European bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet from an economic and ecological viewpoint (3rd Part)

Through the use of biofuels instead of fossil fuels in the transport sector, there are costs as well as benefits for the European Union and its populations. The economic evaluation of biofuels must therefore include and assess all positive as well as negative effects for the general good which come from the use of biofuels.

Even when the current high prices for crude oil are taken into account, biofuels, as a rule, are still more expensive than fossil fuels. Thus additional costs accrue through the use of biofuels in the transport sector. On the other hand, biofuels are a suitable instrument to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the transport sector more quickly and at lower cost than other measures which have been discussed, to secure the energy supply despite the finite availability of fossil fuel resources, and at the same time develop rural areas. In contrast to fossil fuel routes, which, due to a high level of dependence on imports and their availability, yield only a small increase in value within the country, bioenergy routes have the following advantage: the entire value increase chain of in-country economic structures can be exploited, allowing the positive effects on employment and income to exert their influence on the national level. The production and use of biofuels is therefore a positive factor and serves the public interest, even when set against the additional costs.

Production and use of biofuels have been promoted up to the present in various ways by the political sector, both on the national and the international level. Particular attention was paid to promoting biofuels of the so-called second generation. Essentially, the grounds for this were the expected high reductions of greenhouse gas and the utilization of biomass, in order to justify the higher additional costs im comparison to fossil fuels.

In the evaluation of biofuels of the second generation, the origin of biomass has been given little attention up to now; it was considered to be of less importance. However, in public opinion, there are great differences to be noted in the assessment of these biofuels, depending on the biomass which is used. If leftover and waste materials are used, the raw material potential can be increased. In contrast, if the raw materials for biofuels of the second generation are to be cultivated on agricultural land, the question of whether these areas could be better utilized for other purposes must be answered satisfactorily first. For example, the production of biomass competes with the cultivation of wheat and sugarbeet for the production of bioethanol.

One of the findings of our work, as described in this paper, is that the use of biofuels of the second generation, such as BtL (biomass-to-liquid), in comparison with the use of bioethanol made from grain and sugarbeet, leads to considerably higher costs, if not produced from leftover materials. The main reasons for this are the higher production costs of BtL as well as the lack of proceeds coming from co-products, because the entire biomass is used for the production of fuels. On the other hand, the production of bioethanol out of grain and sugarbeet needs only the starch, i.e. the sugar, for fuel production; thus the non-fermentable materials can be utilized in feedstuffs for animals and the production of energy, leading to an additional value increase.

On the list of positive effects, reducing greenhouse gases is a factor of central importance. Here new investigations have shown that bioethanol from grain and sugarbeet contribute much more to the reduction of greenhouse gas than previous evaluations had seen, the decisive reason being that direct and indirect effects (effects from use of land, for example) coming from the production of co-products have not been wholly included in the analysis. Thus there are inherent advantages for bioethanol made of grain and sugarbeet: not only in comparison to bioethanol produced from sugarcane, but also when compared to biofuels of the second generation, for example, those based on wood from short rotation forestry.

Basically, biofuels such as bioethanol and BtL lead to improved security of supplies, if these fuels and the necessary raw materials are produced in the country and replace imports. This aspect is gaining importance, particularly in times of crisis with supply limitations and/or difficulties. In terms of security of supplies,bioethanol made from grain and sugarbeet also shows advantages when compared with BtL. As studies have shown, the use ofbioethanol in the form of “low blends” (for example, mixtures of gasoline and bioethanol in a 90:10 = E10) leads to higher motor efficiency, which to a considerable degree compensates for the lower calorific value of bioethanol as compared to gasoline, so that, with this blend containing a certain amount of fossil energy, longer distances can be made possible than would be assumed when considering the calorific value. Similar positive effects using BtL are not known at the present time.

The results of the cost-benefit analysis show that with bioethanol from European production in comparison to BtL from cultivated biomass, an efficient reduction in greenhouse gases can be achieved in the transport sector, at markedly lower cost and without negative effects on resources. Against this background, a preference for biofuels of the second generation such as BtL cannot be justified when it comes to the issue of promotion and support in the political arena if such biomass must be produced on land areas used for agriculture.

Teil 1: Sugar Industry 133, 625–635, Teil 2: Sugar Industry 133, 710–718