Stagnating share of grain use for the production of biofuels
The reorganization of the use of bioenergy, which will be necessary in 2014, will be prepared in preliminary events from 9 to 11 September 2013 in the European Parliament.
The findings to date on the use of so-called 1st generation bioenergy, which is essentially based on competing food and fodder crops, provide indications that the positive energy balances and environmental effects are not expected to be significantly better than the use of fossil oils. However, the statements are highly controversial because the survey and evaluation methods were applied in completely different ways in some cases. In particular, the question of the range of recording energy consumption and energy production in the upstream and downstream areas of the actual production process has been included in very different ways. Synergy effects and by-products have often been ignored.
Typical examples of this are the extent to which a combine harvester, which can thresh grain, rapeseed and maize for food, feed and energy consumption in equal measure, can be attributed in full to bioenergy production in terms of (energy) costs, or, due to the small share of bioenergy in the total volume, only with its variable shares in line with the polluter-pays principle. Questions also arise about the so-called utilization costs of alternative uses of resources.
The question of the substitution of by-products in the production of bioenergy was also often not taken into account or was not allocated appropriately. Examples include the use of rapeseed meal as a by-product of rapeseed processing into biodiesel in its value as protein animal feed, for which there is a huge deficit in the EU and which has to be covered by imports of soy from North and South America. The same applies to the 30% value share of the mid-protein maize stillage or DDGS as a by-product of bioethanol production.
Often the technologies of the first hour were used as a basis and the optimization development in the meantime was not taken into account.
The assessment from the perspective of international competitiveness of the different production costs also received little attention. Examples include palm oil with oil yields of 4,500 to 6,000 kg per hectare compared to rapeseed oil with 1,500 to 2,000 kg per hectare. Similar ratios apply to bioethanol from Brazilian sugar cane and maize or wheat in the USA or Europe. The differences are the result of the different climatic conditions.
The examples can be extended many times over, providing both favorable approaches and arguments to the contrary.
The initial results of the discussion provide a decisive indication that, first and foremost, the political leeway for economic players has set the course and sent signals in the wrong direction for too long. The insight that, after the shortest possible pioneering phase, more market-based competition should be placed in the foreground seems to have gained ground, even if this has not yet been thought through to the end in all ideas.
