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
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Director
United Soybean Board
said: On 01/11/2010
It’s easy to see the potential offered by soy biodiesel and its relatively new heating oil counterpart in the United States called Bioheat®, a blend of petroleum-based heating oil and biodiesel. Research and testing funded by the United Soybean Board (USB), a farmer-run soy research and promotion organization in the United States, have proved biodiesel’s benefits for engine performance and the environment. This testing has proved helpful in gaining the approval of biodiesel from virtually all diesel engine manufacturers. Testing helped achieve the international ASTM standards for biodiesel quality. And it helped show that biodiesel significantly reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Additionally, studies show that the acreage on which farmers grow the feedstocks used to manufacture biodiesel did not increase during the spike in biodiesel production between 2004 and 2007. And, during that same time, soybean acreage in Brazil actually decreased.
Other research has proven that biodiesel causes no negative effects on our food supply. We don’t need new cropland to increase biodiesel production because biodiesel uses the oil from soybeans already being grown primarily for the protein-rich meal used to feed poultry, livestock and fish around the world. We can meet the needs of all our customers for food, feed and fuel. In fact, we’ve found biodiesel positively affects the food supply. Increased demand for soybean oil to manufacture biodiesel leads to increased domestic soybean crush, a larger supply of soybean meal and lower prices paid for soybean meal.
Ultimately, biodiesel represents a cleaner-burning, renewable and beneficial biofuel that can help replace petroleum and improve everyone’s energy security.
But to truly unlock that potential, we need to make sure everyone who wants to use it can use it. The U.S. government’s expanded Renewable Fuels Standard, which will require at least 1 billion gallons of biodiesel use per year between 2012 and 2023, could improve availability here. Still, biodiesel availability continues to be scarce in certain places. For example, in a U.S. state like Minnesota, which requires all diesel fuel sold in the state to contain at least 5 percent biodiesel, diesel vehicle owners have no trouble finding a pump. But right next door in my home state of North Dakota, a state with no such requirement currently in place, finding biodiesel can be more difficult.
USB and the U.S. National Biodiesel Board (NBB) engage in activities to educate all diesel users in the United States on biodiesel’s benefits and encourage them to ask their fuel supplier to start selling it. We have a saying in the United States: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” What we found during the last decade is that if people ask and ask and ask for biodiesel, the infrastructure sooner or later falls into place. If fuel wholesalers and retailers hear enough from diesel users, they find a way to make it happen. So, at the very least, we can ask for biodiesel and other biofuels.
Additionally, NBB works with Clean Cities, a program run by the U.S. Department of Energy, to improve our country’s biodiesel infrastructure. These efforts include securing federal funding to install biodiesel storage and dispensing equipment at the distributor and retailer levels of the U.S. supply chain. NBB also funds tests to ensure biodiesel transported through pipelines continues to meet industry quality specifications. We need to accelerate efforts like these to ensure mass availability of biodiesel here in the United States.
In the European Union, which already moves biodiesel through pipelines, USB has requested the EU Commission to revise its soy biodiesel GHG-reduction value before reaching its conclusion for the Renewable Energy Directive. The directive requires feedstocks used to manufacture biofuels in Europe to reduce GHG emissions by 35 percent. Currently, soy’s GHG reduction value stands at 31 percent. Earlier this year, USB funded a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of the U.S. soybean industry. Using the criteria and models set in the directive, the results of this LCA say biodiesel made from U.S. soybean oil should be credited with at least a 39 percent reduction, or even higher, depending on assumptions and pathways. USB continues to present these findings to key industry and political leaders in the EU with the hope of being able to expand soy biodiesel availability in the EU.
Whether it’s in the United States or the European Union, biodiesel holds undeniable potential as a beneficial renewable fuel. But only if we ask for it will availability and use increase, allowing biodiesel’s benefits to be fully realized.
Professor of Microbiology
Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, University of Maryland
said: On 01/11/2010
This is a challenging question. In my mind, several things would have to come together almost simultaneously for this to happen. All relate to market forces. First there has to be an interest in biofuels at the consumer level. We have or are developing the capability to make many types of biofuels, but if the consumer doesn’t want them then the market size for such biofuels will be low. Simple economic principles will hold. I can tell you first hand that the primary driving force in this arena is money. In 2007 as gasoline prices hit historic highs I could not go anywhere without someone (who knows of my research) telling me to hurry up in the development of biofuels. As gas prices have dropped, interest in biofuels, particularly cellulosic fuels, has waned. In the United States, it will be very difficult to mandate use of a particular fuel, particularly if it costs more than the alternative, no matter what the other benefits might be. However, if a biofuel is less expensive to use, then market forces alone will drive its adoption.
Second, a mechanism has to be in place to get the biofuel to consumers in a meaningful way. In the United States, we use bioethanol as an oxygenate blend in E10 gasoline. For the time being bioethanol will be the dominant biofuel. The problem is that most of the bioethanol supply is geographically segregated from use. The chemical properties of ethanol make it difficult for fuel suppliers to move this biofuel from its source, mainly the Midwest where corn is easily grown, to the large markets of the East and West Coasts. Thus there is strong pressure to find an alternative that better meets market needs. The situation is worse for E85 fuels as in addition to the production disparity mentioned above, few gas stations outside the Midwest have the ability to distribute this fuel. Furthermore, the market for this fuel is limited to flex-fuel vehicles that have to be purchased and then used with E85 fuel. Here in lies the problem: if the market for a biofuel is “small” and the capital cost for adding the ability to distribute this biofuel is “large”, why do it? Unless there is a clear route for the distributor to make money from this investment, it is going to be difficult to convince them to install the needed pump/tank. Of course the other option is to simply displace consumption by partially substituting a biofuel for a petroleum-derived product. Blend barriers, however, limit the size of this market. Both bioethanol and biodiesel have a maximum percentage in a blend due to the limitations of current vehicles to use fuel blends. The capacity to make ethanol from corn, for example, is very close to meeting the market for ethanol as defined by the blend barrier. If the fuel that you can make is able to saturate the market, what is the real incentive to develop an alternative? Wishful thinking, or I am sorry to say, anticipated future need, are not strong enough driving forces. Thus we have to develop biofuels that the consumer will like and see.
The third challenge facing the industry is the technology for making the biofuel: i.e., what biofuel to make, from what and how? As I pointed out above, there are “barriers-to-market” for ethanol-derived fuels, yet ethanol production is the most advanced and efficient process for making a biofuel. The technology to make ethanol has been enhanced and in practice at the industrial scale for many years. The vehicles that can use this fuel, albeit inefficiently, are available and on the road. The high octane rating of ethanol should allow the development of more specialized engines to use this fuel even more efficiently. It is the easiest biofuel to make from sugars and starch but it is unlikely there will be sufficient sugar/starch available to make this biofuel without impacting the food supply. Of course, there are other issues about this technology and its impact that I am not discussing.
The largest source of sugars, by far, that could be used to make biofuels are those held captive in the polysaccharides of ligncellulosic biomass, be they waste cellulosic products from human activities, unused agricultural wastes or energy crops. The key is developing a mechanism to convert this biomass to a biofuel cost effectively. Nearly everyone agrees that this biomass is there and can be utilized for producing fuels with the least environmental impact. Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to what to do with this biomass. We need to decide what we want as a fuel and recognize that it may not be the perfect fuel from the onset. Ultimately, it will be how much land area is required to produce the needed biofuel. The less land needed, the more likely that we will be able to produce the necessary amount of fuel with the least impact on the environment and our ability to produce food. Once a fuel is decided upon, efforts can be directed in a concerted manner towards developing the necessary technologies for producing that fuel. Right now, everyone has their favorite fuel with different bases for support but each fuel also has detrimental traits as well. This lack of direction coupled with the dire economic times has conspired against biofuels. The obvious example is cellulosic ethanol. This was the “fuel of the future” for a while. For better or for worse, it does not seem to be in favor these days. The net result, however, is that the massive investment in developing the technology to convert biomass to ethanol now appears superfluous. This apparent change in direction adds an unpalatable risk that has frozen investment. In fact the investment community, at least in the US, appears now to be reluctant to make investments in biofuels. As it will take a lot of money to develop a biofuel technology at the scale that we need it, this has severely impeded innovation. It is this dearth of funds we need for technology development that has severely crippled this industry.
Senior EU Agriculture Policy officer
BirdLife International
said: On 01/11/2010
The potential of biofuels has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, given the insights we’ve gained in recent years about indirect land use change and the true, and catastrophic, greenhouse gas balance of biofuels, it is rather clear that with few exceptions biofuels are a problem, not a solution. Some technologies, such as using waste streams, are promising, but at the moment they are not being developed or deployed at anything even approaching the scale that would be needed to achieve the EU 10% target. Member states action plans make it clear that the target will be met with current biofuels, putting huge pressure on land and leading to net increase in emissions. What is now needed are much sounder policies: abandoning of biofuels mandates in favour of polices aiming at decarbonising the transport sector, coupled with sound GHG accounting and much stronger safeguards against land conversion and negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems and vulnerable people. Only such a robust framework would be able to send industry down the road of sustainable biofuels, assuming such a road actually exists.
Global Vice President, Consulting
Frost & Sullivan
said: On 01/11/2010
In order for biofuels to be a success they need several factors to be achieved:
- A whole new supply, storage and distribution network to be put into place
- Technologies and processes that can be cost and scale effective for the different generations of biofuels
- Industrial high yield high sugar/ starch/ oil content, grown on wasteland
Until the above is achieved, Government support and high crude oil prices are required to make it a reality.
Professor of Human Ecology
Institute of Social Ecology of the Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt
said: On 01/11/2010
In my view, we need to understand the following points in order to unlock the full potential of biofuels without creating more problems than we solve:
1) Biofuels are no ’silver bullet’
Biofuels can contribute to a sustainable energy system, but only as one among many options. We need to vigorously promote energy conservation, energy efficiency as well as other renewable options in order to reduce fossil energy use and GHG emissions. In this context, biofuels (by which I mean liquid as well as other fuels from biomass) need to be evaluated against all other options in terms of costs, potentials, environmental benefits and drawbacks on an equal footing, in terms of both direct and indirect effects.
2) The potential of biofuels is much smaller than often assumed
In a forthcoming paper in ‘Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability’ we suggest that the technical potential to produce bioenergy from purpose-grown energy plants may be 44-133 EJ/yr (primary energy potential, i.e. without considering conversion losses) if sustainability constraints (food production, water limitations, land required for biodiversity conservation, etc.) are taken into account. This would still require using 2-8% of the earth’s entire land surface (excluding Greenland and Antarctica) to grow energy crops. For comparison: cropland currently covers approximately 12% of the earth’s lands.
In addition, some 20-30 EJ/yr could come from forestry and approximately 70 EJ/yr from residues, manures (counted as biogas potential) and municipal solid wastes.
In conclusion, the total bioenergy potential is considerably lower than often thought (the ‘conventional wisdom’ has it at approximately 400-500 EJ/yr).
Even the above-quoted potentials are considerable when compared with humanity’s total current use of biomass which amounts to 230 EJ/yr. This number includes all biomass used for food, as feed for livestock (including grazing) and for all other purposes, e.g. timber, fibres etc. For producing these 230 EJ/yr, humanity already uses, more or less intensively, approximately three quarters (76%) of planet earth’s entire land mass (excluding Antarctica and Greenland). Expansion of land use is not an option: if human biomass use should be expanded, this would have to be achieved by intensification of land use.
3) Future developments of food consumption and agricultural technology can have a strong impact on bioenergy
In a recent study (http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/downloads/WP116_WEB.pdf) we have shown that diets, cropland yields and feeding efficiency in the livestock sector strongly influence future bioenergy potentials. Of course, securing food security for all has to have priority over biofuel development. That said, there are potential trade-offs and synergies between food and energy production from biomass. Appropriately managing these connections will be key to providing energy from biomass in a way that maximizes sustainability in terms of both socioeconomic and ecological objectives.
4) Burning biomass is only ‘carbon neutral’ if there is additional plant growth
When biomass is burned to produce energy, the amount of CO2 released through the smokestack or exhaust pipe is approximately equal (coal) or even considerably higher (oil, natural gas) than that released by burning fossil fuels. Biomass burning can only be considered to be carbon neutral under one of the two following conditions:
a) The biomass comes from ‘additional plant growth’ that would not have occurred in the absence of bioenergy. For example, if energy crop plantations are installed on land with previously low productivity, ‘additional’ carbon is sequestered during plant growth which is then released when the biomass is burned. If, however, plants are burned that would have grown anyway, this cannot be considered to be carbon neutral.
b) If biomass is used that would have been decomposed rapidly if it would not have been burned to generate energy (e.g., many residues from agriculture). In that case, the C would have been released anyway, so burning the material instead of letting it decompose can be considered to be C neutral.
In all other cases, using more biomass to produce energy reduces C sequestration and is therefore not carbon neutral.
5) Land-use change resulting from bioenergy production needs to be carefully managed in order to avoid large detrimental effects on ecosystems, biodiversity and GHG emissions
Producing substantial amounts of bioenergy will require large land areas. Land-use changes of that magnitude can potentially have very large environmental effects and produce very detrimental outcomes in terms of GHG emissions (one of the problem biofuels are intended to solve). In particular, clearing forests would result in a large ‘carbon dept’ that would, in some cases, only be paid off after many decades or even centuries (e.g., palm oil plantations created by cutting down tropical wetlands). Also, if done wrong, biofuel development can have highly detrimental effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. These effects need to be excluded through appropriate land management tools, e.g. environmental zoning.
6) Biofuels can have strong social and economic effects, e.g. on rural subsistence farmers or on food prices and prices of other agricultural/forestry products, that need to be appropriately managed
As long as biofuels depend on subsidies or command and control policies, their impact on agricultural markets is limited to the extent to which they are subsidised or enforced. If, however, they were to become competitive, they would result in structural changes on food and agricultural markets. This would in effect lead to a situation where food and energy markets become structurally coupled in a completely new way. The fuel market is much larger than the food market and could absorb almost any imaginable level of biofuel supply if biofuels are competitive with fossil-based fuels. This could have strong effects on food security
Researcher
The University of Manchester
said: On 01/11/2010
Transparency about production and impacts is needed to unlock the full potential of biofuels. We need biofuels to help decarbonise transport, but some biofuels are better at this than others and their other impacts vary too. This choice is not unusual: when I shop I can choose my own food and might pay more for something that is organic or locally produced or fair trade certified, depending on my priorities, preferences and the money I have available. I can choose my electricity supplier based on price or on their generation portfolio or other information. There are currently a choice of biofuels and purchasers should be able to choose from biofuels that achieve 90% GHG reductions and biofuels that achieve 70% GHG reductions to meet overall national GHG targets. Actual data needs to be readily available (including acknowledgement of uncertainties e.g. with respect to direct and indirect land-use change).
Of course biofuels have other impacts and we also need transparency about those too. It should be the responsibility of fuel suppliers to provide information about their production chain and what they are doing to mitigate impacts and improve sustainability. Such openness could potentially go a long way towards encouraging environmentally and socially responsible corporate behaviour.
There has been a lot written about the possible impacts of different worst (or best) case production scenarios. We now need to focus on the real impacts that particular fuel chains are having today in order that purchasers, governments and ultimately consumers can all make some informed choices about biofuels. If the industry doesn’t increase transparency it will not gain public trust and without that the full potential of biofuels will never be realized.
Associate Adjunct Professor
Columbia University
said: On 01/11/2010
When considering sources of energy an important aspect that is often left out of the discussion is the energy return on energy invested (EROEI), which is about 1:1 for biofuels (corn ethanol) as compared to the 10:1 ratio of conventional oil in Saudi Arabia (Saudi conventional oil started off with an on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil indicating the increasing difficulty in discovering large oilfields in the past 40 years). Some researchers suggest that the world’s energy mix must function at least above a 5:1 ratio in order for the world economy to operate at its current standard of living. Despite low EROEIs for first-generation biofuels, with declining fossil fuel reserves, discoveries lagging demand and lack of action being taken to curb consumption in the US and China, biofuels can have a role to play, as they are the only renewable source of non-fossil liquid-based fuels that can utilize the existing infrastructure. Therefore, renewable energy technologies have to be adopted in conjunction with aggressive growth and efficiency. In this comment, I will highlight some promising biological sources of energy and discuss certain public and private sector policies that could help unlock the full potential of bio-fuels.
Bio-derived transport fuels are a sustainable fuel source (currently making-up only a few percent of the total global demand) and have come a long way from technologies that ferment first-generation feedstocks such as sugar, starch, vegetable oil, and animal fat. As with all technological innovations that are initially expensive and relatively inefficient, biofuels too have improved dramatically over time with the help of industrial and academic cooperation in developing and optimizing new technologies, possibly paving the way for the commercial production and large-scale use of biofuels. Both market and political factors have also contributed to the drive towards second- and third-generation biofuels. Among these factors, the one that commonly receives the most press coverage is the political outcry over elevated food prices, which many believe is driven by the increasing demand of corn and other food products for use in biofuel production.
Biofuel producers seeking higher production yields at lower costs, and investors seeking greater returns, have been propelled towards “next-generation” biofuels in their quest for a superior product. A complete replacement fuel has not been developed, and at this point in time it seems unlikely that a single energy source from biological sources will emerge. Several competing biofuels hold promise; namely, cellulose, algae, and inedible oil seeds. Second-generation biofuels derived from lignocellulosic feedstock (also known as cellulosic biofuels) are thought by many to be the next generation of ethanol technology as it has managed to overcome many of the known pitfalls of corn ethanol (by changing the inputs to all land plants and plant-derived materials thereby keeping costs and implications down). While there are many advantages to this technology, it has run into commercialization hurdles as developers continue to try to bring various enzymatic processes to scale. Mascoma is an innovative biofuels company that has developed a technology called Consolidated Bioprocessing, which is responsible for drastically reducing both the cost and time of production (uses specially engineered yeast and bacteria to break down the cellulose and ferment it therefore combing the second and third step of the ethanol creation process).
Over the past few decades, we have learnt an important lesson regarding bioenergy, that it has to be developed in a sustainable way. With the differing situations in every country, common sustainability principles and policies can be developed, but need to be customized prior to local implementation. I also believe it is crucial to hedge oneself by researching and developing multiple promising biological sources of fuel to achieve independence from fossil fuels. With this approach, the benefits of biofuels can be maximized and inevitable negative effects (as with every new technology, crop, etc.) can be minimized. As a result, an increasing number of investors are branching away from traditional sources of biofuels and looking to third-generation biofuels derived from algae.
Algae-based fuels are a promising source of biofuel, representing a number of benefits over first- and second-generation biofuels, whereby biodiesel, bioethanol and nutritious animal feed are the outputs with smokestack emissions and polluted waters as inputs. Additionally, the combustion of algae-based fuels does not introduce new greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere from a life cycle prospective, as the combustion will only emit what the algae initially absorbed through photosynthesis, making it an attractive alternative to fossil fuels whose combustion introduces greater amounts of GHGs. Investors are particularly interested in the prospect of algae-based fuels as they have a relatively quick harvest cycle and a relatively high energy density per acre grown. Compared to soybean or corn, algae have a 30 to 100 times greater yield per acre of pond water. With such higher yields, algae-based biofuels have the potential to steal market share from traditional petroleum-based fuels, and therefore yield higher financial returns for the investors in the long run. Estimations made by the US DOE project that in order for algae fuel to replace all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2) which is only about 1/7 the size of the US’s current corn producing land, thus making many investors to believe that algae is the transportation sector’s greenest hope.
Algae-based biofuels clearly have the potential to serve as a viable substitute for motor fuel in the United States and around the world. However, the technology is still at a very early stage in its development and commercialization. Further steps should be taken at the political level to encourage investment in this technology, such as the amendments made to the Renewable Fuel Standards as well measures similar to the $1.01 tax credit for each gallon of production, passed in the US at the end of September 2010. This legislation also provided for a 50% bonus depreciation for biofuel plant property.
Biodiesel is another avenue that is being looked into by several companies – the usage of inedible oil seeds like Jatropha, allow farmers to obtain another cash crop from unusable or marginal land without cannibalizing land from food crops. Since these crops are perennial, they also require less fertilization and avoid soil disturbance all of which reduces GHG emissions.
In order to fully unlock the true potential of biofuels, besides employing second and third generation biofuels, we should also de-emphasize bioethanol and biodiesel from food crops, however bioethanol should be promoted in countries with large swaths of non-agricultural land like Brazil, as such non-agricultural land can be converted to sugar plantations without affecting food output (this being far more efficacious as a biofuel; both economically as well as environmentally). In addition, it is essential to remove discriminatory taxes applied against the import of Brazilian ethanol in the United States as such import tariffs would reduce innovation, and economies of scales making future technological investments commercially non-viable.
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 in 2008 made ethanol from first generation biofuels unprofitable and therefore a risky investment. Subsidizing low energy efficiency biofuels, like corn-based ethanol as in the USA, results in massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers around the nation to a relatively small number of farmers and large agribusiness corporations. Such funding would be better directed towards research programs that focus on the development of efficient biofuel production based on organisms that do not require agricultural land or inefficient energy intensive production processes. Most recently, on October 15 2010, the US DOE issued a $38 million funding opportunity for small businesses with production of biofuels as one of the topic areas encouraging research and development collectively reducing the cost constraints associated with the technology. In time, engines should also be built to accept higher levels of ethanol and maintain their warranties as in Brazil.
Further research in algal biofuels and cellulosic ethanol should also be intensified as together they hold the potential of displacing a significant portion of crude oil from the gasoline stream if the technology can be made commercially feasible. The benefits however aren’t worth anything if the technology can’t be scaled to commercial production levels similar to that of the existing infrastructure of petroleum-based fuels. The main factors currently impeding the commercial feasibility of these technologies are high capital costs and cost of capital, which could be remedied by increasing numbers of fully functional plants (as the learning curve for large-scale projects is steeper) as well as the yield, which in turn would reduce the attached risk factor. The conclusions reached through studies sponsored by the US Dept of Agriculture on cellulosic ethanol production from switchgrass is that it currently yields 300 gallons per acre (almost the yield from cornstarch) and has a 5:1 EROEI compared to 1:1 for corn ethanol and is only beaten by the energy output/input of 8 for sugar ethanol in Brazil.
As Buckminster Fuller once pointed out, ‘there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth … no instruction book came with it’ and we have yet to accurately capture and model the complexity of reality. Will biofuels lead the way towards a fossil fuel free society or to a future with fuel cells and high energy-density batteries?
This article was co-authored with Roy Nersesian (http://www.commentvisions.com/members/rnersesian/)
Research Fellow
University of Manchester
said: On 01/11/2010
We need to unlock the full potential of biofuels much more selectively than at present. Currently, global biofuel policy drivers are far too blunt: there is a possibility that we are directly and indirectly causing considerable damage. The fact that we can’t be sure about this is reason to slow down and to be more selective about which types of feedstock are incentivised, despite the urgency of climate change and energy security needs.
Policy has moved way ahead of the science base in this field: we don’t yet have enough information and reassurance on the consequences of large-scale biofuel or bioenergy production, both for biodiversity and for net GHG emissions. It’s not good enough that we are in a position in which the UK Renewable Fuels Agency, for example, has to footnote against its GHG savings estimate (51% for 2009-10) that this value does not include indirect effects (http://tinyurl.com/32fc3eo). It’s also not good enough that UK biofuel policy has incentivised biofuels of unknown origin.
LCA – the current basis of biofuel certification – is always subject to system boundary choices, debates and disputes. However the potential magnitude of indirect effects is too large to be foot-noted. To date at a European level, the policy framework has been focussed on facilitating markets as quickly as possible. If this were for a wholly benign product substitution, I would be wholly supportive – but biofuels are a highly heterogeneous product with widely varying consequences. Policy needs to reflect this and not simply be pushed through by energy and transport directorates and ministries.
Having looked at how carbon and sustainability reporting has developed under the UK RTFO and RED to date, our conclusion is that current EC biofuel policy is unlikely to be politically sustainable because it has not yet sufficiently satisfied market requirements for legitimacy (http://tinyurl.com/3537scf). That is, as a product, biofuel may be fit for purpose on a technical level, but it fails to meet intellectual and ethical requirements as negotiated socially. That policy for a nominally pro-environmental product has so alienated the major environmental and development NGOs, WWF aside, should be sufficient reason to question how that policy is being formulated. So should be the apparent reluctance of fuel retailers – in the UK at least – to inform consumers of the origins of the biofuel in their vehicle fuel.
We need to incentivise lowest-risk options and best-performing biofuels only. That should not be a contentious proposition. What will be more contentious are the specifics of what constitutes low risk and best-performing, and how to support this. Some firms are clearly making more strenuous efforts than others in terms of securing lower risk feedstocks, including with respect to indirect land use change. Quite how to support this in policy terms needs to be debated, but to date the combative style in which EC biofuel policy has been developed, with legitimate concerns ignored, has led to a polarisation of views and the marginalisation of critical voices.
It is likely that certification will need strengthening and supplementing, perhaps with land use zoning based on strategic environmental assessment that prohibits cultivation where there is a risk of displacing agriculture or other farming. The processes by which indirect land use change occurs need to be better understood and accounted for. Wastes need to be prioritised and demand management paid more than lip-service: at the very least, vehicle manufacturers need to more rapidly increase fuel efficiency.
Biofuel policy needs to be about more than just biofuels. I certainly don’t have all the answers and I have yet to meet anyone who has convinced me that they do either: these are difficult and complicated issues that will require many different types of knowledge and perspective to manage. Moreover, here I have only discussed the problems of large scale supply for European consumers – I haven’t touched on the dubious performance of corn ethanol with respect to the US, the potential of small scale biodiesel production for rural electrification in developing countries, or the fact that lignocellulosic technologies will still require land and water. Unlocking the full potential of biofuels needs to be done carefully: this is probably one of the most complicated areas of environment policy and technology that I know of and yet we’ve charged into it like a bull in a china shop. We need to slow down, in all senses.
Associate Professor & Head of Center for Bioenergy and Green Engineering.
University of Aalborg, Esbjerg, Denmark
said: On 01/11/2010
1. First of all there is a big need for more commitments from politicians in all countries all over the world, and specifically through the international bodies and organizations like EU, UN FAO, WTO, OECD and many more org’s. Until now it has been moving in a too slow speed, due to many other commitments like the last 2 years the economical tsunami.
2. Sustainability criteria’s should be agreed and negotiated to the final end, so all the countries in the world have a level playground for an even and fair development. This means no-go for a numbers of natural sensitive areas and a clear go-ahead for bioenergy at specifically business areas already used as commercial farming, grazing and forestry areas, but where unefficiant farming exists. We have to be very concerned for the speed of biodiversity losses these years, and integrate this concern in the frame conditions.
3. The worlds farmers need this unlocking of not- only biofuels, but for biomass in general for energy and biorefinering purposes. The world-wide farmers need this concern and commitments from their political leaders, to conduct the developments, for the best of the people in all countries. The unlocking of biomass for food, feed, fuels, fibres and many more purposes will give wealth to rural areas world-wide, when it’s handled carefully. A side-effect can be to stop the effect of developing mega-cities and a one way migration from country side to large cities in all countires.
4. Bioenergy can and will not save the global climate crises alone. All kinds of energy sources have to be in play and the long term goal will be a sustainable enegy-mix. This includes keeping the oil and gas for better purposes than for CHP and transport, boost the solar-PV and solar heating/cooling, let the wind-power grow with the speed it’s getting in these years, and let biomass take over the commitments from coal and other base load polluting energy systems as the fossil transportation fuels as fast as possible in the coming 10-20 years. Electric car’s should be introduces as fast as possible, based on electricity from renewables This will give new jobs and employments’ in the factor of 1000 times xn. We cannot wait any longer on the politicians; people have to act in various scales of their way of living for introducing Renewable Energy Systems. The global sources exists and the technologies are ready for a majority of conversions, of cause there exists bottlenecks, but continuos R&D&D can work on solving these interesting problems.
5. Further details can be seen in an extended numbers of research documentations on renewable energy systems and more. You can start to get inspiration in these two doc’s:
a. Weston A. Hermann (2005); Quantifying global exergy resources. Energy. doi; 10.1016/j.energy. 2005.09.006. http://www.sciencedirect.com;
b. Holm-Nielsen J. B., Oleskowicz-Popiel P. and al Seadi T. (2007), Energy Crop Potentials for Bioenergy in EU-27. Proceedings 15.th European Biomass conference, Berlin, Germany 7-11 May 2007. ISBN 3-936338-21-3.
Assistant Professor
Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota
said: On 01/11/2010
First of all, we need to realize the indispensible role of the biofuel that will play in our future energy mix. Biofuel may not be the ultimate solution to run our cars and trains, but we do need to have the liquid fuel for the air planes, boats and other equipments that electricity is not always available. Second, in my opinion, the full potential of the biofuel will be unlocked through a long term investment on the scientific research to obtain economically feasible techniques for its production and application. There are numerous barriers that are inhibiting the adoption of biofuel, including limited options of bioenergy products, high cost, low availability, fuel vs food etc. All these challenges can only be solved by systematic scientific investigations that are requiring stable financial supports, integrated research efforts from many different disciplines, global collaborations and so on. People need to realize that Rome is not built on one day, so is the establishment of the biofuel. In the past few decades, biofuel research has highs and lows. Every time the petroleum price went up, resources flowed to the biofuel research to find a quick fix; while research was brutally interrupted as the crisis was over. Biofuels are still in their infancy and it will take years or even decades for them to have a significant influence on our daily life. We need to have a strategic long term view on the biofuel development and give the scientists enough support and time to unlock their potential. Finally, in term of my own research area and expertise, my research group is dedicated to build a small conversion platform to produce biofuel from agricultural waste materials. We need to realize the difference between fossil fuel extraction and biofuel synthesis. The scale of biofuel production will be much smaller, compared to the fossil fuel distillation, due to the low density and distributed nature of agricultural biomass. The production process has to be robust with low capital investment and operating costs.
Secretary General
European Environmental Bureau
said: On 01/11/2010
A question which needs to be at the forefront of the biofuels debate is what is the primary objective of unleashing biofuels on a large scale market: to fight climate change or to merely stimulate economic activity irrespective of the environmental impacts?
Biofuels indeed have the potential to play a significant role in reducing the EU’s dependence on fossil fuels and tackling climate change. Bioenergy is often used outside the transport sector; today it can be found producing heat and power through biomass combustion. Using biomass and biogas for small scale heat and power generation, for instance, can provide great carbon saving benefits.
However, there has been significant scientific evidence in recent years revealing that not all forms of biofuels and bioenergy will actually deliver greenhouse gas savings within the next 50 years.
The Renewable Energy Directive, adopted in 2008, requires Member States to ensure 10% of their energy use in transport comes from renewable sources by 2020. We see now that a great share of that renewable energy will come from biofuels, which means a lot of arable land is going to be used to feed that demand. In all likelihood this means that the increased demand for biofuel crops will be pushing agriculture into previously unfarmed land ― often at the expense of forests, carbon-rich habitats and local communities ― causing ‘indirect land use change’ (ILUC).
Converting this land into fields and plantations for biofuel crops emits millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, wipes out rich and fragile biodiversity, exacerbates land grabbing in developing countries and increases global food prices. Many scientific studies show that when the extra emissions are factored in, many forms of biofuel production will actually increase emissions in comparison to fossil fuels for many years.
If we are to be sure that the biofuels promoted in the EU actually contribute to the fight against climate change in an environmentally and socially responsible way, the current policy will need to be adjusted to take this land use – ILUC – into account. The EU needs to introduce ILUC factors to fully acknowledge all greenhouse gas emissions linked to all of its policies and bring forward an urgent review of the sustainability impacts of expanding biofuel use. It cannot turn a blind eye to the indirect global impacts any longer.
As agreed with the European Parliament and Council in 2008, the Commission will have to come out with a proposal for determining which biofuels can count against the renewables target by the end of 2010, after which a final proposal would have to be adopted by the end of 2012. The Commission must therefore clearly indentify how they will calculate emissions from biofuels in comparison to fossil fuels.
However, despite the scientific evidence, the Commission has so far refused to come forward with a proposal addressing ILUC in an efficient way. This has to change.
Without a series of safeguards that incorporate these indirect, and important, impacts any public funded biofuels policy would likely fund negative global impacts. The Commission must take this global perspective into account if it really wants to prove biofuels can lead the EU towards a sustainable, low carbon future.
Biofuels need not be all bad, of course. Much greater efficiency can be achieved through the promotion of so-called ‘second generation biofuels’ from waste and cellulosic materials from wood, grasses or non-edible plants. There are some limits there of course, such as the impacts on soil fertility if such materials are removed from the land.
Some Member States have already submitted their National Renewable Energy Action Plans and biofuels are expected to have, on average, 9.5 percent of the fuel market for surface transport by 2020. According to these national plans, the global land use change will be in a range of 5.1 to 8.4 million hectares due to the predicted increase of biofuels consumption.
The EU must only accept biofuels that demonstrably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pose no significant land use issues and do not threaten people’s food security. It’s time to look beyond only the direct impacts and see the global picture.
Senior Advisor for International Affairs
National Wildlife Federation
said: On 01/11/2010
I write from what may be a unique perspective: I am Senior Advisor for International Affairs of the National Wildlife Federation, the largest environmental advocacy group in the United States, with over 4 million members and supporters. But more interesting for the purposes of this discussion, I was elected Chair of the Steering Board of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). This is the global “multi-stakeholder initiative,” based in Switzerland, which has put together Principles and Criteria for sustainable biofuels after an exhaustive and transparent process of public consultation around the world. Based on these standards the RSB will soon launch a voluntary third party certification system, to enable producers who meet the standards to gain recognition in the marketplace for their good practices. See http://www.rsb.org.
In both roles, I support the growth of a responsible biofuels industry, which meets sustainability (environmental, social and economic) criteria. There are at least three main hurdles which this industry currently faces:
1) Land use limitations – putting aside the emotionally overblown controversy over “food versus fuel”, the fact remains that all land uses compete with all other uses for the scarce resource of land on a planet with a growing population – whether it’s to produce food, feed, fiber or fuel, or housing, shopping malls, watershed protection, nature conservation, etc. So adding the pressure of a new land requirement must be fitted in with the others. Biofuels producers must deal with the fact that they are considered the “new kid on the block” and so they face the questions about “is this a good use of land?” which a golf course may not have faced. But while there may be some land that is under-productive, research is finding that there is much less abandoned or unused land than we thought. Even low productivity land is the basis for subsistence for many poor communities. So in order to expand, a biofuels industry that acknowledges and sets out to fit in to this difficult reality will do the best: concentrate on doing the most with the least extra land. Use wastes and residues, make “unproductive” land more productive (taking care not to reduce the resources available to current users), increase double cropping and cover crops to protect soil health, etc.
2) Technical difficulties – the 2nd and 3rd generation technologies aren’t coming along as fast as hoped, and investments have been slow especially with the economic recession. Credit has dried up for many promising initiatives to advance those technologies that are ready to move to commercialization. In the US, the need is for more investment tax credits for new technologies that could meet sustainability standards (especially improved greenhouse gas emissions performance), instead of what we have now – production incentives for already mature technologies such as corn-based ethanol.
3) Image problems – as I noted, some of the controversies about biofuels are over-simplified, or even just wrong. But many are based on serious issues, such as the pervasive pollution of rivers and the creation of “dead zones” that result from imprecise fertilizer application; and the water requirements of refineries, which should be carefully considered, especially in water stressed regions. There are many other factors which need to recognized and taken into account, which have been compiled into the RSB’s Principles and Criteria. Resistance to the expansion of the industry can be reduced by the widespread adoption of these globally applicable standards and the certification system as soon as it comes online early next year. The RSB offers one of the most promising ways for the industry to grow – using agreed and credible standards would address the image problem and lead to general acceptance of biofuels when properly conditioned.
Head of the Policy Unit
UNEP’s Energy Branch
said: On 01/11/2010
Answering this question depends on what one believes the full potential of biofuels may be. Views on this vary. Some have promoted biofuels as a silver bullet for climate change mitigation and energy security, while others have pointed towards the risks for biodiversity, climate change, food security, land tenure and other environmental and social issues from fast and furious increase of biofuels development. The truth lies certainly somewhere in between – biofuels presents both opportunities and challenges. If planned and managed well, biofuels (understood as modern bioenergy in liquid, soild and gaseous forms) can be part of a Green Economy. The level to which biofuels will be part of the energy mix varies from country to country, depending on needs and pre-conditions.
Some look at biofuels from a demand perspective, predicting energy demand in a carbon constraint world and deriving a target figure for the biofuels share to be reached. Others take a bottom up approach, assessing availability of land, water and other resources that are already under pressure from competing uses, and deriving a figure that can be reached sustainably.
Making the choice that biofuels’ full potential covers more than energy security or climate change mitigation in the transport sector, which have been the prime drivers for governments to enact policies to date, it is clear that careful balancing of the different policy objectives is needed. Particularly in a developing country context, access to energy, transformation of the use of traditional biomass for energy (which is not only inefficient, often coupled with health impacts, and a prime source of deforestation and forest degradation), creation of jobs, above all in rural areas, and thereby boosting local economy is high on the agenda. While these co-benefits from bioenergy development are sizeable on a macro economic level, the respective projects that would respond to these goals may involve pathways and business models that may not be financially viable from the point of view of an investor. Hence policy frameworks are needed to promote sustainable biofuel development, and discourage unsustainable biofuel development.
The market development so far was largely driven by government policies, such as mandates and targets, now enacted by an increasing number of governments. In some cases, these mandates and targets have been flanked by sustainability criteria to help avoid unintended consequences. Mostly these sustainability criteria were ‘retrofitted’ to address civil society concerns. Taking into account that much of the market development will depend on and involve trade, while also ensuring local access to energy, ideally these safeguards come as a globally applicable set.
Given the controversial debate and differences of approaches, the sector urgently needs clarity on the safeguards that will allow it to address reputational risk. From an investor and project developer’s perspective, this means improved investment security.
Long-term availability of ecosystem services are the basis for human activity, and this doesn’t exclude biofuels; on the contrary the sector itself is much dependent on the natural resource base. It is hence in the sectors own long-term development interest to factor in environmental issues.
But this goes not only for the project level; it ideally involves land use and more broadly resource planning on a national policy level, which will then translate into policy frameworks that guide the kinds of projects that will be granted a license. UNEP, together with the FAO and under the framework of UN Energy, have developed a Bioenergy Decision Support Tool that provides stepwise guidance for decisions on the national policy and the investment decision levels (Why?, What?, Where?, How? ). UNEP also supported mapping of areas available and suitable for bioenergy development in a number of countries. Mapping can be an extremely useful tool to inform the policy process. When it comes down to granting licenses for specific projects, groundtruthing, involving local communities is still required. This land use and resource planning should attempt to answer the question of ‘what is the best use of a hectar of land’ and ‘what is the best use of a drop of water’ in a given country context.
Advanced biofuels (not to use the little helpful distinction between first, second and third generation biofuels) are said to address some of the concerns as they may be able to use waste and residues, feedstocks grown on degraded land, etc. Continued R&D as well as support to deployment of those new technologies is needed, again pointing to policy frameworks. However, it should be noted that these pathways come with their own set of concerns and should not receive a blanket cheque either.
In some cases, technology options are proven and available, but operations are not commercially viable for a variety of reasons. For example, yield on degraded lands tend to be lower or require higher inputs, collection of decentralized waste may be costly, combined agricultural systems may be more resilient in the longer term but operating cost may be higher, involvement of small holders may be more costly than large scale mechanized operations, etc.). Here, support mechanisms may be able to overcome financial barriers to design projects in a manner that they fit in a broader sustainable development context.
In conclusion, what does it take to unlock the full potential of biofuels:
- Internationally agreed reference framework for sustainability to prevent unintended consequences
- National Bioenergy Planning weighing the different policy objectives, in which projects will be embedded
- Targets and mandates based on assessments of sustainable potential
- Support to pathways that help achieve multiple objectives with co-benefits for the society
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=599&ArticleID=6347&l=en&t=long
http://www.unep.fr/energy/bioenergy
Director
The Prince of Wales's EU Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change and Brussels Office, University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership
said: On 01/11/2010
Unlocking the full potential of biofuels primarily requires a better understanding of the real value of biofuels to solve energy security and low carbon energy concerns globally, regionally and locally. The crux of the issue today is not just developing biofuels for the sake of creating a biofuels market as a subset of agricultural policy as has been done in the EU and US but developing biofuels which will contribute to energy diversification and the move away from fossil fuels to meet low carbon transport goals. This means that in the medium to long term the real winners will be second and third generation biofuels which have little to no direct or indirect impact on land or food production. In this respect unlocking their full potential will depend on locking in today the necessary capital for further research, development and deployment. This needs to be supported by a series of strong policy and economic mechanisms/incentives working in tandem to create investment security and a viable market. In the short term we can transition to a second/third generation low carbon biofuels market by unlocking the potential of a first generation biofuels market with as little impact on land use, food production, and global warming as possible . In Europe this can only be done if an acceptable solution is found to the issue of indirect land use change and if biofuel companies are robust enough to react to market pressures and energy pricing mechanisms with little to no help from subsidies.
CEO
Clean Fuels Consulting
said: On 01/11/2010
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.
Faculty of Science – Institute for Biodiversity & Ecosystem Dynamics / Market Development
University of Amsterdam
said: On 01/11/2010
The need to unlock new energy resources is clear as we are facing limited energy resources. Innovative plans include more efficient use of living plants and microorganisms. Indeed these are in theory unlimited resources as intermediate aggregators of solar energy in carbohydrates. However, competition and ecological niches do constraint the use of these natural resources. These constraints are increasingly human-made by inefficient exploitation of the land- and sea surface, and also by competition with other needs such as food or CO2 sequestration (ecosystem services). Conflicts with respect to the use and rights with respect to (land and sea) space and the use of living resources are inherently complex. The same holds for research on more efficient biofuel production methods. What are promising molecular pathways and feasible technological processes, how to do we decide on ecological reliable production strategies, and how to do we find a balance between global and regional priorities with respect to the limited land and biological resources?
Current strategies mostly do only address parts of the complexity. As for example, experimentation helps us in elucidating crucial parameters. In addition we need methodologies that assist in understanding and managing the sustainable development and exploitation of the biological resources in relation to global change, including increased biofuel production. For example, changes in biological diversity have serious effects on the capability of ecosystems to provide essential services, which will affect the quality of life of citizens and social and economic aspects of sustainable development. The biodiversity system is complex and is not the simple sum of its components and relations. The functioning of biodiversity system, its response to pressures, and feedback mechanisms to sustain stability in the system are hard to unravel by only experiments. A different approach is required to provide the scientific evidence for making management decisions.
Such an approach takes into account a wide range of indicators (variables) in new methodologies to analyze patterns of strong correlations. This requires the availability of sufficient wide and huge relevant data sets and the computational capacity to run the demanding statistical work flows on these data sets. The good news is that science and industry is working together in various projects to bring together data, software and computation facilities in infrastructures for research that may underpin wise decision-making.
As an example, the LifeWatch project (www.lifewatch.eu) builds a research infrastructure that allows for analyzing, modeling and simulating the complexity of the response of the natural environment on human and other interventions. These capabilities utilize the unique data resources of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org and http://www.gbif.net) servicing access to about 250 million records of plant and animal distributions. These facilities are contributing to a better and predictive view on the effects of the use of plant resources for biofuel production. By also taking into account other variables such as alternative biotechnical pathways or conflicting commercial interests, a more holistic picture on the potential of biofuels is coming within our reach.
President
NFU
said: On 01/11/2010
The European Union has already taken critical steps to unlock the potential of world-leading sustainably produced biofuels with genuine greenhouse gas savings, but the stigma surrounding their use will stay for as long as the myth that is food versus fuel continues to perpetuate.
For farmers it is clear, the production of biofuels is not just a choice between food and fuel. The establishment of bio-refineries across Europe will allow arable production to be converted into biofuel, high protein animal feed and other co-products to make sure that agriculture delivers a multitude of products while impacting less on the environment.
A study carried out recently by ADAS demonstrates that a single bioethanol distillery processing 1 million tonnes of wheat, and producing ca. 330 000 tonnes of distillers dried grains (DDGS) per annum, would substitute at least 136 493 tonnes of whole soya beans grown on 47 725 ha of land elsewhere in the world. These important co-products and the role they can play in our food market and tackling the EU’s dependency on imported protein sources for our livestock sector is often missing from the simplistic debate about biofuels
Sustainable biofuels also provide a new market for cereals and oilseeds which helps to keep well invested and highly skilled arable production capacity in the EU. This in turn ensures agriculture can respond effectively and efficiently to future increased demand in both food and non-food markets. Sustainable biofuels therefore provide the ideal opportunity to produce bioenergy while maintaining productive arable land.
In addition to the substantial potential for carbon savings and providing a domestic feed protein source, other advantages of having a home grown energy source include adding diversity to fuel supplies, increasing energy security, economic competitiveness and the creation of green jobs.
Director
Holland Innovation Team
said: On 01/11/2010
With our team we have worked over 5 years now in the field of biofuels. Starting with bio-ethanol, we came to the conclusion that one should not use food for biofuels, especially not in western countries. The last 2 years we have concentrated upon bio-methane which by far is the cleanest biofuel, considering production by anaerobic digestion. As a geologist I know that natural gas is nothing else than biogas that’s millions of years old, swamp gas is biogas that’s a few hundred years old and anyone can produce biogas if he forgets to close his refrigerator on a hot summer day. All organic material can rot and therefore can produce biogas.
You can upgrade biogas to bio-methane, simply removing carbon dioxide and some H2S. Since anaerobic digestion techniques and upgrading techniques improve, we get more yield (read more energy) from a ton of organic matter in comparison with bio-ethanol or biodiesel produced from one ton of feedstock.
To be able to use bio-methane in cars you have to compress it. The alternative is liquefying bio-methane to bio-LNG as we call it.
Bio-LNG can be compared with fossil LNG with striking results. It is of better and more constant quality than its fossil counterpart LNG which is made from natural gas.
There are more unexpected data when we compare natural gas with biogas. For instance, it takes more energy and money to liquefy natural gas, than it takes to liquefy biogas. In natural gas we can encounter mercury, heavy hydrocarbons, H2S and other pollution; whereas in biogas we often only encounter CO2 and a little bit of H2S. Smart upgrading of biogas even generates money by selling almost pure carbon dioxide. Furthermore, biogas can be produced locally, while LNG is travelling all over the world to be gasified later again for our western households. The result is a carbon footprint which is not so good.
Why is biogas not often used in cars? The problem is that gas in private cars must be compressed which costs energy and biogas – even when it is compressed – does not give you the same energy in your fuel tank as diesel and gasoline, because even compressed to 200 bars, it takes a lot of space
That is why we think you better liquefy the biogas – after you have upgraded it to pure bio-methane – to overcome the disadvantages of CNG. Bio-LNG is the best biofuel for trucks and ships, because it carries the largest amount of energy per kilogram – after pure hydrogen. Bio-LNG especially is suited for use in heavy trucks, inland navigation, short sea transportation and, in the future, even possibly in planes.
Why do governments not pick up the opportunity to make heavy transport cleaner with bio-LNG? Fine dust, NOx and carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced, even the noise of heavy trucks would decrease. In the few years we promote bio-LNG now, we have found out that there are several reasons why people do not think about bio-LNG, or liquid bio-methane. It is obvious not in the interest of large companies (read the establishment) to think about bio-LNG. Oil companies, biofuel producers and even research institutions promote second and third generation biofuels because they want to stay involved in an environment that puts money in development of current biofuels. In the mean time, oil companies like very much the fact that institutions and governments concentrate upon development of energy consuming second and third generation of biodiesel and bio-ethanol, because they like to sell fossil fuels as long as possible.
From their view this is clear, because you cannot not promote liquefaction of bio-methane if you elsewhere are flaring natural gas into the air. Imagine that with bio-LNG every city can produce its own bio-LNG from food waste, sewage sludge, manure and other organic wastes. You do not need to blend it, so you can create a complete and clean fuel chain without any interference of oil companies.
My contribution to the discussion consists of a recommendation to stop using food for biofuels and to evaluate the amount of energy needed to produce second, third and next generations of biofuels. Concentrate upon improving biogas production, upgrading of biogas, liquefaction to bio-LNG and developing an infrastructure to this bio-LNG.
Distinguished University Professor
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago
said: On 04/11/2010
Looking through the crystal ball: biofuels and carbon-di-oxide sequestration
Much has been said, starting from better batteries for electric vehicles to production of ethanol and butanol from cellulose/starch obtained from food and agricultural wastes or plants grown in marginal lands as sources of our future energy. The production of hydrogen or biodiesel by growing algae such as Spirulina, marine micro-algae or green algae is being pursued by many energy companies to unlock the full potential of biofuels. As a microbiologist interested in the development of new types of drugs, where a single candidate drug has anticancer, anti-HIV/AIDS and anti-malarial activity, I have only far-fetched futuristic ideas. Nevertheless, knowing the immense power of microorganisms, and the need for out-of-the-box ideas, I would like to share my ideas with people interested in or actively engaged in new ways to generate energy. It is clear that to be economical and environment-friendly, any future technology must not only address energy production but also remediation of major environmental pollution problems. For example, can a biofuel plant not only produce alcohol or biodiesel but also remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere? Here is an opportunity to develop algal technology for biodiesel production. Algae such as Spirulina can fix CO2 and N2 to generate cell mass, mostly organic matter. Such organic matters can be converted to CO2 to re-enter the atmosphere. What is needed to remove millions of tons of CO2, as practiced now by injecting CO2 in saline aquifers deep under the ocean bed as stable hydrates, is to convert the CO2 to insoluble inorganic carbonates that can be stored for ever deep under the earth’s surface. It is interesting to note that there are many lakes in North America that demonstrate the phenomenon of ‘whitings’ during the summer months, meaning that during these months, there are unicellular cyanobacteria, known as Synechococcus, that can fix CO2 and N2 to grow in the lake. These bacteria can fix CO2 not only to produce organic carbon as cell mass, but can fix CO2 to inorganic lime deposits to produce insoluble calcium carbonate, that gets deposited on the lake bed as white powders. It shouldn’t be too difficult for microbiologists to study the organization and expression of the Synechococcus genes that specify fixation of CO2 to produce insoluble carbonates. Such genes can then be cloned, expressed under strong algal promoters and introduced into biodiesel-forming algae, enabling such algae to fix CO2 for their cell mass as well as to produce insoluble carbonates that can be stored underground indefinitely, thereby removing tons of such CO2 from the atmosphere. The cell mass can be used to extract biodiesel. Since we are talking about millions or even giga tons of CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere, an appropriate starting material will be the magnesium silicate minerals, commonly known as serpentine, widely available in North America in large quantities. Fixation of CO2 to serpentine should produce insoluble magnesium carbonate (magnesite) and quartz silica, that can be stored for years. Thus microbial genetics could provide the new technology for addressing both our energy, and our greenhouse gas, problems, at least to some extent.
Chairman - Country Representatives Committee
NGVA Europe (Natural Gas Vehicle Association), Madrid, Spain
said: On 04/11/2010
The main two drivers for increased use of biofuels are concerns about future supply of fuels based on fossil resources – natural gas, crude oil, and coal – and concerns about global warming resulting from an increased worldwide use of fossil fuels.
If supply fails to meet the growing demand this will inevitably lead to increasing prices. Sooner or later a point would then be reached when fuels made from renewable matter, even without subsidies, are able to compete with fuels based on fossil resources. Part of the energy demand in the transportation sector may also directly, or indirectly, be met via the use of renewable electric power.
The global warming issue is more complicated. To steer the demand from fossil fuels to renewable fuels and energy two roads are possible – either regulating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or introducing increasingly more expensive fuel and energy tax based on GHG emissions. This is a tough nut to crack. Politicians which raise taxes often fail to get re-elected. Another possible part solution is to change from high to low GHG emitting fossil fuels (replace coal and crude oil by natural gas).
Nuclear fission power, still favoured by many as the panacea solution, has several drawbacks – also using finite resources, huge investments required, unsolved problems with a truly safe disposal of nuclear waste, and concerns about other safety issues.
Turning to biofuels there are three main tracks – biofuels produced from all types of organic waste, biofuels produced from organic matter grown in a marine environment, and biofuels produced from organic matter grown on land.
The long term prospects for the third alternative are not brilliant. We will never get around the food (or fodder) vs fuel debate, and there are also concerns about the global warming effects of resulting changes in land use.
Waste based biofuels, on the other hand, are ideal. A closed loop system where sewage sludge, manure, agricultural and forest waste, all kinds of leftovers and residues from use of organic matter is processed to provide fuels, heating or power, and where the residuals from the production process e.g. could be used for soil improvement is beyond reproach.
The aim must be to maximize the net fossil fuel substitution potential and choose plant locations, plant sizes, and technologies which are well suited in each country considering climatic conditions, level of urbanization, and economic structure. Since waste usually has a very high moisture content the most efficient solution would usually be to process the waste near its source.
The two main technologies options fitting the bill are (1) Gasification of lignocellulosic waste and (2) anaerobic digestion (AD) treatment of all other organic waste matter.
A gasifier would, depending upon temperatures used, yield different portions of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. To arrive at a fuel these gases would have to be reformed into more or less complex hydrocarbons. I happen to believe that reforming into methane would maximize the effective energy contents of fuel produced from a given volume of lignocellulosic feedstock.
The AD process used for other organic waste matter yields a raw biogas with about 2/3 methane and 1/3 carbon dioxide contents. The simple treatment is to remove the CO2 (and various undesired substances) and end up with more or less pure methane.
There is no limit to the potential use of biomethane and no other hydrocarbon fuel will when burnt generate less GHG emissions. As it happens methane also, when combusted, generates less pollutants than any other hydrocarbon fuel.
The residuals from AD processing of organic waste will also provide a fertilizer rich on nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, and eliminate or reduce the need for production of artificial fertilizers (also consuming fossil resources).
Some say fine, but let us use biomethane to generate electric power with higher efficiences than those which you could achieve in a vehicle engine. I say that we in the long run must conserve available renewable hydrocarbon resources for two purposes – (1) fuel for all types of mobile applications which cannot efficiently be powered by electricity, and (2) feedstock for our chemical industry
**********
This article represents the personal views of Peter Boisen, with a background from the automotive industry, and during the years 2003-2009 chairing first ENGVA, later NGVA Europe (the European association promoting the use of vehicles powered by NG/biomethane).
CEO
Informa Economics
said: On 04/11/2010
Biofuels are already making a substantial contribution in the U.S., with ethanol usage equivalent to about 9% of the gasoline used in transportation, but to go further and unlock the full potential of biofuels will require a combination of market, policy and technical developments. In the near-to-intermediate term, policy will play a key role. Over the longer term, technological developments and the direction of markets will be equally important.
For first-generation biofuels — mainly corn-based ethanol and biodiesel produced from vegetable oils and fats — tax credits have historically provided a foundation for cost-competitiveness versus fossil fuels. However, the federal tax credit for the blending of biodiesel expired at the end of 2009, and the credit for ethanol blending expires at the end of this year (along with a related tariff on most foreign ethanol). The main ethanol industry associations have put forward a novel proposal for the incentive to be converted to a producer credit and for part of the “tax expenditure” previously used for the credit to be used for the expansion of ethanol blending and transportation infrastructure. Congress needs to extend incentives for first-generation biofuels — especially biodiesel, the economics of which have been very challenging without the credit — even if it decides to reform or restructure the incentives, as the current blending activity and infrastructure are the foundation on which future generations of biofuels will have to build.
While the Energy Independence and Security Act (“EISA”) of 2007 expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (referred to as “RFS2″) considerably, the consumption of ethanol — corn-based ethanol, cellulosic material and likely imported sugarcane-based ethanol — at the volumes that were envisioned in the Act likely cannot be achieved unless the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) grants a waiver for the current restriction of ethanol to 10% blends for use in non-flex-fuel vehicles. The ethanol trade association Growth Energy has petitioned the EPA for a waiver for ethanol blends up to 15%, but thus far the EPA has approved such blends only for automobiles built since 2007. It is expected that by the end of the year the EPA will provide a waiver for use in automobiles built from 2001 to 2006. However, with only a partial waiver, it is uncertain how many service stations will actually offer E15 for sale. The government can facilitate this process in the near term by providing liability protection to service stations in cases where consumers use E15 in unapproved vehicles. In the intermediate term, a testing program needs to be done for automobiles built prior to 2001, as well as watercraft and equipment with small engines, to determine if E15 can be sold universally.
The portion of RFS2 set aside for corn-based ethanol levels off after 2015 at 15 billion gallons. However, corn yields have shown a strong increase since the first biotech varieties were introduced — this year’s weather-impacted yields notwithstanding — and the biotech companies have committed tremendous funds for research and development on technologies that will improve yields further in the years to come. It may well be possible that corn-based ethanol volumes beyond 15 billion gallons can be accommodated without disruption to the corn sector, including other users of corn.
Over the longer term, new technologies have the potential to support a dramatic expansion of biofuel production and use. In the RFS2, the volume of cellulosic biofuels is slated to overtake the volume of corn-based ethanol by 2022. However, despite substantial technological advances in the processing of cellulosic biofuels, actual production is so small that the RFS2 carve-out for cellulosic biofuels gas had to be lowered for 2010 and 2011. It has been quite difficult to obtain financing for cellulosic biofuel production despite the RFS2 carve-out that was enacted in 2007, due to a combination of factors: the struggles of the corn-based ethanol industry over the last couple of years, the approach of the E10 “blend wall” and the effects of the recession on motor fuel consumption/prices and the availability of credit for new projects. Given that the capital expenditure per installed gallon of capacity is significantly higher for cellulosic biofuel facilities than for first-generation facilities, as well as the fact that there is considerable technology risk, bankers are reluctant to provide debt without government loan guarantees. However, a loan program that Congress established for the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) has been almost nonfunctional. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) appears to be stepping in to bolster its own loan guarantee program. Until the government steps up and provides a functional program commensurate with the aspirations for cellulosic biofuels within RFS2, it will be impossible to determine which technologies will be the “winners” and whether the economics are viable.
Just as celllulosic biofuels have potential for substantial expansion of renewable fuels volumes in the future, so does algae as a feedstock for large-volume replacement of diesel and jet fuel. While there are numerous technologies for algae production being put forward, and some of these have attracted significant capital, algae appears to be a prospect for the long term. However, given the large potential yields of oil from algae, compared to constrained volumes of vegetable oils (and competition from food uses) and animal fats, it is a feedstock that merits being pursued at full throttle.
A final factor that will determine whether the full potential of biofuels will be unlocked is one that is determined partially in the markets and partially by foreign governments. This is the price of petroleum. Biofuels typically flourish during times when petroleum prices are high. With the enviable economic expansions in China and India creating rapidly increasing demand for oil, and with the economies developed world slowly transitioning to a recovery phase, the prospects exist for sustained high levels of demand and prices of petroleum.
In summary, smart government policies and a bit of luck in technological developments and the direction of the markets will determined whether the full potential of biofuels is unlocked in the next five to ten years.
Spokeswoman for Energy
European Commission
said: On 04/11/2010
The European Union is the third largest biofuels consumer in the world after Brazil and the United States. Even though today only a little more than 3 per cent of the transport fuels placed on our market is of renewable origin, by 2020 that share is due to reach at least 10%. Biofuels therefore have an important part to play in achieving the EU’s overall renewable energy objectives, as well as currently being the more significant of the two main available methods (electricity being the other) of bringing renewable energy use into the transport sector.
This ambitious target, laid down in our climate and energy legislation, goes together with a set of compulsory rules allowing only sustainably produced biofuels to count towards the 10% objective and to receive public support in the European Union. This means using only biofuels with high greenhouse gas savings which have not caused damage to high value nature areas or damaging land use change either in the EU or other countries.
With the adoption of the practical guidance rules on biofuel sustainability, mid June the European Commission marked the beginning of the implementation. The guidelines will help European businesses and Member States to put into practice the compulsory rules on biofuel sustainability contained in the Renewable Energy Directive which will enter into force in December this year. Among our world competitors, European biofuel producers and traders will be the first to implement compulsory sustainability rules, while official authorities of the Member States will control the implementation of these rules and monitor the impact of the increased use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in the EU.
To facilitate the compliance of various biofuels with the EU sustainability rules, industry, governments and NGOs are encouraged to set up “voluntary schemes” to certify biofuel sustainability. The Commission lays down the standards that these schemes will have to meet to gain EU recognition. One of the main criteria for such schemes is that they must have independent auditors who check the whole production chain, from the farmer to the mill, the trader, and the fuel supplier who delivers petrol to the petrol station. This auditing has to be reliable and fraud-resistant.
Precise tracking of the origins of biofuels feedstock is crucial for assessing biofuels’ compliance with the EU sustainability rules – for example, to check that biofuels do not come from nature protection areas, primary forests, recently deforested areas, drained peatland, wetland or highly biodiverse areas – and how this should be assessed. The Commission makes it clear that conversion of a forest to a palm oil plantation would fall foul of the EU sustainability requirements.
With our commitment to 10% of renewable fuels in transport we have always underlined that only better performing biofuels will count towards the target and we have set a minimum threshold for the environmental performance of these fuels. The Commission reiterates that biofuels must deliver greenhouse gas savings of at least 35% compared to fossil fuels if they are to be counted towards the 10% target, and these thresholds will rise to 50% in 2017 and to 60%, for biofuels from new plants, in 2018.
Also in the months to come, we will continue to work on the promotion of sustainable biofuels. At the moment, we are analysing the impact biofuel production has on the indirect land use. This is the case, when for example a tropical forest is converted in farm land, and at a later stage used for biofuel production, which could circumvent our prohibition to destroy forests to produce biofuels. By the end of this year, we will have the results of several studies we have launched and will know whether it will be necessary to adapt our legislation. This could take the form of additional sustainability criteria.
The European transport sector relies almost entirely on fossil fuels and is responsible for one-fifth of our total greenhouse gas emissions. We need to cut its carbon emissions, and – in the interests of security of supply – we need to reduce its dependence on oil. Along with energy efficiency measures aimed at reduced fuel consumption, biofuels are today the main alternative to petrol and diesel used in transport. That is why we need them – and that is why this latest step in the EU’s efforts to ensure their sustainability is so important.
Scientist
Energy & Climate Division, Oeko-Institut
said: On 05/11/2010
The key formula of a long-term strategy (2050 horizon) for sustainable biomass is that renewable resources are primarily used as raw materials, whereas waste and biomass residues – stemming increasingly from used products made from renewable raw materials – mainly serve as energy sources (i.e. for electricity, heat, and transport). This couples renewable raw material needs (which are growing when “greening” the economy) with renewable energy needs (which are growing when decarbonizing the global energy system), thus avoiding feedstock competition.
To decouple competition for land, renewable raw materials (biomass) must primarily be cultivated on unused or degraded land, or land with limited suitability for food and feed production, taking into account “no-go” areas to respect nature conservation and biological diversity needs. Preferred plants and cultivation methods are those requiring low input in agro-chemicals and water and have a broad genetic basis, e.g. perennial grasses, oil-bearing plants, and short-rotation coppices.
After the material use of biogenic raw materials, their subsequent energy use is a sensible option, i.e. for generating electricity and heat or as fuels. Here, not only biofuels derived from residues and wastes are important, but also – due to the increased electrification of vehicles – bioelectricity, so that the boundary between the sectors of bioenergy use gradually vanishes over time. When processing biogenic raw materials, integrated concepts such as biorefineries involving multiple product use may become significant as well.
Of key importance for this strategy is the modernization of waste management as the “back end” of material use, which has to provide adequate logistics for biogenic waste and residuals as a precondition of their subsequent energy use.
The logic of sustainable biomass, therefore, is to use the structural value of biomass (for food, fiber and other material uses) first and the heating value (energy content) of the material only after the structural value is “spent”.
Thus, instead of the currently prevailing cultivation of biomass for direct conversion into bioenergy for power, heat and fuels, a cascaded use will be practiced in the future which will largely disconnect the production of food and feed from that of renewable resources both with respect to the plants and the land used.
Therefore, cultivating food and feed plants for energy or material use is but a medium-term transitional strategy.
The conversion of biogenic waste and residuals to so-called 2nd generation biofuels and to biomethane (from synthesis gas or biogas) will complement (co-)combustion in combined heat and power generation plants.
In addition, bioenergy trade will gain new opportunities because the quantity of biogenic residuals and the final use of the biogenic energy carriers obtained can also be disconnected spatially (e.g. through bioethanol and liquefied gas tank ships or supply to natural gas networks).
In the long term, sustainable bioenergy may contribute up to 25% to the global energy input because its area-specific energy yield remains substantially below that of solar systems, and because land needed for biogenic cultivation systems and the required material inputs (especially water) are limiting factors.
In addition to terrestrial biomass, highly productive algae may play a role as a raw material supplier and may be integrated in aquaculture systems where they utilize excess organic residuals and nitrogen.
With this strategy, the often-quoted “food versus fuel” problem would be diminished, and the positive social and economic development options arising from sustainable biomass especially for developing countries and emerging economies could become the focus of the discussion: Access to modern bioenergy, valorization of underused and restoration of degraded land can contribute to rural development and generate income which in turn allow reducing pressure on forests, wetlands, and other areas of high biodiversity.
Implementing sustainable biomass strategy
This strategy clarifies the long-term role of biomass as a significant part of sustainable energy and material resources. Thus, it can provide a reference for those having critical views on bioenergy (due to potential threats for environment and livelihoods) and for bioenergy promoters (interested in the market potential).
Key to implementing this strategy and to “unlock” the sustainable potential is to harmonize and globalize
• climate protection requirements, especially convention on methods to determine greenhouse gas emissions including those from land-use change, and respective reduction goals;
• land and landscape-related protection of biodiversity with respect to biomass cultivation;
• social safeguards for using degraded land, and for working conditions in the labor-intense biomass supply and conversion systems.
For this to become effective, it is necessary to amend the relevant global conventions by setting clear requirements for all parties involved and their verifiable implementation in order to ensure the effectiveness of all rules relating to sustainable biomaterial and bioenergy markets.
As regards the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity as well as their protocols, this would mean that the potentially negative consequences of indirect land use changes on climate protection and biodiversity would be generally avoided if the application of CO2 emission limits also included global land use changes and areas rich in biodiversity were globally protected.
With regard to the private sector which will have to invest in sustainable biomass supply, trade, and conversion, it is crucial also to derive project-specific sustainability standards for international and bilateral financing institutions, and their respective private-sector counterparts.
Project-specific activities should be governed by binding rules in the long term and accompanied by bilateral agreements (e.g. on nature conservation, access to modern bioenergy, sustainable trade infrastructure).
Summary
To “unlock” the potential of sustainable bioenergy, it is a priority to increase the sustainability of overall biomass production for all bio-based products. The potential greenhouse-gas emissions arising from indirect land use change have become an issue of global concern for all biomass uses, so that an accounting approach is needed at the global level for all biomass and land-using products, as well as for integrating food and fuel demands.
Sustainable biomass potentials are likely to be sufficient to allow biomass to continue to play a significant role in the future global energy supply system, even if stringent sustainability requirements are to be met and demands for other bio-based products continue to grow. The cascading use of biomass which first utilizes its structural and then the heating value is key, and the decoupling of land for food and feed from that for fiber and bioenergy is the other critical component of achieving sustainable supply.
All in all, the “trilemma” of integrating biomass production with regard to food, energy and environment can be resolved without marginalizing bioenergy. A consensus on the further development of bioenergy – and biofuels as a part of that – should be possible within the boundaries of sustainability.
Deputy Director
National Energy Foundation
said: On 09/11/2010
Biofuels will never be able to meet their full potential unless there is complete transparency about their production and source. Otherwise neither the public nor politicians will be able to distinguish between those that should be a no-brainer, and those that should have no place in a sustainable energy system. The easiest way to create this transparency would be through an EU-wide label, so that consumers all member states can find a clear and understandable way of making an informed decision. Any label should include two elements: a CO2 mitigation rating, showing the typical net CO2 saving compared to the equivalent fossil fuel; and a sustainability rating based on a defined (but more subjective) hierarchy of sources.
The mitigation rating is straightforward, and could be on the familiar A-G scale. For example, any biofuel that failed to achieve net CO2 emissions at least 50% lower than the fossil comparator might be rated G. Biofuels that managed to produce a net CO2 benefit – in other words a permanent lowering of free CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere – over the growth, capture and production cycle, might be given an A. A simple approach would then take the emissions savings in 10% bands between 50% and 100% and assign ratings of F to B. If the 50% for G sounds draconian, the bands could of course be widened, or made non-linear to reward the most carbon-efficient technologies.
The sustainability part of the label might be harder to agree, but is arguably even more important to ensure public confidence in biofuels. It too could be on a notional A-G scale, in which case biofuels made from post-consumer animal or vegetable wastes, such as used cooking oil, might rate most highly (A). Other wastes or by-products from biological sources, including waste fish oil or straw, might rate next. Mixed waste streams, such as municipal solid waste that will contain a proportion of fossil-derived plastics, would be rated less highly. When turning to biofuels from crops or cultures specifically grown for fuel, a number of tests would be needed. These would included land use – with plantations displacing food crops or virgin forests rated lowly – and other inputs, with crops requiring low fertiliser or pesticide use ranking well. Finally, labels may need to consider “fuel miles” – the typical distance from source to consumer, although this may be difficult to implement on a pan-European basis.
Without clear and common labelling, biofuels are open to – often valid – criticism that they contribute little towards solving climate change, while creating other environmental problems. A well-deigned label would permit a more open market in biofuels, with the best products able to be sold at a premium, whilst driving unsustainable products off the scene. This would create a cost-effective and transparent way of giving consumers the confidence that they need to ensure a genuinely sustainable market in biofuels.
Chief Representative in the European Union
UNICA (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association)
said: On 15/11/2010
We live in a world of rising energy demand, decreasing energy supplies and rising concerns about climate change. There is common agreement that among available fuels that reduce Greenhouse Gases emissions (GHGs), sugarcane ethanol is the most efficient. It is one of many fuels that help Europe improve energy security through the diversification of its fuel supply and its suppliers.
However, to give European consumers a real choice of biofuels, the European Union needs to provide the right framework and clear regulation. This includes eliminating trade restrictions that limit access to valuable fuel alternatives and defining sustainability criteria that recognize and promote good practice.
There should be similar conditions of access for all energy sources. Tariffs are higher on imports of clean energy, than they are on fossil fuels. Whilst it is good to debate how we construct Europe’s energy matrix, it is worth noting that no other energy source has faced the same kind of scrutiny as biofuels. Ultimately this results in higher prices for consumers and restricts the choice of environmentally friendly fuel options.
We do not believe that it is economically sustainable to artificially encourage the production of biofuels through the aid of tariffs in Europe or elsewhere. Protectionist measures create a situation where those countries which are better suited to produce biofuels are prevented from competing freely on international markets. In Europe, high tariff duties significantly alter the competitiveness of foreign biofuels such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.
Brazil recently eliminated import tariffs on ethanol in an effort to build a global biofuels market and we can see it working. We think consumers benefit from choice. Sugarcane ethanol is a clean and affordable renewable fuel that saves money at the pump, diversifies Europe’s fuel mix and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by over 90% compared to conventional fossil fuels. We hope this move will encourage other countries around the world to develop open, free markets for clean, efficient renewable fuels such as ethanol.
Sustainability criteria for fuels are important. But they need to be clearly defined if we are to see real impact. In the absence of clear definitions Europe’s current environmental rules limit broad access to sustainable foreign biofuels in Europe. In addition to addressing import tariffs, it is important to set in place EU sustainability criteria which will ensure access to truly sustainable fuel alternatives for European consumers. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol’s environmental practices are a global benchmark and the industry is committed to not only demonstrate compliance with the EU’s sustainability requirements, but to go beyond the established criteria.
Certification is one way to prove sustainability compliance. The Brazilian sugarcane industry is already taking steps towards sustainability certification, for example through the Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI). This international roundtable, gathering producers, buyers, end users, and non-profits, is establishing transparent and verifiable criteria for sustainable sugarcane-derived production, focusing on continuously improving outstanding social, environmental and economic issues such as soil productivity, rational water use, waste water management, biodiversity maintenance, and equitable labour.
And finally, if the goal is to address and limit the source of emissions the EU should recognize the efforts made in some countries, such as Brazil, to establish sound land use management practices and encourage use of land which is both available and suitable for crops for biofuels without displacing other crops. The Brazilian Agro-Ecological Zoning for mapping sugarcane aims at managing sugarcane land expansion and ensuring protection of sensitive areas at the same time. These types of land use planning exercises should be encouraged as they allow the industry to identify land suitable for biofuels feedstock and minimise the risks of indirect adverse effects, not limited to emissions alone.
Executive Director
RE Sources for Sustainable Communities
said: On 16/11/2010
To be honest I always wince a little when the topic of bio-fuels is raised. First, I think it has to be run as a recovery industry rather than a creation industry in that it is at its most useful and most logical application when it is used to capture energy from waste or by-products. If we start thinking that we are going to grow or harvest ourselves out of our energy situation, we are mistaken and will do more harm than good. My second objection or caution is that bio-fuels will enable us to stay on the internal combustion pathway longer and that is not beneficial from a carbon point of view. The sooner we come to grips with the reality that we need to move on from ICEs, the better. In short, I am not sure that we want to unlock the full potential of bio-fuels rather I think we want to unlock our full potential to move this transition on as quickly as possible.
Chief Technology Officer
Merica International
said: On 29/11/2010
The phrase “the full potential of biofuels” is going to mean different things to different people. It can mean that we have maximized production of biofuels, but at the cost of tropical rain forest converted to plantations. It could mean an increasing competition for arable land for biofuels or food production.
These situations are not desirable, so I would define “the full potential” as maximizing the economic production of biofuels while limiting the negative impacts. What I think it will take to unlock that full potential is higher oil prices.
The problem with most biofuels today is that they still are simply not cost competitive. The reality is that it is still cheaper for consumers to buy oil from BP drilling a mile beneath the ocean’s surface than it is to buy most biofuels. That equation will only shift as oil prices climb higher – or by government regulation. If governments shifted some of the tax burden from income taxes toward fossil fuel taxes (which could price in some of the negative externalities of fossil fuel use), that would help the cause of biofuels.
In the case of government regulation, it is also possible for governments to adopt unrealistic expectations for biofuels. In early 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized that the cellulosic ethanol mandates that had been set a few years earlier could not be met. They subsequently reduced the 100 million gallon mandate for 2010 to 6.5 million gallons. In late 2010, the Energy Information Administration projected that 2011 cellulosic ethanol production would be 3.94 million gallons, less than 2% of the originally mandated amount.
To truly unlock the potential will also require realistic expectations for what biofuels can deliver. If unrealistic expectations are generated, the public and the governments may lose interest when those expectations aren’t met. This can cause funding to dry up.
So it is important to have both: Realistic expectations for what can be achieved, and some kind of pricing parity/advantage versus fossil fuels. People are ultimately going to buy the fuel that is most economical for themselves, and the biofuel potential won’t be fully unlocked until consumers choose biofuels over fossil fuels.
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
University of Connecticut
said: On 29/11/2010
In my opinion and of those of many of my colleagues, it must be the well- meaning and future-thinking industrial leaders and private sectors investors that need to push for the full potential of biofuels. All can agree that the need exists for a strong, worldwide commitment to sustainability in all things, and most important to provide sufficient food and fuel for the ever expanding human population. But, the severe world-wide economic downturn, and the significance in the United States of America of President Obama’s mid-term Democratic Party losses will present much of this in the near-future in my country. I hold little hope on expecting that there will be significant, short term government funding and re-institution of the needed subsidies to encourage the development of renewable energies.
As one who cares about people and the environment, we need to be optimistic in this time of severe financial pessimism. Good and reasonable scientific and engineering processes need to be brought to the forefront. For example here at the University of Connecticut, we have worked over the past five years and have received State and National funding to foster the processing and testing of regionally-prepared biodiesel. Most of the feedstock comes from used, recycled, cooking oil (brown grease). Our interdisciplinary group of faculty also does advanced research in the conversion of cellulosic plant waste to prepare butanol. Over the past year of doing biodiesel testing, we have seen about a fourth in number drop in that testing and perhaps up to a one-third closing of not only our small (up to 0.5 million gallon/year) and even out large (6 million gallon/year) regional biodiesel producers. Even such forward-looking developments in solar and wind energy industries are seeing visible declines. This does not bode well, but one most keep a positive outlook and hope for a better tomorrow.
By way of introduction I am an Emeritus (retired) Professor who devotes his time to reflection and focused research. I have been instrumental in setting up a full, State–sponsored biodiesel testing program here at the University of Connecticut that follows American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) test methods for biodiesel (D6751-10). In my 33 years of academic research and teaching I taught various undergraduate and graduate courses in analytical and environmental chemistry at the central campus of the University of Connecticut. My research was in various forms of analytical chemistry dealing with the separations of organic molecules by various forms of chromatography and spectroscopy, primarily on environmental samples.
http://biodiesel.engr.uconn.edu/aboutus.html
http://www.cese.uconn.edu/
Group Vice President I Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
said: On 06/12/2010
Ford has developed a comprehensive, science-based global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our products and processes while working cooperatively with the public and private sectors to advance climate change solutions. We believe this strategy is one of the factors that has helped to transform our Company’s current and future products and prospects.
Biofuels are an important part of our entire CO2 reduction approach as there is no single way to reduce CO2 from transportation. We already offer a range of E85 vehicles in dedicated markets with a relevant fuel infrastructure.
In general biofuels can make a significant contribution to CO2 reduction provided they are produced in a sustainable manner. To unlock the full potential of biofuels more investment into the development and implementation of second generation biofuels (e.g. out of waste) is needed. Second generation biofuels that avoid the transfer of CO2 emissions into other sectors or regions are fully sustainable and should be encouraged.
Another key parameter for the automotive industry are the current EU requirements for blending biofuels into petrol or diesel fuel. These differ significantly, and these differences are set to increase beyond 2014 into 2020, when the EU’s 10% renewable energy target takes effect. It is essential for the EU to ensure uniform blending levels. Failure will result in increased product development and manufacturing complexity/cost, which may increase vehicle cost, but which adds nothing to improve the environment.
Despite the current focus on electrification, Europe needs a broad portfolio of CO2 reduction solutions in the medium and long term, and biofuels are an important and cost-effective part of this portfolio.
OMEGA Project Scientist
Bioengineering Branch, NASA Ames Research Center
said: On 19/12/2010
There is ample evidence that microalgae are a promising source of biofuels both because their estimated oil production is 100 times higher per acre than soy and because they can be grown without competing with agriculture. In light of the recent publication by Lundquist et al (Oct 2010) entitled “A realistic technology and engineering assessment of algae biofuels production” the authors, who are acknowledged experts in the field of microalgae and biofuels production, conclude that the technology is at least ten years out, its contribution to our overall fuel needs will be minimal, and success will depend on wastewater treatment (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/algae-for-biofuels-moving-from-promise-to-reality-but-how-fast). For example, they write:
“…this analysis does not project a favorable outcome for near-term large-scale algae biofuels production without wastewater treatment as the primary goal…”
If we accept that indeed algae biofuels production is dependent on wastewater for both reasons of economics as well as to avoid competing with agriculture for water and fertilizer, then investigating realistically how algae farms can be combined with existing wastewater treatment facilities will be critical to understanding the way forward.
In general, wastewater treatment facilities are embedded in our cities and in coastal cities they are discharging their treated effluent into coastal waters. In San Francisco, California, for example, all three treatment plants in the city are within 1/4 mile of the coast. The South East Plant at Hunters Point discharges 65 million gallons of treated wastewater into the SF Bay each day.
If this wastewater is used to grow algae and we assume a 5-day algal growth cycle, a would-be algae farm constructed in the vicinity of the treatment plant must accommodate about 325 million gallons of wastewater. Whether this algae farm consists of open ponds (raceways) or photobioreactors (PBRs), to accommodate this volume of wastewater, the containers needed would be 30 ft wide x 1.6 ft deep x about 900,000 ft (170 miles) long; i.e., the farm area for the ponds or PBRs would required about 620 acres.
An aerial view of SF in the vicinity of the South East Plant clearly indicates a 620+ acre site for such an algae farm would require major infrastructure changes to the city, such as moving roads, rerouting freeways, displacing buildings, businesses, and bridges, and/or demolishing many houses. In other words, unless the wastewater is pumped enormous distances (at unacceptable added expensive), building the algae cultivation system in the vicinity of existing wastewater treatment plants would require a major redesigning of SF or other cities… UNLESS, we consider OMEGA: offshore membrane enclosures for growing algae. And why not situate our algae farms offshore in floating plastic enclosures?
In my previous publications, I have focused on the advantages of OMEGA with regard to energy efficiency (wave energy for mixing, the heat-capacity of seawater for temperature control, forward osmosis for dewatering) and environmental impact (wastewater treatment, non-invasive freshwater algae surrounded by saltwater, colonization on underside of OMEGA modules contributing to productivity and diversity in the marine environment). Focusing here only on the practical issue of access to existing wastewater treatment plants, offshore sites have a huge advantage over restructuring land use in our cities. Continuing with the example from SF Bay. The SF Bay is estimated to be between 250,000 and 1,000,000 acres, depending on how many of its smaller bays are included in the calculation of its area. This means for the 620 acre project above, assuming OMEGA is as efficient as land-based systems in growing algae and processing wastewater, the OMEGA system in the Bay would occupy between 0.06% and 0.2% of the Bay’s surface area and since the wastewater is already discharged into the Bay, it will not require major infrastructure changes for wastewater distribution to the algae farm. Considering the small area required, the OMEGA system could be designed to minimize its impact on ship traffic, fishing, and other uses of the Bay.
Indeed, a practical evaluation of the location of wastewater plants in the major cities in the USA or major cities around the world (many of which are coastal), indicates that if algae are to be a significant source of biofuels, our focus should no longer be on hypothetical land-based systems that would require major remodeling of cities (such as those proposed by Lundquist et al above). Indeed, we have built land based algae cultivation systems for high-value crops and our 60+ years of experience clearly indicate this technology will not easily scale. It is time we take the disruptive step beyond our shores and focus our efforts on meeting the engineering and environmental challenges required to make functional OMEGA systems in our coastal waters. Time is limited and failure is not an option…
Founder and Chief Executive Officer
Natural Alternative Fuels, Inc., USA
said: On 14/01/2011
Man ought to glory in tribulation because out of it comes patience, experience and hope. This life principle applies to the biofuels industry, which has suffered tremendous turmoil over the past 2 and one-half years. After experiencing rapid national growth from 2005-2007, the industry took a heavy hit from the economic downturn that threatened to topple America. Since 2008, the biodiesel market endured heavy losses evidenced by diminished supply, idled production facilities, loss of thousands of jobs, loss of investor and consumer confidence, and a tarnished image. To add insult to injury, an important biodiesel blender tax credit was allowed to lapse on December 31, 2009. The fledgling biodiesel industry relied upon this $1.00 per gallon tax credit to make biodiesel price competitive with petroleum-based diesel fuel. Since the end of 2009, there have been repeated, but unsuccessful, attempts to reinstate the tax credit, the lapse of which appeared to kill the industry as a whole.
Sometimes, what looks dead to the natural eye, is merely asleep. Sometimes, what we think is dead, buried and to be forgotten, is instead planted, protected and perfected, only to rise again in triumph, stronger than it was before. This ancient principle is being played out in the biofuels industry. Today, Washington, the US House of Representatives voted by a 277 to 148 margin to approve the Obama tax deal, which extends the ethanol tax credit through 2011, and retroactively extends the biodiesel tax incentive and the renewable diesel incentive through 2011. The bill also renewed the 54-cent tariff on Brazilian ethanol through 2011. The bill will now be sent to the President for signature.
This is a fulfillment of a recent prediction made by Joe Jobe, CEO of the National Biodiesel Board, who recently said; “things are looking up for the biodiesel industry.” Conditions are expected to improve in 2011 and beyond. Despite the challenges faced by the lapse of the tax credit, the biodiesel industry’s best days are yet to come. The retroactive reinstatement of the tax credits, the Federal Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2), state and local tax incentives, and a national system that tracks Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) on every gallon of biofuels produced and sold, will work in harmony as value-added drivers to revive the biodiesel industry.
Responding to the vote of the US House of Representatives, Manning Feraci, National Biodiesel Board Vice President of Federal Affairs said: “Reinstatement of the biodiesel tax credit is welcome news for the U.S. biodiesel industry and good news for the nation as a whole. This will undoubtedly help kick-start the domestic biodiesel industry, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and create thousands of new jobs across the country. The U.S. biodiesel industry is poised for a strong 2011, and stands ready to meet the nation’s Advanced Biofuel goals.”
Ironically, biodiesel is the only alternative energy product that is made entirely in the United States, using domestic products grown by American farmers, and is the one true renewable energy source that actually delivers on its promise. Biodiesel is a renewable and sustainable alternative to petroleum diesel fuel. It is made from domestically grown farm produce, vegetable oils, recycled cooking greases or animal fats. It does not require any engine modifications for use and is typically blended with petroleum diesel at various levels such as 2%, 5% and 20%, B2, B5 and B20 respectively, or used as pure fuel, B100. The benefits of using biodiesel include:
• Creates jobs and stimulates the economy
• Extends national supply of petroleum diesel fuel
• Enhances America’s fuel security
• Reduces America’s dependence on foreign oil
• Reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• Reduces acid rain and cancer causing toxins in the air
• Provides energy efficient fuel source
• Compatible with existing fuel dispensing infrastructure
The RFS2 is a federal policy separate and distinct from the blender tax credit. Implemented on January 1, 2009 and launched on July 1, 2009, the RFS2 mandates the minimum volume of biomass-based diesel fuel use each year. The law requires the use of 1.15 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel fuel by the end of 2010. This amount increases each year, rising to 21 billion gallons by 2022. The RFS2 also mandates the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. According to an environmental life cycle analysis report from Michigan State University, biodiesel from soy oil results in a 57% reduction in GHG. Biodiesel from waste greases result in an 86% reduction.
To all who thought the biodiesel industry was dead and buried, notice is hereby served, that biodiesel is here to stay. Biodiesel production and use is vital to our nation’s short-term and long-term goals. The benefits of increased biodiesel production and use outweigh the challenges. The production and use of a combined 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, will enable America to displace approximately 13.6 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel. The estimated savings to America is $41.5 billion and translates to additional national energy benefits of $2.6 billion. Further, the production and use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels is expected to reduce GHG emissions by 138 million metric tons. This is the equivalent of removing 27 million cars off the road.
The biodiesel industry may have been down, but it was never out! In closing, I leave you to consider another ancient principle. Before excellence arises, a breaking must first take place. The elders use to say: “If it don’t kill you, it will make you stronger.” Despite the trials and tribulations suffered by the biofuels industry, it did not die. Instead, it merely went to sleep while corrections and perfections were made. Now, stakeholders should look for and expect the biodiesel and ethanol industry to rise in triumph, stronger than ever before.
Biodiesel: America’s Own Blend!
Director General
European Fuel Oxygenates Association (EFOA), Brussels, Belgium
said: On 30/03/2011
Biofuels are and will remain a regional and political choice during the transition period leading to a low-carbon mobility world. To fully unlock the potential of biofuels, a series of regulations have been developed in Europe, such as the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which requires Member States to ensure that 10% of the energy used in transport is from renewable sources in 2020.
Keeping in mind air quality issues and the need to diminish pollution in big cities, there is a need for good combustion of the fuel. This will also contribute to diminishing particulate and additional greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel ethers are octane enhancers which can contribute to solving the above issues as they allow a more complete combustion in the engine and by consequence a more efficient way of using the fuel.
So what is needed further to fully unlock the potential of biofuels? As Director General of EFOA, I can give a partial answer for Europe: the EU needs to have a clearer and a more consistent policy on biofuels. This will help companies get the necessary resources for their R&D investment.