[lorenzo]

People, we must get real. It's about time we start looking beyond petroleum. We know that the future will be a bioenergy future so let's start to think about the geopolitical consequences of this great transformation.
This is exactly what the IEA Bioenergy Task Force 40 did. And it's interesting to see some basic results: http://www.bioenergytrade.org/

The principle scientist of Bioenergy Taskforce 40 has written several interesting studies about the global biomass potential under different scenario's, as they unfold in different regions.

Here's a basic map summarizing his research (numbers are exajoules) (the world's total current energy consumption -- that is ALL energy consumption, not just petroleum -- is 420 exajoules):



Please find the main study, here:
www.iea.org/textbase/work/2005/Biofuels ... tation.pdf
PPT presentation, here:
www.termo.hut.fi/Ene-39/006/part%20I.ppt [7.5mb]

The energy powerhouses of the future are green zones with high biomass indexes, no longer arid deserts where sheiqs waste water on their artificial golf courts). So the questions of the geopolitics of the future become:

-who controls the largest amounts of biomass?
-how will this control over biomass change geopolitical alliances? Is there a tropical, south-south alliance in the making?
-in what way does the nature of warfare (energy wars) change? (I imagine it's more difficult to occupy millions of hectares of energy crops than it is to occupy an oil pit and a pipeline - even though that already proves to be difficult).
-how about energy security and terrorism? It's probably fairly easy to create viruses and plant diseases and use them as strategic weapons to target the entire biomass base of a country. What about strategic biomass reserves?
-etc...

Also, as you can see from the map, vast geopolitical zones with high concentrations of people, have very limited potential: India, with it's 1.1 billion people; the US and the EU; even China doesn't have that much green stuff; Japan is in a totally disastrous state. It already knows this, that's why it is importing bioenergy in vast quantities from Brazil, laying the foundations for a long term strategic bioenergy partnership. (First sign of the Big Green Shift).

But then look at sub-Saharan Africa. It has tremendous potential and if things turn out right, the bioenergy future is THE single best opportunity for sub-Saharan Africa to trade itsself out of poverty.
The region's going to be the Green Opec.

In short, we're looking at a great transformation of the way our world works. And from what I read from the scenario's, I think I like it.

[Jack]

If they wish to fuel my car while starving their own people, that's fine with me.

Here's a map of the water resources:



Then there's this:

rrigation

60% of food production is from non-irrigated agriculture. A sizeable part of irrigation potential is already used in North Africa and the Near East (where water is the limiting factor), but a large part also remains unused in sub-Saharan Africa. Water for irrigation is a high priority for economic development and stability. However, few countries can afford the financial investment in efficient irrigation systems, and water losses through leaking pipes and evaporation are as high as 50% in South Africa alone.
The expansion of irrigation is projected to be strongest in North Africa, as well as in the Near East. By 2030, North Africa will have reached critical thresholds of water availability for agriculture. In sub-Saharan Africa, no additional land resources are available to exploit, and he proportion of renewable water resources allocated to irrigation in is likely to remain far below the critical threshold.
Africa’s dependence on cereal imports is expected to continue to grow, with a widening net trade deficit.

Link

Face it, Lorenzo. Africa is dead.

[Peak_Plus]

People, we must get real. It's about time we start looking beyond petroleum.
...
In short, we're looking at a great transformation of the way our world works.

That's the whole point of PO, right? time to start looking past Petroleum.

Too bad that biofuels are going to be the "tried and un-true" answer to the whole thing, whatever the world politics behind it are.

Cheers.

[bobbyald]

I refer you to this article: Australia: Biomass can't save us.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3389.html

If biomass can't save Australia which has "far more useable land than any other rich country" and only a population of 20 million why do you think it will save the world?

[lorenzo]

I admit that by 2050 bioenergy will only be able to produce twice the amount of the energy the world consumes today. So when between 2005 and 2050, the world only doubles its total energy consumption, bioenergy can provide all of it. If the world consumes more, we'll need other energy sources as well.

I refer you to this article: Australia: Biomass can't save us.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3389.html

If biomass can't save Australia which has "far more useable land than any other rich country" and only a population of 20 million why do you think it will save the world?

Hold on: the USA produces 5.4 million barrels of crude oil per day. If I were to follow your logic, the US would not be able to consume more than that amount. So how come America consumes 20 million barrels per day if it only produces 5.4?


Okay, the point I'm trying to make is that, as with oil, international flows of and control over biomass will become crucial. I wanted to discuss the changes that this new energy paradigm will bring to the geopolitics of energy.

[bobbyald]

The point that this article makes is that Australia is probably the best placed country in the world to take advantage of biomass but still it would need to use ALL its available land (impossible of course) to produce energy on the scale that it uses today. Factor in population growth and demand growth and things get even worse.

No other country comes close to Australia and they can't do it.

Australia has far more useable land than any other rich country. Total crop, pasture and forest area is 4.9 ha/person. For the US the figure is 2.8, for Europe 1.6, Asia .5, and for the world as a whole it is 1.4 ha/person. World population will probably rise to more than 8 billion. Productive land per person then will be c .8 ha/person, to meet all needs, include food, water, settlement, pollution absorption and energy.

If we used all the present 1.4 ha of crop, pasture and forest land per person just for biomass energy production, it would yield 48.5 GJ per person, which is only 38% of the present Australian oil plus gas consumption, (and only 20% of our total energy consumption.)

[lorenzo]

The point that this article makes is that Australia is probably the best placed country in the world to take advantage of biomass but still it would need to use ALL its available land (impossible of course) to produce energy on the scale that it uses today. Factor in population growth and demand growth and things get even worse.

No other country comes close to Australia and they can't do it.

Australia has far more useable land than any other rich country. Total crop, pasture and forest area is 4.9 ha/person. For the US the figure is 2.8, for Europe 1.6, Asia .5, and for the world as a whole it is 1.4 ha/person. World population will probably rise to more than 8 billion. Productive land per person then will be c .8 ha/person, to meet all needs, include food, water, settlement, pollution absorption and energy.

If we used all the present 1.4 ha of crop, pasture and forest land per person just for biomass energy production, it would yield 48.5 GJ per person, which is only 38% of the present Australian oil plus gas consumption, (and only 20% of our total energy consumption.)

See, you don't have to look at per capita land availability alone, you have to look at the agro-ecological qualities of the land.

It doesn't suffice to have a large patch of lowly suitable land, with a low biomass production potential, even though, "per capita", it looks likes there plenty of land. This is the case for Australia. It has lots of very lowly suitable land.

Please look at the map above. You see the potential of Oceania. It is tiny, compared to that of other regions. The main potential of Oceania is in Papua New Guinea, because the agro-ecological qualities of land there lead to high biomass production potential. Australia's is negligeable.

The map is based on many factors (population projections, per capita GDP, etc...), but the main factors are the agro-ecological ones.

Check the FAO's Global Agro-Ecological Zones website, you will understand why your example about Australia is a good way to illustrate how calculating the biomass potential of a zone works:
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/gaez/index.htm

Please allow me to show you just a few of the data on which it is based (and please do check the legend if you doubt my data):

The length of growing periods, for example:


As you can see, Australia's varies between zero days a year, and a meagre 120 days a year. Papua New Guinea's on the contrary comes close to 365 days a year, meaning it can often produce two, even three crops, or crops that yield many times more biomass than any that survive in the dry, harsh desert of Australia or its tiny northern subtropical belt.


Multiple Cropping Zones (rainfed conditions), for example:


As you can see, Australia's capacity to multi-crop is almost zero. Then check for the blue and green spots on the globe.

Soil Chemical Constraints, for example:


Most of Australia's tiny patch of land that is suitable for modestly productive agriculture, has serious chemical soil constraints...

Etc...etc...


In short, if you combine all these factors, you arrive at a certain biomass potential for certain zones (which you can see on the map in the first post of this thread).

Australia's potential is tiny (it's a desert with a few patches of very unsuitable and low productive land). Papua New Guinea's is huge (it's a very fertile, lush, tropical country, with lots of sun, rainfall and good soils....) because it's biomass index is so much higher.

So, given that certain regions can produce quite a lot of it, while having populations that don't use much energy themselves, and that don't use much land; and given that other regions (US/EU/India/China/Japan) don't have this high potential, but have huge populations with huge (per capita) energy demands... it means there will be biomass trade... Just as we have oil trade.

A quick reminder of the parallel: the USA is the world's third largest oil producer, but it imports vast amounts of oil - because it can and because it wants to and because others can sell it to them because they have it in their hands. The same will be true in the biomass era.

Australia, like so many other zones that have a low biomass production potential but huge energy needs will import from Africa and Latin America.

[lorenzo]

If they wish to fuel my car while starving their own people, that's fine with me.

Here's a map of the water resources:
Then there's this:

rrigation

60% of food production is from non-irrigated agriculture. A sizeable part of irrigation potential is already used in North Africa and the Near East (where water is the limiting factor), but a large part also remains unused in sub-Saharan Africa. Water for irrigation is a high priority for economic development and stability. However, few countries can afford the financial investment in efficient irrigation systems, and water losses through leaking pipes and evaporation are as high as 50% in South Africa alone.
The expansion of irrigation is projected to be strongest in North Africa, as well as in the Near East. By 2030, North Africa will have reached critical thresholds of water availability for agriculture. In sub-Saharan Africa, no additional land resources are available to exploit, and he proportion of renewable water resources allocated to irrigation in is likely to remain far below the critical threshold.
Africa’s dependence on cereal imports is expected to continue to grow, with a widening net trade deficit.

Link

Face it, Lorenzo. Africa is dead.

I've never read such bizarre fantasy.

Please read the FAO's the World Agriculture, Towards 2015/2030:
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.a ... 557e00.htm

And you can check land availability on its easy to use Terrastat Database:
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/terrastat/

Some numbers from the DB (potential arable land), just picking some big countries.

1. Total potential arable land (thousand hectares).
2. Percentage of arable land currently being used:

Angola: 88 105 > 4.0%
Central African Republic: 47 887 > 4.2%
Chad: 33 051 > 9.9%
Republic of the Congo: 22 995 > 4.7%
Democratic Republic of the Congo: 167 831 >0.7%
Cote d'Ivoire: 26 226 > 14.1%
Gabon: 17 873 > 2.6%
Madagascar: 35 602 > 8.7%
Mali: 26 513 > 9.4%
Mozambique: 63 544 > 5.0%
Sudan: 86 728 > 15.0%
Tanzania: 67 285 > 5.2%
Zambia: 58 471> 9.0%

As you can see, there are vast amounts of suitable land available. What they lack is investment. Africa has more than half a billion hectares of suitable land available. But Africans don't have the means to invest in it, that's all.

May I also point out that the FAO -- the global UN institution that guards over the world's food needs and helps achieving them -- says we're moving to a biofuels era.
http://www.energybulletin.net/15311.html
If there were a problem with this, they would say so, very very explicitly.

You know, thousands of scientists work at the FAO and more thousands work for it. They know what they're talking about. And I'm going to have to use the authority argument here (after all the arguments I've given myself): if the FAO -- the main expert body on Food and Agriculture issues -- says that bioenergy future is possible and offers vast chances for Africa, then I tend to go with them.

Africa to benefit as world shifts from petrol to biofuels

Under pressure from soaring oil prices and growing environmental constraints, momentum is gathering for a major international switch from fossil fuels to renewable bioenergy sources such as sugar cane or sunflower seeds, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

"The gradual move away from oil has begun. Over the next 15 to 20 years, we may see biofuels providing a full 25 per cent of the world’s energy needs," says Alexander Muller, assistant director-general of FAO's sustainable development department.

http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/ ... 520062.htm


Africa is not dead. Africa awaits a truly brilliant future, because of the global shift towards bioenergy.

And provided the geopolitics of biomass will be less cruel than the geopolitics of oil.

[lorenzo]

Quickie:

So let's suppose the scientists at the IEA and the scientists at the FAO and the scientists at the EU are correct (they might be) about the bioenergy future. Then what will be the geopolitical consequences?

Let's just assume their numbers and projections are correct (so we don't have to debate these again, we've done this a thousand times now).

What are we facing? Let's get on topic, shall we?

[Wildwell]

Hmn, well if this is such a good plan B, why are we spending trillions on fossil fuel development. And, if the conspiracy theorists are right, why is the US so interested in Middle East oil, when it could help out millions of Africans?

[Wildwell]

Having quickly read through parts of that report I noted:

- problems with globalisation
- problems with water, soil erosion, use of fertilser, dams making things worse
- problems with food security and developing countries (which are mainly in Africa) needing to import more food. IE they can't grow enough food as it is...
- desertfication

And this line about unused arable land:

'much of this potential land is in practice unavailable, or locked up in other valuable uses. Some 45 percent is covered in forests, 12 percent is in protected areas and 3 percent is taken up by human settlements and infrastructure. In addition, much of the land reserve may have characteristics that make agriculture difficult, such as low soil fertility, high soil toxicity, high incidence of human and animal diseases, poor infrastructure, and hilly or otherwise difficult terrain.'

Face it Lorenzo, the whole idea there's all this prime land waiting to fuel the world's planes, cars, trucks, ships, trains and industry that has been forgotten or not developed is fantasy. Moreover if we start cutting down 'the lungs of the world' in rainforest areas, this is going to lead to runaway climate change – something you should be very worried about in your part of the world (Belgium/Netherlands).

[lorenzo]

Hmn, well if this is such a good plan B, why are we spending trillions on fossil fuel development. And, if the conspiracy theorists are right, why is the US so interested in Middle East oil, when it could help out millions of Africans?

Didn't the President of the United States just say, in his State of the Union, that America will cut 75% of its imports of Middle Eastern oil, and replace it by second generation biofuels?

If he says it's possible, it must be the absolute truth.

[Doly]

Didn't the President of the United States just say, in his State of the Union, that America will cut 75% of its imports of Middle Eastern oil, and replace it by second generation biofuels?

This reminds me of that site where you could choose policies to give America oil independence. If you tried really hard, with quite extreme policies, you could cut oil imports to half. I wonder what are the specific policies that Bush wants to implement.

[Wildwell]

Hmn, well if this is such a good plan B, why are we spending trillions on fossil fuel development. And, if the conspiracy theorists are right, why is the US so interested in Middle East oil, when it could help out millions of Africans?

Didn't the President of the United States just say, in his State of the Union, that America will cut 75% of its imports of Middle Eastern oil, and replace it by second generation biofuels?

If he says it's possible, it must be the absolute truth.

Yes, this is the man that can hardly string a sentence together - if he says its right it must be. Excuse my cynicism.

When Bob Geldof stops coming on my TV banging his fists on the table about starving Africans I might be a little more alive to the idea.

[Jack]

And provided the geopolitics of biomass will be less cruel than the geopolitics of oil.

That's a mighty big "if".

I have great faith in human nature. It has a long, well-established track record.

Less cruelty is not on the menu.

[eric_b]

Idiots, don't respond to bots like Lorenzo (lorenzo == bigg).

He's already gracelessly spammed the entire PO discussion hierarchy
with biofuel nonsense.

At least don't respond to it.

[Peak_Plus]

Africa is not dead. Africa awaits a truly brilliant future, because of the global shift towards bioenergy.

Africa awaited a truly brilliant future toward the end of the '60s because it had/has enormous copper reserves.

Investment poured in.

Copper prices plummeted and Africa was stuck with enormous debts.

Lorenzo, are YOU planning to colonize Africa this time to get all this done (creating political and economic stability)? I don't share any optimism that anything in Africa is about to "work" suddenly. As evidence, I will offer you my own pet: http://www.seawaterfarms.com/swEritrea.htm

Unfortunately, the position within Eritrea and its political climate changed shortly after this description was written [2003]. At that time SFE employed almost 800 people..

Are YOU about to invest even one worthless USDollar in Africa? Have fun.