« King Abdullah University of Science and Technology Announces Inaugural Global Research Partnership Investigator Winners | Main | Galp Energia in Partnership with INETI and Algafuel to Develop Algae-Based Carbon Capture and Biofuel Project »
For Europe, A Second Look At Biofuels?
16 March 2008
by Jack Rosebro
Remarks made by European heads of state following the European Council’s annual Spring Summit, which was held last week in Brussels, indicate that the European Commission’s aspirations to boost the use of biofuels in European transport to 10% of total use by 2020 may well be revised to address concerns that increased biofuel production is already impacting food costs and water supplies, while accelerating deforestation and reducing the biosphere’s carbon sinks, creating a resultant intensification of man-made greenhouse gas production.
According to Euractiv1, Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, observed after the summit: “We’re not excluding the possibility that we’ll have to amend or revise our [biofuel] goals.” Regarding the viability of biofuels, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boël stated “I know that various objections have been raised, and the Commission takes them seriously. But we believe we can answer them.”
European Union officials have looked at biofuels with some interest since at least 2001 and in 2002 set an initial target of 5.75% biofuels for the transport sector, to be attained by 2010.2 However, biofuels made up just 1% of transport fuel by 2005. In March 2007, following growing concerns over energy security and climate change, EU leaders proposed raising the target to 10% by 20203 (earlier post). That target was contingent on the expected development of so-called “biofuels 2.0” via technological breakthroughs; in other words, sustainable biofuels at competitive prices:
The binding character of this target is appropriate, subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available, and the Fuel Quality Directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending.
Despite significant concerns expressed by the EU’s own Economic and Social Committee (earlier post), as well as many NGOs, the proposed 10% target was folded into an EU directive on the “Promotion of the Use of Energy From Renewable Sources”, a draft of which was released on 23 January 2008, in part because an April 2007 assessment of the effects of biofuel production4 had found:
...the impact on land use in the EU-27 is relatively modest. About 15% of arable land would be used.
That assessment, however, did not consider the effects of biofuel production outside of EU member states. Yet negative effects of biofuel demand from the West were already apparent elsewhere by 2007.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), for example, had originally estimated in 2002 that 98% of Indonesia’s ancient rain forests would be gone by 2032, caused largely by logging and the operation of pulp plantations. But by 2007—the year that the EU proposed to increase its future dependency on biofuels to 10%—UNEP found that the rainforests were likely to disappear a decade sooner, with lowland forests vanishing as well, due to an accelerated rate of deforestation coupled with “recent widespread investment in oil palm plantations and biodiesel refineries.”5
The rainforests of Indonesia are some of the last remaining habitats of orangutans. The preservation of biodiversity is, by coincidence, a priority of the European Council, which took the opportunity at last week’s summit to encourage Member States and the European Commission “to strengthen efforts aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2010 and beyond.” Deforestation such as that suffered by Indonesia is considered to be among the most aggressive drivers of climate change, second only to the anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases.
The potential for biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—as compared to conventional fuels—has also been called into question by a range of reports. In December 2006, a study of agricultural land made from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia concluded that the production of biodiesel from palm oil can, in some cases, create up to ten times more carbon dioxide than conventional diesel fuel.6 And last September, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a report titled “Biofuels: Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?”7 (earlier post), which noted that the effects of first generation biofuel technologies on food prices and the environment “suggest that the potential of conventional technologies might be closer to current production levels.”
The most current EU definition of sustainable biofuels can be found in the aforementioned draft directive of 23 January, and proposes three sustainability criteria for biofuels:
Land with high carbon stocks should not be converted for biofuel production;
Land with high biodiversity should not be converted for biofuel production; and
Biofuels should achieve a minimum level of greenhouse gas savings (carbon stock losses from land use change would not be included in the calculation).
The first two criteria appear to be unenforceable, as “high carbon stocks” and “high biodiversity” are left undefined. The last criterion is telling: according to the Directive, if a high-density carbon sink such as an old-growth forest is cut down to make way for a low-density, intermittent carbon sink such as a soybean field, any so-called greenhouse gas savings would be calculated as if the rainforest never existed. Furthermore, no criteria exist to ensure that the production of biofuels does not erode food supply. However, the draft directive indicates that public consultations on the three criteria prior to their publication was positive:
In the responses, there is general support for such criteria from most respondents, with many proposing further reinforcements to the scheme.
In truth, last January was rocky for proponents of biofuel expansion in Europe. On the ninth of that month, seventeen NGOs, including Friends Of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace Europe, sent a letter to one of the European Commission’s most ardent biofuels enthusiasts, energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs, noting that the biofuels directive lacked standards to prevent the destruction of carbon sinks to create biofuel feedstocks, or to prevent social impacts:
The scramble to supply European markets [with biofuels] is already causing frequent land disputes, forced evictions... and poor working conditions.
On the fourteenth, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas admitted in a BBC interview broadcast that “we [the Commission] have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were.”
A few days later, an unpublished working paper by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) was leaked to the media. In the document, EU scientists wrote “...the uncertainty is too great to say whether the EU 10% biofuels target will save greenhouse gas or not.” Rob Vierhout, secretary general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association, or eBIO, retorted that “it has always been the agenda of the JRC to discredit biofuels ever since they started their Well-to-Wheel project with the oil and car industry.”
Concerns about the effect of increased biofuel production on food, water, and greenhouse gas production have not swayed Commissioner Piebalgs, who proclaimed yesterday on his official blog:
I myself drive an ethanol-powered Saab 9-5 and certainly I would not even think of it if I had the slightest suspicion that I’m contributing in any way to global warming, or, even worse, to an international genocide. This is why I consider that it is essential to regain a sense of proportion in this debate and try to have a discussion on this issue that is less intemperate and one-sided.8
It is not known whether or not Piebalgs has studied last week’s report “Climate change and international security”9 (earlier post), which was produced at the request of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and released to the public just prior to the summit. The report painted a grim portrait of future agricultural production and access to water in many parts of the world, including key trade partners with Europe, if the effects of climate change prove to be significant.
Although Solana’s report raised red flags by examining the potential effects of warming regions exclusive of the burdens of biofuel production, there is widespread concern that the worldwide agricultural sector could be deprived of arable land needed to meet rising food demand, at a time when global warming is already causing desertification in many areas.
Some of the most strident opposition to biofuels has come from the UK, which has already passed a law mandating that at least 5% of commercially available transport fuel be biofuels. Many of that country’s NGOs refer to biofuels as agrofuels, rejecting the prefix “bio” as a misleading association of fuel with life. Popular environmental writer George Monbiot of The Guardian called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels immediately after the EU’s 2020 biofuel target proposal moved forward last year.
And building on the call for “caution in the expansion of global biofuel demand” in Part I of the UK’s King Review of Low-Carbon Cars, Part II10 (earlier post) has advocated “moving the short-term focus back from biofuels to automotive technology” and “revising the EU Fuel Quality Directive [from which arises the 10% biofuel target] downward.”
The EU presidency rotates next to France in July. With regard to biofuels, France’s Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet said “it will belong to the French Presidency to see where we go on this but there is no definite position for the moment. A review has not been excluded.” If the directive is finalized, it will be submitted to the European Parliament as legislation.
Footnotes (Click on number to return to position in main text)
1 Euractiv, March 14, 2008: “EU signals possible retreat on biofuels”
2 Council of the European Union, November 2002: Directive 2002/.../ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (draft)
3 European Commission, January 2008: “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy From Renewable Sources” (draft)
4 European Commission, April 2007: “The impact of a minimum 10% obligation for biofuel use in the EU-27 in 2020 on agricultural market”
5 UNEP and UNESCO, February 2007: “The Last Stand of the Orangutan. State of Emergency: Illegal Logging, Fire and Palm Oil in Indonesia’s National Parks”
6 PEAT-CO2 assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia
7 OECD, September 2007: “Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?”
8 Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, 14 March 2008: “Biofuels: good or evil” (blog)
9 Council of the European Union, March 3, 2008: “Climate change and international security”
10 Her Majesty’s Treasury, UK: The King Review of low-carbon cars, part II: recommendations for action
March 16, 2008 in Biodiesel, Biomass, Biomass-to-Liquids (BTL), Ethanol, Europe, Fuels, Policy, Sustainability | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/27138784
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference For Europe, A Second Look At Biofuels?:
Comments
Europe needs both sustainable biofuels and improved vehicle efficiency, it's not an either-or proposition.
The most attractive biofuels options are biomethane from fermented wet biomass, SNG from woody biomass and, BTL from dry biomass. In all of these, the feedstock is cellulose, something the ethanol industry is still struggling with. The co-produced CO2 could and should be used to grow algae. The protein left over after processing those for fuel should be used to farm fish rather than land animals. The approach is called the integrated farming system.
While oil algae can also use CO2 from coal- and gas-fired power plants in the short run, eventually all electricity generation should be based on integrated solar, wind, biomass and hydro power.
The car industry can and will adapt to whatever energy sources that can be made available in a sustainable fashion. That means ramping up NG vehicles featuring direct NG injection and ANG tanks. It also means making 70% of all diesel passenger cars compatible with high biodiesel and ethanol blends long before those grades are actually available.
Finally, it means adding plug-in capability to small gasoline-powered cars. Alternatively, car makers could start producing electric bicycles. The EU would need to change the regulatory framework for the car industry to facilitate these changes and, invest in the infrastructure required for safety, theft prevention and recharging.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 16, 2008 7:20:57 AM
"...ramping up NG vehicles featuring direct NG injection and ANG tanks."
This makes sense, when you make the NG SNG made from biomass.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 16, 2008 8:29:03 AM
Raphael:
Many will agree with most of the ideal solutions you mentioned.
What are the chances that even 30% will be developed and used on a massive worldwide scale by 2030?
Priority should be given to develop and produce ways to reduce waste and fuel consumption (not essential travel) by up to 75%. Of course this would mean widespread massive use of PHEVs and BEVs.
If we apply the proper solution first, many unsustainable blends could could become sustainable.
Posted by: Harvey D | Mar 16, 2008 9:00:55 AM
Second that. The multifaceted approach is the only one that will work, with the one common need being efficient technology at all steps. Bad engineering errors now will cost billions later.
With biofuels, there are two real scale-limiting issues: production of the raw materials, and availability of biorefineries.
Production of raw materials is limited by agriculture, which also supplies food and fiber. Agriculture itself is under threat from global warming even under current conditions - heat waves and large forest fires are now a regular feature of EU summers, as in 2003 and 2006, when crops losses were as much as 20-50%. On the plus side, biofuels can be grown on marginal and heavily polluted soils, and can actually be used to clean up and restore such soils.
The other main option here is single-celled algae, which produce the maximum yield of hydrocarbons (as long-chain fatty acids) - they also formed the basis of our global petroleum reservoirs. That's another way around the "food or fuel" issue.
However, all the raw materials in the world are useless unless you can convert them to usable products. There isn't any one best way, there are dozens. For example, pyrolysis or thermal cracking of biomass produces methane, charcoal, and crude oil. Charcoal is a good soil additive for damaged or nutrient-poor soils. Then you have fatty acid esterification with alcohols, i.e. biodiesel production, and many other routes.
Posted by: ike | Mar 16, 2008 9:50:02 AM
Second look at biofuels? Indeed, they should take a second look at their level of ambition. By 2020 they target a transportation infrastructure that is based on 90% fossil fuels. This is ridiculously low and it is going nowhere to stop global warming from accelerating to more dangerous heights. The politicians need to step it up and get serious about eliminating the emission of green house gases. 10% biofuels by 2020 is an insult to the planet and future generations. Biofuels (all sorts) and electric propulsion in combination should be able to replace much more than 10% of fossil fuels by 2020. Unfortunately, it probable takes oil at $200 per barrel until things start to get moving as fast as they should. Many politicians are not doing their job and too many people in the business community (but definitely not all) also naively thinks that tomorrow will be business as usual with $60 a barrel and no serious stress on agricultural ecosystems from the global warming of our planet. It is fine that a review is done to do more to promote biofuels with the largest CO2 reductions but the goal of 10% by 2020 is irresponsibly low.
Posted by: Henrik | Mar 16, 2008 9:55:58 AM
If you want electricity, don't forget nuclear.
Slowing down the rush to biofuels makes sense, but speeding up the rush to efficient cars also makes sense - and this seems to be happening in Europe.
Realistically, all we need is a proper battery and 20 years and we can switch most vehicules to electric, via PHEVs if the batteries are slow in coming (which seems likely).
Alternately, install a network / system of charging stations (and standards for them) so people can get by on a 50 KM range.
Part of the problem is that people buy cars which far exceed their actual needs 95% of the time.
If they could buy/rent electric cars for everyday use, and then rent liquid fueled cars for long runs, you could save a lot.
[ Or a really good battery could put the whole thing to bed ].
Posted by: mahonj | Mar 16, 2008 10:18:37 AM
In these commentaries, the bio-fuel advocates are out in force....not one mention of why Europe is taking a second look at bio-fuels. One of you even said bio-fuels should be increased. Shame on all of you.
Bio-fuels is pitting hungry engines against hungry people. Will you feed your hungry engines before you feed hungry people? This is a world-wide situation, & the hungry in poor countries are starving. All your trash talk about mitigating circumstances, algae, & non-food stocks to continue bio-fuels will just starve more people.
This was already thrashed out on February 27,2008 on this website in 36 billion gallons of bio-fuel.
You get your food, fill your bellies, then espouse policies that will empty bellies in the 3rd & 4th worlds. Bio-fuels will be so ravenous as to affect middle class individuals...& already is.
Posted by: litesong | Mar 16, 2008 11:03:13 AM
I think there is a need to look at this from a global strategic scale, in terms of accelerating the movement from first generation biofuels to a generation which promotes algae-based growth for the production of petroleum based fuel products that we will be able to use in the cars that are produced today.
Its all fine and well promoting electric cars, but no-one can guarantee where the electricity will come from. As coal fired stations are likely to stay around for a long time, I dont think this will be the answer.
Electric cars themselves creates a whole new environmental problem, ending the lives of existing vehicles prematurely, even for SUVs is not a good use of resources. Plus using batteries for storage does not appeal to me as they will need to be replaced frequently at huge cost, then there's the problem of disposal - not good.
I'd rather see the existing fleet run on greener fuels, and see them become replaced eventually through 'natural rates' with new more efficient vehicles. If downsized but equally powerful engines is the answer, then why not.
Posted by: Chillegibbo | Mar 16, 2008 11:06:37 AM
==If you want electricity, don't forget nuclear.==
Well, sure. Now who is going to pay for it?
Cause right now Nuclear is essentially a bloated federal monopoly, which can't get a thin dime of capital investments from Wall Street.
US/Japan, it's not officially a monopoly. But it gets more federal subsidies per year than coal and gas combined.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 16, 2008 11:09:54 AM
mahonj:
China, India and many other countries will mass produce $3,000 to $4,000 (USD 2008) 21 to 28 KWh quick charge battery packs before 2020.
By that time, series PHEV-100+(KM) with efficient mini range extender and BEVs should be cheaper to make than current ICE gas guzzlers.
Current 5% to 10% ethanol-biofuel should be sufficient to meet 90% to 95% of the reduced fuel required for new ground transortation vehicles . The other 5% to 10% could be from tar sands etc.
Posted by: Harvey D | Mar 16, 2008 11:11:07 AM
Henrik is correct. The 10% figure is too low. And the multifaceted approach is the only practical one. It is curious how the algae solution has been studiously avoided in these scenarios. With the exception of a few US-based startups and one big oil(Shell) JV, there has been little in the way of serious investment in this technology. It has been kicked around since the DOE Aquatic Species Study, now more than ten years old. Here is a biofuel technology with positive impact on CO2 and food resources (protein for fish farms), and mystifyingly little effort to fast-track it. Where is EU's report on this? Where is China, India, US?
The Indian State of Orissa has announced it has set aside 600,000 hectares fallow land for growing Jatropha and Karanj. Brazil claims their first large scale cellulosic ethanol plant will start operations in 2011 using bagasse feedstock. Germany's Verbio Vereinigte BioEnergie, EU's largest producer of biofuels plans to build a facility in Bulgaria near a Black Sea port city. EU should encourage these efforts by raising targets for 2020 AND investing in the businesses needed to meet those targets. Targets are meaningless without funding the businesses to deliver the fuel.
Posted by: gr | Mar 16, 2008 11:41:31 AM
The good thing about biofuels is that they can help end world hunger. Hunger is a rural problem, caused by lack of investment in agriculture (75% of the world's 850 million undernourished people live in rural areas).
For the first time in decades, because of biofuels, African countries are seeing investments in agriculture. At last. This brings hopes to the world's poor.
It's a counter-intuitive thought, that's why not many have picked it up. However, some experts have written about it, though. The WorldWatch Institute and the FAO, for example, are unambiguous about it: if biofuels are put in the right framework, they offer one of the biggest opportunities to end hunger and rural poverty.
For that reason alone, they should be promoted.
Posted by: Jonas | Mar 16, 2008 1:41:57 PM
The french do pretty well with Nuclear. Also the Germans, but their greens are frothing at the mouths over it.
The greens have done such as good job of frightening the west about Nuclear that it's future is not sure (in the west).
One thing is sure, you won't run an economy on wind and wave, and the gas won't last forever. If you think nuclear power is bad for your health, wait till you try blackouts.
On the other hand, developing countries have a different set of priorities and may well adopt it on a large scale. From a GHG perspective this is a good thing, from a proliferation perspective, it is probably not a good thing.
Lets hope the Chinese and Indians develop the battery packs and that they actually work - because burning fossil fuels for transport won't be viable for very long.
Using gasoline or diesel for long runs may make sense, but it is very wasteful for short (<30 km [say]) runs where you could use electric power.
People may also have to get used to smaller vehicles, and stop lugging 2700 Kg of metal to bring a brief case to work.
If people drove 1000 KG vehicles, the biofuels or batteries would go a lot further. Getting people happy to do this is the challenge - as long as they feel they might have to pull a boat (at short notice) it will be hard to get them out of their SUVs.
[ Better still if they shared rides, or used public transport, but that is another day's work ]
Perhaps you could call ride sharing "semi public" travel !
So a combination of technology and regulation could get us beyond fossil fuels, without doing a civilization reset in the mean time.
@Jonas - hunger is a problem of the poor, and a lot of the poor live in 3rd world cities. They do not benefit from higher food prices, they go hungry. Certainly 3rd world farmers will benefit, but the rest of the 3rd world will go a deal hungrier, and some/many will starve.
We may have to go a bit slower with biofuels to avoid greatly increased starvation in the 3rd world.
I am not saying "don't do biofuels", I am saying, lets go a bit slower so we can respond as the situation develops.
Posted by: mahonj | Mar 16, 2008 3:40:21 PM
@ Harvey D -
much of the required technology exists today, the algae part is ramping up rapidly. At current oil prices, all of it is profitable, in some cases wildly so. Plus, you get to reduce the twin problems of dependency on foreign oil and global warming.
Even some oil companies are beginning to think in terms of alternatives to digging up more fossil oil, though admittedly their first instinct is to dig up more fossil gas or oil shale instead.
The only real barrier to market entry is the fear that oil prices will drop sharply if - not when - a major economy goes into a major recession or, if the oil industry rigs the market to kill budding competitors. The oil age will not end because of a shortage of oil but because we choose to end it. The question is: do we have the courage to end it?
@ litesong -
not all biofuels are created equal. It all depends on what feedstock you use, how much land and water you need for that, how much fertilizer you need, how much N2O soil bacteria give off etc. Algae grown in a CO2-rich medium flowing through rows of vertical bioreactors are a very different feedstock than corn, soy or rapeseed.
It would be foolish to throw out the baby with the bath water. We need conservation, electrification *and* biofuels. We can't afford not to pursue any one of these. However, the result must be sustained indefinitely - eternity is a timescale most people know how to deal with only on a spiritual level, if at all.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 16, 2008 3:55:20 PM
Raphael, your last statement gives one pause. One hopes that we do our best to put sustainability in place today, and that we will have the wisdom to modify it as necessary over an eternity.
What Jack Resebro's report here does is indicate a need for better resource management. According to the UNEP, UNESCO report, Indonesian rainforest loss due to palm oil plantations is a solvable issue. While Malaysia and Indonesia produce some 83% of the world's palm oil,(actually increasing food resources) it is expanding into sensitive wildlife habitat. New plantations have increased from 2,000km2 to 30,000km2 since 1967. The problem is the expansion utilizes forest instead of other cleared, suitable land.
"Palms tend to be planted on newly-cleared forest land, rather than abandoned agricultural land, despite the availability of large amounts of suitable cleared areas." UNESCO
Malaysia, and Indonesia need to address this growth as a sovereign land-use issue. The impact of bioenergy crops need not be damaging to these countries if they manage land resources better. I suspect this applies to other crops and other countries as well. And of course should algae technology be seen as a highly viable solution - much of this report will be rendered moot.
Posted by: gr | Mar 16, 2008 5:15:20 PM
Rafael...Sure, bio-fuels aren't created equal. But what you see is NOT what decision-makers are seeing. Already bio-fuel decisions AGAINST the poor have been made blindly & uncaringly(I think uncaringly). Also, people will decide to fill their hungry engines, instead of their hungry people.
Don't set up economies that pit hungry engines against hungry people. Because you don't decide who or what gets filled...blind decision-makers decide who or what gets filled.
Posted by: litesong | Mar 16, 2008 6:59:08 PM
According to GreenFuel Technologies, what they plan to do is eventually burn some of the oil refined from the oil-laden algae (after all, the oil from oil-laden algae is easily refined into easily burned heating oil!) to continually power the entire production process. That way, it becomes a self-sustaining process.
Oil-laden algae is probably the best biomass out there to make biofuels, because the oil processed from the algae can be made into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene for jet fuel and the solid waste from the initial processing can be processed further into ethanol fuel or plant fertilizer.
Posted by: Raymond | Mar 16, 2008 7:26:40 PM
Its not just EU and its not just biofuels. There has to be more rationalization of ALL fuels. Right now, its OPEC, speculators, and BushCheneys "global war on everyones pocketbooks and savings accounts".
Insidious corn-ethanol has pushed up many food commodity prices while doing little to add to the fuel pool. The commissioners E85 Saab runs on cane-ethanol, but its dieseled from Brazil. Surely the planet will be better off when more fuels are locally grown/produced.
Why did B100 go from $3.50/gal two weeks ago, to over $5.50 today?
Posted by: fred | Mar 16, 2008 8:27:50 PM
Rafael:
Seems to me you are getting over-enthusiastic over biomethane (been here too). It is indeed great supplement, but hardly substantial substitution to traditional fuels. Unfortunately, as with all other alternative fuels/energy sources, it is not scalable over single digit percentage in energy mix, at least at current state of technology – or ever.
Harvesting and especially transporting biomass on large scale is not economical (energy usage very quickly catch-up with energy yield when operations expand). Biomass energy recovery makes great sense when we are talking about readily collected organic wastes, like waste from lumber, pulp&paper, forestry, or food processing industries. Better yet, some wet organic wastes require anaerobic digestion any way –from environmental considerations – like sewage sludge, meat packing, livestock manure, etc. A lot of carbon-rich organics could be derived from municipal and agricultural garden clipping (currently aerobically composted), forest clearing, wet municipal solid waste processing, demolition waste, and alike. All of these waste streams and some local biomass additions indeed are economical to digest for biomethane, biosoil, and fertilizer recovery (fertilizer recovered always yield more profit than biomethane recovery, BTW).
Also, do not forget that even waste derived biogas is not always the best use of organic waste or harvested biomass. Anaerobic microorganisms do not consume lignin, which constitute 30-40 % of woody biomass. So, dry organic waste such as timber, bark, straw is more economical to use as heating fuel (wood pellets), co-combust with coal in cement kilns and steam boilers (#1 source of biomass energy in US and EU), or gasify/pyrolize to produce liquid transportation fuel.
Posted by: | Mar 16, 2008 8:58:32 PM
Sorry, last post was mine.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | Mar 16, 2008 8:59:31 PM
@ Andrey -
the EU is looking for 10% sustainable biofuels for the transportation sector by 2020. Between biomethane, SNG, BTL and algal biodiesel, that might just be possible.
They could also reach the target with ethanol and biodiesel from higher plants, but it wouldn't be sustainable.
Also, note that people do conserve energy when it's expensive - though it takes many years for this effect to become significant. Biofuels of all descriptions are expensive, though for now at least, economically competitive with fossil oil and gas. If total fuel demand can be reduced, then the biofuel volume that does get produced will represent a larger share of the total.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 17, 2008 5:03:16 AM
Chilleqibbo:
"Plus using batteries for storage does not appeal to me as they will need to be replaced frequently at huge cost, then there's the problem of disposal - not good."
First: Newer LiFePO4 batteries have over 2000 cycles (as compared to 300 for Pb/acid). IIRC the more expensive Altair batteries have over 15000 cycles. So, depending on usage, even the LiFePO4 could last up to 10 years. I'd hardly call that frequently. The cost is coming down.
Second: Large batteries recycle.
The only caveat on EVs is that you need to produce the electricity cleanly, which is something we need to do a better job of anyway. EVs with smart charging actually make the implementation of renewables easier to do.
Posted by: Neil | Mar 17, 2008 7:44:53 AM
==re: Rafael on Algae==
You might want to curb your enthusiasm on Algae.
greyfalcon.net/algae4
greyfalcon.net/algae5
==re: Neil
The only caveat on EVs is that you need to produce the electricity cleanly, which is something we need to do a better job of anyway.==
Well, take the world's dirtiest coal plants, hook them up to an electric car, and it's still going to be cleaner than burning petroleum. Especially when you toss Canadian tar sands into the mix.
greyfalcon.net/plugins7
Clean electricity would make it better, however it's not needed as a qualification to make it better than the status quo.
Posted by: greyflcn | Mar 17, 2008 7:58:04 AM
@ greyflcn -
even if GreenFuel's clims are exaggerated as you suggest, that does not invalidate the concept of growing algae to keep more fossil oil & gas in the ground. There are issues with water and phosphorous but CO2 can be piped and trace minerals obtained externally.
The technology is still in its infancy and there will be teething trouble. It will also take longer than claimed to achieve high production volume. So what, we've still got to try because conservation alone will not be enough.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 17, 2008 9:07:35 AM
The fact that GreenFuel hasn't said much lately leads me to think that there is a very good chance that it's because they may very well be negotiating with another party for the building of a commercial scale facility and don't want to negotiate through the media (the same reason that Iogen has disappeared from the headlines)
Posted by: Neil | Mar 17, 2008 10:11:57 AM
The reason Iogen has disappeared is because their technology sucks.
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.png
_
As for biofuels in general, consider this.
The theoretical maximum efficiency of photosynthesis is 11% sunlight captured.
Algae gets into the 6-8% range.
And then you lose about 90% of that energy using the maximum efficient conversion processes.
All in all we're dealing with extremely weak solar efficiencies.
_
If anything, if you want a device which you put in CO2, sunlight, and water, and out pops liquid hydrocarbons, you'd be better off looking at SolarThermal derived Syngas fuels.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 17, 2008 12:42:14 PM
Chillequibo:
"Plus using batteries for storage does not appeal to me as they will need to be replaced frequently at huge cost, then there's the problem of disposal - not good."
This statement seems self contradictory. On one hand, you say that disposal of the batteries is problematic. But then you say that replacing them frequently would be costly. Then by definition, wouldn't there be a high cost incentive to recycle the battery materials back into new batteries, since it is so expensive?
But all indications are that they last at least 10 years anyways, as of today's technology.
According to their website, Phoenix is selling fully electric SUV's for $50K. With higher production volumes you know the direction this price will go.
Posted by: MarkBC | Mar 17, 2008 12:53:24 PM
Prepared to eat some crow GreyFlcn? I predict that you'll be hearing more about Iogen some time this year ... on a commercial scale this time. The big question is which country will get the plant.
Posted by: Neil | Mar 17, 2008 1:18:42 PM
Maybe this will shed some light:
http://www.iogen.ca/news_events/press_releases/SDTC_Iogen_Mar_14_E%20_2_.pdf
Posted by: gr | Mar 17, 2008 2:46:47 PM
Will you be prepared to eat crow if we don't, Neil? I doubt we'll here much from Iogen again...
Posted by: | Mar 17, 2008 2:49:25 PM
I was about to post that if I was wrong I'd serve myself crow with a red wine, but gr's last post means that I'll have to cancel my order and stick to chicken. I didn't think that the news would get out that fast!
Posted by: Neil | Mar 17, 2008 3:27:45 PM
