Investments in bio-energy should principally focus on the more efficient use and production of energy and in areas where agreed societal benefits including economic, social and current and future environment concerns. Biomass that is plant material, vegetation, or agricultural waste used as a fuel or energy source and is therefore the most relevant choice to address global warming, security of supply and economic concerns although a number of problems have still to be solved. Firstly, because it is the most natural, efficient and environment friendly renewable energy for power generation. Secondly, because it is the only renewable enabling continuous power production. Today around 60% of all renewable energy in the EU comes from biomass energy derived from wood or plant matters that is used in heating and power generation.
As far as transport is concerned, the first priority should be given, on the one hand to improve energy saving (further the use of railroad and smaller cars.) On the other hand, dedicate financial resources to the most efficient bio-fuels from an economical, efficiency, social and environmental perspective. This will be achieved by progressively giving up on the other bio-fuels which are more and more contested. A new survey published by the Friends of the Earth reports that bio-fuels in the UK could have doubled the GHG emissions of fossil fuels they allegedly replace. This partly results things from the change in land use. Subsidies are another concern. According to Renewable Energy World.com, “the relatively high cost of support currently offered by many first generation bio-fuels is an impediment to the development of second generation bio-fuels as the goals of some current policies that support the industry with grants and subsidies are not always in alignment with policies that further innovation.”
The cheaper the fossil fuels are, the less attractive renewable energies get. This is the case when global energy demand decreases because price decreases making fossil fuels more attractive. The outcome would be the same if the share of renewable energy grows. Where is the balance between higher costs of renewable energy and competitiveness of the European industry which is aiming at being the leader in the renewable business?
Conventional energy for power generation and for transport can, as a rule, only be replaced partially by biomass in the upcoming decades. An area equivalent to about 30% of the current agricultural land in Europe should be dedicated to bio-fuels to reach a production equivalent to 10% of the European fuel consumption. This is not acceptable. Covering the power needs of a country like France, exclusively with biomass would require two to three times the already existing arable land. As far as the impact of bio-fuels on employment is concerned, a study conducted by ZEW, a German centre for economic research reports that the use of bio-fuels in the EU up to a substitution share of some 15% would not cause any adverse employment effects. This is based on two assumptions, firstly sufficiently mature bio-fuel production technology will soon be at disposal and secondly that the overall calculated employment effects resulting from the balance of positive and negative contributions are modest. Other studies come to the same conclusions. This significantly differs from political statements claiming important net job creations.
Jean-Pierre Schaeken Willemaers holds a Master's Degree in electrical and mechanical engineering and graduated in nuclear engineering and economics at the University of Louvain. He is currently active in the energy business, as a board member of different industrial companies and a member of the advisory board of the Thomas More Institute.
This article was originally published by the Institute Thomas More, and has been submitted to atlantic-community.org by the author.
Related Material From Atlantic Community:
- Manfred Ringpfeil: Bio-Fueling Europe
- Heinrich Bonnenberg: Eco-Business through Fear Mongering
- J. F. Laurson & G. A. Pieler: Biofuel for Thought
- 4
March 5, 2010
Member deleted
Trust that a fare share for biomass will result among other technologies, for the future.
Granted, it's difficult to determine a price for fossil fuels because it's going to run out someday and they are not renewable.
But, for example, current oil price at about USD 80 per barrel is considered sufficient for OPEC members to have profits including financing further developments for future increased oil demand. This is not really only based on supply and demand, but also based on the future, and perhaps a little bit of speculations.
Thus, developing all possible alternatives to fossil fuels is important, including biomass, considering the fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable while avoiding a comeback of the tyranny of oil.