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 (19) 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
May 1, 2008

Biofuels: the Good, the Bad and the Unusual

by Ralph Sims, International Energy Agency

Within recent months biofuels have gone from making headline news as being the world's salvation for when the oil runs out to becoming a "crime against humanity." Almost every day the world's media run a story on the topic, often blaming biofuels for all the world's pending disasters. Even a recent spike in the price of rice was blamed on producing more biofuels whereas, in fact, rice is not used as a feedstock at all!

There are legitimate concerns about the sustainability of some biofuel sources and they have taken a lot of criticism. But it is important to put this in perspective, since, as is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the extreme viewpoints. If only the oil market was scrutinized to the same degree!

There is no doubt there are "bad" biofuels that result in the world being worse off as a result of their production. But there are also "good" biofuels that can be produced in a sustainable manner, support local development without exploitation, and result in a reduction of overall environmental impacts including greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Concerns at the amount of misinformation appearing in the media being picked up by policy-makers, coupled with a vision that biofuels produced in developing countries (the South) could in fact provide considerable local benefits relating to sustainable development, as well possibly providing export potential to developed countries (the North), led Professor John Mathews of Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia to take action.

He solicited 17 people with key interests in biofuels from a wide range of international, national, industrial and academic organizations to meet together to discuss the topic in depth and to agree, by consensus, on a brief document. This document could then be used internationally by policy makers, environmental groups, project developers, energy companies and investors to obtain a balanced view of the issues, the relevant problems and the potential benefits from using both first and second generation biofuels.

He persuaded the Rockefeller Foundation to support the activity by sponsoring the meeting, which was then held over a 5-day period in their Conference Centre in Bellagio, Italy.

His next step was somewhat less impressive in that, on the way to Bellagio, he very unfortunately became indisposed and was unable to attend the meeting at all. But thankfully he has now bounced back to full health and is actively pursuing the cause once again - backed up by the Sustainable Biofuels Consensus document completed in his absence.

The Issues

It is true that the increased production of biofuels has distorted some commodity prices and therefore contributed to recent price increases in grains and vegetable oils. However other factors, such as recent droughts, low food stocks and surging demand for meat and milk products in Asia, have probably played a far greater role. The higher world energy prices have also pushed up the costs of food-crop production (including fertilizers), processing and distribution. But in the media, biofuels tend to take the full brunt of the criticism for all of these woes.

Biofuels presently account for less than 2% of liquid transport fuels and take up well below 1% of world agricultural land. This may seem like a small share, but at over 1 million barrels of oil per day equivalent, they have contributed to meet around 30% of the growth in global demand in liquid transport fuels over the past three years and thus made a significant contribution to the balance of the oil market.

It is easy for politicians to over-promote biofuels, given that their constituencies like the concept of simply substituting petroleum products with another type of liquid fuel without having to buy a smaller car or change their driving habits. However the high national costs of various agricultural subsidies necessary to support biofuels in the North, have largely been ignored in the debate. Also for some biofuels, greenhouse gas emission reduction is not always as good as was commonly thought, when demonstrated using complete life cycle analyses. Land use change and deforestation, additional water use, genetic modification, increased fertiliser and chemical inputs, all raise questions as to the longer term sustainability of energy crop production. Interestingly, the same arguments are rarely equally used for increased food production, as exemplified by only around 10% of palm oil being used for biodiesel and the rest for cooking oil.

Potential Solutions

In some tropical/sub-tropical regions of the South where arable land for sugarcane production is available (from improved land management rather than from deforestation), local development opportunities should not be discounted. If biofuels can be produced in a sustainable way, and be certified as such according to an agreed international standard currently being debated, then they can offer valuable economic opportunities, particularly to developing countries. Trade, equity, sustainable development and energy security are all related issues.

In the longer term second generation biofuels from ligno-cellulosic, non-food feedstocks (straw, woody biomass residues, vegetative grasses) hold promise and should address most of the current concerns but they remain relatively costly options, even after 35+ years of RD&D. Several demonstration projects are under way and major deployment of commercially viable second generation biofuels may be just a few years off.

The aim should be to progressively phase out subsidy systems for the less sustainable biofuels and focus on incentives to bring forward second generation production of both ethanol and synthetic diesel as well perhaps a "third generation" from algae and using advanced bio-technoloiges. Recent increases in public and private research investment, including by the biotechnology industry may help to reduce the production costs.

Development of flex-fuel vehicle engines that run on low- or high-level blends of ethanol or gasoline, has been a major step forward to support the increased uptake of biofuels. With over 6 million such vehicles already running on the roads of Brazil, the U.S., Sweden and elsewhere, and more auto manufacturers showing interest, demand is likely to continue. Plug-in hybrid, flex-fuel engine vehicles may be the way of the future.

However one key point to note is that energy-efficiency measures to reduce road transport demand must still be encouraged.

Summary

Overall the Sustainable Biofuels Consensus highlights the opportunities that sustainably produced biofuels could bring if managed carefully. South to South collaborations (as for example Brazil recently announcing a major investment in sugarcane production and ethanol processing in Ghana) can provide positive benefits to all parties. Coupled with the current push to provide improved crop species, better knowledge of fertiliser use and water management for food crop production, it could be that well managed and sustainably produced biofuels, although certainly not a panacea for rising oil demand, could make some contribution towards sustainable development, energy security, equity and greenhouse gas abatement.

Click here to download the 8-page Sustainable Biofuels Consensus.

Ralph Sims is Professor of Sustainable Energy at Massey University, New Zealand where he began his research career producing biodiesel from animal fats in the early 1970s. He is currently based at the Renewable Energy Unit of the International Energy Agency, Paris. He was the Coordinating Lead Author of the "Energy Supply" chapter of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and is a Companion of the Royal Society. His many publications on energy and climate change mitigation include the book "The Brilliance of Bioenergy - in Business and in Practice."

 

Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (19)
 
No image available
May 2, 2008
The world's and U.S. grain surpluses have been depleted due to corn being turned into ethanol. The world's poorest people depend on crop surplusses to hold the cost of food down (or to get it donated free). The 40% increase in food prices endanger the lives of 400 million people in the world.

The article waltzed around two facts, (1) Corn and soybeans are lousy feedstocks. Much better non-food ones are already available, and (2) These lousy feedstocks are essentially the only ones being used, thanks to ADM and its cronies.

People are rioting and dying today - stop the madness; and please stop trying to rationalize it!
Comment 1 of 19
No image available
May 2, 2008
Russ is the one attacking "straw men" created by corrupt governments influenced by entrenched fossil fuel and agricultural special interests. Our biomass energy company could readily solve all of the problems raised by Russ, if governments would just stop subsidizing traditional crops at the expense of alternative crops, mandating things like cellulose, favoring incumbants in deregulated electricity markets to the point of creating deregulated monopolies, allowing utility monopolies to select who gets to generate power in regulated markets, and allowing the OPEC Cartel and Big Oil to practice predatory pricing. Some countries like those in Europe also need to develop venture capital markets. Russ should spend his time on constructive criticisms like proposing solutions to subsidization and monopolization. Even with all of the crap I have to hear from people like Russ trying to direct public opinion against us I believe we will soon succeed outside of the US so we can tell people like Russ: "I told you so."
Comment 2 of 19
May 2, 2008
"….Development of flex-fuel vehicle engines that run on low- or high-level blends of ethanol or gasoline, has been a major step forward to support the increased uptake of biofuels…"

Translation: In the United States, this is how the government forces consumers to buy the fuel they already subsidized once. According to Consumer Reports, few consumers would actually buy this fuel given a choice. Source:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

"….Coupled with the current push to provide improved crop species, better knowledge of fertiliser use and water management for food crop production, it could be that well managed and sustainably produced biofuels, although certainly not a panacea for rising oil demand, could make some contribution towards sustainable development, energy security, equity and greenhouse gas abatement. …"

"….Well, like I said, "it could be" is not the same as the present reality. Not a panacea for rising oil demand? Less than 2% of world supplies are biofuels. They could make some contribution, but at what cost? Presently they have not dented oil consumption, provided any measurable amount of energy security, and have actually increased green house gas via greater nitrous oxide releases via nitrous oxide and carbon sink usurpation (food and biodiversity arguments aside).
Comment 3 of 19
May 2, 2008
"….Also for some biofuels, greenhouse gas emission reduction is not always as good as was commonly thought, when demonstrated using complete life cycle analyses. …"

That is a bit of an understatement, to put it mildly. Soy biodiesel was touted as being 78% carbon neutral for years. Several recent studies in science journals have shown that all commercially produced biofuels have worse GHG emissions on a life cycle basis than oil. Some because the crops release far more nitrous oxide than realized, and some because they are being planted where carbon sinks were.

"….Land use change and deforestation, additional water use, genetic modification, increased fertiliser and chemical inputs, all raise questions as to the longer term sustainability of energy crop production. Interestingly, the same arguments are rarely equally used for increased food production, as exemplified by only around 10% of palm oil being used for biodiesel and the rest for cooking oil…"

Interesting. Some feel that food production is a moral imperative over fuel, and those same arguments have been discussed in environmental circles for many decades now. Biofuels are pouring gas on that fire.

"….If biofuels can be produced in a sustainable way … then they can offer valuable economic opportunities…"

"If" and "they can" are synonymous with "theoretically speaking." The reality of how they are being produced is the concern.

"….Several demonstration projects are under way and major deployment of commercially viable second generation biofuels may be just a few years off. …"

"If" those fuels ever reach commercial viability, it will be their turn to demonstrate the impacts they will have on the environment. Cellulose is biomass, and sugarcane is already more energy efficient than cellulose is expected to be. The Cerrado grasslands and other carbon sinks will one-day all go up in smoke to plant cane for American cars.
Comment 4 of 19
May 2, 2008
"….However other factors, such as recent droughts, low food stocks and surging demand for meat and milk products in Asia, have probably played a far greater role…"

First, it matters little which of the big five factors played a bigger role; America's flex fuel SUVs have helped make food unaffordable to the desperately poor. The Australian drought affected the price of rice. Low food stocks are partly the result of biofuels. The surging demand for meat is a gradual change that increases in step with poverty reduction and population growth. That factor was not the "spike" in the heart of food prices. You can't just say that the other four have "probably played a far greater role" without a peer reviewed paper by an unbiased source to back that up.

"….But in the media, biofuels tend to take the full brunt of the criticism for all of these woes. …"

All of the articles I have read have included biofuels in with the other four players.

"…Biofuels presently account for less than 2% of liquid transport fuels and take up well below 1% of world agricultural land…."

Yet look at the havoc they are wreaking already!

"…This may seem like a small share, but at over 1 million barrels of oil per day equivalent, they have contributed to meet around 30% of the growth in global demand in liquid transport fuels over the past three years and thus made a significant contribution to the balance of the oil market…"

Define significant. That 30% of growth represents one third of one percent of total global oil use. By switching from a Subaru Outback to a Prius an American can cut transport oil use in half. That's a 100% improvement in gas mileage. Get everyone in American to do something similar and we could sell oil.
Comment 5 of 19
May 2, 2008
"…. often blaming biofuels for all the world's pending disasters. Even a recent spike in the price of rice was blamed on producing more biofuels…"

Biofuels are being blamed for "all the worlds pending disasters"? The price of rice is being blamed on biofuels? I suspect those are both strawman arguments.

"….There are legitimate concerns about the sustainability of some biofuel sources…"

Some biofuel sources? Name one biofuel being produced in commercial quantity that does not have concerns.

"….If only the oil market was scrutinized to the same degree! …"

It is, and has been for decades.

"….But there are also "good" biofuels that can be produced in a sustainable manner, support local development without exploitation, and result in a reduction of overall environmental impacts including greenhouse gas emission reductions…"

Give us a detailed list of those "good fuels" being produced in commercial quantities in a sustainable manner. Keep in mind that there is a world of difference between fuels that "can" be (has the theoretical potential to be) produced in a sustainable manner and fuels that "are" being produced in an unsustainable manner.

"….Concerns at the amount of misinformation appearing in the media being picked up by policy-makers…"

We have had about five years now where the lay press printed misinformation about biofuels; "they smell like french fries and are carbon neutral!" Policy makers picked up on the rosy lay press articles and created a disaster; 35,000 square miles of America's most productive farm land went into our gas tanks last year. What we are seeing today are lay press articles telling us about what peer reviewed science papers are discovering.
Comment 6 of 19
No image available
May 2, 2008
what do you think of algea farms as an energy solution?
Comment 7 of 19
No image available
Giulio Negrini writes: "Today all Ethanol come from non-grain sources like paper mill waste, corn stalks, wood chips and switch grass." Come again? There are very small amounts of ethanol being produced as a byproduct of cellulose production (mainly in Sweden and Switzerland), and a few pilot cellulose-to-ethanol projects (like Iogen's plant in eastern Canada), but the vast majority of fuel ethanol is being produced from corn kernels, sugar cane, sugar beats, wheat or waste wheat starch.
Comment 8 of 19
No image available
May 2, 2008
Today all Ethanol come from non-grain sources like paper mill waste, corn stalks, wood chips and switch grass.
The current ethanol disaster is an immagination of oil and gas producers.
Comment 9 of 19
No image available
May 2, 2008
Ralph appears contradictory by calling cellulosic ethanols a longer term biofuel and "relatively costly options, even after 35+ years of R&D" and then concluding it "may be just a few years off." The US is risking global economic, national and environmental security by mandating cellulosic ethanols at the exclusion of all other bioethanol technologies. The Brazilian sugar cane ethanol program (which Ralph calls sustainable) wouldn't even qualify in the US. The current grain ethanol disaster was caused by America's leadership toward blocking similar high-fiber sugar crop alternatives with grain subsidies and monopolization of electricity markets (which these crops need to utilize the bagasse).
Comment 10 of 19
No image available
To continue on the two points above.

I should have added that the fact that, despite (or because of?) the process by which it was reached, the "Sustainable Biofuels Consensus" strikes me as by and large balanced, and much more tempered than the ambitious Biofuels Manifesto first promulgated by Professor John Mathews a couple of years ago. I am glad to see that the consensus document acknowledges that the mandates, subsidies and tariffs can "distort markets for energy and agricultural products." But it then only calls for an "orderly and defined schedule for elimination of subsidies, tariffs, import quotas", etc., "in parallel with the gradual implementation of sustainable biofuels mandates." What would be an "orderly and defined schedule"? Some countries have set time limits on their subsidies and import tariffs for biofuels, only to renew them again and again and again. Surely language stronger than that is needed.

Further, the rationale given in the document for instituting "sustainable biofuels mandates" is to "provide the necessary conditions to reduce risks and to attract investment to develop and expand sustainable production." Sure, and so would mandates for a wide range of other products that investors would like to make money from. But risks are not reduced through mandates, only transferred -- from producers to consumers or taxpayers, or both. A more convincing reasoning for mandates needs to be provided.
Comment 11 of 19
No image available
Hi Ralph! Thank you for the reasonably balanced column on biofuels. No surprise, though, I would qualify several points. First, the Bellagio meeting that produced the so-called "Sustainable Biofuels Consensus" was to some extent self-selecting. I was one of the people to whom an invitation was extended, but declined once I saw the agenda. It appeared to me that the the meeting was structured to produce a document that largely supported the views of the organizers. Perhaps that perspective is unfair, but I hope at the same time none of the people who did participate in the meeting are claiming that the document reflects anything more than the consensus of those who were involved.

It is ironic that biofuel enthusiasts only now bemoan the "misinformation" in current press reports about biofuels, as if that is something new. I recall all too clearly during most of 2006 the gushing, uncritical reports in the press -- including most notably the New York Times -- of biofuels, including those produced from corn, wheat and oilseeds. As Ralph notes, biofuels were being heralded constantly as the answer to a panoply of society's ills: high oil prices, global warming, depressed commodity prices. Indeed, the latter was such an important motivation for many politicians that some were claiming that, as a result of the upward pressure biofuel demand would create on farm products, conventional agricultural subsidies would disappear and a new WTO trade round would be concluded quickly. Now that grain and oilseed prices have surpassed even their most optimistic expectations, they and the industry are running for cover and saying "Nope, our fault! It's all them other people that are responsible for the skyrocketing grain and oilseed prices!"

(Continued below)
Comment 12 of 19
No image available
May 3, 2008
Maybe biofuels should come from true waste products before turning food-producing farmland or forests into sources. I recently visited the landfill of a small city where they are flaring 12000 cubic feet per minute of methane-24/7. I know there are some landfill methane harvesting operations underway, even here in tiny Nova Scotia. How many more could there be in North America and how much fuel could they produce?

My late father-in-law drove flex-fuel (natural gas/gasoline) GM cars for over 20 years. That's a mature existing, available technology. Should we be fine-tuning and using the wheels we've invented before inventing all new wheels? Diesel engines are another case in point.

I have a friend who is privately turning Priuses into plug-in electric cars and reselling them at a profit. If he can do it, why can't the industry?

Investment in reduction and conservation is never as sexy for either governments or corporations as is the "next big thing", but usually provides the biggest gain for dollar spent. Insulate everything well, reduce highway speeds, reward smallness and tax extravagance. Turn away from monopolies to either honestly deregulated energy production and distribution or go back to public utilities. Treat citizens with respect when using their commons.

Creative common sense rather than grasping greed could solve many of our crises.
Comment 13 of 19
No image available
May 3, 2008
My comment was intentionally vague. Final Hint: the crop is not genetically sugar cane. You can't expect me to give corrupt America all of the answers. De-monopolize and de-subsidize US industries and we all can profit. Otherwise, I want it to be a surprise (shock) from another country than the US.
Comment 14 of 19
No image available
May 3, 2008
Mike Holly writes: "The only problem is that sugar cane crop itself requires too long of a growing season, too much water, and too much nitrogen fertilizer - which we have solved."
This is quite vague. Are you suggesting you can introduce sugar cane farming to the US? If this is your claim, what percentage of arable land in the US is suitable for such a crop? If 100% of this was utilized, what percentage of our current liquid fossil fuel needs would be displaced by your product? I find it hard to believe that this last number would be anything other than very small, but feel free to try to convince me otherwise....
Comment 15 of 19
No image available
May 3, 2008
In all of his lenghty writings, Russ still hasn't even mentioned the world's greatest problem - the monopolization of industries, especially the US energy industries (vehicle fuel, electricity and natural gas). Mankind could develop virtually anything if everyone was given fair opportunity. That appears to be where we disagree.

As mentioned, we (us) are a biomass energy company whose technology is modelled from the near perfection of the Brazilian sugar cane ethanol program. The sugar is very high yielding per land area and is the most readily fermentable and cheapest carbohydrate for ethanol production. The fiber (bagasse) is the lowest-cost fuel for electricity generation when the waste heat is used to process the ethanol. The only problem is that sugar cane crop itself requires too long of a growing season, too much water, and too much nitrogen fertilizer - which we have solved.
Comment 16 of 19
May 3, 2008
Not sure what you are trying to say, Mike

"...Russ should spend his time on constructive criticisms like proposing solutions to subsidization and monopolization...."

An end to subsidization would be a constructive start. I don't see where we disagree.

Also, biomass would be best used to directly displace coal.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/17/12447/1102

"...Even with all of the *** I have to hear from people like Russ trying to direct public opinion against us I believe we will soon succeed outside of the US..."

Crap is in the eye of the beholder. Who is "us" and is your use of the word biomass code for liquid biofuels?
Comment 17 of 19
No image available
May 8, 2008
Waste food or leftover food, from the food preperation. Like cut grass and green leaves, animal offcuts, part of animal not edible, in fact anything that is organic. In fact do not use any land except for pruducing food, like bio-diesel companies are now doing. Every news report carries stories about people. who can't afford to buy their daily food ration, due to it being out of their price range. Today I was told, in the Philipines cargoe ships were offloading rice, but a lot of people coud not afford to buy it. So in the midst of plenty, there is misery and starvation. New technoogies can lead to new methods of producing energy from, hydro, tidal, wind turbines, photovoltaic's, solar heating, biomass green crops waste, geothermal. Just the sea alone has locked up in its depth, enough power to make the difference, people in Toronto use the lake which is on their doorstep, for cooling in summer months, in winter use the heat stored in the lake to warm their house's. Electricity from what is now defined as waste, from what we now consider is no further use, and so class it as rubbish and throw away. Where then it goes to landfill or gets incinerated. If landfill leads later to problems with, landfill gas, which is Methane 10 times as harnfull, as Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The company of which I am a director and shareholder, has a Highly Technical Method of, turning any organic matter, by using either anaerobes or enzymes into a gas in less than 24 hours. Evalulated by local experts at NEPIC at Wilton Centre, and local university team. Both groups admired the picture shown to them , of a bright blue flame from AD demonstrator plant. Methane is a Hazardous Gas, a highly flamable gas, last thing I want to see is a big bang on Teesside where I live. Use boilers which have low losses, High Pressure Hot Water, Check website's www.nepic.co.uk www.organicrankinecycle.com
Regards John Gregson 07796 533 430
Comment 18 of 19
No image available
June 11, 2008
It is often stated that biofuel production might have lead to increased staple food prices via additional demand for both the feedstock and land. There might however also be an indirect opposite effect and I wonder if anyone has ever modelled which one is stronger: Ralph, above you state that: "...they have contributed to meet around 30% of the growth in global demand in liquid transport fuels over the past three years ...". This means that biofuels might have dampened mineral oil price increases through increased elasticity of supply. Since however, much of the staple food production in industrialized countries depends heavily on mineral oil inputs, this might in turn also have had a dampening effect on staple food prices. I really wonder how strong latter effect might be compared to former more obvious effect. It might well be stronger, as many think land is not yet in short supply, which might change as population rises, though. I am curious as to what others think about this.
Comment 19 of 19
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
Garrad Hassan America Inc. Johnson Controls, Inc. EFD Navigant Consulting Atlantic Wind & Solar Inc. KACO new energy, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo