« DOE Initiates New Energy Frontier Research Centers; $100M for Multiple Awards Beginning in 2009 | Main | Airbus Forecasts World Aircraft Fleet to More than Double by 2026; Passenger Traffic to Grow 4.9% Per Year »
IEA: Biofuels Vital to Meeting Fuel Demand
27 April 2008
Financial Times. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said that biofuels are vital to meeting current and future fuel demand.
Biofuels already make up about 50 per cent of the extra fuel coming to the market from sources outside the Opec’s oil cartel this year. This explains why fears of a retreat from biofuels this week helped drive oil prices to record levels.
William Ramsey, deputy executive director at the IEA, said: “If we didn’t have those barrels, I am not sure where we would be getting those half a million barrels [from],” adding that Opec has said it would not raise supply.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is convening a high-level international Conference on World Food Security and the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy in Rome from 3-5 June, 2008.
The FAO also recently released a report concluding that rapid increases in the large-scale production of liquid biofuels in developing countries could exacerbate the marginalization of women in rural areas threatening their livelihoods.
The study, Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production—Minimizing the Risks to Maximize the Opportunities, notes that large-scale plantations for the production of liquid biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel require an intensive use of resources and inputs to which small farmers, particularly women, traditionally have limited access. These resources include land and water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
The growing global demand for liquid biofuels, combined with increased land requirements, could put pressure on marginal lands, which provide key subsistence functions to the rural poor and are frequently farmed by women, the report noted. The conversion of these lands to plantations for biofuels production “might cause the partial or total displacement of women’s agricultural activities towards increasingly marginal lands,” with negative consequences for women’s ability to provide food, according to the report.
The report stresses the need for further research and data on the socio-economic effects of liquid biofuel production on men and women.
April 27, 2008 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28536984
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IEA: Biofuels Vital to Meeting Fuel Demand:
Comments
Issues such as the one addressed by FAO should be carefully considered by developing nations' governments prior to headlong production of biofuel crops. We are now seeing several strong second generation waste and cellulosic processes that require little land or agricultural resources. These should be considered alternatives (albeit costly at the moment) to conversion of food crops to energy crops.
The issue of gender selection appears to be one for global recognition and local solution. Local government is the proper forum for mitigation and balancing of these issues - where bias and discrimination are historically entrenched.
On the food side, a move to organic farm practices and the higher value of organic foods can balance the farming choices between fuel or food. Using more sustainable farm techniques and less pesticides and fertilizer combined with higher market prices for healthier foods - should be a priority.
Posted by: gr | Apr 27, 2008 8:24:36 AM
If each country manages their cellulose biofuel consumption and production, there should be no problems. It is when you let anyone do what ever they want without consideration for anyone else that you run into problems.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2008 8:26:13 AM
It sounds like governments won't need to provide financial incentives for biofuel producers in the future... after all, as they get a stronger hold in the market and overall fuel demand is outpacing conventional supply, the market will consume the biofuels with or without government subsidies.
So, why subsidize? Governments could instead spend the dough elsewhere, or not at all.
Posted by: stomv | Apr 27, 2008 9:50:38 AM
Even considering cellulosic biofuel, I am not sure that the competition with food will be avoided, if you grow sugar cane of switch grass on a land you won't grow wheat or corn. You can use the leaves and stem of wheat and corn instead of Kernel but that will result in a huge deficit of minerals and organic input on the soil since these parts are returned to the soil to day. Ok you can recycle the ashes or residues from fuel processibg, but still need to prove that this can effectively be managed.
Posted by: treehugger | Apr 27, 2008 9:56:29 AM
I've mentioned this before. But boosting agricultural yields with agrichar (black earth, black gold) would help both food and cellulosic biofuel production while preventing the need to bring more land under the plow, and being carbon negative as well.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 27, 2008 10:19:15 AM
The IEA is right: without biofuels we can expect a global catastrophy of unprecedented dimensions - the wholesale destruction of the poorest countries and stalled development in rapidly developing countries.
Without biofuels, oil prices would have been much higher, and general inflation as well.
By the way, for those of you who want a grip on the contribution of biofuels to food price increases. The FAO - the only body with real expertise in this regard - has just said this contribution is marginal. And that oil is far more important:
UN says oil rise hits food prices harder
By Javier Blas in London
Published: April 26 2008 03:00 | Last updated: April 26 2008 03:00
Biofuels are viewed by many as the main culprit in the food crisis, but agriculture experts say that other factors, ranging from higher demand in China to a slowdown in farming productivity growth, have greater influence on prices.
The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates biofuels have contributed to about 10 per cent of the current price rise. It argues that the surge of oil prices - through costlier fertilizer and diesel - is having a greater impact on food prices.
Jeff Tschirley, the chairman of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Bioenergy at FAO in Rome, said: "Biofuel has been made a culprit, but we don't see it as the major [factor] responsible for high food prices."
Other organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund and International Food Policy Research Institute, the Washington-based think-tank, have estimated biofuel's contribution to current higher food prices at 20-30 per cent.
The FAO considers that biofuels "offer opportunities and risks" as they can contribute to rural income, but can also help to drive food prices higher.
Some policymakers are worried that the narrow focus on biofuels - sometimes together with so-called speculation in agriculture derivatives markets - could lead to the overlooking of long-term problems, such as low investment in agriculture, the impact of climate change or how to feed a growing global population.
Corn and soyabean are among the crops whose prices appear potentially most sensitive to demand for biofuels.
George W. Bush, the US president, recently said: "If you look what is happening in corn, you're beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide."
Joseph Glauber, chief economist at the US Department of Agriculture, said there was no question that biofuels "have a strong impact on corn".
The acknowledgement of the ethanol industry's impact on corn prices could lead to lower government support to the US biofuel industry, such as cutting the current tax credit of 51 cents a gallon, but it is unlikely to trigger a full-scale U-turn.
There is already discussion among US policymakers of lowering the tax credit to 45 cents.
However, Mr Glauber cautioned about pointing to the biofuel industry as the drivers of the price of wheat, rice or vegetables, which he said was boosted by other factors.
Analysts point out, for example, that the price of lentils - a staple in India - has jumped in a year to $800 (€511, £403) a tonne from $300 a tonne even though the commodity is not used for biofuels production and neither is it competing for land with biofuel crops.
Rising demand, bad harvests because of extreme weather and export restrictions had boosted the price, said analysts.
Now if both the FAO and the IEA are right, it is very rational to promote biofuels. Despite what some populists want us to believe.
Those who think we can overcome oil depletion by investing in solar panels and EV's, need a reality check. Electrification is a very long process, needs efficiency leaps (in battery technology), doesn't work in the developing world (where cheap mobility is crucial), and is way too expensive for the time being.
In short, like the IEA says: biofuels are simply *crucial*.
Posted by: Jonas | Apr 27, 2008 11:23:02 AM
Renewable fuel done the right way can be a method for poor countries not to have to import as much oil. That is what led Brazil to start ethanol back in the 70s. Now that you have agriculture going in that poor country, it is not much more to increase food production. It is a matter of good government. Unfortunately, far too often poor countries have corrupt governments.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2008 7:24:29 PM
Check out this video of LiveFuel's algae farm:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Green_mile_Algae_in_the_tank/4660-10863_7-6785736.html
They are certainly aiming for billions of gallons per year.
Posted by: clett | Apr 28, 2008 3:08:00 AM
100 million gallons per year by 2010, is very ambitious, I wish them the best of luck. If they can make the fuel at $1 per gallon, I think that the oil companies will take an interest. The Venture Capitalists fund this stuff because there is a huge gain at the end, whether they sell or go public. Selling it all off to an oil company for 10 times their investment is a desired goal.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 28, 2008 10:05:27 AM
How are these racepond farms combating invasive species?
Posted by: gr | Apr 28, 2008 1:22:19 PM
It sounded in the video like they were going to select certain characteristics. Resistance to that might be at the top of their list.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 29, 2008 12:58:45 PM
