Food vs fuel: Ukraine war increases scrutiny on use of crops for energy

Madeleine Bruder

 

Soaring food prices caused by the war in Ukraine have increased the risk of famine, raising pressure on producers of low-carbon fuels derived from crops and sparking a “food versus biofuel” debate.

Before Russia’s invasion, global biofuel production was at a record high. In the US, the leading biofuels producer, 36 per cent of total corn production went into biofuels last year, while biodiesel accounted for 40 per cent of soyabean oil supplies.

But some food companies and policymakers are calling for an easing of mandates for blending biofuels into petrol and diesel to increase global grain and vegetable oil supplies.

“Now is not the time [for governments] to be encouraging the conversion of food crops to energy through artificial policy incentives or mandatory blending targets,” said the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute.

Between them, Russia and Ukraine produce nearly a fifth of the world’s corn and more than half its sunflower oil, but crop exports from the countries are at a fraction of prewar levels. Hundreds of millions of people are at risk of “hunger and destitution” because of food shortages caused by the war, the UN’s secretary-general warned last week.

The total amount of crops used annually for biofuels is equal to the calorie consumption of 1.9bn people, according to data firm Gro Intelligence, highlighting the volume of agricultural commodities that could be diverted from energy use if the food security crisis worsened.

Do biofuels cause problems in food markets?

Biofuels — ethanol made from corn and sugarcane and biodiesel made from vegetable oils including soyabean oil and palm oil — have been blended into motor fuel since the early 2000s to boost energy supplies and reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

Biofuels were blamed in part for the last food crisis in 2007-08. Studies, including from the World Bank and IMF, suggested that the growth of biofuels contributed 20-50 per cent to the price increase of corn during the crisis. Their rising use was described as “a crime against humanity” by the UN’s then-food rights rapporteur.

But biofuel producers argue they have played a minimal role this time around. “Biofuels didn’t cause this crisis — either the price or the contraction in supply,” said James Cogan of Ethanol Europe, an industry lobby group.

High prices are not about demand but reflect “erratic trading conditions and high energy prices”, he added. Reducing biofuel production “wouldn’t materially ease the price crisis”.

Would limits on biofuels reduce world hunger?

A 50 per cent reduction in the grain used for biofuels in Europe and the US would compensate for all the lost exports of Ukrainian wheat, corn, barley and rye, according to the World Resources Institute, a Washington think-tank.

Although crop production has risen along with biofuel output, meaning the amount available for food supplies has not decreased, biofuel usage cannot rise exponentially without damage to the environment, campaigners said.

“In a world that is food insecure, we need to be thinking really critically about these limited resources as we try to feed the world and solve the climate crisis,” said Oliver James, a researcher at Princeton University who helped compile the WRI data.

Maik Marahrens, of Brussels-based environmental campaign group Transport & Environment, said that in the EU, about 10,000 tonnes of wheat, equal to 15mn loaves of bread, are burnt daily as ethanol in cars.

The ethanol industry says such comparisons are unfair. Most of the grain used to produce fuel is feed wheat, which goes into animal food, rather than milling wheat, which is made into bread, the industry has argued.

Biofuel sector executives said the amount of wheat used for biofuels was negligible — about 2 per cent of the total crop, according to industry association UFOP.

“In that context, it’s a bit surreal to be elevating wheat ethanol even to a topic of conversation in the current crisis about bread,” said Eric Sievers, director of investments at ClonBio, which owns Europe’s largest grain biorefinery, located in Hungary, as well as at Ethanol Europe.

A Russian missile in a winter wheat field in Soledar, in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region © Gleb Garanich/Reuters

Would it be more harmful to limit biofuels?

Industry executives argue that biofuels create efficiencies that nourish animals and, indirectly, humans.

The industry is a significant producer of animal feed since the process of turning grains into ethanol creates protein and fat by-products that are fed to chickens, cows and pigs.

Citing the impact on the EU alone, Cogan said limits on biofuel production “would result in lost renewable energy, lost energy independence, lost jobs, lost farm income security, increased fossil fuel imports, increased carbon emissions and increased soy meal imports [for animal feed] from the Americas”. 

Are biofuel policies changing?

In the EU, Belgium and Germany are considering easing biofuel blending mandates to address food security.

The International Energy Agency cut its biofuels growth forecast for this year by 20 per cent, forecasting global demand to increase 5 per cent from 2021 to 8.5bn litres.

In the US, where cheaper corn-based ethanol is the main biofuel, Washington has tried to tamp down rising gasoline prices by allowing the higher blending level, normally cut during the summer months because of polluting concerns, to temporarily continue.

But government incentives for biodiesel and the decline in global exports from Ukraine have added to competition for soyabean oil, squeezing supplies for US food groups.

“[Soyabean oil suppliers] can’t give me a [price] quote because they can’t take my business. There’s not enough oil to go around,” said Ed Cinco, purchasing director at Schwebel’s, a bakery in Ohio.

While China has warned ethanol producers that it will “strictly control processing of fuel ethanol from corn”, India is pushing ahead with targets to raise blending quotas. Prices for sugar, the country’s main bioethanol feedstock, have increased less than other crops.

Although co-ordinated action on food security has moved swiftly up the agenda, there has been little debate on limits to biofuels at an international level.

Instead, countries using biofuels must balance food security and sustainability with energy costs and independence, said Nicolas Denis, a partner at McKinsey. Governments need to decide “what sustainable use of land looks like, given the different priorities”, he added.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BIOFUEL

 

Peninsula Facilitates B30 Biofuel Supply Deal in Zeebrugge

PUBLISHED APR 22, 2024 12:09 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

[By: Peninsula]

Peninsula, the leading independent global marine energy supplier, announces the successful conclusion of the first B30 biofuel supply deal in Zeebrugge, Belgium, in collaboration with the Japanese shipping company, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK). The deal, which marks a significant milestone in sustainable fuel distribution, saw the delivery of 1,200 metric tons of B30.

The delivery, executed on March 24, 2024, involved the vessel Garnet Leader, a vehicles carrier. Peninsula's New York barge, played the role of ensuring the smooth transportation and delivery of the biofuel to its destination in Zeebrugge.

Kaori Takahashi, General Manager of NYK’s Fuel Group, said: "NYK is proud to collaborate with Peninsula in this pioneering supply of B30 biofuel, which underscores our dedication to environmental sustainability and innovation in the maritime sector. By leveraging sustainable biofuels like B30, we are taking meaningful strides towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. NYK remains dedicated to driving positive change within the industry while meeting the evolving demands of our customers and stakeholders."

B30 biofuel, a blend comprising 30% ISCC EU certified sustainable UCOME, which is biofuel derived from Used Cooking Oil, offers a promising avenue reducing GHG emissions by 84%, thus mitigating the environmental impact of maritime operations. By using biofuel technology, Peninsula continues to pave the way for a greener future while simultaneously meeting the evolving needs of the shipping industry.

Commenting on this delivery, Peninsula's Head of Biofuels Desk, Nikolas Nikolaidis, stated: "As the maritime industry, along with prominent players like NYK, intensifies their adoption of Sustainable Marine Fuels (SMF), the accessibility of such solutions grows in significance. Peninsula is committed to collaborating closely with our established clients and partners to deliver SMF solutions where demand is highest. Peninsula is broadening its biofuel supply network, positioning itself as the leading physical marine fuel supplier to offer comprehensive biofuel solutions across multiple regions and ports for our customers."

The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.

Wallenius Wilhelmsen Contracts for Biofuel Supply from ExxonMobil

Wallenius Wilhelmsen will begin transition this year with biofuel from ExxonMobil (WW Ocean)

PUBLISHED JUN 20, 2023 7:29 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, a Norwegian shipping giant known for its fleet of vehicle carriers, reports it has secured a supply of biofuel to help it begin the next step in its efforts toward reducing emissions and promoting eco-friendly practices. It is the latest in a series of transitional steps, including efforts at slow steaming as the company also develops plans for the world's first wind-powered RoRo vessel.

The company reports it is teaming up with ExxonMobil in a sustainable biofuel supply deal. They have contracts for the delivery of biofuel used as a drop-in blend to enhance the environmental performance of the fleet. The first biofuel delivery is scheduled for July, marking what the company calls the beginning of a transformative journey toward decarbonization. Wallenius Wilhelmsen's strategic goal calls for achieving a net-zero emissions integrated supply chain service by 2027.

“The biofuel from ExxonMobil contains 30 percent biofuel and 70 percent conventional fuels. It is the best option we have available for decarbonization of the fleet today,” says Jon Tarjei Kråkenes, head of the Orcelle Accelerator at Wallenius Wilhelmsen. “While the contracted volume represents a relatively small portion compared to our annual fuel consumption, it serves as a crucial step in our broader sustainability efforts and sets the stage for further progress."

According to the company, as the demand for eco-friendly alternatives continues to grow, partnerships like this one demonstrate the industry's dedication to fueling change. Through such initiatives, the shipping industry is reshaping its practices to reduce its carbon footprint and drive positive environmental impact.

Last week, the company highlighted additional efforts at EUKOR and WW Ocean toward greener shipping. They reported receiving an award for their participation in the Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) program, an innovative initiative by South Korea's Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. The VSR program encourages reduced ship speeds in designated Sea Areas to decrease particulate emissions from ocean-going vessels.

The company reports that more than 90 percent of its fleet, or a total of 162 out of 182 vessels, has participated in the VSR program at the ports of Gwangyang, Ulsan, and Incheon. They have been involved in the initiative since it started in December 2019. The result contributed to a significant 5.3 percent reduction in GHG emissions and a 5.7 percent decrease in fine dust. Wallenius Wilhelmsen reports it is exploring the possibility of reaching a 100 percent participation level in the VSR program.

CO₂ removal to halt warming soon would be a gargantuan undertaking

Nothing is perfect, and the trade-offs could be large if poorly managed.

SCOTT K. JOHNSON - 8/27/2020, 1:25 PM

Enlarge / How much switchgrass could we grow for biofuels?
Michigan State University 

One of the options to help us get our balance of greenhouse gas emissions down faster is to actively remove some CO2 from the atmosphere. The idea is that it can be cheaper and easier to start CO2 removal while our energy systems are transitioning than to attempt to make that transition happen quickly enough to reach our climate goals. Obviously, there’s never a free lunch, and these ideas have attracted lots of scrutiny because of their side effects and feasibility.

Crops vs. BECCS

Three studies published this week examine some of the issues of negative emissions in detail. The first focuses primarily on BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. This is a technically attractive strategy that would involve growing biofuel crops, burning them to generate electricity, capturing the CO2 leaving the power plant’s exhaust, and storing that CO2 somewhere (probably deep underground). The added value from electricity generation makes this look cheaper than many methods that could pull similar amounts of CO2 out of the air. As a result, many emissions scenarios that manage to halt warming at 1.5°C or 2°C rely on sizable deployments of BECCS to get there.

The primary downside is the potential competition for land with food crops or forests. To get a much clearer picture, the study first set aside the land projected to be used for crops before working out the global potential for BECCS. The researchers focused on crops like switchgrass and sugarcane or woody plants like fast-growing poplar and assumed that any carbon in vegetation present on land converted to this use was lost at the start (burned, for example). They ran the numbers for BECCS as well as liquid fuels like biodiesel or ethanol, for which much of the resulting CO2 is released rather than captured.

The results highlight the importance of sweating the details—outcomes vary considerably by geographic location and methods. Clearing an area of land for crops can create a large carbon “debt” that has to be paid up before your effort accomplishes anything climate-wise. The more productive the biofuel crop is in a given climate zone and soil type, the faster it can pay that debt. Because of this, the timespan of the operation—or accounting—the better things can look. Over an 80-year period, most regions can turn a carbon storage “profit” with BECCS. But if you’re looking at the first 30 years, a number of sites would fail to overcome their initial debt.

Enlarge / Here is where BECCS could overcome its initial carbon debt (negative numbers, cool colors) for 30-year and 80-year timeframes.
Hanssen et al./Nature Climate Change

So sticking with the suitable locations—and leaving cropland untouched—could BECCS supply all the carbon capture needed to make a 1.5°C warming scenario work? According to the study’s simulation, not quite, although it can get close. The effort would be massive, though. By 2100, these biofuel crops would occupy 5-16 percent of the Earth’s land area, depending on how quickly our CO2 emissions declined. At that point, BECCS power plants would be generating more electricity than the current global total.
Fill up my tank

The second study was focused on producing liquid biofuels for things like airplanes and shipping. It zeroed in on an even finer scale, using ecosystem modeling based on several study sites in the eastern US. The goal was to progress beyond generic estimates and see exactly where carbon would be going in biofuel cropland, accounting for soil processes and the details of the biofuel-production process. Might there be cases where that land could have a bigger carbon impact if it were just reforested?

This scenario was based on switchgrass grown for ethanol or biofuel, with a 70-year timeframe and the initial vegetation on converted land harvested for energy rather than burned. It also included scenarios for improved switchgrass crops and fuel-making processes, as well as the possibility of capturing the carbon emitted during fuel production.

Unsurprisingly, the study found that using cropland or former pasture produced a much clearer carbon benefit than converting forest for switchgrass agriculture. But for cropland and pasture, even current methods had a greater climate benefit than restoring them to grasslands would. If the land is suitable for reforestation, on the other hand, doing so would likely beat biofuels. Introduce some improvements in switchgrass yields and biofuel production efficiency, though, and it tops reforestation for climate mitigation. So there is a positive path here in the right circumstances.

The authors write, “While climate and other ecosystem service benefits cannot be taken for granted from cellulosic biofuel deployment, our scenarios illustrate how conventional and carbon-negative biofuel systems could make a near-term, robust, and distinctive contribution to the climate challenge.”
Enlarge / Here's how carbon storage accumulates for different techniques, depending on the land type used.
Field et al./PNAS

DAC it up

The third study looked at an entirely different technology—“direct air capture” (DAC) of CO2 from ambient air, after which it can be stored underground. As several companies have advanced designs for this process and even built pilot plants, DAC has entered the realm of the plausible. It has the advantage of concentrating the work into the footprint of a facility rather than acres of arable land. So is DAC all the capture with none of the side effects?

Well, not exactly. It’s still comparatively quite expensive, and it trades voracious land use for voracious energy use. The study modeled the consequences of meeting 1.5°C warming pathways with BECCS and forest expansion to meet our CO2 removal needs, and it contrasted that with using direct air capture instead. With things like BECCS allowed to take over cropland, the researchres simulated pretty extreme increases in staple crop prices, particularly in the Global South.

Direct air capture doesn’t contribute to that problem, but water use in the two scenarios is actually similar. And the heat required in the DAC process—provided by natural gas with capture of the emitted CO2 in some pilots—could be equivalent to two-thirds of current natural gas production or more.

But even with the current state of this young technology, the economic model shows that DAC could play a substantial role, removing enough CO2 by 2035 to equal 7 percent of current-day emissions, if we’re willing to go that route.

The authors of this study emphasize a take-away message that applies to all three: “These results highlight that delays in aggressive global mitigation action greatly increase the requirement for DAC to meet climate targets, and correspondingly, energy and water impacts.” The sooner we start reducing our emissions, the less of a need there will be for these carbon-removal techniques, allowing us to minimize the scale of the trade-offs they come with.

Nature Climate Change, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-0885-y, 10.1038/s41558-020-0876-z

PNAS, 2020. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1920877117 (About DOIs).

Biofuels may not be as green as we've been told

Are biofuels better for the environment?

Not necessarily.

By Christopher McFadden

Feb 27, 2022

INTERESTING ENGINEERING

LONG READ

Biofuel factory.photosbyjim/iStock

The combustion engine is, hands down, one of the most important inventions of all time. But, it comes with a very high cost to the environment - hazardous emissions.

While many leaps in efficiency and emission control have been made over the decades, we can never fully eliminate the release of emissions like carbon dioxide into the air. But, what if the fuel for these engines could be grown rather than dug up?

And that is precisely the promise that biofuels have made over the last few decades. However, not everything is all that it seems when it comes to this "holy grail" of clean energy.

What are biofuels?

Biofuels, as the name might suggest, are types of liquid and gas fuels created "naturally" through the conversion of some kind of biomass. While the term can be used to encompass solid fuels, like wood, these are more commonly termed biomass rather than biofuel per se.

For this reason, biomass tends to be used to denote the raw material that biofuels are derived from or those solid fuels that are created by thermally or chemically altering raw materials into things like torrefied pellets or briquettes.

YinYang/iStock

Various forms of biofuels exist but are by far the most commonly used today are ethanol (sometimes called bioethanol) and biodiesel.

The former is an alcohol and is usually blended with more conventional fuels, like gasoline, to increase octane and cut down on the toxic carbon monoxide and smog-causing emissions usually associated with combustion engines. The most common form of the blend, called E10, is a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline.

Some more modern vehicles, called flexible-fuel vehicles, can actually run on another blend of ethanol and gasoline called E85 that contains between 51 percent and 83 percent ethanol. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 98% of all gasoline you put in your car will contain some percentage of ethanol.

Most ethanol for fuel use is made from plant starches and sugars but there are an increasing number of biofuels in development that use cellulose and hemicellulose. These are the non-edible fibrous material that constitutes the bulk of plant matter. To date, several commercial-scale cellulose-based ethanol biorefineries are currently operational in the United States.

The most common plant "feedstock" used to make ethanol, are corn, grain, and sugar cane.

As with alcohol production, as for your favorite beer or wine, bioethanol is created through the age-old process of fermentation. As with alcoholic beverages, microorganisms like bacteria and yeast use plant sugars as an energy source and produce ethanol as a waste product.

This ethanol can then be fractionated off, distilled, and concentrated ready for use as a liquid fuel. All is well and good, but blending with ethanol does come at a cost.

Seanpanderson/Wikimedia Commons

As the U.S. Department of Energy explains, "ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, to varying degrees, depending on the volume percentage of ethanol in the blend. Denatured ethanol (98% ethanol) contains about 30% less energy than gasoline per gallon. Ethanol’s impact on fuel economy is dependent on the ethanol content in the fuel and whether an engine is optimized to run on gasoline or ethanol."

Biodiesel, the other most common biofuel, is made from vegetable and animal fats and is generally considered a cleaner-burning direct replacement for petroleum-based diesel fuel. It is non-toxic, biodegradable, and is produced using a combination of alcohol and vegetable oil, animal fat, or recycled cooking grease. It is a mono-alkyl ester produced by the process of transesterification, where the feedstock reacts with an alcohol (such as methanol) in the presence of a catalyst, to produce biodiesel and glycerin.

Like ethanol, biodiesel can be blended with regular diesel to make cleaner fuels. Such fuels range from pure biodiesel, called B100, with the most common blend, B20, consisting of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent fossil-fuel diesel.

Just like ethanol, biodiesel is not without its own problems when compared to more traditional fuels. For example, it can be problematic in colder climates as it has a tendency to crystallize. Generally speaking, the less biodiesel content, the better the performance of the fuel in cold climates.

This issue can also be overcome by adding something called a "flow improver" that can be added to the fuel to prevent it from freezing.

Another form of biodiesel that is also quite popular is "green diesel", or renewable diesel. Formed by the hydrocracking of vegetable oils or animal fats (or through gasification, pyrolysis, or other biochemical and thermochemical technologies) to produce a product that is almost indistinguishable from conventional diesel.

Vegetable oil can also be used unmodified as a fuel source in some older diesel engines that don't have common fuel injection systems.

razvanchirnoaga/iStock

Other forms of biofuel also exist, including biogas or biomethane that are created through the process of anaerobic digestion (basically rotting) of organic material. "Syngas," another form of biofuel gas is created by mixing carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and other hydrocarbons through the partial combustion of biomass.

Worldwide biofuel production reached in excess of 43 billion gallons (161 billion liters) in 2021, constituting around 4% of all the world's fuel used for road transportation. This is hoped by some organizations, like the International Energy Agency, to increase to 25% by 2050.

Why are biofuels considered green?

In order to fully answer this question, we need to take a little trip back in time. Around the turn of the 21st-century, many governments around the world were scratching their heads trying to figure out ways to combat the amount of carbon emissions their countries were emitting.

One of the main polluting activities happened to be the cars and trucks used to ferry people and stuff around. In fact, this is one of the largest contributing factors to human global carbon dioxide emissions that, according to some sources, account for almost a quarter of all annual emissions around the world.

The transport sector is also one of the fastest-growing around the world, as a result of the growing use of personal cars in many countries around the world. Of these, the vast majority are still combustion-engine vehicles rather than "cleaner" solutions like the growing electrical vehicle market.

Mailson Pignata/iStock

Something, in their view, needed to be done about this and so the concept of biofuels was proposed as a potential "silver bullet".

Since biofuels are formed, primarily, from the growth and harvesting of living plant material rather than long-sequestered hydrocarbon sources like fossil fuels. The main argument is that biofuels draw down as much carbon dioxide, more or less, as they release when combusted. This is because carbon is stored in the plant tissue and soil as plants grow.

They are, in effect, "carbon neutral", and in some cases have been shown to be carbon negative - in other words, they remove more carbon from the atmosphere than is released when they are harvested, processed, and burned/converted.

There are other benefits to biofuel feedstocks too, including, but not limited to, the generation of co-products like protein that can be as animal feed. This saves energy (and therefore associated carbon dioxide emissions) that would otherwise have been used to make animal feed by other means.

To this end, some countries went full-bore with the idea, with countries like Brazil establishing a full-blown bioethanol industry about 40 years ago. Other countries began to follow suit. In 2005, the United States established its first national renewable fuel standard under the "Energy Policy Act". This piece of legislation called for 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels to be used annually by 2012.

This act also required fossil fuel-producing companies to mix biofuels with regular liquid fuels to reduce their long-term impact on the environment. The European Union produced a similar requirement in its 2008 "Renewable Energy Directive", which required EU countries to source at least 10 percent of their transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020.

The stringent requirement has resulted in a huge growth in the biofuel industry around the world. But, how accurate are the claims that biofuels are better for the environment than, say, fossil fuels?

Are biofuels actually better for the environment?

Like anything in life, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as a perfect solution, only a compromise. For all the benefits that products like biofuels yield, they have some very important drawbacks and even environmental impacts that cannot be ignored if we are being truly honest about them.

For example, the widely held claim that biofuels are carbon-neutral, or even negative, is not all that it claims to be. Various studies on this subject have shown that different biofuels vary widely in their greenhouse emissions when compared, like-for-like, with gasoline.

Biofuel feedstocks have many other associated costs with their production, such as harvesting, processing, and transportation that are often not always factored into calculations or are outright ignored. In some cases, depending on the methods used to produce the feedstock and process the fuel, more greenhouse gas emissions can arise when compared to fossil fuels.

Discussion on this topic tends to place the most emphasis on carbon dioxide, but it is but one of the many harmful emissions that can have very serious consequences on the environment. Nitrous oxide, NOx for short, is another.

Not only is NOx an important component for the formation of harmful effects like acid rain, but it also has a very significant so-called "global warming potential" orders of magnitude higher than carbon dioxide - around 300 times in fact. Not only that, but nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for far longer - 114 years compared to about 4 years for carbon dioxide.

NOx also happens to be particularly bad for the ozone layer too - which is not nice. And it doesn't end there.

Nitrous oxides are generated at others stages of biofuel production and final use when combusted as an actual fuel on your car.

aydinmutlu/iStock

In fairness, all forms of agriculture release nitrous oxide to some degree, so biofuel production should not be blamed in isolation for any increase in NOx emissions over the last few decades, but since it is promoted heavily by many governments, there is an urgent need for more research to be done on the impact of biofuels on NOx emissions.

Another potentially important difference between biofuels and conventional fossil fuels is carbonyl emissions. Carbonyl is a divalent chemical unit consisting of carbon (C) and an oxygen (O) atom connected by a double bond and is a constituent part of molecules like carboxylic acids, esters, anhydrides, acyl halides, amides, and quinones, among other compounds.

Some carbonyls, like those listed above, are known to be potentially very hazardous to human health. Studies on this subject have found that biofuels, like biodiesels, release considerably more carbonyl emissions like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propionaldehyde, and butyraldehyde, than pure diesel.

Yet other studies have revealed that the combustion of biofuels also comes with an elevated emission of some other hazardous pollutants like volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic HCs, and heavy metals) have been reported to endanger human health.

Another very serious issue with biofuels is their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes. For example, land clearance of forests or grasslands to release land for biofuel production has a very serious impact on the environment.

Scharfsinn86/iStock

Some studies have shown that this kind of activity can release hundreds to thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare for the sake of "saving" 1.8 tonnes per hectare per year for maize grown for bioethanol or 8.6 tonnes per hectare per year for switchgrass. The land is also converted from growing food for consumption to biomass for use in fuel.

This has been reinforced only recently, with a study on the use of corn-ethanol fuels in the U.S. This study identified that the rise in demand for corn as a feedstock for biofuels resulted in a jump in price and, therefore, incentivize the conversion of land for the cultivation of corn.

Other studies also show a serious "opportunity cost" for using valuable land in this way too. If governments are serious about reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the land, if converted from the forest, for example, should have been left the way it was. A better strategy might be to actually reforest existing farmland that has been converted for biofuel production as well.

The conversion of wild virgin lands for biofuel production also has serious implications for biodiversity and local habitats too for obvious reasons. Research also suggests that the production of biofuel feedstocks such as corn and soy, could increase water pollution from nutrients, pesticides, and sediment and deplete aquifers.

There is another area where biofuels appear to be considerably safer for the environment, however - biodegradation. Various studies have shown that biofuels, neat vegetable oils, biodiesel, petroleum diesel blends, and neat 2-D diesel fuel tend to break down in the environment much faster than conventional petrol or diesel.

Under controlled conditions, these substances are broken down about 5 times faster than petroleum or diesel and also leave far fewer toxic byproducts. This is encouraging and would indicate that events such as oil spills could be less of an environmental disaster if the tanker is filled with biofuels.

So, are biofuels all they are cracked up to be?

In short, yes, but also no. While some biofuels are clearly better for the environment than continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels, a more all-encompassing view needs to be taken by regulators and decision-makers. Not all biofuels and methods of biofuel production have the same impact

.

BanksPhotos/iStock

We have already covered some of the issues above, like focussing on reforestation instead, but other things can also be done, too.

Energy conservation and improved efficiency are critical factors. The combustion engine, while receiving a lot of bad press over recent decades, is still one of the best machines for converting fuel to do useful work that our species has ever devised.


It has quite literally revolutionized our way of life. If more focus was put on improving their efficiency than outright banning them, significant improvements in emissions could be made over time.

According to some studies, in the United States, an improvement in efficiency by only one mile per gallon for every vehicle has been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than all "savings" provided by all biofuel maize production. Other incremental improvements are also in development that could further improve the efficiency of combustion engines too.

One example, called Transient Plasma Ignition, is a like-for-like replacement for traditional spark plugs that have been shown to dramatically increase combustion efficiency in combustion engines by as much as 20%. These kinds of spark plugs also benefit from a longer lifespan than conventional ones.


But, such solutions still rely on the digging up and use of fossil fuels. With the drive, pun intended, for the decarbonization of many economies around the world, such technologies only realistically offer a brief reprieve for the internal combustion engine going forward.

But, that doesn't mean research and development in this field should be eased up. Any benefits made to the efficiency of internal combustion can be used to also, albeit indirectly, increase the efficiency of biofuels in combustion engines.

Keeratikorn Suttiwong/iStock

But, there are some areas where biofuels are clearly advantageous. In many cases, biowaste from other industrial processes can be turned into biofuels rather than thrown away. Whether it be digestion of waste food to make biogas/bio-LPG or turning waste products from beer production into biofuel.

And it is this that might, in the end, might be the main benefit of biofuels over their conventional fossil fuel alternatives. If more emphasis is put on using the waste products from existing processes to make biofuels rather than converting virgin land or agricultural land for feedstock crops, we can get all the benefits of biofuels with less of its environmental costs.

That is, of course, as long as our species continues to use combustion-based energy production. Which is likely going to continue for many years to come.

They are, after all, so good at what they do.

ALTERNATE FUELS

WinGD and Mitsubishi Shipbuilding Agree Ammonia Fuel Supply System Design

WinGD is developing a range of ammonia-fueled engines and reports it has finalzied a fuel system supply design with Mitsubishi (WinGD file phot)

PUBLISHED FEB 22, 2024 7:47 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

 

Engine manufacturer WinGD and Mitsubishi Shipbuilding report they have reached a key milestone in the development of ammonia-fueled propulsion. The two companies have finalized the basic design for an ammonia fuel supply system for an ammonia-fueled large, low-speed two-stroke marine engine.

Mitsubishi Shipbuilding and WinGD concluded a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2023 to undertake technical studies on an ammonia fuel supply system. Under the partnership, WinGD is working to develop X?DF?A engines at appropriate sizes for a range of vessel designs, providing the shipbuilder with the specifications for installing the engines and the requirements for all auxiliary fuel systems. Mitsubishi is designing the vessels, setting performance parameters for the engines, and further developing its existing ammonia fuel supply system (AFSS) for use with WinGD’s ammonia engines.

The AFSS design is the first result of the wide-ranging partnership focusing on developing solutions for ammonia engines and fuel systems that can be applied across a range of vessel designs. Because ammonia emits no CO2 when combusted it is viewed as a leading alternative marine fuel as well as for heavy industry, but it also presents challenges to achieve and maintain steady combustion as well as the highly toxic and corrosive nature of ammonia.

As well as the fuel supply system - including a fuel valve unit, fuel conditioning, and all related piping – the companies report their concept includes several features to enable the safe use of ammonia as a marine fuel. These include an ammonia catching system as well as purging and venting arrangements.

“At present, our primary focus is on advancing the technology of our clean-fuel solutions including our ammonia-powered X?DF?A engines, with the first delivery expected in Q2 2025,” said Sebastian Hensel, Director R&D at WinGD. “This collaboration will make sure that the auxiliary systems and integration capability are in place to apply our engine designs, and developing the fuel supply system concept is a crucial step in bringing ammonia fuel capability to the marine market.”

The project will now proceed to the detailed design phase, ensuring that ammonia capability is available to ocean going vessel operators ahead of regulatory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In September 2023, WinGD reported that it had received approval in principle for the first of its ammonia two-stroke engines from Lloyd’s Register, the first ever awarded for two-stroke engines fueled with ammonia. They reported the engines will operate according to the Diesel principle in both diesel and ammonia modes, and Win has already recorded the first future delivery orders for ammonia-ready vessels. 

Vitol Introduces Dedicated Biofuel Bunker Barge in Singapore to Meet Demand

Marine Future is the first bunker barge able to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels (Vitol)

PUBLISHED FEB 22, 2024 7:17 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

Asia’s market for biofuels is expanding rapidly and to take advantage of the emerging opportunities, Vitol, one of Singapore’s leading fuel suppliers has taken delivery of its first specialized bunker vessel. The company looks to take advantage of the emerging opportunity and last fall reported the first vessel would be the first of several specialized bunker barges placed into service.

“Though at a nascent stage, demand for biofuel is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, as the shipping industry looks at ways to decarbonize and curb emissions,” says Vitol. They point to the International Maritime Organization’s interim regulations released last October as another factor likely in the near term to spur growth in biofuels.

“Biofuels are a key pathway for the hard-to-abate shipping sector to mitigate emissions,” the company notes.

As a result, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore which controls the bunker market, reported that last year sales of biofuel increased by nearly four times. They reported biofuel sales in Singapore reached 520,000 tons in 2023 up from just 140,000 tons in 20222.

Vitol recently introduced the Marine Future, a nearly 335-foot (102-meter) bunker vessel in Singapore. The vessel was specifically designed for the biofuel sector and built in China. It has the capacity to carry about 7,000 MT of biofuels and in the future can also be re-configured to supply methanol.

It is the first bunker tanker in Singapore to have the appropriate design and designation to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels. The previous vessels in the market are all oil tankers, and Vitol points out that regulations restrict them to a maximum of 25 percent biofuel component in biofuel blends.
 
Through its V-Bunkers operation, the company already operates more than 20 bunker barges based in Singapore. They anticipate the new vessel will contribute to the continuing rapid growth in biofuel sales. Starting with the Marine Future, Vitol can offer a range of biofuel blends.
 

 

Singapore Selects 11 Designs in Effort to Promote Electric Harbor Crafts

One of the 11 designs selected in Singapore's program to promote electric harbor crafts (MPA)

PUBLISHED FEB 23, 2024 3:02 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

 

Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority has selected 11 design proposals as part of its ongoing competition to develop advanced electric harbor crafts. The authority reports it received strong interest in the effort designed to promote the adoption of fully electric harbor craft demonstrating the strong interest and confidence of the industry in the development of this new generation of vessels.

The initiative launched in July 2023 as part of the efforts to advance decarbonization in one of the busiest ports in the world and at the same time promote the adoption of electrification as a means of addressing the challenges. The MPA reports it received a total of 55 proposals from 32 international and local companies and consortia.

Participants submitted technically strong designs according to the MPA, including the use of optimized aluminum hull form, high energy density batteries with active liquid cooling, and battery thermal detection and protection system, among others. 

One of the key concerns that they also sought to address is the total cost of ownership for electric vessels with the goal of making them comparable to a conventional harbor craft. Participants in the program demonstrated that while electric harbor crafts currently have higher upfront capital costs due primarily to the higher cost of the batteries and associated systems, the MPA says these costs can be mitigated by energy cost savings from operating the more energy-efficient e-harbor crafts, reduced maintenance cost, and operational downtime.  

Several of the participants also proposed business models to optimize the harbor craft resource at the sector level while lowering the overall total cost of ownership to individual companies. According to the MPA, these proposals aim to encourage more companies, especially those with smaller fleet sizes, to make the transition, by presenting viable business cases based on aggregation, while enabling an efficient and responsive sector-level capability to meet the needs of ships calling into Singapore.

 

 

The panel completed the evaluation of all the proposals and the MPA has shortlisted a total of 11 passenger launch and cargo lighter vessel designs submitted by seven companies and consortia. Of the 11 designs selected, six have received class society approvals. Together with various research institutes and academia, the MPA looks to support more research to enhance vessel designs, safety, and cybersecurity, and reduce the energy requirements. 

Six designs were submitted by the Coastal Sustainability Alliance, marinEV, and Pyxis Maritime, which demonstrate a strong understanding of Singapore’s requirements in areas including battery specifications, digital and cyber systems, training requirements, and development of local capability. These participants will be working directly with MPA and its researchers over the next two to six months to optimize and validate their designs.

The five additional proposals selected were submitted by CAEV+ Consortium, China Everbright Environment Group, Cyan Renewables Consortium, and Gennal Engineering. MPA reports it will also work with these participants, together with the various researchers and universities, to further develop the designs. The scope of enhancements will include optimization of the vessel hull and electrical systems design, the design of a fire-resilient battery room, and a cyber health monitoring system, to strengthen the vessels’ energy efficiency and safety. 

Vitol Introduces Dedicated Biofuel Bunker Barge in Singapore to Meet Demand

Marine Future is the first bunker barge able to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels (Vitol)

PUBLISHED FEB 22, 2024 7:17 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

Asia’s market for biofuels is expanding rapidly and to take advantage of the emerging opportunities, Vitol, one of Singapore’s leading fuel suppliers has taken delivery of its first specialized bunker vessel. The company looks to take advantage of the emerging opportunity and last fall reported the first vessel would be the first of several specialized bunker barges placed into service.

“Though at a nascent stage, demand for biofuel is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, as the shipping industry looks at ways to decarbonize and curb emissions,” says Vitol. They point to the International Maritime Organization’s interim regulations released last October as another factor likely in the near term to spur growth in biofuels.

“Biofuels are a key pathway for the hard-to-abate shipping sector to mitigate emissions,” the company notes.

As a result, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore which controls the bunker market, reported that last year sales of biofuel increased by nearly four times. They reported biofuel sales in Singapore reached 520,000 tons in 2023 up from just 140,000 tons in 20222.

Vitol recently introduced the Marine Future, a nearly 335-foot (102-meter) bunker vessel in Singapore. The vessel was specifically designed for the biofuel sector and built in China. It has the capacity to carry about 7,000 MT of biofuels and in the future can also be re-configured to supply methanol.

It is the first bunker tanker in Singapore to have the appropriate design and designation to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels. The previous vessels in the market are all oil tankers, and Vitol points out that regulations restrict them to a maximum of 25 percent biofuel component in biofuel blends.
 
Through its V-Bunkers operation, the company already operates more than 20 bunker barges based in Singapore. They anticipate the new vessel will contribute to the continuing rapid growth in biofuel sales. Starting with the Marine Future, Vitol can offer a range of biofuel blends.