Biofuels Not All They Cracked Up To Be

Next month, a new law will come in that requires a certain proportion of vehicle fuels to come from biological sources. However, in the light of new facts that have risen about their impact on carbon emissions, many people now doubt if this is too early to start placing laws on such a new fuel source.

The law being proposed by the EU, which is due to take affect from the 15th of April, states that fuel stations must ensure that 2.5% of their fuel is BioEthanol, which should be 10% by 2020.

Biofuels have the bonus that they don’t release carbon-dioxide when burnt like their fossil fuel cousins but now a publication of studies conducted [1], shows that some types of biofuel create more CO2 when being produced compared to the amount saved when they are burnt instead of fossil fuels, thus they aren’t as green as we once thought.

Biofuels are dubbed carbon-neutral because their sources use CO2 when they grow, when in actual fact, their overall effect is how much fuel is used in order to grow and produce them. John Pickett [2] says “There are good and bad biofuels,” with an example of a good biofuel being sugar cane, as it uses the least energy in order to be converted into biofuel, whereas, maize requires the most energy.

Until the UK government receives a report in June from its Renewable Fuels Agency, the EU policy will go ahead and the UK will have to comply with European Legislation. Any biofuels produced and within that two month period before then may not be helping the carbon-dioxide problem as much as we hoped.

Article based on a report published in NewScientist, 29th March 2008.

Sources:
[1] – Report published by John Pickett.
[2] – John Pickett, co-author of a Royal Society report on biofuels published in January.