Research article

Parametric study of a diffuser for horizontal axis wind turbine power augmentation

  • For a wider dissemination and implementation of small wind turbines for rural electrification in developing countries, the cost of the system must be reduced. When searching for systems that are efficient and economical, Diffuser Augmented Wind turbine seems to have a potential role by increasing the power output and reducing the cost of the system most importantly at low speeds. In this paper, a detailed study has been done on Diffuser Augmented Wind Turbines to find a parametric relationship for power augmentation for horizontal axis wind turbines. A suitable diffuser was selected and its parameters were identified and their relationships were formulated based on Computational Fluid Dynamics. The result has been validated using experimental analysis. Based on the result, the power output and performance of a wind turbine is improved while using diffuser. The result shows the velocity peaks at a location immediately after the diffuser inlet. The velocity, then, levels off and further decreases as the flow continues to the diffuser outlet and exits it. This suggests a possible location of a wind turbine at the vicinity of the inlet. Based on the result, the length of the diffuser and the flange height were the major parameters to be considered. Maximum velocity ratios up to 1.5 were obtained with potential power increase of more than 2 times. It has also been observed that velocity ratios of up to 1.3 can be achieved with more compact diffusers potentially reducing the cost of the diffuser and the whole system. The mathematical relations obtained for the major parameters and the velocity ratio can be used in the performance prediction and optimization of a diffuser. Finally, possible directions for further research are recommended considering that this work shows a good agreement with previous works and predictions.

    Citation: Nathnael Bekele, Wondwossen Bogale. Parametric study of a diffuser for horizontal axis wind turbine power augmentation[J]. AIMS Energy, 2019, 7(6): 841-856. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.6.841

    Related Papers:

    [1] Melike E. Bildirici, Mesut M. Badur . Correction: The effects of oil prices on confidence and stock return in China, India and Russia. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(1): 46-52. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.1.46
    [2] Emmanuel Assifuah-Nunoo, Peterson Owusu Junior, Anokye Mohammed Adam, Ahmed Bossman . Assessing the safe haven properties of oil in African stock markets amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a quantile regression analysis. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(2): 244-269. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022011
    [3] Xiaohang Ren, Weixi Xu, Kun Duan . Fourier transform based LSTM stock prediction model under oil shocks. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(2): 342-358. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022015
    [4] Raéf Bahrini, Assaf Filfilan . Impact of the novel coronavirus on stock market returns: evidence from GCC countries. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(4): 640-652. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020029
    [5] Md Akther Uddin, Mohammad Enamul Hoque, Md Hakim Ali . International economic policy uncertainty and stock market returns of Bangladesh: evidence from linear and nonlinear model. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(2): 236-251. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020011
    [6] Chiao Yi Chang, Fu Shuen Shie, Shu Ling Yang . The relationship between herding behavior and firm size before and after the elimination of short-sale price restrictions. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(3): 526-549. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.3.526
    [7] Albert A. Agyemang-Badu, Fernando Gallardo Olmedo, José María Mella Márquez . Conditional macroeconomic and stock market volatility under regime switching: Empirical evidence from Africa. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2024, 8(2): 255-285. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2024010
    [8] Fangzhou Huang, Jiao Song, Nick J. Taylor . The impact of business conditions and commodity market on US stock returns: An asset pricing modelling experiment. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(3): 433-458. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022019
    [9] Andrey Kudryavtsev . Absolute Stock Returns and Trading Volumes: Psychological Insights. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2017, 1(2): 186-204. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2017.2.186
    [10] Rubaiyat Ahsan Bhuiyan, Tanusree Chakravarty Mukherjee, Kazi Md Tarique, Changyong Zhang . Hedge asset for stock markets: Cryptocurrency, Cryptocurrency Volatility Index (CVI) or Commodity. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2025, 9(1): 131-166. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2025005
  • For a wider dissemination and implementation of small wind turbines for rural electrification in developing countries, the cost of the system must be reduced. When searching for systems that are efficient and economical, Diffuser Augmented Wind turbine seems to have a potential role by increasing the power output and reducing the cost of the system most importantly at low speeds. In this paper, a detailed study has been done on Diffuser Augmented Wind Turbines to find a parametric relationship for power augmentation for horizontal axis wind turbines. A suitable diffuser was selected and its parameters were identified and their relationships were formulated based on Computational Fluid Dynamics. The result has been validated using experimental analysis. Based on the result, the power output and performance of a wind turbine is improved while using diffuser. The result shows the velocity peaks at a location immediately after the diffuser inlet. The velocity, then, levels off and further decreases as the flow continues to the diffuser outlet and exits it. This suggests a possible location of a wind turbine at the vicinity of the inlet. Based on the result, the length of the diffuser and the flange height were the major parameters to be considered. Maximum velocity ratios up to 1.5 were obtained with potential power increase of more than 2 times. It has also been observed that velocity ratios of up to 1.3 can be achieved with more compact diffusers potentially reducing the cost of the diffuser and the whole system. The mathematical relations obtained for the major parameters and the velocity ratio can be used in the performance prediction and optimization of a diffuser. Finally, possible directions for further research are recommended considering that this work shows a good agreement with previous works and predictions.


    The need for energy security, as well as, environmental concerns, are the main drivers behind the growth of bioenergy and consequently biofuels, in recent years. In 2009 the EU issued a mandatory environmental directive, Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC, regarding renewable energy, to address environmental problems that have arisen from the use of fossil fuels in energy generation. This directive specified that 20% of all energy in the EU-27 should be from renewable sources, with 10% of road transport energy coming from biofuels, by the end of 2020. Moreover, in 2012, an amendment of the directive required that first generation derived biofuels should be limited to 5%, reinforcing the need for further development of second-generation advanced biofuels. A report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects a scenario with 22% of transportation fuels coming from liquid biofuels and biogas by 2050 (Figure 1) [1].

    Figure 1.  Transport energy consumption (2050) [1].

    In addition to changes in legislation, the use of fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere and contributes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is directly related with climate change. Subsequently, there is renewed interest in the production of liquid biofuels from biomass since their use has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions [2]. "First generation" biofuels can contribute to CO2 emissions reduction, but they compete with land used for arable and pastoral farming; therefore, first generation biofuels are not included in this review. "Second generation" liquid biofuels are produced from non-food biomass, including agricultural and forest biomass residues, dedicated energy crops, lignocellulosic fraction of municipal and industrial solid waste [3]. Furthermore, waste vegetable oils and waste animal fats can be used for the generation of liquid biofuels. The same type of biomass can generate different sustainable liquid fuels depending on the applied technology. Figure 2 illustrates the fuels discussed in this paper. Challenges associated with the production of such fuels include cost effectiveness and technical issues.

    Figure 2.  Liquid fuels from biomass.

    Advanced liquid biofuels that are studied in this review include bioethanol, biodiesel, bio-methanol, dimethyl-ether, bio-oil, biobutanol, and biojet. Such biofuels (i.e. biodiesel and bioethanol) are characterized either by their ability to blend with existing petroleum fuels, or by their ability to be used in existing internal combustion engines. To preserve the integrity of engine manufacturer warrantees and ensure the same engine combustion, emissions, and performance output, second generation liquid biofuels are required to have similar properties to existing petroleum fuels. These properties among others include heating value, octane number, viscosity, water content, and flash point. Figure 3 shows how fossil fuels can be replaced by sustainable biofuels and their application.

    Figure 3.  Fossil fuel replacement and applications [4].

    In order to produce biofuels, researchers are developing and improving different pathways that can be divided into two main conversion routes, thermochemical or biochemical. The most studied biochemical routes are fermentation and transesterification processes, the most studied thermochemical routes are pyrolysis, gasification, and Fischer Tropsch processes. The sustainability of the pathways for the production of liquid biofuels significantly depends on the type of feedstock used and the end product specifications. Therefore, there is no best pathway or solution to produce renewable liquid fuels. This paper aims to provide an up to date review on the most promising second generation liquid biofuels and the sustainable pathways for their production. Challenges concerning the commercialisation of these biofuels are also discussed.

    Bioethanol is commonly produced from the fermentation of sugars and can be used as a petrol substitute to fuel spark ignition engines. Another pathway is through fermentation of syngas. Petrol is a liquid consisting of C4–C12 hydrocarbons and is produced by cracking crude oil. Ethanol can be used in its pure form (E-100) or blended with petrol. It should be noted that the use of pure ethanol (E-100) requires engine modifications to overcome issues associated with fuel compression, timing of injection, and engine corrosion. Bioethanol can be blended up to 10% and 15 % with petrol according to the requirements in the EN 15376 and ASTM D4806 specifications, respectively. The important properties of pure ethanol (E100) and its 10% blend with petrol (E10) can be seen in Table 1 and are compared with pure petrol.

    Table 1.  Key properties of petrol, ethanol (E-100), and 10% ethanol to petrol blend (E-10) [5].
    Properties Petrol E-100 E-10
    Viscosity mm2/s 0.48–0.84 1.57 (20 ℃) 0.53 (30 ℃)
    Flash Point ℃ −65 13 −40
    RON ℃ 86.4–100 108.6–114 87.4–94
    MON ℃ 80–98.8 89.7–112 86–99.9
    Octane number 86–94 98–100 -
    Cloud point ℃ −22 - 8
    Pour point ℃ (−17)–(−19) - 0
    MJ/Kg 41.9–44.4 26–30 33.19–44.22

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It can be observed that pure ethanol has a higher octane number than petrol suggesting that it has higher anti knocking properties. The flashpoint of ethanol and the blend is also higher than petrol making the fuel safer to handle during transport. Moreover, ethanol has a lower heating value.

    There are two processing routes for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into bioethanol: Fermentation of carbohydrates resulting from the hydrolysis of biomass into bioethanol and the fermentation of syngas. The alcohol produced from the fermentation of carbohydrates or syngas can be subjected further to ethanol dehydration, oligomerization, distillation, and hydrogenation to produce liquid biofuels, such as biojet fuel and green diesel.

    Bioethanol is currently produced from starch/sugar based biomass such as wheat and corn, but issues arise concerning the sustainability of such feedstocks since they compete with human food [6]. Alternative, lignocellulosic biomass can be used for the production of ethanol, but additional technological steps are required, making the process more complicated and costly. Another shortcoming of bioethanol production from sugars is that the process of fermentation is lengthy, usually taking hours or days to complete.

    Either acid or enzymatic hydrolysis (also known as saccharification) is required to convert the hemicellulose and cellulose constituents of lignocellulosic biomass into fermentable sugars. The lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose structure, form a chemical and physical barrier preventing the access of enzymes and the hydrolysis of biomass to produce fermentable sugars. This requires the separation of lignin from the biomass structure, reduction in the crystallinity of cellulose, and alterations in the surface area and porosity of the biomass [7]. Hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose results in the generation of mainly hexoses (glucose) and pentoses, respectively, although some hexoses can also be obtained from hemicellulose.

    The main steps for the production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass are pretreatment and/or detoxification, hydrolysis, fermentation, and product recovery [8]. Crushing the feedstock and mixing it with water is required prior to pretreatment to generate slurry. Zhu et al. concluded that the selection of the appropriate pretreatment technology significantly depends on feedstock type [9]. Biochemical fermentation of carbohydrates resulting from the hydrolysis of biomass takes place under the presence of specific microorganisms (yeast or bacteria) at temperatures of up to approximately 38 ℃ with either a batch, fed-batch, or continuous mode bioreactor. The selection of appropriate microorganisms depends on pretreatment conditions, fermentation conditions, and reactor configuration. Furthermore, the hydrolysate of lignocellulosic biomass can contain mixtures of sugars, such as pentoses and hexoses, and the desirable microorganisms should be able to convert both type of sugars. Zabed et al. presented a comprehensive overview on the technological approaches and microbial contribution to the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into ethanol [8]. Following pretreatment and hydrolysis the sugars released are then fermented by the relevant microorganisms and converted into ethanol. The microorganisms can be acquired from yeast, bacteria, and filamentous funghi and are chosen based on the ethanol yields that they can achieve in addition to the inhibitor tolerance.

    Ethanol yields depend on the biomass structure, pretreatment method, type of sugars (five or six carbon sugars), concentration of sugars in the hydrolysates, type of microorganisms, and the fermentation process conditions. The integration of hydrolysis and fermentation is also an important step to achieve process sustainability and high ethanol yields. De Silva et al. investigated the use of carnauba straw residue to produce ethanol by the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) process [10]. The SSF approach involves both cellulose hydrolysis and fermentation of hexose sugars in a single reactor. The pretreatment methods applied on the sample included hydrothermal (HT), alkaline (AL), and acid-alkaline (AA) treatment. It was shown that the AL pretreatment resulted in the most efficient removal of lignin and hemicellulose. Moreover, enzymatic hydrolysis of the AL treated sample converted 64.43% to sugars. The maximum ethanol concentration was achieved by using Kluyveromyces marxianus ATCC-36907 cultivated at 45 ℃ and generated 7.53 g/L of ethanol. Further work by Nguyen et al. studied the effectiveness of popping pretreatment in the saccharification process and its consequent effect on bioethanol yields, using coffee beans, cassava starch, and coconut [11]. Results revealed that saccharification efficiencies, after enzymatic hydrolysis, were increased significantly in all the popping-pretreated samples compared to the non-pretreated samples. The total fermentable sugars after pretreatment reached values up to 22.6 g/L, in comparison with the samples without pretreatment, which only achieved maximum values of 7.8 g/L.

    Nguyen et al. also investigated the effect of separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) and SSF processing on bioethanol production and foundthe SSF process more promising than the SHF process [11]. In their study ethanol conversion yields from the popping-pretreated sample (mixture of coffee beans, cassava starch, and coconut) using the SSF approach reached 88.1%, which is significantly greater than the yields of 76.8% (9.5 g/L) achieved by the SHF process. The SSF configuration was previously shown to be more effective in terms of ethanol concentration and conversion yields, in the conversion of corn stover and loblolly pine, when compared with SHF [12]. Ethanol yields of 84% (17.3 g/L) and 77% (15.4 g/L) were achieved from the SSF processing of corn stover and loblolly pine, respectively, while the yields were lower (76% for corn stover and 67% for loblolly pine), for the SHF processing. Dahnum et al. also study the influence of SHF and SSF on ethanol yields using empty fruit bunch [13]. Similar to the previous studies the SSF approach produced the highest concentration of ethanol.

    Cotana et al. investigated the potential of the SHF and semi-simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSSF) configurations for ethanol production using cardoon [14]. Steam explosion was the pretreatment method selected for the study. Similar to the previous studies the SSSF process displayed better results in terms of ethanol yields and length of the process. Another study used delignified coconut waste and cactus to compare the SSF and SSSF approach [15]. Similar, to Cotana et al., the SSSF configuration resulted in higher ethanol yields (up to 89.15%) when compared to SSF.

    Ishola et al. examined the potential of the simultaneous saccharification, filtration, and fermentation (SSFF) process of spruce chips on ethanol yields [16]. This process configuration involves the combination of SHF and SSF, with fermentation broth circulated between the hydrolysis and fermentation vessels. The samples were chemically pretreated with SO2 impregnation and exposed to a pressure of 22 bars, and a temperature of 215 ℃ for 5 minutes. Approximately, 31.1 g/L of ethanol was produced in the hydrolysis reactor after 96 hours of processing, which corresponds to 85.0% of the theoretical yield.

    Another configuration for ethanol production is simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) which involves both cellulose hydrolysis and fermentation of hexose and pentose sugars in a single reactor. Liu et al. used a dry biorefining approach including dry acid pretreatment, disk milling, and biodetoxification of corn stover, wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, and poplar sawdust to maximise the potential of SSCF [17]. The most promising feedstock was wheat straw, which produced 101.4 g/L of ethanol.

    Consolidated bioprocess (CBP) is another process configuration, where hydrolysis and fermentation take place in the same vessel simultaneously, as well as, producing the required hydrolytic enzymes within the process [18]. Horisawa et al. investigated the potential of direct ethanol production from wood chips in a single reactor under anaerobic conditions using the white rot fungus Schizophyllum commune NBRC 4928 [19]. This fungus was selected due its ability to produces enzymes that degrade all biomass constitutes including lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose. Initial tests were performed with polysacchatides and monosaccharides to determine the fungus's ability to produce ethanol from various types of sugar. Results show that the rate of saccharification was slower for polysacchatides fermentation. Concerning the fermentation of wood chips, successful delignification and ethanol production were achieved by also adding the lignin-degrading fungus T. cucumeris IWA5b to the culture. The study demonstrated that the combined use of lignin and polysaccharide degrading fungi was successful and that direct ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass, without pretreatment, could be feasible. Huang et al. also demonstrated the feasibility of producing ethanol directly from sugarcane bagasse (without pretreatment) using the Recombinant Trichoderma reesei Strain HJ48 [20]. The maximum ethanol concentration produced was 3.1 g/L after 120 hours of cultivation. Recent work by Loaces et al. showed that Arundo donax biomass can be converted into ethanol by a genetically modified E. coli under a SSF process configuration. It should be noted that the biomass was pretreated with 2% sulfuric acid in mild conditions [21].

    Another pathway for production of ethanol is through fermentation of syngas. Lignocellulosic waste materials can be converted initially through gasification into a gas mixture (syngas) consisting of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), water vapour, and short chain hydrocarbon gases [22]. During gasification, all biomass components are utilised, including lignin, which is the main advantage of the process when compared with saccharification fermentation where only hemicellulose and cellulose are consumed.

    The fermentation of syngas involves mixing together carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide, which are converted into acetate, followed by ethanol. Typical reactions are the following:

    4CO+2H2OCH3COOH+2CO2 (1)
    6CO+3H2OC2H5OH+4CO2 (2)
    6H2+2CO2C2H5OH+3H2O (3)

    Syngas produced from gasification contains impurities, such as nitrous oxide, alkali compounds, and tars. Impurities can affect microbial activities and the pH of the fermenting broth, which could lead to cell toxicity, thus gas cleaning is required prior to fermentation. The optimum temperature range for the mesophilic bacteria is 37–40 ℃, whereas for the thermophilic bacteria the range is 55–80 ℃. The process takes place under strict anaerobic conditions. The most promising microorganisms are acetogens, such as C. carboxidivorans and A. bacchi, which can metabolize CO, CO2, and H2 to alcohols and organic acids [23,24]. These microorganisms use two metabolic steps, an acidogenic, and a solventogenic. The acidogenic step involves the main bacterial growth where acids are produced with little or no production of alcohols. The generation of ethanol occurs in the solventogenic step in which alcohol is produced from the formed acids or to a lesser extent, directly from syngas consumption.

    Syngas fermentation was performed using a two-stage continuous system with two stirred tank reactors connected in series by Abubackar et al. [25]. The effectiveness of the microorganism clostridium carboxidivorans on the production of acids and alcohols was investigated in continues mode. Syngas (CO:CO2:H2:N2; 30:10:20:40; vol%) was supplied at a constant flow rate while a nutrient medium was provided at different flow rates (8.1–30 ml/h). The bioreactors were maintained at different pH levels to enhance acidogenesis (pH 6) and stimulate solventogenesis (pH 5). The highest ethanol concentration was 1.51 g/L and it was achieved for medium flow rates of 22 ml/h. Previous work by Fernández-Naveira et al. used the same medium as mentioned previously to investigate the conversion of syngas by Clostridium carboxidivorans into hexanol, butanol, and ethanol (H-B-E fermentation) [26]. Syngas with composition of CO:CO2:H2:N2 (20:20:10:50) was provided continuously at 10 mL/min using a two-stage continuous system with two stirred tank reactors connected in series. The maximum concentrations of ethanol, butanol, and hexanol, were achieved at a pH of 5.75 and were 2.7 g/L, 1.9 g/L, and 0.85 g/L, respectively.

    Devarapalli et al. investigated the use of Clostridium ragsdalei, which is another acetogen microorganism, for the conversion of syngas into ethanol [27]. A trickle bed reactor was utilised as the fermentation bioreactor while a syngas mixture of CO:CO2:H2:N2 (38:28.5:28.5:5), as well as, the medium, were fed continuously. The highest ethanol concentration (5.7 g/L) was accomplished at 200 ml/min of liquid flow rate and 4.6 sccm syngas flow rate. An interesting approach to enhance ethanol production during syngas fermentation was to use biochar as a medium to serve as nutrients to the Clostridium ragsdalei since it contains mineral and metals [28]. The study compared four fermentation media containing biochar from switchgrass, forage sorghum, red cedar, and poultry litter, with a standard yeast extract medium. Syngas fermentations were conducted in 250 mL bottle reactors at 150 rpm and 37 ℃ with syngas containing CO:H2:CO2 (40:30:30) by volume. The poultry litter derived biochar medium showed the highest ethanol improvement (58.9%) in comparison to the yeast medium. It is believed that this is due the high release of Na, K, Ca, Mg, S and P from the biochar derived medium.

    The use of a mixed culture in a corn steep liquor containing A. bacchi strain CP15 and C. propionicum was also researched [29]. Syngas fermentation with cell recycle was performed in a 7 L continuous stirred tank reactor with a syngas composition of CO:CO2:H2:N2 (20:15:5:60) by volume. The mixed culture medium was able to produce 8 g/L, 6 g/L and 1 g/L of ethanol, n-propanol and n-butanol, respectively.

    Biobutanol (C4H9OH) can be used as a petrol substitute since its properties are comparable to petroleum derived petrol. It can be produced from lignocellulosic biomass via the process of fermentation. Similar to the fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol (mentioned in Section 2.1.1) pretreatment steps are also required. The important properties of pure biobutanol can be seen in Table 2 and are compared with pure petrol.

    Table 2.  Key properties of petrol and biobutanol [30,31].
    Properties Biobutanol Petrol
    Boiling point (℃) 118 200
    Freezing point (℃) −89 −40
    Density (kg/m3) 810 760
    Heat of vaporization (MJ/kg) 0.43 0.36
    Energy density (MJ/L) 30 32
    Cetane no ~25 5–20
    Flash point (℃) 35 −42
    Auto-ignition temperature (℃) 397 257

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Biobutanol can be produced by the same pathways as bioethanol; Figure 4 illustrates the production routes of bioethanol and biobutanol. As mentioned previously, butanol is produced simultaneously with ethanol from the fermentation of sugars or syngas [26,28]. Biobutanol production from fermentation of syngas including recent technological advances was discussed in the bioethanol section. With regards to fermentation of sugars, the conventional pathway for biobutanol production is the acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation route using the microorganism Clostridium acetobutylicum. The main challenge is the recovery of butanol from the fermentation broth, since it is difficult to exceed 2% (v/v), while ethanol can reach yields of up to 15% (v/v).

    Figure 4.  Bioethanol and biobutanol simplified production route.

    Xue et al. investigated the potential of Jerusalem artichoke stalk (JAS) as a feedstock for microbial butanol production and the vapour stripping-vapor permeation (VSVP) process for butanol recovery [32]. JAS was subjected initially to alkaline pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis to achieve delignification and fermentable sugar release. It was found that 11.8 g/L of butanol was produced under the optimum conditions using a Clostridium microorganism. Moreover, the VSVP process proved to be more productive for butanol recovery from the fermentation broth, than conventional pervaporation process. Further work by Xue et al. [33] reviewed the problems and advances in butanol production by Clostridium acetobutylicum to achieve process feasibility. It was concluded that in-situ product recovery techniques can lead to a reduction in the production cost of biobutanol, since the continuous removal and purification of inhibitory products during fermentation, results in the generation of ABE in a concentrated solution. Furthermore, genome editing of Clostridium acetobutylicum could lead to a significant improvement in biobutanol yields.

    Biodiesel can be defined as fatty acid methyl/ethyl ester (FAME and FAEE) derived from transesterification and esterification of vegetable oils or animal fats and alcohol (methanol or ethanol), usually in the presence of a basic, acid, or enzyme catalyst [34]. Currently, first generation biodiesel is produced on a large scale and is blended with fossil derived diesel. It is regulated by the standards ASTM D6751 and EN 14214. Table 3 shows the key properties and differences between regulated biodiesels and fossil diesel.

    Table 3.  Key properties of biodiesel and fossil diesel.
    Properties Biodiesel (ASTM D6751) Biodiesel (EN 14214) Fossil diesel
    Density 15 ℃ (kg/m3) 880 860–900 820–850
    Viscosity @ 40 ℃ (cSt) 1.9–6.0 3.5–5.0 2.04–3.23
    Calorific value (MJ/kg) - 35 42–48
    Acidity total (mgKOH/g) Max. 0.50 Max. 0.5 0.02
    Cetane number (min) Min. 47 Min. 51 Min. 40
    Iodine number (max) - 120 -
    Flash point (℃) Min. 93 Min. 120 Min. 52
    Pour point (℃) −15 to 10 - −35 to −15
    Cloud point (℃) −3 to 12 - −15 to 5
    Cold filter plugging point (℃) 19 Max. 5 5
    Copper strip corrosion (3 h–50 ℃) Max. 3 Min. 1 Max. 3
    Sulphur % (ppm) Max. 15 Max. 10 Max. 15
    Sulphated ash % (m/m) Max. 0.02 Max. 0.02 Max. 0.01
    Oxidation stability (min, 110 ℃) 3 6 -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Compared to fossil diesel, biodiesel has low sulphur and aromatics content, high biodegradability, low stability (which can be increased with the addition of antioxidants) [35] and high NOx emissions when burned [36].

    Biodiesel is produced through the transesterification/esterification reaction. The oil (triglycerides and free fat acids (FFA)) reacts with an alcohol (usually methanol) in the presence of a catalyst (mainly alkaline) to form alkyl esters (fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) when reacted with methanol) and glycerol or water. The exemplified reactions are below:

    Triglycerides+3alcohol3ethylesters+glycerol (4)
    Fattyacid+alcoholethylester+water (5)

    Many studies have been performed to identify the best catalyst for biodiesel production. The most commonly used catalysts are the alkaline ones (NaOH and KOH), however they require less water and FFA in the oil, so this route is limited by the feedstock properties. Waste cooking oil, for example, has a large amount of FFA and is not suitable for this route. Therefore, more catalytic routes have been developed including heterogeneous catalysts, acid catalysts, and enzymes [37]. The latest studies focus on the use of heterogeneous catalysts from biological waste because of their high activity, tolerance to water, non-toxicity, and enviromental benefits [38].

    Other studies have focussed on eliminating catalysts all together by using supercritical fluids including, subcritical hydrolysis for lipid extraction integrated into supercritical esterification and, direct supercritical transesterification. The advantage of these approaches is their high tolerance to water and FFA, therefore they are more suitable for cooking oil and wet biomass (algae). However, their efficiency and economic feasibility need to be improved in order to make these technologies viable for larger scale applications [39].

    Another biofuel that can be blended or replace fossil diesel is green or renewable diesel [40]. Green diesel is derived from the diesel fraction of upgraded bio-oil or Fischer–Tropsch (FT) wax. In this case, green diesel, has not been derived from the transesterification process and can be obtained by hydroprocessing (HDO), followed by cracking or isomerisation, of bio-oil or FT wax. This technology will be explained further in Section 2.6.2 and Section 2.8.1.2. However, it is not commonly used yet, as its production costs are higher when compared to biodiesel, and operating conditions are more complex (higher temperatures and pressures). Green diesel has a higher cetane number (around 70–90) when compared to biodiesel (50–65) and diesel (40) and a higher range of cloud point (from −20 to 20 ℃) due to isomerisation after the HDO step [41]. Thus, it is more stable. Moreover, green diesel has a higher calorific value, lower oxygen content, lubricity, density, and viscosity when compared with biodiesel [42].

    Biomethanol is an alcohol (CH3OH) that can be produced by catalytic (usually copper, zinc or chromium oxides) hydrogenation of syngas (carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide) or biogas (methane) [43,44]. Its production can be divided into 3 reactions:

    CO+2H2\vboxto.5ex\vssCH3OH(twostages:CO+H2\vboxto.5ex\vssCH2OfollowedbyCH2O+H2\vboxto.5ex\vssCH3OH) (6)
    CO2+3H2\vboxto.5ex\vssCH3OH+H2O (7)
    CH4+H2O\vboxto.5ex\vssCH2OH+H2O (8)

    The reactions occur at 200–300 ℃ and 50–100 bar and the use of catalysts are required in order to force thermodynamic equilibrium for methanol production. The recycling of the unreacted gas and the required cooling systems (due to the exothermic nature of the reaction) are responsible for the main costs of the synthesis process [45].

    For methanol synthesis, the syngas ratio (H2/CO2) is required to be higher than 2. Thus, cleaning of syngas is carried out before methanol generation in order to optimize its composition. Furthermore, syngas contains impurities, such as sulphur and chlorides that can be harmful to the environment and/or deactivate the catalyst [46]. Another way of optimising the process is the conversion of CO to CO2 using a water gas shift catalyst or a catalytic membrane reactor immediately after the gasification process [47]. CO2 is then converted to methanol by catalytic hydrogenation. The produced biomethanol also requires a purification step in order to meet specifications. This process can be realised at a competitive price when biomethanol is used as a biofuel blend and methanol can be directed to the production of other fuels such as biodiesel, DME, and OME [47]. Biomethanol production can be simplified with the approach presented in Figure 5 below:

    Figure 5.  Biomethanol simplified production route.

    It has been shown that biomethanol has a competitive cost production and GHG emissions reduction when compared to methanol production from fossil fuels [48]. Biomethanol can be used as direct blending with petrol and maritime fuel, for transesterification, and as feedstock for DME/OME synthesis [49].

    Poly (oxymethylene) dimethyl ethers (OME) and dimethyl ether (DME) are diesel substitutes and can be used in compression ignition engines without major modifications. Biomethanol can be used as feedstock for the generation of OME/DME. The DME structure is CH3OCH3, while OME is H3CO(CH2O)nCH3, with n from 2 to 8, preferably 3 to 5 for diesel replacement [48]. The properties of these fuels in comparison with diesel are presented in Table 4 [49,50].

    Table 4.  Key properties of DME and OME.
    Properties DME OME Fossil diesel
    Molecular weight 46.07 76–196.2 96
    Density 20 ℃ (kg/m3) 660 960–1105 800–840
    Viscosity @ 40 ℃ (cSt) 0.12–0.15 0.64–1.75 2–4
    Calorific value (MJ/kg) 28.5 18.5–23.3 42.5
    Cetane number (min) 55–60 60–90 Min. 40

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    DME has a high oxygen content, low viscosity, low lubrication, and LHV when compared to fossil diesel fuel [51]. DME has already been tested in diesel engines; information regarding emissions and performance are established. When compared to diesel combustion, DME emits lower levels of particulate matter, HC, and nitrous oxides (NOx) [51], but also has inferior performance (due to the lower LHV) [52]. OME does not contain impurities and has a cetane number higher than conventional diesel, but it has a lower HHV. Costs analysis confirms that OME production could be even cheaper than diesel production [50].

    The main pathway for DME production is methanol dehydration in a catalytic gas-phase reactor followed by purification and distillation [53]. Common catalysts used are solid-acid catalysts, such as alumina, zeolites, AlPO4, and CuO/ZrO2. DME synthesis usually occurs in slurry or fixed bed reactors, but the process can also take place in fluidized-bed reactors, coupled and dual type, as well as, membrane reactors [54]. The reaction of the commercialised process is presented below:

    2CH3OHCH3OCH3+H2O (9)

    A promising route that is currently being studied is DME production in a one stage reactor. DME can be produced directly from syngas, at 250–400 ℃ and pressures higher than 10 bar, in an exothermic reaction using a bi-functional catalyst that is able to synthesise methanol followed by DME. The process is strongly influenced by the presence of water, H2/CO ratio, CO2 content, and reaction temperature [56].

    For OME production, the methanol is utilised by a metal oxide catalytic process (or with silver catalyst) to produce formaldehyde as shown in the reactions below:

    CH3O+1/2O2CH2O+H2O (10)
    CH3OCH2O+H2 (11)

    From the formaldehyde, trioxane is produced with the use of sulphuric acid (3CH2O → (CH2O)3) and methylal is produced by a reaction-distillation process with an acidic heterogeneous catalyst (2CH3OH + CH2O ⇄ CH3O-CH2O-CH3 + H2O) [50]. The most used catalysts are liquid catalysts (mineral acid (H2SO4) or ionic liquids) and heterogeneous catalysts (ion exchange resin, carbon marerial, solid superacid, zeolite and others) [55].

    The catalytic steps involved in OME synthesis is the main drawback of the process. Therefore, further research has been undertaken aiming to simplify the process with more efficient and feasible catalysts [57].

    Further optimisations regarding the feasibility of the DME/OME routes has been investigated in regards to the optimization of the gasification and methanol process. Parvez (2018) showed that CO2-enhanced gasification resulted in better energy efficiency and less environmental impact when producing DME compared to conventional gasification [56].

    Bio-oil is the primary product from the process of pyrolysis, which can be obtained from the thermal decomposition of lignocellulose biomass with rapid heating in the absence of oxygen followed by rapid quenching of the vapour products. It is a multicomponent mixture consisting of hundreds of different sized molecules obtained from the depolymerisation and fragmentation of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin [57]. A typical compound distribution in bio-oil includes acids, esters, alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, sugars, furans, hydrocarbons (such as alkene, aromatics), phenols (such as phenols, anisoles, catechols, guaiacols, syringols), water, and fragments of cellulose and lignin [58,59]. The composition and yields of bio-oil are significantly dependent on the process operating parameters, reactor configuration, and feedstock type.

    Bio-oil can be used as a substitute for fuel oil or diesel in many industrial boilers, furnaces, and static engines for heat and power generation. The USA has developed the ASTM D7544, which covers the specification of pyrolysis liquid produced from biomass for use in various types of fuel-burning equipment.

    Significant upgrading of bio-oil is required to meet engine specifications, since its physiochemical properties vary significant from those of conventional fossil fuels (Table 5). The main reason for the differences between bio-oil and transportation fuels is the high content of oxygen in bio-oil, which tends to resemble its original biomass [60]. Furthermore, it is immiscible with fossil fuels, because of its high polarity and hydrophilic nature. The indigenous undesired properties of bio-oil that makes it unsuitable as a transportation fuel are given below:

    Table 5.  Typical physical properties of fast pyrolysis bio-oils and mineral oils [61].
    Analysis Typical wood derived bio-oil Fossil diesel LFO Motor/heating EN590
    Water, wt.% 20–30 ∼0 ∼0
    Stability Unstable*
    Viscosity (40 ℃), cSt 15–35 2.04–3.23 2.0–4.5
    Density (15 ℃), kg/dm3 1.10–1.30c 0.820–0.850 Max. 0.845
    Flash point, ℃ 40–110d Min. 52 Min.60
    Pour point, ℃ −9–36 −35−15 −5 min
    LHV, MJ/kg 13–18c 42–48 42.6
    Distillability Non-distillable Distillable Distillable
    *Polymerisation occurs during heating for prolonged periods.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    ● Low heating value,

    ● Immiscible with fossil transportation fuels,

    ● Acidity,

    ● High oxygen content,

    ● High viscosity,

    ● High water content,

    ● High solid content.

    Bio-oil can be used in other applications, such as a food flavouring and chemical production, however our focus is on its potential as a biofuel for transportation.

    Pyrolysis is defined as the thermal decomposition of organic matter in the complete absence of oxygen (usually nitrogen). Pyrolysis takes place in the temperature range 280–850 ℃ depending on the nature of the feedstock, the desired products, and the particular pyrolysis process employed. Depending on the heating rate and vapour phase residence time, pyrolysis can be classified into several categories. Slow pyrolysis is a batch process characterised by long vapour residence time (5–30 min), slow heat transfer rates up to 2 ℃/s, and low reactor temperatures ranging from 300–500 ℃. Intermediate pyrolysis is carried out in the temperature range 300–500 ℃ with heat transfer rates up to 1000 ℃/s. Fast pyrolysis is a continuous process and requires high heat transfer rates (>1000 ℃/s), short vapour residence time (1 s), and a relatively high temperature (450–600 ℃). Moreover, feedstock drying is necessary in fast pyrolysis, while slow and intermediate pyrolysis process feedstocks with higher moisture levels. Even though fast pyrolysis produces the highest bio-oil yields (up to 75 wt.% expressed on biomass basis), it has been shown that intermediate pyrolysis can produce better quality of bio-oil (low tar yield and viscosity) [62]. The processes described above occur under atmospheric pressure.

    In addition to the previous categorisation, hydrogen can be used instead of an inert nitrogen environment. Hydropyrolysis takes place under a pressurised hydrogen atmosphere, which results in the reduction of unsaturated hydrocarbons and formation of fewer compounds in the bio-oil with higher selectivity [63]. It seems that the presence of hydrogen avoids the random thermal cracking that takes place under a nitrogen environment and promotes the systematic bond cleavage in the structure of biomass, thus increasing the quality of the produced bio-oil. Pressurised water can also be used to achieve the thermochemical conversion of biomass into bio-oil in a process termed hydrothermal liquefaction [64]. Typical operating temperatures are 250–374 ℃ and operating pressures from 4–22 MPa. Another promising pyrolysis mode is microwave pyrolysis [65]. The fundamental difference here is that microwave waves heat the biomass particles from within and not by external heat transfer from a high temperature heat source.

    ● Catalytic hydrotreatment

    The process takes place at high pressure (up to 200 bar) and moderate temperature (up to 400 ℃) in the presence of a heterogeneous catalyst. A hydrogen source is necessary to achieve the removal of the oxygenated compounds in bio-oil, such as ketones and carboxylic acids, and to produce an oil suitable to be used as a feedstock in a biorefinery or blend with diesel. Hydrotreatment rejects oxygen as water by catalytic reaction with hydrogen [66].

    (CH2O)+H2Catalyst(CH2)+H2O (12)

    Gollacota et al. summarised the following different type of reactions that occur during the process: Hydrodeoxygenation, hydrogenation, hydrogenolysis, hydrocracking, dehydration, and decarboxylation [67]. Hydrotreating (HT) gives a naphtha-like product that requires further refining to produce transport fuels, such as aviation fuel and green diesel [68].

    Commonly applied catalysts for the hytrotreating of bio-oil or bio-oil model compounds are alumina or aluminosilicate supported sulfided CoMo and NiMo catalysts. This review focuses on the upgrading of actual bio-oil, thus work regarding bio-oil model compounds is not discussed further. The main work involving the testing of sulphided CoMo or NiMo catalysts on wood derived bio-oil was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s [69,70]. Their results showed that even though the catalysts were effective in the enhancement of bio-oil, several issues, such as low upgraded bio-oil yields and catalyst deactivation caused by carbon/coke deposition, required further research. The disadvantage of alumina as a support material for the HT catalysts was its instability at high temperatures in the high water environment of the bio-oil. Thus, carbon-supported sulphided CoMo and NiMo catalysts were also tested as HT catalysts by Elliot et al. [71].

    Alternatively, noble metals have been tested, dispersed on active charcoal supports or metal oxides, for the HT of bio-oil [72,73,74]. Wildschut et al. used Ru, Rh, Pd and Pt over different supports to assess their effect on the deoxygenation of bio-oil in comparison with conventional HT catalysts. It was found that the Ru/C catalyst was greater than the HT catalysts with reference to bio-oil yields (up to 60 wt.%) and deoxygenation level (up to 90 wt.%). The type of catalyst precursor on catalyst performance was also found to play a role on the HT of bio-oil [76]. However, the high cost of noble metals significantly affects the industrialisation of the process.

    Inexpensive non-sulphided transition metal catalysts over various support materials, such as aluminosilicate and zeolite, have been studied for their HDO activity for bio-oil upgrading. Ni-based catalysts with three different support materials (active carbon, SBA-15 and Al-SBA-15) and their catalytic effects were tested with poplar derived bio-oil by Oh et al. [75]. The Ni/SBA-15 catalyst was found to show the highest degree of deoxygenation and upgraded bio-oil yields by 47.7 wt.%.

    Xu et al. investigated the effect of a non-sulphided bimetallic catalyst, MoNi/γ-Al2O3, for upgrading of pine sawdust derived bio-oil [76]. The catalyst seemed to improved pH and water content, but the oxygen content was not reduced significantly. The influence of the non-sulphided bimetallic FeCo/SiO2 catalyst, as well as, the monometallic Co/SiO2 and Fe/SiO2 catalysts, on deoxygenation of pine sawdust derived bio-oil was also tested [77]. The bimetallic Fe-Co/SiO2 catalysts decreased the upgraded bio-oil yields (23.85–26.94 wt.%) and increased the gas yields (10.35–22.90 wt.%). The bimetallic catalysts showed an improvement on HDO performance over the monometallic catalysts, but they produced lower upgraded bio-oil yields (23.85–26.94 wt.% in comparison of 31.23–33.91 wt.%).

    Furthermore, activated carbon supported Ni, Co and Mo phosphide catalysts have been shown to be promising for HT [78]. Guo et al. investigated the effect of phosphorus content on the deoxygenation of bio-oil by varying the metal/P ratio [79]. It was found that the addition of phosphorous to a certain level resulted in the improvement of H2 consumption, upgraded oil yields, and increased the degree of deoxygenation. The Ni-based catalysts seemed more promising than Co-based catalysts with regards to hydrogenation and HDO activities.

    ● Zeolite cracking

    Zeolite catalysts can be used to improve the quality of bio-oil in two configurations. One mode is in-situ upgrading which involves the integration of catalysts into the pyrolysis system. The other configuration involves catalytic upgrading as a downstream (decoupled) process. The process takes place under atmospheric pressure and does not require the presence of hydrogen. The reactions described for the HT process also take place in zeolite cracking, but the cracking reactions are the primary ones. Zeolite cracking rejects oxygen as CO2 and H2O, generating liquid hydrocarbon products through the remaining hydrocarbon fraction [80].

    C1H1.33O0.43+0.26O20.65CH1.2+0.34CO2+0.27H2O (13)

    ZSM-5 has been used extensively as a catalyst by a number of researchers to improve the quality of bio-oil. Comprehensive work was performed by Williams and Horne to study the effect of ZSM-5 on pyrolysis product yields and chemical distribution using a fluidised bed reactor [81]. The catalyst was placed at the reactor freeboard as a fixed bed (in-situ configuration). Results showed that the oil yields were reduced from 40.4 to 5.5 wt.% of biomass, while a reduction was also observed in the molecular weight (from 30–1300 u to 50–600 u) of the bio-oil. The chemical distribution of the bio-oil was also affected, particularly the formation of monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

    Furthermore, the influence of ZSM-5 temperature has been investigated. Catalytic experiments were performed over a range of temperatures from 400–600 ℃ [82]. It was found that the total liquid yields, molecular weight and oxygenated compounds (such as phenols and benzenediol) in bio-oil were reduced. On the contrary, the concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons and PAH were increased. Li et al. also investigated the effect of catalytic reaction temperature (390,410,450,470,500, or 550 ℃) and WHSV (1 to 5 h−1) on bio-oil using ZSM-5 [83]. The reactor configuration involved a fluidized bed reactor for pyrolysis coupled with a secondary fixed bed reactor for upgrading. It was observed that acid and ketones were reduced, whereas hydroxybenzene and monocyclic or dicyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were increased. Both researchers found that as catalytic temperature increased the upgraded bio-oil yields decreased while the opposite trend was observed for the gas yields. This is due the decomposition of bio-oil to light gases and carbon at higher temperatures. It should be noted that it is necessary to establish the optimum degree of cracking, where a sufficient amount of oxygen is removed but the yields of upgraded bio-oil are not too low. Catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) bio-oils with different organic oxygen contents (4–18 wt.%) were prepared in a bench-scale dual fluidized bed reactor system by ex-situ CFP of southern pine over HZSM-5, and the oils were subsequently hydrotreated over a sulphided CoMo catalyst at 170 bar [84].

    The main properties for the catalytic activity of zeolite catalysts are their shape selectivity and acidity. The limitations of the pore size (5A) of H-ZSM-5 in the case of large molecules justified further research using zeolite materials with larger pore size, such as MCM-41 and zeolite Y.

    Williams and Horne [85] studied the effect of different zeolite structures and activated alumina on bio-oil. Regarding the product yields, stainless steel balls, Na-ZSM-5, H-ZSM-5, Y and activated alumina showed a reduction in organic liquid yields (blank run—40.41%) of 11.80, 6.01, 5.47, 1.13 and 3.12 respectively, expressed on wt.% of biomass feed. The overall conclusions were that all the zeolites produced hydrocarbons (aromatic and PAHs); Y-zeolite formed higher PAHs levels compared to the other catalysts; ZSM-5 was the most effective catalyst; hydrocarbon yields were low, when expressed on wt.% of biomass feed.

    Extensive work related to the acidity and metal incorporation of catalysts was conducted by Antonakou et al. [86]. Pyrolysis experiments using Al-MCM-41 catalysts with various acidities (Si:Al ratios of 20, 40, 60) and metal containing Al-MCM-41catalysts (Cu, Fe and Zn) were conducted using a bench scale fixed bed reactor. An increase was observed in the amount of phenols and hydrocarbons in bio-oil, while the opposite effect occurred for the oxygenated compounds. It should be highlighted that a reduction in acids, carbonyls, and heavy compounds was also observed. The organic yields, though, decreased by about 9 wt.% (on biomass basis) when catalysts were applied.

    Metal oxide catalysts have also been tested for their catalytic effect on pyrolysis oils [87,88]. The effect of ZnO on bio-oil was studied by Nokkosmäki et al. in a fluidised bed reactor with capacity of 1 kg/h−1, with the catalytic fixed bed reactor connected into the side stream of the reactor system [89]. The pyrolysis reaction temperature was 525 ℃, while the catalytic reaction temperature was 400 ℃. Results revealed that the ZnO derived bio-oil had lower viscosity thus indicating an improvement in stability. Putun et al investigated the effect of MgO on pyrolysis product yields [90]. A fixed bed reactor was used with the catalyst placed as a bed material inside the reactor. Oxygen content of the treated bio-oil was reduced from 9.56% to 4.90% when different amounts of catalysts were applied.

    ● Filtration

    Bio-oil contains impurities, such as alkali metals and particulates, which cause problems in certain applications. Hot-vapour filtration can be used to reduce the solid content of the oil to less than 0.01% and the alkali content to less than 10 ppm [82,89]. However, bio-oil requires further upgrading since the primary reason for its immiscibility with fossil fuels is its oxygen content.

    ● Supercritical fluids (SCFs)

    A fluid is defined as supercritical when its pressure and temperature go beyond its critical point and it has the ability to dissolve materials that are not normally soluble in either the liquid or gaseous phase of the SCFs. In the case of bio-oil production, the use of SCF organic solvents, results in an oil with higher caloric values, lower viscosity, and higher yields [90]. Typical SCFs organic solvents have been identified by Baloch et al. and include ethanol, butanol, acetones, methanol, n-hexanol, 2-propanol, and 1, 4-di-oxane [91].

    ● Solvent addition/esterification

    Esterification can reduce the acidity of bio-oil by removing the carboxylic acids. The reaction takes place in the presence of a catalyst and a solvent to generate esters. Catalysts used for esterification are solid acid, solid alkali, and ionic liquid ion exchange resins [92,93,94].

    ● Emulsification (emulsions)

    Emulsification is a physical method for upgrading bio-oil. Homogenous emulsion of bio-oil with diesel can be achieved by agitation with an emulsifier [95].

    Biojet fuel or renewable aviation fuel is a biomass derived fuel and contains hydrocarbons with a boiling range similar to fossil jet fuel (170–300 ℃). Fossil jet fuel is composed of approximately 20% paraffin, 40% isoparaffin, 20% naphthenes and 20% aromatics. Depending on the pathway, biojet fuel does not always contain aromatic compounds. Mixtures of up to 50% biojet fuel with aviation fossil fuels have been established as a standard to overcome this issue. Biojet fuel is only certified if it has similar properties with fossil jet fuel, such as energy content and density. Some characteristics of biojet fuel (according to ASTMD 7566) that are similar to fossil jet fuel are presented in Table 6 [96].

    Table 6.  Key properties of biojet fuel (ASTMD7566).
    Properties Biojet fuel
    Acidity, total (mgKOH/g) 0.1 max
    Flash point (℃) 38 min
    Density @15 ℃ (kg/m3) 775–840
    Freezing point (℃), max −40 JetA; −47 JetA1
    Viscosity @ −20 ℃ (cSt) 8, max
    Net heat of comb (MJ/kg) 42.8, min

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Certified biojet fuel can be blended up to 50% with conventional aviation fossil fuel according to the requirements in the ASTM D7566 specification. The following processes have been certified by the standard for production of renewable aviation fuel.

    HRJ also known as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) are paraffinic liquids with the chemical formula CnH2n+2. HRJs are produced by the hydrodeoxygenation of triglyceride-based feedstocks, followed by isomerisation and cracking, forming fuels equivalent to conventional aviation fossil fuel. The use of bio-oil as a triglyceride-based feedstock is not yet certified.

    The triglyceride-based feedstock is firstly converted to lineal long chain hydrocarbons, under high pressure and temperature in the presence of hydrogen and a solid catalyst (hydrodeoxygenation, see Section 2.6.2); by-products formed are water, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Isomerisation and cracking convert the lineal long chain hydrocarbons into the hydrocarbon chains that are in the range C8 to C16 (biojet fuel). Light gases, naphtha, and green diesel are produced in addition to biojet fuel. In comparison to fossil fuels, HRJ fuels possess a higher cetane number, lower aromatic content, lower sulphur content, and potentially lower GHG emissions.

    The hydrotreating process has been demonstrated at pilot plant level by UOP Honeywell for the production of renewable jet fuel using second-generation oils as feedstock [97]. It should be noted that information concerning the type of catalyst involved in the UOP Honeywell process is not publicly available. There are few studies in literature focussing on hydrotreating of sustainable feedstocks for biojet fuel production. Promising work has been performed by Robota et al. regarding the conversion of algal triglycerides to biodiesel and HEFA jet fuel fractions [98]. The proposed process involves deoxygenation, hydrogenation, and hydro isomerisation using a 3% Pd/carbon, a 0.5% Pt/alumina, and a 0.5% Pt/US-Y zeolite catalyst, respectively. Choi et al. studied the use of a Pt/TiO2 catalyst with a W addition for the deoxygenation of Jatropha fatty acid derived from Jatropha oil by hydrolysis [99]. The deoxygenation reaction was carried out in a fixed-bed reactor without the presence of hydrogen producing saturated hydrocarbons (C17 and C15) with a degree of deoxygenation of 86%.

    Zhao et al. investigated the upgrading of non-edible sunflower oils over a ZSM-5 catalyst in a fixed-bed reactor, at three different reaction temperatures (450 ℃, 500 ℃ and 550 ℃), followed by distillation [100]. The maximum conversion efficiency of sunflower oils to hydrocarbon fuels was 30.1% and was realised at 550 ℃. Even though the properties of the hydrocarbon fraction were improved after upgrading and distillation, further refining is required to remove the remaining oxygen atoms. Liu et al. used Ni supported on moderate acidic zeolites to produce biojet fuel from castor oil by hydroprocessing in a continuous-flow fixed-bed microreactor followed by isomerization and hydrocracking [101]. The main observation of this work was that the acid strength of zeolite had an important role in the conversion of castor oil into biojet range alkanes. It should be mentioned that the oils produced meet all of the basic jet-fuel mixing requirements according to ASTM D7566. The conversion of waste cooking oil to jet biofuel has also been researched with nickel-based mesoporous zeolite Y catalyst [102]. Moreover, NiMo, CoMo, and NiW sulfide catalysts were also applied during hydrodeoxygenation of waste cooking oil [103]. During both studies the deoxygenation of cooking oil was achieved and converted into jet range alkanes, but further investigation is required to achieve higher fuel yields.

    FT fuels are biomass derived hydrocarbon fuels, which are produced from the catalytic conversion of syngas. The integration of gasification with Fisher Tropsch synthesis shows great potential as a sustainable route for production of biodiesel and biojet fuel from biomass [104,105,106,107]. Process temperature varies from 700–1000 ℃ and requires a gasifying agent, such as steam or air. The process is carried out under atmospheric pressure typically with a fixed bed gasifier which is categorised as either updraft, downdraft, or crossdraft [108].

    Fischer Tropsch technology involves conversion of syngas into long chain hydrocarbon products, either straight or branched. FT synthesis occurs in two temperature ranges, a low temperature FT (LTFT) and a high temperature FT (HTFT), which range between 200–240 ℃ and 300–350 ℃, respectively [109]. The low temperature process uses either iron or cobalt catalysts, while the high temperature process uses iron-based catalysts [110,111]. Pressures range from 10–60 bar. Typical reactor types are circulated fluidised bed and fluidised bed for HTFT and tubular fixed bed and slurry phase for LTFT [109].

    FT synthesis converts the gasification gas mixture into a mixture of light (C1–C4), naphtha (C5–C11), diesel (C12–C20) and heavier hydrocarbons/wax (>C20) [112,113]. The latter requires further catalytic hydrocracking to produce biojet fuel and green diesel. Liquid product yields from FT synthesis can be up to 95%. This crude FT product requires further processing for the synthesis of the FT fuel. The composition of the crude FT product strongly depends on the H2/CO ratio, the catalyst, pressure, and temperature process conditions. Furthermore, cracking and isomerization of the crude FT product generates FT fuel with hydrocarbon chains that are in the range C8–C16, corresponding to biojet fuel.

    Recent work by Hillestad et al. demonstrated the feasibility of a power and biomass plant for the production of Fischer-Tropsch biojet fuel compared to a conventional Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL) process [114]. It was shown that the carbon efficiency of a conventional BtL process can be increased from 38% to more than 90%. This was achieved by adding hydrogen from high temperature steam electrolysis in a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC), with high temperature steam generated from the hot syngas. Moreover, SOEC produces oxygen, which is supplied as oxidant in the gasifier, thereby eliminating the need for a cryogenic air separation unit. Previously, Viguié et al. presented the BioTfueL project, which produces biojet fuel and green diesel from second generation feedstocks [115]. This project focuses on the original concept of co-processing (biomass and fossil feedstock). The selection of the appropriate catalyst for hydrocracking of crude FT is also an important parameter to achieve process feasibility. Hanaoka et al. produced biojet fuel by hydrocracking an FT product derived from woody biomass via gasification [116]. The maximum jet fuel yield was 29.1 C-mol% with a Pt-loaded zeolite catalyst with particle size of 7.6 nm.

    SIP fuels, were formerly known as direct-sugar-to-hydrocarbon (DSHC) fuels. The process involves the biochemical fermentation of carbohydrate sugars to hydrocarbon fuels through purification and hydroprocesing, without producing ethanol first. The sugars can be derived from the hydrolysis of biomass or from direct sugar sources such as sugar cane residues. Blends of 10% volume of SIPs with aviation fossil fuels are permitted by ASTM D7566.

    ATJ fuels are produced by thermal and biochemical fermentation of carbohydrates obtained from the hydrolysis of biomass. The sugars extracted by hydrolysis are fermented, followed by distillation to get bio alcohol. Direct use of alcohol as jet fuel requires engine modification, thus further processing needs to occur to produce a suitable jet fuel. The next steps are alcohol dehydration, oligomerisation, hydrogenation followed by distillation to produce a biojet fuel similar to fossil aviation fuel. Additionally, the process produces naphtha and diesel. Lanzatech is the world's first large scale ATJ facility producing commercial quantities of fuel in the UK [117]. The commercial facility will convert ethanol produced from waste to biojet.

    Other promising pathways for biojet fuel production that are not yet certified by the standard are:

    ● Catalytic hydro-thermolysis (CH) fuels, also termed hydrothermal liquefaction. The same process is followed as described for the SIPs, but it involves catalytic conversion of sugars instead of biochemical fermentation.

    ● Hydro-treated depolymerized cellulosic jet (HDCJ), also known as fast pyrolysis with upgrading to jet fuel.

    ● Gas fermentation process. Instead of catalytically upgrading FT syngas to biojet fuel, it is also possible to ferment syngas to liquid biofuels. The cooled syngas can be fermented to ethanol or butanol by acetogenic bacteria followed by oligomerisation and hydrogenation to produce biojet fuel.

    Various pathways have been developed for the production of second generation liquid biofuels. This review considers only sustainable feedstocks that do not compete with food production including sugar and starch crop residues, lignocellulosic biomass and waste, and non edible oils (or fats). Figure 6 illustrates the fuels and their production routes.

    Figure 6.  Pathways for the production of advanced liquid biofuels.

    Sugar and starch type agricultural residues are converted through biochemical fermentation to bioethanol or biobuthanol. Further processing through hydroprocessing and cracking/isomerization produces biojet fuel and green diesel. Another approach for the latter fuels using sugar and starch feedstocks is through catalytic conversion followed by hydroprocessing and cracking/isomerization. Lignocellulosic feedstocks can be converted to sugars by hydrolysis, syngas by gasification or bio-oil by pyrolysis. The produced syngas can be directed to biochemical fermentation, Fisher-Tropsch and biometanol synthesis. Biomethanol (generated from the methanol synthesis) can be used directly as biofuel or to generate DME and OME. Pyrolysis derived bio-oil can be subjected to further processing through zeolite cracking or hydro-deoxygenation to produce a de-oxygenated bio-oil which after cracking/isomerization produces biojet fuel, petrol, and green diesel. Oils and fats can be directed either to zeolite cracking and hydro-deoxygenation or to transesterification and esterification, to generate green diesel and biodiesel, respectively. A comparison of the main advantages and disadvantages of the technological pathways for second generation liquid biofuels are summarised in Table 7.

    Table 7.  Comparison of technological routes for biofuels generation.
    Product Pathway Advantages Challenges
    Ethanol Biochemical fermentation from sugars Well-developed route Acid/enzymatic step allows for feedstock diversification Development of microorganisms to be able to convert both type of sugars Research on process integration is required to achieve process feasibility
    Fermentation of syngas All biomass components are utilised, including lignin Syngas conditioning is required
    Butanol Biochemical fermentation from sugars Simultaneous process with ethanol production Product recovery process
    Fermentation of syngas
    Biodiesel Catalytic Transesterification Well-developed route Market ready for the product Catalyst developed for first generation oils
    Supercritical Transesterification High feedstock tolerance Expensive process when compared to the catalytic route Extreme conditions and high energy demand (more development needed)
    Green diesel Bio-oil upgrading (HDO and HC) Less feedstock limitation Similarity with fossil diesel Bio-oil production technology challenges Catalyst
    Biomethanol Gasification + MeOH Synthesis Cost competitive with methanol from fossil fuels Developed market for the product Gasification process challenges Syngas conditioning
    DME/OME DME/OME Synthesis Used as diesel replacement Not expensive Inferior performance compared to the fossil fuel Challenges from the methanol production
    Petrol Hydroprocessing followed by cracking/isomerisation Several production routes Further development on processing of bio-oil Low yields, is produced as a by-product
    Biojet fuel Hydroprocessing of triglycerides Cost competitive than the other biojet routes Cost of catalysts and hydrogen Limited feedstock tolerance Product refining
    Biochemical fermentation of sugars to hydrocarbons Fewer technological steps than ATJ fuels Product refining
    Biochemical fermentation of sugars to ethanol followed by hydrogenation Less feedstock limitation Product refining
    FT synthesis All biomass components are utilised, including lignin Cost of FT synthesis

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The technoeconomic feasibility of a production pathway chosen for fuel production is dependant on a number of different factors, such as market demand, feedstock availability, and market readiness in each location. Location on its own is also an important factor, influencing both the feedstock supply chain and plant construction and commissioning costs. In Brazil the abundance of arable land, as well as, the availability of sugar cane and bagasse, has lead to the dominance of bioethanol in the Brazilian market. In addition to geographical, political influence has also been an important driver of the bioethanol market in Brazil today, where public policy has helped to create the largest flexible-fuel fleet in the world [118].

    Feedstock availability is another important parameter affecting process feasibility. Thus pathways that allow for feedstock diversification present an important advantage when compared with technologies that can only process limited feedstocks. One of the most significant advantages of thermochemical technologies (see Table 7), such as gasification and pyrolysis, is the high diversity of feedstock, from waste (household, food, municipal, sewage sludge) to animal manure, including forest and agricultural biomass residues. Hamelinck and Faaij estimated the feedstock costs as 45–58% of the total fuel production costs, highlighting the importance of feedstock flexibility [119]. Biofuels production costs are highly dependent on feedstock price [120], which can vary considerable with the type, season, and country. Consequently, technologies that use a variety of feedstocks are attractive, allowing the most economical feedstock to be used at any given time.

    Additional technological steps required to address end user product specifications, will further increase the overall costs and need to be taken into consideration. For example, the addition of the hydrolysis (acid/enzymatic) step to the biochemical route to process lignocellulosic biomass results in higher costs and technological complexity but it allows for feedstock flexibility. The effect of economies of scales is also a significant factor in biofuel production costs, thus a comprehensive technoeconomic study is required to assess the feasibility of each route to produce a specific biofuel [121].

    Further factors that require consideration are market readiness and technological maturity. Many of the presented technologies are commercially mature because they have been successfully applied for many years to first generation biofuels. Technologies such as gasification which only requires small modifications in order to produce second generation biofuels. Gasifiers are already commercially spread around the world; there are more than 270 operational plants, mostly in Asia and Australia, and over 100 more currently under construction [122]. On the other hand, some technologies, such as biochemical fermentation, require further modifications to produce second generation biofuels. These additional technological steps make the process costlier and more complicated, and are therefore hindering its commercial adoption.

    Taking into consideration factors such as technological maturity, the market, feedstock availability and location, each technology presents its own advantages and disadvantages. As a result a detailed process design and technoeconomic analysis is required to assess the feasibility of any route to produce a specific biofuel.

    The transition from fossils fuels to advanced liquid biofuels will have an enormous impact on global climate change due to the resulting reduction in GHG emissions. The production of advanced liquid biofuels cannot rely solely on a specific process since each technology strongly depends on biomass feedstock composition. To add to this complexity, the final product obtained from each technology and feedstock varies in quality and type. The integration of technologies and variety into the biomass supply chain can overcome some/all of the issues associated with cost and product quality.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] Lighting Africa.org (2012) In collaboration with: energy sector overview 1-9. Available from: https://www.lightingafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/26_Ethiopia-FINAL-August-2012_LM.pdf.
    [2] Ma JT, Xu LS ZK et al. (2012) Master plan report of wind and solar energy in the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia. HydroChina Corp 236.
    [3] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (2016) Accelerating wind power generation in Ethiopia thematic programme document. 1-49.
    [4] Barnes DF, Golumbeanu R, Diaw I (2016) Beyond electricity access: output-based aid and rural electrification in Ethiopia. 1: 1-148.
    [5] Ani SO, Polinder H, Ferreira JA (2011) Energy yield of two generator systems for small wind turbine application. 2011 IEEE Int Electr Mach Drives Conf 735-740.
    [6] Dilimulati A, Stathopoulos T, Paraschivoiu M (2018) Wind turbine designs for urban applications: a case study of shrouded diffuser casing for turbines. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 175: 179-192. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.01.003
    [7] Ledo L, Kosasih PB, Cooper P (2011) Roof mounting site analysis for micro-wind turbines. Renew Energy 36: 1379-1391. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.10.030
    [8] Rafailidis S (1997) Influence of building areal density and roof shape on the wind characteristics above a town. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 85: 255-271. doi: 10.1023/A:1000426316328
    [9] Sorribes-Palmer F, Sanz-Andres A, Ayuso L, et al. (2017) Mixed CFD-1D wind turbine diffuser design optimization. Renew Energy 105: 386-399. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.12.065
    [10] Jafari SAH, Kosasih B (2014) Flow analysis of shrouded small wind turbine with a simple frustum diffuser with computational fluid dynamics simulations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 125: 102-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2013.12.001
    [11] Bontempo R, Manna M (2014) Performance analysis of open and ducted wind turbines. Appl Energy 136: 405-416. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.036
    [12] Shonhiwa C, Makaka G (2016) Concentrator augmented wind turbines: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 59: 1415-1418. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.067
    [13] Khamlaj TA, Rumpfkeil MP (2018) Analysis and optimization of ducted wind turbines. Energy 162: 1234-1252. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.106
    [14] Wong KH, Chong WT, Yap HT, et al. (2014) The design and flow simulation of a power-augmented shroud for urban wind turbine system. Energy Procedia 61: 1275-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.1080
    [15] Nobile R, Vahdati M, Barlow JF, et al. (2014) Unsteady flow simulation of a vertical axis augmented wind turbine: A two-dimensional study. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 125: 168-179. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2013.12.005
    [16] Liu Y, Yoshida S (2015) An extension of the generalized actuator disc theory for aerodynamic analysis of the diffuser-augmented wind turbines. Energy 93: 1852-1859. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.114
    [17] Hansen MOL, Sørensen NN, Flay RGJ (2000) Effect of placing a diffuser around a wind turbine. Wind Energy 3: 207-213. doi: 10.1002/we.37
    [18] Van Bussel GJW (2007) The science of making more torque from wind: diffuser experiments and theory revisited. J Phys Conf Ser 75: 1-12. doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/75/1/001
    [19] Kosasih B, Saleh Hudin H (2016) Influence of inflow turbulence intensity on the performance of bare and diffuser-augmented micro wind turbine model. Renew Energy 87: 154-167. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.10.013
    [20] Lubitz WD, Shomer A (2014) Wind loads and efficiency of a diffuser augmented wind turbine ( DAWT). Proc Can Soc Mech Eng Int Congr 2014: 1-5.
    [21] Kesby JE, Bradney DR, Clausen PD (2016) Determining diffuser augmented wind turbine performance using a combined CFD/BEM method. J Phys Conf Ser 753.
    [22] Vaz JRP, Wood DH (2018) Effect of the diffuser efficiency on wind turbine performance. Renew Energy 126: 969-977. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.013
    [23] Kannan TS, Mutasher SA, Lau YHK (2013) Design and flow velocity simulation of diffuser augmented wind turbine using CFD. J Eng Sci Technol 8: 372-384.
    [24] Shikha S, Bhatti TS, Kothari DP (2005) Air concentrating nozzles: a promising option for wind turbines. Int J Energy Technol Policy 3: 394-412. doi: 10.1504/IJETP.2005.008403
    [25] Sivasegaram S (1986) Power augmentation in wind rotors: a review. Wind Eng 10: 163-179.
    [26] Anzai A, Nemoto Y, Ushiyama I (2004) Wind tunnel analysis of concentrators for augmented wind turbines. Wind Eng 28: 605-614. doi: 10.1260/0309524043028082
    [27] Rus LF (2012) Experimental study on the increase of the efficiency of vertical axis wind turbines by equipping them with wind concentrators. J Sustain Energy 3: 30-35.
    [28] Michał L, MacIej K, Jakub M, et al. (2016) Numerical simulation methodologies for design and development of diffuser-augmented wind turbines-analysis and comparison. Open Eng 6: 235-240.
    [29] El-Zahaby AM, Kabeel AE, Elsayed SS, et al. (2017) CFD analysis of flow fields for shrouded wind turbine's diffuser model with different flange angles. Alexandria Eng J 56: 171-179. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.036
    [30] Ohya Y, Karasudani T (2010) A shrouded wind turbine generating high output power with wind-lens technology. Energies 3: 634-649. doi: 10.3390/en3040634
    [31] Abe KI, Ohya Y (2004) An investigation of flow fields around flanged diffusers using CFD. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 92: 315-330. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2003.12.003
    [32] Mansour K, Meskinkhoda P (2014) Computational analysis of flow fields around flanged diffusers. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 124: 109-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2013.10.012
    [33] Srikanth KS, Tushar (2016) Numerical analysis of wind lens. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 5: 759-764.
    [34] Wang W-Q, Song K, Yan Y (2019) Influence of interaction between the diffuser and rotor on energy harvesting performance of a micro-diffuser-augmented hydrokinetic turbine. Ocean Eng 189: 106293. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106293
    [35] Göltenbott U, Ohya Y, Yoshida S, et al. (2017) Aerodynamic interaction of diffuser augmented wind turbines in multi-rotor systems. Renew Energy 112: 25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.014
    [36] Yunus A (2010) Fluid mechanics fundamentals and applications, Boston, Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited.
    [37] Owisa F, Badawyb MTS, Abedb KA, et al. (2015) Numerical investigation of loaded and unloaded diffuser equipped with a flange. Int J Sci Eng Res 6: 312-341.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Sa Xu, Ziqing Du, Hai Zhang, Can Crude Oil Serve as a Hedging Asset for Underlying Securities?—Research on the Heterogenous Correlation between Crude Oil and Stock Index, 2020, 13, 1996-1073, 3139, 10.3390/en13123139
    2. Melike E. Bildirici, Mesut M. Badur, Correction: The effects of oil prices on confidence and stock return in China, India and Russia, 2019, 3, 2573-0134, 46, 10.3934/QFE.2019.1.46
    3. Siming Liu, Honglei Gao, Peng Hou, Yong Tan, Risk spillover effects of international crude oil market on China’s major markets, 2019, 7, 2333-8334, 819, 10.3934/energy.2019.6.819
    4. Renren Liu, Jianzhong Chen, Fenghua Wen, The nonlinear effect of oil price shocks on financial stress: Evidence from China, 2021, 55, 10629408, 101317, 10.1016/j.najef.2020.101317
    5. Liuguo Shao, Hua Zhang, Jinyu Chen, Xuehong Zhu, Effect of oil price uncertainty on clean energy metal stocks in China: Evidence from a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles approach, 2021, 73, 10590560, 407, 10.1016/j.iref.2021.01.009
    6. Mengna Zhou, Jizheng Yi, Jieqiong Yang, Yi Sima, Characteristic Representation of Stock Time Series Based on Trend Feature Points, 2020, 8, 2169-3536, 97016, 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2995958
    7. Yue Liu, Yuhang Zheng, Benjamin M Drakeford, Reconstruction and dynamic dependence analysis of global economic policy uncertainty, 2019, 3, 2573-0134, 550, 10.3934/QFE.2019.3.550
    8. Yue Liu, Pierre Failler, Jiaying Peng, Yuhang Zheng, Time-Varying Relationship between Crude Oil Price and Exchange Rate in the Context of Structural Breaks, 2020, 13, 1996-1073, 2395, 10.3390/en13092395
    9. Yanhong Feng, Dilong Xu, Pierre Failler, Tinghui Li, Research on the Time-Varying Impact of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Crude Oil Price Fluctuation, 2020, 12, 2071-1050, 6523, 10.3390/su12166523
    10. Jiaying Peng, Zhenghui Li, Benjamin M. Drakeford, Dynamic Characteristics of Crude Oil Price Fluctuation—From the Perspective of Crude Oil Price Influence Mechanism, 2020, 13, 1996-1073, 4465, 10.3390/en13174465
    11. Ke Liu, Changqing Luo, Zhao Li, Investigating the risk spillover from crude oil market to BRICS stock markets based on Copula-POT-CoVaR models, 2019, 3, 2573-0134, 754, 10.3934/QFE.2019.4.754
    12. Fen Li, Zhehao Huang, Junhao Zhong, Khaldoon Albitar, Do Tense Geopolitical Factors Drive Crude Oil Prices?, 2020, 13, 1996-1073, 4277, 10.3390/en13164277
    13. Yue Liu, Hao Dong, Pierre Failler, The Oil Market Reactions to OPEC’s Announcements, 2019, 12, 1996-1073, 3238, 10.3390/en12173238
    14. Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad, Elie Bouri, Mobeen Ur Rehman, Muhammad Abubakr Naeem, Tareq Saeed, Oil price risk exposure of BRIC stock markets and hedging effectiveness, 2021, 0254-5330, 10.1007/s10479-021-04078-0
    15. Ping Wei, Yiying Li, Xiaohang Ren, Kun Duan, Crude oil price uncertainty and corporate carbon emissions, 2022, 29, 0944-1344, 2385, 10.1007/s11356-021-15837-8
    16. Feipeng Zhang, Zhao Zhang, Forecasting exchange rate markets' volatility of G7 countries: will stock market volatility help?, 2023, 30, 1350-4851, 991, 10.1080/13504851.2022.2031856
    17. Jiaying Peng, Yuhang Zheng, Does Environmental Policy Promote Energy Efficiency? Evidence From China in the Context of Developing Green Finance, 2021, 9, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2021.733349
    18. Melike E. Bildirici, Memet Salman, Özgür Ömer Ersin, Nonlinear Contagion and Causality Nexus between Oil, Gold, VIX Investor Sentiment, Exchange Rate and Stock Market Returns: The MS-GARCH Copula Causality Method, 2022, 10, 2227-7390, 4035, 10.3390/math10214035
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4855) PDF downloads(739) Cited by(8)

Figures and Tables

Figures(19)  /  Tables(5)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog