At the UK Wood Recycling site, which has already stockpiled 30,000 tonnes of waste wood since last July (see letsrecycle.com story), waste wood is loaded into hammer mills, shredded and de-contaminated using magnet and air technology designed by the company.

The waste wood is sourced from local authorities, waste firms, furniture manufacturers and packaging companies and is tested by UK Wood Recycling to ensure it meets the chemical specification needed for the biomass plant.

Expected to be operational in July, the Wilton 10 plant run by SembCorp Utilities UK will require around 300,000 tonnes of wood as fuel every year in total. About 40% of this will come from recycled wood, while the remained will come from forestry management schemes, sawmills and specially-grown energy crops.

The power plant will generate 30MW of electricity, enough to fuel 30,000 homes.

Geoff Hadfield, managing director of UK Wood Recycling, a sister firm of Manchester-based Hadfield Wood Recyclers, said: "UKWR is a major step forward for renewable energy in terms of using wood waste to generate electricity. This is a first for us but we hope there will be many more such schemes replicated around the country. There are less than a handful of biomass plants in the UK and over 300 in Germany which gives a sense of what is to come."

Market

Hadfields now sends just 25% of its recycled wood for use in the panelboard industry – having in the past sent all of its wood to that market.

Mr Hadfield said the current surplus of waste wood in the panelboard market and the forthcoming increases in Landfill Tax was providing a good opportunity for biomass outlets for wood.

"This is a golden opportunity for our own business and the biomass industry in general," he said.

Toby Beadle, a consultant who helped SembCorp Utilities UK to get its biomass project off the ground, added: "This is an extremely important event for the whole sector as it brings to the attention of the government that this is real – you can build big biomass projects and you can get the fuel. A lot of potential developers are waiting for this to work before they give the go-ahead and it will open the tap when it does."

Nationally, the survey found that religious organizations and "other services" had the lowest gross energy intensity at 1.25 gigajoules per square metre followed by schools with a gross energy intensity of 1.35 gigajoules per square metre. Hotels and restaurants continued to have the highest gross energy intensity at 2.31 gigajoules per square metre.

Hotel and restaurant energy intensities were lowest in Atlantic Canada and Quebec at 1.74 gigajoules per square metre and 1.78 gigajoules per square metre respectively. British Columbia had the highest energy intensity for this sector at 3.13 gigajoules per square metre, but also had the lowest energy intensity of only 1.02 gigajoules per square metre for the education sector in Canada.

Gross energy intensity is the total energy consumed by type of business, institution or organization at the national or provincial level, divided by the corresponding national or provincial floor area total in square metres.

Differences in gross energy intensity may be explained by the different natures of business conducted by different sectors. Sectors with higher energy intensities tend to consist of establishments with longer operating hours or establishments that operate large pieces of machinery as part of their normal activities.

Conversely, sectors with lower energy intensities tend to consist of establishments that do not operate beyond core business hours or have little in the way of machinery besides general office equipment.

This survey was conducted on behalf of the Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada. Based upon the results, Natural Resources Canada will produce an analytical publication which will be available this summer on the Office of Energy Efficiency website.

Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 5034.

For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact Client Services (toll-free 1-877-679-2746, sbss-info@statcan.ca), Small Business and Special Surveys Division.

Declines in those two key sectors offset an increase in consumption in the transportation sector, particularly fuel used to pipe natural gas, as well as a small increase in the commercial and public administration sector.

In 2005, Canada consumed 7,654 petajoules of energy, down 0.4% from 7,681 petajoules in 2004. One petajoule equals roughly the amount of energy required to operate the Montréal subway system for one year.

Energy use derived from the three main fossil fuels (natural gas, refined petroleum products and coal) declined 1.0%, as a result of reductions in demand from the pulp and paper, chemical and residential sectors.

The industrial sector, the biggest user of energy, consumed 2.6% less in 2005 than the year before. The reduction was due primarily to two industries: pulp and paper, and chemical. Historically, the industrial sector accounts for just under one-third (31%) of total energy consumption, the highest proportion of all sectors.

Demand slipped 1.1% in the residential and agriculture sector, which accounts for about 20% of total consumption.

Energy consumption increased 1.8% in the transportation sector and edged up 0.5% in the commercial and public administration sector. The transportation sector, the second largest user of energy, accounted for about 30% of final demand.

Crude oil production falls

Canadian companies produced about 146 million cubic metres of crude oil in 2005, down 2.1% over 2004. (A cubic metre contains 1,000 litres). This amounted to about 401 000 cubic metres a day.

While decreases were recorded for all types of crude oil production, the most significant decline occurred in synthetic crude oil where a facility fire hampered output throughout the first three quarters of 2005.

Production levels in the fourth quarter were strong, however, reflecting the return to normal production in the oil sands area combined with the start up of production at the White Rose Field in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.


Alberta's oil sands remain an important source of crude oil production. In 2005, they accounted for over 39% of total crude oil and equivalent production, up slightly from 38% in 2004 and well above the proportion of 28% in 2000.

In 2005, the oil sands produced 149 000 cubic metres of oil a day. In 2006, this figure had jumped to an estimated 159 000 cubic metres of oil a day, roughly 50% of Canada's total crude oil production.

By 2010, oil sands production is forecasted to surpass 477 000 cubic metres of oil a day, or 67% of total Canadian crude oil production. Capital investment is expected to reach an estimated $11 billion in 2006 and $16 billion in 2007.

Exports of crude oil, primarily to the United States, decreased 2.4% from 2004. These exports now account for more than 62% of all Canadian production.

The US Midwest is still the most significant market for Western Canadian crude oil, consuming 57% of total exports to the United States. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, Canadian crude oil now represents 16% of total US demand for imported crude oil.

In 2005, average Canadian crude oil prices rose to more than $52 a barrel. This was a 30% increase over 2004, and more than double 1990 prices.

Natural gas production posts modest gain

Natural gas production increased 2.0% from 2004 to 2005. Despite record gas drilling activity in the last three years, production gains have been modest as a result of lower productivity from maturing wells.

Natural gas exports reached 4 066 petajoules in 2005, up 1.1% from 4 022 petajoules in 2004. Slightly higher production levels combined with lower domestic demand, due to milder weather in Canada, resulted in higher exports in 2005.

Well over half (56%) of total Canadian natural gas production goes for export. In the United States, Canadian natural gas accounts for 17% of total American demand for natural gas.

Canada's trade surplus for crude petroleum, refined petroleum and other products, natural gas, coal and electricity reached $53.0 billion in 2005, up from $43.5 billion the year before.

Marginal increase in electricity production

Electricity production from primary sources (hydro, nuclear, wind and tidal) increased 5.7% in 2005 as water conditions continued to improve in many parts of Canada. Nuclear generation posted a marginal increase in 2005.

Hydro generation accounted for 59% of electric power in 2005, the largest source. Nuclear energy provided about 14% of total Canadian electricity production.

However, in Ontario, nuclear power accounts for more than 51% of total electricity generation, enough to supply all the homes in the province.

Nationally, electricity generated using fossil fuels declined marginally in 2005, due to higher generation from primary sources and rising thermal fuel costs.

Although electricity generation from wind, solar and tidal continues to increase, total generation from these sources currently represents less than 0.5% of total generation.

Two large wind projects started up in late 2005: a 99-megawatt project located in St. Leon, Manitoba, and the 150-megawatt "Centennial project" in Swift Current, Saskatchewan.

Electricity demand increased 1.2% in 2005, mainly the result of increased demand by smelting and refining.

First decline in volumes of motor gasoline sales in 14 years

Volumes of motor gasoline sales declined in 2005 for the first time since 1991, possibly the result of soaring prices at the pump. Canadian drivers consumed more than 40 billion litres of motor gasoline, down slightly from 2004 levels.

Gasoline prices across Canada peaked in September 2005. In Montréal, prices reached an average of 118.5 cents per litre for regular unleaded at self-service stations. In Toronto, they averaged 107.2 cents, in Edmonton 102.2 cents and in Vancouver 112.7 cents.

Total demand for all refined petroleum products increased marginally in 2005 over 2004 levels.

Coal production, exports and consumption decreases

Coal production slipped 1.0% in 2005, the result of slightly higher imports.

Final demand for coal by the manufacturing sector declined 1.4% from 2004. Exports of coal fell 6.2%, due primarily to lower demand for Canadian coal from Japan.

Saskatchewan fastest growing province in energy consumption

Energy consumption declined faster than the national average in six provinces: British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta.

Saskatchewan's growth in consumption led the pack, increasing 2.9% from 2004. Higher demand for natural resource-based products, combined with agricultural gains, contributed more to the growth of the economy than any other industry.

Energy use by all sectors, or "final demand", declined 3.8% in Prince Edward Island; 2.2% in British Columbia, 1.1% in Alberta and Nova Scotia, 0.6% in Quebec, and 0.5% in New Brunswick.

The decline in Alberta was due primarily to lower energy use in the oil-producing province's pulp and paper and chemical sectors. Alberta accounted for 18% of total national consumption.

Energy consumption edged up 0.2% in Ontario, which accounted for over 34% of the country's entire energy demand. Consumption in Quebec fell slightly, putting its share at 21%.

Note to readers

In addition to the estimates for 2005, revised data are also available for the reference year 2004.

Factors influencing revisions include late receipt of company data and revisions to previously estimated or reported data. The revised data are available in the appropriate CANSIM tables.

TORONTO - Mondial Energy Inc. has been named the only winner for Canada of the prestigious European Energy Globe Award. Mondial is being recognized as an innovative renewable energy utility company. The award ceremony will take place at the European Parliament in Brussels on the evening of April 11, 2007.

In 2006 more than 700 projects from 95 countries participated in the ENERGY GLOBE AWARD competition. On April 11, 2007 the current highlight of this private Austrian initiative will take place at the Hemicycle of the European Parliament in Brussels. This follows gala ceremonies at the Expo in Japan in 2005 and in Vancouver, Canada at the Globe Fair in 2006. The major decision makers in Europe will attend this TV gala, which will be broadcast throughout Europe and internationally by 3sat and the EBU reaching more than three billion households.

The ENERGY GLOBE AWARDS are an invaluable contribution to helping find solutions to a better future as well as building awareness regarding the many obstacles we currently have to overcome in order to help our endangered environment.

What is ethanol?

Ethanol is moonshine. Hooch. Rotgut. White lightning. That explains why the last time Americans produced it in any appreciable amount was during Prohibition. Today, just like back then, virtually all the ethanol produced in the United States comes from corn that is fermented and then distilled to produce pure grain alcohol.

Will my car run on it?

Any car will burn gasoline mixed with a small amount of ethanol. But cars must be equipped with special equipment to burn fuel that is more than about 10 percent ethanol. All three of the major American automakers are already producing flex-fuel cars that can run on either gasoline or E85, a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Thanks to incentives from the federal government, they have committed to having half the cars they produce run on either E85 or biodiesel by 2012.

How fast is ethanol production growing?

About as fast as farmers can grow the corn to make it. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, ethanol production has doubled in the past three years, reaching nearly 5 billion gallons in 2006. With 113 ethanol plants currently operating and 78 more under construction, the country's ethanol output is expected to double again in less than two years.

Is ethanol better than gasoline?

For all the environmental and economic troubles it causes, gasoline turns out to be a remarkably efficient automobile fuel. The energy required to pump crude out of the ground, refine it and transport it from oil well to gas tank is about 6 percent of the energy in the gasoline itself.

Ethanol is much less efficient, especially when it is made from corn. Just growing corn requires expending energy - plowing, planting, fertilizing and harvesting all require machinery that burns fossil fuel. Modern agriculture relies on large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, both of which are produced by methods that consume fossil fuels. Then there's the cost of transporting the corn to an ethanol plant, where the fermentation and distillation processes consume yet more energy. Finally, there's the cost of transporting the fuel to filling stations. And because ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, it can't be pumped through relatively efficient pipelines, but must be transported by rail or tanker truck.

In the end, even the most generous analysts estimate that it takes the energy equivalent of three gallons of ethanol to make four gallons of the stuff. Some even argue that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you get out of it, but most agricultural economists think that's a stretch.

But aren't there environmental benefits to ethanol?

If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.

What about ethanol's economic benefits?

Making ethanol is so profitable, thanks to government subsidies and continued high oil prices, that plants are proliferating throughout the Corn Belt. Iowa, the nation's top corn-producing state, is projected to have so many ethanol plants by 2008 it could easily find itself importing corn in order to feed them.

But that depends on the Invisible Hand. Making ethanol is profitable when oil is costly and corn is cheap. And the 51 cent-a-gallon federal subsidy doesn't hurt. But oil prices are off from last year's peaks and corn has doubled in price over the past year, from about $2 to $4 a bushel, thanks mostly to demand from ethanol producers.

High corn prices are causing social unrest in Mexico, where the government has tried to mollify angry consumers by slapping price controls on tortillas. Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, predicts food riots in other major corn-importing countries if something isn't done.

U.S. consumers will soon feel the effects of high corn prices as well, if they haven't already, because virtually everything Americans put in their mouths starts as corn. There's corn flakes, corn chips, corn nuts, and hundreds of other processed foods that don't even have the word corn in them. There's corn in the occasional pint of beer and shot of whisky. And don't forget high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is added to soft drinks, baked goods, candy and a lot of things that aren't even sweet.

Some freaks even eat it off the cob.

It's true that animals eat more than half of the corn produced in America; guess who eats them? On Friday the Agriculture Department announced that beef, pork and chicken will soon cost consumers more thanks to the demand of ethanol for corn.

It's also true that there's a difference between edible sweet corn and the feed corn that's used for ethanol production. But because farmers try to grow the most profitable crop they can, higher prices for feed corn tend to discourage the production of sweet corn. That decreases its supply, driving the price of sweet corn up, too.

In fact, many agricultural economists believe rising demand for feed corn has squeezed the supply - and boosted the price - of not just sweet corn but also wheat, soybeans and several other crops.

America's appetite for corn is enormous. But Americans consume so much gasoline that all the corn in the world couldn't make enough ethanol to slake the nation's lust for transportation fuels. Last year ethanol production used 12 percent of the U.S. corn harvest, but it replaced only 2.8 percent of the nation's gasoline consumption.

"If we were to adopt automobile fuel efficiency standards to increase efficiency by 20 percent, that would contribute as much as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol," Brown said.

Isn't there a better renewable fuel substitute for gasoline?

Most experts think it will take an array of renewable energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. Ethanol's main drawbacks come not from the nature of the fuel itself, but from the fact that it is made using a critical component of the world's food supply. Ethanol would be more beneficial both environmentally and economically if scientists could figure out how to make it from a nonfood plant that could be grown without the need for fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. Researchers are currently working on methods to do just that, making ethanol from the cellulose in a wide variety of plants, including poplar trees, switchgrass and cornstalks.

But plant cellulose is more difficult to break down than the starch in corn kernels. That's why people eat corn instead of grass. Plus it tastes better.

There are also technical hurdles related to separating, digesting and fermenting the cellulose fiber. Though it can be done, making ethanol from cellulose-rich material costs at least twice as much as making it from corn.

How long will it take before cellulosic ethanol is competitive with corn ethanol and gasoline?

Some experts estimate that it will take 10 to 15 years before cellulosic ethanol becomes competitive. But Mitch Mandich, CEO of Range Fuels, thinks it will be a lot sooner than that. The Colorado-based company has started building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia that converts wood chips and other waste left behind by the forest products industry. Another company, Iogen Corp., has been producing cellulosic ethanol from wheat, oat and barley straw for several years at a demonstration plant in Ottawa, Canada.

How much more efficient would cellulosic ethanol be compared to corn ethanol?

Studies suggest that cellulosic ethanol could yield at least four to six times the energy expended to produce it. It would also produce less greenhouse gas emissions than corn-based ethanol because much of the energy needed to refine it could come not from fossil fuels, but from burning other chemical components of the very same plants that contained the cellulose.

How much gasoline could cellulosic ethanol replace?

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States could produce more than a billion tons of cellulosic material annually for ethanol production, from switchgrass grown on marginal agricultural lands to wood chips and other waste produced by the timber industry. In theory, that material could produce enough ethanol to substitute for about 30 percent of the country's oil consumption.

A University of Tennessee study released in November reached similar conclusions. As much as 100 million acres of land would have to be dedicated to energy crops in order to reach the goal of substituting renewable biofuels for 25 percent of the nation's fuel consumption by 2025, the report estimated. That would be a significant fraction of the nation's 800 million acres of cultivable land, the study's authors said, but not enough to cause disruptions in agricultural markets.

"There really aren't any losers," said University of Tennessee agricultural economist Burton English.

Really? No Losers at all?

There might be losers. Simple economics dictates that if farmers find it more profitable to grow switchgrass rather than corn, soy or cotton, the price of those commodities is bound to rise in response to falling supply.

"You can produce a lot of ethanol from cellulose without competing with food," said Wallace Tyner, an agricultural economist at Purdue University. "But if you want to get half your fuel supply from it you will compete with food agriculture."

There may also be ecological impacts. The government currently pays farmers not to farm about 35 million acres of conservation land, mostly in the Midwest. Those fallow tracts provide valuable habitat for wildlife, especially birds. Though switchgrass is a good home for most birds, if it became profitable to grow it or another energy crop on conservation land some species could decline.

Will Ethanol solve all our problems?

Ethanol is certainly a valuable tool in our efforts to address the economic and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. But even the most optimistic projections suggest it can only replace a fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that Americans consume every year. It will take a mix of technologies to achieve energy independence and reduce the country's production of greenhouse gases.

"I think we're in a very interesting era. We are recognizing a problem and we are finding lots of potential solutions," said David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota.

But if we're serious about achieving energy independence and mitigating global warming, Tilman and other experts said, one of those solutions must be energy conservation.

That means doubling the fuel economy of our automobiles, expanding mass transit and decreasing the amount of energy it takes to light, heat and cool our buildings. Without such measures, ethanol and other innovations will make little more than a dent in the nation's fossil fuel consumption.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press

Agricultural subsidies, mainly granted within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy

Total or partial de-taxation, which is indispensable, because energy taxes account for approximately half of the final price of petrol and diesel

Biofuels obligations, which establish that the fuels sold at the pump must contain a given percentage of biofuels

These three political measures need financial means, which are paid for by the European Commission (agricultural subsidies), by the governments (reduced energy revenues), and by car drivers (increase in the final fuel price). For this reason, an integrated analysis is needed in order to discuss whether investing public resources in biofuels and employing a large extension of agricultural land is the most advisable strategy to solve the problems associated with fossil fuels.

The main argument behind the policies in favour of biofuels is based on the idea that biofuels would not increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by biodiesel in the combustion phase is the same as that absorbed by the plant during its growth through photosynthesis, resulting in a neutral carbon budget. Moreover, substituting part of the oil products with biofuels would reduce the European energy dependency and increase energy security.

However, a more careful analysis of the life cycle of biodiesel reveals that the energy (and CO2) savings is not so high as it might seem at first sight, and in some cases might even be negative. In fact, the raw materials for biofuels are normally obtained with intensive agriculture, which imply a high use of fertilizers, pesticides and machinery. The reason is that, with less intensive agricultural methods, the yield would be lower and the land requirement and the costs would be higher. Also, fossil fuels are used in the processing phase (oil pressing, trans-esterification) and for transporting the oil seeds to the processing plant and from there to the final users.

In any case, even if the objective of the Directive were met, the savings would not be significant. In fact, since the transport sector accounts for 30% of the final energy consumption, the 5.75% of the fuels for transport corresponds to 1.8% of the final consumption. Taking into account that this amount requires the indirect use of fossil fuels, the final savings would be even lower.

For example, considering a very optimistic output/input ratio (the biodiesel produced using one unit of fossil fuels) of 2.5 , we obtain that reaching the 5.75% percentage (approximately 20 million tons of oil equivalent) would imply saving around 36 million tons of CO2 equivalent, i.e., less than 1% of the European Union emissions in 2004 (4,228 million tons CO2) If we take into account the emissions related to the transport of raw materials that are imported and the imports of food crops that would be substituted by energy farming, the savings would be even less, and if the oil seeds are imported from outside Europe possibly even negative.

Another point that is often raised to promote biofuels is urban pollution. Biofuels are not only seen as a "green" fuel on a global scale (reduction of greenhouse effect) but also on a local scale. They would contribute to reducing traffic contamination, and therefore the numerous ailments associated with it. In reality, the advantages from this point of view are very modest. For example, according to a study of the USA Environmental Protection Agency (2002), if diesel is replaced with a blend of 20% biodiesel (B20), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) would increase by 2%, particulate matter (PM), unburnt Hydrocarbons (HC) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) would decrease by respectively 10.1%, 21.1% and 11% . Therefore, it can be assumed that with a 5.75% blend, the reduction in PM, HC and CO would be respectively 3%, 6% and 3% (and the increase in NOx would be negligible).

Against the modest advantages (a small substitution of fossil fuels and a slight reduction of some contaminants with respect to diesel), the disadvantages of a large-scale biodiesel production are apparent.

Due to the low yield, the land requirement is enormous. In the Biomass Action Plan (Annex 11) it is calculated that in order to achieve the 5.75% target (18.6 million toe biofuels), about 17 million hectares would be needed, i.e. one fifth of the European tillable land (97 million hectares). Since there is not so much marginal and abandoned land in Europe, the consequence would be the substitution of food crops and a huge increase of the food imports.

For this reason, both in the Biomass Action Plan and in the EU Strategy for Biofuels it is stressed that Europe will promote the production of raw material for biofuels in extra-European countries, where the European Commission intends to incentive energy farming.

This means that the impacts of energy farming would be exported to Southern countries. It is easily foreseeable that if the European demand for biofuels increased because of biofuel obligations and other supporting policies, Southern countries may be stimulated to replace if not food crops at least native forests with large monocultures.

Energy farming would presumably have a big role in deforestation, because pristine forests would be cut down in order to cultivate energy crops. The consequences would be, besides a worrying reduction of wild biodiversity, a decrease in soil fertility, water availability and quality, and an increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as negative social effects like potential dislocation of local communities.

The European Directive, and in general all biodiesel promoting policies, do not only imply a competition for arable land but might also incentive plantations of palm trees, whose oil is cheaper than any other source. Palm plantations are responsible for most deforestation in South Eastern Asia and represent a real threat to the remaining native forests. Also they are responsible for a high soil erosion rate. For example, between 1985 and 2000 in Malaysia palm plantations caused 87% of the total deforestation and further 6 million hectares will be deforested to make room for palm trees . The same more or less applies to sugarcane plantations in Brazil.

Moreover, taking into account the CO2 emissions due to inter-continental transport and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation (forests are CO2 sinks), the final result might be an overall increase of the greenhouse emissions instead of the whished reduction.

Another possible negative consequence is a reduction in world food availability, which can be a particularly serious problem in a context of increasing population and energy demand. A recent example is the increase in corn price in Mexico by 30% in early 2007, caused by the growing demand for corn-derived bioethanol in the USA (Mexico is a net importer of corn from the USA). Some use the term "ethanolinflation" .

Also, a large scale biodiesel production would imply a strong environmental impact in the agricultural phase: the huge monocultures of energy crops would dramatically reduce agricultural biodiversity, with strong environmental impact in terms of soil erosion, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and water requirement. Also, one of the consequences may be an increase in the use of GMOs. In fact, soybean, maize and rapeseed (among the most used raw material to produce biofuels) are respectively the first, second and fourth most important GMO crops.

Another argument often used in favour of biofuels is rural development. However, it can be argued that support to biofuels should not be used as agricultural subsidies. If the objective is to support agricultural sector, subsidies should be granted to organic agriculture and landscape protection.

Concluding, using public funding to support a large scale biofuel production is not an advisable strategy. Obviously, these considerations do not apply to used oil or agricultural residue recycling, nor small-scale niche productions, all of which may be good strategies, instead.

Summing up, biodiesel cannot contribute to the solution of the problems related to the high dependency of our economy on fossil fuels. The idea that biodiesel could be a solution for the energy crisis is not only false, but also dangerous. In fact, it might favour an attitude of technological optimism and faith in a technological fix of the energy problem. We should never forget that if we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels there is no magic wand: the only possible solution is to modify consumption patterns.

Copyright © 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC