After Gutenberg

In the previously noted Zah study, corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, and soy diesel had a greater composite environmental cost than gasoline. A study from the Union of Concern Scientists comparing biofuels showed a considerable variance for Corn to Ethanol In terms of CO₂. And, in terms of EROEI, corn to ethanol fares poorly.

A comparison of fuels from the Union of Concern Scientists shows a variance in life cycle global heating pollution from corn to ethanol. The energy inputs effect GHG emissions, as well as the EROEI, which is about four times less than gasoline.

Despite such knowledge, public policy pushes forward with corn to ethanol, and, without requiring such measures that could improve EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) and reduce GHG emissions. As the Biopact team has noted, “if corn ethanol plants in the US were to use biomass co-generation instead of coal-based electricity or natural gas to power their production processes – as is done in Brazil’s cane ethanol sector – they would slash off a significant bit of their emissions and the fuel would suddenly become considerably greener.”

“Although biofuels have a potentially useful role in tackling the issues of climate change and energy supply for transportation, recently noted Green Car Congress, reporting on the recommendations received by the UK’s Royal Society, “important opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, and to ensure wider environmental and social benefits, may be missed with existing policy frameworks and targets.”

The group was convened to consider the science and technology prospects of delivering efficient biofuels for transport in the broader context of the environmental protection and sustainability. The report, Sustainable Biofuels: prospects and challenges, comes at a time when the EU’s transport biofuels targets (5% of transport fuel supply from biofuels by 2010 and 10% by 2020) are coming under increasing criticism.

Although biofuels offer a number of perceived benefits—carbon-neutrality, support for emerging bio-economies, and petroleum replacement—the full picture is much more complex as different biofuels have widely differing environmental, social and economic impacts, according to the report.

The authors outlined four major caveats for biofuel use:

• “Biofuel” is much too broad a term—it covers a wide variety of products with many different characteristics and a wide range of potential savings in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

  The wide diversity and complexity of options for producing biofuels in itself presents a challenge to fully understanding the relative benefits that different biofuels can offer. It is therefore not possible to make simple generalizations about biofuels being ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Each biofuel option needs to be assessed individually, on its own merits.

• Each assessment must address the environmental and economic aspects of the complete cycle—growth of the plant, transport to the refinery, the refining process itself (including potential by-products such as specialty chemicals), wastes produced, distribution of the resultant fuel to consumers, end use, and potential for pollution. Such assessments would help to determine the extent to which different biofuels are carbon neutral.

• Widespread deployment of biofuels will have major implications for land use, with associated environmental, social and economic impacts that must in turn be assessed. Here, in particular, unintended consequences may reduce or override the expected benefits.

• The assessments must address the global and regional impacts, not just local ones.

Under the 50% reduction European Parliament target (red line) “almost all conventional types of biodiesel and ethanol produced both in the EU and the US would be banned, except for cellulosic ethanol (from wood and grass) and ethanol made from sugarbeets.” Biopact also reported that the “European Commission target (blue line) [is] likely to be a 25% CO2 reduction, [which would mean] a wider group of biofuels that reduce emissions would be allowed onto the market as green fuels.”

The authors conclude that for biofuels to deliver a realistic substitute for conventional fuels and meet sustainability criteria there must be substantial improvements in efficiency throughout the supply chain linking feedstocks to their final uses.

This will require a major research and development effort in both public and private sectors, according to the report. Key objectives should include:

• Increased yield per hectare of feedstock while reducing negative environmental impacts;

• Development of new feedstocks that can, for example, be grown in more hostile environments, be more readily processed and be capable of generating a variety of products;

• Improved methods of processing, in particular for lignocellulose feedstocks;

• New physicochemical systems for biofuel synthesis;

• Development and demonstration of integrated biorefineries;

• Integration of the supply chain to gain the maximum efficiencies;

• Integration of biofuel development with engine development;

• Internationally agreed methods of assessing sustainability.

However biofuels have a limited ability to replace fossil fuels and should not be regarded as a ‘silver bullet’ to deal with transport emissions. Progress towards a sustainable solution for transport and the demand for mobility requires an integrated approach, which combines biofuels with other developments, including vehicle and engine design, the development of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles and supporting infrastructure, public transport, better urban and rural planning to address the increasing demand for transport as well as more specific policies to reduce demand and encourage behavioural change.

GCC commentator Harvey D. observed that biofuel sustainability depends upon the feedstock used.

Using edible food stocks such as corn does not make much sense because it is already having a drastic effect on the availability and price of most other food stocks. Using our food production land to produce biofuel to keep our gas guzzlers going should not be promoted but restricted to surplus only. However, biofuel could be produced for extended periods from non-food stocks such as multiple wastes and cellulose from non-food productive land.

USA is off to a wrong start with massive corn ethanol production. Look at what happened to the price of wheat, and other feed grains in the last 12 months. Any more growth in corn ethanol production will double + the price of most food within 12 to 24 months.

The longer term solution is to reduce fuel consumption for transport vehicles by up to 80% (and more), convert fuel based HVAC to gas or electricity and remove oil furnaces, stop producing biofuel fuel with edible feed stocks and convert existing plants to use wastes and cellulose.

GCC Recommended Resources

• Sustainable Biofuels: prospects and challenges