Peak Food

As usual, the media have gone from one extreme to the other with regard the biofuel debate. Not long ago, biofuels seemed to be the way to save the planet. But now, following a confusing report from the all-party Environmental Audit Committee,  they are being reported as having a negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

The truth is that some biofuel have a good balance between the energy input needed to grow, process and transport the fuel compared with the energy contained in the fuel. Some do not.

For example, ethenol made from sugar cane in Brazil using the crop residue to provide the process heat has a good energy balance compared to ethenol from corn in the US when coal or gas is used for heat. In Europe, an oilseed rape crop has en excellent energy balance if the oil is used to produce biodiesel and the straw and seed residue is used to generate electricity or make cellolusic ethenol.

Probably the worst example of a biofuel crop having a negative impact is when rainforests are burnt to make way for oil palm plantations. Huge amounts of CO2 are emitted in burning the forest, then some more to cultivate the soil, plant, grow and harvest the crop and then ship it to Europe to help meet our renewables target.

Plainly biofuels are not all the same and the good ones have a very important part to play in the battle against climate change and energy insecurity. Peak Food believes governments should be encouraging the use of those with a good energy balance and at the same time make sure that renewable targets don’t just pull in biofuels that do more harm then good, and that energy audits are needed.  Do you agree?