Biomass for Fuel and Food

A Parallel Necessity
  • D. O. Hall
  • P. J. de Groot

Summary

In many parts of the developing world biomass is being used for energy at a faster rate than it is being replaced. This is leading to increasingly serious problems. Indeed, there is potentially a far greater long-term danger from deforestation and desertification as a consequence of the over-exploitation of biomass than there is from lack of food. Today about 13% of the world’s primary energy is derived from biomass — equivalent to 22 M barrels oil/day. Predominant use is in the rural areas of developing countries where half the world’s population lives, e.g. Nepal and Ethiopia derive nearly all, Kenya 3/4, India 1/2, China 1/3, Brazil 1/4, and Egypt and Morocco a 1/5 of their total energy from biomass. However, in many developing countries, the importation of fossil fuels consumes a large and disproportionate percentage of the country’s total foreign income.

Oil prices continue to be a serious problem. To quote the World Bank, “Contrary to the popular (but erroneous) perception, the cost of energy in most developing countries is at or near all-time peaks as the softening in dollar-denominated oil prices has been offset by the strong USA dollar. The cost of crude oil (GIF) in local currency, taking into account both dollar price and exchange rate fluctuations, has increased dramatically in many countries between 1982 and 1984: 130% in Morocco, 123% in Senegal, 185% in the Philippines, 147% in Kenya; and 237% in Jamaica. Further deterioration of exchange rates against the dollar in early 1985 intensifies the problem.” Recent decreases in oil prices and softening of the dollar are helpful but dramatize the volatility of the situation.

A number of developed countries also derive a considerable amount of energy from biomass, e.g. Sweden 10%, Canada 8%, and USA 4% (more than it derives from nuclear energy, and increasing rapidly), and Australia 3%. An especially valuable contribution can be in the form of liquid fuels which have become so prone to fluctuating price and supply and large import costs. The success of alcohol schemes in Brazil and Zimbabwe, for example, with their energy and economic benefits need to be closely analyzed. The biomass resources available, the effect of large agricultural surpluses (especially in North America and Europe), and factors such as food and land use competition, will all influence biomass energy schemes around the world and are currently debated.

Worldwide government expenditure on biomass energy systems is over $2 bn (bn = 109) a year while the costs and subsidies of surplus food production is over $60bn a year in the USA and Europe alone. Surpluses are due to increase because of economic and political factors and other trends such as changes in Western diets, substitution of commodities such as sugar, and rapidly increasing productivity of plants. However, biomass energy is not necessarily the panacea to any country’s energy problems. Local energy and food requirements related to land use patterns are predominant factors in planning biomass energy systems. Importantly, the productivity of biomass-for-energy species can be dramatically increased as has been already shown in a number of demonstrations around the world. Such improvements emulate some agricultural species such as maize, wheat, soyabeans, and rice. These agricultural R&D successes need to be more widely recognized in terms of economic returns and of social and political advantages which have accrued both locally and nationally. Modern biotechnological research and agronomic practices must be also applied to biomass energy species.

The world produces 10 – 20% more food than is required to feed its 4.5 billion people an adequate diet. Over the last 30 years, per capita food production has increased by 0.8% per annum worldwide. In North America and Europe the main problem with food is its overproduction and general overconsumption. However, there are an estimated 450 M undernourished people, mostly in Asia and Africa. Simplistically, if available food production were increased by 1.5% (equivalent to about 25 Mt of grains) and if this food was distributed equitably to those who needed it, there would be no undernourished people in the world. The same argument applies if only 10% of the developed countries’s grain production were diverted away from animals to humans. Health authorities in the USA and UK have recommended lower dairy products, meat, and sugar consumption. Such changes are already occurring in some developed countries. These diet changes and other biotechnological advances with food substitutes and yield enhancement will have important long-term socioeconomic consequences.

The question is how to achieve both food and biomass fuel production locally on a sustainable basis. Both are required — thus planning and provision of the appropriate infrastructure and incentives must be provided. Increased support of R&D. training, and firm establishment ofgreat priority to agriculture and forestry are essential in many countries of the world — if necessary, with significant help from abroad. In the longer term, the limiting factors will probably not be the lack of good R&D on plants and crops since this is progressing quite rapidly — as long as it is transferred and is adequate in individual countries or regions. However, the lack of implementation of such work with adequate demonstration and extension services, backed up with appropriate agroeconomic policies, is likely to be the bigger problem. Thus R&D must be extensively supported in parallel with training and the buildup of infrastructure — all with prestige and long-term commitment. Otherwise money will be wasted, and the possibility of both food and fuel independence will be lost.

Keywords

Starch Europe Lignin Hydrocarbon Income 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hall, D. O., G. W. Barnard and P. A. Moss (1982), “Biomass for Energy in the Developing Countries. Current Role, Potential, Problems, Prospects,” Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall, D. O. (1982), “Food Versus Fuel, A World Problem” unpublished report.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Petroleum (1985), BP statistical review of world energy. The British Petroleum Company, Britannic House, Moor Lane, London EC2Y 9BU.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall, D. O. (1985), “Biomass: Fuel Versus Food, a World Problem?” In: Economics of Ecosystems Management. Eds. D. O. Hall, N. Myers and N. S. Margaris, 207–225, Dr. N. V. Junk Pubi, Thè Hague.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deudney, D. & Flavin, C. (1983), “Renewable energy, the power to choose.” W. W. Norton (New York).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morgan, W. B. and P. A. Moss (1985), “Biomass Energy and Urbanisation: Commercial Factors in the Production and Use of Biomass Fuels in Tropical Africa.” Biomass 6, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Montalembert, M. R. and J. Clement (1983), “Fuelwood Supplies in the Developing Countries.” FAO Forestry Paper 42. Rome.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuelwood: Which Way Out? Earthscan Briefing Document No. 37, in Earthscan Bulletin (London, 3 Endsleigh St., London, WC 10DD) T, No. 2, 1–2, May 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murphy, B. “Third World Energy. Fuelwood Problem Far From Solved.” Mazingira, March 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brokensha, D. W., B. W. Riley and A. P. Castro (1983), “Fuelwood Use in Rural Kenya: Impacts of Deforestation.” Institute for Development Anthropology, 99 Collier St., P.O. Box 818, Binghamton, N. Y. 13902, USA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhagavan, M. R. (1984), “The Woodfuel Crisis in the SADCC Countries.” Ambio, 13, 25–27.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FAO. (1982), “Agriculture: Toward 2000.” Rome.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Kristoferson, V. Bokalders and M. N. Newham (1984), “Renewable Energy for Developing Countries: a Review.” Vol. B, The Beijer Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaale, B. K. (1985), “Woodfuel as a Potential Renewable Energy in SADCC Countries.” In: Making Use of Renewable Energy: Proceedings of the Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, 68–70. Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, P. O. Box MP 119-Harare.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spears, J. S. (1980), Overcoming Constraints to Increased Investment in Forests, World Bank, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, J. C. (1985), “Government Support for Woodfuel Supplies.” In: Making Use of Renewable Energy: Proceedings of the Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, 80–82. Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, PO Box MP 119, Harare.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Centre for Science and Environment (1982), “The State of India’s Environment — A Citizens’ Report.” 95 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guardian Newspaper (London), “Surplus Against the Grain.” April 25, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haney, R. (1985), “A Review of the Economics and Other Social Constraints of Small-scale Afforestation for Domestic Needs in the Communal Lands of Zimbabwe.” In: Making Use of Renewable Energy: Proceedings of the Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, 72–77. Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, PO Box MP 119, Harare.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    French, D. (1985), “The Economics of Reforestation in Developing Countries.” In: Bioenergy 845, 161–176. Eds. H. Egneus et al. Elsevier Applied Science Publ., London.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Awori, H. (1984), “Trees not for burning.” Earthscan Bulletin (London), 7, No. 3, 13.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foley, G. and G. Barnard (1984), Farm and Community Forestry. Earthscan Energy Information Programme Technical Report No. 3, Published by the International Institute for Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh St., London, WC1.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whittemore, C. (1981), “Land for People: Land Tenure and the Very Poor.” Oxfam Public Affairs Unit. Oxfam, 274 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7DZ, (ISBN-0-85598-046-X).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eckholm, E. (1979), “Planting for the Future: Forestry for Human Needs.” Worldwatch Paper 26. Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20036, USA.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Siren, G. (1985), “The Many Aspects of Intensive Energy Forestry.” In: Bioenergy 84, 2, 52–62. Eds. H. Egneus, and A. Ellegard. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calle, F. R. (1985), “Brazilian National Alcohol Programme.” PhD Thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brandao, L. G. (1985), “Short Rotation Forestry for Energy and Industry.” In: Bioenergy 84, 2, 77–85. Eds. H. Egneus and A. Ellegard, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fearnside, P. M. and J. M. Rankin (1985), Jari revisited: changes and the outlook for sustainability in Amazonia’s largest silvicultural estate. Interclercia, 10, No. 3, 121–129.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hall, D. O. (1984), “Biomass Alcohol and the Fuel-Food Issue.” In: Making Use of Renewable Energy: Proceedings of the Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, 207–225. Solar Energy Society of Zimbabwe, PO Box MP 119, Harare.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. Geller (1985), “Ethanol from Sugarcane in Brazil.” Ann. Rev. Energy, 10, 135–164.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Melo, F. H., “The Brazilian Energy Policy and the Alcohol Program.” Paper presented at the Conference on the Brazilian National Alcohol Programme: Issues and Prospects. University College, Dept. Political Economy, London, May 1985.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yeganiantz, Y. and A. Brandini (1984), “Energy Self Reliance” Abstracts of II Intl. Symposium on Alcohol Fuels Technology, (ISBN-0-9691723-H).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Calle, F. R. (1985), “Fuel Ethanol in Brazil and the Implications for Control of Lead Additives in the EEC Countries.” In: Energy from Biomass, 3rd E.C. Conference. Eds. W. Palz, J. Coombs and D. O. Hall. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers (London), 1058–1063.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milfont, W. N. (1984), “Cassava and Babassu Fuel Alcohol in Brazil”; Abstracts of VI International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels Technology, (ISBN-0-9691723-1-1), Ottawa, 134.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wenman, C. M. (1985), “The Production and Use of Fuel Alcohol in Zimbabwe.” In: Energy from Biomass, 3rd E.C. Conference. Eds. W. Palz, J. Coombs and D. O. Hall. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers (London), 172–177.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Juma, C. (1985), “Market restructuring and technology acquisition: power alcohol in Kenya and Zimbabwe.” Development and Change 16, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Commodities, South magazine (London). August 1982.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Commodity page, Financial Times newspaper (London). September 1, 1973.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Commodity page, Financial Times newspaper (London). January 3, 1973.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Commodity page, Financial Times newspaper (London). September 1, 1982.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Commodities, South magazine ( London ). March 1985, p. 78.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Singer, S. F., The Price of World Oil. Annual Review of Energy 8, 465 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schwandt, W. R. (1984), “Political, Economic & Technical Aspects of the US Fuel Ethanol Program.” In: The World Biotech Report 1984 1, Europe. 519–528. Online publications Ltd., Pinner, Middlesex HA5 2AE, UK.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Katzen, R. (1985), “Large-scale Ethanol Production Facilities.” In: Bioenergy 84 1, 305–312. Eds. H. Egneus and A. Ellegard. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hudson, W. J. (1984), “Biomass Energy and Food-Conflicts” In: Food and Energy Resources. Eds. D. Pimentel and C. Hall, 207–236. Academic press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brown, L. R. et al. (1985), State of the World 1985: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Towards a Sustainable Society. W. W. Norton, NY.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Eckland, E. (1984), “Status and Direction of the use of Alcohols and Other Oxygenated Hydrocarbons in North America.” In: Proceedings Communications of the VI International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels Technology. Ottawa II, 269–274. (ISBN 0-9691723-1-1).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    EIU Special Report No. 59. Economist Intelligence Unit, Economist Magazine, London (1983).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    The Times Newspaper (London), July 10, 1984.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    OECD. Biomass for Energy. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris (1984).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pimentel, D. and Terhune, C. T. (1977), “Energy and Food.” Annual Review of Energy, 2, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Scheller, W. A. (1979), “Gasohol, Ethanol and Energy.” Paper presented at the National Gasohol Commission Meeting, December (1979), San Antonio, Texas. (Dr. Scheller, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB 68558.)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ringblom, U. (1985), “Novel Methods and New Feedstocks for Alcohol From Biomass.” In: “Energy from Biomass; 3rd EC Conference.” Eds. W. Palz, J. Coombs and D. O. Hall. Elsevier Applied Science Pubi., London, 151–157.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zur, M. (1984), “Development of Supercane and Cassava for Ethanol Production in Israel.” In: Abstract of VI International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels Technology. (ISBN-0-9691723-1-1), Ottawa, Canada, 116.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Giamalva, M. J., S. J. Clarke and J. M. Stein (1984), “Sugarcane Hybrids for Biomass.” Biomass 6, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rockwood, D. L. (1984), “Genetic Improvement Potential for Biomass Quality and Quantity.” Biomass 6, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Monk, R. L., F. R. Miller and G. G. McBee (1984), “Sorghum Improvement for Energy Production.” Biomass 6, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Reddy, K. R., “Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) Biomass Production in Florida.” Biomass 6, 167–182.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jones, L. H. (1983), “The Oil Palm and its Clonal Propagations by Tissue Culture.” Biologist 30, 181–188.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Calvin, M., “Petroleum Plantations and Synthetic Chloroplasts.” Energy 4, 851– 870.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sachs, R. M., C. B. Low, J. D. MacDonald, A. R. Awad and M. J. Sully, “Euphorbia lathyris: a Potential Source of Petroleum-like Products.” California Agric. 29–32, July-August 1981.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hall, D. O. (1985), “Plant Hydrocarbon Resources in Arid and Semi-arid Lands.” In: Kew Intl. Conf. Economic Plants for Arid and Semi-arid Lands, ed. G. Wickens. George Allen and Unwin, London, 369–386.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    CAST Report No. 102 (1984), “Development of New Crops: Needs, Procedures, Strategies and Options.” Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 250 Memorial Union, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ayerbe, L., J. L. Tenorio, P. Ventas, E. Fures and L. Mellado (1984), “Euphorbia lathyris as an Energy Crop.” I & II Biomass 4, 283–293, 5, 37–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. O. Hall
  • P. J. de Groot

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations