- Email: [email protected]
Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
CHAPTER
Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
18 Venkateswarlu Chintala
Mechanical Engineering Department and Centre for Alternate Energy Research (CAER), R&D, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES), Dehradun, India
18.1 INTRODUCTION An exponential increase in the population and their income are the potential drivers for a steep rise in the demand for energy. It is estimated that the world population will increase to about 9 billion, and world gross domestic product (GDP) will double by 2035 (Bezdek, 2016). The Energy Information Administration and International Energy Agency (IEA) also confirmed that fossil fuels including coal would remain as the major global energy sources in near future, that is, at least for next two decades (Bezdek, 2016). Power plants will depend on coal in both absolute and percentage terms for the next two decades for electricity generation (Burchart-Korol et al., 2014; Lave, 2011). It is well known that the power sector is one with the most dynamic growth among all other energy markets such as renewables, nuclear, and natural gas (Galina et al., 2007). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) and non-OCED nations also reported that their projected growth for electricity demand will almost double by 2040 (Galina et al., 2007; Electricity, 2016; Rademacher, 2016). Similarly, it was estimated that the energy demand for non-OCED countries is slightly higher than the global electrical energy demand (Electricity, 2016). The non-OCED share of world electricity generation was estimated to increase by 61% in 2040. The GDP increase of OCED countries was estimated at about 2% per year, which is almost half of that of non-OCED countries (estimated GDP increase: 4.2% per year), resulting in higher demands for electrical energy (Electricity, 2016). Fig. 18.1 depicts the world net electricity generation from different sources such as renewables, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and petroleum. It can be clearly observed that the coal contribution will remain constant for the next two decades. Main reasons for this significant growth rate are due to higher living standards, use of luxury appliances and electronic equipment, and increasing demand for commercial services such as hotels, hospitals, and shopping malls. Typically, this
Second and Third Generation of Feedstocks. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815162-4.00018-5 Copyright © 2019 Angelo Basile and Francesco Dalena. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
513
514
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
FIGURE 18.1 World net electricity generation by energy source (trillion kWh).
huge demand for electricity will be satisfied from mixed energy sources. Coalfired power production is one of the largest contributors to this energy mix. Developing nations will import coal to satisfy their regional and local energy needs, thus coal will remain a key source for electricity generation in the near future. Indeed, fossil fuels may play a dominant role in catering to the global energy needs as per the IEA estimates. The IEA reported that, by 2030, even with the anticipated increase in fossil fuel use for electricity generation, nearly 1 billion people will be in darkness (without electricity) and about 2 billion people without clean cooking fuels (Bezdek, 2016; Electricity, 2016). Several policy interventions, economic development systems, and regulation systems may come into force to tackle these severe energy demands. Unfortunately, none of these interventions/systems/reformations would deal with the energy access/innovations to meet the needs of people across the globe.
18.2 COAL VERSUS BIOFUELS (BIOMASS) Coal or biomass materials could directly be used as solid fuel candidates for heat energy generation by combustion process. For the past many decades, coal has been used for the thermal power sector. However, these solid fuels may produce high amounts of pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen and carbon-based emissions. Hence, to address these problems, liquid and gaseous fuels are produced from coal and biomass feedstock. Typically, liquid fuels derived either from coal [coal-to-liquid (CTL)] or biomass [biomass-to-liquid (BTL)] are higher
18.2 Coal Versus Biofuels (Biomass)
energy-density fuels as compared to gaseous fuels. In addition, storage and utilization aspects such as storage volume and material compatibility of liquid fuels are better than gaseous fuels. However, the sustainability of liquid and gaseous fuels depends on various factors including social and economic concerns, as described below.
18.2.1 COAL-TO-LIQUID VERSUS BIOMASS-TO-LIQUID: SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS BTL or bioliquids and CTL are fuels used exceedingly in transportation, smallscale electrical power generation, agriculture, and marine sectors. Yang et al. (2018) investigated the economic and social impacts of conversion of coal or BTL fuels, that is, CTL and BTL for the transportation sector. They found that the production cost of BTL was slightly higher than CTL; however; the BTL production cost is comparable with conventional petroleum fuel production costs. A greater reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission was observed with BTL (about 98%) than CTL, which indicates the greater reduction of ecological burden with BTL use. It further leads to the sustainable development of the fuels industry. However, minimization of production cost and securing feedstock supply are the major challenges to be addresses for biofuel economy sustainability. They also reported that for each ton of CTL production, there are about 11 tons of CO2 emissions, which was three times higher than with conventional petroleum fuels (Yang et al., 2018). Hence, it was concluded that shifting crude oil to coal for the transportation sector would almost double the ecological burden, whereas crude to biofuel shifting will reduce the ecological burden significantly (Yang et al., 2018).
18.2.2 COAL-BASED ELECTRICITY VERSUS BIO-BASED ELECTRICITY Bio-based electricity production offers significant advantages in reducing negative impact on the environment as compared with conventional coal-fired power systems. However, it needs to be confirmed prior to establishing a biofuel economy whether the biomass-fired power system is a socially and economically sustainable option or not. Luu and Halog (2016) carried out a comparative assessment between coal-based and bio-based power systems in view of social, economic sustainability options by a life cycle analysis approach. Socioeconomic aspects related to coal-derived electricity and rice husk-derived bioelectricity over its life cycle were compared in the context of Vietnam (Le et al., 2013). Environmental, economic, and social impacts were characterized into five categories namely: (1) impacts on human health, (2) impacts on social well-being, (3) impacts on prosperity, (4) impacts on ecosystem, and (5) impacts on natural resources. The conclusions are summarized in Table 18.1. Overall, it was concluded from the comparative assessment that biomass-derived bioelectricity was better in some aspects, but worse in some other parameters, than conventional coal-based
515
Table 18.1 Summary of the Impact Assessment Characteristics for Coal- and Bio-Based Electricity Systems (Luu and Halog, 2016; Le et al., 2013) At Functional Unit Scale Impacts Human health (DALYs) Impact on social Total employment (hours) well-being Knowledge-intensive jobs (hours) Child labor (hours) Forced labor (hours) Regional income inequalities (h) Global inequalities (h) Total cost (h) Impact on Capital productivity (h/h) prosperity Labor productivity (h/h) Resource productivity Ecosystem quality (species loss, year) Natural resources (US$2000) a
Electricity From Coal
Bioelectricity From Rice Husk
Electricity From Coal
Bioelectricity From Rice Husk
0.27 1.23 0.2
0.98a 1.28b 0.21b
N/A 7.53E 1 12 1.63E 1 12
N/A 7.53E 1 12c 1.63E 1 12c
3.28E 2 02 2.25E 2 03 N/A N/A 58.66 N/A N/A N/A 9.22E 2 06 2.54E04
3.21E 2 02b 2.15E 2 03b N/A N/A 57.91b N/A N/A N/A 5.26E 2 06b 1.86E06b
2.64E 1 11 2.00E 1 10 0 0 N/A 6.74 2.1 7.97E 1 05 N/A N/A
2.64E 1 11c 2.00E 1 10c 0c 0c N/A 6.74c 2.1c 7.97E 1 05c N/A N/A
Bioelectricity has more negative impacts than coal-based electricity. Bioelectricity has less negative impacts or more positive impacts than coal-based electricity. The introduction of bioelectricity imposes no measurable positive/negative impacts.
b c
At Economy-Wide Scale
18.2 Coal Versus Biofuels (Biomass)
electricity. However, if negative aspects are anticipated, the biomass-based bioelectricity is more sustainable than coal-based conventional electricity (Luu and Halog, 2016).
18.2.3 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT Social sustainability could be defined as the extent to which social values, social relationships, social identities, and social organizations can continue for future generations (Rafiaani et al., 2018). Most common social indicators could be health and safety, food security, income, employment, land and worker-related concerns, energy security, profitability, and gender issues. Social concerns related to biofuels are closely associated with food safety, energy supply reliability, livelihoods, and security of the people and regions. Systematic sustainability assessment is represented in Fig. 18.2. The assessment would be carried out in four stages, such as life cycle, technical, environmental, and socioeconomic analyses. The type of feedstock, availability, and continuous supply are the major concerns in first-phase assessment. The availability of some feedstocks may be seasonal
FIGURE 18.2 Systemic approach for the overall sustainability assessment.
517
518
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
but they may be available in huge quantities. For example, in the northern part of India, wheat straw is plentiful during the crop season, which is a period of about 30 40 days only. Hence, farmers generally burn huge quantities of straw as they are unable to store them (Dalemans et al., 2018). This stubble burning causes serious damage to the local environment, which leads to health hazards to the local communities (affecting local societies). In order to avoid these burning problems, feedstock storage and management system need to be strengthened. Socioeconomic analysis majorly consists of social acceptance, social impact, and employment assessment. In the case of biofuels, foods security also needs to be carried out, along with other social and economic sustainability issues. Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is a systematic methodology to assess the social and sociological issues of products with positive and negative impacts with reference to its life cycle. This methodology cannot provide exact information for production of product; however, it helps in making a decision (Diaz-Chavez, 2014). It contributes toward the improvement of social performances of products such as coal and biofuels at different stages in their life cycles. This methodology provides the information to decision makers for selection of the proper product from business and government perspectives. The primary steps involved in SLCA are depicted in Fig. 18.2. Coal contributes a major energy share in any nation’s energy requirement by coal-fired power plants in the power sector or CTL fuel use in the transportation sector. Sustainability without negative effects is a major concern for appropriate assessment of any product. Therefore appropriate assessment tools are required to measure and document the sustainable aspects. The life cycle thinking enables the assessment of sustainability issues relating to such biofuel products. Siebert et al. (2018) proposed a framework called “RESPONSA” (REgional SPecific cONtextualised Social life cycle Assessment) for assessing the products’ social performance with respect to regional issues, directly accounting to the organization’s behavior and therefore providing specific information to support producers’ decision-making. The main indicators of SLCA are: • • • • • • • •
social acceptability, employment, income, food security, energy security, health security, productivity, and land concerns.
18.3 COAL-DRIVEN ECONOMY Extensive production and use of coal for catering to the nation’s energy demand by coal-fired power systems would play a vital role in the country’s economy in
18.4 Socioeconomic Assessment of Coal
terms of community development, employment, and wealth creation, etc. Energy security and sustainability will depend on the availability of coal resources and coal mining industries. Many nations in the world are described as coal-driven economies, as coal consumption is significantly higher than other energy resources. Australia is one of the best examples of a coal-driven economy (Contribution to the Economy, 2018). It is the largest coal exporter, earning about 55 billion dollars in the year 2008 09 and providing employment to about 140,000 people in coal industries (Contribution to the Economy, 2018). Australian coal industry is the major energy contributor (about 54% of the total electricity demand), which has a strong grid system for power generation. Highend technologies of coal-fired power plants with higher efficiencies and lower emissions lead to drastic booming of the nation’s economy. Carbon capture and storage technology has matured enough to capture up to 90% of the CO2, which enables coal-fired power plants to expand their base in the economy. The country takes the monetary benefits of the Australian coal industry in the form of corporate taxes, freight charges, and resource royalties. These funds can be utilized for the society upliftment, regional and local community development, funding for schools, hospitals, roads, and community social infrastructure.
18.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF COAL Solid coal is being replaced by liquid and gaseous fuels due to environmental concerns and performance factors of thermal systems. The oxidation process efficiency (combustion efficiency) of solid fuel is typically lower than liquid or gaseous fuels. The main reason could be higher surface to volume ratios with liquid or gaseous fuels. Hence, coal is being replaced with natural gas and this is affecting the world economy as discussed in the following subsections. Significant problems associated with the coal economy are also addressed below.
18.4.1 NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION OUTPACES COAL Low-cost alternative energy supplies, such as natural gas, could be the main driving force for a drastic decline of coal the industry across the world. Improved technologies for harnessing the alternate energy sources would reduce the cost of energy production per unit. On the other hand, reduced global demand for coal has pulled down the prices, employment, and wealth around the globe. About a 42% decline was observed by the US coal industry as the energy market shifted from coal to natural gas. The main reason may be due to a significant reduction in natural gas prices as compared to coal prices. The natural gas to coal cost ratio drastically decreased from about 5.2 to 1.6 during the decade 2005 15 as seen in Fig. 18.3. Correspondingly, natural gas-fired power plants (Fig. 18.4) also increased US electricity generation. The peak electricity generation with natural
519
520
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
FIGURE 18.3 Natural gas to coal price ratio decline over the years. US Energy Information Administration; Bowen, E., et al., 2018. An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia. West Virginia University, Appalachian Regional Commission (Bowen et al., 2018).
FIGURE 18.4 Share of US electricity generation from coal and natural gas. US Energy Information Administration; Bowen, E., et al., 2018. An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia. West Virginia University, Appalachian Regional Commission.
gas was increased from 20 GW in 2001 to about 40 GW in 2016, while the coalbased power generation capacity declined from 53 GW to 32 GW during the same period. By 2016, for power generation, natural gas consumption increased by about 29%, while coal consumption decreased by 15%. The main reasons for
18.4 Socioeconomic Assessment of Coal
FIGURE 18.5 Global energy consumption trends. Based on data from the World Bioenergy Association (2016).
exponential growth of natural gas demand for power generation are technology development of wells, increased productivity, low-cost power generation, and declining gas price. Natural gas production was increased to about 90 billion cubic feet per day and extraction of natural gas increased by 40% since 2006. With these inferences, it could be concluded that natural gas will continue to displace coal in the energy market. In addition, it is also confirmed from Fig. 18.5 that natural gas and coal consumption shares are almost equal, at about 21%, as per the records of the World Bioenergy Association. Natural gas is competing with conventional coal in all aspects of quantity and quality. On the other hand, stringent rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been implemented by many countries to promote a green environment and better society for future generations (Godby et al., 2015). Developed OCED nations are also implementing policies and regulations on coal-fired power plants by reducing the use of fossil fuels to enable GHG reductions (Electricity, 2016). Many policy interventions have been envisaged by China to reduce GHGs by about 15% by replacing coal with renewable energy sources by 2020 (Electricity, 2016).
18.4.2 POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF A COAL ECONOMY •
•
Coal-fired power systems cause multiple health problems in children and infants, such as higher birth defects, lower birth weights, heart diseases, respiratory problems, high blood levels of heavy metals, neurological problems, and future diabetes and obesity at local and regional levels. Higher rates of death from lung cancer and chronic heart, kidney, and respiratory diseases are major problems suffered by adults who reside near coal industries.
521
522
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
• • •
•
•
In case of women, higher rates of miscarriages and stillbirths may occur due to environmental damage from coal elements. Environmental degradation, including water pollution, could be significant challenges with the coal economy. Health and social harms of communities living near to coal mines or coalfired power stations. In these areas, community safeguards including mandatory health impact assessments and policy benefits should be provided. Otherwise, community migration problems may arise. For example, a huge number of Hunter Valley residents in Australia migrated to other places due to the high density of coal-based activities nearby. Chemicals used for coal mining can lead to soil and water contamination. Soil subsidence regularly occurs and the air is polluted with methane released from coal-based industries (mining/power stations). After the mines are depleted, the mining companies should restore the environment, which often does not happen. Other than environmental and health issues in local/regional communities, the coal economy also affects social elements. Local communities are forced to vacate due to the aforementioned problems, which affects the schooling of their children, with frequent relocations and social acceptance issues.
In view of the aforementioned inferences on the coal-driven economy in terms of cost of electricity generation, environmental effects, GHG emissions increase, economical problems, and social imbalances, the world is switching from a coaldriven economy to a biofuel-driven economy. Many countries across the globe have been establishing biofuel-based energy markets with the motives of better economy, environment, and social life.
18.5 BIOFUEL-DRIVEN ECONOMY Biofuels derived from first and second-generation feedstock are slowly replacing fossil fuel dependency at local, regional, and global levels (Gheewala et al., 2013; Petrou and Pappis, 2009; Lockie et al., 2008). Prime drivers for uplift of biofuel economy are: (1) stringent emission norms on fossil fuel-based power generation plants (GHG emissions), (2) carbon taxes, (3) intention to use the abundantly available biomass resources, (4) waste-to-wealth sensitization, and (5) energy security and sustainability issues (Liew et al., 2014; Florin et al., 2014). Replacement of fossil fuels (including coal and petroleum fuels) with biomassderived fuels has tremendous potential for reduction of undesirable aspects of fossil fuel production issues, GHG emissions, exhaustible resources depletion, and dependence on unstable foreign supplies. In contrast, it may create several undesirable effects due to land, water, and other resources requirements (Chin et al., 2014). The major threats include changes to land-use patterns, exhaustive pressure on water resources, and increased food costs (Economics of Biofuels, 2018). Mitkidis et al. (2018) investigated the feasibility assessment of second-generation
18.5 Biofuel-Driven Economy
biofuels in the context of Greece based on market/economic and social impact. The availability of feedstocks such as residues, waste, or cellulosic materials for production of second-generation biofuels is as per the demand of “Renewable Energy Directives” targets. The mandate of 10% biofuel blending was implemented for the transportation sector by 2020 in the country (Mitkidis et al., 2018). Economic feasibility assessment results discovered that the market for secondgeneration biofuels is tremendous in the country to achieve the target of biofuel blending (Mitkidis et al., 2018).
18.5.1 PRIME DRIVERS FOR BIOFUEL ECONOMY 18.5.1.1 Greenhouse gases mitigation A major driver for expansion of the biofuel economy is GHG mitigation. High import costs and energy security were the main concerns in the case of the fossil fuel-based power sector. However, these trends have been revised with biofuel replacement in place of fossil fuels due to the many significant benefits. As per the commitments made by many nations in Paris at COP21, the global focus has been shifted toward the biofuel-based energy market (Economics of Biofuels, 2018).
18.5.1.2 Carbon taxes Taxes on carbon footprints are another potential driver for the economical development of biofuels (Lave, 2011; Economics of Biofuels, 2018; Huang et al., 2013). Carbon tax is a simple approach/tool for reduction of fossil fuel utilization and increasing energy efficiency (Huang et al., 2013). The concept of carbon taxes forces nations to implement biofuel-based systems or low-carbon emissionbased systems or carbon-neutral systems. This will lead to a more sustainable and clean environment in the future. Governments, power generation companies, and nongovernment organizations need to strictly implement the carbon pricing policies across the globe. Many countries, such as Swedan, have already implemented the carbon tax, resulting in economic and social benefits.
18.5.1.3 Abundance of biomass resources The potential availability of several kinds of biomass feedstocks is an attractive driver for the rapid expansion of the global biofuel economy. All kinds of carbonrich biomasses, including agriculture waste and forest waste, could be used as major sources for this energy. The IEA reveals that bioenergy contributes significantly to the future low-carbon global energy systems in road transport, aviation, shipping, and industrial sectors (Chintala, 2018). Bioenergy utilization is rapidly increasing in the industrial sector, that is, food processing industry, paper and pulp industries, where it supplies low- and medium-temperature process heat. Bioenergy is also widely used for space and water heating applications in the service sector. Furthermore, about 500 TW h of electricity was generated from biomass in 2016 across the world (Chintala, 2018).
523
524
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
18.5.1.4 Waste-to-wealth sensitization Waste-to-wealth conversions are widespread technologies employing all kinds of biomass waste resources across the world. Many governments have taken the initiative toward waste-to-wealth technologies/processes (Goetz et al., 2017; Hunsberger et al., 2017). For instance, the government of India launched an initiative, called the Swachh Bharat mission, for attaining a dual benefit of a clean environment with wealth creation. Several decentralized electricity generation projects have been installed in India (Hunsberger et al., 2017). Domestic electricity was generated using pongamia oil in a village and subsequently it was expanded to 100 villages under a rural electrification project (Hunsberger et al., 2017). Over 100 households benefited with 3 hours of electricity access per day (Hunsberger et al., 2017).
18.5.2 POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF A BIOFUEL ECONOMY Replacement of depleting fossil crude fuels with biofuels would offer many potential benefits. •
•
•
• •
Petroleum fuels are produced from exhaustible resources, whereas biofuels are produced from abundantly available biomass resources, carbon-based waste materials, and renewable feedstocks. Hence, their production and utilization would not raise sustainability issues. A biofuel economy would result in a substantial reduction of GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuel production. The studies of Huang et al., based on economic models, revealed that biofuel production could result in a reduction in life cycle GHG emissions relative to conventional fossil fuels (Huang et al., 2013). They compared the performance of various policy combinations for food and fuel prices, fuel mix, and fuel consumption. They concluded that the implementation of the Low Carbon Fuels Standards policy along with the Renewable Fuels Standards policy would increase the share of biofuels. These combined policies would lead to a substantial reduction of GHG emission, greater energy security, and economic benefits (Huang et al., 2013). Second- and third-generation feedstock-derived biofuels have significant potential for GHG reductions as compared to fossil fuels, as the feedstocks could be produced using marginal land. In addition, if the biofuels are produced from waste biomass feedstocks, no additional agricultural land is required (Economics of Biofuels, 2018; Huang et al., 2013). Strengthening of the biofuel economy would reduce the dependence on crudebased petroleum fuels and coal-derived fuels such as natural gas, etc. Biofuels such as ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, and dimethyl ether would reduce other carbon-based pollutants, that is, CO2, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions.
18.6 Socioeconomic Assessment of Biofuels
18.5.3 POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF A BIOFUEL ECONOMY •
• • •
•
•
• •
With first-generation feedstocks, food versus fuel problems may arise (Rosillo-Calle, 2012). Edible feedstocks include many crops that may be used for animal feed. Diverting these crops to biofuels results in agricultural land diversion, disturbance in the food supply chain, and higher food prices. Cellulosic feedstocks can also compete for resources such as land, water, fertilizer, etc., that could otherwise be used for food production. Land-use patterns may be disturbed and results in an imbalance of the ecosystem due to an increase in pollutant inputs to the atmosphere. Increasing use of cellulosic resources can enhance crop prices, which further promotes the expansion of agricultural land to undeveloped land, leading to higher GHG emissions due to nitrous oxide released by fertilizers (Economics of Biofuels, 2018). Production of biofuel feedstocks, such as corn and soya, could cause water pollution from nutrients, pesticides, and sediment (Lave, 2011). Air quality could also decline in some regions due to the transportation vehicle emissions along with the additional emissions generated at biorefineries (Lave, 2011). An economic analysis revealed that biofuel use could result in higher crop prices. Higher crop prices lead to higher food prices, through impacts on retail food. Higher crop prices lead to higher rates of malnutrition in developing countries (Economics of Biofuels, 2018). The potential supply of feedstocks is a greater challenge for sustainability of the biofuel economy at large. In the absence of major nonfarm employers, many countries have experienced substantial out-migration and population losses.
18.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS The general belief regarding biofuels is the food versus fuel contradiction. Despite the common understanding, a biofuel-based economy would have a significant impact on economic and social aspects such as jobs creation, land use, water use, improved local/regional productivity, and green environment (Hunsberger et al., 2017; World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016; Raman et al., 2015).
18.6.1 ENHANCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES A biofuel economy would create a wide variety of employment opportunities in the areas of feedstock collection and transportation, biofuel production plants, storage plants, and utilization industries. Typically, large-scale semiautomatic farming machinery and systems are used in biofuel-based industries, which would require a significant amount of human power and skilled labor. Many countries have successful stories in effective expansion of a biofuel economy in terms of
525
526
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
jobs creation in a wider spectrum. For example, Brazil offered new opportunities in modern industries operated with biofuels (World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016; Bonassa et al., 2018). This jobs creation would have social benefits in terms of children’s education, hospital services, and banking services close to the industry. Local/regional community development would occur at a faster rate with the deployment of a biofuel economy. Jobs creation would strengthen rural and regional economies at large by creating additional income in farming and forestry. As compared to other renewable energy markets, the biofuel market would provide a higher number jobs (World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016) due to the widely available resources across the globe. More than 3 million people have been employed in the biofuel sector in Brazil for the past 3 years.
18.6.2 LOCAL/REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The local/regional community will develop with the fast expansion of biofuelbased industries at small/medium/large scales. Better coordination among farmers, mediators, landowners, and biofuel industries would result in increased local/ regional GDP growth. Many governments around the globe are also formulating policies for effective production and utilization of biofuels. For example, the government of India launched a biofuel policy in 2008, to promote the biofuel economy at local and regional levels. The use of second- and third-generation feedstocks such as agro-waste, forest waste, and biomass will create an additional income source for farmers. Improvement in the supply chain system of feedstock and biofuels would further boost GDP growth significantly.
18.6.3 EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND WOMEN The additional income generation and taxes collected from biofuel-related products/materials would provide better facilities, such as education and health, to local communities. Rural women’s lives would be improved with the use of biofuel-based cooking stoves and heating devices, instead of conventional fossil fuel-based facilities, which otherwise could cause millions of deaths annually. Paddy straw burning or agro-waste burning is a severe problem encountered in northern parts of India, where a huge quantity of stubble burning takes place. This burning process harms the environment in and around the areas of burning due to harmful emissions and pollutants. Women and children are the most affected people in many parts of India due to these pollutants spreading in the environment. They suffer childbirth problems, respiratory problems, and heart diseases due to the burning of agro-waste. The major challenges to tackle these burning issues are irregular reaping seasons and lower capping period to collect and store the agro-waste for further use. In order to address these issues, an integrated and transparent system has to be deployed, with increased awareness of agriculture and forest management in the country.
18.7 Conclusions and Future Trends
18.6.4 WASTELAND USE Wastelands/barren lands/marginal lands could be used for the production of a wide variety of feedstocks for biofuel production, depending on the land type and local climatic conditions. Abandoned farmlands in developed countries such as in Europe and North America could also be diverted for biofuel production. Good land could be used either for plantation of crops or fast-growing trees depending on the seasonal situations/crop gap periods, so that the land utilization value may be increased. This would create additional income and community development. Forestry resources could also be used for biofuel production. For example, residues from wood milling and straw materials could be value-added products for biofuel production. Natural forests or other nonproductive lands may be diverted to biofuel production, which may result in economic and social benefits. The rural economy will be improved significantly with extensive use of the land for agricultural products as well as biofuel feedstocks. Potential expansion of cellulosic-based biofuel production would strengthen the rural economy. Rapid growth of ethanol production from secondgeneration feedstocks could make potential contribution to biofuel economy growth. In some countries, the corn-based ethanol industry is increasing exponentially. Biomass-belt states may be planned to capture the economic impact of an emerging biomass industry, by locating the biofuel production plants near the feedstock source. The development of a biofuel economy is one of the better viable options to tackle the problem of deforestation. If a land-use management system was properly established, there would not be any competition between foods versus fuel production. Increasing crop yields, use of better farming technologies, and use of marginal lands would lead to sustainable production of both food and fuel production. Biofuel policies may promote the expansion of the biofuel economy and mandatory mixing of biodiesel or bioethanol to reduce fossil fuel dependency, which leads to holistic socioeconomic development.
18.7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS Coal-fired electricity generation is the major potential source for catering to the energy demands around the globe. However, due to its negative impact on the environment, health, and socioeconomic aspects, bioenergy is gaining significant importance as an alternative source. The abundant availability of different biomass feedstocks and a reduction of GHGs are the potential driving forces for bioeconomy development. SLCA of biofuels/bioeconomy will help to identify the improvements of social performance of products (coal/biofuels) at different stages of their life cycle. Based on its better social acceptability, employability, health security, and productivity, the biofuel economy has been adopted around the world. However, the food versus fuel problem needs to be addressed by improved and sustainable technologies in the future. The biomass feedstock demand and supply management system needs to be strengthened for effective implementation of the bioenergy economy in near future.
527
528
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BTL CO2 CTL GDP GHGs IEA OCED SLCA
biomass-to-liquid (or bioliquids) carbon dioxide coal-to-liquid gross domestic product greenhouse gas International Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Social life cycle assessment
REFERENCES Bezdek, R., 2016. The Essential Role of Coal in Past and Future Economic Growth, vol. 4. World Coal Association, Cornerstone, Issue 2. Bonassa, G., et al., 2018. Scenarios and prospects of solid biofuel use in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2365 2378. Bowen, E., et al., 2018. An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia. West Virginia University, Appalachian Regional Commission. Burchart-Korol, D., et al., 2014. Development of sustainability assessment method of coal mines. J. Sustain. Min. 13 (4), 5 11. Chin, H.-C., et al., 2014. Issues of social acceptance on biofuel development. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 30 39. Chintala, V., 2018. Production, upgradation and utilization of solar assisted pyrolysis fuels from biomass—a technical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 120 130. Contribution to the Economy; Australia’s Coal Industry _ Coal & the Community. ,http:// www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/coal_the_community/contribution_to_the_economy. (accessed 12.02.18.). Dalemans, F., et al., 2018. Redesigning oilseed tree biofuel systems in India. Energy Policy 115, 631 643. Diaz-Chavez, R., 2014. Indicators for Socio-Economic Sustainability Assessment. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 17 37. Economics of Biofuels, 2018. United States Environmental Protection Agency. ,https:// www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels. (accessed 03.03.18.). Electricity; Overview; International Energy Outlook 2016; Energy Information Administration (EIA), USA. ,https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf. (accessed 20.01.18.). Florin, M.J., van de Ven, G.W.J., van Ittersum, M.K., 2014. What drives sustainable biofuels? A review of indicator assessments of biofuel production systems involving smallholder farmers. Environ. Sci. Policy 37, 142 157. Galina, I., et al., 2007. Assessing social and economic impacts associated with changes in the coal mining industry in the Bowen Basin, Queensland, Australia. Manage. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 18 (2), 211 228. Gheewala, S.H., Damen, B., Shi, X., 2013. Biofuels: economic, environmental and social benefits and costs for developing countries in Asia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4 (6), 497 511.
References
Godby, R., et al., 2015. The Impact of the Coal Economy on Wyoming. Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Goetz, A., German, L., Weigelt, J., 2017. Scaling up biofuels? A critical look at expectations, performance and governance. Energy Policy 110, 719 723. Huang, H., et al., 2013. Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energy Policy 56, 5 15. Hunsberger, C., German, L., Goetz, A., 2017. “Unbundling” the biofuel promise: querying the ability of liquid biofuels to deliver on socio-economic policy expectations. Energy Policy 108, 791 805. Kummamuru, B., WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics, 2016. World Bioenergy Association. https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/WBA%20Global%20Bioenergy%20Statistics% 202016.pdf (accessed 13.03.18.). Lave, L.B., 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. National Academies Press. Available from: https:// www.nap.edu/resource/13105/Renewable-Fuel-Standard-Final.pdf. Le, L.T., et al., 2013. Comparing the social costs of biofuels and fossil fuels: a case study of Vietnam. Biomass Bioenergy 54, 227 238. Liew, W.H., Hassim, M.H., Ng, D.K.S., 2014. Review of evolution, technology and sustainability assessments of biofuel production. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 11 29. Lockie, S., et al., 2008. Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 26 (3), 177 187. Luu, L.Q., Halog, A., 2016. Rice husk based bioelectricity vs. coal-fired electricity: life cycle sustainability assessment case study in Vietnam. Procedia CIRP 40, 73 78. Mitkidis, G., Magoutas, A., Kitsios, F., 2018. Market and economic feasibility analysis for the implementation of 2nd generation biofuels in Greece. Energy Strat. Rev. 19, 85 98. Petrou, E.C., Pappis, C.P., 2009. Biofuels: a survey on pros and cons. Energy Fuels 23 (2), 1055 1066. Rademacher, M., 2016. The Socio-Economic Impacts of Advanced Technology CoalFuelled Power Stations, Coal Industry Advisory Board. ,https://www.iea.org/ciab/The %20Socio-economic%20Impacts%20of%20Advanced%20Technology%20Coal-Fuelled %20Power%20Stations_FINAL.pdf.. Rafiaani, P., et al., 2018. Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: towards a systemic approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 1839 1853. Raman, S., et al., 2015. Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 82, 49 62. Rosillo-Calle, F., 2012. Food versus fuel: toward a new paradigm—the need for a holistic approach. ISRN Renew. Energy 2012, 1 15. Siebert, A., et al., 2018. Social life cycle assessment indices and indicators to monitor the social implications of wood-based products. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4074 4084. World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016. World Energy Council. ,https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Bioenergy_2016.pdf. (accessed 02.02.18.). Yang, S., et al., 2018. Sustainability assessment of synfuels from biomass or coal: an insight on the economic and ecological burdens. Renew. Energy 118, 870 878.
529
Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
18 Venkateswarlu Chintala
Mechanical Engineering Department and Centre for Alternate Energy Research (CAER), R&D, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES), Dehradun, India
18.1 INTRODUCTION An exponential increase in the population and their income are the potential drivers for a steep rise in the demand for energy. It is estimated that the world population will increase to about 9 billion, and world gross domestic product (GDP) will double by 2035 (Bezdek, 2016). The Energy Information Administration and International Energy Agency (IEA) also confirmed that fossil fuels including coal would remain as the major global energy sources in near future, that is, at least for next two decades (Bezdek, 2016). Power plants will depend on coal in both absolute and percentage terms for the next two decades for electricity generation (Burchart-Korol et al., 2014; Lave, 2011). It is well known that the power sector is one with the most dynamic growth among all other energy markets such as renewables, nuclear, and natural gas (Galina et al., 2007). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) and non-OCED nations also reported that their projected growth for electricity demand will almost double by 2040 (Galina et al., 2007; Electricity, 2016; Rademacher, 2016). Similarly, it was estimated that the energy demand for non-OCED countries is slightly higher than the global electrical energy demand (Electricity, 2016). The non-OCED share of world electricity generation was estimated to increase by 61% in 2040. The GDP increase of OCED countries was estimated at about 2% per year, which is almost half of that of non-OCED countries (estimated GDP increase: 4.2% per year), resulting in higher demands for electrical energy (Electricity, 2016). Fig. 18.1 depicts the world net electricity generation from different sources such as renewables, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and petroleum. It can be clearly observed that the coal contribution will remain constant for the next two decades. Main reasons for this significant growth rate are due to higher living standards, use of luxury appliances and electronic equipment, and increasing demand for commercial services such as hotels, hospitals, and shopping malls. Typically, this
Second and Third Generation of Feedstocks. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815162-4.00018-5 Copyright © 2019 Angelo Basile and Francesco Dalena. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
513
514
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
FIGURE 18.1 World net electricity generation by energy source (trillion kWh).
huge demand for electricity will be satisfied from mixed energy sources. Coalfired power production is one of the largest contributors to this energy mix. Developing nations will import coal to satisfy their regional and local energy needs, thus coal will remain a key source for electricity generation in the near future. Indeed, fossil fuels may play a dominant role in catering to the global energy needs as per the IEA estimates. The IEA reported that, by 2030, even with the anticipated increase in fossil fuel use for electricity generation, nearly 1 billion people will be in darkness (without electricity) and about 2 billion people without clean cooking fuels (Bezdek, 2016; Electricity, 2016). Several policy interventions, economic development systems, and regulation systems may come into force to tackle these severe energy demands. Unfortunately, none of these interventions/systems/reformations would deal with the energy access/innovations to meet the needs of people across the globe.
18.2 COAL VERSUS BIOFUELS (BIOMASS) Coal or biomass materials could directly be used as solid fuel candidates for heat energy generation by combustion process. For the past many decades, coal has been used for the thermal power sector. However, these solid fuels may produce high amounts of pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen and carbon-based emissions. Hence, to address these problems, liquid and gaseous fuels are produced from coal and biomass feedstock. Typically, liquid fuels derived either from coal [coal-to-liquid (CTL)] or biomass [biomass-to-liquid (BTL)] are higher
18.2 Coal Versus Biofuels (Biomass)
energy-density fuels as compared to gaseous fuels. In addition, storage and utilization aspects such as storage volume and material compatibility of liquid fuels are better than gaseous fuels. However, the sustainability of liquid and gaseous fuels depends on various factors including social and economic concerns, as described below.
18.2.1 COAL-TO-LIQUID VERSUS BIOMASS-TO-LIQUID: SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS BTL or bioliquids and CTL are fuels used exceedingly in transportation, smallscale electrical power generation, agriculture, and marine sectors. Yang et al. (2018) investigated the economic and social impacts of conversion of coal or BTL fuels, that is, CTL and BTL for the transportation sector. They found that the production cost of BTL was slightly higher than CTL; however; the BTL production cost is comparable with conventional petroleum fuel production costs. A greater reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission was observed with BTL (about 98%) than CTL, which indicates the greater reduction of ecological burden with BTL use. It further leads to the sustainable development of the fuels industry. However, minimization of production cost and securing feedstock supply are the major challenges to be addresses for biofuel economy sustainability. They also reported that for each ton of CTL production, there are about 11 tons of CO2 emissions, which was three times higher than with conventional petroleum fuels (Yang et al., 2018). Hence, it was concluded that shifting crude oil to coal for the transportation sector would almost double the ecological burden, whereas crude to biofuel shifting will reduce the ecological burden significantly (Yang et al., 2018).
18.2.2 COAL-BASED ELECTRICITY VERSUS BIO-BASED ELECTRICITY Bio-based electricity production offers significant advantages in reducing negative impact on the environment as compared with conventional coal-fired power systems. However, it needs to be confirmed prior to establishing a biofuel economy whether the biomass-fired power system is a socially and economically sustainable option or not. Luu and Halog (2016) carried out a comparative assessment between coal-based and bio-based power systems in view of social, economic sustainability options by a life cycle analysis approach. Socioeconomic aspects related to coal-derived electricity and rice husk-derived bioelectricity over its life cycle were compared in the context of Vietnam (Le et al., 2013). Environmental, economic, and social impacts were characterized into five categories namely: (1) impacts on human health, (2) impacts on social well-being, (3) impacts on prosperity, (4) impacts on ecosystem, and (5) impacts on natural resources. The conclusions are summarized in Table 18.1. Overall, it was concluded from the comparative assessment that biomass-derived bioelectricity was better in some aspects, but worse in some other parameters, than conventional coal-based
515
Table 18.1 Summary of the Impact Assessment Characteristics for Coal- and Bio-Based Electricity Systems (Luu and Halog, 2016; Le et al., 2013) At Functional Unit Scale Impacts Human health (DALYs) Impact on social Total employment (hours) well-being Knowledge-intensive jobs (hours) Child labor (hours) Forced labor (hours) Regional income inequalities (h) Global inequalities (h) Total cost (h) Impact on Capital productivity (h/h) prosperity Labor productivity (h/h) Resource productivity Ecosystem quality (species loss, year) Natural resources (US$2000) a
Electricity From Coal
Bioelectricity From Rice Husk
Electricity From Coal
Bioelectricity From Rice Husk
0.27 1.23 0.2
0.98a 1.28b 0.21b
N/A 7.53E 1 12 1.63E 1 12
N/A 7.53E 1 12c 1.63E 1 12c
3.28E 2 02 2.25E 2 03 N/A N/A 58.66 N/A N/A N/A 9.22E 2 06 2.54E04
3.21E 2 02b 2.15E 2 03b N/A N/A 57.91b N/A N/A N/A 5.26E 2 06b 1.86E06b
2.64E 1 11 2.00E 1 10 0 0 N/A 6.74 2.1 7.97E 1 05 N/A N/A
2.64E 1 11c 2.00E 1 10c 0c 0c N/A 6.74c 2.1c 7.97E 1 05c N/A N/A
Bioelectricity has more negative impacts than coal-based electricity. Bioelectricity has less negative impacts or more positive impacts than coal-based electricity. The introduction of bioelectricity imposes no measurable positive/negative impacts.
b c
At Economy-Wide Scale
18.2 Coal Versus Biofuels (Biomass)
electricity. However, if negative aspects are anticipated, the biomass-based bioelectricity is more sustainable than coal-based conventional electricity (Luu and Halog, 2016).
18.2.3 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT Social sustainability could be defined as the extent to which social values, social relationships, social identities, and social organizations can continue for future generations (Rafiaani et al., 2018). Most common social indicators could be health and safety, food security, income, employment, land and worker-related concerns, energy security, profitability, and gender issues. Social concerns related to biofuels are closely associated with food safety, energy supply reliability, livelihoods, and security of the people and regions. Systematic sustainability assessment is represented in Fig. 18.2. The assessment would be carried out in four stages, such as life cycle, technical, environmental, and socioeconomic analyses. The type of feedstock, availability, and continuous supply are the major concerns in first-phase assessment. The availability of some feedstocks may be seasonal
FIGURE 18.2 Systemic approach for the overall sustainability assessment.
517
518
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
but they may be available in huge quantities. For example, in the northern part of India, wheat straw is plentiful during the crop season, which is a period of about 30 40 days only. Hence, farmers generally burn huge quantities of straw as they are unable to store them (Dalemans et al., 2018). This stubble burning causes serious damage to the local environment, which leads to health hazards to the local communities (affecting local societies). In order to avoid these burning problems, feedstock storage and management system need to be strengthened. Socioeconomic analysis majorly consists of social acceptance, social impact, and employment assessment. In the case of biofuels, foods security also needs to be carried out, along with other social and economic sustainability issues. Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is a systematic methodology to assess the social and sociological issues of products with positive and negative impacts with reference to its life cycle. This methodology cannot provide exact information for production of product; however, it helps in making a decision (Diaz-Chavez, 2014). It contributes toward the improvement of social performances of products such as coal and biofuels at different stages in their life cycles. This methodology provides the information to decision makers for selection of the proper product from business and government perspectives. The primary steps involved in SLCA are depicted in Fig. 18.2. Coal contributes a major energy share in any nation’s energy requirement by coal-fired power plants in the power sector or CTL fuel use in the transportation sector. Sustainability without negative effects is a major concern for appropriate assessment of any product. Therefore appropriate assessment tools are required to measure and document the sustainable aspects. The life cycle thinking enables the assessment of sustainability issues relating to such biofuel products. Siebert et al. (2018) proposed a framework called “RESPONSA” (REgional SPecific cONtextualised Social life cycle Assessment) for assessing the products’ social performance with respect to regional issues, directly accounting to the organization’s behavior and therefore providing specific information to support producers’ decision-making. The main indicators of SLCA are: • • • • • • • •
social acceptability, employment, income, food security, energy security, health security, productivity, and land concerns.
18.3 COAL-DRIVEN ECONOMY Extensive production and use of coal for catering to the nation’s energy demand by coal-fired power systems would play a vital role in the country’s economy in
18.4 Socioeconomic Assessment of Coal
terms of community development, employment, and wealth creation, etc. Energy security and sustainability will depend on the availability of coal resources and coal mining industries. Many nations in the world are described as coal-driven economies, as coal consumption is significantly higher than other energy resources. Australia is one of the best examples of a coal-driven economy (Contribution to the Economy, 2018). It is the largest coal exporter, earning about 55 billion dollars in the year 2008 09 and providing employment to about 140,000 people in coal industries (Contribution to the Economy, 2018). Australian coal industry is the major energy contributor (about 54% of the total electricity demand), which has a strong grid system for power generation. Highend technologies of coal-fired power plants with higher efficiencies and lower emissions lead to drastic booming of the nation’s economy. Carbon capture and storage technology has matured enough to capture up to 90% of the CO2, which enables coal-fired power plants to expand their base in the economy. The country takes the monetary benefits of the Australian coal industry in the form of corporate taxes, freight charges, and resource royalties. These funds can be utilized for the society upliftment, regional and local community development, funding for schools, hospitals, roads, and community social infrastructure.
18.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF COAL Solid coal is being replaced by liquid and gaseous fuels due to environmental concerns and performance factors of thermal systems. The oxidation process efficiency (combustion efficiency) of solid fuel is typically lower than liquid or gaseous fuels. The main reason could be higher surface to volume ratios with liquid or gaseous fuels. Hence, coal is being replaced with natural gas and this is affecting the world economy as discussed in the following subsections. Significant problems associated with the coal economy are also addressed below.
18.4.1 NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION OUTPACES COAL Low-cost alternative energy supplies, such as natural gas, could be the main driving force for a drastic decline of coal the industry across the world. Improved technologies for harnessing the alternate energy sources would reduce the cost of energy production per unit. On the other hand, reduced global demand for coal has pulled down the prices, employment, and wealth around the globe. About a 42% decline was observed by the US coal industry as the energy market shifted from coal to natural gas. The main reason may be due to a significant reduction in natural gas prices as compared to coal prices. The natural gas to coal cost ratio drastically decreased from about 5.2 to 1.6 during the decade 2005 15 as seen in Fig. 18.3. Correspondingly, natural gas-fired power plants (Fig. 18.4) also increased US electricity generation. The peak electricity generation with natural
519
520
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
FIGURE 18.3 Natural gas to coal price ratio decline over the years. US Energy Information Administration; Bowen, E., et al., 2018. An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia. West Virginia University, Appalachian Regional Commission (Bowen et al., 2018).
FIGURE 18.4 Share of US electricity generation from coal and natural gas. US Energy Information Administration; Bowen, E., et al., 2018. An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia. West Virginia University, Appalachian Regional Commission.
gas was increased from 20 GW in 2001 to about 40 GW in 2016, while the coalbased power generation capacity declined from 53 GW to 32 GW during the same period. By 2016, for power generation, natural gas consumption increased by about 29%, while coal consumption decreased by 15%. The main reasons for
18.4 Socioeconomic Assessment of Coal
FIGURE 18.5 Global energy consumption trends. Based on data from the World Bioenergy Association (2016).
exponential growth of natural gas demand for power generation are technology development of wells, increased productivity, low-cost power generation, and declining gas price. Natural gas production was increased to about 90 billion cubic feet per day and extraction of natural gas increased by 40% since 2006. With these inferences, it could be concluded that natural gas will continue to displace coal in the energy market. In addition, it is also confirmed from Fig. 18.5 that natural gas and coal consumption shares are almost equal, at about 21%, as per the records of the World Bioenergy Association. Natural gas is competing with conventional coal in all aspects of quantity and quality. On the other hand, stringent rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been implemented by many countries to promote a green environment and better society for future generations (Godby et al., 2015). Developed OCED nations are also implementing policies and regulations on coal-fired power plants by reducing the use of fossil fuels to enable GHG reductions (Electricity, 2016). Many policy interventions have been envisaged by China to reduce GHGs by about 15% by replacing coal with renewable energy sources by 2020 (Electricity, 2016).
18.4.2 POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF A COAL ECONOMY •
•
Coal-fired power systems cause multiple health problems in children and infants, such as higher birth defects, lower birth weights, heart diseases, respiratory problems, high blood levels of heavy metals, neurological problems, and future diabetes and obesity at local and regional levels. Higher rates of death from lung cancer and chronic heart, kidney, and respiratory diseases are major problems suffered by adults who reside near coal industries.
521
522
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
• • •
•
•
In case of women, higher rates of miscarriages and stillbirths may occur due to environmental damage from coal elements. Environmental degradation, including water pollution, could be significant challenges with the coal economy. Health and social harms of communities living near to coal mines or coalfired power stations. In these areas, community safeguards including mandatory health impact assessments and policy benefits should be provided. Otherwise, community migration problems may arise. For example, a huge number of Hunter Valley residents in Australia migrated to other places due to the high density of coal-based activities nearby. Chemicals used for coal mining can lead to soil and water contamination. Soil subsidence regularly occurs and the air is polluted with methane released from coal-based industries (mining/power stations). After the mines are depleted, the mining companies should restore the environment, which often does not happen. Other than environmental and health issues in local/regional communities, the coal economy also affects social elements. Local communities are forced to vacate due to the aforementioned problems, which affects the schooling of their children, with frequent relocations and social acceptance issues.
In view of the aforementioned inferences on the coal-driven economy in terms of cost of electricity generation, environmental effects, GHG emissions increase, economical problems, and social imbalances, the world is switching from a coaldriven economy to a biofuel-driven economy. Many countries across the globe have been establishing biofuel-based energy markets with the motives of better economy, environment, and social life.
18.5 BIOFUEL-DRIVEN ECONOMY Biofuels derived from first and second-generation feedstock are slowly replacing fossil fuel dependency at local, regional, and global levels (Gheewala et al., 2013; Petrou and Pappis, 2009; Lockie et al., 2008). Prime drivers for uplift of biofuel economy are: (1) stringent emission norms on fossil fuel-based power generation plants (GHG emissions), (2) carbon taxes, (3) intention to use the abundantly available biomass resources, (4) waste-to-wealth sensitization, and (5) energy security and sustainability issues (Liew et al., 2014; Florin et al., 2014). Replacement of fossil fuels (including coal and petroleum fuels) with biomassderived fuels has tremendous potential for reduction of undesirable aspects of fossil fuel production issues, GHG emissions, exhaustible resources depletion, and dependence on unstable foreign supplies. In contrast, it may create several undesirable effects due to land, water, and other resources requirements (Chin et al., 2014). The major threats include changes to land-use patterns, exhaustive pressure on water resources, and increased food costs (Economics of Biofuels, 2018). Mitkidis et al. (2018) investigated the feasibility assessment of second-generation
18.5 Biofuel-Driven Economy
biofuels in the context of Greece based on market/economic and social impact. The availability of feedstocks such as residues, waste, or cellulosic materials for production of second-generation biofuels is as per the demand of “Renewable Energy Directives” targets. The mandate of 10% biofuel blending was implemented for the transportation sector by 2020 in the country (Mitkidis et al., 2018). Economic feasibility assessment results discovered that the market for secondgeneration biofuels is tremendous in the country to achieve the target of biofuel blending (Mitkidis et al., 2018).
18.5.1 PRIME DRIVERS FOR BIOFUEL ECONOMY 18.5.1.1 Greenhouse gases mitigation A major driver for expansion of the biofuel economy is GHG mitigation. High import costs and energy security were the main concerns in the case of the fossil fuel-based power sector. However, these trends have been revised with biofuel replacement in place of fossil fuels due to the many significant benefits. As per the commitments made by many nations in Paris at COP21, the global focus has been shifted toward the biofuel-based energy market (Economics of Biofuels, 2018).
18.5.1.2 Carbon taxes Taxes on carbon footprints are another potential driver for the economical development of biofuels (Lave, 2011; Economics of Biofuels, 2018; Huang et al., 2013). Carbon tax is a simple approach/tool for reduction of fossil fuel utilization and increasing energy efficiency (Huang et al., 2013). The concept of carbon taxes forces nations to implement biofuel-based systems or low-carbon emissionbased systems or carbon-neutral systems. This will lead to a more sustainable and clean environment in the future. Governments, power generation companies, and nongovernment organizations need to strictly implement the carbon pricing policies across the globe. Many countries, such as Swedan, have already implemented the carbon tax, resulting in economic and social benefits.
18.5.1.3 Abundance of biomass resources The potential availability of several kinds of biomass feedstocks is an attractive driver for the rapid expansion of the global biofuel economy. All kinds of carbonrich biomasses, including agriculture waste and forest waste, could be used as major sources for this energy. The IEA reveals that bioenergy contributes significantly to the future low-carbon global energy systems in road transport, aviation, shipping, and industrial sectors (Chintala, 2018). Bioenergy utilization is rapidly increasing in the industrial sector, that is, food processing industry, paper and pulp industries, where it supplies low- and medium-temperature process heat. Bioenergy is also widely used for space and water heating applications in the service sector. Furthermore, about 500 TW h of electricity was generated from biomass in 2016 across the world (Chintala, 2018).
523
524
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
18.5.1.4 Waste-to-wealth sensitization Waste-to-wealth conversions are widespread technologies employing all kinds of biomass waste resources across the world. Many governments have taken the initiative toward waste-to-wealth technologies/processes (Goetz et al., 2017; Hunsberger et al., 2017). For instance, the government of India launched an initiative, called the Swachh Bharat mission, for attaining a dual benefit of a clean environment with wealth creation. Several decentralized electricity generation projects have been installed in India (Hunsberger et al., 2017). Domestic electricity was generated using pongamia oil in a village and subsequently it was expanded to 100 villages under a rural electrification project (Hunsberger et al., 2017). Over 100 households benefited with 3 hours of electricity access per day (Hunsberger et al., 2017).
18.5.2 POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF A BIOFUEL ECONOMY Replacement of depleting fossil crude fuels with biofuels would offer many potential benefits. •
•
•
• •
Petroleum fuels are produced from exhaustible resources, whereas biofuels are produced from abundantly available biomass resources, carbon-based waste materials, and renewable feedstocks. Hence, their production and utilization would not raise sustainability issues. A biofuel economy would result in a substantial reduction of GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuel production. The studies of Huang et al., based on economic models, revealed that biofuel production could result in a reduction in life cycle GHG emissions relative to conventional fossil fuels (Huang et al., 2013). They compared the performance of various policy combinations for food and fuel prices, fuel mix, and fuel consumption. They concluded that the implementation of the Low Carbon Fuels Standards policy along with the Renewable Fuels Standards policy would increase the share of biofuels. These combined policies would lead to a substantial reduction of GHG emission, greater energy security, and economic benefits (Huang et al., 2013). Second- and third-generation feedstock-derived biofuels have significant potential for GHG reductions as compared to fossil fuels, as the feedstocks could be produced using marginal land. In addition, if the biofuels are produced from waste biomass feedstocks, no additional agricultural land is required (Economics of Biofuels, 2018; Huang et al., 2013). Strengthening of the biofuel economy would reduce the dependence on crudebased petroleum fuels and coal-derived fuels such as natural gas, etc. Biofuels such as ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, and dimethyl ether would reduce other carbon-based pollutants, that is, CO2, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions.
18.6 Socioeconomic Assessment of Biofuels
18.5.3 POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF A BIOFUEL ECONOMY •
• • •
•
•
• •
With first-generation feedstocks, food versus fuel problems may arise (Rosillo-Calle, 2012). Edible feedstocks include many crops that may be used for animal feed. Diverting these crops to biofuels results in agricultural land diversion, disturbance in the food supply chain, and higher food prices. Cellulosic feedstocks can also compete for resources such as land, water, fertilizer, etc., that could otherwise be used for food production. Land-use patterns may be disturbed and results in an imbalance of the ecosystem due to an increase in pollutant inputs to the atmosphere. Increasing use of cellulosic resources can enhance crop prices, which further promotes the expansion of agricultural land to undeveloped land, leading to higher GHG emissions due to nitrous oxide released by fertilizers (Economics of Biofuels, 2018). Production of biofuel feedstocks, such as corn and soya, could cause water pollution from nutrients, pesticides, and sediment (Lave, 2011). Air quality could also decline in some regions due to the transportation vehicle emissions along with the additional emissions generated at biorefineries (Lave, 2011). An economic analysis revealed that biofuel use could result in higher crop prices. Higher crop prices lead to higher food prices, through impacts on retail food. Higher crop prices lead to higher rates of malnutrition in developing countries (Economics of Biofuels, 2018). The potential supply of feedstocks is a greater challenge for sustainability of the biofuel economy at large. In the absence of major nonfarm employers, many countries have experienced substantial out-migration and population losses.
18.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS The general belief regarding biofuels is the food versus fuel contradiction. Despite the common understanding, a biofuel-based economy would have a significant impact on economic and social aspects such as jobs creation, land use, water use, improved local/regional productivity, and green environment (Hunsberger et al., 2017; World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016; Raman et al., 2015).
18.6.1 ENHANCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES A biofuel economy would create a wide variety of employment opportunities in the areas of feedstock collection and transportation, biofuel production plants, storage plants, and utilization industries. Typically, large-scale semiautomatic farming machinery and systems are used in biofuel-based industries, which would require a significant amount of human power and skilled labor. Many countries have successful stories in effective expansion of a biofuel economy in terms of
525
526
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
jobs creation in a wider spectrum. For example, Brazil offered new opportunities in modern industries operated with biofuels (World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016; Bonassa et al., 2018). This jobs creation would have social benefits in terms of children’s education, hospital services, and banking services close to the industry. Local/regional community development would occur at a faster rate with the deployment of a biofuel economy. Jobs creation would strengthen rural and regional economies at large by creating additional income in farming and forestry. As compared to other renewable energy markets, the biofuel market would provide a higher number jobs (World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016) due to the widely available resources across the globe. More than 3 million people have been employed in the biofuel sector in Brazil for the past 3 years.
18.6.2 LOCAL/REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The local/regional community will develop with the fast expansion of biofuelbased industries at small/medium/large scales. Better coordination among farmers, mediators, landowners, and biofuel industries would result in increased local/ regional GDP growth. Many governments around the globe are also formulating policies for effective production and utilization of biofuels. For example, the government of India launched a biofuel policy in 2008, to promote the biofuel economy at local and regional levels. The use of second- and third-generation feedstocks such as agro-waste, forest waste, and biomass will create an additional income source for farmers. Improvement in the supply chain system of feedstock and biofuels would further boost GDP growth significantly.
18.6.3 EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND WOMEN The additional income generation and taxes collected from biofuel-related products/materials would provide better facilities, such as education and health, to local communities. Rural women’s lives would be improved with the use of biofuel-based cooking stoves and heating devices, instead of conventional fossil fuel-based facilities, which otherwise could cause millions of deaths annually. Paddy straw burning or agro-waste burning is a severe problem encountered in northern parts of India, where a huge quantity of stubble burning takes place. This burning process harms the environment in and around the areas of burning due to harmful emissions and pollutants. Women and children are the most affected people in many parts of India due to these pollutants spreading in the environment. They suffer childbirth problems, respiratory problems, and heart diseases due to the burning of agro-waste. The major challenges to tackle these burning issues are irregular reaping seasons and lower capping period to collect and store the agro-waste for further use. In order to address these issues, an integrated and transparent system has to be deployed, with increased awareness of agriculture and forest management in the country.
18.7 Conclusions and Future Trends
18.6.4 WASTELAND USE Wastelands/barren lands/marginal lands could be used for the production of a wide variety of feedstocks for biofuel production, depending on the land type and local climatic conditions. Abandoned farmlands in developed countries such as in Europe and North America could also be diverted for biofuel production. Good land could be used either for plantation of crops or fast-growing trees depending on the seasonal situations/crop gap periods, so that the land utilization value may be increased. This would create additional income and community development. Forestry resources could also be used for biofuel production. For example, residues from wood milling and straw materials could be value-added products for biofuel production. Natural forests or other nonproductive lands may be diverted to biofuel production, which may result in economic and social benefits. The rural economy will be improved significantly with extensive use of the land for agricultural products as well as biofuel feedstocks. Potential expansion of cellulosic-based biofuel production would strengthen the rural economy. Rapid growth of ethanol production from secondgeneration feedstocks could make potential contribution to biofuel economy growth. In some countries, the corn-based ethanol industry is increasing exponentially. Biomass-belt states may be planned to capture the economic impact of an emerging biomass industry, by locating the biofuel production plants near the feedstock source. The development of a biofuel economy is one of the better viable options to tackle the problem of deforestation. If a land-use management system was properly established, there would not be any competition between foods versus fuel production. Increasing crop yields, use of better farming technologies, and use of marginal lands would lead to sustainable production of both food and fuel production. Biofuel policies may promote the expansion of the biofuel economy and mandatory mixing of biodiesel or bioethanol to reduce fossil fuel dependency, which leads to holistic socioeconomic development.
18.7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS Coal-fired electricity generation is the major potential source for catering to the energy demands around the globe. However, due to its negative impact on the environment, health, and socioeconomic aspects, bioenergy is gaining significant importance as an alternative source. The abundant availability of different biomass feedstocks and a reduction of GHGs are the potential driving forces for bioeconomy development. SLCA of biofuels/bioeconomy will help to identify the improvements of social performance of products (coal/biofuels) at different stages of their life cycle. Based on its better social acceptability, employability, health security, and productivity, the biofuel economy has been adopted around the world. However, the food versus fuel problem needs to be addressed by improved and sustainable technologies in the future. The biomass feedstock demand and supply management system needs to be strengthened for effective implementation of the bioenergy economy in near future.
527
528
CHAPTER 18 Coal versus biofuels: A social and economic assessment
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BTL CO2 CTL GDP GHGs IEA OCED SLCA
biomass-to-liquid (or bioliquids) carbon dioxide coal-to-liquid gross domestic product greenhouse gas International Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Social life cycle assessment
REFERENCES Bezdek, R., 2016. The Essential Role of Coal in Past and Future Economic Growth, vol. 4. World Coal Association, Cornerstone, Issue 2. Bonassa, G., et al., 2018. Scenarios and prospects of solid biofuel use in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2365 2378. Bowen, E., et al., 2018. An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia. West Virginia University, Appalachian Regional Commission. Burchart-Korol, D., et al., 2014. Development of sustainability assessment method of coal mines. J. Sustain. Min. 13 (4), 5 11. Chin, H.-C., et al., 2014. Issues of social acceptance on biofuel development. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 30 39. Chintala, V., 2018. Production, upgradation and utilization of solar assisted pyrolysis fuels from biomass—a technical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 120 130. Contribution to the Economy; Australia’s Coal Industry _ Coal & the Community. ,http:// www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/coal_the_community/contribution_to_the_economy. (accessed 12.02.18.). Dalemans, F., et al., 2018. Redesigning oilseed tree biofuel systems in India. Energy Policy 115, 631 643. Diaz-Chavez, R., 2014. Indicators for Socio-Economic Sustainability Assessment. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 17 37. Economics of Biofuels, 2018. United States Environmental Protection Agency. ,https:// www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels. (accessed 03.03.18.). Electricity; Overview; International Energy Outlook 2016; Energy Information Administration (EIA), USA. ,https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf. (accessed 20.01.18.). Florin, M.J., van de Ven, G.W.J., van Ittersum, M.K., 2014. What drives sustainable biofuels? A review of indicator assessments of biofuel production systems involving smallholder farmers. Environ. Sci. Policy 37, 142 157. Galina, I., et al., 2007. Assessing social and economic impacts associated with changes in the coal mining industry in the Bowen Basin, Queensland, Australia. Manage. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 18 (2), 211 228. Gheewala, S.H., Damen, B., Shi, X., 2013. Biofuels: economic, environmental and social benefits and costs for developing countries in Asia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4 (6), 497 511.
References
Godby, R., et al., 2015. The Impact of the Coal Economy on Wyoming. Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Goetz, A., German, L., Weigelt, J., 2017. Scaling up biofuels? A critical look at expectations, performance and governance. Energy Policy 110, 719 723. Huang, H., et al., 2013. Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energy Policy 56, 5 15. Hunsberger, C., German, L., Goetz, A., 2017. “Unbundling” the biofuel promise: querying the ability of liquid biofuels to deliver on socio-economic policy expectations. Energy Policy 108, 791 805. Kummamuru, B., WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics, 2016. World Bioenergy Association. https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/WBA%20Global%20Bioenergy%20Statistics% 202016.pdf (accessed 13.03.18.). Lave, L.B., 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. National Academies Press. Available from: https:// www.nap.edu/resource/13105/Renewable-Fuel-Standard-Final.pdf. Le, L.T., et al., 2013. Comparing the social costs of biofuels and fossil fuels: a case study of Vietnam. Biomass Bioenergy 54, 227 238. Liew, W.H., Hassim, M.H., Ng, D.K.S., 2014. Review of evolution, technology and sustainability assessments of biofuel production. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 11 29. Lockie, S., et al., 2008. Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 26 (3), 177 187. Luu, L.Q., Halog, A., 2016. Rice husk based bioelectricity vs. coal-fired electricity: life cycle sustainability assessment case study in Vietnam. Procedia CIRP 40, 73 78. Mitkidis, G., Magoutas, A., Kitsios, F., 2018. Market and economic feasibility analysis for the implementation of 2nd generation biofuels in Greece. Energy Strat. Rev. 19, 85 98. Petrou, E.C., Pappis, C.P., 2009. Biofuels: a survey on pros and cons. Energy Fuels 23 (2), 1055 1066. Rademacher, M., 2016. The Socio-Economic Impacts of Advanced Technology CoalFuelled Power Stations, Coal Industry Advisory Board. ,https://www.iea.org/ciab/The %20Socio-economic%20Impacts%20of%20Advanced%20Technology%20Coal-Fuelled %20Power%20Stations_FINAL.pdf.. Rafiaani, P., et al., 2018. Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: towards a systemic approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 1839 1853. Raman, S., et al., 2015. Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 82, 49 62. Rosillo-Calle, F., 2012. Food versus fuel: toward a new paradigm—the need for a holistic approach. ISRN Renew. Energy 2012, 1 15. Siebert, A., et al., 2018. Social life cycle assessment indices and indicators to monitor the social implications of wood-based products. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4074 4084. World Energy Resources-Bioenergy, 2016. World Energy Council. ,https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Bioenergy_2016.pdf. (accessed 02.02.18.). Yang, S., et al., 2018. Sustainability assessment of synfuels from biomass or coal: an insight on the economic and ecological burdens. Renew. Energy 118, 870 878.
529