Posts Tagged ‘biofuel’

Drax and woodchip energy

November 8, 2022

This is basically a paraphrase of an article in the New Yorker with a few additions. The Millions of Tons of Carbon Emissions That Don’t Officially Exist: How a blind spot in the Kyoto Protocol helped create the biomass industry. By Sarah Miller December 8, 2021, because its really important and even by my standards is a bit long – although naturally this version grew as it went along. But please read the original.

Drax 1

The article is primarily about the wood chip powered energy production in the village of Drax, in Yorkshire, by the Drax Group. The huge Drax power station used to be a coal fired energy generator, but is, or has, now translated to “sustainably sourced biomass,” or wood pellets, so as to enable “a zero carbon, lower cost energy future (p.4).” It also:

can be at the heart of the green economic recovery in the North. Scaling up BECCS at Drax could support thousands of jobs during construction at its peak and contribute significantly to the local economy, according to a report from Vivid Economics, commissioned by Drax.

Drax: 3

BECCS is Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. We also learn from the Drax Report that:

In the US, EU and in the UK, policy makers have continued to regulate biomass in the context of global and domestic efforts to meet net zero. In the EU, the European Commission’s Green New Deal proposed a new biodiversity strategy and re-opening key legislation such as the REDII and EU ETS. In the UK, the Government announced it would begin work on a new bioenergy strategy – to be published in 2022. In the US, the EPA has been actively considering the carbon credentials of biomass.

Drax

So Drax supposedly has all the benefits of low emissions, contributing to the economy and jobs, and being backed by officials.

Ok back to the article

In 2019 Drax “emitted more than fifteen million tons of CO2, which is roughly equivalent to the greenhouse-gas emissions produced by three million typical passenger vehicles in one year” (Miller). Of these emissions 12.8 million tons were “biologically sequestered carbon.” We might need to bear the ‘sequestered,’ or stored, in mind, as like the BECCS it may not be happening. Emissions increased the next year.

Draz receives heavy subsidies from the UK government….

The thinktank Ember calculates that, from 2012 until 2027, when Drax’s ROC subsidies end, it will have collected more than £11bn in government payouts.

Lawson Energy bills may rise if government gives Drax more support, say MPs. The Guardian 20 September 2022

It was possible during the energy crisis of 2022, that the British Government could get locked into another agreement, to keep power prices down, that would subsidise Drax for even longer.

Drax said in July that profit before tax had jumped to £200m in the first half of the year, up from £52m in the same period a year earlier, aided by high electricity prices. It upgraded annual profit forecasts, and has signed a deal with National Grid to keep its coal-fired operations open through the winter.

In the past 12 months, its stock has risen 63% to 709p, valuing the company at £2.84bn

Lawson…Emphasis added.

Some History of Biofuels – Origins in bad accounting?

The issue here has its beginnings quite a while back when the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated in 1997. The conference did not quite know how to classify wood burning. Burning wood is renewable up to a point. If you burn it, it eventually, grows back. For some reason the IPCC decided that “if they counted emissions from harvesting trees in the land sector, it would be duplicative to count emissions from the burning of pellets in the energy sector” (Miller),

William Moomaw of Tufts University, says that negotiators thought of biomass as only a minor part of energy production. It was small-scale enough that forest regrowth could theoretically keep up with tree harvesting of . He said “At the time these guidelines were drawn up, the I.P.C.C. did not imagine a situation where millions of tons of wood would be shipped four thousand miles away to be burned in another country,” (Miller). Officially loss of biomass did not count. Beverly Law of Oregon State University told Miller, “The wood biomass energy claims of carbon neutrality are incorrect and misleading… It can worsen climate change even if wood displaces coal.”

In 2009 the EU passed the Renewable Energy Directive to enforce the guidelines set up in Kyoto, asking nations to reduce emissions by 20% or more by 2020. Many European States decided that the cheapest and easiest way to go was to switch coal plants to woodchip plants.

Scot Quaranda of Dogwood Alliance, and activist forest-protection group says “Countries had to meet their renewable-energy targets,… There was no way to do it without gaming the system and counting biomass as carbon neutral.” If so then an error in the mode of accounting has had considerable effect.

In 2017, the E.U. spent six and a half billion euros on subsidies for biomass plants. Last year, Drax got about $1.1 billion from the British government. “The governments can claim they are compliant, while former coal companies that would have been dead get rich on government subsidies and selling electricity—much of which, with proper planning, could have come from wind and solar,” Quaranda said. “The forests are destroyed, and the world burns.”

By 2019, biomass accounted for about fifty-nine per cent of all renewable-energy use in the E.U.

Miller

Another journalist writes:

Europe gets 60 percent of its renewable energy from biomass fuels, a process that uses wood scraps, organic waste and other crops to generate heat and electricity in specially designed power plants. U.N. rules allow the European Union to write off the emissions as carbon-neutral, so long as sustainable guidelines are met, even though burning the fuel can release more warming gases into the atmosphere than coal….

[As a result] Many countries are significantly underreporting their emissions to the United Nations, leading to a massive undercount of what is actually released into the atmosphere

Birnbaum E.U.’s big climate ambitions have the scent of wood smoke The Washington Post. 10 Nov 2021

At the Glasgow COP there was little conversation about the problems of biomass, and Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s executive vice president for the European Green Deal said:

To be perfectly blunt with you, biomass will have to be part of our energy mix if we want to remove our dependency on fossil fuels….. I do admit that it’s quite complicated to get this right…. [Europe would] try to use the biomass that is not at odds with our environmental and climate objectives.

Birnbaum emphasis added

The Dogwood Alliance estimate that at least sixty thousand acres of trees—trees that would have otherwise sequestered carbon—are burned each year to supply the plants, and the amount is growing. Global demand for wood pellets is expected to double by 2027.

What is more, there is apparently no “binding governmental or industrial oversight for replanting trees at all”, which if true means that forests can be cleared for other purposes, the regrowth does not happen, and everything is ok by the regulations.

Problems with biofuel

When President Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said that the E.P.A. would declare the burning of wood from managed forests for energy production to be “carbon neutral” several scientists wrote to him saying:

Mr. Pruitt’s declaration contradicts some basic facts. Burning wood from forests to generate electricity is not carbon neutral when the direct emissions from combustion, plus emissions from soil and logging <transport> and processing the wood, are considered. Scientific studies have shown that it will worsen the consequences of climate change for decades or through the end of this century. This was not a decision based in science, but in politics, a giveaway to the forest products industry. 

Pruitt Is Wrong on Burning Forests for Energy

They pointed to scientists in Europe who had written to the EU:

Even if forests are allowed to regrow,… using wood deliberately harvested for burning will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries…. even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.

Pruitt is Wrong

And then resumed, pointing to the time and delay factor which usually seems to be ignored:

regrowth takes time, a century or more for native forests, assuming they don’t fall victim to wildfire or disease. And regrowth never occurs if the land is developed or converted to pasture or farmland.

Moreover, throughout the many decades before the replacement forests can grow enough to remove the extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the previously added gas will thaw more permafrost and melt more ice, make ocean acidification worse, accelerate global warming, speed sea-level rise, increase the incidence of extreme weather, worsen drought and water stress, and hurt crop yields — effects that will persist for centuries or longer.

Pruitt is wrong

Biomass harvesting can have other ecological effects, such as increasing water run off, furthering floods and silting up rivers. They conclude that through the use of woodchips

British taxpayers there are paying electricity providers to make climate change worse.

Pruitt is wrong

Drax: Selling the project and CCS

Back to Drax. Miller gives an account of a tour of the establishment. The tour guides made a big deal of wood being natural, and the wood coming primarily from timber waste products (such as sawdust) in the USA and Canada. Given the quantities of wood involved (one mill requires fifty-seven thousand acres per year) this seems implausible, especially when many of the wood mills are owned by Drax. “Some of this activity is in primary-growth forests—forests that have never before been logged” (Miller). And photographic evidence suggests forests have been removed.

Apparently “under international definitions, if a government or private entity cuts down a forest but doesn’t develop the land, it has not officially engaged in deforestation” (Miller). The rules seem confusing and not particularly adapted to reducing emissions.

Ali Lewis, the head of media and public relations for Drax, disputed the idea of gaming the system. “How can we be ‘gaming the system’ when the carbon accounting for biomass is derived from the principles set by the world’s leading climate scientists at the U.N. I.P.C.C., and we follow those rules to the letter?”

Miller

Drax also tried to start a carbon capture and storage project it called White Rose, which does not seem to have eventuated. However, the tour guides apparently emphasised carbon storage as well.

“Before the carbon can even leave that big smokestack, Drax is intervening, and binding it with a solvent, and burying it in the ground… It’s a matter of balancing what’s being used with what’s being replaced. Wood is a sustainable material because they’re taking it away as they’re replacing it…. The solvent looks like really runny honey,”

Miller.

Miller asked them how much carbon they stored, the response was not clear at all, but:

Almuth Ernsting, the co-director of Biofuelwatch, an international anti-biomass-industry N.G.O., told me, “Drax has never actually stored a single pound of carbon.”

“With government support, the first beccs unit at Drax could be operational in 2027 with a second in 2030,” a Drax spokesperson told me.

Miller

As usual CCS projects deliver sometime in a possible future. It not only had troubles with activist organisations, but financial and political organisations.

The climate thinktank Ember has argued that Drax’s CCS plans could cost people paying energy bill £31.7bn over 25 years, amounting to £500 a household. “The cost of supporting its future bioenergy plans could climb to more than the cost of subsidising Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant.” Drax claimed that the cost of retrofitting an existing plant would be much cheaper.

Shortly after the British Minister energy minister secretly expressed reluctance about biofuels (see below), the government announced a new discussion on biofuels and particularly BECCS, with Rishi Sunak telling the Yorkshire Post:

I created the £1 billion Carbon Capture and Storage Infrastructure Fund as Chancellor… As a Yorkshire MP, I am excited about the opportunities and jobs that Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage could bring to our region, as well as its potential for sustainable power generation. 

Bocott-Owen Bid to create thousands of jobs at Drax Power Station in Yorkshire to be greenlit by Government. Yorkshire Post 18th August 2022

The Yorkshire Post adds that ‘Whitehall Sources’ told them that:

Drax’s implementation of the new technology would be key to the UK’s future energy security.

“BECCS is the only sustainable way to continue biomass in the way it removes emissions from the atmosphere.

“[Drax] is by far the single largest renewable energy generator in Britain, it is critical to energy security and without it we’d have to import that electricity from abroad or burn more gas….

“It’s a no-brainer from the Government’s perspective. But of course it will take time, and no decisions have been made just yet.”

Bocott-Owen Bid to create thousands of jobs at Drax Power Station in Yorkshire to be greenlit by Government. Yorkshire Post 18th August 2022

Problems for Drax

Not all relevant organisations are positive about Drax.

Greenpeace discovered that Drax Biomass exceeded limits on chemical emissions at its wood chip plants close to residential communities in Louisiana. These included “volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a class of air pollutants linked to cancer, breathing difficulties and other health effects.” Drax agreed to two payments of $1.6m each with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to settle claims against two of its wood pellet plants, without accepting liability. The previous year “Drax had been fined $2.5m for air pollution violations in the neighbouring state of Mississippi”

In October [2021], Drax lost its place on the S. & P. Global Clean Energy Index, as did Albioma, a biomass company in France, after analysts expressed skepticism about the true carbon neutrality of their operations. But Drax doesn’t appear to be at any risk of losing its government subsidies

Miller

Luke Sussams, a Jefferies equity analyst, had argued that:

bioenergy was unlikely to make a positive contribution to climate action because of “uncertainties and poor practices” in some parts of the timber industry regarding the sources of wood, forest management practices, supply chain emissions and high combustion emissions…..

“We argue that bioenergy production is not carbon neutral, in almost all instances. This casts doubt on whether bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a net-negative emissions technology. The widespread deployment of BECCS looks challenging,”

Ambrose. Drax dropped from index of green energy firms amid biomass doubts. The Guardian 19 October 2021

A spokesperson for Drax defended the company arguing that:

“The world’s leading authority on climate science, the UN’s IPCC, is absolutely clear that sustainable biomass is crucial to achieving global climate targets, both as a provider of renewable power and through its potential to deliver negative emissions with BECCS.”

Ambrose

The Government hesitates

Kwasi Kwarteng, perhaps better known as Liz Truss’ Treasurer and supporter of unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, was energy minister in August 2022. He had a recording of a private meeting leaked. In the meeting he apparently said:

I can well see a point where we just draw the line and say: This isn’t working, this doesn’t help carbon emission reduction, that’s it – we should end it. All I’m saying is that we haven’t quite reached that point yet… There’s no point getting [wood] from Louisiana – that isn’t sustainable … transporting these wood pellets halfway across the world – that doesn’t make any sense to me at all.” 

Carrington Burning imported wood in Drax power plant ‘doesn’t make sense’, says Kwarteng. The Guardian, 11 August 2022

Other MPs apparently agreed.

One MP at the meeting told Kwarteng: “It can take 100 years to grow a tree but 100 seconds to combust it. So, unless we actually have a measure of how much CO2 is being released in the same period of time as is being sequestered by new growth, it seems to me ludicrous to say that this is carbon neutral.” Another MP said: “It’s cutting down huge numbers of forests and it’s not defensible.”

Carrington Burning imported wood

In public Mr Kwarteng has stated: “The government is fully behind biomass energy to provide more power in Britain.”

The European Academies Science Advisory Council earlier had said that burning wood in power stations was “not effective in mitigating climate change and may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change”.

Drax is more than biofuel

Drax bought the gas power stations owned by Scottish Power, when the Scottish company went fully renewable.

Drax was also planning the “biggest gas power station in Europe [which] could account for 75% of the UK’s power sector emissions when fully operational”. The British Planning Inspectorate recommended in 2019 that the station not be allowed as it:

would undermine the government’s commitment, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, to cut greenhouse emissions [by having] significant adverse effects.

Carrington Legal bid to stop UK building Europe’s biggest gas power plant fails. The Guardian 22 January 2021

The minister refused the advice. And a court case to stop the project was lost. However, a Drax spokesperson stated “the gas plant project was not certain to go ahead because it depended on Drax’s investment decisions and on securing a capacity market contract from the government.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy said:

“As we transition to net zero emissions by 2050, our record levels of investment in renewables will meet a large part of the energy demand. However, natural gas will still provide a reliable source of energy while we develop and deploy low carbon alternatives.”

Carrington Legal bid.

Drax later scrapped plans for the Gas energy. However, according to the article the company may still build another four small-scale gas plants for use during times of peak electricity demand.

The Real Problem?

Miller concludes by pointing to the real problem; the economy. It needs to grow and make profit and provide jobs and consume massive amounts of energy.

Even as we watch economic growth literally killing us, it is what we talk about before we talk about anything else—we are told, over and over, that we must run to it for help. The truth is that if the economy is not entirely unmade, the debates over the folly of biomass, over what counts as renewable, over whether or not a tree can grow back faster than it burns—all of it will vanish into a great silence.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Biofuels: Will they work?

September 5, 2022

[Long but unfinished]

What are Modern Biofuels

The term ‘biofuel’ is usually used to refer to liquid or solid fuels manufactured from recently living organic material called ‘biomass’ (which can include plants, cooking oils, animals, microorganisms and so on), and made in relatively short human time frames. Fossil fuels also come from living material, but are made in geological time frames.

Biomass can be specially grown on farms, taken from forests (natural or cultivated) or from so called ‘marginal land’, collected from the waste from production of another crop (rather than being used as mulch, fertiliser or animal feed). Biomass can be made from organic garbage or manure, which is then usually (but not always) turned into methane (‘natural gas’) and purified. Biomass can also be made through the growth of algae in tanks or sometimes ponds. Sometimes the burning of mixed rubbish, or plastic pollution is also classified as a biofuel.

History and use

Biofuels such as collected wood, plant matter and dung have been used by humans for heating and cooking for a long time. Some of the earlier internal combustion engines were supposedly either designed or modified to run on biofuels – although I do not have documented evidence for this. Nicolaus August Otto who is usually said to have invented the first automobile engine in 1876, potentially fueled it with alcohol as well as coal gas. The diesel engine, could be run on fuel made out of peanut oil, and Ford’s model T could also run on bio-oils.

However it is usually agreed that the cheapness of petroleum products in the 1910s-20s, ended these experiments and engines were no longer built to work with bio products.

After the recognition of climate change, biofuels have sometimes been mandated by Governments to strengthen energy security, reduce GHG (through regrowth of crops), and because they can provide ways to subsidise some agriculture or other industries.

The EU issued its first biofuel directive in 2003 which recommended “tax exemption, financial assistance for the processing industry and the establishment of a compulsory rate of biofuels for oil companies”. This was so successful that by 2017 it was claimed that:

Biomass for energy (bioenergy) continues to be the main source of renewable energy in the EU, with a share of almost 60%. The heating and cooling sector is the largest end-user, using about 75% of all bioenergy (see section 1).  

European Commission’s Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy. 2019. Brief on biomass for energy in the European Union. and

The UK was lowering coal consumption but replacing the coal with wood pellets imported from the southeast United States, and providing over $1 billion in annual subsidies to help pay the costs of production and transport, mainly at the Drax power station (“the British government paid Drax the equivalent of €2.4m (£2.1m) a day in 2019”).

Drax appear to claim that wood pelleting is good for the environment and that they buy from sources which encourage tree growth:

“Over the last 25 years, the US South has not only increased its total wood supply – the surplus annual growth (compared to removals) each year has quadrupled”

Managed forests often absorb more carbon than forests that are left untouched .

(Drax 2022c)

We might wonder how biodiverse the new forestry is, and how much GHG are emitted transporting the chips across the Atlantic. We can also suggest that biofuel fit in well with European conditions of burning fuels and subsidy of agriculture. It could also increase wood chopping

According to Eurostat:

Almost a quarter (23 %) of the EU’s roundwood production in 2020 was used as fuelwood, while the remainder was industrial roundwood used for sawnwood and veneers, or for pulp and paper production…. . This represents an increase of 6 percentage points compared to 2000, when fuelwood accounted for 17 % of the total roundwood production. In some Member States, specifically the Netherlands, Cyprus and Hungary, fuelwood represented the majority of roundwood production (more than 50 %) in 2020. 

Eurostat 2021 Wood products – production and trade

Roundwood comprises all quantities of wood removed from the forest and other wooded land, or other tree felling site during a defined period of time

Eurostat: 2018 Glossary: Roundwood production

A Guardian article claims that “Between 2008 and 2018, subsidies for biomass, of which wood is the main source, among 27 European nations increased by 143%.” So the subsidies could provide an extra energy to focus on activities which are already happening.

The IEA claims:

Modern bioenergy is the largest source of renewable energy globally, accounting for 55% of renewable energy and over 6% of global energy supply. The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario sees a rapid increase in the use of bioenergy to displace fossil fuels by 2030.

IEA Bioenergy 2021?

Clearly bioenergy is significant in the technologies which count as renewable. However, the reduction of emissions from burning biomass, might be largely theoretical. One source claims:

biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced.

PFPI Carbon emissions from burning biomass for energy

The complexity and confusion over biofuel use, appears to be being used as a way of making EU renewable figures more respectable, and as such is enmeshed in politics rather than in ‘physical reality’. An Article in Environmental Policy and Governance stated:

We find that the commitment of EU decision-making bodies to internal guidelines on the use of expertise and the precautionary principle was questionable, despite the scientific uncertainty inherent in the biofuels debate. Imperatives located in the political space dominated scientific evidence and led to a process of ‘policy-based evidence gathering’ to justify the policy choice of a 10% renewable
energy/biofuels target.

Amelia Sharman & John Holmes 2010. Evidence-Based Policy or Policy-Based Evidence Gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% Target. Environmental Policy and Governance 20: 309–321. and official site

So it can be suggested that biofuels can act as a fantasy evasion of challenges. Supposedly “responding to industry feedback”, the UK government increased its targets for biofuel, and justifies expanding airports by claiming that planes will use “sustainable” fuels, even though only a small number of planes can be provided with biofuels with current technologies. This means even more magic and fantasy, creeps into responses.

In 2005, the US Congress passed a “Renewable Fuel Standard,” which required transport fuel to include an increasing volume of biofuel. The law was expanded in 2007 and as a result, 2.8 million additional hectares of corn were grown between 2008 and 2016. 

“The Energy Policy Act of 2005 used a variety of economic incentives, including grants, income tax credits, subsidies and loans to promote biofuel research and development. It established a Renewable Fuel Standard mandating the blending of 7.5 billion gallons of  renewable fuels with gasoline annually by 2012. “The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) included similar economic incentives. EISA expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard to increase biofuel production to 36 billion gallons by 2022.” (EPA 2022).

In late 2021, The Biden Administration released plans (Whitehouse 2021) for increased biofuel production for aviation. With the aim of enabling “aviation emissions to drop 20% by 2030 when compared to business as usual” and “New and ongoing funding opportunities to support sustainable aviation fuel projects and fuel producers totaling up to $4.3 billion.” Later reports suggested that the Build Back Better Bill would include $1 billion in extra funding for normal biofuels (Neeley 2021).

In 2022, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a worldwide increase in fossil fuel prices. The Administration said (Whitehouse 2022) they were “committed to doing everything [they] can to address the pain Americans are feeling at the pump as a result of Putin’s Price Hike” and this involved spurring US biofuel production (“homegrown” to make it wholesome). This involved authorising the production of E15 in the summer months, when it is normally illegal, partly because it evaporates easily and adds GHG and particulates to the atmosphere including nitric, and nitrogen, oxides, although this is disputed (refs# AFP 2022). He also claimed to have negotiated “a historic release from petroleum reserves around the world, putting 240 million barrels of oil on the market in the next six months” (Whitehouse 2022). This is clearly not an attempt to reduce petrol consumption but the price of petrol which is likely to increase consumption over what it would have been otherwise.

The US Energy Information administration states that in 2021 “17.5 billion gallons of biofuels were produced in the United States and about 16.8 billion gallons were consumed. The United States was a net exporter of about 0.8 billion gallons of biofuels” (EIA 2022).

Biofuels are a major taxpayer supported industry, which appears to help delay change in at least some fields such as transport (automobile fuel), and are supported by that industry.

Scientific Encouragement

Biofuels have long been part of official plans for the energy transition, as a replacement for petrol or gas. The IPCC said in 2018:

Bioenergy has a significant greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, provided that the resources are developed sustainably and that efficient bioenergy systems are used. Certain current systems and key future options including perennial cropping systems, use of biomass residues and wastes and advanced conversion systems are able to deliver 80 to 90% emission reductions compared to the fossil energy baseline….

From the expert review of available scientific literature, potential deployment levels of biomass for energy by 2050 could be in the range of 100 to 300 EJ…. The upper bound of the technical potential of biomass for energy may be as large as 500 EJ/yr by 2050….

Biomass provided about 10.2% (50.3 EJ/yr) of the annual global primary energy supply in 2008,

IPCC Chapter 2: Biofuels 215-16

Recognised Problems

Not enough biofuels

In 2011, the International Energy Agency forecast that biofuels could make up 27 percent of global transportation fuels by 2050. In 2021 the same organisation called for greater production of biofuels, but feared that (even i biofuels were less polluting and were low emissions) the necessary increase was not happening:

Transport biofuel production expanded 6% year-on-year in 2019, and 3% annual production growth is expected over the next five years. This falls short of the sustained 10% output growth per year needed until 2030 to align with the SDS.

IEA Transport Biofuels tracking report 1921 [Note IEA website addresses are often used more than once for the current report]

And:

While biofuel demand grew 5% per year on average between 2010 and 2019, the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario requires much higher average growth of 14% per year to 2030.

Despite a boost in biofuel production in Asia, Wood Mackenzie state

Our forecast shows that no Asian market can meet its biodiesel and ethanol blending targets this year. Indonesia for example, l requires 15 million hectares more palm oil plantations to reach its mandate target, and in China ethanol for biofuels started noticeably competing with food production (Wood Mackenzie (2021).

The IEA calls for more production incentive policies to make up this shortfall, but remarks:

These policies must ensure that biofuels are produced sustainably and avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, freshwater systems, food prices and food availability. Policies must also incentivise greenhouse gas reductions, not just biofuel demand

op cit.

Removal of emissions

To be useful, biofuels must replace other worse sources of emissions and pollution, rather than being used in addition to those sources of pollution. This is another case in which emissions density, the ratio of energy to emissions is an irrelevant measure, as biofuels could reduce emissions intensity, while still allowing emissions increase.

It is perhaps questionable whether sustainable production of biofuels is compatible with both reduction of fuel costs (ie they compete with fossil fuels as replacements), rapid growth of production and lowering of pollution, as pollution is often associated with making things cheap and plentiful.

Lockin

Biofuel, as an addition to petrol, may require us to keep petrol going for longer than is necessary, preserving fossil fuel company profits with only marginally lower emissions. Biofuels may also not be as efficient as fossil fuels and therefore increase overall consumption, and a Jevons effect might eventuate if the mixed fuel becomes cheaper to use, and more is consumed.

The Time Issue

It is generally much quicker to burn a plant or the fuel derived from a plant than it is to grow the volume of plants being burnt and turned into fuel. The more biofuel being burnt in a time period, the more biomass is needed to be being produced at the same time.

If it takes three days to regrow and process the amount of matter burnt in 1 day (which is excessively and unlikely quick replacement), then we need to grow and store enough biomass for days two and three and then grow it again. The greater the demand for biofuel the greater the demand for excess production. This will generally denature the soil, and make a problem for food production as it takes large quantities of land. Currently the world is expected to suffer food shortages because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is probably not sensible to bet so much on crops for biomass given the instability of the current world through politics and through climate which may affect growth and fertility.

Systemic problems

a) Biofuels may take a lot of energy, land and manufactured fertiliser to produce, refine and transport to places of consumption, so their Energy Return on Energy Input (EREI) could be extremely low while the pollution through their production could be high.

b) Using organic waste, usually for the production of biogas, may remove natural fertilisers from the soil so that the ecological cycle of recovery is broken, and has to be repaired artificially. This may increase the energy ‘consumed or ‘wasted’ in making replacement chemical fertilisers. Again the IEA states:

biofuels are increasingly produced from feedstocks such as wastes and residues, which do not compete with food crops…. [while currently] only an estimated 7% of biofuels came from wastes and residues… Accounting for just 3% of transport fuel demand – biofuels are not on track to attain the Net Zero trajectory

###

Given that used cooking oil and waste animal fats provide the majority of non-food-crop feedstocks for biofuel production, and are limited “new technologies will need to be commercialised to expand non-food-crop biofuel production”. In other words imaginary, or possible, technologies will have to rescue us again.

c) Use of biofuels increases the so called ‘metabolic rift’ which comes with industrial agriculture. Materials and nutrients are taken from the soil and dispersed into the atmosphere, or become waste in another place – where they may decay into methane, another GHG.

d) Biofuels may lead to indirect land-use change. That is when food crops in one part of the world are directed to biofuels, and farmers elsewhere try to capitalise on the potential shortage of food crops by expanding into forests, or using agriculture that released soil stored GHG.

Through the interlinked systems, biofuels have the potential to make things worse.

Food

Farming, or extracting, these fuels, can: require fertile land and increase the price of food by taking land away from food production; dispossess small farmers, forest dwellers, and dependent labour from land (increasing food problems); bring about destruction of old growth forests (increasing CO2 emissions); decrease biodiversity lowering ecological resilience; and increase systemic vulnerability to plant disease through monocropping.

A suppressed or confidential World Bank report leaked to the Guardian in 2008 stated that “Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%”. Robert Bailey a policy adviser at Oxfam, remarked at the time:

Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises… While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat.

Aditya Chakrabortty Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. The Guardian 4 Jul 2008

Dr David King the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000 to 2007 said:

It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices… All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change.”

Aditya Chakrabortty Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. The Guardian 4 Jul 2008

In 2010 it was said that:

One-quarter of all the maize and other grain crops grown in the US now ends up as biofuel in cars rather than being used to feed people, according to new analysis which suggests that the biofuel revolution launched by former President George Bush in 2007 is impacting on world food supplies.”

John Vidal 2010 One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars – not people, new figures show. The Guardian 23 January

Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy Institute, was reported as saying:

The grain grown to produce fuel in the US [in 2009] was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels… By subsidising the production of ethanol to the tune of some $6bn each year, US taxpayers are in effect subsidising rising food bills at home and around the world

John Vidal 2010 One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars – not people, new figures show. The Guardian 23 January

Other reports which suggest even more problems. Gro Intelligence, argues that the calories in biofuel production resulting from current and future policies could feed 1.9 billion people annually. The invasion of Ukraine, and the resultant shortage of foodstock sharpened the debate and it was alleged that close to 36% of US corn may be produced for biofuel and 40% of soy went into biodiesel. Another article suggests that a 50% reduction in grain for biofuels in the US and Europe would compensate for the loss of all of Ukraine’s grain exports

But of course there are different opinions. Rob Vierhout, the secretary-general of ePURE, the association of the European renewable ethanol and related industries attacks:

the allegation that millions of people were starving due to EU biofuel policies.  Not a single scientific paper over the past two years gave credence to that theory. The Commission’s own report earlier this year on the historical and future price impacts of EU biofuels policy suggested that the impacts had been negligible, an order of magnitude below what the NGO campaigners have claimed. Major contributions to the field this year include a World Bank paper concluding that oil is responsible for two thirds of price increases…

anti-biofuels campaigners have for the past six months focused on an allegation by IISD that biofuels cost EU taxpayers €10 billion annually…. We and our members have tried for a year to have meaningful and scientifically-relevant dialogue with IISD’s biofuel researchers, and we have pointed out dozens of factual and methodological errors in their work, as well as their constant failure to secure meaningful peer review…. They give the results that their clients order and then try to justify those results through manipulation of data and highly selective use of facts.

Rob Vierhout 2013. Take an honest look at ethanol! Euractiv 2 September

Vierhout adds:

Seventy thousand people owe their jobs to the EU renewable ethanol industry. European biofuels industry now contribute more than €20 billion annually to Europe’s GDP. They are a product made in and for Europe. Every litre of biofuel sold in Europe is a litre of reduced fossil fuel demand.

Rob Vierhout 2013. Take an honest look at ethanol! Euractiv 2 September

The number of jobs is irrelevant if the industry is harmful. Tom Buis, the chief executive of Growth Energy (Supporting American Ethanol) said:

Continued innovation in ethanol production and agricultural technology means that we don’t have to make a false choice between food and fuel. We can more than meet the demand for food and livestock feed while reducing our dependence on foreign oil through the production of homegrown renewable ethanol

John Vidal 2010 One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars – not people, new figures show. The Guardian 23 January

Water is also consumed at all stages of biofuel production: in agriculture in manufacture and in the fuel itself. It may be possible to conserve or recycle water, but it may not without adding more energy consumption to the process. Likewise if forests are felled to provide land for growing biofuels, then the local hydrological cycle may be disrupted, and water flow off the land, helping to produce floods, rather than being absorbed.

The problem here is that the systemic logic of the problem is fairly high. Biofuel crops require land and water to grow. There is limited land and water available. Consequently, this land and water either comes from existing agricultural (food producing) land, which lowers food production and thus puts the price of food up, occupies new land and produces lack of biodiversity, or produces food shortages (unless there is massive food over-production). If the land comes from areas which are cheap and supports local farmers, grazers in commoning, then those people may be dispossessed by mass cropping and forced into wage labour, or have to move elsewhere, and again the local price of food, and the amount of human suffering, is likely to increase along with declines in biodiversity and resilience. If the new land comes from forests, or previously unfarmed land then the loss of a carbon sink my eradicate any emissions lowering from using the fuels. If it comes from previously marginal land, then that may generate systemic problems, such as vulnerability to drought, soil loss and so on. The land was probably not being farmed for some reason or other. Yet there is a clear financial incentive for biofuels to continue.

For what it is worth Exxon remarks:

Many peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature suggest that the direct life cycle GHG emissions are lower than fossil fuels but that indirect consequences of first generation biofuel development, including changes in forest and agricultural land use change, may result in higher total GHG emissions than petroleum-derived fuels

Exxon Newsroom 2018 Advanced biofuels and algae research: targeting the technical capability to produce 10,000 barrels per day by 2025. 17 September

EU response

The latest Climate negotiations from the EU, Fit for 55, seems to take note of some of these issues. The section on the transport sector does not seem to mention subsidised ethanol production for automobiles but plentiful charging stations and the deployment of a gaseous hydrogen refueling infrastructure. (The infographic refers to “liquified methane” which seems an odd choice for emissions reduction). It does refers to shipping and stimulating “demand for the most environmentally friendly sustainable fuels, particularly renewable fuels of non-biological origin” presumably hydrogen, although whether this is green hydrogen or not is unclear. The main section on biofuels is almost entirely about air transport, so we could perhaps expect that is where the subsidies will go. The discussion says they want to extend “the scope of eligible sustainable aviation fuels and synthetic aviation fuels. For biofuels, the scope is extended to other certified biofuels complying with the RED sustainability and emissions saving criteria, up to a maximum of 3%, and with the exception of biofuels from food and feed crops, which are excluded.”

It might also be useful to make sure transport emissions are low, and that energy efficiency is high so that transport needs less fuel.

Types of Biofuel

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA 2022 another web page which gets updated regularly), remarks that “The terminology for different types of biofuels used in government legislation and incentive programs and in industry branding and marketing efforts varies,” and that “definitions for these biofuels may also differ depending on the language in government legislation and programs that require or promote their use and among industry and other organizations.” This makes it hard to be definitive.

Ethanol

Biofuels are generally made from specially grown biomass, as implied above and burnt releasing GHG emissions which are hopefully absorbed over time by regrowth.  The currently most common biofuel involves ethanol Ethanol is a fermentation product made from plants such as corn, sugarcane, sugar beets etc. with a high sugar content. Fermentation to make ethanol also releases CO2, whether it is possible to lower this release is possibly likely, but still difficult to predict. It is added to petrol to dilute the amount of petrol being used, but as stated previously still produces emissions.

If fermentation is not used, as in ethanol production, then the plant material has to be broken down. One family of methods involves high temperatures, which of course takes energy. If this energy is provided by fossil fuels or further biofuels, then there will be added emissions.

  • Pyrolysis: biomass rapidly heated in an Oxygen free environment at 500-700 degrees Centigrade. The char then needs to be removed.
  • Gasification uses higher temperatures still >700 degrees. It produces ‘syngas’ a mixture of CO and hydrogen.
  • Hyrdothermal liquefaction for wet biomass like algae uses water at 200-350 degrees C and high pressure.

The resultant product needs purification and upgrading.

Ethanol is usually less efficient for petrol engines than petrol, it has less energy density, and in Australia the fuel is lower octane than usual petrol. Some research has suggested that cars use ethanol diluted fuel require more refuelling than those which do not, which may lead to extra fuel burning, and hence reduce the emissions reduction. As far as I can see more research is needed.

Cellulosic ethanol

This kind of ethanol is made from the cellulose and hemicelluloses which are found in plant cell walls, and the fuel tends to be made from agricultural waste, or non-edible remnants of crops. It is considerably harder to ferment the glucose in cellulose than to ferment the sugar rich seeds of corn etc. A story from 2016 states

no company is currently selling microorganisms capable of fermenting sugars contained in hemicellulose to corn ethanol refiners.  Therefore, such ‘cellulosic ethanol’ originates from the cellulose sugars in the fiber or [in] the starch which adheres to it.

Almuth Ernsting Cashing in on Cellulosic Ethanol: Subsidy Loophole Set to Rescue Corn Biofuel Profits

Cellulosic fuels are sometimes called second generation biofuels. This biomass should be able to come from more marginal land or from waste (EPA 2022). However, there is still a risk of soil depletion from the plant material not being returned to the soil, and it appears the energy consumption in making it is high.

Biodiesel [unclear]

Biodiesel tends to be made from vegetable oils, and animal fats, both new and used. Some diesel engines appear to be able to run on pure biodiesel, but in most cases the vegetable oils have too high a viscosity and the oils require heating before they can be used, so they are temperature vulnerable. The NSW department of primary industry claims: “the Australian diesel fuel standard allows up to 5% biodiesel in pump fuel. Higher concentrations of conventional biodiesel can cause issues with current infrastructure and engines.”

When I began writing this, the US Office of Energy Efficiency stated that “Currently one commercial scale facility (World Energy in Paramount, California) is producing renewable diesel from waste fats, oils, and greases.” Presumably more companies have appeared.

One of the possible techniques used is hydrocracking which uses hydrogen to break carbon to carbon bonds, but it is not clear to me what this technique is applied to, or what kind of energy and chemical processes are involved.

Biodiesel is often distinguished from Renewable diesel. The NSW government states:

Renewable diesel is produced from a wider variety of feedstocks than conventional biodiesel including non-food biomass and feedstock such as straw, cotton trash and urban waste streams. It can also use purpose-grown crops such as grass, woody biomass or algae. [Or sewage vegetable oils and animal fats] Renewable diesel is compatible with existing infrastructure and vehicles, but commercial scale production has yet to occur in Australia, though some pilot scale plants are in operation.

NSW Department of Primary Industries Biodiesel, renewable diesel and bioethanol 7 June 2022

Again we have the problem of the pollution through manufacturing and agricultural processes. It also appears that the NSW government at least is currently more interested in Hydrogen power than in biodiesel, but hydrogen production requires excess green energy to produce clear hydrogen, or working Carbon Capture and Storage to make from methane.

Wood

Wood has better have better energy density and higher EREI than most other plant materials but it is less energy dense and has higher moisture levels than fossil fuels and produces more particulate pollution. As said previously deforestation or monoculture trees tend not to be good for resilient ecologies.

Algae

Algae is essentially an experimental venture, even though it has been worked with since the oil crisis of the 1970s. Often called the third generation of biofuels. In theory algae should be wonderful. It is much quicker growing than other biomass (even when compared to burning time). It is rich in lipids and this, and growth rates, could possibly be boosted even further by genetic engineering. However, the record does not match the enthusiasm.

From 2005 to 2012, dozens of companies managed to extract hundreds of millions in cash from VCs in hopes of ultimately extracting fuel oil from algae [and failed]

 In 2015, EnAlgae, an EU-funded coalition of 19 research bodies, concluded (p2) that “it now looks highly unlikely that algae can contribute significantly to Europe’s need for sustainable energy,” although the research had helped algae be useful for “food, nutraceuticals, etc.” and help cut back fishing.

Similarly, in 2017, the International Energy Agency made the ambiguous comment that:

• The single biggest barrier to market deployment of algae remains the high cost of
cultivating and harvesting the algal biomass feedstocks, currently a factor of 10-20
too high for commodity fuel production…

• Algae-based production to produce bioenergy products like liquid or gaseous fuels
as primary products is not foreseen to be economically viable in the near to
intermediate term and the technical, cost and sustainability barriers are reviewed
• Macroalgae have significant potential as a biogas, chemicals and biofuels crop in
temperate oceanic climates in coastal areas. Their commercial exploitation also
remains limited by cost and scalability challenges

IEA 2017 State of Technology Review – Algae Bioenergy

By 2012, Shell had ended its algae biofuel research and development program, news had dried up of BP’s $10 million deal with bioscience firm Martek, and Chevron’s five-year partnership with the government-funded National Renewable Energy Laboratory had produced no significant breakthroughs. By early 2018, Chevron’s website had gone from promising that algae biofuel development was “still in the research stage” to openly admitting its work was unsuccessful.

Joseph Winters 2020 The Myth of Algae Biofuels. Harvard Political Review 26 January

Apparently Exxon are still interested in algal fuels and genetic modification as the solution.

Genetically engineered high reproduction rate algae is ecologically risky, as the chances are high, that some will escape, and if they can breed in the wild, which given the reproduction rates and lack of predators that often lead to algal blooms is likely, they could produce massive damage. Other problems include co-products, waste, nutrients, harvesting, drying and conversion technology.

In 2017 Exxon announced that:

Using advanced cell engineering technologies at Synthetic Genomics, the ExxonMobil-Synthetic Genomics research team modified an algae strain to enhance the algae’s oil content from 20 percent to more than 40 percent.

Exxon Newsroom 2017 ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics report breakthrough in algae biofuel research 19 June

Later they moved to outdoor testing of.

naturally occurring algae in several contained ponds in California…

ExxonMobil anticipates that 10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025 based on research conducted to date and emerging technical capability.

Exxon Newsroom 2018 ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics algae biofuels program targets 10,000 barrels per day by 2025 6 March

Finally in late 2018 they declared:

algal biofuels will have about 50 percent lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-derived fuel…

producing algae does not compete with sources of food, rendering the food-vs.-fuel quandary a moot point

Because algae can be produced in brackish water, including seawater, its production will not strain freshwater resources the way ethanol does.

Algae consume CO2, and on a life-cycle basis have a much lower emissions profile than corn ethanol given the energy used to make fertilizer, distill the ethanol, and to farm and transport the latter.

Algae can yield more biofuel per acre than plant-based biofuels

Exxon Newsroom 2018 Advanced biofuels and algae research: targeting the technical capability to produce 10,000 barrels per day by 2025. 17 September

There seems to be no record of progress since then. The US EPA simply remarks in 2022: “algae biofuels are not yet produced commercially”. However the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) states it is “working to build the algae bioeconomy of the future, where fossil fuels could be replaced with a renewable, abundant, and flexible source of energy.” It is offering awards to students for advances in algal tech.

Biogas

The decay of much biomass produces methane, or ‘natural gas’. The idea is that it is possible to capture or generate methane from waste, and rather than release it to the atmosphere, burn it to produce energy and presumably some GHG. The point here is not that no GHG is released, but it is used as it is released.

China has more than 100,000 biogas plants, and a large number of household biogas units, followed by Germany with over 10,000 plants.

Methanol is another form of biogas made from biomass at extremely high temperatures and in the presence of a catalyst

Plastics

It is also possible that plastics could be converted to biofuels  – exchanging one form of pollution for another less noticeable form. Australian energy startup Licella was funded by Renewable Chemical Technologies Ltd (RCTL) and Armstrong Energy (£5m) to convert plastics to oil suitable to blend in with hydrocarbon fuels. It can work with broken and mixed plastics, and paper. However, the production of plastics locks away carbon, while conversion and burning releases it, so you get rid of the plastic from landfill or oceans but put it in the air, – along with any other pollutants. This is the case even if the production process is lower in emissions than usual. Given plastics are usually made from fossil fuels, fuel made from plastic should probably be classified as processed fossil fuels.

Waste

Waste or rubbish is one of the more confusing categories. It can include biogas but also high temperature burning of rubbish such as plastics and other materials which might be otherwise put into landfill. It may add to transport emissions if trucks carry the waste from the landfill area to the incinerator. The heat is usually used to produce steam and drive turbines to produce electricity. (A commercial description can be found here). It is dubious that burning mixed materials will have low emissions, or low particulate pollution, and the ash left behind is likely contaminated with heavy metals, salts, and persistent organic pollutants. Modern incinerators also have air pollution control equipment, which adds to the energy and cost of operation. The US EPA claims:

A typical waste to energy plant generates about 550 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per ton of waste. At an average price of four cents per kWh, revenues per ton of solid waste are often 20 to 30 dollars… [another] stream of revenue for the facilities comes from the sale of both ferrous (iron) and non-ferrous scrap metal collected from the post-combusted ash stream.

The United States combusted over 34 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste [MSW] with energy recovery in 2017…

 The ash that remains from the MSW combustion process is sent to landfills. 

EPA Energy Recovery from the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

A medical survey of evidence concluded that:

A range of adverse health effects were identified, including significant associations with some neoplasia, congenital anomalies, infant deaths and miscarriage, but not for other diseases. Ingestion was the dominant exposure pathway for the public.

More recent incinerators have fewer reported ill effects, perhaps because of inadequate time for adverse effects to emerge. A precautionary approach is required.

Peter W Tait et al. 2020. The health impacts of waste incineration: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Public Health 44(1):40-48.

Another article on the same topic claimed:

We found a dearth of health studies related to the impacts of exposure to WtE emissions. The limited evidence suggests that well-designed and operated WtE facilities using sorted feedstock (RDF) are critical to reduce potential adverse health (cancer and non-cancer) impacts, due to lower hazardous combustion-related emissions, compared to landfill or unsorted incineration. Poorly fed WtE facilities may emit concentrated toxins with serious potential health risks, such as dioxins/furans and heavy metals; these toxins may remain problematic in bottom ash as a combustion by-product. 

Tom Cole-Hunter 2020 The health impacts of waste-to-energy emissions: a systematic review of the literature. Environmental Research Letters,15: 123006

Not unreasonably they call for further research before expanding the industry.

In the US, The Department of Energy announced:

$46 million for 22 projects that will create biofuel energy to help decarbonize the transportation and power generation sectors.

Turning waste and carbon pollution into clean energy at scale would be a double win—cleaning up waste streams that disproportionately burden low-income communities and turning it into essential energy,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm.

Unusually, they try to sell the waste burning, as removing waste streams from low-income communities, and lowering pollution, both of which seem dubious.

In Australia, the government has also seen incineration ‘renewable energy’ and as creating revenue streams for industry, and then allowing industry to apply for grant programs, through people such as the renewable energy agency Arena and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Promotion of rubbish for energy also came about shortly after China refused to take more Australian rubbish exports, and this allows recycling centres to sell on otherwise unwanted recycling materials.

Burning rubbish would seem to be a way of not having to lower rubbish-pollution, increase recycling, or find new ways of recycling. In other words it allows freeloading polluters to continue to freeload and rubbish-collectors to make extra profits. It may even encourage more plastic manufacture. to provide feedstock.

Sustainable Aviation fuel

Aviation fuel is a major cause of GHG. By 2019, the total annual world-wide passenger count was 4.56 billion people.

passenger air travel was producing the highest and fastest growth of individual emissions before the pandemic, despite a significant improvement in efficiency of aircraft and flight operations over the last 60 years…

if global commercial aviation had been a country in the 2019 national GHG emissions standings, the industry would rank number six in the world between Japan and Germany.

Jeff Overton 2022 Issue Brief | The Growth in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commercial Aviation. Environmental and Energy Study Institute 9 June


In 2017 the aviation industry promised carbon neutral growth by 2020.  The “green jet fuel” plan, promised and increase use of biofuels to 5m tonnes a year by 2025, and 285m tonnes by 2050, which is about half the overall demand, assuming it remains stable, and stops growing. This is also about three times the amount of biofuels currently produced, and that suggests that the blowback would be considerable. Nearly 100 environmental groups protested against the proposal. Klaus Schenk of Rainforest Rescue said: “The vast use of palm oil for aviation biofuels would destroy the world’s rainforests” and Biofuel watch estimate it would take an amount of land more than three times the size of the UK.

British Airways abandoned a £340m scheme to make jet fuel from rubbish in January 2016, while Qantas managed a 15 hour flight from the US to Australia using a fuel with a 10% blend of a mustard seed fallow crop. The flight reportedly reduced the normal emissions of the flight by 7% which suggests a long way to go. At the time it was reported that Qantas aimed to set up an Australian biorefinery in the near future in partnership with Canadian company Agrisoma Biosciences. I do not know if this has happened, but they claimed that in Jan 2022 they became the first Australian airline to purchase Sustainable Aviation fuel out of Heathrow in London. It “will represent up to 15 per cent of our annual fuel purchased out of London…. and reduce carbon emissions by around 10 per cent on this route.” The fuel was said to be produced with certified bio feedstock from used cooking oil and/or other waste products. This is then blended with normal jet fuel. Qantas Group Chief Sustainability Officer Andrew Parker said “Aviation biofuels typically deliver around an 80 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis”. This seems unlikely while it is blended with jet fuel, and does not really compare with the 7 to 10 percent reduction they were previously claiming.

Reuters states that “Only around 33 million gallons of SAF were produced last year globally, or 0.5% of the jet fuel pool”. Stuff from the Biden bill

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »