Tuesday 7 February, 2012. The Green Piece Column.

Last week was a bad week for the biofuel industry with leaked data from the European Commission (see story) seeming to support the stance of charities Friends of the Earth (FOE) and ActionAid in suggesting that some of our current biofuel sources are inexcusably unsustainable (see story).

And it is not just here in Europe that biofuels seem to be falling foul of environmental regulations. Over in the US, the country’s Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that biofuel made from palm oil fails to meet its new greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments as part of its Renewable Fuel Standard (see story).

While much of the industry will point out that one source of biofuel is not the same as another, and that the manner of production bears a great deal on the end GHG assessments, there is no denying, that both the US and Europe have been quick to bring in policies that support the use of biofuel in transport, ahead of measures and safeguards to ensure these fuels actually offered an environmental advantage. The European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), first introduced in 2008, brought in a 10 per cent target for renewable fuels in transport fuel by 2020. Green groups at the time warned that member states would likely depend on biofuels to meet the target, and that such a policy would cause widespread environmental and social problems.

Four years later, and the problems are only now beginning to be addressed, after much protest and bad press in the intervening period. With the EC now desperately trying to clean up the mess by introducing new Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) assessments into its policies, it is becoming clearer just how much of a mess has been created by the rush for biofuels.

Repent at leisure

This week’s leaked data from the EC’s ILUC assessments suggests that some sources of biofuel are not just more polluting than conventional petrol and diesel but are even close to being as filthy as that dirtiest of fossil fuels; tar sand oils, which attract a rating of 107g CO2 equivalent per megajoule of fuel (CO2/mj). Biodiesel derived from palm oil is rated at 105g according to the leaked assessments with conventional fossil fuel sources given a 87.5g rating, which means that that soybean (103g), rapeseed (95g), and sunflower (86g) sources, also exceed ordinary fossil fuel once ILUC is factored in.

Another problem biofuel policies have been linked to is a rise in food prices and land grabbing deals; driving hunger among the world’s most vulnerable, poor people. These claims have been supported by some very high and mighty authorities including the International Food Policy Research Institute, International Land Coalition (see story) , the World Bank (see story),the Massachusetts Institution of Technology (see story) and the Nuffield Council of Bioethics (see story) among others.

And even in wealthy, western countries, biofuels are expected to cause trouble. According to new research released last week by Friends of the Earth and ActionAid, Europe’s 10 per cent target could cost UK motorists up to £2bn more a year at the fuel pumps by 2020 (see story) making current biofuel policies hard to justify from just about any perspective.

Of course, there are many different sources of biofuel and many different ways of producing biofuel, some of which are still in the process of development, so it is important that we don’t throw baby out with the bath water. After all, the leaked EC data also shows some encouraging results, especially for second generation fuels. For example second generation, non-land using ethanol and biodiesel are rated with a tiny footprint of 9g CO2/mj.  The ‘non land-using’ term could sound a bit confusing, it can mean that the biofuel is a by-product of food production, say wheat straw, and although it is therefore a product of the land, it does not require land of its own to produce.

Second-generation fuels definitely seem more promising, with waste biomass or non-food crops the sources of choice. However there are concerns that even these fuels could cause problems, if they are not properly managed and handled. For example, one second generation fuel, a non-food crop, known for its ability to grown on marginalized scrub-land is Jatropha (pictured above). However just because it is hardy enough to grow where food crops can’t, doesn’t mean it won’t be grown on traditional farmland, especially if the price for the fuel is right. After all it will grow even better on nutritious soil, so there is still concern that poor people will be priced off their farmland to make way to grown crops to stick in rich people’s tanks. A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) entitled ‘Sustainable Production of Second-Generation Biofuels’ and published in 2010, much concurred with these concerns and while it recognized that second generation fuels have strong potential, it recommended that more research be conducted to ensure that these fuels have real economic, social and environmental benefits.

Our verdict: Clean up and proceed with caution

There is undoubtedly a big difference between the production of first generation fuels, grown where rainforests once flourished or where farmers once grew crops to feed local people and the sensible recycling of waste products born from food production. But GHG social impact assessments need to be thorough, safeguards put in place to ensure that corrupt producers don’t attempt to dodge or undermine those assessments and research into more efficient, cheaper and better sources of fuel need to continue.

The venture into biofuels need not stop at second-generation fuels either, there are third generation fuels such as algae and fourth generation (loosely defined as genetic modified fuel sources, often using genomically synthesized microbes to produce a carbon-negative end product) to consider too, and though these might be a way off yet, these could yet yield interesting results. In the meantime however, biofuels need to clean up their act and Europe needs to publish the official GHG assessments as soon as possible-any attempt to hide the mess will only make the publicity for biofuels worse. It would be more of a disaster if research into new fuels is undermined by the storm of controversy caused by the use of first generation fuels. We’ve one message for Europe and the US; go back to the lab and rethink your approach.

Faye Sunderland.

Motorists will end up paying up to £2 billion more on forecourts in 2020- according to a new study- if the government increases the proportion of biofuels in petrol to 10 per cent as planned under EU renewable energy targets.

Current biofuel policies will not just cause environmental problems, but will actually drive fuel prices higher and drive hunger in developing countries the new research commissioned by the charities ActionAid and Friends of the Earth (FOE) suggests.

A study undertaken by the Global Subsidies Initiative, this plan could result in an extra 13 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year in the UK and increase the the cost of fuel by the equivalent of an additional litre on every full tank.

The charities also express concern that the EU transport policies are causing problems in developing countries, where people have been pushed off their land to make room for biofuel crops, increasing local food prices and driving hunger.

The research is released in a week that has already seen a lot of bad publicity for the biofuels industry. Data from the leaked from the European Commission (EC) earlier this week, suggests that some sources of biofuels are nearly as polluting as tar sand oils (see story) while the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that palm oil biofuel had failed to meet its GHG standards under the Renewable Fuel Standard (see story).

Meredith Alexander, ActionAid UK’s Head of Policy said: "The UK must scrap its biofuel targets. Motorists, the environment and poor people in developing countries will bear the brunt of this ill-conceived directive. Prices at the pump will be higher and so will CO2 emissions. Increased biofuel production will have disastrous consequences as food prices are forced up and millions of people go hungry and lose their land."

Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth’s Biofuels Campaigner said: "The Government keeps talking about bringing down costs but here we are paying billions for biofuels that do nothing to boost our economy and nothing to tackle climate change.

"This money would be better spent on improving our train and bus services, promoting cleaner cars, and making cycling a much safer option for short journeys – saving people cash every day."

As well as hitting consumers’ pockets hard, biofuels are bad for business – by 2020, the charities’ research estimates that a typical UK lorry driver will be spending as much as £1,400 extra per year on diesel.

Biodiesels made from palm oil, soybean and rapeseed are more polluting than than regular fossil fuel sources, according to new data from the European Commission leaked to Euroactiv.

New analysis from the Commission, assessing the effects of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) and leaked to the press, suggests that greenhouse gas emissions from some biodiesel sources are nearly as high as even that dirtiest of fossil fuel sources; the much demurred tar sand oil.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told Euroactiv, she could “not comment on leaked documents, such as impact assessments which have not been published.”

Although the data is not yet officially published, it gives some interesting insights into just how much the environmental footprint of various sources of biofuel can differ.

Second generation fuels; however, such as those derived from crop by-products like straw show a much better environmental footprint and comfortably out-perform conventional fossil fuels.

But fuels derived from palm oil; particularly where forests and natural vegetation have been cleared to accommodate their production, have been ascribed a rating of 105g CO2 equivalent per megajoule of fuel (CO2/mj), compared to the 107g rating awarded to oil derived from tar sands. Conventional fossil fuel sources are given a 87.5g, which means that that soybean (103g), rapeseed (95g), and sunflower ( 86g), all exceed it once ILUC is factored in.

Meanwhile second-generation sources comfortably outperform conventional petrol and diesel and could prove important fuel sources for cutting carbon emissions. Land-using, second generation ethanol is rated at 32g, corn  at 43g, Sugar Beet at 34g and second generation land-using biodiesel at 21g. Best of all, second-generation, non-land using ethanol and biodiesel are rated with a tiny footprint of 9g CO2/mj. 

The European Union currently targets 10 per cent of all transport fuels to be biofuel by 2020, but has been put under pressure from environmental groups to properly assess the impact of biofuel sources to ensure that they offer an advantage over traditional fuels.

Biodiesel and renewable diesel formed from palm oil may not make the grade as an alternative to petrol-based diesel fuel.

That’s the verdict of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which has conducted a greenhouse gas analysis on both biodiesel and renewable diesel formed from palm oil and estimated greenhouse gas emission reductions at just 17 per cent and 11 per cent respectively compared to the statutory baseline of 97kgCO2e/mmBtu outlined in the Renewable Fuel Standard. This means neither meets the 20 per cent reduction performance threshold required.

According to the Clean Air Act, there needs to be a 20 per cent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for renewable fuel that is produced at new facilities; a 50 per cent reduction for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel; and a 60 per cent reduction in the case of cellulosic biofuel.

As part of its assessment of palm oil, the EPA took into account energy and emission inputs for both fuel and feedstock production; and also looked at global land use change greenhouse gas emissions that would be needed to use palm oil as a feedstock. In addition, it took a close assessment of both Malaysia and Indonesia, where around 90 per cent of world palm oil is currently produced.

It considered past trends to determine areas of palm expansion and found that palm oil production produces wastewater effluent that decomposes and creates methane – a greenhouse gas with high global warming potential. It also highlighted that palm plantations would be made on carbon-rich peat soils which would lead to significant releases of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now the EPA will continue to examine additional pathways through a separate rulemaking process.

As it bids to reduce emissions from its transport fuels, the California Energy Commission is looking for proposals to provide funding for new biofuel production facilities in the state that could help to produce low carbon transportation fuels.

Having made around $37million available under this solicitation, California hopes to encourage production of fuels such as: biomethane and renewable petrol and diesel substitutes.

Among the eligible feedstocks for petrol substitutes are waste-based biomass and purpose grown crops with a carbon intensity substantially lower than current average California produced ethanol; while feedstocks for diesel substitutes also include waste-based biomass and purpose grown crops with a carbon intensity lower than soy.

As for biomethane, eligible feedstocks will be pre-landfilled waste-based biomass sources including: woody biomass, forest residues and agricultural residues.

Activities are covered over three stages: early technology development, which includes products through a proof-of-concept stage of development; pilot and demonstration facilities, including technology processes in the field; and commercial facilities, with a production facility that can be scaled for revenue generation.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revealed its 2012 percentage standards for four fuels within its Renewable Fuel Standard programme.

It has announced the following volumes and standards: biomass-based diesel (1.0billion gallons, 0.91 per cent); cellulosic biofuels (8.65billion gallons, 0.006 per cent); advanced biofuels (2.0billion gallons, 1.21 per cent); and total renewable fuels (15.2billion gallons, 9.2 per cent).

Originally, in its rulemaking earlier this year, the EPA had suggested a cellulosic biofuels volume that would range from 3.45-12.9million gallons.

In order to reach this standard, the EPA suggested there should be a focus towards construction and production goals with other factors that could impact fuel production. Within domestic US sources, the EPA suggested around six facilities could make volumes of cellulosic biofuel available for transportation use.

The overall aim of the Renewable Fuel Standard is to reach a level of 36billion gallons by 2022. To achieve this, the EPA must conduct an evaluation of the volume of qualifying cellulosic biofuel and determine whether the advanced biofuel and/or total renewable fuel volumes should be reduced by the same or a lesser amount.

The production of biofuels is a bigger cause of land grab deals than was previously thought, a new report suggests.

New and extensive research by the International Land Coalition  (ILC) reveals that more than half of all land grabbing deals in developing countries over the last decade are attributably to biofuel production.

Covering a full decade of land deals from 2000 to 2010 in the global south and considering the acquisition of more than 200 million hectares of land over that period (equivalent to more than eight times the size of the UK), ILC’s new report suggests that 78 per cent of deals were for agricultural purposes, of which three-quarters were for biofuel production. Of 71 million hectares the researchers could cross-reference, the remaining 22 per cent was for mining, tourism, industry and forestry purposes.

In Africa, the impact of biofuels was found to be even bigger with 66 per cent of land purchases used for biofuels. Previous research by the World Bank suggested just 21 per cent of global land grab deals between 2008-9 were for biofuels.

The report is one of the most comprehensive to date, with more than forty organisations collaborating to produce it.

The new research also indicates that national elite firms play a greater role in the process of land-grabbing than previously indicated. While large land deals can create opportunities for developing countries , they are more likely to cause problems for the poorest members of society, who often lose access to land and resources that are essential to their livelihoods.

“Under current conditions, large-scale land deals threaten the rights and livelihoods of poor rural communities and especially women,” says report lead author Dr Ward Anseeuw of the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development, CIRAD.

“The competition for land is becoming increasingly global and increasingly unequal. Weak governance, corruption and a lack of transparency in decision-making, which are key features of the typical environment in which large-scale land acquisitions take place, mean that the poor gain few benefits from these deals but pay high costs,” says Dr Madiodio Niasse, Secretariat Director of the International Land Coalition.

Furthermore, economic governance is considered to be failing the rural poor. The international trade regimes provide robust legal protection to international investors, while fewer and less effective international arrangements have been established to protect the rights of the rural poor.

“There is little in our findings to suggest that the term ‘land grabbing’ is not widely deserved,” says Dr Michael Taylor, ILC Secretariat’s Programme Manager, Global Policy and Africa, who coordinated the study.

Who says chickens can’t swim?! The US navy is about to make them sail in using biofuel made from chicken fat.

According to Reuters, the Defence Logistics Agency has purchased 450,000 gallons of fuel from Dynamic Fuels LLC and Syntroleum Corp. Furthermore its air carriers are set to use biofuel made from algae bought from Californian-based firm Solazyme Inc.

"We are doing this for one simple reason, it makes us better war fighters," Navy Secretary Ray Maybus told reporters in a teleconference. "Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy’s ability to protect America and to project power overseas."

Sadly though the fuel has proved very expensive at around $26 a gallon, far higher than conventional diesel at $4 a gallon. However as the US works to increase domestic biofuel production, it is hoped that the price will decrease.

The ships and aircraft will use the biofuel during war games in the Pacific Ocean next summer.

The fuel will be mixed in blends that are half biofuel and half traditional petroleum.

One of the most important figures in the fuel industry believes that biofuels will be the single most important alternative to hydrocarbons over the next 20 years – even ahead of electricity and hydrogen.

Arthur Reijnhart, the general manager of alternative energies and fuel development strategy for Shell, believes there will be an increasingly diverse energy supply landscape against a backdrop of soaring demand between now and 2050 – thanks partly to population growth, increasing urbanisation and rising incomes.

He notes that while fossil fuels will be harder and more expensive to source, energy for mobility from alternative sources will increase from three per cent to 30 per cent after 2030 – but this increase will come from a portfolio of products.

Reijnhart suggest that there is a place for natural gas, hydrogen and electricity – but that biofuels will be “the single most important alternative to hydrocarbons in mobility in the next 20 years.”

As such, he outlined Shell’s intentions to operate “at scale” in the biofuels market, and highlighted its recent $12billion joint venture with Brazilian sugar and ethanol producer Cosan. He believes that there will be breakthroughs in the production of cellulosic ethanol during the early 2020s but that in the short term it is vital that mandates are met to ensure a diverse range of products in the mix.

In particular, he highlighted the importance of diesel in the European transport fuel market, stating that biodiesel and hydrogenated vegetable oil will play a part, though the latter will be limited by feedstock constraints.

Motorists could end up paying a premium of up to 8p per litre from next year, according to the Metro newspaper this week.

According to reports, nearly one million motorists could suffer as the government prepares to increase the biofuel content in unleaded fuel from five per cent to ten per cent as directed by the EU.

Some older models, made before 1993, will be unable to use the new fuel and could be left stranded as forecourts move to stock the new 10 per cent ethanol fuel.

The Metro suggests that this will mean that motorists of older cars would therefore only be left with one choice-premium petrol-which cost more than regular unleaded.

According to car magazine Auto Express, BP and Tesco have confirmed they may sell just super-unleaded on forecourts.

A Tesco spokesperson said: ‘Our premium unleaded, Momentum 99, would then be our E5 fuel.’

Julie Sinclair, of Auto Express, said: ‘On the face of it, this looks like an eco-friendly initiative. But there’s nothing nice about forcing the most cash-strapped motorists to buy the most expensive fuel on the forecourt.’

Read more at: Metro