Biofuels: ethical, ecological and economic consideration

1
Biofuels ethical, ecological and economic
consideration

• Professor Bernard L. (Baruch) Epel
• Director, The Manna Center for Plant Biosciences
  Tel Aviv University.

2
Standard of Living in third world rapidly
increasing.

• West has relatively small populations
• Major population and GDP increases in China,
  India, Korea, Thailand, and more.
• We are burning ever larger amounts of fossil
  fuels (coal, gas, oil).

3
With-in 40 years world population with grow by at
least 50 to 9 billion

• More people, higher standard of living
• Much Much Much More
• Heating
• air conditioners
• cars and trucks

Fuel needs will grow tremendously
4
What is it going to cost us?

• Increased greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, Nitrous
  oxide). global warming!!
• Energy insecurity political blackmail
• Price increases and price instability

5
We apparently face major fuel crises

• Motor vehicles consume very large part of
  petroleum needs
• oil production has peaked
• we are entering a period of
• growing fuel scarcity
• increasing demands
• this will lead to large increases in prices due
  to a commodity which is becoming ever scarcer.

6
Implications

• Economic crises
• Environmental crises
• Political blackmail
• Possible military conflicts over scarce basic
  energy resources.

7
What are we to do?

• Will proposed solutions really solve the existing
  problem without creating new and possible more
  damaging effects?

8
A solution being pushed aggressively and with
messianic fervor is

• develop alternate energy sources, preferable
  renewable sources
• For electricity, heating, industrial power, we
  can use
• nuclear, fission, fusion or
• renewable sources wind, water, photovoltaic,

What about cars and trucks?
9
Develop biofuels!!! ???

• Recycle Carbon dioxide.
• Stabilize CO2 levels
• Provide energy security
• Less dependent of foreign providers
• Dry up money to terrorist groups financed by some
  oil producers

10
Replace petrol with biofuels

• Is this really a viable solution?
• Is it economically sound?
• Are there hidden problems we must consider?
• Are biofuel realistic solutions to global
  warming?
• Will biofuels solve one ecological problem but
  create others?
• What are the societal consequences of developing
  this technology?

11
Stakeholders

• Who is for and who is against?
• What are their motives for or against developing
  these technologies?
• Are their motives pure or do some have a hidden
  agenda?
• Who will be the winners/losers?

12
Stakeholders

• World population
• FOR/AGAINST need a reliable source of fuel at a
  reasonable price.
• FOR Want to prevent future catastrophe due to
  global warming
• AGAINST Want stable source of foods and clothing
  at reasonable prices

13
Stakeholders

• Western governments (including Israel)
• FOR Want energy security
• FOR Want stable sustainable supply of fuel at a
  stable price that will not cause economic
  instability.
• FOR ???Want to protect domestic farmers and
  industries will tax foreign producers
  subsidize local growers.

14
Stakeholders

• Third world governments (not oil producers)
• FOR Want to develop a commodity market for
  farmers and develop local biofuel producers.
• FOR Become less dependent of foreign producers
  and develop their own market.

15
Stakeholders

• Farmers
• FOR BUT WITH AN AGENDA American corn farmers,
  Sugar cane farmers (Brazil, latin America, many
  African nations)
• FOR BUT WITH AN AGENDA Commodity farmers
  growing high oil content crops (small farmers,
  especially in third world)
• FOR BUT WITH AN AGENDA Industrial farmers But
  their entry into the market will push out small
  farmers.
• Against Farmers growing animals for meat due to
  higher cost of feed crops

16
Stakeholders

• Shippers (truckers, rail, pipelines, ships)
• will need to increase investment in developing
  new transportation infrastructure for raw
  materials and final product.
• Oil producers generally against
• Lower prices of oil, loss of markets, decreased
  profits
• Unless they diversify into biofuels, they will
  be big losers.
• Oil industry (refiners and petrochemical
  industry)
• Refiners will need to develop new technologies
  and infrastructure at high cost or lose market
  shares
• Petrochemical industry, will see stabilization or
  decrease in price of raw materials (winners).

17
Stakeholders

• Environmentalists (schizophrenics)
• For Biofuels if they will aid in stabilizing
  atmospheric carbon dioxide increases stabilized
  global warming,
• For developing renewable energy sources that
  decrease agricultural footprint. (Here we have a
  possible conflict). Not maize.
• Against they have concerns about loss of
  biodiversity and loss of natural habitat due to
  clearing of land for expanding agriculture.
• Against if need to use GMOs

18
What are the biofuel options?

• Starch conversion to ethanol (maize, wheat, rice,
  various tubers)
• Sucrose conversion to ethanol (sugar cane)
• Biodiesel plant ( algae) oils converted to
  diesel
• Ligno-cellulose conversion to ethanol

19
Do they all provide positive results?

• Economically?
• Ecologically?
• morally?

20
Starch to ethanol

• Advantages Maize (In USA)
• Agricultural infrastructure in place.
• Fermentation and distilling technology
• Will lower oil imports
• increase energy security
• cause oil prices to decrease. (good / bad????)
• Will increase income of farmers
• Will stimulate economy
• farm equipment transportation infrastructure.
• decreased outflow of dollars to purchase oil.

21
Starch to ethanol (MAIZE)

• Disadvantages Maize
• large amounts of high quality land needed.
• displaces traditional commodity crops (Soy bean,
  rape)
• Maize will be diverted from export markets
  raising prices on international market. (Japan,
  Mexico, Africa etc.)
• Maize will be diverted from feed market
• price of tortillas has doubled.
• Increase in meat prices
• indirect good effect other countries will
  increase gain production which should be good
  for local farmers

22
Starch to ethanol (MAIZE) Disadvantages Maize

• Marginal lands will be returned to cultivation,
  decreasing biodiversity
• Possible pressure to utilize virgin lands.
• Not economically competitive Subsidies are
  needed to make economically feasible to compete
  with gasoline.
• Engines must be modified costly but feasible
  fueling stations must be modified (feasible).

23
Ecological disadvantages of Maize as feedstock

• Ethanol from maize gives very little carbon
  sequestration
• Estimated greenhouse savings is only about 15 .
• Requires large input of fertilizer produced from
  natural gas or coal
• Nutrient runoff
• Farmers are not employing crop rotation
  maize-soybean maize

24
Moral dilemma should USA use maize as feedstock?

• Maize ethanol creates fuel security, promote
  economic prosperity but is ineffective in
  reducing greenhouse gases and may increase water
  pollution.
• Maize ethanol increases farm income, reduces farm
  subsidies but causes temporary increase in food
  costs.
• Initially there will be increases in food costs
  but will allow third world farmers to make a
  living growing maize.

What is the right thing to do?
25
My analysis Maize ethanol use should be
encouraged.

• Maize derived ethanol will serve as bridgehead
  for second generation lignocellulose derived
  ethanol.
• Infrastructure for use and distribution will be
  in place.
• Agri-research will increase yields, decrease need
  for increased field development.

26
Sucrose to ethanol (sugar cane) A winner

• Advantages
• Economically competitive with petrol without
  subsidy
• Leaves smaller ecological footprint less use of
  fertilizers grows in poorer soils.
• Could be commodity crop for third world countries
• Ethanol from sugar cane has high carbon
  sequestration index. Sugar cane ethanol gives a
  greenhouse gas savings of about 80
• In Brazil and other tropical areas large tracks
  of land already available.

27
Sucrose to ethanol (sugar cane) A winner

• Disadvantages sugar cane
• increased in demand for sugar cane could lead to
  virgin lands (rain forest) being cleared to
  provide extra land for cultivation.
• Depletes soils.
• Will not be a feedstock in North America/Europe.

28
Conclusions recommendations

• Conclusions
• Sugarcane sucrose to ethanol conversion
  economically competitive
• Greenhouse gas benefits excellent
• Extensive use should moderate or cause decrease
  in price of oil.
• Recommendations
• Western world must lower import tariffs to allow
  it to compete with local sources which are not
  economically and ecologically competitive.
  (Globalization very very good. Local farmers in
  USA/ Europe will partially loose out ).

29
Biodiesel plant oils converted to diesel

• Advantages
• fossil energy ratio between 2 to 3. Greenhouse
  gas reduction 40 to 70 over conventional diesel
  per km.
• In USA most popular oil plant is soybean
  nitrogen fixer needs little nitrogen fertilizers.
• Rapeseed/ canola major oil plants in USA, Canada
  and Europe give three times as much oil per acre
  as soybean.
• Offer significant rotational benefits with maize,
  improve soil quality and help reduce soil born
  diseases.
• Processing and distribution infrastructure in
  place.
• Soybean oil is/was cheap because it is a
  byproduct. Soybean meal is of higher market value.

30
Biodiesel

• Disadvantages
• USA automobiles do not run on diesel. In Europe
  yes.
• Soybean produces 1/6 as much fuel per acre as
  corn ethanol.
• Rapeseed/ Canola do not fix nitrogen
• Yield about 1/2 as much fuel per acre as corn
  ethanol.
• Soybean oil will be more expensive if soybean
  meal is in surplus. For farmer total value is
  important.
• Unless co-products can be manufactured it will
  not be economical to grow soybean/rape plants for
  biodiesel.
• In USA maize is more profitable
• In USA and Europe not enough excess farm land
  suitable and available for cultivation of
  soybean/rape and other northern oil seed crops.

31
Alternatives

• Grow other oilseed crops (Examples oil palm
  ,coconut, Jatropa, Eutrophia, caster bean).
• higher energy ratios
• better yields per acre
• good greenhouse gas reduction indices
• Advantages
• Many grow best in tropics, in poor soils
• could be great commodity crops for third world
  countries.

32
Disadvantages

• Land availability for cultivation.
• Large investments in infrastructure may be needed
  in third world countries.

33
Conclusions

• Soybean/rape niche European product
• Good for greenhouse gas stabilization
• Would provide energy security but at price
• Not economic unless subsidized and protected

34
Recommendations

• Europe and America must open markets to third
  world farmers and industries producing biodiesel
  from non-food plants
• This will create ethical dilemma open markets
  will help achieve social justice and effectively
  stabilize greenhouse emissions but
• Will reduce energy security of West
• Will hurt local farmers

Ethical conclusion import biodiesel feedstock
from third world producers.
35
The ultimate fuel lignocellulose to ethanol.

• Advantages
• high yields per acre (dunam). The most abundant
  plant product on earth.
• Estimated greenhouse gas reduction about 80
  percent.
• Very large yield of biomass per acre. (example
  eshel tamarisk tree. 10-12 tons/acre/year vrs
  corn 3.5 tons/ acre)
• Different plant types for different soils,
  climates, can be developed and bred for higher
  yields.
• Can be grown on marginal land.
• Generally need little fertilizer.

36

• Disadvantages
• Technology must be developed to economically
  convert cellulose into sugars and sugars to
  ethanol.
• Technology must be developed to modify feedstock
  so it is easier to convert.

37
Can it be done?

• Governments must finance basic research and RD
  to achieve this goal.
• Basic research phase 5 to 10 years
• followed by a period to set up the necessary
  industrial infrastructure to produce cellulosic
  ethanol.
• Distribution network will already be in place
• To bring this about will require concerted
  efforts by botanists, plant bioengineers,
  microbiologists, microbiobial bitechnologist, and
  finally engineers and industry together with
  government funding and private investors.

38
To do this we will need

• Botanists
• Plant bioengineers
• Plant breeders
• Farmers
• Microbiologists
• Microbial biotechnologists
• Engineers
• industry together with government funding and
  private investors

39
Conclusions and recommendations

• Allow all technologies to develop.
• Put heavy taxes on petroleum fuels
• Do not protect local biofuel producers.
• Allow third/developing world compete and produce.
  
• This will only provide partial energy security
  (reduce dependence on oil etc) but maximum
  greenhouse gas stabilization.

40
Recommendations

• Governments and private investors must to invest
  in the development of technologies for biomass
  conversion to sugars.
• The private market and investment funds will
  further the development. We are talking about a
  trillion dollar market.

41
The place of Israel and Tel Aviv University in
this saga

• Professors Weisel and Eshel (TAU) development of
  feedstock for biomass ethanol.
• Professors Avni and Zilberstein (TAU) employ
  molecular engineering to improve feedstock
  properties.
• Professor Gafni and coworkers (Vocani Center)
  develop non-food crops for biodiesel.
• Collaborative researches of Professor Rafi Lamed
  (TAU) and Professor Ed Bayer (WIS) development of
  biotechnology for enzymatic conversion of
  lignocellulose to sugars.

42
Biofuels are the fuel of the future!