European bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet from an economic and ecological viewpoint (1st Part)

Recent investigations have shown that bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet contributes far more to greenhouse gas reduction and causes far lower greenhouse gas avoidance costs than assumed in previous studies.

Greenhouse gas balances, analogously to eco-balances, must encompass the entire life cycle of a product. In the case of biofuels, this includes, among other things, taking into account the direct and indirect effects (e.g. land utilization effects) of by-product production as well as the effects of the utilization phase (motor efficiency). Because biofuel production fundamentally involves the utilization of land, which is available only to a limited extent, the evaluation of the various biofuel routes must proceed – against the background of the discussion of food versus fuel – on the basis of their respective absolute greenhouse gas reduction per area unit employed (area utilization efficiency).

Area balances show that bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet has the great advantage over other investigated bioenergy routes of achieving very high greenhouse gas reductions per area unit required. Compared with other biofuels and the same total area employed, these greenhouse gas savings are obtained without constraining food production. Taking this into account, bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet has advantages built into the system also over second-generation biofuels, such as wood-based from short-cycle plantations. The use of bioethanol in the form of low blends (e.g. blends of gasoline and bioethanol in a 90:10 ratio = E10) leads to higher motor efficiency which to a considerable degree compensates for the lower calorific value of bioethanol compared with gasoline.

Furthermore, the greenhouse gas avoidance costs incurred in the use of bioethanol produced from biomass in the European Union (first and second generation) in the form of E10 in the transport sector are shown to be substantially lower than those cited in the literature. This rather conservative calculation only comprehends the effects of the utilization phase (motor efficiency). Also taking into account the direct and indirect effects (including land utilization effects) of by-product production – the methodologically more correct course – would further reduce the greenhouse gas avoidance costs incurred in the use of E10 in the transport sector. These costs are significantly lower than the avoidance costs resulting from changes in vehicle design aimed at reducing motor fuel consumption.

By changing feeding customs in milk and meat production from cattle (starch and protein-rich fodder rations in place of pure pasture) the associated specific greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. per kilogramme of meat produced) can be roughly halved, compared with a pasture system. The feedstuffs produced in connection with the production of bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet make a valuable contribution to this end. Stabling also makes possible the treatment of the liquid manure in biogas plants, which is an additional contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in cattle fattening.

Biofuel production has variously been associated with high water consumption. A life cycle analysis, however, reveals this consumption to be the utilization of the naturally occurring precipitation in western Europe within the natural water cycle.

The use of biofuel in the transport sector in the form of bioethanol produced in Europe therefore constitutes a cost-effective option to achieve a high reduction in greenhouse gas with the simultaneous production of high-value feedstuffs.