|
Biofuels - Sustainable or Rhetorical |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 07 June 2007 |
|
It is frequently reported that Biofuels are unsustainable based on the inevitable competition with human feed stocks (as in the USA where a significant percentage of the annual corn harvest is going into production of Ethanol), and continued activity in some countries to conduct wholesale clearing of rainforests to plant palm oil trees (as is the case in Malaysia and Indonesia). Although this may be true in the short-term; advances in the production methodologies and increased commercialization of Biofuels will eventually circumvent these predicted outcomes.
Production of Biodiesel from non-food crops like Jatropha Curcas and Pongamia Pinnata are already being used to supply the feedstock for Biodiesel in India http://www.svlele.com/biodiesel_in_india.htm Research in Australia, Spain, and the USA have established the viability of algae being used as a feedstock that will achieve the triple bottom-line of return on investment, improving the environment, and close to a zero waste production cycle http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Biodiesel_from_Algae_Oil All of these feedstocks (Algae, Jatropha & Pongamia) can be cultivated in areas unsuitable for food crops, and demonstrate beneficial impacts on the areas where the feedstock is produced. Research projects into enzymes that convert waste organic matter into alcohol are being conducted worldwide by such mammoths as BP, Shell, and DuPont. In the near future, the Ethanol we use today may be restricted to pharmaceutical and beverage uses, and replaced by Butanol as an advanced Biofuel demonstrating enhanced energy and storage characteristics over Ethanol. Based on the ever diminishing petroleum resource (exacerbated by the 3-5% annual increase in consumption), the obvious security risks associated with the major oil producing countries, and the potentially catastrophic consequences of continued reliance on fossil fuels (emissions from the production and utilization of transport fuels is responsible for about one-quarter of energy-related greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions); it is no mystery why governments in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and even the Middle East are targeting the development of Biofuels as a important issue in the formation of annual budgets and policy. The Australian government continues to say one thing, and then embark on a diagonal policy which undermines the development of Biofuels. Simultaneously, the media highlight the popular myths similar to the media’s general approach that predated the popular acceptance of climate change. Let’s forget that the petroleum industry has, for 90+ years, had an unencumbered license to provoke governments worldwide to subsidize it, protect its monopoly, turn a blind-eye to its pollution, and engage in whatsoever action was required to assure that the revenue streams from petroleum interests continued to flow into the hands of politicians. If we ignore the failures of fossil fuels, it becomes very easy to highlight the areas that require development in the barely one decade old Biofuel industry. Or we could lucidly acknowledge that fossil fuel has never, and will never be sustainable! We could actually insist that the Australian Government redirect 10% of the $9 Billion per annum subsidy for the fossil fuel industry into actively enhancing the potential of Biofuels to achieve commercial viability. Biofuels, although in a stage of development, can be sustainable in a world of higher efficiencies and increased awareness. At the very worst, Biofuels can help extend the length of time that we have petroleum products available. Hydrogen might be the answer in 25 or 50 years, but Biofuels are here today, and without consumer’s, government’s and the media’s unbiased support, Biofuels will fall short of the sustainability goal, and far short of an industry that could salvage some of the damage we bequeath to our children. ML |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 23 June 2007 )
|
