Biofuels - Fueling the World or Fooling the World?

Just over a month ago, I (Michelle) sat through a presentation called the "Myths of Agrofuels". Most of the information was new to me, and I found the facts presented rather astonishing as I had always thought of agrofuels as a legitimate part of the transition mix. I felt compelled to research the topic thoroughly and draw up some conclusions of my own based on scientific research, reputable publications and responsible sources. I became so convinced that the use of imported fuel crops would have such major adverse consequences that I have since become involved with a network of organizations, scientists and individuals calling for a moratorium on the recently announced EU biofuel policy.

To summarize the issues, I believe that Agrofuels:

• risk increasing greenhouse gas emissions leading to further global warming
• greatly accelerate deforestation and loss of biodiversity
• are a threat to communities and to indigenous peoples in developing countries due to land conflicts, food insecurity and will further exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities

The backbone to the anti-agrofuels network here in Europe is the UK organization, BiofuelWatch. The campaign is gaining momentum, public attention and recently, was covered by UK-based Sky News. The seven minute news broadcast is shown below, followed by a more detailed discussion of the broader impacts of agrofuel use and agrofuel government policy.

Before you watch the clip, note that although this blog is focused on the European government policy the Canadian government recently announced a regulation requiring 5% renewable content, such as ethanol, in Canadian gasoline by 2010. There are also plans to develop a biodiesel fuel target of 2% by 2012 and the Canadian Government's ecoEnergy for biofuels initiative will invest up to $1.5 billion over 9 years to boost Canada?s production of biofuels.

This newscast looks at the agrofuel industry in Indonesia and the deforestation, loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity that is currently occurring in the race to increase fuel crop production. As well, a villager whose village was demolished to make way for a large-scale agribusiness palm oil plantation is briefly interviewed.

Sky News (UK)- Biofuels, Driving a Catastrophy?

What Is The Difference Between Agrofuels and Biofuels?

Agrofuels / biofuels are biomass-derived fuels designed to replace petroleum and used mainly in the transport sector. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably a distinction must be made. An agrofuel, is a type of biofuel, consisting of crops and/or trees grown on a large scale (i.e monoculture). Examples include fuel crops such as maize, corn, oil palm, soya, sugar cane, sugar beet, oilseed rape, canola, jatropha, rice and wheat. The term agrofuels does not include biofuels derived from waste, such as biogas from manure or landfill, or waste vegetable oil.

The call for Moratorium does not include the use of locally and sustainably grown biofuels. It covers only large-scale monocultures (agrofuels) and especially imports of these fuel crops from the Global South into the EU.

What Is The European Biofuel Policy?

The European Union (EU) has a climate policy aimed at limiting global temperature changes to no more than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. In March 2007 the European Union Heads of States approved a draft energy action plan with the objective of developing a sustainable integrated European climate and energy policy. The targets include a 10% minimum for the share of biofuels in the overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020. Two important conditions were imposed onto this target: (1) biofuels should be produced sustainably, (2) Second-generation biofuels should become commercially available.

The official legislative proposal for revised biofuels is expected to be published late 2007 or early 2008.

What Is Contributing to Climate Change?

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, an independent review commissioned by the UK government and published in October 2006, is the largest and most widely known and quoted report of its kind. The review ultimately concludes that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth and that strong, early action considerably outweighs the cost. Using scientific evidence, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines, and the World Resources Climate Analysis Data, the review produced an interesting pie-chart showing the GHG emissions by source for the year 2000.

What this chart tells us:

• 35% of emissions are from agriculture and changes in land use
• Land-use change is the 2nd largest source of emissions (18%), after the power sector (24%).
• Agriculture emissions are equal (14%) and land-use change emissions are greater (18%) than the contribution from transport.

Agriculture emissions due to intensive farming stem primarily from two sources: nitrogen fertilizer production/utilization and emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) from the field. Because of the very powerful GHG effect of nitrous oxide (300 times that of CO2) even relatively small emissions can have a significant impact on the overall GHG balance.

Deforestation is the single largest source of land-use change emissions, i.e. the conversion of forest to pasture land. The carbon stored in vegetation and soil is released directly if the forest is burned (i.e.slash and burn) or more slowly if it is left to decay. Also, the re-absorption of CO2 (sequestration) through photosynthesis is reduced, leaving more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. Greater than 90% of land-use change emissions originate from tropical (developing) countries. Of that ninety, thirty and twenty percent are attributed to deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil respectively.

Do Agrofuels Lower GHG Emissions?

It seems only logical that, if governments, supporters, agri-business and industry are supporting the widespread adoption then it must reduce overall GHG emissions and help the environment, right?

Well - it depends.

First, to truly compare the two fuel types, a full cycle environmental impact must be performed. In the case of transport fuels, this is also commonly referred to as a well-to-wheel (WTW) analysis, representing that the fuel source has been evaluated from its source (i.e. oil well) to the wheel, which would include everything from land preparation to fuel combustion.

Numerous WTW?s have been performed by scientific organizations and industry groups and have shown a wide range of GHG balances for agrofuels, from increases of 70% to decreases of 80% over conventional fossil fuels.

This wide range is because the calculated emissions crucially depend on a number of factors:

• Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Farming contributes significantly to the agrofuel GHG emissions due to nitrogen fertilizer production/utilization and direct nitrous oxide emissions from the field. Factors such as yield, climate, soil type, ground cover and cultivation method assumptions have a very large affect on estimated emissions.
• Base case assumptions: What was the original land-use? Did de-forestation occur to make room for the fuel crop?
• Pathway: How was the fuel made? In the case of ethanol production, the use of co-generation with a gas-fired turbine over conventional production schemes has been claimed to reduce GHG emissions by 45%. However, using coal would wipe out the GHG savings as compared to gasoline.
• By-product usage: Were the by-products of the distillation process used as animal feed or for fuel?

The lowest overall GHG emissions (up to 80% reduction over fossil fuels) are attainable when biodiesel is made from waste cooking oil or methane from liquid manure.

Nitrous Oxide Emissions- What?s the Big Deal?

To describe the exact methodology for estimating N2O emissions is somewhat complicated, outside of my own knowledge base (yuck, chemistry!) and likely more detailed than any of my readers care for. To describe it simplistically, biofuels studies have typically adopted two approaches for estimated N2O emissions from soils: (1) take actual field measurements, (2) use published IPCC guidelines.

The problem with actual field measurements is that the results from one field cannot necessarily apply elsewhere. N2O emissions will vary from field to field by more than two orders of magnitude depending on a complex combination of climate, soil composition, crop and farming practices. Studies have also shown that emission rates for tropical vs temperate soils can be between 10 and 100 times greater for the same quantity of fertilizer. Therefore, some substantial (and potentially unfair) assumptions must be made when using this method make a generalized comment that "agrofuels have a lower GHG balance than fossil fuels".

As for the 2006 IPCC guidelines, numerous other studies have pointed out the assumptions and simplifications made result in underestimating actual emissions. The most credible study is the recently published (August 2007) report by Paul Crutzen, who has a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on climate change. The study challenges that the nitrous oxide emissions from agrofuels is 3-5 times greater than recommended by the IPCC. Also, the outcome is that the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions that cooling by fossil fuel savings.

This is the key point: Agro-fuels will not bring about the intended climate benefits that are being used to promote them. This has largely to do with our large-scale, heavily fertilized, monoculture crops and industrialized production methods. And although I?m going to continue this article and point out many other legitimate reasons why the expansion of agrofuels is a bad idea, if you are tired of reading you can stop here- as I believe the case is strong enough already. In the event you are looking for more ammunition for the next debate on agrofuels you take part in, please read on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Do Base Case Assumptions Affect the GHG Balance?

As mentioned in a previous section, land-use change (i.e. deforestation) is a huge contributor to global warming, larger than even the entire transport industry, and second after the power industry. When performing an agrofuel LCA, how the land would have been used otherwise (i.e. base case) is important to consider.

To understand the likely scenario for the base-case land use, it is important to consider the magnitude of the demand. Renewable Energy targets are being announced by governments all over the world. On the Bioenergy Wiki, I found some information on renewable fuel targets for various countries:

Brazil: 20-25% ethanol, 5% biodiesel in 2010

China: 100% E10 (10% gasoline-ethanol blend) by 2012

India: 5% ethanol in certain states, 20% biodiesel by 2012

Thailand: 20% ethanol and biodiesel by 2012

The Philippines: 1% biodiesel by 2008 and 3% by 2010

The United States has numerous targets, including a 2010 target for 30% of transport fuel to come from ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen, electricity or other replacement fuels, and a 2017 target for 35 billion gallons of alternatives fuels.

Canadian government recently announced a regulation requiring 5% renewable content, such as ethanol, in Canadian gasoline by 2010. There are also plans to develop a biodiesel fuel target of 2% by 2012.

And of course, the EU draft energy action plan calls for a 10% share of biofuels in the overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020.

I'm not even confident that this list is exhaustive or entirely up-to-date, but you can see already that the demand for biofuels is growing substantially worldwide. How much land will it take to supply all of the demand? How much will the transport sector continue to grow over the next 15 years? Will countries use domestic lands to produce their renewable fuels or will they import fuel crops?

Considering that we live in a global commodities market we know that a large portion of the fuel crops will be imported from the Global South, purely from an economics standpoint. The climatic advantages result in higher yields and almost all countries in the Global South have significantly lower labour and land costs. Demand will significantly increase pressure to convert land in developing countries to energy cropland.

Carbon is instantaneously released into the atmosphere when mature trees are cut down and burnt and it has been estimated that it would take 60 to 270 years of growing biofuels to offset this initial CO2 release. Therefore, to get a positive GHG balance for agrofuels one must assume that the biofuel crops came from set-aside areas or unharvested grass. Is this a realistic assumption?

The two projected largest exporters of agro-fuel crops are Brazil and Indonesia. It is not a coincidence that these two countries also lead the world in tropical deforestation rates, as shown below.

Supporters of agrofuel policy claim that safeguards and certification schemes can be put in place to prevent the unsustainable harvesting of agrofuels. I?ll dispute this claim in an upcoming section.

One last point- Allowing natural vegetation to regenerate would sequester 20 tonnes of CO2/hectar/year. Should we be focusing on the supposed carbon mitigation by agrofuels or concentrating on simply saving and restoring forests?

Is It Fair To Exclude Social Impacts?

Although there are many, an exceptional document focusing on the social impacts of large scale agrofuel crops is called Biodiesel, Palm Oil and Afro-Columbian Communities. It is published by the Schumacher Institute for Sustainable Systems and focuses on the current palm oil production inColumbia and its impact on already marginalized communities. The author discusses how small scale farmers will not be able to compete with industry and agribusiness monocultures designed for export. Considering that approximately 80% of agricultural land in developing countries is owned by 3% of landowners, the most likely impact is to simply exacerbate the existing socioeconomic inequalities. To quote: "Corporate actors have used their power, alongside the International Monetary Institutions, to create the best regulatory system for their investment, not for small scale farmers and policy recommendations to encourage small scale production go against the financial interests of large economic actors".

The author also recounts the story of an Afro-Columbian woman: "In her village in El Choco, she had no need for employment, as she had access to the necessary resources. Her family shared a communal plot of land where they grew their food. When armed actors arrived in her village she and her husband and children were forced from their land. They now live in a slum of Bogotá where they have no access to land on which to grow food on".

This is not an isolated example. Any research to find social organizations in developing countries or even a quick Google search will bring up many reported stories of people losing their villages, land and homes to make way for agri-business and large monoculture crops in developing countries. The NGO Friends of the Earth Netherlands has published a report in July 2007 outlining the unethical, un-environmental, unfair and illegal practices of the largest palm oil trading company in the world.

Numerous other reports include a warning from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that five million indigenous people in West Kalimantan are threatened with losing their land due to agrofuel cropland expansion, and in Paraguay, 90,000 rural farmers have been pushed off their land by the expansion of soya crops.

To be fair I need to point out that the issues that I have discussed regarding agrofuel production in developing countries is not isolated. Truthfully, this is a problem that stems from our current political-economic system and industrial agriculture as a whole. These points can be used equally as ammunition against eating beef from Brazil or using palm oil products from Borneo (to quote a good friend :) ). Margarine, face creams, soap, chocolate, toothpaste, and many more products can contain palm oil from deforested land. However, the substantially increased land demand due to agrofuels use and forced agrofuel targets will severely exacerbate these existing issues. We need to oppose policy which blindly promotes the increased consumption of agrofuels without consideration of the maximum local and sustainable production amounts.

I've read a number of articles regarding the benefits for the poor and developing countries that an agrofuel industry would bring about. "Promises and Challenges of Biofuels for the Poor in Developing Countries" by the International Food Policy Research Institute is one of them. The article points to income for poor farmers, employment opportunities for the poor, and discusses why they believe agrofuels will not increase food insecurity. But the author is counting on certification schemes and international safeguards to create a pro-poor biofuel industry. Also, the irony of "creating employment opportunities for the poor", is that before having been kicked off his land, the farmer did not need a job. He was able to provide for his family and live off his own crops. I do not believe that a pro-poor agrofuel industry is achievable with our current free-trade policies, the power and control of corporate agri-business and world trade organization barriers. How can we believe that the system can and will create fair and sustainable schemes when we already import so many unsustainable crops including soy and palm oil for food, massive amounts of soy protein for animal feed and other industrial products? Let's not fool ourselves as our governments start talking about creating "sustainable imported agrofuels". This is a misnomer.

As for food security, I'm not going to say much, as this is already a highly debated and front-and-center argument. Unless you've not picked up a news paper or watched the news in the last year you should be well aware of the tortilla prices in Mexico, the price of beer in Germany, and so-on.

Lastly, a great discussion on ethanol, US security and policy was done by CBC reporter Avi Lewis in June 2007. He interviews and challenges an ex-CIA director who is now the co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger. Watch him stump the ex-CIA director with his comments regarding US foreign policy (It's great!). You can watch the 5 minute newscast here.

Will Second Generation Biofuels Save The Day?

The second criterion of the EU draft energy plan is that second generation biofuels become commercially available. Second generation biofuels aim to improve performance, usually using the whole plant therefore improving CO2 balance and costs. A wider range of feedstocks could theoretically be used including trees, plant waste, grass and straw. While the technology is currently unproven, promises about the future of the 2nd generation are being used to promote agrofuel policy and production of the 1st generation type. Development of economical net positive energy balance 2nd generation biofuels could take a significant time while emission reductions are required in the immediate future. Also, there is no evidence that large-scale 2nd generation agrofuels would be sustainable or climate-friendly.

Considerable resources are also being invested in genetically modified (GM) research for agrofuel production. For numerous reasons I fiercely oppose the use of GM crops, but here is not the place to go into a detailed debate. The Future of Food is a documentary, and one the many excellent resources discussing the sustainability issues inherent with GM crops. The Biotech industry hopes to use genetic engineering to improve agrofuel crops and obviously expects that strong public opposition, mostly related to health concerns and food crops, will fade. However, the risk for biodiversity, other biohazards and contamination for all non-GM crops still exist and will likely be significantly intensified if GM 2nd generation agrofuels are introduced.

Can These Issues Be Solved By Certification?

I've been primarily focused on European policy with the work I've been doing here at the Folkecenter and can't comment on how the Canadian government is handling the certification issue. However, I suspect that the scheme eventually adopted by the European government will be imitated by other governments. Much of the information presented in this section is adapted from the Transnational Institute's publication, Paving the Way for Agrofuels.

Proponents claim that certification can effectively ensure that only sustainable sources are imported. But who gets to determine what is sustainable? The agrofuels "sustainability" debate in the EU and internationally excludes many actors, especially the farmers, villagers and communities in the Global South who are directly affected by the international biofuel policies and expansion of agrofuel crops in their home countries.

In the spring of 2007, the EU published and requested feedback on its Possible Way Forward consultation paper. Interestingly, only two sustainability criteria were suggested in this proposition: (i) GHG balance, (ii) high biodiversity value evaluations.

Based on these two criteria alone, agrofuels linked to land evictions, human rights abuses, loss of food security or any other social issue can still be considered "sustainable". Therefore, the issues most relevant to the most affected stakeholders are ignored. Currently proposed certification schemes cite the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules as a barrier to including social criteria such as child labour, soil degradation, land conflicts, etc, into the certification debate.

A "Book & Claim" type system is being proposed as compared to a "Track & Trace" method. This type of system uses trade-able certificates instead of tracking a product from beginning to end (i.e. Track & Trace). It is less administratively burdensome and hence cheaper, but also easier to cheat. Regardless of which system is used, there is always the challenge of verification, monitoring, and enforcement. Another barrier to the certification process is that the WTO mandates that voluntary certification is allowed, but only if no measures are taken to inhibit trade in non-certified goods.

The EU proposes to use existing "stakeholder" groups including the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) and the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to both certify goods. However, these two groups are heavily dominated by transnational agri-business corporations, including Round-up-Ready soy producers who have a huge stake in getting genetically modified organisms (GMO?s) accepted under a "responsible" certification scheme. Also, both organizations have been heavily criticized by NGO's in the Global South as members have been found guilty of illegal acquisition of land, land-clearance through fire, deforestation and failure to protect biodiversity. Let us also remember that the wide scale conversion of natural habitat to monoculture can in no way be considered "sustainable". These groups are more interested in the long term sustainability of their industries and profits, and not sustainability in the sense of the environment.

What does the government of Malaysia have to say about the consultation paper? "There is a need for EU to accept greenhouse gas savings provided by exporting countries and not to impose arbitrary standards including the need to verify the data (?) Protection of biodiversity is normally under the purview of national forest policies and should not be linked with agricultural policies (?) use of words such as "environmentally-harmful" systems should be avoided as there are no internationally accepted standards (?) Criteria such as land-use change, biodiversity and CO2 neutrality should be subjected to the environmental laws and regulations of the exporting countries?. Yikes! Let's hope that the EU is smart enough not to listen to this advice!

Certification schemes cannot easily nor in a practical sense address indirect and macro effects. However, these can be significant and could completely ruin the supposed GHG reduction and/or negate any environmental benefits. For instance, if corn crops for ethanol production displace soya crops, the soya crops (say, for animal feed) may be planted in a newly deforested area. The rate of Amazon deforestation has been shown to be in direct correlation with the world market price of soy and also linked to US corn subsidies as per a 2006 scientific study and an article published in the journal Science respectively. As well, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, an increase in the use of rapeseed oil for biodiesel increases the demand for palm oil in the food industry.

With all of these unaddressed key sustainability issues, how can targets be set and subsidies granted? This quote sums it all up well: "[B]iofuel mandates are targeting ambitious market shares without an in-depth understanding of a sustainable production level and from where these biofuels could be supplied. There is a serious risk that biofuel quotas for demand are higher then potential sustainable supply, creating a strong incentive to cheat the system. Though theoretically possible, reliance on certification schemes to ensure the sustainable production of biofuels is not a realistic safeguard."

With all of these considerations in mind, I believe that trust in a certification scheme is like trusting that the stock tip that you received in your spam-mail will make you a millionaire.

Treating The Symptoms and Not The Disease?

Governments are excited about the notion that we can both grow our own fuel and combat climate change at the same time. They have chartered a course by providing economic incentives to industry and issuing biofuel targets for consumers. The ship is gaining momentum with strong support from industry, agribusiness, and investors although the climate benefits are seriously being challenged by scientists and numerous others warn of severe social consequences.

The realities of climate change and peak oil contrast with our eagerness to continually grow and increase consumption. We seem to be blind or unwilling to acknowledge the fact that we live in a finite world with a diminishing supply of non-renewable resources. Rather than making decisions to truly reduce our toll on the environment and our energy consumption we seek false lifeboats such as agrofuels and expect this one lifeboat to carry all the passengers of the tanker ship.

Setting biofuel mandates (i.e. a requirement for 10% ethanol content by 2020) without first targeting consumption reduction is trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease! We need to first cure our wasteful and ignorant use of resources and then look to sustainable options. Trying to find sustainable ways to carry on our unsustainable lifestyle will only sink the ship.

Here is a clear example: In 2005, the most efficient car available in North America, the Honda Insight (70 mpg) was only sold to 700 customers. In contrast, 61,000 Hummers (10 mpg) were sold.

Is It Time For A Conclusion?

"When asked whether the 10 per cent target would be dropped or adjusted if negative impacts were demonstrated, the [EU] Commission responded that this would not be the case, since it would create too much uncertainty for investors. So, investors' interests are served while sustainability promises remain empty." excerpt fromPaving The Way For Agrofuels.

Based on the technical reports I have read, the internet research that I have completed, the people that I have spoken to, and the debates I have had, this is what I have come to fear: the agrofuel craze will only turn into a continuation of resource extraction from the Global South and developing countries with the intention of maximizing the profits of transnational corporations and corrupt governments so that those fortunate to be born in the first world can continue with their rampant consumption while falsely believing that they are actually doing something good for the planet and at the same time continuing to be completely oblivious of the upcoming energy crisis.

wow - then end.

p.s. do me a favour- if you got to the end of this document, first pat yourself on the back, then leave me a comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one- even if you disagree with me :)

The High Cost of Cheap Fuel

I saw things in Cairo that I thought were only true in the movies. This whirlwind trip has been a real eye opener for me, an enormous culture shock and I have come to realize my own naivety surrounding mega cities in developing countries. To give you an idea of the conditions:

- the city is home to 18 million people

- the sixteenth most populous city in the world

- a diameter of 15 km

There are two extremes here: rich and everyone else. Most people live in homes that are in poor condition at best and generally absolute wrecks. Half a million squatters are living in cemetery tombs in central Cairo.

The cost of living is quite low which allows the population to scrape by on little-to-no monthly income. I am by no means a policy expert and I cannot say that I know the history or understand the problems that the Egyptian government and people have faced, but to me it is evident thatthe subsidization of gasoline and diesel fuel is an absolute disaster.

Cairo is a therefore a perfect case study for people looking for reasons why the subsidization of fossil energy is a bad idea.

Market manipulation in the form of taxes and subsidies by governments are tools that are used to persuade the market in a direction that the government sees as beneficial to society. These tools can be used effectively, as we have seen in Denmarkto encourage local growth of community renewable power.

In Egypt, the current price for a liter of gasoline is about 0.15 CAD$. The subsidy was initiated under the pretext of protecting domestic jobs, stimulating the economy and protecting the poor from high prices.

At first glance, I suspect that many North Americans would wish that our government “came to the rescue” and subsidized our fuel prices. Think about how cheap a trip to the mountains in your SUV would be if fuel only cost 15 cents a liter!

However, the fuel subsidies are by no means a free-ride for the Egyptians. The money used to subsidize the real cost of fuel has to come from somewhere. In the case of Egypt, subsidies have displaced funds for basic needs such as education, health care and the environment. In the case of the environment, the subsidization creates a triple negative hit: reduced government spending to protect the environment, increased pollution from the excessive use of fossil fuels, and reduced economic incentive to use renewable and clean energies.

Over 2 million vehicles congest Cairo's roads, many of them being old carbureted gas engines, old diesels, two-stroke motor bikes and rickshaws. The air pollution in the city is unbelievable. The black smoke from the vehicle exhausts blanket the city like nothing you can imagine. It fills the streets and sticks to the building making everything grey. It is so dense that when you are in the heart of the city on a windless day you can not see the sun in the sky. There is nowhere you can go to take a fresh breath of air. The lung problems that these people are going to have in 20 years are hard to fathom.

As for economics and profit stimulation, it seems to have only brought wealth to a small percentage of already wealthy people who were able to capitalize on the system. Currently Cairo has a 20% unemployment rate.

Furthermore, the country is living in delusional cheap fuel bonanza while the commodity price of oil is steadily climbing towards 100 $/barrel. The government is being squeezed and has admitted that the fuel subsidy will have to end soon. However, society has become addicted to this cheap oil and feels that it cannot survive without it!

According the locals I was staying with, riot police have been set up all over the city in anticipation of riots and public unrest when the subsidies are stopped. My Egyptian friend claims that the removal of fuel subsidizes will also cause overnight inflation on the entire economy. Food prices, taxi cabs (the artery of Cairo's transit) and generally everything that touches any kind of transport or manufacturing in the country will be forced to ramp up prices to account for the major adjustment.

The real question becomes: how will the people making 300 $/mo or less adjust and more importantly how will the people who are unemployed make ends meet?Unfortunately only time will tell and hopefully the Egyptian Government has a plan to slowly ease the people into a substantially more expensive life.

As for North America: we too are addicted to private transport. While we have much stricter emission standards we too are going to be faced with difficult transport decisions in the all too near future. Governments need to invest more heavily in our public transportation system and people need to start using it- not only for cost considerations but also for the environment. The policy that drives the decisions in our cities and countries needs to not be only concerned about which overpass is causing major congestion but how to improve public transport and make cities more walk-able, bike-able and livable. We need to start making decisions and investments thinking about the 10-15 year plan and not concern ourselves with political platforms only aimed at wining the next election (i.e. 2% GST cuts).

In the end I can say that I enjoyed my trip. I met a great number of very humble and gracious people and can say that while the lungs of the Egyptians may not be too healthy their hearts more than make up for it. I sincerely hope that their government has a few plans on how to deal with the impending fuel crisis that this country is going to face very soon. I am glad that the companies that were represented in the course we taught are at least looking to start a wind industry. This is an enormous step in the right direction.

Even though we can selfishly think of all the good reasons for subsidized fuel, it is quite clear that one way or another we all end up paying the full price (and maybe even more) in the end. We can only avoid the true and external costs of fossil fuels for so long. Even in North America we will have to pay the piper sooner or later. If we choose sooner, we can choose our destiny, if we choose later we will likely end up in the same boat as our Egyptian brothers.

Producing Plant Oil Fuel at the Folkecenter

Plant Oil Processing

The Folkecenter has a demonstration lab which contains all of the equipment to press, filter and test vegetable oil for engine use. As Europe has pioneered the use of vegetable oil for fuel it was realized very quickly here that a vegetable oil standard was going to be needed in order to ensure that oil quality met a certain criteria. The standard that was adopted was the German RK Standard for PPO. You can see after looking at this standard that there is more than meets the eye than just vegetable oil. There is talk right now in Germany about revising this standard to make it more stringent.

The plant oil lab has two, cold seed presses made by Taby in Sweden and one by Bt Combirenser (BTC) made in Denmark.

The BTC press that is seen here is simply a screw press with a C flanged mounted motor which presses the seed into oil and seed cake. The BTC has an integrated seed storage and screening device to remove straw pieces, rocks, and any foreign material that is not supposed to be going through the press. At the bottom of the seed storage tank there is an auger that removes the unwanted material for disposal. To the right is a cross section of a typical seed press with all of the components labelled.

As a general rule of thumb cold pressing of seed produces 33% oil and 66% seed cake. This of course can vary depending on the quality of the seed.

The press is capable of pressing 30 kg/hour of seed which yields 10 kg/hour of oil and 20 kg/hr of seed cake. This might not sound like a lot but if this press operates 24/7 it can add up to a lot.

The Folkecenter's main goal was toencourage the wide spread use of these devices on local farms so that farmers could produce their own fuel thus value adding before the farm gate.

So, the oil can be used as fuel but what do we do with the seed cake? Well the smart folks over here figured that one out as well! The seed cake happens to have a high protein content perfect for feeding livestock such as pigs, steers and even fish in aquaculture systems. It can also be spread as fertilizer or burned in a stoker boiler to heat water which I will do a blog on in a week or so.

In order to do a proper economic analysis of this a study evaluating the price of feed, fuel and feed stock seed would have to be completed. Also, as farmers do not pay road tax in Canada their fossil fuel is cheaper and thus their economics will need to take this into account. I currently run my van on waste vegetable oil which I get for free by approaching restaurant owners. The waste oil is of far worse quality than PPO but when you are living on a beer budget you can?t always afford to drink champagne.

Oil Cascade Sedimentation

Once the seed has been crushed it is important to filter out any particles, and if you talk to greasers like Adam Gagnon and the pros here at the Folkecenter they will tell you that the oil should be filtered down to no less than 2 microns. This might sound like an impossible task, but with the right tools and a little bit of leed time most of the particles can be removed with Newton?s best friend, gravity. The Folkecenter uses a cascade filtration system employing four 50 gallon barrels. As the oil travels through each barrel the particles drop out. The Folkecenter recommends that the oil settle for two days in each of the four tanks at 20 degrees C.

After the sedimentation period the oil should then be filtered at 20 to 40 degrees C with a commercial diesel filter down to 2 microns. This prevents any last particles from entering the storage tank. While the main objective of this system was to be used locally in Denmark, the simplicity and cost effectiveness of the design meant that they could use this system in developing countries and projects such as the Mali Folkecenter.

The beauty of the Folkecenter processing plant is that it fits into a 6 square meter space which means that you don?t need a lot of real estate or money to set one of these systems up. With a little bit of scrounging around and a couple of phone calls the filtration system could be constructed quite quickly and cost effectively. Additionally the construction of these seed presses are quite simple and could easily be made in Canada or a third world country to create local jobs and supply local fuel and feed on the farm.

With the price of canola increasing every day I am not sure if this fuel is currently more economical than conventional diesel. This would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into account many of the factors I mentioned above. But as crude oil becomes ever more expensive it is going to become imperative that farmers implement technologies and systems in their day to day life to become more vertically integrated on the farm.

Plant oil engines & plant-based fuels

One of the reasons that Michelle and I found the Folkecenter was because of plant oil. Just over a year ago, Michelle and I converted our VW Westfalia van to run on used vegetable oil, usually from deep fryers. Before I did this I had a lot of help from my good buddy and fellow greaser, Adam Gagnon. Adam has been on the plant oil beat for a number of years now and knows the system inside and out. He runs a small company in Calgary called Crude Country Biofuels and specializes in converting diesel engines to run on plant oil. As Adam and I got to know each other Adam started letting me in on all of the plant oil secrets, one of them being the Folkecenter. The Folkecenter has been pioneering plant oil in Denmark for many years now and has produced a number of very highly regarded papers on decentralized cold pressing of plant oil, and on the energy balance of using plant oil as a transport fuel. Adam showed me these papers and I immediately became enthralled by the Folkecenter. After a few phone calls to the center I had the van converted and a plane ticket for Michelle and I to work and study here.

Vegetable oil as fuel is commonly referred to as PPO or Pure Pant Oil. Numerous types of plant oils exist including rape seed, canola, safflower, sunflower, jatropha, jajoba and the list goes on and on.

In order to understand how PPO can operate in a diesel engine we must look at the operation of the diesel engine. The diesel engine differs from a gas engine in that it does not combust fuel using a spark. The combustion process in a diesel engine uses a process call compression ignition or CI. Essentially, air is compressed in the cylinder by the piston to as little as 1/15th of its original volume. This raises the temperature of the air to the autoignition temperature of diesel. Diesel is then injected using a high pressure injection pump and injector into the piston at which point the mixture explodes and creates force to turn the engine crank and your wheels.

If we look closer at both canola and diesel we start to see that there are a number of similarities between the two which is why we can burn it in a diesel engine. However, one of the main differences that has to be overcome is the difference in autoignition temperature of diesel and canola. The auto ignition temperature of diesel and canola are 210 and 345 degrees centigrade respectively. Therefore, in order to use a vegetable oil like canola in a conventional diesel one first has to compensate for the higher autoignition temperature.

This is where Crude Country Biofuels comes in. Adam Gagnon has been perfecting conversion kits for diesel engines for a few years now and I must say he has a pretty rock-solid set up. Adam?s system relies on two separate fuel tanks, one diesel and one plant oil. The diesel is used to start the engine and warm it up preparing it for vegetable oil. Once the engine is warm he flips a switch and starts burning plant oil. In order to operate on a fuel with a higher autoignition temperature Adam specs out a heating element which is sized based on the fuel flow rate of the engine; the bigger the engine the bigger the heater. Too big and the oil will burn, too small and the oil will not get hot enough. If all the components are sized correctly the system should run like a top and provide many ?free? kilometres or driving. He also has a series of additional components that he can add to the plant oil fuel system to make it winter compatible. I have personally seen Adam start his little VW Greasy Rabit in -20degC weather with no issues. Adam has driven this car over 75,000km on plant oil which included a trip to Mexico and back. Michelle and I plan on taking our Westy on a similar trip next year and driving on as much PPO as possible.

Here in Europe a different approach is taken as operating vehicles on plant oil is much more common. Elsbett Engine AG , produces an engine that can operate on vegetable oil directly. They also produce a kit that allows users of vegetable oil to start up directly on vegetable oil eliminating the two-tank system. The Toyota truck here at the Folkecenter that we reported on in one of our earlier blogs uses an Elsbett conversion kit and it works quite well.

The single tank system operates on the same principal as the two-tank system, with a few minor changes. The main difference being that there are additional heating devices that are used in order to preheat the fuel prior to start up.

Now that I have had the opportunity to operate both a one-tank and two-tank system I can say that I much prefer the latter system.

The main advantages of the two-tank system include:

1) The ability to flush the engine of vegetable oil before you shut off your engine

2) Better cold starting capabilities in the winter, a must in Canada

3) Cleaner starting, when starting on vegetable oil it is hard to get the right autoignition temperature right off the bat as the engine is cold and there is fuel in the injection lines that is hard to heat. The Toyota here also runs quite rough right off the bat when starting on PPO.

The disadvantages of the two tank system include:

1) Potential loss of luggage capacity if the tank inside the car

2) Additional weight in the car, reducing fuel economy

3) More plumbing and complexity to the fuel system which can cause problems if not installed properly.

So as with most things in life there are always compromises that must be made when choosing which way to go. If you are interested in exploring plant oil as a more renewable fuel in the future feel free to check out Adam?s website and send him a line. He is good guy and always open to chatting over a good pint of beer at the Wildwood in Calgary.


Benefits of Biofuels

Biofuels can offer many benefits over conventional fuels if used properly. It has been proven that canola oil burns far cleaner than diesel with fewer particulate and less CO2 than diesel. The canola oil also lubricates the fuel system far better than diesel and some people argue that the engine runs quieter on vegetable oil. I am not going to go into the energy balance in this blog as it is starting to get very long but I will place a link here so that people interested can look for them selves.

Ethics of Biofuels

After you read this article you may want to go out and convert your very own engine to run on PPO. But before you do you should consider the ethics of biofuels. This is becoming an ever important issue in the world as biofuels used incorrectly can be far worse than using petroleum diesel. Firstly, when farmers start growing fuel instead of food there can be severe ramifications to the food system throughout the world. The corn riots in Mexico two years ago is a direct result of the US corn-to-ethanol policy. Also, consider that one SUV tank of corn ethanol consumes roughly enough corn to feed one person for a year.

Truthfully the Ethics of Biofuels requires a full blog and I will put one together in the coming months. Michelle, Melissa and I are preparing a biofuels conference at the end January here at the Folkcenter in which key people in Europe are going to gather to discuss if biofuels can be implemented sustainably. As this issue develops we will keep you abreast of the events and prepare a blog on the ethics of biofuels.

A Car Powered by Wind

Here at the Folkecenter there are numerous vehicles running on alternative fuels.

Pure Plant Oil (PPO)

There is a rape seed refinery here where they have the ability to press and filter rape seed (purchased from nearby farmers) to produce rape seed oil. The only byproduct from this process (seed cake) is fed to cattle. There is a large tank and a filling station to fuel up the Folkecenter diesel Toyota pickup that has been converted to run on plant oil.

This truck is quite similar to our VW van back in Canada, also converted to run on plant oil with main two differences. (i) Our vehicle filtration system is much more complicated as we use waste oil from restaurants, which requires significantly more filtration. (ii) Instead of converting the diesel fuel tank to PPO, we installed a secondary tank for PPO and have therefore retained the ability to use diesel fuel if we so chose.

Hydrogen-powered

There is a wind-hydrogen production facility (i.e. hydrogen fuel produced using electricity produced by a wind turbine) and a demonstration vehicle that has been converted to run on hydrogen.

When hydrogen is burned in air the main product is water.Therefore the the key advantage of hydrogen is that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not produced (i.e. No greenhouse gases are produced).

Note that hydrogen is an energy transfer medium rather than a primary source of energy. It is obtained by splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. If fossil fuels, e.g. coal, oil or natural gas, are used to generate the electricity, there is no advantage over using the fossil fuels directly. You still get all the CO2, and there is a considerable loss of energy. There are numerous disadvantages of hydrogen: 78% of the energy put into the production of hydrogen is never regained, the susbtantial size of a hydrogen tank, safety issues, and the fact that most of the hydrogen currently produced comes from non-renewable sources.

The Electric Car

I believe that the most interesting and promising of the demonstration vehicles here at the Folkecenter is the electric car. Why turn that electricity into hydrogen (and lose considerable efficiency) when you could simply power your vehicle with the electricity? Especially if that electricity comes from a renewable source such as solar or wind? Here, wind turbines convert wind energy into electricity which is then stored in the battery of their electric car. The car pictured here uses lead acid batteries and old electric motor technology. Once fully charged the car can travel over 30 kilometers. Of course, this is not ideal for long road trips but is more than sufficient for 90% of our commuting needs. We also came across a movie called: "Who Killed the Electric Car" . If you haven't seen this documentary we highly recommend it.

After doing more research on the internet we discovered that there are now electrical storage options that can run a vehicle for over 300 km, and there are car manufacturer nearly ready to put their electric vehicles on the market (google 'Tesla Roadster'). Rob is now convinced that when we return to Canada we'll be looking into to purchasing a an old Chrysler Neon and converting it to an electric car. You can buy a conversion kit for various cars at http://www.canev.com/. Perhaps with a combination of wind turbines and solar panels we'll be able to say that our car is powered by the wind and the sun. Imagine that!