Spanish company Ferry Group is to invest €42/US$55.2 million in a project for the production of biomass fuel pellets in Bulgaria.
The 3-year project consists of establishing plantations of paulownia trees near the city of Tran. Paulownia is a fast-growing tree used for the commercial production of fuel pellets.
Volkswagen attacks first generation biofuels made from "lobby crops"
The following article appeared in the international press. It is about food-versus-fuel, but allow us to add our nuances in [square brackets] and our stress of certain facts in italics, because, as usual, the debate is narrowminded and forgets that there is a world beyond the borders of Europe and North America, where an entirely different rationale behind the promotion of biofuels exists. We do agree with the bulk of VW's comments, which make it clear that it is high time to invest in biofuel crops in the South, and to stop wasting energy, resources and taxpayers' money on cultivating low-yielding "lobby crops" in the US and the EU to be used for biofuels.
Volkswagen on Thursday attacked biofuels made from food crops [from Europe and North America] as unsustainable, setting the German carmaker at odds with President Bush, US carmakers and European governments, which have all been touting ethanol as an environmentally friendly alternative to petrol in cars.
Bernd Pischetsrieder, chief executive, called on politicians to lower tax breaks for current "first-generation" fuels – made in the US and Europe from corn, wheat, rape seed and sugar beet – and instead provide financial support for new second-generation technologies that promise big cuts in carbon dioxide. [Second generation technologies include cellulosic ethanol and thermochemical conversion of biomass to liquids].
Mr Pischetsrieder said some of the current biofuels were "totally pointless" and "like a wolf in sheep's clothing". He criticised tax benefits that were not linked to carbon dioxide, since some methods of refining biofuel actually led to higher carbon emissions than from petrol. "The current situation is totally unsatisfactory, both from the environmental and economic standpoint," he said. [Indeed, "lobby crops" have a negative 'EROEI' (Energy return on energy invested), meaning they require more fossil fuels to produce them, than the energy they contain as finished goods; this negative energy balance means that these crops effectively add CO2. The opposite is true for 'tropical biofuels'.]
Even as Mr Pischetsrieder was speaking in Berlin, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed an increase to renewable fuel requirements – mainly ethanol – from 2.78 per cent of all fuel this year to 3.71 per cent next year, and said it would help cut CO2emissions. Mr Pischetsrieder is the highest profile opponent of today's biofuel technology.
The handful of opponents of the fuel in the environmental movement have mostly been concerned about increased leakage of carcinogenic fumes, development of monoculture farms and the danger to rainforests from new palm plantations in developing countries, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia. Soaring demand for biofuels has contributed to a surge in the price of several of the grains and oilseeds used to make ethanol and biodiesel. [Which, if sourced from the developing world, where these crops yield far more than in the North, means an economic boost to these countries.] US carmakers have been strongly supportive of biofuels [but only those based on corn and soy - local crops for which huge lobbies exist in the US], running expensive ad campaigns in an attempt to win back customers concerned about the environment who had defected to Japanese rivals [hybrid cars].
General Motors and Ford argue that even though the carbon benefits of today's technology are small, and biofuel is more expensive per mile than petrol even with tax breaks [this is true for lobby crops only, not for tropical crops], the fuel should be promoted by governments in order to ensure the market is prepared when new technologies arrive. [No, the governments should invest in negawatts and in energy efficiency first, making cars that get 100 miles per gallon minimum mandatory, and in tropical biofuels second, with a view on coupling development policies for the South, to a sustainable bioenergy industry. They should stop wasting tax money to sustain their own wasteful agro-industrial lobbies.] [Entry ends here].
ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: lobby ::corn :: rapeseed ::
Volkswagen on Thursday attacked biofuels made from food crops [from Europe and North America] as unsustainable, setting the German carmaker at odds with President Bush, US carmakers and European governments, which have all been touting ethanol as an environmentally friendly alternative to petrol in cars.
Bernd Pischetsrieder, chief executive, called on politicians to lower tax breaks for current "first-generation" fuels – made in the US and Europe from corn, wheat, rape seed and sugar beet – and instead provide financial support for new second-generation technologies that promise big cuts in carbon dioxide. [Second generation technologies include cellulosic ethanol and thermochemical conversion of biomass to liquids].
Mr Pischetsrieder said some of the current biofuels were "totally pointless" and "like a wolf in sheep's clothing". He criticised tax benefits that were not linked to carbon dioxide, since some methods of refining biofuel actually led to higher carbon emissions than from petrol. "The current situation is totally unsatisfactory, both from the environmental and economic standpoint," he said. [Indeed, "lobby crops" have a negative 'EROEI' (Energy return on energy invested), meaning they require more fossil fuels to produce them, than the energy they contain as finished goods; this negative energy balance means that these crops effectively add CO2. The opposite is true for 'tropical biofuels'.]
Even as Mr Pischetsrieder was speaking in Berlin, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed an increase to renewable fuel requirements – mainly ethanol – from 2.78 per cent of all fuel this year to 3.71 per cent next year, and said it would help cut CO2emissions. Mr Pischetsrieder is the highest profile opponent of today's biofuel technology.
The handful of opponents of the fuel in the environmental movement have mostly been concerned about increased leakage of carcinogenic fumes, development of monoculture farms and the danger to rainforests from new palm plantations in developing countries, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia. Soaring demand for biofuels has contributed to a surge in the price of several of the grains and oilseeds used to make ethanol and biodiesel. [Which, if sourced from the developing world, where these crops yield far more than in the North, means an economic boost to these countries.] US carmakers have been strongly supportive of biofuels [but only those based on corn and soy - local crops for which huge lobbies exist in the US], running expensive ad campaigns in an attempt to win back customers concerned about the environment who had defected to Japanese rivals [hybrid cars].
General Motors and Ford argue that even though the carbon benefits of today's technology are small, and biofuel is more expensive per mile than petrol even with tax breaks [this is true for lobby crops only, not for tropical crops], the fuel should be promoted by governments in order to ensure the market is prepared when new technologies arrive. [No, the governments should invest in negawatts and in energy efficiency first, making cars that get 100 miles per gallon minimum mandatory, and in tropical biofuels second, with a view on coupling development policies for the South, to a sustainable bioenergy industry. They should stop wasting tax money to sustain their own wasteful agro-industrial lobbies.] [Entry ends here].
ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: lobby ::corn :: rapeseed :: 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home