62
H. A. Tajarudin et al.
(Costello et al. 2016). The reduction of these ‘waste’ would support the energy conservation, water conservation and waste reduction goals of any campus. There is high
percentage of food produced goes uneaten, and the potential to divert some of this
would have a tremendous environmental and social impact. At the same time, there
is significant environmental cost to food that goes to waste, both on the front and
back ends (Parfitt et al. 2010). In addition to the resources (i.e., land, water, oil) that
go into producing the food, discarded food contributes to over one-fifth of municipal
landfills and is the single largest contributor to municipal solid waste in landfills,
which is among the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in any countries
(Manaf et al. 2009).
In recent years, the development of alternative energy and transport fuels continues to advance. The shifting focus in energy resource is mainly driven by the
massive consumption of fossil fuels and elevating consciousness on climate change
worldwide. In 2014, world fossils fuels recorded large amount of consumption at
approximately 3,639 PJ, 66,076 PJ and 1,764 Mt for oil, natural gas, and coal (World
Energy Statistics 2016). The trend is expected to increase and the dependency of
fossils fuel as energy and refinery resources will continue for at least the next few
decades (Shafiee and Topal 2009). In environmental perspective, this apparent and
alarming trend definitely requires a thoughtful countermeasure to reduce emission of
greenhouse gas and its negative impacts on the environment. One of the promising
solutions is the use of bioethanol as substitute or additive for fossil fuel, achieving
that sustainable, clean and economically viable bioenergy production (Balat 2011).
The most common renewable resources for bioethanol today are from the firstgeneration feedstock, which are from corn and sugarcane (Boundy et al. 2011).
However, first-generation bioethanol faces controversies such as food security and
limited resources since the energy demand only achievable through agricultural of
edible crops. The net of greenhouse gas production is also questionable because of
deforestation for a new arable land result in substantial amount of biofuel carbon debt
(Fargione et al. 2008). The emergence of advanced bioethanol or second-generation
bioethanol has paved the way for more sustainable production of bioethanol. Lignocellulosic material from nonedible crops or agricultural waste can be used as
the feedstock, hence alleviating environmental and social issues related with firstgeneration bioethanol. Third generation bioethanol, although not discussed in this
article, is also a sustainable resource of bioethanol. The only drawback is the expensive production, which rendered bioethanol from algal biomass as not commercially
viable for now (Slade and Bauen 2013).
Superiorities of second-generation bioethanol are cheap, renewable, and abundant
source of lignocellulosic biomass. Waste from agricultural the industry and nonedible
crop from marginal land covers a large portion of the biomass. The abundant of
agricultural waste is undeniable with estimation of 998 Mt being produced annually
(Obi et al. 2016). More importantly, it is estimated that global lignocellulosic biomass
can potentially produce 442 GL of bioethanol per year, roughly 16 times higher than
the current bioethanol production (Kim and Dale 2004). Many researchers have
recognized the potential of second-generation bioethanol with extensive researches
being conducted for the past three decades (Chandrakant and Bisaria 1998; Lynd et al.
H. A. Tajarudin et al.
(Costello et al. 2016). The reduction of these ‘waste’ would support the energy conservation, water conservation and waste reduction goals of any campus. There is high
percentage of food produced goes uneaten, and the potential to divert some of this
would have a tremendous environmental and social impact. At the same time, there
is significant environmental cost to food that goes to waste, both on the front and
back ends (Parfitt et al. 2010). In addition to the resources (i.e., land, water, oil) that
go into producing the food, discarded food contributes to over one-fifth of municipal
landfills and is the single largest contributor to municipal solid waste in landfills,
which is among the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in any countries
(Manaf et al. 2009).
In recent years, the development of alternative energy and transport fuels continues to advance. The shifting focus in energy resource is mainly driven by the
massive consumption of fossil fuels and elevating consciousness on climate change
worldwide. In 2014, world fossils fuels recorded large amount of consumption at
approximately 3,639 PJ, 66,076 PJ and 1,764 Mt for oil, natural gas, and coal (World
Energy Statistics 2016). The trend is expected to increase and the dependency of
fossils fuel as energy and refinery resources will continue for at least the next few
decades (Shafiee and Topal 2009). In environmental perspective, this apparent and
alarming trend definitely requires a thoughtful countermeasure to reduce emission of
greenhouse gas and its negative impacts on the environment. One of the promising
solutions is the use of bioethanol as substitute or additive for fossil fuel, achieving
that sustainable, clean and economically viable bioenergy production (Balat 2011).
The most common renewable resources for bioethanol today are from the firstgeneration feedstock, which are from corn and sugarcane (Boundy et al. 2011).
However, first-generation bioethanol faces controversies such as food security and
limited resources since the energy demand only achievable through agricultural of
edible crops. The net of greenhouse gas production is also questionable because of
deforestation for a new arable land result in substantial amount of biofuel carbon debt
(Fargione et al. 2008). The emergence of advanced bioethanol or second-generation
bioethanol has paved the way for more sustainable production of bioethanol. Lignocellulosic material from nonedible crops or agricultural waste can be used as
the feedstock, hence alleviating environmental and social issues related with firstgeneration bioethanol. Third generation bioethanol, although not discussed in this
article, is also a sustainable resource of bioethanol. The only drawback is the expensive production, which rendered bioethanol from algal biomass as not commercially
viable for now (Slade and Bauen 2013).
Superiorities of second-generation bioethanol are cheap, renewable, and abundant
source of lignocellulosic biomass. Waste from agricultural the industry and nonedible
crop from marginal land covers a large portion of the biomass. The abundant of
agricultural waste is undeniable with estimation of 998 Mt being produced annually
(Obi et al. 2016). More importantly, it is estimated that global lignocellulosic biomass
can potentially produce 442 GL of bioethanol per year, roughly 16 times higher than
the current bioethanol production (Kim and Dale 2004). Many researchers have
recognized the potential of second-generation bioethanol with extensive researches
being conducted for the past three decades (Chandrakant and Bisaria 1998; Lynd et al.