Biofuels and food – regaining a sense of proportion
March 28, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...I promised in my last entry that this week I would address the question of biofuels and food production, which according to many of your comments, is very much at the core of the biofuels debate. Before getting down to business, I would like to thank you for your comments. I see that many of you don’t share my point of view in this issue, and I respect this. At the same time, I see that you have read my comments and provide constructive replies. Before getting on to the food debate, I will briefly react to some of the comments.Quite a number of you argue in favor of cutting energy consumption, punishing car producers and motorists, switching from cars to bikes and generally being less materialistic. I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient. At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport. It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided. The European Commission has been active in this area through a number of initiatives. For example, we have recently proposed measures to impose limits on fuel consumption of new cars, we are encouraging public transport use and the European Commission is incentivising its own officials to walk, cycle or take public transport when moving around Brussels.
Now to the topic of the day.
Biofuels, have become a scapegoat for recent commodity price increases that have other causes – poor harvests worldwide and growing food demand generated by increased standards of living in China and
India. In Europe, we use less than 2 percent of our cereals production for biofuels, so they do not contribute significantly to higher food prices in the European context. Even if we reach our 10% biofuels target by 2020, the price impact will be small. Our modeling suggests that it will cause a 8 to 10% increase in rape seed prices and 3 to 6% increase in cereal prices. Increase in the price of the latest has very small influence on the cost of bread. It makes up around 4 per cent of the consumer price of a loaf.
Moreover, since biofuels have as a co-product food for animals, you gain both a fuel and feed benefit from the same crop which will help displace land area used to grow dedicated feed crops like soybean, as well as helping produce a reduction in the price of animal feed. Every ton of wheat grown for biofuels produces a third of a ton of bioethanol and a third of a ton of animal feed. Our crops are more than capable of producing food and fuel. Without a good domestic production base for so called first-generation or crop based biofuels, the more innovative and efficient products will probably never take off. We need to use first-generation biofuels as a bridge to the second generation biofuels using lignocellulosic materials as a feedstock. With this in mind, the Commission within the forthcoming review of the Common Agricultural Policy will urge the farmers to invest more in short rotation forestry crops and perennial grasses which are the most typical feedstocks for advanced biofuels. Over the past 30 years, Europe’s farmers have stood accused, through their association with the Common Agricultural Policy, of over-producing and dumping their surpluses with the aid of massive export subsidies on over supplied world markets, therefore depressing market prices and contributing massively to poverty and starvation in poor countries. That criticism has now been reversed. The charge now is that EU biofuel policy will contribute to third world poverty by driving food prices up. My impression from this debate sometimes is that we the Europeans know best what is good for people in developing world. Let them speak for themselves.
Before writing this blog entry, I visited a website that has recently been open for the celebration of the Biofuels day in the UK, developed by the UK’s Renewable Energy Association. Surfing in the page of “What the experts say” I came across a quote by Oxfam: “Under the right conditions, biofuels offer important opportunities for poverty reduction by stimulating stagnant agricultural sectors, thus creating jobs for agricultural workers and markets for small farmers” (Biofuelling Poverty, Oxfam Report, November 2007). This seems to be very much in contradiction with widely quoted Fidel Castro’s opinion according to which, each ton used for biofuels means a ton less for the hungry, and at higher prices into the bargain.
The President of the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions, which includes the farming Unions from Zambia, Madagascar, Malawi and Namibia to name but a few, also recently said “Biofuels provide a huge opportunity for our farmers to augment their incomes. Regardless of its application, production of commodities for food, fiber or energy, better prices would greatly contribute towards
Africa’s economic development.”
Brazil is frequently cited in connection with land competition for food and fuel. The actual sugarcane production area in Brazil represents only 0,7% of the total Brazilian landmass. According to Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, during the last ten years, in 94% of the cases, sugarcane expansion occurred within existing mills. Thanks to the high investment in technology and higher yields per hectare, the horizontal expansion in the total area was lower than anticipated.
The same arguments stand true for our own EU farmers. Substantial tracts of arable land lie fallow since the collapse of the collective farming system used during Communist times in many of the new Member States. The EU’s ambitious but realistic 10% target will provide the market pull stimulation that these farmers need to face a future market based agricultural economy and less dependence on EU subsidies.
And let’s not forget that oil is a finite commodity, and high oil prices are one of the main factors making food more expensive, particularly in poor countries.
At the end of the day, do we want to lead the way encouraging the sustainable production of renewable bio-fuels in Europe with high protein feed as a valuable co-product, strengthening our industrial base and re-building our rural economy, or do we want to be putting yet more money into the pockets of rich oil-producing countries. That is the real choice we face.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
March 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Well done for addressing the issues raised by the doubters of what is, currently, the only real alternative to power our vehicles. My concern is though that not enough of the general public will have the opportunity to take on board your views as they are simply not aware of your blog.
I therefore re-iterate the need to promote biofuels through other mediums, details of which I have advised you of seperately. Best wishes Howard Jackson.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Picking out the most extreme viewpoints on reducing consumption and then dismissing them as unrealistic is just setting up a strawman.
“It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided.”
No serious proposal suggests sanctions. At a minimum they would be politically impossible to get enacted.
What is suggested is that politicians and government officials take the lead in reforming public opinion, in addition to dealing with the short-term issues such as the current rise in resource prices. Public opinion usually changes slowly, but sometimes there can be large swings quickly if the moment is right. For example, the movement to ban plastic shopping bags is moving faster than one might expect. Here in the US almost all the supermarkets now sell permanent bags for shoppers to reuse. What they haven’t changed is the arrangement of the checkout counters which make it difficult for the consumer to use these bags. The consumer is at the wrong end to do the packing and the clerks default to throwaway bags if not stopped.
The amount of government support for technological development to replace the internal combustion engine is insignificant, while billions are still spent on advanced weaponry. Those scientists are engineers could be using their expertise to help preserve the planet instead of destroy it. These priorities are set by governments.
Mass transit, home insulation and fostering of renewable energy are all areas where governments can hasten change if they wish to direct funds to these tasks, but the reluctance of officials to deal with the status quo favored by big businesses means little changes. Where’s the innovation?
How about small buses running on routes determined by riders using their mobile phones to book a ride coupled with the built in GPS and an in vehicle alerting system? How about promoting staggered work hours/days to lessen congestion? How about changes in zoning to permit more jobs to be nearer to residential areas? How about inviting some novel ideas from the public in the first place?
I see timidity, lack of imagination and a lack of leadership by opinion makers as the problem.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Many climate change scientists believe that unless we begin to reduce global emissions and shift to a low-carbon society within five years, a mass extinction event may become unavoidable. James Lovelock of Gaia fame believes it is already too late and predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan.
Peak Oil is driven by geology which cares nothing for society and some proponents fear that it may lead to breakdown of civilisation. China is working hard to lock-in long term supplies of oil and is building a blue water navy (which is only needed for one thing and that’s not water skiing).
You say “…as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities…It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users…”. It may be unrealistic for politicians but IMHO it is necessary for our future.
I don’t really see why we need to use first-generation biofuels as a bridge to second generation biofuels. The more effort that is put into first generation the greater will be the vested interests in keeping first generation equipment etc.
The European Council March 2007 agreed to a target of a 10% target on biofuels: “… The binding character of this target is appropriate subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available …”
Even if fallow land is used it will take inputs of fertiliser and I have read that NOx emissions from fertilser is much worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Surely it would make more sense to look at algae since the yields of oil from algae could be orders of magnitude higher than those for traditional oilseeds. Also algae can grow in places away from the farmlands & forests, thus minimising the damages caused to the eco- and food chain systems and I have read it can be grown in sewage and next to power-plant smokestacks where they digest the pollutants and give us oil.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Total for S.O.S Live Earth!
To protect consumer rights because:Energy-saving is an essential part of the EU’s strategy to reduce the Challenges-limit carbon dioxide emissions,Sustainability, improve Security of supply and Competitiveness: the process of realising overall by 2020 !. AN ENERGY POLICY for EUROPE COM(2007)1 final-proposals and targets:
1.Estimated savings potential annual primary energy consumption 20%
2.Reduction target of Greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 1990) 20%
3.Increasing the level of Renewable energy 20%
4.Endorse the binding targets of minimum Biofuels
- 10%
5.Limiting Climate Change –Policy Option –to improve the Emissions Trading Scheme 2°C
6.Total-in numbers-for to retain –work for Office of the Energy Observatory and European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers 72 !
My Propsals-for Study and to improve: developments in the availability and use of biomass resources for energy purposes-biodiversity, water resources,
water quality and soil quality;consignments of raw material or biofuel with differing sustainability characteristics can be mixed;the transport sector is the sector presenting the most rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions of all sectors of the economy; support the development-support schemes, administrative procedures, planning, construction and procurement rules, information and training.
With my best regards.
http://www.eficientaenerg.ro : Your project in Intelligent Energy for Efficiency and Prevent Climate Change for Europe and Globe -PARTENERSHIP with Petre Naidin, in the frame of -Sustainable energy promotion and communication -www.sustenergy.org :Partenerships-Partenership database SEARCH By geographical scope :Romania –Naidin
March 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The most important questions raised in the previous log entries were left unattended. Here’s a simple accounting exercise to get a real sense of proportion:
The EU consumes today roughly 20 Mb/d of Oil. Of that about two thirds are used in Transport, make it 13 Mb/d. Assuming that EU’s Transport use remains unchanged up to 2020 that turns the target to something like 1.3 Mb/d.
Ethanol has an energy density of about 60% of gasoline, biodiesel is somewhat better, so make it 75%. Thus, to replace those 1.3 Mb/d of Oil, about 1.75 Mb/d of bio-fuels are needed ( 1.3/0.75 ).
Ethanol production in temperate climates has an EROEI below 2:1, biodiesel about 4:1. Oil’s EROEI differs markedly from place to place (offshore versus onshore, etc) but 10:1 is a general enough mark. Accounting for EROEI, the useful energy the EU gets from Oil is about 1.2 Mb/d. To match that useful energy, total bio-fuels production has to rise to 2.1 Mb/d ( 1.2/0.75/0.75 ).
Corn crops yield about 3500 litres of ethanol per hectare per year (that’s 9.5 litres per hectare per day). With sugar cane in the tropics that number goes up to 6000 (16,5 litres per hectare per day). But for bio-diesels the numbers are considerably lower, around 1250 litres per hectare per year (3,5 per hectare litres per day).
Using 159 litres for a barrel, 2.1 Mb correspond roughly to 333 Ml (mega-litre). Using again the most optimistic figure for the temperate regions, the EU needs to allocate thirty five million (35 000 000) hectares to bio-fuels production.
I live in a state that has an area of less than 9 million hectares. Germany has an area just over 35 million hectares.
All that dark green area producing ethanol in 2020?
Good or evil? Friend or foe? This kind of wording doesn’t fit in my Engeneering/Architecture dictionaries. Bio-fuels are not an option, it’s all a matter of numbers.
Data sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel>Biodiesel
http://gog2g.com/2006/07/27/looking-into-the-eroei-of-ethanol.aspx
This log entry is being discussed at TheOilDrum:Europe:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3780
March 28th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Let’s be quite clear. There is certainly a debate to be had over the use of biofuels for transport. However, it seems sad that so many of those who are firmly against biofuels feel it is unnecessary to muster a cogent and well reasoned argument to back up the position. Certainly, there appears to be little reading of material beyond that that matches up with their own prejudices.
Why do they persist in blaming biofuels exclusively for the rise in agricultural prices? Well it easy for a start. It gets headlines and it’s frightening. The average joe in the street, who gets his or her news in sound bites from the mainstream media will certainly join the cause. The fact that it is a sleight of hand, a necessary bending of the truth, is not seen as a problem. It is, after all, for the greater good.
What they choose to omit from their spin is that agricultural prices have been under pressure for a while. That grain prices are part of a cycle, that they have reached higher levels in 1981, 83 and 95 and that shortages have, in some major part, been caused by poor harvests in Australia and Ukraine in 2007. There is a real inconvenient truth.
The same selective process can be seen in the anti’s attitude towards science. Generally speaking the scientists who are anti are touted as far seeing intelligent people, those who are seen as pro biofuels are either fools or paid lackeys of big industry and government.
The thing about a true debate is that you have to listen to the other side. That way you might just learn something. What you learn may change your mind or it might reinforce your position, but only by listening and exchanging ideas can the process be of any use at all.
I personally believe that there is a future for biofuels, all biofuels not just those for transport. However, that doesn’t stop me covering both sides of the argument in Biofuels Review.
I think Mr Piebalgs is far sighted in blogging on this topic. He seems to be a man of conviction who truly wants a debate. It would have been so easy simply not to blog. However, a blog is truly egalitarian, while it empowers so many to get their well-researched and argued views heard, it also allows the half-witted to rush into print.
Biofuels is a hugely important topic, no matter what side of the fence you sit on. Too important, I believe, to let the debate be strangled by those who simply shout the loudest.
http://www.biofuelreview.com
http://www.fuellingthedebate.com
March 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Please do not forget that only one percent of all arable land is used for the production of bioenergy.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Commissioner Piebalgs wrote: I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient. At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport. It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided.
It is true that democracies prefer positive incentives over negative ones. We like carrots more than we do sticks !
IMVHO, public policy should focus on providing Non-Oil Transportation alternatives that attract rather than punishing oil users. Post-Peak Oil, many oil users will seek alternatives IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE. No incentive except the price and availability of oil will be required.
In microcosm, look at Mulhouse France, population 110,900 metro 271,000. No trams in 2005, 54 km of trams in 2012. Velib rental bicycles around town, and the LGV Rhin-Rhône arrives in 2011.
Mulhouse, in a few short years, is going from an oil based transportation system to having a very viable non-oil based alternative.
Mulhouse is not a major city, but it is easier to provide this alternative in major cities. What France is doing in Mulhouse should be held up as a model for the EU, IMVHO.
France has set the goal of building 1,500 km of new tram lines in the next decade. Other EU members should try to do as much.
On a grand scale, the EU is far behind the USA in freight rail, but they are encouraging rail expansion.
My number are USA specific (the USA uses double stack rail containers, the EU does not) but transferring freight from truck to electrified rail trades 17 to 20 joules of diesle for 1 joule of electricity. Better for the economy, the environment and energy !
One means to shift modes is to create rail-only solutions to transportation bottlenecks. The Chunnel, the Swiss Trans-Alp tunnels, the new France-Italy TGV & freight tunnel all require part of the trip to be on rail. And shippers will consider that “If part must be on rail, then why not all of the trip on rail ?”
There is another MAJOR project that the EU is ignoring, creating a standard gauge rail line between China and the EU. The first stage broke ground in Kazakhstan a few months ago.
China has had 100 million people migrate to the export industries on the coast, straining all infrastructure. They think that building a low cost, electrified rail link to the EU (3 days to Berlin) will attract export industries to the interior, and stop the migration. This rail line will also carry EU goods to China.
Instead of trucking goods to ports for export to China, the EU can use non-oil transportation all the way and enlarge volumes on EU rail systems. The newer EU members are closer to China by rail and could benefit more from this new rail link.
IMHO, Poland, among others, is on the cusp of a decision as to whether to spend money expanding and improving their roads or their railroads. They should be encouraged to electrify their railroads (some are already) and expand them. The Baltic Republics should be helped by the EU to switch to standard gauge and electrify as well.
Electrifying EU railroads not only gets them off oil, but also expands capacity (by about 15% since trains can accelerate and brake faster) and speeds them up a bit. This is a carrot that hurts no one !
Best Hopes,
Alan Drake
March 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Personally I’m getting sick to my stomach every time I read about those bio-solutions. B/c it’s all there in the numbers: It will not scale and is only possible as long it’s done with the help of the “free” energy of petroleum. One can just wonder what part of the intellect EU politicians activate, when they aim at the bio-salvation … One day it will stand brilliantly clear to everybody: This will not work!
My take on bio-fuel: Have farmers use their “home-made” bio-fuel run all their machinery and sub-processes and then it will be all laid out and clear: NOT POSSIBLE, move to next square …!?
I ran the numbers on German rapeseed-production some time back, and IMO they have some 14400 sq km under rape-cultivation. That is a square of 120 km X 120 km. This kind a’ energy will run Germany for “a good week” …..
Also at that time, I grabbed my calculator and ran the “rapeseed-to-global crude-oil” numbers …. Are you ready? Rape seed yields circa 1 dl or 0.1 liter per sq meter harvested land … and crude amounts to 26 bbl/year at 159 liter/barrel.
Now to grow rape-diesel on this planet to equal the volumetric amount of annual extracted AND READY MADE crude oil we the earthlings have to grow and cultivate and area of the whole continents of AFRICA AND NORTH AMERICA ………
Obviously there is no need to say this will need additional energy to get cultivated, harvested and processed … and it is only ¾ as energy efficient as compared to crude … so I think we need to add SOUTH AMERICA AND AUSTRALIA to make it equal to The Crude Cubic…. ENERGYWISE..
Bob Dylan : “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn ….?”
March 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
regaining a sense of proportion ?
Dear commissioner,
thank you for this point of view.
…so you will maybe get on your target of 10% biofuel…but one question: where do you get the remaining 90% of fuel from by 2020 ?
(there is a creeping problem called “peak oil”…)
Cheers,
http://www.mareinitiative.com
March 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
With all due respect to your fine models, the reality is that food prices are rising already. Now, if we ask the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation what’s happening, most recently they told us,
“Soaring petroleum prices have contributed to the increase in prices of most agricultural crops: by raising input costs, on the one hand, and by boosting demand for agricultural crops used as feedstock in the production of alternative energy sources (e.g. biofuels) on the other. National policies that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are behind the fast growth of the biofuel industry.”
So when the Commissioner blames high oil prices for high food prices, he is half right. High oil prices make food production more expensive, but they also divert food into fuel. People are going hungry so that the Commissioner may fuel his Saab.
The Commissioner has not answered the environmental concerns, and has cherry-picked his figures. Sugar cane production may take up a small portion of Brazil’s total land area, but large areas are being cleared each year in Brazil; often the sugar cane production is on a different piece of land each year.
He also offers a false choice to the EU. The choice is not simply between oil and biofuels. There are other options. Just as the EU increases its proportion of renewably generated electricity, so too it may increase its proportion of electric-driven public transport. While the Commissioner may feel his only choices are a petrol-driven Saab and an ethanol-driven Saab, in fact he could take an electric train.
And then of course there’s the bicycle. In Copenhagen and Amsterdam over a third of all trips taken are by bicycle. There’s no particular reason not every EU city could do this.
Lastly, the reason that the EU was in the past accused of driving the food price too low, and now too high, and that both have been held to harm the Third World, is quite simple. It’s just as in Mexico with the United States.
First US subsidies to their own farmers made Mexican maize farming unprofitable - small farmers lost their land and moved to work in low-wage jobs in the free trade zone on the border. They at least had cheap US maize to eat.
But then the US decided they liked biofuels, and the price of maize went up.
The Mexicans lost their land because traditionally they produced more than they could eat, and sold the surplus to get things to improve their lives - clothing, education, and so on. But with low prices their surplus couldn’t buy them anything extra, so they got into debt to wealthy landowners; they couldn’t repay their debt and lost their land. They never returned to their land because the land, now being held by ranchers, was too expensive, they couldn’t afford it.
So, first US trade policies stopped the Mexicans from being able to feed themselves, forcing them to buy US food; now US trade policies have raised that food price. So the Mexicans can’t grow their own, and can’t afford to buy the US stuff. Thus anger and riots.
Much the same’s happened with the EU and many Third World countries. First the EU’s low-priced food drove Third World farmers off their land, then the price went up and so now they can neither grow their own food nor afford to buy the imported food.
And that’s why there were complaints when EU policies kept the prices low, and complaints now that EU policies are keeping them high. Driven off their land, the people are unable to take advantage of the higher prices by producing more.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs.
I congratulate you for this week’s entry, much more realistic in my view than the previous ones. However, there seems to be a problem with the assumption that the use of “only” 10% of our cereals for fuel production will increase its price by 4-6%.
If you remember the 1973 oil crisis, you will surely realise that, back then, a decrease of 3% in production lead to a 3-fold increase in prices : that is how supply and demand work. And that is particularly the case when supply fails to meet demand, as is the case now with food supply (we are draining grain stocks worldwide). So these 2% that we use for fuel production certainly are responsible for much more than a few percents increase in price.
On another topic, there was a little inaccuracy in what you have said : you declared that last year’s crop were poor. That is a completely false statement. Last year’s harvests were at a historical record high… but still insufficient to meet our exponentially growing demand. Hence the increase in price. I agree with your point that the economic development in south-eastern Asia is a non-negligible factor, however, whether you like it or not, biofuels are responsible for a big part of the increase and the shortages.
And finally, the nutrients contained in fibrocellulosis need to be recycled by the land or fed to the feedstocks (as you have said). Then, if you use them for biofuels, you only delay a crash in grain production by 2-3 years. Then 2nd generation biofuels are not a better idea than 1st generation ones.
It seems that, no matter what cornucopians would like to believe, most modern Europeans will have to make do without modern means of transportation.
Well, as they say, “tough luck”.
Respectfully
March 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Dear Sir.
I would like first to thank you very much for communicating with the citizens of Europe. This is much appreciated.
I would like to ask you a difficult question.
By conscious choice i do not have or use a car.
I own a house close to my work i use public transportation and i walk a lot and also i lose some social status because i do not own a car.
It would be very easy for me to buy a new car in cash.
Now i believe that this conscious choice to not buy a car is good for society the enviroment and the EU
But what happens when the EU promotes biofuels with tax money ?
First you tax me to give money to the people that produce the biofuels in order to help the people that are going in the wrong direction ” the citizens that use and own cars”
Second the use of biofuels in our global economy reduces the availability of food and increases the price of food in the local shop.
This is a second indirect tax that i have to pay in order to help the people that use cars the people that are going to the wrong direction.
I am sorry to ask such questions and i very much hope to get an answer from you.
My question is this
Is it not counterproductive to tax punish two times financially the citizens that are going to the right direction in order to help the citizens that are doing the wrong thing ?
You are actually telling me with actions buy a car and we will help you.
Am i wrong ?
Again thank you trying to communicate directly with the citizens of the EU
March 29th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Brazil is frequently cited in connection with land competition for food and fuel. The actual sugarcane production area in Brazil represents only 0,7% of the total Brazilian landmass. According to Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, during the last ten years, in 94% of the cases, sugarcane expansion occurred within existing mills. Thanks to the high investment in technology and higher yields per hectare, the horizontal expansion in the total area was lower than anticipated.”
this doesn’t address the problem with bio fuels. even Brazil with its high topical solar flux is not completely energy independent and moreover a calculation of energy consumption per capita indicates Brazil is operating on approximately 30% of the average european or 16% of the average American.
so even if europe was towed to the equator this energy policy would dictate drastic reductions in per capita consumption.
the other alternative is massive deforestation in the tropics and the importation of foreign bio-fuels.
not energy independence
not sustainable
not ethical
not a solution
solar power needs to be collected by other means than via the biosphere for any “buisness as usual” goal
if this is unobtainable in the short to medium term them at best some curtailing of consumption is not only required but compulsory.
thank you for your attention
March 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
let’s not forget that oil is a finite commodity
This would be the best place to start. Not only is it finite, but production has (at least for now) hit a plateau, and will at some point decline.
Quite a number of you argue in favor of cutting energy consumption, punishing car producers and motorists, switching from cars to bikes and generally being less materialistic. I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient.
Excellent. Knowing that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed is the first step. So far, so good.
At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport.
Present day realities and modern transport: Urban light rail, buses, bikes, walking, and automobiles. The first four are energy-efficient, the last is not (unless carpools of 3 or more occupants are realized). Centering policy around non-sustainable transport will lead to more entrenched oil-dependency as oil production begins to peak. This, in tandem with natural gas dependencies, will create an EU with two Achilles Heels. As Albert Einstein once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
The use of biofuels does nothing to improve efficiency; for those Europeans that are outside mass transit coverage, why not further advance automobile fuel efficiency as so many high fuel economy cars are about to be produced?
(Vehicles with their approximate fuel economy)
Aptera hybrid = 0.8 l/100km
VW 1 litre car = 1 l/100km
Loremo 2+2 = 1.5 l/100km
VentureOne = 2.3 l/100km
VW Lupo = 2.4 l/100km
…and many others.
Based on the ability of automakers to produce high-efficiency autos, why shouldn’t the average corporate fuel economy starting in 2011/2012 be 2.5 l/km? Automakers will still sell just as many, but there will be less risk of an oil shock, whether sudden or gradual.
Technically, some of the most modern transport, aside from MagLev, are electric bikes and all-weather velomobiles (which can also have electric boost).
Biofuels, have become a scapegoat for recent commodity price increases that have other causes – poor harvests worldwide and growing food demand generated by increased standards of living in China and
India.
It is true that climate-induced drought and a growing population also put price pressure on grain prices, but the major influence biofuels have in these price spikes cannot be ignored or dismissed. Indeed, because of these other pressures, there is no room in the grain/oilseed market for conversion of food into fuel, especially when the welfare of non-1st-world people are taken into consideration.
Moreover, since biofuels have as a co-product food for animals, you gain both a fuel and feed benefit from the same crop which will help displace land area used to grow dedicated feed crops like soybean, as well as helping produce a reduction in the price of animal feed. Every ton of wheat grown for biofuels produces a third of a ton of bioethanol and a third of a ton of animal feed. Our crops are more than capable of producing food and fuel.
So an area of farmland that produced 1 ton of food now would only produce 1/ ton of food? Doesn’t that lower food production? Won’t by-products for feed need to be transported back to farms, incurring more fuel losses?
Substantial tracts of arable land lie fallow since the collapse of the collective farming system used during Communist times in many of the new Member States.
If the fallow land in eastern EU isn’t already being induced to be put into production based on current prices, then there’s some other problem that needs addressing. Aren’t many of these farms experiencing water shortages?
How many acres of prime farmland are now fallow? How much ethanol could be produced on this land? How does that compare with the amount needed to fulfill the policy of 10% biofuel by 2020?
Where is all the additional nitrogen fertilizer, based on processed natural gas, going to come from? Potassium? Potash?
“Under the right conditions, biofuels offer important opportunities for poverty reduction by stimulating stagnant agricultural sectors, thus creating jobs for agricultural workers and markets for small farmers”
“Under the right conditions”? With severe drought in many parts of the US, Africa, China, Australia, and other areas, viable prime farmland is shrinking in area, not expanding. One thing is clear; biofuels compete directly for shrinking, drought-struck farmland with food crops, with global prices spiraling out of control as a result.
“The risks of food riots and malnutrition will surge in the next two years as the global supply of grain comes under more pressure than at any time in 50 years, according to one of the world’s leading agricultural researchers.” The Guardian, Dec 4, 2007
“The spectre of food shortages is casting a shadow across the globe, causing riots in Africa, consumer protests in Europe and panic in food-importing countries. In a world of increasing affluence, the hoarding of rice and wheat has begun.” The Times Online, March 7, 2008
UN Admits Food Shortages
The charge now is that EU biofuel policy will contribute to third world poverty by driving food prices up. My impression from this debate sometimes is that we the Europeans know best what is good for people in developing world. Let them speak for themselves.
I believe the signs are clear that there are billions who are malnourished, on the brink of starvation.
“Rocketing food prices — some of which have more than doubled in two years — have sparked riots in numerous countries recently. Millions are reeling from sticker shock and governments are scrambling to staunch a fast-moving crisis before it spins out of control. From Mexico to Pakistan, protests have turned violent. Rioters tore through three cities in the West African nation of Burkina Faso last month, burning government buildings and looting stores.
Days later in Cameroon, a taxi drivers’ strike over fuel prices mutated into a massive protest about food prices, leaving around 20 people dead. Similar protests exploded in Senegal and Mauritania late last year. And Indian protesters burned hundreds of food-ration stores in West Bengal last October, accusing the owners of selling government-subsidized food on the lucrative black market. “This is a serious security issue,” says Joachim von Braun, director-general of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), in Washington. In recent weeks, he notes, he has been bombarded by calls from officials around the world, all asking one question: How long will the crisis last?” Time Magazine, Feb 27, 2008
The signs are their for all to see;
Making mud cookies in Haiti (MSNBC Jan 08
At the end of the day, do we want to lead the way encouraging the sustainable production of renewable bio-fuels in Europe with high protein feed as a valuable co-product, strengthening our industrial base and re-building our rural economy, or do we want to be putting yet more money into the pockets of rich oil-producing countries.
There are many more choices available, as discussed above. What is needed is fortitude by policymakers to take the steps necessary to realize true sustainability in transport, rather than ways to continue out-moded transport modes that severely impact food supplies and the environment, merely because they are in vogue now. The real question is, “Will the EU lead by example, or follow North America?”
No one doubts that you had the best of intentions when you purchased your ethanol automobile. However, clinging to a policy now recognized as wreaking havoc with world food prices does not put the EU in a leadership position.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I find the entry written by Commissioner Piebalgs to be a very well written text. It puts this issue at the core of its complexity. Our future generations need the policy makers of today to be completely aware of all the pitfalls and opportunities.
Mike Childs from Friends of the Earth said in a recent chat on http://www.futurenergia.org that it is of utmost importance that we produce biofuels from the right sources.
I totally agree with Mike Childs. We need to use the right resources for the right purpose. If biofuels are made where it is more suitable to grow crops, we should not do it. If crops are grown where it is more suitable to grow biofuels we should avoid that too.
There is plenty of land for everything to be grown. Let’s not complicate matters too much and ruin the opportunity to have a greener future.
‘Out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge’
Let the wisdom words of Winston Churchill lead us to the future of energy. Futurenergia is a website where school students can share their opinions, learn about energy and ask the questions which needs to be asked. It also aims to foster a pan European network and to integrate schools more with energy issues.
After all, it is the next generation who will be most affected by the changes in the climate that we are currently causing.
Mathias Nilsen – Blueprint Partners
March 31st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Every ton of wheat grown for biofuels produces a third of a ton of bioethanol and a third of a ton of animal feed.
From the field’s point of view, this loss must be compensated somehow, usually with oil or natural gaz based fertilizers which are, as you said, finite commodities.
By the way, with our (or your ?) irresponsible management, soil too became a finite commodity.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Giles Clark writes:
Generally speaking the scientists who are anti are touted as far seeing intelligent people, those who are seen as pro biofuels are either fools or paid lackeys of big industry and government.
OK, Giles — please refer me to even one article in favour of biofuels that has been published in the past five years either (a) in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, (b) by a prestigious scientific body such as the Royal Society or (c) in the science section of a quality newspaper.
Thanks in advance — I always like to read the other side.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Dear Mr Piebalgs,
agreed that biofuels or biomass as an energy form has its benefits when compared to other energy sources, but these are far from being carbon neutral due to the transformation/processing needed in most cases. If we really look at the full energy cycle of biomass, probably biomass performs quite bad. Consider that our ultimate source of energy is the sun, that is actually responsible for biomass growth - photosynthesis conversion of solar energy to biomass and biomass to energy is about 0,5% efficient. If we look at Photovoltaics, we are experiencing very fast developments and we are now reaching commercial efficiencies of about 20-25% when some people are talking about 40% for concentrated solar power (using parabolic concentrators, stirling engines, other).
Furthermore, our continent does not have the capacity to produce enough biomass without seriously compromising feedstock.
My point is that there are other solutions available that receive very few attention. Examples are Saline power, wave power, maybe PV is really taking off, etc. DG Research has actually some good work done on these technologies and so do other private bodies in Brussels and around Europe.
I do believe that the real potential, though is in energy efficiency. I would like to read your opinion regarding the (not so) recent National Energy Efficiency Action Plans that our MS should have submitted by the 30th June 2007. By then, only UK and Finland had done so. Today, there are still a hand full of NEEAPs missing. In about 3 years, MS have to submit not only a new Action Plan but an analysis/evaluation of the previous (current) one, as required by the Energy Services Directive. Don’t you fear that we will assist to a snowball effect with MS procrastinating their duties?
You may argue that these MS will receive penalties, but a fact is: the target of 9% is not mandatory, what is mandatory is only proving to have made efforts towards the target. Even when the target is not reached, there is no foreseen penalty but a submission of (yet another) corrective Action Plan. Is this realistic? or are we just letting our best chance escape between our fingers?
I have made a traineeship in DG TREN where I was working with the Green Paper, Public Consultation and Action Plan on Energy Efficiency and I admire your work and of your services. What I seriously regret is the lack of commitment of our MS.
would like to hear your thoughts on this and what we can do to tackle the situation.
At your disposition for further discussion!
Best regards
Sergio
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Matizta says “Our future generations need the policy makers of today to be completely aware of all the pitfalls and opportunities” Yes for sure. “There is plenty of land for everything to be grown. Let’s not complicate matters too much…” !!!!!!!!!!!
For something not too complicated here’s an easy read in Time that shows how one activity displaces another and another… so there isn’t plenty of land for everything at all. I have seen the same thing in Bolivia and Paraguay where two tractors with a huge chain between them just drive along and rip down the forest.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
Interesting to see how the politicians change their tune when votes are at stake:-(
April 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
May be it is worth to browse at the leasure time through the book “Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update” by Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Dennis L. Meadows.
Of course, there is an alternate view by Mr. Lomborg, who offers to solve all problems by wisely allocating the money
April 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The simple answer to all the world’s problems re fuel, food, global warming, pollution et al is blindingly obvious but rarely mentioned. There are too many people on the earth for us all to live the type of life we want. There are two (acceptable) solutions - (1) Live a simpler life so there is more to share around, or (2) produce fewer children so the populations decrease to levels that won’t kill off the planet.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:01 am
International Confederation of European Beet Growers (CIBE)
Dear Commissioner Pielbags,
Thanks for the opportunity you are giving us to express our point of you in your blog.
We would like to make four general statements for supporting bioethanol production, in particular from beet:
1) Biofuels Will Be One Among Other Elements in Tomorrow’s Energy Mix
Bio-fuel producers and manufacturers aim not to replace all fuels currently in use, but rather to diversify fuel sources understanding full well that the potential market percentage they can aspire to replace is limited.
To exit from the “all oil” paradigm does not mean one should aim to enter another “all bio-fuel” or “all–other fuel substitute.” To the contrary. The world will be better served, clearly, if future energy policies rest not on a single source but instead on multiple sources of energy, of which bio-fuels will be just one.
2) Bioethanol from beet is Environment Friendly and have a positive energy balance
The production of molasses-based ethanol has no impact whatever on the environment.
Furthermore:
- bioethanol production from beet has an excellent energy balance. As an example, according to the Wageningen University, the energy output/input ratio (GJ/GJ) for producing bioethanol from beet is 3.3.
- as shown by different serious studies (also used by the COMMISSION), bioethanol from beet strongly contributes to the reduction of GHG emissions and this can help the EU to achieve its Kyoto commitments.
Finally, the Community and national environmental legislation in place and the Common Agricultural Policy guarantee the sustainability of all agricultural production within the EU, given that all agricultural production is subject de facto to cross-compliance.
3) Food/Energy Competition Offers a False Choice
A closer look at the issue quickly shows how misleading this is from the standpoint of agronomy and economics.
On one hand, there exists a structural excess capacity to produce food in the world. This explains why, for over three decades, depressed agricultural commodity prices have led farmers to sell frequently below their cost of production. Bio-fuels offer billions of farmers worldwide the opportunity to regulate supply to the food commodity markets and even, over time, finally, a chance to make a decent living.
On the other hand, the world is also capable of vastly improving crop yields. An array of technological breakthroughs make this possible, from simple technical improvements in the application of fertilizers and irrigation, to smarter post-harvest management, to more complex approaches such as plant genetics, and crop management through distance surveying techniques. But there is only one way producers can hope to finance such massive investments in agricultural research and that is to boost their commodity income. Higher prices will bring world production levels sharply up to a level sufficient to meet the planet’s needs.
Looking at the world sugar market, we can see that despite the big development of ethanol produced from sugar beet and sugar cane, the world sugar market experiences regular sugar surpluses: as an example, major analysts forecasted a 9 million tonnes sugar surplus for 2007/08. To be noted that in the same year world fuel ethanol production was forecast at a record level of 50.4 bln litres. It is therefore clear that ethanol production is not challenging sugar production and that, therefore, food and energy are not in this case antithetical.
Furthermore, taking into account that following the reform of the European sugar regime beet sugar production in the EU would have to decrease from 18.3 million tonnes in 2005/06 to 12.5 million tonnes in 2010/2011 and that therefore sugar beet area would have to decrease accordingly, it is clear that there would be plenty of land available for cultivating “ethanol beet”.
4) The Second Generation Is Not Antithetical To The First
The second generation of bio-fuels is primarily geared to process ethanol from cellulose and is usually touted as a much more efficient alternative than the first generation. However, first generation production processes drew on usage of the entire plant whose component parts were then sold to different markets: as food (sugar, rum); as animal feed (molasses; pulp); or as energy (from the production of ethanol, electric power, or methane). First generation producers and manufacturers rightly considered such a multilayered income structure based on different markets to be a major asset. As the industrial process involved in rolling out the second generation of bio-fuels becomes operational, crop usage will hinge on a single market, which in turn will make the producer vulnerable again to a certain degree.
In the long run, plant productivity will prove the determining factor in the equation—beyond issues of first or second generation comparative advantage. And it so happens that sugar cane and beet are among the world’s most productive crops.
Contact press
Elisabeth Lacoste, General Secretary
International Confederation of European Sugar Beet Growers (CIBE)
29, rue du Général Foy
F- 75008 Paris
France
Tel. +33 1 44 69 39 00
Fax +33 1 42 93 28 93
Email: cibelacoste@orange.fr, cibeoffice@orange.fr, cibeurop@wanadoo.fr
April 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Dear Andris,
Happy Easter. I’m just back from 10 days skiing in Norway. I’ve never seen so much snow. And we had blizzards in Aberdeen when I got back home yesterday. We are struggling to keep warm.
I don’t know if you follow the oil and gas prices. UK day ahead gas is running at around 60p pence / therm compared with 30.2 pence / therm a year ago.
http://www.upstreamonline.com/market_data/?id=markets_gas
Have you any idea how these high energy costs will impact the old and the poor in the UK? Not to mention how they will hit the UK trade balance as our indigenous gas supplies run down and every year we need to import more gas at ever higher prices. NW Europe has actually had a fairly mild winter, especially compared with N America and East Asia where raw freezing conditions have been experienced.
The cold northern hemisphere winter is one reason for high nat gas prices. But it is not the only reason. An increasing amount of global nat gas is being used to grow bio fuels (the ammonia based fertilizer) and is also being used to produce syn-crude from tar sands. So we are using one energy source to produce another. This is pretty much like changing £GBP in €uros. Do you really think you are getting richer by changing one currency into another?
Add to this declining European gas production and declining US gas production and its easy to understand why nat gas prices are going through the roof.
The most recent Norwegian nat gas production forecast I have seen shows production peaking as soon as next year. Have you considered what impact this is going to have on the European gas market? In the past, Norway could be relied upon to increase production when this was required. Next year, and every year thereafter, Norwegian gas production may actually fall.
I agree with your comments about maintaining an industrialised European economy, but this will have to be planned on a sustainable basis. And basing this on the availability of nat gas that we will not be able at any price is not sustainable. Europe should be aiming to become the world leader in electric transportation based on renewable electricity.
The arguments about food are complex. As I see it, both N America and Europe have subsidised food production. This has led to over production and low prices that have kept inflation in check but farmers in poverty for decades. On the flip side of the coin, many N African and Middle Eastern countries have subsidised food prices creating demand for the cheap surpluses produced in America and Europe. These policies have likely contributed to population growth in these developing countries.
Now times have changed. Surpluses of cheap food are to be replaced by expensive bio fuels. Developing countries can no longer afford the subsidies on the remaining surplus of now expensive food and folks will starve and the societies will decline into a maelstrom of civil unrest - on Europe’s borders! Do you really think that 80 million Egyptians can be fed on the production from the Nile valley?
If you want my support for the European bio-fuels directive you will have to ban farmers from using fossil fuels in their production. If it is such a great idea this should not be a problem. I’m quite sure the oil industry will be happy running its business without bio fuels.
You need to read Luis de Sousa’s post on land requirement too.
Best wishes,
Dr Euan Mearns
Editor The Oil Drum Europe
April 9th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
As ever one of the unelected dictators of europe comes up with a useless idea that will aid no one. There are two reasons why food costs so much in the corrupt democratically deficient eu, and that is the CAP, which pays farmers not to produce effectively, except in the UK where it is the major cause of farms going bust, and farmers committing suicide, and the mass storage of over production until the food becomes unusable. By selling the excess foodstuffs to Africa, for a reduced, and sensible price the waste of foodstuffs in europe, and the lack of foodstuffs in Africa could be addressed. Currently the cddeu is the major cause of starvation problems throughout the world, due to the massive amount of lowest common denominator, one size fits all, directives from the unelected commission.
Burning organic matter as fuel will emit the same types of fumes whether it is oil or maize.
There is currently no evidence that Global warming is due to emissions from vehicles, in fact having just recorded the coldest winter for 100 years, and that 30 years ago we were worried about Global cooling it would appear to be a natural occurrance.
We do need to consider new fuels, or means of powering vehicles, because it is not likely that the earth will be able to sustain the need for fuel, the film Mad Max springs to mind as an example of the likelyhood of fuel becoming scarce.
The cddeu as usual is fuelling the rising costs of fuel, because the Emissions Trading scheme, whereby licence’s to pollute are given away free, then sold on for vast proffits, which in turn are passed on to the customer, just don’t work, the CO2 levels have gone up despite this thoughtless intervention. As the charge is increased, so to is the amount of tax paid on the fuels, as usual the money grabbing cddeu is responsible.
The bottom line is that the elderly, the poor, and the disabled who need to use more fuel to just keep warm are as ever being abused by the political class. Whilst the corrupt politicians in the cddeu continue to waste fuel on the provision of two identical parliament buildings, and the migration between them, inclusive of commissioners flying everywhere, and the provinces, formerly independent nations of this empire also having to fly everywhere. Dismantling the eu entirely could reduce CO2 emissions by a greater degree than by the small consumer.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Thanks, Mr. Piebalgs , you are correct ! and the time is now !
1) Europe can grow sugarcane,jatropha,rapeseeds,corn, algae ,extra cellulosic modified plants ,your invention ,etc., for ETHANOL JET FUEL as well as car/truck/turbine/boat/etc/. uses, the EU
countries must get together and start planning and growing, today ! the enemy is only the Oil-Neocon lobby’s crying for their monopoly to keep us addicted exclusively to their oil/gas racket and to the Middle East, which has become WITH THEIR FANATIC RELIGIONS AND LAND OCCUPATION POLICIES the nightmare and shame of the Human Race !
2) EU and the USA are right on the cliff, at 112 dollars a barrel and going up non-stop with speculation and fabricated off-areas ( Arctic Sea ,etc.) it’s a race to bring down the “gentiles world” under the sword of tight supply and to social and economic bankruptcy, so will Europe stand up and and get going TOGETHER today ? or will they go on talking about it while doing nothing for months on end ?
3) an Investment of just 30.000 million euros ( a fraction of what the central banks waste to bail-out the big private banks , investment houses and their bankers ,advisers and lawyers when they wreck their greedy deals ) will start growth areas in all EU countries, testing crops and yields, making sure all seeds ,if “gm” for maximum yield ,are labeled as such and totally out of the human and animal food chain, with color and taste markers,etc.( most g.m. corn and soy was intended for fuel,never for human food ).
4) this is the time for all the citizens of Europe ( and America if we had normal politicians ) to get together and confront the energy disaster looming if we don’t act right now ! ,Patriotism starts with Energy Independence, National Security starts with full Fuel Stocks and a working and inventing community, this is a continental challenge and we must win.
5)one day soon we will grow high yield ethanol plants under solar panels/concentrators/thermal tubes and wind turbines feeding batteries and hydrogen into fuel-cells ,the first step is massive ethanol fields as well as the best freshest organic crops for human food, what are we waiting for ? Europe is about search and excellence.
( i got your link from http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/
May 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Time to change our minds??
Joachim von Braun, head of the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute, said a moratorium on biofuels from food grains in 2008 would lower corn prices by 20 percent and wheat prices by 10 percent in 2009 and 2010.
Last week US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said “In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable,”
Some scientists warn that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, as farmers convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace or add to grain diverted to biofuels.
“Corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years, and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,” Timothy Searchinger and other experts wrote in a study published in the journal Science.
Any update on this commissioner?
June 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Its time for all to pool our resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change.
There are hundreds of individuals and corporations throughout the world with new discoveries on how to save fuel and reduce emissions but there should be a concerted effort to bring these people together so that a viable solution can be found.
Below I am attaching an interesting article from a Malaysian Government news agency on an architect who researched and found a biofuel additive to reduce fuel consumption and emission.
I came in touch with this person and have included additional information for the benefit of every citizen of the world.
The article: Business
June 09, 2008 17:57 PM
Bio Fuel Seeks Partners For Global Expansion Of Green Fuel Additive
By Tengku Noor Shamsiah Tengku Abdullah
PUTRAJAYA, June 9 (Bernama) — Bio Fuel Sdn Bhd, producer of bio fuel additive, is seeking local and foreign partners for its plan to expand globally.
Its chief executive officer/president, P. Muguntha, who is responsible for developing the palm oil-based fuel additive, said the product offered growth potential with the rising global fuel prices.
“Companies can also explore carbon credit trading with the use of this environment-friendly additive,” he told Bernama in an interview here.
Muguntha said he was willing to work with any government in the world and oil company to help reduce harmful emission into the atmosphere and also help consumers save on fuel usage, as well as cushion the impact of spiralling fuel prices.
He said fuel additive would cut petrol, diesel and heavy fuel consumption and lower emission such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon.
Muguntha has been involved in the sale and distribution of fossil fuel additive in India for over 10 years.
“It took me five years to develop the additive using palm oil and it can be used in petrol and diesel engines, in industrial boilers, power plants, in ships that used heavy fuel, and all all types of machinery that use fossil fuel to power them,” he said.
He said samples of his products had been tested and approved by Sirim QAS International Sdn Bhd on emission reduction, engine performance and fuel savings.
Currently, Muguntha said, he was in the midst of negotiations with several foreign and local corporations to start manufacturing plants in big fuel consuming countries like the US, Europe and China.
Muguntha, who is also president of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Selangor, said he had spent over RM3 million on research and development.
Unlike factor plants and power plants, he said, private cars and commercial vehicles like buses, lorries and heavy machiery like tractors would see significant improvement on engine performance within a shorter time frame. “I ventured into fuel additive research after reading the environment damage caused by the burning of fossil fuel and also due to the spiralling cost of global crude oil.
“Since I was already involved in the sale and distribution of fuel additive in India, I decided to fund my own bio fuel additive research on palm oil,” he said.
Asked how his product would fare in the local and global markets where similar products could also be found, he said his additive has been tested using global standards and by big corporations which adopted stringent in-house testing and monitoring.
Mugutha hoped to kick off with production of the additive within next three months in Pulau Indah.
He said he would seek funds from the government under the small and medium enterprises to speed up production process. Mugutha said his targeted markets included the Association of South-East Asian Nations, China, India, Europe and the Middle East.
– BERNAMA
Additional Information: Test by Sirim QAS International Sdn Bhd for emission reduction, engine performance and fuel savings revealed
i) Diesel fuel mixed with the additive resulted in an average savings of 17%
ii) engine power and torque improved by an average of 10% respectively
iii) test also saw a significant reduction of greenhouse gases from exhaust emission - bio fuel additive used on a diesel multi cylinder engine saw a reduction of CO by 61%, CO2 by 76% and HC (ppm) by 76%
iv) 10ml of bio diesel can treat 100 litres of fuel
For further information please contact Mr P. Muguntha at: pmuguntha@gmail.com or 012-012-398-4444
Thank you