Introduction Energy is an important factor of production in the global economy, and 90% of the commercially produced energy is from

fossil fuels such as crude oil, coal, and gas, which are non-renewable in nature. Much of the energy supply in the world comes from geo-politically volatile economies. In order to enhance energy security, many countries, including the US, have been emphasizing production and use of renewable energy sources such as biofuels, which is emerging as a growth industry in the current economic environment. Biofuel is known as a potential replacement of fossil fuel nowadays. Biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon fixation. Biofuels include fuels derived from biomass conversion, as well as solid biomass, liquid fuels and various biogases. Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient carbon fixation, they are not considered biofuels by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been "out" of the carbon cycle for a very long time. Biofuels are gaining increased public and scientific attention, driven by factors such as oil price spikes, the need for increased energy security, concern over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and governmentsubsidies. Biofuel is also known as agrofuel, these fuels are mainly derived from biomass or bio waste. These fuels can be used for any purposes, but the main use for which they have to be brought is in the transportation sector. Most of the vehicles require fuels which provide high power and are dense so that storage is easier. These engines require fuels that are clean and are in the liquid form. The most important advantage of using liquid as fuel is that they can be easily pumped and can also be handled easily. This is the main reason why almost all the vehicles use liquid form of fuels for combustion purpose. For other forms of non transportation applications there are other alternative solid biomass fuel like wood. These non transportation applications can bring into use these solid biomass fuels as they can easily bear the low power density of external combustion. Wood has been brought into use since a very long period and is one of the major contributors of global warming. Biofuels are the best way of reducing the emission of the greenhouse gases. They can also be looked upon as a way of energy security which stands as an alternative of fossil fuels that are limited in availability. Today, the use of biofuels has expanded throughout the globe. Some of the major producers and users of biogases are Asia, Europe and America. Theoretically, biofuel can be easily produced through any carbon source; making the photosynthetic plants the most commonly used material for production. Almost all types of materials derived from the plants are used for manufacturing biogas. One of the greatest

problems that is being faced by the researchers in the field is how to covert the biomass energy into the liquid fuel. There are two methods currently brought into use to solve the above problem. In the first one, sugar crops or starch are grown and through the process of fermentation, ethanol is produced. In the second method, plants are grown that naturally produce oil like jatropha and algae. These oils are heated to reduce their viscosity after which they are directly used as fuel for diesel engines. This oil can be further treated to produce biodiesel which can be used for various purposes. Most of the biofuels are derived from biomass or bio waste. Biomass can be termed as material which is derived from recently living organism. Most of the biomass is obtained from plants and animals and also include their by products. The most important feature of biomass is that they are renewable sources of energy unlike other natural resources like coal, petroleum and even nuclear fuel. Some of the agricultural products that are specially grown for the production of biofuels are switchgrass, soybeans and corn in United States. Brazil produces sugar cane, Europe produces sugar beet and wheat while, China produces cassava and sorghum, south-east Asia produces miscanthus and palm oil while India produces jatropha. Liquid biofuels (biodiesel and bio-ethanol), as an alternative to fossil fuels. Other biofuels that are more common in developing countries (such as wood, dung and biogas) are not included. Biofuels are fuels that are directly derived from biological sources. Sources that lead to specific end products in biofuel production are usually classified into four groups. Of these, the first two are in common use while the latter two are still experimental: Cereals, grains, sugar crops and other starches that can fairly easily be fermented to produce bio-ethanol, and can be used in their pure state or blended with fuels. Oilseed crops, such as sunflower, rape seeds, soy, palm and jatropha, that can be converted into methyl esters (biodiesel) and blended with conventional diesel or burnt as pure biodiesel. Cellulosic materials, including grasses, trees and various waste products from crops and wood processing facilities as well as municipal solid waste, that can be converted into a newer generation of bio-ethanol (via enzymatic breakdown or acid hydrolysis, followed by fermentation). New biodiesel technologies, such as the FischerTropsch process, that synthesise diesel fuels from different biomasses (such as organic waste material) via gasification. Bio-ethanol is the most widely used biofuel, accounting for some 94 per cent of global biofuel production worldwide in 2006. Around 60 per cent of bio-ethanol comes from sugarcane and the

remainder comes from other crops, mostly maize. Brazil was the worlds largest bio-ethanol producer for a long period, but in 2006 the USA took over as leading bio-ethanol producer . Brazil still stands out as the most successful producer of biofuels due to its low production costs, advanced technology and management systems, hybrid sugar/ethanol complexes and favourable CO2 reduction rate. China ranks third, but in contrast to Brazil and the USA Chinese national policies have been more restrictive in expanding ethanol production, mainly for food security reasons. Bio-ethanol made from sugarcane is much more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (producing around 80 per cent less CO2 emission per energy unit than petrol) than maize based bio-ethanol (that produces around 2040 per cent less). It is also much cheaper to produce, both in Brazil and Australia, the two leading producing countries (International Energy Agency 2004). In Europe, Germany, France and Italy dominate biofuel production and were significantly ahead of other countries in 2006. In Southeast Asia biodiesel is mainly produced from palm oil, in the USA and Brazil mainly from soy. In the EU biodiesel (produced mainly from rapeseed and some sunflower seed) accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production, while much less bio-ethanol is produced in this region than in the USA and Brazil. There are four main reasons behind this recent remarkable increase in the attention attracted by biofuels and the correspondingly related increase in biofuel production, R&D programmes, policy initiatives and debates, although not all reasons for this are the same in every country and region (Munckhof 2006). Firstly, the continuing concern about the role of fossil fuels in climate change via the release of greenhouse gasses during their exploitation, transport and, especially, their use, has created favourable conditions for increased attention into all kinds of renewable energy alternatives. The recent enforcement of the Kyoto protocol, the implementation of national targets for biofuels in various countries2 and Al Gores campaign around his Oscarwinning movie An Inconvenient Truth (2006) has intensified that interest. Secondly, the dependence of a number of major fossil-fuel-importing countries (most notably the USA and the EU) on unstable fossil-fuel-producing and exporting regions (notably Russia, the Middle East and Venezuela) has triggered these former countries into launching programmes to lower their dependence on fossil fuel and thus increase their national energy security. A number of events in 2005 and 2006 sensitised oil and gas importing OECD countries to this feature of their dependence on fossil fuel. Thirdly, and partly related to the former consideration, the oil price increases that started in 2004 gave a further boost to biofuel interests, especially since many

projections of oil price decreases had not been met up to mid-2007, thus making biofuels increasingly cost-effective.4 This comes together with the fact that biofuel can to a significant extent use existing the infrastructure of conventional petroleum fuels (such as distribution and retailing systems, cars and combustion systems [Doering2004]), making it far more competitive than, for example, hydrogen. Lastly, an ongoing crisis in the rural areas of many OECD countries following the over-production of agricultural commodities, low prices, land continually taken out of production (set asides) and low income levels for farmers has provided fertile ground for a new market for agricultural commodities, especially but not only in largescale, capital-intensive agricultural areas (such as the USA). In the USA, the EU and Brazil governments have heavily subsidised farmers and agribusiness to get involved in biofuel production. In addition, although one can also witness various drivers for biofuel expansion in the developing countries (including reduced oil imports, rural development and export opportunities), these countries have generally not been driving the recent biofuel expansion. Consequently, from the early 2000s we have witnessed sharp increases and spatial proliferation in the production of biofuel, almost quadrupling between 20022006, according to OECD estimates.5 While most biofuel production is still consumed domestically (90 per cent in 2005, with Brazil as the largest exporter), global trade is expanding rapidly, triggered by biofuel targets set in various countries in combination with uneven conditions for feedstock and biofuel production.6 This increase and globalisation of biofuels has led to sharp debates on the proclaimed environmental sustainability of biofuels and the social vulnerability for notable two groups: the poor in developing countries and small farmers. But the common understanding among economic and political elites is that if biofuels are going to make a significant contribution to climate change mitigation, energy security and rural development, then biofuel production and consumption needs to globalise further, to become part of the global space of (energy) flows. This might, however, further endanger specific localities, interests and sustainabilities: most notably, the interests of small farmers and the poor in developing countries and specific local environmental sustainabilities (rather than global climate change).

First generation biofuels 'First-generation' or conventional biofuels are biofuels made from sugar, starch, and vegetable oil. 1) Bioalcohols Biologically produced alcohols, most commonly ethanol, and less commonly propanol and butanol, are produced by the action of microorganisms and enzymes through the fermentation of sugars or starches (easiest), or cellulose (which is more difficult). Biobutanol (also called biogasoline) is often claimed to provide a direct replacement for gasoline, because it can be used directly in a gasoline engine (in a similar way to biodiesel in diesel engines). Ethanol fuel is the most common biofuel worldwide, particularly in Brazil. Alcohol fuels are produced by fermentation of sugars derived from wheat, corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, molasses and any sugar or starch that alcoholic beverages can be made from (like potato and fruit waste, etc.). The ethanol production methods used are enzyme digestion (to release sugars from stored starches), fermentation of the sugars, distillation and drying. The distillation process requires significant energy input for heat (often unsustainable natural gas fossil fuel, but cellulosic biomass such as bagasse, the waste left after sugar cane is pressed to extract its juice, can also be used more sustainably). Ethanol can be used in petrol engines as a replacement for gasoline; it can be mixed with gasoline to any percentage. Most existing car petrol engines can run on blends of up to 15% bioethanol with petroleum/gasoline. Ethanol has a smaller energy density than does gasoline; this fact means that it takes more fuel (volume and mass) to produce the same amount of work. An advantage of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) is that it has a higher octane rating than ethanol-free gasoline available at roadside gas stations which allows an increase of an engine's compression ratio for increased thermal efficiency. In high altitude (thin air) locations, some states mandate a mix of gasoline and ethanol as a winter oxidizer to reduce atmospheric pollution emissions. Ethanol is also used to fuel bioethanol fireplaces. As they do not require a chimney and are "flueless", bio ethanol fires are extremely useful for new build homes and apartments without a flue. The downside to these fireplaces, is that the heat output is slightly less than electric and gas fires. In the current corn-to-ethanol production model in the United States, considering the total energy consumed by farm equipment, cultivation, planting, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides made from petroleum, irrigation systems, harvesting, transport of feedstock to processing plants, fermentation, distillation, drying, transport to fuel terminals and retail pumps,

and lower ethanol fuel energy content, the net energy content value added and delivered to consumers is very small. And, the net benefit (all things considered) does little to reduce imported oil and fossil fuels required to produce the ethanol. Although corn-to-ethanol and other food stocks have implications both in terms of world food prices and limited, yet positive, energy yield (in terms of energy delivered to customer/fossil fuels used), the technology has led to the development of cellulosic ethanol. Methanol is currently produced from natural gas, a nonrenewable fossil fuel. It can also be produced from biomass as biomethanol. The methanol economy is an interesting alternative to get to the hydrogen economy, compared to today's hydrogen production from natural gas. But this process is not the state-of-the-art clean solar thermal energy process where hydrogen production is directly produced from water.[12] Butanol (C4H9OH) is formed by ABE fermentation (acetone, butanol, ethanol) and experimental modifications of the process show potentially high net energy gains with butanol as the only liquid product. Butanol will produce more energy and allegedly can be burned "straight" in existing gasoline engines (without modification to the engine or car),[13] and is less corrosive and less water soluble than ethanol, and could be distributed via existing infrastructures. DuPont and BP are working together to help develop Butanol. E. coli have also been successfully engineered to producebutanol by hijacking their amino acid metabolism. 2) Biodiesel Is an easy-to-make, clean burning diesel alternative made from vegetable oil or fats, has great promise as an energy industry that could be locally-produced, used, and controlled. Biodiesel is an alternative fuel that is relatively safe and easy to process when conscientiously approached. Biodiesel is made from vegetable oil or animal fat that can be used in any diesel engine without any modifications. Chemically, it is defined as the mono alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from renewable lipid sources. Biodiesel is typically produced through the reaction of a vegetable oil or animal fat with methanol in the presence of a catalyst to yield glycerin and biodiesel (chemically called methyl esters). Boasting an overall 92% reduction in toxic emissions compared to diesel, Biodiesel is by far the best alternative fuel option at present. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel currently available that has an overall positive life cycle energy balance. It is renewable, sustainable, and domestically produced.The only by-product of this form of Biodiesel is glycerin, which can be easily used to make soap or other products. Biodiesel can also be produced from other biologically derived oils such as soybean oil, canola oil, sunflower oil,

hemp oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, palm oil, corn oil, mustard oil, flaxseed oil, new or waste cooking oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, beef tallow, pork lard, as well as other types of animal fat. Biodiesel is actually as old as the diesel engine itself. Rudolf Diesel, the 19thcentury originator of diesel technology, used refined peanut oil to run his invention. Diesels workhorse engine took off, but the rise of cheap crude oil killed his vision of farmers growing their own fuel. 3) Green diesel Green diesel, also known as renewable diesel, is a form of diesel fuel which is derived from renewable feedstock rather than the fossil feedstock used in most diesel fuels. Green diesel feedstock can be sourced from a variety of oils including canola, algae, jatropha and salicornia in addition to tallow. Green diesel uses traditional fractional distillation to process the oils, not to be confused with biodiesel which is chemically quite different and processed using transesterification. Green Diesel as commonly known in Ireland should not be confused with dyed green diesel sold at a lower tax rate for agriculture purposes, using the dye allows custom officers to determine if a person is using the cheaper diesel in higher taxed applications such as commercial haulage or cars. 4) Vegetable oil Straight unmodified edible vegetable oil is generally not used as fuel, but lower quality oil can and has been used for this purpose. Used vegetable oil is increasingly being processed into biodiesel, or (more rarely) cleaned of water and particulates and used as a fuel. Also here, as with 100% biodiesel (B100), to ensure that the fuel injectors atomize the vegetable oil in the correct pattern for efficient combustion, vegetable oil fuel must be heated to reduce its viscosity to that of diesel, either by electric coils or heat exchangers. This is easier in warm or temperate climates. Big corporations like MAN B&W Diesel, Wrtsil, and Deutz AG as well as a number of smaller companies such as Elsbett offer engines that are compatible with straight vegetable oil, without the need for after-market modifications. Vegetable oil can also be used in many older diesel engines that do not use common rail or unit injection electronic diesel injection systems. Due to the design of the combustion chambers in indirect injection engines, these are the best engines for use with vegetable oil. This system allows the relatively larger oil molecules more time to burn. Some older engines, especially Mercedes are driven experimentally by enthusiasts without any conversion, a handful of drivers have experienced limited success with earlier

pre-"Pumpe Duse" VW TDI engines and other similar engines with direct injection. Several companies like Elsbett or Wolf (http://www.wolf-pflanzenoel-technik.de/) have developed professional conversion kits and successfully installed hundreds of them over the last decades. Oils and fats can be hydrogenated to give a diesel substitute. The resulting product is a straight chain hydrocarbon with a high cetane number, low in aromatics and sulfur and does not contain oxygen. Hydrogenated oils can be blended with diesel in all proportions Hydrogenated oils have several advantages over biodiesel, including good performance at low temperatures, no storage stability problems and no susceptibility to microbial. 5) Bioethers Bio ethers (also referred to as fuel ethers or oxygenated fuels) are cost-effective compounds that act as octane rating enhancers. They also enhance engine performance, whilst significantly reducing engine wear and toxic exhaust emissions. Greatly reducing the amount of ground-level ozone, they contribute to the quality of the air we breathe. 6) Biogas Biogas is methane produced by the process of anaerobic digestion of organic material by anaerobes. It can be produced either from biodegradable waste materials or by the use of energy crops fed into anaerobic digesters to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, digestate, can be used as a biofuel or a fertilizer. Biogas can be recovered from mechanical biological treatment waste processing systems. Note: Landfill gas is a less clean form of biogas which is produced in landfills through naturally occurring anaerobic digestion. If it escapes into the atmosphere it is a potential greenhouse gas. Farmers can produce biogas from manure from their cows by using an anaerobic digester (AD). 7) Syngas Syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other hydrocarbons is produced by partial combustion of biomass, that is, combustion with an amount of oxygen that is not sufficient to convert the biomass completely to carbon dioxide and water. Before partial combustion the biomass is dried, and sometimes pyrolysed. The resulting gas mixture, syngas, is more efficient than direct combustion of the original biofuel; more of the energy contained in the fuel is extracted. Syngas may be burned directly in internal combustion engines, turbines or hightemperature fuel cells. The wood gas generator is a wood-fueled gasification reactor mounted on an internal combustion engine. Syngas can be used to produce methanol, DME and hydrogen, or

converted via the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce a diesel substitute, or a mixture of alcohols that can be blended into gasoline. Gasification normally relies on temperatures >700C. Lower temperature gasification is desirable when co-producing biochar but results in a Syngas polluted with tar. Second generation biofuels (advanced biofuels) Second generation biofules are biofuels produced from sustainable feedstock. Sustainability of a feedstock is defined among others by availability of the feedstock, impact on GHG emissions and impact on biodiversity and land use. Many second generation biofuels are under development such as Cellulosic ethanol, Algae fuel, biohydrogen, biomethanol, DMF, BioDME, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, biohydrogen diesel, mixed alcohols and wood diesel. Cellulosic ethanol production uses non-food crops or inedible waste products and does not divert food away from the animal or human food chain. Lignocellulose is the "woody" structural material of plants. This feedstock is abundant and diverse, and in some cases (like citrus peels or sawdust) it is in itself a significant disposal problem. Producing ethanol from cellulose is a difficult technical problem to solve. In nature, ruminant livestock (like cattle) eat grass and then use slow enzymatic digestive processes to break it into glucose (sugar). In cellulosic ethanol laboratories, various experimental processes are being developed to do the same thing, and then the sugars released can be fermented to make ethanol fuel. In 2009 scientists reported developing, using "synthetic biology", "15 new highly stable fungal enzyme catalysts that efficiently break down cellulose into sugars at high temperatures", adding to the 10 previously known. The use of high temperatures, has been identified as an important factor in improving the overall economic feasibility of the biofuel industry and the identification of enzymes that are stable and can operate efficiently at extreme temperatures is an area of active research. In addition, research conducted at TU Delft by Jack Pronk has shown that elephant yeast, when slightly modified can also create ethanol from nonedible ground sources (e.g. straw). The recent discovery of the fungus Gliocladium roseum points toward the production of so-called myco-diesel from cellulose. This organism (recently discovered in rainforests of northern Patagonia) has the unique capability of converting cellulose into medium length hydrocarbons typically found in diesel fuel. Scientists also work on experimental recombinant DNA genetic engineering organisms that

could increase biofuel potential. Scientists working in New Zealand have developed a technology to use industrial waste gases from steel mills as a feedstock for a microbial fermentation process to produce ethanol.

Advantages of biofuel production and use 1)Production of Biofuels for the Transport Sector Biofuels have an organic origin as opposed to fossil fuel-based origin, and because they are liquid, they are compatible with vehicle engines and blendable with current fuels. They can be derived from agricultural sources such as sugarcane, beets, maize, energy-rich herbaceous plants, vegetable oils, agriculture waste, lumber offcuts, and manure. The two most prevalent biofuels are ethanol (an alcohol fermented from sugars, starches, or from cellulosic biomass) and biodiesel (produced from vegetable oils or animal fats). Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, and blends typically vary from 5% to 85%, the lower blends being compatible with conventional gasoline engines. Similarly, biodiesel is to be used in various blends with petroleum diesel or as a substitute of that. Although the use of biofuels is not limited to the transport sector alone, application in this sector gained a lot of attention over the last decades due to soaring oil prices, successful application of sugarcane-based ethanol in Brazil, and the increasing share of the transport sector in worldwide GHGs. Besides, only a small amount of biofuels is used for non-transportation purposes. In the developing world, the undisputable leader in the biofuel market is Brazil, with production of approximately 15 billion liters of bioethanol from sugarcane, 38% of worldwide production (Dufey 2006). Brazil was the pioneer in biofuels since the 1970s and has taken advantage of the learning curve effect with regard to bioethanol production. Thus, other developing countries are interested in replicating Brazils successful experience and increase the production and use of biofuels. Some countries, such as Colombia, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand, have adopted targets for increasing the contribution of biofuels to their transport fuel supplies (Kojima and Johnson 2006). Significant volumes of bioethanol are already being produced in China and India (Coelho 2005). On the other hand, biodiesel production lacks scale in the developing world, and only recently, there have been efforts for large-scale production. Latin American countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia, have set up targets for the production and use of biodiesel. Also, countries in South-East Asia have started or are exploring opportunities for producing biodiesel either for domestic use or for exporting it. The same applies for various African

countries interested in biofuel production in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and take advantage of the expected environmental and socio-economic benefits. Examples of these countries are South Africa, Kenya, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Ghana, and others (Dufey 2006; Winkler 2005). There are several benefits of using biofuels for transport. Besides the apparent one of reducing harmful pollutants from vehicle exhaust (Kojima and Johnson 2006) and those applicable to most renewable energies like reducing CHG emissions, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels, and diversifying energy portfolio, there are important socio-economic benefits to be expected. Examples include new jobs in rural areas, the improvement of income distribution (Islas, Manzini, and Masera 2007), and reduced poverty. Biofuel production is responsible for creating jobs in feedstock production, biofuel manufacture, and the transport and distribution of feedstock and products (Kojima and Johnson 2006). Only in Brazil, the sugarcane sector is responsible for approximately 700,000 direct and 3.5 million indirect jobs. Compared with other energy sectors, the ratio of jobs created per unit of energy produced is very high (Coelho 2005). According to Berndes and Hansson (2007), liquid biofuels for transport produced from agricultural crops in the EU are typically about 210 and 2550 times as employment intensive as biomass use for electricity and heat, respectively. Furthermore, rural areas and developing countries can benefit the most from energy crop production for biofuels, since most of these jobs involve poor populations in rural regions and the quality of their jobs gets better due to increasing wages over time and lower seasonality (Dufey 2006). There are quite a few obstacles standing in the way of widespread use of biofuels. Some of them relate to biodiversity and landscape conservation, soil health and maintenance (Panoutsou 2008), intensive farming, fertilizers, and use of chemicals. Availability of feedstock for their production is another problem, while concerns also exist about the issues of intensive land use, competition for land, and the possible conflict with food production (Faaij and Domac 2006; Hall and House 1994). As regards biofuel use for transport, there are some technical drawbacks having to do with the adaptation of vehicles to different fuel qualities and engine performance (Kavalov 2004), an issue being addressed by research activities on flex-fuel vehicles that use different blends of ethanol and gasoline. Even though the developments with regard to the world price of oil have acted as

drivers for the use of biofuels, oil prices usually act as barriers since external costs of oilderived products are not taken into account, a fact that makes biofuels more expensive than competing fuels. Lack of policy support, technology transfer methodologies, and financing opportunities are some other issues to be addressed in most countries, as is the case with other biomass applications. Lastly, international trade barriers, such as transport tariffs and varying standards, among different countries have negatively influenced the worldwide diffusion of biofuels. The potential for the use of biofuels is very large, something that has been proven by the Brazilian case where bioethanol production costs have decreased significantly and are competitive to those of gasoline. The climates and ecosystems of most developing countries are quite favorable for biomass production. This fact, along with low land and labor costs, could help these countries reap the significant benefits of biofuel production and export opportunities if the abovementioned barriers are removed. The high costs of production in Europe are limiting the biofuel market, although favorable policies have been put in place in some countries. Studies have shown that the best potential for bioenergy production and biofuel exports in Europe is in Central and Eastern European countries where higher yields can be achieved on better land (van Dam et al. 2007). Moreover, second-generation biofuel production (based on lingocellulosic feedstock) is a quite promising technology and is expected to become commercially viable in the long term. Although there have been examples of cooperation between industrialized and developing countries in the field of biofuels either in the form of carbon credits purchases or trading of biofuels, there is very limited activity in the CDM arena. No projects are currently registered for biofuels, and there are only seven projects at the validation stage for biodiesel and none for bioethanol (URC 2008a). One of the reasons might be that the project baselines taken into account for CDM include emissions from combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas, CH4 recovery through enhanced animal waste management, or agricultural residues that would be burnt in the field, cases that are not the most usual for some developing countries where fossil fuels are not easily accessible and the only fuels used are in most cases biomass fuels (Schlamadinger and Jrgens 2004). However, regulatory barriers should be removed, as there is not only large potential for reduction of GHG emissions but biofuel production is also far less expensive in some developing countries and

can contribute to their socio-economic development. Biodiesel is needed for Malaysia future, toward the vision 2020. Since it's made domestically, it reduces countrys dependence on foreign oil. Using Biodiesel keeps fuel buying dollars at home instead of sending it to foreign countries. This reduces Malaysia trade deficit and creates jobs. It's sustainable & non-toxic. We have face the fact that this country going to run out of oil eventually. Biodiesel is 100% renewable because it will never run out, besides it is nearly carbon-neutral, meaning it contributes almost zero emissions to global warming. Biodiesel also dramatically reduces other emissions fairly dramatically. According to previous research, it reduces engine wear by as much as one half, primarily because it provides excellent lubricity. Due to the increase in the world petroleum price every day and the environmental concerns about pollution coming from the vehicle gases, Biodiesel is becoming a developing area of high concern research. Biodiesel is an alternative fuel for diesel engines that is produced by chemically reacting a vegetable oil or animal fat with an alcohol such as methanol. Biodiesel derived from a renewable, domestic resource, thereby relieving reliance on petroleum fuel imports. It is biodegradable and proven less toxic than ordinary diesel fuel. Compared to petroleum-based diesel, Biodiesel has a more positive combustion emission profile, such as low emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter and unburned harmful hydrocarbons, such as Carbon Monoxide. Carbon dioxide produced by combustion of Biodiesel can be recycled naturally by photosynthesis, which can lower the impact of Biodiesel combustion on the greenhouse effect . Biodiesel has a relatively high flash point (150 C), which makes it less volatile and safer to transport or handle than petroleum diesel . It provides lubricating properties that can reduce engine wear and extend engine life. In brief, these merits of Biodiesel make it the best alternative to petroleum based fuel and have led to its use in many developing countries, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. Vegetable oils, especially palm oil have become more attractive research recently because of their environmental benefits and the fact that it is made from renewable resources. More than 100 years ago, Rudolph Diesel tested vegetable oil as the fuel for his engine. Palm oils have the great potential for substitution of the petroleum distillates and petroleum based petrochemicals in the future. Others vegetable oil fuels are not now petroleum competitive fuels because they are more expensive than petroleum fuels. However, with the recent increases in petroleum prices and the uncertainties concerning

petroleum availability, there is renewed interest in using vegetable oils in Diesel engines. The Diesel boiling range material is of particular interest because it has been shown to reduce particulate emissions significantly relative to petroleum Diesel . There are more than 350 oil bearing crops identified, among which only Palm oil, sunflower, safflower, soybean, cottonseed, rapeseed and peanut oils are considered as potential alternative fuels for Diesel engines .

Barriers Examples of such barriers could be limited affordability of the technology due to relatively high implementation costs, energy costs, and limited availability of local and regional financial resources; the existing domestic legal and institutional framework, bureaucracy (e.g., in favor of conventional energy sources), non-transparent decision-making procedures, large-scale state ownership of enterprises, availability of cheaper alternative technologies; lack of investment protection, lack of knowledge of technology operation and management as well as limited availability of spare parts and maintenance expertise; negative impact on community social structures, etc.

Issues with biofuel production and use There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency. The International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels . In it, it outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle. Total net savings from using first-generation biodiesel as a transport fuel range from 25-82% (depending on the feedstock used), compared to diesel derived from crude oil . Producing lignocellulosic biofuels offers greater greenhouse gas emissions savings than those obtained by first generation biofuels. Lignocellulosic biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 90% when compared with fossil petroleum, in contrast first generation biofuels were found to offer savings of 20-70%. Biofuels currently appear to be one of the major controversies in the agriculture/ environment nexus, not unlike genetically modified organisms. While some countries (such as Brazil) have for quite some time supported successful large-scale programmes to improve the production and consumption of biofuels, policy-makers and research institutions in most developed and developing countries have only recently turned their attention to biofuels. Threat of climate change, new markets for agricultural output, reduced dependencies on OPEC countries and high fossil fuel prices are driving this development. But opposition to biofuels is growing, pointing at the various vulnerabilities not in the least for developing countries that come along with large-scale energy plantations. Against this background this article analyses the sustainability and vulnerability of biofuels, from the perspective of a sociology of networks and flows. Current biofuel developments should be understood in terms of the emergence of a global integrated biofuel network, where environmental sustainabilities are more easily accommodated than vulnerabilities for marginal and peripheral groups and countries, irrespective

of what policy-makers and biofuel advocates tell us.

Biofuel controversies Arguably, Brazils biofuels network was the first that could be understood as a fullfledged national biofuel region, with an active governmental policy towards sugarcane cropping and rural development, an elaborated infrastructure of hybrid ethanol/sugar plants, a flex-fuel car7 development and production programme, the integration of petrol companies and a policy mandating the mixing of bio-ethanol with petrol. There has always been debate on the Brazilian biofuel programme in the 1970s and 1980s (Dufey 2006), but that was largely an internal debate on its environmental, economic and social dimensions. Currently, with the major growth and ambitions of biofuel production and consumption under conditions of globalisation, criticism of thenational biofuel regions in various countries has become more widespread, vivid, pointed and global in nature. The debate encompasses several frontiers (such as its impact on the environment, development, economics, trade and power relations) and an increasing number of participants. We will not review the entire debate with respect to biofuels, but focus on sustainability claims and the vulnerability of particular groups in this respect, leaving partly aside technical discussions on economics and climate change gains. While initially biofuels were celebrated as an alternative to fossil fuels for their contribution to combating climate change (and a range of other air pollution problems such as particulates, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide; although biofuels often increase nitric oxide [NOx] emissions), more recently critics started to question the environmental profile of biofuels on various points. There is considerable diversity in greenhouse gas savings from biofuel use, depending on the type of feedstock, its cultivation methods, conversion technologies used and energy efficiency assumptions made. While the Brazilian sugarcane-based bio-ethanol and Malaysian oil-palm-based biodiesel indeed contribute significantly to lowering carbon dioxide emissions, this is either not the case or only partly the case (depending on which analyst is speaking, for US maize-based biofuels (for example, Pimentel and Patzek 2005; McElroy 2006). It is also questioned whether biofuels are a cost-effective carbon dioxide emission abatement strategy, as other investments towards a low carbon economy are more cost-efficient (Worldwatch Institute 2006a, p. 19; Frondel and Peters 2007).

In addition, several other environmental problems have recently been associated with biofuels: deforestation and a decrease in biodiversity, monocropping, land degradation and water pollution. Oil palm plantations inMalaysia and Indonesia were the target of environmentalists in recent years (with the orang-utan as symbol mobiliser; see also Painter, [2007]), but soy production also faces criticism for threatening the savannah and tropical forests in north-east Brazil, and soil and water conservation are endangered in the corn belt states of the USA. It is for these reasons that the NGO network Biofuelwatch has called on the EU to abandon their targets on biofuel use in petrol and diesel. New generation (FischerTropsch) biofuels are received more favourably, especially when they are based on waste biomass or cellulose. These debates have been directed mainly at national biofuel regions and hardly at all at local biofuel regions, where small-scale oilseed production is converted by farmer co-operatives in biofuels, to be consumed within the same locality. Production of low-input biofuels crops such as jatropha on marginal land is perceived to be a positive contribution to local soil improvements, providing biofuels (and farmer income) through simple processing methods (Dufey 2006). But energy balances and cost structures show remarkable inefficiencies of these local biofuel regions in developing countries (van Eijck and Romijn 2006), making them attractive only in peripheral localities that are not well served by conventional fossil-fuel infrastructure.8 Secondly, various impacts of biofuel systems on developing countries and poverty have met with criticism. Arguably the most criticised of these, by well-known spokespersons such as Noam Chomsky and Lester Brown, is the potential impact of largescale biofuel production on food supplies, food prices and food scarcity. With the development of local biofuel regions to national biofuel regions and the expansion ofnational biofuel regions in an increasing number of countries, these impacts are spreading globally. US large-scale biofuel production in particular is believed to increase food prices (such as that of maize in Mexico,9 sugarcane in Brazil and even of beer in Europe10) as well as the availability of food to the poor (Runge and Senauer 2007a, 2007b). With growing demand for biofuels on the world market, and thus the development of a GIBN, cropping patterns in developing countries, as well as the exports of food crops from them, will change, further jeopardising the availability of food crops in

developing countries. For instance, Jank et al. (2007, p. 25) estimate that the EU will have to import 40 per cent of its biodiesel needs by 2012 to fulfill its targets, as insufficient cropping areas are available within the EU. For ethanol the need for imports is less clear until 2012, but it might still be substantial. Currently, we also see major commitments of Malaysia and Indonesia (and to a lesser extent, Thailand) towards the expansion of oil palm, and of India and Indonesia towards jatropha. This might all interfere with the local biofuel regions in developing and developed countries, disturbing and transforming small-scale biofuel networks by integrating them into national biofuel regions. Proponents of free trade and large-scale biofuel programmes make contrasting evaluations of such developments. Such scholars celebrate the potential for developing countries to enter into new export markets, to provide local farmers with better opportunities and incomes and the boosting of national economies via a model of both import substitution (of fossil fuels) and export growth (of biomass/biofuels).11 The favourable natural conditions, widespread availability of land and low labour costs in tropical countries, and the fact that sugarcane and oil palm (the most cost-efficient and greenhouse gas-saving crops, according to Worldwatch [2006b, p. 8]) grow best in tropical conditions should provide developing countries in tropical regions a comparative advantage in growing biofuel feedstock. IFPRI (von Braun and Pachauri 2006) and to a lesser extent the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) seem to take a middle position in celebrating biofuels for their potential to serve the environment and the poor, but acknowledging at that same time that careful management and governance of biofuel production and trading is needed in order to develop pro-poor biofuel programmes. Policies and measures on feedstock, geographies, increasing productivity, waste reuse and scale optimisation in processing such fuels should allow winwin situations to be created and require publicprivate partnerships in biofuel development (von Braun and Pachauri 2006). This winwin goal appears to be easier to attain if the value-added stages of biofuel production, notably processing and refining, take place in the developing regions themselves. But the Brazil case teaches that to achieve this end a well-developed scape is needed. This is certainly not available in many subSaharan and other less developed countries (Kojima and Johnson 2005). This would result in developing countries becoming biomass rather than biofuel exporting regions, or in large foreign companies investing in biofuel production facilities, preferably in developing countries

with better infrastructure (such as South Africa). Second-generation biofuels from cellulose-rich organic material interferes less with the food economy and might have less negative consequences for the environment, but these require even more advanced technical processes, higher capital investments and large facilities, thus diminishing the comparative advantage of developing countries. Generally speaking, these debates come together with two developments. Firstly, there is the proliferation of national biofuel regions, starting with Brazil but spreading to a still growing number of developed and developing countries. These national biofuel regions result in large-scale monocropping biofuel production and the increasingly centralised, homogenised production and refining of these crops, while local biofuel regions are losing their relevance. Secondly, there is a clear tendency towards the development of a GIBN in which production, trade investment, consumption, control and governance lies beyond the control of nationstates (Worldwatch Institute 2006b). These developments result in major changes in the making in the networks and scapes that structure the biofuel flows. While initially farmers, cooperatives and individual processors were the main players in the local biofuel regions, increasingly nowadays large companies and conglomerates (of major agribusiness such as Cargill and Archer Daniels for the global grain trade12, conventional oil companies such as Total and Shell13 and car companies such as Toyota and DaimlerChrysler) are moving to the fore as powerful players that are both part of and the architects of biofuel scapes. Sometimes these conglomerates are actively constructed by state agencies through round tables. In France major oil companies, car industries and agroindustry and farmers associations met to discuss progress in biofuels. In the UK the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership is a similar conglomerate of some 250 organisations, including the automotive and fuel industries, the environmental sector and government. In the USA the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition brings similar interest groups together. Whether these round tables are actively constructed by state agencies or not, large-scale farms, agribusiness and other major companies in the biofuels networks increasingly manage to capture government subsidy programmes in both developed and in many developing countries (Kojima and Johnson 2005). And they are also moving into developing countries. For instance, in 2007 Swedish Scanoil was procuring land in Indonesia to grow jatropha as a feedstock for biofuel. All the same the ownership of and access to the sources for biofuels, and even production facilities for them, are much more diversified and small scale, compared

to conventional fossil fuel scapes. For instance, in Minnesota (USA) and So Paulo (Brazil) (Worldwatch Institute 2006b, p. 15) farmer co-operatives are still dominant in bio-ethanol production facilities. Furthermore, oil extraction facilities are more dispersed compared to highly concentrated petroleum refining facilities. This is partly related to the nature of feedstocks that disadvantages long-distance transport and thus large-scale production facilities and requires less capital compared to conventional oil.14 But the trend is definitely towards concentration and capturing farmers in fixed contracts. In 2005 Archer Daniels Midland produced about 25 per cent of ethanol in the USA and was the second largest biodiesel producer in Europe (Worldwatch Institute 2006a, p. 72). It is not just that an emerging GIBN intrudes on the specific local space of place where local biofuel production systems (in both developed and developing countries) are undermined and local environmental conditions are endangered (especially withadvanced technical processes, higher capital investments and large facilities, thus diminishing the comparative advantage of developing countries. Generally speaking, these debates come together with two developments. Firstly, there is the proliferation of national biofuel regions, starting with Brazil but spreading to a still growing number of developed and developing countries. These national biofuel regions result in large-scale monocropping biofuel production and the increasingly centralised, homogenised production and refining of these crops, while local biofuel regions are losing their relevance. Secondly, there is a clear tendency towards the development of a GIBN in which production, trade investment, consumption, control and governance lies beyond the control of nationstates (Worldwatch Institute 2006b). These developments result in major changes in the making in the networks and scapes that structure the biofuel flows. While initially farmers, co-operatives and individual processors were the main players in the local biofuel regions, increasingly nowadays large companies and conglomerates (of major agribusiness such as Cargill and Archer Daniels for the global grain trade12, conventional oil companies such as Total and Shell13 and car companies such as Toyota and DaimlerChrysler) are moving to the fore as powerful players that are both part of and the architects of biofuel scapes. Sometimes these conglomerates are actively constructed by state agencies through round tables. In France major oil companies, car industries and agroindustry and farmers associations met to discuss progress in biofuels. In the UK the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership is a similar conglomerate of some 250 organisations,

including the automotive and fuel industries, the environmental sector and government. In the USA the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition brings similar interest groups together. Whether these round tables are actively constructed by state agencies or not, large-scale farms, agribusiness and other major companies in the biofuels networks increasingly manage to capture government subsidy programmes in both developed and in many developing countries (Kojima and Johnson 2005). And they are also moving into developing countries. For instance, in 2007 Swedish Scanoil was procuring land in Indonesia to grow jatropha as a feedstock for biofuel. All the same the ownership of and access to the sources for biofuels, and even production facilities for them, are much more diversified and small scale, compared to conventional fossil fuel scapes. For instance, in Minnesota (USA) and So Paulo (Brazil) (Worldwatch Institute 2006b, p. 15) farmer co-operatives are still dominant in bio-ethanol production facilities. Furthermore, oil extraction facilities are more dispersed compared to highly concentrated petroleum refining facilities. This is partly related to the nature of feedstocks that disadvantages long-distance transport and thus large-scale production facilities and requires less capital compared to conventional oil.14 But the trend is definitely towards concentration and capturing farmers in fixed contracts (Table 1; Worldwatch Institute 2006a). In 2005 Archer Daniels Midland produced about 25 per cent of ethanol in the USA and was the second largest biodiesel producer in Europe (Worldwatch Institute 2006a, p. 72). It is not just that an emerging GIBN intrudes on the specific local space of place, where local biofuel production systems (in both developed and developing countries) are undermined and local environmental conditions are endangered (especially with respect to soil and water degradation through large-scale, high-input, monocropping farming), food availability and affordability for place-based locals (rather than the mobile cosmopolitans) are jeopardised and local marginal farmers become increasingly dependent on powerful global players in the GIBN. The emerging and increasingly dominant GIBN also supports and takes on board the increasing global mobility of biofuels, technologies, standards and so on, and prefers to tackle the environmental worries and problem definitions of the cosmopolitans (such as climate change) rather than those of the locals (who are concerned with water and soil degradation). The Worldwatch Institute (2006a p. 68), for instance, points to the fact that in Brazil

biofuels do improve the quality of life of the urban cosmopolitans (through lower air emissions from traffic), at the costs of those in the rural areas. The Global Integrated Biofuels Network also enhances the global sourcing for scarce (non-fossil fuel) energy resources. But all this is no evolutionary, deterministic development. Then, how can the biofuel governance structure develop in a GIBN to modify these tendencies?

Conclusion It is clear that energy from biomass has a very important role to play in combating global warming. It can also help countries gain independence from fossil fuels, not only in the developed world but also in developing regions of Asia, Latin America, and subSaharan Africa. The fact that some of the poorest countries of the planet are net importers of oil or, in some cases, fully dependent on imports (Biopact 2007) makes energy diversification even more compelling. Social and economic benefits can also be expected, mostly in rural areas. The use of global mechanisms such as the CDM can help take advantage of some of the abovementioned benefits in a less expensive manner. Moreover, the need for sustainable and economically feasible bioenergy technologies in developing countries can lead to significant export opportunities for technologies, know-how, and services, particularly for small and medium capacity plants (EREC 2008). From the current study, we have concluded that even though utilizing the CDM for the three bioenergy options examined (biomass combustion, biomass gasification, and biofuels for transport) has considerable benefits, it is to a large extent restricted by a number of barriers. Barriers of economic nature exist in some cases, such as for biomass gasification, but they are expected to be diminished as technology develops. In the mean time, favorable policies should be introduced to boost the industry and make investments more affordable and less risky. Dissemination of information regarding successful projects is also needed to make bioenergy projects under the CDM more attractive to investors. Nevertheless, in most cases, there are additional barriers of social, environmental, regulatory, and financing nature. The market is hampered by the lack of financial instruments that could make investors more interested in these kinds of projects. Especially in poor rural areas, it is very difficult for the population to take advantage of the CDM for household applications and for applications related to agriculture since they have no cash, and even if financing schemes exist, they are not familiar with the procedures. Also, high transaction costs and regulatory barriers are obstacles for most small-scale applications that could otherwise be certified for CDM. It is proposed that the idea of programmatic CDM activities (Flamos et al. 2008) could be used in these circumstances to split transaction costs among several projects that by themselves are too small to be handled under the CDM.

Technology transfer is difficult not only due to the unfamiliarity of investors with bioenergy projects and CDM procedures but also because of different standards for biomass production among countries and the lack of clear methodologies. One idea that has been proposed by Kishore, Bhandari, and Gupta (2004) and could be a solution to the latter problem is to use Energy Service Companys (ESCO) to manage bioenergy projects in rural areas. These organizations could facilitate replicability among projects, provide technological know-how, and take care of procedures with which interested parties are unfamiliar. As for standards, further research is required in this field to make sure that biomass is used in a sustainable way, without harming the local environment or causing negative socio-economic implications. Policies to remove international trade barriers for biomass resources are also needed, as is the case with liquid biofuels. Moreover, it is important that research in areas that are not yet cost-effective or widely deployed, such as gasification, second-generation biofuels, and flex-fuel vehicles, is continued and supported in order for them to be ready for large market deployment in the near future. Biofuels represent the first serious challenge to petroleum-based fuel for a century, but it will take at least two more decades before biofuels will seriously challenge the oil economy. However, the architecture of a global biofuel scape is already emerging. While the US Renewable Fuels Association (2006) only recently captured the development of biofuels in the title of their annual report: From niche to nation, it will not be long before a revision will follow: From nation to global. With the proliferation and globalisation of biofuels comes a proliferation and intensification of the debate on its merits. Environmental sustainability and vulnerabilities stand out as two of the most critical issues in the development of a GIBN. Such a network highlights both the inclusion of places of biofuel production and consumption into global structures and the increased mobility of biofuel flows and systems. It is not too difficult to imagine that environmental sustainability will be integrated in designing the socio-material infrastructure that will structure global biofuel flows or how this may happen. Indeed, if we use the language of mobile sociology, environmental sustainability can be seen as an attractor that will trigger and structure the biofuel scape, increasingly merging with and transforming the conventional fossil fuel scape. This is certainly true in that climate change is one of

the main drivers behind biofuels, but it is also likely that some of the other environmental aspects will do so in the future. But it is much more difficult to see the inclusion and mitigation of new social vulnerabilities in future GIBNs, especially those related to smaller farmers and the poorer developing countries. The highly technological, capital intensive nature of the global socio-material infrastructure in the making (with standardised products, advanced logistics and management and global actors) does not easily provide these vulnerable actors access, power and representation in such a GIBN. As long as the emerging GIBN takes on too many of the characteristics of the current fossil fuel GIN, we cannot expect a fuel switch to result in better positions for such vulnerable actors. But at the same time, other vulnerabilities are being mitigated, such as the dependence of fuel-consuming nations on the OPEC countries and the vulnerable justifications of major oil companies and car producers in the increasingly dominant debates on climate change. Thus, it is not that the scapes and networks must remain equal to current structures when moving to a more biofuel-based global integrated fuel network, but that the position, power and security of some of the most vulnerable actors is not likely to change for the better. In coining the biofuel developments in GIN spatialities I deliberately avoided discussion on a liquid post-national, completely deterritorialised and footloose framing of biofuels as global fluids. Hence, I do not foresee that biofuels will easily become truly boundless. Interpreting biofuels in terms of global fluids (as disorganised, boundless, non-directional and non-governable timespace constellations) requires a refocusing on carbon flows rather than biofuels. Then, indeed, the boundaries of nations and walled routes, and those between fuels, feed, food and gasses like methane and carbon dioxide will melt into thin air, the directionality of (carbon) flows will become meaningless and there will no longer be an obligatory point of passage. Flows will then become mobilities that mutate and vary in their configuration (Law and Mol 2003). Carbon configurations switch between food, feed, fuel and air. While this is also true with respect to fossil fuels in a glacial time frame, the time horizons are notably shorter when biofuels become common. But it can be questioned what such a global fluids analysis could contribute to understanding current vulnerabilities and sustainabilities.

References: Alexander, C. and C. Hurt (2007) Biofuels and Their Impact on Food Prices. Bioenergy, Purdue Extension, ID-346-W. Doering, O.C. 3rd (2004) Energy policy: is it the best energy alternative? Current Agriculture, Food & Resource Issues 5 pp. 204211 Demirbas, A.H., and I. Demirbas. 2007. Importance of rural bioenergy for developing countries. Energy Conversion & Management 48: 23862398. EU (2003) Promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/legislation/biofuels_en.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20 Ortmeyer, T.H. and P. Pillay, 2001. Trends in transportation sector technology energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, Proc. I.E.E.E. 89 (12):18371846.