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.