EU biofuel policy is a 'mistake'

[Henk op xp]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

BBC NEWS
EU biofuel policy is a 'mistake'
* The EU target of ensuring 10% of petrol and diesel comes from 
renewable sources by 2020 is not an effective way to curb carbon 
emissions, researchers say. *

A team of UK-based scientists suggested that reforestation and habitat 
protection was a better option.
Writing in Science, they said forests could absorb up to nine times more 
CO2 than the production of biofuels could achieve on the same area of land.
The growth of biofuels was also leading to more deforestation, they added.
"The prime reason for the renewables obligation was to mitigate carbon 
dioxide (CO2) emissions," said Renton Righelato, one of the study's 
co-authors.
"In our view this is a mistaken policy because it is less effective than 
reforesting," he told BBC News.
Dr Righelato, chairman of the World Land Trust, added that the policy 
could actually lead to more deforestation as nations turned to countries 
outside of the EU to meet the growing demand for biofuels.

* Carbon counting
[  The scientific principle behind biomass is the carbon cycle

As they grow plants absorb carbon dioxide (C02)
The carbon (C) builds tissues and feeds the plant while the oxygen (02) 
is released
When plant material is burned the carbon re-combines with oxygen
The resulting carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere
The contribution of biomass to the greenhouse effect is therefore far 
less than for traditional fossil fuels  ]

The study compared the amount of carbon absorbed by a forested area with 
the total of "avoid emissions" by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels.
The researchers examined arable land that could either be used for 
growing crops to produce biofuels, or replanted with trees.
"We looked at the amount of biofuels produced per hectare," Dr Righelato 
explained. "From that figure, we were able to calculate the amount of 
fossil fuels that could be replaced by biofuels.
"That gave a figure for avoided emissions, but then we had to subtract 
from that the carbon emissions generated during the production of the 
biofuels.
He said this calculation provided them with the "net avoided carbon 
emissions".

"This is the key factor, that is the amount of CO2 that is saved from 
being released into the atmosphere by using the biofuel."
The researchers then compared the net avoided carbon emissions with the 
amount of CO2 that would have been absorbed if forests were 
re-established on the land.
"In all cases, the amount of CO2 sequestered (by forests) over a 30-year 
period is considerably greater than the amount of emissions avoided by 
using biofuels," Dr Righelato revealed.
The researchers also examined the impact of clearing forests in order to 
convert land to grow crops used to make biofuels.
Dr Righelato said forest clearances had a large and immediate impact on 
the carbon cycle.
"Forest carbon stocks are in the region of 100-300 tonnes per hectare. 
Three-quarters of that is lost over the first year during clearing and 
burning," he said.
"It would take - in all the cases we examined - between 50 to 100 years 
to recover this carbon through the production of biofuels."

* Second chance *

However, he said that so-called second generation biofuels, which used 
feedstocks such as straw, grasses and wood (lignocellulosic material) 
rather than grains or palm oil, offered a much better opportunity.

"It was the one route that seemed to offer some possibilities in terms 
of CO2 mitigation.
"If you can extract lignocellulosic materials sustainably from forests 
without destroying the soil and maintain a way that forests can rapidly 
regrow, it is quite possible you can have your cake and eat it, as it were."
A number of nations, including Germany, the UK and US, are developing 
second generation biofuels, but the capital costs needed to build 
commercial "biorefineries" have been seen as a major barrier.
But two US researchers, writing in the Biofuels, Bioproducts and 
Biorefining journal, say that rising grain prices could make the 
technology commercially competitive sooner rather than later.
Mark Wright and Robert Brown, from Iowa State University, US, said that 
a second generation biorefinery cost four to five times as much as a 
bio-ethanol plant that used grains, such as corn.
However, the overall cost of producing second generation biofuels would 
be similar to biofuels produced from food crops when corn prices exceed 
$3 (£1.50) per bushel, they explained.
The adoption of second generation biofuels would be welcomed by 
environmental groups and food agencies, who view first generation fuels 
as unsustainable.
Experts at the World Water Week conference in Stockholm have voiced 
concern that growing food crops to be used to make biofuels could 
jeopardise water supplies.
"When governments and companies are discussing biofuel solutions, I 
think water issues are not addressed enough," Johan Kuylenstierna, 
director of the annual conference, told AFP.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6949861.stm

Published: 2007/08/17 15:24:22 GMT

© BBC MMVII

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********