"Renewable Energy is energy derived from resources that are regenerative or for all practical purposes non-depleting beside environmentally benign. By these qualities, renewable energy sources are fundamentally different from fossil fuels.
Mankind’s traditional uses of wind, water, and solar energy are widespread in developed and developing countries; but the mass production of energy using renewable energy sources has become more commonplace recently, reflecting the major threats of climate change, depletion of fossil fuels, and the environmental, social and political risks of fossil fuels.
Consequently, many countries promote renewable energies through tax incentives and subsidies. The role of new and renewable energy has been assuming increasing significance in recent times with the growing concern for the country’s energy security.
During the last two and half decades there had been a vigorous pursuit of activities relating to the development, trial and induction of a variety of renewable energy technologies for use in different sectors.
The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has been facilitating the implementation of broad-spectrum programmes covering more or less the entire range of new and renewable energy.
These programmes broadly seek to supplement conventional fossil-fuel-based power through harnessing wind, small hydro and bio power; reach renewable energy to remote rural areas for lighting, cooking and motive power; use renewable energy in urban, industrial and commercial applications; and develop alternate fuels and applications for stationary, portable and transport uses apart from supporting research, design and development of new and renewable energy technologies, products and services.
Commercialization of the renewable energy technologies started in 1993. The States were pursued to offer suitable sites and announce policies for private sector participation. Grid interactive renewable power projects are essentially private investment driven and almost all the renewable power capacity addition is coming through this route.
Eventually, since renewable power would need to compete with conventional electricity, the challenge is to align it in terms of reliability, quality and cost. Accordingly, the focus is towards reducing the capital cost of projects and increasing their capacity factors, with the eventual aim of reducing the unit cost of renewable power generation.
Wind Power
The Wind power programme in India was initiated towards the end of the Sixth Plan, in 1983-84. A market-oriented strategy was adopted from inception, which has led to the successful commercial development of the programme. The fiscal incentives that were already available have also played an important role in commercial development. The total installed capacity in India comprises of commercial projects and demonstration projects aggregating to about 7300 MW. In 2005, the country became the 4th largest producer of wind power in the world.
Solar Energy
The sun is an inexhaustible source of energy to mankind. India is ideally located for utilization of the radiant energy of the sun. The country receives solar energy in most of its parts and throughout the year except rainy days. The daily average incident energy varying between 4 and 7 KWh per sq.m. depending on the location. Solar energy can be used through thermal as well as photovoltaic routes. Solar energy utilization in India has been growing steadily over the last two and half decades. A wide variety of technologies have been developed.
The Ministry is implementing a wide range of programmes to make these systems and devices available to the common man. As a result, over one million solar PV lighting systems, solar water heating systems equivalent to a collector area of around 2 million square metres, 7000 solar pumps, 600 000 solar cookers stand installed in the country. These contribute to saving huge quantity of conventional electricity daily in the country.
Hydro Power
Hydro power is perhaps the oldest renewable energy technique known to mankind for mechanical energy version as well as electricity generation. India is amongst the countries including China where water wheels were first developed. India has a century old history of hydro power and the beginning was from small hydro.
In India, hydro projects up to 25 MW station capacity have been categorized as Small Hydro Power (SHP) projects. India has an estimated potential of about 15 000 MW with perennial flow rivers, streams, and a large irrigation canal network. Mapping of potential sites/locations on a GIS platform is receiving utmost attention.
Biomass
Biomass has been one of the main energy sources for the mankind ever since the dawn of civilization, every year million tons of agriculture and forest residues are generated. These are either wasted or burnt inefficiently in their loose form causing air pollution. These wastes can provide a renewable source of energy. The sugar industry has traditionally used bagasse-based cogeneration for achieving self-sufficiency in steam and electricity as well as economy in operations.
Therefore, the Ministry has been promoting new technologies for sugar mills to operate at higher levels of energy efficiency and generate more electricity than what they require though bagasse based cogeneration projects. The Ministry is also giving a thrust to Biomass Gasifiers. A large number of installations for providing power to small-scale industries and for electrification of a village or group of villages have been undertaken as also oil replacement initiatives through thermal applications.
The Remote Village Electrification Programme has been aligned with Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana and would now be extended only to those villages/hamlets not likely to receive grid-connectivity under the said Yojana. During 2006-07, the Rural Electrification Policy, which has laid down the broad framework for rural electrification in the country, was notified.
Accordingly, provision of SPV home-lighting systems under RVEP is required to be treated as an interim solution. Supply of electricity is being made in far-flung villages through solar, biomass gasifier and small hydro power. About 2240 remote villages have been provided with electricity through renewable energy under the programme. The Ministry has also taken up Village Energy Security Test Projects which aim at meeting energy requirements of cooking, lighting and motive power and are being undertaken in remote villages and hamlets that are not likely to receive grid connectivity.
The most important and popular technology developed indigenously is the “biogas plant” for processing of cattle dung. It serves the purpose of meeting fuel as well as the manure requirement from the same quantity of cattle dung available in the rural households and institutions. Five models of biogas plants have been developed under the National Programme of Biogas Development. India’s position in the biogas development is number two in the world.
Constant efforts are being made for the development of research in new and renewable energy sources such as hydrogen energy, fuel cell, geothermal energy, ocean, tidal energy, synthetic fuel and bio-fuel. The National Hydrogen Energy Board has approved and decided to implement the hydrogen energy road map in the 11th Five Year Plan."
Oriģināls
Rāda ziņas ar etiķeti politika. Rādīt visas ziņas
Rāda ziņas ar etiķeti politika. Rādīt visas ziņas
2008-01-20
Par biodegvielu ražošanas veicināšanas pasākumiem Masačūsetas štatā, ASV
"Could Massachusetts become the nation's 21st century version of Texas when it comes to energy production?
It could if legislative leaders, venture capitalists and researchers have their way. But instead of black crude, the state's energy wealth may be hidden in wood chips, cranberry bogs and yard waste.
The state's efforts are part of a national competition to lead the country in the biofuel market. Among the competitors are New York, California and, of course, Texas, along with current leaders Minnesota and Iowa.
According to the state's Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, several local businesses are preparing to compete in this arena. Three biodiesel refineries are in the planning stages in Pittsfield, Greenfield, and Quincy. The refinery in Greenfield expects to produce about 5 million gallons of biodiesel a year, primarily from waste oil.
But there's more to the push for a state biofuel industry than simple economic competition. Massachusetts consumes about 4.5 billion gallons of petroleum per year, costing roughly $10 billion. That's the third highest energy price in the country, behind only Hawaii and Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Petroleum fuels are the largest single source of energy expenditures in the state, accounting for roughly half of total annual residential and commercial energy spending. Over one-third of homes in the state (36 percent) use home heating oil, well beyond the national average of 8 percent, according to the same report.
"In a world where Massachusetts is 100 percent dependent on petroleum, they (fuel companies) can in effect hold state consumers hostage to high oil prices. In essence, they can charge whatever they want," said Brook Coleman, spokesman for the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative.
"If your oil company says, 'You're going to pay $3.25 for oil,' what are you going to do? Are you going to buy a wood-burning stove? You're stuck," said Coleman.
Massachusetts may seem an unlikely producer of biofuels. It doesn't grow large crops of corn, sugar or oil seed used to make ethanol. But the U.S. Department of Energy says those crops comprise 37 percent of biomass used in the country while forest residues, primary and secondary mill waste along with urban wood-wastes from paper mills, saw cutting and cardboard account for 39 percent.
Scientists say wood chips, algae and cranberry biomass are readily available resources for biofuels in the state. According to Coleman, there is a tremendous amount of waste from the leaves and stems of cranberries along with acres of unused cropland.
Magdalena Bezanilla, a cell biologist at the University of Massachusetts, just received a $625,000 grant to make a biofuel a reality. Her research uses moss to search for genes that might make other plants such as switch grass grow better.
"Five to six years from now we might be able to discover the genes that alter genetic makeup that (makes biofuel feedstock) grow faster and bigger," said Bezanilla.
The advantage to crops such as switch grass is that less energy is required to break down the plants into ethanol.
"Right now corn seems to be the most high profile, but it actually takes a lot of energy input to convert corn into ethanol. [That's] not the best solution. Cellulosic ethanol doesn't require as much energy input to get out a good amount of ethanol," Bezanilla said.
Companies aren't waiting for a research breakthrough. Berkshire Biodiesel has plans to set up a $50 million biodiesel production facility in Pittsfield and Dalton, which is expected to produce 50 million gallons of biodiesel a year from virgin feedstocks such as soy, according to Robert Keough, spokesman for the state environment office.
"We certainly think it will be a significant boon to the agricultural industry here. We think this will bear additional crops that can be raised for fields, but also that agricultural wood will be used for biofuels as well," said Keough.
The state's three top politicians are taking steps to nurture these industries by supporting mandates that diesel and home fuel providers use alternative energy sources in their blends.
Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi support a bill requiring the use of biodiesel in all blends of transportation and heating fuels, starting at 2 percent biodiesel in 2010 and increasing to 5 percent in 2013.
If that legislation passes, Massachusetts would be the first state to require a minimum amount of bio-alternatives in all fuels. The bill would also provide a gas tax exemption for cellulosic ethanol.
According to sponsors of the bill, cellulosic ethanol could create 3,000 new jobs in Massachusetts and pour $320 million into the economy. BioEnergy International, Verenium, Mascoma, Agrivida, SunEthanol, and GreenFuel Technologies are some of the leading companies in the state racing to bring this next generation fuel source to the market.
The headquarters for World Energy, one of the largest biodiesel distributors in the country, can be found in Chelsea. Mass Biofuel, another major biodiesel supplier, is located in Dedham."
Oriģināls
It could if legislative leaders, venture capitalists and researchers have their way. But instead of black crude, the state's energy wealth may be hidden in wood chips, cranberry bogs and yard waste.
The state's efforts are part of a national competition to lead the country in the biofuel market. Among the competitors are New York, California and, of course, Texas, along with current leaders Minnesota and Iowa.
According to the state's Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, several local businesses are preparing to compete in this arena. Three biodiesel refineries are in the planning stages in Pittsfield, Greenfield, and Quincy. The refinery in Greenfield expects to produce about 5 million gallons of biodiesel a year, primarily from waste oil.
But there's more to the push for a state biofuel industry than simple economic competition. Massachusetts consumes about 4.5 billion gallons of petroleum per year, costing roughly $10 billion. That's the third highest energy price in the country, behind only Hawaii and Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Petroleum fuels are the largest single source of energy expenditures in the state, accounting for roughly half of total annual residential and commercial energy spending. Over one-third of homes in the state (36 percent) use home heating oil, well beyond the national average of 8 percent, according to the same report.
"In a world where Massachusetts is 100 percent dependent on petroleum, they (fuel companies) can in effect hold state consumers hostage to high oil prices. In essence, they can charge whatever they want," said Brook Coleman, spokesman for the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative.
"If your oil company says, 'You're going to pay $3.25 for oil,' what are you going to do? Are you going to buy a wood-burning stove? You're stuck," said Coleman.
Massachusetts may seem an unlikely producer of biofuels. It doesn't grow large crops of corn, sugar or oil seed used to make ethanol. But the U.S. Department of Energy says those crops comprise 37 percent of biomass used in the country while forest residues, primary and secondary mill waste along with urban wood-wastes from paper mills, saw cutting and cardboard account for 39 percent.
Scientists say wood chips, algae and cranberry biomass are readily available resources for biofuels in the state. According to Coleman, there is a tremendous amount of waste from the leaves and stems of cranberries along with acres of unused cropland.
Magdalena Bezanilla, a cell biologist at the University of Massachusetts, just received a $625,000 grant to make a biofuel a reality. Her research uses moss to search for genes that might make other plants such as switch grass grow better.
"Five to six years from now we might be able to discover the genes that alter genetic makeup that (makes biofuel feedstock) grow faster and bigger," said Bezanilla.
The advantage to crops such as switch grass is that less energy is required to break down the plants into ethanol.
"Right now corn seems to be the most high profile, but it actually takes a lot of energy input to convert corn into ethanol. [That's] not the best solution. Cellulosic ethanol doesn't require as much energy input to get out a good amount of ethanol," Bezanilla said.
Companies aren't waiting for a research breakthrough. Berkshire Biodiesel has plans to set up a $50 million biodiesel production facility in Pittsfield and Dalton, which is expected to produce 50 million gallons of biodiesel a year from virgin feedstocks such as soy, according to Robert Keough, spokesman for the state environment office.
"We certainly think it will be a significant boon to the agricultural industry here. We think this will bear additional crops that can be raised for fields, but also that agricultural wood will be used for biofuels as well," said Keough.
The state's three top politicians are taking steps to nurture these industries by supporting mandates that diesel and home fuel providers use alternative energy sources in their blends.
Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi support a bill requiring the use of biodiesel in all blends of transportation and heating fuels, starting at 2 percent biodiesel in 2010 and increasing to 5 percent in 2013.
If that legislation passes, Massachusetts would be the first state to require a minimum amount of bio-alternatives in all fuels. The bill would also provide a gas tax exemption for cellulosic ethanol.
According to sponsors of the bill, cellulosic ethanol could create 3,000 new jobs in Massachusetts and pour $320 million into the economy. BioEnergy International, Verenium, Mascoma, Agrivida, SunEthanol, and GreenFuel Technologies are some of the leading companies in the state racing to bring this next generation fuel source to the market.
The headquarters for World Energy, one of the largest biodiesel distributors in the country, can be found in Chelsea. Mass Biofuel, another major biodiesel supplier, is located in Dedham."
Oriģināls
Raksts par enerģētikas politikas attīstības iespējām ES
"(Biopact) - In a twist of irony, if the European Parliament and environmentalists have things their way, they could be banning the bulk of biofuels produced in Europe and the US, slow the fight against climate change, promote fossil fuels that pump out more emissions, and force the Union to import all its biofuels from countries like Brazil, Congo or Mozambique. The entire 10 per cent target. These are some of the consequences of a campaign not thought out all that well.
The Parliament wants biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions minimally by 50 percent compared with fossil fuels. This means that a large number of 'first generation' fuels will not qualify as biofuels, even if they reduce emissions and help in the fight against climate change. The few that do, are cellulosic biofuels, which are not produced on a large scale yet, and fuels made from efficient tropical and subtropical crops. Almost none of the European or North American biofuels would meet the target.
Of course, almost all current biofuel production systems could greatly improve their GHG emissions reduction profile with relatively low-cost interventions. To cite just one example: if corn ethanol plants in the US were to use biomass co-generation instead of coal-based electricity or natural gas to power their production processes - as is done in Brazil's cane ethanol sector - they would slash off a significant bit of their emissions and the fuel would suddenly become considerably greener. Many other of these efficiency and low carbon interventions can be readily applied; energy prices need to increase just a bit to make them commercially feasible.
Over the longer term, some biofuels - like biohydrogen - can even become carbon negative by coupling their production to carbon capture and storage (CCS). In that case, they would be taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. They would not merely be reducing emissions by 100%. They would go beyond that, yield 'negative emissions' and become the most radical tool in the fight against climate change. No other form of renewable energy - wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro - can never achieve this. These energy sources remain perpetually carbon neutral.
But let's not take these exciting future prospects into account - some impatient and shortsighted environmentalists refuse to look beyond today, so let us do the same, for the sake of this exercise. Let's stick to biofuels as they are currently produced, and to the legitimate critiques leveled against them.
Absurd consequences
In that case, the EP's high and arbitrary goal could have some very strange consequences that border on the absurd. The target would imply biofuels that reduce CO2 emissions by 49.9 per cent and thus contribute in a serious way to mitigating climate change, would be banned. Imagine a fuel that would be produced in a highly environmentally friendly manner (e.g. based on herbaceous crops that slow down erosion, restore soil health, reduce nitrogen runoff and enhance biodiversity), with the fuel cutting emissions almost in half. That would be a major feat and would obviously be promoted by any rational and environmentally conscious human being. Well, for the EP and some environmentalists, such a fuel wouldn't be good enough and it would be excluded.
More logical would be to demand that a biofuel reduces emissions - plain and simple. Even if the fuel reduces CO2 by only 5%, it would still help in the fight against climate change. And all help, no matter how small, is welcome, or so we are told in other contexts.
When a low target is set - say 5%, that is, the fuel still combats climate change - a very wide range of fuels would be allowed on the market, and a flourishing biofuels industry would emerge, with many vehicles utilizing it - all contributing their bit to fighting global warming. But the EP chooses another logic: only to allow a very small number of fuels that reduce emissions radically. It is not clear which of the two strategies is the smartest, but chances are that with the EP's proposal, the EU will not see the development of a biofuels industry at all for the coming two decades, and would thus be forced to keep utilizing only fossil fuels. That would be a disastrous and absurd consequence of this high target, demanded by people who call themselves green.
This is why the European Commission is likely to propose a more rational emissions goal for biofuels - in the order of a reduction of 25 per cent. The graph shows which fuels would survive under both targets. Note that there are many different lifecycle analyses of biofuels, all coming to different conclusions with regard to the carbon balance. We took a study that is widely considered to be one of the most stringent and comprehensive ones: "A Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels", authored by Rainer Zah, Heinz Böni, Marcel Gauch, Roland Hischier, Martin Lehmann, and Patrick Wäger, all working for the Technology and Society Lab of the Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Science and Technology, and published in September 2007. The graph breaks down the emissions released during each step in the production process, field-to-wheel.
European Parliament target: under the 50% reduction target allmost all conventional types of biodiesel and ethanol produced both in the EU and the US would be banned, except for cellulosic ethanol (from wood and grass) and ethanol made from sugarbeets. Corn ethanol as produced in the US, as well Europe's own grain and potato based alcohol would be banned. All types of biodiesel would fail to qualify, except for biodiesel made from palm oil when processing residues are used for the production of energy as is done in Brazil with bagasse. The other exception is methyl ester obtained from waste cooking oil. Europe's very own large rapeseed-based biodiesel industry would have to be closed down.
For biogas, the EP target would have some bizarre consequences: methane recovered from organic waste would not qualify as a biofuel for transport, even though it has lower emissions than natural gas, which is already a relatively low carbon fuel. Likewise, methane captured from sewage sludge and used for transport energy would not qualify. Only methane from wood (bio-SNG) and biogas made from manure in highly optimised systems, or from manure with an efficient energy crop co-substrate would be retained. The emerging biogas sector based on abundant, ordinary grass crops would not be allowed to sell its gas as a transport biofuel because it reduces emissions only by up to 30% compared with natural gas. 30% is not 50%.
Ironically, contrary to fuels grown in temperate climes, biofuels made in subtropical and tropical countries will definitely qualify as biofuels - at least on the emissions front. For the alcohol fuels, these are: ethanol from sweet sorghum and sugarcane; for biodiesel, certain types of palm oil fuel but only when the residual biomass is used for the production of energy and when the crop is grown in Africa or Latin America on non-forest land. Perhaps jatropha based biodiesel would make it for emissions, but harvesting the seeds of this shrub is not likely to be mechanised anywhere soon and is in fact so labor intensive that it would probably not meet the social sustainability criteria that will be included in the revised directive - jatropha requires slave-like cheap labor.
European Commission target - likely to be a 25% CO2 reduction: under this more rational goal, a wider group of biofuels that reduce emissions would be allowed onto the market as green fuels.Amongst the biodiesel crops, rapeseed would be back in business, but only under certain production schemes and in certain places. Palm oil would be in, as would U.S. soybean based diesel. Soy from Brazil results in emissions that are always too high, because the crop is grown on forest land.
Under the 25% target, ethanol would come from a wide variety of sources. Only U.S. corn ethanol would be banned, as would alcohol from potatoes and rye.
For biogas, the highly efficient grass based biogas production systems that are springing up across Europe would be retained, as would biogas from sewage sludge and from organic waste.
Conslusion
In short, these different targets would result in radically diverging consequences. Under the stringent goal, Europe would have to close virtually its entire existing biofuels sector and import everything from countries in Africa and Latin America, provided the fuels are produced in a socially sustainable way. It would be banning all fuels that reduce emissions by less than 50%, including those that achieve an interesting 49%.
Under the Commission's likely target, a wider range of biofuels would become available and all of them would help reduce carbon dioxide emissions substantially, but not necessarily radically. Not all of them would be as efficient as sugarcane ethanol, but at least some crops grown in Europe would be allowed to participate in the market. Efficient grass based biogas refineries would also be allowed in - which would be a rather rational thing to do.
The trick of anti-biofuels advocates will be to ask that all biofuels that do not reduce emissions by more than 50% be banned, and then to design social and environmental sustainability criteria so stringent as to ban all remaining biofuels. This is the strategy of those who could be denying developing countries one of the few historic opportunities they have to lift themselves out of poverty. This is a logic that could have the perverse effect of speeding up climate change."
Oriģināls
The Parliament wants biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions minimally by 50 percent compared with fossil fuels. This means that a large number of 'first generation' fuels will not qualify as biofuels, even if they reduce emissions and help in the fight against climate change. The few that do, are cellulosic biofuels, which are not produced on a large scale yet, and fuels made from efficient tropical and subtropical crops. Almost none of the European or North American biofuels would meet the target.
Of course, almost all current biofuel production systems could greatly improve their GHG emissions reduction profile with relatively low-cost interventions. To cite just one example: if corn ethanol plants in the US were to use biomass co-generation instead of coal-based electricity or natural gas to power their production processes - as is done in Brazil's cane ethanol sector - they would slash off a significant bit of their emissions and the fuel would suddenly become considerably greener. Many other of these efficiency and low carbon interventions can be readily applied; energy prices need to increase just a bit to make them commercially feasible.
Over the longer term, some biofuels - like biohydrogen - can even become carbon negative by coupling their production to carbon capture and storage (CCS). In that case, they would be taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. They would not merely be reducing emissions by 100%. They would go beyond that, yield 'negative emissions' and become the most radical tool in the fight against climate change. No other form of renewable energy - wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro - can never achieve this. These energy sources remain perpetually carbon neutral.
But let's not take these exciting future prospects into account - some impatient and shortsighted environmentalists refuse to look beyond today, so let us do the same, for the sake of this exercise. Let's stick to biofuels as they are currently produced, and to the legitimate critiques leveled against them.
Absurd consequences
In that case, the EP's high and arbitrary goal could have some very strange consequences that border on the absurd. The target would imply biofuels that reduce CO2 emissions by 49.9 per cent and thus contribute in a serious way to mitigating climate change, would be banned. Imagine a fuel that would be produced in a highly environmentally friendly manner (e.g. based on herbaceous crops that slow down erosion, restore soil health, reduce nitrogen runoff and enhance biodiversity), with the fuel cutting emissions almost in half. That would be a major feat and would obviously be promoted by any rational and environmentally conscious human being. Well, for the EP and some environmentalists, such a fuel wouldn't be good enough and it would be excluded.
More logical would be to demand that a biofuel reduces emissions - plain and simple. Even if the fuel reduces CO2 by only 5%, it would still help in the fight against climate change. And all help, no matter how small, is welcome, or so we are told in other contexts.
When a low target is set - say 5%, that is, the fuel still combats climate change - a very wide range of fuels would be allowed on the market, and a flourishing biofuels industry would emerge, with many vehicles utilizing it - all contributing their bit to fighting global warming. But the EP chooses another logic: only to allow a very small number of fuels that reduce emissions radically. It is not clear which of the two strategies is the smartest, but chances are that with the EP's proposal, the EU will not see the development of a biofuels industry at all for the coming two decades, and would thus be forced to keep utilizing only fossil fuels. That would be a disastrous and absurd consequence of this high target, demanded by people who call themselves green.
This is why the European Commission is likely to propose a more rational emissions goal for biofuels - in the order of a reduction of 25 per cent. The graph shows which fuels would survive under both targets. Note that there are many different lifecycle analyses of biofuels, all coming to different conclusions with regard to the carbon balance. We took a study that is widely considered to be one of the most stringent and comprehensive ones: "A Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels", authored by Rainer Zah, Heinz Böni, Marcel Gauch, Roland Hischier, Martin Lehmann, and Patrick Wäger, all working for the Technology and Society Lab of the Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Science and Technology, and published in September 2007. The graph breaks down the emissions released during each step in the production process, field-to-wheel.
European Parliament target: under the 50% reduction target allmost all conventional types of biodiesel and ethanol produced both in the EU and the US would be banned, except for cellulosic ethanol (from wood and grass) and ethanol made from sugarbeets. Corn ethanol as produced in the US, as well Europe's own grain and potato based alcohol would be banned. All types of biodiesel would fail to qualify, except for biodiesel made from palm oil when processing residues are used for the production of energy as is done in Brazil with bagasse. The other exception is methyl ester obtained from waste cooking oil. Europe's very own large rapeseed-based biodiesel industry would have to be closed down.
For biogas, the EP target would have some bizarre consequences: methane recovered from organic waste would not qualify as a biofuel for transport, even though it has lower emissions than natural gas, which is already a relatively low carbon fuel. Likewise, methane captured from sewage sludge and used for transport energy would not qualify. Only methane from wood (bio-SNG) and biogas made from manure in highly optimised systems, or from manure with an efficient energy crop co-substrate would be retained. The emerging biogas sector based on abundant, ordinary grass crops would not be allowed to sell its gas as a transport biofuel because it reduces emissions only by up to 30% compared with natural gas. 30% is not 50%.
Ironically, contrary to fuels grown in temperate climes, biofuels made in subtropical and tropical countries will definitely qualify as biofuels - at least on the emissions front. For the alcohol fuels, these are: ethanol from sweet sorghum and sugarcane; for biodiesel, certain types of palm oil fuel but only when the residual biomass is used for the production of energy and when the crop is grown in Africa or Latin America on non-forest land. Perhaps jatropha based biodiesel would make it for emissions, but harvesting the seeds of this shrub is not likely to be mechanised anywhere soon and is in fact so labor intensive that it would probably not meet the social sustainability criteria that will be included in the revised directive - jatropha requires slave-like cheap labor.
European Commission target - likely to be a 25% CO2 reduction: under this more rational goal, a wider group of biofuels that reduce emissions would be allowed onto the market as green fuels.Amongst the biodiesel crops, rapeseed would be back in business, but only under certain production schemes and in certain places. Palm oil would be in, as would U.S. soybean based diesel. Soy from Brazil results in emissions that are always too high, because the crop is grown on forest land.
Under the 25% target, ethanol would come from a wide variety of sources. Only U.S. corn ethanol would be banned, as would alcohol from potatoes and rye.
For biogas, the highly efficient grass based biogas production systems that are springing up across Europe would be retained, as would biogas from sewage sludge and from organic waste.
Conslusion
In short, these different targets would result in radically diverging consequences. Under the stringent goal, Europe would have to close virtually its entire existing biofuels sector and import everything from countries in Africa and Latin America, provided the fuels are produced in a socially sustainable way. It would be banning all fuels that reduce emissions by less than 50%, including those that achieve an interesting 49%.
Under the Commission's likely target, a wider range of biofuels would become available and all of them would help reduce carbon dioxide emissions substantially, but not necessarily radically. Not all of them would be as efficient as sugarcane ethanol, but at least some crops grown in Europe would be allowed to participate in the market. Efficient grass based biogas refineries would also be allowed in - which would be a rather rational thing to do.
The trick of anti-biofuels advocates will be to ask that all biofuels that do not reduce emissions by more than 50% be banned, and then to design social and environmental sustainability criteria so stringent as to ban all remaining biofuels. This is the strategy of those who could be denying developing countries one of the few historic opportunities they have to lift themselves out of poverty. This is a logic that could have the perverse effect of speeding up climate change."
Oriģināls
Abonēt:
Ziņas (Atom)