Last week's log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:

Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.

[break]

Crossposted at The European Tribune.

After an awkward start with bio-fuels, Andris Piebalgs is finally addressing EU's energy future objectively. In a nutshell:

For me the best energy is the energy that we don’t use. In other words, energy efficiency. There is no cleaner kilowatt/hour than the one we don’t consume. Every cubic meter of gas we don’t burn makes us a cubic meter less dependent on foreign supplies. Every barrel of petrol that we don’t need makes our economy a barrel less vulnerable to volatile oil prices.

These few sentences address many of the issues raised by the commentators at Andris' blog during the past weeks. But there is more to it than simply facing the coming energy decline, an Energy Efficiency policy can have economic upturns:

To make things more interesting, when we make an investment in energy efficiency we create jobs and growth in Europe. Let’s put the case of better insulation for your house. Putting double glazed windows certainly is an investment that has a cost. So has your gas bill. The difference is that the cost of the windows will go to a European window company, and will be installed by European workers. Your double-glazed window will not only help to reduce your gas bill and your greenhouse gas emissions, increase the comfort of your house, but will also help to create new window companies and installer jobs. The alternative consists of taking your hard earned euros and sending them to rich oil and gas producing countries.

This all sounds better than the hollow bio-fuel talk. As we've seen previously at TOD:E some states in the EU have poor records on GDP unit generated per Fossil Fuel unit consumed. This could be a good measure of how this policy gets under way. As discussed, the 2000$ / boe could be a tentative target for every state of the EU (accounting for currency oscillations).

Some commentators were fast in reminding that Jevons' Paradox may indeed imply a different outcome than what would otherwise be expected from energy efficiency improvements. But for energy consumption to increase in face of a technological development, there has to be surplus supply, which at least for Oil and Natural Gas today is not the case.

There are two extra advantages for a Energy Efficiency lead policy in today's energy landscape:

• Alternative energy sources have their own timings entering the market. Even if there’s a political shift towards some alternative(s), technological development might constrain its growth (e.g. Photo-voltaics) hence Efficiency might be the best short-term policy against energy constraints;
• Energy Efficiency is popular. It is hard for anyone to be against it, the dependence on foreign sources diminishes as so the bills by the end of the month.

Finally the announcement of how this policy is taking shape:

Certainly, there are many things that the Commission can do at political level, and I’m proud to announce that 2008 will be the European year of energy efficiency. During these 12 months I plan to come up with a number of energy efficiency legislative proposals, including a stronger energy efficiency in buildings directive; a new energy efficiency labelling directive; new standards for energy efficiency in various groups of products; a Covenant of Mayors for energy efficiency and last but not least, an international agreement on energy efficiency that I hope to sign in Japan next June. In my next entry I will explain all these proposals in detail.

The Commission's website on Energy Efficiency can be found here. Also in the Commision's website you can download a copy of the Energy Green Paper (available in 19 different languages), where the 20% savings figure was divised. The english version can be downloaded directly from here [pdf!].

This political path for Energy security can only be well received. Let's hope that the European year of energy efficiency initiative can be a fruitful one.

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

Last week's log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:

Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.

[break]

Crossposted at The European Tribune.

After an awkward start with bio-fuels, Andris Piebalgs is finally addressing EU's energy future objectively. In a nutshell:

For me the best energy is the energy that we don’t use. In other words, energy efficiency. There is no cleaner kilowatt/hour than the one we don’t consume. Every cubic meter of gas we don’t burn makes us a cubic meter less dependent on foreign supplies. Every barrel of petrol that we don’t need makes our economy a barrel less vulnerable to volatile oil prices.

These few sentences address many of the issues raised by the commentators at Andris' blog during the past weeks. But there is more to it than simply facing the coming energy decline, an Energy Efficiency policy can have economic upturns:

To make things more interesting, when we make an investment in energy efficiency we create jobs and growth in Europe. Let’s put the case of better insulation for your house. Putting double glazed windows certainly is an investment that has a cost. So has your gas bill. The difference is that the cost of the windows will go to a European window company, and will be installed by European workers. Your double-glazed window will not only help to reduce your gas bill and your greenhouse gas emissions, increase the comfort of your house, but will also help to create new window companies and installer jobs. The alternative consists of taking your hard earned euros and sending them to rich oil and gas producing countries.

This all sounds better than the hollow bio-fuel talk. As we've seen previously at TOD:E some states in the EU have poor records on GDP unit generated per Fossil Fuel unit consumed. This could be a good measure of how this policy gets under way. As discussed, the 2000$ / boe could be a tentative target for every state of the EU (accounting for currency oscillations).

Some commentators were fast in reminding that Jevons' Paradox may indeed imply a different outcome than what would otherwise be expected from energy efficiency improvements. But for energy consumption to increase in face of a technological development, there has to be surplus supply, which at least for Oil and Natural Gas today is not the case.

There are two extra advantages for a Energy Efficiency lead policy in today's energy landscape:

• Alternative energy sources have their own timings entering the market. Even if there’s a political shift towards some alternative(s), technological development might constrain its growth (e.g. Photo-voltaics) hence Efficiency might be the best short-term policy against energy constraints;
• Energy Efficiency is popular. It is hard for anyone to be against it, the dependence on foreign sources diminishes as so the bills by the end of the month.

Finally the announcement of how this policy is taking shape:

Certainly, there are many things that the Commission can do at political level, and I’m proud to announce that 2008 will be the European year of energy efficiency. During these 12 months I plan to come up with a number of energy efficiency legislative proposals, including a stronger energy efficiency in buildings directive; a new energy efficiency labelling directive; new standards for energy efficiency in various groups of products; a Covenant of Mayors for energy efficiency and last but not least, an international agreement on energy efficiency that I hope to sign in Japan next June. In my next entry I will explain all these proposals in detail.

The Commission's website on Energy Efficiency can be found here. Also in the Commision's website you can download a copy of the Energy Green Paper (available in 19 different languages), where the 20% savings figure was divised. The english version can be downloaded directly from here [pdf!].

This political path for Energy security can only be well received. Let's hope that the European year of energy efficiency initiative can be a fruitful one.

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

Andris Piebalgs continues this Friday his blogging on bio-fuels, addressing some of the concerns expressed by the readers of the last blog-entry.

I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient. At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport. It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided.

Before continuing I can't but express once more my joy in seeing EU's leaders having such a close interaction with their citizens. More bio-fuel talk under the fold.

[break]

Crossposted at the European Tribune.

In Europe, we use less than 2 percent of our cereals production for biofuels, so they do not contribute significantly to higher food prices in the European context. Even if we reach our 10% biofuels target by 2020, the price impact will be small. Our modeling suggests that it will cause a 8 to 10% increase in rape seed prices and 3 to 6% increase in cereal prices. Increase in the price of the latest has very small influence on the cost of bread. It makes up around 4 per cent of the consumer price of a loaf.

[...]

We need to use first-generation biofuels as a bridge to the second generation biofuels using lignocellulosic materials as a feedstock. With this in mind, the Commission within the forthcoming review of the Common Agricultural Policy will urge the farmers to invest more in short rotation forestry crops and perennial grasses which are the most typical feedstocks for advanced biofuels.Over the past 30 years, Europe’s farmers have stood accused, through their association with the Common Agricultural Policy, of over-producing and dumping their surpluses with the aid of massive export subsidies on over supplied world markets, therefore depressing market prices and contributing massively to poverty and starvation in poor countries. That criticism has now been reversed. The charge now is that EU biofuel policy will contribute to third world poverty by driving food prices up. My impression from this debate sometimes is that we the Europeans know best what is good for people in developing world. Let them speak for themselves.

[...]

And let’s not forget that oil is a finite commodity, and high oil prices are one of the main factors making food more expensive, particularly in poor countries.

The most important questions raised in the previous log entries were left unattended. Here's a simple accounting exercise to get a real sense of proportion:

The EU consumes today roughly 20 Mb/d of Oil. Of that about two thirds are used in Transport, make it 13 Mb/d. Assuming that EU's Transport use remains unchanged up to 2020 that turns the target to something like 1.3 Mb/d.

Ethanol has an energy density of about 60% of gasoline, biodiesel is somewhat better, so make it 75%. Thus to replace those 1.3 Mb/d of Oil, about 1.75 Mb/d of bio-fuels are needed ( 1.3/0.75 ).

Ethanol production in temperate climates has an EROEI below 2:1, biodiesel about 4:1. Oil's EROEI differs markedly from place to place (offshore versus onshore, etc) but 10:1 is a general enough mark. Accounting for EROEI, the useful energy the EU gets from Oil is about 1.2 Mb/d. To match that useful energy, total bio-fuels production has to rise to 2.1 Mb/d ( 1.2/0.75/0.75 ).

Corn crops yield about 3500 litres of ethanol per hectare per year (that's 9.5 litres per hectare per day). With sugar cane in the tropics that number goes up to 6000 (16,5 litres per hectare per day). But for bio-diesels the numbers are considerably lower, around 1250 litres per hectare per year (3,5 per hectare litres per day).

Using 159 litres for a barrel, 2.1 Mb correspond roughly to 333 Ml (mega-litre). Using again the most optimistic figure for the temperate regions, the EU needs to allocate thirty five million (35 000 000) hectares to bio-fuels production.

I live in a state that has an area of less than 9 million hectares. Germany has an area just over 35 million hectares.

All that dark green area producing ethanol in 2020?

Good or evil? Friend or foe? This kind of wording doesn't fit in my Engeneering/Architecture dictionaries. Bio-fuels are not an option, it's all a matter of numbers.

Data sources:

Ethanol fuel

Biodiesel

The EROEI of ehtanol

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

This week European Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, moves the debate onto the key issue of bio-fuels. The comment I left on his blog pursued the theme of EroEI and energy efficiency. If you feel strongly about bio-fuels then PLEASE call by Andris Piebalg's blog and leave him a polite, forceful, well documented message.

Andris Piebalgs drives a Saab 9-5 that runs on bio-ethanol. By my estimation, the energy efficiency of this vehicle is a meagre 5%. Andris no doubt believes he is doing the right thing and I believe he cares a great deal about European energy. And yet he is driving one of the least energy efficient vehicles ever produced - and he is a physicist. How on Earth have these totally bizarre circumstances come about?

[break]

So how have I determined the energy efficiency of a bio-fuel Saab to be 5%. The calculation is as follows:

I have assumed the ERoEI (energy return on energy invested) of tempearte latitude bio-ethanol is 1.2. Sources here and here. Hence the energy efficiency of fuel production is:

Assuming the internal combustion engine efficiency is 30% (combined urban cycle) yields an over all efficiency of 0.3 * 0.167 = 5%.

"And how have these bizarre circumstances come about?" - the answer to that I believe lies in an obsession with CO₂ emissions that has lost sight of energy efficiency.

First of all, when biofuels replace fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions are almost always lower. Biofuels are produced from plants that absorb the CO₂ they generate when they are burnt. This has to take into account the fertiliser used to produce the crops, the energy needed to convert them into liquid fuels and so on. On this basis, biofuels produced in Europe from rape seed, wheat and sugar beet, typically reduce emissions by 20-50% compared to the oil they replace. Biofuels from sugar cane, waste vegetable oil and second generation biofuels can save 75% or more. Under our proposal, all biofuels used for the EU target will have to save, at least, 35%.

I have to say that in this statement the claims made about CO₂ conservation seem accurate - proving that the principals involved are understood by the EU Commission. It is just that the energy cost / energy efficiency has not been taken into account.

Variations in ERoEI with CO₂ conserved assuming the energy input to bio fuel production is from fossil fuel.

Andris goes on to say:

And this is why biofuels are so important. Today, there are only three ways to reduce greenhouse emissions: the shift from polluting modes to more energy efficient ones (i.e. rail, short sea shipping, collective transport); the promotion of less consuming cars, by establishing CO₂/km targets; and biofuels.

I'm sorry this is just not true. The middle of the three options is of course the most sensible - to concentrate upon energy efficient vehicles. But what about:

1. Electric cars running on renewable or nuclear electricity. This is the future of vehicular transportation - so why are the European Commission not sinking billions into this?

2. Pneumatic cars (which I know very little about) but which are reported to be a viable option.

3. Reducing the speed limits across Europe which will save fuel (the number one priority!) reduce pollution and save lives.

Andris, I would like to emphasise how much we appreciate the opportunity to present these arguments on your blog. In your first blog entry you said you were here to listen. I sincerely hope that is the case and that following the period of listening and analysis that there is a period of action.