Jeremy Woods work is concerned with the evaluation of the interface between the development of the bioenergy sector, sustainable land use and technology development. While his geographic focus is primarily on the UK and southern Africa, Dr. Woods has interests in India, China and the south Pacific. His research ha... Profile
Guest Speaker: Jeremy Woods
Leave a Reply
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences
Cornell University
said: On 01/03/2009
The rapidly growing world population and rising consumption of biofuels are increasing demand for both food and biofuels. This exaggerates both food and fuel shortages. Using food crops such as corn grain to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60% of humans in the world are currently malnourished, so the need for grains and other basic foods is critical. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water and energy resources vital for the production of food for human consumption. Using corn for ethanol increases the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk more than 10% to 30%. In addition, Jacques Diouf, Director General of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, reports that using food grains to produce biofuels is already causing food shortages for the poor of the world. Growing crops for biofuel not only ignores the need to reduce fossil energy and land use, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide.
Professor at the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Cornell University
said: On 01/03/2009
I believe that biofuels are an important part of developing a sustainable US economy.Energy conservation and improved mileage vehicles are essential for sustainablity but replacing fossil fuels is required as well. While there is still a need for further research on producing fuels from biomass, ethanol has been produced from wheat straw by Iogen in a pilot plant for several years. Several full scale and pilot plants are under construction to produce ethanol from several types of biomass so that commercial production of cellulose ethanol should occur in the next two years.
Senior Research Director
Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies
said: On 01/03/2009
In the long run, we don’t need biofuels. Biofuels are now politically popular because no one can imagine anything else to substitute for oil. But that is a failure of imagination, not an endorsement for biofuels.
In my view, the future of sustainable transportation belongs to electric vehicles coupled with renewable electricity sources to charge them and a “smart-grid” to manage the two-way interactions between renewables and electric vehicles. With smart grids, renewable energy can benefit greatly from the energy storage capabilities of electric vehicles, both centralized production like large-scale wind farms, and local distributed sources like rooftop solar.
The attention on biofuels in recent years stems from concerns about oil availability, energy security and autonomy, and climate change. And in the U.S it has also been driven by agricultural politics. Brazil was for a long time the world leader, motivated by energy import substitution and favorable economics from sugar even at lower oil prices. Now the U.S. is the leader, producing some 34 billion liters in 2008, compared to Brazil’s 27 billion liters. Germany is the world biodiesel leader, producing more than a quarter of the estimated 9-10 billion liters produced worldwide in 2008. Many counties now have targets for future shares of renewable electricity, and so they also want to have targets for transportation fuels from renewables. And ethanol consumption has become significant, now 5% of total world gasoline consumption (estimated 67 billion liters of ethanol production in 2008 vs. an estimated 1400-1500 billion liters of gasoline consumed annually).
However, almost none of this is sustainable or desirable in the long term. There are now serious impacts on food supplies, food prices, land use, and deforestation from recent biofuels development. Resources from which to produce conventional biofuels will soon become limited, so biofuels are not a large-scale solution to replace oil (except perhaps in a few selected countries like Brazil). And there are serious questions about the net energy balance and roots-to-road (lifecycle) climate benefits of biofuels. Some argue that advanced biofuels, from cellulose, will be a longer-term solution once the technology matures and costs come down. (There are many commercial-scale cellulose-to-ethanol demonstration plants now being constructed in Europe and the United States with government support.) Those arguments have merit, and we could easily see an explosion of commercial cellulose-to-ethanol plants in the coming years. Still, the ultimate cellulose resource will be limited in the long run, and we still won’t replace most of our oil consumption.
We are about to face a revolution in vehicle technology in the next decade, and I believe that within 10 years our vehicle infrastructure will be in a large-scale shift to electric vehicles, both plug-in hybrids (more complicated and expensive but longer range) and electric-only vehicles (potentially much cheaper once battery costs come down, but lower range). We still need better batteries before this can happen, but we could eventually see breakthroughs and performance improvements to rival computer technology. It depends on materials science mostly. With a better battery, a large electric vehicle fleet will emerge. People don’t realize that the equivalent electric power capacity of all the existing vehicles engines in the U.S. is an order of magnitude larger than the entire U.S. electric power system. As those vehicles become electric, a large storage capacity and peak-power delivery capacity is added to the grid. Properly managed, with institutional and legal arrangements, electric vehicles can absorb large amounts of variable renewables. Vehicle owners can program their cars to buy and sell power when parked, leaving them with enough to travel. Millions of such arrangements give the utility company both a peaking power plant and a controllable load. Vehicle charging can follow the output of renewables connected to the grid. Electric vehicles and renewables are an ideal match. This is where we are going.
So, I do see great promise for ethanol from cellulose once the technology matures within a few years, especially in countries like China, where there is a great deal of agricultural cellulosic waste that could be converted to ethanol. And biodiesel will make a contribution. And current biofuels developments provide a stepping-stone to something better. But overall, I think the use of renewable-electricity for electric vehicles is vastly more important than biofuels in the future, and has the potential to substantially reduce oil consumption while also completely eliminating CO2 emissions.
Professor & Head of the Bioenergy Department
Aalborg University
said: On 01/03/2009
Bioenergy should play a fast, increasing and important role in the future world wide energy mix. Several studies show that up to 30-35% of the entire world wide energy supply can have its origin from biomass energy.
To reach this level in +/- year 2050, it means that the paradigm has to change in our way of farming and living. Individuals have to change their diets towards vegetarian and quality diets, and not stay with a too big consumption of animal products. Land use and productivity has to change and contribute to reducing climate change at the northern hemisphere.
Bioenergy can in the future only have its origin from a sustainable biomass production from commercial farmland and forestry, not from natural forests and nature conservation areas.
Bioenergy, as well as with solar power, wind power, wave- and hydro power systems will in the long term completely replace fossil fuels. May be some extent atomic power will play a role in a transition period.
Biomass conversion does not only concern biofuels, but all kinds of energy sources used as solid, liquid or gaseous. World wide biomass has to be optimized for food, fuels, chemistry, fibres and fertilizers – we have tremendous challenges ahead!
Director and co-founder
Institute of Science in Society
said: On 01/03/2009
I can see a large role for biofuels, but not those presently produced from food crops or any kind of monoculture plantations. The only biofuels acceptable are those that can be produced without competing with land for food, do not deplete the soil for agricultural use, and do not pollute the environment or endanger health.
The top candidate that satisfies all these criteria and more is biogas methane from anaerobic digestion of organic wastes (farmyard manure, food and agricultural wastes, paper, etc.). Biogas methane can be used for combined heat and power generation, as well as cars and farm machinery. Upgraded and cleaned, biogas methane is the most environmentally friendly fuel available. Anaerobic digestion of organic wastes is more than carbon neutral, it mitigates methane, a greenhouse gas with global warming potential 23 times that of carbon dioxide, and substitutes for fossil fuel use. It also prevents pollution of the environment, saving more nitrogen and phosphate nutrients in the residue that can be put back as fertilizer into the soil. When used locally with organic food production, it can mitigate more than half the greenhouse emissions and energy use (see our comprehensive report, Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php). Combined with solar and wind, biogas energy can potentially free us from fossil fuels altogether.
Another biofuel worth developing is biodiesel from halophyte micro-algae that can be cultivated in deserts using seawater (see Saline Agriculture to Feed and Fuel the World, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SalineAgriculture.php). They are prolific, and some species can produce more than 30 percent of its biomass in oil. Furthermore, such micro-algae cultures can be fitted to coal-fired power stations for carbon capture and storage (see Green Algae for Carbon Capture & Biodiesel, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GAFCCAB.php) that’s much more effective, cheaper and safer than burying the carbon dioxide in deep mines or under the sea (see Carbon Capture and Storage A False Solution, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CCSAFalseSolution.php).
Director Research and Enterprise
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Greenwich, UK
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels provide one of the options to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels. In that sense it should constitute an important component in our future energy mix. However, what role it can play in the future mix is difficult to envisage; in fact it would be premature to do so given the problems created by the usage of first generation biofuels and that the research into second generation (2G) biofuels is still at an early stage.
Success in the development of new biofuels will determine the role of biofuels in our future energy mix. Experience shows that promotion of some first generation biofuels has created more problems that those that have been solved. The corn-based bioethanol has a higher environmental and health burden than conventional fuels (Jha: 2009). The shift from corn-for-food to corn-for-fuels triggered rise in food prices generating the ‘food versus fuel’ debate. Indonesia has seen massive deforestation to establish of palm oil plantations. These displacements could lead to increase in global rise in greenhouse gases and increase poverty in the poorest countries.
It is expected that 2G biofuels based on cellulosic biofuels from non-food crops and which do not compete for agricultural land will provide improved options. The research into such development is being supported by the UK Government through its investment into the BBSRC Sustainable Bioenergy Centre which is expected to provide the science to underpin and develop the emerging UK sustainable bioenergy sector. Similar research is also being undertaken in the USA. The direction and outcome of these research activities will largely shape the position of biofuels in our energy policy.
It is pertinent to note that the overall success of these developments will depend on global reduction of greenhouse gases. While we are testing options for more efficient biofuel development and use, solid biofuels and biomass remain a significant source of energy in thousands of small and medium industries and households in many countries of Asia, Africa and South America. They employ outdated technologies which are inefficient and cause incomplete and uneven combustion. The consequences are unnecessarily high consumption of fuel and high levels of emissions containing high particulate matter. Initiatives to enhance energy efficiency in this sector deserve greater support and emphasis.
non Executive Director
Wessex Grain
said: On 01/03/2009
Mankind has to decarbonise its future energy use, as well as reducing the per capita energy consumption, particularly in the Western World. Bio fuels have an important role to play in achieving this goal.
Historically, until the advent of the mass produced motor car, mankind relied upon bio fuels for personal transport. This took the form of feed grown on farms for horse used to power the farm, as well as for all other land based transport of good s and services that didn’t travel by rail or canal.
With the arrival of cheap fossil energy this role was eliminated, and agriculture has been producing principally food for the last eighty to one hundred years.
The only reason that bio fuels are currently viewed in a negative light is the perception that they cause a rise in the price of foodstuffs. All other aspects, ie energy balance and pollution reduction are extremely positive.
I believe that the currently available bio fuels are only the very early stages of what could be achieved, given the necessary finances to enable research and development, to progress to more efficient fuels.
To allow this to happen, there needs to be an industry built that makes a profit, and that can then divert that money into the required research and development. Due to the use of fossil energy over the last few decades, there has been no incentive to develop renewable fuels, but of course we can now all see several reasons why we should look to have renewable and not fossil fuels.
If we look at how the development of the internal combustion engine has advanced since its inception, it s a good example of finding a technology and then developing it.
The fuels we are currently using are the equivalent of the engine that sat in the first Ford model t, and current calls to abandon the use of Bio Fuels, would stop the industry ever developing into an advanced source of energy.
Bio Fuels can have a real role to play, as currently they are the only renewable source of non fossil liquid based fuels, and our society is currently geared to use such fuels, and it would take a massive investment to change that system to any other, and how long would it take to set up an alternative distribution system, and at what environmental cost?
One further good reason why bio fuels will form a part of the future fuel mix, is that they can be obtained by not only prime crops, such as the current crop of fuels Bio Diesel and Bio Ethanol are made from, but also from waste organic matter. Sources such as sewage sludge, waste food stuffs, abattoir wastes can all be unlocked to produce Biogas, which can then be used for any use that natural gas can be put to.
These uses include, cooking, heating, electricity generation, and transport fuel.
Biogas is a good example of a more efficient way of utilising land for energy production. Currently, if we use a hectare of land to grow oilseed rape for Bio diesel, a car could travel 22,000 KM using wheat for Bio Ethanol it could travel for 30,000 KM, but on Bio Gas, it could travel a staggering 95,000 Km, from the same area of land.
Of course to use the Bio gas, the car would need to be converted, to run on bio gas.
As can be seen current bio fuels have been viewed in an unfavourable light, but part of the reason for this, is that a lot of the energy used to process the fuels, is to make bio fuels compatible with existing fossil fuels. For example, around 40% of the energy used in an Ethanol plant, is used to separate the alcohol from the water, via the distillation columns. We have to do this because water and petrol do not mix, and the distribution system cannot cope with any moisture in the fuel. Yet in Brazil, they have many cars running on what is called Hydrous Ethanol, or ethanol with up to 5% water included. This fuel would have a much improved energy balance over Anhydrous Ethanol, which is what we have to use here in Europe.
Once a viable Bio fuel industry has been established, then it will evolve into the business we would wish to see, ie using as yet unviable sources of bio mass from algae to waste material, and these can be used to supplement the feedstocks that can be grown by existing land managers.
An example of how the use of a dedicated energy crop can be justified, is again to be found in the Biogas industry, where there are many millions of tonnes of underutilised feedstock for biogas, in the form of animal slurry.
However, due to the very dilute nature of the energy content of these products, it is neither environmentally, or financially viable to move these resources from the source of production, to process for energy extraction. However if a small amount of energy crops are added into the Anaerobic Digester that is placed on the site of slurry production, then the energy content from the slurry can be economically realised. Meaning an energy source can be utilised, that would otherwise be wasted, or underexploited.
My own Anaerobic Digestion plant (Picture attached) is an example of this.
To conclude, all previous advanced societies have relied upon bio fuels, and we are currently the exception, in our exploitation of fossil energy reserves. However these reserves are finite, whereas bio energy is a fully sustainable, renewable source of energy. If bio fuel crops are used in conjunction with more appropriate land use policies, they will help to meet both current and future societies energy needs.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 01/03/2009
Technologies that appear at first blush and in the lab to be both benign and efficacious often turn out, upon widespread implementation, to be counter-productive or even detrimental. We have yet to accurately capture and model the complexity of reality. Emergent phenomena, unintended consequences, unexpected and undesirable by-products, ungovernable economic and other processes all conspire to adversely affect the trajectories of even the most thoroughly studied inventions.
Biofuels are the poster children of such good intentions gone terribly awry. Rather than retard global warming, scientists (such as Holly Gibbs, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, Matt Struebig from Queen Mary, University of London, and Emily Fitzherbert from the Zoological Society of London and University of East Anglia) are now warning that they may enhance and accelerate it by encouraging deforestation in the tropics. Indeed, the higher the prices fetched by biofuels, the more rainforests are being ferociously decimated in the quest for arable land.
Moreover, biofuels are energy-inefficient: their production consumes more energy than they yield in burning. The disastrous effect they have on food prices is amply documented. Another study demonstrates that their consumption releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the quantity of fossil fuels that they replace.
This “carbon debt” is especially true if we take into account the gases released by the incineration of trees mowed down to make place for the (often state subsidized) cultivation of biofuels. There is also a “biodiversity debt”: up to five-sixths of indigenous species are extinguished once a forest is cleared to make way for oil palm plantations, for instance.
Though much hyped, biofuels should not serve as part and parcel of the energy policy mix. Some wonks suggest that biofuels should be allowed to be grown only on marginal or degraded land. But, this would require enormous investments in fertilizers and other technologies intended to halt soil erosion and nutrient leeching. From the point of view of environmental accounting, such tracts better be re-forested. Forests recycle rainwater, act as carbon skins, prevent floods, and serve as habitats to species, some of them endangered.”
Policy Officer for Low Carbon Fuels
Transport and Environment (T&E)
said: On 01/03/2009
What role should biofuels play in our future energy mix?
European biofuels policy is still largely guided by a fundamentally flawed philosophy: that we should define volume-based targets for how much renewable transport fuel Europe should be using by a given date. But volume targets do not guarantee greenhouse gas savings. In the future, energy sources for transport must compete on the environmental benefits they bring.
Biofuels can be produced sustainably and lead to genuine emissions savings but they have also already caused savage ecological destruction, appaling labour conditions and higher emissions overall than fossil fuels. We need a policy that says ‘yes’ to the good biofuels and ‘no, never’ to the bad.
The most effective way is a greenhouse gas savings target for all transport fuels with robust sustainability criteria. All potential sources of energy for transport could then compete on a level playing field. The greenest biofuels would win, while bad biofuels (as well as other high carbon fuels like those produced from tar sands), would lose.
Europe has made some efforts to ensure the biofuels sold in Europe are produced sustainably by including specific criteria in recent laws. But major inconsistencies, unanswered questions and loopholes remain. The most important of these is the emissions associated with indirect land use change. When a piece of land is diverted to the production of biofuels, more land will need to be converted for other purposes elsewhere. If that means, for example, forests being cut down to plant food, there is a massive release of stored up carbon and any greenhouse gas savings of biofuels disappear.
The experts all agree that these emissions must be accounted for when assessing the sustainability of biofuel production. But Europe decided to postpone this crucial policy question to a later date, while going ahead with its targets. And that sends the wrong message to biofuel producing companies, and countries. But they would be very unwise to push full speed ahead with biofuel prodcution because the days of high carbon fuels are numbered. Ultimately, they have no place in a world that is serious about combatting climate change.
President
California Public Utilities Commission
said: On 01/03/2009
It is no secret that we must find new ways of generating and consuming energy. The challenge presented by global warming is basically a fundamental reconsideration of how we meet our energy needs and the technologies that we rely on in light of the toll these technologies exact on the environment and future generations. Global warming presents us with profound new challenges, but behind every challenge lies opportunity. And I believe that biofuels present an immense opportunity to address the daunting challenge of fighting global climate change.
One of the unique features of biofuels is that they can be used to provide a variety of energy applications and products, including electricity, direct heat, and transportation fuels. There is tremendous opportunity to utilize these resources to meet many of our energy and environmental goals. But it is not something that will happen overnight. It will take a lot of work and a lot of creative minds – both in the private and public sector.
Increasing the utilization of biofuels makes sense for several reasons:
Biomass feedstocks are extremely diverse and the technologies to utilize the fuels are equally diverse. This diversity helps mitigate overreliance on one particular fuel type or generation technology. However, not all biomass is equally attractive. We should be looking increasingly into feedstocks such as switchgrass and less into corn-ethanol. While corn ethanol provides an alternative to petroleum, and also adds another revenue stream to the agricultural sector, there are many more types of biomass that we should be pursuing. Switchgrass as biofuel has a significant amount of promise and should be pursued due to its hardiness in poor soil and climate conditions, rapid growth and low fertilization and herbicide requirements. Switchgrass is also perennial, unlike corn, and has a large biomass output. All in all, switchgrass provides much more ‘bang for your buck’ than corn-ethanol.
Biomass is also a domestic renewable resource, and while it is not without certain environmental detractions, the positives outweigh the negatives. Using our native biomass resources in an environmentally responsible way, we can fuel a significant portion of our cars; power our homes and simultaneously provide new economic opportunities across the nation.
Unlike other renewable resources, due to the dispersed nature of biomass resources, it is not necessary to build major new transmission projects to accommodate delivery. Half the battle is finding ways to transmit solar and wind energy from remote areas into the load centers. Utilization of biofuels takes this complicated, controversial step out of the equation and should lead to achieving our environmental goals much more quickly.
There are established markets for biofuels today both in the United States and around the world, yet the untapped potential is enormous. Growth in the use of biofuels is currently constrained by limited infrastructure, high production costs, competing energy technologies, and other market barriers. Removing the obstacles that exist today will require the concerted efforts of federal and state policy and decision-makers, the industrial and agricultural communities, and finance and business entrepreneurs.
Biotechnologist
University of Glamorgan, UK
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels will have definitely a role as easily transportable and relatively non-polluting fuels in the future. Examples might be to power machinery and vehicles in environmentally sensitive areas like parks or waterways. But they can never be more than a minor source of overall fuel consumption.
In general, biodiesel crops are more environmentally friendly and sustainable than bioethanol crops.
If biofuel crops are grown, they should not use land where food crops are currently grown. This EU and US policy has been a mistake and will be even more indefensible in the future as the growing world population will need all the food we can produce from crops.
A potential solution is to develop new types of biofuel derived from microalgae that can be grown on non-crop land and have the capacity to provide much of our transport fuel in a renewable carbon-neutral form.
Associate Professor
Monmouth and Columbia University
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels will never replace fossil motor vehicle fuels under present conditions. One-third of the U.S. corn crop is diverted to bioethanol for about the equivalent of 400,000 bpd displacement of gasoline out of a total consumption of 9 million bpd. This is a proverbial drop in the bucket considering the impact on food prices.
However there is a role in biofuels as a means to at least reduce our dependence on crude oil, much of which comes from politically volatile and unfriendly sources. Biofuels made from food crops should be curtailed, which is already happening from a low price on crude oil. Biofuel producers make money when the spread between gasoline and diesel prices less the cost of the foodstuff (corn, wheat, palm oil etc.) is large enough to cover costs and provide a profit (the biorefinery spread). Low oil prices have made ethanol from corn and biodiesel from palm oil unprofitable. But ethanol made from sugar in Brazil is profitable as it is the low cost source of ethanol today.
We should de-emphasize bioethanol and biodiesel from food crops. Bioethanol should be expanded in Brazil as large areas of non-agricultural land can be converted to sugar plantations without affecting food output. Research in cellulosic ethanol should be intensified. Cellulosic ethanol has the potential of displacing a significant portion of crude oil from the gasoline stream if the technology can be made commercially feasible. Biodiesel can be made from inedible seeds such as jatrophe, a weed that grows wild in Africa and Asia. Brazil is conducting research in making biodiesel from inedible castor beans. Inedible oil bearing seeds have no value as a foodstuff – their cost is the cost of planting, cultivation and harvesting – a fixed cost that does not affect the value of food crops. Jatrophe can be grown on non-agricultural land. Castor beans can be grown on new land brought under cultivation in Brazil. Algae is another fertile area worth exploring as algae can be converted to biodiesel and bioethanol with a residue that is highly nutritious for livestock feed. Algae can be fed with polluted water and other wastes – a perfect waste recycling mechanism for an added environmental benefit.
There is a promising future for biofuels, but its form will be quite different than what we see today.
Senior Energy Anlalyst/Deputy Programme Manager
South Pacific Institute for Renewable Energy
said: On 01/03/2009
From a technical perspective, biofuels are a good, low greenhouse gas replacement for fossil fuels. However providing the enormous quantity of biofuels needed to significantly impact fossil fuel use presents serious socio-economic problems. Currently most biofuel production depends on crops that grow on agricultural land in competition with food production. Indeed, many of the crops currently used for biofuel are themselves also used for food. This is counterproductive for the long term as it limits the availability of both food and fuel, and in the short term has already created friction between the industrial countries that want developing country land to be used for biofuel crops and the developing countries whose population needs the land for food production. Biofuel feedstock crops that do not require good agricultural land and are not themselves food sources, such as Jathropa, can avoid competing with food crops but unfortunately the economics of production usually results in their being actually planted on land suitable for food crops.
Forest land in developing countries is already under great pressure with developing country deforestation mostly the result of the conversion of forest land to agricultural land to feed increasing population. If the industrialized nation’s ever increasing thirst for liquid fuels is added to that pressure, the rate of forest clearance, and therefore the potential for major environmental problems, must also increase. If Biofuels are to become a major and sustainable part of the fuel supply for the industrialized countries, feedstocks that depend on species that compete with food for the use of land should have a minimal role for the future. Money spent on subsidising low energy efficiency, food competitive programmes, such as in the USA where there is the subsidized use of maize and soybeans as feed stocks for alcohol based biofuels, would better be used on research programmes that focus on the development of efficient biofuel production based on organisms, such as algae and bacteria, that do not require agricultural land or inefficient energy intensive production processes.
Until the technology is available for large scale production of feedstocks for biofuels without a corresponding large scale commitment for land, biofuels must necessarily remain on the sidelines as supplements or additives to fossil fuels. Alcohol added to petrol and biodiesel added to diesel fuel have technical benefits as well as resulting in some reduction on fossil fuel dependency and may have justifiable benefits both for developed country fuel users and for developing country agriculture. However, the replacement of a high percentage of fossil fuel use by biofuels that are based on food competitive crops cannot take place without unacceptable environmental, social and economic adjustments.
Senior EU Agriculture Policy officer
BirdLife International
said: On 01/03/2009
Probably a tiny one, but it should be determined by what they can deliver, not by ill-conceived targets. At the moment biofuels are a huge waste of land (that is better used for food or natural habitats storing carbon and providing ecosystem services), of biomass (much better used for heat and power generation) and of money (which can achieve much bigger emission reductions if spent on efficiency and other renewable). Of all the technologies available for dealing with climate change, biofuels are the one that makes less sense and presents the highest risk, so it is a folly to single them out for special extra support.
Some biofuels can certainly be produced sustainably, for example from waste that is currently not recovered. But the recently adopted EU 10% target, and similar policies in the US and elsewhere, are generating huge pressure on global land use, a pressure that nobody is yet able to quantify or to foresee its consequences. What the scientific community is already able to tell us, and very clearly, is that the risks are huge. If even a tiny amount of our biofuels end up, directly or indirectly, accelerating tropical deforestation and peatlands drainage, the emissions will be so big as to far outweigh any emission saving from the rest of biofuels. Biofuels are simply not a climate policy. And if you look at the other social and environmental risks they pose, extreme caution is the only meaningful approach.
While biofuels are a fake answer, created to hide the need for much greater efficiency in transport, biomass (or bioenergy) is bound to provide a very significant part of our renewable energy. Many bioenergy technologies are very promising and can be truly sustainable. However, strict sustainability standards are indispensable, and we need to understand that there are limits to what we can extract from the land. While biomass does re-grow, it doesn’t come for free. Land and water are scarce resources that must be used well. Forest biomass is not just unused fuel; it is what makes forests living systems. Even “waste” biomass is often already used somehow, if only for recycling nutrients back to the soil.
So the bottom line is: set and enforce strict standards and carefully assess potential; and allocate land and biomass to the technologies that can deliver maximum emission reduction at minimum environmental and social cost. And then let technologies compete. If some biofuels can pass the test, I will be happy to welcome them.
Chairman & Managing Director
Tormacon Limited
said: On 01/03/2009
The role of biofuels in our future energy mix is fraught with contradictory claims. On the one side, the use of biofuels a definite improvement over the fossil fuels, but its use is also fraught with some inherent dangers. Biofuels do have a potential to form an integral part of our fuel mix, but can not be total replacement for petroleum.
Biofuels have much to recommend them in terms of having lower emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants compared to petroleum and other fuel types. Considerable uncertainty remains, however, on the health benefits of biofuels in our urban environment. There are also potential side benefits in terms of sustainable land management, with research exploring how growing crops for biofuels can be used to manage salinity as well as how woody weeds can be used for biofuel production. There could also be some downside in terms of water use and biodiversity loss if we clear new land for biofuel crop production.
The benefits of shifting from gasoline and the current generation of food- and feed-based biofuels to next-generation cellulosic biofuels are approximately twice as large as previously thought, as long as the carbon debt from land-use change is minimal. Other environmental advantages of properly produced cellulosic biofuels (e.g., lower emissions of ozone precursors and reduced pesticide and nitrate loading of surface and groundwater) may make the economic benefits to society of this transition greater still.” Although these estimates face several uncertainties, the general finding flows from three reliable projections. First, farmers will replace most of the grain diverted from food and feed by ethanol because the demand for overall food and feed — as opposed to any particular grain — is inelastic.
Second, increases in cropland will provide most replacement grain because they are cost-effective and fast, the yield effects of biofuel demands are both positive and negative, and the world has many convertible acres – up to 170 million hectares in Brazil alone and perhaps 2.8 billion hectares worldwide. Most significantly, the potential emissions per hectare of land conversion greatly exceed the annual greenhouse reductions per hectare of biofuels.
Moreover the implicit threat to the indiginous people can not be discounted. The natives of Indonesia and Malaysia are among 60 million indigenous people facing the threat of being driven off their lands to make way for an expansion of biofuel crops around the world, as stated by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chairperson of UN permanent forum on the indigenous Issues. Indonesia and Malaysia are among those most at risk because together they produce 80 per cent of the world’s palm oil – one of the crops used to make biofuels.
Tauli-Corpuz said that in one Indonesian province, West Kalimantan, the UN had identified five million indigenous people who were likely to be displaced because of the expansion in the production of biofuel crops. Can we afford to ignore this major human disaster?
There has to be some compromise. In the best scenario, biofuels could offer us some important advantages: one third of the EU’s overall CO2 emissions come from transport, so switching to biofuels can make a tremendous contribution to combating climate change. It can also reduce reliance on expensive, imported fossil fuels, since the transport sector is currently 98% dependent on oil. As the biofuel sector develops it will also create jobs and open up new markets for agricultural production. And it has great potential for meeting international development goals. However it must be ensured that biofuels use does not exceed 25% of our total fuel use. There has to be another restraint as well. All biofuel should be produced not from food crops, nor should land be diverted from food use. The researchers have identified that perennial grasses like miscanthus, switchgrass and native prairie grasses, have a small initial carbon release associated with planting, but after that they start acting as a carbon sink very quickly.
Notwithstanding the limited use of biofuels, we need to continue to develop the technologies required to produce, refine and deliver hydrocarbon resources in an effective, economic and environmentally responsible way. Any use of biofuels in a major way is likely to be devastating to a large section of humanity. However a positive discount rate should be applied to greenhouse gas reduction technologies, such as biofuels, because investing in them today represents an opportunity cost to save that money and invest in cleaner technologies at a later date.
Director of Fashion
Heriot-Watt University
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels are a way of ensuring that we are capturing the suns energy in a useable portable form and reducing both our dependance and extraction of fossil fuels. However we must be very careful that we are not utilising land that should be producing food crops, destroying forestry and green eco systems, utilising the by products of food crops and food production and generally being ethical about biofuel production. If we are not ethical about their production we will be in a situation where biofuels will become a very hot political potato and images of destroyed rainforests, starving children, food riots and climate change will be paraded in front of the public through all the media channels ( think of GM foods).
Professor of Human Ecology
Institute of Social Ecology of the Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt
said: On 01/03/2009
Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion are one of the world’s greatest sustainability challenges. Vigorous climate policies should be on top of the global sustainability agenda. But substituting biofuels for oil products is no suitable option to tackle this problem. Biofuels offer little, if any, benefit in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Their production competes for high-quality land needed to feed a growing world population and to sustain healthy, bio-diverse ecosystems and the vital energy services they supply to human society. In addition, producing liquid biofuels needs land that could produce a lot more net energy from biomass per unit area and year if used more wisely.
Current “first generation” biofuels are mostly produced from parts of plants that are also suitable as human food as well as feed for livestock. Ethanol is produced from sugar cane, cereals or maize. Rape methyl ester is produced from rape seeds that can also be used to produce vegetable oil suitable for human consumption. These biofuels directly compete against food production and drive up food prices, thereby jeopardizing food provision for the world’s poor. But even “second generation” biofuels compete for the same lands that are currently being used, or will be required in the future, to feed a growing world population and provide humans with richer, healthier diets.
If the full life cycle is properly taken into account, biofuels offer little, if any, benefit in terms of GHG emissions compared to liquid fuels derived from crude oil. One recent study by nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and colleagues even concluded that the N2O emissions from biofuel production alone – without taking fossil fuels required to produce fertilizers or run tractors into account – would contribute more to global warming that the CO2 from combustion of fossil-energy based motor fuels. Producing liquid biofuels requires huge amounts of energy-consuming inputs such as fertilizers, fuel for tractors as well as energy for chemical conversions and results in large-scale impacts on ecosystems that are highly detrimental for the environment and jeopardize biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.
The amount of biofuel energy that can be produced on a hectare of farmland per year is much lower than the amount of bio-energy that could be produced through alternative biomass utilization pathways. This has three major reasons: First, biofuels are currently produced from high-end food plants that require large inputs (fertilizers, etc.). Second, only a part of the plant – grains, fruits – can be used, not the whole plant. Third, conversion of biomass to liquid fuels with highly defined quality consumes a lot of energy as well.
Biomass is much better suited for use in appliances that do not require the high fuel quality standards needed for vehicle motors. One option is to directly burn solid biomass in suitable cogeneration plants, thereby making the best possible use of the exergy and achieving high energy efficiency. Any sufficiently dry biomass can be used in cogeneration plants or heating systems. Huge amounts of fossil fuels are currently burned in such appliances. Biomass could help much more in reducing GHG emissions if it were used here instead of in vehicle motors. Wet biomass, in particular residues from cropland farming, animal husbandry or the food industry could be used to produce biogas that can be used as a substitute for natural gas. Strategies of “cascade utilization of biomass” could help to optimize food, fibre and energy production in an integrated manner. Through such an integrated optimization, bio-energy could be produced with little additional area demand and consequently much higher area-efficiency. This would help minimizing the negative ecological effects from bio-energy production and avoid conflicts between food and energy production.
Humanity already claims about one third of the aboveground biomass produced each year by green plants living in the world’s terrestrial ecosystems for its own purposes, leaving only two thirds for the other maybe 20 million species on earth. The growing food and fibre demand of an increasing, and hopefully wealthier world population will drive that number further up. Only the most area-efficient and sustainable options to produce energy from biomass should be embraced in order to avoid environmentally detrimental impacts of bio-energy production on the world’s ecosystems and biodiversity.
We should abandon biofuels because their large-scale application would result in problem shifting and might not even help mitigating climate change. Instead, we should focus on sustainable bio-energy from integrated, highly area-efficient food-fibre-energy production schemes that help maintaining sufficiently large natural or semi-natural ecosystems, including most of the world’s remaining forests, in order to protect vital ecosystem services that humanity needs at least as urgently as it needs a stabilization of the global mean temperature. Sustainable transport systems will have to rely on other technologies, either hydrogen or electricity, produced through less area-consuming technologies (e.g., solar or wind power, geothermal and maybe – at least for a transitory period – carbon capture and storage) and do not compromise biodiversity and ecosystems.
Director
Sea Gardens project
said: On 01/03/2009
Last year’s rise and fall in oil prices turned the budding biofuel industry, before that with such a clear and bright future role, into a conundrum. And that besides bringing financial havoc and frustration on those who invested heavily or too eagerly in it. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that for one reason or another, even if it is only because of the atmospheric carbon issue and associated costs, fossil fuel prices will rise again, and there just isn’t any other clean option—so far—that promises to massively substitute for oil in the short term. Save for biofuels, which are handled and used in a similar manner as oil yet are carbon neutral. And agriculture is such a dear industry. The status quo preserves itself and biofuels will turn around faster, better and cheaper after this recent set back. They are competing tigers of the same flock. However, there is a point to this that is commonly left out when we are being sold the biofuel package. Agriculture is already over-stretched regarding water availability if not land’s, consumption is rising fast in—very large—emerging economies, and there are at least one billion people suffering from chronic malnutrition in the world. How much land and water can be spared for biofuels? Moreover, climate warming scenarios indicate that changes will severely affect agriculture, mainly through water shortages but also through water excesses plus floodings from sea level rise. Yet, most certainly we will find ways to get around this before we truly reach our limits to growth. In my case, I believe biofuels should be obtained from algae (seaweed and microalgae) biomass produced directly at sea, where there are no water shortages or excesses, for all the vast and unused sea areas of the world—beginning with coastal seas, of which tropical countries are particularly well-endowed. Currently, seaweed production, indeed very common the world over—millions of tons are produced in many countries—yet surprinsingly unknown for most, yields over 40 tons of biomass per hectare per year, a productivity similar to crops on land, and it is only the beginning. Micro-algae culture, so promising and talked-about for oil production in salt-water tanks and bio-reactors in land, has not been tried directly at sea save for a few attempts here and there, like our low-cost floating bio-reactors. Unheard of progress will be obtained once a fraction of the research and technology development effort that has been plowed for centuries into agriculture is invested at sea. Besides many environments there are thousands of seaweed, microalgae and other photosynthesizing species, so the potential is extraordinary. Moreover, algae’s filtering capabilities can be used to clean fouled sea waters, using the nutrients for growth for biofuels while treating massive amounts of sewage dumped into the sea all over the world. Thus, our planet is, once again, blessed by an abundance of resources that we may—perhaps must—take, and move out and away from this environmental-energy-food crisis until, of course, the next crisis comes around. Boserup notwhithstanding, Malthus did have a point and, now more than ever, time is at the essence.
Fellow
Heartland Institute
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels should have only a modest role in our energy mix over the next several years while research is done on how to create them in a way which can compete with fossil fuels in a free market, without the need for government subsidies.
Furthermore, biofuels made from food crops should be ended as an energy source. Here in America, people are slowly learning that corn ethanol is an inefficient energy source and is no better – and arguably worse – for the environment than gasoline. Furthermore, it results in massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers around the nation to a relatively small number of farmers, mostly large agribusiness corporations, in the form of subsidies.
There’s a reason that when George Bush mentioned expanding corn ethanol production in a State of the Union speech a few years ago, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley was shown on the TV, smiling like the cat that ate the canary.
Much of the push for biofuels is a result of environmentalists, anti-capitalists, and politicians and scientists seeking grants and contributions, working to convince people that human activity is leading to destructive climate change. It has become nearly a religion, and one that demands a tithe from every person in every developed economy in the world.
At some point, and perhaps it is the silver lining to this incredibly dark cloud surrounding these economic times, people will realize that the current rush into “alternative energy”, including biofuels, is counter-productive and irrational – unless your real motivations are to help you raise money from donors or governments, or to win a Nobel Prize with lies.
Eventually, biofuels will make sense, especially if cellulosic ethanol production can be made more efficient. But it’s time for our leaders to admit that they can’t save the world by burning our food.
Deputy Director
National Energy Foundation
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels are a false dawn in the fight against climate change. In the long term they may have a limited application in aviation and as a high density energy source for use in remote areas, but they will not solve the main issues of providing environmentally benign mobility. Before I go any further, I must add that this is a personal view, and would not be shared by many of my colleagues at the National Energy Foundation: this disagreement itself indicates the level of uncertainty around the future role of biofuels. And the issues surrounding biofuels do not justify a “do nothing” option, allowing continuing unchecked demand for fossil fuels: if we are to combat climate change we have to take rapid action on transport.
So what’s wrong with biofuels, and what solutions will work? Essentially the problem with biofuels is that there isn’t enough productive land to meet more than a small percentage of our transport needs by biofuels without, at the same time, creating a food shortage and putting at risk the remaining areas of rain forest. If there were a billion people on this planet then they would probably work very well, but with six billion, it’s just not possible.
Biofuels tend to be inefficient in production and use. Many crops grown for fuel in temperate areas, including maize (corn) or sugar beet for bioethanol and rapeseed (canola) for biodiesel, yield low levels of usable fuel compared to the energy and fertiliser input required to produce them. And to compound the problem, most biofuels are then burnt in relatively inefficient internal combustion engines – leading to a terrible well to wheel net efficiency. The UK Government (Defra) published a report summarising research, which suggested that at best savings of CO2 (carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas) were only 54% compared to conventional mineral oil based fuels. And other studies, including those from the IEA and the World Bank, put the savings as low as 10-20% for grain-based bioethanol, and no more than 40% for the same fuel derived from beet.
On the face of it, there are better savings if sugarcane is the primary source of the fuel. But most cane currently comes from Brazil, and land switched to cane production tends to displace cattle, which in turn moves onto the fringes of the Amazon rain forest… Palm Oil, which remains one of the cheapest biofuel feedstocks, often comes from Southeast Asia and is implicated in deforestation. Among other environmental problems, using the “fossil water” of the Ogallala aquifer in the US Midwest to grow soybeans or corn for biofuels is simply replacing the use of one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel petroleum) with another.
Of course, not all biofuels are equally damaging. Using waste cooking oil – for example from British fish & chip shops – is wholly sensible. Proponents of jatropha point out that it tends to grow on marginal land that may not have been in production, and can provide much needed income for poor communities in Africa or South Asia. That is true, but there is nowhere near enough available land to make more than a tiny dent in the global demand for fuel. And although everyone is keen to encourage second generation biofuels that will offer higher yields, or may be converted from waste products such as straw, or cultured in the sea (algae), they have yet to be demonstrated on a commercial scale and there is no guarantee that they will ever be available in sufficient quantities to meet transport needs.
So what are the alternatives? Well, to start with, there may be a limited role for biofuels when an easily transportable source of energy is required, most commonly in aviation. Hydrogen or battery power seems less likely to be able to be used here, although it is possible that a synthetic kerosene created from water and atmospheric CO2 using renewable energy could be a viable alternative to biofuels (with a much lower land take).
In the longer term, the Western world – in particular – is going to have to think very hard about how it travels (and, to some extent, how much). So there may need to be some limitation of demand, as well as a move towards alternative non-fossil fuels; our generation is the first (and possibly the last) to benefit from cheap flights to almost anywhere. Demand management measures, although politically hard, will have to be imposed whether or not the future is largely biofuel powered.
Travellers will have to get more used to using communal or public transport systems. In towns these are likely to be trams or trolleybuses; in rural areas or for longer distances electric trains or fuel cell powered buses. Local personal transportation may be by bicycle or by small electric vehicles, charged when the fluctuating renewable energy supplies are in surplus – RMI’s Smart Garage concept. (More cycling and walking may also have a health benefit!) It may be possible to hire electric or fuel cell cars for longer journeys, with the former fed by quick exchange battery swap stations, as has been proposed recently in Israel. Goods will be transported by rail whenever possible, then moved from the railhead by electric vans, or – again – possibly fuel cell trucks to more remote locations. (It’s even possible that biomass may be able to be used through efficient external combustion engines in 21st century versions of steam lorries.) Only international or very long distance travel may resort to internal combustion engines, and these might use second generation biofuels or biogas, or even compressed hydrogen.
At the start of this piece I wrote that biofuels were, in my opinion, a false dawn. One reason for my concern is that if the general public believes that biofuels will solve environmental (or climate change) problems associated with travel, then there is little or no incentive for them to consider their own behaviour; they can rely instead on the oil companies (or Government) fixing the issue on their behalf. Low biofuel blends, including those typically sold as “biodiesel”, which contain as little as 5%, may make the problem even worse, lulling the public into a false sense of security. And in the meantime, people believe that they can continue to drive anytime, any place, anywhere, with little or no consideration of the long term environmental consequences. So, perhaps sadly, I personally conclude that biofuels may not only fail to provide a long term solution, but they could actually make the problem even worse.
Ian Byrne is writing in a personal capacity, and some of the views above may not be shared by colleagues at the National Energy Foundation.
Research Fellow
University of Manchester
said: On 01/03/2009
The future role of bioenergy and biofuels is hugely uncertain: not only is it unclear what will happen, it is not wholly clear what should happen, when or where. This applies to the types of feedstocks, the scale of production and the types of end-use. It is important to keep policy incentives moderate in the short term, despite the urgency of climate change.
It is implausible that a shift to ligno-cellulosic or other non-food crops and technologies will radically simplify the situation. In terms of their socio-economic and environmental impacts, biofuels and bioenergy are very different to other renewable and lower carbon energy options. The fact that they occupy a substantial physical area has direct and indirect implications for agricultural production, regardless of feedstock type. Technological advance can and will improve environmental efficiencies, but the fundamental issues of water and land-take will remain. It is difficult to envisage macro- or micro-algae changing this on a large scale over the next 1-2 decades.
Sustainability certification either needs to embody stringent criteria that screen out poor-performing feedstocks, or it needs to be supplemented with regulations that achieve the same end. The reliability of certification will be enhanced if the chain of custody uses a track and trace system that also physically separates certified from uncertified product. Certification can be further strengthened by bi- or tri-lateral contracts between producer, refiner and retailer, with regular verification checks. This form of chain of custody would go beyond the mass-balance approach accepted under the UK RTFO.
However, certification cannot ensure a net positive outcome by itself because it cannot control indirect impacts. The scale of biofuel production is probably the main factor involved in driving those impacts, though not the only factor. The issue of production scale needs further research and wider debate, as we attempt to balance biofuel and agricultural production in a warming world.
Director
Plant Genome Mapping Laboratory
said: On 01/03/2009
A portfolio of dedicated energy crops sustainably produced with low inputs on marginal lands not needed (or not suitable) for food production, offers a renewable, geographically distributed and greenhouse-gas-favorable source of liquid fuel that is realizable in less than a decade. Expansion of agriculture to provide sufficient plant biomass for fuel/feedstock production will require additions to our present repertoire of crops. Perennial crops are a promising avenue by which marginal lands might be brought into increased biomass production in a sustainable manner.
Warm-season grasses are among the most efficient biomass accumulators thanks to ‘C4’ photosynthesis, a complex combination of biochemical and morphological specializations that increase net carbon assimilation at high temperature. The Saccharinae clade of grasses is of singular importance, including three leading biofuel crops, Sorghum (currently the #2 US biofuel crop), Saccharum (sugarcane, currently the worlds #1 biofuel crop), and Miscanthus. Its adaptability to continental Europe shows the feasibility of producing Miscanthus in temperate latitudes, and field trials suggest that current genotypes can meet US renewable fuel goals for 2016 by being grown on the same land currently producing maize grain to yield less ethanol.
Scientific breeding of dedicated energy crops is only beginning and the early stages of their improvement may benefit from knowledge of existing crops. Many early priorities for energy crop improvement are ‘domestication traits’ about which established crops provide much information that is thought to be transferable to new crops.
Perenniality of energy crops is important to bringing marginal lands into sustainable production, but there has been only limited research into its genetics. Perennial biomass plants have four advantages over annuals: a longer growing season; better access to water and nutrients; more conservative use of nutrients; and better adaptation to marginal lands. Understanding of the allocation of photosynthate between vegetative (perennation) and reproductive (seed/grain) organs remains controversial. Classical ‘tradeoff theory’ – that the pool of carbon to be shared by plant reproductive and vegetative structures is fixed – is increasingly questioned, as evidence mounts that the pool of carbon can be increased by selection. Moreover, wild herbaceous perennial plants are “overbuilt” for survival of even extreme stresses. Since agricultural management mitigates the extreme stresses that prevail in the wild, some photosynthate can be diverted from excess below-ground capacity to harvestable organs.
Owner
HEMOK Kft
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels have to play a growing role in the future energy mix, simply because the common sources will dry out. As a lot of people on this planet have already realised this, it is a pity, not to say a tragedy, that politicians, triggered by lobbies, refuse to set the legal framework for growing use of Biofuels in a proper and fast way. As everybody, who cares about facts not news knows, there is no competition between food and fuel. The opposite is true : Highly subsidised agricultural entities in Europe and in the whole world will have new chances and an important role as “energy – farmers”. This leads to reduced subsidies and to improved independence from energy – imports for many countries. Recent events ( the gas – crisis in Europe ) have shown this in a quite drastic way. Though we don’t have short term a chance to substitute mineral fuels and conventional energy for 100 % by biological and sustainable energy, we have to go in this direction as good and as fast as possible.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
UConn Biofuels Consortium
said: On 01/03/2009
Biofuels have the potential to sustainably replace at least half of our petroleum use without causing disruptions in the food supply or causing environmental destruction. How can this be, given the recent disruptions in food markets and well publicized destruction of rain forest for the purpose of producing fuel supplies? Up till now, we have simply used the same technologies and feedstocks used over the past millenia to produce drinkable ethanol and other food based derivatives like biodiesel from vegetable oil. We have also produced these food based fuels using our petroleum energy based agricultural industry, which inevitably ties these biofuels to the fluctuations in oil prices.
We need a much more radical approach, yet well founded on fundamental economic principles. However, large investments in cellulosic based alcohol fuels may or may not yield the breakthroughs we have been awaiting for 10 years. The good news is that non-food plants like Jatropha and Hemp can grow on marginal agricultural land with minimal inputs, and produce large yields of vegetable oil that can be easily processed into high quality biodiesel fuel. Moreover, pilot scale facilities are beginning to show that Microalgae can produce enormous yields of vegetable oil, that can also be easily processed to biodiesel. Finally, a new systems engineering approach is learning how to combine several technologies to increase the economic feasibility of processing cellulosic material into butanol, not ethanol, for the gasoline market.
Thus, biofuels have the capability to play a very large role in the future energy mix, and if produced properly, can play such a role without requiring large changes in the energy infrastructure. Note that high quality biodiesel can be used in diesel fuel systems with almost no change in the components or performance, so once the non-food feedstocks enter the marketplace in large quantities, biodiesel can grow to its potential.
Finally, we may look at biofuels as a medium term bridge to the all electric future of fuel cells and high energy density batteries.
Executive Director
TERI
said: On 01/03/2009
The role of biofuels in recent times has been rather controversial primarily because of the perceived conflict with food security. The relative importance of bio-fuels would necessarily vary across countries and by end use applications. For example, in India bio-diesel may have a much larger role to play than bio-ethanol. This is because of the potential for producing bio-diesel in a relatively decentralized manner which could contribute significantly to enhancing access to energy in rural areas. Of course, the use of straight vegetable oil directly, instead of refining it into bio-diesel, itself enhances its attractiveness for its lower costs and further potential for decentralized utility. The plantation of energy crops along farm boundaries would be the most optimal route to follow.
Bio-ethanol, on the other hand, is more likely to come into conflict with other uses of the feedstock. This bio-fuel may hold a greater potential if the second-generation technologies being developed were to become techno-economically feasible. However, the attractiveness of these fuels is closely linked to international oil prices. The recent steep drop in global oil prices has forced the bio-ethanol programme in India to come to a standstill.
The relevance of the bio-fuels programme stems as much from its greenhouse gas mitigation potential as it does from its potential to enhance energy security for the rural areas in a country. With 400 million people without access to grid electricity and more than 600 million people still using biomass for cooking purposes, bio-fuels hold significant promise for India.
Director
Holland Innovation Team
said: On 02/03/2009
Bio fuels can play a role if we are able to agree upon definitions and strategy. Nowadays governments spend money on research options of second, third and fourth and even fifth generations of bio fuels, without knowing which are the differences, what the energy consumption during production is and finally which impact these fuels have upon nature and society.
We forget that nature itself have produced bio fuels in the earth history. Natural gas has been produced in millions of years, but look only a few hundred years back and you see that the earth has produced swamp gas and peat. Controlled biogas production by anaerobic digestion does not cost energy in the production process. There are millions of organisms that can rot, so use them, accelerate the process and upgrade the biogas. During upgrading, capture the carbon dioxide and produce bio-methane. In a smart production process, you can make fertilizer from the left over’s and convert the bio-methane into bio-LNG, the cleanest and cheapest renewable fuel.
In this way we can produce carbon negative bio fuels with a simple process. Of course we should continue production of first generation of bio-ethanol from sugar and starch rather than destroy large quantities of cereals and other crops in case (over)production is so large that farmers can not make their living. Scientists should investigate ways to develop agricultural industry in developing countries by introduction of smart concepts of these easy first generation bio fuels.
In my opinion it would be advisable to produce bio-methane from sewage sludge, landfills, food and agricultural waste and even from fast growing energy crops in our western world which can cover 20% of our transportation fuels before 2020.
Executive Board Member
DB AGROENERGY
said: On 02/03/2009
Before discussing the role of biofuels in our future energy mix, I find it necessary to briefly note what we mean by “biofuels”.
I would like to name three categories of biofuels as renewable energy sources;
• the commercially available ones right now ( Bioethanol, Biodiesel, Biogas, referred to as 1st generation );
• the ones that exist and/or under development, but not commercially available yet ( which is generally referred to as 2nd generation );
• the ones that exist only on lab/study scale and needs certain time and technological development. ( which can be called “3rd generation” )
Over time, we should expect considerable progress in the following three properties of biofuels.
• the efficiency ( energy content of biofuel molecule compared to its mass )
• the availability ( the abundance of the raw material that biofuel is derived from )
• the added value ( in terms of cost of biofuel and the total CO₂ footprint compared to conventional alternatives. )
Now, coming to the answer of the question; I believe, that the role of biofuels will increase with the developments that will take place in their properties mentioned above. In order to see these changes, more research and development, more budget allocation is obviously necessary. We already witness the penetration of 1st generation of biofuels to energy market. At the same time, we are all aware of the weaknesses and the bottlenecks of existing biofuels. The importance of biofuels will increase naturally as the developments are taking place and 2nd generation biofuels are appearing, if nowadays only on trial basis, but very soon commercially.
My expectation is that, the biofuel industry will grow, hand in hand with existing energy industries and it will only provide an aid to the increasing energy demand of our civilization in future. I have no expectation that biofuels will lead to a general replacement of existing energy sources. When speaking of a secondary, supporting role, I need to emphasize one important aspect. The role of biofuels can and should be more important in terms of locality. In other words, they can play important role in being a supplement to existing energy industries where transportation, handling, storing require too many resources or are limited. When we consider the predicted benefits that 3rd generation biofuels may create, then I would expect some changes within the biofuel industry, shifting the market (production and use ) to 2nd and 3rd and wipe out 1st generation. This is the natural development that we all should expect and work for, for a better future that our next generation can live in.
Executive Director
Forest Stewardship Council
said: On 03/03/2009
The answer to the question above depends entirely on how these biofuels are produced. If produced through systems aiming at sustainability, then biofuels should play a key role in our future energy mix. However, unless there is much clearer requirements related to their production in the future, biofuels will likely contribute to further conversion of natural habitats and impact food security in developing countries. Their production would cause tremendous negative social and environmental impacts and, in some cases, even their carbon balance would be questionable. It is high time that society takes a critical look at biofuels and realize that not all that shines is green.
Secretary General
EuropaBio
said: On 03/03/2009
The plants that are used to make biofuels constitute a “low tech” approach to solar energy capture and storage. A significant number of crops offer energy savings and at the same time can compete in price with more traditional energy sources. These crops deliver either bio-ethanol or bio-diesel from sugar or starch, or from vegetable oil.
Enormous efforts are underway to improve transformation of other plant products (mostly cellulose, the world’s most abundant organic molecule) into liquid biofuel. Technically we know how to do it. Real scale factories or “demonstration plants” are being built now to confirm that this approach is also economically viable. Prospects are improving rapidly as the cost of the most expensive components of these complex processes is coming down rapidly. A combination of these so-called second generation biofuel sources with the most efficient resources of sugar, starch and vegetable oil can provide up to a quarter of our future fuels for transportation.
A largely overlooked biofuel in the debate is fuel wood. At least a third of the world population still uses wood as its primary source of energy for cooking and heating, often with very poor energy conversion rates. On the other hand, efficient fuel wood burners in Europe have shown their potential as a significant replacement fuel for coal and petroleum in heating and in electricity production.
The resources used to produce biofuels are primarily land and water to grow the crops. As both are limited, it is essential that we produce as much as possible using the smallest number of hectares possible, so as to avoid habitat destruction, which is the biggest source of biodiversity loss. The optimal mix in uses of biomass for heating, power generation and transportation fuel will be different in different environments and will also depend on the agricultural economy and the overriding need to use land and farming resources for food security first. The best win-win solution will come from intensive application of science and resource management.
Executive Director
Nature Kenya
said: On 03/03/2009
Africa is faced with serious challenges: food insecurity; health issues including HIV and AIDS; high illiteracy levels; poor leadership and governance; burgeoning population growth and poor planning. Africa’s development agenda is faced with key barriers: abject poverty of the people and the governments, poor development policies and or poor enforcement of any existing legislation or associated regulations; and inherent lack of long-term vision in planning and delivery of programmes. The Africa’s problem is complicated by the lack of ability to negotiate for any good for Africa may it be value for tourism products or value for agricultural crops and products or even the export quotas for any products from Africa. Severe technological limitations exacerbate the problem.
These barriers and limitations pose a major challenge for Africa in the future energy mix debates. Key questions arise: will food be put in rich people’s cars when poor rural communities are dying of hunger? If current lands cannot produce enough food for people in Africa, where will the extra land to grow-biofuels come from? What room does wildlife and environment have if bio-fuels will open new lands? What comes first, the policy, legislation and regulations on bio-fuels or the bio-fuel itself? How much land for how much bio-fuel is enough to run how many cars? These questions need answering before Africa can substantively engage in the bio-fuels debate. The global trade imbalances, pricing systems and supply chains and benefit sharing need to be more equitable before Africa can wilfully join the bio-fuel agenda.
The bio-fuel idea is good but equally good and more relevant for Africa is the Solar Energy idea that is not being talked about. Solar power is abundant and guaranteed with increased droughts presumably caused by climate change. Why not include the Solar Energy debate in the future energy mix equation? There are more questions than answers and the role of bio-fuel in the future energy mix is a subject for hot debates. These are just but personal views.
Deputy Director
Alaska Energy Authority
said: On 03/03/2009
Biofuels will play a role in our future energy mix both in liquid fuels as well as heat and power generation. Overall however the mix will be small and location focused. The use of biofuels as a transportation fuel should be limited as it does not address the concern of fuel consumption or CO2 emissions. From a systems perspective the recent experience with ethanol shows that it is important to understand all the affected components of a system, in this case the impact on food prices. Other aspects in this system include the overall energy and CO2 costs reflected in the production of the fuel (farming and refining) compared to the net goals of reduced fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and what was being seen was no net gain. One of the unintended consequences was that there was no change in driving patterns or choice of vehicles, it was the largest trucks that were being promoted as being “green” because of there use of biofuels. The same approach is being used on hybrids.
None of this means that biofuels should not part of the fuel mix just understand the implications. It is also important to blend in local resources such as biowaste, fish oil, and others to supplement the mix with appropriately priced substitutes, but at all time the total system must be considered.
With regard to heating and power systems, especially in Arctic regions local biomass can be a considerable benefit in lowering the cost of energy. Wood pellets for boilers or local heat are becoming more and more relevant and are sustainable using current forest management techniques – this should also consider biomass to liquid reactors as an alternate source of local fuel.
Chairman
Environmental Audit Committee
said: On 06/03/2009
Last year the Environmental Audit Committee of the UK House of Commons, which I chair, looked at biofuels to try to understand better the role they might play in sustainable greenhouse gas emission reductions. The arguments against them soon stacked up.
We found that although in certain circumstances some biofuels can indeed help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, often their overall environmental impact can be detrimental. Current policy fails to ensure that only the most effective biofuels are used.
A key environmental impact is the conversion of forests to farmland, caused by the increased demand that biofuel subsidies create for agricultural commodities. It might take several centuries for biofuels grown on cleared land to make up for the initial carbon released. Given that some 20% of global emissions are caused by deforestation, we should instead be seeking to reduce pressure on forests.
We also found that biofuels make little financial sense. It costs far more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions using conventional biofuels from agricultural crops than using other forms of bioenergy, such as biomass. Indeed, across Europe, biofuels policy is proving hugely expensive. The Global Subsidies Initiative calculated that total subsidies reached € 3.7 billion in 2006. This figure will increase as biofuel targets increase.
It is clear therefore that the role biofuels might play in the future energy mix will be determined by our ability to address the land use pressure and cost concerns. Such concerns will be more challenging in the face of a global recession, an increasing population, growing demand for food and biomass energy, and the imperative to halt global deforestation.
New biofuel technologies on the horizon could make an important contribution. Redirecting the money currently being spent subsidising conventional biofuels could help us to make in-roads in developing these more advanced and less damaging technologies.
Chairman of the board
Wave Dragon
said: On 09/03/2009
My point of view is rather simple: biomass from agriculture fields are not ethical to use for energy purpose except in a few cases but there is a enormous ocean round us, 70 % of the earth surface is covered by water where we can grow macro and micro algae which in combination with wave devices can be giving all the bio fuel we need and a lot of other products like food ingredients.
Chair in Chemistry
Imperial College London
said: On 10/03/2009
Well designed, sustainable biofuels can make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Of the current generation of biofuels, based on fermenting sugars in plants, sugar cane ethanol produced in Brazil produces significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction and is economically sustainable. These crops are not planted in or near rainforest (the rainforest soils are inappropriate) and data collected over the last decade indicates that improvements in agricultural practices in Brazil have released land in the sugar cane producing areas back to forest, whilst agricultural production has increased. Whether or not similar performance with other sugar producing crops can be achieved in other parts of the world remains to be seen, but the potential for invigorating rural communities in the developing world is a challenge that I believe is worth taking on.
Growing sugar rich crops in the temperate zones of the world is less attractive and here I believe we should be seeking technologies that will enable us to use the sugar locked up in plant cell walls – making second generation or ligno-cellulosic ethanol. This is a relatively unexplored technology, but by using all of the plant above the ground we can access more of the photosynthetically fixed carbon than first generation crops. Since these crops are perennial they require less fertilisation and avoid soil disturbance all of which reduces greenhouse gas emissions . The most significant hurdle in realising such technologies will be to release the sugars that have been formed into rigid polymers to make the plant cell walls. There is a great deal of doubt as to whether it will be possible to do this without significant greenhouse gas emissions and waste streams. In our labs we have discovered at least one biological route to getting the sugar out of cell walls without these problems and no doubt these sorts of discovery are being paralleled in other laboratories around the world.
Even with such step change technological advances the world must still be concerned about the competition for agricultural land used for food or fuel (or indeed other production). A detailed study of the UK has shown that using available land to grow the ligno-cellulosic crops Miscanthus and willow would supply us with more than 15% of our energy needs. In eastern Europe arable yields are at least a factor of two lower than could be achieved, representing of the order of 30 million hectares of land that could be released to biofuel production or other uses. According to Monsanto, genetically modified food crops are due to double yield on 30% less land by 2030. In the developed world 1/3 of all food produced is wasted. Such data might lead one to suppose that we could decide to expand the production of ligno-cellulosic biofuels to significant levels without damaging food production.”
Co-founder
Evolva SA
said: On 16/03/2009
Biofuels is in some ways an unfortunate term since it immediately fixes the mindset.
Biopetrochemicals may be a better (if too long) description for two reasons
1. For biofuels production to be commercially viable (outside of subsidies and quotas), we must develop processes that can produce a range of outputs, such that producers and growers are not locked into commodity products over many years. The historic success of the petrochemical industry derives in part from exactly this approach.
2. Within the mix of new energy forms that are needed biomass should be focused on its “unique selling point” – namely that it alone starts with complex, portable forms of carbon. As such it is of most value (both to its producers and the world) in applications where the presence of a “physical” carbon form is required (lubricants, materials, jet fuels, vehicles operating over long distances etc.). Conversely sectors such as urban transport where energy can be supplied as electricity may be best be served by other forms of energy. We should see biomass is a valuable and finite resource, with important opportunity costs, and should use it selectively.
Several trends are then clearly essential in the mid to long term:
Researcher
The University of Manchester
said: On 23/03/2009
We live in a world that is threatened by the effects of climate change. The necessity to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases has never been more urgent. Key parts of this are reducing our seemingly insatiable energy demand and decarbonising the energy we continue to use. The transport sector is arguably the most difficult to decarbonise with current technologies and our increasingly mobile society has been persistently resilient to measures to curb demand.
In principle, biofuels offer a practical means of achieving real carbon reductions in the transport sector. The problem is that the reductions on offer are incredibly variable and aspects of the science behind them are not as well understood as initially thought, giving rise to significant uncertainties. There is, no doubt, an urgent need to incentivise production of the fuels that save most greenhouse gases, but evaluating this is technically complex and extremely organisationally challenging.
There is also the potential for significant ecological and socio-economic impacts (particularly in producer countries), for which the (largely western European) demand centres should bear significant responsibility. These range hugely from deterioration of natural habitats to water course pollution, from land misappropriation to unbalancing food self-sufficiency. It must be acknowledged that to prevent all such abuses globally would be a huge undertaking that should be the responsibility of national governments and international organizations, not the fledgling biofuels industry.
However, a simple (but likely controversial) measure that would help would be for nations importing material to meet biofuels targets to in future exclude all fuels that have incurred a land-use change … unless sufficient evidence can be presented that this has still attained minimum greenhouse gas savings and not caused significant ecological or socio-economic damage. Of course any such framework will have calculation loopholes and arguments over what constitutes “significant … damage” would be lengthy, but it would at least be a step in the right direction. That way the biofuels industry could continue to deliver some much-needed greenhouse gas savings, while we all get the chance to think about how we can effectively decarbonize the transport sector. I believe that biofuels will continue to play an important part in that decarbonisation, but that role must be managed with much more consideration than has been the case to date.
Volunteer
Forest Products Laboratory
said: On 25/03/2009
In thinking about biofuels I am confining my description of them to liquids for driving transportation vehicles as well as gaseous fuels for stationary engines. Of course solid fuels from biomass, largely wood, have always been used, and are most important today. The role that liquid biofuels play in the energy mix of the United States today is largely the role of admixture with fossil fuels. We have 10% or 85% mixtures of ethanol with gasoline (E10 or E85) or mixtures of 20% to 80% biodiesel with petroleum diesel (B20-B80). In the future we need more use of liquid biofuels to replace more fossil fuels. Today most of our ethanol derives from corn and sorghum with a minor amount from sugar beets. We need to get more from lignocellulosic feedstocks so as not to disrupt food supplies, and to use our raw material sources more efficiently and improve our displacement of fossil fuels.
We use minor quantities of gas from anaerobic digestion of solid wastes and animal manure to run internal combustion engines to generate electricity. Some foreign cities such as Güssing, Burgenland, Austria generate electricity with internal combustion engines driven by producer gas made from wood harvesting and processing residues. Moreover Güssing improves efficiency by using waste heat from the engines for district heating. In the future we need more integration of combined heat and power as well as more efficient fuel cells that operate with biofuels. In the summer there could be combined heat and power (CHP) by using heat in chiller units to provide chilled water for district cooling.
In the future we need more application of gasification of biomass, not only for making producer gas to run engines, but also to make synthesis gas (syngas) as a source of liquid biofuels. Use of syngas can be a more efficient way to make ethanol from biomass than with the more common application of hydrolysis and fermentation processes. Better approaches may also result in use of different liquid biofuels than ethanol, gasoline, and diesel such as methanol, mixtures of methanol, ethanol, propanol, and butanol, or dimethyl ether (DME).
Communications Chair
United Soybean Board
said: On 31/03/2009
I raise soybeans and am a farmer-director on the United Soybean Board (USB), which conducts research and promotion to improve the profitability of U.S. soybean farmers. USB has been a major driving force behind the development of the biodiesel industry in the United States. We started funding biodiesel research and promotion more than 15 years ago to find a new market for soybean oil.
Soybean oil serves as a plentiful, high-quality feedstock used to produce the bulk of the biodiesel in the United States. Biodiesel processed from soybeans leaves the majority of the bean intact for food uses. That’s because biodiesel production uses only the oil from a soybean, leaving the meal – which constitutes 80 percent of each soybean –for animal feed and human food.
Farmer-funded research has found that soy biodiesel represents a clean, renewable energy source that reduces the world’s dependence on nonrenewable fossil fuels. I’m sure you’re all well aware of the recent discussion about renewable fuels and whether they’re sustainable. Studies being conducted by the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) will find out if the objections to soy biodiesel’s sustainability claims are based on sound science. In the meantime, consider:
• Soy biodiesel reduces lifecycle carbon dioxide levels by 78 percent over petroleum diesel, according to a study by the U.S. departments of energy and agriculture.
• Soy biodiesel reduces emission of particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other substances that contribute to global warming, smog and acid rain.
• For every unit of energy it requires to process soy biodiesel, this renewable fuel returns 3.5 units of energy.
• Petroleum diesel, by comparison, has a negative energy balance, returning just .83 units of energy for every one unit used for production.
In addition to the environmental benefits, soy biodiesel performs as well as or better than petroleum-based diesel in several categories. A 2 percent blend of soy biodiesel increases fuel lubricity by up to 66 percent, extending the life of diesel engines. Plus, tests have proven that soy biodiesel produces fuel consumption, horsepower, torque and haulage rates similar to petroleum diesel.
Initially, biodiesel was attractive to American farmers, who used it in their equipment, because it was a way of utilizing a home-grown crop. Now, truckers have realized the performance benefits and are beginning to ask for and receive biodiesel from their fuel suppliers. The next logical step is to educate consumers around the world of the environmental benefits of soy biodiesel.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
University of Dar es Salaam
said: On 03/08/2010
In recent debates worldwide and particularly so in the developed countries concerning biofuels, the major significance of traditional bioenergy sources, which do not pass through the market, is frequently overlooked. Some 2.5 billion people worldwide are wholly dependent on these biological sources of energy to meet their daily energy needs – for cooking, water heating and (in cold climates) space heating. The source may be in the form of woodfuel, charcoal, crop residues or animal dung. Worldwide these sources provide 15% of energy consumed, which vastly exceeds the combined contribution from all other renewable sources (hydro, wind, solar . .). In many nations, biological sources dominate the energy economy. For example, in 2000, nearly 470 million tons of wood were consumed in homes in sub-Saharan Africa in the form of firewood and charcoal: more wood per capita than any other region in the world. While it is important to discuss the energy mix for the countries depending heavily on fossil fuels, particularly so, when considering their role in climate change, the world community should not forget that already bioenergy is already a major energy source.
However, in many of the countries in which biological sources predominate, there is evidence that these are being used unsustainably; and this use combines with deforestation (for timber, for agriculture including oilseed crops; or in the process of urbanisation) to cast severe doubts over the potential of these resources to meet the energy needs of a growing population. Since nations’ ability to harness and distribute other forms of energy is at best keeping step with population growth, this bio-energy dependence, together with its environmental consequences, is likely to persist for many decades.
Further, there is a growing realisation that food and fuel are in competition for increasingly scarce resources of water and cropland; and this is exacerbated by the voracious appetite induced in the developed world for biofuels, principally for transport as a means of protracting their profligracy in energy use. This is in spite of the limited potential of biofuel substitution in comparison with the huge potential savings from energy efficiency measures.
Thus there is an urgent imperative to ensure that biological sources are utilised efficiently and effectively in the provision of the desired energy services and in pursuit of the Millenium Development Goals. This is one of the greatest, and most neglected, of the present challenges facing the future of biofuels.
CEO
Clean Fuels Consulting
said: On 14/10/2010
The growth of renewable biogas and biomethane (biogas upgraded to pipeline quality standard) presents a new potential for the natural gas industry, demonstrating that natural gas is a diverse, renewable resource and not only a traditional fossil fuel with a limited long term supply potential. Biogas is taking its place as part of a larger renewable energy strategy that also includes solar (thermal and photovoltaic) and wind energy. Much of the attention to renewable energy has been, however, focused on replacing oil or coal-fired electric generation capacity and, for the transportation sector, liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel). Nevertheless, biomethane has the potential to replace at least 20% of the overall energy consumed in the European transportation sector. Blended into the existing pipeline network, biomethane is an environmental ‘green gas’ can supplement existing gas supplies to all types of customers, including residential, commercial, industrial and transportation markets.
The European Union institutions – the Commission, Parliament and Council – have made it clear through legislative mandates and related opinions and communications that biogas and biomethane can and should be used for a variety of purposes, including electric generation, directly as a vehicle fuel, and to be ‘mainstreamed’ into the existing natural gas grid.
Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas is clear in the obligations of member states to allow access to the natural gas grid and, importantly, specifies that biogas should be given non-discriminatory access to the natural gas system so long as it is brought up to pipeline quality (which still is under national authority until the Committee for European Normalization finalizes a biogas quality standard). European regulatory authorities that do not allow ‘grid-injection’ of biogas are not in compliance with European law.
Biogas supply status in Europe
According to Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics watchdog, there are at least 28 countries within the Euro region producing biogas. Biogas production has grown 411% since 1997, from 1,483 thousand tons of oil equivalent (t-toe) to 7,585 t-toe in 2008 (1 toe = 1,125 m3 natural gas). From 2006 to 2008 biogas production in these 28 European countries increased 56%, reflecting new political initiatives focused on renewable energy development. Because of the new focus on renewable energy, biogas represents a new dimension for the natural gas industry. It also represents a ‘new industry’ that results in new jobs and advanced technology development.
The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland have the longest experience upgrading and feeding biogas into the natural gas grid. Although Sweden has the largest number of plants upgrading biogas to biomethane, Germany is leading in feed-in capacity in comparison to all other European countries. This is partly related to the size of the natural gas infrastructure – the German network covers a majority of the country and Sweden’s network is limited to the Western region — but also to the transparency of political policies supporting the introduction of biogas into the pipeline network. Before European renewable energy policies gained momentum, biogas was a low priority for the German (and other countries) natural gas industry. But the German market has seen significant growth since they started producing biogas in 1990, with the largest growth starting in 2006. As of April 2010 fifty three of the more than 80 biogas plants feed upgraded biogas into the public natural gas grid.
Of 28 countries within the Euro region producing biogas, eight currently operate biogas ‘networks’ including: Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg (soon to begin), Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. At this writing (August 2010) there are 67 feed-in facilities; 33 more under construction, and the UK is planning to build 5 facilities where biogas will be produced and injected into the grid (making it a 9th country). In some cases, such as in Sweden biomethane is delivered to compressed natural gas (CNG) fuelling stations directly through small, local pipe networks or via truck. Still, Sweden has 8 locations where biomethane is fed into their grid.
From a production standpoint, the leading biogas countries are, according to Eurostat (2008): Germany (3695 t-toe); United Kingdom (1637 t-toe); France (452 t-toe); Italy (410 t-toe); Austria (248 t-toe); Netherlands (226 t-toe); Spain (203 t-toe); Poland (132 t-toe); and Sweden (102 t-toe). Most of these same countries also have strong or developing NGV programs. Thus it is time to link political mandates for biofuels with NGV market potential.
Legal & Regulatory Status of Biogas in Europe
One of the key requirements to build the biogas market is the ability to inject the gas into the normal natural gas pipeline grid. The gas producer must bring the product to pipeline quality and sellers/buyers must agree upon a price as well as accept quantities of gas that is available throughout the year when seasonal demand fluctuates.
There are a range of contractual and regulatory possibilities related to injection of biogas into the natural gas grid, from simple to complex. The ‘simple’ approach involves less or no prescriptive regulations where market forces are left to determine the price and conditions of biogas grid injection. Other structures are more complex and prescriptive as the biogas sector is treated more like the traditional, regulated gas industry. Regardless of the regulatory approach, the critical aspect is that grid operators must provide non-discriminatory access. Still, this is not yet completely the case in all countries. Some countries are ‘learning as they go’ and some countries and grid operators are more resistant to change. Nevertheless, there are enough different legislative and regulatory ‘models’ emerging to satisfy a wide range of national approaches for countries just beginning to use renewable biogas as part of their normal energy mix.
• Gas quality. Most existing regulations, including those at the EU-level, recommend or allow grid injection so long as the gas quality/composition is within ‘pipeline quality’ standards and does not include materials or components that would be harmful to the natural gas pipeline network. France prohibited grid injection of biogas from landfills until research was done to ensure that it was safe for pipeline access. Austria at this time prohibits biogas injection from landfill and sewage. Other countries rely on regulations specifying biogas composition and as long as the gas operators satisfy those conditions, grid injection is allowed.
• Mandatory grid injection. Germany and Switzerland do not allow pipeline operators to refuse grid injection. The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, on the other hand, do not mandate biogas grid injection but it is being promoted as national policy, in accordance with EU directives. France, which is now finalizing its regulatory policies will require mandatory acceptance of grid injection.
• Prescriptive vs. Non-prescriptive regulatory style. Germany is highly prescriptive in a well-specified legislative and regulatory framework about grid injection of biogas. Sweden is on the other end of the spectrum, with no specific regulations other than gas quality requirements, but the national policy strongly encourages the use of biogas for all possible sectors. The Netherlands and the UK are just beginning to deal with biogas grid injection and are encouraging the practice but are studying options and learning as their experience becomes more mature.
A variety of national incentives, sometimes supported by additional provincial government subsidies are becoming more popular, including:
• Green gas certificates to be bought and sold by biogas consumers;
• Pricing incentives for complying with injection requirements;
• A variety of economic initiatives depending upon the different types of feedstock used for biogas production;
• Incentives for returning the biogas ‘waste-byproduct’ as agricultural fertilizer;
• Support for research and development;
• Direct subsidies (on a shared basis with private sector stakeholders) for biogas production;
• No tax on biomethane
Some large and small European natural gas companies have been reluctant to support biogas due to its small supply potential compared to pipeline gas and due to cost and economy of scale factors. But It is increasingly clear that ‘politics’ is driving renewable biogas and biomethane to become a permanent part of the clean, green gas potential for the European natural gas industry. This pattern is likely to translate to other parts of the world in the not-too-distant future as the natural gas industry, governments and their regulatory authorities learn more about the virtues and potential of biogas and biomethane.