Key drivers influencing the commercialization of ethanol-based biorefineries

Abstract

The imposition of ethanol derived from biomass for blending in gasoline would make countries less dependent on current petroleum sources, which would save foreign exchange reserves, improve rural economies and provide job opportunities in a clean and safe environment. The key drivers for successful commercial ethanol production are cheap raw materials, economic pretreatment technologies, in-house cellulase production with high and efficient titers, high ethanol fermentation rates, downstream recovery of ethanol and maximum by-products utilization. Furthermore, recent developments in engineering of biomass for increased biomass, down-regulation of lignin synthesis, improved cellulase titers and re-engineering of cellulases, and process integration of the steps involved have increased the possibility of cheap bioethanol production that competes with the price of petroleum. Recently, many companies have come forward globally for bioethanol production on a large scale. It is very clear now that bioethanol will be available at the price of fossil fuels by 2010. This article intends to provide insight and perspectives on the important recent developments in bioethanol research, the commercialization status of bioethanol production, the step-wise cost incurred in the process involved, and the possible innovations that can be utilized to reduce the cost of ethanol production.

INTRODUCTION

Owing to the increasing world population and global industrialization, demand for energy and transportation fuels has grown steadily worldwide over the last century. Fossil fuels and gasoline products have been the major resource used to meet this ever-increasing energy demand. However, at the current state of consumption, the global oil reserves are expected to be exhausted in the next 40 years.1 A decline in the worldwide crude oil production is predicted, from 1033 billion gallon (gal) in 2010 to approximately 206.6 billion gal in 2050.2

The use of ethanol derived from lignocellulosic biomass (LB) as fuel seems like a promising and eco-benign solution.3 In many countries, it is already blended into gasoline at some concentrations varying from 5 to 25 per cent. Figure 1 summarizes the top 10 countries producing ethanol, derived from sugarcane molasses, juices, corn or other food- and feed-based products. Owing to their values as food/feed and daily commodities, the current raw substrates are no longer attractive for bioethanol commercialization. Types of LB, such as crop residues, forestry waste, grasses and weeds are new attractive substrates for ethanol production because of their renewable nature and vast availability at low cost.4 LB is most abundantly available on earth, with about 200 billion tons produced annually.5 Table 1 summarizes a variety of LBs and the presence of total carbohydrates in each.

Table 1 Availability and specifications of lignocellulosic biomass for ethanol production
Figure 1
figure1

Top 10 global ethanol producers (millions of gallons).Source: Renewable fuel association, USA, http://www.ethanolrfa.org, last visited November 2009.

In the last three or four centuries, significant progress has been made in the bioconversion of LB into ethanol. Despite the achievements made in the laboratory, the successful commercialization of ethanol remains a challenging task for entrepreneurs, economists and scientists.6, 7 The key issues relate to the regular supply of feedstock and the balance between judicious usage of LB and the environment. The cost of ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass is also highly competitive.8, 9 This article aims to summarize the current economic issues around bioethanol production. We advocate the significance of LB-based ethanol to meet current market demand, including possibilities of exploring ideal raw substrates using current innovations for biorefineries, which may assist in reducing the cost of ethanol production and the commercialization of bioethanol worldwide.

LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

A number of LB materials can be used for ethanol production. Figure 2 summarizes the standardized procedure for ethanol production from LB and the usage of by-products utilization. The pretreatment of LB increases its amenability to cellulolytic enzyme action. This is achieved by enzymatic hydrolysis for depolymerization of structural polysaccharides into reducing sugars. The microbial-mediated fermentation of sugars subsequently leads to the downstream ethanol and ethanol recovery process (Figure 2). This simplified method raises several concerns about bioethanol commercialization.

Figure 2
figure2

Utilization of lignocelluloses for ethanol production and by-products utilization.

FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMERCIALIZATION OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION

Cost of raw materials

Raw materials constitute the most decisive factor in ethanol production. The prices of feedstocks vary according to location, seasons, local state of the supply-demand conditions and transportation needed. In a study conducted by Hamelink et al,10 biomass feedstock cost was found to make up 40 per cent of the ethanol production cost.10 Cellulosic biomass at US$50/metric ton is less expensive than all sources listed except coal. At $50/ton ($3/GJ), the purchase price of cellulosic biomass on an energy basis is the same as that of oil at $0.41/gal. In addition to being available at a low cost, biomass must be available on a large scale for meaningful impact on energy and sustainability challenges. The current productivity of biomass energy crops, such as switch grass and Miscanthus, is quite high showing 5.6 and 15 tones harvestable biomass/acres, which in turn can produce 557 and 1500 gal ethanol/year, respectively11 (www.eere.gov/afdc/ethanol/feedstocks). Some weedy materials, such as aquatic weeds - Eicchornia crassipies (water hyacinth), Typha latifolia, Saccharum spontaneum (wild sugarcane), Crofton, Prosopis juliflora and Lantana camara, could be another attractive option for raw materials in the near future for biorefineries.12, 13

Pretreatment processing and economics in cellulase production

Although feedstock is available in large quantities, the main challenge remains to economize the operating costs of biomass conversion processes that include pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, toward a full-scale commercialization. The pretreatment of LB has been studied extensively with the goal of developing a process that could reduce bioconversion time, lower the usage of cellulose during fermentation and enhance the total yield of ethanol.14 Over the past few years, the cost of cellulase production has been trimmed by a factor of 10 and ranges between 10 and 20 cents per gallon (¢/gal) of ethanol produced.15 Further improvements in batch processes of enzyme production and its simultaneous application in biomass saccharification may economize the conversion of sugars into ethanol.16 Adding together the 9.90 ¢/gal ethanol for dedicated cellulase production and 9 ¢/gal for simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) gives a total cost for biological processing of 18.9 ¢/gal, which is over four times greater than the 4.2 ¢/gal projected for consolidated bio-processing (CBP).16 The continuous efforts for LB pretreatment, enzyme applications and fermentation have reduced total projected cost for bioethanol from $ 4.61 per gal to about $ 1.173 per gal.17

Lynd et al16 projected that the price of ethanol from a cellulosic feedstock costing $40/dry ton would be 77 ¢/gal ($1.08/gal gasoline equivalent) if produced via dedicated cellulase production and 63 ¢/gal ($0.88/gal gasoline equivalent) via CBP (Figure 3a, b). In comparison, the average wholesale price of gasoline was reported at $0.98/gal for the period 2001-2004 and at $1.32/gal for the first quarter of 2005 (http://www.eia.doe.gov). The economics of ethanol production using different raw materials are compared in Table 2.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 On the basis of scientific facts, the cost of cellulases is a vital factor for the desired success in biorefineries. United States Department of Energy (USDOE) analyzed whether the enzymes necessary to convert biomass to ethanol can be bought for less than 10 ¢/gal of ethanol, the cost of making ethanol could drop to as low as 75 ¢/gal.25

Table 2 Comparison of the cost economics for ethanol production from various substrates
Figure 3
figure3

(a) Comparison of cost incurred for ethanol production by consolidated bio-processing (CBP) and simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) with reference to cellulase production (b) Comparison of total process cost for ethanol production by consolidated CBP and SSCF with reference to cellulase production. Source: Data adopted from Lynd et al16.

Ethanol recovery cost

The separation and recovery of ethanol from the fermented liquor of lignocelluloses hydrolysate is another cost-adding factor in the commercialization sector. Ethanol is usually recovered by blasting a stream through the fermentation broth, collecting the vapor and either condensing it or feeding it to a distillation system.26 Owing to high energy consumption, this system has turned out to be uneconomical. Other methods such as the membrane process or a solvent extraction scheme have their own pros and cons. The efficient recovery of ethanol is still a challenging task in biorefineries. This area is the subject of special attention to economize the bioethanol commercialization.

PRICE TAGGED PROFITABILITY IN BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION

The key question of the major contribution from biorefineries remains. Strategic commercialization and policy support for bioethanol production are required to grow the industries from their current base. To bring the sustainability of biofuel, the major areas that require extensive efforts to achieve an economically viable ethanol production process includes (i) increased hydrolysis of carbohydrate polymers, (ii) increased cellulase titer and less loading, (iii) incorporation of CBP and SSCF technologies for increased ethanol titer from pentoses and hexoses utilizing sugars, (v) integration of the ethanol production process with other processes, (vi) removal of the detoxification step and the requirement for robust microorganisms and (vii) by-product utilization, and improving ethanol recovery from fermented aqueous sugar solutions. Bioethanol profitability also depends on the current price of crude oil, which varies over a wide range from one country to another. The use of different grades of ethanol may also contribute significantly in economics. The environmental benefits possible from biomass-derived ethanol seem considerable, although the total replacement of petroleum with biomass-derived ethanol seems impossible at the moment.

A challenging factor that influences profitability of bioethanol is the direct competition between food and energy, which resulted in the global inflation of the cost of food, feed and energy.27 Table 3 highlights the decisive cost factors including their impact on profitability of bioethanol production. The conversion of biomass to ethanol represents a challenging yet attainable objective, which appears to be achievable by the end of the next decade.28, 29, 30 Table 4 summarizes the cost economics in bioethanol production at different stages.31 On the basis of the trends of current cost and uncontrollable growth, the bioenergy sector is a better investment opportunity for future.32 Already, many entrepreneurs, through financial support from government funding agencies and public and private investors, have invested appreciably to make bioethanol a reality (Table 5). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated that bioethanol price may drop to as low as $0.72 per gal within the 2010 time frame. The technology development in future would also make grain-based ethanol cheaper, although not appreciative from food industry's perspective. A cost comparison among cellulosic corn-based ethanol and gasoline prices in the United States is summarized in Table 6.28

Table 3 Factors governing the commercialization and achievable targets with respect to impact on biorefinery
Table 4 A generalized procedural break-up of expenses in ethanol production from lignocellulosic feedstock(s)
Table 5 Major bioethanol producers and technological implementation in bioethanol production worldwide
Table 6 Comparison of current and potential production costs of gasoline and ethanol in North America

ECONOMIZATION OF BIOFUEL THROUGH INNOVATIONS

The advancements in the areas of biomass selection and pretreatment, production of high and efficient cellulase titers and development of genetically engineered crops, including ethanologens with unique properties, show promise for making cellulosic ethanol the fuel of the future.29, 30 The use of system biology-based ‘omics’ technologies, viz. genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, would assist in the study of genes, proteins and metabolites of interest and guide further in improving microbes and plants that show high biomass and tolerance to growth under extreme environmental conditions, turning into high yielding ethanol tiers. The process integration, improved microbial traits for simultaneous production of cellulases and ethanol from mixed sugars, and improvements in the distillation process to get water-free ethanol will lead to a new manufacturing paradigm.30

Microorganisms for ethanol production: an asset in biorefinery

Microorganisms have excelled at producing ethanol from a variety of raw carbohydrates for billions of years under varying cultivation processes. Today, studying the giant ‘microbial libraries’ is in vogue for microbial conversion of lignocellulose carbohydrates into ethanol. In addition, timely interventions, such as strain improvement through mutagenesis, gene cloning and expression, and optimization of potential fermentation parameters, can enhance the production of ethanol.33, 34, 35

Sugar syrup derived from LB either by dilute acids or by enzymatic action contains a variety of sugars. The ideal organism for the production of ethanol would be the one, which can utilize pentose-rich and hexose containing sugars generated from lignocellulosic hydrolysate. The best-known alcohol fermenting organisms Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Zymomonas mobilis are capable of fermenting only hexose sugars and sucrose into ethanol. However, pentose-fermenting organisms are limited including Pichia stipitis, Candida shehatae and Pachysolen tannophilus. Organism that has limited ethanol tolerance and takes longer incubation time to ferment lignocelluloses hydrolysates is not suitable at larger scale for ethanol production.36 Some anaerobic bacteria may ferment xylose but are found to be inhibited at high sugar and alcohol concentration in addition to by-product formation, which virtually lowers the ethanol yield.37 Filamentous fungi tolerate inhibitors, but their higher generation time and lower ethanol yields and productivities make them undesirable microbes for ethanol production at industrial scale.38

Recombinant strains of pentose fermenting Escherichia coli and Klebsiella oxytoca were developed by introducing ethanologenic genes from Zymomonas mobilis.39, 40 The first xylose-fermenting S. cerevisiae strain was also developed through the insertion and expression of xylose-metabolizing genes from P. stipitis.41 Later xylose-fermenting strains of S. cerevisiae were constructed by introducing the genes encoding xylose isomerase from the bacterium Thermus thermophilus42 and the anaerobic fungus Piromyces sp.,43 respectively. Zhao and Bai44 made a recombinant flocculating S. cerevisiae SPSCO1 and studied its performance on a 100 m3 reactor scale by self-immobilization. Liu45 made efforts in developing the furan-resistant S. cerevisiae showing ethanol production from lignocelluloses hydrolysates. Another effort in the direction of developing ethanologenic bacteria, which simultaneously break down cellulose and ferment the resulting sugars into ethanol, could be useful in CBP. Recently, Hong et al46 developed genetically recombinant Kluyveromyces marxianus to produce enzymes homologous to the S. cerevisiae. K. marxianus is thermotolerance in nature and can produce up to 95 per cent of the theoretical yield.

Biomass selection

To economize overall bioethanol process, the selection of biomass is an important criterion in the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol. Apart from the conventional resources (i.e. agro residues, woody materials, paper wastes), the new raw materials viz. weedy materials, energy crops such as Miscanthus, switch grass, and biotech industrial wastes derived from enzymes manufacturing industries have gained increased attention for ethanol production. Algae have also been touted as a rich and ubiquitous source of renewable fuel.32

Bioenergy-based current innovations led to the creation of genetically modified plants for the production of higher levels of sugars with less lignin by the downregulation of lignin synthetic genes. Crops producing cellulases are also being genetically modified for the over production of cellulase by recent advances in ‘molecular farming’.47 Forcing plants to overproduce their own cellulase is a much cheaper alternative to producing it in a separate system, and offers the ability to scale up.47 A new variety of corn was developed by overexpression of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC), yielding broader leaves and high biomass density because of greater CO2 fixation.48 Expression of an inorganic carbon transporter gene from cyanobacteria to tobacco produced an elevated photosynthesis rate and eventually increased in plant biomass.49 Another effort in this direction was made by Jing et al,50 who manipulated the genes to improve nitrogen metabolism and increase the rate of biomass production. Good et al51 overexpressed bacterial glutamate dehydrogenase to increase biomass in tobacco plants. These studies have been carried out in model plants such as tobacco and need to be studied in bioenergy crops.

Pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of LB

The efficient utilization of LB is an unavoidable opportunity that needs to be met to reduce the cost of ethanol production in biorefinery. Several pretreatment methods have been reported in the past using LB to improve ethanol production.52, 53 Methods including physical (mechanical comminution, pyrolysis), physico-chemical (steam explosion (autohydrolysis), ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX), CO2 explosion, chemical pretreatment (ozonolysis), acid hydrolysis, alkaline hydrolysis, oxidative delignification, organosolv process and biological processes (biological pretreatment) have been used for the pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials in the past and reviewed.54, 55 Methods such as dilute acid, hot water, steam explosion, AFEX, ammonia recycle percolation and limes are capital intensive,53 whereas others, such as biological pretreatment, are extremely slow.56

Enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated cellulosics is carried out using highly specific cellulolytic enzymes. Among cellulolytic enzymes, cellulases are usually a mixture of several enzymes. At least three major groups of cellulases are involved in the hydrolysis process: (i) endoglucanase (EG, endo- 1,4-D-glucanohydrolase, or EC 3.2.1.4.), which attacks regions of low crystallinity in the cellulose fiber, creating free chain-ends; (ii) exoglucanase or cellobiohydrolase (CBH, 1,4- β-D-glucan cellobiohydrolase, or EC 3.2.1.91.), which degrades the molecule further by removing cellobiose units from the free chain ends; and (iii) β-glucosidase (EC 3.2.1.21), which hydrolyzes cellobiose to produce glucose.57 The products of enzymatic hydrolysis are usually a mixture of reducing sugars primarily glucose and xylose, and other sugar monomers such as arabinose, mannose, cellobiose, and so on.14 Enzymatic hydrolysis is carried out at mild conditions, thus minimizing by-product formation and corrosion. Microorganisms belonging to Clostridium, Cellulomonas, Bacillus, Thermomonospora, Ruminococcus, Bacteriodes, Erwinia, Acetovibrio, Microbispora and Streptomyces can produce cellulases.58 The cellulolytic anaerobes, such as Clostridium thermocellum and Bacteroides cellulosolvens, produce cellulases with high specific activity with no high enzyme titers.52 Taherzadeh and Karimi59 reviewed the recent developments made in enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosics.

Management of certain hydrolytic parameters viz. temperature, substrate to enzyme ratio and loading of appropriate amount of enzymes for the substrates, and addition of surfactants or other additives may effectively curtail cost expenditure by improving yield of fermentable sugars.58 Enhancement of cellulose hydrolysis, by adding surfactants to the hydrolysis mixture, has been reported by Tabka et al.60 Yang and Wyman61 used bovine serum albumin to increase the surface area of pretreated corn stover solids and reported enhanced glucose yields (92 per cent) at a cellulase loading of 15 FPU/g of cellulose.

Interventions of new technologies in cellulase biotechnology by expressing and purifying a variety of potent cellulases from microorganisms, tracing metabolic pathways to identify biomolecules through systems biology methods viz. genomics, transcript profiling and proteomics, and metabolomics may improve biomass hydrolysis performance under preferred process conditions.26 These findings and characterization of genes are likely to have significant implications for the design of industrial processes for the commercial production of biomass-degrading enzymes.

Variants of enzymatic hydrolysis coupled with fermentation

Cellulase activity is being inhibited by cellobiose to a lesser extent by glucose. Several methods have been developed including the use of high concentrations of enzymes, supplementation of beta-glucosidases during hydrolysis, the removal of sugars during hydrolysis by ultrafiltration, and by SSF process, which seems more economical for commercialization. SSF is the process in which reducing sugars are being produced during cellulose hydrolysis and simultaneously fermented into ethanol, which reduces the product inhibition.62

Microorganisms T. reesei and S. cerevisiae have been used in SSF at optimal temperature 38°C, which compromised for hydrolysis (45–50°C) and fermentation (30°C).17, 62 To maintain the optimal temperature (38°C) of SSF, thermotolerant yeasts and bacteria have been used in the SSF to raise the temperature close to the optimal hydrolysis temperature. Comparing with the two-stage hydrolysis – fermentation or separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) processes, SSF has following advantages: (1) increased hydrolysis rate by the conversion of sugars that inhibit cellulase activity; (2) lower enzyme requirement; (3) higher product yields; (4) lower requirements for sterile conditions as glucose is removed immediately and ethanol is produced; (5) shorter process time; and (6) less reactor volume because a single reactor is used.52 However, the SSF process does carry disadvantages such as (i) incomplete temperatures for hydrolysis and fermentation, (ii) ethanol tolerance of microbes and (iii) inhibition of enzymes by ethanol.63 The new variant of SSF is simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF), wherein both pentoses and hexoses are simultaneously fermented into ethanol. The most recent variant of SSCF is CBP, which includes cellulase production, application of enzymes into hydrolysis of cellulosics and eventual conversion into ethanol by pentose and hexose utilizing microorganisms.16, 64 These new modifications in process development may provide biorefineries new avenues in ethanol commercialization.

Bioreactor designing

An appropriate vessel, bioreactor, is the detrimental factor for commercial success of any fermentation-based industry. Innovations in bioreactors have designed ideal plug flow, percolation, counter-current and shrinking-bed reactors for biomass pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis.59, 65 The selection of suitable process configurations, viz. SSF, SSCF and CBP, is crucial while designing cost-effective processes for bioethanol production.66 Conventional processes like fed-batch and continuous batch have own pros and cons for commercial ethanol production. For lesser investment and longer process operation, the use of immobilized cells is an advantageous method for increased ethanol productivity keeping prolonged process operation and stability.67, 68 The use of cheap and natural carriers in immobilization ensures that this method can be exploited with minimal increase in the overall production cost.67

Distillation of ethanol

The recovery of water-free ethanol after the fermentation of cellulosic sugars determines the overall cost and economics of ethanol. It is a challenging task to obtain full recovery of non-hydrous ethanol from hydrous fermented broth. There has been much discussion regarding biomass pretreatment, saccharolytic processes and ethanol fermentation, but ethanol recovery from cellulosic fermented broth needs to be researched to make process cost effective. In general, lignocellulose hydrolysate is a diluted sugar solution, which means less ethanol is produced after fermentation, making the distillation process energy-intensive and costly. The possible solutions to this problem include concentrating the cellulosic sugar syrup, increasing the amount of substrate during the saccharolytic process, or using the high-throughput distillation or membrane-assisted approaches. A number of novel distillation methodologies such as per-evaporation, supercritical solvent extraction, mechanical vapor compression, membrane assisted or molecular sieve adsorption could be the best technologies for ethanol recovery from a fermented cellulosic sugar solution.69, 70

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND BIOETHANOL REFINERIES

In order to estimate the potential impact of the clean development mechanism (CDM) on the economics of biomass-to-ethanol projects, it is important to evaluate two parameters: the unit reduction of CO2 eq emissions of one liter of fuel ethanol produced from a given type of feedstock according to a specific technology, and the price of one ton of certified emission reductions on the international market.71 It is well established by now that bioethanol is renewable in nature as the production process uses energy from plant resources. The net carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is ‘zero’, making ethanol an environment-friendly energy source.1, 10 In addition, the exhaust emissions and toxicity of ethanol are lower than petroleum as it contains more oxygen. Ethanol production from lignocelluloses has a greater net energy balance (NEB) than cornstarch-derived ethanol.72 Among the different biomass sources, switch grass, sorghum and Miscanthus have the highest NEB.73, 74 Moreover, these sources also have ecological benefits and can assist in decreasing soil erosion, improving water quality and protecting natural energy.73 The CDM is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialized nations with a greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitment to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries rather than expensive emission reduction approaches in their own countries.75 Unlike fossil fuel-based refineries, bio-refineries do not have to deal with long-term environmental clean-up and soil or water remediation on accidental spills. To promote the biorefinery infrastructure, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advocated the implementation of bioethanol policies that would help reduce the pollution load in the environment.

STATUS OF BIOETHANOL COMMERCIALIZATION

Cellulosic ethanol commercialization is the process of building an industry out of methods of turning cellulose-containing organic matter into fuel. Companies such as Iogen, Broin and Abengoa are building refineries that can process biomass into ethanol. Companies viz. Diversa, Novozymes and Dyadic are engaged in producing enzymes that could enable cellulosic ethanol in future. A shift from food crop feedstocks to waste residues and native grasses offers significant opportunities for groups ranging from farmers to biotechnology entrepreneurs, including green energy investors. In recent years, the growth of commercial plants for bioethanol across the United States has mushroomed, including 26 new plants under construction in 2008 alone.

In the current market, Brazil is at the top among bioethanol producers (www.ethanolrfa.org). The Brazilian Government has strengthened the expedition of sugarcane into ethanol, which helped the country to overcome fossil fuel dependency. The investment made in 1975, under National Alcohol Program (NAP), created almost 44 per cent of the Brazilian energy matrix renewable.76 Brazil is now aggressively pursuing utilization of the sugarcane crop for renewable energy production using bagasse and leaves. According to Petrobras Biocombustives, the bioethanol production in Brazil may triplicate by 2020, passing from the actual 7.15 billion gal to 18.2 billion gal.77 On the basis of statistics provided by the National Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biocombustives Agency (www.anp.gov.br), there are 243 bioethanol processing plants registered in the country and nearly 33,620 gasoline services stations authorized for the sale of bioethanol.78

As a result of a regular increment in importing gasoline, China encouraged ethanol as an alternative transportation fuel by introducing fuel ethanol production by exploring the large feedstock of various agro-residues (for example, corn stover, wheat straw and rice husk).79 The private sector will still have to make efforts to utilize vast feedstock reserves for bioethanol production on a commercial scale, which may eventually release the country from fossil fuel dependency.80

Moving forward, the Government of India has already declared and mandated to blend 5 per cent ethanol in gasoline in nine states including five union territories, which is being increased up to 10 per cent by the end of 2010 (http://petroleum.nic.in/). Currently, this amount of ethanol is being obtained from sugarcane molasses-derived ethanol. However, the future increase in demand needs to be explored by lignocellulosics-derived ethanol. India is now taking necessary steps to promote biofuel research at several research Institutions and research universities. Private sectors are also engaging themselves with a strong result-oriented policy within a tangible time frame.12 Other countries such as Canada, Germany, Spain and Sweden are actively participating in bioethanol production. Table 5 summarizes the status of the major bioethanol producers worldwide.

CONCLUSION

The keys to the establishment of a commercial process are a reduction in capital and operating costs for each of the unit operations and the fullest utilization of by-products. The implementation of bioethanol would generate more employment opportunities and income in rural areas and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which makes it worthwhile for the government to encourage biofuels by providing tax benefits. It is recommended that appropriate policy objectives be imposed to foster bioethanol commercialization. These policy objectives could include the correction of certain tax anomalies, exemption from excise duty and sales tax, deregulation of feedstock and its pricing, and simplification of licensing for bioethanol production.

References

  1. Puppan, D. (2002) Environmental evaluation of biofuels. Priodica Polytechnica Series -Social and Management Sciences 10: 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Campbell, C.J. and Laherrere, J.H. (1998) The end of cheap oil. Scientific American 3: 78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wyman, C.E. (2007) What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol. Trends in Biotechnology 25: 153–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chandel, A.K., Chan, E.C., Rudravaram, R., Narasu, M.L., Rao, L.V. and Ravindra, P. (2007a) Economics and environmental impact of bioethanol production technologies: An appraisal. Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Reviews 2: 14–32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kim, S. and Dale, E.B. (2004) Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy 26: 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Herrera, S. (2004) Industrial biotechnology - a chance at redemption. Nature Biotechnology 22: 671–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Herrera, S. (2006) Bonkers about biofuels. Nature Biotechnology 24: 755–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bevan, M.W. and Franssen, M.C.R. (2006) Investing in green and white biotech. Nature Biotechnology 24: 765–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lynd, L.R. et al (2008) How biotech can transform biofuels. Nature Biotechnology 26: 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hamelinck, C.N., Hooijdonk, G.V. and Faaij, A.P.C. (2005) Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 28: 384–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Heaton, E.A., Dohleman, F.G. and Long, S.P. (2008) Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: The potential of miscanthus. Global Change Biology 14 (9): 2000–2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chandel, A.K. et al (2007b) Economic evaluation and environmental benefits of biofuel: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 28: 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chandel, A.K., Narasu, M.L., Chandrasekhar, G., Manikeyam, A. and Rao, L.V. (2009a) Use of Saccharum spontaneum (wild sugarcane) as biomaterial for cell immobilization and modulated ethanol production by thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae VS3. Bioresource Technology 100: 2404–2410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gray, K.A., Zhao, L. and Emptage, M. (2006) Bioethanol. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 10: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Greer, D. (2005) Spinning straw into fuel. Biocycle 46: 61–65.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lynd, L.R., van Zyl, W.H., McBride, J.E. and Laser, M. (2005) Consolidated bio-processing of cellulosic biomass: An update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 16: 577–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wingren, A., Galbe, M. and Zacchi, G. (2003) Techno-economic evaluation of producing ethanol from softwood: Comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of bottlenecks. Biotechnology Progress 9: 1109–1117.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wooley, R., Ruth, M., Glassner, D. and Sheehan, J. (1999) Process design and costing of bioethanol technology: A tool for determining the status and direction of research and development. Biotechnology Progress 15: 794–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hinman, N.D., Schell, D.J., Riley, C.J., Bergeron, P.W. and Walter, P.J. (1992) Preliminary estimate of the cost of ethanol production for SSF technology. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 34/35: 639–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kadam, K.L. et al (1999) Environmental Life Cycle Implications of Fuel Oxygenate Production from California Biomass: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado. NREL Report no. NREL/TP-580-25688.

  21. Arifeen, N., Wang, R., Kookos, I., Webb, C. and Koutinas, A.A. (2009) Optimization and cost estimation of novel wheat bio-refining for continuous production of fermentation feedstock. Biotechnology Progress 23: 872–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Von Sivers, M.V., Zacchi, G., Olsson, L. and Hahn-Hägerdal, B. (1994) Cost analysis of ethanol production from willow using recombinant Escherichia coli. Biotechnology Progress 10: 555–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Aden, A. et al (2002) Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado. NREL Report no. NREL/TP-510-32438.

  24. Yamamoto, H. and Yamaji, K. (2005) Sustainable energy path Thermal Science 9: 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Griffiths, M. and Atlas, R.M. (2005) Preemptive bioremediation: Applying biotechnology for clean industrial products and processes. In: R.M. Atlas and J. Philp (eds.) Bioremediation: Applied Microbial Solutions for Real-World Environmental Cleanup. Washington DC: ASM Press, pp. 318–356.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Knauf, M. and Moniruzzaman, M. (2004) Lignocellulosic biomass processing: A perspective. International Sugar Journal 106: 147–150.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krugman, P. (2008) Grains gone wild. International Herald Tribune, New York, 7 April.

  28. IEA. (2000) Liquid Fuels from Biomass: North America; Impact of Non-Technical Barriers on Implementation. Prepared for the IEA Bioenergy Implementing Agreement, Task 27 Final Report, by (S&T)2 Consultants Inc.

  29. Himmel, M.E. and Beyer, E.A. (2009) Lignocellulose conversion to biofuels: Current challenges, global perspectives. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 20: 316–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ragauskas, A.J. et al (2006) The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311: 484–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Viikari, l. (2004) Overcoming technical barriers in bioethanol production from lignocellulosics. European-China Workshop on Liquid Biofuels; 4–5 November, Beijing.

  32. Waltz, E. (2008) Cellulosic ethanol booms despite unproven business models. Nature Biotechnology 26: 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dien, B.S., Cotta, M.A. and Jeffries, T.W. (2003) Bacteria engineered for fuel ethanol production: Current status. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 63: 258–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Senthilkumar, V. and Gunasekaran, P. (2005) Bioethanol production from cellulosic substrates: Engineered bacteria and process integration challenges. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 64: 845–853.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pasha, C. and Rao, L.V. (2009) Thermotolerant yeasts for bioethanol production using lignocellulosic substrates. In: T. Satyanarayana and G. Kunze (eds.) In Yeast Biotechnology: Diversity and Applications, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 551–588.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Olsson, L. and Hahn-Hagerdal, B. (1996) Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates for ethanol production. Enzmye and Microbial Technology 18: 312–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Desai, S.G., Guerinot, M.L. and Lynd, L.R. (2004) Cloning of the L-lactate dehydrogenase gene and elimination of lactic acid production via gene knockout in Thermoanaerobacterium saccharolyticum JW/SL-YS485. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 65: 600–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Singh, A., Kumar, P.K.R. and Schugerl, K. (1992) Bioconversion of cellulosic materials to ethanol by filamentous fungi. Advances in Biochemical Engineering Biotechnology 45: 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ingram, L.O. et al (1998) Metabolic engineering of bacteria for ethanol production. Biotechnology Bioengineering 58: 204–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Burchhardt, G. and Ingram, L.O. (1992) Conversion of xylan to ethanol by ethanologenic strains of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella oxytoca. Applied Environmental Microbiology 58 (4): 1128–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kotter, P. and Ciriacy, M. (1993) Xylose fermentation by Sacharomyces cerevisiae. Applied Microbiology Biotechnology 38: 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Walfridsson, M., Bao, X., Anderlund, M., Lilius, G., Bulow, L. and Hahn-Hagerdal, B. (1996) Ethanolic fermentation of xylose with Saccharomyces cerevisiae harboring the Thermus thermophilus xyl A gene, which expresses an active xylose (glucose) isomerase. Applied Environmental Microbiology 12: 4648–4651.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kuyper, M. et al (2005) Metabolic engineering of a xyloseisomerase-expressing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for rapid anaerobic xylose fermentation. FEMS Yeast Research 5: 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhao, X.Q. and Bai, F.W. (2009) Mechanisms of yeast stress tolerance and its manipulation for efficient fuel ethanol production. Journal of Biotechnology, 144 (1): 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Liu, Z.L. (2006) Genomic adaptation of ethanologenic yeast to biomass conversion inhibitors. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 73: 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hong, J., Wang, Y., Kumagai, H. and Tamaki, H. (2007) Construct of thermotolerant yeast expressing thermostable cellulase genes. Journal of Biotechnology 130: 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gadab, C., Biswas, G., Ransom, C. and Sticklen, M. (2006) Expression of biologically active Acidothermus cellulolyticus endoglucanase in transgenic maize plants. Plant Science 171: 617–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Torney, F., Moeller, L., Scarpa, A. and Wang, K. (2007) Genetic engineering approaches to improve bioethanol production from maize. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18: 193–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. van Camp, W. (2005) Yield enhancement genes: Seeds for growth. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 16: 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jing, Z.P. et al (2004) Improved growth in a field trial of transgenic hybrid poplar overexpressing glutamine synthetase. New Phytologist 164: 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Good, A.G., Shrawat, A.K. and Muench, D.G. (2004) Can less yield more? Is reducing nutrient input into the environment compatible with maintaining crop production. Trends in Plant Science 9: 597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sun, Y. and Cheng, J. (2002) Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: A review. Bioresource Technology 83: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Moiser, N. et al (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology 96: 673–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Taherzadeh, M.J. and Karimi, K. (2008) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve ethanol and biogas production: A review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 9: 1621–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zheng, Y., Pan, Z. and Zhang, R. (2009) Overview of biomass pretreatment for cellulosic ethanol production. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering 2: 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Meza, J.C., Sigoillot, J.C., Lomascolo, A., Navarro, D. and Auria, R. (2006) New process for fungal delignification of sugarcane bagasse and simultaneous production of laccase in a V15. vapor phase bioreactor. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54: 3852–3858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bayer, E.A., Lamed, R. and Himmel, M.E. (2007) The potential of cellulases and cellulosomes for cellulosic waste management. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18: 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Chandel, A.K., Singh, O.V. and Rao, L.V. (2010) Biotechnological applications of hemicellulosic derived sugars: State-of-the-art. In: O.V. Singh and S.P. Harvey (eds.) Sustainable Biotechnology: Renewable Resources and New Perspectives. Netherland: Springer Verlag, pp. 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Taherzadeh, M.J. and Karimi, K. (2007a) Acid based hydrolysis process for bioethanol production from lignocellulosic materials: A review. BioResources 2: 472–499.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tabka, M.G., Herpoël-Gimbert, I., Monod, F., Asther, M. and Sigoillot, J.C. (2006) Enzymatic saccharification of wheat straw for bioethanol production by a combined cellulase xylanase and feruloyl esterase treatment. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 39: 897–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Yang, B. and Wyman, C.E. (2006) BSA treatment to enhance enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose in lignin containing substrates. Biotechnology Bioengineering 94: 6–617.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Olofson, K., Rudolf, R. and Liden, G. (2008) Designing simultaneous saccharification and fermentation for improved xylose conversion by a recombinant strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Biotechnology 134: 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Harikrishna, S., Reddy, T.J. and Chowdary., G.V. (2001) Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic wastes to ethanol using thermotolerant yeast. Bioresource Technology 77: 193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Xu, Q., Singh, A. and Himmel, M. (2009) Perspectives and new directions for the production of bioethanol using consolidated bioprocessing of lignocelluloses. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 20: 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Taherzadeh, M.J. and Karimi, K. (2007b) Enzymatic-based hydrolysis processes for ethanol from lignocellulosic materials: A review. BioRes 2 (4): 707–738.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sanchez, O.J. and Cardona, C.A. (2008) Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks. Bioresource Technology 99: 5270–5295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ogbonna, J.C., Tomiyama, S., Liu, Y.C. and Tanka, H. (1997) Efficient production of ethanol by cells immobilized in loofa (Luffa cylindrica) sponge. Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering 84: 271–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Plessas, S., Bekatorou, A., Koutinas, A.A., Soupioni, M., Banat, I.M. and Marchant, R. (2007) Use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells immobilized on orange peel as biocatalyst for alcoholic fermentation. Bioresource Technology 98: 860–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Gulati, M., Kohlmann, K., Ladisch, M.R., Hespell, R. and Bothast, R.J. (1996) Assessment of ethanol production options for corn products. Bioresource Technology 58 (3): 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Widgren, A., Galbe, M. and Zacchi, G. (2008) Energy considerations for a SSF based softwood ethanol plant. Bioresource Technology 99: 2121–2123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Bird, D.N. and Schwaiger, H. (2009) Direct land use change also affects surface albedo – Should this be considered when estimating environmental benefits? Presented at IEA Bioenergy Task 38 Conference: Land Use Changes due to Bioenergy: Quantifying and Managing Climate Change and Other Environmental Impacts; 30 March-1 April, Helsinki, Finland.

  72. Yuan, J.S., Tiller, K.H., Ahmad, H.A., Stewart, N.R. and Stewart Jr, C.N. (2008) Plants to power: Bioenergy to fuel the future. Trends in Plant Science 13: 421–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Tiffany, D. (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103: 11206–11210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Agrawal, R., Singh, N.R., Ribeiro, F.B. and Delgass, W.N. (2007) Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 104: 4828–4833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Bauen, A. (2006) Future energy sources and systems – acting on climate change and energy security. Journal of Power Sources 157 (2): 893–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Segal, S.D. and Artz, W.E. (2007) The Brazilian experience with biofuels. Lipid Technology 19: 12–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Soccol, C.R. et al (2009) Bioethanol from lignocelluloses: Status and perspectives in Brazil. Bioresource Technology 101 (13): 4820–4825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. das Neves, M.A., Kimura, T., Shimizu, N. and Nakajima, M. (2007) State of the art and future trends of bioethanol production. Dynamic Biochemistry, Process Biotechnology and Molecular Biology 1: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Li, S.Z. and Chan-Halbrendt, C. (2009) Ethanol production in (the) People's Republic of China: Potential and technologies. Applied Energy 86: 162–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Fang, X., Shen, Y., Zhao, J., Bao, X. and Yinbo, Q. (2009) Status and prospect of lignocellulosic bioethanol production in China. Bioresource Technology 101 (13): 4814–4819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mangamoori Lakshmi Narasu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chandel, A., Singh, O., Chandrasekhar, G. et al. Key drivers influencing the commercialization of ethanol-based biorefineries. J Commer Biotechnol 16, 239–257 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jcb.2010.5

Download citation

Keywords

  • biorefineries
  • bioethanol manufacturers
  • bioethanol commercialization
  • lignocellulose