Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Main Dish

Buenos Bios

How South American biofuels are gaining steam, and why that freaks the U.S. out

By Kelly Hearn
15 Dec 2005
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
In his drab office in the fashion-obsessed chaos of downtown Buenos Aires, Argentina, Edmundo Defferrari cuts a farmhand's figure in a corporate man's world.

Soybeans. Photo by Keith Weller.
Soy is growing up down south.
Photo: USDA/Keith Weller.
The 28-year-old industrial engineer, in cap, jeans, and scruffy beard, taps through a PowerPoint presentation choked with graphs, statistics, and cartoon renderings of how his prototype biodiesel plant can help farmers become self-sufficient. Then he opens a dark brown bottle filled with soybean diesel. "When it burns," he says, "it smells like there's a McDonald's in the field."

Backed by Don Mario, an Argentine seed company, Defferrari has developed what he hopes is a bit of methadone for global oil addiction: a localized way for soybean farmers to turn part of their harvest into homespun fuel. And this entrepreneur is far from alone. Kick-started by high oil prices and talk of peak oil, South America is making an incipient push to reshape the future of fuel.

It's not an easy task. "International financial institutions, from the International Monetary Fund to the Inter-American Development Bank, have loaned with a favorable bias upon extractive industries, and little effort on renewables," says Mark Langevin, a politics professor at Chapman University in Santa Maria, Calif., whose work focuses on Brazil. Observers also say that politics and economies of scale currently mean more noise than payoffs for the South American biofuel industry.

But that's not stopping engineers in the continent's agricultural powerhouses, particularly Brazil and Argentina, from exploring how to make and export cleaner fuels. And as the U.S. prepares to take its own biofuel production to another level, some are wondering if the global market will end up smelling more like salsa or apple pie.

Border Petrols


Defferrari hopes his $152,000 prototype plant in Chacabuco, about 145 miles west of Buenos Aires, will herald a trend that will become as common as cow dung. The plant can churn out about 360 gallons of biodiesel and 10 tons of animal feed from 12 tons of soybeans per day. Not only does it produce fuel that's about half diesel's market price, it's automated, requiring humans only to load the contraption and turn it on and off.

"This is about farmer protection, about making them self-sufficient," Defferrari says. "This is the kind of plant that three or four farmers could invest in together." He's got interest -- and not just from farmers. His work has landed him in local magazines, in wire stories, and on CNN. And though he won't give details, the budding entrepreneur says he is planning a trip to Chicago for meetings with a big energy firm.

In Argentina, which reaps high volumes of soybean and sunflower seeds, biodiesel is often pitched by industry watchers as the alternative fuel with the most national potential. But production in the country is currently at an "artisan level, of little volume," says Claudio Molina, head of the Argentine Association of Biofuels. According to AgroDiario, an Argentina-based agriculture magazine, an estimated 20 plants are operating in the country, but they are not legally registered.

Some hope tighter regulation and legal subsidies will help cultivate the fledgling industry here. Argentine lawmakers are mulling a bill that would mandate a 5 percent mix of biodiesel with regular diesel, creating an annual demand of 660,000 tons by 2009. But the bill is stuck -- unlike in Brazil, whose young biodiesel industry is helped by a mandated 2 percent mix by 2008, and 5 percent by 2013. Brazil opened its first commercial biodiesel refinery in March.

And South America's biggest country is a leader in another important fuel. Last year, the global production of ethanol displaced about 3 percent of the 317 billion gallons of gasoline consumed on the planet, according to a report from the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. Nearly 40 percent of that global supply came from Brazil, the largest ethanol market and maker in the world.

Brasilia Arabia


It's easy to imagine Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho as a loud-talking channeler of Henry Ford, whose 1920s enthusiasm for crop-based ethanol was eventually drowned by cheap oil. As head of the Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union, Carvalho speaks with a revolutionary's flare, ticking off reasons why his country is the Saudi Arabia of ethanol.

Brazil produced 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2004, some 37 percent of the world total, while the U.S. churned out 3.4 billion gallons, 31 percent of the world's share. The country also exported 634 million gallons -- 112 million of that to the U.S. -- and its government is pushing to clear more land for production. Its vast size and tropical climate are perfect for the production of sugar cane, which is said to have better energy conversion rates than corn, the primary source for ethanol in the U.S. What's more, Brazilian producers burn cellulosic stalk of sugar cane to make energy that fuels the entire industrial process. "That is why our production costs are half that of corn," Carvalho says.

While Brazil builds its ethanol empire -- eyeing customers from Venezuela to China -- other South American nations are also getting on board. Most are embracing mandatory fuel mixes for cost, security, and environmental reasons, but some hope to become bio-fountains spilling into a global fuel revolution.

In September, Venezuela -- which now mandates ethanol blending in some parts of the country and may require a 10 percent mix nationwide in the future -- said it will spend $900 million over five years to bring 15 new plants online. Colombia passed a law requiring a 10 percent ethanol mix in cities with populations over 500,000, but geography restricts its sugar cane production, meaning it will likely have no exportable surplus. Peru is pushing ethanol, with California as a potential market, while Argentina is putting its ethanol empanada in the mix too. It has become the world's 17th-biggest ethanol maker, producing 42 million gallons last year, according to F.O. Licht (though its output goes mainly to agrochemicals, drinks, and cosmetics). And tiny Paraguay and Uruguay are also seeking to get involved.

That said, nobody holds a caipirinha to Brazil, whose confluence of geography, economics, and politics has spawned an industry that, unlike the U.S.-based ethanol sector, is now capable of standing without the crutch of tax subsidies. And its fortunes rose three years ago when Brazilian automakers began churning out "flex-fuel cars" that run on a combination of power sources, including ethanol. Carvalho says the country's car industry is heading to 100 percent flex fuel, and predicts that "within a year or so there will be no more new gas cars made in Brazil." In early November, automakers rolled out a flex-fuel car that will be sold in the U.S. next year. While all that makes some U.S. ethanol makers nervous, Carvalho and others say there's room for collaboration. In April, Brazil's minister of development, industry, and foreign trade, Luiz Fernando Furlan, traveled to California on an ethanol cheerleading tour. While there, he suggested that U.S. and Brazilian companies could jointly market their products to China, widely considered to be the globe's emerging mega-consumer of energy.

Fuelish Notions


Such a partnership would be a new spin on an old story. Thanks to geography, Uncle Sam has historically been a fossil-fuel friend of its Latin American neighbors, buying black gold from oil-flush nations like Ecuador and Venezuela, which provides some 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports. For many, those historic relations and proximity make bio-imports a no-brainer. But will the U.S. ethanol industry, which some see as a subsidy-heavy pet project of farm-belt politicians, fight that flow? Early signs point to yes.

For instance, U.S. ethanol makers now have their corn boiling over plans by U.S.-based Cargill to build a refinery in El Salvador. The ag giant will take advantage of a trade-law loophole in the Caribbean Basin Initiative: by processing Brazilian ethanol in a CBI signatory country, Cargill can export the fuel duty-free into the U.S. The Central American Free Trade Agreement could have closed the loophole, but didn't.

Sugar cane. Photo: iStockphoto.
Cane you dig it?
Photo: iStockphoto.
In reports and position papers, the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a think tank, claimed CAFTA could let millions of gallons of Brazilian ethanol into the U.S. without tariffs. "CAFTA stands to destroy thousands of jobs created by the U.S. ethanol industry and make the U.S. dependent yet again on foreign fuel supplies," says Ben Lilliston of IATP.

And what about the U.S. biodiesel industry, a neophyte with production rates of only 30 million gallons last year? South America will not likely find new amigos there, especially after a boat full of South American biodiesel docked in Florida last month, qualifying for a U.S. biodiesel tax break. The American Soybean Association immediately called on Congress to eliminate a loophole in the 2004 law in question.

Some things are going well for the U.S. biofuel market, like the odd assortment of environmentalists, evangelical Christians, and conservatives running around Washington pitching it as a key to America's fuel security. Lawmakers are drumming up ways to protect ethanol makers from a deluge of imports, and the energy bill President Bush signed this summer requires the country to use an annual 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012.

But America's homespun biocombustibles industry, especially ethanol, is still in a knot over South American competition. Um, samba lessons anyone?

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Kelly Hearn is a writer in South America. He is a former UPI staff reporter and a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor and other publications.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (10 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

Biodiesel

I think that we could be a little bit more cautious about this issue. The monoculture of sugarcane is responsible to a large portion of deforestation. The soy has been directly regarded with amazon deforestation. And, another thing is that biofuels are not renewables...

Abraços, Fabiano C.
biodiesel not so eco-friendly

I really think that the eco-press needs to be a bit less bubbly about this 'alternative energy'.  I mean, running engines off of recycled cooking oil is great, but there's just not enough to run all our cars and trucks.  And not only do biofuels release carbon, their monocrop cultivation tends to occur along with unsustainable agricultural practises and, especially in South America, massive deforestation to make room for the new crops - which results in huge loss of biomass, oxygen production, erosion, habitat destruction, extinction of species and, oh, yeah, the release of a huge amount of carbon.

(they ran an article about this in the Guardian recently)

Someone remind me again why this is supposed to be environmentally beneficial?

biofuel

The article in the Guardian mentions palm oil. I've seen a positive spin on use of the Jatropha tree (article) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1168744.cmsfor bio-fuel.  

I'm not expert on horticulture, but aren't these two different sources for bio-diesel?  

I've also read there is great interest in cellulosic material as a feedstock for ethanol.

Good bye Amazon

From http://www.sprol.com/?p=188

The area that people deforest in Brazil every year is rising again. In 2005 it will pass the peak set in back in 1995.

The Mato Grosso state's governor is also the agriculture tycoon Blario Maggi, (known locally as "O Rei da Soja," the King of Soy) who clears rainforest to grow soybeans. Maggi is the largest producer of soybeans in the world. Mato Grosso led all Brazilian states in deforestation with 48 per cent of the destruction last year, feeding Brazil's booming Soya industry.



In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
biofuels are renewable

biofuels are renewable because we can just grow more.  There are many plant sources, and there's no reason the world's remaining forests can't be protected, and more land turned over to biofuels.  The key is to protect the forests, which we aren't doing now in a biofuel free world.  Two different issues.

My part of the world is very dry but with a lot of artesian water.  I can see biofuel plantations happily sucking carbon out of our warming atmosphere.

Renewable, yes, but destructive also

The key is to protect the forests, which we aren't doing now in a biofuel free world. Two different issues.

If we are having such a hard time protecting rainforests in a biofuel free world, how will we do so when the incentive to destroy them grows exponentially with the demand for biofuel? I wish I could just click my heels together and declare them to be two different issues, if they were, we would not be witnessing the destruction of rainforests by biodiesel right now. They are closely interrelated.

My part of the world is very dry but with a lot of artesian water.  I can see biofuel plantations happily sucking carbon out of our warming atmosphere.

Biodiesel puts far less CO2 into the air than conventional diesel but does not go so far as to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. It only sequesters CO2 for a few months before it spits it back into the air. It is also not entirely CO2 neutral, adding about 22% as much CO2 as conventional diesel while it is at it.

Biofuel crops can only be grown on arable land. To make unarable land arable takes a great deal of money. I could grow crops on Mount Rainier if I were willing to spend enough money. I won't because the resulting product would not be commercially competitive. It is far cheaper to cut down a rainforest than to do things like desalinate salt water or draw down aquafers to farm a desert. That is why biofuels will destroy jungles. It is also far cheaper to usurp existing croplands. People will not buy the most expensive biofuels produced by using expensive farming techniques on marginal farmland.

Cheaper biofuels that arrive in our ports will replace domestic production just as surely as cheaper products have replaced so many other American made products. We have a global economy now. Lower prices for consumers is what it is all about. How many people still insist on buying American even if it costs more?

Biofuel production in the US is supported by red state politicians because it is another way to subsidize farmers and for now, they have most environmentalists in their pockets. If word ever gets out that using biodiesel can double your ecological footprint score, they may end up with empty pockets.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Aren´t renewable

I totally disagree. Is not renewable because it have a cycle. Ok, "you can just grow more", but it isn´t a natural cycle like wind and solar power. The biofuels depends of farming...

Abraços, Fabiano C.
I hadn't considered that angle Fabian

Lots of environmentalists have been insisting for a long time that our industiral farming is not sustainable. So, why is it now suddenly sustainable just becuase you feed the results to your car instead of yourself or a cow?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Balance may be the answer

Is it possible that, at the root of the fuel problem, is the fact that there's so much consumerism and such a high demand not only for vehicles of all kinds, but also for manufacturing processes that require petroleum? A few "2-cents worth":

  • Do y'all remember when gas supplies weren't a problem in the U.S.? That started a cycle which saw families moving to the suburbs, hence creating increased need for cars and fossil-fuels. I wonder: if fuel weren't as available then as it happened to be, would that migration to suburbs take place so thoughtlessly?

  • Now let's suppose that the fuel-supply challenge is solved with biofuels, hydrogen, solar power, you name it: what kind of consumerism cycle will that create? It seems like the more is available, the more consumers want.

  • So consumers not only need to be educated about the impact of fossil fuel usage, but also, there's a need for education where individuals would learn to live, leaving as small a footprint as possible.

  • Is it possible that different markets, with different renewable resources, should first aim to develop self-sustainable energy technologies, without vying necessary to supply fuel to others? That would take away the enticement of destroying forests and fields for the sake of exporting ethanol or whatever it may be. As an example: Brazil would produce enough renewable fuels for its own market, to the point where mass deforestation WOULD NOT occur. In the meanwhile, the U.S. would develop some other type of fuel - appropriate to its ecosystem - without, again having the ambition of creating so much of it, that its natural resources, quality of life, sustainability, ecosystems and biodiversity would be at risk.

  • According to the US Department of Energy, the amount of used cooking oil now disposed of in the U.S. exceeds the current potential demand for biodiesel fuel, making it an abundant resource (see "The Power of Biofuels" article, at SustainableReview.com.

  • Perhaps, at the end of the day, the answer to fuel supply is a bit like mutual funds: you don't put all your eggs in one basket! That is one thing I like about the premise behind the flex-fuel engine in Brazil, since it apparently doesn't create dependency on ONE specific type of fuel. Back in the 80s, in Brazil, so many cars were sugarcane-powered, that at one point, from what I have read, there wasn't enough of a supply. Now, I don't know WHY that happened, but it does teach us a lesson, doesn't it?


SustainableReview.com - Sustainable living for every facet of our lives. Articles on sustainability, eco-fashion & eco-design. Have your say in our forum!
I followed your link.

Some of the remarks could use a little clarification.

The amount of used cooking oil now disposed of in the U.S. exceeds the current potential demand for biodiesel fuel, making it an abundant resource.

What do they mean my "disposed" of and "abundant." In theory, there is enough used cooking oil in the U.S. to supply less than 5 percent of our cars. The fact that it can be burned in cars is irrelevant because it gets recycled anyway to make things like soap, or pet food. Using it to make biodiesel only takes it away from other recyclers, who would then have to use something else, like virgin vegetable oils. You can't get something for nothing. However, you can't ask for better PR and that's why biodiesel enthusiasts will mention recycled oil with every opportunity.

The biodiesel refinery in Seattle uses virgin vegetable oil shipped by train from the Mid-West. You can bet that they have very good reasons for using that instead of recycled cooking oil.

Biodiesel dramatically cuts air toxins, carbon monoxide, soot, small particles and hydrocarbon emissions in half.

This is true only when compared to regular diesel. If you want to reduce air pollution, drive an equivalent gasoline powered car. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the EPA, they pollute less than biodiesel.

In fact, experts estimate about a third of our transportation fuel needs can be met by domestically produced biofuels.

Any idea who these experts are? My numbers show that we can fuel about 25% of our cars by growing soybeans on every square inch of cropland in the US. By using 10% of our cropland we can fuel 2.5% of our cars, reducing overall CO2 emissions by about half of a percent.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular



From the Archives
DEP Thoughts, by Sarah van Schagen. An interview with Kathleen McGinty, Pennsylvania's green go-getter.
Going Down, by Mike Wendling. Is too few people the new "population problem"?
Hike Messenger, by Sarah van Schagen. Population activist David Nova took his message to the trail.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | Weekly Recipes | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks