Swiss Find Waste Makes Good Biofuel

//

Controversey over the impact of biofuel production on food isn't new; nor is the question of whether there is enough land to grow them on. Carbon emissions are also a concern because making biofuels can eat up energy, producing more emissions.

So which fuels are greener? A recently released study by Empa,

a research institute in Switzerland, attempts to quantify how green –

or not – biofuels are relative to their fossil cousins. While almost all

of them (except soy and oil palms grown in Malaysia) reduce carbon

emissions and are far better for the ozone layer, most are actually

worse than gasoline when it comes to issues of land use, human health, or

agricultural pollution. The only choice that seemed to be better than

gas overall was methane from wood chips made in Switzerland, and a close

second was methane (natural gas) from sludge (also made in

Switzerland).

PHOTOS: Facts and Fables About Eco-Labels

DNEWS VIDEO: GREEN ENERGY

One

reason for this is that simply put, waste that makes methane doesn't

require clearing a forest. It doesn't need to be transported far or

fertilized.

So what is the problem? The report notes that the

issues vary a lot from place to place, but much of it has to do with

changing land-use patterns, the use of fertilizer, and clearing of

virgin forest to grow crops. For example, palm oil production grew in

Malaysia to 4 million hectares (9.9 million acres) from 1.7 million

hectares (4.2 million acres). On average, 28 percent of each hectare is

taken from rainforest. In addition palm oil has replaced production of

natural rubber, coconut and cocoa.

Palm oil plantations not only

contribute as much to global warming as gasoline does; they also fare

worse because they contribute to eutrophication of waterways because of

the runoff from the farms.

Wheat from the U.S. isn't much better.

Even though it doesn't contribute to deforestation as much (forest areas

in the U.S. are actually increasing) agricultural runoff is a huge

problem.

Some fuels even make carbon emissions worse, largely

because the sinks for carbon get destroyed. Soybean production in Brazil

has increased a lot, and that means more Amazon rain forest gets cut

down.

All of this is to say that biofuels aren't a magic bullet:

they mitigate the environmental problems of fossil fuels but often trade

one set of environmental problems for another.

Engine Tech Knocks Back The NOx

But

the picture for biofuels isn't all bleak. It is possible to use them to

increase the carbon content of the soil. If abandoned land, for

instance, is used to cultivate the plants, then the picture looks

different. The oil palms that do damage in Malaysia are a benefit in

Colombia because in Colombia they can be planted on unused grazing land.

In East Africa, jatropha – used to make biodiesel – actually boosts the

carbon content of soils.

But the takeaway is that before

embarking on a program of growing biofuels, one needs to look at the

trade-offs – as the saying goes, there is no free lunch.

IMAGE: Workers in India load sweet sorghum into a truck for use as bio-fuel and animal feed.

(Wikimedia Commons / Steve Mann)

DISCOVERYnewsletter
 
Invalid Email