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.

So what else affects biofuels’ emissions? Indirect variables of indirect land-use change

There are factors other than what has been described in detail so far that need to be taken into account to allow accurate GHG emissions estimation from biofuels. As mentioned in an earlier post, this includes taking into account whether the biofuel has useful by-products, such as the high-protein material left after bioethanol production, which can be used as animal feed. Matthews et al. (2011) found that it is realistic to increase ethanol output by up to 3 times compared to the present and still avoid the often-expected indirect emissions from having to convert more natural land to agriculture. Such an increase in bioethanol production is said to easily meet the biofuel demand of the US, for example, expected by 2016 (Matthews et al., 2011). Other useful byproducts include materials which can be utilized in plastics and pharmaceuticals manufacture and yeast for human consumption.

Other indirect determinants of GHG emissions from biofuel production include case-specific electricity generating pathways. In Brazil, for instance, 85% of electricity was generated by hydropower in 2009, which is likely to significantly decrease GHG emissions from production (Matthews et al., 2011).

The information in this post therefore adds to the fact that there is great variation in the emissions from biofuels and that the amount of GHG savings or emissions from biofuels should not be generalized.  

Virgin said to use biofuels in aviation sooner than thought

Hello! I know this deviates slightly from the style of my previous posts, but I'd like to introduce something slightly less academic and heavy for once into my blog to give you guys a break!

The Guardian published an article last night publicizing that Branson is keen to use biofuels as aviation fuel as soon as possible. The article uses adjectival phrases containing the buzz-words 'sustainable' and 'renewable' to discribe these future fuels. 'Yey! Virgin Atlantic Airways is going green, I'm going to fly with them in the future', is most likely the expected response from consumers to this statement.

However, at least I and you, my dear reader, now know that biofuels are not all a 'way ahead', nor are they all a 'blind alley' - their environmental, as well as the socio-economic impacts (as Iwill later show) depend on the specifics of where the biofuel comes from and what process it has gone through before becoming a fuel. The origin and lifecycle of Virgin's future 'sustainable' fuels thus determines their actual sustainability and whether Branson's statement is just another marketing strategy.

Should degraded lands be used for biofuel cultivation – Nair et al. (2011)

So far, we have seen the results of Lange (2011), who suggests that the use of degraded lands is likely to have beneficial GHG reduction effects. But in science nothing can definitely be considered to be correct or incorrect, until proven wrong (Castree et al., 2005); so do other studies come to the same conclusions?

To be able to answer this question, the definition of ‘degraded land’ must be compiled. Nair et al. (2011) suggest that this comprises of lands not currently utilized for anthropogenic activities with decreased biodiversity and primary productivity, which often occur due to anthropogenic activities such as overgrazing, poor agricultural management and deforestation. Such conditions, if management is not improved, may lead to detrimental knock-on effects on the environment, such as soil erosion. This means that if managed well, converting to biofuel production may immediately result in an environmental benefit before the GHG emissions are considered; but what about the GHG emissions?

Using this definition, Nair et al. (2011) have found that converting degraded grassland to biofuel crop production, including the often bedevilled oil palm, produces little extra GHG emissions (including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane), which only tend to be short-term. This means that these emissions will be compensated for in the long-term, resulting in a net GHG saving over time. However, there are some exceptions, where in the case of degraded tropical rainforest conversion, the extra emissions tend to be of unsustainable levels. Additionally, the biofuel crop type matters, with the nitrogen-demanding corn, sugarcane and soybean being unsuitable for growing on degraded lands, as they will require vast amounts of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, increasing GHG emissions, as explained in previous posts. Non-nitrogen intensive crops, such as jatropha and oil palm, however, are ideal without major addition of fertilizer despite the low soil fertility, thus resulting in net GHG saving.

However, there are a number of problems with the results of the study. Firstly, there is an issue with defining ‘degraded land’. There is no single agreed definition of the term, meaning that previous definitions differed among each other, which would result in highly varied GHG effects calculations of ‘degraded land’ conversion. For example, Dregne and Chou (1994) suggested that degraded lands comprise 3.6 billion ha in arid regions, while Oldeman (1994) calculated this to be 1.9 billion ha globally (Nair et al., 2011). This great variation means that care should be taken to remember that the results of Nair et al. (2011) only apply to their definition of ‘degraded land’. Secondly, it is important to remember that the results of this study describe the GHG emissions from ‘degraded lands’ conversion overall and it is therefore important not to generalise, as spatial and temporal variations exist in soil characteristics, climate and management practices. Thirdly, the authors mention the presence of data gaps on GHG fluxes in areas such as the tropics, making the results less representative of spatial and temporal variations in emissions. Additionally, it is important to remember the ubiquitous problem of uncertainty in some factors, such as the major uncertainty in nitrous oxide emissions (Nair et al., 2011).

In conclusion, although there are some uncertainties, as there are with every model (Castree et al., 2005), conversion of degraded lands to biofuel cultivation is likely to generally have a positive impact on GHG emissions, provided Nair et al.’s (2011) definition of degraded lands is used. However, site-specific evaluations of the precise outcome may be useful. Nonetheless, the results of the study suggesting a promising future for biofuels cultivation on degraded lands in terms of GHG emissions agree with the results of Lange (2011). This is good news, as degraded lands provide a source of land for biofuel cultivation of which there is a shortage at the moment, supposedly without major environmental and socio-economic problems, such as putting pressure on biodiversity and food production. Additionally, under good management biofuels may reduce problems that degraded lands often entail, such as soil erosion, producing further benefit.

Direct land-use change emissions – does conversion of natural lands always contribute to extra GHG emissions compared to fossil fuels? Lange (2011).

As mentioned in my previous post, the conversion of agricultural lands entails major indirect land-use changes and socio-economic consequences, so let’s now consider the effects of converting of natural lands in greater detail.

It may not be surprising that 20% of global GHG emissions arise due to forest degradation and deforestation (Lange, 2011), meaning that if biofuel production entails forest destruction, it is not saving emissions. However, what about the emissions from the conversion of other types of natural habitats? Let's look at this in more detail.

While Mellilo et al. (2009) model uncontrolled future biofuel expansion, Lange (2011), uses a more realistic scenario for the EU by including sustainability regulations, such as the prohibition of converting lands where the indirect emissions are too large to lead to the minimum of 35% emissions reduction compared to fossil fuels (Lange, 2011). While Lange’s (2011) study focuses on EU reduction targets, the results apply to other areas of the world, as the indirect land-use change emissions involve global land-use changes, provided the land-use changes outside the EU are carried out in a similarly controlled manner.

They found that apart from converting savannah grasslands to biofuel cultivation, conversion of other natural vegetation types is unlikely to contribute towards the 35% minimum GHG emissions reduction aim posed by the EU. This means that lands which were previously used for agriculture or other anthropogenic activities and degraded lands are most suitable for biofuel production, producing most GHG emissions reductions.

However, this poses problems such as pressure on the food production industry and on biodiversity, which is often high in these areas despite the low primary productivity (Lange, 2011); these issues will be discussed in more detail later on in the blog. Additionally, due to the market-driven nature of biofuel production, it would be unrealistic not to include the economic factors of using such lands. Incorporating these factors, it seems that it is unlikely that degraded lands will be economically viable to convert under the current policy within the EU, where cultivation subsidies decline with land degradation level. This is especially detrimental when considering that biofuel crop fertility on degraded lands will be lower than on non-degraded, further limiting the economic benefit and thus the potential of degraded lands conversion (Lange, 2011).

In conclusion, according to Lange (2011), when considering just the GHG emissions potential, only some savannah grasslands, brownfield sites and degraded lands could potentially be used for biofuel production. This is therefore in agreement with the suggestion of Mellilo et al. (2009). However, socio-environmental impacts of using these lands need to be considered.  Additionally, taking into account the economic factors, some policy changes need to be made before the use of degraded lands becomes viable.

Indirect land-use change emissions and the GHG effect of biofuels

Searchinger et al. (2008) have found that taking into account indirect land-use change emissions that arise from converting more natural lands to agricultural as a result of biofuels’ displacement of croplands, actually results in major extra GHG emissions compared to fossil fuels. For example, they concluded that the production of ethanol from corn in the US increases GHG emissions relative to fossil fuels for 167 years and double the emissions in the next 30 years, instead of reducing the emissions by 20% as suggested by studies not accounting for indirect land-use changes. Even switchgrass, previously deemed to be particularly GHG-saving, results in 50% increase in emissions in the medium-term, according to Searchinger et al. (2008).

Similarly pessimistic results are obtained by Mellilo et al. (2009), who found that due to the indirect land-use change emissions, greater GHG emissions will result if natural lands conversion is involved (i.e. indirect land-use change), instead of a case where agricultural lands are used more intensely without the extra indirect land-use change emissions. Additionally, the time it takes for the carbon emissions to become favourable is less where no indirect land-use changes are involved, taking 30-50 years on average instead of over 100 years for indirect land-use changes (Table 1). Therefore, due to the major medium-term emissions, the authors suggest that conversion of natural lands will be unfavourable overall, where net GHG saving in the long-term will not compensate for the potential global warming contribution effect caused by the initial indirect emissions. At the same time, a more intensive use of agricultural lands is likely to require so much fertilizer, that this activity may also become unfavourable in terms of nitrous oxide emissions in the longer term. 

Variable       Case 1                                                Case 2

Time period 2000–2030 2000–2050 2000–2100    2000–2030 2000–2050 2000–2100 

Direct land C       11             27                 0                  –52            –24              –7

Indirect land C    190           57                  7                  181             31                1

Fertilizer N₂O      29            28                 20                  30              26                19

Total                    229          112               26                  158             32                13

Table 1. Carbon intensity index using cellulosic biofuels under scenario1 - natural lands are converted to biofuels and scenario 2 - croplands are used more intensively to produce crops and biofuels; in g CO₂eq MJ^–1

If indirect land-use change emissions from natural lands conversion result in unfavourable medium-term emissions and the more intense use of agricultural land results in unfavourable direct emissions, does that mean that biofuels are a blind alley and there is no point in me continuing to write this blog?

Well, fortunately, not all is lost. Firstly, the results of the analysis by Mellilo et al. (2009) only apply to healthy natural lands and to high-value agricultural lands. However, the authors suggest a potentially favourable GHG emissions outcome if using natural degraded lands and low-value lands that were previously utilized for anthropogenic activities, including degraded agricultural areas and lands which have already been deforested.

Secondly, there are some limitations to these studies calculating indirect land-use change emissions. They model uncontrolled biofuel expansion, not accounting for sustainability regulations in the EU such as the prohibition of converting lands where the indirect emissions means emissions reduction is less than 35% compared to fossil fuels (Lange, 2011). Additionally, they attribute 100% of the indirect GHG emissions to biofuels. These limitations make those studies unrealistic, only showing the worst-case scenario.

Should indirect land-use change emissions from biofuel production be attributed to biofuels? A review of Kim et al., 2008

There are two types of land-use change: ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’, the former referring to the removal of previously-growing vegetation together with the carbon it stores within it and replacing it with the biofuel crops. 'Indirect' involves land-use change elsewhere (Mellilo et al., 2009). Indirect land-use change is said to account for twice as many emissions as direct at the present (Mellilo et al., 2009), making it especially important. Some studies suggest that if indirect land-use changes are taken into account, the expected reduction in GHG emissions by substituting fossil fuels with corn ethanol biofuels, for example, becomes negligible (Searchinger et al., 2008), reflecting on the importance of the issue of whether the responsibility of indirect land-use changes should be given to biofuels.

Kim et al. (2008) question whether indirect land-use change should be taken into account in biofuel emissions calculations, or at least how much of the indirect emissions should be attributed to biofuels and who should be blamed for the indirect land-use change emissions. This is because the amount of emissions depends not just on biofuel growers but also on the grower of the crop that would have been grown instead of the biofuel. Would it be fair to attribute all the land-use change emissions to an environmentally-conscious ethanol producer, and not holding the potentially unsustainable activities of those producing land-use changes elsewhere, such as clearing the rainforest to produce soya, responsible for any? Kim et al. (2008) question the universal applicability of the concepts of the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘think globally, act locally’ to biofuels, due to the difficulties that arise in establishing who the polluter is and how to distribute emissions. They illustrate the validity of their belief by showing that at least 70% of crops such as corn grown globally is used as animal feed, meaning that biofuels contribute relatively little to emissions if the bigger picture is taken into account. Additionally, total agricultural emissions account for less than 20% of the total GHG emissions from land-use change, making biofuels seem even less responsible for the impact.

However, I feel that Kim et al. (2008) seem to draw attention away from the impact of biofuels. For example, they suggest that since 90% of all land-use change emissions arise from agriculture, timber and construction industries, biofuels are of little importance here. I, on the other hand, feel that all of these parties should be attributed equal responsibility and that biofuels are thus no less important. Attributing less responsibility to biofuels is potentially encouraging unsustainable practices in their production.

Nonetheless, this is an important point, showing where variations in indirect land-use change calculations may arise even under identical conditions and reminding of the importance of other parties producing land-use emissions. This also demonstrates the problem with most indirect land-use change calculations of biofuels, which usually attribute all the emissions to the biofuel industry, meaning that the calculations suggest worst-case scenarios of biofuels impact. This should thus be kept in mind when evaluating biofuels’ emissions.

My conclusion after reading Kim et al.’s (2008) view is thus that biofuels should be responsible for a part of the emissions to avoid the arguably current overestimation of emissions from biofuels. However, the other often-ignored participants of the land-use change emissions should be given more responsibility than they seem to be at the moment.