How easy it is for one to blame others for their own failures. What I find amusing is the kind of comments that goes around about Brazilian biofuels. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I think that 30 years of experience in the biofuel market does give Brazil more know-how and leverage to talk about the subject. And if one thinks that the Brazilian perspective is solely motivated by commercial opportunities with regards to its biofuels, well think again from another perspective:

Brazil’s production of biofuel is so far mostly aimed towards the internal market. Just look how haply Brazil is powering its cars with flexi-engine fuels that support the mixing of any ratio of gasoline and ethanol.

Since sugar is not a ration or basic food product like corn or beans, it is very anecdotal to claim that it is responsible for the raise of food prices. Moreover, only 0.02% of Brazil’s arable land if used for sugarcane. From this 0.02%, only half is used for fuel production (that is 0.01%). There are no issues in Brazil with over production of sugar cane favouring other types of crops, and due to the size of Brazil (amongst other elements I raised previously) it is quite far-fetched to think it would ever be.

So if the Europe is concerned about the raise in food price, here is some food-for-thought (no pun intended): What about Europe’s unfair agricultural subsidies that not only harm their own small farmers, but also poorer regions like South America and Africa?

However the current iminent threats imposed to it has nothing to do with the production of ethanol, but the following activities:

• Illegal logging
• Illegal soybean fields
• Illegal cattle pastures

Mr. Grunwald DO SAY later on his article, and I quote:

“In Brazil, for instance, only a tiny portion of the Amazon is being torn down to grow the sugarcane that fuels most Brazilian cars [...]“

However this statement only comes after a full rethoric about the Amazon deforestation — which is in practical terms like having a small print on a legal contract. By the time you read it, you were already led to an opinion. Nevertheless, even after this statement Mr. Grunwald goes on again on a rethoric rolercoaster, making a strong link to ethanol and the deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by quoting an authority from the “Woods Hole Research Center”. Once again: nothing to do with ethanol production but with illegal agriculture and wood logging.

So I decided to write some facts about the production of Brazilian ethanol, and unlike the article mentioned above, making reference to my sources.

When evaluating how much pollution a given fuel produces, you must take into consideration not only the pollution produced during the combustion process, but also during the creation process. For example, to creatre gasoline you must refine crude oil. The refining process requires energy. Where is that energy coming from?

Following this reasoning, let’s consider the production of hydrogen: To produce hydrogen you require electricity, which comes from burning coal and oil at thermoelectric power plants. Now, don’t get me wrong. I think hydrogen would be fantastic idea — if its production were to be powered by windmills, hydroelectric or any other sort of clean (and safe) energy. However the reality is that at the moment, 60% of the electricity produced globally comes from coal, which is the worst polluter (source) of all fuels.

Now, in Brazil 90% of its electricity comes from hydroelectric power plants (source). Furthermore, to power the production of ethanol Brazil makes use of the biomass left from previously crushed sugarcanes (cane-waste, which is called bagasse). Another cane-waste, called vinhaça, can also be used as fertiliser. I guess you can pick up that these facts mean in practice that Brazilian ethanol is a very green fuel, from production to combustion. This nice graph at Wikipedia (which cites this document from UK’s Department for Transport as its source) illustrates how the Brazilian ethanol is the least polluter from a list of of 19 types of fuels: Brazilian sugarcane ethanol produces 18 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule of energy, while US maize ethanol produces 103 grams of carbon dioxide per magajoule of energy (coal: 112/MJ, gasoline: 85/MJ, diesel: 86/MJ). In matters of efficiency, it is worth mentioning that sugar-cane ethanol is not only far superior than maize ethanol (The Economist, 03/03/2007), but it is also cheaper too. In fact, it is the cheapest in the world (source).

The only factual and still current issue against the production of ethanol in Brazil is the burnings of sugarcane crops prior to havesting. However the burning of sugarcane crops has been in decline since a law has been passed in Brazil against it, which seeks to abolish the practice until 2017. Some “pundits” however claim that the expansion of sugar-cane crops for the production of ethanol can threat the Amazon. Originaly this argument is mostly based on pure ignorance, since the Amazon is unsuitable for planting sugar-cane due to its rainfall patterns. But on a second thought, as the Brazilian newsweek VEJA points out in an article about ethanol in its 2052 edition, the expansion of sugar-cane crops could in theory push other agricultural activites towards the Amazon region. There is also the argument of fuel vs. food, where land is being used for the production of fuel instead of food. This might well be the case in other countries seeking to produce ethanol. But in Brazil this a far-fetched scenario that is very unlikely to happen, since ony 26.5% of Brazil’s arable land is suitable for sugar-cane. At the moment on 0.02% of the arable land is being used for sugar-cane production, and half of it is for sugar (source).

Brazil’s success on the prduction of ethanol is a result of over thirty years of government-sponsored reasearch and development in conjuction with Brazil being gifted with a vast biodiversity. I guess that G-d is Brazilian after all. And he drives a Brasília with a fitted flexi-fuel engine.

Further information can be found here.