From Biofuels to Integrated Biorefineries and Carbon Solutions

 

Zeljko Serdar, CCRES

Algae Energy in 2026

In 2026, the global algae energy sector has undergone a significant transformation. While early enthusiasm for algae as a direct replacement for petroleum-based fuels has tempered due to persistent economic challenges, the industry has pivoted toward more sustainable and profitable models. Standalone, large-scale biofuel production has largely given way to highly integrated, multi-product biorefineries and localized carbon-capture systems. Although direct fuel production remains costly, algae-based energy and biomass processing are experiencing robust market growth, driven by regulatory pressures, technological advancements, and the growing demand for circular economy solutions. This shift reflects a maturing industry that balances environmental benefits with commercial realities.

State of the Industry

The biofuel segment of the algae industry continues to face hurdles, but it has carved out viable niches where its unique properties provide clear advantages. Mass production of algae-based petroleum substitutes is still hampered by high extraction and processing costs. However, algae-derived fuels have found a targeted and growing role as high-density sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and in maritime shipping. These sectors demand fuels with exceptional energy density and low emissions profiles, qualities that algae-based options can deliver effectively. Stricter European Union blending mandates, combined with global emission regulations such as those from the International Maritime Organization (IMO), have accelerated investment and adoption. Airlines and shipping companies are increasingly incorporating algae-derived SAF and marine fuels to meet decarbonization targets and avoid hefty carbon taxes.

Beyond fuels, urban carbon capture has emerged as a promising application. Companies are deploying living photobioreactors in urban and industrial settings, where microalgae actively capture CO₂ emissions from factories, power plants, and even direct air capture systems. These bioreactors not only mitigate climate impact but also generate valuable biomass as a byproduct. The harvested microalgae can then be processed into secondary energy sources or a variety of bioproducts, creating a dual revenue stream. Cities like Rotterdam, Singapore, and certain Chinese industrial hubs have become testing grounds for these integrated systems, demonstrating how algae can turn waste streams into resources while beautifying urban landscapes with green infrastructure.

Another frontier is bio-photovoltaics (BPV), where researchers are advancing the use of live photosynthetic cells to generate bioelectricity directly from sunlight. Unlike traditional solar panels, BPV systems harness the natural photosynthetic processes of algae and cyanobacteria to produce electricity through electron transfer. While still largely in the pilot and demonstration phase, BPV technology shows potential for low-maintenance, building-integrated energy generation. Early installations on rooftops and facades in research campuses have achieved promising efficiency gains, particularly when combined with carbon sequestration capabilities.

Overall, the industry in 2026 is characterized by pragmatism. Pure biofuel plays have consolidated, with many smaller ventures either failing or being acquired by larger biorefinery operators. Investment has shifted toward companies that demonstrate clear paths to profitability through product diversification rather than relying solely on fuel sales.

Future Trends & Commercial Viability

The economic viability of algae operations in 2026 hinges on the biorefinery model. Rarely is algal biomass used exclusively for energy production. Instead, facilities operate as sophisticated processing hubs that extract multiple high-value outputs from the same biomass. Premium fractions are directed toward cosmetic-grade extracts, nutraceuticals, plant-based proteins for human consumption or animal feed, and biofertilizers for sustainable agriculture. Only the residual or lower-grade biomass is then converted into renewable diesel, bioethanol, or biogas. This cascading utilization maximizes revenue and minimizes waste, making projects financially attractive even when fuel prices fluctuate.

A key enabler of this model is the integration of algae cultivation with wastewater treatment. Facilities co-located with municipal or industrial wastewater plants use excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) to fuel rapid algal growth, simultaneously cleaning contaminated water. This symbiotic approach significantly lowers operational costs—nutrient inputs often represent one of the largest expenses in algae farming—while providing environmental services that can generate additional revenue through carbon credits or water treatment fees. Pioneering projects in California, Israel, and India have shown impressive results, achieving up to 90% nutrient removal rates alongside substantial biomass yields. This circularity principle is becoming a standard feature in new developments.

Technological innovation is further enhancing commercial prospects. Startups and university research teams are leveraging genetic modifications to create algal strains with higher lipid content, faster growth rates, and greater resilience to environmental stressors. AI-controlled bioreactors optimize cultivation conditions in real time—adjusting light exposure, pH, temperature, and nutrient dosing—leading to dramatic reductions in cultivation and harvesting costs. Machine learning algorithms also improve harvesting efficiency through predictive analytics and automated flocculation or centrifugation processes. These enhancements are critical for scaling production without proportionally increasing energy or capital inputs.

Looking ahead, several trends are poised to shape the sector. Hybrid systems combining algae with other renewables (such as solar or wind) are gaining traction for energy self-sufficiency. Policy support, including subsidies for carbon-negative technologies and mandates for sustainable materials, continues to bolster the industry. Consumer demand for green products is also driving growth in non-energy applications, from algae-based packaging materials to biodegradable plastics.

Challenges remain, including scaling photobioreactors cost-effectively, managing contamination risks in open systems, and securing consistent offtake agreements for diverse products. Water usage in arid regions and the energy intensity of downstream processing require ongoing attention. Nevertheless, the industry’s trajectory in 2026 points toward resilience and innovation.

In the Republic of Croatia, notable contributions come from the Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES) and its president and CEO, Zeljko Serdar. For over a decade, CCRES has been a pioneer in algae research and promotion in the region, focusing on microalgae cultivation for biofuels, high-value bioproducts (such as astaxanthin), and integration with aquaponics systems. Their work emphasizes practical, localized solutions tailored to Croatia’s climate and resources, including open ponds, closed photobioreactors, and circular approaches that combine algae growth with wastewater treatment and nutrient recycling. Serdar has been a vocal advocate, highlighting algae’s exceptional productivity — noting that under the right conditions, microalgae can double biomass overnight and are 10–15 times more prolific than the fastest-growing land plants. CCRES projects serve as important examples of grassroots and small-scale innovation within the European context, supporting the broader EU goals for renewable energy and sustainability.

In conclusion

The algae energy sector has evolved from a biofuels-centric vision into a multifaceted contributor to the bioeconomy. By embracing multi-product biorefineries, circular processes, and cutting-edge biotechnology — with valuable regional contributions from efforts like those of CCRES and Zeljko Serdar in Croatia — algae technologies are delivering both environmental impact and economic returns. As global pressures to decarbonize intensify, algae’s versatility positions it as a cornerstone of sustainable development. The coming years will likely see further consolidation and technological breakthroughs, solidifying algae’s role in the transition to a low-carbon future.

Biofuels / The Future of Energy Security

Energy security concerns could indeed play a significant role in driving biofuel growth in 2025 and beyond, though the extent depends on a mix of geopolitical, economic, and technological factors. Let’s break it down.

Energy security—reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel imports, especially from politically unstable regions—remains a priority for many nations. Biofuels, derived from renewable sources like crops, waste, or algae, offer a domestic alternative that can slot into existing infrastructure (e.g., ethanol blends in gasoline or biodiesel in diesel engines). In 2025, with global tensions still simmering—think Russia-Ukraine, Middle East uncertainties, or OPEC maneuvering—countries might lean harder into biofuels to hedge against supply disruptions. The U.S., for instance, already produces over 15 billion gallons of ethanol annually, largely for this reason, and Europe’s been pushing biodiesel to cut Russian oil dependence post-2022.

Economics will be a big driver too. Oil prices are notoriously unpredictable, but if they spike again (say, Brent crude topping $100/barrel due to a crisis), biofuels become more competitive, especially if governments keep subsidizing them. The U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard and EU’s Green Deal are examples of policies that could juice demand. Plus, next-gen biofuels—like cellulosic ethanol or sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)—are getting cheaper as tech improves, with companies like LanzaTech and Gevo scaling up production by 2025.

But it’s not all rosy. Biofuel growth hinges on land use trade-offs (food vs. fuel debates), feedstock availability, and carbon accounting—critics argue some biofuels barely dent emissions when you factor in production. Still, advanced biofuels from waste or algae could dodge those pitfalls, and R&D’s moving fast. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects biofuels could meet 10% of global transport fuel demand by 2030 if policies align, up from about 4% now.
Looking at 2025 specifically, expect a push where energy security paranoia peaks—think U.S., Brazil, or EU—but growth might stall in places like Asia if cheap oil floods back or if electric vehicles (EVs) steal the spotlight. My take: biofuels will grow, but they’re a bridge, not the endgame, as battery tech and hydrogen vie for the future.

Algae-based fuels are a standout in the advanced biofuels lineup—high potential, wild science, but a tough road to scale. They’re made from tiny aquatic organisms (microalgae) that grow fast, soak up CO2, and churn out lipids (oils) or carbohydrates that can be turned into fuels like biodiesel, jet fuel, or even gasoline. Here’s the deep dive.

How They Work
Growth: Algae thrive in water—fresh, salty, or even wastewater—using sunlight and CO2 via photosynthesis. They double in mass daily under ideal conditions, way faster than crops like corn or switchgrass.

Harvesting: Once grown, you extract the oils (lipids) through mechanical pressing or chemical solvents. Some strains yield up to 60% of their dry weight as oil—insane compared to soybeans at 20%.

Conversion: The oils get refined into biodiesel via transesterification (same as with plant oils) or hydroprocessed into jet fuel/gasoline. Leftover carbs can ferment into ethanol, and the biomass can become biogas or fertilizer.

Why They’re Cool
Yield: Algae can produce 10-100 times more oil per acre than traditional crops. Estimates range from 2,000 to 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year, vs. 50 for soybeans or 650 for palm oil.

No Farmland: They grow in ponds, bioreactors, or open water, sparing arable land for food. You can even stick them in deserts or on rooftops with the right setup.

Carbon Sink: They eat CO2—some setups pipe in emissions from power plants, cutting net emissions further.

Versatility: Outputs range from biodiesel to SAF to high-value chemicals (like omega-3s), hedging bets on markets.

The Catch
Cost: Growing, harvesting, and refining algae is pricey. Open ponds are cheap but prone to contamination; closed bioreactors are efficient but capex-heavy. Estimates peg costs at $5-10 per gallon of fuel equivalent, vs. $2-3 for fossil diesel (pre-tax).

Scale: Despite hype, production’s tiny—think millions of gallons globally vs. billions for corn ethanol. ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics aimed for 10,000 barrels/day by 2025, but they axed the project in 2023 after spending $350M with little to show.

Energy Input: Pumping water, controlling temperature, and drying algae can eat 30-50% of the energy you get out, though optimizing strains and systems helps.

Water: Freshwater use can be a limiter unless you lean on saltwater species or wastewater, which adds complexity.

State of Play
Players: Sapphire Energy and Algenol made waves a decade ago but stalled. Now, companies like Viridos (ex-Synthetic Genomics) and startups like Algae Systems are tweaking genetics—engineering strains for higher oil content or tougher cell walls.

Uses: Most real-world output is biodiesel or SAF. United Airlines flew an algae-blended jet fuel test in 2011, and Japan’s Euglena Co. ran a bus on algae-derived fuel in 2018.

2025 Outlook: Don’t expect a flood—production might hit a few million gallons if pilot projects like those in California or Australia scale. The IEA sees algae as a 2030+ story, needing breakthroughs in cost (target: $2/gallon) and policy (carbon pricing helps).

Future Potential
If energy security’s the driver, algae could shine in coastal nations or places with CO2-heavy industries (e.g., cement plants feeding algae farms). Pair it with cheap solar for power and genetic tweaks for yield, and you’ve got a dark horse. But for 2025, it’s still a niche bet—high upside, held back by tech and economics. Fossil fuels and EVs will outpace it short-term unless a geopolitical shock (say, oil embargo) forces a scramble.

Advanced biofuels are the next evolution beyond traditional biofuels, designed to tackle the limitations of first-generation options like corn-based ethanol or palm-oil biodiesel. They’re made from non-food feedstocks, aim for lower carbon footprints, and often use cutting-edge tech to squeeze energy out of stuff we’d otherwise toss. Here’s the rundown.

What Makes Them "Advanced"?
Feedstocks: Unlike first-gen biofuels, which rely on food crops (corn, sugarcane, soybeans), advanced biofuels use non-edible sources—think agricultural residues (corn stalks, wheat straw), forestry waste (wood chips), municipal solid waste (trash), or even algae. This sidesteps the food-vs-fuel debate and reduces land use conflicts.

Sustainability: They’re engineered to cut greenhouse gas emissions more effectively. The U.S. EPA classifies them as needing at least 50% lifecycle emissions reduction compared to fossil fuels (vs. 20% for some first-gen fuels). Some, like waste-derived fuels, can hit 80-90% reductions.

Tech: Production involves fancier processes—biochemical (enzymes breaking down cellulose) or thermochemical (gasification, pyrolysis)—to convert tough, fibrous biomass into usable fuels like ethanol, diesel, or jet fuel.

Key Types
Cellulosic Ethanol: Made from plant fibers (cellulose) in stuff like crop residues or switchgrass. It’s still ethanol, but the source isn’t edible, and the process is trickier. Companies like POET-DSM have plants running, though scaling’s been slow.

Biodiesel from Waste: Think used cooking oil or animal fats turned into diesel. It’s already in use—Neste’s renewable diesel is a big player in Europe and the U.S.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): Drop-in jet fuel from waste oils, algae, or synthetic processes (like Fischer-Tropsch). Airlines like United are testing it, aiming for net-zero by 2050. SAF’s a hot ticket because aviation’s hard to electrify.

Biogasoline/Bio-butanol: Gasoline-like fuels from biomass or algae, with higher energy density than ethanol. Still niche, but promising.

Algae-Based Fuels: Algae grow fast, suck up CO2, and don’t need farmland. The catch? Harvesting and refining are pricey, though ExxonMobil’s been tinkering with it for years.

Why They Matter
Advanced biofuels plug into existing engines and pipelines, unlike EVs or hydrogen, which need new infrastructure. They’re a practical fix for heavy transport—trucks, planes, ships—where batteries still suck. Plus, they can use waste, turning a disposal problem into an energy win. The IEA says they could supply 60% of biofuel demand by 2030 if tech and policy click.
Challenges
Cost: Breaking down cellulose or scaling algae isn’t cheap yet. First-gen ethanol’s simpler and still dominates (e.g., 90% of U.S. biofuel is corn-based).

Scale: Production’s growing—global capacity hit 6 billion liters in 2023 per the IEA—but it’s a drop compared to the 100+ billion liters of traditional biofuels.

Policy: Subsidies and mandates (like the U.S. RFS or EU RED III) are key. Without them, fossil fuels win on price.

Way to Create Biofuels

Way to Create Biofuels

Is there a new path to biofuels hiding in a handful of dirt? 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) biologist Steve Singer leads a group that wants to find out. They’re exploring whether a common soil bacterium can be engineered to produce liquid transportation fuels much more efficiently than the ways in which advanced biofuels are made today.

The scientists are working with a bacterium called Ralstonia eutropha. It naturally uses hydrogen as an energy source to convert CO2 into various organic compounds.

The group hopes to capitalize on the bacteria’s capabilities and tweak it to produce advanced biofuels that are drop-in replacements for diesel and jet fuel. The process would be powered only by hydrogen and electricity from renewable sources such as solar or wind.

The goal is a biofuel—or electrofuel, as this new approach is called—that doesn’t require photosynthesis.

Why is this important? Most methods used to produce advanced biofuels, such as from biomass and algae, rely on photosynthesis. But it turns out that photosynthesis isn’t very efficient when it comes to making biofuel. Energy is lost as photons from the sun are converted to stored chemical energy in a plant, which is then converted to a fuel.

“We’re after a more direct way,” says Singer, who holds appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and with the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), a multi-institutional partnership led by Berkeley Lab.

“We want to bypass photosynthesis by using a microbe that uses hydrogen and electricity to convert CO2 into a fuel,” he adds.

Widespread use of electrofuels would also reduce demands for land, water, and fertilizer that are traditionally required to produce biofuels.

Berkeley Lab’s $3.4 million electrofuel project was funded in 2010 by DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, which focuses on “high risk, high payoff concepts—technologies promising genuine transformation in the ways we generate, store and utilize energy.”

That pretty much describes electrofuels. ARPA-E estimates the technology has the potential to be ten times more efficient than current biofuel production methods. But electrofuels are currently confined to lab-scale tests. A lot of obstacles must be overcome before you’ll see it at the pump.

Fortunately, research is underway. The Berkeley Lab project is one of thirteen electrofuel projects sponsored by ARPA-E. And earlier this year, ARPA-E issued a request for information focused on the commercialization of the technology.

Singer’s group includes scientists from Virginia-based Logos Technologies and the University of California at Berkeley. The project’s co-principal investigators are Harry Beller, Swapnil Chhabra, and Nathan Hillson, who are also with Berkeley Lab and JBEI; Chris Chang, a UC Berkeley chemist and a faculty scientist with Berkeley Lab’s Chemical Sciences Division; and Dan MacEachran of Logos Technologies.

The scientists chose to work with R. eutropha because the bacterium is well understood and it’s already used industrially to make bioplastics.

They’re creating engineered strains of the bacterium at JBEI, all aimed at improving its ability to produce hydrocarbons. This work involves re-routing metabolic pathways in the bacteria. It also involves adding pathways from other microorganisms, such as a pathway engineered in Escherichia coli to produce medium-chain methyl ketones, which are naturally occurring compounds that have cetane numbers similar to those of typical diesel fuel.

The group is also pursuing two parallel paths to further boost production.

In the first approach, Logos Technologies is developing a two-liter bioelectrochemical reactor, which is a conventional fermentation vessel fitted with electrodes. The vessel starts with a mixture of bacteria, CO2, and water. Electricity splits the water into oxygen and hydrogen. The bacteria then use energy from the hydrogen to wrest carbon from CO2 and convert it to hydrocarbons, which migrate to the water’s surface. The scientists hope to skim the first batch of biofuel from the bioreactor in about one year.

In the second approach, the scientists want to transform the bacteria into self-reliant, biofuel-making machines. With help from Chris Chang, they’re developing ways to tether electrocatalysts to the bacteria’s surface. These catalysts use electricity to generate hydrogen in the presence of water.

The idea is to give the bacteria the ability to produce much of their own energy source. If the approach works, the only ingredients the bacteria will need to produce biofuel would be CO2, electricity, and water.

The scientists are now developing ways to attach these catalysts to electrodes and to the surface of the bacteria.

“We’re at the proof-of-principle stage in many ways with this research, but the concept has a lot of potential, so we’re eager to see where we can take this,” says Singer.

CCRES

 special thanks to 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

Nor Cal Biodiesel

CCRES promotes Nor Cal Biodiesel

Nor Cal Biodiesel currently offer two models to choose from: the BioPro190 and the larger BioPro380.

BioPro190

BioPro190 General Information and Specifications Dimensions: 21"w x 21"d x 67"h. Overall height adjustable +/- 2” Weight: 325 Lbs. (empty). Capacity: 50 gallons oil yields 50 gallons of finished fuel.                10 gallons methanol - yields approx. 10 gallons glycerin. Construction: TIG welded 304 stainless steel body; Powder coated carbon steel covers. Fittings: 304 stainless steel or glass filled polypropylene. Electrical: 110 VAC / 15 Amp Circuit. Controls: AUTO mode controlled by program logic controller;                Start button initiates completely automated process;                MANUAL mode controlled by switch actuation. Reaction Method: Acid-catalyzed esterification of free fatty acids                Then base-catalyzed transesterification of triglycerides; Wash Method: Triple-stage turbulent water wash.                1) Mist Spray, 2) Mist & Agitation, 3) Mist & Agitation Batch Time: Reaction Time – approximately 8 hrs;                Initial settling - 16 hrs;                Water wash – approximately 14 hrs;                Drying cycle - Approx 10 hrs: Total Processing Time: Approx. 48 hours start to finish. Items You Will Need To Get Started: 50 Gallons of new or used filtered vegetable oil or oil derived from animal fats 400 micron, or finer, filter to strain the oil 10 Gallons of methanol (racing fuel) For your safety and convenience, we suggest obtaining a methanol compatible and an oil/grease compatible transfer pump 1520 grams (3.41 lbs) Sodium Hydroxide - NaOH or 2350 (5.17 lbs) grams Potassium Hydroxide - KOH 190 mL (6.43 oz) Sulfuric Acid (93% Purity or higher) - Do not use common battery acid 50 Gallons of fresh, standing water 50 Gallon container or receptacle for “water in” 50 Gallon container or receptacle to collect the wash water – or connect directly to a drain. Air tight storage containers for methanol (typically, a 55-gallon drum), catalyst potash, and sulfuric acid Protective gloves, face mask, apron, and safety goggles (included) Transfer hoses, scales, and measuring cups (included) (1) 110-120 volt / 15 amp & (1) 220 volt / 30 amp AC power source

  BioPro380

BioPro380 General Information and Specifications Dimensions: 64"w x 34"d x 91"h. Overall height adjustable +/- 2” Weight: Approximately 675 Lbs. (empty). Capacity: 100 gallons oil yields up to 100 gallons (380 liters) of finished fuel Batch Sizes: - Capable of processing 50, 75, or 100 gallons of oil feedstock (190, 284, or 380 liters). Construction: TIG welded 304 stainless steel body; Powder coated carbon steel covers. Electrical: 220 VAC / 30 AMP & 110 VAC / 15 Amp Circuit. Dedicated Circuits are preferred but not required. Controls: AUTO mode controlled by program logic controller;                Start button initiates the automated process;                MANUAL mode controlled by switch actuation. Reaction Method: Acid-catalyzed esterification of free fatty acids                Then base-catalyzed transesterification of triglycerides; Method: Triple-stage turbulent water wash.                1) Mist Spray, 2) Mist & Agitation, 3) Mist & Agitation Batch Time: Reaction Time – approximately 8 hrs;                Initial settling - 16 hrs;                Water wash –(total three (3) cycles, approximately14 hrs;                Drying cycle - Approx 10 hrs: Total Processing Time: Approx. 48 hours start to finish. Items You Will Need To Get Started: 100 Gallons of new or used filtered vegetable oil or oil derived from animal fats (triglycerides Minimum 400 micron, or finer, filter to strain the oil 20 Gallons of methanol (racing fuel; 99.99% pure) 3040 grams Lye (Sodium Hydroxide - NaOH) or 4700 grams Caustic Potash (Potassium Hydroxide - KOH)* *Recommended 380 mL Sulfuric Acid (93% Purity or higher) - Not common battery acid 100 Gallons of fresh standing water (can also be connected directly to a pressurized water line) 100 Gallon container for water in (or connect to a clean, pressurized water source) 100 Gallon container for water out (or connect directly to a drain) Air tight storage containers for methanol, lye/caustic potash, and sulfuric acid Protective gloves, face mask, apron, and safety goggles (included) Transfer hoses, scales, and measuring cups (included) For your safety and convenience, we suggest obtaining a methanol transfer and oil/grease transfer pump (1) 110-120 volt / 15 amp & (1) 220 volt / 30 amp AC power source

 Since it's introduction, the BioPro line of products have steadily found their way into the hands of many an independent souls.

 Click on the links below to read about

  World renowned Dr. Andrew Weil with his BioPro190 

CONTACT Nor Cal Biodiesel

Please feel free to contact  Nor Cal Biodiesel for additional information regarding our products or services.

 

 Nor Cal Biodiesel also welcome any comments or suggestions regarding  products, web site and overall experience regarding your initial interaction with Nor Cal Biodiesel.

General Inquiries and Sales Information info@norcalbio.com
Projects, Business Development or Specific Requests danny@norcalbio.com

Nor Cal Biodiese web site : http://norcalbio.com/index.html

For any additional information, please contact 

Danny Lesa, telephone 707-766-9782 

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
 (CCRES)

CCRES promotes BIOFUELS

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY

promotes

Biofuels

From the earliest days of internal-combustion engines, technological visionaries dreamed that engines would run on fuel made from plants. Experiments conducted in the 19th century showed that it was possible, and both Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel supported the notion. Interest has waxed and waned for decades. These days, it is running high once again, and the fuels have acquired a modern moniker: biofuels.

While the geopolitical and environmental risks of oil dependency may be obvious today, it was not always so. In the early days of motorized transport, fuels derived from plants lost out to fuels refined from crude oil, which could be obtained cheaply in many parts of the world just by poking holes in the ground. Not only were gasoline and diesel the cheapest fuels for many decades, but they are about as energy-dense as liquids can be, which makes them superb choices for carrying vehicles long distances. Replacing them will not be easy, and the struggle to do so has produced some of the most intense controversies of modern society.

In the search for replacements, biofuels have attained the greatest political momentum, in part because they promise lucrative new markets for farm products. In the United States, Congress had adopted extensive mandates and subsidies to get a biofuels industry off the ground, and other countries have also adopted renewable-fuel policies.

But first-generation biofuels -- chiefly, ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or biodiesel made from vegetable oil -- have provoked intense backlash. In principle, biofuels offer a huge advantage over fossil fuels. The source plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they are growing, and consequently, the carbon dioxide that is released when biofuels are burned does not represent a net addition of that greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. In practice, some fossil fuels, especially natural gas, are consumed in refining today's biofuels, one source of controversy about them.

In addition, an ever larger portion of the world’s crops is being diverted for biofuels, as developed countries pass laws mandating greater use of nonfossil fuels and as emerging powerhouses like China seek new sources of energy. But with food prices rising sharply in early 2011, many experts began to call on countries to scale back their headlong rush into green fuel development, arguing that the combination of ambitious biofuel targets and mediocre harvests of some crucial crops is contributing to high prices, hunger and political instability.

Many scientists believe second-generation biofuels made from plant wastes, or from crops specially grown for the purpose on land not suitable for food production, offer greater promise than the biofuels being produced today. But the technology to make these newer fuels is in its infancy and the claims of its advocates have yet to be proved.

Ethanol

There has been heated debate about whether carbon emissions from ethanol production and use are lower than those from oil and whether the 33 percent of the U.S. corn crop diverted to ethanol drives up the price of food. Local effects of ethanol production, however, including water pollution and consumption, have received less scrutiny.

Encouraged by legislative measures, including notably the 2007 Energy Security and Independence Act, which mandated the use of 36 billion gallons, or 136 billion liters, of biofuels annually by 2022, the U.S. ethanol industry has boomed in the last few years. There are now at least 200 ethanol plants in at least 27 states, almost all using corn as a feedstock.

Nearly all the gasoline sold in the United States today is mixed with 10 percent ethanol, known as E10. Because ethanol provides about two-thirds the energy content of oil per unit, that 10 percent volumetric replacement equals about a 6 to 7 percent gasoline displacement, minus fossil fuel inputs for growing and processing.

The industry is on track to produce 12.5 billion gallons this year and is therefore nearing market saturation to supply E10, as the United States consumes about 138 billion gallons of oil annually. In March 2009, Growth Energy petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant a waiver to allow gasoline to be blended with 15 percent ethanol. Because the fuel can corrode conventional car engines at higher percentages, the agency is running tests. A final ruling has been pushed to the fall of 2010.

Corn farming is the biggest source of pollution associated with ethanol production. Corn requires vastly more fertilizer and pesticides than soybeans or other potential biofuel feedstocks, such as perennial grasses, according to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences.

Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs from the U.S. Corn Belt are key contributors to “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. A 2008 study by independent researchers, published in the academy’s Proceedings journal, calculated that increasing corn production to meet the 2007 renewable fuels target would add to nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico by 10 to 34 percent.

Water use for ethanol also concerns scientists, particularly in light of a 2003 U.S. Government Accountability Office report that found that water managers in at least 36 states expect shortages by 2013.

Modern plants use about three gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. The National Academy of Sciences report estimated that a plant producing 100 million gallons a year uses as much water as a town of 5,000 people.

Reflecting environmental concerns over the expansion of biofuel crops, the 2007 energy bill called for 20 billion gallons of biofuel to be made from “advanced” feedstocks, such as cellulosic ethanol or algae, which are believed to have a lighter environmental footprint.

But there are no commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol or algae plants operating in the United States, mainly because they are not yet competitive on costs. U.S.D.A. projections show corn as the primary feedstock for U.S. ethanol production through 2020.


Biomass

Biomass power — a $1 billion industry in the United States, according to the Biomass Power Association, a trade group based in Maine — has long been considered both renewable and carbon-neutral on its most basic level.

Dozens of biomass power plants, which typically burn plant or tree matter to generate electricity, are already in operation in a variety of states, like California, Michigan and Maine. In most cases, those plants have qualified for some form of renewable energy tax incentives or other benefits, as states used them to diversify their power portfolios.

But a long-simmering debate in Massachusetts questioning the environmental benefits of biomass has culminated in new rules that will limit what sorts of projects will qualify for renewable energy incentives there. If other states — or even Congress, which is writing energy legislation of its own — follow suit, it could have wide implications for biomass developers, as well as for states trying to meet renewable energy production targets.

Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary for energy and environmental affairs, has called for new regulations that would impose stricter standards for biomass projects seeking to qualify for state incentives. The state also plans to develop careful carbon accounting rules for biomass power, and to throw its greatest support behind plants that produce both heat and power, which are considered more efficient than ones that generate only power.

The proposed changes in Massachusetts come after a study commissioned by the state suggested that careful regulation was needed to prevent biomass development from having a negative effect on New England forests, and on the climate generally.

Industry representatives warned that the new rules could hinder efforts to meet renewable energy goals, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over all. But environmentalists welcomed the move, saying it would protect forests and foster responsible development of electricity generated with biomass materials. Many environmental groups say that the benefits of biomass power — and all forms of energy derived from organic sources, including biofuels — are realized only in carefully controlled circumstances. The cycle of carbon emission and absorption also unfolds over long periods of time that need to be carefully monitored.

By providing incentives without strict rules governing which materials are burned and how they are harvested, governments risk creating a rapacious industry that could gobble up whole forests, critics warn. That could ultimately increase the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere — one of the problems that renewable energies are supposed to address.More info at http://solarserdar.blogspot.com.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES ( CCRES )