[Biofuel] South Portland Votes to Keep Tar Sands Oil Away
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25407 [multiple links and graphic in on-line article] 12/17/2013 02:00 PM South Portland Votes to Keep Tar Sands Oil Away SustainableBusiness.com News After a voter referendum to keep tar sands oil out of Portland, Maine failed by 192 votes, the city's council is taking the matter into their own hands. South Portland's City Council voted 6-1 to approve a moratorium on tar sands oil yesterday. In force until May, it gives members time to craft an ordinance that permanently blocks Canadian tar sands oil from being shipped through the city’s port. They are doing so under threats of lawsuits from the American Petroleum Institute - the group that poured in $600,000 in money and misinformation at the last minute, getting them just enough votes to squash the referendum. Hopefully, this will be the end to one of the key routes Canada's oil companies want to use to export tar sands oil from the US. If you remember, Portland Pipe and Alberta tar sands companies want to reverse the flow of the 62-year-old pipeline that's been carrying crude oil from Portland's port to Montreal. Instead, it would carry tar sands oil from Alberta through the lakes region in Maine and out of the US through Portland's port. The problems with tar sands are threefold, says Tom Blake, South Portland's Mayor. We have a sustainability resolution that says South Portland will do whatever we can to reduce our footprint on the planet - and promoting a new form of extraction, especially one as damaging as tar sands mining in Alberta, increases our footprint. Number two is transportation. Sending the dirtiest oil on earth through our community violates what I consider to be good health and safety standards for South Portland. Number three is emissions. South Portland has signed onto the US Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which commits our city to enact policies that meet or beat the targets suggested by the Kyoto Protocol. Building smoke-stacks would obviously worsen the air that our children have to breathe. This is about those kids and their kids, Blake told On Earth. On a recent hiking vacation in the Arkansas Ozarks, Blake saw too many parallels between the situation in Maine and Exxon's pipeline blowout there. Every morning we would see local headlines about the Exxon oil spill in Mayflower. The more I read, I thought: This is South Portland. The two pipelines are similar ages and as in Mayflower, a crude oil pipeline would reverse course to carry tar sands oil. Every article detailed a different angle: how the spill impacted fisheries, drinking water, tourism, he told On Earth. When the petition for Portland's referendum was submitted, Portland Pipe's CEO tried to have one-on-one talks with each council member. While several wouldn't talk with him, Mayor Blake did. I told him: You could become a leader in America. You could have one of the most liberal towns in America love you, because you converted all your resources into clean energy. Meanwhile on December 6, a Quebec National Assembly committee voted the first step in transporting tar sands from Alberta to South Portland. And Keystone? The southern leg of the Keystone pipeline is just about complete and in January will begin carrying tar sands oil from Oklahoma through Texas to the Gulf. Despite brave opposition from groups like Tar Sands Blockade, Keystone South is now 95 percent complete, and the administration is in court seeking to beat back the last challenges from landowners along the way. The president went ahead and got it done. If only he'd apply that kind of muscle to stopping climate change., says Bill McKibben in his latest missive in Rolling Stone. Public Citizen released a report showing it is riddled with flaws: sags, dents, welding flaws and a litany of structural problems. It passes 630 streams and rivers in Texas. What appears to be problematic construction and corner-cutting raises questions not only about the chances of a spill, but also about the quality of TransCanada's in-house inspection system, as well as the ability of the federal government to oversee the process, warns Public Citizen. If these companies want the right to build these pipelines everywhere, the least they could do is construct them properly! Here's the report: Website: www.citizen.org/documents/Keystone%20report%20November%202013.pdf -- Darryl McMahon Failure is not an option; it comes standard. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] U.S. Oil Production To Grow Faster Than Thought, Threatening Oilsands
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/17/oil-production-us-canada-keystone_n_4461424.html [multiple images, video, links in on-line article] U.S. Oil Production To Grow Faster Than Thought, Threatening Oilsands The Huffington Post Canada | By Daniel TencerPosted: 12/17/2013 4:00 pm EST Domestic U.S. oil production is expected to grow much faster than was thought just a few months ago, according to a new report from the U.S. federal government, placing an even larger question mark on the future of Canada’s oilsands. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s preliminary outlook for 2014 predicts U.S. oil imports next year will be one million barrels per day less than previously forecast. By way of illustration, Alberta’s total oil exports to the U.S. were 1.3 million barrels per day in 2011. With growth in both oil and natural gas production, we see the U.S. moving closer toward self-sufficiency, and there are some very interesting economic and geopolitical implications to all that, EIA head Adam Sieminski said at a briefing, as quoted at Inside Climate News. One of those “geopolitical implications” could be that President Barack Obama feels less pressure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, the news site reported. The news comes as Keystone builder TransCanada prepares to start operating the southern leg of the pipeline, which runs from an oil terminal in Cushing, Okla., to Gulf Coast ports in Texas. At the same time, Canada’s oil industry is facing another competitive threat: The opening up of Mexico’s state-controlled oil industry. Mexico’s Congress recently passed a bill allowing foreign investment in the oil industry, whose production has been controlled by state-run Pemex for decades. It’s expected new investment will boost Mexican oil production. “Adding Mexico’s oil and gas resources to world markets, given the U.S.’s tight oil and gas and Canadian oil sands, could have dramatic implications in the medium and long term,” Barclays analyst Michael Cohen wrote in a note to clients quoted at the National Post. Between booming oil production from unconventional domestic sources, the oilsands and now Mexican oil exports, the U.S. will be spoiled for choice when it comes to sources of oil in the coming years. Canadian oil has been selling at a discount in the U.S. for years, sometimes trading for 30 per cent below U.S. crude oil prices. Keystone backers say the pipeline will fix that by giving Canadian oil access to new markets, but the EIA's report makes that less certain. If there’s a bright spot for Canadian oil exporters in this, it’s that the U.S.’s oil boom won’t last that long. The EIA forecasts that domestic production will start leveling off in 2016, and then start declining in 2020. The share of oil and other liquid fuels that comes from imports will fall to 25 per cent in 2016, the EIA said, but will then start to climb, reaching 32 per cent by 2040. But natural gas production will continue to climb for decades after that, and that — combined with greater fuel efficiency for cars — means the U.S. will continue to become less reliant, overall, on energy imports through 2040, the EIA said. Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline were quick to seize on the report. “We simply don’t need this tar sands pipeline,” Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defence Council — a major Keystone opponent — told Inside Climate News. Shawn Howard, a spokesman for Keystone builder TransCanada, begged to differ. Our customers have signed long-term commercial contracts because they understand the need for the oil that Keystone XL will bring to U.S. refineries, he said. We have a waiting list of customers interested in securing capacity on Keystone XL if it becomes available. Not all Keystone XL customers feel this way anymore. Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental Resources, which signed up to use the Keystone XL, said this week the pipeline is no longer needed. But Continental Resources is betting that oil-by-rail, rather than pipelines, will be the solution going forward. Many observers have argued, in the wake of the Lac-Megantic disaster, that pipelines are a safer option than rail for transporting oil. -- Darryl McMahon Failure is not an option; it comes standard. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Kinder Morgan Application Filed With National Energy Board
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/16/kinder-morgan-application_n_4454857.html [multiple images and links in on-line article] Kinder Morgan Application Filed With National Energy Board By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press Posted: 12/16/2013 2:52 pm EST | Updated: 12/16/2013 7:24 pm EST VANCOUVER - Kinder Morgan Canada filed its long-anticipated application to the National Energy Board on Monday to nearly triple the flow of oil through its Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to the British Columbia coast. The $5.4-billion project could result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the waters that surround Vancouver. The proposal is expected to face the same opposition that threatens to stopper the competing Northern Gateway pipeline through northern B.C., but Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson said the company spent months talking to the public and First Nations to address concerns. I think that in the category of lessons learned, one of the things that we pursued from the beginning and, in fact, increased over the course of the last year and a half is the amount of outreach and local involvement and conversations, Anderson said. We've watched with interest the issues that have been faced by other proposed projects and tried to learn from them and incorporate our understanding of them. A federal joint review panel is expected to issue its report this week on the Northern Gateway proposal, which has been plagued by controversy and opposition from environmental groups and First Nations. Anderson said one thing Texas-based Kinder Morgan has learned is the critical role of First Nations consultation. He said the company has 46 letters of understanding among about 100 aboriginal communities and groups in Alberta and B.C. Those letters are not final support but do mean the parties are talking. One band — the Paul Band First Nation west of Edmonton — announced support for the project last week. Kinder Morgan says 13 companies have signed contracts to ship approximately 708,000 barrels per day. The pipeline would have capacity to transport up to up to 890,000 barrels per day. Currently, five ships a month are loaded at the company's Westridge marine terminal in Burnaby. The expanded system will be capable of serving 34 Aframax class vessels per month. In the application, the company recommended improved safety measures, including greater spill response capacity and a moving safety zone around loaded tankers. British Columbia has set out five conditions for its support for any oil pipeline, and officially opposed the Northern Gateway at a joint federal review panel earlier this year. Andersen said he's confident the Trans Mountain application will satisfy those conditions, which include a fair share of economic benefits. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said new oilsands development could contribute more than $2.1 trillion to the economy over the next 25 years. Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the proposal will undergo a thorough review by the National Energy Board. Our government has been clear: we will only allow energy projects to proceed if they are found to be safe for Canadians after an independent, scientific environmental and regulatory review, Oliver said in a statement. B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak said the province will apply to be an intervener at the hearings. Polak said there are challenges but, in a thinly veiled reference to the explosion of an oil-laden rail car in Lac Megantic, Que., suggested the landscape has changed across Canada on the issue. Oil is looking for a way to get to market, and part of the consideration for decision-makers at all levels of government is the fact that there are other ways that may or may not be as safe, or less safe, than a pipeline and tanker process, Polak said. All of that needs to be weighed in the balance. I think British Columbians are much more alive now to that balancing than they were in the past. Opponents, however, wasted no time in blasting the plan. The Wilderness Committee said the risks are not worth the economic gain. Ben West, of ForestEthics Advocacy, said the new pipeline will transport the same molasses-like diluted bitumen that Northern Gateway proposes, and it will mean hundreds more tankers in Burrard Inlet. West said the application may be new, but opposition is long established. Kinder Morgan has seen years of protest and they hadn't even filed their proposal yet, he said in a statement. If they think they will have an easier time getting approved than Enbridge they have another think coming. Politicians give the permits but the people give the permission, and the people are saying no to both of these irresponsible pipeline proposals. Several Metro Vancouver councils have passed motions opposing the pipeline, including Vancouver, and the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted very narrowly to
[Biofuel] Why Canada's Oil Sands Look Like a Shaky Investment - Businessweek
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-03/why-canadas-oil-sands-look-like-a-shaky-investment [multiple graphics and links in on-line article] Why Canada's Oil Sands Look Like a Shaky Investment By Matthew Philips December 03, 2013 A new study examining the economics of Western Canada’s oil sands finds that even if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built, it’s unlikely that extracting the heavy, tar-like oil around Alberta will remain commercially viable over the next decade. The report, written by two former Deutsche Bank (DB) analysts and titled Keystone XL Pipeline: A Potential Mirage for Oil-Sands Investors, calculates that producers in Western Canada will need to fetch at least $65 a barrel to attract new investments and ensure that current projects remain profitable. During the past month a barrel of Western Canadian Select (WCS), the main benchmark used to price Canada’s heavy oil, has averaged just $58. A few forces are at play. Canada’s heavy crude is already among the most expensive to produce in the world. But it’s also stuck. While that’s partly a function of the crude’s physical attributes (it’s heavy and thick and hard to move), the biggest problem is that there are simply not enough pipelines to transport it thousands of miles out of Western Canada and down to U.S. refiners. As a result, much of the oil is finding its way out of Alberta on trains and even trucks, which can be two or three times more expensive than sticking it into a pipeline. Those extra transportation costs push down the price at the well. While the Keystone XL would help raise prices, it’s no panacea. The project plans to move about 800,000 barrels a day from Western Canada down to the U.S. Gulf Coast, where the oil could command a higher price. A Keystone approval would certainly spur more investment in Western Canada and boost oil-sands production, but since there’s already so much pent-up demand to get oil out of Alberta, the 1,700-mile pipeline’s capacity would likely get maxed out, and things would quickly revert back to the situation we’re in right now: producers using expensive options such as trucking and railroads to move their crude. Of course, without Keystone XL, the Western Canadian oil-sands industry seems doomed to a long struggle. Prices will remain low, and companies won’t have the incentive to spend money to build new projects. Unable to reach the Gulf Coast, heavy Canadian crude would continue to pool around the middle of the U.S., which would only further depress its price. Although they’re vastly different types of crude, the price of WCS is roughly correlated to the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the benchmark that determines the price of light, sweet crude in the U.S. In the past three years, the U.S. shale boom has created a glut of oil stuck in the middle of the country, lowering the price of WTI significantly. While both Canadian and U.S. benchmarks have rallied over the past week, their prices are well below where they were just a few months ago. WTI is off 13 percent since September. Since July, WCS is off almost 30 percent and is currently trading at a $40 discount to WTI. The real value of the Keystone XL is that it would deliver oil-sands crude down to the Gulf Coast, where it could compete with Mexican crude priced against the Maya benchmark. Heavy Mexican oil enjoys a $20 premium over its Canadian rival and is trading at about $87 a barrel. Even if the Keystone XL gets approved, just getting Canada’s crude down to the Gulf is barely enough to make it worthwhile. Mark Lewis, one of the new Keystone report’s co-authors, estimates that between the transport costs and the extra lubricants needed to coax the oil through thousands of miles of pipeline, it would cost about $18 a barrel to get that tar-sand crude from Western Canada down to the Gulf Coast on the Keystone XL. Even if refiners do choose to buy tar-sand crude over its Mexican rival, those costs eat up a lot of that margin producers make by getting a higher price. As a result, the best the Keystone XL can do is “shift projects from being unprofitable to being marginally profitable,” according to the report. And of course, all of this is done purely on a market basis, without even taking into consideration what many believe to be the oil sands’ biggest liability: environmental risk. A carbon tax—which, granted, we’re still a long way from—would add about $2 to a barrel of Western Canadian heavy crude. And that’s a conservative estimate, says Lewis, who mentions the possibility of President Obama using a carbon tax as a concession to his base if he were to approve the Keystone XL. This all has huge ramifications for companies mulling investments in the region. “It would be very risky indeed to invest in a new project today,” Lewis says. = 30-page report (PDF) can be found here:
[Biofuel] Green Car Congress: Converting glycerol from biodiesel production into bio-gasoline
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/12/20131216-mgtg.html Converting glycerol from biodiesel production into bio-gasoline 16 December 2013 A team at the University of Idaho has demonstrated that glycerol, a byproduct from biodiesel production, could be used as a substrate for producing drop-in gasoline-range biofuel. In a paper published in the ACS journal Energy Fuels, Guanqun Luo and Armando G. McDonald describe their study of converting methanol (MTG) and a mixture of methanol and glycerol (MGTG) into gasoline-range hydrocarbons using a bench-top, fixed-bed microreactor. The MTG- and MGTG-generated liquids showed a similar composition, mainly methylbenzenes, to regular gasoline, and composition changed as the reaction proceeded to favor heavier aromatics. The technology of converting methanol into gasoline was discovered and commercialized more than 3 decades ago. … Currently, the increasing consumption and limited reserves of crude oil, as well as the problem of CO2 emissions mainly caused by the usage of fossil fuels, have led to a growing interest in the production of non-fossil-based energy. Methanol can be made from biomass that is abundant, renewable, and globally available, via synthesis gas (syngas), and further converted into gasoline; therefore, the MTG process is receiving renewed attention today. Over the years, a variety of zeolites have been tested in the MTG process, including SAPO-34, HY, H-β, and ZSM-5. The lattermost catalyst, ZSM-5, is widely accepted to be the most effective and selective catalyst to produce high-quality gasoline, which is mainly attributed to its network structure. The performance of the MTG process via ZSM-5 can be influenced by several factors, such as temperature and pressure. A major problem of the MTG process is deactivation of the catalyst because of the deposition of the carbonaceous residue; thus, it is still a key area of research to improve the catalyst lifetime by optimizing the catalyst pretreatment method and/or reaction conditions. … For the conversion of glycerol into fuels, most research focuses on the gasification of glycerol to produce syngas that can be further converted into gasoline or diesel via Fischer−Tropsch synthesis (FTS). Nevertheless, very little research into the direct conversion of glycerol to gasoline-range hydrocarbons has been reported. —Luo and McDonald Earlier work had found that a reacting compound with an effective H/C ratio below 2—such as glycerol which has an effective H/C ratio of 0.6—rendered the excessive deactivation of zeolite catalysts in the conversion. Luo and McDonald noted that adding methanol—which has an effective H/C ratio of 2—into glycerol could increase the combined H/C of the feed and then improve the activity of the catalyst. In addition, they added, using a mixture of methanol and glycerol as feedstock for a MTG-like process may also reduce the costs for cleaning the crude glycerol from the transesterification process, because excessive methanol is usually used to improve the production of biodiesel. In their study using a ZSM-5 catalyst, they found that the best MTG catalytic performance was achieved at 425 °C, at which the product yield and catalyst lifetime were 11.0 wt % and 20 h, respectively. Generally, the methanol conversion rate and the total liquid and organic-phase yield rates decreased with the reaction time at each temperature. In addition to gasoline-range aromatics, some oxygenates were also detected in the extracted aqueous phase from the MGTG process. The best MGTG catalytic performance was achieved at 500 °C with 10% glycerol in methanol, at which the product yield and catalyst lifetime were 14.9 wt % and 8 h, respectively. The higher glycerol content disfavored the production of aromatics but favored oxygenates. With an increasing reaction time at all reaction conditions, methanol and glycerol conversion rates were ≥99%. While they demonstrated the successful conversion of glycerol to bio-gasoline, they authors observed that further work is required to increase the catalyst lifetime. Resources Guanqun Luo and Armando G. McDonald (2013) “Conversion of Methanol and Glycerol into Gasoline via ZSM‐5 Catalysis.” Energy Fuels doi: 10.1021/ef401993x December 16, 2013 in Biodiesel, Biogasoline, Catalysts, Methanol | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef019b030df6c9970d -- Darryl McMahon Failure is not an option; it comes standard. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Navy Plans to Buy Biofuel in Bulk | NBC 7 San Diego
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Navy-Plans-to-Buy-Bio-Fuel-in-Bulk-236018511.html Navy Plans to Buy Biofuel in Bulk Businesses like San Diego’s General Atomics, Sapphire Energy Inc. and SG Biofuels have been researching ways to produce fuel from plants or algae. By SDBJ Staff | Monday, Dec 16, 2013 | Updated 9:25 AM PST Algae fuel being made in San Diego gets around 140 miles per gallon Federal officials have announced a new plan to buy biofuel in bulk for the U.S. Navy. The Navy is looking for what it calls an advanced “drop-in” fuel, which can be blended with conventional fuel to power aircraft and ships. Businesses nationwide — including San Diego’s General Atomics, Sapphire Energy Inc. and SG Biofuels — have been researching ways to produce fuel from plants or algae. The Navy has experimented with running jet aircraft and ships with biofuels. The Navy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Dec. 11 that they will make a solicitation for bulk biofuel in 2014, seeking delivery by mid-2015. Biofuel blends will become part of regular fuel purchases, the two agencies said. To date, biofuels have cost much more than petroleum products. Some in Congress have called biofuel a waste of money. But the Agriculture Department said in a statement that by 2016, prices could fall below $4 per gallon. The government calls the joint Navy and Agriculture program “Farm-to-Fleet,” and said the effort will promote energy independence while producing jobs in rural America. The bulk-buying announcement was originally to be televised to the Biotechnology Industry Organization conference in San Diego. Bad weather in Washington, D.C. postponed the announcement until after the conference was over. In a statement, the industry organization said it welcomed the announcement. “The Navy’s leadership in procuring advanced biofuels will encourage rapid scale up of new technologies and construction of capacity,” said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of organization’s industrial environmental section. -- Darryl McMahon Failure is not an option; it comes standard. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/biofuels/10520736/The-great-biofuels-scandal.html The great biofuels scandal Biofuels are inefficient, cause hunger and air pollution, and cost taxpayers billions By Bjørn Lomborg 7:23PM GMT 16 Dec 2013 Last week, the EU missed an opportunity to end the most wasteful green programme of our time – one which costs billions of pounds annually and causes at least 30 million people to go hungry every year. By failing to agree a cap on the use of biofuels, the Council of Ministers has given tacit support for a technology that is bad for both taxpayer and environment. Legislation will now be delayed until 2015. The biofuel story is a perfect example of good intentions leading to terrible outcomes. Moreover, it is a lesson on how powerful, pseudo-green vested interests can sustain a bad policy. Hopefully, it will also be a story of how reason can prevail in the divisive climate debate. Greens initially championed biofuels as a weapon against global warming, claiming they would emit much less CO2 than fossil alternatives. As plants soak up CO2 while growing, the subsequent combustion simply releases the CO2 back into the air, resulting in zero net emissions. But the dream has become a nightmare, as environmentalists turn against it. Even Al Gore claims biofuels are a “mistake”. Studies show that as land is dedicated to energy crops, land for food is simply taken from other areas – often forests – leading to substantial CO2 emissions. And processing biofuels emits CO2, drastically reducing benefits. In the EU, crop-based biofuels have replaced 5 per cent of fuel used in transport. If the biofuels were emission-free, that would reduce emissions by 5 per cent – totalling about 59 million tons (Mt) of CO2 each year by 2020. But a 2013 study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development shows that deforestation, fertilisers and fossil fuels used in the production of biofuels would emit about 54Mt of CO2. A full 92 per cent of the carbon dioxide “saved” is just emitted elsewhere. For biodiesel alone, the net effect would likely be an increase in emissions. Thus the total EU savings would be a minuscule 5Mt, or about one-tenth of one per cent of total European emissions. Even over a century, the effect of these savings would be trivial. When run in a standard climate model, EU biofuel use will postpone global temperature rises by 2100 by just 58 hours. And the cost to taxpayers is some £6 billion a year; each ton of CO2 avoided costs about £1,200. The EU’s “cap and trade” system is estimated to cost less than £4 for each ton avoided – so we pay almost 300 times too much. Moreover, the best economic estimates suggest that cutting a ton of CO2 emissions saves the world about £4 in environmental damage. So for each pound spent on biofuels, we avoid about a quarter of one penny of climate damage –an extremely inefficient way to help the world. Sadly, this will get even worse. Originally, the EU wanted almost the full 10 per cent renewable-energy target for transport to come from biofuels by 2020, a doubling of today’s figure. Now that everyone is having second thoughts, the proposal is to reduce this to 7 per cent. But the Council of Ministers’ failure to implement even this modest reduction leaves us back at 10 per cent, which could double the cost for EU taxpayers to about €13.8 billion per year. Getting 10 per cent of transport fuel from plants would reduce the EU emissions by a tiny 9Mt, and increase the cost of each ton of CO2 cut to more than £1,260. The net effect to temperatures by the end of the century will be just 0.00025C. Crucially, the huge expense and tiny benefit is only a small part of what is wrong with biofuels. In almost all aspects, they are a disaster. Current EU biofuels take up an area of European farmland larger than the size of Belgium, and a similar area is used internationally for European imports. The biofuel farmland in Europe uses as much water as the rivers Seine and Elbe combined. Moreover, farmers use fast-growing trees like poplar, willow and eucalyptus for biofuels. Unfortunately, these trees emit a chemical called isoprene, an air pollutant which can affect human health. A study by Lancaster University shows that increasing the crop fields to meet the EU’s 10 per cent target will increase air pollution, cause an extra 1,400 deaths, and cost £5.2 billion annually. But most importantly, in moral terms, is the fact that using land to grow fuel rather than food is an abomination in a world where almost a billion people still go hungry. It is estimated that European biofuels now take up enough land to feed 100 million people, and the United States’s programme takes up even more. Although biofuels are not the only reason for the price increases in food over the past years, they certainly play a large part. It is hard for poor people to buy food when
Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote: The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet, with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open. But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife. It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up their fairly wild claims. And gives a fairly vague sentence about more production agriculture. Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what I was pretty on to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is... Z ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
