**5. What still needs to be done in spite of RenovaBio**

Since the inception of the PNPB program, in 2005, biodiesel production has leap-frogged from 736 thousand to 4.3 billion liters in just 12 years (**Figure 3**). Such a growth turned Brazil into the second biodiesel producer in the world, trailing only the United States, as the number one

In footstep with the production growth, the installed capacity also jumped from zero to approximately 8 billion liters in about the same period (**Figure 3**). If on one hand, this growth leads to an idle capacity rate that is close to 50%; on the other hand, it makes biodiesel producers optimists to comfortably meet the production forecasts for at least 5 years after the

The expected biodiesel production growth to 18 billion liters in 2030 suggests a major boost of the installed capacity to around 22 billion liters. In order to meet that forecast, it will be

**4.2. Production, consumption, and installed capacity after RenovaBio (forecast)**

**Status Accomplished Forecasted Unit (million)**

**Figure 3.** Biodiesel annual production (B100) and accumulated installed capacity. Source: Adapted from [25].

Processed 40.7 55.1 77.3 107.2 t/year Installed capacity 65.0 68.8 96.6 134.0 t/year Number of plants 117 120 139 165 —

Production 3.8 6.4 11.4 18.0 m3

Installed capacity 7.3 8.0 14.3 22.5 m3

Number of plants 50 51 76 109 —

**Table 3.** Future scenario for soybean processing units and biodiesel refining.

/year

/year

**Year 2016 2020 2025 2030**

producer with approximately 5.5 billion liters, in 2016 [44].

enactment of the new biofuel policy.

170 Biofuels - Challenges and opportunities

Soybean

Biodiesel

Source: Adapted from [45].

The complexity of this policy requires the government to pay special attention to questions on how the process steps will be supervised and how to allocate the individual targets of the biofuel distributors which, in turn, can acquire the decarbonization certificates whose prices still need to be defined, as well as the costs for the certification of production [46].

The technology mostly used to produce biodiesel in Brazil is the transesterification, which is inefficient. Besides, the process uses methanol, which is from a fossil source, instead of ethanol, which is cleaner, renewable, and produced locally from sugarcane. And the country still imports a good chunk of the alcohol that is used to produce biodiesel, therefore affecting the trade balance negatively.

Furthermore, there needs to be greater incentives for the diversification of the mix of raw materials used in the production of biodiesel, since soybeans and beef tallow together represent about 90% of the total and they present environmental problems due to the use of pesticides and herbicides [47], as well as GHG from land use and land use change [48].

Perhaps alternative sources, such as palm—whose yield per hectare is approximately six times greater than that of soybeans [22]—may be an option. However, this feedstock still needs investments in R&D so that its production increases in such a way that the amount of available oil would be enough not only to meet its main market—culinary—but also the production of biodiesel.

Although at this moment in time palm does not have enough scale to meet the market demand for biodiesel, Embrapa's research with this oilseed has had positive results in adapting it to other environments that are different from the traditional ones in the legal Amazon, where most of palm is harvested [21].

Thus, it is hoped that palm oil will have a much larger penetration in the mix of raw materials for the production of biodiesel and, therefore, provide a greater competitiveness of the sector and increase the income of family farmers, especially those from the north and northeast. But that will depend as well on the success of policies such as *Propalma—Programa de Produção Sustentável da Palma de Óleo no Brasil*, or the Brazilian Program of Sustainable Palm Oil Production [21].

**Acknowledgements**

**Author details**

São Paulo, Brazil

**References**

2012/51466-7 and grant number 2014/50279-4.

Fernando C. De Oliveira\* and Suani T. Coelho \*Address all correspondence to: folive@usp.br

10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.060

10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.014

EPE; 2016. p. 96

This work was supported by grants from CAPES and FAPESP through grant number

Biodiesel in Brazil Should Take Off with the Newly Introduced Domestic Biofuels Policy: RenovaBio

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79670

173

University of Sao Paulo, Institute of Energy and Environment, Bioenergy Research Group,

[1] IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 [Internet]. 2007. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_

[2] Oliveira MIL. RenovaBio: por uma nova política nacional de biocombustíveis. Revista Opiniões. 2017;**54**:6-7. ISSN 2177-6504. Available from: http://revistaonline.revistaopin-

[3] De Oliveira FC, Coelho ST. History, evolution, and environmental impact of biodiesel in Brazil: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;**75**:168-179. DOI:

[4] Moreno-Perez OM, Marcossi GPC, Ortiz-Miranda D. Taking stock of the evolution of the biodiesel industry in Brazil: Business concentration and structural traits. Energy Policy.

[5] Tolmasquim M, Gorini R, Matsumura E, Soares J, Oliveira L, et al. The Brazilian Commitment to Combating Climate Change: Energy Production and Use. Rio de Janeiro:

[6] Araújo CDM, Andrade CCA, Silva ES, Dupas FA. Biodiesel production from used cooking oil: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;**27**:445-452. DOI:

[7] Barufi C, Pavan M, Zanotti JR, Soares M. Biodiesel e os dilemas da inclusão social. In: Bermann C, editor. As novas energias no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Fase; 2007. pp. 19-86 [8] Botelho CAV. Viabilidade técnica e aspectos ambientais do biodiesel etílico de óleos residuais de fritura [dissertation]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo; 2012

[9] Bailis R. Brazil: Biodiesel. In: Solomon B, Bailis R, editors. Sustainable Development of Biofuels in Latin America and the Caribbean. New York: Springer; 2014. pp. 103-126

and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14 [Accessed: May 04, 2018]

ioes.com.br/revistas/suc/155/#page/6 [Accessed: May 16, 2018]

2017;**110**:525-533. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.001

On the overseas front, the European Union has recently strengthened its position to disfavoring traditional biofuels, such as ethanol from sugarcane and corn, and biodiesel from oilseeds. The maximum demand for these biofuels in energy demand is forecasted to decrease from 7% in 2020 to 3.8% in 2030. This proposal has received harsh criticisms from various sectors of the industry [21], as well as from the scientific community.

At a moment in which the demand for food and bioenergy will continue to grow for the next years as a result of populational growth, increased world income, and the evolution of energy policies toward cleaner and more sustainable sources [21], the European Union position, along with the United States decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, raises concerns regarding the immediate growth of biofuels worldwide. On the other hand, Brazil has now a great opportunity to set the stage to confirm its world leadership in the field of biofuels [33].
