Refuel Using Bioenergy: Truth Or Consequences?

REfuel using bioenergy: truth or consequences? Linda Forbes Unit A4 January 2007 INTRODUCTION Despite some opposition, EU leaders committed to adopt a binding 20% target for the use of renewable energy by 2020. This agreement, and that of cutting CO2 emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the same year, was negotiated on 9th March 2007. Specifically, it calls for at least 10% of energy for road transport to come from biofuels by 2020; thus expanding on the current EU Directive 2003/30 (Biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport) target of 5.75% by the end of 2010. This essay, stimulated by Phil Hunt’s lecture ‘Liquid Biofuels’ in Unit A4, considers how the UK might deliver its commitment whilst respecting sustainability issues, and questions whether this is a fundamentally sound policy. WHY NOW? In 1956, a respected geologist, M Hubbert King postulated that annual oil production followed a bell-shaped curve. He predicted that peak levels of oil from US wells was likely to be achieved in the 1970s; and by the 1990s from all sources worldwide (Deffeyes, 2005). History has proven the US hypothesis; however, worldwide this peak is believed to have been delayed by crises in 1970s which reduced consumption significantly. Recent observations (Staniford, 2007b) indicate the world’s largest supplier of oil - Saudi Arabia – has experienced an 8% decline in production. Plotting data from OPEC, Joint Oil Data Initiative, International Energy Agency, Energy Information Administration, and Baker Hughes Oil Rigs, Staniford (2007a) interprets this as confirmation that peak oil in Saudi Arabia has been reached.

Fig 1. Millions of barrels of oil per day showing decline over 12 months

Linda Forbes

Fig 2. Production v operational oil rigs showing threefold increase in number of rigs in 24 months

Unit A4 Essay

1

Staniford’s interpretation of these graphs is that, despite increasing resources being directed towards oil production, output continues to decline. Some commentators to Staniford’s analysis on The Oildrum website suggest stockpiling of supplies may be happening – however, there is no evidence of additional storage capacity being built in the Kingdom’s ports or refineries, according to other contributors. It would, therefore, appear sensible to lessen our reliance on oil-based systems, by reducing consumption and developing alternative fuels; and this may be becoming more urgent. Additional impetus is brought to bear as threats to strategic oil supplies from geopolitical instability in countries such as Iran and Iraq increase, and the willingness of Russia to use energy supplies as a means of achieving its aims becomes evident, for example in Ukraine. Reduction in road transport use will make achievement of the 20% cut in CO2 emissions and 10% substitution by biofuels by 2020 easier to achieve. This, from a political perspective, may be difficult. The recent online petition to Downing Street collected 1.8 million signatures opposing the introduction of road-pricing schemes. Will a hearts-and-minds campaign, and improved public transport, be successful in encouraging modal shift? Possibly – but this subject would need a separate essay, and is not dealt with here. ESTIMATING THE TASK In 1990, UK road transport was responsible for emitting 109.4 million tonnes of CO2 (DEFRA, 2006), reaching 119.9 million tonnes by 2005. The proposed 2020 target implies that emissions will have to reduce to 98 million tonnes; this assumes 20% reduction is required across the board from all sectors. At a more detailed level, information from the DTI’s Digest of UK Energy Trends (2006) gives figures for road transport energy requirements as: 2005 Fossil fuel used in Calorific value in Energy used transport GJ per tonne (thousand tonnes) Petrol 18,731 44.7 837 TJ DERV 19,435 43.3 842 TJ From this, and assuming 10% renewables target is to take account of lower calorific values of biofuels, the area required to grow sufficient biomass is calculated below. For the purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that bioethanol will displace petrol use, and DERV is replaced by biodiesel. 10% target Calorific Biofuel Growing area in TJ value in GJ requirement required in per tonne* in tonnes hectares** Bioethanol 83.7 27.5 3,045,000 1,323,756 Biodiesel 84.2 39.2 2,147,000 1,987,754 * average calorific value taken from Treanton (2004) ** winter wheat 2.3t/ha for bioethanol, oilseed rape 1.08t/ha, from DTI’s Appendix 11 (2005)

Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

2

However, as yields for crops can vary significantly depending upon location, season, weather, soil type, drying requirements, transport to processing facilities, and applications of fertiliser and/or pesticides, the growing area requirements may also fluctuate substantially. And, while many hectares of land in other countries may lie unused, including twenty million in Russia according to Sir Ben Gill (2007), it does not necessarily follow that the best use is in growing energy crops. Extended supply chains, and growing of crops in geopolitically unstable regions, emphasise the need to consider energy security – a current concern with fossil fuels, but one which applies equally to bioenergy. MANUFACTURING CAPACITY Tonnages of biodiesel and bioethanol manufactured in member states as reported by EU Energy Directorate (2006) allows comparison between the 2020 target calculated above and 2005 actuals. EU Biodiesel tonnage

EU Bioethanol tonnage

The figures for the UK are low, but increasing, for biodiesel; with bioethanol capacity lacking completely. Biofuels Corporation Ltd completed its first 250,000 tonne biodiesel processing plant at Middlesbrough last year. Its annual production, equivalent to some 284 million litres of biodiesel, will be used as a 5% blend (B5) with mineral diesel. The company claims their product offers: ‘… similar power and energy content to Unleaded Low Sulphur Diesel. Advantages include virtually zero sulphur content, zero aromatic content, flash point of 300°F against 137°F for mineral diesel, significant reduction in particulates (soot) and hydrocarbons, 70% reduction of carbon monoxide emissions in diesel exhausts, non toxic and biodegradable, fully degraded from a waterway environment

Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

3

within approx 28 days, significant lubricant characteristics enabling a reduction in wear, and extended efficiency for injectors and for all engines using ULSD resulting in lower maintenance costs.’

However, this start-up has not been without difficulties, and the company’s current overdraft at bank is £95.2 million, with an asset value of plant set at £42.7 million. A second player in the UK biofuels market is D1 Oils, who ‘…design and build scaleable biodiesel refineries for the UK road haulage industry.’ Their literature (2007) claims each unit is designed to produce 8,000 tonnes annually to EN14214 standards from a range of feedstocks; and can be linked with others to increase production capacity as necessary. The company aims to expand annual biodiesel production to 420,000 tonnes by the end of 2008. And, as with Biofuels Corporation, they are based on Teesside – allowing ready access to shipborne importation of feedstocks such as soyabeans and jatropha. However, to meet the 2020 targets, opportunities exist to develop more biofuel manufacturing facilities in the UK, or to create partnerships to import significant quantities of refined biofuels. Neither of these are without risk, but a firm commitment to the 2020 targets by EU member states will reassure the financial community and ease the path of entrepreneurs seeking venture capital to fund investment in biofuels. According to Turley et al. (2003), biofuels are 2-3 times more costly to produce than an equivalent volume of fossil fuels, making Government support for the fledgling market is essential. This is forthcoming in the form of reduced rates of taxation. This fuel duty incentive reduces by 1p the cost of a litre of diesel containing 5% biodiesel. The Department for Transport (2007) will guarantee this until March 2009; it being introduced for biodiesel in July 2002 and for bioethanol in January 2005. And, as a further boost, the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) will be introduced from April 2008. DfT’s Consultation on the Draft RTFO (2007) requires 5% of transport fuel sold by suppliers by 2010 to be biofuels. Should this target be missed by a supplier, a penalty ‘buy-out price’ of 15p per litre will be levied. FEEDSTOCKS Recent Defra (2006) statistics list set-aside land as occupying 623,000 hectares and it was clear that the nearly 3 million hectares of land required to grow the tonnages of feedstock calculated to meet 2020 target is not available in the UK, thus requiring the importation of raw materials, or refined biofuels. But, whether feedstocks are grown in developed or lessdeveloped countries, there is scope for tensions to arise between those whose who need land to grow food crops and those who would grow fuel. BBSRC’s report (2006) recommends that ‘… We need to improve the efficiencies of energy conversion in bioenergy crops, during production and processing, and high quality underpinning bioscience research will strengthen and diversify bioenergy options for the future.’ It goes on to point out that, as a primary funder, BBSRC is well

positioned to contribute to this research of strategic importance. So we may Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

4

be able to become more self-sufficient in home-grown supplies, more effective in extracting oil, but unlikely to meet the 10% target demand. However, The Ecologist (2007) reports that peer-reviewed research by David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University in New York, and his colleague, Professor Tad Patzek at Berkeley shows that ‘… it takes 6,597 kilocalories of energy to produce a litre of ethanol from corn, and that same litre contains only 5,130 kilocalories of energy – a 22% loss.’. This leads one to question

whether our future energy policy should be linked to development of biofuels. Consideration needs to be given to CO2 emissions from growing and using biofuels. This must influence our decision as to which feedstocks are grown: for example, comparing fossil fuel emissions to those of bioethanol from maize saves, on average, 15% of the CO2 emissions, whereas biodiesel from woody materials can achieve a saving of 75% - these assume a 100% blend of biofuel so must be adjusted when working with lower % blends. Concerns about loss of biodiversity and negative impacts of monocultural plantations have been voiced in many quarters. And there is potential for other threats: these may range from water shortages, as many of the biofuel species are fast-growing and thirsty; to the destruction of large areas of tropical forest or savannah to accommodate lucrative crops, leading to loss of habitat, erosion and species extinctions in extreme cases. On speaking, however, with a local grower of miscanthus grass, a biomass crop, it was evident that although some applications of pesticide, usually Monsanto Roundup, are required in the first two years of the crop’s life, this ceases once the rhizomes are well established. Additionally, this grower reports he has observed no decline in bird species since establishing the plantation three years ago. More positively, the growing of energy crops may provide employment in impoverished communities, offering people earning opportunities previously denied them. However, Bravo and Mae-Wan (2006) claim that ‘Poor developing nations are to feed the voracious appetites of rich countries for biofuels instead of their own hungry masses, and suffer the devastation of their natural forests and biodiversity.’

On the other hand, this difficult balancing act may be the ideal opportunity to introduce genetically modified (GM) organisms in order to boost the yield of both food and fuel crops. However, this approach may be difficult to reconcile with public opinion in the UK – which has been steadfastly against the introduction of GM crops to the country. But might the public be content to use GM-derived biofuels that had been imported? OTHER ALTERNATIVES? Directive 2003/30 (Biofuels) defines bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas, biomethanol, biodimethylether (BDME), bio-ETBE (ethyl-tertio-butyl-ether), bio-MTBE (methyl-tertio-butyl-ether), synthetic biofuels, biohydrogen and pure vegetable oil as biofuels for the purposes of the legislation. Research into increasing efficiencies of bioenergy crops by using processes such as

Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

5

gasification and pyrolysis to convert biomass-to-liquid (BTL) is being undertaken by a number of organisations including Shell, Uhde, Future Energy, and Chemrec. These second-generation biofuels include hydrogen, methanol, dimethyl ether (DME) and Fischer-Tropsch fuels – and may prove to be the more acceptable face of the biofuel industry. Time will tell. Finally, a more esoteric approach may be the cultivation of microalgae as a bioenergy crop. This, according to the Global Petroleum Club (2007) produces 79,832 kg of oil per hectare – compared with 1,000 kg of rapeseed oil per hectare. Research is in the early stages – again, this might prove to be a better solution in future. CONCLUSION Of critical importance will be the public’s willingness to reduce their road transport impacts – and their enthusiasm for the changeover to biofuels. Precedent exists, at least in part, as evidenced by the replacement of leaded petrol by unleaded petrol in the 1990s. Notwithstanding the above, the question framing this essay is, as yet, impossible to answer: the answer is in the future. The numerous variables described in this essay will be trialled and tested over the next few seasons; and inform the optimal outcome. Research into improved plant-to-energy efficiencies, use of GM feedstocks, better crop rotation and multi-season cropping, wider species selection, more effective processing at refinery, or other means, may make delivery, or exceedance, of the proposed targets straightforward. Conversely, water shortages, plant diseases, pests, or conflicts over space and use of land may reduce our ability to grow sufficient biomass to meet our fuel and food needs. Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it. Buckminster Fuller As with most situations, the development of the biofuels industry offers both risks and rewards: success in achieving the targets proposed will require care in monitoring, and adjusting behaviour and plans to take account of research and results. Only by doing this are we likely to avoid damage to the planet’s ecosystems that outweigh the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. LIMITATIONS A study of published literature on performance levels of vehicle engines using a variety of blends of the different biofuels would give further insight. This may, in turn, lead to a recommendation as to the most beneficial percentages to achieve maximum efficiency and minimal environmental impact. 1Significant negative environmental impacts from growing biofuels have been reported in Brazil – this essay may be improved by further reading on whether the consequences of growing and using bioenergy crops in temperate climates Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

6

on the scale proposed has been researched (for example, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council)’s review of bioenergy research (2006) mentions research in the US, Canada and Sweden.). FURTHER WORK Detailed calculations of feedstock efficiencies and calorific values for each species would be beneficial. Work to verify carbon balances would also improve, or diminish, some of the arguments presented. In particular, the use of marginal, under-used, or derelict, land needs investigation – one might assume that this has a covering of vegetation which will be destroyed prior to planting of biomass crops – thus leading to a loss of sequestered CO2. WIDER CONTEXT The ‘Business-As-Usual’ approach to road transport is likely to be affected by increasing prices for fossil fuels, driven by declining stocks in an open market. However, the concept of biofuels as saviour is fallacious – competition for limited land availability will be a key driver in high manufacturing costs, and there may even be conflict when the choice lies between food for some or travel for others. There may be scope for modular biofuel refineries locally which could accept many types of feedstock, and funded through community investment and ownership. This concept could minimise losses owing transport of feedstocks and finished products; it may even be deployed in the form of a mobile unit, able to travel to crops ready for harvesting. Or, looking further at some of the issues, it may be more sensible, given limited availability of land, to consider hydrogen as an alternative part of the solution. Boyle (2004) suggests that using land for forms of renewable energy other than biomass might do more to mitigate the impacts of CO2. He states that a 40ha array of PV modules could provide energy equivalent to that of 300-1000 ha of energy crops. This solar-electrical energy could be converted to hydrogen, for later use in vehicles with fuel cells. However, calculations on conversion efficiencies would need to be undertaken to verify this approach. FOOTNOTES, REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES IMAGES Staniford, S. (2007). Saudi Arabian oil production. [Online image]. Available at: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/saudi_06_decline.png Accessed 11th March 2007. Staniford, S. (2007). Saudi Arabian oil production and oil rigs in country. [Online image]. Available at: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/saudi_2_07.png Accessed 11th March 2007

Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

7

REFERENCES BBSRC - British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. (2006). ‘Review of Bioenergy Research: A report for BBSRC Strategy Board’. Bennion, P. (2007). Personal conversation by telephone. 7th March 2007. Biofuels Corporation Ltd. (2007). Available at: http://www.biofuelscorp.com/ Accessed 11th March 2007. Boyle, G. (ed.) (2004). ‘Renewable Energy. Power for a Sustainable Future’. 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Boyle, G., Everett, B., and Ramage, J. (eds.) (2003). ‘Energy Systems and Sustainability’. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Bravo, E. and Mae-Wan, H. (2007). ‘The New Biofuel Republics’. Institute of Science in Society. Available at: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NBR.php Accessed: 11th March 2007. D1 Oils Ltd. (2007). Available at: http://www.d1plc.com/ Accessed 11th March 2007. Deffeyes, K. (2005). ‘Beyond Oil’. New York: Hill and Wang. EU Directive 2003/30/EC (Biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport). Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_123/l_12320030517en00420046.pdf Accessed 11th March 2007. EU Energy Directorate. (2006). ‘Innovation and technological development in energy’. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/sectors/bioenergy_en.htm Accessed 11th March 2007. Global Petroleum Club. (2007). ‘Yields of common crops’. Available at: http://www.globalpetroleumclub.com/ Accessed 11th March 2007. Gill, Sir Ben. (2007). ‘Bioenergy Europe 2007 conference. Markets and finance for biofuels and biomass. Keynote speech’. Millennium Gloucester Hotel, London, 5-6th February. London: Environmental Finance Ltd. Great Britain. Department for Transport. Consultation on the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order. (2007). Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/governmentsupport Accessed 11th March 2007. Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006). ‘ eDigest Statistics about: Global Atmosphere - Table 5 - Estimated emissions of carbon dioxide by IPCC source category, type of fuel and end user: 1970 - 2005’. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukmeas.htm#gatb2 Accessed 11th March 2007. Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006). ‘Summary of UK Food & Farming’. Available at: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/quick/agri.asp Accessed 11th March 2007. Great Britain. Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). (2005). ‘Appendix 11’. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18160.pdf Accessed 11th March 2007. Great Britain. Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). (2006). ‘Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics’. Available at: http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes06.pdf Accessed 11th March 2007. Howden, D. (2007). ‘The Big Green Fuel Lie’. The Independent, pp1-2.

Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

8

Hunt, P. (2006). ‘Liquid Biofuels’. Unit A4. Machynlleth: University of East London. University of Strathclyde – ESRU. (2003). ‘Biodiesel Production’. Available at: http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/0203/biofuels/quant_biodiesel.htm Accessed on 11th March 2007

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cooper, G. ‘Bioenergy Europe 2007 conference. Markets and finance for biofuels and biomass’. Millennium Gloucester Hotel, London, 5-6th February. London: Environmental Finance Ltd. Harvey, J. (2007). ‘A versatile solution? Growing miscanthus for bioenergy’. Renewable Energy World. January-February 2007. Volume 10 Number 1, pp86-93. Staniford, S. (2007a). ‘A Nosedive in the Desert’. Available at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2331 Accessed 11th March 2007. Staniford, S. (2007b). ‘Saudi Arabian oil production declines 8% in 2006’. Available at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325 Accessed 11th March 2007. Templer et al. (2007). ‘New crops offer workable biofuels’. Letters to the Editor. The Independent. 8th March 2007, p38. Treanton, K. (2004). ‘Special Issue Paper 8: Net Calorific Values’. Available at: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2004/eswg/21_NCV.pdf Accessed 11th March 2007. Turley, D., Ceddia, G., Bullard, M., and Martin, D. (2003). ‘Liquid biofuels – industry support, cost of carbon savings and agricultural implications’. Prepared for Defra Organic Farming and Industrial Crops Division.

Linda Forbes

Unit A4 Essay

9