly lower bio-oil yield [99]. Although HTL technology for
bio-oil production is presently at pilot scales, upgrading HTL oils is
limited to lab scale batch reactors with no integrated refinery/plant
testing experience worldwide [82,100]. HTL plants face series of chal­
lenges, significantly the catalyst efficiency and performance, disposal of
generated wastewater and upgrading bio-oil. It may be possible for the
Fig. 6. Current Biomass thermochemical pathways to “drop in” fuel.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
HTL derived bio-oil to be upgraded in existing fossil oil refineries with
minor modifications, however this is only done with lab tests.
The most important challenges in HTL are summarized below [101,
102]:
1. Limited commercial knowledge on handling biomass slurry and oil
extraction during continuous operation at high temperatures and
pressures.
2. Low solid fraction is required (5–35%) to ease pumpability and to
ensure the sufficiency of water carbon levels for conversion [103].
3. High separation costs between bio-oil and aqueous components.
4. Carbon lost to aqueous phase, lowering the bio-oil yield.
5. Require wastewater (containing significant amount of organics)
treatment and recycling, therefore increasing the overall production
costs.
6. Require special material in process equipment for corrosion pre­
vention and high pressures, increasing capital costs.
7. Challenging downstream processes due to high concentrations of
heteroatoms (e.g. oxygen and nitrogen) in HTL bio-oil. These het­
eroatoms may influence biofuel qualities (oil acidity, polymeriza­
tion, high viscosity, and high-boiling distribution).
4.1.2. Pyrolysis/upgrading
Pyrolysis decomposes biomass waste/residues (moisture <10%) in
an oxygen-free/limited environment at a temperature range of about
450 C-550 ◦ C and high heating rate (20–200 ◦ C/s) (known as fast py­
◦
rolysis) to mainly produce liquid (known as bio-oil). The bio-oil can be
upgraded in different ways such as blending the oil directly with fossil
vacuum gas oil (10–20 wt %) in a catalytic cracker unit [104,105],
hydro-treatment (hydrodeoxygenation) at high pressure (8.5–10.54
Mpa) to eliminate oxygen in the form of water prior to hydrocracking in
the presence of hydrogen [106,107], steam reforming of bio-oil to
produced hydrogen [108–110] or chemical extraction [111].
Catalytic cracking and hydrodeoxygenation aim at reducing the ox­
ygen content of the bio-oil to produce a mixture of heavy, medium and
light hydrocarbon rich products which can be distilled into various
fractions: diesel, jet fuel and/or gasoline. The pyrolysis route can be
applied to a wide range of feedstock including cellulosic, lignocellulosic,
plastics waste and allows the use of extremely heterogenous feedstocks
H. Kargbo et al.
compared to other technologies [112]. However, the most appropriate
feedstock for this technique are those with high volatiles and low
moisture content of approximately 10 wt% [113]. Complex mixture of
oxygenated species (sugar, water, carboxylic acids and phenols)
together with its high viscosity, acidity and water content account for
the instability of the oil during storage and handling [114–116].
Therefore, immediate upgrading is required once it has been produced
to minimise losses and fouling. Conventional fast pyrolysis is currently
commercialised for bio-oil production but the upgrading process to
“drop-in” fuels is still at the prototype stage (TRL 4–5) [82,117,118]. It is
expected that within the next 5–10 years, these processes could be
developed into commercialised scales. Notably, Virent is co-operating
with Shell to produce a pilot plant in the USA for this process and are
developing additional upgrading options [119,120].
Different commercial plants are presently in operation for the pro­
duction of bio-oil for heat and power generation. The challenge now lies
on the integration of this technique for the production of “drop-in” fuels
[43,82,121]. This is related to the limited commercial knowledge of
operating the process, which is primarily due to the risk averse culture in
the commercial sector reducing the number of early adopters. However,
a number of studies have been conducted with respect to improvement
of fast pyrolysis bio-oil quality to facilitate upgrading to “drop-in” fuels
[121–124]. Some of the most significant challenges of pyrolysis are
outlined below:
1. Storage and upgrading challenges due to thermally and chemically
unstable bio-oil derived from pyrolysis (tendency to polymerise,
viscosity, high acidity and water content) [125].
2. Presences of alkali metals and other nitrogen compounds in feed­
stock can significantly reduce bio-oil yield [126].
3. Rapid catalyst deactivation during upgrading due to the presence of
water and oxygenated compounds [127].
4. Low carbon conversion of bio-oil via FCC (approximately 30%)
[128]. Currently blending of bio-oil from pyrolysis is limited at
approximately 20% in fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) in existing re­
fineries equipment due to the formation of coke.
4.1.3. Gasification-Fisher-Tropsch synthesis (FTS)
Gasification is a partial thermal oxidation to obtain a gaseous
product known as syngas (containing mainly CO & H2 and other im­
purities). The reaction occurs in the presence of a suitable oxidising
agent commonly air, oxygen and steam. The syngas requires to be
thoroughly cleaned and conditioned to meet the requirement for the
Fisher-Tropsch synthesis (FTS). Also, using syngas for FTS, a H2/CO
must be above 2, which is highly flammable. Explosion limit normally is
in the range of (20–60% of fuel in air). The clean syngas is reacted over a
transition metallic catalyst to yield a combination of long-chain hydro­
carbons, which can then be upgraded using standard refinery methods
such as hydrocracking, distillation etc. to obtain the liquid biofuels. The
FTS is one out of the few technologies that can readily produce high
quality “drop-in” fuels which can be integrated to existing in­
frastructures (road transport and aviation fuels) [129–132].
Gasification coupled with FTS synthesis is a well-established tech­
nique when using coal as feedstock [131]. However, the incorporation of
biomass feedstock for syngas production and subsequent upgrading to
“drop-in” fuels is still in the demonstration or early commercialisation
stage [133]. It has been recorded [133] that there are 114 biomass
gasification plants in operation globally, 13 plants under construction
and 14 on hold. Around 72% of the operated plants produce power as
the end product, 17% produce liquid fuel (FTS liquids, ethanol, DME,
diesel and methanol), 5% derived syngas is used for gaseous fuels
(hydrogen and Synthetic natural gas) and 8% for chemical production.
A number of companies have planned to operate with gasification-
FTS such as agricultural residues to biodiesel by Kaidi Finland [134],
wood wastes and residues to biodiesel by Red Rock Biofuels USA [135],
torrified wood to biodiesel by Red Lion/Grey rock USA [136].
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
The gasification-FTS with the used of second-generation feedstock
has encountered a number of challenges as summarized below:
1. Biomass pretreatment (densification, size reduction, drying etc.) is
required to homogenise the feedstock for gasification to be operated
reliably and efficiently. Biomass drying can consume up to 10–15%
energy of feedstock [137].
2. Syngas clean-up and conditioning (most commonly via the water gas
shift reaction) to acquire a syngas with (H2/CO ~2, tars > 10 ppb,
particulate >0 and CO2 >5%) [138] is required as FTS requires a
clean and good quality syngas free of inert gases to prevent catalyst
deactivation.
3. Production of high level of tars by gasifiers can increase the risk of
corrosion and subsequently giving room for downtimes. Removing
tars is a challenge and increases capital cost.
4. Conventional FTS usually generates products based on the Ander­
son–Schulz–Flory (ASF) distribution and is normally unselective to
obtain desired long chain hydrocarbons products. Thus, maximizing
and controlling selectivity is one of biggest challenges in FTS [139].
5. Products from FT require fractionation and distillation to obtain
biofuels, increasing the cost of production [140].
All the above mentions have a significant impact on the economics of
the process (gasification-FTS) and creates the necessity for the modifi­
cation of the overall process including the equipment and technical
expertise to overcome these bottlenecks. A number of studies related to
advancing reactor design, integration of synthesis and cracking pro­
cesses have been done and advancement of the technique is ongoing
[130,141].
4.2. Biochemical methods
4.2.1. Fermentation
Fermentation utilises biological activities in the presence (aerobic
fermentation) or absence (anaerobic fermentation) of air to produce
particular types of hydrocarbon precursors such as isobutene, ethanol,
butanol etc. These can be recovered, purified and upgraded to gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel as shown in Fig. 7.
At present, three routes have been developed for this process as
shown below:
1. Yeast are genetically modified to consume sugars and excrete liquid
alkenes such as isobutene, which can then be recovered from the
fermenter, purified and then hydro-treated to generate jet or diesel
[82].
2. Sugars can be converted into lipids by heterotrophic algae or yeast
within their cells, which can be recovered using solvents to break the
cells. The lipids can then be cleaned and upgraded to a liquid
transport fuel via conventional hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO)
diesel technology [142].
3. Bacteria are genetically modified to feed on sugar and give out short-
chain gaseous alkenes, which can then be converted to jet or gasoline
via oligomerisation and hydro-treatment [82].
Presently, aerobic fermentation processes use first generation sugar
as feedstock (sugar beet, sugarcane and corn starch). The incorporation
of second-generation feedstock is still in development (TRL 3–4). There
are a few companies worldwide (Amyris in Brazil, LS9 Inc. in the USA,
and Total in the USA) using this technique with first generation feed­
stock for liquid fuel production (ethanol, butanol etc) [82].
The main challenges associated with the use of 2nd generation
feedstocks are inconsistencies in product quality and composition. This
is due to the presence of various inhibitors and the requirements to
integrate additional pretreatment procedures, subsequently influencing
the microbial yield [143,144]. Also, all biochemical conversion pro­
cesses of sugar to hydrocarbon have low yield (44% from wheat straw
H. Kargbo et al.
Fig. 7. Generic process diagram for fermentation of biomass sugar to “drop in” fuels.
[145],39% from sugar cane bagasse [146] and 49% from maize [147]).
Additionally, the growth rate and lifespan of the microorganisms greatly
depend on the amount of sugar in the feedstock. There are a number of
challenges related to this technique as shown below:
1. Mass transfer limitations due partial solubility of oxygen in aqueous
broths, which limit the microbe’s accessibility to sufficient air supply
in order to upkeep continuous aerobic fermentation. The problem is
normally solved by continuous aeriation via electrical air compres­
sion, reactor bubbling and agitation, which has significant cost
implication on the overall process [148].
2. Microbial adaption to lignocellulosic sugars (second-generation
feedstock) is limited. As a result, to attain comparable conversion
yields to first generation feedstock sugar, without inhibition and
contamination, pretreatment is required [149].
3. Contamination problems with second generation feedstocks subse­
quent resulting in microbial antagonism in the fermenters [150].
4. High energy input required for product extraction from fermentation
broth [151].
5. Techno-economic analysis (TEA) and Life cycle Analysis (LCA) of
thermochemical and biochemical routes
The used and implementation of 2nd generation feedstock and
pathways for the development of an alternative source of “drop-in” fuels
depends mainly on the production economic and the environmental
implications of biomass-based fuels. Therefore, TEA and LCA of the
various pathways to “drop-in” fuels is needed for commercialisation,
sustainability and development goals. Tables 3 and 4 below represent
TEA and LCA from different researchers.
4.3. Methodology
The literature survey in Table 3 (TEA studies) below represent the
results of 21 techno economic studies of ‘drop-in’ biofuel production
from both thermochemical (gasification-FTS, fast pyrolysis-upgrading
and HTL) and biochemical production pathways (fermentation) pub­
lished from 2002 to 2017. The studies were selected to assess the eco­
nomic feasibility of each pathway to ‘drop-in’ biofuel using their
respective production cost as an economic indicator. All the production
cost was converted to US$ where the original product cost was another
currency other than US$. For the LCA (Table 4) 24 literatures of the
same biofuel pathway published from 2011 to 2018 were source and
used to assess the environmental impact of biofuel production. The
different studies were obtained from Scopus, web of science and google
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
scholar. Only TEA that considered downstream upgrading to “drop-in”
fuels was considered in the TEA table.
4.4. Life cycle assessement (LCA) of “drop-in” fuel production routes
The use of biomass as an alternative source of energy primarily
aimed towards the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from
various energy utilisation sectors, such as the industrial and trans­
portation sector. Performing a life cycle assessment is useful to evaluate
the impact of processes (both qualitatively and quantitatively) on the
environment from the start of production throughout the whole lifespan
of the product. LCA follows standardized procedure within a certain
regulatory context such as US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and EU
Renewable Energy Directive (RED). Different calculation models are
used to perform the LCA: Greenhouse gasses Regulated Emissions and
Energy use in Transportation (GREET), GHGenius and BioGrace. LCA is
performed via three distinct steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle
inventory (data collection, defining system boundary, input and output
of the system are identify, the algorithms used for pollutant released into
the environment are assessed) and life cycle impact assessment (con­
version of emissions to “impact” via the used of impact models, char­
acterisation of impact and interpretation) [168]. The calculated impacts
from a LCA are based on a functional unit which is a measured
description of the performance of a product systems and serves as a
reference point upon which all environmental impacts are estimated.
The functional unit relates the social benefits to the environmental im­
pacts and therefore must be in accordance with the defined study ob­
jectives and should be measurable [169]. It may be a unit of material
(litter of biofuel produced), a unit of service (e.g. cultivation and pro­
cessing of one tonne of dry seaweed biomass) etc.
The general system boundaries set for a life cycle assessment of
biomass to “drop-in” fuels is illustrated in Fig. 8 below.
Three major phases are normally considered:
• The cultivation, harvesting and transporting of biomass (Phase 1).
• Plant site operational activities entailing production and upgrading
activities (Phase 2).
• Waste Recycling and demolition of plant (Phase 3).
The main environment issuses that need consideration in phase 1 are:
land use changes (LUC), application of fertilizers and pesticides, carbon
sequestration, the effect of biomass residue removal from soil, and
transportation distance from the hervesting site to a biorefinery.
Biomass cultivation can directly or indirectly impact land used. The
H. Kargbo et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168

Table 3
Techno-economic analysis (TEA) of thermochemical and biochemical routes.
Source Technique Scope of studies Plant Size Feedstock End product Production cost
(US$/GGE)

[152] Gasification-FTS- The research compares capital and operating costs for 2000 MT/ corn Stover Diesel HT = 4.27
hydroprocessing. two biomass-to-liquids concepts: high temperature day LT = 4.83
(HT) gasification and low temperature (LT)
gasification.
[153] Gasification-FTS This study compares integrated processing to 550 MT/ Pyrolysis Bio-oil FT-liquid Distributed
distribute processing of biomass for the production of day process = 1.43
Fischer-Tropsch liquids. Centralised
process = 1.56
e
[154] Gasification-FTS- Estimation of the cost of BtL fuels based on 80 MT/h Wood Diesel 5.0
hydroprocessing. simulations and large number of previously published
studies.
e
[155] Gasification-FTS- Biomass-to-liquid (BtL) concepts for the production of Syngas from Diesel & 4.0
hydroprocessing. gasoline and diesel via Fischer–Tropsch (FT) biomass Gasoline
synthesis. gasification
[156] Gasification-FTS- Effect of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) catalyst on the 1923.7 MT/ Woody Biomass Diesel Cobalt-based FT
hydroprocessing. production cost of Diesel. day = 4.3
Iron-based FT =
5.0
[157] Gasification-FTS Capital and operating cost for six near-term biomass- 2000 MT/ Corn Strover Liquid fuel Biochemical
Pyrolysis and Biological to-liquid fuels technology scenarios representing day scenarios =
technique three conversion platforms: pyrolysis, gasification, 5.0–5.50
and biochemical were compared Gasification
scenarios =
4.50–5.0
Pyrolysis
scenarios =
2.0–3.0
[158] Gasification-FTS- Biogas derived from anaerobic digestion of organic – Biogas Diesel FT-liquid = 5.29
hydroprocessing. wastes and lignocellulosic biomass was used to
produce drop-in diesel fuel via Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
synthesis.
[159] Gasification-FTS- A techno-economic analysis of carbon-negative algal 100 MT/ algal Diesel 7.9
hydroprocessing. biodiesel production. year
C,e
[160] Gasification-FTS- The techno-economic performance of integrated 1000 Coal & biomass Diesel Coal without
hydroprocessing. gasification facilities producing electricity and/or MWHHV CO2 capture = 2.4
C,e
transportation fuels. Also, the impact of using coal eq Coal with CO2
torrefied biomass instead of coal with Carbon dioxide captured = 1.9
C,e
capture and storage. Biomass with
CO2 capture = 1.6
C,e
Biomass
without CO2
capture = 1.7
C
[129] Gasification-FTS- The long term and short-term technical feasibility and 200 MT/ wood Diesel Short term = 2.1
C
hydroprocessing. economics of biomass integrated gasification–FTS was day Longer term =
evaluated 1.2
L
[161] Catalytic pyrolysis and Compare the economics of two catalytic pyrolysis 2000 MT/ Microalgae Gasoline &Diesel TDCP = 8.1
L
upgrading pathways for the production of drop-in biofuels, each day MDCP = 7.0
pathway employing its own distinct method of
feedstock dewatering: thermal drying (TDCP) or
partial mechanical dewatering (MDCP).
[114] Fast pyrolysis-upgrading Evaluate the techno-economic feasibility of three 2000 MT/ Red oak Gasoline &Diesel 3.09
products from a biomass fast pyrolysis biorefinery: day.
biofuel, biochemical, and hydrocarbon chemicals.
[162] Fast pyrolysis-upgrading Compares the techno-economic feasibility of biofuel 72 MT/day pine wood Liquid fuel P-2RGC = 9.39
production via two conceptual catalyst regeneration P-1RGC = 9.04
configurations (P-1RGC and P-2RGC)
[163] Fast pyrolysis-upgrading The Study evaluate the production cost of producing 2000 MT/ corn stover Diesel & 2.57
gasoline and diesel fuel from corn stover via fast day Gasoline
pyrolysis (FP) and hydroprocessing.
[164] Fast pyrolysis-upgrading Accessing the economic feasibility of producing liquid 72 MT/day Pine wood Diesel & 6.25
fuel from pine wood via fast pyrolysis- Gasoline
hydroprocessing
[93] HTL This study evaluates the economic feasibility of 2000 MT/ Microalgae Gasoline &Diesel 2.6
transportation fuel production by hydrothermal day
liquefaction (HTL) of defatted microalgae followed by
hydroprocessing of the resulting bio-crude.
[92] HTL-Upgrading This study investigated the technical and economic 2000 MT/ woody biomass Transportation SOT case = 4.44
feasibility for producing liquid fuel from biomass by day fuel Goal case = 2.52
the HTL and hydroprocessing at commercial scales.
Two cases were evaluated: a state-of-technology
(SOT) case with HTL experimental testing results
supporting the major design basis and a goal case
(continued on next page)

10
H. Kargbo et al.
Table 3 (continued )
Source Technique Scope of studies
considering future improvements for a commercial
plant with mature technologies.
[165] HTL-Upgrading HTL of sewage sludge from a wastewater treatment
plant for the production of liquid fuel.
[166] Fermentation/acid Biomass components (carbohydrates, proteins, and
reforming (MixAlco process) fats) were converted to carboxylate salts via
fermentation. The intermediate salts are chemically
converted to drop in fuel (gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel
(MixAlco)
[167] Hydroprocessing of esters This study compares the short-term economic
and fatty acids (HEFA), HTL feasibility of different conversion pathways for
and Pyrolysis. renewable jet fuel (RJF) production.
[56] Hydrolysis-Fermentation The study examines the short-term commercial
and Distilation viability of biochemical ethanol production.
e
Price was in Euro and then converted to US$ (1Euro = 1.12US$).
L
Production cost was per litter and then converted to GGE (1GGE = 4.5litter).
C
Production cost was per GJ then converted to GGE (1 GJ = 8.2GGE).
direct impacts involve the conversion of forest resources to crop land for
biofuel production. On the other hand, the indirect impact is an increase
in required cropland for the production of food due to the use of existing
crop land for the production of biofuel. Both factors can significantly
affect carbon and nutrent content in the soil [170,171] and contribute to
climate change [172]. Thus, these factors need to be considered in a
LCA. However, 90% of papers reviewed do not considered land use
changes in their LCA.
The application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in energy crops
and other crops used as biomass feedstocks can significantly increase
GHG footprint, decrease carbon sequesteration [173], and affect biodi­
versity [174]. Moreover, chemical fertilizer production facilities are a
well-known source of methane, nitrogen oxides and carbon emissions
[175].
Complete removal of agricultural residues from the soil is detri­
mental to the fertility of the soil but are in most cases mistakenly
referred to as “agricultural waste”. Most people view their use for the
production of biofuel as an opportunity to give them an economic value
while lowering the overdependence on petroleum fuels without
considering their contribution to soil carbon and nutrient improve­
ments. Crop residues should not be considered as “waste” but a valuable
substance which provides the soil with numerious benefits such as:
reducing soil erosion and water pollution [176], improving the chemi­
cal, physical, and biological properties of the soil [177,178], increases
agronomic production [179], and increase carbon sequestration [180]
thereby mitigating global climate change. Therefore, these need to be
considered in a LCA if agricultural residues are used.
Transporting biomass from the hervesting/collection points to the
refiniery can be a significant source of GHG and therefore forms a sig­
nificant part of the system boundry [181]. However, it is assumed that
the proximity of the two facilities (the field to the biorefinery) and the
mode of transportation determine the degree of environment impact.
In phase 2, the main environment focus is related to the enviromental
issues surrounding the pretreatment methods (biomass densification,
grinding, crushing, drying, fractionation,etc.), overall conversion
(thermochemical and biochemical methods) and upgrading methods.
Pretreatment techinque varies widely with the conversion method to be
used and the types of feedstock and thus can affect the environment
differently. Biomass conversion methods also differ widely in their
processes and operating conditions (temperature, heating rate, pressure
etc.). This in turn affects the types of material used for reactors con­
struction. All these processes contribute to environmental pollution. For
instance, during biomass drying particulates are emmited espicially
when the dryer is operated at high temperatures [182]. Most reactors
are constructed with stainless steel, the stainless steel manufacturer will
have to used iron and chromium ores, along with coke and lime.
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
Plant Size Feedstock End product Production cost
(US$/GGE)
100 MT/ Sewage Sludge Diesel 4.9
day
40 MT/h Biomass Gasoline, jet and 2.56
Diesel
c
1000MT/ Waste from pulp, Jet fuel HTL = 3.1
c
day wheat ethanol, and Pyrolysis = 4.4
c
sugar beet HEFA = 4.3
2000 MT/ corn stover Ethanol 6.3
day
Production, transportation and conversion of ores may have negative
impact on the environment, thereby making the reactor construction a
source of emissions. Gas cleaning and separation in the case of gasifi­
cation require the application of liquid solvent and water together with
filters and cyclone. Harmful gases are emited from the filters and
cyclone, while waste water and solvents will require treatments,
regeneration or landfill disposal. Thus making the gas cleaning process
an other inportant source of pollution.
Phase 3 which is the final phase in the LCA system boundry is where
emmisions related to recycling and demolition need to be considered.
This stage is very important but has been ommited in most of the studies,
which is mostly due to limited data avalaible, since biofuel industries are
relatively new and most have not reach the point of demolition. Plant
demolition can result in the generation of a wide variety of wastes which
requires either recycling or proper waste disposal methods. Also, during
the demolition process dust particles containing green house gases do
evolve, thereby making this phase very inportant in a LCA. Table 4 gives
a summary of previous LCA of gassification-FTS, pyrolysis, HTL and
biochemical pathway (fermentation) including the phases covered,
functional unit and the environmental impact assesed.
5. Results and discussion
Techno-economic analysis (TEA) is a rational way to make mean­
ingful economic comparison between different development paths and
therefore, is used to assess the economic viability of processes. However,
it is difficult to compare TEA results from different studies. This is
because of the wide disparity in the scope covered by each study with
differences in feedstock type and prices, process configuration/plant
design, operating conditions, plant capacity, product yield and different
economic assumptions.
Table 3 (above) shows plant size varying widely from 72 MT/day to
2000 MT/day. Production cost for larger plant (2000 MT/day) using
second generation feedstock ranges from 4.27 to 5.0$/GGE for
gasification-FTS and between 2.0 and 3.09$/GGE for pyrolysis. With
smaller plant sizes (below 1000 MT/day), using second generation
feedstock, production cost ranges between 1.6 and 5.0$/GGE for
gasification-FTS and between 2.2 and 9.4$/GGE for pyrolysis. For HTL
and fermentation, it is difficult to specify the production cost range
because of the limited TEA available with second generation biofuel.
As shown in Table 3, there is wide variation in the assumed feedstock
cost (30$/MT-90$/MT) between the different studies even when the
same feedstock was used with the same pathway to “drop in” fuels.
These variations would directly affect the production cost of the biofuel.
For instance the production cost of “drop in” fuel from a 2000 MT/day
gasification-FTS of woody biomass was 4.3–5.0$/GGE at feedstock cost
H. Kargbo et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168

Table 4
Life cycle analysis (LCA) of various conversion techniques for “drop-in” fuel production.
Sources Technique Phase Functional unit Feedstock End product Environment impact Findings
boundary Assessments

[183] Gasification Phase 1&2 1 MJ Poplar Hydrogen Cumulative energy demand CED = 2.05 MJ eq
(CED), GWP = 1.30⋅10− 1 kg CO2
Global warming (GWP), eq
Ozone layer depletion (ODP), ODP = 1.49⋅10− 8 kg CFC-
Photochemical oxidant 11 eq
formation (POFP), land POFP = 2.20⋅10− 5 kg
competition (LC), C2H4 eq
Acidification (AP) and LC (m2a) = 7.93⋅10− 1 m2a
Eutrophication (EP). AP = 1.16⋅10− 3 kg SO2 eq
EP = 2.52⋅10− 4 kg PO3−
4
eq
[184] Gasification-FTS Phase 2 1GGE Biomass power generation, Global worming potential GWP = 20.92 kg CO2
diesel and
gasoline
[185] Gasification-FTS Phase 2 1500 MT/day Mixed wood chips Electricity, diesel, Abiotic depletion (ADP), global ADP = 2.08 kg Sb eq
gasoline and warming (GWP), ozone layer GWP = 299.93 kg CO2 eq
surplus hydrogen depletion (ODP), ODP = 3.46 × 10− 5 kg
photochemical oxidant CFC-11 eq
formation (POFP), land POFP = 0.10 kg C2H4 eq
competition (LC), acidification LC = 3132.14m2
(AP), and eutrophication (EP). AP = 2.19 kg SO2 eq
EP = 0.68 kg PO3− 4 eq
CED = 6655.19 MJ eq
a
[186] Gasification Phase 2 1 MJ Algae Syngas Carbon emission Carbon footprint =
0.07–0.195 kg CO2 MJ− 1
a
[187] Fermentation Phase 1,2 76 ML bio-jet/year Poplar Jet fuel Global warming potential & GWP = 0.032–0.073 kg
Natural gas steam &part of fossil fuel use CO2 MJ− 1
reforming and phase 3 Fossil fuel usage = 0.71 to
lignin 1.0 CO2MJ− 1
gasification
[188] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1&2 11.6 MT Corn grain &corn Ethanol and Greenhouse gas emission 52.1% reduction in GHG
strover gasoline (GHG) emissions.
[189] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1&2 500tonnes/day Poplar Gasoline and Cumulative energy demand CED = 24,482.30 MJ eq
diesel (CED), GWP = 2197.38 kg CO2
Global warming (GWP), ozone eq
layer depletion (ODP), ODP = 1.43,104 kg CFC-
photochemical oxidant 11 eq
formation (POFP), POFP = 0.40 kg C2H4 eq
Land competition (LC), LC = 1966.26 m2
acidification (AP) and AP = 5.33 kg SO2 eq
eutrophication (EP). EP = 1.19 kg PO−4 3 4 eq
a
[190] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1,2& 1 km travelled by a Biomass gasoline and Greenhouse gas emission GHG Gasoline = 0.117
part of light-duty diesel kg CO2 eq km− 1
a
phase 3 passenger vehicle GHG Diesel = 0.098 kg
operated on fuels CO2 eq km− 1
generated via
pyrolysis
[191] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1&2 1 MJ Corn stover Biofuels Global worming potential Net reduction in GWP =
(GWP) & non-renewable 69–119%
energy demand (NRED) NRED = 67–148%
[192] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1,2& 267MJ/dry tonne Corn stover gasoline Greenhouse gas emission GHG savings = 60%
part of
phase 3
[193] Fast pyrolysis Phase 2 1 MJ Hybrid poplar Gasoline and Greenhouse gas emission GHG savings = 54.5%
diesel
[194] Fast pyrolysis Phase 2 &2 0.25 MJ/km Corn stover Gasoline & Diesel Global worming potential GWP for a vehicle fuelled
&part of (gasoline) by gasoline = 0.037 kg
phase 3 0.23 MJ/km CO2eq per km travelled
(diesel) and GWP for a vehicle
fuelled by diesel = 0.015
kg CO2eq per km travelled
[195] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1&2 1 MJ of fuel 7 biomass feedstocks liquid Greenhouse gas emission GHG emission reduction
combusted in an (pine, tulip poplar, transportation from fuel obtained from
automobile. hybrid poplar, fuels the tulip poplar = ~70%
switchgrass, corn Fuel from the blend
stover) and blended process has GHG emission
feed reduction = ~58%
[196] Fast pyrolysis Phase 1&2 1 kg of bio oil Forest harvest Bio oil and Greenhouse gas emission GHG emissions reduction
residues biochar = 50%
[197] Fast pyrolysis Phase 2 1 MJ Corn stover polyol fuel Global worming potential GWP = 0.0444 kgCO2, eq
per MJ
[198] FTS, HTL Phase 1&2 1 MJ Sugarcane &Corn Jet fuel Greenhouse gas emission FTS pathways GHG
&Alcohol-to-Jet Strover emission reduction =
(continued on next page)

12
H. Kargbo et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168

Table 4 (continued )
Sources Technique Phase Functional unit Feedstock End product Environment impact Findings
boundary Assessments

86–104%
HTL GHG emission
reduction = 77–80%
Alcohol-to-Jet GHG
emission reduction =
60–75%
[199] HTL Phase 1&2 1 GJ Microalgae bio-jet fuel Greenhouse gas emission 76% GHG emissions
cultivated in reduction = 76%
wastewater effluent
[200] HTL Phase 2 1 kg Palm bio-oil CO2 emission CO2 emission = 2.29 kg
CO2/kg of bio-oil
2 a
[201] HTL & lipid Phase 1,2 25 g/m /day Algae Diesel CO2 emission HTL emissions =
extraction (LE) &part of 31kgCO2eq
a
phase 3 LE emission = 21.5
kgCO2eq
a
[202] Fermentation- Phase 2 1 MJ Dairy effluent Diesel Greenhouse gas emission GHG = 0.03 kg-CO2-eq
HTL MJ− 1.
[203] Fermentation Phase 1&2 Cultivation and Seaweed Bioethanol CO2 emission. CO2 emissions = 961 kg of
processing of one CO2/MT of dry seaweed
tonne of dry cultivation and processing
seaweed biomass
[204] Fermentation Phase 1&2 1 Kg Pulp and paper Ethanol Abiotic depletion (AD), Global AD = 3.12 × 10− 7kg Sbeq
sludge. warming (GWP), Ozone layer GWP = 6.12 × 10− 2kg
depletion (OLD), CO2eq
Human toxicity (HT), Fresh OLD = 1.44 × 10− 8kg
water aquatic exotoxin CFC-11eq
(FWAE), Marine aquatic HT = 4.12 × 10− 2kg 1,4-
ecotoxicity (MAE), Terrestrial DBeq
ecotoxicity (TE), FWAE = 2.26 × 10− 2kg
Photochemical oxidation (PO), 1,4-DBeq
Acidification(A), MAE = 5.57 × 101kg 1,4-
Eutrophication(E) DBeq
TE = 2.69 × 10− 4kg 1,4-
DBeq
PO = 3.47 × 10− 5kg
C2H4eq
A = 4.91 × 10− 4kg SO2eq
E = 7.20 × 10− 4kg
PO3−
4 eq
a
[205] Fermentation Phase 1&2 1 MJ corn and sugarcane Biobutanol Greenhouse gas emission GHG emissions corn
butanol = 0.079–0.122 kg
CO2− eq/MJ
a
GHG emissions
sugarcane butanol
= 0.055–0.018
kgCO2− eq/MJ
[206] Gas Fermentation Phase 1&2 1 MJ corn stover, forest Ethanol Greenhouse gas emission GHG emission reductions
residue, or switch = 90%.
grass, syngas via
gasification
a
GHG were previously in gCO2 and then converted to kg CO2 (1000 g = 1 kg).

of 58$/MT (5$/GJ) [156] but 2.1–1.2$/GGE at a feedstock cost of 23
$/MT (2$/GJ) [129]. For a plant utilising corn stover at the same plant
size, the production cost of “drop in” fuel was estimated to be 4.27–4.83
$/GGE at an assumed feedstock cost of 75$/MT [152]. For a fast py­
rolysis plant (2000 MT/day) utilising wood a production cost of 6.25
$/GGE at an assumed feedstock cost of 90$/MT [164] was reported.
With corn stover as a feedstock the production cost was 2.57$/GGE at an
assumed feedstock of 83$/MT [163]. Similarly, the different feedstock
used by the different study has different pretreatment approaches and
therefore associated pretreatment cost. Thus, the feed handling and
processing cost (size reduction, removal of metals, drying and other
pretreatment) vary widely between different feedstock which in turn
affect the capital investment cost. For instance the feed handling and
drying cost for a 2000 MT/day gasification plant with woody biomass
cost around (MM$18) [207] accounting for about 18% of the total
capital investment cost. For a plant of the same size utilising corn stover
as feedstock the cost can go as high as (MM$22) [208] accounting for
approximately 19% of the total capital investment cost. For a fast py­
rolysis plant utilising 72 MT/day pinewood, the feed handling and
drying (pretreatment) cost was reported to account for 32% (MM$ 2.08)
of the total capital investment cost [164].
Finally, different study scope was covered by the different re­
searchers (Table 3). Thus, the result from one study based on a specific
scope cannot be directly compared with another study even if the same
biofuel conversion paths were used. Thus, in other to make meaningful
comparison between the different biofuel paths, studies should be of
similar scope even when different pathways to biofuel are considered.
From Table 3, the production cost for “drop-in” fuel is $1.6–5.50/GGE
via gasification-FTS, $2.6 to 9.3/GGE via fast pyrolysis-upgrading and
$3.1–4.44/GGE via HTL for 2nd generation feedstock. With 3rd gener­
ation feedstock, HTL can produce liquid fuel at a relatively lower cost (~
$2.6/GGE) than gasification-FTS (~$7.9/GGE) and pyrolysis (~$8.1/
GGE), which is partly because of the no drying cost in HTL as it can
readily accept feedstock with high moisture content (e.g. algae, sewage
sludge etc.). Even though HTL can produce liquid fuel at a relatively
lower cost (due to it tolerant to high moist feedstock) than the other two
thermochemical pathways, it is still a relatively new technique with no
pilot or demonstration scale plants. Therefore, there is great uncertainty

13
H. Kargbo et al.
Fig. 8. Overall system boundaries of a life cycle analysis of biofuel production from biomass.
with regards equipment cost estimation and plant design. For fermen­
tation, it was difficult to specify range due to the limited TEA available
with respect to “drop-in” fuel production. The wide ranges are due to the
wide disparities in economic assumptions and scope covered by the
different researchers. This observation was also made by Brown et al.
[209], when they conducted a TEA review of thermochemical cellulosic
biofuel pathways, there reported production cost of biofuel from ther­
mochemical conversion method ranges from $1.93 to $7.11/GGE [209].
The wide range in there cost of production was also ascribed to different
economic assumptions and scope between researches.
A key bottleneck with “drop-in” fuels is their relatively high pro­
duction cost mainly associated to the high feedstock cost especially with
first generation feedstock. Also, the low density of the feedstock makes it
very difficult and cost consuming to transport to the processing sites.
Pretreatment cost is also a contributing factor to the production cost
[210]. These limit the effectiveness of bio-refineries when located away
from the biomass sources [152,211]. Feedstock costs account for
40–60% of the production cost of biofuels [212,213]. For instance,
woody and herbaceous energy crops cost between US$60–94/MT, forest
and agricultural residues cost between US$15–50/MT etc. (Table 1
above). Hence, sustainability and economies of scale in biofuel tech­
nologies depends largely on the feedstock and its associated costs such as
growing and harvesting, transportation and pretreatment etc.
Another problem is related to the downstream processing of the
crude biofuels i.e. Syngas cleaning and conditioning to meet down­
stream requirement in the case of gasification-FTS and hydroprocessing
(upgrading) of bio-oil in order to get the required liquid fuel in the case
of fast pyrolysis and HTL. Syngas cleaning and conditioning on average
can account for about 12–15% of the total production cost of FTS-liquid
[207,208]. This cost is associated with the cost of catalyst (tar reformer
catalyst, shift catalyst, steam reformer catalyst etc.) wastewater (from
scrubbers) treatment and other utilities. Similarly, the cost of syngas
cleaning equipment has been proven to be very expensive (33.5 MM$ for
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
a 2000 MT/day plant), accounting for 11% of the total installed
equipment cost.
Eleven modelling pathways for FT-liquid production with five
altered gasifiers were simulated via Aspen plus by Tijmensen et al.
[129]. It was reported that production costs of FT diesel in short term
were about 1.8–2.1$/GGE but reduced to 1.2$/GGE in the longer term
with large-scale production, high CO conversion, high C5+ selectivity
and better understanding of the technique. It was also reported that the
cost of gasification, pretreatment, gas cleaning equipment and
oxygen-blow accounted for about 75% of the overall cost of the equip­
ment [129]. Similar findings were also reported by Refs. [155,207,208].
Hydroprocessing (upgrading) of bio-oil in order to get the required
liquid fuel has been identified as one of the most cost consuming aspect
in pyrolysis and HTL (accounting 61% of the total investment cost [164]
and 14–18% of the production cost [214]). Moreover, liquid fuel yield
from pyrolysis and HTL are normally low compared to gasification-FTS
[215]. Zhang et al. [215] evaluated the economic feasibility of a 2000
MT/day red oak feedstock biorefinery producing transportation fuels
from biomass fast pyrolysis-upgrading. The hydrogen required for
hydroprossing the crude bio-oil was generated on-site via steam
reforming of the by-product aqueous fraction. The author discovered
that hydrotreatment and reforming equipment contributed the highest
capital cost of $70 million (33% of the overall capital cost). Sensitivity
analysis established that feedstock cost, fixed capital cost, product yields
are the most influential parameter on the economy of the process [215].
Another study by Zhu et al. [92] on the TEA of HTL was carried out to
determine it economic feasibility on short term and long term basis.
They reported that hydrotreatment and hydrocracking of the crud
bio-oil to get the desired liquid fuel was the most cost implicating aspect
of the whole system, sharing 49–61% of the total installed equipment
cost [92].
Overall, in terms of development status and the TEA, gasification-
FTS is considered as the most promising technique for “drop-in” fuel
H. Kargbo et al.
production over the other methods (pyrolysis, HTL and fermentation).
This is because of its flexibility towards feedstock acceptance and the
ability to produced high yield liquid fuel together with other economical
viable fuel such as heat and electricity in an integrated setting.
Furthermore, gasification-FTS technology is in the forefront of devel­
opment for liquid fuel production, the other techniques are still in their
early stage of development and need further research. However,
gasification-FTS is still facing problems with relatively high cost of
production due to syngas clean up and conditioning, catalyst selection
and liquid fuel upgrading to fit into existing infrastructure. Biochemical
routes to “drop-in” fuels are still in the early development stage, and
therefore requires more studies and pilot-scale experiments in order to
discover an economic and sustainable means of using these methods.
Also, biochemical conversion processes of sugar to hydrocarbon often
resulted in low liquid fuel yield (44% from wheat straw [145],39% from
sugar cane bagasse [146] and 49% from maize [147]). Furthermore,
biochemical routes, have limited TEA, both in number and consideration
of the upgrading process to produce “drop-in” fuels for transportation.
This may be because the end products of most biochemical routes are
ethanol or butanol, which are valuable chemicals/fuels that can be
utilised directly or blended with fossil fuel in most engines. Therefore,
further upgrading to diesel, kerosene etc. is not deemed necessary by
many.
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is used to assess the impact that processes/
activities may have on the environment. The analysis is normally based
on a specify function unit and scope/goal. To enable comparison be­
tween LCA results from different studies, they must be of the same
functional unit and similar scope. From Table 4 above, different studies
selected different function unit based on their specific objectives, study
scope and system boundary. Typical functional units used by the
different literatures are: Mass of the feedstock (e.g. MT of biomass),
transportation distance travelled (e.g. Km travelled by a vehicle oper­
ated on fuels generated), unit of energy produced (e.g.) and biofuel yield
(e.g. litter of fuel) etc. Comparing these different functional units is
virtually impossible as the unit of measurement are different and the
system boundaries (upon which the different functional units are
selected) vary widely across the entire literatures. Furthermore, GHG
emissions factor in all the studies were allocated to the co-products via
different methods (either mass and energy balance, economic value or
displacement methods). The complications from non-consistent parti­
tioning and co-product allocation together with other factors such as
variation in system boundaries, method used to perform the LCA, plant
size, pathway designs, type of feedstock, different assumptions, func­
tional unit, environment impact, and quality and quantity of biofuel
produced limit meaningful comparison between research results.
Most of the LCA studies mainly focus on phase 1 and phase 2. Few
studies have attempted to cover all three phases of the LCA and omitted
a wide range of environmental impacts. A few studies covered a wide
range of impact assessment and indicated that the most influential fac­
tors on the LCA were biomass cultivation, harvesting, biomass pre­
treatment, and transportation. A LCA of poplar gasification for hydrogen
production was performed by Iribarren et al. [183]. Several environ­
mental impact (cumulative energy demand, ozone layer depletion,
global warming potential, photochemical oxidant, land use competition,
eutrophication potential and acidification potential) were assessed. It
was reveal that, biomass pretreatment, Poplar cultivation and harvest­
ing were the highest contributor to the environmental impacts [183]. De
Jong et al. [198] compared the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission per­
formance of various renewable jet fuel production methods (FTS, HTL
and Alcohol to jet) and explored the effect of different co-product allo­
cation methods. They reported that FTS pathways yield the highest GHG
emission reduction (86–104%) compared to fossil jet fuel, followed by
HTL (77–80%) and alcohol-to-jet (60–75%). They also reported that
cultivation of feedstock (sugarcane &corn) was among the major con­
tributors to the overall GHG emission. Zhang et al. [194] evaluated the
environmental implication of producing transportation fuels and
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
hydrogen via fast pyrolysis-upgrading of corn stover. They reported a
net GWP of 0.015 kg CO2eq and 0.037 kg CO2eq per km travelled by a
vehicle fuel with the produced biodiesel and biogasoline, respectively.
They also revealed that biomass transportation was the process with the
highest ozone depletion impact among all other unit processes [194].
Thus, obtaining local biomass will significantly reduce emission related
to transportation. Using waste biomass as a feedstock (2nd generation
biofuels) would be more environmentally friendly through elimi­
nating/reducing the cultivation and harvesting steps. As a result, robust
processes using waste biomass are far more economically and environ­
mentally viable.
The cultivation and harvesting of biomass have shown negative
impact on the environment due to land use changes (which lead to in­
crease in the emission of GHG, land degradation, degradation of water
resources, forest degradation and escalation of food prices). Feedstock
production activities such as application of synthetic fertilizers to in­
crease crop yield has been linked to one of the sources of GHG emission
[216,217]. About 1–1.5% of nitrogen present in fertilizer can be emitted
as NO2 when applied to crops in order to boost yield [218]. N2O is a
dangerous GHG with a global worming potential that is 298times more
potent than CO2 [219], therefore significantly affecting the GHG balance
of biomass fuel. The effect of N2O is particularly associated with first
generation feedstock cultivation as they are largely based on the appli­
cation of fertilizer [216]. Conversion of forestry and natural vegetation
for the cultivation of biofuel feedstock has also shown to release of
significant amount of GHG due to the loss of soil and biomass carbon,
thus affecting the environment negatively [220,221]. Also, soil may lose
carbon as a result of biomass cultivation and thus release CO2 into the
environment [222,223]. LCA of biofuel production excluding land use
changes reported that biofuel from first generation feedstock (e.g. corn,
sugar cane) can lower carbon footprint more than their fossil counter­
part [188,205,224]. However, in reality if land use changes are factored
in the LCA, the carbon footprint will significantly reduce or even surpass
there fossil fuel counterpart [225–227]. Almost all the studies tabulated
in Table 4 above ignored land use changes in their LCA.
Overall, all biofuel conversion methods show a reduction in global
warming potential and GHG emission (when LUC are ignored in the
LCA) compared to their fossil fuel counterpart. Biofuels obtained from
first generation feedstock (e.g. corn, sugar cane etc.) can reduced GHG
emission on average of 50–75% [188,198]. However, biofuel from sec­
ond generation have a greater potential to reduce GHG emission
(50–100%) [191] than first generation biofuels. With third generation
feedstock (microalgae cultivated in wastewater effluent), GHG emission
can be reduced to about 76% [199].
Based on the above discussion, the economic and environmental
sustainability of biofuel production from biomass greatly depend on the
feedstock production activities and it associated costs [228]. Therefore,
there is an urgent need for the improvement and optimisation of the
production efficiency of feedstock if there should exist the realistic
possibility for them to substitute conventional fuels.
5.1. Recommendation, challenges and future studies
Based on our review and subsequent discussions, the following
recommendation, challenges and research gaps are identified:
• There was no comparative TEA and LCA covering all the biofuel
pathways to “drop-in” fuel on the same basis. Therefore, it is rec­
ommended that a comparative TEA and LCA analyses of the different
biofuel pathways to “drop-in” fuels are conducted on the same basis
as these will aid easy comparison among the different pathways both
in terms of economic and environmental aspects.
• LCA analysis is based on different method, standard and functional
units. This limit s comparison between the different studies. There­
fore, it is recommended that a robust and uniform standard for LCA is
set and agreed upon to provide a meaningful tool for sustainability
H. Kargbo et al.
assessments. This must also include improving the transparency with
which research and their findings are presented.
• There is no available TEA conducted on feedstock blends, which is a
very important area for producing robust processes where one
feedstock availability is insufficient to be economically sustainable.
These gaps require consideration in subsequent TEA studies.
• One of the challenges of gasification- FTS is gas cleaning and con­
ditioning to meet the requirement of the FT-catalysts. Therefor it is
recommended that more R & D should be shifted towards developing
a catalyst that is susceptible to a wide range of impurities in syngas as
this would greatly lower the cost of producing FT-liquid.
• HTL can produce a liquid fuel at a lower production cost of 2.6–4.9/
GGE especially with third generation feedstock (algae) which is
partly because it can readily accept feedstock with high moisture
content (e.g. algae, sewage sludge etc.). However, it is still a rela­
tively new technology with no pilot or demonstration scale plants.
Therefore, there are great uncertainties with regards equipment cost
estimation and plant design. Thus, it is recommended that more TEA
studies should be conducted to minimise the likelihood of under­
estimating or overestimating process cost. Similarly, more LCA needs
to be conducted on this technique in order to better understand it
environmental implications.
• Fast pyrolysis experiences rapid catalyst deactivation during
upgrading due to the presence of water and oxygenated compounds
in the bio oil. Therefore, it is recommended that more research must
be carried out to identify catalysts that are highly resistant to
oxygenated compounds and water. Moreover, there are serious
problems with regards to liquid yield, this too should be further
investigated in future research in order to optimise bio oil yield.
• Most studies alluded to the fact that large-scale cultivation of biofuel
crops may potentially damage the natural environment and compete
with food production. Major strategies should be adopted and
implemented to significantly increase feedstock productivity without
seriously compromising with the environment. These may range
from utilisation of 2nd generation biofuel feedstock and their asso­
ciated waste residues, growing of feedstock crops that are of low
agrochemical demands can also help. Better still, is to grow and
harvest feedstock that will improve the environment and avoid
further competition with food crops on the arable land. For instance,
polluted aquatic wastewater can serve as host environment for
microalgae production. This has the double effect of removing the
environmental pollutants and providing feedstock for biofuel pro­
duction. Microalgae can also be produced in open ponds as a way of
avoiding completion with food crops.
• LCA of biofuel production excluding land use changes reported that
biofuel from both first, second and third generation feedstock (eg.
corn, sugar cane) can lower carbon footprint more than their fossil
fuel counterpart. However, land use changes have been shown to
have negative effect on the environment. Therefore, in order to
guarantee sustainable biofuel production from biomass, it is impor­
tant to minimise possible LUC initiated by biomass feedstock culti­
Declaration of competing interest
vation. Moreover, subsequent LCA should include LUC in order to
clearly unearth the environmental issue associated with biofuel
production.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
5.2. Conclusions
Acknowledgement
This review focuses on techno-environ-economics of gasification,
pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction (thermochemical methods) and
mission, United Kingdom for their financial support.
fermentation (biochemical methods) to “drop-in” fuels. The following
conclusions were drawn:
References
• “Drop-in” fuels have many advantages over fossil fuels notably lower
carbon and greenhouse gas emissions (50–100% reduction of GHG)
and is sustainable. However, the production cost of “drop-in” (~5–6
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
$/gallon) fuels is currently higher (~2times) than fossil fuels (3
$/gallon) especially with the use of 2nd generation feedstock.
• The primary sources of cost with “drop-in” fuel production are
feedstock cost (40–60% of the total production), syngas cleaning and
conditioning to meet Fischer-Tropsch synthesis requirement
(12–15% of the total production cost) and bio oil upgrading (14–18%
of the total production cost) in the case of fast pyrolysis and HTL.
• It was difficult to make meaningful comparison between TEA and
LCA results from different researchers, this is because of the wide
disparity in the scope covered by each researcher with differences in
feedstock type and prices, process configuration/plant design,
operating conditions, plant capacity, product yield, different eco­
nomic assumptions, different functional unit (LCA), different system
boundary (LCA) etc. However, Gasification-FTS is considered as the
most promising technique for “drop-in” fuels production, because of
its flexibility towards feedstock acceptance and the ability to pro­
duced high yield liquid fuel together with other economical viable
fuel such as heat and electricity in an integrated setting. Moreover,
Gasification-FTS technology is in the forefront of development for
liquid fuel production, the other techniques are still in their early
development stages. However, gasification is still facing problems
due to syngas clean up and upgrading, catalyst deactivation and
liquid fuel upgrading to fit in to existing infrastructure
• Fast-pyrolysis-upgrading has the potential of producing liquid fuel
from a wide range of feedstocks and at a relatively lower production
cost. However, the upgrading process to “drop in” fuel has not been
demonstrated in any known pilot plants. Similarly, HTL can produce
liquid fuel at a lower production cost (2.6–4.9/GGE) especially with
third generation feedstock (algae) because it can accept feedstocks
with high moisture content (e.g. Algae, sewage sludge etc.). How­
ever, this has not be proven beyond lab scale experimentation.
• The most influential factors on the LCA were biomass cultivation,
harvesting, biomass pre-treatment, and transportation, which means
that obtaining local biomass significantly reduces costs and GHG
emission. Using waste biomass as a feedstock (2nd generation bio­
fuels) would reduce costs and GHG emission significantly through
eliminating/reducing the cultivation and harvesting steps. As a
result, robust processes using waste biomass are far more economi­
cally and environmentally viable, especially as biofuel from second
generation have a greater potential to reduce GHG emissions
(50–100%) than first generation biofuels (50–90%).
• Biochemical routes (fermentation) to “drop-in” fuels are still in the
early development stage. Presently, the technique is only applicable
for first generation feedstock (sugar), with second generation feed­
stock microbial adaption to lignocellulosic sugars is limited and
therefore yield is very low (44% from wheat straw, 39% from sugar
cane bagasse and 49% from maize). Thus, this technique requires
more studies and pilot-scale experiments in order to discover an
economic and sustainable means of using it.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
The authors would like to thank Commonwealth Scholarship Com­
[1] Dupuis DP, Grim RG, Nelson E, Tan EC, Ruddy DA, Hernandez S, et al. High-
octane gasoline from biomass: experimental, economic, and environmental
assessment. Appl Energy 2019;241:25–33.
H. Kargbo et al.
[2] Gamliel DP, Bollas GM, Valla JA. Two-stage catalytic fast hydropyrolysis of
biomass for the production of drop-in biofuel. Fuel 2018;216:160–70.
[3] Zupko R. Life cycle assessment of the production of gasoline and diesel from
forest residues using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2019:1–12.
[4] Kumar P, Varkolu M, Mailaram S, Kunamalla A, Maity SK. Biorefinery
polyutilization systems: production of green transportation fuels from biomass.
In: Polygeneration with polystorage for chemical and energy hubs. Elsevier;
2019. p. 373–407.
[5] Zhang X, Brown RC. Introduction to thermochemical processing of biomass into
fuels, chemicals, and power. Thermochemical Processing of Biomass: Conversion
into Fuels 2019:1–16. Chemicals and Power.
[6] Lopez JS, Dagle RA, Dagle VL, Smith C, Albrecht KO. Oligomerization of ethanol-
derived propene and isobutene mixtures to transportation fuels: catalyst and
process considerations. Catalysis Science & Technology 2019;9:1117–31.
[7] Dabros TMH, Stummann MZ, Høj M, Jensen PA, Grunwaldt J-D, Gabrielsen J,
et al. Transportation fuels from biomass fast pyrolysis, catalytic
hydrodeoxygenation, and catalytic fast hydropyrolysis. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2018;68:268–309.
[8] Sun S, Yang R, Wang X, Yan S. Hydrogenation and hydrodeoxygenation of
biomass-derived oxygenates to liquid alkanes for transportation fuels. Data in
brief 2018;17:638–46.
[9] Bond JQ, Upadhye AA, Olcay H, Tompsett GA, Jae J, Xing R, et al. Production of
renewable jet fuel range alkanes and commodity chemicals from integrated
catalytic processing of biomass. Energy Environ Sci 2014;7:1500–23.
[10] Zhang Y, Bi P, Wang J, Jiang P, Wu X, Xue H, et al. Production of jet and diesel
biofuels from renewable lignocellulosic biomass. Appl Energy 2015;150:128–37.
[11] Yang Z, Qian K, Zhang X, Lei H, Xin C, Zhang Y, et al. Process design and
economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into jet fuel range
cycloalkanes. Energy 2018;154:289–97.
[12] European Council (Euco169/14 EC). 2030 climate and energy policy framework.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec
/145397.pdf. [Accessed 21 June 2019].
[13] Sorda G, Banse M, Kemfert C. An overview of biofuel policies across the world.
Energy Pol 2010;38:6977–88.
[14] Luthra S, Kumar S, Garg D, Haleem A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy
technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:
762–76.
[15] Lee RA, Lavoie J-M. From first-to third-generation biofuels: challenges of
producing a commodity from a biomass of increasing complexity. Animal
Frontiers 2013;3:6–11.
[16] Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK. Production of first and second generation
biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:578–97.
[17] Naqvi M, Yan J. First-generation biofuels. Handbook of clean energy systems.
2015. p. 1–18.
[18] Allen B, Baldock D. Nanni S,Bowyer, Sustainability criteria for biofuels made
from land and non-land based feedstocks. Report for the European Climate
Foundation. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 2016. London,
https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/cc72ca6f-7361-4e9b-b208 3c90e
8308c98/ieep_2016_sustainability_criteria_for_biofuels_post_2020.pdf?v=63
664509950. [Accessed 28 September 2019].
[19] Guerrero AB, Muñoz E. Life cycle assessment of second generation ethanol
derived from banana agricultural waste: environmental impacts and energy
balance. J Clean Prod 2018;174:710–7.
[20] Hu Y, Wang S, Li J, Wang Q, He Z, Feng Y, et al. Co-pyrolysis and co-
hydrothermal liquefaction of seaweeds and rice husk: comparative study towards
enhanced biofuel production. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2018;129:162–70.
[21] Danquah JA, Roberts CO, Appiah M. Elephant grass (pennisetum purpureum): a
potential source of biomass for power generation in Ghana. Current Journal of
Applied Science and Technology 2018:1–12.
[22] Czekała W, Bartnikowska S, Dach J, Janczak D, Smurzyńska A, Kozłowski K, et al.
The energy value and economic efficiency of solid biofuels produced from
digestate and sawdust. Energy 2018;159:1118–22.
[23] Mohr A, Raman S. Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the
sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energy Pol 2013;63:
114–22.
[24] Nguyen Q, Bowyer J, Howe J, Bratkovich S, Groot H, Pepke E, et al. Global
production of second generation biofuels: Trends and influences 2017.
[25] Hassan SS, Williams GA, Jaiswal AK. Moving towards the second generation of
lignocellulosic biorefineries in the EU: drivers, challenges, and opportunities.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;101:590–9.
[26] Santamaría M, Azqueta D. Promoting biofuels use in Spain: a cost-benefit
analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1415–24.
[27] Lazar MD, Senila L, Dan M, Mihet M. Crude bioethanol reforming process: the
advantage of a biosource exploitation. In: Ethanol. Elsevier; 2019. p. 257–88.
[28] Lam MK, Khoo CG, Lee KT. Scale-up and commercialization of algal cultivation
and biofuels production. In: Biofuels from algae. Elsevier; 2019. p. 475–506.
[29] Dahman Y, Syed K, Begum S, Roy P, Mohtasebi B. Biofuels: their characteristics
and analysis. Biomass. In: Biopolymer-based materials, and bioenergy. Elsevier;
2019. p. 277–325.
[30] Ben-Amotz A, Gilboa A. Cryopreservation of marine unicellular algae. I. A survey
of algae with regard to size, culture age, photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll-
to-cell ratio. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1980;2:157–61.
[31] Gambelli D, Alberti F, Solfanelli F, Vairo D, Zanoli R. Third generation algae
biofuels in Italy by 2030: a scenario analysis using Bayesian networks. Energy Pol
2017;103:165–78.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
[32] Ribeiro LA, da Silva PP, Mata TM, Martins AA. Prospects of using microalgae for
biofuels production: results of a Delphi study. Renew Energy 2015;75:799–804.
[33] Yang Y, Tilman D, Lehman C, Trost JJ. Sustainable intensification of high-
diversity biomass production for optimal biofuel benefits. Nature Sustainability
2018;1:686.
[34] Tham R, Bowatte G, Dharmage S, Morgan G, Marks G, Cowie C. Health Co-
benefits and impacts of transitioning from fossil-fuel based to cleaner energy
sources in higher-income countries: what do we know? ISEE conference
Abstracts2018.
[35] Kang K, Zhu M, Sun G, Guo X. Fossil fuels versus biofuels: perspectives on
greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumptions, and projections. Fuel Processing
and Energy Utilization: Chapman and Hall/CRC 2019:1–14.
[36] Ouraich I, Wetterlund E, Forsell N, Lundmark R. A spatial-explicit price impact
analysis of increased biofuel production on forest feedstock markets: a scenario
analysis for Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 2018;119:364–80.
[37] De Laporte AV, Ripplinger DG. The effects of site selection, opportunity costs and
transportation costs on bioethanol production. Renew Energy 2019;131:73–82.
[38] Gunukula S, Daigneault A, Boateng AA, Mullen CA, DeSisto WJ, Wheeler MC.
Influence of upstream, distributed biomass-densifying technologies on the
economics of biofuel production. Fuel 2019;249:326–33.
[39] Uslu A, Faaij APC, Bergman PCA. Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect on
international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of
torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation. Energy 2008;33:1206–23.
[40] Aulakh JRA. Post-harvest food losses estimation-development of consistent
methodology food and agriculture organization of the united nations. 2013.
[41] Van Vliet OP, Faaij AP, Turkenburg WC. Fischer–Tropsch diesel production in a
well-to-wheel perspective: a carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy
Convers Manag 2009;50:855–76.
[42] Hamelinck CN, Suurs RA, Faaij AP. International bioenergy transport costs and
energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:114–34.
[43] Richard TL. Challenges in scaling up biofuels infrastructure. Science 2010;329:
793–6.
[44] Eranki PL, Bals BD, Dale BE. Advanced regional biomass processing depots: a key
to the logistical challenges of the cellulosic biofuel industry. Biofuels, Bioproducts
and Biorefining 2011;5:621–30.
[45] Carolan JE, Joshi SV, Dale BE. Technical and financial feasibility analysis of
distributed bioprocessing using regional biomass pre-processing centers. J Agric
Food Ind Organ 2007:5.
[46] Carvalheiro F, Duarte LC, Gírio FM. Hemicellulose biorefineries: a review on
biomass pretreatments. J Sci Ind Res 2008:849–64.
[47] Bhutto AW, Qureshi K, Harijan K, Abro R, Abbas T, Bazmi AA, et al. Insight into
progress in pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Energy 2017;122:724–45.
[48] Brodeur G, Yau E, Badal K, Collier J, Ramachandran K, Ramakrishnan S.
Chemical and physicochemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass: a review.
Enzyme research 2011:2011.
[49] Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Biomass combined heat and power catalog
of technologies. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201507/documents/
biomass_combined_heat_and_power_catalog_of_technologies_v.1.1.pdf. [Accessed
14 July 2019].
[50] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable energy cost
analysis. www.irena.org/publications/. [Accessed 28 July 2019]. 2012/Jun/
Renewable-Energy-Cost-Analysis–-Biomass-for-Power-Generation;2012.
[51] Maung TA, Gustafson CR, Saxowsky DM, Nowatzki J, Miljkovic T, Ripplinger D.
The logistics of supplying single vs. multi-crop cellulosic feedstocks to a
biorefinery in southeast North Dakota. Appl Energy 2013;109:229–38.
[52] Sara Thorsella FME, Raymond L, Huhnkeb, Charles M. Taliaferroc. Economics of
a coordinated biore nery feedstock harvest system: lignocellulosic biomass
harvest cost. Elsevier 2004:27. 327 – 37.
[53] Aravindhakshan SC, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM. Economics of switchgrass and
miscanthus relative to coal as feedstock for generating electricity. Biomass
Bioenergy 2010;34:1375–83.
[54] Manzone M, Airoldi G, Balsari P. Energetic and economic evaluation of a poplar
cultivation for the biomass production in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:
1258–64.
[55] Zheng J, Rehmann L. Extrusion pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass: a review.
Int J Mol Sci 2014;15:18967–84.
[56] Kazi FK, Fortman JA, Anex RP, Hsu DD, Aden A, Dutta A, et al. Techno-economic
comparison of process technologies for biochemical ethanol production from corn
stover. Fuel 2010;89:S20–8.
[57] Allwright MR, Taylor G. Molecular breeding for improved second generation
bioenergy crops. Trends Plant Sci 2016;21:43–54.
[58] Adler PR, Sanderson MA, Boateng AA, Weimer PJ, Jung H-JG. Biomass yield and
biofuel quality of switchgrass harvested in fall or spring. Agron J 2006;98:
1518–25.
[59] Merrick P, Fei S. Plant regeneration and genetic transformation in switchgrass—a
review. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2015;14:483–93.
[60] Clifton-Brown J, Harfouche A, Casler MD, Dylan Jones H, Macalpine WJ,
Murphy-Bokern D, et al. Breeding progress and preparedness for mass-scale
deployment of perennial lignocellulosic biomass crops switchgrass, miscanthus,
willow and poplar. Gcb Bioenergy 2019;11:118–51.
[61] Rooney WL, Blumenthal J, Bean B, Mullet JE. Designing sorghum as a dedicated
bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 2007;1:147–57.
[62] Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Biofuel costs, technologies and
economics in APEC economies report, file:///H:/Downloads/210_ewg_Biofuel-
Production-Cost.pdf. 2010 [accesses September 2019;12.
H. Kargbo et al.
[63] Marsac Sylvain, Labalette Françoise, Savoure, Marie-Laure, Costes, Jean-Louis &
Berthelot, Alain & François, Damien & Pittochi, Sophie & Gomes, Céline &
Vivancos, Caroline. Energy crops and woody biomass production cost
comparison. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269100391_Energy_cro
ps_and_woody_biomass_production_cost_comparison. [Accessed 29 July 2019].
[64] Aresta M, Dibenedetto A, Dumeignil F. Biorefinery: from biomass to chemicals
and fuels. Walter de Gruyter 2012.
[65] Dyjakon A. Harvesting and baling of pruned biomass in apple orchards for energy
production. Energies 2018;11:1680.
[66] Mafakheri F, Nasiri F. Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations:
applications, challenges and research directions. Energy Pol 2014;67:116–26.
[67] Bajwa DS, Peterson T, Sharma N, Shojaeiarani J, Bajwa SG. A review of densified
solid biomass for energy production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;96:
296–305.
[68] Tumuluru JS, Wright CT. A review on biomass densification technologie for
energy application. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 2010.
[69] Grover P, Mishra S. Biomass briquetting: technology and practices: food and
agriculture organization of the united nations bangkok. Thailand 1996.
[70] Balan V. Current challenges in commercially producing biofuels from
lignocellulosic biomass. ISRN biotechnology 2014:2014.
[71] Manickam IN, Ravindran D, Subramanian P. Biomass densification methods and
mechanism. Cogener Distrib Gener J 2006;21:33–45.
[72] Overend RP. The average haul distance and transportation work factors for
biomass delivered to a central plant. Biomass 1982;2:75–9.
[73] Perpina C, Alfonso D, Pérez-Navarro A, Penalvo E, Vargas C, Cárdenas R.
Methodology based on Geographic Information Systems for biomass logistics and
transport optimisation. Renew Energy 2009;34:555–65.
[74] Van Dyken S, Bakken BH, Skjelbred HI. Linear mixed-integer models for biomass
supply chains with transport, storage and processing. Energy 2010;35:1338–50.
[75] Biofuels and Bio-Based Carbon Mitigation.Pipes, Trains, and Trucks: How to move
biomass cost effectively, https://snrecmitigation.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/
pipes-trains-and-trucks-how-to-move-biomass-cost-effectively/ [accessed 21
September 2019].
[76] Kumar A, Sokhansanj S, Flynn PC. Development of a multicriteria assessment
model for ranking biomass feedstock collection and transportation systems. Appl
Biochem Biotechnol 2006;129:71–87.
[77] Marulanda VA, Gutierrez CDB, Thermochemical Alzate CAC, Biological
Biochemical, Conversion Hybrid. Methods of bio-derived molecules into
renewable fuels. Advanced bioprocessing for alternative fuels. In: Biobased
chemicals, and bioproducts. Elsevier; 2019. p. 59–81.
[78] Jenkins BM, Baxter LL, Koppejan J. Biomass combustion. Thermochemical
processing of biomass: conversion into fuels, chemicals and power. 2019.
p. 49–83.
[79] García-Velásquez CA, Cardona CA. Comparison of the biochemical and
thermochemical routes for bioenergy production: a techno-economic (TEA),
energetic and environmental assessment. Energy 2019;172:232–42.
[80] Venderbosch RH. Fast pyrolysis. Thermochemical processing of biomass:
conversion into fuels, chemicals and power. 2019. p. 175–206.
[81] Ahmad E, Vani A, Pant KK. An overview of fossil fuel and biomass-based
integrated energy systems: Co-firing, Co-combustion, Co-pyrolysis, Co-
liquefaction, and Co-gasification. Fuel Processing and Energy Utilization:
Chapman and Hall/CRC 2019:15–30.
[82] E4tech UK Ltd. Advanced drop-in biofuels UK production capacity outlook to
2030. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upl
oads/attachment_data/file/652538/advanced-drop-in-biofuels-uk-product
ion-capacity-outlook-2030.pdf. [Accessed 11 August 2019].
[83] Pant KK, Upadhyayula S. Detailed kinetics of Fischer Tropsch synthesis over Fe-
Co bimetallic catalyst considering chain length dependent olefin desorption. Fuel
2019;236:1263–72.
[84] Tan EC. Sustainable process design for biofuel production via syngas conversion
pathway. National renewable energy lab. (NREL), Golden 2019. CO (United
States.
[85] Almusaiteer KA, Ahmed A-H, Abed O, Biausque G, Abdulaziz A-A. Catalysts and
methods for methanol synthesis from direct hydrogenation of syngas and/or
carbon dioxide. Google Patents 2019.
[86] Wijayanta AT, Aziz M. Ammonia production from algae via integrated
hydrothermal gasification, chemical looping, N2 production, and NH3 synthesis.
Energy 2019;174:331–8.
[87] Basu P. Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction: practical design and
theory. Academic press; 2018.
[88] Olcay H, Malina R, Upadhye AA, Hileman JI, Huber GW, Barrett SR. Techno-
economic and environmental evaluation of producing chemicals and drop-in
aviation biofuels via aqueous phase processing. Energy Environ Sci 2018;11:
2085–101.
[89] Knoshaug EP, Mohagheghi A, Nagle NJ, Stickel JJ, Dong T, Karp EM, et al.
Demonstration of parallel algal processing: production of renewable diesel
blendstock and a high-value chemical intermediate. Green Chem 2018;20:
457–68.
[90] Zhang J, Liu J, Kou L, Zhang X, Tan T. Bioethanol production from cellulose
obtained from the catalytic hydro-deoxygenation (lignin-first refined to aviation
fuel) of apple wood. Fuel 2019;250:245–53.
[91] Moriarty P, Honnery D. Global renewable energy resources and use in 2050. In:
Managing global warming. Elsevier; 2019. p. 221–35.
[92] Zhu Y, Biddy MJ, Jones SB, Elliott DC, Schmidt AJ. Techno-economic analysis of
liquid fuel production from woody biomass via hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL)
and upgrading. Appl Energy 2014;129:384–94.
18
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
[93] Ou L, Thilakaratne R, Brown RC, Wright MM. Techno-economic analysis of
transportation fuels from defatted microalgae via hydrothermal liquefaction and
hydroprocessing. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;72:45–54.
[94] Akhtar J, Amin NAS. A review on process conditions for optimum bio-oil yield in
hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:
1615–24.
[95] Elliott DC, Neuenschwander GG. Hart TR. Combined hydrothermal liquefaction
and catalytic hydrothermal gasification system and process for conversion of
biomass feedstocks. Google Patents 2019.
[96] Vardon DR, Sharma BK, Scott J, Yu G, Wang Z, Schideman L, et al. Chemical
properties of biocrude oil from the hydrothermal liquefaction of Spirulina algae,
swine manure, and digested anaerobic sludge. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:
8295–303.
[97] Liu X, Saydah B, Eranki P, Colosi LM, Mitchell BG, Rhodes J, et al. Pilot-scale data
provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions profile of algae
biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction. Bioresour Technol 2013;148:
163–71.
[98] Vardon DR, Sharma BK, Blazina GV, Rajagopalan K, Strathmann TJ.
Thermochemical conversion of raw and defatted algal biomass via hydrothermal
liquefaction and slow pyrolysis. Bioresour Technol 2012;109:178–87.
[99] Elliott D, Beckman D, Bridgwater A, Diebold J, Gevert S, Solantausta Y.
Developments in direct thermochemical liquefaction of biomass: 1983-1990.
Energy Fuels 1991;5:399–410.
[100] Wikberg H, Grönberg V, Jermakka J, Kemppainen K, Kleen M, Laine C, et al.
Hydrothermal refining of biomass: an overview and future perspectives. Tappi J
2015;14:195–207.
[101] Matayeva A, Basile F, Cavani F, Bianchi D, Chiaberge S. Development of upgraded
bio-oil via liquefaction and pyrolysis. Studies in surface science and catalysis.
Elsevier; 2019. p. 231–56.
[102] Castello D, Haider MS, Rosendahl LA. Catalytic upgrading of hydrothermal
liquefaction biocrudes: different challenges for different feedstocks. Renew
Energy 2019;141:420–30.
[103] Jazrawi C, Biller P, Ross AB, Montoya A, Maschmeyer T, Haynes BS. Pilot plant
testing of continuous hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae. Algal Research
2013;2:268–77.
[104] Baldwin RM. Upgrading bio-oil: catalysis and refinery. Biorefinery. Springer;
2019. p. 111–51.
[105] Manara P, Bezergianni S, Pfisterer U. Study on phase behavior and properties of
binary blends of bio-oil/fossil-based refinery intermediates: a step toward bio-oil
refinery integration. Energy Convers Manag 2018;165:304–15.
[106] Auersvald M, Shumeiko B. Staš M, Kubička D, chudoba J, Š imáček P. Quantitative
study of straw bio-oil hydrodeoxygenation over a sulfided NiMo catalyst. ACS
Sustainable Chem Eng 2019;7:7080–93.
[107] Tang Z, Lu Q, Zhang Y, Zhu X, Guo Q. One step bio-oil upgrading through
hydrotreatment, esterification, and cracking. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:6923–9.
[108] Bizkarra K, Barrio V, Gartzia-Rivero L, Bañuelos J, López-Arbeloa I, Cambra J.
Hydrogen production from a model bio-oil/bio-glycerol mixture through steam
reforming using Zeolite L supported catalysts. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:
1492–504.
[109] Italiano C, Bizkarra K, Barrio V, Cambra J, Pino L, Vita A. Renewable hydrogen
production via steam reforming of simulated bio-oil over Ni-based catalysts. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:14671–82.
[110] Arandia A, Remiro A, García V, Castaño P, Bilbao J, Gayubo A. Oxidative steam
reforming of raw bio-oil over supported and bulk Ni catalysts for hydrogen
production. Catalysts 2018;8:322.
[111] del Pozo C, Bartrolí J, Puy N, Fàbregas E. Separation of value-added chemical
groups from bio-oil of olive mill waste. Ind Crop Prod 2018;125:160–7.
[112] Winjobi O, Shonnard DR, Bar-Ziv E, Zhou W. Techno-economic assessment of the
effect of torrefaction on fast pyrolysis of pine. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining 2016;10:117–28.
[113] Bridgwater AV. Principles and practice of biomass fast pyrolysis processes for
liquids. J Anal Appl Pyrol 1999;51:3–22.
[114] Hu W, Dang Q, Rover M, Brown RC, Wright MM. Comparative techno-economic
analysis of advanced biofuels, biochemicals, and hydrocarbon chemicals via the
fast pyrolysis platform. Biofuels 2016;7:57–67.
[115] Yang Y. Production of bio-crude from forestry waste by hydro-liquefaction in
sub-/super-critical methanol and upgrading of bio-crude by hydro-treating. 2009.
[116] Zhang Q, Chang J, Wang T, Xu Y. Review of biomass pyrolysis oil properties and
upgrading research. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:87–92.
[117] Ringer M, Putsche V, Scahill J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: a technology
assessment and economic analysis. National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL),
Golden, CO (United States) 2006.
[118] Jones SB, Valkenburt C, Walton CW, Elliott DC, Holladay JE, Stevens DJ, et al.
Production of gasoline and diesel from biomass via fast pyrolysis, hydrotreating
and hydrocracking: a design case. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL),
Richland, WA (United States) 2009.
[119] Varient. Virent is replacing crude oil. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2014/11/f19/cortright_biomass_2014.pdf. [Accessed 14 August 2019].
[120] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Advanced liquid biofuels. https
://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2016/IRENA_Inn
ovation_Outlook_Advanced_Liquid_Biofuels_2016.pdf. [Accessed 14 August
2019].
[121] Karatzos S, McMillan JD, Saddler JN. The potential and challenges of drop-in
biofuels. Report for IEA Bioenergy Task 2014:39.
H. Kargbo et al.
[122] Hernando H, Hernández-Giménez AM, Gutiérrez-Rubio S, Fakin T, Horvat A,
Rosa DM, et al. Scaling-up of bio-oil upgrading during biomass pyrolysis over
ZrO2/ZSM-5-attapulgite. ChemSusChem 2019.
[123] López-Renau LM, García-Pina L, Hernando H, Gómez-Pozuelo G, Botas JA,
Serrano DP. Enhanced bio-oil upgrading in biomass catalytic pyrolysis using KH-
ZSM-5 zeolite with acid-base properties. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.
2019. p. 1–13.
[124] Dong Q, Li H, Niu M, Luo C, Zhang J, Qi B, et al. Microwave pyrolysis of moso
bamboo for syngas production and bio-oil upgrading over bamboo-based biochar
catalyst. Bioresour Technol 2018;266:284–90.
[125] Zhang Y, Brown TR, Hu G, Brown RC. Techno-economic analysis of two bio-oil
upgrading pathways. Chem Eng J 2013;225:895–904.
[126] Zhang L, Li S, Ding H, Zhu X. Two-step pyrolysis of corncob for value-added
chemicals and high-quality bio-oil: effects of alkali and alkaline earth metals.
Waste Manag 2019;87:709–18.
[127] Cheng S, Wei L, Zhao X, Julson J. Application, deactivation, and regeneration of
heterogeneous catalysts in bio-oil upgrading. Catalysts 2016;6:195.
[128] Al Ibarra, Rodríguez E, Sedran U, Arandes JM, Bilbao J. Synergy in the cracking of
a blend of bio-oil and vacuum gasoil under fluid catalytic cracking conditions. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2016;55:1872–80.
[129] Tijmensen MJA, Faaij APC, Hamelinck CN, van Hardeveld MRM. Exploration of
the possibilities for production of Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass
gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:129–52.
[130] Boerrigter H, Den Uil H, Calis H-P. Green diesel from biomass via Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis: new insights in gas cleaning and process design. Pyrolysis and
gasification of Biomass and waste 2003:1.
[131] Guettel R, Kunz U, Turek T. Reactors for fischer-tropsch synthesis. Chem Eng
Technol: Industrial Chemistry-Plant Equipment-Process Engineering-
Biotechnology 2008;31:746–54.
[132] Nyström I, Bokinge P. Production of liquid advanced biofuels-global status. 2019.
[133] International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy Task33 Database. Gasification of
biomass and waste. http://task33.ieabioenergy.com/content/Task%2033%20Pr
ojects. [Accessed 24 July 2019].
[134] Kaidi. Kaidi is planning to open a 2nd generation biomass plant that would use
energy wood as the main feedstock. http://www.kaidi.fi/biodiesel-en?locale=fi
2019. [Accessed 3 September 2019].
[135] RedRock. The digest’s 2015 5-minute guide. https://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdi
gest/2015/07/20/red-rock-biofuels-the-digests-2015-5-minute-guide/. [Accessed
13 September 2019].
[136] Gridley Biofuels USA. The Gridley Biofuels Project: Design and Deployment of an
Economical Integrated Biorefinery for the Production of Premium Diesel Fuel,
Electricity and Other Renewable Products from Rice Harvest Biomass Residues in
California, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1324758 [accesses [22 September
2019].
[137] Uasuf A, Becker G. Wood pellets production costs and energy consumption under
different framework conditions in Northeast Argentina. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;
35:1357–66.
[138] Zhao X, Naqi A, Walker DM, Roberge T, Kastelic M, Joseph B, et al. Correction:
conversion of landfill gas to liquid fuels through a TriFTS (tri-reforming and
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis) process: a feasibility study. Sustainable Energy &
Fuels 2019.
[139] Hu J, Yu F, Lu Y. Application of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis in biomass to liquid
conversion. Catalysts 2012;2:303–26.
[140] de Klerk A, Furimsky E. Catalysis in the refining of fischer–tropsch syncrude.
Platin Met Rev 2011;55:263–7.
[141] Dancuart LP, Steynberg AP. Fischer-Tropsch based GTL technology: a new
process? Studies in surface science and catalysis. Elsevier 2007:379–99.
[142] Matuszewska A. Microorganisms as direct and indirect sources of alternative
fuels. Alternative Fuels, Technical and Environmental Conditions: Intech 2016.
[143] Littlejohns J, Rehmann L, Murdy R, Oo A, Neill S. Current state and future
prospects for liquid biofuels in Canada. Biofuel Research Journal 2018;5:759–79.
[144] Ramsurn H, Gupta RB. Biofuels in air and ground transportation. Energy for
propulsion: springer. 2018. p. 457–72.
[145] Huang S, Liu T, Peng B, Geng A. Enhanced ethanol production from industrial
lignocellulose hydrolysates by a hydrolysate-cofermenting Saccharomyces
cerevisiae strain. Bioproc Biosyst Eng 2019;42:883–96.
[146] Rech FR, Fontana RC, Rosa CA, Camassola M, Ayub MAZ, Dillon AJ. Fermentation
of hexoses and pentoses from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysates into ethanol by
Spathaspora hagerdaliae. Bioproc Biosyst Eng 2019;42:83–92.
[147] Zhu L, Li P, Sun T, Kong M, Li X, Ali S, et al. Overexpression of SFA1 in engineered
Saccharomyces cerevisiae to increase xylose utilization and ethanol production
from different lignocellulose hydrolysates. Bioresour Technol 2020:123724.
[148] Todaro CM, Vogel HC. Fermentation and biochemical engineering handbook:
William Andrew 2014.
[149] Sharma HK, Xu C, Qin W. Biological pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for
biofuels and bioproducts: an overview. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2019;10:
235–51.
[150] Brexó RP, Sant’Ana AS. Impact and significance of microbial contamination
during fermentation for bioethanol production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;
73:423–34.
[151] Aldridge GA, Verykios XE, Mutharasan R. Recovery of ethanol from fermentation
broths by catalytic conversion to gasoline. 2. Energy analysis. Ind Eng Chem
Process Des Dev 1984;23:733–7.
[152] Swanson RM, Platon A, Satrio JA, Brown RC. Techno-economic analysis of
biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification. Fuel 2010;89:S11–9.
19
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
[153] Wright MM, Brown RC, Boateng AA. Distributed processing of biomass to bio-oil
for subsequent production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids. Biofuels, bioproducts and
biorefining 2008;2:229–38.
[154] Haarlemmer G, Boissonnet G, Imbach J, Setier P-A, Peduzzi E. Second generation
BtL type biofuels–a production cost analysis. Energy Environ Sci 2012;5:8445–56.
[155] Trippe F, Fröhling M, Schultmann F, Stahl R, Henrich E, Dalai A. Comprehensive
techno-economic assessment of dimethyl ether (DME) synthesis and
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis as alternative process steps within biomass-to-liquid
production. Fuel Process Technol 2013;106:577–86.
[156] Rafati M, Wang L, Dayton DC, Schimmel K, Kabadi V, Shahbazi A. Techno-
economic analysis of production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids via biomass
gasification: the effects of Fischer-Tropsch catalysts and natural gas co-feeding.
Energy Convers Manag 2017;133:153–66.
[157] Anex RP, Aden A, Kazi FK, Fortman J, Swanson RM, Wright MM, et al. Techno-
economic comparison of biomass-to-transportation fuels via pyrolysis,
gasification, and biochemical pathways. Fuel 2010;89:S29–35.
[158] Okeke IJ, Mani S. Techno-economic assessment of biogas to liquid fuels
conversion technology via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining 2017;11:472–87.
[159] Taylor B, Xiao N, Sikorski J, Yong M, Harris T, Helme T, et al. Techno-economic
assessment of carbon-negative algal biodiesel for transport solutions. Appl Energy
2013;106:262–74.
[160] Meerman JC, Knoope M, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. The techno-
economic potential of integrated gasification co-generation facilities with CCS
Going from coal to biomass. Energy Procedia 2013;37:6053–61.
[161] Thilakaratne R, Wright MM, Brown RC. A techno-economic analysis of microalgae
remnant catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading to fuels. Fuel 2014;128:104–12.
[162] Shemfe M, Gu S, Fidalgo B. Techno-economic analysis of biofuel production via
bio-oil zeolite upgrading: an evaluation of two catalyst regeneration systems.
Biomass Bioenergy 2017;98:182–93.
[163] Brown TR, Thilakaratne R, Brown RC, Hu G. Techno-economic analysis of
biomass to transportation fuels and electricity via fast pyrolysis and
hydroprocessing. Fuel 2013;106:463–9.
[164] Shemfe MB, Gu S, Ranganathan P. Techno-economic performance analysis of
biofuel production and miniature electric power generation from biomass fast
pyrolysis and bio-oil upgrading. Fuel 2015;143:361–72.
[165] Snowden-Swan LJ, Zhu Y, Jones SB, Elliott DC, Schmidt AJ, Hallen RT, et al.
Hydrothermal liquefaction and upgrading of municipal wastewater treatment
plant sludge: a preliminary techno-economic analysis. Rev. 1. Pacific Northwest
National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States) 2016.
[166] Pham V, Holtzapple M, El-Halwagi M. Techno-economic analysis of biomass to
fuel conversion via the MixAlco process. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;37:
1157–68.
[167] De Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Faaij A, Slade R, Mawhood R, Junginger M. The
feasibility of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels–a
comprehensive techno-economic comparison. Biofuels,. Bioproducts and
Biorefining 2015;9:778–800.
[168] van den Berg NW, Huppes G, Lindeijer EW, van der Ven BL, Wrisberg MN. Quality
assessment for LCA: CM 2000.
[169] Weidema B, Wenzel H, Petersen C, Hansen K. The product, functional unit and
reference flows in LCA. Environ News 2004;70:1–46.
[170] Dos Santos UJ, De Medeiros EV, Duda GP, Marques MC, ESd Souza, Brossard M,
et al. Land use changes the soil carbon stocks, microbial biomass and fatty acid
methyl ester (FAME) in Brazilian semiarid area. Arch Agron Soil Sci 2019;65:
755–69.
[171] Milkias A, Toru T. Assessment of land use land cover change drivers and its
impacts on above ground biomass and regenerations of woody plants: a case study
at dire dawa administration. Ethiopia 2018.
[172] Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global
consequences of land use. science 2005;309:570–4.
[173] Balmford A, Amano T, Bartlett H, Chadwick D, Collins A, Edwards D, et al. The
environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nature sustainability
2018;1:477.
[174] Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M, Morales MB, et al.
Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control
potential on European farmland. Basic Appl Ecol 2010;11:97–105.
[175] Sistani K, Jn-Baptiste M, Lovanh N, Cook K. Atmospheric emissions of nitrous
oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide from different nitrogen fertilizers. J Environ
Qual 2011;40:1797–805.
[176] Cogo NP, Streck EV. Surface and subsurface decomposition of a desiccated grass
pasture biomass related to erosion and its prediction with RUSLE. Rev Bras
Ciência do Solo 2003;27:153–64.
[177] Barus J, Lumbanraja J, Sudarsono H, Dermiyati D. Improvement of several
indicators of physical and biological properties of soil after adding crops biomass
residues and yield of upland rice. Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands
Management 2019;6:1625.
[178] Melman DA, Kelly C, Schneekloth J, Calderón F, Fonte SJ. Tillage and residue
management drive rapid changes in soil macrofauna communities and soil
properties in a semiarid cropping system of Eastern Colorado. Appl Soil Ecol
2019;143:98–106.
[179] Mu X, Zhao Y, Liu K, Ji B, Guo H, Xue Z, et al. Responses of soil properties, root
growth and crop yield to tillage and crop residue management in a wheat–maize
cropping system on the North China Plain. Eur J Agron 2016;78:32–43.
[180] Lal R. Is crop residue a waste? J Soil Water Conserv 2004;59. 136A–9A.
[181] Kajaste R. Chemicals from biomass–managing greenhouse gas emissions in
biorefinery production chains–a review. J Clean Prod 2014;75:1–10.
H. Kargbo et al.
[182] Ståhl M, Granström K, Berghel J, Renström R. Industrial processes for biomass
drying and their effects on the quality properties of wood pellets. Biomass
Bioenergy 2004;27:621–8.
[183] Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Petrakopoulou F, Dufour J. Environmental and exergetic
evaluation of hydrogen production via lignocellulosic biomass gasification.
J Clean Prod 2014;69:165–75.
[184] Wang B, Gebreslassie BH, You F. Sustainable design and synthesis of hydrocarbon
biorefinery via gasification pathway: integrated life cycle assessment and
technoeconomic analysis with multiobjective superstructure optimization.
Comput Chem Eng 2013;52:55–76.
[185] Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Dufour J. Life-cycle assessment of Fischer–Tropsch
products from biosyngas. Renew Energy 2013;59:229–36.
[186] Azadi P, Brownbridge G, Mosbach S, Inderwildi O, Kraft M. Simulation and life
cycle assessment of algae gasification process in dual fluidized bed gasifiers.
Green Chem 2015;17:1793–801.
[187] Budsberg E, Crawford JT, Morgan H, Chin WS, Bura R, Gustafson R. Hydrocarbon
bio-jet fuel from bioconversion of poplar biomass: life cycle assessment.
Biotechnol Biofuels 2016;9:170.
[188] Kauffman N, Hayes D, Brown R. A life cycle assessment of advanced biofuel
production from a hectare of corn. Fuel 2011;90:3306–14.
[189] Iribarren D, Peters JF, Dufour J. Life cycle assessment of transportation fuels from
biomass pyrolysis. Fuel 2012;97:812–21.
[190] Hsu DD. Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel produced via fast pyrolysis
and hydroprocessing. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;45:41–7.
[191] Dang Q, Yu C, Luo Z. Environmental life cycle assessment of bio-fuel production
via fast pyrolysis of corn stover and hydroprocessing. Fuel 2014;131:36–42.
[192] Han J, Elgowainy A, Dunn JB, Wang MQ. Life cycle analysis of fuel production
from fast pyrolysis of biomass. Bioresour Technol 2013;133:421–8.
[193] Peters JF, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Simulation and life cycle assessment of biofuel
production via fast pyrolysis and hydroupgrading. Fuel 2015;139:441–56.
[194] Zhang Y, Hu G, Brown RC. Life cycle assessment of the production of hydrogen
and transportation fuels from corn stover via fast pyrolysis. Environ Res Lett
2013:8. 025001.
[195] Meyer PA, Snowden-Swan LJ, Rappé KG, Jones SB, Westover TL, Cafferty KG.
Field-to-fuel performance testing of lignocellulosic feedstocks for fast pyrolysis
and upgrading: techno-economic analysis and greenhouse gas life cycle analysis.
Energy Fuels 2016;30:9427–39.
[196] Ayer NW, Dias G. Supplying renewable energy for Canadian cement production:
life cycle assessment of bioenergy from forest harvest residues using mobile fast
pyrolysis units. J Clean Prod 2018;175:237–50.
[197] Heng L, Zhang H, Xiao J, Xiao R. Life cycle assessment of polyol fuel from corn
stover via fast pyrolysis and upgrading. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2018;6:
2733–40.
[198] De Jong S, Antonissen K, Hoefnagels R, Lonza L, Wang M, Faaij A, et al. Life-cycle
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production.
Biotechnol Biofuels 2017;10:64.
[199] Fortier M-OP, Roberts GW, Stagg-Williams SM, Sturm BSM. Life cycle assessment
of bio-jet fuel from hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae. Appl Energy 2014;
122:73–82.
[200] Chan YH, Yusup S, Quitain AT, Tan RR, Sasaki M, Lam HL, et al. Effect of process
parameters on hydrothermal liquefaction of oil palm biomass for bio-oil
production and its life cycle assessment. Energy Convers Manag 2015;104:180–8.
[201] Frank ED, Elgowainy A, Han J, Wang Z. Life cycle comparison of hydrothermal
liquefaction and lipid extraction pathways to renewable diesel from algae. Mitig
Adapt Strategies Glob Change 2013;18:137–58.
[202] Summers HM, Ledbetter RN, McCurdy AT, Morgan MR, Seefeldt LC, Jena U, et al.
Techno-economic feasibility and life cycle assessment of dairy effluent to
renewable diesel via hydrothermal liquefaction. Bioresour Technol 2015;196:
431–40.
[203] Alvarado-Morales M, Boldrin A, Karakashev DB, Holdt SL, Angelidaki I, Astrup T.
Life cycle assessment of biofuel production from brown seaweed in Nordic
conditions. Bioresour Technol 2013;129:92–9.
[204] Sebastião D, Gonçalves MS, Marques S, Fonseca C, Gírio F, Oliveira AC, et al. Life
cycle assessment of advanced bioethanol production from pulp and paper sludge.
Bioresour Technol 2016;208:100–9.
20
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110168
[205] Väisänen S, Havukainen J, Uusitalo V, Havukainen M, Soukka R, Luoranen M.
Carbon footprint of biobutanol by ABE fermentation from corn and sugarcane.
Renew Energy 2016;89:401–10.
[206] Handler RM, Shonnard DR, Griffing EM, Lai A, Palou-Rivera I. Life cycle
assessments of ethanol production via gas fermentation: anticipated greenhouse
gas emissions for cellulosic and waste gas feedstocks. Ind Eng Chem Res 2015;55:
3253–61.
[207] Spath P, Aden A, Eggeman T, Ringer M, Wallace B, Jechura J. Biomass to
hydrogen production detailed design and economics utilizing the Battelle
Columbus Laboratory indirectly-heated gasifier. National Renewable Energy Lab.
2005 Golden, CO (US).
[208] Swanson RM, Platon A, Satrio J, Brown R, Hsu DD. Techno-economic analysis of
biofuels production based on gasification. National Renewable Energy Lab.
(NREL), Golden, CO (United States) 2010.
[209] Brown TR. A techno-economic review of thermochemical cellulosic biofuel
pathways. Bioresour Technol 2015;178:166–76.
[210] de Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Wetterlund E, Pettersson K, Faaij A, Junginger M. Cost
optimization of biofuel production–The impact of scale, integration, transport and
supply chain configurations. Appl Energy 2017;195:1055–70.
[211] Wright MM, Brown RC. Comparative economics of biorefineries based on the
biochemical and thermochemical platforms. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining: Innovation for a sustainable economy 2007;1:49–56.
[212] Williams CL, Westover TL, Emerson RM, Tumuluru JS, Li C. Sources of biomass
feedstock variability and the potential impact on biofuels production. BioEnergy
Research 2016;9:1–14.
[213] Carriquiry MA, Du X, Timilsina GR. Second generation biofuels: economics and
policies. Energy Pol 2011;39:4222–34.
[214] Abdullah Z, Chadwell B, Taha R, Hindin B, Ralston K. Upgrading of intermediate
bio-oil produced by catalytic pyrolysis. In: Battelle memorial inst. Columbus: OH
(United States); 2015.
[215] Zhang Y, Brown TR, Hu G, Brown RC. Techno-economic analysis of
monosaccharide production via fast pyrolysis of lignocellulose. Bioresour Technol
2013;127:358–65.
[216] Cherubini F, Strømman AH. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of
the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:437–51.
[217] de Carvalho Macedo I, Nassar AM, Cowiec AL, Seabra JE, Marellid L. Greenhouse
gas emissions from bioenergy. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the Gaps
SCOPE 2015;72:582–617.
[218] Menten F, Chèze B, Patouillard L, Bouvart F. A review of LCA greenhouse gas
emissions results for advanced biofuels: the use of meta-regression analysis.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:108–34.
[219] Change IPOC. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: working group I
contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Cambridge University Press 2014.
[220] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008;319:1235–8.
[221] Mello FF, Cerri CE, Davies CA, Holbrook NM, Paustian K, Maia SM, et al. Payback
time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol. Nat Clim Change 2014;4:605–9.
[222] Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM. Soil carbon sequestration and
land use change associated with biofuel production: empirical evidence. Gcb
Bioenergy 2016;8:66–80.
[223] Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM. Influence of spatially
dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life-cycle greenhouse gas
emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol. Gcb Bioenergy 2016;8:1136–49.
[224] Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’hare M, Kammen DM. Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 2006;311:506–8.
[225] Havlík P, Schneider UA, Schmid E, Böttcher H, Fritz S, Skalský R, et al. Global
land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Pol
2011;39:5690–702.
[226] Rathore D, Nizami A-S, Singh A, Pant D. Key issues in estimating energy and
greenhouse gas savings of biofuels: challenges and perspectives. Biofuel Research
Journal 2016;3:380–93.
[227] Eisentraut A. Sustainable production of second-generation biofuels: potential and
perspectives in major economies and developing countries. 2010.
[228] Kircher M. Sustainability of biofuels and renewable chemicals production from
biomass. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2015;29:26–31.