Life cycle assessment of biofuels from Jatropha curcas in West Africa: a field study

In recent years, liquid biofuels for transport have benefited from significant political support due to their potential role in curbing climate change and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. They may also participate to rural development by providing new markets for agricultural production. However, the growth of energy crops has raised concerns due to their high consumption of conventional fuels, fertilizers and pesticides, their impacts on ecosystems and their competition for arable land with food crops. Low-input species such as Jatropha curcas , a perennial, inedible crop well adapted to semiarid regions, has received much interest as a new alternative for biofuel production, minimizing adverse effects on the environment and food supply. Here, we used life-cycle assessment to quantify the benefits of J. curcas biofuel production in West Africa in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use, compared with fossil diesel fuel and other biofuels. Biodiesel from J. curcas has a much higher performance than current biofuels, relative to oil-derived diesel fuels. Under West Africa conditions, J. curcas biodiesel allows a 72% saving in greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional diesel fuel, and its energy yield (the ratio of biodiesel energy output to fossil energy input) is 4.7. J. curcas production studied is eco-compatible for the impacts under consideration and fits into the context of sustainable development.     

Meeting the challenge of food and energy security

Growing crops for bioenergy or biofuels is increasingly viewed as conflicting with food production. However, energy use continues to rise and food production requires fuel inputs, which have increased with intensification. Focussing on the question of food or fuel is thus not helpful. The bigger, more pertinent, challenge is how the increasing demands for food and energy can be met in the future, particularly when water and land availability will be limited. Energy crop production systems differ greatly in environmental impact. The use of high-input food crops for liquid transport fuels (first-generation biofuels) needs to be phased out and replaced by the use of crop residues and low-input perennial crops (second/advanced-generation biofuels) with multiple environmental benefits. More research effort is needed to improve yields of biomass crops grown on lower grade land, and maximum value should be extracted through the exploitation of co-products and integrated biorefinery systems. Policy must continually emphasize the changes needed and tie incentives to improved greenhous gas reduction and environmental performance of biofuels.     

西北干旱区利用间套作促进能源植物的高产高效

在全球性能源紧缺和我国能源植物大规模种植困难等大背景下,优质、充足的原料供应已成为制约生物质能源产业发展的主要限制因素。在确保能源植物高效生产和克服"与粮争地、与人争粮"现实的同时,挖掘我国边际土壤高产高效生产能源植物的土地优势和增产潜力。通过筛选评价适宜西北干旱地区高抗逆的新型能源植物种类,开发应用能源植物与粮经作物间套作栽培技术,实现新型能源植物对逆境资源的高效利用和可持续规模化种植,提高能源植物的生产力和优化能源物种的区域配置,增加土地产值和农民收入,缓解能源紧缺,达到经济、生态和社会效益多赢,为我国能源和粮食安全提供技术支撑。     

Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock

Livestock contribute directly (i.e. as methane and nitrous oxide (N2O)) to about 9% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and around 3% of UK emissions. If all parts of the livestock production lifecycle are included (fossil fuels used to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production and N2O emissions from fertilizer use; methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure; land-use changes for feed production and for grazing; land degradation; fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products), livestock are estimated to account for 18% of global anthropogenic emissions, but less than 8% in the UK. In terms of GHG emissions per unit of livestock product, monogastric livestock are more efficient than ruminants; thus in the UK, while sheep and cattle accounted for 32% of meat production in 2006, they accounted for 48% of GHG emissions associated with meat production. More efficient management of grazing lands and of manure can have a direct impact in decreasing emissions. Improving efficiency of livestock production through better breeding, health interventions or improving fertility can also decrease GHG emissions through decreasing the number of livestock required per unit product. Increasing the energy density of the diet has a dual effect, decreasing both direct emissions and the numbers of livestock per unit product, but, as the demands for food increase in response to increasing human population and a better diet in some developing countries, there is increasing competition for land for food v. energy-dense feed crops. Recalculating efficiencies of energy and protein production on the basis of human-edible food produced per unit of human-edible feed consumed gave higher efficiencies for ruminants than for monogastric animals. The policy community thus have difficult decisions to make in balancing the negative contribution of livestock to the environment against the positive benefit in terms of food security. The animal science community have a responsibility to provide an evidence base which is objective and holistic with respect to these two competing challenges.     

Crop‐based biofuels and associated environmental concerns

Current Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) models indicate that crop‐based biofuels generate greenhouse gas savings, compared with fossil fuels. We argue that they do so only because they ignore the emissions of CO₂ from vehicles burning the biofuels without determining if the biomass is “additional,” and because they underestimate the ultimate emissions of N₂O from nitrogen fertiliser use. Taking proper account of these factors would result in very different findings. It would be far better to derive biofuels from biomass, from waste feedstocks or high‐yielding bioenergy crops with low nitrogen demand, grown on currently unproductive land.     

Marginal lands for bioenergy in China; an outlook in status,potential and management

Energy consumption and CO₂ emissions have been increasing continuously over the past few decades in China and there is a pressing need to replace the fossil fuel‐based economy with an efficient low‐carbon system, tailor‐made to future requirements. China is starting an energy transition with the aim of building an energy system for the future. China has made tremendous progress in increasing the amount of renewable energy and reducing the cost of renewable energy over the last 20 years. According to the 14th 5 year plan, China aims to incorporate 20% of renewable energy to the primary energy mix and attain 27% reduction in CO₂ emissions. Bioenergy crops constitute a significant proportion of biomass‐based bioenergy and have recently been promoted by the Chinese Government to help overcome food and fuel conflict. Steps are being taken to promote bioenergy crops on marginal lands in China, and various regions across the country with soil marginality have been evaluated for bioenergy crop cultivation. The present paper reviews the status of bioenergy in China and the potential status of marginal lands from different regions of China. It also elaborates on some of the policies, subsidies and incentives allocated by the Chinese Government for the promotion of biomass‐based energy. Land management and plant improvement strategies were discussed, which are effective in making marginal lands suitable for bioenergy crop cultivation. Managing planting strategies, intercropping and crop rotation are effective management practices used in China for the utilization of marginal lands. A national investigation is desirable for creating an inventory of technical and economic potential of biomass feedstocks that could be planted on marginal lands. This would assist with highlighting the pros and cons of using marginal lands for bioenergy production and effective policy making.     

Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs

The rapidly growing world population and rising consumption of biofuels intensify demands for both food and biofuels. This exaggerates food and fuel shortages. The use of food crops such as corn grain to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60% of humans in the world are currently malnourished, so the need for grains and other basic foods is critical. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water and energy resources vital for the production of food for human consumption. Using corn for ethanol increases the price of US beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk more than 10% to 30%. In addition, Jacques Diouf, Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, reports that using food grains to produce biofuels is already causing food shortages for the poor of the world. Growing crops for biofuel not only ignores the need to reduce fossil energy and land use, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide.     

Pilot-scale conversion of lime-treated wheat straw into bioethanol: quality assessment of bioethanol and valorization of side streams by anaerobic digestion and combustion

Introduction  

The limited availability of fossil fuel sources, worldwide rising energy demands and anticipated climate changes attributed to an increase of greenhouse gasses are important driving forces for finding alternative energy sources. One approach to meeting the increasing energy demands and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is by large-scale substitution of petrochemically derived transport fuels by the use of carbon dioxide-neutral biofuels, such as ethanol derived from lignocellulosic material.     

Valuation of ecosystem services in alternative bioenergy landscape scenarios

Agricultural land in the Midwest is a source of food and fuel, as well as biodiversity. It is also a cause of excess nutrients that make their way to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. To address unsustainable changes to biogeochemical cycles and ecosystem functions, a multidisciplinary approach involving social science, natural science, and engineering is often effective. Given the potential of second‐generation biofuels, and capitalizing on the deep‐rooted perennial bioenergy crops capable of thriving in poor soils, we demonstrated an integrated socio‐environmental analysis of the impacts of growing switchgrass within row‐crop landscapes in Illinois. In this study, we model land use scenarios that incorporate switchgrass as a biofuel crop in a Midwest corn‐belt watershed using the Soil Water Assessment Tool coupled with an economic analysis for the Vermilion Basin in Illinois. We estimated the values of ecosystem services under an alternative bioenergy landscape, including commodity and bioenergy crops, changes in biogeochemistry, and recreational services. The estimated annual values of nitrate and sediment reduction attributed to bioenergy crops range from $38 million to $97 million and $16,000 to $197,000, respectively. The annual value of carbon dioxide emission reduction ranges from $1.8 million to $6.1 million based on the initial crop rotation pattern. Estimated average annual values for wildlife viewing, water‐based recreation, and pheasant hunting are $1.24 million, $0.17 million, and $0.3 million, respectively. To our knowledge, this study represents the first effort to comprehensively quantify ecosystem services using a process‐based model, and estimate their value in an alternative bioenergy landscape. The information we generate could aid in understanding the potential for biomass production from marginal land and the total economic value of the landscape at various spatial scales. The framework is useful in fostering alternative bioenergy landscapes with synergies in a food, energy, and conservation nexus.     

Environmental and resource burdens associated with world biofuel production out to 2050: footprint components from carbon emissions and land use to waste arisings and water consumption

Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widely used in recent years as indicators of resource consumption and waste absorption presented in terms of biologically productive land area [in global hectares (gha)] required per capita with prevailing technology. In contrast, ‘carbon footprints’ are the amount of carbon (or carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions for such activities in units of mass or weight (like kilograms per functional unit), but can be translated into a component of the environmental footprint (on a gha basis). The carbon and environmental footprints associated with the world production of liquid biofuels have been computed for the period 2010–2050. Estimates of future global biofuel production were adopted from the 2011 International Energy Agency (IEA) ‘technology roadmap’ for transport biofuels. This suggests that, although first generation biofuels will dominate the market up to 2020, advanced or second generation biofuels might constitute some 75% of biofuel production by 2050. The overall environmental footprint was estimated to be 0.29 billion (bn) gha in 2010 and is likely to grow to around 2.57 bn gha by 2050. It was then disaggregated into various components: bioproductive land, built land, carbon emissions, embodied energy, materials and waste, transport, and water consumption. This component‐based approach has enabled the examination of the Manufactured and Natural Capital elements of the ‘four capitals’ model of sustainability quite broadly, along with specific issues (such as the linkages associated with the so‐called energy–land–water nexus). Bioproductive land use was found to exhibit the largest footprint component (a 48% share in 2050), followed by the carbon footprint (23%), embodied energy (16%), and then the water footprint (9%). Footprint components related to built land, transport and waste arisings were all found to account for an insignificant proportion to the overall environmental footprint, together amounting to only about 2%     

Emerging strategies of lignin engineering and degradation for cellulosic biofuel production

Ethanol and other biofuels produced from lignocellulosic biomass represent a renewable, more carbon-balanced alternative to both fossil fuels and corn-derived or sugarcane-derived ethanol. Unfortunately, the presence of lignin in plant cell walls impedes the breakdown of cell wall polysaccharides to simple sugars and the subsequent conversion of these sugars to usable fuel. Recent advances in the understanding of lignin composition, polymerization, and regulation have revealed new opportunities for the rational manipulation of lignin in future bioenergy crops, augmenting the previous successful approach of manipulating lignin monomer biosynthesis. Furthermore, recent studies on lignin degradation in nature may provide novel resources for the delignification of dedicated bioenergy crops and other sources of lignocellulosic biomass.     

The time aspect of bioenergy – climate impacts of solid biofuels due to carbon dynamics

The climate impacts from bioenergy involve an important time aspect. Using forest residues for energy may result in high initial emissions, but net emissions are reduced over time since, if the residues were left on the ground, they would decompose and release CO₂ to the atmosphere. This article investigates the climate impacts from bioenergy with special focus on the time aspects. More specifically, we analyze the climate impacts of forest residues and stumps where combustion related emissions are compensated by avoided emissions from leaving them on the ground to decompose. These biofuels are compared with fossil gas and coal. Net emissions are defined as emissions from utilizing the fuel minus emissions from a reference case of no utilization. Climate impacts are estimated using the measures radiative forcing and global average surface temperature. We find that the climate impacts from using forest residues and stumps depend on the decomposition rates and the time perspective over which the analysis is done. Over a 100 year perspective, branches and tops have lower climate impacts than stumps which in turn have lower impacts than fossil gas and coal. Over a 20 year time perspective, branches and tops have lower climate impacts than all other fuels but the relative difference is smaller. However, stumps have slightly higher climate impacts over 20 years than fossil gas but lower impacts than coal. Regarding metrics for climate impacts, over shorter time scales, approximately 30 years or less, radiative forcing overestimates the climate impacts compared with impacts expressed by global surface temperature change, which is due to the inertia of the climate system. We also find that establishing willow on earlier crop land may reduce atmospheric CO₂, provided new land is available. However, these results are inconclusive since we haven't considered the effects of producing the agricultural crops elsewhere.     

Biofuel technologies: Lessons learned and pathways to decarbonization

This Opinion highlights several successful cases of biofuel technologies recently described by the IEA Bioenergy Intertask Report on Lessons Learned. The report discussed the potential of biofuels to contribute to a significant market supply, thus replacing fossil fuels and mitigating global warming, and it underscores the challenges in expanding biofuel production and replicating successful models between countries and regions. Based on the lessons learned from conventional, established technologies, the authors analyzed policies, feedstocks, products, technologies, economics, environmental concerns, social aspects, scalability, and ease of implementation and replication in different countries or regions. There are blending mandates in place around the world to foster the use of biofuels. Dependence on the availability and price fluctuations of crop feedstocks may limit biofuel production in certain circumstances. Legal restrictions on using food crops as feedstocks present obstacles to scaling up production. Temporary constraints related to feedstock costs and availability, as evidenced by changes and postponements of biofuel blending mandates in various countries (particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic) also pose challenges. Technological hurdles exist for advanced biofuels that implicate premium pricing. Still, 2G ethanol from sugarcane meets very strict feedstock requirements with a carbon footprint so low that only electric vehicles charged in Norway could have life-cycle GHG emissions at the same level as a 2G ethanol-fueled combustion engine car. The authors evaluate whether and how much electrification could contribute to advance the decarbonization efforts in different countries. Drawing from these observations, the authors express their viewpoints to assist researchers and policymakers in the energy sector in formulating viable approaches to combat the climate crisis.     

The prospects for biogas—A European point of view

In many parts of the world, alternative energy sources are already needed or will be needed to augment fossil fuel supplies. ‘Biogas’, methanol, ethanol and hydrogen are all potentially useful in this respect, as they can be obtained (biologically or thermochemically) from renewable resources like biomass (trees, crops, etc.) and organic wastes (sewage, domestic refuse, animal manure). Some aspects of biofuel research and development in Member States of the European Community are highlighted, and estimates of the contributions that these fuels might make to current and future energy demands are reviewed. Some of the potential uses of biogases and liquid biofuels in a gas industry context are described. In the author's opinion, production of biogases and other biofuels will ultimately play a significant but relatively small rôle in conserving supplies of natural gas and other fossil fuels, and in alleviating or preventing environmental pollution.     

Greenhouse gas emissions and abatement costs of biofuel production in South Africa

Transport accounts for about one quarter of South Africa's final energy consumption. Most of the energy used is based on fossil fuels causing significant environmental burdens. This threat becomes even more dominant as a significant growth in transport demand is forecasted, especially in South Africa's economic hub, Gauteng province. The South African government has realized the potential of biofuel usage for reducing oil import dependency and greenhouse gas (GHG) and has hence developed a National Biofuels Industrial Strategy to enforce their use. However, there is limited experience in the country in commercial biofuel production and some of the proposed crops (i.e. rapeseed and sugar beet) have not been yet cultivated on a larger scale. Furthermore, there is only limited research available, looking at the feasibility of commercial scale biofuel production or abatement costs of GHG emissions. To assess the opportunities of biofuel production in South Africa, the production costs and consumer price levels of the fuels recommended by the national strategy are analysed in this article. Moreover, the lifecycle GHG emissions and mitigation costs are calculated compared to the calculated fossil fuel reference including coal to liquid (CTL) and gas to liquid (GTL) fuels. The results show that the cost for biofuel production in South Africa are currently significantly higher (between 30% and 80%) than for the reference fossil fuels. The lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuels (especially for sugar cane) are considerably lower (up to 45%) than the reference fossil GHG emissions. The resulting GHG abatement costs are between 1000 and 2500 ZAR₂₀₀₇ per saved ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is high compared to the current European CO₂ market prices of ca. 143 ZAR₂₀₀₇ t^?1. The analysis has shown that biofuel production and utilization in South Africa offers a significant GHG‐mitigation potential but at relatively high cost.     

Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national‐scale mitigation analyses for Canada

The potential of forests and the forest sector to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is widely recognized, but challenging to quantify at a national scale. Mitigation benefits through the use of forest products are affected by product life cycles, which determine the duration of carbon storage in wood products and substitution benefits where emissions are avoided using wood products instead of other emissions‐intensive building products and energy fuels. Here we determined displacement factors for wood substitution in the built environment and bioenergy at the national level in Canada. For solid wood products, we compiled a basket of end‐use products and determined the reduction in emissions for two functionally equivalent products: a more wood‐intensive product vs. a less wood‐intensive one. Avoided emissions for end‐use products basket were weighted by Canadian consumption statistics to reflect national wood uses, and avoided emissions were further partitioned into displacement factors for sawnwood and panels. We also examined two bioenergy feedstock scenarios (constant supply and constrained supply) to estimate displacement factors for bioenergy using an optimized selection of bioenergy facilities which maximized avoided emissions from fossil fuels. Results demonstrated that the average displacement factors were found to be similar: product displacement factors were 0.54 tC displaced per tC of used for sawnwood and 0.45 tC tC^?1 for panels; energy displacement factors for the two feedstock scenarios were 0.47 tC tC^?1 for the constant supply and 0.89 tC tC^?1 for the constrained supply. However, there was a wide range of substitution impacts. The greatest avoided emissions occurred when wood was substituted for steel and concrete in buildings, and when bioenergy from heat facilities and/or combined heat and power facilities was substituted for energy from high‐emissions fossil fuels. We conclude that (1) national‐level substitution benefits need to be considered within a systems perspective on climate change mitigation to avoid the development of policies that deliver no net benefits to the atmosphere, (2) the use of long‐lived wood products in buildings to displace steel and concrete reduces GHG emissions, (3) the greatest bioenergy substitution benefits are achieved using a mix of facility types and capacities to displace emissions‐intensive fossil fuels.     

Bioenergy Crops and Carbon Sequestration

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute a global problem. The need for agricultural involvement in GHG mitigation has been widely recognized since the 1990s. The concept of C sinks, C credits, and emission trading has attracted special interests in herbaceous and woody species as energy crops and source of biofuel feedstock. Bioenergy crops are defined as any plant material used to produce bioenergy. These crops have the capacity to produce large volume of biomass, high energy potential, and can be grown in marginal soils. Planting bioenergy crops in degraded soils is one of the promising agricultural options with C sequestration rates ranging from 0.6 to 3.0 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1. About 60 million hectares (Mha) of land is available in the United States and 757 Mha in the world to grow bioenergy crops. With an energy offset of 1 kg of C in biomass per 0.6 kg of C in fossil fuel, there exists a vast potential of offsetting fossil fuel emission. Bioenergy crops have the potential to sequester approximately 318 Tg C yr^?1 in the United States and 1631 Tg C yr^?1 worldwide. Bioenergy crops consist of herbaceous bunch-type grasses and short-rotation woody perennials. Important grasses include switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), elephant grass (Pennissetum purpureum Schum.), tall fescue (Fetusca arundinacea L.), etc. Important among short-rotation woody perennials are poplar (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), etc. The emissions of CO₂ from using switchgrass as energy crop is 1.9 kg C Gj^?1 compared with 13.8, 22.3, and 24.6 kg C Gj^?1 from using gas, petroleum, and coal, respectively. Mitigation of GHG emissions cannot be achieved by C sinks alone, a substantial reduction in fossil fuel combustion will be necessary. Carbon sequestration and fossil fuel offset by bioenergy crops is an important component of a possible total societal response to a GHG emission reduction initiative.     

Biotechnology Towards Energy Crops

New crops are gradually establishing along with cultivation systems to reduce reliance on depleting fossil fuel reserves and sustain better adaptation to climate change. These biological assets could be efficiently exploited as bioenergy feedstocks. Bioenergy crops are versatile renewable sources with the potential to alternatively contribute on a daily basis towards the coverage of modern society’s energy demands. Biotechnology may facilitate the breeding of elite energy crop genotypes, better suited for bio-processing and subsequent use that will improve efficiency, further reduce costs, and enhance the environmental benefits of biofuels. Innovative molecular techniques may improve a broad range of important features including biomass yield, product quality and resistance to biotic factors like pests or microbial diseases or environmental cues such as drought, salinity, freezing injury or heat shock. The current review intends to assess the capacity of biotechnological applications to develop a beneficial bioenergy pipeline extending from feedstock development to sustainable biofuel production and provide examples of the current state of the art on future energy crops.     

Competing uses of biomass for energy and chemicals: implications for long‐term global CO2 mitigation potential

Biomass is considered a low carbon source for various energy or chemical options. This paper assesses it's different possible uses, the competition between these uses, and the implications for long‐term global energy demand and energy system emissions. A scenario analysis is performed using the TIMER energy system model. Under baseline conditions, 170 EJ yr^?1 of secondary bioenergy is consumed in 2100 (approximately 18% of total secondary energy demand), used primarily in the transport, buildings and nonenergy (chemical production) sectors. This leads to a reduction of 9% of CO₂ emissions compared to a counterfactual scenario where no bioenergy is used. Bioenergy can contribute up to 40% reduction in emissions at carbon taxes greater than 500/tC. As higher CO₂ taxes are applied, bioenergy is increasingly diverted towards electricity generation. Results are more sensitive to assumptions about resource availability than technological parameters. To estimate the effectiveness of bioenergy in specific sectors, experiments are performed in which bioenergy is only allowed in one sector at a time. The results show that cross‐sectoral leakage and emissions from biomass conversion limit the total emission reduction possible in each sector. In terms of reducing emissions per unit of bioenergy use, we show that the use of bioelectricity is the most effective, especially when used with carbon capture and storage. However, this technology only penetrates at a high carbon price (>100/tC) and competition with transport fuels may limit its adoption.     

An assessment of biomass for bioelectricity and biofuel,and for greenhouse gas emission reduction in Australia

We provide a quantitative assessment of the prospects for current and future biomass feedstocks for bioenergy in Australia, and associated estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation resulting from their use for production of biofuels or bioelectricity. National statistics were used to estimate current annual production from agricultural and forest production systems. Crop residues were estimated from grain production and harvest index. Wood production statistics and spatial modelling of forest growth were used to estimate quantities of pulpwood, in‐forest residues, and wood processing residues. Possible new production systems for oil from algae and the oil‐seed tree Pongamia pinnata, and of lignocellulosic biomass production from short‐rotation coppiced eucalypt crops were also examined. The following constraints were applied to biomass production and use: avoiding clearing of native vegetation; minimizing impacts on domestic food security; retaining a portion of agricultural and forest residues to protect soil; and minimizing the impact on local processing industries by diverting only the export fraction of grains or pulpwood to bioenergy. We estimated that it would be physically possible to produce 9.6 GL yr^?1 of first generation ethanol from current production systems, replacing 6.5 GL yr^?1 of gasoline or 34% of current gasoline usage. Current production systems for waste oil, tallow and canola seed could produce 0.9 GL yr^?1 of biodiesel, or 4% of current diesel usage. Cellulosic biomass from current agricultural and forestry production systems (including biomass from hardwood plantations maturing by 2030) could produce 9.5 GL yr^?1 of ethanol, replacing 6.4 GL yr^?1 of gasoline, or ca. 34% of current consumption. The same lignocellulosic sources could instead provide 35 TWh yr^?1, or ca. 15% of current electricity production. New production systems using algae and P. pinnata could produce ca. 3.96 and 0.9 GL biodiesel yr^?1, respectively. In combination, they could replace 4.2 GL yr^?1 of fossil diesel, or 23% of current usage. Short‐rotation coppiced eucalypt crops could provide 4.3 GL yr^?1 of ethanol (2.9 GL yr^?1 replacement, or 15% of current gasoline use) or 20.2 TWh yr^?1 of electricity (9% of current generation). In total, first and second generation fuels from current and new production systems could mitigate 26 Mt CO₂‐e, which is 38% of road transport emissions and 5% of the national emissions. Second generation fuels from current and new production systems could mitigate 13 Mt CO₂‐e, which is 19% of road transport emissions and 2.4% of the national emissions lignocellulose from current and new production systems could mitigate 48 Mt CO₂‐e, which is 28% of electricity emissions and 9% of the national emissions. There are challenging sustainability issues to consider in the production of large amounts of feedstock for bioenergy in Australia. Bioenergy production can have either positive or negative impacts. Although only the export fraction of grains and sugar was used to estimate first generation biofuels so that domestic food security was not affected, it would have an impact on food supply elsewhere. Environmental impacts on soil, water and biodiversity can be significant because of the large land base involved, and the likely use of intensive harvest regimes. These require careful management. Social impacts could be significant if there were to be large‐scale change in land use or management. In addition, although the economic considerations of feedstock production were not covered in this article, they will be the ultimate drivers of industry development. They are uncertain and are highly dependent on government policies (e.g. the price on carbon, GHG mitigation and renewable energy targets, mandates for renewable fuels), the price of fossil oil, and the scale of the industry.