Biofuels might cost the EU up to $95 billion by 2020
An internal draft from the European Commission states that the EU plans for a mandatory 10 percent blend of biofuels in 2020 is going to cost Europeans quite a lot of money: 65 billion euros (about $95 billion). The draft estimates costs from 2007 to 2020 and was made by the Joint Research Centre (JRC).
The draft also speaks about the (in)convenience of using biofuels to counteract global warming, something the EU is already aware of. On the topic of biofuels and their CO2 balance, the draft states that nitrogen fertilizers, as well as deforestation, could offset any carbon reduction.
There's also a section dedicated to "energy independence" and "jobs creation," two of the most common arguments to support biofuels. For the first, the draft states that it's better to "invest in a strategic oil reserve for the short term, instead of investing a higher amount of money in agrofuels which would yield less energy". Regarding jobs, the impact is considered "insignificant". However, not all of the JRC's arguments are against biofuels. The draft also says that biomass is a good source to produce energy.
As a final conclusion, this draft proposes a complete approach to address global warming from all fronts, instead of focusing only on transport emissions and costs.
Related:
[Source: Europa Press via Econoticias]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Domenick 9:50AM (1/25/2008)
You can buy a lot of solar capacity for $95 billion.
Reply
rgseidl 1:11PM (1/25/2008)
In Europe, biofuels were initially intended as a way for farmers to switch from food production to non-food agriculturals. One of the triggers for the shift was a WTO ruling against sugar beet subsidies. Therefore, instead of direct subsidies for producing an excess of food, governments are now forcing refineries to produce biofuel blends, i.e. they are creating a captive market. Some (e.g. Germany) also offered reduced tax rates for higher blends, tearing a large hole in their revenue. Plugging that meant the biofuels boom immediately turned into a bust, with supply outstripping demand by as much as 4 to 1.
Other countries (e.g. the Netherlands) initially favored importing feedstocks from tropical countries because EROEI is higher there. Unfortunately, business was so good that these countries began to slash and burn their virgin rain forests in order to increase feedstock production. This instantly generated more CO2 emissions than the biofuel produced there will avoid over the course of several decades.
Belatedly, the EU has now accepted that not all biofuels are created equal and is working on standards to quantify sustainability. Hopefully emerging technologies such as algaculture will be considered alongside the established feedstocks.
Note that some countries (e.g. Austria) are already ramping up biogas production because that is the only technology that can sustainably process (non-woody) cellulosic feedstocks in industrial quantities today. Unfortunately, using gaseous fuels in the on-road transportation sector still requires high pressures and hence, heavy tanks. Perhaps ANG systems will improve on the current CNG technology. There is also still a range and a performance penalty, especially for port fuel injection engines.
The final barrier to running cars and trucks on biogas is the poorly developed distribution infrastructure for NG as an on-road fuel. Many countries are still refusing to let homeowners install CNG compressors, partly because natural gas (for home heating and cooking) is taxed at a much lower rate than either gasoline or diesel and partly because gas stations owners are voters, too.
Reply