The new study published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in the journal Nature Climate Change presents the researchers, with the unexpected, for alarmists, reality of bioenergy. It turns out that without excess regulation, bioenergy’s carbon footprint could exceed that of traditional fossil fuels due to the land use changes necessitated by biomass production.
The study’s lead author, Leon Merfort, warns about the regulatory inadequacies stating,
“The state of current global land regulation is inadequate to control land-use-change emissions from modern biofuels.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/993685
The global energy market is deeply intertwined with our economies. For instance, as the researchers pointed out, in their most hopeful of ways.
“Phasing out fossil fuels will generate demands of bioenergy worth hundreds of billions of Dollars by mid-century.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/993685
Consequently, if biofuels take off, the agricultural sector would inevitably pursue these new opportunities. Such a massive shift would have significant implications for global economies and job markets, such as the global food price escalation of 2007 and 2008.
The “month-by-month” five-year analysis disputes that increases in global grain consumption and droughts were responsible for price increases, reporting that this had had only a marginal effect and instead argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest effect on food supply and prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis
PIK’s study emphasizes the problem of CO2 emissions resulting from land clearing related to the production of biofuels, suggesting it is a regulatory challenge. Nico Bauer, a co-author, proposes a globally comprehensive land protection or carbon pricing scheme to prevent these emissions. However, the necessity, likely success, or the avoidance of disaster, of such an ambitious global policy reform is debatable. The idea of stringent regulations on land-use, and implementing carbon pricing will obviously hinder economic progress, particularly in countries where the bioenergy industry holds substantial opportunities for economic growth and job creation.
Moreover, the study indicates that
“bioenergy can be produced with limited emissions under effective land-use regulations.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/993685
This statement implies that it is not the bioenergy per se that is problematic but the lack of efficient regulations and policies. There’s just not enough central planning, command, and control dammit! Sane people would question if our focus should be on implementing overly ambitious and wasteful climate action or investing more into better energy management and economic regulatory actions.
An interesting observation from the study is that:
“protection of 90% of all global forest areas is not enough because the remaining 10% would still be too big of a loophole.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/993685
This quote hints at the absurd scale of action that is imagined to be necessary to control the boogeyman of climate change. In no way does the potential benefit justify the massive effort and cost. Change, especially on a global scale, is an inherent part of our natural world.
The results of this study make it clear governments should reconsider the policies they are choosing to combat the imagined climate change monster hiding under the bed. Our efforts would obviously be better spent improving regulatory practices for ensuring reliable energy rather than focusing on an aggressive phase-out of fossil fuels.
The study may be found here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01697-2
Credit where it is due.
PiK has been perhaps the leading GangGreen propagandist organisation in the EU. Schellenhuber and Edenhofer amongst the cutting edge of Green activist buffoons.
So colour me unimpressed about this latest article, apparently acknowledging no responsibility for the Biofuel idiocy which WUWT has been pointing out for at least 15 years.
PiK should be blown up and the rubble salted.
“…Schellenhuber and Edenhofer...”
_____________________________________________
And Stefan Rahmstorf. Any excuse to post a link to his Home Page is a plus as it is so obvious he is in love with himself.
“PiK should be blown up and the rubble salted.”
How “Willis Eschenbach” of you. 😉
Do greenies realise that the combustion products of biofuels are exactly the same as the combustion products of fossil fuels? Water vapour and CO2. So what is the bloody point?
Climatism is a religion, the goodness of biofuels is accepted as gospel.
Paint coal green and it will be readily accepted 🙂
Their theory is that biofuels’ emitting CO2 is different because the carbon isn’t coming out of the ground adding to the total amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. The same is true with woody biomass for energy. But, of course biofuels supporters fail to understand that the land conversion to biofuels results in large carbon emissions that otherwise wouldn’t occur. And there are emissions to produce biofuels, also ignored.
What’s important is to understand is that with woody biomass coming from well managed forests there is no land conversion so the CO2 consequences is different. With a well managed forest, even with periodic timber harvesting and harvesting for energy (firewood and/or chips), we can have more carbon in the forest in the long term than without forestry work as we build up “forest stocking”. So, woody biomass for energy really can be seen as carbon neutral over the long term- and, the forests are far more productive of wealth for the owner with superior timber quality, benefits to wildlife habitat and believe it or not- the forests LOOK better when managed over the long term. And, yes, I know all the arguments against woody biomass for energy as I’ve been debating/arguing with the forestry haters for decades here in Woke-achusetts, the Mecca of the Climate Emergency religion with the most fanatic forestry haters on the planet.
If there is anything more idiotic than chopping down 100-year-old trees in New England, pelletizing them, shipping them across the Atlantic, and burning them in minutes instead of local coal because “biofuels are renewable over the ‘long term'”, it would be Germany’s clearing large swaths of 1000-year-old forests to make wind farms that have a useful life of 20 years.
The engineering solution for air pollution from burning wood waste is using a fluidized bed boiler to make electricity. I can give 100 examples.
When I got out of the nuke navy I worked at a nuke plant that replaced an oil fired power plant. I replaced my oil fired boiler in my house with a wood fired boiler.
Two economic solutions to replace fossil fuel when we need to.
The best part of being an engineer is knowing there are solutions.
Biomass power plants in New England all have pollution control systems on their chimneys. Hiskorr, above, doesn’t have a &^%ing clue and I won’t waste time on him or her or it. 🙂
“the bloody point”??? Total global control. The ultimate end result.
Another study that reveals we need more ‘regulations’
We are already regulated to within an inch of our lives. The controls are always there to protect us from ourselves, apparently.
Rules on the speed we can drive at. where we can make turns or where we can park. What we can eat and how much is too much? What we can drink and how and where we can consume certain fluids. What we can say and what we can not say, even what we are free to talk about, How we must dress and how we must obey the instructions of those in uniforms and authority, always. The Nuremberg trials have taught us nothing.
Regarding land use. We already have rules on what we can grow how much we can grow and what chemicals we can use to do that. We have rules on what we can harvest, what trees we can cut down, but only with authorisation so to do.
At what point do the regulated, tell the regulators to just back off?
Those employed to make regulations, see it as their duty to make ever more regulations. I am coming to the view we already have enough regulators, we have enough regulations and we need a department set up to actively remove those increasing regulations.
NB We have rules and regulations regarding blocking the King’s highways. That set of rules and regulations are clearly not policed or applied if you wear a badge saying Just Stop Oil.
nothing could be more wrong – these out-of-control money-obsessed children are going to destroy this planet.
they really are
Central planning, command, and control: that’s exactly what it’s about. A lot of people on the left hand side of the aisle, when they study, are graduates mainly of non-MINT fields (law, sociology, political economics, history, art, etc …) What the left does is to try and generate as many government employee positions for their “clients,” which essentially means to increase regulatory overhead (and even overreach), to plan, check and control everything. But all these jobs do is generate salaries, but practically no value. The State end up with a lot of debt which has to be compensated with ever higher taxes, fines and fees, but ends up finally breaking down.
Sunlight: stuff that lands on your skin and makes ‘stuff’
That would count as ‘BioEnergy‘ right?
And the US Food & Drug Agency now says to “Avoid The Sun At All Costs”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC7fz0PzF2Q
From the comments:” Brett and Heather’s slow descent into white- hot, blistering rage over the past few years has got to be the most wholesome thing I’ve ever witnessed.
The FDA is doing no more than any the other myriad government agencies are also doing, notably the EPA and NASA.
= Rampant out of control paranoia based on kindergarten-grade junk science.
Just like the muppets now asserting that Biomass will Save the Earth when doing such a thing will have the exact opposite effect.
Avoid the sun, avoid CO₂ = Avoid life and living.
While they relentlessly bleat about misinformation.
‘treason’ is close but not strong enough and these ‘clowns’ at PIK are right in the vanguard
The idea that biofuels somehow reduce CO2 emissions is laughable. Similar to the idea that wind/solar can provide cheap and reliable electricity.
9 years has gone since the IPCC made their dramatic u-turn when it comes to the dynamics effects of converting to “biofuels”. This is a clear (bullit)proof that politicans only lives by the headline code-red (AR6).
A little bit Off-topic. When it comes to the question about forrest fires – it´s, off course, “obviously” CC and AGW. Considering the report “Forrest fires as a Military Weapon” one would “think” that the lack of regulation is a “millitary” strategy, because if they actually hired enough people to cut down and observere the amount of dead thress, there would be less forrest fires. This is just another exampel on the importance of “regulations” and why it´s necessary to (un)control the boogeyman of CC even though science tells a whole diffrent story…!!
CO2 is innocent! It doesn’t deserved such restrictions! CO2 is a benign gas essential for life on Earth.
Western politicians need to get over their obsession with trying to control CO2. They can’t do it. It doesn’t need to be done. and they are just going to screw things up royally, if they continue down this impossible road.
CO2 is not the problem. Human greed and stupidity is the real problem.
Around 2000, U of Ill agro-economists calculated that the ethanol mandate added only 0.25 USD to the going 3.50/bu USD price of corn….Farmers, each acting as independant agents, saw an opportunity and usually decided to plant more corn…more corn = more supply, so prices hardly changed….By 2020, corn was still selling for only 3.75USD/bu…Then came Bidenomics– govt dumps money into circulation– demand increases, so prices increase. Higher input costs and corn suddenly went up to 6.50USD/bu….We need to regulate the govt, not the farmers.
Turning to a larger portion of biofuels in our energy mix will lead to turning more ac into row crops, thus destroying natural habitat. Destruction of habitat remains the leading threat to the natural world…..and, there is no such thing as “yard waste.” It’s all important micro-habitat in the web of life.
“Phasing out fossil fuels will generate demands of bioenergy worth hundreds of billions of Dollars by mid-century.”
Nobody thinks in mere 100s of billions in the renewable energy business these days. And remember, burning trees was the first patch on the windmills utopia.
And don’t forget each tree has to be sawn down, stacked, pelletized, trucked, loaded, shipped, unloaded, transshiped to the sites to burn it. And windmills can’t do any of that.
As has been proven with corn ethanol, biofuels are neither environmentally friendly nor inexpensive! Encouraging farmers to raise crops for fuel when the only immediate effect is to increase food prices shows again the level of disdain that GangGreen feels towards the poor!
As always, their only solution is to increase the number of unelected bureaucrats that will bless humanity with their benevolent diktats; much like the way Randi Weingarten treated American children during the Covid plandemic!
“… without excess regulation, bioenergy’s carbon footprint could exceed that of traditional fossil fuels due to the land use changes necessitated by biomass production.”
Any farmer could have told you this. Worse, the smell coming from the plants that make this biofuel – Similar to the city sewage plant.
You have to remember that one of the claims of the climate change gang is that it will cause food shortages. By taking agricultural land to make bio-fuels, that aim will be achieved because less food will be produced.
Biomass as an energy source for civilization–Think of it as a geometry problem in spacetime:…How many cubic miles of photosynthetic plants (and using the whole plant, not just the seeds) over how many millenia did it take to produce our petroleum reserves, which we will have consummed and depleted over a time course of just a couple centuries?…Can we possibly replicate that with agronomic technology?
Here’s a nice little biomass conundrum. Drax is well-known for burning American woodchips, but its operation is split between the original portion which benefits from ROC and REGO subsidies worth £65-70/MWh on top of market price, and another unit that is supported by a CFD. Lynemouth Power Station also has a CFD biomass unit. But since last October, the CFD hasn’t been a support at all – it has acted as a tax.
The CFD is benchmarked against Baseload Market Reference Price, which is derived every six months from the quotes for baseload trade for the season (winter, summer) over the preceding season – so winter as traded in summer, and vice versa. With the gyrations in the market and the lack of competition in providing true baseload those prices have been very high – well above the CFD strike price. The result has been that to run they must first pay a tax for the difference between BMRP and strike price which will leave them with massive losses unless market prices are abnormally high. So they shut down unless the market is very tight.
This chart shows what happened