[PBN] Toxic jatropha not magic biofuel crop, experts warn

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHKG7593720070912

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:44am BST
Email This Article |Print This Article | Reprints
[-] Text [+]

GUANGZHOU, China, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Oilseed plant jatropha does not
offer an easy answer to biofuels problems as some countries hope,
because it can be toxic and yields are unreliable, experts and industry
officials warned on Wednesday.

The woody plant can grow on barren, marginal land, and so is
increasingly popular in countries such as China that are keen to boost
biofuels output but nervous about food security.

But its nuts and leaves are toxic, requiring careful handling by farmers
and at crushing plants, said experts at an oils and fats conference.

In addition, it is a labour-intensive crop as each fruit ripens at a
different time and needs to be harvested separately. Its productivity is
also low and has yet to be stabilised.

M. R. Chandran, adviser to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, told
Reuters it would take five years of intensive research before jatropha
could achieve productivity that would make its cultivation economically
viable. The oil yield of the plant, originating in Africa and still
largely a wild species, is less than 2 tonnes per hectare with large
swings from year to year.

An engineer specialising in oil and fat processing plants, including for
biodiesel production, said special facilities were needed for crushing
jatropha nuts as they could produce a toxic vapour.

The engineer, who declined to be named, said his company hoped to seal a
deal with a private investor to build one of the world's first
large-scale jatropha-based biodiesel plants in China's southern province
of Yunnan before the end of this year.

--
Check for earlier Pacific Biofuel posts: http://pacbiofuel.blogspot.com/

[PBN] Promises and pitfalls of biofuels

Source: http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/08312007/opinion01.html

Like any innovation, increased production of energy crops has the
potential to exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities by concentrating
benefits on the well-off. It can lead to deforestation, a loss of
biodiversity, and excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, thereby
degrading the land and water that poor people depend on. Policymakers
must take care to ensure that biofuel production is managed and
regulated in a way that avoids these pitfalls. —Joachim von Braun,
director general, International Food Policy Research Institute,
International Conference on Biofuels, July 5 and 6, 2007, Brussels

THE other day former agriculture secretary and now director general of
the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(Icrisat) William Dar advised the government to consider the interest of
the rural poor in the drafting of plans for the local biofuels industry.

It's a timely reminder, obviously based on a valid concern. With the
rising prices of fossil fuels, biofuels might just emerge as a huge
industry here, and it might be tempting for huge agribusiness giants and
industrial processors to push aside the rural poor in the production of
feedstocks, such as corn, sugar cane and sweet sorghum, through
large-scale and mechanized plantation agriculture.

"It's simple to do it that way, but it ignores the social and
environmental consequences, which could be devastating," warned Dar,
himself a distinguished agricultural scientist. "Markets run on profits,
not on social consequences."

We couldn't agree more.

The Philippines actually doesn't run out of success stories in
agribusiness and industrial crops production. In the last 30 to 40
years, the Philippines—particularly Mindanao—has been one of the best
and most successful producers of pineapples, bananas, asparagus,
mangoes, rubber trees, oil palm and cut flowers, among many others, this
side of the Pacific.

The only problem is that most of these economic activities are done
mainly by large agribusiness firms, rich local entrepreneurs and
relatively well-off farmers, thus exacer-bating rural inequality. That
explains why poverty, especially rural poverty, continues to be a
serious problem in this country.

Certainly, producing biofuel feed- stocks is economically and socially
promising. These are labor-intensive activities that could help address
rural joblessness. It seems to be a picture-perfect business activity
that could provide extensive linkages between the farms and industry,
thereby benefiting a broader segment of society.

It's almost like a super sniper's bullet scoring several hits with just
one well-aimed shot: more jobs for farm and upland dwellers, higher
incomes for farmers, more jobs for workers in processing plants, reduced
reliance on imported fossil fuels, thus contributing to the improvement
in our balance of payments, and a cleaner environment.

But experts say there are pitfalls that we need to address before we
could even think about bringing down those plans to the ground. And the
first of them is stakeholder participation.

Are we going to do this like we did with other agribusiness endeavors?
If we go business-as-usual, if we don't factor in social-equity
considerations, it's likely that Dar's fears about the benefits of
biofuels feedstock production accruing largely to the well-off are going
to be repeated again.

This is because this new business is going to require extensive access
to innovative technologies and markets for producers to be successful.
These are factors that are always not available to upland dwellers and
marginal farmers, making them miss out on so many potential economic
benefits.

And yes, we mentioned access to innovative and proven technologies
because our farmers might just end up planting all sorts of feedstocks,
only to find out the ones they have invested their sweat and blood in
are not needed by the processors.

The government has lately been trumpeting glorious hallelujahs about the
virtues of jatropha without even conducting serious research and
development efforts about this crop. No less than officials of the
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources
Research and Development and Dar himself have lately been warning the
government about it, but it seems their wise voices are not getting across.

What sorts of feedstock provide the highest energy yield? What areas in
the Philippines are suited for what type of feedstock? What sorts of
agronomic practices are necessary to ensure sustainable and economical
yield? Are there opportunities for intercropping with existing perennial
crops like coconuts? Are there adequate rural infrastructures to support
and make such feedstock cost effective? Are there geographic factors to
be considered to ensure economic viability? These are some of the many
questions that our government planners need to consider before they
could even start talking to farmers and upland dwellers.

Failing to study these questions, the government might just end up
creating confusion and even more economic problems.

For instance, there's a danger that in the rush to produce feedstock, we
might end up encouraging farmers to shift away from food production. We
might end up having plantation-style agribusiness systems for feedstock
that would require massive doses of fertilizer and pesticides, thus
defeating the biofuels's supposed earth-friendly purposes.

The worst scenario could be the massive conversion of upland forests for
the production of feedstock to the detriment of biodiversity and the
watershed areas.
--
Check for earlier Pacific Biofuel posts: http://pacbiofuel.blogspot.com/

[PBN] "Many Biofuels Have More Climate Impact Than Oil"

Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2790018020070927?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
CHINA: September 28, 2007

BEIJING - Most crops grown in the United States and Europe to make
"green" transport fuels actually speed up global warming because of
industrial farming methods, says a report by Nobel prize winning chemist
Paul J. Crutzen.

The findings could spell particular concern for alternative fuels
derived from rapeseed, used in Europe, which the study concluded could
produce up to 70 percent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than
conventional diesel.

The study suggested scientists and farmers focused on crops, which
required less intensive farming methods, to produce better benefits for
the environment.

Biofuels are derived from plants which absorb the planet-warming
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as they grow, and so are meant as a
climate-friendly alternative to fossil fuels.

But the new study shows that some biofuels actually release more
greenhouse gases than they save, because of the fertiliser used in
modern farming practices.

The problem greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, is more famous as the
dentists' anaesthetic "laughing gas," and is about 300 times more
insulating than the commonest man-made greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

"The nitrous oxide emission on its own can cancel out the overall
benefit," co-author Professor Keith Smith told Reuters in a phone interview.

The results, published in "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Discussions," were based on the finding that fertiliser use on farms was
responsible for three to five times more such greenhouse gas emissions
than previously thought.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf

They cast further doubts on the credibility of biofuels as a climate
cure, following the revelation of other unintended side effects such as
rainforest clearance and raised food prices, from competition with
forests and food for land. Brazil and the United States produce most of
the world's bioethanol, as a substitute for gasoline, while the European
Union is the main supplier of biodiesel.

"FUTILE EXERCISE"
Using biodiesel derived from rapeseed would produce between 1 and 1.7
times more greenhouse gas than using conventional diesel, the study
estimated.

Biofuels derived from sugar cane, as in Brazil, fared better, producing
between 0.5 and 0.9 times as much greenhouse gases as gasoline, it found.

Maize is the main biofuels feedstock used in the United States, and
produced between 0.9 and 1.5 times the global warming effect of
conventional gasoline, it said.

"As it's used at the moment, bioethanol from maize seems to be a pretty
futile exercise," Smith said.
The study did not account for the extra global warming effect of burning
fossil fuels in biofuel manufacture, or for the planet-cooling effect of
using biofuel by-products as a substitute for coal in electricity
generation.

"Even if somebody decides that our numbers are too big ... if you add
together the undoubted amount of nitrous oxide that is formed, plus the
fossil fuel usage, with most of the biofuels of today you are not going
to get any benefit," Smith said.

However, the study did not condemn all biofuels, suggesting that
scientists and farmers should focus on crops needing little fertiliser,
and harvesting methods that were not energy intensive.

"In future if you use low nitrogen demanding crops, and low impact
agriculture, then we could get a benefit," Smith said.

The study singled out grasses and woody coppice species -- like willows
and poplars -- as crops with potentially more favourable impacts on the
climate. (Additional reporting by Nigel Hunt in London)

Story by Emma Graham-Harrison

--
Check for earlier Pacific Biofuel posts: http://pacbiofuel.blogspot.com/