Biomass fuels, source of common man's energy

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.