Posted on 09/13/2012 8:45:02 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
From Charlie Dunmore, Reuters: E xclusive: EU to limit use of crop-based biofuels – draft law
Another green goodwill project (that just happens to be worth billions) is facing the bad news that the bureaucrats are fingering the axe. A leaked EU proposal to cut public subsidies to biofuels is quite a u-turn. Only three years ago the EU raved about biofuels.
The plans also include a promise to end all public subsidies for crop-based biofuels after the current legislation expires in 2020, effectively ensuring the decline of a European sector now estimated to be worth 17 billion euros ($21.7 billion) a year.
If you are wondering how serious they are, read this:
“The (European) Commission is of the view that in the period after 2020, biofuels should only be subsidized if they lead to substantial greenhouse gas savings… and are not produced from crops used for food and feed,” the draft said.
Well that’s it then isn’t it? If they actually have to reduce emissions that kills it off right there, but just to make sure, they must also not be taken from the mouths of people or animals.
Under the proposals, the use of biofuels made from crops such as rapeseed and wheat would be limited to 5 percent of total energy consumption in the EU transport sector in 2020.
Such a limit will throw into doubt the EU’s binding target to source 10 percent of road transport fuels from renewable sources by the end of the decade, the vast majority of which was expected to come from crop-based biofuels.
Call me a cynic, but I would think the state of the EU basket-case-economy could be forcing some people to do sensible things, though I’m heartened to see that at least they say they doing it because of the science. Someone has noticed that protecting ugly black coal deposits deep underground means sacrificing juicy verdant forests on the surface.
”… crop-based biodiesel has a worse carbon footprint than normal diesel. “
The proposals are contained in long-awaited EU plans to address the indirect land use change (ILUC) impact of biofuels, a subject that has split officials, biofuel producers and scientists, delaying legislative proposal for almost two years.
ILUC is a theory that states that by diverting food crops into fuel tanks, biofuel production increases overall global demand for agricultural land. If farmers meet that extra demand by cutting down rainforest and draining peatland, it results in millions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions.
The draft law includes new ILUC emissions values for the three major crop types used to produce biofuels: cereals, sugars and oilseeds. These values must be included when calculating emissions savings from biofuels under an EU fuel quality law designed to encourage fuel suppliers to cut emissions from road transport fuels by 6 percent by 2020.
Or course, I don’t wish any ills upon the poor sods in the Biofuels industry — more victims of big-government fickle rules. (What the government gives, the government taketh and all). I do hope that in the long run, the harsh test of real competition will mean realistic biofuel alternatives get a chance to thrive. This former molecular biology scholar thinks some biofuels have a lot of potential.
Quotes from Reuters
h/t Mark D
I’d be really happy if I could get ethanol free gasoline.
I love it when ethanol rots out a pefectly good carb.
Here’s an idea: let’s refine and burn the oil, and let’s eat the crops. Thus reducing cost of both. Nah, the greenies know best - what was I thinking.
In this case the EU folks are far ahead of our great “thinkers” in Congress. Bob Dole used to be known as the Senator from Archer Daniels Midland. Chuck Grassley (among others) is now the Senator from the Ethanol Lobby.
The best biofuel as sustainable and non-destructive to agribusiness and the economy is algae based biodiesel. The oil companies are quietly putting a lot of research and testing into this because it has huge advantages over other biofuels.
To start with, it is a product of scale that can work almost year around in the US, anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon, and to a little lesser extent north of there. It can be work in otherwise barren land, using grey (non-potable) water, which it can recycle.
Even before it produces its first drop of biodiesel it is profitable, because it consumes both industrial CO2 and nitrous oxide (NOx) gases, which are very expensive for industry to dispose of otherwise.
It can also be low overhead, using acres of shallow, lined accordion trenches, covered with “self cleaning” laminate, with cheap bubbler hose on the bottom to pump the gases into the water.
The hardest part is probably keeping the water at the optimal temperature for maximum production. In any event, the algae can be 50% vegetable oil by weight, which is squeezed out of it, then mixed with ethanol, with lye as a catalyst to produce biodiesel. Filter it, then add 1% petroleum diesel as a preservative, and there you are.
Meanwhile, there are diesel engines everywhere, from motorcycles to cars to trains and ships that with minor modifications will use biodiesel. So no need for new types of vehicles.
Producing biodiesel this way slashes the price of gasoline and home heating oil, which are no longer in direct competition with diesel.
imho they think they have given enough lead time for algae based biofuels to take off and replace the others.
Since this new program doesn’t start until 2020—I would tend to agree.
There are some major build outs in algae biofuels slated to take place in the next 5 years that will supply sufficient proof of concept to lead to much much larger investments/buildouts by 2020.
Environmentalism? Hurting and killing poor people since the 1960’s
imho the best of breed of the algae biofuel companies are actually bacteria based. Do a google search on Joule Unlimited
Anybody who thought that “alternative energy” wasn’t a “pump and dump” stock scheme wasn’t paying attention.
Regarding all government created “Industries, jobs, ad nauseam”, here is the real, harsh, truth for the voters:
IF THE FREE MARKET HASN’T DONE IT, GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T DO IT.
The above applies to large and small scale “projects”. America built three trans-continental railroads. Two had government support, one did not.
Which one was a financial success?
The one without government support.
Lesson over.
The final exam will be waiting for you in every voting booth you will ever enter.
Your children hope you remember the above lesson, because they will pay for your vote.
imho they think they have given enough lead time for algae based biofuels to take off and replace the others.
Since this new program doesn’t start until 2020—I would tend to agree.
There are some major build outs in algae biofuels slated to take place in the next 5 years that will supply sufficient proof of concept to lead to much much larger investments by 2020.
The often touted Brazilian use of sugar cane ethanol as a motor fuel overlooks that to meet the demand for ethanol virgin rainforest is being burned and planted with sugar cane. So much for saving the rain forest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.