By Paul Callister & Robert McLachlan*
Biofuels – and a broader bioeconomy – are key parts of New Zealand’s recently released first emissions reduction plan, particularly for transport, forestry and a transition to a more circular use of resources.
Work is moving fast, with a biofuel mandate for land transport to be introduced from April 2023 and a plan to transform the forestry industry currently under consultation.
Te Uru Rākau/NZ Forestry Service has commissioned a business case for large-scale production of biofuels in New Zealand from forestry waste, which it says could be a billion dollar industry. #nzpol #climatechange #climatecrisis
— Marc Daalder 😷 Wear a Mask (@marcdaalder) May 3, 2021
A bioeconomy is heralded as an opportunity to replace imported fossil fuels with carbon-neutral domestic biofuels and to create higher-value products from plantation forestry (much of which is currently exported as unprocessed logs) while supporting carbon sequestration at the same time.
New Zealand is not the only country thinking along these lines. Biofuels are part of a widespread strategy to address emissions from existing fossil-fueled vehicles, tens of millions of which are still being produced annually. They are also promoted for planes, ships and heavy trucks, often with few alternatives.
Both the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark US law which aims to curb inflation by investing in domestic clean energy production, and the EU’s Fit for 55 package, expand support for biofuels through a combination of subsidies and mandates. In the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Net Zero scenario, global biofuel production quadruples by 2050, to supply 14% of transport energy.
Unfortunately, a string of government reports, combined with experience of the real-world impacts of biofuels thus far, point to several downsides and challenges, both economic and environmental.
First-generation biofuels from food crops
The risks of first-generation biofuels, made from crops grown on arable land, are well known. They are not due to the fuels themselves or their production, but their indirect effects of how the land would have been used otherwise.
Already, 10% of the world’s grain is used for biofuels. This is at the heart of the “food-to-fuel” issue. This approach has been challenged because it could increase grain prices or, at the worst, lead to starvation. It has also led to agricultural expansion, often into ecologically sensitive areas.
Debated for years, it is now back in the spotlight as the effects of droughts in China, the US and Europe, combined with the war in Ukraine, push food prices up 50% on 2019-2020 levels.
Palm oil has borne the brunt of criticism about landuse change, as vast areas of rainforest in Indonesia and Malaysia have been cleared for its production. The impact of such “induced landuse change” (ILUC) gives palm oil biofuel nearly three times the emissions of fossil fuel.
But palm oil is a substitute for many other vegetable oils. Therefore, biofuel production from other oils like rapeseed (canola) is also implicated in ILUC, as diverting rapeseed to fuel leads to more palm oil entering the food chain.
Sustainability and credibility of feedstocks
The EU has undergone a lengthy process of strengthening the standards of its biofuel mandate. In the end, palm oil was the only feedstock listed as “high ILUC”, but was given a reprieve until 2030.
The cheapest biofuels with the biggest emissions savings are made from used cooking oil and beef tallow. But these feedstocks are in limited supply and open to fraud. They also already have other uses, which again raises the issue of substitution.
Z Energy’s NZ$50m tallow biodiesel plant, opened in 2018, has been mothballed due to the rising cost of tallow. The company has stopped work on plans for a much larger plant.
Z Energy boss Mike Bennetts acknowledges progress on producing biofuels in New Zealand has slowed almost to a halt, despite their critical role in the transition to low-emissions transport. https://t.co/JUP6VgrfA7
— Newsroom (@NewsroomNZ) April 21, 2022
Since New Zealand’s biofuel mandate will initially be met solely by imports, questions of sustainability and certifiability of feedstocks will be crucial. It is concerning that landuse change will not be considered when calculating emissions reductions.
The fuels will count as zero-emission in New Zealand, while the actual emissions from growing, fertilising, processing and transporting will take place overseas, likely in countries with weaker climate targets. Unless accounted for, this is carbon leakage by design.
Second-generation biofuels from inedible plant material
For all these reasons, proponents are keen to talk up the prospect of second-generation biofuels, made from non-food crops. In New Zealand’s case, the main crop is pine trees.
Although there is some forestry waste available, much of it is currently left on site and would be expensive to collect and transport. The Wood Fibre Futures report, commissioned by the government, focuses on logs-to-fuel, specifically “drop-in” fuels that can substitute directly for petrol, diesel or jet fuel.
However, there are no such plants in commercial operation anywhere. The report calls the risks of such an unproved technology extreme, with little prospect for mitigation.
The economics are also challenging, in part because log prices are high due to the efficiency of the log export market. A plant capable of producing 150 million litres of drop-in fuels a year – just 1.5% of New Zealand’s liquid fuel demand – would cost $1.2 billion and have a negative rate of return.
To obtain an acceptable return, the government would need to pay for half the cost of the plant and the logs, and also subsidise (or enforce) a 50% higher sale price of the fuel. The report envisages such a plant being completed by 2028 in New Zealand.
A fundamental obstacle is that any such use has to compete with other uses – including sawn timber, wood chips and wood pellets – which are far simpler, more profitable and come with greater carbon benefits.
Stop the mandate, strengthen alternatives
For all these reasons, we have formed the interest group Don’t Burn Our Future, which aims to stop New Zealand’s biofuel mandate.
As advocates of strong climate action, these are painful conclusions to reach. But we argue that for transport, the answer lies in the avoid/shift/improve framework, which encourages people to drive less, shift necessary trips to other modes and make them less polluting.
Biofuels only enter in the third and least important step (improve) and even there, they are the worst option.
The transport transformations envisaged in the new climate plans for Wellington and Auckland are heavily focused on avoidance and shifts to other modes. These options should be the priority.
*Paul Callister, Senior Associate Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
39 Comments
Biodiesel is in no way a replacement for fossil fuels, but it does have some distinct advantages over other alternatives. For example, it can be used to power existing vehicles and machinery with little or no modification, and the infrastructure for transporting, storing, and dispensing it is already in place. The only part missing is production, and as the article points out, there are many different options for feed stock, including material which would otherwise be treated as waste.
There is no perfect solution, but if we're going to measure the impact of biofuels holistically - including production - then we need to do the same for other alternatives like electric vehicles.
Palm oil is one of the worst foods ever.
It causes obesity. And by extension: heart attacks and strokes.
The kernel as a feedstock for cows makes their milk taste horrible.
The growing of it destroys habitat for lots of animals.
Palm oil is a complete and utter disastrous mess.
I don't get this initiative
Saying you champion climate change measures... but when something tangible & practical is immediately within grasp you seem intent on shutting it down?
1) Its not beneficial to compare less favorable immediate alternatives with gold standard systems, when urgent action is needed now (not in 20 years). The better comparison would be to compare it against the current state of FF exploitation/do nothing. Better to use it as a step measure. Better to do ANYTHING at this point that's not burning our way to a mass extinction event.
2) If Z are not able to get behind this... maybe its not the tech which is the issue? but their desire to keep exploiting the current FF systems they have invested so heavily in over the past how many decades? SCREW THEM, find another player or the govt backs it. Yes all this conversion will cost a shite ton of money... but that's immaterial. Fossil fuels are running out and we have no choice but to spend the money. Get on with it, don't putup barriers.
3) Options for renewable futures, anything, will drive behavior change, which will bring demand, which will bring more tech development. You can't bring a horse to water if there is not even a bucket... here horse, look at our nice picture of a future lake we may build... Think of other techs that have developed over the past century. Was the corded phone a waste of time as we all ended up with cell phones? So we really just should have waited for the cell phones right? Or was it just part of the evolution path of communication and a necessary step to future develop adoption?
4) Taking the train to work is one thing... but good luck getting rid of things like air travel expectations =) If you really want to look at that kind of social change, then it needs to come with major items like discussion on sustainable population targets... Also, unless someone develops ways to power military jets using batteries (or some future proton-fusion-plasma-star-treck space drive) we will need biofuels for the next century. Or hey just keep burning that oil!
5) Why are we worried about taking up farmland to become energy self sufficient.. when we export the majority of food that we produce in NZ? Isn't this long-term strategic no brainer? Given the increasingly unstable geo-political outlook, our #1 priority should be energy self-sufficiency. Sure we loose agri exports, but we would would spend less on energy imports? What's more important? Selling milk power to China... or developing genuine energy independence?
Just thinking about it... Would not point 5 also contribute to decreased diary farming size therefore reducing Green House gas emissions whilst still retaining gdp output and jobs available in a similar sector etc? Don't forget that diary green house has emissions are a major contributor to our warming footprint. The elephant in NZs room.
And billions would starve in a very short time as we deprived them of calories that they would otherwise have eaten. That's one of the major issues with biofuels, look at the sources, they are almost all sources of food crops or crops that would displace food crops, driving up food prices. Simply put, we have to get the energy in calories from somewhere and it is all derived from the sun, whether it's eaten or used in vehicles. However to run one human compared to running the car of one human is a significant calorie difference, its better to run one human (and arguably more ethical) rather than the vehicle. If the human bikes instead (as cycling is around 90% efficient as opposed to an ICE vehicle which is around 20-30% efficient) they only transport their weight, if the vehicle is used, it's transporting it's weight and the humans (usually more than 1 tonne).
I don't get it either.
I'm sure they are more well read on the topic than me, but the force of the writing is almost as if it has been paid for. Though, a few good points are raised.
NZ may be too small to feasibly develop it's own 2nd generation system, but that is not to say an international effort isn't worth contributing to, or that bio fuels are a lost cause. Best to have options being worked on before things become too desperate.
I personally like the idea of bio fuels, so am probably biased. But unless we bring all agriculture indoors, at the cost of additional electricity demand, we are going to need diesel to run just about everything.
I guess it's not so bad if food production drops as a result of population decreasing. But it would suck if food production drops before population, as a result of not having biofuel.
@fluffybunny, thanks for your comment. I am a co-author of the article.
1) I agree with the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels, even faster than presently envisaged in New Zealand. The question is whether biofuels are better than (a) fossil fuels and (b) the alternatives mentioned in the last paragraph.
2) Yes, domestic wood biofuel plants would cost a lot, and carry risk, - but are at least better than what is currently planned. Who should pay the cost and bear the risk? My preference would be for subsidies to go to the currently carbon-intensive productive industries rather than to cars which are closer to the consumption side of the spectrum.
3) New tech is a two-edged sword. It can be a saviour (renewable energy). But if it doesn't exist yet it should not be a basis for planning. With biofuels there is a long history of missed targets and damaging flow-on effects.
4) We have written a report on aviation which represents a different challenge compared to land transport as it is a luxury good with poor mitigation options that largely escapes regulation. It is an area that needs more attention. Managing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions from aviation – Planetary Ecology
5) I agree. The new target for 50% of all final energy consumption to be renewable (and hopefully domestically sourced) is an important step. Studying this now will feed into the energy plan now in preparation for 2024 (too slow imo).
That comment is mangled. Try thinking in bigger-pictures.
1. There is no 'credible path forward'. That comment starts with an assumption; that BAU is maintainable. It isn't.
2. The writers are on the money. We will end up on solar-derived energy, real-time. Biofuels can be froma short reach back in time (corn, rape-seed etc) or from further back in time; trees. But trees take decades to grow, and we already need them now - as direct energy (firewood) among other uses.
3. Current vehicles is too vague. Domestic vehicles are discretionary, and therefore discountable. Tractors, arguably, could be kept going.
4. The elephant in the room now, is population. Macron had it right. Poto Williams seems to have it right. Truss and Co have it wrong. Nuland, Kagan and Co may - or may not - get what the problem is. Solar energy per capita is the crucial ratio; the closer to the origin it can be tapped, the less the loss.
But we will never run BAU on biofuels
Good article. I have looked at Biofuels from a similar perspective of climate cost/benefit before and reached much the same conclusion, the numbers just don't stack up. I always thought wood waste from forestry would be a great source of fuel, but its not exactly the best medium to turn into fuel - too dense, too much processing required.
The wood would have to be extracted (fossil fuel), transported (fossil fuel) to a plant. The plant will be huge steel/cement structures with big feeder machinery etc (made with fossil fuels), the wood broken down (fossil fuels), then run through some industrial process (bacterial maybe, if industrial then probably using fossil fuels). And for what purpose? To run cars (which are increasingly electric) on the same green energy that you are using to process the biofuels? Better to just run an efficient electric car directly and transport all that power to them. Yes there are still issues and fossil fuel used creating the electric car and batteries, but it's a much simpler supply chain to electrify IMO.
TK - assumptions again. You are well-steeped, eh?
Yes, you can extract energy from biomass - as we do with food and firewood. But it is real-time solar-drenched acreage. This is already in competition with food-production, and both are in competition with the rest of the biosphere, with out which -------- we're dead.
And who gives a RA about carbon credits? They are a ponzi in the making, based on a false premise. If we re-tree farmland, firstly we should be accounting that as repaying the debt owed by those who removed the prior trees, as extraction cost, not real (biodiversity) cost. Only once that deal has been squared - above ground - can we look at sequestering below-ground carbon being extracted and released into the above-ground arena.
So many folk don't think logically. It's all self-reinforcement - rabbit-hole territory. En masse, it has caused us to be in overshoot by several orders of magnitude.
Agree that there is no point making biofuels to turn into electricity, but there is and will likely remain for quite a while applications where current battery tech is just not going to work. Long haul trucking, shipping and aviation for just a few. Biofuels as a blend with fossil fuels, hopefully an increasing percentage of the blend as time goes on are a feasible interim measure.
Now apply this logic to productive farmland being planted in pines.
"...This approach has been challenged because it could increase grain prices or, at the worst, lead to starvation. It has also led to agricultural expansion, often into ecologically sensitive areas."
What dwindling global oil reserves fat pat? Proven reserves have gone from 300 billion bbl at Club of Rome report to 1.7 trillion odd today. The more we look, and innovate, the more we find.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-proved-reserves?tab=chart&countr…
Interesting links profile. I’m a bit concerned that the largest oil reserves (from Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela) may be significantly overstated. Saudi Arabia can’t seem to produce more that 10 million barrels per day, and their reserves have mysteriously been static since the 1980s. Someone posted on youtube a thoughtful analysis (here). I dont know too much about it though. My beef is with the CO2 alarmists.
There are so many unintended consequences with all this stuff.
How would you move pine tree wood to the shredders? Electric trucks? Would the shredders be electrically powered? Would this (uneconomic) biofuel be transported to gas stations by electric trucks?
Of course by essentially burning wood you are releasing carbon.
All diesels can by powered by black liquor derived biofuel. You can impress your greenie mates with your biofuel powered logging truck.
*this comment was sponsored by the good people at Exxon.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/09/20210921-sca.html
How about this. An engineer friend of mine who once worked on an offshore oil rig is now working on carbon capture. It's the only job he could get after being unemployed for quite a while. The company he's working for is effectively consuming fossel fuel to sequester CO2. I guess as long as they're sequester more CO2 than they produce they regard it as a win. It's plain crazy.
No- it's paying their way in a non-drawdown manner.
But a better link to all of the above is:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-09-15/death-by-hockey-sticks/
' I compute that satisfying our current 18 TW energy appetite via biomass corresponds to burning all biomass on earth (land and sea, plant and animal) over the course of just 15 years. If we turn to forests to replace even a fraction of our fossil fuel habit, these trends of decline become even more dire for forests and for the animals that depend on them.'
That's too pessimistic. Here’s my worst-case scenario. Saudi Arabia has 10 years left, and Malthus was right. A few billion people will probably die from starvation or resource wars as global food production declines, but I doubt NZ will have problems like that. The pace of life will slow down out of necessity. The excess that funded a generous social welfare system will be gone and the world will become a meaner place as it has been for most of human history. After the currency collapse of 2026 the price of things, measured in hours worked, will be far greater than it is now. People will use all kinds of weird and wonderful e-vehicles. Rather than having a huge 100 kWh car battery, cars will be re-imagined with smaller 40 kWh batteries and will be 1/3th the weight. They'll travel slowly with less drag and will be the domain of middle and upper middle class. Air travel will be gone but maritime travel will replace it, perhaps augmented with wind sails. Methane catalytic conversion to electricity will become commonplace, and methane reserves are vast and plentiful. The fusion problem will eventually be solved. The future is bright. It's just different to now.
We could easily double our tallow collection , by been more efficent in existing works, and collecting fat from sewerage. As far as the collection energy /costs , its all hovered up and trucked to the nearest landfill , or at least the nearest one that will allow the smell.
You need to see the big piccy. Tallow is a byproduct of farming animals using fossil energy. Several calories of oil - lazy folk say 10, but I can easily count 30 - to one calorie of food. Take that fossil energy out of the food energy equation, and the energy available via tallow drops to f-all.
It's all about energy, and we need to be dispassionate, pragmatic, logical. I think Pat above, has it as good as a guess can be.
One thing to remember, is that all energy is solar-derived, and every extra process it goes through, reduces its potency. Another is the keep to the big picture; I have solar PV - but PV doesn't make PV, so this generation are the last. What happens then? The margins for real-time solar - which is where we will end up - are orders of magnitude less than the margins for fossil energy. Which hasn't long to go.
One by one, nations go from being net exporters (of oil) to being net importers. Except they can't all be importers......
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.