Following a trade crisis and escalation of military aggression near one of the most important locations for the oil trade, many businesses and nations alike are either considering or rapidly escalating their biofuel ambitions, infrastructure and suitable storage facilities.
This includes companies that had previously been lukewarm about policies such as Belem 4x or other green initiatives, as well as the reversal of the reduction of biofuel mandates that had previously been relaxed.
Many of these are in their early stages; it is impossible to radically alter the agricultural and transportation base of a country in six months, but it is beginning to become apparent that there are multiple approaches that are regionally specific and have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.
How can biofuel be quickly adopted? There are multiple answers, but to provide more insight, here are some examples of biofuel adoption done effectively, examples of countries that have strained against their own ambition and whether it is better to be ambitious or not.
Why Was Brazil’s Biofuel Policy A Success?
Whilst Brazil was not the first nation to make fuel from crops, it was likely the first to institute a biofuel policy as early as 1931, something that ultimately proved vital during the Second World War.
This became the prelude to the astonishingly successful National Alcohol Programme, established in 1975 in the wake of the first global oil crisis.
They initially benefited from a surplus in sugarcane, a native crop that was an effective biomass for first-generation biofuels, a then-relatively new automotive landscape, and the willingness to commit to vast infrastructure changes.
This system of varying ethanol led to the development of flexible fuel cars, which were capable of running on any blend of petrol and ethanol, giving motorists choice depending on current fuel prices.
As government-enforced biofuel blends can change within a year depending on the sugarcane harvest, having this freedom of choice is not just a benefit but an effective requirement, and has paid dividends during periods of fossil fuel shortages.
Motorists driving flex-fuel cars know that they can drive into a petrol forecourt and choose whichever fuel is the best value for money, and know that any biofuel blend will work no matter what.
This is not the case everywhere, and is something that needs to be fixed for nations planning to aggressively expand their biofuel ambitions.
Why Is India’s Biofuel Policy Struggling?
By contrast, whilst Brazil gradually built its infrastructure from the National Alcohol Programme in 1975 up to the present day, India has accelerated its biofuel ambitions far more quickly.
Whilst India initially launched its five per cent biofuel blend in 2003, it was abandoned before the end of the 2000s due to supply shortages. When it returned in 2014, the blend was a mere 1.5 per cent and would take until 2022 to reach E10.
What is astonishing at this point is just how quickly an expansion to E20 has rolled out; whilst initially intended to be complete by 2030, E20 became the standard fuel in India five years ahead of schedule and following a rollout of just two years.
These ambitions have only accelerated, with a push to move to a 25 per cent blend as the base fuel in India, as well as roll out flex-fuel cars using Brazil’s successes as a template.
However, as a BBC News story notes, motorists are unhappy that they are expected to take a leap of faith without the much more robust infrastructure and support Brazilian motorists have had.
It has reached the point that the Indian government has released statements debunking various myths about the effects of E20 on performance, fuel efficiency and the longevity of standard engines not designed with biofuel blends in mind.
According to six manufacturers, there is no evidence of widespread damage caused by E20, although they conceded that there is a drop in fuel efficiency in cars not designed to use it.
Is It Better To Be Conservative Or Ambitious With Biofuel Adoption?
This naturally leads to a discussion about whether being conservative or ambitious with adoption of biofuel is best for a country, and the answer is going to inevitably vary from country to country.
Brazil benefited from having little to lose by pushing for ethanol, developing their infrastructure in a way that allowed for flexibility and changes in circumstances, and being able to incentivise manufacturers and motorists alike to buy into the system through clear price incentives.
By contrast, other nations have been more conservative in their approach, adopting E5 or E10 blends that can be easily used by most cars without modification, whilst seeing how people and the market move.
There are benefits to both approaches, but it ultimately depends on what biofuel resources are available, whether your infrastructure is in place or there is a commitment to put it into place, and whether other green transportation initiatives are in place.
