A bad habit in the making: using coal to produce biofuels
Imagine a company in Europe or North America jumping on the biofuels opportunity. It uses expensive, scarce land to grow crops such as corn and rapeseed to make green fuels. The resulting biofuel is highly inefficient, because the producer puts almost as much energy into making it, than he gets out of it (a marginally positive energy balance). Moreover, the feedstocks he uses are heavily subsidized because they cannot compete with raw materials produced in the global South (earlier post).
The government of the country where the biofuel producer operates also protects its market with trade barriers of all sorts, in order to prevent farmers from the South to sell their much more competitive feedstocks and fuels. Add that the producer get tax breaks and that consumers are told that the 'green' fuel is good for the environment by helping in the fight against climate change. So far, nothing new.
But the worst is yet to come. For the producer to be competitive, he must use a primary energy source to power the operations at his biofuel plant. He doesn't have that many choices: he will choose the cheapest fuel, which is most often coal. Indeed, coal. The most climate destructive of all fossil fuels. And yes, a new report by researchers of an Ames company states the obvious: such coal-powered biofuel plants release enormous amounts of CO2, almost negating the carbon savings made from burning biofuels in a car. The analysis shows that a coal-powered plant that would produce 50 million gallons (182 million liters) of ethanol would release as much as 207,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. There goes the 'green' as in 'climate friendly, good, clean, green fuels':
ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: fossil fuels :: coal ::
Especially in the U.S., where there are no laws and regulations on carbon emissions, the problem is turning into a bad habit. Biofuel producers there want to lower the costs of their production factors, as any business would, so they choose to burn the most climate destructive fossil fuel to make 'green fuels'. More and more people are now calling for the use of biomass as a primary energy source to power the biofuel plant. But this would make uncompetitive US/EU biofuels even more expensive.
Now move to Brazil or any country in the Southern hemisphere. There, biofuels producers use crops - such as sugar cane - that result in fuels with a highly positive energy balance. After extracting the fuel from the biomass, a large amount of green residues remains. In the case of cane, it is called bagasse. Part of this bagasse is turned into fertilizers and industrial fibres. But there is in fact so much bagasse left, that it can power the entire biofuel production plant. The biomass is burned to produce steam and electricity, which is used as a power source. So in fact, the biofuel that comes out of the factory has never seen a single input of fossil fuels. What's more, most Brazilian ethanol makers produce so much power from this green fuel, that they are able to feed excess electricity into the national grid.
Anyone understands the differences between biofuels produced in the North and those produced in the South. As Claude Mandil, chief of the International Energy Agency, recently said: for all these reasons, the US and the EU must get serious and start importing biofuels from the South, instead of wasting tax payers money and fossil fuels on producing their own uncompetitive fuels that don't really contribute to fighting climate change.
The government of the country where the biofuel producer operates also protects its market with trade barriers of all sorts, in order to prevent farmers from the South to sell their much more competitive feedstocks and fuels. Add that the producer get tax breaks and that consumers are told that the 'green' fuel is good for the environment by helping in the fight against climate change. So far, nothing new.
But the worst is yet to come. For the producer to be competitive, he must use a primary energy source to power the operations at his biofuel plant. He doesn't have that many choices: he will choose the cheapest fuel, which is most often coal. Indeed, coal. The most climate destructive of all fossil fuels. And yes, a new report by researchers of an Ames company states the obvious: such coal-powered biofuel plants release enormous amounts of CO2, almost negating the carbon savings made from burning biofuels in a car. The analysis shows that a coal-powered plant that would produce 50 million gallons (182 million liters) of ethanol would release as much as 207,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. There goes the 'green' as in 'climate friendly, good, clean, green fuels':
ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: fossil fuels :: coal ::
Especially in the U.S., where there are no laws and regulations on carbon emissions, the problem is turning into a bad habit. Biofuel producers there want to lower the costs of their production factors, as any business would, so they choose to burn the most climate destructive fossil fuel to make 'green fuels'. More and more people are now calling for the use of biomass as a primary energy source to power the biofuel plant. But this would make uncompetitive US/EU biofuels even more expensive.
Now move to Brazil or any country in the Southern hemisphere. There, biofuels producers use crops - such as sugar cane - that result in fuels with a highly positive energy balance. After extracting the fuel from the biomass, a large amount of green residues remains. In the case of cane, it is called bagasse. Part of this bagasse is turned into fertilizers and industrial fibres. But there is in fact so much bagasse left, that it can power the entire biofuel production plant. The biomass is burned to produce steam and electricity, which is used as a power source. So in fact, the biofuel that comes out of the factory has never seen a single input of fossil fuels. What's more, most Brazilian ethanol makers produce so much power from this green fuel, that they are able to feed excess electricity into the national grid.
Anyone understands the differences between biofuels produced in the North and those produced in the South. As Claude Mandil, chief of the International Energy Agency, recently said: for all these reasons, the US and the EU must get serious and start importing biofuels from the South, instead of wasting tax payers money and fossil fuels on producing their own uncompetitive fuels that don't really contribute to fighting climate change.
4 Comments:
Good news, there is a new law regarding carbon emissions in California. A second law extends carbon caps to purchases of energy to surrounding states as well. These two laws are having a profound effect on utilities throughout the state.
I have a different take on fossil fuels. Other than the fact that they are not renewable, fossil fuels are simply fossilized biomass. As such they are as valid a feedstock for biofuels production as unfossilized biomass is.
There are two problems with fossil fuels, however. First, all fuels have bee combusted without proper regard to the amount of carbon, particulate matter, and toxic emissions being emitted into the atmosphere. Second, fossil fuel resources are concentrated in limited quantities in specific regions of the world - as such, they are prone to being exploited for political and economic gain by the haves over the have-nots.
If proper safeguards and clean technologies can produce clean liquid biofuels and electricity without emitting toxic emissions, I don't have a problem with them. They may only serve as a "necessary evil" until we develop cleaner, more cost effective alternatives.
I would like to see every region of the world capable of decentrally producing their own biofuels and energy using cleanly produced or mined raw feedstock. Because the Southern Hemisphere does provide a unique environment for producing energy-rich crops, then there should be sufficient economic incentive for the crops to be cultivated as biostock and converted into exportable biofuels.
Is your primary objection to fossil fuels their emissions due to dirty thermal conversion? If so, I agree that the social costs of combusting fossil fuels must be factored into any analysis of the costs of competing installations for liquid fuel production.
Is your support of southern hemisphere energy crops primarily due to egalitarian ideals and support of developing countries? I agree that tariffs on the import of biofuels from the developing countries should be lifted.
It's true there's a very strong law in California and many utilities outside that state are taking voluntary action to cut carbon-emissions.
Apparently there's also a consensus growing in the U.S. on the idea that biomass (or other renewables) should be used as a primary energy source for the production of biofuels.
Still, it remains to be seen how fast and thorough utilities outside California will implement a form of carbon accounting in which the entire lifecycle of biofuel production is taken into account.
Another question on our mind is more mundane: if the aim in the US/EU is to produce cellulosic ethanol (using corn residues for fuel and keeping corn grain as food) then which kind of biomass will be used to power the production process?
Though I am hardly an expert, I think the short-term answer to your "mundane" question is that natural-gas is being used more-and-more to fire biorefineries.
From what I have read there is continuing exploration of using a variety of carbon-neutral fuels depending on the resources available to a given plant and the requirements for the conversion process being used.
For gasification, the biomass itself is the main feedstock and the output syngas can be combusted. Natural gas is used most often to get the process started. However, I have concern about any combustion for which the emissions are not accounted.
We can use biomass to fuel the ethanol plants. Unfortunately this must be mandated by government unless a clean coal technology can be used. Corn Stover is the rest of the corn plant, and it can be used, as can Miscanthus, and other grasses and biomass sources. No need to give our business to South America.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home