Biofuels good or evil?
March 14, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...According to Fidel Castro, the global promotion of biofuels “means none other than the internationalisation of genocide”. Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, biofuels are a “crime against humanity”. A study by Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen is reported as showing that nitrous oxide emissions from biofuel production are “wiping out any benefit from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming”.
These statements have been widely reported and set the dominant tone on the biofuel debate. Contrary views are hardly heard. Yet, these statements are misleading or plain wrong. I myself drive an ethanol-powered Saab 9-5 and certainly I would not even think of it if I had the slightest suspicion that I’m contributing in any way to global warming, or, even worse, to an international genocide. This is why I consider that it is essential to regain a sense of proportion in this debate and try to have a discussion on this issue that is less intemperate and one-sided. I’m confident that this blog can be a good place to do this, and I plan to have a number of entries on this issue, and of course, your comments to them will be extremely welcome.
Most of you know that this year on 23 January, the Commission made a proposal for the promotion of renewable sources of energy. The objective was very clear: one fifth the energy that we consume should be renewable by 2020. And that included all renewable energy sectors: electricity production, heating and cooling (for the first time), and renewables for transport. This last sector had a sub-target of its own: 10% of energy used in transport sector should be renewable.
I am proud of this proposal. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector, will make us less dependent on oil, and will offer new opportunities for low-income farmers in developing countries. I would like to explain why.
First of all, when biofuels replace fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions are almost always lower. Biofuels are produced from plants that absorb the CO2 they generate when they are burnt. This has to take into account the fertiliser used to produce the crops, the energy needed to convert them into liquid fuels and so on. On this basis, biofuels produced in
Europe from rape seed, wheat and sugar beet, typically reduce emissions by 20-50% compared to the oil they replace. Biofuels from sugar cane, waste vegetable oil and second generation biofuels can save 75% or more. Under our proposal, all biofuels used for the EU target will have to save, at least, 35%.
Secondly, energy crops are a positive agricultural alternative for European farmers. The Commission expects most of biofuels consumed in
Europe to be produced in the EU. That will reduce substantially our foreign oil dependency, expected to be of about 90% by 2030. The transport sector which relies on oil for 98% of its energy is particularly vulnerable to our dependency and biofuels is currently the only significant alternative to oil in this sector.
And this is why biofuels are so important. Today, there are only three ways to reduce greenhouse emissions: the shift from polluting modes to more energy efficient ones (i.e. rail, short sea shipping, collective transport); the promotion of less consuming cars, by establishing CO2/km targets; and biofuels. The Commission is actively promoting the first two (white paper on transport; proposal to limit the CO2 emissions from cars 19/12/07 COM/2007/0856 final). But biofuels ought to be supported as well because they are the most immediately feasible way of significantly slowing the worrying growth of greenhouse gas emissions from transport. This is of critical importance in a context where rising transport emissions are wiping out the hard-earned reductions of greenhouse gases achieved in other sectors.
Until other technologies such as hydrogen became competitive, the only alternative to biofuels is oil. This means: a shrinking source of energy with serious environmental concerns in the regions where it is extracted; large amounts of CO2 not only when it is burned, but also when is extracted (gas flaring), transported (by tankers) and refined.
Oil means that money of European citizens is put in the hands of rich oil producing countries at a time when the barrel is at 111$, which has very negative impact on the EU economy. That way the possible benefits for farmers both in the EU and developing countries, and research on second generation biofuels will be drained in our oil bill. In 2004 we were dependent on an 80% from abroad for our oil imports and 80% of this oil came from just 5 countries (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran and Norway), which makes Europe extremely vulnerable for security of supply but also for oil prices.
Certainly, the Commission is aware that biofuels can also be produced in ways which can cause environmental problems or other negative consequences. This is why the Commission has conducted a serious assessment of all the impacts be they environmental, economic or social and that is why we have included a sustainability scheme in our policy proposal. I would like to underline once again, that the Commission proposes a target of 10% of SUSTAINABLE biofuels in transport fuels, not just any biofuels.
In addition, I should highlight the commitment of the EC, in the proposed Directive, to monitor regularly not only environmental, but also other impacts of our biofuels policy, if relevant to make the necessary adjustments.
I will come back to these issues in some of my next entries on this blog.
Next week I will address the question of biofuels and food prices. But just to start the debate with you I would like to consider what the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said in this respect. This is “a very complex issue, with many positive dimensions as well as negative ones. A moratorium that ignores the potential of biofuels to support rural development an assist the economies of developing countries would not, in our view, be a constructive approach to this topic”. I share the FAO’s perspective. Next week I will explain in more detail why.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
March 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“Today, there are only three ways to reduce greenhouse emissions: the shift from polluting modes to more energy efficient ones (i.e. rail, short sea shipping, collective transport); the promotion of less consuming cars, by establishing CO2/km targets; and biofuels.”
This statement shows the lack of imagination of the social planners who are tied to a single economic model: capitalism/consumerism.
There is a fourth way to reduce GHG - cut consumption, not by improved efficiency, but by being less materialistic. Capitalism has no concept of a non-consuming society, but for much of human history this was the norm. People consumed enough to provide for their needs and then spent the rest of their time on other pursuits.
Examples of such include socializing, participating in ceremonies. relaxing, engaging in artistic efforts, enjoying nature and raising one’s children. Nowadays people are trained to think that they are defined by their possessions.
Capitalism can’t see how to make money from people chatting around the town square, so it’s not on the agenda.
We live in a finite world and reducing consumption, especially in the highest consuming nations, is going to have to be a part of any successful long-term plan. If capitalism can’t be adapted to this goal then it is time for exploration of other economic models. Efficiency improvements are just a way to delay the inevitable.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
agreed with the above. unless consumption patterns are modified towards reduction, it is a neverending uphill battle. world population growth ensures that there won’t be enough energy to go around and even if there is, the waste products of mindnumbing consumption will be a serious problem.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Congratulation! Is necessary in Piebalgs Blog-Informations and Training: Together and specialists, planners, investors, owners, public offices and authorities:Total for S.O.S Live Earth! In Future Not-Marte-only if-“My position at consultation process European!”-example Mr.Naidin- Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers, Actions-Best Practice Inventory,Guide,Example and Calculation Energy performance,etc.
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 !
YES –FOR Proposal for a DIRECTIVE on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources:increased use of biofuels for transport can reduce its dependence on imported oil - and influence the fuel market for transport-to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases; “promoting security of energy supply; providing new economic opportunities; and facilitating the integration of renewable energy in the internal market and the operation of the internal market in energy from renewable sources, systems and equipment “.
2.My Propsals-for Study and to improve: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 -Promotion of Energy Intelligent Building PLAN .
March 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
First of all let me say that I’m a great fan of ethanol, especially when produced from grapes and matured in black oak casks.
It saddens me to see the Energy Commissioner continuously concerned with CO2. Once again climate issues are put ahead of energy issues with disastrous results. Not that the CO2 question shouldn’t be addressed, but this is the Energy Commission, not the Climate Commission.
Considering that Europe will be able to use 90% of the Oil it uses today by 2020 is by itself a strategical error, showing a concerning lack of understanding of the current international energy market. Where will that Oil come from? At what price?
And then the striking confidence on agro-fuels as a substitute to Oil. Some calculations:
According to FAO the global diet equates today to some 2750 kcal per capita per day. This is equivalent to 3.2 kWh/cap/d.
The world has some 6.7 billion people, multiply that by 3.2 kWh and the result is 21.5 TWh/d.
The world uses today some 81 million barrels of liquid fossil fuels (including NGL). Using 1700 kWh for a barrel of oil equivalent the result is 138 TWh/d.
If we used all the food in the world to produce liquid fuels we would offset 16% of the world Oil supply. A deeper analysis by Physics PhD Stuart Staniford can be found at the website TheOilDrum.com:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431
Mr Piebalgs, ethanol is an excellent liquid to fill our glasses at the end of a good meal, not to waste in the combustion chambers of outdated heat engines.
Luís de Sousa
March 14th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Here’s an interesting bit of information from the FAO:
Any analysis of biomass energy production must consider the potential efficiency of the processes involved. Although photosynthesis is fundamental to the conversion of solar radiation into stored biomass energy, its theoretically achievable efficiency is limited both by the limited wavelength range applicable to photosynthesis, and the quantum requirements of the photosynthetic process. Only light within the wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) can be utilized by plants, effectively allowing only 45 % of total solar energy to be utilized for photosynthesis. Furthermore, fixation of one CO2 molecule during photosynthesis, necessitates a quantum requirement of ten (or more), which results in a maximum utilization of only 25% of the PAR absorbed by the photosynthetic system. On the basis of these limitations, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In practice, however, the magnitude of photosynthetic efficiency observed in the field, is further decreased by factors such as poor absorption of sunlight due to its reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels. The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation.
Photovoltaic cells now on the market have a photosynthetic efficiency of up to 19%. Cells tested in laboratories have reached efficiencies of up to 43%. This contrasts with a theoretical maximal efficiency for biofuels of 6% (for algal biofuels that are still in the early development stage).
Currently, however, even the most efficient biofuel crops, sugar cane and sugar beet, yield about 25 times less than that.
It seems clear, then, that on the long run cars are going to be electric (probably directly, maybe indirectly through hydrogen or compressed air), and the EU, by investing in biofuels, is on the wrong path. It is going to end up with a big stranded investment. The right path right now would be moving towards plug-in electric hybrid vehicles.
In addition, there is competing demand for biomass for energy, notably for biogas, which is a far more sustainable way to use biomass as it can be produced from agricultural wastes (whereas cellulosic biofuels are still in the development stage) while - as biofuel production can’t - preserving their use as fertiliser.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The target 20% from renewable sources by 2020 is clear. But let’s talk about the change in energy consumption also. How much will energy consumption of Europe increase 2008-2020? If this is 25%, all the emissions from renewables just add to the pattern of fossil and nuclear energy.
Look what is happening in your home country Latvia (or my home country Estonia). With economic growth there is an incredible driving force to move out from small flats in the towns to the new-built, and very cheaply built (and so energy wasting) houses in the fields in the town outskirts, where there is no infrastructure - no schools, no shops, no jobs. This leads to increased emissions from heating of those houses, transport to job, schools, shops… Not talking about traffic jams and the need to build wider roads also producing more emissions. So, the formula is economic growth = increased energy consumption.
One should really start to look at consumption. Sorry, but energy efficient bulbs are not enough. All lighting accounts only 8% of family’s energy consumption. Small wind turbine or solar panels in personal use might be a small step, but at present technology these balance both the emissions and investments in a large time period. Energy efficient construction and passive housing is a huge step forward. But also planning of urban areas. Just look at a typical energy bill of a family and calculate how much it is possible to win using low energy bulbs and energy saving washing machines, refrigerators etc. And then compare it with a bill paid for heating or, for example, an increased bill because of the decision of a family to build an electric sauna.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
dear sir, please could you look into why the fully functional biodiesel plant at umbertide, umbria, italy has been shut down, when italy is behind on its promise to diversify against fossil fuels, and there is so much sunflower growing in the area just for the funds, and the crop shrivels and dies in the field.
many people were using the biodiesel around here, from motorists, who could buy it on the E45 near perugia, to forklift operators and agricultural users, who value the possibility of working in fields and worse, warehouses without inhaling such awful pollution from burning dino-diesel.
it’s a crying shame such a useful plant has closed, and when one asks around, people say it was vested interests that influenced its closing.
trying to supply the insane amounts of transport fossil fuel we use now from biomass is a foolish dream, i believe, (electrics will be far better) but local use in agricultural area is a net positive, especially until solar panels are more ubiquitous, and electric tractors common.
ethanol seems more of a boondoggle, except perhaps under certain very limited conditions, such as a little homebrew for an outboard engine or chainsaw, for mass transit, we await better EROI than ethanol produces.
thanks for making an effort!
March 15th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Dear Andris,
I am pleased to see that you have moved this debate swiftly on to one of the core issues of the EU energy policy, namely bio-fuels.
First I need to ask you a question:
When Europe is confronted with the very serious and current threat of energy decline, why does the EU have an energy policy that is predicated on, indeed obsessed with, CO2 emissions? Why is the policy not focussed 100% on dealing with the very real and current threat of declining oil and natural gas production?
And so to bio fuels. On The Oil Drum, the main debate about bio fuels always centers around the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI). This may be applied to all sources of energy and fuel but is particularly relevant to alternative and renewable energy sources. I first learned about this concept in Richard Heinberg’s book, “The Party’s Over”.
ERoEI is a measure of the amount of energy used in energy production / gathering systems. A value of 1 means that as much energy was used to produce energy as energy was produced - the net gain is zero - and in general terms this is a waste of time and resources.
By way of example, if 1 liter of gasoline is used to produce 1 liter of bio-ethanol then it should be quite clear that producing ethanol is a total waste of time (ignoring energy density differences between the liquids). You would be better off just burning the gasoline in your car. Now, you may be surprised to hear that temperate latitude bio ethanol has an ERoEI of around 1.2. The energy used to make the ethanol is in the form of natural gas used to make ammonia fertilizer to grow the corn, diesel for the tractor and truck and electricity to power the factory (I’m not even going to bother talking about capturing CO2 emissions here - it is not relevant to this debate). The energy gain is only 20% - this is net solar energy gathered by the food crop - and this is a paltry gain. Experts working in this field estimate ERoEI of over 7 is required for a functional fuel / energy source. 1 unit of energy used to make the fuel 6 units of energy available for society to use. You should look up Professor Charles Hall on this subject.
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/eroie.png
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/co2_eroei_0.png
The question you need to ask yourself is whether all the detrimental impacts of growing bio - fuel is worth this paltry gain. This is hardly providing energy security since we are burning so much FF to produce the bio fuel.
Last week I gave you an example of the efficiency of bio fuels combined with the efficiency of an internal combustion engine (ICE). Same example but using ERoEI of 1.2 instead of 2.5 as used last week.
Efficiency of producing fuel = 0.2/1.2 = 16.7%
Efficiency of ICE = 30%
Overall efficiency = 0.3*0.167 = 5%
So you are driving a vehicle that is only 5% efficient and is wasting 95% of the primary energy used to propel it. As the EU Energy Commissioner I would be keeping this very much secret.
The other option is to look at electric vehicles powered by wind electricity. Wind power has high ERoEI of the order 20.
Efficiency of wind electricity = 19/20= 95%
Transmission efficiency = 95%
Battery efficiency = 80%
Electric motor efficiency = 90%
Overall efficiency = 0.95*0.95*0.8*0.9 = 65%
So I hope next week you come back and say you have bought an electric car. If so, let me know where you bought it because I would like to buy one too:-)
Best wishes,
Euan Mearns BSc PhD
Editor The Oil Drum Europe
March 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Referring to Robertdfeinman’s entry, in my opinion social planners must be practical and plan according to realities, not idealistic proposals. When people start to become ‘less materialistic’ and new social models emerge, then the planners will adapt accordingly. In the meantime, they must base their plans on practical realities. So I cannot blame the EU for planning according to the realities around it…. I do however blame the EU for not cleaning up its own act insofar as environmental respect and better use of resources are concerned: how about starting by closing down the Strasbourg parliament seat and sticking to Brussels all the year round! How big will that saving be in terms of CO2 etc., ??? Even if all the MEPS and staff use biofuels on their trip to Strasbourg - or hybrid vehicles for that matter - they are still burning fuel! Lets be honest: GHG is NOT top priority.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
robertdfeinman, March 14th,is quite right.
The problem is that the EU, in particular, is turning into a corporate monster.
It exploits the less developed countries for its own wealth and power. The upsetting of the evolved order of agriculture in these countries to accommodate the growing of bio-fuels is leading to food shortages. The EU is also doing considerable damage to the fishing grounds of these countries. The policy is also causing rising food prices in the EU and other countries.
It also considers that it is only the ordinary inhabitants of the Nations that go to make up the EU who have to live by environment friendly rules. The rulers of the EU can jet off all around the world to attend conferences when they could videoconference, is just one example.
The EU, to increase its position of power to rival the US, is also hell-bent on increasing its population. Increasing populations worldwide can only add to the pressure on valuable resources.
Only when the EU and other Nations put aside their own power-hungry and greedy views of the world will we be able to tackle the damage done by the human race. There appears to be a need for a brake to be applied when ever, and where ever, institutions such as the EU set out on such half-baked schemes such as those involving bio-fuels.
Your efforts to examine the environmental problems around us are laudable but, I’m afraid, doomed to failure for the above reasons. The “grey old men” of the EU hierarchy are totally unable to change their natures. Power and greed will always win.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:44 am
I discuss here in some detail the prospects for the world to fuel itself using biofuels. Interested people can read it there with the calculations and references, but the short version is that even in the best of conditions, with the world dedicating itself to producing biofuels, we could get not more than a third of current consumption for transport.
- currently, for transport the developed nations use 7-15 barrels of oil each annually, developing nations 2-7bbl, and impoverished nation 0-2bbl
- There’s not enough land or plant production to give the world even 2-7bbl of biofuel each, still less 7-15bbl, and maintain the world’s current diet of lots of meat, dairy and fruit and vegetables
- Let’s assume we put the entire world on minimum rations of grain, and consume no grainfed meat, nor fruit or vegetables,
- Assuming no decline from climate change or land degradation, we maintain current high levels of food production
- assuming that to grow and process these biofuels is done without the use of any biofuels (animal manure? electric tractors? solar distilleries?)
- all that together gives us 3/4bbl biofuels per person annually
- adding in all the oilseed production, setting aside the problem of deforestation for palm plantations and the like, which is a significant contributor to climate, this brings us up to a single barrel of biofuel per person
A single barrel of biofuels
Our current oil consumption is actually 4.7 barrels of oil each annually around the world, and about 2/3 of this, or 3.2bbl, goes to transportation, the remaining amount is making roads, agricultural and industrial chemicals, extracting oil, and making plastics.
So the biofuels, even with the generous assumptions made for them above, can give us less than a third of the fuel we’d need for transport.
Of course the fuel use around the world is rather unequal, as I noted above, so in this scenario we could expect the inequality to continue; Malay farmers will be expected to grow palm oil with their bare hands and tools so that Europeans can drive their Saabs.
There is no question that a few rich countries can and will feed and fuel themselves no matter what happens; but whether the world can do it is an open question.
Biofuels are excellent for a few rich countries. Because it’s impossible to ever produce enough for the whole world, and because growing more will mean deforestation, they are less good for the world as a whole, and for climate change.
Piebalgs may respond that the EU’s latest policy is to not buy biofuels from countries that are engaging in deforestation. However, even if that policy works perfectly with no dodges and corruption (consider similar policies about logging in developing countries, and how often they’re dodged and corrupted), then what we’re saying is that the total amount of land being farmed will stay the same. So the palm plantation farmers will have to buy food grown somewhere else. This then puts a limit on the amount of biofuels we can produce.
The only way to get beyond the single barrel of biofuels per person is to clear more forests. And even then we don’t get much more.
Supporting biofuels is an excellent policy for the EU, and a terrible policy for developing nations and the world as a whole.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Well, the fact is that biofuels ARE indeed responsible for the unbelievable increase in prices of wheat, corn, rice and many other vital cereals, and already are creating large shortages around the world.
The leaders of the EU might as well realise that no matter what, automobile transportation has no future. It’s not about the different twists one might take (E85, biofuels, LNG, LPG, whatever). It is over despite our ridiculous “alternatives”.
In the future, less people will have access to cars. Far less.
You might as well tell the people the truth before their own road-rash gets them to starve to death.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am
My claim:
Bio-fuel is an impossibility!
(don’t you have access to calculators down in Bruxelles ? … Or is the problem more of the sort of how to formulate the mathematical expression?)
Do you ever try to read other blogs, I mean to get some sentiment from people outside the bio-fuel-business? Or do we all believe that the whole wide world at some stage is gonna get slave-fuel from Brazil…
Proposal:
What about putting forward a fresh legislation, demanding farmers and bio-producers to USE their own made BIO-FUEL in all their sub-processes? So- in that manner they will be able to prove that their fuel is/are EROEI positive!! … I mean the plan is to MAKE MORE fuel, isn’t it?
Regards and best of hopes for rational thinking and planning!
March 17th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Absolute minimum land required out of cultivated land for EU 10% biofuel share:
http://i30.tinypic.com/hvsytt.gif
- That means 40% of the cultivated land from the top 5 biofuel producing regions. While this may be a good subsidy strategy for western farmers, it is not good for world food balance. Even if one does not burn corn/soy/rape into biofuels, it still needs mostly same land to be cultivated on. Also, farmers will always switch over to the most profitable (read: most subsidized) crop - even if it means producing less food.
Energy return on energy invested for bio-ethanol fuel types (based on source)
http://i29.tinypic.com/mw2vrl.png
The average energy ratio for most plants into bio-ethanol fuels is also bordering on break-even. That is, it is highly dependent on production method and can be easily distorted by externalities like subsidies, which encourage waste.
Moving emissions from North to South does not cut them
http://i26.tinypic.com/mk7y2v.png
GHG emission cut needs are global. While it may make short term trade sense to export costs, we all pay in the end.
Also, this hardly improves the energy security scenario, if we end up fighting over oil palm fields in Indonesia, instead of oil fields in Iraq. I would also add that it’s equally morally dubious.
Also, several studies show:
- burning biomass directly in a CHP cycle gives back several times more of the energy content than distilling it to bio-fuels. Again, an all electricity cycle is much more efficient.
- Farmers in Latin America and Asia are being drive off their land and stopped from cultivating food. The stolen land is taken up by multi-nationals to produce bio-fuel crops. Is it commendable to support this type of development in developing countries that are already battling with ownership, legality and corruption issues? In effect, we the rich north will end up burning the food of the poor south in our bio-ethanol cars.
- It is possible to reduce GHG emissions using some particularly selected plant crops, using a certain production method and in an optimal growing latitude, but this is done at the expense of total environmental impact (biodiversity, small particles, NO2 emissions, soil degradation, etc). Or it is possible to do the reverse: better total environmental impact, but higher GHG emissions. One can’t have both. See the EMPA.ch (2007) study especially for data on this.
The major issue with biofuels (1st and 2nd gen) that it is best done where:
1) there is plenty of cheap labor instead of fossil fuel burning machines (developing countries)
2) lots of low quality arable land instead of using high quality food crop land (not EU nor America)
3) very low fossil energy usage per capita signaling high efficiency in total bio-ethanol production system conversion factor (underdeveloped countries)
4) strict certification/policing of cultivation/production methods to ensure low GHG output (low corruption countries like Northern Europe)
5) excellent infrastructure for moving millions tons of biomass from fields to factories (OECD)
6) latest technology distillation factories right next to the cultivated land in order to reduce the logistic nightmare of moving around billions of tons of dry biomass (nowhere)
7) market that is right next to where the production happens in order to cut down on the downstream delivery costs/emissions (some parts of Latin America or China?)
It is obvious that this combination is challenging. The combined factors just aren’t there. If one removes one of the key elements there, the energy costs or GHG emissions shoot up. There is no free lunch here.
PS. According to a RMI study, the average amount of energy out of fuel that goes into accelerating the car is c. 6% (otto cycle, fossil gasoline). Below 1% goes to move the (often single) passenger. This is even worse for a bio-ethanol car. That is nothing to brag about. Walk, take a buss, cycle, at least get a small size diesel PHEV. Current bio-ethanol process is a disaster both in numbers in and in the minds of people who follow the industry, but don’t own stock options in any of the companies
March 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,
there seems to be a very serious disconnect in your priorities between climate protection and energy security for the EU. With all due respect, you should focus on the one and only thing we will all be confronted very soon: drastically reduced availability of our primary liquid transportation fuel: oil…: ethanol will not get us there !!
I can only warmly recommend to reread what Euan Mearns and others have to say about that.
And of course, the MARE Initiative can provide electricity and Algea Biofuel on a very large scale, without jeopardizing food supplies.
regards,
http://www.mareinitiative.com
March 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Given that only 1/500 of the solar energy falling on earth is cycled through the biosphere, the total mass of living stuff on earth. Does it make sense to cut into this tiny fraction of available energy to try and create a sustainable transport fuel. The bottom line maths of biofuels makes them a unsustainable and dangerous route for energy policy.
“I beseech you from the bowls of christ consider it possible you may be wrong”.
This disaster in the making must be averted.
The complex challenges of energy security can not be meet by a simple single fix.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
In fact naming Fidel in those terms reminds me of his friendship with China comunist party while they exterminate the people of the former independent country of Tibet. This March8 their population faced another Tian An Men square killing by Chinese military troops ! Two colleagues of mine just returned from a trip to Lhasa and heard gunfire all over the place. Opposite to those politicians that talk about danger - while acting really dangerously - I am all for research, only that this time -not as oil- research should include an study on climate impact. Oil made humanity evolve, clearly, but we now pay the toll of polution and climate change. I am positive on biofuel research , a complete research looking at climate and human issues as well.
The tibetant is a matriarcal society, women lead the policy and take decisions. Therefor, besides many protesters were men the chinese military retaliated against the womens too just las weekend.
I wonder were is Europe going if we let powerfull states masacre entire populations without raising a formal protest to the Government of China. China invaded the Indian Himalayan and Tibet country in the 50’s but the anexation was not recognized by at least 5 EU members.
I hope EU is not going to knee Sincerely yours,
March 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Several of the comments above show why biofuel is a bad idea. IMO we need to cut consumption quickly and this will only be achieved by a clear message from our political “leaders”. Here are a few steps that will help and can easily be achieved:
1. ban production of cars with emissions over 250g/km within six months. Even the ex-chairman of shell agrees with this banning of gas-guzzlerz. In 1942 the US stopped production of all cars for private use and re-tooled to make tanks etc. If this can be done then it should be easy to switch focus from performance to economy.
2. introduce a European speed limit of 90km/h 55mph.
3. stop expansion of airports and roads with immediate effect
These are only the first of many steps that must be taken.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
If you actually cared about the problem, you’d drive a small new diesel, which would reduce oil use and emissions considerably from an over-large Saab, biofuelled or not. So stop driving your 9-5 RIGHT NOW if you have any sense of ethics or professionalism.
Biofuels have no chance of scaling to the amounts required without starving most of the 3rd world and/or removing the last forests and wild biomes. They are the opposite of green; only approaches such as the algal biofuels above - which use no useful land, at least - should even be considered, and the EU mandate should be immediately dropped.
If we are realistic about energy security and CO2 reduction, the first step should be a large scale expansion of nuclear power - look at French emissions if you don’t believe this; the secondary focus should be on synthetic fuels such as methanol (and algal biodiesel if it can be made to work) powered by off peak electricity; and the tertiary focus on the electrification of the housing stock to stop domestic emissions.
The idea that the problems we face can be met with small, misguided measures as in the article is simply wrong. The target of 20% by 2020 will in all probability be missed or fudged.. and we’ll go on building coal fired plant and importing oil, because the lights need to stay on and the trucks need to move.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
As long as there is unlimited speed on the German autobahn, there is no hope. The pinnacle paradox to this is that Germany itself produces NO oil at all, whatsoever..
IEA is shrinking OECDs forecast drastically recently, do EU read and interpret those reports. Already NEXT year the IEA will maybe be in the same fold as those “feakin” Peak oilers … some saying maximum production - ever - will be under 90 mb/d in a couple of years… - ONLY -
Will EU take any measures then ?
March 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Here’s a quote from Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency (he’s talking about oil production):
“Unfortunately, there’s a lot of talk, but very little action. I really hope that consuming nations will understand the gravity of the situation and put in place radical and extremely tough policies to curb oil demand growth.”
Note “radical and extremely tough”, until recently these guys were saying that there would be no peak until,decades in the future.
Let’s see, global climate catastrophe, peak oil, security of supplies - isn’t it just so obvious that we need to curb our demand and move away from fossil fuel? Maybe it’s just like financial bubbles that they can’t be seen until they have crashed then everyone knows how stupid they were, tulips, South Sea, Mississippi, Florida land, Japan land, dotcom, sub-prime. The problem with this crash is that the consequences will not be limited to just a few banks but every aspect of society.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,
I’m rather appalled and shocked that the very basic “101” energy lessons learned, which render the biofuels route as a marginal option at best, as it has been eloquently explained on this blog in previous posts by Mr. Mearns, de Sousa and others, have not apparently reached your desk and most importantly your decision-making priorities?!
In the transportation sector, clearly, some form/ratio of electrification is the key and way forward. Specifically, in the individual transportation sector full battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and similar technologies can reap the highest benefits short term and long term with regard to higher energy efficiency, lower emissions (and noise pollution), higher energy security (if we take into account the premise that individual transportation by cars at the current volume is here to stay in the energy volatile future at all).
Full battery electric vehicles (BEV) are in local sense the only true Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) and available now! There is no technological road block; BEVs of 1990s from the big auto manufacturers have pleased the average daily commuter by up to ~200km range well enough with dependable NiMH batteries.
The economies of scale in energy production and distribution via the electric grid, plus high efficiency of the electric drivetrain, make this alternative at the minimum 2-3x less energy intensive in full well-to-wheel cycle (km/MJ) than the internal combustion engine (ICE).
Take another benefit, nightly charging during off-peak hours can in fact stabilize the grid and run it at higher efficiency. American studies such as from DOE/PNNL showed that almost 73% of their current passenger and light truck fleet could be recharged that way, without any significant new capacity (peak load) added to the grid. Most of the infrastructure is already here, necessary technological and organizational changes to limit/steer consumer demand to suitable off peak hours charging are relatively inexpensive to add.
In terms of emissions, even the 100% coal based energy mix is less polluting than the other ICE based options. Usually the energy mix in each particular region is much less so dependent on the coal base load, because of other production modes at play (nuclear, hydro, renewables). So for instance the combined direct & indirect emissions (GHG) from charging BEVs could be bellow 30% of equivalent ICE car in the case of Belgium. And we can do even better in the future, namely by scaling up the solar segment.
You can easily verify all the above claims not that far from your office at the VUB-ETEC institute in Brussels and/or from their many studies on this subject. Please place a call, get an introductory ride in electrics today:
Vrije Universiteit Brussel • Department VUB-ETEC,
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
http://etecmc10.vub.ac.be/indexE.php
Other studies for D.O.E/D.O.T (bear in mind the North American realities) are also available.
Lastly, isn’t it very telling that according to most of the hydrogen-fuel (fool-cell?) development programme directors/engineers, unlike the louder voices from their corporate PR departments, this “hydrogen” technology is at least decades apart from practical mass market introduction, yet we are to believe that the EU Energy Commissioner is somehow not in the loop on this very subject? Not to mention the little additional inconvenient fact, that hydrogen is currently and will be in the mid term solely based on natural gas with conversion at significant energy loss, therefore in the whole energy/efficiency equation hydrogen being far worse than driving on gasoline..
Best Regards
Michal Broz, M.A.
member of the board, Elektromobily, O.S. ~ Czech EV Club (NGO)
PS I hope you will spare a minute to celebrate with the SolarTaxi expedition which is circumventing the world in battery electric vehicle charged by solar power at their forthcomming last trip segment in the EU: http://www.solartaxi.com/
March 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
The most important quality to look at is the total EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) ratio. For some biofuels like Algae (which do not require as much space), this is enough above 1 that even the low efficiency of internal combustion engines makes it okay. One thing to realise is that biofuels EROEI changes when the climate changes, in temperate regions the EROEI is not so good for most types. One plant that is nice other than algae is Jathropha when grown near warm areas where nothing else would grow (so you dont have to cut woods). For many biofuels the EROEI is even below 1 so you lose energy. Also it requires input of fertilizer which is made using fossil energy (gas for example).
Also figure in the following things:
Internal combustion engine efficiency at most 30%
Electrical engine efficiency around 90%
Electricity makes you independent of supply problems, as you can change the source upstream to something else. It also allows you to change upstream to something CO2 neutral like CSP (concentrating solar power) with a HVDC (high voltage DC) line.
Electricity infrastructure for charging plug-in electric vehicles (PHEV) up fast is important to have, in Israel someone is doing this. For Europe it would be a good thing as well.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
As I read your words it seems that your goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
Given this goal use of biofuels for a partial replacement of petroleum products is a rational choice.
Many of the coments above focus on EROI. There are two problems with EROI. The first problem is that it inherently considers a unit of energy equal to any other unit of energy. A unit of energy as heat is not equal to a unit of mechanical energy or a unit of electrical energy. This can easily lead to misleading conclusions. The second problem with EROI is “Where do you draw the boundaries?” The hidden assumptions in EROI calculations render them subject to errors due to the biases of the person doing the calculations or to simple mistakes.
A large advantage of biofuels I see mentioned very seldom is that we have industrial scale technology developed and ready to use in a relatively short time span. Several comments above talk about electricity powering automobiles. That may be a future solution but it is not a set of developed technology ready for scale up. Adoption of new unproven technologies can result in substantial costs in money and time to solve unanticipated problems. It is a long and expensive process to go from a laboratory to full scale comercial production regardless of how promising the technology. A less than ideal solution for your inital efforts may well be cheaper and faster in the long run tan going with an unproven technology or doing nothing waiting for the “perfect” technology.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The road to sustainability is not straight. It may even hold diversions and impasses that we have to travel and travel back. This is annoying in itself and even more so when we have to do it at some speed. In the debate some of the dilemmas have been highlighted, dilemmas where our hearts and emotions may say one thing but where our brains and acts may say another. Do we have to choose between Food or Biofuel, Local Production or Global Trade, Consume or Save? Can the instruments we use to analyse and create sustainable systems help us solve, or at least navigate among, these dilemmas?
Food or Fuel?
This dilemma is often phrased as:
· “Should poor people starve because rich people want to travel?” or
· “Should we put edible products in our cars?”
The first phrasing has a room (land-use) aspect and the other an inter-temporal aspect.
It may not have to be food or fuel - it could be food and fuel - but it will require a careful consideration of related policies. It is not only for a laissez-faire market to solve, as has been well outlined by the director of International Food Policy Research Institute. There are many things depending on each other in a complex system, but the main components seem to be that:
· Biofuel feedstock can/should be grown on other soils than those used for food crops
· The huge potential for Biofuel is not in the most sensitive famine areas
· Biofuel production can add value to the land use for poor farmers and attract capital to improve productivity in the food production
However, one risk is that the added value will still not reach the poor, but remain with the land-owners and the companies. Another is that they will to reap as much as they can quickly, which could result in huge mono-cultures.
The inter-temporal aspect is also important. It is true that ethanol produced from e.g. corn is a waste in many respects and that there is an urgent need to develop the methods to make use of cellulosic feedstock, but it is also true that a technology development is closely linked to the building of markets that can motivate new (and initially) more expensive technologies. It is therefore encouraging to see that some of the U.S. candidates for President as, for example, Barack Obama makes it perfectly clear that the present production methods should be replaced by second generation biofuels in spite of the fact that the U.S. farmers are quite pleased with status quo.
So, this dilemma requires that we can handle a problem not as a simple issue of either/or, but as a complex both/and and now/then.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Approx. a year ago a report on “A Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels” was commissioned and published by a number of Swiss Offices (…for the Environment, Energy, etc.) . A number of scientists at Empa, the Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Science and Technology, were the authors of this study. The summary was published in the http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2976, the full study can be downloaded from the ministries’ websites. In a nutshell: Although some of the biofuels (including biogas!) have a lesser CO2 burden than fossil fuels their total environmental impact is normally worse. The few exceptions are biofuels produced from waste biomass such as recycled edible oil …
March 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
There’s a significant side of the biofuels issue that’s overlooked most of the time: turning an ever greater share of US corn to ethanol (and then soybeans to biodiesel) will cause in a few years the halving of US agricultural exports in volume and their doubling at least in dollars (i.e. at least quadrupling agricultural prices). That will substantially reduce the US current account deficit and give the US a significant strategic advantage.
The US has certainly the right to follow that path. But they also have the duty to tell the world openly that they will do it. Like: “Along the coming years and decades our food exports will become progressively lower in volume, and the same will probably happen to total world food production. It is conceivable that they could be half their current volume in 10 years. People, and particularly poor people, should have it in mind when making procreation decisions.”
Dropping a nuke on a city is not genocide if you give its dwellers a week’s notice.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
SNaPP, Hans Nilsson:
Interesting comments. Energy return on energy invested is not the only measure that counts, I’d say. There are obviously other considerations, like, for instance, financial costs.
If we had a basically infinite amount of cheap available land, the comparatively very low ERoEI of current biofuels would not count for much. But we are currently in a situation of scarcity of land for agricultural production. The EU (DG Agriculture) has even allowed the use of set-aside land to increase agricultural production, temporarily (I hope?) nullifying the very useful nature protection service set-aside land fulfils.
The low ERoEI of both current biofuels from agricultural crops and from cellulosic biofuels means that the amount of land required to replace even 10% of current oil consumption is simply too much.
It is valid and welcome point to say that to further sustainable development, we should not lay all our eggs in one basket. However, with regard to biofuels it is becoming abundantly clear that they are a misdirection and a distraction. Even all of the other uses of biomass for energy are preferable.
Although we need diversity, we also need to focus most support on the most promising options and we should not invest public money in blind alleys. Because that’s wasting money, and there is too little money being available for investments in sustainable development as it is.
There is a clear and viable path towards all-electric vehicles (or electric/hydrogen hybrids for all I care) in moving towards plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. The technology to do this is already there, all that is needed is an investment in the infrastructure and the development of facilitative set of rules and regulations.
And I’d say, yes, we can’t rely on electric (or hydrogen, or compressed air) as a magic bullet, and cars still have a number of other negative aspects besides using up non-renewable resources, polluting the local air and causing climate change. So we still need to do a lot of other things (from public transportation to walkable neighbourhoods). But none of those involve wasting money on biofuels.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Luis, Euan,
The climate envy is unseemly. Please drop it.
The unfolding crises of global warming and peak oil can not be separated: they have a common root cause. That cause is unsustainable economic development, resulting both in an unsustainable extraction of non-renewable resources and the unsustainable pollution of our atmosphere. Focusing 100% on either climate change or peak oil is staring yourself blind on only one symptom while ignoring the disease.
And tunnel vision is bad enough within the EU as it is.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Commissioner Piebalg writes:
“I myself drive an ethanol-powered Saab 9-5 and certainly I would not even think of it if I had the slightest suspicion that I’m contributing in any way to global warming …”
What Commissioner Piebalg appears to be saying is that his car doesn’t generate any CO2 emissions whatsoever. But not even Saab itself makes such an extraordinary claim, since the company is fully aware that in calculating greenhouse gas emissions a car’s entire life cycle impact has to be taken into account, and not just the renewable fuel dimension.
According to Saab “[a] Saab BioPower car running on bioethanol E85 can significantly reduce CO2 emissions - typically by 50 - 70% compared to petrol when calculated on a ‘Well to Wheel’ basis.”
So there you are – the gospel truth, straight from the car industry’s mouth. Andris has got his facts wrong.
I hope Andris won’t think I am being “intemperate and one-sided” by pointing out to him that his thinking is pretty wobbly and that his Saab 9-5 probably contributes more to global warming than my own Citroen C1 Diesel — a bottom of the range small car without environmentalist pretensions.
Time for our Commissioner to do his homework.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Moving a ton to move a person in Start-Stop congestion is incredibly wasteful.
Burning food to do so is a little silly.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“Examples of such include socializing, participating in ceremonies. relaxing, engaging in artistic efforts, enjoying nature and raising one’s children.”
Interesting that you chose to omit other wholesome past times, such as tribal warfare, human sacrifice, slash and burn agriculture, resource wars, slavery, starvation, backbreaking manual labour and enjoying wholesome natural parasites and diseases.
You think world war II was bad? That’s nothing compared to the ~half of all men that are murdered by another tribe in hunter gatherer societies.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Dear Commissioner, dear readers of this blog,
I have to admit biofuels can look pretty attractive, but I am afraid they cannot be part of any environment sustainability policy. There is so much to say that I don’t know what to begin with.
Use of biofuels presents a dangerous threat. Seeing them as a substitution for fossil fuel will only postpone the problem. Prices of oil are rising and they are likely not to lower for long. Supporting and funding the switch to biofuels will give the illusion to people that it is environmentally sustainable, while there is a need to raise people awareness so that they can trigger the lever of the “consumer pull” for alternative transport solutions.
We produce enough food for feeding the whole population on Earth, but still some people suffer from lack of food. I would certainly not go so far as calling that a “crime against humanity”, but we should think twice before talking about switching to biofuels. May I remind us that by 2015, we should have achieved the Millenium Development Goals. There is still a long long way until extreme poverty is completely erradicated! How can we think of turning food into fuel so that we can travel for cheap while people are starving?
If it is true that “Biofuels are produced from plants that absorb the CO2 they generate when they are burnt.”, we have to bear in mind that this equation is not applicable if the lands where these plants have grown come from deforestation. In that case, the CO2 absorbed by the plants cannot be taken into account as there were previously trees to absorb that CO2 anyway.
I strongly advise all of you to read the book I read and reviewed not long ago : “Just One Planet - Justice, Poverty and Climate Change”, Dr Mark Smith, Practical Action Publishing, 2006 (ISBN: 1-85339-643-5).
I would like to end my comment raising two concerns:
1) If the EU believes in its target of 10% of biofuels in transport fuels, then why not producing these biofuels from the part of yield that has actually no purpose. For instance, there exist many projects of producing ethanol from sugar cane residues in Latin America.
2) Why is it still less expensive to travel by plane than by train? Why do not flying companies suffer from the rise of price of the oil barrel?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Just reading through the comments above it seems to me all points of interest concerning biofuels have been well raised.
I join others in advising the commissioner to have a (better) look at some of the insightfull and original work being done at http://www.theoildrum.com concerning the extremely challenging question of sustainable energy security and supply.
I’d like to add to the discussion a little bit about the question of how (and whether) ethics and morality should have a bearing on the use of biofuels. My view is that they should NOT.
Some commentators above say that the “food-or-fuel” issue suggests we should not turn to biofuels. However, it should be clear that if biofuels can be produced economically, i.e. without subsidy, then its all fair. It would be inconsistent and even hypocritical to discourage the use of biofuels in the EU only because 3 billion people face getting priced out of the food market. It would also put the EU at risk of possibly losing a crucial competitive advantage, since other major powers would certainly not be so altruistic toward the world’s poorest.
The only ligitimate grounds for abandoning the pursuit of biofuels is if it turns out they cannot compete with other emerging affordable options for transport fuels, such as electricity. This remains to be seen. If biofuels production can be scaled up massively using extremely cheap labor as currently in Brazil, then they could become truly economical. However, if there is not abundant extremely cheap labor it seems biofuels will have no economic future. (Perhaps we could use the able unemployed, prisoners or people with too much debt to produce biofuels?)
Affordable, reliable and effective transport is of such huge macroeconomical and geopolitical significance that it must not be(come) the subject of ethical or moral debate. Every expedient sacrifice must be made to secure it for the EU in the future, bar none. To fail in this is to put the EU in grave danger of being overrun.
Be that as it may, if EU citizens would democratically *demand* a moratorium on biofuels in order to help prevent developing huge famines in third world countries, or to stop likely wholesale destruction of remaining untouched natural ecosystems, then democratic principles must trump economic realities of course. Better a weak democratic EU, than a strong totalitarian EU, in my opinion.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Pierre Urban, sugar cane residues do have a purpose. They help fertilise the ground for next year’s crops; if we take them away, then we have to use artificial fertilisers, which produce nitrous oxide, which contributes to global warming. So the carbon dioxide emissions savings you make by burning ethanol instead of petrol are rather offset by the extra nitrous oxide emissions you get.
Nature is a cup. If you take more out than you put in, it empties. So if you take all the crop residues from the field, then over the years the land becomes less fertile. To make up for that, you need to put in fertiliser.
You can use natural fertiliser, or artificial fertiliser. If you use natural fertiliser, you are simply importing fertility from somewhere else, so they lose fertility instead. If you use artificial fertiliser, well what you need in this case is nitrogen-based fertilisers. That means ammonia. Ammonia is manufactured industrially with… natural gas.
So in effect, if you use an entire sugar crop for ethanol, you are turning natural gas into ethanol.
It’s probably easier just to burn the natural gas in the first place.
In addition, when you put ammonia onto your fields, a lot of it turns into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas; according to the most recent IPCC summary for policymakers, nitrous oxide makes up 7.9% of all greenhouse gases in carbon dioxide equivalent effect.
The CSIRO says here that nitrous oxide is about 10% of world greenhouse gas emissions, and that about half is due to animal agriculture, half to plant agriculture. This paper again gives the 10% of global emissions figure, and says that 32% of Australian nitrous oxide emissions are due to artificial fertilisers, and notes that,
“in irrigated sugarcane crops, 15.4% of fertiliser was lost over a 4-day period”
They suggest some mitigation strategies for the land management, but note that most of the emissions will remain. So with ethanol you get less carbon dioxide emissions, but end up with more nitrous oxide emissions. Thus, ethanol is not greenhouse-friendly at all.
Unless of course the EU proposes to ensure that sugar cane farmers use no artificial fertilisers; but then their land will be degraded and they’ll have to cut down some forests to get new fertile land, and the deforestation will also contribute to the greenhouse.
Ditch the car, Commissioner, and get on your bike. The US ambassador to Denmark rides his bicycle everywhere, and has not lost his position or prestige.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:41 am
I have just read through all the comments above and found only one that supports biofuels. That supporting letter has no mathematical basis to its argument, unlike those against biofuels, which are carefully argued mathematically. There is very little to add to the argument except to say that the US is now producing less than 5% of its liquid fuel demand from food sources and it has doubled the world grain price.
If the US and the EU are to get 10% of our liquid fuel from food sources we will not be able to buy it because our money will be tied up buying food. The EU must face up to the fact that: oil production is about to start on a downward slide: we do not have enough land to produce biofuels equivalent to our present consumption of oil: there is a limited amount of phosphorus available in the world, which is an essential for plant growth and we passed peak production in the 1980’s; we are also running out of many other commodities, look at the price of steel and copper for instance; many parts of the world are running out of water; the world production of grain per capita is falling and there is still an increasing world population.
Growth is not sustainable, we are reaching the “Limits to Growth”. It’s a very interesting book. You ought to read it Mr Piebalgs. Our biggest problem, and the reason why nothing will be done to achieve the 80% reduction in consumption required to combat Climate Change, is that Europe is run by bureaucrats for the benefit of big business and banking. When I was growing up that was called Fascism.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I speak about why biofuels are bad for climate change at length here.
“The most efficient car, the one which produces no greenhouse gas emissions at all, is one which is never driven.”
March 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
As used to say Dupont & Dupont, I would say even more:
“the most efficient car, the one which produces no greenhouse gas emissions at all, is one which is never manufactured”.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Dear Andris,
I think that the last propposals of the Commission in the field of energy and climate change is in general terms a good starting point for the next years. Of course, everyone can have its own idea on numbers, or argue that our efforts could be useless taking into account consumption growth in China or India, etc, etc. This is partly true. But I am glad that the EC seems to be concerned about these fondamental issues which affect us all.
But:
if there is a black point and unbearable aspect on the EC proposals, in my opinion and without any doubt that is the support to biofuels. I personnally think, for example, that nuclear power is an issue were every position is potentially defendable. I understand there are dramatic pros and cons, and I think there are sound reasons wether you support it or you damn it. The same goes for CCS, which in my view presents some risks but good opportunities as well. I think the balance when considering biofuels is much more clear. Some of the comments within the huge amount here above are examples of good reasons to seriously think about quiting the idea of a massive public support and financing for the development of this option. I think the net impact of a widespread deployment of biofuels is way too negative for humanity as a whole.
With respect to cars, I think that a comprehensive energy policy should pay much more attention to demand management.
I think it is really NOT the case nowadays.
Every private car being replaced by an alternative personnal transportation scheme (public transport + cycle + walk + occasional taxi, or “covoiturage”,etc, etc) means
-a dramatically cost-efficient way to reduce emissions (it does not need huge investments in futuristic car technology and is simply much cheaper for consumers!).
-promotes EU security of energy supply, reducing pressure on oil prices and reducing EU dependency on foreign producers of scarce, fossile fuels.
Some questions that in my opinion should be taken into account:
-If the EC is trying to establish a compulsory target for biofuels in the field of transport… why couldn´t it think about establishing other sistemic target figures such as, e.g., use of public transports with respect to total passenger transportation?
-The possibility to deploy a massive, “fundamentalist”(as it was and still is the case against tobacco) campagining in the EU against private car use abuse. Think about the possibility to stick labels as
“Cars kill”
“Cars cause climate change”
“Cars cause respiratory and cardio diseases to you, your sons and your neighbours”
(which are as true as they are for cigarettes)
on the front of every new model sold.
Of course, in this last words I am being a bit ironic, but the idea behind is not a joke. For instance, think about the idea of mandatory information to the public (when going to buy a car) on alternatives (e.g., price comparisons taking into account the opportunity costs when compared to other mobility means, cost of car insurance, fuel, maintenance over the years, etc).
Finally, I would like to say I am not an anti-car-fanatical. I know that there are lots of people that due to their work place, lack of decent public transports (status quo) in their towns and other legitimate reasons, find suitable to have a car for their daily life.
But I think every stance of political power –European institutions included, o.c.- should fight against the dominant culture that sees cars as symbols of success and glamour, and a huge growth in the total number of cars sold for the next decades as a feature of our civilization comparable to Newton´s law of Universal gravitation.
Of course, even if I do not have a car myself (and even though I already have the financial means for it, and living in Brussels banlieue is (sadly) not that easy from a mobility point of view),I am not a saint neither. Last month, for instance, I spent a weekend visiting some berlinese friends – I talk about it for I think it is an anecdote which represents in some way the behaviour and culture of my generation - That means several thousands of km by plane for not much more than 48 hours of a holiday trip (travail le lundi oblige).
This being said, I will try to stick to public transports the longer I can (maybe coupled with occasional car rental, cabs and occasional “climate crimes” as a leisure weekend in Berlin).
Best regards.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Sunday 23 March, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe chief executive of Nestle, the world’s biggest food and beverage company, said:
“If as predicted we look to use biofuels to satisfy 20 percent of the growing demand for oil products, there will be nothing left to eat,”
“To grant enormous subsidies for biofuel production is morally unacceptable and irresponsible,”
“the competition is driving up the price of maize, soya and wheat, land for cultivation is becoming rare and water sources are also under threat”
It is becoming clearer day by day that the use of arable land for biofuel is unacceptable.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Seeing the development of the shortage from food raw materials and the expected development in the coming years (for example effects from China and India), the fact that the EU can not meet the own need for food and feed, the fact that intervention stock are nearly exhausted, a serious investigation should be done to use more nuclear power for generation electricity to be used for electric cars.
The EU has the task to find solutions for the negative aspects of nuclear power together with inventors and stimulate development of electric transportation.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Mr. Piebalgs,
I wish to congratulate you on your work. I work at the Ministry of Agriculture of a developing country as an advisor, and I’m also working on a paper on European Energy Policies for my Master. My country is, from this year, launching a biofuels national plan to improve rural areas income, crop restructuring, use of semi arid areas, reduce dependence on fossil energy and strengthen the commitment of protecting our environment. I believe very much in the success of biofuels, although as you say, there are many that attack it.
Our law on biofuels also considered food safety establishing that (for example) corn will not be permitted in the making of ethanol unless a surplus in production.
I am glad to hear (or read) a supporting voice on these matters, I will be following your blog very closely, positive that I will learn from your posts and the comments of the people who read you.
Best regards,
Marie
March 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
From EU perspective you are almost right. However biofuels are pushing up food prices in EU. Also if looking globally there is a food shortage in many regions - Egypt for example is starving and can not afford bread. Biofuels certainly could and are partly contributing towards the shifting away from fossil fuels - that is for sure.
You should also be aware that UK is flooded with US biodiesel which is much cheaper than one produced in UK. This is pushing UK biofuel producing companies to the edge.
Ar Cieņu
Aigars
March 30th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
YES biofuels might have an impact on food prices. But price of wheat in Europe is lower than 25 years ago while oil raise by a factor 6 !
YES some countries have problems now to face high food prices. But this is partly due to the collapse of their agriculture due to our past dumping of agricultural excess prodution.
YES biofuels can replace a small part of the oil only. We need less and efficient cars AND biofuels to replace part of the remaining oil. It’s just dreaming to think we can change to electric cars within a few years.
YES biofuels should be produced in a sustainable way. Maximising the benefits like diversification of oil supply, jobs, enevionmental impacts go through a maximisation of EU production, not through imports.
Congratulations for your vision.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
CO2 is big business but in fact not at all responsible for any weather change! This is not mainstream but nevertheless the truth. Higher efficiency and less consumption of fossil fuel is a good thing but biofuels do NOT at all contribute to that aim. In fact economicaly and ecologicaly they do not work as the politicians and their voters - the farmers - try to perusade us. Just have a look to the bare figures and use your brain. The impact on food prices is only another negative consequence but not the main issue.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Everything is a question of balance and the proposal of the Commission is indeed well balanced.
Europe has enough resources (excess food and set-aside land) for 10% biofuels, especially to produce bioethanol, because we produce easily wheat and sugar beets, and usually too much of it, so much that the rest of the world attacked the EU when it exported the surplus. Let us use the surplus to produce bioethanol to reduce our dependency on imported oil.
Let us rebalance the fuel consumption between diesel and gasoline by having the same level of taxes (mostly excise duty) on both, because the EU is well positioned to produce raw materials for bioethanol (that can substitute gasoline), but is dependent on imports for part of its oilseeds consumption (to produce biodiesel), while in most EU countries the level of taxes is lower for diesel than for gasoline.
10% of energy used in transport sector should indeed be renewable. It will make us less dependent on oil, will create new opportunities, and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector (under the Commission proposal, all biofuels used for the EU target will have to save at least 35%).
Energy crops are a positive agricultural alternative for European farmers. The Commission expects most of biofuels consumed in
Europe to be produced in the EU. That will reduce substantially our foreign oil dependency, expected to be of about 90% by 2030. The transport sector which relies on oil for 98% of its energy is particularly vulnerable to our dependency and biofuels is currently the only significant alternative to oil in this sector. Oil means that money of European citizens is put in the hands of rich oil producing countries at a time when the barrel price is very high, which has very negative impact on the EU economy.
Let us move on and congratulation to the Commission for the very balanced approach!
April 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
There is no unique solution for the ENERGY issue, the biggest challenge we have to face in the coming decennies. I get always disappointed when the debate around the biofuels is reduced to a simplified view : for or against biofuels. I think no one has to choose between being FOR or AGAINST, because biofuels is one of the solutions technically available to act NOW.
Time for action, no more for sterile debates.
The same problem happen(ed) similarly with the wind energy : when stupid considerations such as the impact on landscape, or the discussion towards the exact performance of these new technologies come to the debate, it kills the debate.
I just want to add that the biggest issue, the one that considers the way we and our society works, is never on the table when it is time to discuss : where are the new politics towards PREVENTION ?
It is time to stop dreaming and sterile discussions, biofuels are a part of the solution and have to be developed way further.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Dear Mr. Piebalgs,
I was already using some of your declarations to argue the need of investing in biodiesel.
My partner and myself were doing a biodiesel project in South-East of Romania (since 2 years) and it is actually quite difficult to find investors. I could see that the EU is willing to go ahead with the biofuels policy, that the wish in words is everywere but in the facts, the actual laws are not protecting the European Biofuels Industry.
Actually, the US import biodiesel from Argentina, mix it with a bit of US biodiesel, get US subsidies and reexport to Europe. 1. We do not know if the agriculture in Argentina is sustainable 2. Ways to the US and to Europe are absolutly not ecologic and 3. EU Biofuels industry is not getting any help (subsidies or protection).
Due to the speech from the General Secretary of the EBB last 14 of March in the “World Biofuels Markets”, in Brussels, this situation is already like that since 2 years.
In our opinion, the raw material should be cultivated near the plants and near the consumers, in accordance with a real sustainability (in Romania, 30% of the land is unexploited).
Biofuels are actually the only possibility to reduce fossil oil consumption and we are looking to work with algae in the next 5 to 6 years, but a new industry has to begin with a “possible” feedstock, sunflower in our case. Actually, 1ha of sunflowers are giving 1400 liters of biodiesel. 1ha of algae is giving 75′000 liters/year !
For the people blaming biofuels, they have to know that actually, the food production is able to feed 16 billions of people. Unfortunately, big food companies prefer to destruct their own production to get higher prices on the market as to feed poor populations.
So, Mr. Piebalgs, if the EU is establishing clear rules and laws regarding biofuel, we are sure that together, can reach the 10% of renewable fuel in 2020. For that, we need your help, to act now !
Yours sincerely,
Raphaël Magnenat
Project Manager
Novafuel AG/Novafuel SRL
April 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
EOA (European Oilseed Alliance) represents professionals, producers and industry, from the European oilseed sector for food, feed and energy purposes.
Involved in biodiesel development in the EU, EOA believes that this development bears strong benefits for the environment and the economy. It can be achieved in accordance with sustainability principles and with no unbalance of supply for food purpose. Moreover, it can increase supplies of vegetable proteins.
In order to fulfil its goals of greenhouse gas emissions reduction and energetic independance, the EU Commission has set an indicative target of 5,75% of biofuels in fuel for transportation in 2010, and a directive with a minimum binding target of 10% in all Member-states by 2020 is now proposed. For diesel motors, it means incorporating more biodiesel, a biofuel mainly made out of vegetable oils which has to meet the EU standard (14214).
Biodiesel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 70% to 75% (according to a study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers using the method of allocation by mass). Biodiesel energy balance « from field to wheel » is over 3.5 (biodiesel requires 1 toe of fossil fuel to produce 3.5 toe). Moreover, biodiesel addresses the demand of the mineral oil companies in Europe where the diesel vehicles’ already dominant share is still increasing.
Diversification of crops : a potential without impact on EU total cultivated areas.
By diversifying rotations, EU-27 oilseeds area can rise to over 13 million hectares, within the limits of agronomical constraints, allowing EU oilseeds production to rise from a current 23 million tons up to over 35 million tons by 2015-2020 of which 22 to 28 millions tons of rapeseed.
Food : vegetable oils supply will be maintained.
The satisfaction of the various demands for vegetable oils, food and non-food, will require additional imports. It must be stressed that the EU has always relied on imports for vegetable oils. The development of oilseed production will allow to limit additional import needs, and the self-sufficiency ratio for vegetable oils should remain stable (55%).
In any case, the food demand is the priority for all the oilseed sector stakeholders. The European industry is committed to the satisfaction of the consumer and will maintain a policy of progress and constant improvement of quality, giving the priority to food safety.
Attention given to sustainability.
Sustainability is key to the oilseed sector. The European oilseed production is subject to cross-compliance rules and, very often, to agro-environmental measures. The industry as well as the producers, commit themselves to quality and sustainability of their production. Sustainibility rules can apply as well to imported feedstocks, equally to food and non-food purposes.
More protein meals for animal feed.
Oilseeds provide vegetable oils, but also protein meals, used to feed animals and produce quality meat and milk products for human consumption. The development of oilseed production offers new opportunities for animal production and allows for an improvement of the self-sufficiency ratio for protein meals in the EU.
Firm but controlled prices.
Though biodiesel development should contribute to firmness of prices, which econometrical models confirm, the expected effect is limited. It can by no means be compared with the present price increases, which result from production shortages, due to climatic conditions. Biodiesel development perspectives (20 million tons of potential worldwide) must be seen in the light of the strong growth of world vegetable oil production, which rises by 5 million tons annually for a current total production of 130 million tons.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
The only argument in favour of biofuel depends on reducing co2 emissions, which are still unproven as a cause of climate change, while all the arguments against it are obvious facts: It does nothing to save energy consumption and it contributes to food price inflation. Meanwhile the global human population is exploding. Conflating co2 emissions with the need to conserve energy and adding consideration of “a positive agricultural alternative ” for European farmers makes for very muddled thinking indeed.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:55 am
We have many reasons to think about new fuels and also avout new sustainable mobility. Decreasing reserves stand opposition to increasing wordwide consumption. It is only a matter of time until fossil ressources will no satisfy demand.
Huge energy consumption causes negatives effects for people and the environment, as well as economic damage. This concerns the global results of climate change as well as local and regional problems, for exemple noise and pollution.
The use of biofuels can be an important step to opposing these difficulties even it can’t solve all problems. Negative headlines like those about the destruction of rain forests will make people uncertain and will hamper development of sustainable mobilty. It’s important that the introduction of biofuels take place in a sensible way.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The issue of reducing carbon emissions, is just a cover up. The only reason our Country is committed to these biofuels etc is to decrease our independence of oil from other counties, making our economy alot more powerful and safe. The fact that these measures cut CO2 emissions is just a nice little bonus, that the government exploit to get votes. The government would not bat a eye lid if they did not help improve our future economy, and quite rightly so. The UK is such a small country, our global input to global warming is so insignificant.