Blog
20.February 2006 - 05:22
The life cycle of bioenergy needs to be analysed
Tarja Cronberg (Kauppalehti 21.02.06) requires action by the Finnish Government regarding bioenergy. The idea is very much worth supporting but first the EU reality in bioenergy matters deserves to be examined carefully. Otherwise we could fall for the current energy policy trends without real content.
It is important to reduce the use of fossil fuels as efficiently as possible in terms of CO2. The EU’s problem for the time being is that we calculate the CO2 balance effect only for the end-user and do not take the emissions generated by the production of the fuel into account.
For this reason, the image created of biofuels is too rosy and misleading in respect of climate protection. For example, the bulk of biodiesel is produced using fossil-based methanol as the other raw material. Its share is not included in the calculations, even though it would technically be easy. It is necessary to change the practice by taking the whole life cycle into account in respect of all biofuels, based on an assessment made by an impartial body.
Unfortunately, within EU territory, the CO2 efficiency of bioenergy, especially of Nordic field-based energy, is poor for the time being. According to some estimates it is even negative, in particular for ethanol, in the case of which the production of biofuel requires more energy than is acquired by producing it. For example, if Denmark replaces the petrol used in the country with ethanol, it will only transfer fossil energy use elsewhere. Besides, ethanol is no ideal fuel, as its use increases the emissions of many other compounds, such as aldehydes, into the atmosphere. The cold characteristics of ethanol are also poor, and its fuel value is low: using ethanol nearly doubles cars’ consumption.
The production of bioenergy through intensive agriculture is questionable because the manufacturing of fertilisers consumes much fossil-based energy. Furthermore, it would be advisable to ensure the ecological sustainability of energy plant production so that the environment and water systems will not be jeopardised due to the use of more fertilisers than in food production. If necessary, it should be possible to reinstate the land for food production.
Biofuels can be produced efficiently where there is a lot of sunlight and so the yield per unit area is many times as much as in the Nordic countries. Unfortunately this often requires the clearing of wild rainforest for the intensive cultivation of biomass. Ecological? In addition, those cultivated plants are important sources of food in areas where there may also be malnutrition.
For example, ca. 80% of the ethanol used in Sweden already comes from Brazil. It is difficult to regard that as very energy-efficient. It has been estimated that if the energy sources for the current global energy consumption are replaced by biomass to the maximum extent that can be achieved according to current knowledge, we are speaking of a share of less than 10%. Owing to the growing energy consumption in developing countries, the total consumption of energy is increasing, not decreasing. Consequently, the whole energy problem cannot be solved by means of bioenergy, even though it is a good addition. Transforming waste into bioenergy deserves to be supported. However, even that method can only replace a very small part of our total energy volume.
Tarja Cronberg mentions Denmark as an exemplary country. As regards its image, it is true that Denmark is a model country in respect of energy. In fact, in terms of its emissions it is much worse than Finland because most of its energy production is based on coal. Not even in a country like Denmark, situated advantageously in respect of wind, is it possible to generate more than only a small part of the energy required.
Cronberg demands subsidies for pellets in the same way as in Sweden. However, restraint is in order here as well. The heating of private homes (excluding flats) is already the most significant source of particle emissions in population centres. The efficient purification of combustion gases would be most advantageous in power plants which usually produce electricity in addition to heat. As regards the environment and people’s health it would therefore be more advantageous to favour district heating than the use of pellets in every house. Unfortunately enough, emissions trading does not favour this solution, as power plants are included in the Emissions Trading Scheme whereas private households are not.
Yet it is worthwhile to promote bioenergy wherever it genuinely replaces fossil fuels and does not just transfer emissions from one pipe to another. During its EU presidency, Finland would take a big step for the whole of Europe by bringing up those contradictions that exist in the EU in respect of the permit procedures for biofuels and biomass: There are countries in which factories cannot utilise the biomasses generated as by-products, even if they replaced fossil fuels. There is no impediment in the legislation, but local approving authorities do not grant the permit or they make the permit conditions impossible. Examples of such countries are the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, sometimes also Finland. In practice, in these countries this kind of potential biomass is either buried in landfills, where it generates methane emissions, or taken to the nearest country in which its energy utilisation is allowed – however, this means losing the required transports’ worth of energy and greenhouse gas savings.
Eija-Riitta Korhola (the National Coalition Party), member of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament
Published: February 20, 2006
http://www.korhola.com/2006/02/bioenergia-vaatii-elinkaaritarkastelun/
Tarja Cronberg (Kauppalehti 21.02.06) requires action by the Finnish Government regarding bioenergy. The idea is very much worth supporting but first the EU reality in bioenergy matters deserves to be examined carefully. Otherwise we could fall for the current energy policy trends without real content.
It is important to reduce the use of fossil fuels as efficiently as possible in terms of CO2. The EU’s problem for the time being is that we calculate the CO2 balance effect only for the end-user and do not take the emissions generated by the production of the fuel into account.
For this reason, the image created of biofuels is too rosy and misleading in respect of climate protection. For example, the bulk of biodiesel is produced using fossil-based methanol as the other raw material. Its share is not included in the calculations, even though it would technically be easy. It is necessary to change the practice by taking the whole life cycle into account in respect of all biofuels, based on an assessment made by an impartial body.
Unfortunately, within EU territory, the CO2 efficiency of bioenergy, especially of Nordic field-based energy, is poor for the time being. According to some estimates it is even negative, in particular for ethanol, in the case of which the production of biofuel requires more energy than is acquired by producing it. For example, if Denmark replaces the petrol used in the country with ethanol, it will only transfer fossil energy use elsewhere. Besides, ethanol is no ideal fuel, as its use increases the emissions of many other compounds, such as aldehydes, into the atmosphere. The cold characteristics of ethanol are also poor, and its fuel value is low: using ethanol nearly doubles cars’ consumption.
The production of bioenergy through intensive agriculture is questionable because the manufacturing of fertilisers consumes much fossil-based energy. Furthermore, it would be advisable to ensure the ecological sustainability of energy plant production so that the environment and water systems will not be jeopardised due to the use of more fertilisers than in food production. If necessary, it should be possible to reinstate the land for food production.
Biofuels can be produced efficiently where there is a lot of sunlight and so the yield per unit area is many times as much as in the Nordic countries. Unfortunately this often requires the clearing of wild rainforest for the intensive cultivation of biomass. Ecological? In addition, those cultivated plants are important sources of food in areas where there may also be malnutrition.
For example, ca. 80% of the ethanol used in Sweden already comes from Brazil. It is difficult to regard that as very energy-efficient. It has been estimated that if the energy sources for the current global energy consumption are replaced by biomass to the maximum extent that can be achieved according to current knowledge, we are speaking of a share of less than 10%. Owing to the growing energy consumption in developing countries, the total consumption of energy is increasing, not decreasing. Consequently, the whole energy problem cannot be solved by means of bioenergy, even though it is a good addition. Transforming waste into bioenergy deserves to be supported. However, even that method can only replace a very small part of our total energy volume.
Tarja Cronberg mentions Denmark as an exemplary country. As regards its image, it is true that Denmark is a model country in respect of energy. In fact, in terms of its emissions it is much worse than Finland because most of its energy production is based on coal. Not even in a country like Denmark, situated advantageously in respect of wind, is it possible to generate more than only a small part of the energy required.
Cronberg demands subsidies for pellets in the same way as in Sweden. However, restraint is in order here as well. The heating of private homes (excluding flats) is already the most significant source of particle emissions in population centres. The efficient purification of combustion gases would be most advantageous in power plants which usually produce electricity in addition to heat. As regards the environment and people’s health it would therefore be more advantageous to favour district heating than the use of pellets in every house. Unfortunately enough, emissions trading does not favour this solution, as power plants are included in the Emissions Trading Scheme whereas private households are not.
Yet it is worthwhile to promote bioenergy wherever it genuinely replaces fossil fuels and does not just transfer emissions from one pipe to another. During its EU presidency, Finland would take a big step for the whole of Europe by bringing up those contradictions that exist in the EU in respect of the permit procedures for biofuels and biomass: There are countries in which factories cannot utilise the biomasses generated as by-products, even if they replaced fossil fuels. There is no impediment in the legislation, but local approving authorities do not grant the permit or they make the permit conditions impossible. Examples of such countries are the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, sometimes also Finland. In practice, in these countries this kind of potential biomass is either buried in landfills, where it generates methane emissions, or taken to the nearest country in which its energy utilisation is allowed – however, this means losing the required transports’ worth of energy and greenhouse gas savings.
Eija-Riitta Korhola (the National Coalition Party), member of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament
Published: February 20, 2006
http://www.korhola.com/2006/02/bioenergia-vaatii-elinkaaritarkastelun/