Biomass fuels, source of common man's energy<\/p>\n
By Otto Soemarwoto<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Very little attention is being given to biomass
\nfuels, which primarily consist of wood, charcoal and agricultural
\nresidues. The government almost never mentions them. Likewise for
\nuniversities, research institutes, NGOs and the newspapers. The
\nWorld Bank and the IMF are also silent about them. And yet
\nbiomass fuels (biofuels for short) are a very common source of
\nenergy in Indonesia. About 38 percent of the country's total
\nenergy consumption comes from biofuels. In rural areas, about 90
\npercent of households use biofuels for their cooking, and in
\nsmall towns, about 30 percent. Data shows that the consumption of
\nbiofuels is increasing.<\/p>\n
The use of biofuels is related to the economic status of the
\npeople. Poor people use mainly biofuels and some kerosene for
\nlighting. As their economic status improves they climb up the
\nenergy ladder to kerosene, and then gas and electricity. But with
\nthe economic crisis, presumably many people slide back a few
\nrungs to using biofuels.<\/p>\n
The general belief is that biofuels are free. This is not
\ntrue. Many households have to buy their biofuels, notably
\ncharcoal, and also wood. Others have to spend a lot of time
\ncollecting them. Wood is also used for fuel in many businesses,
\nsuch as in the production of palm sugar and in lime kilns. Wood
\nsupplies about 40 percent of the cash earnings of rural
\nhouseholds, and generates 20 times more local employment than
\nenergy from oil products. These figures show the important
\neconomic role of biofuels in the life of the common people.<\/p>\n
The advantage of biofuels is that they are a renewable
\nresource. Unlike nonrenewable fossil fuels such as oil and coal,
\nwhich are the major source of the increase of carbon dioxide
\n(CO2) in the atmosphere, the combustion of biofuels does not
\nincrease the atmospheric concentration of CO2, provided that the
\nrate of consumption does not exceed the rate of regrowth. This is
\nbecause the renewability of biofuels is based on the
\nphotosynthetic process in which the atmospheric CO2 gas from the
\nburning is reused. However, although the CO2 gas is reabsorbed,
\nthe combustion of biofuels still has a global warming effect due
\nto the production of other greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n
Recent data shows that, nationwide, the potential supply of
\nbiofuels is higher than the potential consumption. Therefore, on
\na national basis, the consumption of biofuels does not deplete
\nthe vegetative cover, and hence, does not cause environmental
\ndegradation, either locally, e.g., soil erosion and floods, or
\nglobally, e.g., increase of atmospheric CO2. However, there are
\nexceptions that must be noted. For example, in some areas where
\nadverse soil and climatic conditions prevail, and where
\npopulation density is high, there is the danger of unsustainable
\nuse. Recent data also shows that biofuels primarily come from
\nnon-forest areas. Consequently, the consumption of biofuels is
\nnot an important cause of deforestation, as has generally been
\nassumed.<\/p>\n
Biofuels also have the advantage that they do not require
\ngovernment subsidies, while oil, gas and electricity are heavily
\nsubsidized. Ironically, those who are economically better off are
\nthe ones who enjoy these subsidies, while the poor people who use
\nbiofuels get very little, if anything. An unfair system indeed.<\/p>\n
The unfairness of the system becomes even more pronounced when
\nthe health effects of biofuels are considered. The burning of
\nbiofuels produces many substances which have an adverse effect on
\nhealth. During cooking, kitchens are heavily polluted with smoke,
\nwhich, as every one knows, is very irritating to the eyes.<\/p>\n
Other health effects are even worse. It causes acute
\nrespiratory infections (ARI) on infants who accompany their
\nmothers in the kitchen. ARI is known as the second most important
\nkiller of children in less developed countries. It has been
\nreported that the risk of ARI for children under 5 who are
\nchronically exposed to smoke is approximately four times that for
\nthose who are not exposed to smoke.<\/p>\n
In adults, smoke causes chronic obstructive lung disease
\n(COLD). COLD leads to pulmonary hypertension and cardiac
\nenlargement, which can ultimately cause the disease cor
\npulmonale. Studies have shown a relationship between cor
\npulmonale and domestic smoke exposure. Domestic smoke exposure
\nduring pregnancy causes lower average birth weights and an
\nincreased likelihood of stillbirth, presumably due to the CO2
\nintake, which inhibits the delivery of oxygen to maternal and
\nfetal hemoglobin and the release of oxygen from maternal
\nhemoglobin in the placenta.<\/p>\n
Smoke also contains carcinogenic substances. A study in Japan
\nfound that women cooking with straw or wood fuel when they were
\n30 years old had an 80 percent higher chance of having cancer in
\nlater life.<\/p>\n
Considering the economic importance of biofuels for the common
\npeople and their serious health effects, it is recommended that
\nserious attention be given to biofuels by the government,
\nuniversities, NGOs, the media, and also the World Bank and the
\nIMF. An important step would be to improve the ventilation of
\nkitchens and other places in the house where biofuels are used,
\ne.g., for heating.<\/p>\n
This would reduce the concentration of smoke and its harmful
\nconstituents. Another step would be to improve the design of
\ntraditional stoves to increase the efficiency and to reduce smoke
\nexposure by a flue or chimney. Doubling the efficiency is
\nconsidered a realistic goal. This can be done by using local
\nmaterials and some training of the villagers.<\/p>\n
Still another step would be to change the fuel by enabling
\npoor people to climb up the energy ladder. This would result in
\nbringing the benefits of government fuel subsidies to those that
\nreally need them. Since biofuels are not free, shifting from wood
\nto subsidized kerosene or LPG could mean a substantial saving for
\npoor households. A shift from wood to kerosene, and then LPG,
\nwould reduce the health risks by a factor of four and 50,
\nrespectively.<\/p>\n
Clearly, these steps do have costs. However, without these
\nsteps, there are hidden costs which are being borne by the poor
\npeople. It should be noted that tens of millions of women and
\ntheir infants are daily exposed to dangerous air pollution in
\ntheir homes. To continue to keep our eyes shut to this problem is
\nethically and economically irresponsible.<\/p>\n
Therefore, corrective actions must be taken, for example, by
\nusing funds for the social safety net. This would not be just
\ngift money, but the seed to grow capital by creating jobs for the
\ngrowing of more trees, and the production and trade of energy-
\nefficient stoves.<\/p>\n
It has been shown in many places in Indonesia and elsewhere
\nthat the growing of trees for biofuels has become an important
\nsource of income for rural people. The additional trees would
\nalso reduce soil erosion and floods, and use up more CO2 from the
\natmosphere and thereby reduce the warming of the planet. NGOs,
\nparticularly those concerned with improving women's welfare,
\nshould actively pursue these efforts.<\/p>\n
The writer is Professor Emeritus at Padjadjaran University,
\nBandung and a senior scientist with the Foundation Agenda-21.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/biomass-fuels-source-of-common-mans-energy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}