EU could ban its own biofuels and be forced to import all fuels from poor countries

In a twist of irony, if the European Parliament and environmentalists have things their way, they could be banning the bulk of biofuels produced in Europe and the US, slow the fight against climate change, promote fossil fuels that pump out more emissions, and force the Union to import all its biofuels from countries like Brazil, Congo or Mozambique. The entire 10 per cent target. These are some of the consequences of a campaign not thought out all that well.

The Parliament wants biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions minimally by 50 percent compared with fossil fuels. This means that a large number of 'first generation' fuels will not qualify as biofuels, even if they reduce emissions and help in the fight against climate change. The few that do, are cellulosic biofuels, which are not produced on a large scale yet, and fuels made from efficient tropical and subtropical crops. Almost none of the European or North American biofuels would meet the target.

Of course, almost all current biofuel production systems could greatly improve their GHG emissions reduction profile with relatively low-cost interventions. To cite just one example: 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 (earlier post). Many other of these efficiency and low carbon interventions can be readily applied; energy prices need to increase just a bit to make them commercially feasible.

Over the longer term, some biofuels - like biohydrogen - can even become carbon negative by coupling their production to carbon capture and storage (CCS). In that case, they would be taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. They would not merely be reducing emissions by 100%. They would go beyond that, yield 'negative emissions' and become the most radical tool in the fight against climate change. No other form of renewable energy - wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro - can ever achieve this. These energy sources remain perpetually carbon neutral.

But let's not take these exciting future prospects into account - some impatient and shortsighted environmentalists refuse to look beyond today, so let us do the same, for the sake of this exercise. Let's stick to biofuels as they are currently produced, and to the legitimate critiques leveled against them.

Absurd consequences
In that case, the EP's high and arbitrary goal could have some very strange consequences that border on the absurd. The target would imply biofuels that reduce CO2 emissions by 49.9 per cent and thus contribute in a serious way to mitigating climate change, would be banned. Imagine a fuel that would be produced in a highly environmentally friendly manner (e.g. based on herbaceous crops that slow down erosion, restore soil health, reduce nitrogen runoff and enhance biodiversity), with the fuel cutting emissions almost in half. That would be a major feat and would obviously be promoted by any rational and environmentally conscious human being. Well, for the EP and some environmentalists, such a fuel wouldn't be good enough and it would be excluded.

More logical would be to demand that a biofuel reduces emissions - plain and simple. Even if the fuel reduces CO2 by only 5%, it would still help in the fight against climate change. And all help, no matter how small, is welcome, or so we are told in other contexts.

When a low target is set - say 5%, that is, the fuel still combats climate change - a very wide range of fuels would be allowed on the market, and a flourishing biofuels industry would emerge, with many vehicles utilizing it - all contributing their bit to fighting global warming. But the EP chooses another logic: only to allow a very small number of fuels that reduce emissions radically. It is not clear which of the two strategies is the smartest, but chances are that with the EP's proposal, the EU will not see the development of a biofuels industry at all for the coming two decades, and would thus be forced to keep utilizing only fossil fuels. That would be a disastrous and absurd consequence of this high target, demanded by people who call themselves green.

This is why the European Commission is likely to propose a more rational emissions goal for biofuels - in the order of a reduction of 25 per cent. The graph shows which fuels would survive under both targets. Note that there are many different lifecycle analyses of biofuels, all coming to different conclusions with regard to the carbon balance. We took a study that is widely considered to be one of the most stringent and comprehensive ones: "A Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels" (*.pdf: German, French, English), authored by Rainer Zah, Heinz Böni, Marcel Gauch, Roland Hischier, Martin Lehmann, and Patrick Wäger, all working for the Technology and Society Lab of the Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Science and Technology, and published in September 2007. The graph breaks down the emissions released during each step in the production process, field-to-wheel.

European Parliament target: under the 50% reduction target (red line) allmost 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. Corn ethanol as produced in the US, as well Europe's own grain and potato based alcohol would be banned. All types of biodiesel would fail to qualify, except for biodiesel made from palm oil when processing residues are used for the production of energy as is done in Brazil with bagasse (not shown in the graph). The other exception is methyl ester obtained from waste cooking oil. Europe's very own large rapeseed-based biodiesel industry would have to be closed down.

For biogas, the EP target would have some bizarre consequences: methane recovered from organic waste would not qualify as a biofuel for transport, even though it has lower emissions than natural gas, which is already a relatively low carbon fuel. Likewise, methane captured from sewage sludge and used for transport energy would not qualify. Only methane from wood (bio-SNG) and biogas made from manure in highly optimised systems, or from manure with an efficient energy crop co-substrate would be retained. The emerging biogas sector based on abundant, ordinary grass crops would not be allowed to sell its gas as a transport biofuel because it reduces emissions only by up to 30% compared with natural gas. 30% is not 50%.

Ironically, contrary to fuels grown in temperate climes, biofuels made in subtropical and tropical countries will definitely qualify as biofuels - at least on the emissions front. For the alcohol fuels, these are: ethanol from sweet sorghum and sugarcane; for biodiesel, certain types of palm oil fuel but only when the residual biomass is used for the production of energy and when the crop is grown in Africa or Latin America on non-forest land. Perhaps jatropha based biodiesel would make it for emissions, but harvesting the seeds of this shrub is not likely to be mechanised anywhere soon and is in fact so labor intensive that it would probably not meet the social sustainability criteria that will be included in the revised directive - jatropha requires slave-like cheap labor.

European Commission target (blue line) - likely to be a 25% CO2 reduction: under this more rational goal, a wider group of biofuels that reduce emissions would be allowed onto the market as green fuels:
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biogas :: climate change :: European Union ::

Amongst the biodiesel crops, rapeseed would be back in business, but only under certain production schemes and in certain places. Palm oil would be in, as would U.S. soybean based diesel. Soy from Brazil results in emissions that are always too high, because the crop is grown on forest land.

Under the 25% target, ethanol would come from a wide variety of sources. Only U.S. corn ethanol would be banned, as would alcohol from potatoes and rye.

For biogas, the highly efficient grass based biogas production systems that are springing up across Europe would be retained, as would biogas from sewage sludge and from organic waste.

Conslusion
In short, these different targets would result in radically diverging consequences. Under the stringent goal, Europe would have to close virtually its entire existing biofuels sector and import everything from countries in Africa and Latin America, provided the fuels are produced in a socially sustainable way. It would be banning all fuels that reduce emissions by less than 50%, including those that achieve an interesting 49%.

Under the Commission's likely target, a wider range of biofuels would become available and all of them would help reduce carbon dioxide emissions substantially, but not necessarily radically. Not all of them would be as efficient as sugarcane ethanol, but at least some crops grown in Europe would be allowed to participate in the market. Efficient grass based biogas refineries would also be allowed in - which would be a rather rational thing to do.

The trick of anti-biofuels advocates will be to ask that all biofuels that do not reduce emissions by more than 50% be banned, and then to design social and environmental sustainability criteria so stringent as to ban all remaining biofuels. This is the strategy of those who could be denying developing countries one of the few historic opportunities they have to lift themselves out of poverty. This is a logic that could have the perverse effect of speeding up climate change.

The new directive will be published next week, January 23.

Article continues

Growcom trials commercial biogas production from banana waste - high potential yields

The thought of powering communities and vehicles on banana waste may sound a little unrealistic, but University of Queensland researcher and Associate Professor Bill Clarke, shows it is a perfectly feasible option. Between 2004 and 2005 Dr Clarke, supported by the Queensland Government through the Qld Sustainable Energy Innovation Fund (QSEIF), Ergon Energy, and The Australian Banana Growers' Association Inc., uncovered the potential to produce biogas from banana waste.

Over 310,000 tonnes of banana are grown in Australia each year, of which 250,000 tonnes are grown in Northern Queensland. Due to high consumer expectations on the quality of the fruit, approximately 30% of the bananas are rejected at the packing shed. On a global scale, around 70 million tonnes of bananas are produced each year of which 20% enter world trade.

Dr Clarke demonstrated that there are no technical barriers to digesting banana waste at a commercial scale in Australia. The process requires simple infrastructure, the feedstock is easy to handle and produces a high yield of methane per unit weight of dry banana. Based on stabilised operation in fed-batch digestion trials, the banana waste produced maximum yields of over 398 liters of CH4 per kilogram of dry banana (table showing results for one reactor, click to enlarge). With this yield, 1 ton per day can generate around 7.5 kW of electricity, enough to supply six to eight modern households.

With this large biomass resource and high yields in mind, peak horticulture organisation Growcom decided to transform Dr Clarke's lab research into a commercial scale project in North Queensland, a location where bananas are far from scarce. The venture is supported by an additional QSEIF grant.

Growcom completed the major infrastructure required for this 'Banana Waste to Energy' and is now ready to put the plant online. Infrastructure which has been built on the banana plantation of Bush Holdings at Tully conveys the waste banana material to a purpose-built anaerobic digester where gas will be produced. Loading of the digester has now commenced, utilising the pre-existing chopper unit on the host farm. Mulched banana waste enters the digester automatically via a modified chopper.

An over-riding principle of the project has been to use locally available materials and expertise wherever possible. The system must also integrate with existing farm practices. If on-farm digesters are to have a commercial future they must add to farm efficiency and be simple to operate. - Project Manager and Growcom Board Member Keith Noble

Once methane production commences (nominally two weeks from loading), gas output and quality data will be monitored to assess actual energy production. This will establish the degree of gas cleanup required and gas compression timing. The compressed methane will be stored in 100 litre cylinders. A diesel ute is being converted to run on the banana gas, as will an on-site generator for electricity production. The figures derived from these practical applications will determine the project’s overall viability and potential for replication on other farms:
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: biogas :: biomethane :: anaerobic digestion :: natural gas :: CNG :: banana :: Queensland ::

While extracting methane from bananas is technically possible, it does require careful monitoring to maximize yields. The digestion of the waste bananas has to be controlled for pH and temperature.

We demonstrated in 2004-2005 that waste bananas and stalk material within the banana bunch are a great source of methane. There are no technical problems with producing methane from bananas. However, for the process to be economically viable, we need to develop a cheaper and simpler digester compared to those that are currently used for organic waste in Europe. - Dr Bill Clarke

The Banana Growers' Association will switch a genset from diesel to biogas, but in principle the gaseous fuel - stored at moderate pressure -, can be used directly as a transportation fuel in CNG-capable vehicles, as is done in Europe.

This feedstock dedicated research into biogas production could be beneficial to many tropical developing countries where bananas and plantains are produced in large quantities, either for domestic consumption or for exports. With increasing fossil fuel prices, the technology could offer an option for waste-management that yields affordable green energy.

Dr Clarke is now working on biohydrogen production from the anaerobic digestion of organic waste using a novel membrane.


References:
Jensen, P., Hardin, M. T., Clarke, W. P., "Preliminary evaluation of banana waste as a substrate for energy generation", CHEMECA 2005 - 33rd Australasian Chemical Engineering Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 1 - 7, 2005, Institute of Engineers

Clarke, W. P., Radnidge, P., Lai, E.T., Jensen, P., Hardin, M. T., "Digestion of waste bananas to generate energy in Australia", [*.pdf] Sardina 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, pp. 497 - 498, CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre

University of Queensland: The power of bananas revealed - January 14, 2008.

Growcom: Pilot biofuel plant ready to get under way - December 4, 2007.

Article continues

Scientists: careful planning unlocks many environmental benefits of biomass besides green energy

If managed well, biomass based energy systems can have many environmental benefits besides providing green, low-carbon and renewable energy, scientists write in the latest issue of Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining, a recently launched scientific journal that studies challenges of the emerging bioeconomy. The growing plants needed to supply such bioenergy systems are being used to help solve other environmental problems such as erosion and desertification, the prevention of pollution from nitrogen runoff from agriculture, and waste water treatment.

In a review article of such established 'multifuntional biomass systems', Göran Berndes from the Department of Energy and Environment at Chalmers University of Technology in Götenborg, Sweden highlights several key examples.

• One set of systems currently running in Sweden grows willow trees and irrigates them with sewage effluent. This helps purify the sewage outflow at the same time as providing fuel.
• Other systems plant willow buffers between arable land and water ways. The willow trees use nitrogen that is being leached off the land, making good use of it instead of letting it simply pollute the rivers and seas.
• A third system that Berndes highlights is the option of growing biomass on areas of wasteland in India. Along with providing fuel, this also stops the land becoming degraded by erosion.

Biopact readers are aware of other examples: from the eradication of biodiversity threatening invasive species (e.g. bush in Namibia, water hyacinth the tropics), to soil and biodiversity restoration through polycultures of native grasses; from phytoremediation of polluted brownfields and mining sites with energy crops, or restoring soil health with terra preta and biochar to fighting desertification in the Sahel and the Sahara (the Green Wall), in Northern-Western China or in Inner Mongolia; from the restoration of entire ecosystems damaged by atmospheric nitrogen through biomass stripping for energy, to preventing deforestation by investing in efficient bioenergy - to name but a few.

Journal editor Bruce E. Dale, Ph. D., Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University thinks "We can do biofuels right or we can do them wrong. If we develop them correctly, we can achieve great environmental, economic and social benefits. It is our responsibility to look forward and shape the emerging biofuels industry so that it actually provides these benefits. With Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining we intend to shed light on the pathways by which biofuels and bioproducts can realise their enormous potential for good."

This edition of the new journal also contains papers that review:
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: bioproducts :: biorefinery :: erosion :: desertification :: nitrogen runoff :: water treatment :: phytoremediation :: conservation :: biodiversity :: ecosystem restoration ::

• Ways of pretreating cellulose containing materials so that they are more capable of releasing the energy they store.
• The different chemicals found in biomass. Cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin molecules contained in biomass will greatly improve the way that these resources can be exploited in commercial scale operations.
• The use of biomass for creating many different chemicals. At the moment oil is the source of chemicals that go into substances from paints to pharmaceuticals. Biomass could provide these, either by deliberately creating them, or by harvesting by-products of fermentation processes such as biofuel production. But to be ready for a biomass driven future we need start planning appropriate biorefineries today.

In a Comment article, US Department of Agriculture employee Wally Wilhelm explains the USDA's view point on biomass use, and argues that US policy will need to facilitate collaboration between different disciplines in order to stimulate this next generation of technology.

These reviews are all featured in Issue 1 of the 2nd Volume of Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining and all content will be freely available online via Wiley Interscience. The free access web portal www.biofpr.com which supplements the journal, has recently been updated and contains new content including the latest product news and features, patent intelligence, and community pages.

References:
Eurekalert: Biomass production - careful planning can bring many benefits - January 16, 2008.

Biopact: Tallgrass Prairie Center to study polyculture prairie hay for bio-electricity: combining conservation and restoration with bioenergy - December 03, 2007

Biopact: European project finds nitrogen damages biodiversity - biomass stripping coupled to bioenergy could offer conservation strategy - October 13, 2007

Biopact: EU and Africa to build a 'Green Wall' across the Sahara - December 09, 2007

Biopact: BioReGen project expands: greening brownfield sites with energy crops and biofuels - December 10, 2007

Biopact: China to boost forest-based bioenergy, helps win battle against desertification - July 17, 2007

Biopact: Greening the desert with biofuels: Inner Mongolia peasants show it's possible - August 14, 2007

Biopact: Biodiesel in Haïti supporting sustainable agriculture - March 27, 2007

Biopact: Researchers: invasive bush biomass in Namibia has high energy production potential - January 14, 2008

Biopact: Turning pest into profit: bioenergy from water hyacinth - June 18, 2006

Article continues

Georgia Power signs contract with biomass plant to buy output from 50MW

Georgia Power announces it has significantly increased the amount of energy under contract from independent renewable power producers and further diversified its fuel mix by signing its largest renewable energy contract to date with a plant that will use wood biomass in Georgia to make electricity.

Georgia Power and Yellow Pine Energy Company, LLC, a biomass-fired facility to be located near Fort Gaines, Ga., signed a 20-year contract for electricity that will be generated from wood waste sourced in a sustainable manner. The material will come from timber harvesting residuals and collection of non-commercial tree species, tree-thinnings, lumber scraps and wood waste reclaimed from landfills.

The Yellow Pine facility is scheduled to go into operation in 2010 and will produce 110 megawatts of renewable energy in a circulating fluidized bed combustion system. Under the contract, Georgia Power will purchase almost half of the plant’s capacity, or about 50 megawatts. One megawatt is enough energy to supply 250 Georgia residences.

The Yellow Pine contract is the largest one to date that Georgia Power has signed with a renewable generator. With the addition of this contract, Georgia Power’s energy portfolio includes contracts with five qualified biomass and renewable facilities throughout the state that generate 80 megawatts, or enough renewable energy to power more than 20,000 homes. These contracts include electricity generated from wood waste, landfill methane gas and hydro. Georgia Power also buys energy from a dozen other renewable sources when available.

Renewable electricity from Georgia’s biomass is growing rapidly for a variety of reasons. In 2006, the Georgia Legislature passed House Bill 1018 which exempts biomass from fuel sales and use taxes, thereby making it more cost competitive with traditional fuels:
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: wood :: bio-electricity :: circulating fluidized bed :: Georgia ::

Additionally, in a series of studies, the Georgia Forestry Commission was able to clearly demonstrate the energy potential for wood biomass in Georgia.

Last year, the Public Service Commission approved a plan for Georgia Power to increase up to 90 megawatts the amount of renewable generation that can be built into its base rates, and the development of a plan for additional renewable contracts in the future.

Yellow Pine is an affiliate of Summit Energy Partners, LLC and Morris Energy Group, LLC. Summit Energy is a renewable energy company formed in 2002 by its principal, Mark S. Sajer, to develop renewable plants. Summit has overall project management responsibilities for Yellow Pine. Yellow Pine received unanimous approvals from the Clay County Board of Commissioners for zoning and special use authorizations and work on various environmental permits and technical studies and approvals are continuing. Morris Energy owns and operates six power/cogen plants in the Northeast U.S. aggregating 670 megawatts.

Georgia Power is the largest subsidiary of Southern Company, one of the US’s largest generators of electricity. The company is an investor-owned, tax-paying utility with rates well below the national average. Georgia Power serves 2.3 million customers in all but four of Georgia’s 159 counties.

References:
Georgia Power: Georgia Power contracts with renewable plant - January 14, 2008.

Article continues

IDB grants $400,000 for development of biofuels in Guatemala

The Inter-American Development Bank announced approval of a US$400,000 grant from its Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiative (SECCI) for technical studies that will help implement a program to produce and promote biofuels in Guatemala.

The grant will be used by the government of Guatemala to develop a technical and regulatory framework to spur investment in domestic ethanol and biodiesel production.

The project includes macroeconomic, fiscal, agricultural, social and environmental studies that will help devise a solid framework for Guatemala’s production of biofuels. The resources will also strengthen institutions and help train key public and private participants, as well as members of civil society, in implementing legislative mandates on domestic use of biofuels.

Guatemala currently imports all fuels used in productive activities. The program will help diversify the country’s energy matrix and reduce its dependence on imports of catastrophically highly priced oil. It will also stimulate socioeconomic development in rural areas of the country:
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: Inter-American Development Bank :: Guatemala ::

This grant will help ensure that the National Biofuels Program is comprehensive and sustainable, from an economical standpoint as well as socially and environmentally. Countries need a legal and regulatory framework in order to receive investment. They have to be prepared to take advantage of international agreements such as the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement. - Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho and Laura Natalia Rojas, IDB team leaders

The program will be executed by Guatemala’s Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM).

SECCI was launched in November 2006 with an initial IDB contribution of $20 million. In addition, it has received a $2.8 million contribution from the United Kingdom.

The initiative will foster increased investments in development of biofuels, renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon financing and a broad array of sustainable energy options. In certain cases, the fund will also finance initiatives to reduce vulnerability and adapt sector policies and programs on climate change in the region, said SECCI coordinator Juan Pablo Bonilla.

Institutions eligible for SECCI funding include government ministries, national climate change authorities, planning agencies, government-owned and private corporations, regional and municipal governments, private project developers, nongovernmental organizations, and academic and research institutions.

Article continues