biofuel research paper topics

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Biofuels articles from across Nature Portfolio

Biofuels are fuels produced from hydrocarbon-rich living organisms (biomass) — such as plants or microalgae — by thermal, chemical or biochemical conversion processes. As with fuels, biofuels such as biodiesel, biogas and syngas are combusted to generate energy.

Related Subjects

• Bioalcohols
• Biomethanol
• Green diesel
• Solid biofuels

Latest Research and Reviews

Identification of triacylglycerol remodeling mechanism to synthesize unusual fatty acid containing oils

Triacylglycerol remodeling in Physaria fendleri changes the seed oil fatty acid composition after initial synthesis to overcome metabolic bottlenecks in the accumulation of valuable unusual fatty acids. This process enhances designer oil engineering.

• Prasad Parchuri
• Sajina Bhandari
• Philip D. Bates

Frustrated Lewis pair catalyst realizes efficient green diesel production

The commercial production of green diesel suffers from the requirement for continuous sulfur replenishment to maintain catalytic activity. Here, the authors report a sulfur-free catalytic system that can efficiently produce green diesel from various feedstocks over long periods of operation.

• De-Chang Li
• Zhengyi Pan
• Guang-Hui Wang

Influence of salinity, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations on the physiological and biochemical characteristics of two Chlorophyceae isolated from Fez freshwater, Morocco

• Bouchra Assobhi
• Houda Ennasry
• Jamila Bahhou

Experimental investigation on utilization of Sesbania grandiflora residues through thermochemical conversion process for the production of value added chemicals and biofuels

• Kedri Janardhana
• C. Sowmya Dhanalakshmi
• Melvin Victor De Poures

Lipids productivity of cyanobacterium Anabaena vaginicola in an internally illuminated photobioreactor using LED bar lights

• Hootan Goldoost
• Farzaneh Vahabzadeh
• Narges Fallah

Hydrogen storage and geo-methanation in a depleted underground hydrocarbon reservoir

Geologic formations could be used for hydrogen storage and conversion to methane, yet technical feasibility is unclear as field-scale data are lacking. Here the authors perform field tests demonstrating that hydrogen can be stored and microbially converted to methane in a depleted underground hydrocarbon reservoir.

• Cathrine Hellerschmied
• Johanna Schritter
• Andreas P. Loibner

News and Comment

Impact of soil carbon changes.

• James Gallagher

Réunion’s search for energy self-sufficiency

Whether the French island succeeds in producing all of its electricity depends not only on technology, but also on social and political will.

• Rachel Nuwer

A pathway to bio-based aromatics

Aromatic compounds have broad applications in our daily life, but their production currently relies heavily on fossil resources. Now, a strategy enables synthesis of benzenoid aromatics from bioderived feedstock, paving the way to the more sustainable production of aromatics.

• Shuizhong Wang
• Guoyong Song

How to rescue biofuels from a sustainable dead end

An environmentally friendly path forwards for liquid fuel derived from plants will depend on smarter agriculture and smarter regulation.

• Peter Fairley

A fit transportation

Recent policies are promoting the conditions for a transformation of the transportation sector worldwide. Here, we look at the example from the European Union and reflect on the opportunities that initiatives such as Fit for 55 represent for catalysis science.

Bugging out for jet fuel

As an alternative to fossil fuels for shipping, aviation and rocketry, high-energy polycyclopropanated fuels can be generated using a bacterial host.

• Stacey-Lynn Paiva

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Loading metrics

Open Access

Essays articulate a specific perspective on a topic of broad interest to scientists.

See all article types »

The potential of biofuels from first to fourth generation

Contributed equally to this work with: Philipp Cavelius, Selina Engelhart-Straub

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Werner Siemens-Chair of Synthetic Biotechnology, TUM School of Natural Sciences, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Garching, Germany

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Chair of Technical Chemistry II, TUM School of Natural Sciences, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Garching, Germany

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (DA); [email protected] (TB)

• Philipp Cavelius, 
• Selina Engelhart-Straub, 
• Norbert Mehlmer, 
• Johannes Lercher, 
• Dania Awad, 
• Thomas Brück

Published: March 30, 2023

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063
• Reader Comments

The steady increase in human population and a rising standard of living heighten global demand for energy. Fossil fuels account for more than three-quarters of energy production, releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) that drive climate change effects as well as contributing to severe air pollution in many countries. Hence, drastic reduction of CO 2 emissions, especially from fossil fuels, is essential to tackle anthropogenic climate change. To reduce CO 2 emissions and to cope with the ever-growing demand for energy, it is essential to develop renewable energy sources, of which biofuels will form an important contribution. In this Essay, liquid biofuels from first to fourth generation are discussed in detail alongside their industrial development and policy implications, with a focus on the transport sector as a complementary solution to other environmentally friendly technologies, such as electric cars.

Citation: Cavelius P, Engelhart-Straub S, Mehlmer N, Lercher J, Awad D, Brück T (2023) The potential of biofuels from first to fourth generation. PLoS Biol 21(3): e3002063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063

Copyright: © 2023 Cavelius et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (031B0853A to NM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: EEA, European Environment Agency; EIC, European Innovation Council; GHG, greenhouse gas; GMO, genetically modified organism; ILUC, indirect land use change; IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IRENA, International Renewable Energy Agency; RED, Renewable Energy Directive

Introduction

For decades, global energy demand is on the rise due to economic growth and a rapidly growing world population. Additionally, the standard of living is increasing worldwide, in most cases correlating with increased energy consumption, as energy is needed in almost every aspect of our lives, including land, water, and air transport as well as in agriculture, commercial, industrial, and domestic sectors [ 1 ]. To date, fossil fuels account for around 80% of the world’s energy demand [ 2 ], despite being a major instigator for global warming, representing roughly 89% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 [ 3 ]. Additionally, fossil fuels are predicted to deplete with the steadily increasing energy demands. As petroleum demand is constantly on the rise, estimations predict a shortage by 2070 to 2080 [ 4 ]. To that end, distinct biofuel types such as liquid and biogas should be methodologically and strategically developed as a preventive measure against predicted energy shortages, all while reducing the anthropogenic climate impact and preserving the environment.

Currently, biofuels are categorized as first to fourth generation, depending on feedstock and/or biosynthetic platform (i.e., genetic engineering). In this Essay, we present comparative advantages and disadvantages among these categories, as well as fossil sources. Furthermore, the development of biofuel technologies hinges on the socioeconomic and political landscape, which can greatly benefit from policy recommendations by respective regulatory bodies. At present, the European Union has the most stringent biofuel legislation and the most ambitious climate impact goals. Hence, we focus on EU-centered development with respect to current biofuel technology platforms at various stages of industrial deployment, the legislative framework implemented in the EU, as well as policy recommendations that would accelerate academic breakthroughs toward industrial implementation. Although, our recommendations are EU-centric, many are also applicable on a global level.

The four generations of biofuels

One alternative to fossil fuels are biofuels, which originate from organic matter and therefore can be regrown and are termed renewable. Biofuels emit less GHGs and are in general more eco-friendly (non-toxic, sulfur-free, biodegradable) than their fossil fuel predecessors [ 5 ]. Biofuels contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals 7 (affordable and clean energy) and 13 (climate action) of the United Nations [ 6 ]. Global demand for biofuels is set to grow by 41 to 53 billion liters, or 28%, over 2021 to 2026 [ 7 ]. Typically, one can find four main types of biofuel discussed in the context of fermentation: biogas, bioethanol, biobutanol, and biodiesel. The physiochemical properties of these biofuels are compared to fossil-based fuels in Table 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063.t001

Biogas formation is a fairly simple process that has been utilized for several decades. It includes four stages: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. Mixed microorganisms consortia and waste streams are combined in a sealed fermentation system in the absence of oxygen. During the biogas production process, microorganisms hydrolyze waste materials into sugars, peptides and amino acids, fatty acids, and to some part into acetate and hydrogen. Afterwards, acidogenic bacteria convert those intermediate products into organic acids, mainly constituting acetic acid. In addition, they produce carbon dioxide and hydrogen. In the third step, acetogenesis, acetate is formed from hydrogen and carbon dioxide produced in the previous stage. Lastly, methanogenesis follows, creating methane from the products of acetogenesis and acidogenesis [ 8 ]. These gases can then be transformed into hydrogen and/or electricity, or can be stored as biomethane in existing geological reservoirs [ 9 ]. Since the Ukraine crisis began, the resulting lack of fossil fuel availability in the EU has led to biogas being politically pushed as a substitute to natural gas [ 10 ].

Compared to gas (biogas/hydrogen), liquid fuels offer higher energy density and simplified transport and storage. This renders them more compatible with current engine and turbine technologies [ 11 ]. Most engines and turbines are designed and built for the use of liquid fuels, which makes liquid biofuels an easy drop-in solution without the need for modifying present engine technologies or infrastructure [ 5 , 12 ]. These gaseous fuels pose a significant safety hazard as they ignite at lower energies and are flammable over a range of concentrations, hydrogen to higher extent, requiring high level of safety procedures [ 13 ]. The low boiling point and high octane number of bioethanol allow blending with gasoline to a certain extent. The added benefits include a more complete combustion and reduced tailpipe emissions, boosting the engine performance and reducing CO 2 emissions. It is, however, inapt for blending with diesel. Diesel engines require hydrocarbons of higher chain length and low autoignition temperature. However, biodiesel, being of similar chemical constitution, can be blended with fossil-based diesel and hence constitutes a major energy-dense liquid biofuel. A third increasingly attractive biofuel is biobutanol, which holds high promise as it displays superior properties to bioethanol such as higher energy density (25% more energy than ethanol) and usually lower water content due to increased hydrophobicity. Biobutanol is less volatile and possesses less corrosive properties, making it easier and safer to use and store [ 11 , 14 – 19 ]. More importantly, it can be blended with both gasoline, fossil-based or biodiesel at any ratio without the need of new engine technologies and might even allow complete substitution of gasoline, while the use of ethanol is only possible as additive [ 11 , 18 ].

While the classification of biofuel technologies somewhat varies in the literature, products can generally be classed as first to fourth generation, depending on the type of feedstock and conversion process that was applied ( Fig 1 ) [ 5 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063.g001

First-generation biofuels

Biofuels of the first generation are mainly divided into bioethanol and biodiesel. Bioethanol production of the first generation is based on microbial fermentation of edible feedstocks, rich in starch and sucrose, such as wheat, corn, and sugarcane in Europe, North America, and South America, respectively. Commercial strains include but are not limited to Saccharomyces cerevisiae , S . stipites , and S . pombe . Bioethanol production is not limited to first-generation biofuels; depending on the feedstock and production strain, bioethanol can also be categorized as second and third generation [ 32 – 35 ]. Biodiesel is mainly obtained from food-grade rapeseed, soy, or palm oil sourced from Europe, South America, and Asia, respectively. In contrast to bioethanol, it is only partially biosynthesized as its production includes chemically catalyzed steps such as transesterification of the lipids with alcohols. Enzymatic catalysis currently only exists on a lab scale [ 36 , 37 ]. Although biobutanol production is also possible by sugar fermentation from sugar cane, corn, wheat, and other food crops, it is limited by lower productivity and yields, product inhibition, and high costs [ 11 , 16 , 18 , 38 ].

During the global food demand crisis in 2007/2008, crops used for biofuel became more important to be used as food, giving rise to the “food versus fuel” debate that persists to date. Additionally, an increased demand for crops (e.g., corn) for fuel production yielded an increased market price for those foods [ 5 ]. Models predict that massive agricultural areas would be needed for fuel production and still could supply only limited amounts of fuel compared to the overall demand. It is estimated that more than two times the globally available area of arable land would needed to meet the global market demand for biodiesel when produced from rapeseed oil [ 39 ]. Furthermore, increased market values of palm oil and other biofuel cultures prompted extended deforestation of tropical rainforests for biofuel crop plantations, which releases more CO 2 than the emission saved by those biofuels. In 2008, Fargione and colleagues estimated that it would take 319 years to repay the biofuel carbon debt resulting from clearing of tropical rainforest in Brazil and subsequent conversion to soybean plantations [ 40 ].

Second-generation biofuels

As a result of the issues of the first generation, second-generation biofuels were developed, utilizing lignocellulosic biomass from agricultural and woodland residues as well as other waste streams (for example, from food industry like wheat bran, animal fats, or wastes of cooking and frying oil). Other non-food plants like the drought-resistant shrub or tree Jatropha curcas , which can also be grown in wastelands, might yet be a different promising source for second-generation biofuels [ 41 ]. Hence, second-generation biofuels circumvent the need for agricultural land use change and do not compete with food resources. However, often second-generation waste streams represent more complex feedstocks than sugarcane or palm oil, potentially containing compounds able to reduce fermentation efficiency, such as lignin. Therefore, application of additional pretreatment steps are common, increasing process time and costs [ 5 , 42 , 43 ].

For the most part, biofuels of the first and in the vast majority of the second generation are commercially produced, around 4% and 96% in 2019, respectively [ 44 ]. One example is the commercially available sunliquid from Clariant, which is a cellulosic ethanol from currently underutilized agricultural residues, such as straw. The first commercial ethanol plant in Romania started production in 2022, with plans to convert 250,000 tons of locally sourced agricultural residues to 50,000 tons of ethanol per year. After enzyme production, which hydrolyses cellulose and hemicellulose to sugar monomers, optimized microorganisms are used in fermentation to produce ethanol. These microorganisms can utilize various carbon sources like glucose and xylose, ensuring higher yields and enabling high efficiency and flexibility in waste valorization as more building blocks of waste streams can be converted to product [ 45 ]. Alongside ethanol producers, the production of second-generation biodiesel is possible from microbial lipids produced by organisms, such as Cutaneotrichosporon oleaginosus , a yeast capable of producing up to 90% (w/w) lipids per biomass in a fermentation process, which can be grown on residue streams (e.g., wheat bran hydrolysate medium) [ 46 – 49 ]. Second-generation biodiesel can also be sourced from waste oils via catalytic cracking and hydrogenation. Drawbacks of this process include incomplete conversion and coke formation, which leads to the deactivation of the catalyst. [ 50 , 51 ]. Biobutanol production on lignocellulose biomass and other waste streams is most commonly based on Clostridia fermentation, as it is one of the oldest and best-established fermentative processes for butanol production. Many Clostridia are natural butanol producers and possess the ability to metabolize a variety of different substrates. However, similar to its first-generation predecessor, the process is limited by low butanol titers and product inhibition [ 11 , 16 , 18 , 38 ]. Typically, butanol is produced via ABE fermentation, which results in solvents in ratio of 3 parts acetone, 6 parts butanol, and 1 part ethanol, and butanol refinement is not an energetically favorable solution. Other drawbacks also include cell toxicity at low concentration [ 52 , 53 ]. To that end, cell-free isobutanol biosynthesis using a designed artificial metabolic pathway has been developed [ 54 ]. At present, this approach remains costly for commercialization.

Various carbonaceous compounds can be transformed to syngas by gasification. Commonly, it is a gaseous waste stream from industrial processes such as steel manufacture, in which fossil fuels are burned in the process. Syngas is a mixture mainly consisting of carbon monoxide (CO), CO 2 , and hydrogen. It can be derived from biomass, including lignocellulosic compounds, coal, animal or municipal solid waste, and industrial CO-rich gases. This gas can be metabolized by strictly anaerobic, methanogenic archaea as well as by acetogenic bacterial genera such as Acetobacterium or Clostridium , often used in syntrophic fermentations. The process is mostly focused on biosynthesis of organic acids and alcohol compounds such as acetate, ethanol, and butanol [ 55 – 57 ]. Advantages of syngas fermentation compared to other second-generation approaches are high feedstock flexibility as well as high rates of energy and carbon capture. Complicated pretreatments of second-generation feedstocks can be replaced with gasification, using all components of the biomass, including lignin and other recalcitrant compounds [ 58 ]. LanzaTech developed a process converting feedstocks including industrial waste streams to fuel and chemicals utilizing bacteria. They estimate a total product capacity of 600,000 metric tons as well as 1,000,000 metric tons of captured carbon per year, for all their plants combined [ 59 ]. Since 2022, a demonstration plant in Japan has turned municipal solid waste to ethanol, with a production target of 20 tons of ethanol per day [ 60 ].

More than half of the biologically stored carbon is bound in marine biomass, especially macroalgae and seagrass. Detached seagrass material is seasonally washed on beaches and shore lines; due to low biological degradation and herbivore consumption, an excess of it accumulates as waste. Estimations of up to 40 million tons of dry seagrass biomass, which can be used for biofuel production, are given. Through enzymatic hydrolysis, the carbohydrate content of the seagrass can be used in a fermentation medium for microorganisms, additionally offering low nitrogen and phosphorus content, which is typically required for lipid production [ 61 ].

Despite the highly favorable ability to valorize waste streams, second-generation biofuels by themselves will not be sufficient to supply energy for the current worldwide demand. As is the case for food crops with first-generation biofuels, biomass used in these processes is available in limited amounts. Therefore, second-generation biofuels must be combined with other technologies to ensure sufficient provision of fuels. This prompted research on third-generation biofuels. However, scientific estimations predict second-generation biofuels could supply up to 30% of the world’s transportation energy [ 5 ].

Third-generation biofuels

Third-generation biofuels are mainly derived from microalgae and cyanobacteria biomass, which can be used to naturally generate alcohols and lipids to transform into biodiesel or any other high energy fuel product. Algae exhibit 2- to 4-fold higher photosynthesis rates than terrestrial plants, resulting in faster biomass formation [ 62 ]. Algae do not require arable land or fresh water for cultivation. Many cultures can be grown using waste water, brackish or salt water, which is cost efficient and circumvents competition with agricultural activity [ 63 , 64 ]. Most importantly, efficient algae cultivation requires a direct CO 2 supply, which can be derived from industrial emitters or by atmospheric carbon capture. In conventional cultivation systems, around 70% of supplied CO 2 is used for photosynthesis and therefore biomass production [ 65 ]. Hence, algae biofuels potentially could have a negative carbon footprint as they directly bind the GHG in their biomass. One of the most prominent third-generation processes is the production of biodiesel or other energy density biofuels, such as biokerosene, using oleaginous microalgae [ 66 , 67 ].

One of the most economically critical and versatile operations in algal biofuel production is algae cultivation. Algal bioreactors ( Fig 2 ) are independent of location and climate, therefore can be operated almost irrespective of these factors. For low price, high volume products, such as biofuels, algae are commonly cultivated in open ponds. Open pond reactors are significantly cheaper in their construction and operation but have drawbacks like high loss of water through evaporation and lack of temperature control, which lowers biomass productivity. The alternative, preferred for high price, low volume products, such as cosmetic ingredients, is a closed photobioreactor, where process parameters can be precisely controlled, which often leads to higher productivity [ 63 , 68 ]. These bioreactors also enable a three-dimensional mode of cultivation, significantly increasing the productivity per area. In contrast to second-generation biofuels, the third-generation processes completely decouple biofuel production from the need for agricultural land. Additionally, algal-based oil production is likely greater than that in higher plants, as lipids mainly accumulate in specific parts of the plant (e.g., in rape seeds), while in algae, each cell can contain high amount of lipids, making the process more mass efficient. One bottleneck in production is harvesting, as the low size and density of the microalgal cells combined with the sensitivity of the cells to changes in pH render it challenging. [ 66 ]. Furthermore, downstream processing for algal biofuels is commonly more energy intensive than other biofuel productions [ 63 , 69 ]. Araújo and colleagues mapped 447 algae and cyanobacteria Spirulina production units in 2021 in the EU [ 70 ]. Most of these companies directed their biomass to the production of food, feed, and related uses; commercial application of biofuels only had a very small share. Further technological developments in upscaling and reduction of production costs are necessary for commercialization.

This image showcases the open algae cultivation systems located at Technical University of Munich, Ottobrunn.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063.g002

Fourth-generation biofuels

The latest biofuel generation, termed fourth-generation biofuels, encompasses the use of genetic engineering to increase desired traits of organisms used in biofuel production. This applies to a variety of traits from utilizing multiple types of sugars (e.g., pentoses and hexoses), to higher lipid synthesis or increased photosynthesis and carbon fixation. For model organisms, such as Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae , a wide variety of tools for genetically engineering the regulation of endogenous pathways or inserting new pathways are reported. Unfortunately, for most native producers of biofuels, the genetic engineering toolbox is far more limited.

Currently, two different approaches have been adopted: engineering of pathways in native producers (optimizing growth rates, utilization of different carbon sources, directing the metabolic flux toward biofuel production and increased production titers) and reconstruction of pathways identified in natural producers in more genetically accessible model organisms. A wide variety of microorganisms can be used as heterologous hosts for the production of biofuels, including bacteria, yeast, and algae. Their metabolic versatility enables the use of various substrates to produce a wide range of biofuels. For example, butanol pathway genes from Clostridia were introduced into E . coli , Pseudomonas putida , and Bacillus subtilis strains [ 14 , 16 , 19 ]. While the introduction of heterologous genes is well established, a major challenge is the disruption of competing metabolic fluxes. Another obstacle for high product titers can be toxicity of large amounts of product on the cell. To enable increased accumulation of biofuels, the cellular stress response can be modified through genetic engineering, for example, with cell membrane modifications. Through the overexpression of certain membrane transporters, biofuel molecules can be secreted into the medium thereby circumventing accumulation as well as toxicity while simultaneously simplifying product recovery. In E . coli , membrane transporters have been used successfully to excrete n-alkanes, such as n-octane [ 71 , 72 ]. However, the overexpression of transporters is challenging as it modifies the membrane composition, creating a metabolic burden as well as potentially overloading the cellular import and export, thereby disabling the cells ability to regulate its internal environment/homeostasis [ 71 ].

Genetically modified algae can offer higher product yields and a variety of other improvements compared to wild-type algae. In order to enhance photosynthetic efficiency, the antennae systems of algae capable of absorbing a broader range of the light spectrum could be transferred to more suitable production organisms [ 44 , 73 ]. With respect to genetic engineering, CRIPSR/Cas9 is a frequently used tool, as it offers a simple design with efficient transfection and targeted gene disruption [ 74 ].

In fourth-generation biofuel processes that focus on genetically optimized cyanobacteria, the production of ethanol, as well as other fuel products such as butanol, isobutanol, and modified fatty acids have been realized successfully [ 75 , 76 ]. While 1-butanol production reached titers of 300 mg/L, bioethanol titers of up to 5.5 g/L were reported [ 77 – 79 ].

For the efficient optimization of native producers, systems biology can offer many insights. The availability of whole-genome sequences is essential, as this information allows for the annotation of genes to their respective function and reconstruction of the innate metabolic pathways, which can subsequently be modified. Recent advances have been made in the field of genome sequencing allowing for a more rapid and cost-efficient collection of data [ 19 ], while the gene expression patterns in different growth environments can be analyzed by transcriptomics and protein products identified by proteomics.

With genetic engineering tools, the quantity and quality of biofuels can be controlled and increased but will need political acceptance and support to be widely adopted [ 5 ]. There is a controversial debate around genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine, especially in Europe; therefore, similar concerns can be anticipated surrounding the use in biofuel production. A European-based study came to the conclusion that genetically engineered algae for biofuel production would be accepted by the majority of consumers, when the safety of the systems can be guaranteed [ 80 ]. However, with proper containment methods and carefully selected locations, such risks could be drastically minimized. Therefore, closed production systems with high security standards are expected to be built [ 80 ]. Additional biocontainment methods can be directly based on genetic changes inside the production cells such as auxotrophies or kill switches, significantly decreasing the risk of genetically modified organism (GMO) escape [ 44 , 81 ].

One alternative to targeted genetic engineering is random mutagenesis, which can be described as accelerated evolution. Microorganisms and products generated by this approach are not subjected to GMO regulations. Furthermore, this technique can be performed with little knowledge about the production organism and production pathway. Random mutagenesis can be achieved by a variety of methods such as UV light, chemical agents, or fast neutron irradiation. For the first time, the latter was applied on C . oleaginosus , resulting in mutants with elevated lipid titers suitable for biodiesel applications. It is noteworthy that biodiesel from prominent oleaginous yeast platforms, such as Yarrowia lipolytica , C . oleaginosus , Rhodosporidium toruloides , and Lipomyces starkeyi , are compliant with international biodiesel standards, including US ASTM D6751 and EU standard EN 14214 [ 82 , 83 ].

A new, more experimental approach to fourth-generation biofuels is the production of electrobiofuels. These are based on the approach to establish new-to-nature hybrid systems, which are able to use renewable electricity and carbon sources directly for the production of commodity chemicals and biofuels, thereby enabling the conversion of solar energy into storable liquid fuel. Such a process could combine the higher photon efficiency of modern photovoltaic systems (compared to photosynthesis) with the sustainability of biofuel production, increasing overall process effectiveness [ 84 ].

Economics of biofuels in transportation

Apart from reducing GHG emissions and air pollution, biofuel industries can contribute to energy security on a local and national scale, as it is not reliant on local reservoirs of fossil oil. Additionally, the creation of new employment and economic growth, especially in rural locations, should positively impact the social environment as well. However, to fully exploit all the positive traits of biofuels, further research and investments are necessary, as the production of biofuels requires more processing steps compared with the conventional methods of drilling into the ground to obtain crude oil, followed by refining. Therefore, at present, biofuels commonly exceed fossil fuel production costs. Furthermore, raw materials for biofuel production do not compare to crude oil in energy density, requiring far greater amounts of biomass for the same energy output compared to fossil sources. The infrastructure required for the sector of biofuel production has to be extensively developed as well. One example is the primary energy needed to run the process, which should be obtained through sustainable operations. Candidates for that include solar and wind energy among others. Thus, by reducing the overall production cost and increasing process efficiency, biofuels could become more competitive to fossil fuels. Furthermore, by-products of biofuel production should be efficiently utilized in a circular economy, which could increase cost efficiency of such processes.

Transportation is one of the most socioeconomically sensitive sectors for the use of liquid biofuels ( Fig 3 ). It contributes about 17% of global CO 2 emissions [ 85 , 86 ], and so far, sustainable solutions are not fully developed. Due to their limitations, current technologies for biofuels are not likely to completely replace fossil fuels in their entirety but can offer new routes for waste stream valorization in a circular economy and contribute significantly to minimize our dependency on fossil fuels one step at a time. A complementary approach to this goal is electric cars, which have zero tailpipe emissions, although CO 2 emissions are associated with the production of the car and the source of the electricity. Essential in electric vehicle batteries are metals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese. The demand for these metals is surging, while at the same time toxic waste electronics are accumulating all over the world. Traditional recycling/extraction methods require high temperatures and strong acids. This is a high energy process involving toxic chemicals. One alternative is bioleaching or biomining, which employs microbes such as Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans that can bind and recover metals, bypassing the need for high temperatures and toxic chemicals [ 87 – 90 ]. This emerging technology offers an eco-friendly approach to recycling but still requires extensive research and development. Additionally, a new infrastructure must be put into place, supporting millions of electric cars at the same time. To that point, a combination of synthetic and biofuels in synergy with electric cars might be an optimal solution for the years to come, partially substituting fossil fuels, thereby drastically reducing CO 2 output of transportation.

The transport sector, specifically, results in 17% of emissions. Adapted from Ritchie and colleagues (2020), Carbon Leadership Forum 2020 [ 85 , 86 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063.g003

EU policy recommendations

In order to promote the use of clean and sustainable energy at the industrial, retail, and consumer level, a cohesive framework of policies is imperative. The European Commission and European Environment Agency (EEA) have cooperated with the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in leading the efforts for clean energy transition through a number of directives and legislations since the 1990s [ 91 – 94 ]. These efforts manifest as a commitment by EU countries to lower GHG emissions and increase the use of renewable energy. Most notable is the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which came into force in 2009. Through this directive, EU countries set targets for renewable energy consumption, including a subtarget mandating 10% of energy used in transport to be produced from renewables. It is noteworthy that the deployment of renewable energy has continuously grown, exceeding 22% in 2020 [ 92 ]. The legislation also mandates GHG reduction targets for fuel suppliers, requiring a reduction in GHG intensity of the fuel mix by 6% in 2020 [ 92 ]. In 2018, the commission revised the legislative proposal and the European Parliament and the EU Council proposed amendments as RED II. Therewith, the EU aims to increase the share of renewable energy to 32% and in transport to at least 14%, including a minimum share of 3.5% of advanced biofuels (second- and third-generation biofuels). The latter streamlines waste residues, such as agricultural waste (e.g., straw), and also encompasses renewable electricity in road and rail transport [ 95 ].

At present, the industrial biofuel production is dominated by first- and second-generation processes, respectively. Nevertheless, RED II and indirect land use change (ILUC) proposals have initiated the gradual shift toward second- and third-generation processes, which are associated with significant changes in feedstock supply and logistics, as well as technology deployment (e.g., market penetration of advanced biofuels). ILUC qualifies first-generation biofuels based on the unintended consequences of releasing carbon emissions as a result of land use changes [ 96 , 97 ]. While technical process development for third- and fourth-generation biofuels is advancing rapidly in academic and start-up settings, large-scale industrial implementation remains lagging. This indicates a profound gap in transferring technologies from a pilot scale (TRL 5) to an industrial scale (TRL 8). To that end, clear and implementable criteria remain to be addressed by legislators for industrial technology transition toward advanced biofuels with a notable climate impact. Table 2 summarizes our policy recommendations aimed at advancing biofuels implementation as well as their respective expected results and acting entity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063.t002

First and foremost, legislators need to create stable policies and regulatory frameworks based on measurable cradle-to-cradle sustainability performance indicators. In the past, one of the greatest barriers for industry to adopt new biofuel technologies, at least in the EU, was the constantly changing regulatory and provisions framework, which ultimately led to waves of market and company consolidation for first-generation fuels such as crop-based biodiesel, corn and sugar beet-based bioethanol, and, more recently, corn-based biogas products. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that policy makers provide clearly formulated, long-term stable policies, provisions, and regulatory frameworks to allow industrial transition to advanced biofuel technologies with clear climate impact.

With respect to sustainability, measurable criteria can be categorized as agriculture biomass, forest biomass with respect to biodiversity, and carbon stocks and emissions. Biofuel ILUC factors could be included in the biannual reports of fuel suppliers and EU countries. Accordingly, biofuel produced from palm oil and soy should carry a high ILUC factor and phasing out these feedstocks could be achieved by encouraging the diversification of feedstock. Reports estimate that 130,000 to 210,000 hectares of deforestation, which has detrimental effect on biodiversity and soil quality, could be avoided by limiting the demand of EU countries for palm oil biofuels [ 98 ]. Land requirement and fresh water use, carbon trading, and carbon offsets should also be factored in upcoming legislations. The criteria should also include GHG emissions that take the levels of methane, nitric oxides, and sulfur oxides into account in addition to levels of CO 2 . Legislation criteria should also take into consideration end-use performance, whereby industry sector, energy efficiency, and socioeconomic impact could represent qualifying measures. Risk determination and possible exceptions could be evaluated for specific industries, such as security and electricity. With respect to energy efficiency, it should be considered that distinct biofuels differ in their output. For example, ethanol yields 25% more energy than that invested in its production, while biodiesel yields 93% more [ 99 ]. To that end, performance-based renewable energy policies are needed. Finally, a reliable system that verifies compliance and reporting is eminent to putting these proposals into practice. In that respect, a mass balance system that observes the global carbon inventory and defines optimal distribution of energy profiles (first to fourth generation) and mixtures (e.g., E10 petrol/ethanol) to ensure minimal climate impact is in order. This system could integrate a range of parameters, including flexible distribution channels, demand management, storage, and price signals in real time [ 97 , 100 ]. Independent auditing services could further ensure compliance, which could also be extended to trading partners of the EU countries at a later stage.

As the implementation of industrial biofuel production sites are associated with immense capital investments, it is crucial to shed light on the financial aspect linked to these policies, primarily, multilevel incentives schemes, investment risk reduction, and infrastructure and logistics. On an EU level, specific funding mechanisms such as European Innovation Council (EIC) pathfinder, EIC Transition, and EIC Accelerator that aim to enable and accelerate the scaling trajectory of new technologies toward market entry already exist. While this is an initial step toward implementing new biofuel technologies, these measures do not translate into national actions and legislation on a member state level, which impedes the regional mobilization of capital, leading to a slow uptake and implementation of new technologies. Hence, a significant step toward rapid technology adoption and implementation would be the regional implementation of funding and capital mobilization as already practiced on the EU level.

An integral element in promoting advanced biofuels could be incentivizing biofuel processes that show favorable sets of sustainability parameters and end-use performance by a higher cost of CO 2 certificates, which realistically should be in the order of 500 to 1,000 Euros/ton CO 2 . Consolidated long-term measures would also provide companies and investors with valuable tools to calculate return of investment and hence de-risk decision-making for iterative technology transition. To enable more efficient technology transfer from academia toward industrial technology deployment, additional factors need to be considered. To that end, academic projects should receive sequential, stage-gated extended funding periods of 4 to 8 years that commonly go beyond a single governmental administration period. This would allow ideas to be developed toward a proof of concept stage, where they can be translated to spin-outs or industry partners. Governments should incentivize start-up formation derived from academic units using focused funding measures, such as the EXIST funding program in Germany [ 101 ]. As technology development from proof of concept (TRL 2 to 4) in academic settings to pilot plant level often requires time periods exceeding 5 to 7 years, synergistic midterm private funding resources also have to be mobilized. To that end, technology familiarity, better understanding of time frames for solid technology development, and proper risk assessment are essential for private capital investors. In order to motivate private capital in the EU to accept development risks and extended time frames for return of investment in biofuel start-up companies, governments could implement tax write-offs for spent risk capital. This legislatively guided de-risking of capital investment into new technologies is already implemented in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, as well as in other, less compliance-driven, financial markets. Hence, the EU has to rapidly implement such legislative tax reliefs to secure innovation on the biofuels and other innovation and sustainability-driven sectors for added economic value and a vibrant job sector.

Capital is also short at the infrastructure and logistics level. Investments are required to construct dedicated pilot plants that allow industrial scale validation and optimization of new technologies, independent of any large-scale industrial partner. In that respect, multiple regionally decentralized pilot plants could provide dedicated instrumental parks that house state of the art fermentation and downstream processing equipment. In the case of gas fermentation, these parks could be associated with significant security measures and demand special regulatory approval and regular inspection. Accordingly, construction and operation by large national research organizations, such as Fraunhofer institutions in Germany, or private–public partnerships is recommended. Governmentally driven funding actions that enable access and use of these pilot plant facilities by innovators in the biofuels sector could further accelerate industrial deployment and market entry. In parallel to technology market readiness, the implementation of biofuels in industrial processes requires a secured feedstock supply.

Contrary to Nordic countries that are the forefront of advanced biofuel processes development, most industrialized countries in the EU with a high population density do not have sufficient land or biomass availability for large-scale biofuel production [ 100 ]. Hence, the location and feedstock supply require strategic positioning. Two routes for biofuels production are viable in the EU: a large production plant located in a region with abundant, long-term feedstock/biomass supply or secured trade routes; or a network of smaller, decentralized production facilities. In the latter case, a farm-integrated production facility with secured access to local residue streams can be envisioned. To optimize the economics of the production facilities, its location should be leveraged with maximal carbon credits in order to meet fuel market prices. To make an informed decision on the location and mode of production, a global carbon inventory map would be extremely beneficial. While we have a good overview of regional carbon emissions, there is little information on correlative carbon storage, which is mostly limited to terrestrial biomass. To that end, other carbon storage mechanisms should be considered, such as existing geological carbon (CO 2 ) capture activities and marine biomass. Considering that 68% of the world population is projected to live in urban areas by 2050, it is sensible to consider urban waste streams, such as sewage sludge and food waste, as yet underutilized biomass feedstocks for biofuel production processes [ 102 ]. More generally, a map of the carbon flux resolved on a country-specific level would enable a more informed decision on the selection of process feedstock (biomass residues/CO 2 ) and trading partners that could secure operation of large-scale production facilities for third- and fourth-generation biofuels. Currently, the major trading partners of the EU are Argentina, Brazil, USA, Indonesia, and Malaysia [ 97 ]. These trading practices do not ensure level field sustainability over the long term. To that end, future trading legislation should consider balanced trade between the global North and global South to ensure long-term beneficial socioeconomic impact on the stability and sustainability of feedstock and biofuel production.

Conclusions

In this Essay, we laid out the reasoning for biofuel production as immediate and long-term measures to limit and eliminate energy and mobility-related GHG emissions. In that regard, biofuels will not be the only solution but an essential building block in a network with other physical (i.e., wind power, photovoltaic systems [ 103 – 105 ]) and chemical technologies (i.e., Sabatier process, Power to X [ 106 , 107 ]) that together can provide carbon neutral or even carbon negative energy and mobility solutions. In regard to transportation, biofuels should act in synergy with other technologies, such as electrified vehicles. In addition to biofuel manufacturing, similar processes could also be implemented in other applications. Here, algal and yeast oil can be transformed into building materials such as carbon fibers and cement additives. Via these routes, atmospheric CO 2 can be absorbed from the environment and stored for very long periods of time. Such technologies could complement materials derived from fossil fuels or that generate large amounts of CO 2 during the manufacturing process (e.g., steel, aluminum and concrete) [ 108 ].

We are convinced that, in the last decades, mankind has been generally too hesitant to adopt climate-centered technologies, which has put the world on a perilous pathway toward catastrophic climate change [ 109 – 111 ]. The destructive outcomes of this scenario have been documented in the scientific literature and are subject to numerous high level reports [ 112 – 117 ].

As time for action is already overdue, it is essential to act now by implementing the tools and technologies we have at hand at the present time. It is our opinion, that the only path to enable climate effective energy security and mobility is to deploy available technologies at a global scale right now. The global implementation of large-scale production infrastructure for sustainable (bio)technologies to kick-start production of renewable energy carriers and sustainable commodities is imperative in this timely development scenario. Once production with a base process has commenced, these processes can be iteratively refined or modulated at scale to evolve toward the next technology generation. This approach demands close, long-term academic and industry partnerships.

This fundamental transition toward sustainable bio-based technologies will require long-sighted, fact-driven legislative guidance and immense capital investments across the private and governmental sectors. However, it will be the only route to limit climate change effects and provide a livelihood for future societies.

With respect to governments, this means that neither ideology nor demagogically driven decision-making will protect any society from the effects of climate change. There are just no simple answers to complex, global problems. What is needed are global governmental alliances that make technocratically oriented long-sighted decisions, aiming for definitively set climate-centered outcomes even if the communication of the measures that have to be taken may not be popular on first sight.

Even outside the scientific communities, people are ready to accept change of the status quo in order to curb climate change effects and transition to a sustainable society. The question remains if the global political elites are ready to communicate and implement this change. Time is running out to maintain the global ecosystems as we know it.

Acknowledgments

The authors dedicate this manuscript to Dr. Christian Patermann (former EU Program Director Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Food) and Dr. Günther von Au (Chairman of the Board of Directors of Clariant AG), each being outstanding political and industrial visionaries, influencers, and decision-makers in the field of sustainable (bio)technologies and the bioeconomy, respectively.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 7. IEA. Renewables 2021. Paris: IEA; 2021.
• 59. LanzaTech. Annual Report 2021. 2021. Available from: https://lanzatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LanzaTech_2021_Annual_Report.pdf .
• 93. European Environment Agency. 19.01.2023. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ .

• Forum article
• Open access
• Published: 18 May 2017

Biofuel research: perceptions of power and transition

• Lena Partzsch 1  

Energy, Sustainability and Society volume  7 , Article number:  14 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Whether biofuels represent a sustainable innovation, a creative alternative, or a gold rush, very much depends on our perception of power and change with regard to sustainability. This article provides an overview of existing understandings of power in the research on biofuels, including positive perceptions that often lead to more optimistic evaluations of biofuels. It exposes the diversity with which one can understand power through three ideal type concepts: “power with,” “power to,” and “power over”. Integrating these concepts in one power framework allows for examining how the three dimensions interrelate with each other and developing the contours of a power lens on biofuel governance and research. With the 2007–2008 food price crisis, critics re-politicized the governance of biofuels. Several farmer associations have completely turned against biofuels. The article argues that this rejection of biofuels is due to a limited perception of power as a coercion and manipulation (power over). While the current governance of biofuels basically reproduces systems and positions, we should start to more seriously and intensively ask questions of where, when, and how the governance of biofuels may also allow for “green” resistance (power to) and collective empowerment (power with).

Introduction

Whether biofuels represent a sustainable innovation, a creative alternative or a gold rush [ 1 ], very much depends on our perception of power and change with regard to sustainability. This leads to the challenge of how to conceptualize these understandings. I gather diverse perceptions of power and illustrate them for biofuel research. The aim is to initiate a broader, more comprehensive debate across ontological and epistemological differences in this field of research. To begin the discussion, I introduce key components of the debate by identifying different perceptions of power that are common to research on biofuels along three ideal type conceptions:

Power with means collective empowerment through convincing and learning with and from each other. It refers to processes of developing shared values, finding common ground, and generating collective strengths [ 2 ]. Based on this understanding of power, biofuels can potentially be a sustainable innovation that serves the common good (climate protection, energy security, regional development, etc.) (e.g., [ 3 , 4 ]).

Power to corresponds to the ability of agents “to get things done” [ 5 ]. While Pitkin [ 6 ] defines power to as non-relational, Barnett and Duvall [ 7 ] define power to as tied to social relations of constitution that define who the actors are, along with their capacities and practices. Footnote 1 Scholars, who take a perspective of power to, may highlight the agency of producing biofuels as a creative alternative in hitherto fossil fuel-dependent societies (e.g., [ 8 , 9 ]).

Power over describes the direct and indirect ability of powerful actors, structures, and discourses to influence the actions and even the thoughts of others. It is based on power concepts by Dahl [ 10 ], Bachrach and Baratz [ 11 ], and Lukes [ 12 ], among others. I also discuss concepts of discursive power under this category (e.g., [ 13 , 14 ]), while I am aware that these concepts partly fall under the category of power to [ 7 ]. From a perspective of power over, biofuels can be seen as a gold rush: While everybody expected sudden wealth in this new field, there are very few winners and many losers (e.g. [ 15 , 16 ]).

I chose this tripartite approach as a framework for my article, because it is most comprehensive and makes an extension of the power discussion on biofuels possible. At the same time, the framework allows for the discussion of the well-known grouping of the four “faces of power” under the category of power over [ 17 , 18 ]. I will argue that in the research on biofuels, the understandings of power as power with and power to tend to prevail, even when they are not made explicit. This means that scholars have overemphasized the potential of biofuels as a creative alternative to fossil fuels and sustainable innovation for rural development. Concepts of power over have only more recently been applied, specifically since research has started to explicitly issue power. This has, in particular, been used to explain why any process of governing biofuels (biofuel governance) did not lead to urgent sustainability transitions, and why the biofuel boom should rather be seen as a gold rush. Scholars have demonstrated that the development of biofuels markets benefitted large companies and conglomerates [ 19 ]. Critical and post-structuralist perspectives have helped to understand this development by exploring structures and discourses favoring them [ 20 ]. Scholars have used Foucault’s concepts to outline how scientific knowledge practices render the very essence of problems (and solutions) raised on the biofuel agenda [ 21 , 22 ].

This article involves first of all implicit and explicit understandings of power (how do biofuel researchers think and talk about power?). These understandings are expressed in empirical research, as I will demonstrate below, and they hence also allow for an illustration of the practice of biofuel governance (how is power exercised in and through biofuel governance?). This makes the article also relevant for political practice. We should understand, not only in theoretical but also in practical terms, how we effectuate or prevent changes towards a more sustainable supply of energy and transport fuel. As in analytical heuristics, it is not possible to offhand separate power with , power to , and power over in empirical research. These categories shine multiple lights on different aspects of the same empirical phenomena. In practice, these forms of power exercise are mostly interrelated. My less concern is to weigh and compare the pros and cons of each perspective, but rather to outline an agenda for a multidimensional analysis of all three mechanisms of power and their interrelations.

In order to get the full picture of how change happens, we should understand how different perspectives add on to each other (besides overlaps and contradictions). To do this, I will begin by describing each perspective in itself. Based on a survey on biofuel research, I will give references for each perspective. These references are only illustrative. Then, I will exemplify the interrelations between each of these perspectives with respect to biofuel research. I explain how power imbalances can affect processes of power with and power to . Again, scholars have demonstrated how large conglomerates have manipulated biofuel governance in their favor, and why therefore the biofuels boom should be considered as a gold rush. However, I argue that interrelations may also work the other way around, and this is particularly relevant to the main argument of this article. Biofuels as a creative alternative and a sustainable innovation may also provoke changes in existing relations of power over and contribute to address asymmetries and inequalities in agrifood and transport systems. We need a multidimensional power approach to explore these interrelations.

Biofuel: sustainable innovation (power with)

Research on biofuel governance and other studies in the field of sustainability are most often based on a positive perception of power in the sense of power with . Power with is a term that refers to processes of developing shared values, finding common ground, and generating collective strengths [ 2 ]. This conception does not necessarily refer to the diffusion of already existing (predefined) norms. Rather, power with implies learning processes that allow actors to question self-perceptions and to actively build up a new awareness of individuals or groups [ 23 , 24 ]. In this vein, with regard to biofuels, scholars have assumed that collective empowerment and solidarity are possible and that biofuel technologies as a “sustainable innovation” can pave the way to post-carbon societies [ 25 , 26 ].

Power with is often linked to Arendt’s definition of power [ 27 ]. Footnote 2 According to Arendt, power always refers to a group or to a collective of individuals:

Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. When we say of somebody that he is ‘in power’ we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name ([ 28 ]: 44). Footnote 3

Research on environmental leadership (e.g., [ 29 ]) in pioneer countries, such as Germany and France in the biofuel sector [ 3 , 30 ], most obviously reflects such an understanding of power. Leaders or pioneers are empowered to act in the name of others from this perspective (while they dominate others from a perspective of power over , see below). In this sense, (Young [ 31 ]: 285) defines leadership in the interest of common welfare:

Leadership (…) refers to the actions of individuals who endeavor to solve or circumvent the collective action problems that plague the efforts of parties seeking to reap joint gains in processes of institutional bargaining.

Leaders and pioneers do not enforce their own interests against or over others; rather they seek “to reap joint gains” of environmentalism. Environmental leadership studies, based on such an understanding of power, usually follow the discourse of Ecological Modernization that highlights flexible and cost-efficient problem solving. Ecological modernization outlines a win-win storyline of environmental protection that benefits green (biofuel) business as much as the environment [ 32 , 33 ]. From this perspective, those who are neither leaders nor pioneers are considered free-riders or laggards , rather than subordinates. Non-leaders also benefit, at least in the long run, from power (with), since biofuels are expected to tackle common problems, such as climate change, enhance energy security, and to contribute to regional development [ 3 , 34 ]. Policies promoting biofuels are hence per se seen to be desirable since, from this perspective, they serve everybody’s interest.

Scholars have extensively analyzed the emergence, diffusion, efficiency, and effectiveness of policies promoting biofuels, with the (at least implicit) aim to foster their adoption and implementation [ 30 , 35 ]. In this context, policy learning and experiments have been gaining momentum [ 9 , 26 ]. Deliberative processes, including third-party certification schemes, were initiated and observed with the aim to introduce sustainable biofuel production schemes that would integrate those formerly excluded stakeholders with new technology; in everyday practice, every actor in the field would then become a winner [ 4 , 36 ].

Scholars who share this perspective of power as power with do not think in dichotomies such as winners - losers or good-bad . Instead, they understand power (or similar concepts, such as leadership) as serving the common good (climate protection, energy security, and sustainability). As there are no subordinates from this power perspective, no imperative follows to empower or to resist. The empowerment of non-leaders is not an issue because scholars assume that, in principle, they are also interested in developing sustainable innovations and that they likewise benefit from respective leadership efforts.

Biofuel: creative alternative and “green” resistance (power to)

While power with pertains to collective empowerment and solidarity, power to refers to single actors and separate groups, such as farmers, co-operatives, and individual processors who were initially key players in pioneering biofuel regions [ 19 ]. Accordingly, biofuels are often seen as an opportunity to empower green ideas and values. Pitkin [ 6 ] emphasizes how power can be non-relational, since an actor may have the power to accomplish something all by him- or herself. This understanding of power is related to the development of an individual identity; self-confidence and consciousness raising [ 23 ]. It is here where Nussbaum’s and Sen’s [ 37 ] capability approach comes in, which defines power as “a capability to act upon one’s environment” [ 38 ]. For example, an individual farmer can simply start to produce and use biomass-based fuels without any permission or interference from another actor, such as the petrol industry. However, constructivist research has demonstrated how every actor or group is defined through socially constituted relations that, at least indirectly, shape the actions of individuals [ 7 ]: only a farmer who receives knowledge about alternative technologies may effectively implement them.

Power to can be linked to Parsons’ definition of power as the ability “to get things done” [ 5 ]. It highlights a productive agency, especially in the cases where actors’ goals are opposed or resisted. Biofuel research by small farmers and rural communities is often based on this perception of power [ 9 , 39 ]. Scholars highlight the potential of biofuels for rural development by providing new markets for agricultural production. They assume that through the introduction of radically new technologies in niches, farmers are able to empower themselves in an attempt of an “agro-ecological revolution” [ 8 ]. They highlight the self-empowering agency of hitherto marginalized people to become “energy sheiks” [ 40 ], based on biomass production.

Scholars, who take a perspective of power to , focus on the productive agency of the biofuel sector. They are interested in the empowerment of alternative ideas and values which, in the case of biofuels, allow for transforming fossil fuel-dependent societies. These alternative agents criticize the practices or the authority of the dominant, carbon-intense system and refuse to reproduce their own positions in this system. Their non-conformism is perceived to serve the common good as they develop alternative technologies required by everyone in a world beyond petrol. From a perspective of power to and in difference to a perspective of power with , there are only a limited number of transformational agents: not everybody in the field is assumed to be a “winner” in the first place; there are only a few “energy sheiks”. However, scholars see an imperative to act based on normatively prior “green” values, for example, climate protection and sustainability (and everybody benefits from the realization of these values).

Biofuel: gold rush (power over)

Scholars who explicitly issue power in the context of biofuels usually perceive power as asymmetric. Biofuel governance is seen as a zero-sum game which produces winners and losers. From this perspective, powerful actors, structures, and discourses in the field of biofuel governance influence the actions and even the thoughts of others. In the following, I will illustrate this perspective, further differentiating the “four faces” of power over (see Table  1 ): visible , hidden , invisible , and unconscious power [ 2 , 41 ]. (the fourth dimension does not understand power as a zero-sum game and can also be added to power to , see the first footnote.)

In the first dimension, agents exercise visible power when they directly influence political decision-makers based on their material and ideational resources [ 42 ]. What is visible is not the power as such, but rather its physical means such as lobbying activities, party financing, and armed force. (Dahl [ 10 ]: 201) defines: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (emphasis added). Any kind of state force implementing objectives of sustainability by top downregulation means exercising direct power. Non-state actors may also play a role in this game. Coase [ 43 ] explains this for business firms. Also when Pilgrim and Harvey [ 44 ] demonstrate how NGO lobbying significantly affected biofuel policy changes and sustainability regulation in the UK and in Europe, they assume that NGOs enforce their ideas against others in an arena of obviously competing demands.

The second dimension of hidden power refers to power not obviously opposed by anyone. Bachrach and Baratz [ 11 ] speak of “two faces of power” emphasizing that some issues never even make it onto the political agenda and are dismissed before observable negotiations start. For a long time, the EU issued biofuels only in the context of climate change, completely neglecting aspects of competing food demands and land use change in the Global South [ 45 , 46 ]. Scholars demonstrating such hidden aspects apply this second dimension of power over to analyze biofuel governance.

The traditional conception of structural (hidden) power in international relations aims to address the coercion resulting from the capital mobility of transnational corporations. Threats to shift investments abroad do not even need to be voiced in order to influence policies in their favor [ 42 , 47 ]. More recent studies point to the fact that businesses also exercise structural power by self-regulation and public-private partnerships; these types of governance allow business actors to actively set rules, for example, for the “sustainable” production of biofuels at the expense of state actors [ 42 , 48 ]. In addition, as public authorities have faced challenges in facilitating the implementation of their sustainability criteria outside their jurisdictions, the EU has started to use these private schemes to verify compliance with sustainability criteria in biofuel production outside its own territory [ 49 , 50 ]. As a result, following this perspective, power in the global political economy has been diffused, leaving biofuel conglomerates with considerable power over others [ 51 ].

Further, scholars are increasingly focusing on power relations linked to latent conflicts of interest. In the third dimension, invisible power comes to play as a result of norms and ideas [ 41 ]. Research analyzes discourses, communication practices, cultural values and institutions, which all work to shape relevant thoughts and actions [ 12 ]. With regard to biofuels, Munro [ 22 ] has shown how, in the United States, a powerful coalition of agricultural interests manipulated the governance of biofuels by linking it to public concerns about climate change and energy security. In consequence, corn biofuel received political support, tax reductions, and subsidies. Likewise, Puttkammer and Grethe [ 52 ] have found a coalition of biofuel advocates to dominate the public discourse in Germany, while scientists who doubted the efficiency of biofuels could not make their voice heard. The discourse only shifted with the 2007–2008 food price crisis when scholars demystified the “ethanol bubble” [ 53 ] and outlined potentially devastating implications for global poverty and food security. Experts, NGOs, and business actors who have challenged the sustainability of biofuels on many fronts began to be heard [ 20 , 22 ].

For the most part, these discourse scholars blame other scholars who apply a perspective of power with for neglecting and postponing important questions of social justice linked to biofuel production [ 21 , 54 ]. Win-win rhetoric is demonstrated to manifest global power asymmetries rather than to contribute to more ecology and fairness [ 22 , 53 ]. From this perspective, pioneers and leaders, whose role Young [ 31 ] and Bernard and Prieur [ 30 ], among others, consider to be positive, only serve dominant interests and prevent a more fundamental social transformation to sustainability. With reference to the International Political Economy, most scholars deny a simple confrontation of biofuel proponents (or pioneers) and opponents (or laggards). In this vein, Levidow [ 55 ] outlines how the EU can continue “its global plunder of resources” because it pursues global leadership for sustainable biofuels. Silva-Castaneda [ 56 ] demonstrates how, in Indonesia, some NGOs decided to participate in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), a certification process initiated by the WWF, among others. The local NGOs managed to include important clauses regarding indigenous and land rights in the RSPO standard. In practice, however, auditors rarely recognize as valid evidence the forms of proof put forward by local communities, and global conglomerates could even use the standards to increase their primacy vis-à-vis local farmers [ 56 ]. These examples reveal power over within multi-stakeholder processes.

Studies demonstrate that the expansion of biofuels in countries of the Global South was only possible through the partial neglect (simplification) of their cultural and ecological diversity [ 57 ]. Nygren [ 58 ] illustrates how leading retailers, in negotiation with environmental organizations, have guided consumers’ expectations of certified Southern forest products by building images of Southern community forest producers as authentic and exotic others . She concludes that certification as a market-based form of governance has only had a limited impact on altering the unequal relationship characteristic of global networks of production and consumption.

With reference to Foucault [ 13 ] and Bourdieu [ 59 ], we can capture links between knowledge, power, and politics in a fourth dimension of power over [ 17 ]. Critical and (post-) structuralist approaches understand power in a way that everything is socially constructed. Scholars analyze the normative impact on (supposed) losers, such as farmers in the Global South, as well as on (supposed) winners, such as major agribusiness actors. All actors work to mainly reproduce systems and positions [ 60 ]. With regard to biofuels, several studies have highlighted the central role of knowledge and framing [ 15 , 16 , 21 ]. Drawing on Foucault, Kuchler and Linnér [ 21 ] have analyzed the discursive practices of the three major international organizations focused on food and agriculture, energy, and climate with regard to biofuels over the last 20 years: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They found that, in contrast to pro and contra accounts, the arguments of all three organizations reflected a policy consensus based on the mainstream notion of industrial agricultural production, promoting the intensification and expansion of rural production. The biofuel discourse has further constituted a concatenation of the three issues of agricultural production, energy security, and climate change mitigation. When the discourse shifted with the 2007–2008 food price crisis, all the three major organizations adapted to this shift [ 21 ]. Instead of exercising power over by manipulating discourses on biofuels according to specific pro or contra interests, the organizations were found to rather reproduce hegemonic discourses and their own positions.

The gold rush metaphor is used a lot to describe the situation of biofuels from a power over perspective [ 1 ]. Biofuel production, like gold mining, is unprofitable for most farmers, just like it was for diggers and mine owners. Both biofuel production and gold mining can in addition have very negative environmental effects. While, however, people are made to believe that everyone can become abundantly wealthy (“energy sheiks”), only some few investors make large fortunes. Applying discursive approaches of power over , we can argue that even such investors and major businesses are subject to and not only conscious manipulators of discourses of agricultural intensification and economic growth. The analysis of power over helps to understand why change to more sustainable transport and agricultural systems does not happen. However, as I argue in this article, it falls short on explaining when and why there also sometimes is disruptive change and empowerment.

Power to change: interrelations between power with, power to, and power over

While the perspectives of power with and power to (over-) emphasize the potential for change with regard to biofuels, scholars with understandings of power over often exaggerate their negative impacts. The tripartite framework allows for the combining of different analytical perspectives and to examine their interrelations. While the three categories are first of all analytical heuristics, they also stand for different mechanisms of the exercise of power (see Fig.  1 ). Power over affects what is considered a “sustainable innovation” and “creative alternative”. Research has demonstrated this. However, I argue that it is also possible the other way round: there are situations in which power with and power to can address power imbalances and prevent a situation in which there are only a few winners and many losers as a result of biofuel governance.

Agent-based power

As shown in Fig.  1 , besides considering material and ideational sources of power, we also need to consider different mechanisms of power (over/to/with), since they lead to different results of power (leading to a new distribution of sources in a circular process, see the arrow at the bottom of Fig.  1 ). Biofuels per se are neither a sustainable innovation, a creative alternative nor a gold rush. The three metaphors exemplify three different results of power: the exercise of power over leads to a gold rush situation. So, if scholars only ask for power over , they will always find winners and losers. By contrast, if we ask for the exercise of power to , we may find that biofuels are creative alternative. Finally, the exercise of power with can be exemplified by a case of finding an agreement on sustainability criteria of biofuel production. To demonstrate overlaps, especially, in terms of the results of power, I used dashed lines in Fig.  1 .

When, in the field of biofuels, scholars explicitly issue power, they generally use concepts of power over to explain why governance and research in this field have a blind spot for power asymmetries [ 49 , 53 ]. Biofuel opponents may have accomplished a shift in the biofuel discourse after the 2007–2008 food price crisis [ 20 , 22 ]. However, overriding power asymmetries have prevented a structural change in both the energy/transport and the agricultural sectors. The trend is now definitely towards large companies and conglomerates [ 49 , 50 ].

However, the fact that biofuels have caused no structural change and have disadvantaged rather than empowered small farmers in the Global South, does not mean that a structural change is impossible. What I want to argue in this article is that exercising consensual forms of power (power with) as well as self-empowerment and resistance (power to) can also eclipse and overcome power asymmetries (power over). Empirical research on deliberative processes suggests that communication and common action never happen among equals and that they are never free from any form of power over [ 36 , 61 ]. Hence, we need to understand power with as a form of exercising power, which is strategic (bargaining) as well as communicative (arguing). A crucial part of this process is the orientation of agents involved in processes of biofuel governance. If actors are open to changing their positions and developing shared understandings, transitions to sustainability can follow from dialogues [ 61 , 62 ].

Following this perspective, even if small farmers in the Global South have fewer capabilities compared to conglomerates from the EU and the United States, this does not mean that they have no possibility to act independently from them. For example, sugar is costly to establish, and thus is economically most efficient at large plantation scales. However, Jatropha can more readily be produced through outgrower schemes as it is less capital intensive [ 9 , 49 ]. While currently almost all bio-ethanol is produced from grain or sugarcane and therefore competes with food purposes, other efficient and economically viable technologies for ethanol production are available [ 63 ]. The production of perennial energy crops, such as grasses and trees, and crop residues, such as straw, are seen to require fewer inputs and less prime land [ 64 ].

Under specific conditions, empowerment is possible; processes of power with and power to can have a (positive) impact on unwanted relations of power over . For example, processes of stakeholder dialogue and certification demonstrate that an agreement beyond the lowest common denominator is possible. In addition, they can weaken the perceived legitimacy of powerful actors that are producing biofuels unsustainably. The critical discourse on biomass certification has issued consumers’ accountability for harmful social and environmental effects in countries of production [ 55 , 65 ]. When the legitimacy of unconditional import as well as of private certification schemes was put into question [ 50 ], transnational conglomerates lost ideational and material resources on which their power over others was based. In the agrifood sector, we can clearly see that certification has become a new normative obligation [ 66 ].

We can observe various kinds of empowerment and resistance related to biofuels. While Nygren [ 58 ] argues that certification schemes reproduce (inferior) positions of southern producers as authentic and exotic others, she does not completely deny that certification had a positive impact on altering asymmetries in global networks of production and consumption. Silva-Castaneda’s [ 56 ] study discloses new ways in which local communities can legally prove their land rights, for instance, by video documentation to replace missing formal documents or destructed land marks.

Scholars have described movements, such as Via Campesina, in terms of exercising power over and opposing transnational agriculture corporations [ 67 ]. In terms of reducing and overcoming power asymmetries, however, what is most striking is the fact that small farmers within this movement exercise power to by doing healthy and sustainable agriculture independently of the major agribusinesses to which, from a power over perspective, they would only be subordinated. At the same time, when producing organically, small farmers do not reproduce the system of industrial agricultural production (and their inferior positions within that system). So, their way of farming can be considered as a creative alternative and as a way of resistance. Moreover, within this movement of Via Campesina, despite widely different internal cultures, farmers also exercise power with by (re-) constituting a new shared peasant identity. From a perspective of power with, we can argue that, in the long run, everybody, even from outside this movement, may benefit and share norms and values developed here such as sustainability in farming. The movement delegitimizes the acquisition of land by established conglomerates (“land grabbing”), whose ideational sources of power shrink in consequence. The visible result is a new, more equal, and just distribution of (power) resources through land reforms.

Conclusions

This article should not only encourage a debate on power issues with regard to biofuels, but moreover, develop the debate more comprehensively. When political power has been analyzed in the context of biofuels, this has happened so far through using confrontational or structuralist and discursive approaches that are based on an understanding of power over . Respective scholars have accused other researchers of neglecting “real power concentrations” in the biofuels industries. Often quite rightly: biofuel research has neglected the limits of win-win for a very long time. Scholars have taken sides and normatively inflated their own pro biofuel position, while they have dispatched their adversaries as laggards with regard to the future of transport and agriculture. Of course, not every (supposedly) sustainable innovation is necessarily good in the sense that it is completely uncontroversial (even if there is no visible opposition as in the case of biofuels for a long time). In this context, the question of power essentially addresses the re-politicization of decisions perceived to be urgent and without alternative. With the 2007–2008’s shift in discourse, critics re-politicized the governance of biofuels. Several farmer associations have completely turned against biofuels. I argue that this rejection of biofuels is due to a limited perception of power as power over .

Why does it make sense to complement such a perception of power over ? Why does a multidimensional power framework make more sense? Naming different perspectives, as done here, with one and the same term—“power”—means, first, to put them on one normative level. Gold rush (power over) is a term with strongly negative connotations, on the one hand, and leads to normatively inflating sustainable innovations (power with) and creative resistance (power to), on the other. This is often unjustified because the exercise of power with and power to are not per se more legitimate forms of achieving social change. For example, preventing greenhouse gas emissions “from above” can be quite legitimate.

Secondly, as illustrated in this article, all three conceptions of power are already used in research on biofuels (although sometimes only implicitly; this should change). My hope is that this article addresses diverse communities and overcomes boundaries between them with this multidimensional power approach (in particular, between those who still celebrate biofuels as a “sustainable innovation” and those scholars who completely condemn them because of related power asymmetries). Especially those whose research is (implicitly) based on understandings of power as power with and power to could take stronger reference to researchers taking a critical viewpoint on their studies (power over)—in particular, through showing how consensual forms of power exercise (power with) and resistance and empowerment (power to) not only reproduce power asymmetries but also help overcome them. If we look at the gold rush metaphor from a perspective of power to , we may see that there is a lot of entrepreneurship involved in the discovery of gold deposits. From the perspective of power with , we may also see that people in the field of gold mining as well as of biofuel production find common ground among diverse interests and organize with each other.

Third, convincing and learning (power with) as well as creative ability (power to) and coercion and manipulation (power over) do not completely capture concrete change processes. The analytical categories applied in this paper help to cluster the various understandings of power in biofuel research, but they also reflect different mechanisms of power in reality. Power with perspectives focus on the benefits of biofuels (sustainable innovation); power to focuses on how new actors develop alternatives to fossil (and nuclear)-based economies; power over points to the limits of change because of the dominance of specific actors, structures, and discourses. The common terminology allows that the three perspectives on power are not considered as mutually exclusive (different interpretations of the same phenomenon), but as supplementary (different aspects of a change process). It becomes possible to examine their interrelations and their supplementary potential. With this article, I hope to have given an impetus for further research in this direction. A comprehensive analysis of power in diverse parts of biofuel research and governance is definitely a prerequisite for more seriously and intensively exploring questions of where, when, and how the governance of biofuels may also allow for “green” resistance and collective empowerment.

If actors create (reproduce) discourses and structures, I call this power to . Most constructivist studies however deal with identifying dominant (hegemonic) structures and discourses over others that are unconsciously reproduced, i.e., power over .

Power with is not identical to Arendt’s understanding of power or its empirical operationalization hardly accomplishes Arendt’s demands. So deliberative theories of democracy build upon her understanding of power without finding it comprehensively implemented in reality [ 61 , 68 , 69 ]. In difference to deliberative processes, power with encompasses communicative as well as common action.

An example, to which Arendt refers in a footnote to her definition of power, is the student protests at Berkeley and elsewhere at the end of the 1960s. She contrasts the power of the students—“obviously the strongest power on every campus simply because of the students’ superior number” ([ 28 ]: 44)—to the violence of the university authorities. An individual student leader ‘in power’ would speak on behalf of the movement.

Balkema A, Pols AJ (2015) Biofuels: sustainable innovation or gold rush? Identifying responsibilities for biofuel innovations. In: Koops B-J, Oosterlaken I, Romijn H et al (eds) Responsible innovation 2: concepts, approaches, and applications. Springer, New York, pp 283–303

Google Scholar  

Partzsch L (2015) Kein Wandel ohne Macht–Nachhaltigkeitsforschung braucht ein mehrdimensionales Machtverständnis. GAIA 24(1):48–56

Article   Google Scholar  

Sordaa G, Banseb M, Kemfert C (2010) An overview of biofuel policies across the world. Energy Policy 38(11):6977–6988

Vermeulen S, Dufey A, Vorley B (2008) Biofuels: making tough choices. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2)., pp 1–2

Parsons T (1963) On the concept of political power. Proc Am Philos Soc 107(3):232–262

Pitkin HF (1985) Wittgenstein and justice: on the significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for social and political thought. University of California Press, Berkeley

Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in global governance. In: Barnett MN, Duvall R (eds) Power in global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–32

Altieri MA, Toledo VM (2011) The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J Peasant Stud 38(3):587–612

van Eijcka J, Romijn H (2008) Prospects for Jatropha biofuels in Tanzania: an analysis with strategic niche management. Energy Policy 36(1):311–325

Dahl RA (1957) The concept of power. Behav Sci 2(3):201–215

Bachrach P, Baratz MS (1962) Two faces of power. Am Polit Sci Rev 4(56):947–952

Lukes S (1974) Power: a radical view. Macmillan, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Foucault M (1982) The subject and power. Crit Inq 8(4):777–795

Laclau E, Mouffe C (1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democatic politics. Verso, London

Baka J (2014) What wastelands? A critique of biofuel policy discourse in South India. Geoforum 54(6):315–323

Hunsberger C (2010) The politics of Jatropha-based biofuels in Kenya: convergence and divergence among NGOs, donors, government officials and farmers. J Peasant Stud 37(4):939–962

Digeser P (1992) The fourth face of power. J Polit 54(4):977–1007

Haugaard M (2012) Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. J Polit Power 5(1):33–54

Hunt SC, Sawin JL, Stair P (2006) Cultivating renewable alternatives to oil. In: Worldwatch Institute (ed) State of the world 2006: Special focus: India and China. Earthscan, London, pp 61–77

Sengers F, Raven R, van Venrooij A (2010) From riches to rags: biofuels, media discourses, and resistance to sustainable energy technologies. Energy Policy 38(9):5013–5027

Kuchler M, Linnér B-O (2012) Challenging the food vs. fuel dilemma: genealogical analysis of the biofuel discourse pursued by international organizations. Food Policy 37(5):581–588

Munro B (2015) The lost innocenece of ethanol: Power, knowledge, discourse, and the U.S. biofuel policy: Doctoral dissertation. Kansas State University, Kansas

Eyben R, Harris C, Pettit J (2006) Introduction: exploring power for change. IDS Bull 37(6):1–10

Gaard G (2010) Women, water, energy: an ecofeminist approach. In: Brown PG, Schmidt JJ (eds) Water ethics: foundational readings for students and professionals. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 59–75

Balat M, Balat H (2009) Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel. Appl Energy 86(11):2273–2282

Nill J, Kemp R (2009) Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: from niche to paradigm? Res Policy 38(4):668–680

Allen A (1998) Rethinking power. Hypatia 13(1):21–40

Arendt H (1970) On violence. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York

Skodvin T, Andresen S (2006) Leadership revisited. Glob Environ Polit 6(3):13–27

Bernard F, Prieur A (2007) Biofuel market and carbon modeling to analyse French biofuel policy. Energy Policy 35:5991–6002

Young OR (1991) Political leadership and regime formation: on the development of institutions in international society. Int Organ 45(3):281–308

Huber J (2000) Towards industrial ecology: sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization. J Environ Policy Plan 2(4):269–285

Jänicke M (2008) Ecological modernisation: new perspectives. J Clean Prod 16(5):557–565

Bomb C, Deurwaarder E, Kaberger T (2007) Biofuels for transport in Europe: lessons from Germany and the UK. Energy Policy 35(4):2256–2267

Foxona T, Pearson P (2008) Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. J Clean Prod 16(1):S148–S161

Longstaff H, Secko DM (2014) Assessing the quality of a deliberative democracy mini-public event about advanced biofuel production and development in Canada. Public Understanding of Science (online)., pp 1–10

Nussbaum M, Sen AK (1987) Internal criticism and Indian rationalist traditions. World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University, Helsinki

Scholtes F (2009) Analysing and explaining power a capability perspective, Bonn

Malik US, Ahmed M, Sombilla MA et al (2009) Biofuels production for smallholder producers in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. Appl Energy 86(S1):S58–S68

Rathke G-W, Diepenbrock W (2006) Mit Biomasse zum ‘Energie-Scheich’?: Stand, Ertragspotenziale und Perspektiven. Chancen für Landwirtschaft und angrenzende Industriezweige. In: DLG (ed) (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft) Zukunftsstandort Deutschland: Strategien Für Die Landwirtschaft. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt a.M

Gaventa J (2006) Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis. IDS Bull 37(6):23–33

Fuchs D (2005) Understanding business power in global governance. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Coase RH (1988) The firm, the market, and the law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Pilgrim S, Harvey M (2010) Battles over biofuels in Europe: NGOs and the politics of markets. Sociol Res Online 13(3):4

Stattman SL, Gupta A (2015) Negotiating authority in the global biofuel governance: Brazil and the EU in the WTO. Glob Environ Polit 15(1):41–59

Afionis S, Stringer LC (2012) European Union leadership in biofuels regulation: Europe as a normative power? J Clean Prod 32(1):114–123

Altvater E, Mahnkopf B (1999) Grenzen der Globalisierung: Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, 4th edn. Westfälisches Dampfboot, Münster

Levin K, Cashore B, Koppell J (2009) Can non-state certification systems bolster state-centered efforts to promote sustainable development through the clean development mechanism? Wake Forest Law Review 44(1):777–798

Dauvergne P, Neville KJ (2010) Forests, food, and fuel in the tropics: the uneven social and ecological consequences of the emerging political economy of biofuels. J Peasant Stud 37(4):631–660

Ponte S, Daugbjerg C (2015) Biofuel sustainability and the formation of transnational hybrid governance. Environ Polit 24(1):96–114

Henriksen LF (2015) The global network of biofuel sustainability standards-setters. Environ Polit 24(1):115–137

Puttkammer J, Grethe H (2015) The public debate on biofuels in Germany: who drives the discourse? Ger J Agric Econ 64(4):263–273

Runge CF, Senauer B (2007) How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Aff 86(3):41–53

Horlings LG, Marsden TK (2011) Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):441–452

Levidow L (2013) EU criteria for sustainable biofuels: accounting for carbon, depoliticizing plunder. Geoforum 44(1):211–223

Silva-Castaneda L (2012) A forest of evidence: third-party certification and multiple forms of proof—a case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Agric Hum Values 29(3):361–370

Selfa T, Bain C, Moreno R et al (2015) Interrogating social sustainability in the biofuels sector in Latin America: tensions between global standards and local experiences in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. Environmental Management

Nygren A (2015) Governance and images: representations of certified southern producers in high-quality design markets. Environ Values 24(3):391–412

Bourdieu P (1987) Sozialer Sinn: Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M

Guzzini S (1993) Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis. Int Organ 47(3):443–478

Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, New York

Prittwitz V (ed) (1996) Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Leske + Budrich, Opladen

Mussatto SI, Dragone G, Guimarães PM et al (2010) Technological trends, global market, and challenges of bio-ethanol production. Biotechnol Adv 28(6):817–830

Shortall O (2014) Rethinking bioenergy from an agricultural perspective: ethical issues raised by perennial energy crop and crop residue production for energy in the UK and Denmark: PhD thesis. University of Nottingham, Nottigham

Partzsch L (2011) The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agric Hum Values 28(3):413–425

Kalfagianni A (2015) ‘Just food’: the normative obligations of private agrifood governance. Glob Environ Chang 31(1):174–186

Martínez-Torres ME, Rosset PM (2010) La Vía Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. J Peasant Stud 37(1):149–175

Habermas J (1998) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge

Young IM (2001) Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Polit Theo 29(5):670–690

Partzsch L, Fuchs DA (2012) Philanthropy: power with in international relations. J Polit Power 5(3):359–376

Guzzini S (2007) The concept of power: a constructivist analysis. In: Berenskoetter F, Williams MJ (eds) Power in world politics. Routledge, New York, pp 23–42

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research received no funding.

Competing interests

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sustainability Governance, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Strasse 4, D-79106, Freiburg, Germany

Lena Partzsch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Partzsch .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Partzsch, L. Biofuel research: perceptions of power and transition. Energ Sustain Soc 7 , 14 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0116-1

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2017

Accepted : 04 May 2017

Published : 18 May 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0116-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Energy, Sustainability and Society

ISSN: 2192-0567

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Frontiers in Plant Science
• Plant Biotechnology
• Research Topics

Biofuels and Bioenergy

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Biofuels have gained popularity because of the growing concern about global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions and the expected rise in oil demand and prices. Biofuels can be directly or indirectly derived from plants or microalgae through the process of photosynthesis. Feedstock for biomass ...

Keywords : Biofuels, Bioenergy, Biomass, Plant Cell Wall, Bioengineering

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

BioEnergy Research

BioEnergy Research is a comprehensive journal that focuses on feedstock biology research related to biomass, and its conversion into biofuels, bioenergy, biochemicals, and biomaterials.

• Publishes a wide range of articles, including peer-reviewed scientific research and reviews.
• Brings together a broad combination of disciplines with a focus on the biology, processing, and economics of bioenergy feedstocks
• Covers genetic improvement of feedstocks, feedstock management and processing, and sustainability.
• Explore the collections and special issue s currently open to submissions and send your manuscript
• Wilfred Vermerris,
• Héctor A. Ruiz,
• Jerome Dumortier

Latest issue

Volume 17, Issue 2

Latest articles

Bio-coal synthesis via hydrothermal carbonization of giant salvinia for a high-quality solid biofuel.

• Piyanut Phuthongkhao
• Rattabal Khunphonoi
• Kitirote Wantala

Marine Photosynthetic Microbial Fuel Cell for Circular Renewable Power Production

• Charitha Basnayaka
• Maheshi Somasiri
• Eustace Y. Fernando

Xylooligosaccharides from Pretreated Rice Bran Produced by Immobilized Xylanase

• Letícia Persilva Fernandes
• Rafaela Zandonade Ventorim
• Gabriela Piccolo Maitan-Alfenas

Optimal Production and Dispatch of Renewable Natural Gas, Electricity, and Fertilizer in Municipal-Scale Anaerobic Digestion Supply Chains

• Irene Mas Martin
• Mark Mba Wright

Comprehensive Wheat Straw Processing with Deep Eutectic Solvent to Deliver Reducing Sugar

• Patrícia Joana Piedade
• Veshal Venkat
• Rafal Marcin Lukasik

Journal updates

Call for papers : article collection on “recent advances in subcritical water pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass”, guide for “special issues” (si) and “article collections” proposals in bioenergy journal, celebrating 15 years of bioenergy research: a journey towards sustainable solutions, article collection open to submissions.

We welcome submissions to the following article collections:  

Anaerobic Digestion: A Topical Collection of Articles Click here for more information

Advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) through biomass and bioenergy research Click here for more information

Advances in Algal Biofuels and Bioproducts Click here for more information

BECCS: The Ultimate Carbon Negative Technology of the Future? Click here for more information

Recent advances in subcritical water pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass Click here for more information

Journal information

• Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
• Biological Abstracts
• CAB Abstracts
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
• Current Contents/Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences
• EI Compendex
• Google Scholar
• INIS Atomindex
• Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Editorial policies

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Articles in Press
• Current Issue

Journal Archive

 Join our Community on:

Biofuel Research Journal`s Official Channel on WeChat (in Mandarin Chinese)  

Latest News

Biofuel Research Journal

has been accepted to be indexed by Inspec!

"Inspec, produced by The

Institution of Engineering

and Technology , has been

the definitive engineering

and physics research database

for over 50 years" 

Read more about Inspec on Clarivate TM

has been accepted to be indexed by Ei Compendex (Engineering Village)!

Read more  here !

Read the Editor`s Pick: Biogas Collection  here !

is now indexed by ProQuest! 

We are delighted to announce .... Read more  here !

  Celebrating a year of growth

for Biofuel Research Journal !

This year marks a year of growth .... Read more  here !

Biofuel Research Journal (BRJ) is a leading, peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research on biofuels, bioproducts, and related biomass-derived materials and technologies. BRJ is an open-access online journal and completely free-of-charge, aiming to advance knowledge and understanding of sustainable energy solutions, environmental protection, and the circular economy through cutting-edge research and innovative applications. The journal welcomes original articles, review papers, case studies, short communications, and hypotheses in the following areas:

• Biofuels and Bioproducts: Exploring the production, characterization, and application of various biofuels, such as biodiesel, bioalcohols (bioethanol, biobutanol), biogas (biomethane, biohydrogen), algal biofuels, and other emerging biofuel sources. Additionally, BRJ encourages research on bioproducts, including biocomposites, bio-based smart materials, and innovative applications in the fields of food, pharmaceuticals, and beyond.
• Biomass Valorization: Investigating efficient and sustainable methods for biomass conversion, including biorefineries, bioprocesses, and advanced biomass utilization techniques to maximize energy and value-added product yields.
• Biomass-Derived Materials for Energy and Storage Systems: Advancing research on biomass-derived materials with potential applications in energy conversion and storage systems, including fuel cells, batteries, supercapacitors, and photovoltaic modules.
• Biomass-Derived Materials for Environmental Sustainability: Exploring using biomass-derived catalysts and materials for carbon dioxide capture and conversion to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, researching biomass-derived catalysts for air, soil, and water pollution mitigation contributes to improved environmental quality.
• Biomass-Derived Materials for Sustainable Applications: Investigating the use of biomass-derived materials in food applications, such as sustainable packaging materials or functional food ingredients, as well as their potential in biomedical applications, drug delivery systems, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine.
• Biomass-Derived Materials for Catalytic Applications: Advancing the understanding and development of biomass-derived materials with catalytic properties, enabling green and sustainable manufacturing processes and chemical transformations.
• Techno-Economic and Environmental Assessments: Analyzing the techno-economic feasibility and environmental sustainability (life cycle assessment, exergy, emergy, risk assessment) of biofuel, bioproduct, and biomass-derived materials production and application pathways, ensuring their compatibility with international standards (e.g., PAS 2050:2011 and ISO 14040:2006).
• Climate Change and Sustainability: Investigating the impacts of biofuel and bioproduct production and consumption on climate change and promoting innovative, low-carbon pathways for their production and use. Articles focusing on strategies for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and promoting circular economy principles in the bioenergy sector are encouraged.
• Novel Processing and Integrated Systems: Highlighting innovative approaches and integrated systems for biofuel and bioproduct processing, as well as energy audits for production plants to enhance efficiency and sustainability.
• Artificial Photosynthesis for Biofuels Production: Exploring cutting-edge research on artificial photosynthesis as a potential green route for biofuels production.
• Promotion of Biofuels and Bioproducts in Developing Economies: Encouraging research on the promotion and adoption of biofuels and bioproducts in developing economies to foster indigenous development and sustainable energy solutions.
• Biofuels and Bioproducts in Circular Economy: Addressing the role of biofuels and bioproducts in the circular economy framework, focusing on resource efficiency, waste valorization, and sustainability.
• Biofuels and Bioproducts Finance: Exploring financial aspects related to biofuels and bioproducts, including investment strategies, funding mechanisms, and economic considerations for the development and commercialization of sustainable bioenergy solutions.

BRJ aims to foster interdisciplinary collaborations among researchers, engineers, scientists, policymakers, and industry experts to accelerate the adoption of sustainable energy solutions and foster a greener future. The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review and editorial integrity, ensuring that only high-quality and impactful research is published.

Biofuel Research Journal is indexed in Scopus  and Web of Science .

BRJ currently has no fees. Learn More .

Editor-in-Chief: Vijai Kumar Gupta

> View Full Editorial Board

Editorial Board

10.18331/BRJ2024.11.1.1

• PDF 190.06 K

Research Paper

Critical impacts of energy targeting on the sustainability of advanced biobutanol separation.

Pages 1999-2012

10.18331/BRJ2024.11.1.2

Keikhosro Karimi; Benyamin Khoshnevisan; Joeri F.M. Denayer

• View Article

Artificial humic substances as sustainable carriers for manganese: Development of a novel bio-based microfertilizer

Pages 2013-2024

10.18331/BRJ2024.11.1.3

Alexander Volikov; Helen Schneider; Nadezda V. Tarakina; Nader Marzban; Markus Antonietti; Svitlana Filonenko

Lime-assisted hydrothermal humification and carbonization of sugar beet pulp: Unveiling the yield, quality, and phytotoxicity of products

Pages 2025-2039

10.18331/BRJ2024.11.1.4

Mona Ghaslani; Reza Rezaee; Omid Aboubakri; Ehsan Sarlaki; Thomas Hoffmann; Afshin Maleki; Nader Marzban

Review Paper

New trends in microbial lipid-based biorefinery for fermentative bioenergy production from lignocellulosic biomass.

Pages 2040-2064

10.18331/BRJ2024.11.1.5

Salauddin Al Azad; Meysam Madadi; Guojie Song; Chihe Sun; Fubao Sun

Publication Information

Indexing and abstracting.

• Our Unique Approach
• Leadership Team
• Research Advisory Board
• Regional Advisory Board
• Research Papers
• Sustainable CO2 Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation
• Sustainable Transportation
• Sustainable Energy Systems
• Sustainable Water and Agricultural Systems
• Sustainable Cities and Their Built Environment
• PUBLICATIONS
• Event Calendar
• Past Events

USC Center for Sustainability Solutions

Research papers: biofuels.

By Antonio M. Bento, Richard Klotz

Environmental Science & Technology

Lifecycle analysis (LCA) metrics of greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly being used to select technologies supported by climate policy. However, LCAs typically evaluate the emissions associated with a technology or product, not the impacts of policies. Here, we show that policies supporting the same technology can lead to dramatically different emissions impacts per unit of technology added, due to multimarket responses to the policy. Using a policy-based consequential LCA, we find that the lifecycle emissions impacts of four US biofuel policies range from a reduction of 16.1 gCO 2 e to an increase of 24.0 gCO 2 e per MJ corn ethanol added by the policy. The differences between these results and representative technology-based LCA measures, which do not account for the policy instrument driving the expansion in the technology, illustrate the need for policy-based LCA measures when informing policy decision making.

Research Areas

Research topics.

share this!

May 7, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Researchers reveal how molecular roadblocks slow the breakdown of cellulose for biofuels

by Gail McCormick, Pennsylvania State University

Cellulose, which helps give plant cell walls their rigid structure, holds promise as a renewable raw material for biofuels—if researchers can accelerate the production process. Compared to the breakdown of other biofuel materials like corn, breaking down cellulose is slow and inefficient but could avoid concerns around using a food source while taking advantage of abundant plant materials that might otherwise go to waste. New research led by Penn State investigators has revealed how several molecular roadblocks slow this process.

The team's most recent study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , describes the molecular process by which cellobiose—a two-sugar fragment of cellulose that is made during cellulose deconstruction—can clog up the pipeline and interfere with subsequent cellulose breakdown.

Biofuel production relies on the breakdown of compounds like starch or cellulose into glucose, which can then be efficiently fermented into ethanol for use as a fuel or converted into other useful materials. The predominant biofuel option on the market today is generated from corn, in part because, the researchers said, their starches break down easily.

"There are several concerns about using corn as a biofuel source, including competing with the global food supply and the large quantity of greenhouse gases produced when generating corn-based ethanol," said Charles Anderson, professor of biology in the Penn State Eberly College of Science and an author of the paper.

"A promising alternative is to break down cellulose from the non-edible parts of plants like corn stalks, other plant waste like forestry residue, and potentially dedicated crops that could be grown on marginal land. But one of the major things holding back so-called second-generation biofuels from being economically competitive is that the current process to break down cellulose is slow and inefficient."

"We have been using a relatively new imaging technique to explore the molecular mechanisms that slow down this process."

Cellulose is composed of chains of glucose, held together by hydrogen bonds into crystalline structures. Scientists use enzymes called cellulases, derived from fungi or bacteria, to break down plant material and extract the glucose from the cellulose. But, the researchers said, cellulose's crystalline structure paired with other compounds called xylan and lignin—also present in cell walls—provide additional challenges to the cellulose breakdown. Traditional techniques, however, were unable to reveal the specific molecular mechanisms of these slowdowns.

To explore these unclear mechanisms, the researchers chemically tagged individual cellulases with fluorescent markers. They then used Penn State's SCATTIRSTORM microscope, which the team designed and built for this very purpose, to trace the molecules through each step of the breakdown process and interpreted the resulting videos using computational processing and biochemical modeling.

"Traditional methods observe the breakdown process at a larger scale, artificially manipulate the position of the enzyme or only capture molecules in motion, which means you may miss some of the naturally occurring process," said Will Hancock, professor of biomedical engineering in the Penn State College of Engineering and an author of the paper. "Using the SCATTIRSTORM microscope, we were able to watch individual cellulase enzymes in action to really get at what is slowing down this process and generate new ideas for how to make it more efficient."

The researchers specifically studied the effect of a fungal cellulase enzyme called Cel7A. As part of the breakdown process, Cel7A feeds cellulose into a sort of molecular tunnel, where it is chopped up.

"Cel7A moves the glucose chain to the 'front door' of the tunnel, the chain is cleaved, and the products come out the 'back door' in a sort of pipeline," said Daguan Nong, assistant research professor of biomedical engineering in the Penn State College of Engineering and first author of the paper.

"We aren't exactly sure how the enzyme threads the glucose chain to the tunnel or what exactly goes on inside, but we knew from previous studies that the product that comes out the back door, cellobiose, can interfere with the processing of subsequent cellulose molecules. Now, we know more about how it is interfering."

Within the tunnel, Cel7A chops up cellulose—which has repeating units of glucose—into two-sugar cellobiose fragments. The researchers found that cellobiose in solution can bind to the "back door" of the tunnel, which can slow down the exit of subsequent cellobiose molecules as it essentially blocks the way. Additionally, they found that it can bind to Cel7A near the front door, preventing the enzyme from binding to additional cellulose.

"Because cellobiose is so similar to cellulose, it's maybe not surprising that the little pieces can get into the tunnel," Hancock said. "Now that we have a better understanding of how exactly cellobiose is mucking things up, we can explore new ways to fine tune this process. For example, we could alter the front or the back door of the tunnel or change aspects of the Cel7A enzyme to be more efficient at preventing this inhibition. There has been a lot of work to engineer more efficient cellulase enzymes over the last two decades, and it's an incredibly powerful approach. Having a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms that limit cellulose degradation will help us direct this effort."

This research builds off recent work by the research team to understand other roadblocks to the degradation process—xylan and lignin—which they published recently in RSC Sustainability and Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts .

"We found that xylan and lignin operate in different ways to interfere with the breakdown of cellulose," said Nerya Zexer, postdoctoral researcher in biology in the Penn State Eberly College of Science and lead author of the RSC Sustainability paper. "Xylan coats the cellulose, reducing the proportion of the enzymes that can bind to and move cellulose. Lignin inhibits the enzyme's ability to bind to cellulose as well as its movement, reducing the velocity and distance of the enzyme."

Although strategies exist to remove components like xylan and lignin from the cellulose, the researchers said the removal of cellobiose is more difficult. One method uses a second enzyme to cleave cellobiose, but it adds additional cost and complexity to the system.

"About 50 cents per gallon of bioethanol production costs is dedicated just to enzymes, so minimizing this cost would do a lot in terms of making bioethanol from plant waste more competitive with fossil fuels or corn-based ethanol," Anderson said. "We will continue to investigate how to engineer enzymes and explore how enzymes might work together with the goal of making this process as low-cost and efficient as possible."

The research team at Penn State also includes Zachary Haviland, undergraduate student majoring in biomedical engineering at the time of the research; Sarah Pfaff, graduate student in biology at the time of the research; Daniel Cosgrove, Holder of the Eberly Family Chair in Biology; Ming Tien, professor emeritus of biochemistry and molecular biology; and Alec Paradiso, undergraduate student majoring in biotechnology.

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , RSC Sustainability

Provided by Pennsylvania State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Machine learning model uncovers new drug design opportunities

3 hours ago

Astronomers find the biggest known batch of planet ingredients swirling around young star

How 'glowing' plants could help scientists predict flash drought

New GPS-based method can measure daily ice loss in Greenland

4 hours ago

New candidate genes for human male infertility found by analyzing gorillas' unusual reproductive system

5 hours ago

Study uncovers technologies that could unveil energy-efficient information processing and sophisticated data security

Scientists develop an affordable sensor for lead contamination

Chemists succeed in synthesizing a molecule first predicted 20 years ago

New optical tweezers can trap large and irregularly shaped particles

An easy pill to swallow—new 3D printing research paves way for personalized medication

6 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Is it usual for vaccine injection site to hurt again during infection.

May 13, 2024

A Brief Biography of Dr Virgina Apgar, creator of the baby APGAR test

May 12, 2024

Who chooses official designations for individual dolphins, such as FB15, F153, F286?

May 9, 2024

The Cass Report (UK)

May 1, 2024

Is 5 milliamps at 240 volts dangerous?

Apr 29, 2024

Major Evolution in Action

Apr 22, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Bacterial cellulose degradation system could give boost to biofuels production

Oct 8, 2020

Enzyme's worth to biofuels shown in latest research

Sep 18, 2017

Research team identifies three bacteria species in the human gut that can break down cellulose

Mar 15, 2024

Breaking down stubborn cellulose in timelapse

May 20, 2020

How to make it easier to turn plant waste into biofuels

Jan 14, 2020

Newly identified protein regulates the creation of cellulose in plant cells

Jul 13, 2023

Recommended for you

Scientists develop sticky pesticide to combat pest insects

10 hours ago

Study reveals insights into protein evolution

Persistent strain of cholera defends itself against forces of change, scientists find

Fruit fly testes offer potential tool against harmful insects

Genetic analyses reveal new viruses on the horizon

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter