Biofuels: An appropriate strategy?

Biofuels have been a hot topic in discussions over the years. Is the biofuel development strategy appropriate?

In 2003, the European Union issued a Directive proposing that member states increase the share of biofuels in energy used for transport by 2% before 2005 and 5.57% first. in 2010. In 2005, this target was not achieved and may not be achieved in 2010 (only about 0.8% in 2006), but anyhow, this Directive also proves The great concern that the European Commission is devoted to biofuels as a method to solve many problems immediately. The new European energy strategy, announced on October 1, 2007, has agreed that biofuels will probably achieve at least 10% of the energy used in transport.

Biofuels cannot compete with fossil-fuel products if marketed. In order for their prices to be equivalent to the prices of gasoline and diesel, they need to be subsidized. In Europe, biofuels are subsidized in three ways:

1. Agricultural subsidies, mainly from the structure of the Common Agricultural Policy;

2. Full or partial tax reduction, this is absolutely necessary because energy taxes account for about half of the finished price of gasoline and diesel;

3. Biomass obligations, this obligation stipulates that the fuel sold through the card must contain at least a certain amount of biofuels.

These three political measures require financial resources, which are paid by the European Commission (agricultural subsidies), by governments (income from energy taxes is cut) and by car drivers ( the increase in finished fuel prices). For this reason, a comprehensive analysis is needed to see whether investment in government-supplied sources of biofuels and large-scale use of agricultural land is the most appropriate strategy. or not to solve biofuel related issues.

The main argument behind biofuel policies is based on the idea that biofuels will not increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to biofuels emitted during the combustion phase is equal to the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by plants during the growth process through photosynthesis, thus leading to the amount of carbon becoming balance. In addition, the replacement of biofuel oil products will reduce Europe's energy dependency and increase energy safety.

Biological energy cycle (Photo: llnl.gov)

However, a more careful analysis of the biofuel life cycle indicates that energy savings (and CO ₂ ) are not as big as it might seem and in some cases may not even be good. In fact, the raw fuel used to produce biofuels is often obtained from agricultural intensification, which agricultural intensification implies a huge use of fertilizers, pesticides and machines. The reason for this is that, with less intensive methods, output will be lower and demand for land and costs will therefore be higher. In addition, fossil fuels are also used in the processing stage (oil pressing, ester displacement) and are used to transport oil seeds to processing plants and from there to end users.

In any case, even if the direction of the directive is met, the savings will not be large. In fact, since the transport share also accounts for 30% of the consumption of finished energy, the 5.75% of fuel used for transport will be equivalent to 1.8% of final consumption. Considering that this consumption requires indirect use of fossil fuels, the final cost of savings will be even lower.

For example, consider a very positive ratio of input / output output (biodiesel produced using a unit of fossil fuel) is 2.5, we calculate it to be 5.75% (about 20 million tons of oil) is equivalent to saving about 26 million tons of CO ₂ , meaning less than 1% of the European Union's CO ₂ emissions in 2004 (4.228 million tons of CO2) . If we consider the emissions associated with transporting imported materials and food crops imports that would be replaced by energy agriculture, the savings would be even more. even lower and if oilseeds are imported from outside Europe, this savings may be even negative.

Another reason often given to boosting biofuels is urban pollution. Biofuels are not only considered ' green ' fuels on a global scale (reducing greenhouse effect) but also on a local scale. They will contribute to reducing the traffic ' pollution ', and so the illnesses will follow. In fact, the benefits gained from this point of view are very small.

Greenhouse effect (Photo: gov.mb.ca)

For example, according to a study by the US Environmental Protection Agency (2002), if diesel is replaced with a mixture of 20% biodiesel (B20), the amount of nitrous oxide ((NO _x ) will decrease. 2%, particulate matter (particulate matter - PM), non-flammable hydrocarbons (HC) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) will be reduced to 10.1%, 21.1% and 11%, respectively. It can be calculated that, with a mixture of 5.75%, the PM, HC and CO levels are reduced by 3%, 6% and 3% respectively (and the amount of NOx increases will be negligible).

Compared to the modest benefits achieved (replacing a small amount of fossil fuels and reducing some of the contaminants for diesel), the disadvantages of biodiesel production on the surface too clear.

Due to low production, the demand for land is huge. In Biomass Action Plan (Annex 11), it was calculated that to achieve 5.75% of the proposed target (18.6 million tons of biofuels), 17 million hectares, meaning one fifth of Europe's cultivable land (97 million hectares). Because there are not many abandoned and hard-growing land in Europe, the consequences will be to replace food crops and increase food imports.

For this reason, in Europe's Biomass Action Project and the European Biofuels Strategy, one must admit that Europe will promote the production of biofuels materials in foreign countries. Europe, where the European Commission intends to develop energy agriculture.

This means that the effects of energy agriculture will be exported to southern countries. It is easy to foresee that, if Europe requires increasing biofuels because of biofuels obligations and other supporting policies, southern countries could be encouraged instead. not a food crop, at least the primary forest by extensive monoculture.

Energy agriculture will probably have a big role in deforestation, because primary forests will be cut down to grow energy crops . As a result, besides reducing the wild biodiversity that people worry about is reducing soil fertility, water sources and quality, and increasing use of pesticides and fertilizers. fertilization, as well as negative social impacts such as displacement of local communities.

The European Directive and generally all policies to promote biofuel development, not only imply a cultivated competition but also encourage the development of palm plantations, but plants with oil are cheaper than any other source. Palm plantations are responsible for most deforestation in Southeast Asia and show a real threat to the remaining primeval forests. In addition, these plantations are also responsible for the high level of soil erosion. For example, from 1985 to 2000 in Malaysia, plantations caused 87% of the total deforestation and another 6 million hectares would be destroyed to make room for palm trees. Brazilian sugarcane plantations are similar, more or less so.

In addition, considering that the amount of CO2 emitted due to transcontinental transport and atmospheric CO ₂ increases due to deforestation (forests are 'CO2 sinks '), the final result may be will be a complete increase in greenhouse gases instead of the desired reduction.

Another possible negative consequence is the reduction in world food production, which is a particularly serious problem in the context of increasing population and energy demand . A recent example is the increase in corn prices in Mexico by up to 30% in early 2007, due to high demand for corn bioethanol production in the US (Mexico is a net importer of corn from the US). Some people have used the term ' ethanol inflation '.

In addition, large-scale biofuel production implies a strong environmental impact on the agricultural stage: large monoculture of energy crops will significantly reduce biodiversity. agriculture, with strong environmental impacts in terms of soil erosion, use of fertilizers and pesticides and water demand. In addition, one of the potential consequences is an increase in the use of genetically modified products (GMO). In fact, soybeans, corn and rapeseed (3 of the most used materials for biofuel production) are the most important, second and fourth genetically modified plants.

Another reason often given to favor biofuels is rural development . However, it is arguable that biofuel support should not be used as agricultural subsidies. If the goal is to support agriculture, subsidies should be given to organic agriculture and landscape protection.

In conclusion , using public funds to support large-scale biofuel production is not an appropriate strategy. Clearly, these concerns do not apply to oil used or for recycling agricultural residues, nor for the production of narrow products on a small scale, while all these may be good strategies again.

In short, biofuels cannot contribute to solving problems related to the great dependence of our economy on fossil fuels. The idea that biodiesel could be a solution to the energy crisis is not only wrong but also dangerous. In fact, it may be biased with optimism about technology and failure in " fixing " energy issues in terms of technology. But we should never forget that, if we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels, there is no magic wand: The only possible solution is to modify consumption patterns.

Thanh Van