The market trend to heavier, more powerful hybrids is eroding the fuel consumption advantage of hybrid technology, according to a study done by researchers at the University of British Columbia.
Corn ethanol does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions - report
The Canadian federal government has invested massively in biofuels made from local crops, such as corn or rapeseed. But the effor will be of little benefit in cutting dependence on fossil fuels or reducing greenhouse emissions, suggests a study by the Canadian Library of Parliament.The report casts doubt on one of the biggest green initiatives in the Conservative budget - a US$1.5-billion investment over seven years to promote renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol. Ottawa has introduced a regulation requiring that Canadian gasoline consist of five per cent renewable content by 2010. It also intends to require that diesel fuel and heating oil contain two per cent renewable content by 2012.
However, a study by Frederic Forge of the library's science and technology division says regulations to promote biofuels will have "relatively minor impact" on reducing greenhouse emissions across Canada.
"In fact, if 10 per cent of the fuel used were corn-based ethanol (in other words, if the E-10 blend were used in all vehicles) Canada's greenhouse gas emissions would drop by approximately one per cent," says the report.
The findings once again show what other researchers have found before (here and here): both the energy balance and the greenhouse gas emissions balance of biofuels made from crops grown in the North, is mediocre.
As usual, we feel obliged to refer to the energy and GHG balance of ethanol produced in the South (see graph 1, click to enlarge). Brazilian sugarcane ethanol reduces CO2 emissions by 85% (low estimate) to 90% (high estimate) on a well-to-wheel (farm-to-tailpipe) basis. For corn ethanol, estimates differ, but some even suggest a negative GHG balance. Likewise, the energy balance of Brazilian ethanol is between 8 and 10, that of corn only between 1 and 1.2 (here too, some have found a negative balance) (see graph 2, click to enlarge). The picture remains largely the same with the introduction of cellulosic ethanol.Transporting biofuels from the South to the North (in tankers), does not alter the energy and GHG balance in any significant way (earlier post). In short, if Canada really wants to help reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, it should import biofuels from the Global South instead. That is what the experts say (earlier post and here):
biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: ethanol :: climate change :: greenhouse gas emissions :: energy balance :: The Canadian report also show that locally produced biofuels won't have much impact in reducing dependence on oil and gas: "Global production is still too small and the need for raw materials is still too high for biofuels to have a significant impact on the fuel market and be able to compete with fossil fuels."
It cites an article in New Scientist as concluding that Canada would have to use 36 per cent of its farmland to produce enough biofuels to replace 10 per cent of the fuels now used in transportation.
The drive to increase production of biofuels is also under way in the United States and other countries, leading to concern that global food prices could rise as farmland is diverted from food to energy production.
"Some observers believe that there is already competition between the two markets: according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the rising demand for ethanol derived from corn is the main reason for the decline in world grain stocks during the first half of 2006."
The study calls for greater focus on biodiesel, which in Canada is manufactured mainly from canola, and which brings a better payoff than ethanol in reduced emissions.
The author also underlines the potential of cellulosic ethanol, which is made of waste products like straw and wood chips, rather than from food crops. Iogen, an Ottawa-based company, is a world leader in this technology, and is currently negotiating to build its first commercial plant.
Asked about the study outside the House of Commons on Friday, Environment Minister John Baird said: "I think there's an issue between the tailpipe and the whole cycle and that's, I think, the substance of the report."
He said he is a supporter of ethanol and insisted that it cuts pollution: "If you look at the cycle base, the entire cycle, I think it does."
Baird said he is enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol: "I'm very big on Iogen's technology. Because it doesn't just use the corn, it uses the entire stock, and it's a world leader."
The budget provides $500 million for "next generation" biofuels, and it is expected that this will be used in part to support the Iogen process.
More information:
Frederic Forge: Biofuels - An Energy, Environmental or Agricultural Policy? [*.hmtl, or *.pdf version], Science and Technology Division, Library of Parliament, Canada, 8 February 2007
Canada.com: Ethanol investments won't do much to cut greenhouse gas emissions: report - March 30, 2007.
Globe & Mail: Ottawa's biofuel plan will have 'minor impact,' study says.Increased use of renewable resources won't dramatically reduce emissions: report - March 30, 2007
5 Comments:
Scott, you guys need to understand:
Without "Buck Rogers" there ain't no "Bucks."
If the third world wants to sell ethanol to the U.S. there has to, first, be a U.S. Market.
In order to fight off the API and build the U.S. Market you must have "Politicians." Politicians don't throw away money (the API) for any reason other than votes (think Iowa, Mn, Mo, Oh, MI, WI, and IN.)
You've gotta have the American farmer, or it doesn't work. He's Buck Rogers. He brings the "Bucks."
Sure, but you have to look at the issue in the broader context of trade negotiations and the developing world's position: Doha is on the agenda, and it deals with reducing subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products. The developing world must keep the pressure on the U.S. And biofuels are just a new weapon to use in the war over trade reform.
What's more, you don't really need to have the farmers in the North on board to get a biofuels industry off the ground. Look at Sweden, Europe's largest user of ethanol: it created a biofuels market entirely based on ethanol imported from Brazil (85%). No need to have local farmers on board.
Of course, given the immensely powerful corn and corn-ethanol lobby in the U.S., you are right.
No Republican is going to win the White House without carrying Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri.
A Democrat has to carry Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. There's your "Corn/Ethanol Lobby."
It's true Sweden has done a good job, but it's a country of nine million with an economy approx. 2% the size of the U.S. Economy.
I guess that's neither here, nor there, but the fact remains the American people aren't in the mood right now to trade their energy dependency from Riyadh to Rio. There's a pretty strong current of "Independence" swirling through the electorate, at present, and is a primary driver of the American people's willingness to embrace alternative fuels.
It's all great for Brazil, by the way. When the API is defeated, the UL is brought to heel, and the market is established there will be ample opportunity for Brazil to sell more and more biofuels into the U.S. We just use 21 Million Gallons of transportation fuels Every Day, you know?
21 Million BARRELS
Sheesh,
I guess if you're going to Bold something you could at least make sure it's right.
BTW, I Love your blog. You're just a little too tough on the home-grown stuff, is all.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home