The biofuels debate continues.  Last week's New Scientist carried a number of articles warning about bio fuels  - one of our own networkers has also responded to the debate; his comments are attached.

However, John Howard's announcement that he intends to fast track legislation allowing for a signficant expansion in the nuclear energy industry has overshadowed all other debate.

Given that some prominent environmentalists have come out in favour of nuclear power (Flannery and Lovelock to name but two) there may well be some uncertainity that nuclear is a green alternative to dirty coal.

There are two things that you can do to inform yourself about nuclear power's green credentials.  Firstly read the article "Radioactive Wastes and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" (at http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/070423-radioactivewastes.pdf ) - although targeted at an American audience it is most likely that it is an accurate description of the direction in which John Howard will head.

Secondly read Helen Caldicot's book: 'Nuclear Power is not the Answer'  ( if you have difficulty getting a copy let us know and we will arrange to ensure you get your copy).

Being informed is not enough.  Make sure that you give others the chance to make an objective assessment about the wisdom of Howard's folly.  Circulate the Radioactive Wastes and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership article as widely as possible.  (Don't worry about people getting more than one copy  of the same email - see it as an indication that there are lots of Australians out there who are concerned as you are).

Thanks for alerting me to this. I had not heard about the manifesto, but I am not surprised by it because Biofuels seems to be flavour of the month now. Unfortunately, despite the warnings by Monbiot and others, there is still not sufficient realisation that the mass cultivation of trees or crops for the production of biofuels has implications for the ecological health of the land and for biodiversity. Australia is relatively fortunate that we have a small population in a large continent. It is true that large areas of this country are too arid for intensive cultivation of crops for the production of biofuels, but I really worry about more densely populated countries getting into it without more thought about the energy efficiency of biofuel production and end use.

In Australia, there is absolutely no requirement that the production of biofuels be ecologically sustainable, or that the production process should actually produce net energy. As I think you know, I raised this issue about 25 years ago, but most people have not given it a thought. Like wind farms, biofuel production plants (ethanol or biodiesel) are seen as an "investment opportunity", aided by government subsidies, but with the threat of future increases in excise. It is regarded as a purely economic decision, divorced from the physical world or the ecological consequences.

A number of companies are now proposing to build biodiesel plants based on imported palm oil from Indonesia where the rainforest has been destroyed and burnt to clear the land for the cultivation of oil palms. This is completely unsustainable, but if you are only looking at financial profits, it looks fine. They combine the palm oil with methanol produced from natural gas. The production of methanol is not sustainable either, but it has a role as a transitional fuel, and is far less environmentally destructive than palm oil.

The oil companies see biofuels as niche fuels, and are determined to keep it that way. Shell uses 5% ethanol in their premium fuel, but it is not advertised as an ethanol blend because its purpose is as an octane enhancer. Shell do not want to market petrol-ethanol blends (or biodiesel either) because it complicates their marketing strategy, needs additional tanks and pumps at the service stations, and introduces phase separation problems if moisture gets into the storage tanks. They also need to mix in an additive to inhibit phase separation, so it is not a preferred option for them.

The big problem that many people overlook is that while certain crops (such as Jatropha or Euphorbia) can grow in arid areas, that does not mean that it will be productive and profitable. It may even accelerate the deterioration of the land. Sugar beet is fine in well-watered fertile areas such as Tasmania, but it will not grow in the tropics. Sugar cane can be grown in the coastal areas of Queensland, but polluted runoff and sediment from the cane fields is causing big problems on the Great Barrier Reef.

On the net energy issue, if fossil fuels are used in the production of biofuels, it is important that the emissions from power stations, tractors and so forth do not exceed the emissions replaced by using biofuels. Very few people have even looked at that issue, but if biofuels are being used as a replacement for fossil fuels in vehicles, you need to be sure that the emissions involved in the production of biofuels is not excessive. I am not convinced that that is the case at the moment. Local production of biofuels for local use in rural areas should be the aim rather than blending them with petrol for urban use because the complete fuel cycle emissions will be lower. Of course, politicians want to show voters that they are doing something to prevent global warming while ensuring that petrol prices are sustainable, but my response would be to say "Show me how."

The final issue with ethanol in Australia is that it is being produced from by-products of the sugar and grain industries (molasses and wheat starch), so the potential quantities that could be produced from these materials are quite limited. The 360 ML Biofuels Target is only 1% of transport fuel consumption, so it is a joke. The mass production of biofuels from grain would have serious implications for grain exports and the disposal of the by-products. In Brazil, ethanol is produced directly from sugar cane, which is fine as long as oil prices are high and sugar prices are low. However, their rivers are being polluted by stillage from the production plants, so that is an issue.

I am afraid that my paper on alcohol fuels has still not been published by the journal. It should be out by the end of this year or early next year, but it is taking a long time. I hope that it will stimulate some discussion of these important issues before the production of biofuels becomes too trendy.

Regards,
Chris Mardon

Original message: Hi Chris, Have you read John Matthews' biofuel manifesto? He's been having some influence I think on the World Bank.

http://www.gsm.mq.edu.au/facultyhome/john.mathews/a%20Biofuels%20manifesto_2 _sep_06.pdf

The words 'water' and 'soil' aren't mentioned and net energy is discussed only briefly. He might have something promoting Jatropha though.

"While the issue may be posed in terms of land for food vs. land for fuel in the developed world, this is most definitely not the case in developing countries. There are vast tracts of degraded and semi-arid land that can be utilized for fuel crops such as sugar cane, cassava or castor beans (for biodiesel) - not to mention the prospects for semi-arid cultivation of Jatropha curcus. China has vast wastelands in the Yellow River and Huaihe River basins that would be suitable for biofuel cultivation."

When you hear people saying that biodiesel is the new environmentally friendly fuel to keep our transport systems going after Peak Oil, ask them where the oil for this new fuel is coming from. The demand for Biofuels in Europe is so strong that the rainforests of south-east Asia, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia, are being put to the torch to clear land for the production of palm oil. Palm oil cannot be used directly as a fuel, but it can if it is reacted with methanol to reduce its viscosity. A biodiesel plant has been proposed for Geelong that would use palm oil. 

These fires are now becoming a regular event, and they are not only causing enormous environmental damage through the clearing of rainforest and the erosion of topsoil. The thick smoke envelopes south-east Asia each year, causing massive pollution that affects the health of millions of people. It is easy to blame the farmers and palm oil traders for this, but the ultimate cause is the booming market for biofuels and the lack of any requirement that these oils be produced in a sustainable manner.

Further north in India, Jatropha oil is being produced for the same purpose, and there is talk about producing canola oil here as a fuel. The demand for transport fuels is huge, and as global oil production starts to decline, the demand for alternative fuels will increase rapidly. There should be some kind of international regulation of the production of these oils to ensure that this kind of vandalism does not continue. It may need some kind of financial aid to ensure that poor countries do not resort to destroying their forests (or growing opium) to make money. Markets are fine, but there should be some limits to what is regarded as acceptable.

Regards,
Chris Mardon

The Age Business: Fires leave Indonesia's neighbours fuming.

Where there's fire there's smoke nearby. Up the hazy river in Pontianak, Kalimantan.

Arijit Ghosh - October 31, 2006

THREE years ago, Indonesian farmer Jamaluddin bin Busri bought a patch of forest on Sumatra island and put it to the torch. When the smoke cleared, he planted oil palms, betting prices would rise.

He was right. With palm oil up 20 per cent this year, farmers across Indonesia's archipelago are following his lead and burning vegetation to prepare for replanting.

They are burning so much that the ash and smoke from the fires have been threatening shipping in the Malacca Strait, the world's busiest maritime trade route, and closing local airports. The burning has also riled neighbours Malaysia and Singapore, as cities and tourist attractions disappeared beneath the haze.

"It is criminal negligence," says Lim Guan Eng, secretary-general of Malaysia's opposition Democratic Action Party, who protested to Indonesian diplomats in Kuala Lumpur on October 10. "They have threatened not only the lives of their own citizens, but the lives of innocent civilians in their neighbouring countries."

Satellite images this month showed at least 378 fires on Sumatra and Borneo, the worst since 1997-1998. Then, the Asian Development Bank estimated the regional cost of lost tourism and extra health-care costs at $US9 billion ($A11.7 billion).

An annual blight, the haze this year has been exacerbated by the El Nino weather pattern, which delays monsoons. The pattern will continue for six to eight months, says the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration in Washington.

Lim is demanding that Indonesia pay compensation for not doing enough to control the smoke surge. Clearing agricultural land by lighting fires was outlawed in Indonesia in 1967.

"Pointing fingers will not do any good," said Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, proposing a regional fund to help prevent fires.

Malaysian clinics reported a 30 per cent increase in respiratory illnesses this month, according to the Health Ministry. In Singapore, air quality was "moderate" to "unhealthy" from October 2-24, when some rain arrived.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Indonesia was risking investor confidence and the credibility of the 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations.

Indonesia and the Philippines are the only ASEAN countries that have not ratified a 2002 agreement to co-operate in preventing and extinguishing bushfires.

"We appreciate Indonesia is a poor country," said Lim, 45. "But the least they can do is to seek help from neighbouring countries."

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono apologised to his neighbours this month and pledged to "use every existing resource" to fight the fires.

Still, his Government will spend $US217 million promoting fuels made from crops such as oil palm.

"The haze depresses me," said Amber Lee, 34, who works for an executive search company in Kuala Lumpur. "I feel like a very large elephant is sitting on my chest."

Airlines and private charter companies this month reported four airport closures in Sumatra and Borneo, which includes two Malaysian states.

Jakarta-based budget carrier PT Adam Skyconnection Airlines lost more than 1 billion rupiah ($A143 million) in October after delaying and rerouting flights, said president director Adam Aditya Suherman.

Smoke in the Malacca Strait, which divides Sumatra from the Malaysian peninsula and is plied by about 600 ships a day, is a danger to trade. "The haze has been much worse this year," said Hendra Budi, spokesman at state-owned Indonesian port operator PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II. "Last year it only affected airports. This time it has been affecting ports."

A ship carrying fertiliser collided with five smaller vessels at the southern Sumatran port of Palembang after visibility dropped to less than 10 metres, Hendra said.

Shipping had not been disrupted in Singapore or Malaysia, authorities said. Malaysia's weather department said visibility remained "hazardous to ships without navigational equipment".

Indonesia's peatlands stretch across an area the size of Britain, says Jack Rieley, a geography professor at the University of Nottingham in England. Once lit, the soil can burn for months, releasing gases that produce sulphuric acid.

Authorities have deployed 240 people to fight fires in a province larger than Arizona, says Wilistra Danny, former head of Riau (an Indonesian province) Agency for Natural Resource Conservation. In parts of Kalimantan on Borneo, Governor Agustin Teras Narang has been offering civil servants a day's leave to help fight fires.

"As long as Indonesia doesn't find a way to stop its own people starting these fires, the problem will continue each year," says Rieley.

BLOOMBERG

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.