Response to Business Report Article on Biofuels

In response to this article, I wrote the following:


Dear Editor


In response to the article “State is blamed for biofuels fizzle” (Business Report, Tues 17th June) I would like to say “Good for the State!” Biofuels have some serious issues, none of which have been addressed by the SA Biofuels Association.

These issues include:
• Food security – Food prices are increasing dramatically, and biofuels can only make the problem worse. “The grain required to fill an SUV tank could feed one person for one year" (Washington Post, December 10, 2006). Internationally, Nestlé’s CEO is quoted as saying “If, as predicted, we look to use bio-fuels to satisfy 20% of the growing demand for oil products, there will be nothing left to eat” (http://www.gympietimes.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3767737). India’s Finance minister, Chidambaram, recently directly blamed the US corn (food) to ethanol policy for the spurt in grain prices, calling it “outrageous” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7315308.stm).
• Land-use change and carbon emission impacts - To create space to grow biofuels crops, farmers can plow up what was forest or grassland, or they can convert land that was previously used for other agricultural purposes to bio-fuel crops, requiring other land to be plowed up for food crops. Forests and grasslands act as carbon stores, and when they are destroyed, a tremendous amount of carbon gasses is released into the atmosphere, creating a “carbon debt” that needs to be repaid. This means that biofuels start off with a tremendous carbon-positive release even before the crops are grown. If this carbon debt is factored into the carbon arguments for biofuels, it would take approximately 167 years for US corn ethanol to pay it back. Biomass ethanol in the US comes in at a 138 years carbon payback. That is just to get carbon NEUTRAL. (Reports available on request)

Currently carbon stores, such a forests and wetlands, are not economically valued according to their real ecological value, and the ethical value of human life is not considered when large corporations, who own most of the agricultural land, drive a commercial agenda that appears to be driving up food prices. It is disingenuous to appeal to job creation when the such strategies undermine our food supplies which supports our economy.

The rush to biofuels has happened without a sound scientific appraisal, and can be considered an inappropriate switch from crude oil. If we wish to have sustainable resource consumption with regards to energy, the current methodologies with regards to biofuels are problematic. Buyelwa Sonjica has been wise in her approach to biofuels, excluding maize and not overdoing rebates.

Without a shadow of a doubt more energy that we could every use that could easily be harvested from proper renewable energy resources in ecologically friendly ways. Solar alone could easily meet this need. Just looking at transport, an analysis of PV versus biofuels reveals some startling results (Podewills, “Organised Wastefulness”, Photon International, Apr 2007). It looked at the distance that a car could travel based on the energy production of one hectare of land in one year. If the energy production on that one hectare is from biofuels, at best a traditional car could travel is 22’500km. If Photovoltaics (PV) are used and coupled to a hybrid car, a distance of 3’250’000 km! That is a factor of 144 times further!

There is much more I could write on this topic, but I hope that the above is found to be helpful.


Yours sincerely


Frank Spencer MSc(Eng)

Renewable Energy Engineer / Regional Manager - South Africa
Alt-e Technologies