Blog conclusions: Part 2

Putting biofuels into the wider context of climate change and fossil fuel depletion:

It seems that we will not be able to employ biofuels on a large scale until later; other technological ‘fixes’ for problems like climate change, such as geoengineering also come with their own portion of problems, where Mr Hallam suggests using geoengineering as ‘a backup plan’, which also needs time to fully develop (Tom Hallam’s blog). So what should we do in the meantime?

Primarily, I feel we need to stop shifting the responsibility on technology or the government to tackle these problems, but we need to all start taking responsibility. This includes making changes to the way in which we utilize energy, which is a more realistic short-term goal, according to Stern (2009) and Berners-Lee (2010) (see the bonus feature below). Reducing energy wastefulness of the industrial and energy-production sectors seems of primary importance, as these are the biggest emitters of GHGs at present (Stern, 2009). This can be done by making personal lifestyle-changing choices as well as industrial energy wastefulness reducing actions.

GHG emissions from the forest industry are the next in significance after energy generation and industrial emissions, so I agree with Sir Nicholas Stern that minimizing deforestation is of vital importance here also (Stern, 2009), when the political mechanism on dealing with the issue is found. Agriculture, being the next biggest contributor of GHG emissions, can already start halving its global emissions by employing the already-known strategies, such as the more efficient utilization of fertilizer, according to Berners-Lee (2010). This involves applying fertilizer in accordance with requirement (Berners-Lee, 2010).

However, since the reductions to global energy consumption would not be enough to sufficiently lower GHG emissions to avoid the potentially devastating effects of climate change and fossil fuel depletion, exploring alternative energy sources becomes very important in the medium term. Biofuel seem to have strong potential to contribute towards decreasing these problems, albeit to a limited extent.

*Bonus feature: what non-technological actions can we take as citizens?

Mike Berners-Lee in his book ‘How bad are bananas’ (2010), showed that ordinary citizens can also make a big difference to the amount of GHG emissions. He has calculated that a ‘carbon-conscious’ person in the UK could reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to just 100 tonnes in a lifetime of 79 years. This is a major reduction, considering that the calculations for a person with a carbon-intensive lifestyle amounted to 2000 tonnes, while the average person consumes 373 tonnes in a lifetime. This major energy reduction could occur by taking relatively small actions, such as reducing the speed of driving from 70 mph to 60 mph, which results in a ~25% carbon footprint reduction, according to Berners-Lee.

So now you have no excuse to drive faster to impress your friends!

Hope you enjoyed my blog and thanks a lot for reading!

Yours, Yulia Kolomiytseva

Blog conclusions: Part 1

It is now time to answer the ultimate blog question: are biofuels a potential way ahead or a blind alley?

After learning more about biofuels, I have concluded that they do seem to be a viable solution, where even if they will likely not solve all of our energy need and GHG emission problems on their own, they may be a way ahead. However, there are many problems with biofuels too, having huge uncertainties regarding how beneficial they will be in practice. This has certain implications on employing biofuels. These are the conclusions I made, based on what I have learnt about biofuels during the course of writing this blog.

Lessons learnt from the past regarding the present and future of biofuels:

1. Firstly, it is important to remember that the impacts of biofuels depend on when, where and how they are produced, meaning that case-specific assessments should be made on this prior to employing biofuels in an area.

2. Secondly, it seems that a large amount of research and development is needed for some biofuels, such as those made from algae.

3. Thirdly, the technology and infrastructure needs to be built to start using these biofuels.

4. Fourthly, economic development is required in the majority of the areas where the biofuel potential is highest to enable construction of the infrastructure needed.

5. The fifth lesson is that political changes also need to be made, where a switch from large-scale industrial biofuel production to smallholder-owned farm cultivation is advisable to ensure biofuel sustainability. All these changes are likely to require time and if we do not act swiftly enough, any salvation which biofuels may offer may arrive too late for it to have a significant effect on tackling global climate change. If we act too fast, before these changes are able to take place, on the other hand, the negative impacts of industrially-produced biofuels sometimes currently observed, may become the norm, meaning that biofuels will cause more problems than they mitigate.

6. This gives rise to the sixth lesson, which is that while the R&D, the economic and the political changes should be hurried, large-scale biofuel expansion should not take place until these changes are sufficient to enable sustainable production. This suggests that biofuels are likely to be more of a medium-term solution.

7. However, this does not mean that some biofuels, which are known to be beneficial at present and the infrastructure for which can be readily introduced, can not be employed now. This is the seventh lesson. These biofuels include those that are already produced sustainably in areas such as Brazil, as well as the biofuels that can be derived from agricultural, forestry and urban wastes. The latter, for example, are likely to result in much greater emissions savings than many other 1^st and 2^nd generation biofuels and have a lower uncertainty levels, making them viable even now.

Starting to wrap it up

Unfortunately, the time has come for when I have to start ending my discussion of whether biofuels are the way ahead or the blind alley and I would like to start this with this video:

Are small farms the answer to sustainability?

Small farms should comprise the biofuel industry:

As mentioned in some of my previous posts, large-scale industrial biofuel cultivation is likely to be harmful environmentally and even socially, but what can we do instead?

The alternative is small-scale farms, such as family-managed farms. These were found to actually be more efficient than large-scale ones enviornmentally, economically and in terms of the amount of output produced, according to the study by Petersen (1997). The social benefit is derived by supporting the activities of smallholders, as has been successfully done in Brazil; smallholders also tend not to indulge in the environmentally-harmful activities of industrial-scale biofuel cultivators, such as peatland drainage. As well as being too expensive for smallholders to adopt in the case of peatland drainage, the degrading activities are not beneficial for the farmers, who strongly depend on the environment around them in the long-term, meaning that it is not in their interest to degrade it. This usually results in far fewer environmental problems such as synthetic fertilizer over-application, soil degradation and large-scale deforestation. These farms are also more likely to have greater biodiversity.

There is a blog-like feature, providing a detailed account of small farms, which you may find interesting to read: Journey to Forever: Small Farms.

How can biofuels increase the sustainability of food agriculture?

Butterworth (2008) goes further suggesting that to make biofuel cultivation sustainable, it must not only comprise of small farms, but should also be integrated with food production. The Bates Farm in Northern Lincolnshire is provided as an example of this (Butterworth, 2008), where it combines food production with biofuel cultivation in a 9: 1 ratio, which produces enough biofuel to sustain the family’s domestic activities as well as to meet all the energy and fertilizer demands of the food cultivation. Additionally, such a farm allows for greater biodiversity than the industrial-scale monoculture farms, making it highly sustainable.

However, while this meets the energy demands of the farmer and his family, I am not sure there will be enough leftover to provide the rest of the world with biofuel like this. Nonetheless, approaching this idea in a different way, it shows how biofuels can help make food agriculture more sustainable, contributing a potential solution to the question explored in the  post in the Feasting on Natural Resources blog.

Hidden land sources: ask the cannabis growers… if you can find them!

Reports of the media and science dictate that land is running out, meaning that soon there will not be enough space to grow enough food to feed everyone, let alone grow biofuels; and yet, land always seems to be abundant for this type of agriculture: growing illegal substances.

There was enough land to produce enough cannabis for the 3.3-4.4% of the global population consuming it in 2007, for example. This meant that 134,000 ha were utilized for its growth in Morocco alone in 2003-2004 (Decorte et al., 2010). You can view a comprehensive summary of the global trends of cannabis growth in time and space in the book by Decorte et al. (2010), but don’t forget about the other illegal drugs that are cultivated simultaneously. This land is seen as ‘agricultural’ and thus not available for biofuel growth, so what we get is biofuel being seen as the villain that caused hunger and poverty in the Third World and the illegal drug industry remains the neutral status quo. Taking into account the wider context, is continuing to support the incomes of the drug oligarchs instead of tackling global warming, truly a more important global issue?

This leads me onto thinking that if we really wanted to and made biofuels as economically viable as the illegal drug cultivation through government incentives, or if the world powers united to replace the drug agriculture with biofuel cultivation, a currently invisible source of land would suddenly emerge. The calculations in the reports also ignore this option. Perhaps we need to be a little more imaginative in terms of the amount of land available and finally get our priorities straight…

*Other potential sources of land not included in the calculations (using my own somewhat limited imagination after doing some research):

-our gardens, which are often used for little more than grass monocultures at present

-deserts, which could be populated with algae, if appropriate technology emerges to make this envioronmentally and economically-efficient (Butterworth, 2008)

-the oceans, which could also be used for growing algal biofuel (Butterworth, 2008).

Concluding on the posts concerning how much biofuel it would be possible to produce sustainably:

The large uncertainty that exists due to the fail of studies to incorporate biofuel sources such as wastes, alternative production pathways, by-products and the hidden sources of land makes it difficult to answer this question. However, it seems that there is potential for a substantial amount of biofuel to be produced, even if this biofuel is not enough to meet all of our energy demands. Whether it will be too late to inhibit global warming from developing an extreme course, by the time this biofuel begins to be produced on a large-enough scale to have a significant effect on reducing it, is a different issue, the answer to which depends on the multiple political, economical and technological factors.

The lesson I would draw from this is that we need to follow India's example (Government of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, n/d) and to start acting by employing biofuels where it is already known that they will be sustainable as soon as possible e.g. expand the sustainable utilization of wastes.

Using wastes continued: urban waste

There are other types of wastes apart from agricultural ones, which were not included in the reports mentioned in my previous posts. These are urban wastes, such as municipal solid waste and excreta which can be used to produce gaseous fuel, and waste cooking oil, which can be used as transport fuel too (SECO, 2008).

The production of gaseous fuel means that the methane which the landfill material produces is initially not released into the atmosphere, thus decreasing the emissions overall, even if some GHGs are emitted eventually. This is important, as municipal solid waste, for example, is the biggest anthropogenic source of methane, a highly potent gas contributing to global warming and to air pollution (SECO, 2008). Turning this harmful gas into energy is therefore said to reduce odours, help the environment and generate a profit. It also means that the solid residues left can be used as a fertilizer afterwards, meaning that the impacts of such biofuels on other activities, such as agriculture, is negligible in this case (SECO, 2008).

IEA (2008) found that using the biogas to produce heat and electricity is more economic than using it to power cars, as it does not require processes such as purification. SECO (2008) uses the example of powering homes in Texas to show the amount of biofuel this waste would be able to produce. It shows that if the 70 biggest landfills there turned the biogas released into energy, 100 000 households in Texas would be powered. However, due to few economic incentives, this technique did not start to be employed until recently, when the land area available for landfills started to become scarce (SECO, 2008).  

Butterworth (2009) suggests that as for incinerating solid municipal waste directly as a biofuel, it is not a sufficiently environmentally-friendly activity, as it produces carbon dioxide during incineration. Instead, he suggests that after the gas has been collected, the remaining solid matter should be utilized as a fertilizer for biofuel cultivation: this will save on the emissions that are produced during synthetic fertilizer manufacturing (Butterworth, 2009). Butterworth suggests that in this way, 600 American households will be able to fertilize enough land to result in 1 te of biofuel from rapeseed. This technique has begun to be utilized on a small scale already e.g. the Lincolnshire Bates Farm (Butterworth, 2009). Similarly, as mentioned in a previous post a while ago, other urban wastes, such as the gypsum from constructing sites has been proposed to be used as a fertilizer (UNCC, 2010).

However, such biofuel from waste does not seem to be included in the calculations of how much biofuel it will be possible to produce. This leads to the conclusion that these calculations potentially significantly underestimate the actual figures, thus contributing to the already substantial uncertainty regarding the matter.

How much biofuel is it feasible to produce sustainably? Part 2

The no-cultivation method:

Since large-scale biofuel cultivation expansion is most likely unfavourable at present, the IEA (2008) suggests that utilizing wastes, such as agricultural and forestry lignocellulosic residues, is a more realistic strategy in the short-term, as it will not require extra land to be converted to biofuel cultivation. The assumption used here was that 10% of the global forestry and 25% of the global agricultural residues are available for utilization as biofuels, assuming that the rest will be needed to be utilized for fertilizer, animal feed and domestic cooking fuel.

It was calculated that 10% of 2007’s agricultural and forestry residues would produce enough biosynthetic natural gas (Bio-SNG) and lignocellulosic ethanol to meet 4.2-6% of the energy needs for transport of 2007, while if 25% of residues are available, biofuels from residues would meet 10.5-14.9% of 2007’s global transport fuel demand.

The methods descibed in parts 1 and 2 combined:

A later study by Sandia (2009) has combined the energy produced from both, the future sustainable expansion of cultivated land and the use of residues, concluding that it will be feasible to be producing 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year by 2022 without replacing food crops. This nearly meets the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (2007) target of 60 billion gallons a year by 2022 (Sandia, 2009). It also suggested that sustainably increasing the production to 90 billion gallons by 2030 is realistic, assuming the involvement of R&D, commercialization and supporting policies to ensure economic profitability. This was found to be no less competitive economically than continuing the energy production through fossil fuels. Additional benefits are that it was found to use less water than the current on-shore crude oil extraction and refining.

However, the calculations in the aforementioned reports are too simplistic, as they do not include the by-products, which can indirectly increase the amount of land available for biofuel production through decreasing the need for land for cultivating those other products. They also do not include the effect that multiple production pathways may have on how much biofuel is produced, as these methods may vary in efficiency. This therefore further adds to the uncertainty. 

How much biofuel is it feasible to produce sustainably? Part 1: The IEA Report (2008)

How much is it possible to cultivate?

The IEA (2008) Report is very useful on this, as it provides the findings of multiple studies simultaneously. It showed that the calculated amount of biofuel that will be feasible to produce sustainably varied greatly among studies, reflecting on the large uncertainty levels of the issue.

The lowest value was 8 EJ/yr, assuming only the currently-available marginal land was cultivated; 33 EJ/yr by 2050 was another estimate, assuming that only industrial and agricultural wastes are used, without dedicating land specifically for biofuel production. The most optimistic was 1500 EJ/yr, assuming that 72% of the current agricultural land area can be utilized for biofuels through an increase in cultivation intensity. This represents the meeting of 6-300% of the total energy demands of 2007, or 4.5-200% of the projected demands in 2050. IEA (2008) suggests this is overly ambitious for most countries due to the present lack of the technology required to convert so much biomass to fuel in most countries, even if the production efficiency does increase enough to allow producing so much biomass.

It was found that at present, Brazil has most potential for this conversion due to the extensive underutilized pastures and the appropriate technology already present for biofuel production. Other countries, such as Tanzania, Cameroon, India and Thailand have good potential in the future, but investments in technology would still be needed to ensure agricultural efficiency. Improvements in efficiency are expected to free up land for sustainable biofuel production, which would not put major pressures on food cultivation or the environment. The fact that technological investment will be needed is problematic for immediate large-scale expansion in biofuel cultivation, as 70% of expansion potential is found in the developing or emerging countries. This suggests either that 1) significant economic inputs from the developed countries is needed, which would not be economically-attractive for them, or 2) that large-scale biofuel cultivation should not be applied just yet until this technology becomes available in the aforementioned countries. This is in agreement with the conclusion of Claire Melamed in the video from an earlier post.

Reviewing the pessimists’ views of biofuels

It seems that even after my initial discussion, providing evidence that the trends of the effects of biofuels on society, economics and the environment are not all negative as often presented in the media to draw the public’s attention, some readers are not convinced, judging by some comments. While it is not my intention to persuade anyone to my point of view, especially as my own ideas continue evolving anyway, I feel the need to further my viewpoint through research. This is what I found.

Apart from the many case-specific scare stories of the effects that biofuels apparently caused, which do not usually represent the general trend and are arguably not based on sufficient scientific evidence, the more scientific and objective report I expected to find on the matter was an article published on the Yale University website. However, even this respected institution was not able to provide me with the evidence I expected: i.e. objective facts and figures on the actual impact of biofuels. Instead, it seems to be regurgitating the same discussion of the potential worst-case scenario impacts of biofuels that is presented in the media, assuming that all the world’s problems, such as food shortages and phosphorus depletion should be blamed on biofuels. I do not see any concrete objective evidence provided to support these claims that these negative impacts are the major trend in reality at present or that it will be in the future. I have discussed this view in more detail in a comment on DanDan’s blog, so please review it.  

I am not saying that the sceptics are wrong and that biofuels will have all positive impacts no matter what; I am just saying that they do not have to be harmful and that they can be a way ahead if managed well. The evidence for the likelihood of this positivist claim being likely to realize, is beginning to be shown in practice through concrete evidence of cases with successful outcomes I discussed before. Success of biofuels is especially likely in the future with further research into minimizing the negative effects and maximizing the positive ones and with a global political collaboration, as mentioned in the IEA Report (2008).

That said, the current destructive large-scale industrial biofuel production such as on peatlands has got to stop, as I will discuss later.

The fast-approaching algal biofuels

Here you go, what did I say, it looks like we will be able to utilize algal biofuels on a larger scale soon, given that the technique for producing these biofuels has already been developed (judging by the video below). You can even start right now, by producing your own at home!

This thus suggests our calculations should soon be incorporating the potential of these; since they have not been incorporated yet, the possibility of the current calculations underestimating biofuels' potential effectively increases.

A possible way of increasing the sustainability of algal biofuels: Levine et al., 2010

Here is an interesting article by Levine et al. (2010), suggesting how algal biofuels can be grown on waste manure, decreasing the need for the depleting phosphorus and for other fertilizers, potentially decreasing the cost of production and simultaneously purifying wastewater.

Such findings may make algal biofuel production more feasable, as this production puts less pressure onto natural resources and increases the benefits. Additionally, after extracting the nutrients with algae, the left-over manure can still be used directly to produce biofuel from the soild remains or from the gas it emits, as will be discussed in my future posts. However, there are other proposed competing uses for manure, such as agricultural fertilizer for food production, limiting the potential for using manure for biofuel.

Algal biofuel: Yang et al. (2011)

I would now like to add to the information from my previous post by reviewing the article by Yang et al. (2011), which focuses on algal biofuel cultivation under the different climates across the US, to examine the spatial differences in the viability of these biofuels. The results have shown the microalgae biofuels to be competitive in terms of how much energy they produce, but they were also found to be highly water-intensive. This can be a problem in arid and water-scarce areas, meaning that they are only viable under certain climates. A technological fix for the high water requirement also exists, which is the use of an enclosed photobioreactor instead of open ponds for cultivation. This would allow the biofuels to be grown in water-scarce regions. However, this also increase the operational cost, meaning trade-offs have to be made.

Another problem is that algal biofuels need nutrient to grow; as mentioned by in a comment left by one of my followers, this may prove to be detrimental in the future due to the problem of phosphorus depletion. The phosphorus is used in fertilizers and is thus vital to support the increasing global consumption of food, but it is running out (see Dan Dan’s blog for more detailed information on this). The biofuels will therefore put extra pressure on this resource, which is finite at the moment. However, this problem may be eliminated by the time the phosphorus starts running out, as research has been directed towards the development of technology that may allow us to recycle the chemical (Dan Dan’s blog). Additionally, Yang et al. (2011) have shown that using sea water, recycling the water in which the algae are grown and using wastewater as an algae growth medium, reduces the water requirement by ~90% and the fertilizer requirement by ~50%. Species of algae which grow under low phosphorus conditions can also be chosen to further reduce the fertilizer requirement. This means that these spatial and temporal variations in the problems of algal biofuels will potentially most likely be overcome, making algal biofuels viable in the different situations.

A high growth rate of algal biofuel makes it more economic to implement. The growth rate was found to be highest where a balance between temperature and evaporation rate exists; out of the 28 states examined in the US, the climates of Florida, Hawaii and Arizona were found to be the most suitable. This shows that algal biofuels are economically viable in climates other than that of Australia.

Biofuel from microalgae: Campbell et al., 2011

I feel that the future algal biofuels should not be included in the evaluation of the effects of biofuels just yet, as they have not been utilized on a large scale yet. However, I would like to briefly discuss their potential, as they are likely to become significant when they start being used, which may happen in the relatively near future. Campbell et al. (2011) have compared the GHG emissions effect and the cost of a first generation biofuel (canola) and an ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULS) with that of a biofuel produced from microalgae in Australia. The GHG emissions effect from algae was highly favourable compared to the other fuels, but the cost was modelled to be higher, suggesting that their production may be uneconomical. It is the economic cost of algal biofuel production that is therefore the decisive factor in whether such biofuels are likely to be implemented, as biofuels are profit-driven; but the economic benefit is also highly uncertain.

For example, major uncertainties lie within government policy; in Australia, there are plans to introduce the excise tax, the existence of which could be decisive in determining the cost of algal biofuel production and whether the production will materialise. Additionally, the assumptions used to determine the economic viability of algal biofuels are important. For example, carbon dioxide is needed for algal cultivation and it was found that this cultivation will only be economical compared to the other two fuel types if the carbon dioxide source is local and does not need to be transported to where the production site is. This finding limits the potential for algal biofuel production. However, it is also based on the arguably unjust assumptions about the costs of fossil fuels, which make the cost of algal biofuels appear higher and thus uneconomical. These assumptions are that the high initial set-up costs of fossil fuel plants can now be dismissed and that the major government subsidies given for oil exploration in most countries can be excluded from the calculations of the cost of fossil fuels. Additionally, the ‘hidden cost’ of treating health problems associated with the products of fossil fuel combustion are excluded from the calculations too. Although these costs are hidden or have been in existence for so long that they are taken for granted, I do not see the logic of why they should be excluded for fossil fuels and not for biofuels. In addition to the hidden costs of fossil fuels, the inclusion of which will make algal biofuels appear more economical, the inclusion of the hidden benefits of these biofuels may further increase the appeal of the fuels. These hidden benefits include co-products, such as potable water and fertilizer which can be obtained by growing the algae in nutrient-rich industrial water. This also allows the safe and environmentally-beneficial disposal of waste-water as an extra benefit, as it saves on the costs of treating the water and prevents the potential problems such as eutrophication, which may occur if the water is left untreated. However, these potential benefits of co-products have not been explored sufficiently yet to be able to say whether their derivation will be realistic.

The future cost of algal biofuels is also uncertain due to factors not directly related to biofuels; for example, if the global carbon dioxide emissions reduce, it may be more difficult to meet the demand for it for algae cultivation without increasing the costs through needing to transport the gas. Additionally, Campbell et al. (2011) noted how there is a trend towards the electrification of transport vehicles, which are expected to be the main consumer of algal biofuel, meaning that liquid biofuels may be less useful in the future. The authors therefore see the algal biofuel merely as a transition fuel from liquid fuels to electric power, making it useful for just a few decades if this proves to be the case. This would limit the economic profit that can be derived from the biofuel, thus making the costs more significant and the production of the biofuel less appealing to investors.

There also are spatial and temporal variations, which further increase the uncertainty of algal biofuel benefits and viability. This is because the model in the Campbell et al. (2011) study is based on the case of Australia, with its hot and dry climate, its low potential for freshwater being available for their cultivation, its specific government policies and its low coastal biodiversity. This means that the potential for algae cultivation and its environmental impacts in other countries may be different.

Nonetheless, despite all these uncertainties, I would like to remind my readers of the reasons why biofuels are being considered in the first place: they may be one of the few less painful ways of meeting the vital GHG reduction targets and they are also one of the few ways of achieving greater energy security in the future. This means that as the prices of fossil fuels rise substantially due to depletion and in cases where terrestrial land area becomes limited to grow biofuels such as canola, governments will most likely find a way to make algal biofuels economical if necessary. This has happened in countries such as Brazil under the ‘Social Fuel Seal’, where the seemingly uneconomical activity of investing in smallholder biofuel production was made profitable through government subsidies. For these reasons I think that we should not concentrate on the cost of the different biofuels as much as some authors such as Campbell et al. (2011) do, but rather focus on the significance of the potential benefits they may bring in certain situations.

Biofuels of the future: algal biofuels

As I mentioned in a previous post, to evaluate the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of biofuels fully, an assessment of how much biofuel it would be possible to produce sustainably is needed, with 'sustainability' referring to economic, social and enviornmental sustainability. However, as the case of algal biofuels of the future shows, this is evaluation is difficult due to uncertainties. This video outlines some of these uncertainties:

To summarise for those who don't have the time to watch the video, it shows that while algal biofuels have huge potential, as they can produce 30 times more energy than any other existing biofuel known, the technology has not yet been developed enough to enable large-scale production of this biofuel. Therefore, the question I have to answer before beginning the evaluation is should we incorporate the potential for these fuels into the evaluation of the potential impact of biofuels assuming that such technology will be developed in the future, or is this too great an assumption to make? Also, is developing this technology in the future going to be too late to have a significant effect on the overall impact of biofuels, as by the time these future biofuels begin to be utilized, current biofuels and anthropogenic actions producing GHG emissions, for example, may have produced such a large impact that it can not be compensated for in the future?

I personally feel that the answer to the first question is that we should take a cautionary approach and not incorporate the future biofuels into the evaluation at the moment. However, a concrete answer to the latter question is not possible as it is so dependent on the management factors that are very difficult to predict, as discussed in my last post, and this will determine the extent of the impact of current biofuels and of other anthropogenic actions. This is another good reason not to incorporate future biofuels into the evaluation of biofuel effects at the moment. Nonetheless, the algal biofuels should still be kept in mind, since they can potentially change the overall impact of biofuels in the future so significantly.

Socio-environmental impacts of biofuel production: practice (German et al., 2011)

As mentioned before, in science nothing is considered correct or incorrect until proven to be wrong, so I felt it may be useful to compare the findings of CIFOR (2010) with another recent scientific study. Similarly to CIFOR, German et al. (2011) found the impacts of biofuels on employment rates and the market involvement of smallholders to be generally positive. This has been found to have led to positive economic outcomes in the areas where biofuels were involved, through increasing incomes and through the provision of better social and physical infrastructure from industrial investment. However, problems were found to be associated with the changing away from traditional rural lifestyles, traditional land rights and with certain environmental impacts, which is also highly similar to what CIFOR (2010) found. The two studies have also both found great spatial variations in the socio-environmental effects of biofuels, meaning that drawing conclusions on whether biofuels are a ‘way ahead’ or a ‘blind alley’ in practice would be far too simplistic, ignoring these differences. This leads me to reiterate that this means that the impacts of biofuels are determined by the quality of management, as they depend on whether biofuels are allowed to take place in cases where they are harmful. I will now illustrate the significance of this match between the potential effects of biofuels under the different circumstances and the management chosen with some examples from the study by German et al..

For example, as mentioned in the CIFOR study there is a potential for biofuel cultivation on degraded and abandoned (and hence ‘unproductive’) land, which is said to be generally sustainable and beneficial environmentally and socially under certain circumstances. However, problems arise when areas are defined as ‘abandoned’ when they are in reality being used by some people, such as the landless poor, which was found to have happened in a number of locations. Problems also arise when natural ecosystems are converted, which was found to have happened in 59% of the cases of oil palm expansion in Malaysia and in 56% of such expansion in Indonesia in 1990-2005. This expansion was carried out by large industrial groups, leading to making a very similar conclusion to CIFOR (2010) that large industrial expansion and poor management of this generally leads to a lack of sustainability an therefore should not be allowed by the managers. However, if it does take place, good management plays an especially important role, where the views of all stakeholders must be incorporated, otherwise it leads to problems such as the aforementioned loss of access to the vital land and resources for the landless and disputes over land rights. This has been illustrated by the 3500 cases of disputes found in Indonesia associated with the palm oil industry.

However, this leads me to making another point, which is that perhaps biofuels are not the cause of the problems such as deforestation and inequality in access to resources, to power and to land, but merely an excuse for the poor management leading to these effects. I concluded this after observing the numerous other factors, such as land privatization (Gibson et al., 2002) and the global food industry (McAlpine et al., 2009 - see Daniel Hdidouan's blog for more about this!), blamed for these same problems of increasing social inequality and enviornmental harm. I feel that under sound management these problems could be often avoided even under the current global biofuels expansion, land privatization and the incorporation of the food industry. 

In conclusion, I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the socio-environmental impacts of biofuels through space and time is practically impossible due to the complexity of the issue, as the impacts are so dependent on the multiple management factors. This means that under sound management, where the socio-environmental effects of the different management strategies have been evaluated and the optimal one that incorporates the views of all stakeholders was chosen, biofuels are expected to generally have positive effects. However, under poor management, which does not incorporate the views of all stakeholders equally and does not act in a way which will be optimal for the people and the environment, biofuels will likely have a higher negative impact. Nonetheless, from the two studies on the global impacts of biofuels so far which i have rewied in my blog, i seems that the general socio-environmental impacts of biofuels seem to be positive, with the individual cases of significant negative impacts appearing less wide-spread and more case-specific than the positive.

Socio-environmental impacts of biofuel production: practice (CIFOR, 2010)

The scientific reports that I have read, unlike the popular media, actually present largely positive results of biofuels. The report I have chosen to examine first is by CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research), as this should be an example of a more objective, science-based work, primarily interested in the people and the environment rather than the industry. They are a ‘nonprofit, global facility dedicated to advancing human wellbeing, environmental conservation and equity’ (CIFOR, 2010), so we can probably trust them.

Social:

In countries in Latin America, such as Mexico, the plan for Jatropha cultivation on degraded or abandoned lands largely materialised, meaning that no negative effects of smallholder displacement was found. However, in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Ghana and Zambia, negative impacts of industry integration into communities that are not traditionally skilled to deal with it have been observed. I would like to link this to what I have said in my previous post, which is that this is more of a political problem of industry and privatization integration into traditionally communally-managed areas. I have been studying such effects for a university assignment and similar outcomes have been observed in such circumstances, but I have concluded that these outcomes can be prevented under well-regulated government management instead of community management. Here, notice the important verbal phrase ‘well-regulated’, meaning that it should also be inclusive of all parties, which involves the community too. The lack of this inclusion has also led to problems, such as areas in Sub-Saharan Africa where the state was overpowering and exclusive of the community, which limited the potential for a positive outcome. A similar problem was also found in countries such as Malaysia, where 77% of people felt that they were not included in the decision of privatization of their public lands. Similarly, in Indonesia, many people in the Papua area were not satisfied with this change and 92% did not receive compensation due to local corruption, which meant that compensation paid by biofuel companies went to the chiefs instead, not reaching the community. Thus I conclude that the negative effect of people displacement is more of a political problem rather than a one caused specifically by biofuels.

The anticipated employment benefits on the other hand, materialised with much greater success. For example, in Brazil, biofuels resulted in relatively high permanent wages of US$ 20 per day. Similarly, in Mexico, Jatropha cultivation meant a doubling in the minimum wage there and the provision of a more constant wage than the cultivation of food crops. This was also generally found in the Sub-Saharan African countries, such as Ghana. In Asian countries such as Malaysia, 77% of the people surveyed felt that the introduction of biofuels had meant employment, housing and access to social services benefits. There were some cases of dissatisfaction observed in Indonesia, where the promised benefits were not provided to the community due to corruption and poor management, but once again, I would suggest this is a political problem which can be eliminated.

As well as the general trend of a greater wage certainty and income increase, biofuels also meant greater smallholder involvement in many cases. For example, in Brazil, the ‘Social Fuel Seal’ where the government gave incentives to companies to invest in small farms, meaning that the smallholders also received funding to develop. However, this still meant some social segregation, as the poorest and the smallest farms were still not of interest to the investors who are interested in profit maximization. This does not mean that this problem could not be solved by giving greater incentives to invest in those smallest farms, though, for example.

The most significant negative impacts of biofuels were found to be the food security threat and the changes to the traditional lifestyles that biofuels often brought. For example, food crop displacement was found in some areas, such as Zambia, where 39% of respondents said that some crops were displaced. However, I would argue that the negative impact of this is limited, as most of the farmers were found to have displaced their crops to more fertile lands. Unfortunately, the report does not say whether this shift to more fertile areas meant a destruction of natural ecosystems, so I can only evaluate the significance of this change to a limited extent. Nonetheless, this does not mean that this threat will not become more significant in the future under the increased impact of climate change and food demand rise.

The negative impact of biofuels on the maintenance of traditional lifestyles has been more visible. For example, in the areas studied in Malaysia, the land was converted to oil palm plantations, preventing people from exercising their traditional forest-based activities such as hunting. The move away from food cultivation has also meant an increase in the amount of food that has to be purchased, thus potentially increasing poverty and food insecurity. Similar effects were observed in some areas in countries such as Ghana. This is probably the most significant negative social consequence, which can not necessarily be resolved as readily as the others. However, I would still suggest that this impact will lessen in the future as these countries develop and become less reliant of forest activities and agricultural production for their food and income.

To end this discussion, CIFOR (2010) has also suggested some concrete management strategies that may prevent these negative impacts to an extent, which are related to what I have already concluded. 1) It must be ensured that no industrial scale biofuel expansion takes place on mature forestland 2) Inform the consumer of what the activities of the companies include exactly and their impact on the communities in the producer countries 3) Ensure technological efficiency so that an adequate yield of oil is derived from the biomass to increase the benefit from biofuels.

In conclusion, the impacts of biofuels are a complex issue, dependent on multiple political factors and not on biofuels alone. To halt the present and prevent the future negative socio-economic and environmental consequences of biofuels, good management is needed. When this condition is met, positive socio-economic and environmental outcomes are generally seen, although due to the complexity of meeting this condition, this is easier said than done in practice and negative impacts are still seen at the moment. 

Environmental:

It is concluded that the overall GHG effect of biofuels is highly uncertain, with the current conversion of peatlands for biofuel cultivation being of the greatest concern, as this has been estimated to produce a staggering carbon debt of 1300 mg CO2 per ha of peatland converted. This is expected to require 423-692 years of ‘payback time’, indicating the unsustainability of such an activity. The expansion of industrial-scale plantations has been found to be proportionately related to deforestation, with the most severe effects being observed in areas such as the West Kalimantan area in Indonesia, where 94% of the 5266 ha of oil palm plantations emerged on peat swamps. This defeats the aim of GHG emissions reduction, due to the significant GHG losses that occur from peatland drainage required for the plantations (Page et al., 2010). However, in other areas this effect was a lot less significant; for example crops such as soya were responsible for 16-20% of deforestation in the Mato Grosso region of Brazil, but only1.5-6.4% of this has been attributed to biofuels. Nonetheless, even if biofuels are responsible for a relatively small area of forest destruction, this activity is still highly unsustainable per unit area, requiring a ‘payback time’ of nearly 350 years in the Mato Grosso case. Additionally, industrial-scale biofuel expansion has sometimes meant indirect deforestation, though the extent of this has not been quantified; for example, Malaysia was found to all be deforested with the exception of some forest reserves, producing extra GHG emissions, destroying wildlife and displacing local agriculture into other natural ecosystems. This was all attributed mainly to the industrial-scale expansion of feedstock plantations, which means that while biofuels do not play the central role here, such expansion is likely to have a negative environmental impact and should therefore be prevented to avoid this. I would also relate this to poor management, as it was evident that such unsustainable expansion would defeating of the potential environmental benefit expected from biofuel and should thus have not been carried out. Similarly, Jatropha cultivation by smallholders was also often found to be unsustainable, where natural habitats were found to be converted due to a lack of careful management, as such practices go against the theory of cultivation on abandoned and degraded lands only.

Other case-specific negative effects of biofuels were also observed, such as water pollution and air pollution in the sites examined in Malaysia and Indonesia. Soil erosion into waterways was also observed in some areas due to the natural habitat destruction and the drainage of peatlands. However, as I mentioned before, this can probably be reduced if such habitats are not converted to biofuel cultivation in the first place under good management, as this is unsustainable in all respects.

Socio-environmental impacts of biofuel production: theory

The most well-known reports on the socio-environmental impacts of biofuels tend to be negative, creating a vision of biofuels as a blind alley. However, this is a crude misrepresentation, as biofuels can be beneficial to the environment and the society, provided they are grown in the right place, at the right time and in the right way.

Judging by the research I have carried out, I conclude that negative impacts from biofuels arise due to poor governmental regulation and thus should not be blamed directly on biofuels. It also means that these impacts can often be avoided given appropriate management, but at the same time reminds us that the positive benefit from biofuels can only be limited, as it is only beneficial under certain conditions. For example, increasing the biofuel utilization to more than 10% of total consumption in Europe will likely be unsustainable, as it will probably require imports of biomass, involve direct or indirect deforestation and the building of more conversion plants, which produce emissions (Harvey, 2011). Additionally, there is simply not enough land to grow enough biofuels to meet our current energy needs, where even if all the agricultural land currently used for corn production in the US was converted to biofuel cultivation, biomass would only be able to replace 12% of the US’s gasoline consumption and only 6% of diesel requirements (Hill et al., 2006). Now I will outline the major potential problems of biofuels that arise under poor management.

Social: One of the major criticisms of biofuels is food production displacement by them, leading to global food shortages and the increase in the global food prices, which can increase poverty, especially in the future under the scenario of biofuel expansion and due to other factors such as climate change. This is discussed in the short radio podcast below (Vidall, 2008):

The worry about biofuels driving up food prices appeared after the report by the World Bank in 2008, which said that biofuels have contributed to the impoverishment of 100 million people, being the cause of 75% of the 140% total increase in the global food prices in 2002-2008, instead of the 3% as was estimated previously (Chakrabortty, 2008). The Gallagher Report (2008) and the Carbon Trust (2008) also supported this finding. Until this day, these worries persist with reports by parties such as the International Land Coalition (ILC) emphasizing the speed at which biofuels are expanding, saying that 40% of the total global land area that has been converted to agriculture in the last 10 years was for biofuel production while it has only been 25% for food crop cultivation (ILC, 2011).

However, this problem of food crops displacement can be reduced to a minimum and potentially even prevented by ensuring that only agriculturally unsuitable land, such as degraded land is used for biofuel cultivation. Other social problems, such as a potential increase in social segregation and wealth inequality have been blamed on biofuels too. This is because energy producing companies may choose to source raw materials from the larger and wealthier farms, as the supply there is considered to be more consistent and of higher quality (Laabs and Groteke, 2008). However, I would argue that this is a political problem rather than a problem caused strictly by biofuels, meaning that it can be prevented or minimized under appropriate management. For example, while this may not be that easy in reality, a law obliging companies to include the smaller-scale poorer farmers could possibly be a solution here.

Environemntal:  Another major worry about the consequences that biofuels will have concerns the environment. It is said that biofuel expansion may lead to direct and indirect deforestation (the latter being caused largely through food crops displacement as discussed in the indirect GHG emissions section earlier in the blog), which will increase the global total GHG emissions and threaten biodiversity. For example, stories of rainforest destruction in the name of oil palm plantations in countries such as Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia emerged after the global exports of palm oil had increased by 50% in 1999-2004 (Olmstead, 2006). For example, over 80% of the Brazilian Cerrado biodiversity hotspot region has been deforested, which has been largely attributed to activities such as biofuel expansion by the media (Olmstead, 2006). This has been associated with the threat posed to over 140 species of terrestrial animals, including the Bornean orang-utan and the Sumatran tiger. While the reality may not be as dramatic as these large numbers suggest, depending on how ‘species’ has been defined in these studies, this is certainly a significant problem nonetheless. I would advise to read more on such stories on Gem Williams’s blog. The fact that even some degraded lands, such as brownfield sites may have high biodiversity (UNESO, 2009), means that careful case-specific evaluation of whether the site should be converted to monoculture biofuel cultivation is needed. Nonetheless, these problems of major biodiversity loss could be avoided by ensuring that biofuel conversion does not take place in ecologically diverse regions, such as forests and such brownfield sites. The main flaw in this argument lies within the fat that ensuring this may be difficult in practice due to problems such as poor monitoring and poor law regulation, but once again, I would suggest that this is a political problem and not a one caused strictly by biofuels.

Other environmental problems arise when biofuels are grown in water-scarce regions, as a relatively large amount of water is consumed during cultivation (75% of total human water use goes into agriculture! (Wallace, 2000)), which can be read about on Megan L Smith’s blog. Another problem is potential water pollution from fertilizer runoff, which can lead to problems such as eutrophication, which is especially applicable to nitrogen-demanding crops such as corn. UNESCO (2009) modelled the target biofuel expansion in the US and concluded that nitrogen inputs into the Mississippi are likely to increase by 40% as a result. However, the possibility of eutrophication and water pollution by fertilizers can be dramatically decreased with careful management, such as ensuring the cultivation of non-nitrogen demanding crops such as switchcrass near major waterways and through optimal fertilizer application control.

Another negative aspect of biofuels is that while they decrease the emissions of many harmful gasses compared to fossil fuels, they increase the emissions of others such as NOx and acetaldehyde, the latter being 108% higher than from fossil fuels under E10 policy. The policy involves the using of blends containing 10% biofuels and 90% fossil fuel in engines (Demirbas, 2009). This is probably the main problem which is caused directly by biofuels and can not at present be reduced. However, when compared against the pollution that biofuels decrease in comparison with fossil fuels and when the other potential benefits of biofuels are taken into account, this seems like a minor problem.

To summarise, the main problems that arise from biofuels happen when natural ecosystems are converted, which impacts biodiversity, increases global GHG emissions and thus generally defeats some of the main reasons for biofuels cultivation in the first place (Phalan, 2009). This would only benefit energy security in countries that do not possess fossil fuel reserves and industry, which can use their ‘green’ activities as a marketing strategy to increase revenue. Socio-environmental problems will likely arise in this scenario of poorly-controlled biofuel expansion, because converting agricultural land to biofuel cultivation will either mean a global food shortage and food prices increase or indirect land-use changes. This means that biofuel expansion should be carefully controlled to prevent such a harmful expansion and only biofuels grown on certain marginal and degraded lands and future biofuels, such as hydrocarbon biofuels from algae, which will be discussed later on in this blog may be sustainable (Hill et al., 2006 and Phalan, 2009). Additionally, biofuel production should be carefully managed to ensure their production in water-scarce regions is minimal, the application of fertilizer is as low as possible, especially near waterways and that the poorest stakeholders are included when planning for biofuel production and during the production process. If these conditions are met, the socio-environmental impacts of biofuels will be relatively small compared to the potential positive impacts.

Potential positive socio-environmental effects of biofuels:

(Demirbas, 2009):

Social:

1. Improve international energy security through the diversification of sources from which energy is derived; this will be especially important in the future as fossil fuel depletion intensifies.
2. Job creation during biofuel cultivation, harvesting, processing and biofuel processing plants building
3. Increasing the demand and the price of agricultural produce, which will have positive impacts on the producers, especially in the poorer regions of the world, thus helping to alleviate poverty.
4. Improve farmers’ income security through a potential diversification of crops on which they rely.
5. Investment in infrastructure by energy companies, which can be especially beneficial in the developing in countries

Environmental:

1. Decrease in global GHG emissions relative to fossil fuel consumption for energy
2. Decrease in air pollution with gases such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide relative to fossil fuels utilization (see table below).
3. Some other environmental benefits, such as soil quality improvement

Case study: Rodrigues et al. (2007):

Rodrigues et al. (2007) modelled the effects of the expansion of cultivating of oleaginous biofuel crops in five areas of Brazil. As we would expect from what we already know about biofuels, such an expansion would mean an initial increase in GHG emissions due to the more intensive machinery and fertilizer utilization required, but the authors conclude that overall a GHG emissions reduction will be observed on fossil fuel substitution. However, I would like to point out that the paper does not incorporate the NOx emissions suggested by Tim Searchinger in his paper (2008) and in the video in my previous post. This may make the results overly-optimistic. However, at the same time, the by-products use not incorporated and including this could increase benefit; also points out that there may not be enough land to physically be able to optimize the amount of fertilizer used as Zamboni et al., 2011 suggested and still meet the demand.

Additionally, regardless of the emissions effects, environmental benefits of soil quality improvement were suggested under cultivation of degraded lands and under the scenario of rotational crop management. This is because since primary productivity on degraded lands is typically low due to the limited nutrients available there, soil erosion may be observed, which can lead to numerous environmental problems, such as water contamination. Increasing the primary productivity through the cultivation of biofuel crops, which require little nutrients, may decrease soil erosion and the problems associated with it. Rapeseed, for example, is a fast-growing crop which aids soil nutrients recovery and the abundant flowers are said to be beneficial for bees.

The social benefits of biofuels of biofuels in Brazil are also suggested, such as extra income generation and the decreased reliance on certain crops for income generation through crop diversification, which may increase economic certainty for farmers. The planting of Jatropha could potentially be especially beneficial, as it can be grown on the borders of agricultural lands as a hedge, meaning that it would not be putting pressure on food production. However, at the same time the benefit of this has also been questioned by the authors, as marginal lands may often have a very low productivity, while the limited scientific knowledge on the cultivation of the plant even presents potential socio-environmental dangers. Rodrigues et al. (2007) therefore come to a similar conclusion to Claire Melamed of Action Aid in the video from my last post, which is that it may be too early to start using biofuels, as too little is known about their impacts at the moment.

In conclusion, biofuels can have positive socio-environmental effects. So what are the negative socio-environmental effects of biofuels, are they more significant than the positive ones and can they be avoided?

Social and environmental issues of biofuels at a glance

At last! I am starting on the topic which is the most popular within media coverage. My fellow UCL blogger, Gem Williams, has written about some interesting episodes of the social and environmental impacts of biofuels, which i would suggest to my readers tohave a look at.

In addition to all this other material available on the issue, i feel that this video explains the issues of biofuels most concisely, yet fully.

P.S. I found and loved this video when I first started writing this blog a few months ago but restricted myself from publishing it, with the view of making sure i don't spoil it for my readers later by introdcing all these important points on the social and environmental impact of biofuels too early on. So I hope you appreciate it as much as I do!

Is GHG emissions reduction even important? A glance at the past:

It’s all well and good talking about the potential GHG emissions savings of biofuels compared to fossil fuels, but why is this important in the first place? Once again, I am questioning the validity of the topic of this blog; not to worry, biofuels and their potential to reduce anthropogenic environmental impacts are important and I will now show why.

Well, first of all, as most readers will know, anthropogenic GHG emissions have been found to be contributing significantly towards the recent climate change phenomenon of the Anthropocene epoch (Crutzen and Steffen, 2003). The vast increase in population since the period of the Industrial Revolution has meant severe implications for the environment, with 20% of global forests cleared in the last 100 years (Vitousek et al., 1997), which has decreased the ability of forests to uptake greenhouse gases. The period of the Industrial Revolution encompassed other major inventions, such as James Watts’ steam engine of 1784 which allowed people to travel, thereby increasing global greenhouse gas concentrations. Additionally, other activities, such as consumer goods production became industrialized, meant that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by over 30% and methane concentrations by over 100% in the last two centuries (Crutzen and Steffen, 2003). This happened at a rate of 10-100 times faster than that of the last 420,000 years (Falkowski et al., 2000), causing a rise in global temperatures of 0.6ºC in 100 years (Crutzen and Steffen, 2003). Although it seems to be impossible to convince 'hard-core' sceptics such as George Bush, I hope I have managed to convince at least some of you that humanity has contributed to the recent atmospheric GHG emissions increase and to climate change and that the discussion on biofuels is thus important as biofuels can potentially be a means of decreasing this impact.

Additionally, decreasing GHG emissions through biofuel production is likely to have other positive impacts, such as the potential significant reductions in pollution from road transport, for example, which can be viewed here.

To fully evaluate the benefit of biofuels, other environmental and the socio-economic issues of biofuels need to be examined first, which is what I am going to do next. However, this post doesn’t conclude my research into the GHG saving effect of biofuels. To be able to make a conclusion about this, we would need to account for the planet’s biofuel growing potential first, as this effect is proportional to how much biofuel can be grown sustainably. This can not be done without examining effects other than GHG emissions which may make biofuel cultivation ‘unsustainable’: i.e. the potential socio-economic and ecological impacts of biofuels.