Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Measuring the regional availability of biomass for biofuels

and the potential for microalgae
Jana Kosinkova a,b, Amar Doshi c, Juliette Maire d, Zoran Ristovski a,b, Richard Brown a,
Thomas J. Rainey a,n
a
School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Brisbane
4000, QLD, Australia
b
International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
c
School of Economics and Finance, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
d
Ecole Nationale Suprieure dAgronomie et des Industries Alimentaires, 2 Avenue de la Foret de Haye, 54505 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 3 October 2014
Received in revised form
22 January 2015
Accepted 23 April 2015
Available online 26 May 2015

Biomass is an important energy resource for producing bioenergy and growing the global economy
whilst minimising greenhouse gas emissions. Many countries, like Australia have a huge amount of
biomass with the potential for bioenergy, but non-edible feedstock resources are signicantly underexploited. Hence it is essential to map the availability of these feedstocks to identify the most
appropriate bioenergy solution for each region and develop supply chains for bioreneries. Using
Australia as a case study, we present the spatial availability and opportunities for second and third
generation feedstocks. Considerations included current land use, the presence of existing biomass
industries and climatic conditions. Detailed information on the regional availability of biomass was
collected from government statistics, technical reports and energy assessments as well as from academic
literature. Second generation biofuels have the largest opportunity in New South Wales, Queensland and
Victoria (NSW, QLD and VIC) and the regions with the highest potential for microalgae are Western
Australia and Northern Territory (WA, NT), based on land use opportunity cost and climate. The approach
can be used in other countries with a similar climate. More research is needed to overcome key technical
and economic hurdles.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Bioenergy
Biomass
Microalgae
Australia
Biofuel

Contents
1.

2.

3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.
Biofuels in Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.
Feedstocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1.
Forestry and sawmill residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2.
Sugar cane waste bre, bagasse, and trash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3.
Agricultural residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.4.
Microalgae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.
Conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1.
Waste biomass conversion technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.2.
Microalgae conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Collation of data on existing industry biomass waste and land-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Logistical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Forest and sawmill residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Bagasse and cane trash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Agricultural residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corresponding author at: O Block Level 7 708, 2 George St, Brisbane 4000, QLD, Australia. Tel.: 61 7 3138 1977.
E-mail address: t.rainey@qut.edu.au (T.J. Rainey).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.084
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1272
1272
1272
1272
1273
1273
1273
1274
1274
1276
1276
1276
1276
1276
1276
1278
1279

1272

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

3.4.
Microalgae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction
Population growth and global warming have led to a focus on
producing renewable and sustainable fuels for motor vehicles.
First generation biofuels such as ethanol from starch and molasses,
and biodiesel from some oil crops use edible feedstocks; but they
have limited sustainability credentials. Their use has created the
food vs. fuel debate, questions have arisen about sustainable
land use and there has been speculation about the contribution of
rst generation biofuels to declining global wheat and maize
stocks, with oilseed prices tripling. Although there are other
factors contributing to price increases, such as drought, it appears
these price rises may have been more moderate without using
edible feedstocks and arable land for generating fuels [1]. First
generation biofuels also raise ethics questions about converting
foodstuffs to fuel when there is malnourishment in some developing countries [2]. Finally, another important aspect is the
environmental damage caused by deforestation, and the destruction of ecosystems for increased biomass production [3].
The issues associated with rst generation biofuels have
created interest in second generation biofuels, which do not use
edible feedstocks, as a renewable energy alternative. The International Energy Agency projected that second generation biofuels
will account for 25% of total biofuels production by 2030 [4].
Second generation biofuels often use waste biomass from other
industries such as forestry and the sugar industry, and other
agriculture waste bres which are affordable [5]. The utilisation
of residues decreases the demand on arable land which could
otherwise be used for food or energy crop production. In recent
years, interest in feedstock supply has increased. There are publications dealing with locally available, sustainable biomass
resources [69].
More recently there has been considerable interest in microalgae
as a feedstock for biofuels [10,11]. Microalgae are microscopic photosynthetic organisms with numerous constituents such as proteins,
carbohydrates, and lipids, and are amenable for renewable biofuel
production. It has the advantage of being grown in vast quantities on
non-arable land, leading to the term third generation biofuel.
Microalgae also has numerous advantages in comparison with terrestrial biomass in terms of high oil yield, short growing periods, and
adaptability. However, there are also concerns about nancial viability
and water use with current technology, which need to be greatly
rened if it can be used for fuel [12].
Unfortunately, to date, a comprehensive and mapping of the
availability and potential use of bioenergy feedstock for second
and third generation bioreneries in Australia was missing. The
aim of this paper is to explore the sustainable energy feedstocks
landscape in order to determine how land may be best used for
renewable energy production. There is no single database comparing the potential amount of all lignocellulosic and microalgae
resources available for biofuel utilisation and so data was collected
from government and academic sources for this purpose. Many
previous studies have provided analyses on the suitability of land
for a single technological pathway without a detailed regional
survey of existing land use. A raster graphic program based on
accurate map references provides a better illustration of collated
values from the available literature and statistic institutions. This

1281
1282
1283
1283
1283

paper also provides an introduction to the conversion technologies, including likely feedstock price and conversion routes.
Australia is used as a case study. It has abundant waste bre
from numerous industries for second generation biofuels, an
abundance of data from these industries, and a large diversity of
land and climate types. The last point would allow for observations made to have general implications in other countries. Also, if
microalgae technology becomes a viable fuel option, Australia is an
obvious candidate with vast areas of non-arable land in warm
climates that can provide high growth rates [13].
1.1. Biofuels in Australia
In Australia energy consumption in the transport sector is
increasing at the rate of 2.4% per year [9] and it is dependent on
fossil fuels [1416], and so sustainable alternatives are sought.
Ethanol production uses molasses from sugar processing and
starch from our milling as feedstocks. Most of the fuel ethanol
produced by the three Australian producers is blended with petrol
as E10 blend petrol (10% ethanol and 90% petrol). Biodiesel is
mainly produced from tallow and waste cooking oil. Biodiesel can
be mixed with regular diesel; B5 is the common blend and B20
biodiesel blend is generally sold for commercial operations.
In terms of rst generation biofuels feedstocks, in 20052006,
Australia produced and consumed 57 million litres of biofuels,
consisting of 41 million litres of ethanol fuel and 16 million litres of
biodiesel, which corresponds to only 0.4% of total transport fuel
consumption [17]. Renewable energy sources accounted for the
remaining 6% of total energy consumption in 20122013, with its
share of the energy mix increasing compared with the previous year
[18]. Total production capacity of ethanol and biodiesel was about
330 ML and 175 ML respectively in 2010 [19]. In 2013 the production
of ethanol was only 280 ML and biodiesel was 110 ML [20] due to the
closure of several plants. While the existing ethanol and biodiesel
sector is based on rst generation biofuels technology, research and
development of second and third generation technology biofuels is
continuing. Previous workers found that second generation biofuels
can overcome the major shortcomings of rst generation biofuels in
Australia [9]. The following subsections relate to second and third
generation feedstock opportunities.
1.2. Feedstocks
In Australia, the main second generation feedstocks are tallow
and used cooking oil with biodiesel production facilities in VIC, SA,
WA, NSW, NT and QLD [9]. However, new forestry and sawmill
residue, sugarcane waste bre, other agricultural residues, and
microalgae are being researched and developed. The feedstocks
explored in this study were perceived by the authors to be the main
opportunities for large scale biofuels development in Australia.
1.2.1. Forestry and sawmill residue
Forestry residues consist of the crown and branches of trees, the
leaf material, bark and stump, as well as non-merchantable stem
biomass, which are left in the forests or are burned. Furthermore,
large areas of forests and woodlands are still cleared annually for the

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

1273

Fig. 1. Australias key climate groups (ACT not shown due to small geographical size; adapted from [44]).

expansion of agricultural activity or foresting. A small fraction of the

cut wood from the cleaning activity is used for energy production,
but the majority is not utilised and is either burned or left to decay
on site [21]. However, these sources are broadly distributed in remote
locations, so collection and transportation would be expensive. Waste
bre is produced at sawmills in the form of sawdust and offcuts.
1.2.2. Sugar cane waste bre, bagasse, and trash
Sugarcane is harvested and crushed at a sugar factory which
produces juice and bre. The juice is puried and concentrated to
produce sugar crystals, and the bre (i.e. bagasse) is typically burned
to produce steam and electricity for the factory. Sugarcane bagasse has
the advantage in that it is already collected at a centralised location,
reducing transport costs. Sugarcane harvesters allow the leaves
(known as trash) to drop to the ground so that only the stem of the
plant is used. However, leaves could either be harvested together with
the stem (although this generates some issues in the sugar production
process), or collected separately at a higher cost. Bagasse is only
produced for six months of the year, so while it has many advantages,
it cannot be produced all year round and during long term storage
there is a risk of biological degradation.
Australia produces over 11 million tonnes of bagasse annually
and over 9 million tonnes of cane harvest waste, comprising leaves
and tops, which have traditionally been burnt in the eld each
year [22]. However, the majority of the industry harvests green (i.
e. unburned) cane. Around 95% of Australian sugar production
occurs in Queensland with a small amount being produced in
northern New South Wales.
1.2.3. Agricultural residues
Australia has a potentially large biomass resource in the form of
agricultural crop waste. The residues from grain cropping generally comprise the stalks of the grain (i.e. stubble). The main crops
in Australia are wheat (22,856 kt) and barley (7472 kt) with a
range of smaller crops totalling 9548 kt including sorghum, cotton,
canola, oats, and rice for grain in the year 2013 [23]. The
proportion of the plant which is left as residue varies with plant

type and is often left in the eld. Currently, the stubble is not
collected as a feedstock for producing bio-oil, but removed and
burned in the eld or used for animal feed or bedding. The most
important issue for biofuels from agricultural residues is the effect
on soil structure and nutrients. There are a few options: either
remove only a percentage of residues for biofuel production, or use
the ash residue that remains after processing as a soil conditioner.

1.2.4. Microalgae
Unlike second generation biofuel feedstocks, microalgae is not a
waste biomass. It is often cultivated in extensive or intensive articial
environmentsthe latter being of more interest with regard to
biofuels. Research in the intensive cultivation of microalgae has been
conducted since the 1950s [24,25]. Subsequent research into intensive cultivation, as found in reviews by Goldman [26], and Tapie and
Bernard [27], has investigated biomass yields through different
production technologies and assumptions, resulting in varying
degrees of technical and nancial feasibility of microalgae production. Benemann and Oswald [28] highlighted the potential of microalgae production for biodiesel through production pathways that
incorporated recycled input sources of carbon dioxide and nitrogen
through ue gas and wastewater, respectively. This review was a
catalogue of the production technology up to that point. Most
economic feasibility studies since have not been able to derive
economically feasible production pathways. However, current studies
are focussed on improving the potential for microalgae as a feasible
biomass for biodiesel production.
Intensive autotrophic microalgal biomass cultivation requires
substantial resources to achieve high rates of solar conversion and
productivity yields. The two most common cultivation methods
are through open-pond systems or some variant of photobioreactors (PBRs) [29]. There have been substantial research
ndings on the much higher capital and operating costs of PBR,
and despite the higher productivity, the resulting price of biofuel
(assuming similar downstream processing and hence comparing
costs of biomass cultivation) was almost two times higher than
open ponds [3032]. This has been contradicted by Norsker and

1274

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Intermediate
storage

Second generation
feedstock

Pre-processing

Transport

Transport

Storage
On-site

Off-site

Transport

Conversion
technology

Off-site (transport)

Third generation
feedstock
cultivation

Harvesting and
pre-processing

On-site

Conversion
Technology

Fig. 2. Processing for (a) second and (b) third generation biofuel feedstocks (optional steps represented by dashed lines).

1.3. Conversion technologies

Fig. 3. Forest area by state [53-55] (NB: Different scales on each axis; ACT native
area is too small to be seen (123,000 ha)).

co-workers [33] who found little consistent difference between

the unit costs of biomass and energy between the two systems. In
addition, the exposed nature of open-pond systems is suggested to
lead to more signicant water demands in highly evaporative
climates [31] and risks of exposure to contaminative elements
[34], the latter increasing the risk to potential productive biomass
output. Campbell and co-workers [35] suggest that based on
current productivities of algal strains, producing biofuels from
open-pond systems is also currently unfeasible, but future technological and scale investments can overcome this.

1.3.1. Waste biomass conversion technologies

There are different reviews focusing on effective technologies
and the processes to convert biomass into useful liquid biofuels
and bio-products [3638]. In this paper we briey describe the
most common which have the most research interest. Key conversion technologies for biomass to fuel are the thermo-chemical
processes such as gasication, pyrolysis, and liquefaction where
high temperature is used to degrade the bre. Gasication is the
most developed and commercialised route, while liquefaction is
the least developed. Gasication occurs at high temperatures
(approaching 800 1C) to produce syngas which can then be
reformed to liquid fuels by Fischer Tropsch synthesis. Pyrolysis
and liquefaction occur at lower temperatures (200350 1C); the
difference being pressure (up to 350 bar for liquefaction). More
description of the thermochemical technologies and an analysis of
the potential production of advanced biofuels is nicely described
in Sannas [39]. These processes generate a biocrude which must
then be further treated to convert it to a liquid fuel. Liquefaction
has a tremendous advantage in that it is feedstock agnostic and
can tolerate feedstocks with very high water contents, and does
not require feedstock predrying. Waste biomass can be pre-treated
to liberate glucose monomers which are then fermented to
produce ethanol. This process is the focus of a signicant international research effort.
A well-established technology route used on a small scale is the
production of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) through various

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Fig. 4. Australian forest area (adapted from [54]).

Fig. 5. The location of sawmills in Australia.

1275

1276

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Table 1
Estimated moisture contents and average price [57].
Type

Chips
Bark
Green sawdust
Shavings

Moisture content (%)

53
30
55
12

Cost
($/t wet weight)

($/t dry weight)

37
11
11
21

79
16
24
23

types of transesterication whereby vegetable or animal oils can

be converted to fuel by reaction with methanol, producing glycerol
as a waste product [40].

For regions where there is no industry producing waste

biomass, much of the land is native forest or mountainous (e.g.
south eastern Australia), which was excluded from the mapping
activity (these maps are shown later in this article). The areas that
remain are a range of non-arable areas and unused arable land,
which may be potentially useful for microalgae production. Thus,
the allocation of regions for potential microalgae cultivation were
based on intersecting factors of land availability, exposure to
sufcient/abundant solar energy, and the presence of an abundant
water supply (i.e. in coastal regions [47]). The guiding principle
applied was that for microalgae production, areas could only be
used that were not already dominated by existing biomass
production such as agriculture and forests, as this will have a
major impact on Life Cycle Analysis outcomes.
2.2. Logistical considerations

1.3.2. Microalgae conversion

The most common approach to produce microalgae fuels so far has
been to use mechanical disruption to liberate lipids by bead milling,
homogenisation, and mechanical pressing [41,42], followed by extraction (solvent extraction or supercritical CO2). Most commonly the
lipids are converted to FAME via the same reaction as for waste
vegetable oil. Liquefaction and ultrasonic-assisted extraction have also
been studied. Kumar and collective provide a comprehensive review
on various methods of lipid extraction from microalgae available, as
well as discussion of advantages and disadvantages [43].

2. Methodology
2.1. Collation of data on existing industry biomass waste and land-use
Australia is a developed nation with a large amount of existing
forestry, sugar, and other agriculture production. Australia is also
vast, with both arable and non-arable land and it has a wide range
of climates (desert, tropical, and temperate climates, Fig. 1), making it a suitable case study. The population is concentrated in the
south east corner with New South Wales (NSW), Victoria (VIC) and
Queensland (QLD) being the most populous states (44 million
inhabitants), followed by South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA; 12 million) and nally Tasmania (TAS), Northern
Territory (NT), and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT; not
shown in the gure due to its small geographical size).
In order to study renewable fuel production and appropriate
land use using existing industrial waste and microalgae, the
approach has been to rstly collate information about the size
and geographical location of existing industries which produce
waste biomass, and hence an estimate of each regions waste. For
each industry, the cultivation area and total biomass data were
collected at a state level from the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) for agriculture (for each of many crop types)1, and the
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) for
sugarcane2 and forestry (native and plantation)3. These statistics
were collated and then distributed proportionally on a regional
basis as a proportion of the total production for each industry
agriculture [45], sugarcane [46], and forestry [45]. Assumptions
were made that all of the total available residue/waste biomass
could potentially be allocated for biofuels and the availability of
these biomasses by state is proportionally consistent across the
areas of cultivation.
1
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/7121.
0main features42012-2013.
2
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_le/0005/1956011/sugar-indus
try-reform-report-2010.pdf.
3
http://www.daff.gov.au/ABARES/forestsaustralia/Documents/sofr2013.

The logistics for bringing feedstock to a biorenery will vary

depending on the type of feedstock, the geographical location and
the local weather/climate as well as the prevailing industry. Before
biomass can be processed, considerations include:

 Harvesting and collection of biomass from sole suppliers (as in





the sugar industry) or multiple suppliers (e.g. saw mills). It is

more efcient when there is enough material to be collected
from a single site without the need for collecting from a
distributed region. Collecting biomass from the eld includes
the scheduling of labour, machinery and other equipment.
Loading, handling and transport. Biomass is taken to a central
location where road transport can be used. Increasing remoteness increases transportation costs.
Unloading and loading to road vehicles in order to transport
the biomass to central bioreneries, and the unloading and
storage of biomass on site.
Biomass storage. Allen and co-workers [48] modelled intermediate storage systems. This system, in which the biomass
had to be transported twice, resulted in higher delivered cost
than a system in which there is only one transport movement,
due to the additional transport and handling cost incurred.
Some feedstocks are seasonal; therefore consideration needs to
be made of the length of time and the large quantities involved,
which will have inuence on the total cost.

Lakovou and co-workers [49] designed a system for the management of a waste biomass supply chain for energy production which
includes a hierarchy of decision-making parameters. This system was
adapted for our purposes for use in a subsequent study (Fig. 2).
Other factors for each biofuel feedstock include moisture content,
energy density, and the value placed on the waste biomass by the
producer. The price of the biomass can also be affected by availability
of other fuels in the vicinity. The available data on Australia's biomass
feedstocks are summarised in Table 4 (in the conclusion part), which
reports the amount (Mt/year) and price ($/t).

3. Results
3.1. Forest and sawmill residues
Liquid biofuels derived from wood residues are not widely used
in Australia. In 2006, Australias total forested area was 149.2
million hectares (ha) or 19% of Australias land area [50]. However
only 2.0 Mha belonged to plantation forestry comprised of hardwood (mainly eucalyptus), and softwood, consisting of various
types of pine species. An overview of Australias energy resources
in 2007 estimated total forestry residues at 23 million tonnes per

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

1277

Table 2
Primary considerations for handling lignocellulose materials.
Issue

Solution

Contamination and hygiene

Moisture
Overheating and biological degradation
Particle size

Concrete oors
Sealed containers, roofed bunker
Monitoring temperature and moisture
Screening

Table 3
Potential availability of bagasse by region [63].
Region

Cane crushed (million t/a)

Dry bagasse potential (dry tonnes per year)

Northern
Herbert
Burdekin
Mackay
Bundaberg
NSW

7.8
4.0
8.6
10.0
3.9
2.3

856,700
439,400
946,400
1098,500
429,000
252,200

Fig. 6. Sugar cane regions in Australia (adapted from [66]).

year [51]. Large amounts of forest residue can be produced in the

regions of Australia dominated by native forest, particularly from
defective trees, and the remnants of bushres or diseased trees.
Ximenes and co-workers [52] examined the proportion of
above-ground biomass (AGB) in logs and the residues of three
hardwood and two softwood species, which account for approximately 65% of the total volume of sawlogs harvested in Australia.
The percentage of the AGB in forest residues at harvest ranged

from 30% to 55% depending on the species. The average dry weight
of residues left in the forest per tree ranged from 800 to 1600 kg
for hardwoods and 80 to 350 kg for softwoods.
The following graph (Fig. 3) compares the native and plantation
forest area in hectares for all states and territories in Australia. The
territories have minimal investment in plantation forestry, while the
six states have signicant plantations in the following order: Victoria
and Western Australia4New South Wales4Queensland4South

1278

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Fig. 7. Agricultural residues in Australia (19832005; adapted from [69]).

Australia. Queensland and Western Australia have the largest land

area but less than 1% is used for plantation in both states, where as
30% and 7% belong to native forest, respectively. From the perspective
of forest plantation, the largest diversity occurs in south eastern
Australia which contains the majority of the paper industry.
Sufcient quantities of accessible forestry residues are available
in most states of Australia (Fig. 4). The east coast of Australia
(especially QLD, NSW and VIC) is characterised by abundant natural
and plantation forestry as a potential source of bioenergy. However,
surveying of residues production would help to deduce sustainability for each sub-region. Forestry in the Northern Territory covers 23%
of its total land area while around 53% of forest cover is in private
use. The proportion of land used for forestry in Western Australia is
only 12%. Hence there is ample opportunity for developing another
feedstockon unused land. South Australias Green Triangle (spans
the area between Mt Gambier in South Australia and Portland in
Victoria) region plantations occupy only 14% of the regions land
area, compared with the 72% used for agriculture [54].
Australia has numerous sawmills (Fig. 5) mostly situated on the
south east coast and Tasmania. The sawmill industry in Australia is a
major producer of residues from the processing of roughly equal log
volumes of softwoods and hardwoods. A breakdown of residues likely
to be produced from sawmills is 70% solids (slabs, edgings and
dockings), 19% sawdust and 11% bark. Additional residues are produced from the sawn timber during subsequent machining, possibly
in the order of 89% of the sawn wood [21]. Of the remaining off-cuts,
30% is used to produce woodchips and the rest is sawdust and chips.
Australia produces 1.25 million tonnes of sawmill waste per year and
many mills pay to have this removed [51]. Sawmill residues are likely
to cost between $0-$4 per dry tonne although sawmills may pay for
waste disposal [56]. Therefore they prove to be an attractive candidate
for biofuels production. The estimated cost of sawmill residues is
shown in Table 1.

Transport costs in Australia for sawmill residues are in the

vicinity of $4.69$9.17 per dry tonne for a distance of 10 km [57]
although this cost depends on the type of residue.
The delivery of forest residues to a central location is a key activity
which includes the collection of residues, transportation and storage
for up to six months. Moreover, the delivery is affected by seasonality
and the conversion process. Hall and co-workers [58] compared seven
different biomass delivery systems for forest residues in New Zealand.
Landing residues (residues after whole felled trees are transported to a
landing site) were cheaper than cutover residues (residues throughout
the stand when trees are processed at the stump), because cutover
residues need to be collected and then transported to the forest
landing or roadside. Forestry is sensitive to moisture content and bulk
density which causes costs to vary up to 9%. Storage of wood is
another signicant expense; Table 2 summarises some key considerations which can prolong storage time.
The storage of wood chips for the pulp and paper industry was
the subject of intensive research many years ago, but the prospect of
renewable energy has brought renewed interest in recent times.
Slaven and co-workers [59] pointed out factors causing the degradation and decomposition of wood biomass during storage, and
suggested important prevention strategies to mitigate the issues.
In the future, expansion of forestry into drier environments for
the dual purpose of wood production and environmental rehabilitation may provide signicant quantities of biomass for energy
and biofuels production [60].
3.2. Bagasse and cane trash
Bagasse is available for about half of each year from Australian sugar
mills. In Australia, there is in excess of 10 million tonnes of bagasse
potentially available for the manufacture of pulp. Rainey and co-workers
[61] summarised the quantity of sugarcane crushed in each region and

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

1279

Fig. 8. Second generation biomass production in Australia by state (ACT excluded).

the potential quantity of depithed bagasse (Table 3). Some sugar mills
value bagasse around $40 per dry tonne, which presents bagasse as a
low cost raw material when compared to wood [46].
An important transport consideration for bagasse is its bulky
nature, which makes transport potentially expensive. Bagasse has an
advantage over some other feedstocks in that it is already collected at
a central location (i.e. at the mill), so there are few additional
collection and transport costs. Hodgson and Hocking [62] reported
that the cost of transporting bagasse from one site to another was
$11 per tonne. The concentration of sugar mills in northern Queensland in the Mackay, Bundaberg, Herbert and Burdekin regions is
higher than in other regions. These areas offer the best prospects for
a biofuels facility based on bagasse. In Table 3 it can be seen that
Mackay has the highest quantity of bagasse and is also well
supported by infrastructure and has low transport costs. The New
South Wales region is less attractive, as it has the smallest bre
supply and relatively high transportation costs.
Pre-processing of the original biomass feedstock to change the
energy density can decrease the price of transport and storage.

Hobson [64] compared costs for the road transport and storage of
raw bagasse and bagasse pre-processed torrefaction followed by
pelletisation (TPB) for mills of four varying distances. Torrefaction
is a thermal pre-treatment technology to upgrade ligno-cellulosic
biomass to a higher quality and more attractive biofuel [65]
oxygen is removed, and torreed biomass has a lower O/C ratio
when compared to the original biomass. Hobson indicated a
transport cost saving of over 30% for TPB when compared to raw
bagasse for long distance haulage, although TPB was more expensive to transport than raw bagasse for distances less than 100 km
(Fig. 6).
3.3. Agricultural residues
Quantifying the amount of feedstock from agricultural residues
was problematic owing to the broad number of crop types which
vary from state to state, the differences in farming and processing,
and production data for each crop being reported by different
organisations. The amounts of agricultural residues available per

1280

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Table 4
A regional suitability comparison of 2nd and 3rd generation feedstocks and their prices.
Feedstock

Sugar cane
Bagasse

Region offer the best

prospects

Least attractive
location

Estimated
Australian
production
amount (Mt/
year)

Estimated
price of
transport
($/t /km)

Potential
feedstock
price($/t
oven dry
weight)

Seasonality Advantages

Disadvantages

North of Queensland
(Mackay, Bundaberg,
Hebert, Burdekin)

New South Wales

10.6
[22,46,51]

$ 8-15 per
50 km

$40/t [66]

6 months
production

Cheap

Sustainable
for storage

Proximity of the mill: no

additional collection and
transport cost

Bulky nature of
bagasse makes the
transport more
expensive
Risk of biological
contamination
during storage
[45,46]

Cane trash Based on sugar cane crops Based on sugar cane 9.25 [46,51]
Area [66]
crops area [66]

Forest
Sawmill
residues

Forest
waste

Agricultural
wastes

South east of Queensland,

Tasmania, Victoria, South
Australia, New South
Wales, South Western
Australia
Based on wood waste
facility location [19]

East, southern and west

coast, South Australia and
Central West of New
South Wales
(Malle, Wimmera areas,
Yorke, Lower North, Outer
Adelaide, Murrumbidgee)

$11/t [62]

NAd

US56b
[81]

$4.7-$9.2/
t/10 km
[59]

10-60c [19]

Cane waste is not used for

sugar extraction
Sustainable land use
Low emissions [45,46]

Northern Territory,
North Queensland,
North Western
Australia

1.3a [45]

Based on wood
waste facility
location [19]

60-120c
$12-$40/t
2.7a from
Native Forest per 50-200 [19]
km [19]
$14-$45/t
2.1a from
per 50-200
Plantation
km [19]
[45]
53a [45]
55-70/c [19] Seasonal
$15-$45/t
per 50-200
production
km [19]

North, North
Queensland, North
Western Australia

Available
whole year

Suitable for
storage

Based on the spatial

distribution of
stubble production
for years 1983-2005
[69]

Based on the spatial

distribution of stubble
production for years
1983-2005 [69]

Algae

Pilbara, WA; Northern

QLD; Borroloola, NT

Southwest WA,
Southeast NSW

Low solar exposure.

[92]

NSW, High
agriculture and
forestry

No current
commercial
production

Potential
estimates
$80-$1300
[83]

Potential
year-round
production

Sawmill are currently

paying for waste disposal

Sustainable land use

Collection and
transport would be
expensive by the
location of the
resources
Storage 6 months
[19,45,52,57]

Low emissions
[19,45,52,57]
Large amount available

Loss of nutrient

Sustainable land use

Low amount per

hectare: increase
the collection and
transportation cost

Low emissions
[42,45,56,70]

Need an in-eld
physical
fractionation to
remove
unattractive
residue
components
Storage, biological
contamination
[42,45,56,70]
High Capital cost

High growth rate

Can be grown in saline or

hypersaline water, not
competing with agriculture
for limited freshwater
resources
Less portable water
demand than land crops

New technology,
lack of risk data to
warrant
investment

Risk of yield loss

by biological
contamination
Can be located on marginal Harvesting algae
and no-arable land
and separating oil
is energy-intensive
High efciency CO2
Salt precipitation
sequestration
on the bioreactor
walls, pumps and
valves [93,94]
Nutrient xing (N&P) of
wastewater
No pesticides/herbicides
use

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

1281

Table 4 (continued )
Feedstock

Region offer the best

prospects

Least attractive
location

Estimated
Australian
production
amount (Mt/
year)

Estimated
price of
transport
($/t /km)

Potential
feedstock
price($/t
oven dry
weight)

Seasonality Advantages

Disadvantages

Algae can also provide

valuable co-product (e.g.
animal/aquaculture feed,
fertilisers, methane)
[93,94]
a

Estimated production amount of total biomass availability for fuel and energy.
Opportunity cost of trash in eld.
Estimated production cost including growing, harvest, collection and chipping except agricultural wastes.
d
Price is the same as bagasse if it is green cane harvest (cane and trash is harvested at the same time and transported to the mill).
b
c

hectare vary with crop type, thus affecting the cost of collection
and transportation to bioreneries. Not all crop residues are of
equal value, considering the chemical composition varies, thus
affecting the yield of conversion to biofuel. Not all of the non-grain
biomass of a particular crop will be available for collection for
biomass energy production, because most farmers will retain
some straw to provide soil cover to prevent wind and water
erosion, and to help maintain soil carbon and recycle nutrients
[67]. Hess and co-workers [68] describe a strategy for reducing the
amount of unattractive residue components shipped to centralised
bioreneries by an in-eld physical fractionation.
Fig. 7 (adapted from [69]) shows large cropping areas in the
eastern, southern and western areas of Australia. From the map it
can be seen that high productivity mainly occurs in the northwest
of Victoria, and also around the Yorke Peninsula and lower north
and outer Adelaide areas of South Australia, and in the west of
New South Wales. In an average year, these areas have 4500 kt
stubble within a 70 km radius, but only 21 Mt of the total stubble
production is potentially harvestable [70]. There remains an
opportunity for storing agricultural bres together with forestry
residue when the two industries are in close proximity.
There has been little research into the potential delivery system
for straw. In Europe large rectangular bales are used for transportation. Allen and co-workers [48] modelled ve supply systems for
straw, and showed that large Hesston rectangular bales have
substantially lower delivered costs than systems involving the
production of small rectangular bales or roll bales. However, large
bales require specialised and relatively expensive machinery. Bale
weight is approximately 500 kg for Hesston bales but depends on
the moisture content, packing density and size.
Straw can be stored and dried outside only in the summer (it is
grown in non-tropical climates which are dry in summer). Internal
storage requires good ventilation, stock must be raised off the oor
on pallets, as even concrete oors can transmit moisture by
capillary action, and must be kept inside a building where there
is no possible moisture contamination. If the straw is wet it starts
to grow mould, it can also begin to ferment and can then
spontaneously combust. However, it can keep for up to a year
without issues if stored correctly.
Several researchers proposed supply chains for the optimal
processing of agricultural residues, taking into account the contributions of the cost of production, harvesting, collection, transportation and storage [7173]. Kumar and co-workers [71]
concluded that the production cost method essentially reects
the minimum amount a farmer has to be paid for the agricultural
residues, with the estimates based on the maximum acceptable
price dening the upper limit up which the energy end-user can
pay for the agricultural residues. There is also a need to address

cultural and social issues, as farmers own attitudes and those of

their peers will inuence their management of residues [74].
3.4. Microalgae
Australia is an increasingly popular target locale for microalgae
research. This is due to benets pertaining to climate, solar insolation, and the availability of vast land areas of marginal/low agricultural value [13,75,76]. Grifn and co-workers [77] suggested that
Asian-Pacic countries would benet more from importing microalgal biofuels from Australia rather than cultivating their own
microalgae due to these inherent benets. There is currently no
large-scale intensive microalgae production in Australia [75]. Current
cultivation of microalgae for biofuels has been for mostly pilot and
research activities, with many airline companies funding such
programs for developing alternative aviation fuels [78], and commercial producers with as yet unreleased production data [77].
Hypothetical studies have only been able to suggest potential
economic feasibility through assumptions for future developments in
productivity and efciency, with current technologies suggesting a
higher production cost than the fossil fuel diesel prices. This is also
consistent with studies outside Australia. The lowest cost estimate for
an Australian-based analysis was US$0.63 per litre of biodiesel, albeit
with optimistic assumptions for growth rate and lipid yield [79]. USbased estimates were between US$3.54 to 8.94 per litre4 based on the
production system (i.e. open-pond or PBR with same downstream
processing) [80]. As for algal oil production, Davis and co-workers [30]
estimated the lowest cost being between US$0.80 to 1.30 per litre
(using open-ponds), again with optimistic potential future yields;
current production yields produced an algal oil price of US$2.25 to
4.78 per litre. The corresponding diesel price was similar to Richardson
and co-workers [80] at US$ 2.60 to 5.42 per litre (with PBRs yielding
the higher estimate).
There has been much discussion in the literature relating to
microalgae biomass cultivation (most often for biofuels), and the
associated opportunities and limitations thereof. Factors related to
water and energy demand have been signicant in determining the
feasibility of the biomass production. Although touted much for its
ability to grow in saline [79] and wastewater [81], the costs involved in
pre-treating and transporting the water resource have been highlighted as a potential limitation [82]. Lundquist and co-workers [83]
had estimated that water provision can make up as much as 67% of
the total cost, which is signicant considering a majority of that cost is
from piping and transportation. Yang at al. [84] discussed that the
4
All US based studies were converted from gallons to litres using
1 gal 3.7854118 l.

1282

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

Fig. 9. Potential feedstock growth regions.

signicant water costs (footprint) can be reduced with improved

growth and lipid accumulation rates, although these two factors are
counteractive. Additionally, the need for high solar irradiation to
encourage biomass growth also has a correlation with water loss from
evaporation in open-ponds. In the use of saline and wastewater, here
recycling can reduce the water requirements by up to 90% [84], there
is, however, increased risk associated with the contamination of the
cultivation culture [82].
There have been a number of studies estimating the net energy
return from microalgae biomass production, testing various cultivation,
harvest, and drying technologies. The energy ratios have also often
accounted for transport energy for fertilisers, water, and other related
inputs. In comparing open ponds and PBRs, the former is most often
found to have a more efcient energy ratio, with only Sander and
Murthy [85] nding otherwise due to their relatively higher value
estimates. Open ponds were also generally found to have less energy
intensive cultivation, with more signicant energy costs coming from
the harvesting and drying stages of the biomass production, increasing
the energy ratio as much as 10-fold [82,86,87]. In contrast, the more
controlled environments associated with PBRs resulted in signicant
energy costs for cultivation, causing an inefcient energy ratio; the
majority of energy costs were attributed to construction and culture
circulation [32,88]. Slade and Bauen [82] found that assuming the
majority of the energy in the production is derived from fossil fuels,
the net carbon emissions from biomass production are positive, and
more signicantly so for PBRs.

4. Discussion
There are challenges in the commercial transition to second generation biofuels produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks. These include the
supply of the potential feedstock, associated logistics, and the cost of
conversion. While the latter two factors are important to the success in
commercial production of lignocellulosic biofuels, this study found that

the potential supply sources of feedstock are most important in

determining the location of feasible bioreneries. Large quantities of
biomass are required to meet current and future transport fuel demands.
Fig. 8 illustrates the potential availability of second generation
feedstock by state. This was estimated based on the state-based
proportion of land use and total national feedstock availability for
agricultural waste [45], sugarcane residues [46] and forest waste
[45,89]. Based on current production, the east coast of Australia
(QLD, NSW, VIC) appears to have the greatest potential for second
generation biofuel production. The availability of arable land and
ideal climate conditions have resulted in the majority of the
agricultural production, including sugarcane, being produced in
this region. Queensland in particular has the highest potential for
generating biofuel from sugarcane waste. In contrast, the availability of feedstock in WA is about half that of the east coast; this is
even lower (510%) in the northern and southern regions.
Despite ACT containing some agricultural land and a large area
of national conservation parks (almost 88% of the total land area),
the availability of feedstocks was negligible; hence ACT was
excluded from the gure. At the lower end of the availability
spectrum, NT and Tasmania have some proportions of forestland
that at rst glance, could provide a source of biofuel feedstock;
Tasmania in particular is renowned for its forest-rich landscapes.
However, a large proportion of these forestlands are inaccessible
for the collection of waste biomass. More than 50% of Tasmanias
forest are nature conservation reserves (33%) and multiple-use
forests (30%) where harvesting is not permitted [90]. Similarly, NT
is sparsely covered by accessible forestry with the remainder
mostly held in private and leasehold tenure use for grazing.
Unlike the case with second generation biofuel feedstocks,
there are no large-scale microalgae cultivation facilities in Australia and hence, a similar data analysis for potential availability
could not be conducted.
The regional suitability of each feedstock is summarised in
Table 4 and potential land use is shown in Fig. 9, which highlights

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

the spatial distribution of potential feedstocks. The distribution of

second generation feedstock is based on location of existing
cultivation, and therefore potential areas of waste biomass availability, with the assumption that all available biomass is potentially available for biofuels. The spatial distribution on feedstocks
as shown in Fig. 9 can be used to assess the feasibility of
prospective bioreneries locations. Geographical locations demonstrate the potential utilisation of a diversity of supply sources that
can extend the operating period of biofuel production.
Hypothetical studies pertaining to Australian-based microalgae
production have suggested southwest of Broome in WA as a
suitable region based on climate conditions [79,91], with particularly high solar radiation and low average rainfall. There has also
been indication of other regions in Australia as being potential
cultivation regions e.g. NT and northwest Queensland [47]. Factors
such as ownership, affordability, and restrictions from cultivation
systems have been suggested as those which will affect the
potential availability of land for microalgae cultivation, but only
as secondary and tertiary to climate and land topography [91].
Thus, the allocation for potential microalgae availability in Fig. 9 is
based on the most suitable regions for microalgae cultivation
stemming from these various intersecting factors.
The development of microalgae-based biofuel technologies
does present potential for future biofuel production. This is
especially applicable to regions outside of the east coast that have
substantial areas of unutilised coastal land, such as in WA. These
land areas are generally plagued with inadequate land and climate
conditions for terrestrial agriculture and forestry, but are suitable
for articial microalgae cultivation. This highlights one of the
major benets of intensive microalgae cultivation in articial
environments, where ideal land and climate conditions are not
essential for cultivation [13,75,76].
However, there is a relationship between ideal climate conditions
and achieving maximum biomass production, both in terrestrial and
articial environments that depend on autotrophic photosynthesis. The
prevalence of agriculture and forestry in the east coast can be attributed
to both the highly suitable land type and the climate. This suggests that
both arable land and ideal climate are subject to scarcity and therefore,
will play a key role in land use selection for biofuels. Transitioning away
from existing terrestrial cultivation raises opportunity costs, especially for
agriculture and food production.
For microalgae cultivation, ideal climate conditions would allow for
maximum growth rates to be realised, particularly for open pond
systems. Achieving high biomass growth rates of microalgae has been
highlighted as a major factor that can determine the nancial feasibility
of microalgae production for biofuels, given high harvesting and conversion costs [79]. An assessment of microalgae cultivation locations by
Borowitzka et al. [91] had detailed the climate conditions to include
exposure to solar irradiation, net evaporation rates, and temperature.
The selection of regions for microalgae cultivation requires an
economic analysis of the related tradeoffs, including with existing
biomass industries. Although microalgae production appears possible
in regions that do not compete with existing agriculture/forestry (e.g.
away from coastal land), the cultivation operations will potentially be
unable to realise the maximum possible growth rates compared to
areas with ideal climate characteristics, which may have existing
terrestrial cultivation. Developing microalgae production in ideal
regions in the east coast raises opportunity costs in replacing existing
agricultural and forestland particularly in terms of resource reallocation, food production, and ecosystem services; despite the potential to
eclipse second generation feedstock production for bioenergy by over
7 times in the east coast, and 20 times on average across the country5.

5
This estimate is based on conservative open-pond growth rates (20 g/m2/
day) [79].

1283

Therefore, this review nds that regions in WA and NT (as outlined in

Fig. 9) are the most suitable locations for development of microalgae
cultivation for biofuels due to the availability of unutilised land and
preferable climate.
The approach presented in this article can be used as a
foundation to better understand the regional availability of
biomass feedstocks and the potential for microalgae. The
authors believe that the approach and rationale used in the
analysis can be applied at local, national and international
scales. A large amount of data was collected for Australia as a
case study and this data suggests some opportunities for the
geographical location of a local biorenery based on forestry,
agriculture or sugarcane waste or microalgae.

5. Conclusion
Second and third generation biofuel feedstocks were studied in
order to identify their regional suitability, taking into consideration
land use, existing biomass industries, the relevant conversion technologies, and using Australia as a case study. The study included the
collection of a large amount of detailed information on the biomass
industries for the case study and a detailed mapping activity was
conducted. For areas with existing agriculture and forestry, second
generation biofuels appear to be more attractive than microalgae,
based on opportunity costs of resource reallocation. Second generation
biofuels have the best opportunities where there are areas of arable
land and suitable climatic conditions. For Australia, this is particularly
true in NSW, QLD and VIC. The best regions for microalgae are in
regions that are coastal, warmer, and non-arable as these regions are
less likely to have existing biomass industries and yet have access to
water. However, growth rates may be less than the optimal rates based
on the climatic conditions of these regions. For areas with existing
agriculture based on operation cost, investment should be directed
towards making second generation biofuels from agricultural waste.
With further improvement in costs for microalgae production, microalgae cultivation may be warranted in areas that have available water
and abundant unutilised, non-arable land.

Acknowledgements
This work was nancially supported by QUTs School of Chemistry,
Physics and Mechanical Engineering via a PhD scholarship and the
Universitys Early Career Academic Research Development (ECARD)
program.
References
[1] Mitchell D. A note on rising food prices. The World Bank, Development
Prospects Group; 2008. p. 21.
[2] Mortimer N. Ethics for biofuels and everything else. Signicance 2011;8:10811.
[3] Gui MM, Lee KT, Bhatia S. Feasibility of edible oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste
edible oil as biodiesel feedstock. Energy 2008;33:164653.
[4] Bioenergy IEA. From 1st-to 2nd-Generation BioFuel technoloGies. An overview
of current industry and RD&D activities IEA-OECD; 2008.
[5] Sticklen M, Alameldin H, Oraby H. Towards cellulosic biofuels evolution: using
the petro-industry model. Adv Crop Sci Technol 2014;2:2.
[6] Gupta A, Verma JP. Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a
review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;41:55067.
[7] Ho DP, Ngo HH, Guo W. A mini review on renewable sources for biofuel.
Bioresour Technol 2014;169:7429.
[8] Brennan-Tonetta M, Guran S, Specca D, Cowan B, Sipos C, Melillo J. Feedstock
opportunities for bioenergy production: assessment of biomass energy potential in New Jersey. Ind Biotechnol 2014;10:40412.
[9] Azad A, Rasul M, Khan M, Sharma SC, Hazrat M. Prospect of biofuels as an
alternative transport fuel in Australia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2015;43:33151.
[10] Han S-F, Jin W-B, Tu R-J, Wu W-M. Biofuel production from microalgae as
feedstock: current status and potential. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2014:114.

1284

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

[11] Zhu L. Biorenery as a promising approach to promote microalgae industry: an

innovative framework. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;41:137684.
[12] Singh B, Guldhe A, Rawat I, Bux F. Towards a sustainable approach for
development of biodiesel from plant and microalgae. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2014;29:21645.
[13] Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production
from microalgae in ponds. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:506.
[14] Surawski NC, Miljevic B, Ayoko GA, Elbagir S, Stevanovic S, Fairfull-Smith KE,
et al. Physicochemical characterization of particulate emissions from a
compression ignition engine: the inuence of biodiesel feedstock. Environ
Sci Technol 2011;45:1033743.
[15] Bezergianni S, Dimitriadis A. Comparison between different types of renewable diesel. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2013;21:1106.
[16] Surawski NC, Ristovski ZD, Brown RJ, Situ R. Gaseous and particle emissions
from an ethanol fumigated compression ignition engine. Energy Convers
Manage 2012;54:14551.
[17] Love G, Cuevas-Cubria C. Outlook for biofuels in Australiathe challenges
ahead. Aust Commodities 2007;14:21220.
[18] Bareau of Resource and Energy Economics. Australian energy update, http://
www.bree.gov.au/les/les//publications/aes/2014-australian-energy-statis
tics.pdf2013; 2014.
[19] Geoscience Australia and ABARE. Australian energy resource assessment. In:
Department of Resources EaT, editor. Australian Government, Canberra,
Australia; 2010. p. 358.
[20] Roger Farrell and Agricultural Specialist. Australia biofuels annual, http://gain.
fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Canberra_
Australia_7-1-2014.pdf2014; 2014.
[21] Fung PYH, Kirschbaum MUF, Raison RJ, Stucley C. The potential for bioenergy
production from Australian forests, its contribution to national greenhouse
targets and recent developments in conversion processes. Biomass Bioenergy
2002;22:22336.
[22] Puri M, Abraham RE, Barrow CJ. Biofuel production: prospects, challenges and
feedstock in Australia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2012;16:602231.
[23] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Agricultural commodities, Australia, http://
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/7121.0main fea
tures62012-20132014; 20122013.
[24] Cook PM. Large-scale culture of Chlorella. In: Brunel J, Prescott GW, Tiffany LH,
editors. The culturing of algae. Yellow Springs, OH: Charles F. Kettering
Foundation; 1950. p. 5375.
[25] Spoehr HA. The chemical composition of Chlorella; effect of environmental
conditions. Plant Physiol (Bethesda) 1949;24:12049.
[26] Goldman JC. Outdoor algal mass culturesI. Applications. Water Res
1979;13:119.
[27] Tapie P, Bernard A. Microalgae production: technical and economic evaluations. Biotechnol Bioeng 1988;32:87385.
[28] Benemann JR, Oswald WJ. Systems and economic analysis of microalgae ponds
for conversion of CO2 to biomass. Report to the Department of Energy:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley; 1996.
[29] Chisti Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 2007;25:294306.
[30] Davis R, Aden A, Pienkos PT. Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic
microalgae for fuel production. Appl Energy 2011;88:352431.
[31] Brentner LB, Eckelman MJ, Zimmerman JB. Combinatorial life cycle assessment
to inform process design of industrial production of algal biodiesel. Environ
Sci Technol 2011;45:70607.
[32] Stephenson AL, Kazamia E, Dennis JS, Howe CJ, Scott SA, Smith AG. Life-cycle
assessment of potential algal biodiesel production in the United Kingdom: a
comparison of raceways and air-lift tubular bioreactors. Energy Fuels
2010;24:406277.
[33] Norsker N-H, Barbosa MJ, Vermu MH, Wijffels RH. Microalgal productiona
close look at the economics. Biotechnol Adv 2011;29:247.
[34] Tredici MR. Mass production of microalgae: photobioreactors. In: Richmond A,
editor. Handbook of microalgal culture, biotechnology and applied phycology.
Wiley-Blackwell; 2003. p. 178214.
[35] Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D. Greenhouse gas sequestration by algae: energy
and greenhouse gas life cycle studies: CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship;
2009.
[36] Nigam PS, Singh A. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2011;37:5268.
[37] Tekin K, Karagz S, Bekta S. A review of hydrothermal biomass processing.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;40:67387.
[38] Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK. Production of rst and second
generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev 2010;14:57897.
[39] Sanna A. Advanced biofuels from thermochemical processing of sustainable
biomass in Europe. Bioenergy Res 2014;7:3647.
[40] Takase M, Zhao T, Zhang M, Chen Y, Liu H, Yang L, et al. An expatiate review of
neem, jatropha, rubber and karanja as multipurpose non-edible biodiesel
resources and comparison of their fuel, engine and emission properties.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;43:495520.
[41] Brennan L, Owende P. Biofuels from microalgaea review of technologies for
production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2010;14:55777.
[42] Schnborn A, Ladommatos N, Williams J, Allan R, Rogerson J. The inuence of
molecular structure of fatty acid monoalkyl esters on diesel combustion.
Combust Flame 2009;156:1396412.

[43] Ranjith Kumar R, Hanumantha Rao P, Arumugam M. Lipid extraction methods

from microalgae: a comprehensive review. Front Energy Res 2015;2:61.
[44] Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated world map of the Kppen
Geiger climate classication. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2007;4:43973.
[45] OConnell D, Batten D, OConnor M, May B, Raison J, Keating B, et al. Biofuels in
Australia: an overview of issues and prospects: Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation; 2007.
[46] Covey G, Rainey T, Shore D. A new opportunity to pulp bagasse in Australia?;
2006.
[47] Consulting LEK. Advanced biofuels study, strategic directions for australia,
summary report. Sydney, NSW: Australian Renewable Energy Agency; 2011. p.
26.
[48] Allen J, Browne M, Hunter A, Boyd J, Palmer H. Logistics management and
costs of biomass fuel supply. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manage 1998;28:46377.
[49] Lakovou E, Karagiannidis A, Vlachos D, Toka A, Malamakis A. Waste biomassto-energy supply chain management: a critical synthesis. Waste Manage
2010;30:186070.
[50] Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4613.0Australias environment: issues and
trends, Jan 2010. Special issue: climate change; 2010.
[51] Moghtaderi B, Sheng C, Wall TF. An overview of the Australian biomass
resources and utilization technologies. BioResources 2007;1:93115.
[52] Ximenes FA, Gardner WD, Kathuria A. Proportion of above-ground biomass in
commercial logs and residues following the harvest of ve commercial forest
species in Australia. For Ecol Manage 2008;256:33546.
[53] Bureau of Rural Sciences. Australian forest proles plantation. In: Australia Go,
editor.; 2008. p. 16.
[54] ABARES. Australias forest at a glance 2011. In: Sciences AboAarea, editor.
Canberra; 2011. p. 1104.
[55] National Forest Inventory and Bureau of Rural Sciences. Australias plantations: inventory updates 2010. In: Department of Agriculture FaF, editor.;
2010. p. 18.
[56] Stucley C, Schuck S, Sims R, Larsen P, Turvey N, Marino B. Biomass energy
production in Australia. Canberra: Revised Edition Rural Industries Research
and Development Corporation; 2004.
[57] Rodriguez LC, May B, Herr A, Farine D, OConnell D. Biofuel excision and the
viability of ethanol production in the Green Triangle, Australia. Energy Policy
2011;39:19517.
[58] Hall P, Gigler JK, Sims RE. Delivery systems of forest arisings for energy
production in New Zealand. Biomass and Bioenergy 2001;21:3919.
[59] Slaven I, Haviarova E, Cassens D. Properties of wood waste stored for energy
production. Purdue Extension: BioEnergy; 2011.
[60] Raison RJ. Opportunities and impediments to the expansion of forest bioenergy in Australia. Biomass Bioenergy 2006;30:10214.
[61] Rainey TJ, Covey G, Shore D. An analysis of Australian sugarcane regions for
bagasse paper manufacture. Int Sugar J 2006;108:6404.
[62] Hodgson J, Hocking B. Viability of sugar mill cogeneration projects. In:
Proceedings of the 2006 conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists held at Mackay, Queensland, Australia, 25 May 2006: Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists; 2006. p. 111.
[63] Rainey TJ, Clark NB. An overview of bagasse as a resource for the Australian
paper industry. Int Sugar J 2004;106:60811.
[64] Hobson P. Torrefaction and gasication for high efciency second-generation
biofuel production. In: Proceedings of the 2009 conference of the Australian
Society of Sugar Cane Technologists held at Ballina, New South Wales,
Australia, 58 May 2009: Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists;
2009. p. 38999.
[65] Van der Stelt MJC, Gerhauser H, Kiel JHA, Ptasinski KJ. Biomass upgrading by
torrefaction for the production of biofuels: a review. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35:374862.
[66] Covey G, Rainey T, Shore D. The potential for bagasse pulping in Australia.
Appita J 2006;59:1722.
[67] Dunlop M. Assessing the availability of crop stubble as a potential biofuel
resource. Population (pl/m2) 2008;100:120.
[68] Hess JR, Thompson DN, Hoskinson RL, Shaw PG, Grant DR. Physical separation
of straw stem components to reduce silica. Biotechnol Fuels Chem: Springer
2003:4351.
[69] Herr A, Dunlop M. Agricultural feedstocks for bioenergy in Australia: an
improved method for estimating the spatial availability; 2008.
[70] Herr A, OConnell D, Dunlop M, Unkovich M, Poulton P, Poole M. Seconde
harvest-Is there sufcient stubble for biofuel production in Australia? GCB
Bioenergy 2012;4:65460.
[71] Kumar A, Purohit P, Rana S, Kandpal TC. An approach to the estimation of the
value of agricultural residues used as biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy
2002;22:195203.
[72] Nilsson D, Hansson P-A. Inuence of various machinery combinations, fuel
proportions and storage capacities on costs for co-handling of straw and reed
canary grass to district heating plants. Biomass Bioenergy 2001;20:24760.
[73] Sokhansanj S, Kumar A, Turhollow AF. Development and implementation of
integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics model (IBSAL). Biomass
Bioenergy 2006;30:83847.
[74] Herr A, Greiner R, Stoeckl N. Understanding adoption of on-farm conservation
practices in the Burdekin Dry Tropics, Queensland. Australas J Environ Manage
2004;11:27888.
[75] Farine DR, OConnell DA, John Raison R, May BM, OConnor MH, Crawford DF,
et al. An assessment of biomass for bioelectricity and biofuel, and for

J. Kosinkova et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (2015) 12711285

[76]
[77]

[78]
[79]
[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

greenhouse gas emission reduction in Australia. GCB Bioenergy

2012;4:14875.
Regan D, Gartside G. Liquid fuels from micro-algae in Australia. Melbourne;
1983.
Grifn GJ, Batten DF, Beer T, Campbell PK. The costs of producing biodiesel
from microalgae in the Asia-Pacic Region. In J Renewable Energy Dev (IJRED)
2013;2:10513.
APAC Biofuel Consultants. Advanced and aviation biofuels in Australia.
Australian biofuels 20132014, policy and growth ; 2013.
Darzins A, Pienkos P, Edye L. Current status and potential for algal biofuels
production. A report to IEA bioenergy task; 2010. p39.
Richardson JW, Johnson MD, Outlaw JL. Economic comparison of open pond
raceways to photo bio-reactors for protable production of algae for transportation fuels in the Southwest. Algal Res 2012;1:93100.
Batten D, Beer T, Freischmidt G, Grant T, Liffman K, Paterson D, et al. Using
wastewater and high-rate algal ponds for nutrient removal and the production of bioenergy and biofuels. Water Sci Technol 2013;67:91524.
Slade R, Bauen A. Micro-algae cultivation for biofuels: cost, energy balance,
environmental impacts and future prospects. Biomass Bioenergy
2013;53:2938.
Lundquist TJ, Woertz IC, Quinn NWT, Benemann JR. A realistic technology and
engineering assessment of algae biofuel production. Berkeley, CA: Energy
Biosciences Institute; 2010.
Yang J, Xu M, Zhang X, Hu Q, Sommerfeld M, Chen Y. Life-cycle analysis on
biodiesel production from microalgae: water footprint and nutrients balance.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:15965.

1285

[85] Sander K, Murthy GS. Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2010;15:70414.
[86] Kadam KL. Environmental implications of power generation via coalmicroalgae coring. Energy 2002;27:90522.
[87] Lardon L, Helias A, Sialve B, Steyer J-P, Bernard O. Life-cycle assessment of
biodiesel production from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:647581.
[88] Jorquera O, Kiperstok A, Sales EA, Embiruu M, Ghirardi ML. Comparative
energy life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds
and photobioreactors. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:140613.
[89] Clean Energy Council. Australian bioenergy roadmap: setting the direction for
biomass in stationary energy to 2020 and beyond: Clean Energy Council;
2008.
[90] ABARES. Australias forest at a glance 2012. In: Department of Agriculture FaF,
editor. Canberra; 2012.
[91] Borowitzka MA, Boruff BJ, Moheimani NR, Pauli N, Cao Y, Smith H. Identication of the optimum sites for industrial-scale microalgae biofuel production in
wa using a gis model. Final report. Murdoch, WA: Murdoch University and
University of Western Australia; 2012.
[92] Australian bureau of Meteorology. Global Solar Exposure (MJ/m2). National
Climate Centre: Australian Government 2014.
[93] Demirbas F. Biofuels from algae for sustainable development. Applied Energy
2011:347380.
[94] Klein-Marcuschamer D, Turner C, Allen M, Gray P, Dietzgen GR, Hankamer B.
Technoeconomic analysis of renewable aviation fuel from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane. Biofpr_ Modeling and Analysis 2013:113.