EU sticks to target on biofuels
The Greens have always argued that all biofuels are not created equal, and that is why we insisted on a sustainability clause in the current BSO Bill before we would support it. The clause turned out to be a bit whimpy, but it is easily fixed now that we are at the Select Committee stage in the House. Then all the noise, some science based, some hyperbolic, calling for the removal of the bill because biofuels are evil and a crime against humanity.
It appears from here that the Minister is holding firm. I have heard from Jeanette herself that she still supports the Biofuel Sales Obligation Bill with its current timing and required amounts, so long as the sustainability criteria/regs are sufficient and mandatory. Still, the cries of hysteria from submitters continue. Today, Carbon News reported that the EU has come to the same conclusion as Jeanette, and that they will stick to their biofuel targets.
But a spokesperson for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said on Monday there was “no question� of backing away from the biofuels target. The European Commission’s agriculture spokesman Michael Mann says there is little danger of the proposed target causing a big shift from food production to biofuel production. He says improving farm productivity, especially in eastern Europe, will allow both food and biofuel needs to be met.
German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel backed the EU officials saying the EU target can be met in ways that “do not lead to a conflict with food or rainforests”. He said greater use of food crops for feed for animals rather than for the direct production of food is a bigger problem. “The big competition is not between the use of biomass for energy and food but between feed and food,” Reuters reports Gabriel as saying.
While there are real issues with biofuels competing with food crops, it’s more about land use change than direct competition. IMHO, the real pressure stems from the growing middle classes throughout the world who have a higher standard of living and who want more meat. This is coupled with decades of IMF demands that developing countries avoid investing in agriculture and invest instead in manufacturing. (This policy has been reversed, but it will take a long time to catch up with decades of missed investment.)
Meantime, the world’s population keeps growing and trade barriers that prevent developing countries from exporting food into OECD countries continue to stunt agricultural development. Oh, and then there was Australia’s worst drought in a thousand years. The final straw is basic economics. When a staple grain such as corn gets sucked out of the market, or wheat from Oz disappears due to drought, all potential substitutes get a price rise. Oil, a major input into agriculture, has also quadrupled in the last few years.
There are an awful lot of factors conspiring to create the food riots we currently see in 33 countries around the world. Biofuels are one of those reasons, but also an convenient and easy scapegoat. Nevertheless, they could become a major negative driver and we will continue to argue for strict sustainability standards. In the meantime, using our waste tallow for biodiesel first before exporting the glycerine still makes economic sense for little old NZ.
If the EU mandates stricter sustainability standards as promised, good on them for sticking to their target. If we do the same here, it’s all the better for us.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
yes..as noted elsewhere..meat production does more damage than bio-fuels..
but fitzsimons/the greens are very ‘wrong’ on this one..
even if ’sustainable’..
the world hunger imperatives far outweigh this bio-fuel chimera..
phil(whoar.co.nz)..
April 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
SO exactly where is all this sustainable biofuel and how much does it cost?
How are you going to prevent non sustainable biofuels entering the sysyem and not breach trade rules and our FTAs?
__the meantime, using our waste tallow for biodiesel first before exporting the glycerine still makes economic sense for little old NZ.__
Really? So why is no-one able to do it profitably without a mandate, a subsidy or import protection? How many plants have been built and how much are they making?
Unfortunately the GReens have colluded to make the target so high that even if you used every ounce of tallow in NZ - and that is highly, highly unlikely for commercial and technical reasons - you still can’t meet the target. What are you going to do then?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Ethanol can be and is made from milk whey, using current technology.
http://energy.massey.ac.nz/Conference%202006/Ethanol%20from%20Whey%20- %20A%20Gibson.pdf
This is being sold in a bio-fuel blend:
http://www.bioenergy.org.nz/documents/newsletters/2007/BANZ_issue53_Au g07.pdf
Trevor.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
and as i do a live-commentary on each questiontime..
..i have been witness to the somewhat surreal situation of nationals’ nick smith being more green than the greens..in his opposition to this model of bio-fuels.
(i mean..!..go grow feckin’ alges or something..!
how can the greens dance on the head of a ‘moral pin..
and continue to promote this deeply flawed ’solution’..
which..in fact..is no ’solution’ at all..
but is a rapidly escalating problem..
(do the greens have a problem saying..’we made a mistake’..?..
i mean..some 15 or so months ago..russel norman penned a hymn of praise to bio-fuels..on this forum..
i jumped in then..pointing out all that was wrong with bio-fuels..
(as usual..he had no response/answers to this reasoned critique..)
and since that silence..
it would seem there has been no evolution of thinking on this subject within the green party hierachy..
(as i said..it’s ’surreal’ to watch..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
i see nothing has changed..
April 18th, 2008 at 10:15 am
hmm..!!..
carnivorous/bio-fuel pimping green mps..
(when exactly does a purported ’solution’..
..actually ‘tip’ to being part of the/any ‘problem’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
If we develop our wind, wave and tidal flow renewable resources for electricity generation and move away from coal and gas, then there will be periods of low demand and excess supply, some of which can be used for electricity storage systems, recharging electric cars, etc. The rest can be used for electrolysing water to manufacture hydrogen - with an energy efficiency of 75-80% or better.
Some of this hydrogen can replace hydrogen currently manufactured from natural gas and used in our refinery and ammonia/urea plants. Some might even be used in hydrogen fueled vehicles. And some can be used to enhance the manufacture of bio-fuels using the H2CAR process:
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070314AgrawalBiomass.html
The H2CAR process has received some bad press, mainly because it has been oversold. Sure the electricity it would use would be better utilised in electric vehicles or PHEVs, except we don’t have enough of those. Sure the hydrogen could be used in hydrogen fueled vehicles - if we had any. The H2CAR process allows the hydrogen to be stored in an easily-handled liquid form using current infrastructure and used in our current vehicle fleet and portable tools. The biomass component is really a delivery mechanism for the hydrogen energy rather than the primary energy source.
Trevor.