Photo Credit: Iowa Corn Promotion Board
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (7) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
April 25, 2007

Biofuels Index Would Aid Consumers, Market

by Robert Sanders
Berkeley, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The debate over whether biofuels like ethanol are better for the environment than fossil fuels has left many consumers confused and unsure where to fill their gas tanks.

"Biofuels link markets in fuel, food and land in quite complicated ways, and there are no rules about how to judge the environmental and global warming impacts of producing and processing these fuels."

-- Alex Farrell, University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor of energy and resources

Much of this confusion could be eliminated with a biofuels rating system that would reflect the positive or negative environmental impacts of a particular fuel, according to a group of University of California, Berkeley, researchers.

A ratings system, like the Michelin stars for hotels and restaurants, would take into account all environmental aspects of biofuels processing and production, from the way biofuel crops are tilled and fertilized to the kinds of energy -- coal, natural gas or biomass, for example -- used to process them.

Such a system would not only help consumers make decisions about where to fuel up but, perhaps more importantly, stimulate competition among fuel producers to market the greenest fuels possible, driving the less-green biofuels out of the marketplace in favor of ones that really serve the planet.

"We think it's feasible to design a workable and effective ratings system for green biofuels today with the types of information that many farmers and many biofuel production facilities already collect," said study co-author Alex Farrell, assistant professor of energy and resources and director of the campus's Transportation Sustainability Research Center. "The American biofuels industry can produce much greener biofuels than they do today, and I think they can do so at reasonable prices and at a profit."

Such a labeling system would reveal, for example, that a fuel such as ethanol varies widely in its environmental merit depending on its production history, according to co-author Michael O'Hare, UC Berkeley professor of public policy. Some ethanol in current use is not much better, or is even worse, for the environment than gasoline, while other ethanol is beneficial.

Farrell, O'Hare and colleagues in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy recently disseminated a research report on the issue in hopes of stimulating discussion around the nation on how best to formulate such a labeling system.

Called "Creating Markets for Green Biofuels: Measuring and Improving Environmental Performance," the study was partially supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Science Foundation's Climate Decision Making Center at Carnegie Mellon University.

"Biofuels link markets in fuel, food and land in quite complicated ways, and there are no rules about how to judge the environmental and global warming impacts of producing and processing these fuels," said Farrell, who was appointed this week to an international roundtable to draft global standards for sustainable biofuels production and processing. "As these technologies get better and cheaper, there will be competition for use of land, whether for food or wilderness. This is inherently a problem of biofuels. A discussion of biofuel labeling could help the domestic debate about how to develop biofuels."

The report lays out a range of possible options for a Green Biofuels Index, from voluntary labeling akin to the "organic" food label, to mandatory labeling like today's nutrition information, to more stringent government regulations like those required by renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that a state generate a percentage of its electricity from renewable sources.

While Farrell thinks a star system, like the Michelin stars, would be more flexible than a gold-silver-bronze medal system, he stressed that any system could take into account the issues consumers seem most concerned about.

"I think people understand that energy is a product that has lots of environmental implications, and if they had the choice to know what was good or bad, I bet they would like to know that," said Farrell. "It's quite likely that, even if it were required as part of regulation, fuel makers and distributors could develop their own brand and their own marketing strategies around how green their fuel is, using the type of information this will provide."

Today, consumers in the United States have only a few biofuel choices: E85 ethanol, 95 percent of which comes from corn; biodiesel, which comes primarily from soybeans but also from canola and sunflower oils and waste cooking oil or grease; and what's called renewable diesel, which is made from biomass injected into the petroleum diesel process. But Farrell predicts that other fuels will soon reach the market, including biobutanol and synthetic diesel, which is made entirely from biomass.

New research, such as that planned by the Energy Biosciences Institute soon to be established at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with $500 million in funding from BP, could produce much greener biofuels, Farrell noted.

If biofuels with the same chemical identity can be distinguished by a rating system such as the authors propose, "markets for green biofuels would stimulate a new wave of innovation, creating high-value and truly green biofuels, and enhancing energy security by diversifying our energy sources," they wrote.

The UC Berkeley group urges environmental, agricultural and regulatory agencies to join forces with local, state and national governments to develop this Green Biofuels Index, and that funding agencies should research ways to measure the environmental performance of biofuels, such as their impacts on global warming or farmland.

Robert Sanders is manager of science communications for the UC Berkeley News Center, and covers science, environment, health and technology issues.
Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Reader Comments (7)
 
April 25, 2007
There is no question that the long term effects of "E" being burned in engines is probably going to be different then gasoline. These tests should have been done and the data already available. Companies are rushing into this for the usual profit potential and I am sure there are allot of engineers and there data which is not getting out for one reason or another. I for one would not burn more than a 15% "E" content in gasoline until I had researched this area very well.
Comment 1 of 7
No image available
April 25, 2007
Ethanol as a biofuel has some drawbacks.

First, its energy content is about 66% that of gasoline. The effect is to reduce gas milage of vehicles so that more must be used.

Secondly, in Hawaii where 10% ethanol has been required by law since April 2006, an exception has been made for outboard boat motors because many fishemen could no longer rely on the motors using the blend. They had to use pure gasoline.

Third, at least one mechanic in Hawaii has noted that the rate of completely changing motors has gone up by at least a factor of 10. Motors are breaking down at a much faster rate than before. Both a fairly new GMC truck and a Honda were shown. The truck owner had to pay %4000 for the replacement.

My conclusion is that the risk for engine problems is increased using ethanol and that the gas milage of most vehicles decreases, some rather substantially.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 2 of 7
April 27, 2007
Ridiculous. The squabling would be endless, the final ratings a joke.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/29/1476/61810

1) Ethanol made from corn uses five times less land than biodiesel made from soy. Picture biodiesel enthusiasts accepting a lower rating than corn ethanol.
2) Ethanol made from sugarcane takes far less land than ethanol made from corn but what if a biodiverse rainforest carbon sink was cleared to grow it? Ditto for palm biodiesel.

How do you value the loss of a rainforest carbonsink or the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and all of the biodiversity lost with it?

For example, lets say that any fuel with a two star rating or less means it is worse for the enviornment than petroleum. Even though it might be true, that rating will not be allowed. What consumer would pay more to burn a fuel that is worse for the enviornment (which is the case for most biofuels being produced today)?
Comment 3 of 7
No image available
April 27, 2007
I was pleased that the comments are getting critical about biofuels. They counter the mass propaganda campaign being run by ADM and others. But my concern is that none of the comments included the fact that biofuels take agricultural land out of food production, which imperils the lives of about one-third of the world's population. ADM claims that doing this would have no effect on food availability. That's a dxxn lie - it already has. Experts conclude that corn-associated foods (virtually everything) will go up 6-8% this year alone. Maybe, an inconvenience to us, but the specter of starvation to the 3rd world.
Comment 4 of 7
April 27, 2007
Regarding the comments above, this article describes a biofuels star rating and doesn't pretend to go into engine reliability or alternatives to alchohol.

Regarding the article, the star rating system is a good idea but could be augmented with a number that rates fuel efficiency. That way, both the environmentalist and economist in us are satisfied.
Comment 5 of 7
No image available
Why not methane from biogas?
Biogas is carbon neutral and pose less emissions that cause health problems than ethanol vhen used in cars.
Biogas can be converted to electricity and heat.
Cars using electric power achieve 60-80 % efficiency while cars using gas (natural gas or biogas) achieve only 15-25 % efficiency (according to research results from Lund university, Sweden).
More research is needed on sustainable production and use of biogas. Development of systems for "high solids anaerobic digestion", where both biogas and nutrients in biofertilisers are used in the most efficient way, is still waiting for financial support.
Without biofertilisers will soil degradation continue and less biomass will be produced.
Comment 6 of 7
No image available
A ratings system is a very good idea

Please, compare two biofuels ethanol and biogas and take into account all environmental, social and economic aspects of production and use of these biofuels. Then compare the best one with coal, oil and natural gas.

Biogas can be produced from fuel crops, organic residues and organic materials in waste. Instead of burning renewable organic material we can receive methane as energy rich fuel and valuable fertiliser - that can give some extra stars in the rating system .
Why not include even side effects as possibility to transfere the biofuel to other important materials (plastics?) and other kind of energy carriers such as electricity and heat.

NB Food is biofuel for humans, feed for animals and all types of organic materials are biofuels for microorganisms. Microbial transformation can be used more efficiently!
Comment 7 of 7
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Latin American Wind Energy Association groSolar ReflecTech, Inc. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. VentureBeat 3TIER
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo