You spend too much time in France ;-)

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

In the biodiesel calculation, say 1100 l/ha and 1000 l/ha, not just l.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

surplus is 13%, not 3%

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

My suggested changes below: [x] means delete x, [x][y] replaces x with [y], [][][comment] is a comment.

Question 1.1:
Is the objective of promoting biofuels still valid?

In a broad sense, yes, since petroleum-based fuels pose greater environmental problems[,] and supply in the future will become increasingly strained and [at correspondingly increasing cost] increasingly expensive.

However, a distinction needs to be made between types of biofuel and their sources.

1.    An EU promotion system that implied large-scale biofuel imports from tropical [][or] sub-tropical zone producers of sugar-cane ethanol or palm oil for biodiesel would  exchang[ing]e one form of energy insecurity for another, and encourag[ing]e rainforest clearance and unsustainable plantation practices;
   
2.    First-generation biofuels run up against a problem of land use (see Question 2.1 for details), of food production[,] and of the risk of continuing or exacerbating unsustainable agricultural practices. [With][Since] intensive farming methods currently requir[ing] substantial fossil fuel inputs, first-generation biofuels do not seem like a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
   
3.    Second-generation biofuels, [involving][based on] non-food feedstocks cultivated on [other][marginal] land  [than the best arable land]  by sustainable methods and [obtaining][with] a better fossil energy balance than first-generation biofuels, show considerable potential[, though they are not yet ready to come on-stream][for the future].

It follows that promotion of biofuels is a mid- to long-term proposition, and should [essentially] concentrate on support for second-generation fuels. Imports or food-crop use subsidized by the CAP are not a viable overall solution. The EU should resist pressure from interested agri-business groups to divert a large funding stream into first-generation biofuels.

The EU, [in][with] its dual concern with reducing GHG emissions and promoting energy security, should first and foremost see [][future provision of] transport fuel as a demand problem rather than a supply problem. This means discouraging road and air transport in favour of railways and waterways, and promoting public transport by light rail or electrified vehicles in urban areas.

It also means taking energy efficiency much more seriously than [to date][we have]. The notion that we can all go on consuming liquid fuels as in the past, because biofuels will phase in and take up the petroleum slack, is a feel[][-]good fallacy that needs to be actively discouraged. Car manufacturers must work rapidly towards decreasing fuel consumption as well as decreasing GHG emissions per unit of fossil energy consumed. Currently, the car industry is not meeting its own targets on these issues. If the EU is to use the tool of obligation[][][regulation? compulsion?], this is the first and most vital area in which obligation[][][likewise!!] should be applied.

The key to lower pollution and greater energy independence is reduced consumption.

Question 2.1:
With existing policies and measures, will biofuels achieve a market share of 5.75% in the
European Union by the end of 2010? (Please give reasons for your answer)

This target seems attainable only by either:
·    major transfers of arable land from food to ethanol or biodiesel;
·    [or] a major diversion of food crops (maize, wheat, barley) from animal feed to biofuel production, with a corresponding fall in meat and dairy production;
·    [or] large import volumes of either biofuels or animal feed.
[][][these are all and/or surely?]

According to Eurostat, transport fuel consumption for 2002 in the EU-25 was :
petrol, 5.2 e6 TJ ; diesel, 6.6 e6 TJ.
5.75% of these gives:
petrol, 0.3 e6 TJ ; diesel, 0.38 e6 TJ
Ethanol : 0.3 e6 TJ petrol  / 22 MJ/l = 13.6 e9 l
Biodiesel: 0.38 e6 TJ diesel / 34 MJ/l = 11.2 e9 l

If all the area currently [consecrated to][used for] potential ethanol feedstocks were used for ethanol, production could be an estimated:
·    10.5 e9 l of ethanol potential from the current EU-25 cultivated area of sugar beet (2.1 e6 ha @ 5000 l/ha)
·    19 e9 l of maize ethanol potential (from 6.5 e6 ha @ 3100 l/ha)
·     33.5 e9 l of common wheat ethanol potential (from 13.4 e6 ha @ 2500 l/ha)
·     23 e9 l of barley ethanol potential (from 23 e6 ha @ 1000 l/ha).

If only the surplus percentage of these crops were to be used, the estimates would be:
·    30% sugar beet: 10.5 e9 l x 30% = 3.15 e9 l ethanol
·    9% wheat: 33.5 e9 l x 9% = 3 e9 l
·    3% barley: 23 e9 l x 3% = 3 e9 l
Surplus production (9 e9 l ethanol) would not suffice to cover the needed 13.6 e9 l. Only an extension of the area of ethanol feedstock crops, or a transfer of crops from animal feed to ethanol, would cover needs.

As for biodiesel, the total area of the two principal feedstocks, rapeseed and sunflower seed, would produce an estimated:

·    5 e9 l from rapeseed (4.5 e6 ha x 1100 l);
·    2.2 e9 l from sunflower (2.2 e6 ha x 1000l)

Total production would not suffice to cover the needed 11.2 e9 l.