It is our belief that there is no one fuel which provides all of the answers to carbon emissions problems and the most realistic approach is to introduce the fuels which are available now eg biodiesel and bioethanol and work towards incorporating them into longer term solutions. For example, bioethanol can be used in hydrogen manufacture. Hybrid cars of the future could run on a combination of electricity, biofuels and hydrogen.
source: www.britishbioethanol.co.uk
Bioethanol can be produced from fermentation of sugar rich plants, or from starch or cellulosic materials, which can be converted to sugar by hydrolysis, and then fermented. The potential of ethanol as a fuel for transport and/or centralised energy can be seen in the Brazilian bioethanol programme, where 2.3 million hectares of sugar cane cultivated for the bioethanol programme produce 13 billion litres of ethanol annually (1998 figures). In the USA, approximately 5 billion litres of ethanol are produced annually from corn3. Sugarcane and sugar beet yield 70-95 litres of ethanol per tonne of cane processed. The ethanol yield from 1 tonne of wood is 280-330 litres, although the energy input to convert wood to ethanol is higher. Ligno-cellulosic hydrolysis, whilst offering greater potential for conversion of wood residues, is a less well proven technology. Thus, there are a number of technology routes to bioethanol production. The recent UK Energy White Paper4 has highlighted the need for climate change objectives to be achieved through the energy system. Transport is a key sector, being responsible for around 25% of UK emissions of greenhouse gases. Transport is almost totally dependent on petroleum products, and whilst the White Paper envisages no immediate strategic risk for oil supplies to the UK, it recommends more focus on greater vehicle efficiency and alternative transport fuels as part of the move to a low carbon economy. At present, fuel diversity is constrained in the transport sector, and in the long-term resource depletion could pose a security of supply problem. Bioethanol is one possible alternative transport fuel. The potential long-term benefits of bioethanol in transport applications are: • it offers an alternative pathway to a low carbon economy, which could be developed in parallel with renewable electricity and could deliver low carbon road fuels more quickly; • bioethanol is more easily distributed than hydrogen fuels, because it can readily be transported by road tanker. If required as a feedstock for hydrogen fuel cells, bioethanol can be reformed into hydrogen at the filling station or by reformers on-board the vehicles; • bioethanol can also be used directly in internal combustion engines, and hence can be an insurance policy if fuel cells prove too expensive or technically difficult to develop into mass market applications; • finally, bioethanol offers the potential of an energy-efficient and secure fuel supply system, which could make use of UK agricultural land. Bioethanol production facilities, where they exist, are typically subsidised in order to enable them to compete with fossil fuel equivalents. The rationale behind these subsidies is either, to promote less environmentally damaging products or to reduce reliance of fossil fuel imports, or both. Over-reliance on subsidies can itself present problems, and in recent years the Brazilian ProAlcool programme has become stagnant due to a combination of poorly directed energy policy, high sugar prices in the international market and low oil prices5. The fact that producing and using bio-ethanol rather than fossil unleaded fuel provides reduced CO2 emissions over the lifecycle of the respective products is now acknowledged by all authorities although the magnitude of the benefit is still debated. Given the range of mitigation potentialities reported in the literature, is the support of a bio-ethanol industry ‘good value for money’? Having considered speed of uptake and cost, would other technologies be more effective in delivering a carbon benefit? Both public and private sector interests are involved in the prospects for developing a UK bioethanol industry. The UK has signed up to the Kyoto protocol for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and aims to produce 10% of its electrical requirements from renewable resources by 2010, and to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% from 1990 levels in that time (and GHG emissions by 12.5% overall). Even though UK strategies for climate change mitigation are mainly focussed on electricity generation from renewables, bio-ethanol used as a substitute to fossil fuel could contribute to achievement of emissions reductions targets, particularly in the short to medium term whilst the hydrogen economy is developed. The EU Transport Directive proposes a non-binding target of 5.75% of transport fuels derived from renewable resources by 2010. Currently, the UK consumes approximately 24 Mt of unleaded gasoline and 21 Mt of diesel fuel annually (Figure 1). To meet the EU target would require an annual production of 1.4 Mt bio-ethanol plus 1.2 Mt of bio-diesel, or 2.7 Mt of bio-ethanol alone.
To achieve this level of uptake would require considerable fiscal incentives. There are various fiscal measures that could be adopted, including duty cuts in favour of bioethanol, specifying a minimum blend of bioethanol through legislation, and formalised voluntary agreements with fuel producers and suppliers. The benefits and policy costs of these measures need to be more fully understood, and this study for the East of England Development Agency aims to examine a number of issues at a national level. If these incentives are applied as an excise duty cut, how much of that excise duty is lost to from the National economy? How much is recycled into other sectors which themselves are then taxed? Since this report was commissioned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his pre-budget statement in November 2002, announced a 20 pence/litre excise duty reduction for bio-ethanol (compared with the fuel duty rate for sulphur-free gasoline). The 2003 Budget has confirmed this fuel duty reduction, with the plan to introduce it on 1 January 2005. Would such an incentive be sufficient to stimulate the development of a bio-ethanol industry in the UK? Many interested parties (BABFO, British Sugar) propose that a 25-30 pence/litre excise duty cut would be needed to maintain price parity at the fuel pump and render the production of bio-ethanol economic. Would any duty cut promote a UK industry or simply open up the marketplace to imported, less expensive bioethanol from overseas? How might market support be structured to prevent that? There is much current interest in the development of fuel cell vehicles, which would use hydrogen as an energy carrier. If the hydrogen were to be produced from renewable energy sources in the UK, then this would be a low carbon option, which also provides a degree of supply security. Another low carbon option is the development of biofuels using UK sources. Bioethanol used in advanced hybrid engines is one of the few configurations that could challenge the hydrogen/fuel cell option for vehicles. A recent review of future transport energy options6 (ref.) has indicated that developing hydrogen from renewable fuel sources such as biomass, rather than using electricity to hydrolyse water, is the preferred environmental and sustainable option. Bioethanol from sugars could provide niche markets in blends with gasoline, and in the longer-term from woody crops and vegetable waste could widen the market if the costs are acceptable. However, bioethanol production is constrained by land availability, crop yield and the demand for biomass for other uses. The raw materials for bioethanol are priced on markets that not are directly related to the oil market – sugar prices are mainly determined by foodstuff markets, and woody crop prices are mainly determined by pulp and paper markets. Both public and private sector interests are involved in the potential for developing a bioethanol industry. The EU has proposed a directive and a series of targets on the use of biofuels in transport. There are various fiscal measures that could be adopted, including duty cuts in favour of bioethanol, specifying a minimum blend of bioethanol through legislation, and formalised voluntary agreements with fuel producers and suppliers. The benefits and policy costs of these measures need to be more fully understood, and this study will provide an input into Government thinking on the consumer impacts and taxation policy. The private sector interests cover the fuel/vehicle supply chain, and comprise: fuel producers, fuel suppliers, vehicle manufacturers, transport service companies, research organisations, the agricultural industry, finance providers and end-users.
Source: EEDA June 2003 |
