In Bali, World Conservation Union presented the results of their polling of 1000 climate decision makers and ‘influencers’ (environmental lobbyists). The results perturbed the Biopact team1 because the survey on low carbon technologies ranked their favorite, bio-energy, in the middle of the pack.

The results contradict their perception of what “actually is happening on the ground”, i.e.,”Since 2005, bioenergy has been – by far – the fastest growing renewables sector.” The Biopact team contended that electric power from solar photo voltaic results in more emissions (My emphasis) (100 gCO2/kWh) than either wind or bio-energy (both 30 gCO2/kWh), and “is by far the most expensive of all possible technologies, up to 10 times as costly as bioenergy, the least expensive per ton of carbon dioxide avoided and per kWh of electricity generated,”

While reporting projected GHG emissions, it was economic issues that mainly were considered when European Strategic Energy Technology Plan compared different sources of electrical generation, i.e., cost, efficiency, import dependency, fuel price sensitivity and proved reserves.

Since the Biopact team wanted its readers to have a different perspective upon the advantages and disadvantages of different sources of electrical energy, it would seem useful to consider some of the pitfalls associated with bio-energy. First of all, it is a broad, non-specific, inclusive term for various feedstock, production and processing procedures. Depending upon specific choices, there are different economic and environmental impacts, not the least of which is the potential land use conflict with food crops.

In a separate post, the Biopact team2 presents an analysis of a lecture on the benefits and risks of biofuels for developing countries delivered by Dr. Shem Arungu Olende, secretary-general of the African Academy Of Sciences. The analysis includes a description of some pitfalls to avoid in regards to:

There is debate as to whether it is appropriate to use feedlot waste as feedstock for energy production. Energy Blog commentator Don B.3 pondered whether would be realistic to ban CAFOs (Confined Animal Feed Operations, or whether it would be more helpful to give farmers another product to take to Market…Renewable Energy?
He admits that the value of biofuels from agricultural sources is debatable, either for the short-term or even in the long-term. What he advocates is properly managed, sustainable agriculture that can demonstrate practices providing some relief to the vexing problems of energy supply and mitigation of anthropogenic GHG.

Landfill diversion, to include plasma arc gasification, is becoming more cost effective as the cost to bury the waste in a landfill increases. While economic viability of such waste to energy technology is gaining, environmental safety is another matter. Thus, the Biopact assertion about less emissions from bio-energy than from solar energy was debatable.

Yet, this blog would agree that bio-energy initiatives encompass a number of interrelated, policy issues. Bio-energy activities involve issues the Big Three: Equity — Economy — Ecology and are related to other overlapping policy matters. To name a few, bio-energy activities could include public health and safety, land use, land-use change, forestry, agriculture, water resources, transportation, and waste management.

Similar Posts: Environmental Protocol for the Sugar-Ethanol Sector Combined Heat and Power from Rice Husks When North America Needs E. Coli, Butanerds Heed the Call Co-digestion of Different Biomass Materials Yamaha FC, ET?
1Biopact team 2AAS director-general looks at pros and cons of biofuels for developing countries 3E3 Biofuels’ Efficient Closed-Loop Ethanol Plant in Operation
Sort of Mad Magazine Meets Popular Science
written by a Wonderful Human Being.

No, really, I gave myself that title with
the Individual Corporation.