The unintended consequences of biofuels
The debates and discussions on the merits and consequences of biofuels are now primetime discussions, with high-tech entrepreneurs like Vinod Khosla getting mainstream coverage on his quest for investing in biofuels – a typical example is The Sunday Times article this week (see “How China’s thirst for oil can save the planet” ). The Chilli had recognised this some way back and in September 2007 we had published a white paper on this very subject and the concerns over California’s quest for biofuels (see “Corn ethanol: the unintended consequences of AB118”).
Advertisement
The key argument in this paper we had published is that although clean environmental lobbies and projects are in full steam, sometimes a headlong rush into quick fix legislation can have unintended consequences. The paper looked at the impact of corn ethanol on water and food supply, fuel, air quality and the financial benefits for investors.
The paper also argues that biofuels are not quite as clean as they would have us believe, using California as an example.
Growth of the corn ethanol industry in California is fraught with unintended consequences, none of which are beneficial to the economy or the environment of the state. The consequences include major impacts on our overcommitted water resources, on the price of food, on our air quality and on the financial burden to citizens while private investors profit. The Assembly Bill 118 which it reviewed, and other promised subsidies for the development and deployment of alternative fuels in California, would develop a ‘food for fuel’ program, affecting food prices, water use, and even aspects of air quality.
It continues that the myth that ethanol is ‘clean’ needs to be dispelled. While the Governor of California would like us to focus on a low carbon fuel standard which makes the use of ethanol ‘look good’ next to gasoline for reduction of the carbon greenhouse gasses in fuel, there are other negative air quality impacts with the use of ethanol—increased VOCs, NOx and ozone. “Overall, the results tend to support that the ozone impact of permeation VOC (volatile organic compounds) relative to CO is overwhelming and significant.” Ethanol molecules escape the gas tanks and hoses because they are microscopically small enough to permeate the walls of the tanks and the hoses. (Dongmin Luo, Research Division, CARB, January 2006: Draft-The Ozone Impact of Permeation VOC relative to Carbon Monoxide).
There are alternatives to biofuels if we understand that an alternative source of energy for transportation does not have to be a liquid fuel. Photon International Magazine, in its April 2007 issue, offered an interesting comparison between the renewable effectiveness and environmental impacts of plug-in hybrid vehicles powered by PV solar panels versus biofuels. Once a PV panel has been installed, it will supply energy for twenty-five or more years with very little maintenance. Any crop that is grown for ethanol requires energy annually, expensive processing and distribution. Why not put PV panels on carport structures on the top open air layer of public garages, with outlets for recharging. Use subsidies for this long lasting low environmental impact fuel rather than for corn ethanol. Specific subsidies for a single PV panel on private homes for hybrid vehicles could also be suggested.
To see the full while paper published by The Chilli in September 2007, click here.
Comments on this story? Send an email to the editor: address - editor [@] thechilli.com
 |
|
|
© Chilli Publishing Ltd 2008 |
10 JUl 2008 |
