May 12th, 2008 by John Gossop
There has been a food versus fuel debate going on, with green campaigners asking for a moratorium on all biofuel targets until sustainability criteria are in place.
This is understandable given that one result of the high demand for biofuels is the destruction of rain forests in order to grow Palm oil or soya for biodiesel. The release of CO2 from burning the forest added to the fuel inputs needed to grow and transport the biofuel mean that it will be many years, if ever, before there are any gains. This type of production is clearly of no benifit to the planet.
However, it would be a great shame if governments stopped encouraging all biofuel production as if it is done sensibly, biofuels have a crucial part to play in future food production. Targets and incentives are needed to speed up the developement of cellulosic ethanol which can deliver greenhouse gas reductions of 85% compared to conventional fuels.
Cellulosic ethanol can be made from straw and other crop residues as well as from woodland waste and dedicated crops such as miscanthus. This must be the way foreward, but experts warn that first generation biofuels must develop the market until these second generation fuels come along.
It ought to be possible to devise a system of auditing the energy balance of present biofuels so that only those with a positive balance can be used to meet government targets.
Posted in Competition from Biofuels | No Comments »
January 24th, 2008 by admin
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?
Posted in Competition from Biofuels | 1 Comment »
The removal of trees to allow the land to be used for other purposes (such as the growing of arable crops or pasture) has been taking place for many thousands of years, with steady removal going on in Europe and the US over the last few hundred years.
However, it is the extremely rapid destruction of mature tropical rain forests that is now causing such concern. It is estimated that about half of the tropical rainforests that once existed have gone, with the greatest loss in Southeast Asia. Now, massive areas are being lost in central and south America, Indonesia, Nigeria and other parts of Africa.
In the past, slash and burn by shifting cultivators was often done on a small enough scale to be sustainable because the forest could recover; but now massive areas are cleared and the nutrient-poor soils quickly become exhausted and eroded after just a few years of arable cropping. Often the local climate is affected, causing damage to the remaining forest.
So far as Peak Food goes, deforestation is a major cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect as the decay and burning of wood releases stored carbon back to the atmosphere. We are now seeing droughts and floods reducing crop production in various parts of the world.
But the use of these forests is not adding much to food production. Besides the fact that in many cases the land is often abandoned after the nutrients have been used up, much rainforest is now being destroyed not to produce food but for biofuel. Many millions of acres are going into oil palm for biodiesel or sugar cane for ethenol. These products are coming to Europe to help in the reduction of CO2 emissions, but some experts say that these fuels will never reduce emissions enough to make up for the emissions produced when the forests were burnt.
