Talk:RSB principle and Criteria on Water
From BioenergyWiki
| RSB principles and criteria | edit | |
|
Quick links to each principle | ||
| The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels | ||
| Note: This RSB-related page is not actively updated. For up-to-date information on the RSB, see the BioenergyWiki RSB page or the RSB Website The RSB has released "Version One" of the "Principles on Sustainable Biofuel Production" |  | |
Biofuel production shall optimize surface and groundwater resource use, including minimizing contamination or depletion of these resources, and shall not violate existing formal and customary water rights.
- To add a comment, click the "+" symbol at the top of the page after you have logged in.
Ethanol and Water
Our organization, Nature's Voice Our Choice, looks at alternative energy from a 'water impact' standpoint.
It takes between 3.5 - 6 gallons of water to process one gallon of ethanol. However, it takes much much more to grow the feedstock, especially when the feedstock is corn. In Iowa where corn is partially irrigated it takes over 1000 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol. In Nebraska, under full irrigation, it takes 1500 gallons of water to grow 1 gallon of ethanol. In addition the run-off from pesticide and fertilizer use to grow corn is polluting our water resources. When considering Ethanol's impact on our nations already stressed water resources we can not argue that Ethanol from corn is a sustainable alternative.
In the US about half of the total water use is in the energy sector (48% for thermoelectric power in 2000) and about a third (34% in 2000) is for irrigation (1). It may be surprising that water would be a sustainability criteria for electric vehicles as well as biofuels. Are biofuels the better alternative if grown in rainfed agricultural regions (which includes almost all points east of Nebraska in the US). For the record, Iowa had only 190,000 irrigated acres out of 30,000,000 agricultural acres in 2007 (2).
In rainfed regions different cropping systems vary signficantly in their impact on the hydrologic cycle, and some biofuel strategies can be positive. Perennial cellulosic crops like switchgrass increase soil infiltration and moisture retention, reducing runoff and flooding.
Tom Richard
1 Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS Circular 1268
2 National Agricultural Statistics Service
Guidelines (especially 9c) need to take account of seawater farming
It would appear from reading Version Zero of the RSB principles that it has been drafted with only freshwater agriculture in mind as opposed to salt / seawater agriculture. This is not surprising, given that significant development of seawater agriculture is only just beginning. Given the huge potential of seawater agriculture however, it is important that the principles do not unwittingly hinder the development of the very sort of sustainable biofuel development that they are seeking to support.
It is suggested that in all future editing and development of these principles, the existence of both seawater agriculture and freshwater agriculture is born in mind. In most cases, identical principles are relevant for both. In some cases however there is the need to amend the wording to ensure that a basic principle is reflected appropriately for both types of farming.
An example of where the current wording needs to be amended is the issue of water – Principle 9. In some cases in this Principle and guidelines, the word water can cover both freshwater and seawater. In other cases however it refers implicitly to freshwater. This needs to be made explicit. For example the guidelines in 9c need slight editing. The first and third sentences in (c Key Guidance both probably refer to fresh water, but there would not seem to be a problem with this ambiguity. The second sentence however, in the context of seawater farming says precisely the opposite to what it should say. The current text says
“Water-intensive biofuel crops and biofuel production systems must not be established in water-stressed areas.”
What is intended presumably is that freshwater-intensive biofuel crops and biofuel production systems must not be established in freshwater-stressed areas.
It is precisely in such areas that are close to the coast that seawater farming can be the most appropriate solution. With seawater farming close to the sea, the seawater-intensiveness of the biofuel crop is of little importance. There is no shortage of seawater.
There are many ways of avoiding such errors, such as by the use of definitions (e.g. of water) and careful editing to ensure that those definitions are accurately applied in each case. In this particular case, the sentence could be amended to say that
"Water-intensive glycophytic biofuel crops and biofuel production systems must not be established in water-stressed areas."
with the implication that saltwater-intensive halophytic crops and biofuel production systems can indeed be established in freshwater-stressed areas.
The use of GMO crops should not be allowed because, as history has shown with other crops, especially grains and grasses, it is impossible to the spread of the seed and pollen and impossible to prevent hybridization with other related crops.
It has not yet been possible to prove total safety and containment. Selection of well adapted species is possible naturally and some responsible companies are doing this. A biofuel developer I know here in Arizona plans to use naturally selected algae species, for example, not GMO algae.
