REfuel using bioenergy: truth or consequences?

Linda Forbes Unit A4 January 2007

INTRODUCTION

Despite some opposition, EU leaders committed to adopt a binding 20% target

for the use of renewable energy by 2020. This agreement, and that of cutting
CO2 emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the same year, was negotiated on 9th
March 2007.

Specifically, it calls for at least 10% of energy for road transport to come from
biofuels by 2020; thus expanding on the current EU Directive 2003/30
(Biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport) target of 5.75% by the end of
2010. This essay, stimulated by Phil Hunt’s lecture ‘Liquid Biofuels’ in Unit A4,
considers how the UK might deliver its commitment whilst respecting
sustainability issues, and questions whether this is a fundamentally sound
policy.

WHY NOW?

In 1956, a respected geologist, M Hubbert King postulated that annual oil

production followed a bell-shaped curve. He predicted that peak levels of oil
from US wells was likely to be achieved in the 1970s; and by the 1990s from
all sources worldwide (Deffeyes, 2005). History has proven the US hypothesis;
however, worldwide this peak is believed to have been delayed by crises in
1970s which reduced consumption significantly.

Recent observations (Staniford, 2007b) indicate the world’s largest supplier of

oil - Saudi Arabia – has experienced an 8% decline in production. Plotting data
from OPEC, Joint Oil Data Initiative, International Energy Agency, Energy
Information Administration, and Baker Hughes Oil Rigs, Staniford (2007a)
interprets this as confirmation that peak oil in Saudi Arabia has been reached.

Fig 1. Millions of barrels of oil per day Fig 2. Production v operational oil rigs
showing decline over 12 months showing threefold increase in
number of rigs in 24 months

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 1

Staniford’s interpretation of these graphs is that, despite increasing resources
being directed towards oil production, output continues to decline. Some
commentators to Staniford’s analysis on The Oildrum website suggest
stockpiling of supplies may be happening – however, there is no evidence of
additional storage capacity being built in the Kingdom’s ports or refineries,
according to other contributors.

It would, therefore, appear sensible to lessen our reliance on oil-based

systems, by reducing consumption and developing alternative fuels; and this
may be becoming more urgent. Additional impetus is brought to bear as
threats to strategic oil supplies from geopolitical instability in countries such
as Iran and Iraq increase, and the willingness of Russia to use energy supplies
as a means of achieving its aims becomes evident, for example in Ukraine.

Reduction in road transport use will make achievement of the 20% cut in CO2
emissions and 10% substitution by biofuels by 2020 easier to achieve. This,
from a political perspective, may be difficult. The recent online petition to
Downing Street collected 1.8 million signatures opposing the introduction of
road-pricing schemes. Will a hearts-and-minds campaign, and improved public
transport, be successful in encouraging modal shift? Possibly – but this subject
would need a separate essay, and is not dealt with here.

ESTIMATING THE TASK

In 1990, UK road transport was responsible for emitting 109.4 million tonnes
of CO2 (DEFRA, 2006), reaching 119.9 million tonnes by 2005. The proposed
2020 target implies that emissions will have to reduce to 98 million tonnes;
this assumes 20% reduction is required across the board from all sectors.

At a more detailed level, information from the DTI’s Digest of UK Energy

Trends (2006) gives figures for road transport energy requirements as:
2005 Fossil fuel used in Calorific value in Energy used
transport GJ per tonne
(thousand tonnes)
Petrol 18,731 44.7 837 TJ
DERV 19,435 43.3 842 TJ

From this, and assuming 10% renewables target is to take account of lower
calorific values of biofuels, the area required to grow sufficient biomass is
calculated below. For the purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that
bioethanol will displace petrol use, and DERV is replaced by biodiesel.
10% target Calorific Biofuel Growing area
in TJ value in GJ requirement required in
per tonne* in tonnes hectares**
Bioethanol 83.7 27.5 3,045,000 1,323,756
Biodiesel 84.2 39.2 2,147,000 1,987,754
* average calorific value taken from Treanton (2004)
** winter wheat 2.3t/ha for bioethanol, oilseed rape 1.08t/ha, from DTI’s Appendix 11 (2005)

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 2

However, as yields for crops can vary significantly depending upon location,
season, weather, soil type, drying requirements, transport to processing
facilities, and applications of fertiliser and/or pesticides, the growing area
requirements may also fluctuate substantially.

And, while many hectares of land in other countries may lie unused, including
twenty million in Russia according to Sir Ben Gill (2007), it does not
necessarily follow that the best use is in growing energy crops. Extended
supply chains, and growing of crops in geopolitically unstable regions,
emphasise the need to consider energy security – a current concern with fossil
fuels, but one which applies equally to bioenergy.

MANUFACTURING CAPACITY

Tonnages of biodiesel and bioethanol manufactured in member states as

reported by EU Energy Directorate (2006) allows comparison between the
2020 target calculated above and 2005 actuals.

EU Biodiesel tonnage EU Bioethanol tonnage

The figures for the UK are low, but increasing, for biodiesel; with bioethanol
capacity lacking completely. Biofuels Corporation Ltd completed its first
250,000 tonne biodiesel processing plant at Middlesbrough last year. Its annual
production, equivalent to some 284 million litres of biodiesel, will be used as
a 5% blend (B5) with mineral diesel.

The company claims their product offers: ‘… similar power and energy content to
Unleaded Low Sulphur Diesel. Advantages include virtually zero sulphur content, zero
aromatic content, flash point of 300°F against 137°F for mineral diesel, significant reduction
in particulates (soot) and hydrocarbons, 70% reduction of carbon monoxide emissions in
diesel exhausts, non toxic and biodegradable, fully degraded from a waterway environment

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 3

within approx 28 days, significant lubricant characteristics enabling a reduction in wear, and
extended efficiency for injectors and for all engines using ULSD resulting in lower
maintenance costs.’

However, this start-up has not been without difficulties, and the company’s
current overdraft at bank is £95.2 million, with an asset value of plant set at
£42.7 million.

A second player in the UK biofuels market is D1 Oils, who ‘…design and build
scaleable biodiesel refineries for the UK road haulage industry.’ Their literature (2007)
claims each unit is designed to produce 8,000 tonnes annually to EN14214
standards from a range of feedstocks; and can be linked with others to
increase production capacity as necessary. The company aims to expand
annual biodiesel production to 420,000 tonnes by the end of 2008. And, as
with Biofuels Corporation, they are based on Teesside – allowing ready access
to shipborne importation of feedstocks such as soyabeans and jatropha.

However, to meet the 2020 targets, opportunities exist to develop more

biofuel manufacturing facilities in the UK, or to create partnerships to import
significant quantities of refined biofuels. Neither of these are without risk,
but a firm commitment to the 2020 targets by EU member states will reassure
the financial community and ease the path of entrepreneurs seeking venture
capital to fund investment in biofuels.

According to Turley et al. (2003), biofuels are 2-3 times more costly to
produce than an equivalent volume of fossil fuels, making Government
support for the fledgling market is essential. This is forthcoming in the form
of reduced rates of taxation. This fuel duty incentive reduces by 1p the cost
of a litre of diesel containing 5% biodiesel. The Department for Transport
(2007) will guarantee this until March 2009; it being introduced for biodiesel
in July 2002 and for bioethanol in January 2005. And, as a further boost, the
Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) will be introduced from April
2008. DfT’s Consultation on the Draft RTFO (2007) requires 5% of transport
fuel sold by suppliers by 2010 to be biofuels. Should this target be missed by a
supplier, a penalty ‘buy-out price’ of 15p per litre will be levied.

FEEDSTOCKS

Recent Defra (2006) statistics list set-aside land as occupying 623,000

hectares and it was clear that the nearly 3 million hectares of land required
to grow the tonnages of feedstock calculated to meet 2020 target is not
available in the UK, thus requiring the importation of raw materials, or
refined biofuels. But, whether feedstocks are grown in developed or less-
developed countries, there is scope for tensions to arise between those whose
who need land to grow food crops and those who would grow fuel.

BBSRC’s report (2006) recommends that ‘… We need to improve the efficiencies of

energy conversion in bioenergy crops, during production and processing, and high quality
underpinning bioscience research will strengthen and diversify bioenergy options for the
future.’ It goes on to point out that, as a primary funder, BBSRC is well
positioned to contribute to this research of strategic importance. So we may

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 4

be able to become more self-sufficient in home-grown supplies, more
effective in extracting oil, but unlikely to meet the 10% target demand.

However, The Ecologist (2007) reports that peer-reviewed research by David

Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University in New
York, and his colleague, Professor Tad Patzek at Berkeley shows that ‘… it takes
6,597 kilocalories of energy to produce a litre of ethanol from corn, and that same litre
contains only 5,130 kilocalories of energy – a 22% loss.’. This leads one to question
whether our future energy policy should be linked to development of biofuels.

Consideration needs to be given to CO2 emissions from growing and using

biofuels. This must influence our decision as to which feedstocks are grown:
for example, comparing fossil fuel emissions to those of bioethanol from
maize saves, on average, 15% of the CO2 emissions, whereas biodiesel from
woody materials can achieve a saving of 75% - these assume a 100% blend of
biofuel so must be adjusted when working with lower % blends.

Concerns about loss of biodiversity and negative impacts of monocultural

plantations have been voiced in many quarters. And there is potential for
other threats: these may range from water shortages, as many of the biofuel
species are fast-growing and thirsty; to the destruction of large areas of
tropical forest or savannah to accommodate lucrative crops, leading to loss of
habitat, erosion and species extinctions in extreme cases.

On speaking, however, with a local grower of miscanthus grass, a biomass

crop, it was evident that although some applications of pesticide, usually
Monsanto Roundup, are required in the first two years of the crop’s life, this
ceases once the rhizomes are well established. Additionally, this grower
reports he has observed no decline in bird species since establishing the
plantation three years ago.

More positively, the growing of energy crops may provide employment in

impoverished communities, offering people earning opportunities previously
denied them. However, Bravo and Mae-Wan (2006) claim that ‘Poor developing
nations are to feed the voracious appetites of rich countries for biofuels instead of their
On
own hungry masses, and suffer the devastation of their natural forests and biodiversity.’
the other hand, this difficult balancing act may be the ideal opportunity to
introduce genetically modified (GM) organisms in order to boost the yield of
both food and fuel crops. However, this approach may be difficult to reconcile
with public opinion in the UK – which has been steadfastly against the
introduction of GM crops to the country. But might the public be content to
use GM-derived biofuels that had been imported?

OTHER ALTERNATIVES?

Directive 2003/30 (Biofuels) defines bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas,

biomethanol, biodimethylether (BDME), bio-ETBE (ethyl-tertio-butyl-ether),
bio-MTBE (methyl-tertio-butyl-ether), synthetic biofuels, biohydrogen and
pure vegetable oil as biofuels for the purposes of the legislation. Research
into increasing efficiencies of bioenergy crops by using processes such as

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 5

gasification and pyrolysis to convert biomass-to-liquid (BTL) is being
undertaken by a number of organisations including Shell, Uhde, Future Energy,
and Chemrec. These second-generation biofuels include hydrogen, methanol,
dimethyl ether (DME) and Fischer-Tropsch fuels – and may prove to be the
more acceptable face of the biofuel industry. Time will tell.

Finally, a more esoteric approach may be the cultivation of microalgae as a

bioenergy crop. This, according to the Global Petroleum Club (2007) produces
79,832 kg of oil per hectare – compared with 1,000 kg of rapeseed oil per
hectare. Research is in the early stages – again, this might prove to be a
better solution in future.

CONCLUSION

Of critical importance will be the public’s willingness to reduce their road

transport impacts – and their enthusiasm for the changeover to biofuels.
Precedent exists, at least in part, as evidenced by the replacement of leaded
petrol by unleaded petrol in the 1990s.

Notwithstanding the above, the question framing this essay is, as yet,
impossible to answer: the answer is in the future. The numerous variables
described in this essay will be trialled and tested over the next few seasons;
and inform the optimal outcome. Research into improved plant-to-energy
efficiencies, use of GM feedstocks, better crop rotation and multi-season
cropping, wider species selection, more effective processing at refinery, or
other means, may make delivery, or exceedance, of the proposed targets
straightforward. Conversely, water shortages, plant diseases, pests, or
conflicts over space and use of land may reduce our ability to grow sufficient
biomass to meet our fuel and food needs.

Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth,

and that is that no instruction book came with it.
Buckminster Fuller

As with most situations, the development of the biofuels industry offers both
risks and rewards: success in achieving the targets proposed will require care
in monitoring, and adjusting behaviour and plans to take account of research
and results. Only by doing this are we likely to avoid damage to the planet’s
ecosystems that outweigh the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

LIMITATIONS

A study of published literature on performance levels of vehicle engines using

a variety of blends of the different biofuels would give further insight. This
may, in turn, lead to a recommendation as to the most beneficial percentages
to achieve maximum efficiency and minimal environmental impact.

1Significant negative environmental impacts from growing biofuels have been

reported in Brazil – this essay may be improved by further reading on whether
the consequences of growing and using bioenergy crops in temperate climates

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 6

on the scale proposed has been researched (for example, the BBSRC
(Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council)’s review of
bioenergy research (2006) mentions research in the US, Canada and Sweden.).

FURTHER WORK

Detailed calculations of feedstock efficiencies and calorific values for each

species would be beneficial. Work to verify carbon balances would also
improve, or diminish, some of the arguments presented. In particular, the use
of marginal, under-used, or derelict, land needs investigation – one might
assume that this has a covering of vegetation which will be destroyed prior to
planting of biomass crops – thus leading to a loss of sequestered CO2.

WIDER CONTEXT

The ‘Business-As-Usual’ approach to road transport is likely to be affected by

increasing prices for fossil fuels, driven by declining stocks in an open market.
However, the concept of biofuels as saviour is fallacious – competition for
limited land availability will be a key driver in high manufacturing costs, and
there may even be conflict when the choice lies between food for some or
travel for others.

There may be scope for modular biofuel refineries locally which could accept
many types of feedstock, and funded through community investment and
ownership. This concept could minimise losses owing transport of feedstocks
and finished products; it may even be deployed in the form of a mobile unit,
able to travel to crops ready for harvesting.

Or, looking further at some of the issues, it may be more sensible, given
limited availability of land, to consider hydrogen as an alternative part of the
solution. Boyle (2004) suggests that using land for forms of renewable energy
other than biomass might do more to mitigate the impacts of CO2. He states
that a 40ha array of PV modules could provide energy equivalent to that of
300-1000 ha of energy crops. This solar-electrical energy could be converted
to hydrogen, for later use in vehicles with fuel cells. However, calculations on
conversion efficiencies would need to be undertaken to verify this approach.

FOOTNOTES, REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES

IMAGES
Staniford, S. (2007). Saudi Arabian oil production. [Online image]. Available at:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/saudi_06_decline.png Accessed 11th March 2007.

Staniford, S. (2007). Saudi Arabian oil production and oil rigs in country. [Online image].
Available at: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/saudi_2_07.png Accessed 11th March 2007

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 7

REFERENCES
BBSRC - British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. (2006). ‘Review of
Bioenergy Research: A report for BBSRC Strategy Board’.

Bennion, P. (2007). Personal conversation by telephone. 7th March 2007.

Biofuels Corporation Ltd. (2007). Available at: http://www.biofuelscorp.com/ Accessed 11th

March 2007.

Boyle, G. (ed.) (2004). ‘Renewable Energy. Power for a Sustainable Future’. 2nd ed. Milton
Keynes: The Open University.

Boyle, G., Everett, B., and Ramage, J. (eds.) (2003). ‘Energy Systems and Sustainability’.
Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Bravo, E. and Mae-Wan, H. (2007). ‘The New Biofuel Republics’. Institute of Science in
Society. Available at: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NBR.php Accessed: 11th March 2007.

D1 Oils Ltd. (2007). Available at: http://www.d1plc.com/ Accessed 11th March 2007.

Deffeyes, K. (2005). ‘Beyond Oil’. New York: Hill and Wang.

EU Directive 2003/30/EC (Biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport). Available at:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_123/l_12320030517en00420046.pdf
Accessed 11th March 2007.

EU Energy Directorate. (2006). ‘Innovation and technological development in energy’.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/sectors/bioenergy_en.htm Accessed 11th
March 2007.
Global Petroleum Club. (2007). ‘Yields of common crops’. Available at:
http://www.globalpetroleumclub.com/ Accessed 11th March 2007.

Gill, Sir Ben. (2007). ‘Bioenergy Europe 2007 conference. Markets and finance for biofuels
and biomass. Keynote speech’. Millennium Gloucester Hotel, London, 5-6th February. London:
Environmental Finance Ltd.

Great Britain. Department for Transport. Consultation on the draft Renewable Transport Fuel
Obligations Order. (2007). Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/governmentsupport Accessed 11th March
2007.

Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006). ‘ e-
Digest Statistics about: Global Atmosphere - Table 5 - Estimated emissions of carbon dioxide
by IPCC source category, type of fuel and end user: 1970 - 2005’. Available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukmeas.htm#gatb2
Accessed 11th March 2007.

Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006).
‘Summary of UK Food & Farming’. Available at:
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/quick/agri.asp Accessed 11th March 2007.

Great Britain. Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). (2005). ‘Appendix 11’. Available at:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18160.pdf Accessed 11th March 2007.

Great Britain. Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). (2006). ‘Digest of United Kingdom
Energy Statistics’. Available at: http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes06.pdf Accessed
11th March 2007.

Howden, D. (2007). ‘The Big Green Fuel Lie’. The Independent, pp1-2.

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 8

Hunt, P. (2006). ‘Liquid Biofuels’. Unit A4. Machynlleth: University of East London.

University of Strathclyde – ESRU. (2003). ‘Biodiesel Production’. Available at:

http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/0203/biofuels/quant_biodiesel.htm Accessed
on 11th March 2007

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cooper, G. ‘Bioenergy Europe 2007 conference. Markets and finance for biofuels and
biomass’. Millennium Gloucester Hotel, London, 5-6th February. London: Environmental
Finance Ltd.

Harvey, J. (2007). ‘A versatile solution? Growing miscanthus for bioenergy’. Renewable

Energy World. January-February 2007. Volume 10 Number 1, pp86-93.

Staniford, S. (2007a). ‘A Nosedive in the Desert’. Available at

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2331 Accessed 11th March 2007.

Staniford, S. (2007b). ‘Saudi Arabian oil production declines 8% in 2006’. Available at

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325 Accessed 11th March 2007.

Templer et al. (2007). ‘New crops offer workable biofuels’. Letters to the Editor. The
Independent. 8th March 2007, p38.

Treanton, K. (2004). ‘Special Issue Paper 8: Net Calorific Values’. Available at:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2004/eswg/21_NCV.pdf Accessed 11th March 2007.

Turley, D., Ceddia, G., Bullard, M., and Martin, D. (2003). ‘Liquid biofuels – industry support,
cost of carbon savings and agricultural implications’. Prepared for Defra Organic Farming
and Industrial Crops Division.

Linda Forbes Unit A4 Essay 9