Gain some, lose lots?

Following in the footsteps of Al Gore is another ex-president of the US. Bill Clinton has found the environmental stage alluring. This week at Sao Paulo, Brazil is hosting one of the world’s largest gatherings of the international biofuels industry. The Ethanol Summit 2009 saw President Bill Clinton talk of the adverse impacts of biofuels.

While acknowledging Brazil for producing the most energy efficient and cost competitive ethanol in the world using sugarcane, he said that the country’s increase in ethanol production is a precursor to the continued destruction of the rainforests.

Biofuels are bad when they make use of food crops, excessive land and too much water. Recently many US companies are announcing new technologies to convert biomass to sugar without enzymes. Eliminating this step speeds up the conversion process, lowers costs and improves net energy.

In India too, there has been a scurry to grow these cash crops for big money that failed to materialize. It is now being advocated as a part of multi-cropping instead of mono-culture.

But given that the transport sector is one of the high-end guzzlers of oil, it makes perfect sense to look for an alternative to petrol. Biofuels obtained from waste materials could be a good option. As proved by Air New Zealand.

The company announced findings on a test flight from last December. Powered by a combination of biofuel and jet fuel, the test resulted in a fuel savings of 1.2%. It also cut CO2 emissions by over 60%. While a 1.2% fuel savings doesn’t seem like much, it is over 1 ton of fuel!

The test was conducted using a commercial 747-400 fitted with Rolls Royce engines. Rolls Royce had certified the fuel — a 50:50 blend of standard Jet A1 fuel and synthetic paraffinic kerosene derived from jatropha oil.

If civil aviation alone were to rely on biofuel, it would still mean supply has to pick up. And for that to happen, will it mean more forests cleared or food crops dropping? Is there any other way out?