The biofuel era - not on horizon - yet
Published: Mar 6, 2010 23:49 Updated: Mar 6, 2010 23:49
The world, it is said, belongs to those with the most energy. And the search for alternative energy, for a number of reasons - from political to environmental - continues. The price spike in 2008, preceding the recession the world is now desperately endeavoring to climb out - gave a fillip to the pursuit.
In his State of the Union address in January 2007, former US President Bush emphasized developing biofuels, so as to reduce the American dependence on oil. And then on Jan. 24, while speaking at a DuPont plant, Bush said he was particularly encouraged by the possibility of producing ethanol from switchgrass, wood chips and agricultural waste.
The quest for alternatives is driven by two factors. With no serious substitute for transportation, oil is vulnerable to severe supply disruptions, and then like other fossil fuels, its use creates local pollution and contributes a significant share to increased Green House Gases (GHG) concentration in the atmosphere, causing adverse, anthropogenic climate change.
And biofuel development got a fillip, at least in part, to address the above challenges. Driven by the motive to enhance energy security through the diversification of energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the production and use of biofuels have definitely increased rapidly in recent years. Global production of biofuels has been growing rapidly, more than tripling from about 18 billion liters (10 million tons of oil equivalent {Mtoe}) in 2000 to about 60 billion liters (42 Mtoe) in 2008.
Could biofuel be the answer to the global energy quandary? Global energy leaders definitely needed an authoritative opinion, so as to make the next move on the global energy chessboard. A power packed team - representing both the sides of the spectrum - the producers as well as the consumers was entrusted with the task. On one end of the spectrum was Claude Mandil, the former executive director of the International Energy Agency, who camped in Riyadh to prepare the report and on the other hand his project partner for the report was Adnan Shihab-Eldin, the former acting secretary general of the OPEC.
And the task on hand was to study and assess the true potential and indeed the limitations of the biofuels. The report to be presented before the 12th IEF ministerial scheduled in Cancun, Mexico from March 29-31, was thus initiated to assess the extent to which biofuels could contribute seriously and consistently in meeting a substantial portion of future demand in the transportation sector, and to bring some answers to the multitude of questions that have arisen about the viability and sustainability of the various types of biofuels currently in production or under development.
Yet the report findings on this count are interesting. It forcefully argues that mounting evidence from research and analysis, indicated that for most first generation biofuels, the net impact on GHG emission reduction is marginal, and in some cases, clearly unfavorable.
And there are other major issues too. Prolonged dependence on first generation crops for biofuel production could result in an increased risk of deforestation, which, when combined with the conversion of grasslands and savannahs to biofuel crops, could in fact have a negative impact on biodiversity. Water consumption, the use of fertilizers and pesticides are also to be considered while evaluating the impact, the report mentions.
Another major concern with biofuels development is its competition with food crops and the risk of food price increases due to the conversion of existing food crops into biofuel production and future competition for arable land.
The Mandil-Eldin report too seemed to concur. It clearly points out that there is converging evidence that part of the price increase certain food crops observed in recent years was due to such factors, but it is difficult to quantify the impact accurately.
The authors highlighted, "if OECD targets for biofuels are implemented by 2020 with first generation technologies, crop prices could increase up to 30 percent," calling for careful assessment of the food crop price risk and its impact on poor populations in developing countries.
However, the report seems endorsing the current Brazilian model. Within the first generation of biofuels, and taking into account the various above-mentioned concerns, only the ethanol produced from sugarcane in Brazil appears acceptable, yet only if the future sugarcane farming for ethanol production continues to follow current practice and avoids extension to areas that might raise the issue of harmful direct and indirect land use changes, they clearly underlined. All the other biofuel crops currently in commercial production offer poor GHG results, (e.g. corn ethanol), at very high prices or with unacceptable environmental impacts (e.g. palm oil diesel), the report adds. And it further cautions that most of the initially established biofuel production targets are either too ambitious or unsustainable over the long term.
However, the authors did concede that the next generation biofuels currently under development, such as cellulosic ethanol, renewable diesel, biomass-to-liquids (BTL) or Fischer-Tropsch liquids, made from solid bio-waste (agricultural, forest or municipal), grasses, woods, waste paper and/or algae hold better promise.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also seems to be cautioning against biofuels. "The expanded use and production of biofuels will not necessarily contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as was previously assumed," the FAO Director General Jacques Diouf too had emphasized some time ago.
Pointing out the risk in biofuels development, the FAO warned, "The emergence of biofuels as a new and significant source of demand for some agricultural commodities - including maize, sugar, oilseeds and palm oil - contributes to higher prices for agricultural commodities in general, and for the resources used to produce them. For the majority of poor households who consume more food than they produce, higher prices can pose a serious threat to food security - especially in the short term," it underlined.
Without fear or favor, one could safely underline, that despite many wishing it to so, the demise of the fossil fuel era is nowhere in sight - yet. And surely biofuels are not the magic wand many had felt about - not too long ago.
Comments
MARCUS ABREU
Mar 7, 2010 14:36
Report abuseMEGAN C
Mar 13, 2010 12:13
Report abuseB COLE
Apr 2, 2010 08:14
Report abuseThe FAO Director General Jacques Diouf is either incapable of understanding the science or does not understand that algae is carbon-neutral. Algae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes CO2.
Commercial-scale algae oil production plants are being built today all over the US and the world. Algae oil producers can turn ANY third world country into an oil exporter within the next 12-16 months using existing proven technologies. Bill Gates and Exxon have invested over $600 million dollars into the algae industry, not to mention all the other Big Oil companies.
When the FAO was confronted with the facts that any third world country could be turned into a algae oil exporter that would create jobs and allow people to feed themselves, the FAO chose to ignore it about two years ago. Algae oil and biomass production plants are being built all over the world these days without any assistance from the FAO. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) dropped the ball big time on this one.