Biomass fuels, source of common man's energy

By Otto Soemarwoto

BANDUNG (JP): Very little attention is being given to biomass fuels, which primarily consist of wood, charcoal and agricultural residues. The government almost never mentions them. Likewise for universities, research institutes, NGOs and the newspapers. The World Bank and the IMF are also silent about them. And yet biomass fuels (biofuels for short) are a very common source of energy in Indonesia. About 38 percent of the country's total energy consumption comes from biofuels. In rural areas, about 90 percent of households use biofuels for their cooking, and in small towns, about 30 percent. Data shows that the consumption of biofuels is increasing.

The use of biofuels is related to the economic status of the people. Poor people use mainly biofuels and some kerosene for lighting. As their economic status improves they climb up the energy ladder to kerosene, and then gas and electricity. But with the economic crisis, presumably many people slide back a few rungs to using biofuels.

The general belief is that biofuels are free. This is not true. Many households have to buy their biofuels, notably charcoal, and also wood. Others have to spend a lot of time collecting them. Wood is also used for fuel in many businesses, such as in the production of palm sugar and in lime kilns. Wood supplies about 40 percent of the cash earnings of rural households, and generates 20 times more local employment than energy from oil products. These figures show the important economic role of biofuels in the life of the common people.

The advantage of biofuels is that they are a renewable resource. Unlike nonrenewable fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which are the major source of the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the combustion of biofuels does not increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2, provided that the rate of consumption does not exceed the rate of regrowth. This is because the renewability of biofuels is based on the photosynthetic process in which the atmospheric CO2 gas from the burning is reused. However, although the CO2 gas is reabsorbed, the combustion of biofuels still has a global warming effect due to the production of other greenhouse gases.

Recent data shows that, nationwide, the potential supply of biofuels is higher than the potential consumption. Therefore, on a national basis, the consumption of biofuels does not deplete the vegetative cover, and hence, does not cause environmental degradation, either locally, e.g., soil erosion and floods, or globally, e.g., increase of atmospheric CO2. However, there are exceptions that must be noted. For example, in some areas where adverse soil and climatic conditions prevail, and where population density is high, there is the danger of unsustainable use. Recent data also shows that biofuels primarily come from non-forest areas. Consequently, the consumption of biofuels is not an important cause of deforestation, as has generally been assumed.

Biofuels also have the advantage that they do not require government subsidies, while oil, gas and electricity are heavily subsidized. Ironically, those who are economically better off are the ones who enjoy these subsidies, while the poor people who use biofuels get very little, if anything. An unfair system indeed.

The unfairness of the system becomes even more pronounced when the health effects of biofuels are considered. The burning of biofuels produces many substances which have an adverse effect on health. During cooking, kitchens are heavily polluted with smoke, which, as every one knows, is very irritating to the eyes.

Other health effects are even worse. It causes acute respiratory infections (ARI) on infants who accompany their mothers in the kitchen. ARI is known as the second most important killer of children in less developed countries. It has been reported that the risk of ARI for children under 5 who are chronically exposed to smoke is approximately four times that for those who are not exposed to smoke.

In adults, smoke causes chronic obstructive lung disease (COLD). COLD leads to pulmonary hypertension and cardiac enlargement, which can ultimately cause the disease cor pulmonale. Studies have shown a relationship between cor pulmonale and domestic smoke exposure. Domestic smoke exposure during pregnancy causes lower average birth weights and an increased likelihood of stillbirth, presumably due to the CO2 intake, which inhibits the delivery of oxygen to maternal and fetal hemoglobin and the release of oxygen from maternal hemoglobin in the placenta.

Smoke also contains carcinogenic substances. A study in Japan found that women cooking with straw or wood fuel when they were 30 years old had an 80 percent higher chance of having cancer in later life.

Considering the economic importance of biofuels for the common people and their serious health effects, it is recommended that serious attention be given to biofuels by the government, universities, NGOs, the media, and also the World Bank and the IMF. An important step would be to improve the ventilation of kitchens and other places in the house where biofuels are used, e.g., for heating.

This would reduce the concentration of smoke and its harmful constituents. Another step would be to improve the design of traditional stoves to increase the efficiency and to reduce smoke exposure by a flue or chimney. Doubling the efficiency is considered a realistic goal. This can be done by using local materials and some training of the villagers.

Still another step would be to change the fuel by enabling poor people to climb up the energy ladder. This would result in bringing the benefits of government fuel subsidies to those that really need them. Since biofuels are not free, shifting from wood to subsidized kerosene or LPG could mean a substantial saving for poor households. A shift from wood to kerosene, and then LPG, would reduce the health risks by a factor of four and 50, respectively.

Clearly, these steps do have costs. However, without these steps, there are hidden costs which are being borne by the poor people. It should be noted that tens of millions of women and their infants are daily exposed to dangerous air pollution in their homes. To continue to keep our eyes shut to this problem is ethically and economically irresponsible.

Therefore, corrective actions must be taken, for example, by using funds for the social safety net. This would not be just gift money, but the seed to grow capital by creating jobs for the growing of more trees, and the production and trade of energy- efficient stoves.

It has been shown in many places in Indonesia and elsewhere that the growing of trees for biofuels has become an important source of income for rural people. The additional trees would also reduce soil erosion and floods, and use up more CO2 from the atmosphere and thereby reduce the warming of the planet. NGOs, particularly those concerned with improving women's welfare, should actively pursue these efforts.

The writer is Professor Emeritus at Padjadjaran University, Bandung and a senior scientist with the Foundation Agenda-21.