Biofuels Role in the Global Food Crisis and GM Energy Crops

Reports this week have highlighted the possibility that increased production of Biofuel crops has a negative impact on the world food supplies. Specifically if we focus on the US large areas of agricultural land is being used for the growth of corn for the production of bio-ethanol (in 2010 40% of corn grown in the US was used for bio-ethanol) and even more worrying now is the use of GM crops that have been designed to aid in the production of bio-ethanol and, though not inedible, are not suitable for food manufacture. This all leads to a decrease in the levels of food crops being grown, which coupled with poor yields across the globe lead to inflated prices. This in turn, Aid organisations warn, will lead to worsen a global food crisis and in particular divert more corn away from famine hit countries such as Somalia.

Now I want to focus on the production of GM energy crops; these are crops that essentially have been altered to produce the enzyme amylase, which speeds breakdown of starches in the production of bio-ethanol, an enzyme usually added in the production process. The corn has been designed by Swiss pesticide firm Syngenta and is branded Enogen. Now this raises a few significant issues first as mentioned previous is the diversion of corn from the food market leading to increased costs, effectively pricing out poorer nations. The second is the risk of contamination, which could see Enogen cross pollinating with normal corn which could render food crops unusable. 

According to data supplied by Syngenta the North American Millers’ Association say that 1 kernel in 10,000 could damage food products. Essentially if amylase was to be introduced into corn destined for food production, by cross-contaminated plants, then this will lead to starch breakdown reducing the corn chips to useless mush. Syngenta have stated that the appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent cross-contamination; however failure to prevent cross-contamination in previous GM breeds cast doubt on this claim. Even if the risk is low the potential consequence, if cross-contamination was to occur, is very high, which surely raises the question whether GM energy crops should be used at all.

As more and more land is devoted to the production of energy crops this obviously in turn reduces the land that would normally be available for food crops therefore leading to lower yields and increased prices and considering the potential impact GM crops could have on food production globally the big question is whether energy crop production will continue to be feasible.

One should note however the American government is expected to put an end to corn ethanol subsidies, which may have an effect on the price of corn and the eagerness to grow corn for bio-ethanol production. The impact however is thought to be minor as the subsidies where mainly eaten up by major oil companies. You can read more on this at the guardian website.

Radical Reforms in UK Energy Policy

With all the news focused on NoW, Rupert Murdoch and the corruption associated you will have been forgiven if you failed to fully take notice of the huge energy reforms announced last week by Chris Huhne.

Given only a cursory glance by many of the major news avenues in the UK media Chris Huhne’s announcement shows a welcome commitment by the government to reduce emissions and ensure greater energy security; not to mention the inevitable brown and black outs the country faces if significant investment is not made, in Chris Huhnes own words, "We have to stop dithering, you can have blackouts or you can have investment. Which do you want?".

 

This reform indicates an end to the liberalised electricity market implemented by the Thatcher government, in by which the private sector would provide competition and keep prices low. This did work in the short term when the electricity market was essentially oversupplied however it made no plans for long term and has part resulted in the sad state of affairs we are now; facing significant global warming and with little to no long term energy security.

The UK needs significant investment in low-carbon energy, mainly renewables, nuclear and possibly carbon-capture (though the merits of this technology are in doubt both in capture and storage); if it is to avoid falling foul of the European Union’s and its own emissions targets and the threat of brown and black outs. To try and achieve this aim Chris Huhne and the government’s white paper outlined a strategy to guide private investment; this includes a minimum carbon price, contracts with energy suppliers for low-carbon energy, a regulation setting maximum emissions levels, a set of payments to ensure sufficient capacity and a new energy efficiency obligation.

While this is definitely welcome news the worry is that these reforms will not go far enough. Firstly Chris Huhne also used this announcement to usher in a new “dash for gas”, now as I have stated previously in this blog a push for natural gas will only result in the UK being depenedant on greenhouse emitting fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and will risk significantly stifling investment in the renewable industry, which is still in its infancy in this country. The IEA’s own executive director Nobuo Tanaka, stated in a press conference in London, "While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables and nuclear, particularly in the wake of Fukushima. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change." So the last thing that the UK needs is a new “dash for gas”, to do so would end any hope of the UK ushering in a green revolution and would inevitably put us on the back foot compared to the rest of Europe.

Secondly over the coming years 9 of the UK’s oil and coal fired power stations are due to be decommissioned along with the last remaining Magnox and two AGR nuclear reactors; this will result in a significant energy gap, with brownouts a certainty and blackouts predicted by 2016. Unless miraculously the UK can construct and commission its planned nuclear power plants and invest significantly in renewable energy there is no avoiding this and that will take unprecedented investment in low-carbon energy. Though this investment could lead the UK to becoming a clean-tech hub for Europe, revitalising the manufacturing industry, creating new jobs and leading to greater economic stability.

In conclusion the energy reforms announced by Chris Huhne are essentially a good thing however unless they are backed up by significant investment and action from the government in the direction of low-carbon energy, and associated infrastructure, (and not a new “dash for gas”) then the UK have no chance of keeping the lights on let alone reaching its emissions targets.

UK Government’s Unfaltering Nuclear Support

It was reported in the guardian on the 30^th of June that the UK government exchanged correspondence with the Nuclear Industry shortly after the Fukushima incident in an attempt to reduce the potential negative outcome. This information was made available under the Freedom of Information Act and highlights the strong ties the government have with the Nuclear Industry. If we take a look at this objectively it’s no big surprise that the nuclear industry and the government department responsible for nuclear energy would be in contact with each other immediately after the incident, as they would naturally want to protect their investments.

However do these emails suggest just that or does it point to the idea that the UK government has decided blindly on nuclear energy as a complete solution to fuel the future, a view taken by many anti-nuclear groups.

The decision was made by the last government to opt for nuclear power as a solution to climate change a decision based on a mixture of cost, availability and probably the influence of certain major stakeholders. Since then a large amount of investment has been used for the Generic Design Assessment of third generation nuclear plants by both the government and stakeholders and in this economic climate both parties do not want to lose out on their investment. The worry is that renewables in the UK remain largely underfunded and that with that the opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in renewable technology is slowly slipping away.

Unfortunately the view of many pro and anti nuclear activists is that there must be only one sole solution to future energy production, a view that is simply not sustainable. If we were to pick nuclear as a sole solution we would run out of Uranium and suffer from an inflexible power source which produces large quantities of toxic and nuclear waste. If we were to pick renewable as a sole solution then we cannot cope with the fluctuations in power with the current grid system and there is little infrastructure available. The energy mix needs to be considered with investment in nuclear in the short-term and significant investment in renewables in the short to long-term if the UK has any chance of reaching its emissions targets for 2020 and 2050.

Obviously the Fukushima incident was going to have an effect on the global nuclear industry and its frail public support in the UK was inevitably going be a worry for the UK government, but the question has to be asked whether these emails show an unfounded loyalty for a sole nuclear solution.

Italy Confirms Nuclear Rejection

It has been confirmed today that Italy will not be reviving nuclear power and will instead focus on renewable energy. Approximately 95% of the Italian people who voted in the referendum rejected Silvio Berlusconi's plan to revive nuclear power in Italy. This is another indication of the damage that the Fukushima incident has dealt to a fragile nuclear industry, which has spent decades trying to change its poor image after Chernobyl, and the perceived reaffirmation of public opinion against nuclear power across Europe. This could be an indication of a shift in what the public perceive as acceptable risk which could lead to wholesale changes across the nuclear industry. While it was largely expected, this has surely dealt another blow to the ‘Nuclear Renaissance’.
 
Link: BBC - Italy rejects Berlusconi's nuclear power plans

Shale Gas: A Green Critique

With shale gas and fracking (the extraction method used) in the media spotlight, with IEA comments over natural gas and the earthquakes around fracking sites in Blackpool, I thought that this would be the ideal time to take a closer look at shale gas. Shale gas has been pioneered as a ‘green’ alternative to coal and a cheaper alternative to renewable energy solutions; the European Gas Advocacy Forum (EGAF) put forward that €900 billion could be saved by pursuing shale gas over renewable energy to meet 2050 targets.

Now to give a brief introduction shale gas is simply natural gas produced from shale and is classed as an unconventional source of natural gas as shale’s ordinarily lack the sufficient permeability to allow significant flow to a well bore; therefore alternative methods have been developed to enable extraction, specifically fracking. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a method of propagating fractures in the shale using pressure from a fluid, therefore enabling the release of natural gas which can be then captured. With often the fluid being used a highly toxic mix of chemicals (including carcinogens) and sand or ceramics.

Now the concerns from pursuing shale gas can be brokeninto the following areas; fracking and environmental impact, emissions associated with shale gas, European energy security and the potential damage it could have on the renewable sector.

Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking)

If we firstly tackle extraction by fracking, there are distinct environmental concerns that result from fracking. Firstly we have the chemical concoction that is used in the process, this is usually a mixture of
water, sand and various chemicals to aid the fracturing process.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation listed the solution to be commonly made up of; water, acid (Hydrochloric acid), biocide (Glutaraldehyde, a strong highly toxic disinfectant), breaker (sodium chloride), corrosion inhibitor (Dimethylformahide, a carcinogen which has also been linked to birth defects), friction reducer (petroleum distillate), gel (guar gum), Iron control (citric
acid), oxygen scavenger (Ammonium bisulfite, toxic), proppant (sand) and a scale inhibitor (antifreeze, toxic); not a very nice concoction of chemicals, it has to be said. Though currently in the UK only water, acid, friction reducer and biocide are used.

Only 50% to 70% of the solution is recovered during the fracking process leaving 30% to 50% in the ground, which can potentially lead to contamination of groundwater. So if we look at the potential hazard of
contamination to water supplies, fresh and near surface, both during fracking and involved in transport, handling and storage of the chemical solution, the risk to human health is significant.

The impact to the rock shelf and potential subsidence can also lead to seismic events which has been seen in the UK during preliminary drilling operation that have lead to two small tremors since operation began, which has, at the moment, caused a stop to all operations.

Finally gas leaks into the water supply must be considered as has been seen in the USA where there has been evidence clear of gas leaks into the water basin, videos of which can be seen here.

In summary fracking leads to the injection of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals deep underground that can lead to wide scale pollution, subsidence and seismic events and seepage of gas into water supplies; all in all not a very good case for shale gas as a ‘green’ alternative to coal and a viable alternative to renewables.

Shale Gas Emissions

Next if we take a look at the emissions associated with shale gas and the oil and gas industries claims that the use of shale gas will give around a 50% reduction in carbon emissions over traditional coal. While looking at the direct combustion of shale gas compared to coal it can be seen that there is around a 50% reduction in the level of carbon emissions however this fails to take into consideration various other emissions that occur from extraction to combustion. It has been concluded that shale gas shale releases far greater levels of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas compared to CO₂, than conventional natural gas; as is highlighted in this EPA report. This fact is also supported by the Cornell Study which stated that the green house gas emissions from shale gas were significantly larger than that of conventional gas, 20% higher than that of coal in the short term, twice that in the 20-year horizon and comparable over 100 years.

So the argument presented by the oil and gas industry seems somewhat flawed, in fact it can be seen that they have pick and chosen the facts and figures that suit their cause and ignoring all other relevant
information. This is further highlighted by fanciful claims made in the economic analysis by EGAF, which has used open source data taken by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Using this data the ECF came to the conclusion that Europe’s energy needs and emissions targets where best met by investing in Renewables; rather alarmingly the EGAF report interprets the data quite differently skewing the data to
conclude that gas rather than renewables is the most viable and cheap form of energy that could be used to meet the 2050 targets. Most of the conclusions coming from EGAF are questionable at best and downright lies at worse, with EGAF solely interested in propagating their own wealth and possibly existence.

It can be concluded, quite obviously perhaps, that reports and data that originate from large companies that will benefit significantly from shale gas may not be able to be trusted and that the claims that shale gas is a cleaner alternative to coal are not true when we take into consideration the entire process of extraction to combustion.

European Energy Security

If we look at the global shale gas resource map, it can be seen that China, USA, Agentina and Mexico by
far have the largest potential shale gas resource.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/apr/26/shale-gas-hydraulic-fracking-graphic

It should also be more specifically noted that this highlights the deficiency of Europe’s shale gas resource, which should immediately lead to questions being asked about the legitimacy of shale gas as a viable replacement to coal and as an alternative to investment in Renewables. The argument presented by the Oil and Gas industry that using shale gas can lead to greater energy security in Europe is therefore immediately discredited; if anything this would just move who we are dependent on.

The Impact on Renewables

As shale gas is pushed more and more by major oil and gas stakeholders there is a real danger that the funding and development of Renewable energy, related technology and infrastructure will be stifled. This
can already be seen in the US where the promotion and push for shale gas, coupled with the economic downturn, has lead to a drop off in funding and development for Renewable energy. The view now taken in the US is that there is no need for action on climate change as they have plentiful resources of ‘green’ shale gas.

If investment and development is directed towards shale gas rather than Renewable energy then it could signify a significant policy against Renewable energy for the foreseeable future. New gas fired power
plants, while reducing emissions in the immediate, will signify a long term commitment to the use of fossil fuels that will continue to contribute to the release of greenhouse emissions. A gas fired power station will have a plant life of between 25 and 40 years, leading to the possible conclusion that Renewable technology could suffer a 40 year gap in development if there was to be a significant push towards shale gas; which also could put emission targets at risk. To satisfy emissions targets the oil and gas industry point towards Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology which is largely unproven, at best a short term solution and currently partly fictitious. EGAF state that they see CCS technology becoming commercially viable in the mid-2020s however if the technology does not come to fruition, is more expensive than predicted or not viable for commercial use then this leaves us dependent on, what would be a ‘dirty’, fossil fuel and leaves Renewable technology off the pace.

Conclusions

Now while there is a place for gas in the future and as a short term replacement for coal it is still a fossil fuel and will continue to add to emissions of greenhouse gases. Taking into additional environmental implications shale gas has over conventional natural gas it is difficult to see shale gas as a significant contributor in reducing greenhouse emissions and as a viable option in the energy mix. Also looking at the
viability of shale gas in the UK and Europe when we have only limited resource is also highly questionable, surely other options need to be developed and as fossil fuels and even nuclear are dependent on a finite resource then we should be looking seriously at investing in Renewables.

IEA Warning Against Natural Gas as the Sole Solution

The International Energy Association (IEA) has issued a statement that natural gas is not a ‘panacea’ in solving climate change. The IEA’s executive director Nobuo Tanaka, stated in a press conference in London, "While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables and nuclear, particularly in the wake of Fukushima. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change."

However the IEA report is purely stating the fact that if we continue to use carbon emitting technology in generating energy then instead of carbon free generation (i.e. renewable and nuclear) then global warming will continue to happen, which while maybe worthy as a statement the value of the research may be overrated.

Natural gas has been the reason for significant reductions in carbon emissions in the UK and similarly for various other countries, however this research points out the obvious in that while it produces half the carbon of burning coal it still produces carbon. You must also look upon the fact that it is a fossil fuel with a finite amount available and with possibly unsustainable and even harmful extraction methods. This can be seen with shale gas extraction; where shale gas extraction will become more prominent as conventional natural gas reserves run low.

If we take a brief look at shale gas and its extraction methods we can see that this particular method of sourcing natural gas and its use can possibly lead to the release of more green houses gases, methane in particular, than other fossil fuels; a view expressed in the US EPA report into the emission factors for greenhouse gas emissions by the oil and gas industry in 2010, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf. The report concluded that shale gas emits much larger amounts of methane that conventional natural gas.

If we also look at recent extraction attempts in the UK shale gas extraction/fracking has been linked to frequent earthquakes, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/small-earthquake-in-blackpool-major-shock-for-uks-energy-policy-2291597.html. It must also be noted that the pollution caused by the chemicals used in extraction will have a negative environmental impact.

With significant potential environmental implications, a finite quantity and the fact that it still emits greenhouse gases then surely natural gas is only a short term solution to the long term problem of climate change.

Germany's Answer to the Nuclear Question

Germany announced this week that it will effectively cease its nuclear programme by the end of 2022 based on the recommendations of the Ethics Commission for Security Energy. This will begin with the immediate shutdown and decommission of 7 nuclear facilities, that have been offline since the Fukushima incident and the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, and will be followed by a staged process of shutdown and decommission for the remaining 9 facilities; 6 by 2021 and three by 2022. While the Fukushima incident sparked Germany to review its nuclear renaissance, the decision will not be purely based on the scientific merit and the safety of nuclear facilities; the rising popularity of the SDP and the Greens and the cementing of anti-nuclear opinion by the German public will surely have been defining factor for this decision.

The announcement by Germany cannot be seen as a revelation as they only decided on pursuing nuclear power in 2010; under Gerhard Schröder the decision was made to make a comprehensive and irreversible move away from nuclear power by 2022, a decision reversed by Angela Mirkel in 2010, against the popular opinion of the German people. This would surely mean that Germany did have plans to accommodate this change prior to the announcement this week?

In 2010 Germany generated approximately 23% of its electricity and 11% of its energy from nuclear power, and to remove nuclear power will result in a significant shortfall and if not dealt with adequately potential blackouts and increasing energy imports. Germanys answer is a 10% reduction in electricity consumption and to double the amount of renewable energy generated to 35%, with a preference for offshore wind; both very ambitious targets to set.

How Germany will achieve these targets and if this will equate to a nil net import of energy/electricity is surely questions that need to be asked. Targets set in 2010 stated that by 2020 renewable electricity production in Germany will be at 35%, so the news today that this will also contribute in filling the gap left by nuclear is perhaps a little farcical. Would this indicate that Germany may not have been totally committed to these targets before this decision, offsetting the cheaper continued nuclear option with the more expensive renewable alternatives, or would it point to the notion that Germany may not have a contingency plan for the energy gap left by the removal of nuclear power? Whatever the answer the ambitious target of 35% will be difficult to achieve without significant improvement to the supporting electrical and renewable infrastructure, which will require unprecedented investment and support by the German government.

The 10% reduction in electricity consumption may be even more ambitious but again should not be seen as a revelation as the target set in 2010 was a 50% reduction on 2008 levels by 2050; so it should be expected that plans for the reduction should have already been in place, though any significant reduction in consumption will be costly.

If Germany cannot meet the shortfalls and have to increase energy imports from other nations (i.e. France) then there is no way to guarantee that the energy they import has not been generated by nuclear facilities, making a mockery of the announcement to move away from nuclear and possibly a case of ‘not in my back yard’. It may also lead to a greater reliance on fossil fuels and in particular Coal and even though the German government will point to carbon capture technology this is unproven and the question of what to do with the carbon that is captured and implications of storing this are still unknown and could only ever be used as a short term solution.

The impact Germany’s decision will have on the developed world and in particular Europe is yet to be seen but as the largest industrial power to have turned its back on nuclear power it would be short-sighted to say that there will be none. While several industrial developed countries, like Switzerland and Italy have seemingly decided against nuclear power, countries like France, Poland and Japan are still ploughing ahead with a nuclear future. Public opinion across Europe is again turning against nuclear power but with energy and carbon reduction targets looming it will be a balancing act of cost over popularity to whether the nuclear renaissance will continue to flourish. Once again the nuclear question is on everyone’s lips.