Analytical instrumentation
This paper examines four biofuel feedstocks: algae, agricultural residue, municipal solid waste, and wood waste.
For each feedstock, the technical conversion process, fuel properties, and comparative advantages and drawbacks relative to conventional biofuels are reviewed.
Algae offer the highest potential oil yield per acre but currently has uncertain and often unfavorable lifecycle greenhouse gas performance.
Agricultural residue and municipal solid waste both avoid cropland competition and offer substantial emissions reductions.
These, however, require costly, complex pretreatment. Wood-derived fuel is the only pathway examined that produces a fuel compatible with existing infrastructure.
Among the four, algae lead in oil yield potential, agricultural residue and municipal solid waste lead in emissions reduction, and wood leads in infrastructure compatibility as the only drop-in fuel.
No single biofuel is superior, each having tradeoffs between efficiency, environmental performance, and production complexity that must be weighed against the barriers of cost and scale.
The increasing demand for energy combined with concerns over climate change and environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption has accelerated the search for sustainable alternatives to petroleum-based fuels.
Biofuels have emerged as a promising source to reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuels. This is due in part to their biological origin and their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, first generation biofuels—derived directly from food crops such as corn, sugarcane, and soybean oil—have faced criticism due to their competition with food production and land use requirements.
As a result, biofuels derived from non-competitive feedstocks have become more popular.
Algae, agricultural residue, municipal solid waste, and wood waste are some of these feedstocks.
Agricultural residue and wood waste fall under the category of second-generation biofuels.
The biogenic fraction of municipal solid waste is generally considered a second-generation feedstock, while fossil-derived materials such as plastic are not.
These are advanced fuels that are manufactured from non-food biomass. Algae, a third-generation biofuel, is derived from aquatic biomass.
These biofuels can reduce emissions and repurpose underused waste streams relative to first-generation biofuels and fossil fuels, though the extent of these benefits varies by feedstock and is examined in detail throughout this paper.
This does not come without its challenges, which mainly come from the complexity of these processes and the cost required to bring these technologies to commercial scale.
This paper examines these four feedstocks and their potential contributions to society along with the setbacks they must overcome to become a mainstream source of fuel.
Overview
Algae are photosynthetic organisms that produce about half of the world’s oxygen.
They are found in seawater, freshwater, and wastewater and have been estimated to include anything from 30,000 to more than 1 million species [26].
They contain oil, sugars, and other compounds that can be used for energy.
They are one of the most productive fuel crops and can be cultivated and harvested year-round, in addition to not competing with food crops for land, though freshwater competition depends on the algae strain and cultivation system used.
These factors make algae one of the most promising future sources of sustainable biofuel. They can produce biodiesel through their lipids and ethanol through their carbohydrates.
There are a few different processes where biofuels are formed from algae, but they all start with algae cultivation.
his is done in either open ponds or closed photobioreactors with controlled light, temperature, and nutrients.
Next, the biomass is separated from the water via filtration or centrifugation.
Then, there are three processes that could be done to extract the oil.
For about 75% of the oil to be extracted, an oil press can be used.
Here, the cells of the algae are disrupted mechanically via compression.
The next process that could be used extracts about 95% of the oil [5].
In this process, the oil press is used first, then the hexane solvent method is used.
Leftover algae from the oil press are mixed with hexane, filtered, then cleansed.
The most effective process uses supercritical carbon dioxide [5].
When CO2 is heated and pressurized above its critical point, it enters a supercritical state—a single phase that diffuses through material like a gas while dissolving compounds like a liquid—which allows it to extract nearly 100% of the algal oil.
After extraction, the algal lipids can undergo transesterification to produce biodiesel.
Here, algal oil reacts with alcohol in the presence of a base catalyst to produce glycerol and biodiesel.
Separately, carbohydrates in the algal biomass are hydrolyzed into fermentable sugars and then fermented to produce bioethanol; this pathway does not require the oil extraction step described above.
The glycerol is removed, leaving just the biodiesel.
For bioethanol, fermentation occurs. Some algae strains store carbohydrates that can be released through cell disruption and then directly fermented into bioethanol by yeast or bacteria.
Lastly, refinement must occur to produce a cleaner, high-quality fuel that is ready for use.
As shown below in Table 1, algal biodiesel and petroleum diesel have a very similar high heating value of 41 MJ/kg and 45.9 MJ/kg, respectively.
Table 1: Comparison of algal biodiesel and conventional diesel [43].
Reproduced from Wiley Online Library, Composition of algal oil and its potential as a biofuel (2012) under the CC 3.0 Creative Commons License
The greenhouse gas emissions associated with algal biodiesel remain highly uncertain.
The life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of algal biodiesel range from 55 to 151 g CO2-eq/MJ, with a median of 99 [39].
For context, regular diesel has a median value of 92 g CO2-eq/MJ [17], so the emissions are roughly equal.
The oxygen content of finished algae biodiesel is about 10-16% by weight, which can vary with the degree of unsaturation in the fatty acids. For engines,
algae biofuel can be blended as B5 or B20, though compatibility can depend on engine type and manufacturer specifications.
Table 2 below displays the potential oil yield of various oil seeds.
Table 2: Predicted oil yield of different oil seeds [31].
Reproduced from Ohio State University Extension, Algae for Biofuels (2011) and NREL, The Potential for Biofuels from Algae (2007) [54]
This clearly displays that algae could be the most effective at producing the most fuel, with the potential of producing up to 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, while the next best oil seed studied produces only 635 gallons of oil per acre.
Another advantage is the fact that it does not compete with cropland as regular biofuels typically do, such as soybean biodiesel.
However, creating algae biofuel is much more complex than regular biofuels, and large-scale production is not yet commercially proven.
Also, algae are currently worse for greenhouse gas emissions than standard biofuels.
Overview
Agricultural residue comes from leftover plant material after crops are harvested.
Examples include corn stalks, leaves, cobs, husks, wheat straw, rice straw, and sugarcane bagasse, among others.
Agricultural residue is generated seasonally, concentrated around harvest periods, and its supply chain requires collection, storage, and transportation infrastructure that adds cost and complexity.
Additionally, not all residue can be removed from the field, with a portion typically left in place to maintain soil organic matter, reduce erosion, and preserve long-term soil fertility.
Residues are made of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose. The latter two can be converted into sugars, which are mainly used to produce ethanol.
The makeup of these and other biomasses can be found in the table below, and the structure of these biomasses, with the lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose can be found in the figure below that.
Table 3: Different biomasses and their makeup of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin [32].
Reproduced from PubMed, Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Nanocellulose: Structure and Chemical Process (2014) under the CC 4.0 Creative Commons License
Figure 1: Makeup of lignocellulosic materials [32].
Reproduced from PubMed, Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Nanocellulose: Structure and Chemical Process (2014) under the CC 4.0 Creative Commons License
The processes for agricultural residue generally start with pretreatment.
In this step, the lignin sheath that surrounds the cellulose in the plant is disrupted to access the cellulose and hemicellulose.
There are many processes that can do this, such as acid hydrolysis, alkali treatment, and ammonia fiber explosion.
Next, saccharification occurs. Here, cellulose and hemicellulose chains are turned into fermentable sugars.
Pretreatment disrupts the lignin sheath to expose the cellulose and hemicellulose within.
Hydrolysis then converts these exposed polysaccharides into fermentable sugars.
While some pretreatment methods (e.g., dilute acid hydrolysis) accomplish both structural disruption and partial sugar release simultaneously, enzymatic hydrolysis is typically distinct downstream step.
In acid hydrolysis, the complex carbs in the cellulose and hemicellulose are broken down into fermentable sugars. Another method is enzymatic hydrolysis.
This reduces the size of the material, making it more efficient, but more complex than acid hydrolysis.
The next step is fermentation. In this step, microorganisms convert the sugars into ethanol.
Finally, distillation occurs, where the ethanol is separated and purified.
This full sequence—pretreatment, saccharification, fermentation, and distillation—applies to lignocellulosic residues, such as corn stover, wheat straw, and sugarcane bagasse, since the fermentable sugars in these materials are locked behind a lignin sheath and are not accessible without pretreatment.
The energy content of cellulosic ethanol is 21.1 MJ/L. Gasoline’s is 32 MJ/L, so there is some disparity between the two.
Compared to conventional gasoline, lifecycle assessments show an estimated 88-108% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [22].
Reductions exceeding 100% indicate net-negative emissions, which some studies attribute to credits for avoided fossil fuel displacement, use of otherwise decomposing waste biomass, or soil carbon assumptions built into the lifecycle boundary.
These results are sensitive to the system boundaries and allocation method used, however. As for the oxygen content, it is about 35% of the weight, far more than algae’s.
For engines, ethanol from residue is approved up to E15 in many vehicles manufactured since 2001 [50], though approval varies by jurisdiction, vehicle model year, and manufacturer warranty terms.
Compared to regular biofuels, agricultural residue is much more complex in its process.
Needing to break down the lignin adds costly pretreatment steps that are avoided in regular biofuels, which is a reason why it is not so mainstream.
However, there is no competition with cropland, as it uses the residue from the already harvested crops.
It is also significantly better for greenhouse gas emissions than regular biofuels.
Additionally, because residue composition and availability vary significantly by crop type, region, and season, conversion facilities must be designed with flexibility to handle inconsistent feedstock, which regular biofuel production does not need to accommodate.
Overview
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) refers to everyday garbage.
The energy mainly comes from food waste, plastics, paper, cardboard, yard waste, and more.
Converting MSW to energy is known as “Waste-to-Energy” (WtE). This process reduces landfill volume and generates fuel.
Due to how broad MSW is, there is a plethora of different products from the processes.
There are many different processes and outcomes that originate from MSW.
One method is gasification. In this method, organic material from MSW is converted to syngas, which is carbon monoxide and hydrogen under high heat and oxygen limitation.
However, there is an issue that nitrogen and sulfur are present in syngas and need to be removed for the syngas to be usable as an energy source.
These are typically removed from syngas through thermochemical cleanup processes.
Once cleaned, the syngas can be converted into fuel through several distinct pathways.
Thermochemical conversion routes, such as catalytic synthesis, can produce methanol, mixed alcohols, or hydrocarbon fuels.
Alternatively, biological conversion uses syngas-fermenting organisms to convert the cleaned syngas directly into ethanol.
Figure 2 below demonstrates the cleanup step and the conversion pathways.
Figure 2: Thermochemical process of removing nitrogen and sulfur present in syngas [46].
Reproduced from U.S. Department of Energy, Waste-to-Energy from Municipal Solid Wastes (2019) under public domain
Another method is anaerobic digestion. This is mostly what food waste goes through.
In this process, MSW is first sorted and the organic material is isolated.
Then, it is fed into an oxygen-free digester vessel.
Microbial communities break down the organic material. pH adjustment, selective microbial enrichment, and inhibitors are used to suppress methane production.
This creates short-chain organic acids, such as acetic acid and butyric acid.
These are isolated and catalytically upgraded into liquid fuels such as jet fuel, gasoline, etc.
Hydrothermal liquefaction is another process. In this, wet MSW is fed into a high-pressure reactor.
This produces biocrude which is sent through hydrotreating to remove remaining nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen to become fuel.
It also produces an aqueous phase, solid phase, and gas phase.
Pyrolysis is the last method. This is mostly what plastic waste goes through.
In this, MSW is pre-processed and sorted to remove inorganic materials.
Then, the organic part is heated and pressurized in the absence of oxygen.
This produces three outputs. The first is bio-oil, which is separated and sent through extensive cleanup, separations, and polishing steps to remove contaminants.
The next is syngas. The last is char. Figure 3 below shows this process in larger detail.
Figure 3: Process of pyrolysis [41].
Reproduced from PubMed, Navigating Pyrolysis Implementation—A Tutorial Review on Consideration Factors and Thermochemical Operating Methods for Biomass Conversion (2024) under the CC 4.0 Creative Commons License
The energy content for biogas in MSW is 21.5 MJ/Nm3, syngas ranges from 4-12 MJ/Nm3, and 13-18 MJ/kg for bio-oil.
These are low compared to natural gas, at around 40 MJ/Nm3.
MSW’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions depend on the feedstock composition, conversion technology, and system boundaries used in the analysis.
However, studies have shown that MSW-derived fuels can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional fossil fuels [51].
The oxygen content of bio-oil is about 35-50% by weight [53]. For engines and infrastructure, the raw biogas, syngas, and bio-oil require processing before use.
Like algae and agricultural residue, MSW-derived fuel also does not compete with cropland for use, as it uses everyday garbage.
However, as the rest of these biofuels, it is much more complex in the processes required than regular biofuels are.
A major challenge unique to MSW is the variability of its composition, which differs by region, season, and local waste management practices.
The inconsistency affects moisture content, contamination levels, and the ratio of biogenic to fossil-derived material, which influence conversion efficiency and the consistency of the fuel.
As a result, WtE facilities often require more flexible, adaptable processing systems than those used for uniform feedstocks.
Overview
Wood energy comes in many forms. One way is wood waste, which includes sawdust, wood chips, leaves, branches, and timber processing scraps.
One widely studied form of energy is from poplar wood, a fast-growing, easy-to-harvest wood.
Like agricultural residue, poplar wood is also made of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose.
There are many methods to turn poplar wood into biofuels. One such way is the following seven-step process [3].
The first step is pretreatment. In this step, poplar wood chips are treated with high pressures and steam that break down the fibers in wood (lignin) and expose the sugars (cellulose and hemicellulose).
Hydrolysis is the next step. Enzymes break down the chains of sugars into individual sugar molecules, such as glucose.
Then, fermentation occurs, where sugars are fermented by bacteria that turns it into acetic acid.
This acetic acid is combined with ethanol and converted to ethyl acetate in a process known as esterification.
Hydrogenation is next, where ethyl acetate is reacted with hydrogen to make ethanol.
Ethanol dehydration comes after, where the ethanol is dehydrated at high temperatures to produce ethylene and water.
The water is reused in other parts of the process. Polymerization is the final step, where ethylene is combined to create larger hydrocarbon chains, to which hydrogen is added to form biofuels, such as renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels.
Below is Figure 4, which simplifies this process and helps visualize the sequential nature in addition to showing another biofuel that can be formed from this process: ethanol.
According to Annex III of the European Parliament and Council of the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (2018), renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel all have a lower heating value of 44 MJ/kg while petroleum has a lower heating value of 43 MJ/kg.
There is around 41-89% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to standard fuels, which is very good considering the similar energy content to petroleum.
It is around 0% oxygen, matching petroleum. There is no blending limit or engine modification as it is considered a “drop-in” fuel, able to be used in place of standard petroleum.
Wood does not compete with regular farmland, just like the other biofuels on this list.
It also is very good at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The main drawback of this biofuel is the long process.
As mentioned in an earlier section, the process takes around 7 steps, where regular biofuels take much fewer.
It is then able to be used in existing petroleum pipeline infrastructure, though actual compatibility depends on fuel certification standards, final composition, contamination limits, and local regulatory requirements.
Other biofuels examined in this paper face more consistent blending limits regardless of these factors.
The comparisons above analyze different stages of production: theoretical feedstock yields, intermediate conversion efficiencies, and finished-fuel lifecycle results.
The pathways also differ in commercial maturity. Wood-to-ethanol and residue-to-ethanol conversion are demonstrated at commercial scale.
MSW pathways are a mix of commercial and pilot-scale, while most algae-to-biofuel pathways remain at pilot or research scale.
Each of the four feedstocks examined in this paper offer a distinct approach to advanced biofuel production.
Evaluated across resource potential, environmental performance, commercial maturity, infrastructure compatibility, and economic obstacles, each feedstock shows a different profile.
Algae stand out for the exceptional potential oil yield it provides and ability to grow on waste streams, though it does lack in reducing greenhouse gas emissions like the other feedstocks examined do.
Agricultural residue produces ethanol that is chemically identical to the ethanol produced by regular biofuels.
However, it is much better at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which provides it with a significant environmental advantage.
Municipal solid waste supports multiple conversion pathways that can yield ethanol, renewable gasoline, or jet fuel depending on the pathway, but the complexity of it makes it very hard to keep consistent.
This pathway also provides a significant environmental benefit through reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Wood is the only form that produces a true drop-in fuel and is thus the most infrastructure compatible.
Just like municipal solid waste and agricultural residue, wood is also great at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Across all four of these feedstocks, no single option is unambiguously superior; each presents a different balance of energy efficiency, emissions performance, infrastructure compatibility, and processing complexity.
While these fuels have significant potential to contribute to the future energy landscape, reducing production costs and overcoming limitations remain key challenges for the next generation of biofuel development.
Dr. Raj Shah, is a Director at Koehler Instrument Company in New York, where he has worked for the last 25+ years.
He is an elected Fellow by his peers at ASTM, IChemE, ASTM, AOCS, CMI, STLE, AIC, NLGI, INSTMC, Institute of Physics, The Energy Institute and The Royal Society of Chemistry.
An ASTM Eagle award recipient, Dr. Shah recently coedited the bestseller, “Fuels and Lubricants handbook”, details of which are available at ASTM’s Long-awaited Fuels and Lubricants Handbook https://bit.ly/3u2e6GY.
He earned his doctorate in Chemical Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University and is a Fellow from The Chartered Management Institute, London.
Dr. Shah is also a Chartered Scientist with the Science Council, a Chartered Petroleum Engineer with the Energy Institute and a Chartered Engineer with the Engineering council, UK.
Dr. Shah was recently granted the honorific of “Eminent engineer” with Tau beta Pi, the largest engineering society in the USA.
He is on the Advisory board of directors at Farmingdale university (Mechanical Technology), Auburn Univ (Tribology), SUNY, Farmingdale, (Engineering Management) and State university of NY, Stony Brook (Chemical engineering/ Material Science and engineering).
An Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, in the Department of Material Science and Chemical Engineering, Raj also has over 700 publications and has been active in the energy industry for over 3 decades.
Mr. Ubaydah Huq is an undergraduate student studying chemical engineering at The Ohio State University.
He is a research intern at Koehler Instrument Company where he researches petroleum and fuel related topics. He is the lead author on this paper.
Mr. Mathew Roshan and Ms. Kate Marussich are undergraduate students studying chemical engineering at Stony Brook University.
Ms. Natalie Ma is an undergraduate student studying chemical engineering at Barnard College of Columbia University.
They are all research interns at Koehler Instrument Company in Holtsville, NY where they research petroleum and fuel related topics.
[1] “10.4 Economics of Biodiesel Production, Including Economics of Algae.” 10.4 Economics of Biodiesel Production, Including Economics of Algae | EGEE 439: Alternative Fuels from Biomass Sources, courses.ems.psu.edu/egee439/node/722.
[2] “4.1 Biomass Pyrolysis.” 4.1 Biomass Pyrolysis | EGEE 439: Alternative Fuels from Biomass Sources, courses.ems.psu.edu/egee439/node/537.
[3] Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest. “Let’s Talk About: Converting Wood to Biofuels.” Washington State University Extension, Feb. 20, https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2182/2016/02/Conversion-Infosheet.pdf
[4] Algae Biodiesel - an Overview | Sciencedirect Topics,
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/algae-biodiesel.
[5] Algae Biodiesel Engineering: Extracting Oil from Algae | Howstuffworks,
science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/algae-biodiesel2.htm.
[6] Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison Gasoline/E10,
afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.
[7] Alward, Jonathan. “Biofuels 101: Biodiesel and Ethanol - Atlantica Centre for Energy.” Atlantica Centre For Energy -, 13 Mar. 2025, www.atlanticaenergy.org/biofuels-101/.AMF, iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/ethanol/fuel_properties.
[8] “Beyond Ethanol: Drop-in Biofuels Squeeze Gasoline from Plants.” Science, www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/130626-drop-in-biofuels-making-gasoline-from-plants.
[9] Biodiesel from Microalgae, Yeast, and Bacteria: Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions |Energy & Fuels, pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ef3012382.
[10] “Bioenergy Basics.” Energy.Gov, 14 May 2026, www.energy.gov/cmei/fuels/bioenergy-basics.
[11] Biofuel | Definition, Renewable Energy, Types, & Pros and Cons | Britannica,
www.britannica.com/technology/biofuel.
[12] Biofuels Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems,
css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/biofuels-factsheet.
[13] Biofuels for the Pacific Northwest, s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2182/2014/02/PoplarforBiofuelsInfosheet.pdf.
[14] “Biofuels: Energy for Transportation.” Energy.Gov, www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/biofuel-basics.
[15] “Cellulosic Ethanol.” Ag Marketing Resource Center, www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/renewable-energy/cellulosic-ethanol.
[16] Crawford JT;Shan CW;Budsberg E;Morgan H;Bura R;Gustafson R; “Hydrocarbon Bio-Jet Fuel from Bioconversion of Poplar Biomass: Techno-Economic Assessment.” Biotechnology for Biofuels, U.S. National Library of Medicine, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28616077/.
[17] Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Wang, M., Carter, N., Sutter, D., Dominiguez-Faus, R. & Huo, H. (2014). Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission intensity of petroleum products at U.S. refineries. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(13), 7612-7624. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es5010347
[18] Environmental Sustainability of Biofuels: A Review | Proceedings A | the Royal Society, royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article/476/2243/20200351/80990/Environmental-sustainability- of-biofuels-a.
[19] Enzymatic Hydrolysis - an Overview | Sciencedirect Topics,
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/enzymatic-hydrolysis.
[20] Espí, Enrique, et al. “Feedstocks for Advanced Biofuels.” IntechOpen, IntechOpen, 22 Apr. 2020, www.intechopen.com/chapters/70860.
[21] “Ethanol Fuel Basics.” Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Fuel Basics, afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol-fuel-basics.
[22] “Ethanol Vehicle Emissions.” Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Vehicle Emissions, afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible-fuel-emissions.
[23] European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L 328, 21 December, p. 82-209. Consolidated text: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/2024-07-16
[24] Fact Sheet Turning Agricultural Residues and Manure into Bioenergy Highlights,
www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/files/Agricultural-Residue-Ranking.pdf.
[25] Gasoline Engines - Sciencedirect,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780120597901500080.
[26] Guiry MD. HOW MANY SPECIES OF ALGAE ARE THERE? J Phycol. 2012 Oct;48(5):1057-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01222.x. Epub 2012 Sep 20. PMID: 27011267.
[27] “How Does the Energy Density of Syngas Compare to That of Biogas and Natural Gas? → Learn.” Energy, 1 Jan. 1970, energy.sustainability-directory.com/learn/how-does-the-energy-density-of-syngas-compare-to-that-of-biogas-and-natural-gas/.
[28] “How Much Energy in Biogas Inoplex.” INOPLEX, 8 Nov. 2022,
inoplex.com.au/information/how-much-energy-is-in-biogas/.
[29] Https://Www.Sciencedirect.Com/Science/Article/Abs/Pii/S1051200421000968 | RequestPDF,www.researchgate.net/publication/351163114_httpswwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticleabspiiS1051200421000968.
[30] Laboratory, Oak Ridge National, et al. “Conversion Factors for Bioenergy: NC State Extension Publications.” Conversion Factors for Bioenergy | NC State Extension Publications,
content.ces.ncsu.edu/conversion-factors-for-bioenergy.
[31] Li, Yebo. “Algae for Biofuels.” Ohioline, 11 Apr. 2011, ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/AEX-651-11. Manandhar, Ashish.
[32] Lee, H.V.,Hamid, S.B.A., & Zain, S.K. (2014). Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Nanocellulose: Structure and Chemical Process.
[33] “Feedstock Logistics for Agricultural Residues and Energy Crops: Moving Biomass from the Field to Biorefinery Gate.” Ohioline, 25 May 2018, ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-6604.
[34] Miandad, Rashid, et al. “Catalytic Pyrolysis of Plastic Waste: Moving toward Pyrolysis Based Biorefineries.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 5 June 2026, www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00027/full.NIH, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522714/pdf/13205_2014_Article_246.pdf.
[35] An Overview of Algae Biofuel Production and Potential Environmental Impact | Environmental Science & Technology, pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es300917r.
[36] “PMC Home.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
[37] Policy Analysis Environmental Implications of Municipal Solid Waste-Derived,
pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es061117b.
[38]Pyrolysis-Sciencedirect, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128206850000284.
[39] Tu, Q., Eckelman, M. & Zimmerman, J. B. (2018). Harmonized algal biofuel life cycle assessment studies enable direct process train comparison, Applied Energy, Volume 224, 2018, Pages 494-509, ISSN 0306-2619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.066.
[40] Rai, Shushil Kumar, et al. “Algae to Biofuels: Catalytic Strategies and Sustainable Technologies for Green Energy Conversion.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 25 Aug. 2025, www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/15/9/806.
[41] Rasaq WA, Okpala COR, Igwegbe CA, Białowiec A. Navigating Pyrolysis Implementation-A Tutorial Review on Consideration Factors and Thermochemical Operating Methods for Biomass Conversion. Materials (Basel). 2024 Feb 2;17(3):725. doi: 10.3390/ma17030725. PMID: 38591602; PMCID: PMC10856175.
[42] Road Ready Fuels Bio-Jet Fuel: Drop-in Biofuels Are Needed in The, s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2182/2016/02/Drop-In-Biofuels-Infosheet.pdf.
[43] Schlagermann, P., Göttlicher, G., Dillschneider, R., Rosello-Sastre, R., & Posten, C. (2012). Compositon of algal oil and its potential as a biofuel. Journal of Combustion, 2012, Article 285185. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/285185
[44] Tayari, Sara, et al. “Investigation on Physicochemical Properties of Wastewater...” Paradigm, Paradigm, 1 Feb. 2020, doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0005.
[45] “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Biogas-Renewable Natural Gas - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php.
[46] U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2019). Waste-to-Energy from Municipal Solid Wastes. DOE/EE-1796. https://www.energy.gov/cmei/fuels/articles/waste-energy-municipal-solid-wastes-report.
[47] Waste-to-Energy from Municipal Solid Wastes August 2019 Report,
www.energy.gov/cmei/fuels/articles/waste-energy-municipal-solid-wastes-report.
[48] Xu, Yidong, et al. “Raw Materials and Experimental Method.” SpringerLink, Springer Nature Singapore, 1 Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-96-8237-9_2.
[49] Zhang M, Song X, Deines TW, Pei ZJ, Wang D. Biofuel manufacturing from woody biomass: effects of sieve size used in biomass size reduction. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:581039. doi: 10.1155/2012/581039. Epub 2012 May 14. PMID: 22665985; PMCID: PMC3361328.
[50] “Ethanol: E15.” Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Vehicle Emissions,
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol-e15
[51] Javier Pérez, Juan Manuel de Andrés, Julio Lumbreras, Encarnación Rodríguez,
Evaluating carbon footprint of municipal solid waste treatment: Methodological proposal and application to a case study, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 205, 2018, Pages 419-431, ISSN0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618328233.
[52] Alazaiza, Motasem Y. D., et al. “Biofuel Production Using Cultivated Algae: Technologies, Economics, and Its Environmental Impacts.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 26 Jan. 2023, www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/3/1316.
[53] Ungureanu N, Vlăduț N-V, Biriș S-Ș, Gheorghiță N-E, Ionescu M. Biomass Pyrolysis Pathways for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Resource Recovery: A Critical Review of Processes, Parameters, and Product Valorization. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7806. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177806.
[54] Pinkos, Phillip T. “The Potential for Biofuels from Algae.” Presentation at the Algae Biomass Summit, San Francisco, CA, November 15, 2007. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/PR-510-42414.
PIN 27.4 Aug/Sept 2026
Product directory
.jpg)
