Biofuels Vs. Coal: Which Pollutes More?

The use of biofuels is a highly debated topic. While some believe that biofuels are a greenwashed business-as-usual solution, others argue that they are essential for creating employment and development in rural areas. Biofuels are derived from renewable biological materials such as ethanol from corn starch, corn stover, perennial grasses, woody biomass, and algae, and diesel from soybeans. They are considered to have fewer negative environmental impacts than fossil fuels, including lower conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant emissions. However, the production and use of biofuels can also lead to air and groundwater pollution and can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy-equivalent basis. The environmental impact of biofuels depends on various factors, such as the feedstock and production process, and can have both positive and negative effects.

Biofuels can emit more GHGs than fossil fuels

Biofuels are derived from renewable biological materials such as ethanol from corn starch, corn stover, perennial grasses, woody biomass, and algae, as well as diesel from soybeans. While biofuels have been promoted as a green alternative to fossil fuels, the reality is more complex.

Biofuels can emit more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than fossil fuels, particularly when the environmental impact of their production is taken into account. For example, the production of biofuels from sugar cane or corn ethanol may result in the razing of carbon-rich tropical forests, leading to vast increases in GHG emissions. Additionally, the production and transportation of biofuels can generate GHGs at every step of the supply chain.

A study by Scharlemann and Laurance, which used a comprehensive method developed by Rainer Zah of the Empa Research Institute in Switzerland, found that out of 26 biofuels, 12 had greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. These included commonly used biofuels such as US corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, and soy diesel.

The environmental impact of biofuel production is further exacerbated by the energy and resources required to grow the source crops. For example, the land, fertilizers, and energy used to cultivate biofuel crops could instead be utilized to grow food crops, leading to concerns about food prices and monoculture agriculture, which is harmful to the environment.

Furthermore, the burning of biofuels produces toxic particles, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide, which can have severe respiratory health impacts, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people with pre-existing lung or heart conditions.

While biofuels made from waste products, such as recycled cooking oil, grass, or wood, generally have lower emissions and environmental impacts, the overall sustainability of biofuels as a whole is questionable.

Biofuels are more expensive than fossil fuels

Biofuels are often more expensive than fossil fuels. For instance, biodiesel costs are currently 70% to 130% higher than petrol and diesel on the wholesale market, depending on the crop used. Biofuels add €17 billion a year to Europe's fuel bill. This is due to the higher costs of feedstocks, which are the raw materials used to produce biofuels.

The higher cost of biofuels is also influenced by other factors such as the availability and price of feedstock, the technology and scale of production, subsidies and incentives, and market demand and competition. For example, the price of feedstocks for biofuels like vegetable oils, cereals, used cooking oil, and animal fats has been increasing, further widening the price difference between biofuels and fossil fuels.

In addition to being more expensive, biofuels also have lower energy efficiency than fossil fuels. This means that more biofuel is required to produce the same amount of energy as fossil fuels. For instance, ethanol has about two-thirds of the energy content of gasoline, and biodiesel has about 90% of the energy content of diesel.

However, it is important to note that the comparison between biofuels and fossil fuels is complex and context-dependent. The energy efficiency, cost, and environmental impact of both types of fuels can vary depending on factors such as feedstock selection, production methods, and location. For example, biofuels produced from waste products like recycled cooking oil or ethanol from grass or wood have been shown to have lower total environmental impacts than fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the development and use of biofuels have the potential to reduce some negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels, such as conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant emissions, resource depletion, and dependence on unstable foreign suppliers. Biofuels can also increase farm income and provide employment opportunities in rural areas. Nevertheless, biofuel production and use also have drawbacks, including land and water resource requirements, air and groundwater pollution, and in some cases, higher GHG emissions than fossil fuels on an energy-equivalent basis.

Biofuels can cause biodiversity loss

Biofuels are derived from renewable biological materials such as ethanol from corn starch, corn stover, perennial grasses, woody biomass, and algae, as well as diesel from soybeans. While biofuels have the potential to reduce undesirable environmental impacts, such as conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant emissions, they also have some drawbacks. One of the main concerns is their contribution to biodiversity loss.

The global demand for biofuels in the transport sector has led to significant biodiversity impacts, and these impacts can vary depending on the region and the specific biofuel crop. For example, studies have shown that sugarcane production in Brazil results in a greater species loss than sugar beet production in France or maize production in the US. Biofuels grown in Asia and Central and South America, particularly oil palm and soybean, have been found to be the most detrimental to biodiversity.

First-generation biofuels tend to have more harmful impacts on biodiversity due to their higher use-intensity, monoculture practices, and chemical inputs. Additionally, lower-yielding second-generation biofuels may require more land clearance to produce the same amount of fuel, further impacting biodiversity through habitat loss. The conversion of natural grassland or forest into croplands is a significant driver of ecosystem damage and species loss.

To minimize the negative impacts of biofuels on biodiversity, policies should focus on land-use decisions that prioritize crops with the least harmful impacts on local biodiversity. This includes considering the ecological systems, climate mitigation, and biodiversity targets specific to each region. By using degraded land or existing waste products instead of clearing additional land, the destructive impacts of habitat loss on biodiversity can be reduced.

Furthermore, the environmental benefits of biofuels should be carefully assessed beyond just energy and GHG emissions. The full range of environmental impacts, such as loss of forests and farmland, and effects on biodiversity, need to be considered. By adopting best practices and advancing technologies, it may be possible to achieve biofuel production goals while minimizing negative environmental and biodiversity impacts.

Biofuel production can increase food prices

The use of biofuels is a topic of debate due to its potential environmental benefits and drawbacks. While biofuels can reduce undesirable environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels, such as conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, they also have certain disadvantages, including land and water resource requirements and pollution. The production of biofuels can compete for resources with food crop producers, influencing food market prices.

Biofuels are derived from renewable biological materials, including ethanol from corn starch, corn stover, perennial grasses, woody biomass, and algae, as well as diesel from soybeans. The demand for these feedstocks for biofuel production can lead to an increase in their prices, which are also influenced by factors like government subsidies, the cost of land, and demand for corn products. This, in turn, can affect the cost of food production, especially when biofuel crops compete for resources such as land, labour, water, and fertilizer.

The impact of biofuel production on food prices has been a subject of research and analysis. While some argue that the increase in biofuel production has pushed up food prices, others claim that the effect is minimal compared to the multitude of other factors influencing global food prices. For instance, Baier et al. found that the US increase in biofuel production contributed to a 22% increase in corn prices, but it only accounted for 14% of the rise in corn prices between June 2006 and June 2008. Additionally, Chakravorty et al. projected that the food price increase resulting from energy regulation could reach approximately 17% if current practices remain unchanged. However, considering probable supply-side adjustments, the rise in food costs is estimated to be around 7%.

The relationship between biofuel production and food prices is complex and influenced by various factors. The production of biofuels can affect the prices of feedstocks, which are also used for food and feed production, such as corn, wheat, sugarcane, soybean, rapeseed, and sunflowers. The competition for resources and the increase in marginal costs can impact the cost of food production, especially when biofuel crops are grown on previously productive agricultural land or utilize resources that could have been used for food crop production.

The impact of biofuel production on food prices can be mitigated if the biofuel crops are grown on previously unused land, using previously untapped water supplies, and without employing fertilizers or idle labour. In such cases, the marginal cost of food production may not be significantly affected. However, in many instances, biofuel production does compete for resources, and the increase in feedstock prices due to higher demand can contribute to higher food prices.

Biofuels can produce harmful emissions

While biofuels are derived from renewable biological materials, they can still produce harmful emissions. The production and use of biofuels have been associated with both positive and negative environmental impacts. On the one hand, biofuels have the potential to reduce undesirable environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels, such as conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, it is important to consider the full life cycle of biofuels, from feedstock production to distribution, as each step generates GHG emissions.

The environmental impact of biofuels depends on the feedstock and production process used. Certain biofuels, such as those produced from waste products like recycled cooking oil, grass, or wood, have been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline. However, other biofuels, such as US corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, and soy diesel, have greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. This is partly due to the indirect effects of land-use change (LUC), such as the razing of carbon-rich tropical forests to create sugarcane fields, which can lead to vast increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Additionally, the production of ethanol, renewable diesel, heating oil, and aviation fuel requires a heat source, and some producers currently use fossil fuels for this process. The combustion of biodiesel may also result in slightly higher amounts of nitrogen oxides compared to petroleum diesel. Furthermore, ethanol and ethanol-gasoline mixtures, while burning cleaner than gasoline, contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone and smog through higher evaporative emissions from fuel tanks and dispensing equipment.

Another critical consideration is the potential competition between biofuel production and food production. Some argue that the land, fertilizers, and energy used for biofuel crops could be utilized for food crops instead, especially in the case of soybeans and palm oil, which have led to the clearing or burning of natural vegetation and forests. However, cellulosic ethanol feedstock, which includes native prairie grasses, fast-growing trees, sawdust, and waste paper, offers an alternative that requires less cultivation, fertilizer, and pesticides than corn or sugarcane.

Overall, while biofuels have the potential to reduce harmful emissions compared to fossil fuels, it is essential to carefully evaluate the specific feedstocks, production processes, and environmental impacts associated with their entire life cycle to ensure they truly contribute to a more sustainable future.

Frequently asked questions