Making sense of growing energy needs
It has been slightly over a week since the IPCC report on climate change was published. As expected, the news coverage came fast and furious with alarm calls that reducing emissions and saving tropical forests are key solutions to fighting climate change. A new addition to this latest round of “saving the planet” added the reduction of eating meat as latest reports show massive areas of south American forests being clear cut to grow soy as feed for meat animals.
Even a two leafed seedling absorbs carbon
Lost among the big statements on fighting climate change is the quiet acknowledgement that bioenergy is an essential way of reducing emissions from developed countries.
We may go down in history as the generation that could have saved future generations but did not as the banging of environmental groups overwhelmed that of common sense. The immediate reduction of emissions is obviously the best answer to fighting climate change but that solution calls for a regression of economy and living standards that would never be allowed to happen as long as short sighted governments control what we do today.
The ugly truth from the biggest polluters in the world is that elected governments are more concerned with driving their economies over the health impacts of pollution overhead. The future costs of providing healthcare for the next generation who are growing up under the toxic plumes of fossil fuels is not their responsibility as the elected officials today will surely be out of office by then.
Meantime, the continued push to favor fossil fuels over bioenergy can be seen in this Neste blog on jet fuels that asks “ Can the price ever be too high when it comes to combating climate change?” As one of the most progressive companies in the renewable energy sector, the blog was likely a reaction to the cancellation of a pilot project with Geneva Airport. The head of its renewable products Kaisa Hietala was quoted as saying:
“At the moment, what holds back this market is high price and availability. But when the market is created, there will be more interest.”
According to Neste, global fossil jet fuel production in 2017 was 96 billion gallons. In comparison, only 6.6 million gallons of Renewable Jet Fuels (RJF) was produced. The lack of subsidies for renewable energy globally can be blamed on high costs and low demand. Even palm oil producing countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are only ramping up their biodiesel industries now that diesel costs have surpassed that of biodiesel. The dollar savings to these countries from not having to import diesel make economic sense today but the future costs of healthcare must be prioritized among the fossil fuel induced impacts of climate change.
Grow bioenergy and move on
There is no doubt that energy from renewable sources including biodiesel are the only way forward. Even the Norwegian government has mandated the mix of biofuels for any airline operating in Norway. Coming from an economy that has been powered and enriched by fossil fuels, this is a remarkable statement but the government’s position on using only advanced biofuels begs the question whether its position is sincere or mere posturing.
Whatever reasons Norway may have for mandating the addition of biofuels, the main obstacle for biofuels, aside from high price, is availability. The popular source of raw supply for biofuels remains second generation or waste products including Used Cooking Oil (UCO) and Used Cooking Oil Methl Ester (UCOME). Carbon emissions from importing UCO from China or Singapore aside, will there be enough used cooking oil globally if say for example, China ramps up its own consumption of biodiesel to meet its commitment to the Paris Accord?
As for the criticisms against first generation feedstock for land use, what if the UCO came from sources that caused deforestation in South America? Keeping in mind that China is one of the biggest importers of soy from south America for animal feed and cooking oil and that producing countries Brazil and Argentina are listed as deforestation hotspots, what guarantees are there that the UCO did not cause deforestation?
Cleaner GHG accounting from first generation feedstock
Low traceability and limited availability of waste and residue feedstock along with high GHG abatement costs were identified as weaknesses or disadvantages in this report commissioned by CropEnergies GmbH which shows that first generation biofuels can have the same GHG savings as second generation biofuels.
Reports like it and others like the one released this week by the Energy Transformation Institute (ETI) from the UK support the growing of energy needs today. The focus of the ETI report is on bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) but integral to this is the recommendation that:
“.. the UK looks to increase biomass production as there is potential for up to 1.4 Mha of second-generation crops to be planted without detriment to current levels of food production.”
From a layman’s point of view, one that is concerned about how the global village can reduce its ecological footprint, the inclusion of first generation bioenergy from responsible sources is a must. Gloomy opinions like this one from Mayer Hillman in the Guardian warns that “… we (either) cut out fossil fuels completely, or we pass on a dying planet to our children.”
As the generation in control of the final straw, we must argue against the nonsense from climate solution deniers and demand the use of bioenergy. The argument for its use can be simplified to the basic fact that even a two leafed seedling grown to be cut down as a future source of bioenergy, is able to absorb CO2 while fossil fuels only pollute.
Posted November 2018
We may go down in history as the generation that could have saved future generations but did not as the banging of environmental groups overwhelmed that of common sense. The immediate reduction of emissions is obviously the best answer to fighting climate change but that solution calls for a regression of economy and living standards that would never be allowed to happen as long as short sighted governments control what we do today.
The ugly truth from the biggest polluters in the world is that elected governments are more concerned with driving their economies over the health impacts of pollution overhead. The future costs of providing healthcare for the next generation who are growing up under the toxic plumes of fossil fuels is not their responsibility as the elected officials today will surely be out of office by then.
Meantime, the continued push to favor fossil fuels over bioenergy can be seen in this Neste blog on jet fuels that asks “ Can the price ever be too high when it comes to combating climate change?” As one of the most progressive companies in the renewable energy sector, the blog was likely a reaction to the cancellation of a pilot project with Geneva Airport. The head of its renewable products Kaisa Hietala was quoted as saying:
“At the moment, what holds back this market is high price and availability. But when the market is created, there will be more interest.”
According to Neste, global fossil jet fuel production in 2017 was 96 billion gallons. In comparison, only 6.6 million gallons of Renewable Jet Fuels (RJF) was produced. The lack of subsidies for renewable energy globally can be blamed on high costs and low demand. Even palm oil producing countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are only ramping up their biodiesel industries now that diesel costs have surpassed that of biodiesel. The dollar savings to these countries from not having to import diesel make economic sense today but the future costs of healthcare must be prioritized among the fossil fuel induced impacts of climate change.
Grow bioenergy and move on
There is no doubt that energy from renewable sources including biodiesel are the only way forward. Even the Norwegian government has mandated the mix of biofuels for any airline operating in Norway. Coming from an economy that has been powered and enriched by fossil fuels, this is a remarkable statement but the government’s position on using only advanced biofuels begs the question whether its position is sincere or mere posturing.
Whatever reasons Norway may have for mandating the addition of biofuels, the main obstacle for biofuels, aside from high price, is availability. The popular source of raw supply for biofuels remains second generation or waste products including Used Cooking Oil (UCO) and Used Cooking Oil Methl Ester (UCOME). Carbon emissions from importing UCO from China or Singapore aside, will there be enough used cooking oil globally if say for example, China ramps up its own consumption of biodiesel to meet its commitment to the Paris Accord?
As for the criticisms against first generation feedstock for land use, what if the UCO came from sources that caused deforestation in South America? Keeping in mind that China is one of the biggest importers of soy from south America for animal feed and cooking oil and that producing countries Brazil and Argentina are listed as deforestation hotspots, what guarantees are there that the UCO did not cause deforestation?
Cleaner GHG accounting from first generation feedstock
Low traceability and limited availability of waste and residue feedstock along with high GHG abatement costs were identified as weaknesses or disadvantages in this report commissioned by CropEnergies GmbH which shows that first generation biofuels can have the same GHG savings as second generation biofuels.
Reports like it and others like the one released this week by the Energy Transformation Institute (ETI) from the UK support the growing of energy needs today. The focus of the ETI report is on bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) but integral to this is the recommendation that:
“.. the UK looks to increase biomass production as there is potential for up to 1.4 Mha of second-generation crops to be planted without detriment to current levels of food production.”
From a layman’s point of view, one that is concerned about how the global village can reduce its ecological footprint, the inclusion of first generation bioenergy from responsible sources is a must. Gloomy opinions like this one from Mayer Hillman in the Guardian warns that “… we (either) cut out fossil fuels completely, or we pass on a dying planet to our children.”
As the generation in control of the final straw, we must argue against the nonsense from climate solution deniers and demand the use of bioenergy. The argument for its use can be simplified to the basic fact that even a two leafed seedling grown to be cut down as a future source of bioenergy, is able to absorb CO2 while fossil fuels only pollute.
Posted November 2018