No Nonsense
Fuel versus food
THE hype and hopes surrounding the promise of bio-fuels and the realities of disappointments with its downsides have become a controversial issue of global interest. Everyone is asking: Can corn-based ethanol the primary ingredient for bio-fuels deliver the promises?
The promises persuaded over 300 scientists and business leaders to attend a recent conference hosted by the University of California San Diego. The promise of bio-fuels prompted President George Bush to ask Congress recently for $225 million for bio-fuel research a 19% increase over this year's federal spending level.
Besides achieving energy independence, proponents argue that bio-fuels are environment friendly as opposed to fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) and are responsible for climate change.
Since bio-fuels are made from plants and algae that absorb CO2 in the process of photosynthesis, they can alleviate global climate change. Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere while burning bio-fuels releases CO2 that was absorbed from the atmosphere by plants or algae in the past. The process initiates a carbon cycle one that halts further buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Chemical analyses reveal that bio-diesel creates a reduction of:
- 100% net carbon dioxide (global warming
- 100% sulphur dioxide (acid rain)
- 40-60% of soot emissions (health hazard)
- 10-50% of carbon monoxide emissions (poisonous gas)
- 10-50% of hydrocarbon emissions (health hazards)
- 80-90% mutagenicity (cancer causing)
- Carcinogenic emissions (cancer causing)
Interestingly, there is residual food value once energy is extracted from most bio-fuels crops. With ethanol, the food value is enhanced. The by-products from the distillation process are dried grains, which contains yeast and hence are more nutritious than the original unprocessed grain.
With bio-diesel the left over is oilseed cake after the oil has been pressed outagain, depending on what seed is used, this is usually a highly nutritious, high-protein livestock feed.
As for developing countries, making bio-fuels from home-grown crops can reduce dependence on imported fuels, build self-reliance, and spur local job opportunity and growth. Moreover, dependence on fuel wood, which is often scarce and poses serious health hazards through indoor air-pollution, is also reduced.
The case for bio-fuels seems persuasive but most of the promises are still circulating on paper. Besides, proponents avoid weighing out their downsides.
The diminution of greenhouse gas buildup depends on the types of bio-fuels produced. Transforming plants into bio-fuels ethanol made from cornstarch and bio-diesel made from canola and soybeans uses so much fossil fuel generated electricity that the net effect on greenhouse gases is negative rather than positive.
Considering the total energy consumed by farm equipment, cultivation, planting, fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides made from petroleum, irrigation systems, harvesting, transport of feedstock to processing plants, fermentation, distillation, drying, transport to fuel terminals and retail pumps, and lower ethanol fuel energy content, the net energy content value added and delivered to consumers is very small. All things considered, the net benefit does little to reduce un-sustainable import of oil and fossil fuels required to produce the ethanol.
Get this: It takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more (June 17, 2006 editorial in the Wall. St. Journal). A comparison of conversion efficiency from solar to usable energy shows that photo-voltaics (solar cells) are 100 times more efficient than corn ethanol, and 10 times more efficient than the best bio-fuels.
A Montreal Gazette editorial opined that the gains in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel energy are so minor that they certainly aren't worth the hunger they cause,
"When people worldwide start rioting because they can't afford to put food on the table," said The Christian Science Monitor in an editorial, "it's time to 'rethink global security."
There will certainly be a "backlash" against using crop land for fuel production if "world food shortages worsen," said the Singapore Straits Times in a recent editorial.
Dow Chemical, which is converting soybeans into foam for furniture and car seats, expresses concerns about increasing demand outstripping supply, given there's only so much of these biologically available materials around. The scenario isn't very promising, nor is the conversion of ecologically valuable forests to oil palm in Malaysia or sugarcane in Brazil.
"The problem, for now, is that science and technology have yet to catch up, so commercially viable US ethanol must come from corn. And that puts your gas tank in competition with your kids' bellies for an increasingly valuable resource (Dallas Morning News, April 17)."
As we see, rising oil prices feed back into the bio-fuels production process. With food and fuel consumption intertwined, increases in the price of oil are shadowed by increases in the price of grain. This structural shift has put nearly 800 million automobiles around the globe in competition with 2 billion poor people for food, warranting urgent reversal of bio-fuels madness.
Bio-fuels might have a place, but that place should be carefully weighed against damage to the environment (deforestations) and disruption of the world's food chain. Therefore, research should continue with non-food bio-fuels sources. Brazil has succeeded in using non-food plant material such as sugar-cane waste to produce ethanol.
In the next decade, cellulosic ethanol, which is derived from crop residues, grasses and other plant materials otherwise discarded, may become a reality.
Much of the increased bio-fuels demand come from the US and EU. Many vehicles already on the road in the US are equipped to run on E-85 fuel (a fuel made from 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).
There is also a widespread use of E10 (a fuel blend made from 10% ethanol) in most automobiles. A growing demand for bio-fuels in many South Asian countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, is transforming agricultural land into bio-fuel crop land.
There are no shortcuts to reducing oil use and greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians in the US and EU countries need to comprehend that a "sustainable bio-fuels" source is illusory rather than a realityeither now or in the future. Arable land isn't a zero-sum gameland converted to higher-priced corn is not available for other crops.
As for investors, they need to recognise that pouring money into bio-fuels is a risky bet. What will happen if, for whatever reason, oil prices drop significantly? Besides, government subsidies may quickly dry up once policymakers face up to the reality of their euphoric chimera and food shortages threaten political stability and national security.
Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan, formerly nuclear engineer, is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments