OPINION:Some aspects of biofuel promotion are idiotic. We should make haste slowly on biofuels, but make haste nonetheless, writes John Simmie
IT IS simply amazing how biofuels have gone from heroes to zeroes in a matter of weeks. Until recently they were regarded as saviours of the planet because by recycling carbon dioxide they were thought not to contribute to global warming.
So the EU and our own Government adopted strict targets (the 2003 biofuels directive stated that 5.75 per cent of all petrol and diesel consumed has to be replaced by a biofuel) and have heavily subsidised both flexible-fuel cars and the biofuel itself. For example, if you buy a Saab 9·5 today the Irish Government will hand you back over €6,200 in Vehicle Registration Tax and will pay 40 cents towards every litre of E85 (a blend of 85 per cent bio-ethanol and 15 per cent petrol) that you use.
The sheer idiocy of this scheme is illustrated by the fact that once you have driven off the dealer's forecourt you can quite happily not bother putting any biofuel in your fuel tank. Recently, UN special rapporteur Jean Ziegler branded biofuels "a crime against humanity".
So, what is the truth here? Although diverting foodstuffs into the production of biofuels is not a clever idea, the rocketing cost of food such as rice, wheat etc is not simply down to biofuels. The peoples of the so-called Brick countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and Korea) have been enjoying a better standard of living and have changed their diets, from a mainly vegetarian to a more carnivorous one.
A consequence is that more crops are being channelled into animal feed to meet this rising demand. The large increase in the price of crude oil - hovering around $125 a barrel - has also increased the cost of food production and distribution. And finally, speculators have bought up crop futures.
Is there then a role for biofuels in the mitigation of climate change and in the provision of a secure and diversified supply of fuel for use in the transport and power generation sectors? Yes. there is.
For the short to medium term, factors such as the sheer convenience, the ease of use and the infrastructure place gaseous and liquid fuels at the centre of the global economy. As the years go by, the incorporation of increasing percentages of biofuel into fossil fuels will be of help and will buy the time needed to transform society into one powered by other sources, such as electricity and hydrogen.
But the key to this transformation lies in making the correct choices, in both the production of and the nature of the biofuel to be produced. Some commentators would have us believe that biofuel production should be concentrated in countries such as Brazil on the spurious basis that biofuel production is more efficient there.
But this is not the case at all. Although Brazil is blessed with a tropical climate, abundant rainfall, a long growing season and low labour and land costs, it produces bio-ethanol from a foodstuff. The waste sugarcane leaves and stalks are simply burned and this valuable material is not processed further.
This is the true crime against humanity - using crops destined for animal or human consumption to make a biofuel.
There are additional considerations that might persuade you that turning rainforest into palm oil or sugarcane plantations is not a good idea. Recent research, published in February in the journal Science, has shown that converting rainforest (or savannahs, grasslands and peatlands) into food-crop based biofuel farms leads to massive increases in greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term and accelerates global warming and hence climate change.
Also, although the tropical rainforest only occupies about 5 per cent of the Earth's land surface it holds some 50 per cent of its species, the environmental lobbying group Friends of the Earth and others have warned against monocultural expansion because of the real loss of biodiversity with untold consequences.
By way of contrast, many researchers in Europe and the USA are developing second-generation methods of biofuel production from waste and from biomass. But it turns out that bio-ethanol is not an ideal automotive fuel because it suffers from a number of flaws - it is corrosive and worsens air quality leading to increased rates of asthma. Hence, ourselves in the NUIG Combustion Chemistry Centre, and a few others in laboratories, are exploring truly next-generation biofuels which hopefully will not share the disadvantages of bio-ethanol.
Biofuels are neither an unmitigated evil nor a supremely good thing; a rational consideration is needed in which all the steps are considered from growth through to end-use, including the impact of exhaust emissions and fuel spills on air quality and health in our cities.
Our motto should be festina lente - make haste slowly. There have been too many snap decisions taken by politicians without a clear understanding of the underlying sciences and of the economic consequences of such rash promises.
We are seeing the tragic consequences in Haiti and elsewhere that have arisen partly as a result of diverting a small portion of human foodstuffs into biofuel. All because a green agenda in the name of climate change was imposed without first teasing out the difficulties that would inevitably arise.
Prof John Simmie is director emeritus of the Combustion Chemistry Centre at NUI Galway