Though
bio-fuel is touted as one of the better and cheaper environment-friendly
alternatives for motor vehicles, it has been attracting a
rash of negative publicity particularly after corn-derived
ethanol produced in the US has driven up corn prices as a
result of which tortilla, a must food item in Mexican homes,
is becoming unaffordable in Mexican homes. So, the question
is will the honeymoon with bio-fuel be over even before it
has begun? Bio-fuel has been painted as a villain that will
inflict a more serious problem on the hapless planet earth.
A report prepared by British members of parliament says that
bio-fuel often increases greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbates
the climate change that it is supposed to avoid. Merely increasing
the use of bio fuels will not mitigate the problem of climate
change and the harm it is causing to man and his planet. It
is widely believed that the food crops that go into the production
of bio-fuel will increase food prices manifold, which in turn
may lead to worldwide hunger.
The
message is grim because grain production is already in decline
the world over. The cry against bio-fuel has not subsided
even when $100 a barrel looks like the base price of crude
oil and its climb towards the $200 a barrel mark in may be
less than a year does not sound like a wild guess. Some analysts
say it will hit the $250 a barrel mark. It will probably be
a matter of debate which of the two is a nearer and more serious
threat: pollution or the astronomical levels of crude oil.
For countries like India the global tirade against bio-fuel
may be especially embarrassing as the campaign for popularising
it in the country remains in place despite the gathering storm
against it. For instance, it was only in February 2007 that
the government of Haryana had signed seven MoUs with independent
power producers to set up 21 biomass-based power stations
at eight different locations to produce 686 mw of power.
The
'raw material' to be used includes rice and wheat husk and
also sugarcane straw, all from an area within a radius of
15 to 20 km of the plants. Haryana has identified a potential
of 1400 mw from biomass. But that is only a fraction of its
projected need for 2010, which is 40,000 mw. Meanwhile, officials
continue to sing praises of Jatropha, a bio-fuel crop that
is seen as India's answer to the oil crisis caused by rocketing
prices and the country's insatiable hunger for oil, thanks
to its galloping economy. The government will cut a sorry
figure if it renounces the bio-fuel policy after investing
a great deal of money and thought into it. But with questions
being raised over the efficacy of bio-fuel the government
may have to decide if it wants to continue with active bio-fuel
programmes vigorously or put in slow motion.
The
present position of the government is that it will continue
to encourage Jatropha cultivation for bio-fuel production
but on degraded land. It may be a signal for a change in the
bio-fuel policy, but it has to be pointed out that it has
come without any assessment of Jatropha's adverse impact on
the cultivation of bio-fuel crops. Of course, the embarrassment
is not confined to India. The European Union had announced
some time ago that by 2020 it wants the fuel for 10 percent
of cars in its member nations to come from bio fuels. The
target, which was set with a view to lessening the impact
of climate change, has not been given up, as far as one knows.
The issue of climate change has been agitating the world seriously
for almost two years now when the fear of its serious consequences
has forced a change in the earlier lackadaisical approach
towards it. Roughly speaking, anything that burns but made
with vegetable matter can be called bio-fuel.
It
was initially hailed as one of the best solutions for dealing
with the problem of climate change because bio-fuel use can,
at least so it was believed then, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Its application in the transport sector was greatly advocated.
But the 'vegetable matter' needed for producing bio-fuel is
grown on farmlands. Now experts say that 9 percent of the
world agricultural land will be needed to replace just 10
percent of the fuels used by the transport sector. The figure
does not suggest that bio-fuel is a better source to counter
the emission problems arising from the transport sector. It
is furthered strengthened by a UN study, which says that bio-fuel
will be a more effective alternative if it is used for heating
and generating power rather than used in the transport sector.
So,
there is still some reason to produce and use bio-fuel. Recently
developed technologies enable bio-fuel to be produced from
waste from cash crops and also from hardy plants that grow
on poor soils. In a given area it is possible to grow two
crops, for food and bio-fuel. This can even make food cheaper
as farm incomes rise from two crops. A lot of hope rests on
the second generation of bio fuels. However, it was never
claimed that bio fuels alone can address the problem of climate
change. The issue is about alternatives to fossil fuel, which
are many but so far their application has, for various reasons,
been limited. The world is still to exploit the energy potential
of wind, thermal, solar and ocean currents.
As the harmful effects of climate change become more and more
evident much of the world is committing itself to reduced
emissions. Even the hitherto reluctant US is likely to come
on board. Thanks to the relentless upward ride of crude prices,
the world has hardly any option other than marching towards
'renewable' and 'alternative' sources of energy. And bio-fuel
does figure in this picture.
Chandra Mohan, Syndicate Features |
Print This Page
Terms
and Conditions