European bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet from an economic and ecological viewpoint (2nd Part)

Application of calorific value allocation in the greenhouse gas balances of biofuels – as currently proposed in the draft of the EU Commission’s renewable energy directive – results, in the case of bioethanol from grain and sugar beet, to a systemic underestimation of the actual direct greenhouse gas reduction. In the manufacture of bioethanol from grain and sugar beet, high-value (protein) feedstuffs are produced as co-products which replace other (protein) feedstuffs especially grown for this purpose. Moreover, the land-freeing effects resulting from this feedstuff substitution – and which significantly impact in a positive way on the greenhouse gas balance – are not considered in the allocation procedure owing to its methodology.

Land-freeing effects arise in the case of bioethanol from grain and sugar beets on principle and totally independently of the choice of the feedstuff replaced. They lead for these lines of production to a lower net land requirement and even, under certain – not unrealistic – circumstances, to a situation in which, overall, more land can be liberated for food and feed production than is required to grow the biomass for bioethanol production itself.

In contrast to bioethanol from grain and sugar beet, alternative power concepts, such as electric or hydrogen vehicles, imply considerably worse energy balances owing to the inefficient production of electricity or hydrogen. If bioethanol replaced hydrogen in fuel cells, however, the primary energy saving could be increased to up to 75%.

Alternative power concepts, such as electric or hydrogen vehicles, only make a contribution worth mentioning to climate protection at a perhaps justifiable cost if the energy supply comes from nuclear or renewable sources, such as wind. This theoretical analysis does not take into account that the storage problems involved have not yet been technically satisfactorily resolved and that vehicle operation over longer distances is not yet possible. For this reason, the essential advantage of alternative power concepts lies in the diversification of the energy supply and hence increased suppy security for the transport sector. To be avoided, however, is supplying the electricity from photovoltaic (very high greenhouse gas avoidance costs) or agricultural biomass (inefficient use of limited land) sources.

With bioethanol from grain and sugar beet, on the other hand, an efficient and resource-saving reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector can be achieved at considerably lower cost and without curtailing food production. And producers retain total flexibility to react to changes in the demand for agricultural raw materials in other sectors (particularly food production).

Without restricting food and feed production, bioethanol from grain and sugar beet can cover more than 7% of European Union gasolene requirements (Zeddies, 2006), and this is possible wholly within and through optimizing existing rotations on the currently used arable land areas in the EU.

Dispensing with EU grain exports to third countries would, in theory, allow bioethanol from grain and sugar beet to replace more than 55% of EU gasolene requirements in 2020.