Iberoamerican Ministerial Meeting

BRAZILIAN BIOFUELS EXPERIENCE

Suani Teixeira Coelho
Deputy State Secretary for the Environment
So Paulo State Secretariat for the Environment
suaniteixeira@sp.gov.br
CENBIO Brazilian Reference Center on Biomass
University of Sao Paulo
suani@iee.usp.br
Patricia Guardabassi
So Paulo State Secretariat for the Environment
sma.pbassi@cetesb.sp.gov.br

Montevideu, September 26th to 27th, 2006

ABSTRACT
Ethanol from sugarcane is an efficient and renewable biofuel that
appears as a solution to the problems of rural development, diversification of
energy sources, fossil fuel savings, as well as contributing to the reduction of
local pollutants from vehicle exhausts and net reductions in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. During the 30 years of the Brazilian Alcohol Program, Brazil
has developed a significant experience in the various aspects of sugarcane
ethanol production.
Therefore the Brazilian experience is considered as a good example to
be replicated in other developing countries. When discussing this replication
some issues must be addressed:
1. the environmental sustainability of sugarcane and alcohol
production
2. the economic competitiveness of ethanol compared to gasoline
and, if necessary, adequate policies to improve it.

3. adequate infrastructure for sugarcane and alcohol production,

as well as to transport and distribute the ethanol fuel in the
country and to export to other countries.

Keywords: Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, impacts, biofuels

INDEX
1.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 4

2.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF SUGARCANE
AND ALCOHOL PRODUCTION...................................................................... 5
3.
THE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS OF ALCOHOL FUEL
COMPARED TO GASOLINE......................................................................... 10
4.
PERSPECTIVES FOR THE REPLICATION OF BRAZILIAN
ETHANOL PROGRAM IN OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.................. 13
5.

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 23

6.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 25

ANNEX .......................................................................................................... 29

1. INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane ethanol is already well known as an efficient and renewable
biofuel. In Brazil, since 1975 when the alcohol program (Proalcool) started, it
has promoted rural development, diversification of energy sources, lower
dependence on oil imports, reduction in local pollutants from vehicle exhausts
and net reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
These objectives were reached with the development of Proalcool
through the several lessons learned, as discussed in this paper. Proalcool
was created to increase the production of alcohol for fuel purposes in face of
rising oil prices on the international market. In the early stages of the alcohol
program, sugarcane ethanol use became viable to consumers through a
pricing policy applied to fuels in Brazil. As the efficiency and cost
competitiveness of ethanol production evolved over time, and fuel prices were
liberalized, the need for this support declined and the support was eliminated
in 1999. Thus, governmental incentive did exist in the past, but today the
industry has matured significantly and relies exclusively on private investments.
The positive results of the ethanol production program were possible
due to the technological achievements, infrastructure investments and
management in both sugarcane and ethanol production. Due to these
developments, Brazil is nowadays the global benchmark in sugarcane-based
ethanol production (Goldemberg et al, 2003). As a consequence of the
observed cost reduction, subsidies were fully eliminated by 1997 and are no
longer applied on anhydrous nor on hydrated ethanol. Hydrated ethanol is
sold to consumers for less than 70 per cent (by volume) of the gasoline price,
corresponding to ethanol break-even price vis--vis gasoline. Thus, alcohol is
economically competitive with gasoline without any subsidies. These are the
two main fuels used in cars in Brazil, since diesel vehicles manufactures in the
country are heavy duty, commercial.
Brazilian lessons can indeed be reproduced in many regions of some
other developing countries, contributing to a global expansion of ethanol
biofuel, considering:
4

The sustainability of sugarcane and alcohol production

The economic competitiveness of alcohol fuel compared

to gasoline and, adequate policies to improve it.

Adequate infrastructure for sugarcane and alcohol

production, as well as to transport and distribute the
ethanol fuel in the country and to export to other countries

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF SUGARCANE AND

ALCOHOL PRODUCTION
Sugarcane ethanol is a commercial success in Brazil, a situation that
can also occur in many other countries with improved technologies and a
more open trading of bioenergy commodities. Security and climate change
are two among other important reasons for the promotion of biofuels. EU
countries and regions, as well as some North American States are aware of
the situation and have approached So Paulo recently for improved
sustainability assessments. Taking this into account, sugarcane sustainability
issues are being addressed in a serious way by the So Paulo State
Environmental authorities.
Sixty three percent of all Brazilian sugarcane is produced in the State
of So Paulo. Approximately half of it is allocated to sugar production and the
other half to ethanol. The State produces 10 million cubic meters of ethanol
per year (62.5% of total national production).
Competition for land between biofuels crops and food crops is an issue
often discussed and doubts have been raised about which is the better use for
land. In this case too the Brazilian experience can contribute to the discussion.
The sugarcane average productivity in Brazil was around 65 t/ha by
1998 (Moreira and Goldemberg, 1999) but it was as high as 100-110 t/ha in
the State of So Paulo (Braunbeck et al., 1999). Since the beginning of
PROALCOOL yields have grown about 33 per cent in the State of So Paulo

due to the development of new species and to the improvement of agricultural

practices.
Sugarcane crops productivity gains from 1977 to 2004 allowed sparing
two million additional hectares of land, equivalent to around US$ 5-7 billion1.
Also genetic improvements allow cultures to be more resistant, more
productive and better adapted to different conditions. Such improvements
allowed the growth of sugarcane production without excessive land-use
expansion.
Nowadays sugarcane occupies 3.6 million hectares of land in So
Paulo and there are plans to increase such areas by 50% until 2010, a
process that will be followed up closely by the environmental licensing
authorities. Existing assessments show that there is space for it, without
putting pressure on natural environments. Without urban and infrastructure
areas, the State of So Paulo has 22 million hectares, distributed as shown in
Table 1:
Annual cultures (corn, soybean etc)

12.3%

Perennial cultures (orange, coffee etc)

5.2%

Semi-perennial cultures (sugarcane)

17.5%

SUB-TOTAL CULTURES

34.9%

Natural forests

14.2%

Reforesting

5.0%

SUB-TOTAL FORESTS

19.2%

Pastures

45.9%

TOTAL

100.0%

Table 1: Land use in So Paulo State, 2005

Source: Instituto de Economia Agrcola, 2006

land costs vary, but in So Paulo, where 60% of Brazilian sugarcane is produced, a conservative estimate is around
US$ 2,700-3,500 per hectare (PROCANA, 2005)
6

In So Paulo State, for example, sugarcane expansion during the

period 2002-2004 ocurred mainly on land previously used for cattle feed (SMA,
2005). It must also be considered that, during every harvesting season, 20%
of the sugarcane crop is removed and replaced with other crops like beans,
corn, peanuts, etc. This procedure is widely practiced and allows the soil to
recuperate, being used throughout the country.
Pasture areas have very low densities compared to developed
countries averages. There are large potentials for productivity improvements.
In So Paulo, cattle population has been raising, even with reduction of
pasture land use over time, as shown in the following table:

2001

2005

Cattle (heads)

13,154,649

14,072,447

Pasture (hectares)

10,288,887

10,010,491

1.28

1.41

Density (heads/hectare)

Table 2: Cattle population in Sao Paulo State

Source: Instituto de Economia Agrcola, 2006

In Brazil there are soils that have been producing sugarcane for more than
200 years with ever-increasing yield. Good agricultural practices (protection
against erosion, compactation and moisture losses, correct fertilization etc.)
increase the sustainability of the culture. Land area available for biofuels must
not depend on deforestation nor competition with food. Sugarcane crops must
not create any pressure on Amazon deforestation2, but atention must be paid
to indirect effects from sugarcane expansion over cattle areas, what can push
these activities over Amazon. Figure 1 below shows the map of Brazil,
including the Amazon region; it shows also that most areas occupied with
sugarcane are in Southeastern region and, moreover, the So Paulo State.

Amazon deforestation is indeed a problem to be addressed but the main pressure on it is from soy crops and not
from sugarcane.
7

Figure 1: Map of Brazil locating sugarcane cultures (So Paulo State

borders delimited around red area) and major ecosystems.

Besides these issues, sugarcane plantations (or other crops) in So

Paulo must guarantee at least 20% forestry cover on native trees (or
reforested with native trees), according to the National Forestry Code (Federal
Law 4,771/65) and State Decree 50,889 from June 16th, 2006. Sao Paulo
State has also special requirements on riparian forests for licensing and since
2005 it was started a special program on recuperation of riparian forests with
funds from World Bank/GEF.
Besides these issues related to land use, So Paulo State presents
significant expertise to reduce the environmental impacts of ethanols life
cycle, through adequate environmental legislation and strong enforcement:

Control of atmospheric and liquid effluents:

o discharge of effluents with high organic loads (mainly vinasse3, a

by-product) is replaced by fertirrigation practices controlled by
Cetesb, So Paulo State Environmental Agency4, which reduce
the needs for fertilizers; so all vinasse produced is utilized in
sugarcane cultivated areas, eliminating the need for potash
fertilizers.
o filter cake is also totally used in the soils eliminating 50% of
phosphorus mineral fertilization needs
o atmospheric emissions from bagasse boilers are controlled by
Cetesb (particulate matter and NOX emissions)

harvest burning practices, which result in intense air pollution,

are being phased-out, through a strict legal enforcement and allowing energy
benefits of mechanization from higher surpluses of electricity produced from
sugarcane by products (State Law 11241/2002); also, havesting burning
practices are controlled / authorized by So Paulo State Secretary for the
Environment according to atmospheric conditions.

water usage in irrigation is strictely controlled and now it is quite

reduced in Brazil. Almost all Brazilian sugarcane is exclusivelly rain-fed;

water abstraction in sugarcane culture was reduced from 5 m3 /

tonne cane (1990-1997) to 1.83 m3 / tonne cane (2004), in So Paulo, with

intense water re-use (21m3 / tonne cane);

spill offs and other accidents are rare and of low impact;

Stillage

www.cetesb.sp.gov.br
9

3. THE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

COMPARED TO GASOLINE

OF

ALCOHOL

FUEL

Brazilian ethanol has become fully competitive with gasoline in the

international market, as shown in the learning curve (Figure 2)5. Sugarcane
ethanol can be produced in several countries with potential resources; which
can now develop their own biofuel programs with the advanced technologies
available, benefiting from cost reductions derived from the Brazilian
experience.

(2 0 0 4 ) U S $ / G J

100

1980
10

2004

1986
1990
2002
1995

1999

50000

100000
150000
200000
3
Ethanol Cumulative Production (thousand m )

Ethanol prices in Brazil

trend (Rotterdam gasoline prices)

250000

300000

Rotterdam regular gasoline price

trend (Ethanol prices)

Figure 2. Learning curve: Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (LHV 22.35 GJ/m3)

competitiveness with Rotterdam gasoline (considered LHV 32.77 GJ/m3).
Source: Nastari, 2005.

In Brazil, the present wave of exclusivelly private investments without

further need of governmental assistance - in new sugar mills (around 50 new
5

There are differences on Brazilian taxes for fuels, including alcohol and gasoline. Ethanol and flexible vehicles have
lower IPI (Federal tax for industrialized products) when compared to gasoline; also, some state taxs (ICMS) have
lower taxes for ethanol. These taxes take into account the environmental benefits of alcohol. Besides these taxes
there is a special tax called, CIDE (Contribution fot Intervention in Economic Domain), a Federal tax on oil fuels.
CIDE gives differentiated values according to each fuel; natural gas and ethanol are exempted. The current level for
CIDE on gasoline is R$ 280 per cubic meter (US$ 0.0957/liter in 2004 US dollars); for diesel oil is R$ 70 per cubic
meter (Brazil, Decree # 4565/2003). In 2004, the average prince of gasoline net of taxes was R$ 0.74837 per liter
(www.anp.gov.br.), weighted averaged for Brazil. Adding the R$ 0.28 per liter value of CIDE, the total value attributed
to pure gasoline to be compared to the price of ethanol net of taxes comes to R$ 1.02837 per liter, average value for
2004. This value translates into US$ 55.88 per barrel, which is practically identical to the average price of midgrade
gasoline in the US during the same period, of US$ 56.28 per barrel, equivalent to US$ 1.32 per gallon (Energy
10

mills since 2003, processing 2 million tones of sugarcane per year each one)
demonstrates the economic competitiveness of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.
During the 2003-2004 season, the country exported 2.5 billion liters 6 of
ethanol.
In fact, sugarcane feedstocks represent a dominant share in the cost
buildup of ethanol. The economic cost of production is in the range of
US$0.180.25 per liter of gasoline-equivalent (average export price of ethanol
in the period 2001-2003 was US$ 0.23 per liter). Nowadays, the initial
investment for a compatible industrial plant (processing capacity of 2 million
tonnes of sugarcane per year) is around US$ 60 million (in 2005 prices).
Located in the Center-South of Brazil, such plant yields on average 79.39
liters of anhydrous ethanol equivalent (82.86 liters of hydrous) per tonne of
sugarcane. Price paid per tonne of sugarcane is US$11.4 (UNICA, 2005). A
simple calculation, without interest rates, considering the price and a plant
lifetime of 25 years would lead to a feedstock cost of US$ 0.143 per liter of
ethanol and an investment cost around US$ 0.017 per liter of ethanol
produced. But investments are affected by the extremely high interest rates in
Brazil: banks add their spreads to 19.75% per year, which is the basic official
rate in August 2005.
Production costs of ethanol from sugarcane are low not only due to
geographic conditions but also because of the extremelly favourable energy
balance.
Table

shows

the

energy

balance

of

sugarcane

ethanol,

demonstrating that more than eight units of energy are produced from each
unit of fossil fuel consumed. The finding opens important opportunities for
participation of developing countries in the Kyoto Protocols Clean
Development Mechanism.

Information Agency, US Department of Energy, U.S. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade and Sales Type,
Washington, DC, 2005)
6 According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (2005), the main importers of Brazilian ethanol
in 2004 were India (480 million liters), the U.S. (425 million liters), South Korea (280 million liters), Japan (220 million
liters) and Sweden (190 million liters)
11

Table 3. Energy balance of sugarcane ethanol.

Source: Macedo et. alii, 2004.
Notes: Scenario 1 corresponds to an average mill; scenario 2 corresponds to the most
efficient mills.

This favorable energy balance is mainly due to the fact that all energy
needs in sugarcane mills are provided without any external energy source.
Sugarcane bagasse

is burned in boilers to produce steam and

electric/mechanical energy to fuel the process (cogeneration process).

In fact, bagasse is the most important industrial by-product from
sugarcane, available at the mills at no effectively cost and sugarcane trash8
may become also important, when the sugarcane is harvested without burning.
For example, midsize plants in Sao Paulo State, processing 2 million tones of

Bagasse is the by-product from sugarcane crushing; it corresponds to 30% (in weight) of sugarcane, 50% wet.
When sugarcane is harvested manually it must be burnt before harvesting and so tops and leaves (trash), are lost (30% of the
sugarcane). Recent studies from Copersucar/GEF (PROJECT BRA/96/G31) evaluated possibilities for the harvesting of
greencane and the amount of trashto be left in thefields and the amount to be burnt in boilers for cogeneration.

12

cane per harvesting season were able to change from existing old equipments
(21 bar boilers) to more efficient ones (40 or 60 bar boilers and more efficient
steam turbines), increasing their capacity for surplus generation from 2.3 MW
to 9.3 MW and providing renewable electricity to local consumers.
Considering the energy balance for different crops, not whitstanding
the variations in figures provided by different studies, there is no doubt that
sugarcane is definetely the most efficient feedstock in terms of replacement of
fossil fuels (CO2), as shown in Figure 2.

energy output/input ratio

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Sugarcane

Sugar beet

Wheat straw

Corn

Wood

ethanol feedstock

Figure 3: Energy balance of alcohol production from different

feedstocks.
Sources: Macedo et alii, 2004; UK DTI, 2003 and USDA, 1995

4. PERSPECTIVES FOR THE REPLICATION OF BRAZILIAN

ETHANOL PROGRAM IN OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
When discussing Brazilain experience and possible replication in other
developing countries, there are some main issues:

13

4.1. COMPATIBILITY OF EXISTING FLEETS WITH ETHANOLGASOLINE BLEND

The ethanol application as a fuel brings sometimes some concerns
about its compatibility with existing fleets. Doubts are about compatibility of
ethanol/gasoline blends regarding metallic materials of vehicle (corrosion),
plastic and rubber materials of vehicle (chemical attack), as well as higher fuel
consumption (due to low energy content), losses in drivability (due to different
air / fuel ratio for combustion) and cold start difficulties (due to lower vapor
pressure). However, this depends on the amount of ethanol blended with the
gasoline, on the ethanol fuel specification and quality and on the technological
level of vehicle (vehicle age). Even so, small blends of ethanol (5%) are
recognized to not affect existing engines.
In general the compatibility of ethanol with plastic and rubber parts is
very good for almost all the materials usually employed by the automotive
industry9. Phasing-in blends of up to 5% ethanol do not bring technological
difficulties to any country. Major car manufacturers today are adjusting their
assembling line to produce cars that are compatible with E10 fuels10. Existing
performance results for a Volkswagen FFV vehicle, show similar behaviour in
gasoline and alcohol (Magneti Marelli Controle Motor Ltda, 2005)
The World Wide Fuel Charter11 establishes maximum oxygen content
in gasoline of 2.7% (mass basis), which allows blends higher than 5%. With
the introduction of low blends ethanol-gasoline (up to 10%) 12 in many
countries, as regular fuel for vehicles developed for neat gasoline, no
remarkable performance loss is observed. Due to the ability of electronic fuel

The unique exception is the plastic polyamide 6.6 (Nylon), which in presence of hydrous ethanol adsorbs water
and swells, increasing the component dimensions; the polyamide 6.6 absorbs the water and, for this case, it is
necessary to substitute it for another plastic (usually, polyamide 12). For the application with gasoline or ethanolgasoline blends, there are not problems with the polyamide 6.6, since these fuels do not have significant water
content.
10
Considering that ethanol is a polar substance and gasoline is an unpolar substance, there is not solubility
between both, but only miscibility, which, in general, is good and stable. Two factors have influence on this miscibility:
the presence of water and the characteristics of hydrocarbons of gasoline (resulting from the production process).
However, with the use in low concentration of anhydrous ethanol (up to 10%) and with the increase of cracked
gasoline application (instead direct distilled gasoline), there are not reports on separation problems in the countries
were this blend is used, even in the countries with cold weather.
11
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2005)
12
In 1975, performance and emission tests were developed in Brazil, adding increasing volumes of anhydrous
ethanol to gasoline. The study concluded that the 20% +- 2 % ethanol blend yielded good results in terms of fuel
consumption and emissions.
14

injection systems to automatically correct the engine air-fuel ratio, the

presence of ethanol up to 10% blended in gasoline do not affect vehicle
performance and the increased fuel consumption is relatively low (below 3%).
The Brazilian Automobile Manufacturers Association (ANFAVEA, 2005)
has summarized the necessary modifications in vehicles for the use of
national sugarcane ethanol blends (Table 4). The same associated also
provided comparative performance figures for the Brazilian new vehicles

5%

Cold Start System

Exhaust System

Intake Manifold

Motor Oil

Basic Engine

Catalytic Converter

Fuel Tank

Evaporative System

Ignition System

Fuel Filter

Pressure
Fuel

Fuel Pump

Fuel Injection

Carburetor

Ethanol Content in
the Fuel

(Figure 4).

NN for any vehicle

5- 10%

P
N

10-25%

PN, Brazilian application

25-85%

PN, U.S. application

85%

NN for relatively new fleets (10 15 years old)

NN
N
N

PN, Brazilian application

Table 4. Modifications (not necessary NN and possibly necessary

PN) in vehicles for different ethanol blends.
Source: ANFAVEA, 2005.

The energy content of ethanol fuel is 37% lower 13 than gasoline;

however, since ethanol density is 5% higher than gasoline, fuel consumption
increment is proportional to the ethanol heating value and to its specific
weight14. Equivalence must consider the final energy service provided (work)
by each fuel, based on measured performance. In Brazil, the consumption
13

Consequently, to obtain the same output, it is necessary to burn more ethanol than gasoline, raising the fuel
consumption
According to the Brazilian National Energy Balance 2004 (MME, 2005) the lower heating values (LHV) of diesel
fuel, automotive gasoline, anhydrous ethanol and hydrous ethanol are respectively 35.50, 32.20, 22.34 and 21.33
MJ/liter of fuel

14

15

ratio comparing neat hydrous ethanol with gasoline was assessed by tests15
equal to 0.8067. Flexible fuel vehicles, adjusted to have a similar power
performance with both fuels, have lower ratios, of approximately 70% (UNICA,
2005a)
In Brazil, the recently introduced flex-fuel vehicles16 can operate with
up to 100% hydrated ethanol17 . This concept is different from US flex-fuel
models, which can use a maximum of 85% ethanol, due to problems of
corrosion, cold start and phase separation inside the tank at very low
temperatures. When using 100% ethanol, eventual problems of cold start are
solved through the use of a little gasoline reservoir for instant automaticallyactivated gasoline injection, as it is done in Brazil in any alcohol or flex
vehicles.

140

20
0

Power

Gasoline 0%

Max Speed

Gasohol 22%

95,5 %
89,3 %

40

103,2 %
105,3 %

60

102,1 %
106,4 %

80

103,3 %
110,0 %

100

105,5 %
129,4 %

120

Consumption
(L/100km)
Ethanol 100%

Figure 4. Comparative performance of Brazilian similar direct injection

new 1999 models, with pure gasoline (E0), gasohol blend (E22, pure
gasoline with 22% anhydrous ethanol) and pure hydrated ethanol (E100).
Source: ANFAVEA (2005).
Note: Consumption is expressed in liters of fuel per 100 km to allow the comparison of
ethanol consumption to gasoline consumption.

15

Commission for Re-exam of the Energy Matrix, Brasilia, Brazil, 1991

This recent alternative of flex fuel vehicles designed to use alcohols as automotive fuel allows the use of a variety of fuels
such methanol, ethanol, gasoline and blends of these fuels at any proportion, through the use of eletronic systems for engine
management.

16

16

4.2. POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Regarding land use and the perspectives for ethanol production in
developing countries, some considerations are important. Sugarcane area in
developing countries is less than 3% of primary crops areas and 0.6% of
agricutural areas, where cultures are already planted (FAO, 2005). Also, form
FAO, 2005, it is significant the fact that low income and African countries
present agricultural efficiency lower than the world average (68.2 tonnes/ha)
and much lower than Brazil (73.5 tonnes/ha), showing some potential for
improvements in agricultural sector.
Also, it is important to know, from the world arable land, which area
would be necessary to produce biofuels to be blended to gasoline. Table 4
provides an idea on this issue. It shows potential land to produce sugarcane
crops aiming to produce ethanol to be blend in a proportion of 10% (in volume
basis) to gasoline.
Unit

World

OECD

Non-OECD

countries

countries

Gasoline consumption

Billion litres/yr

1165

838

327

Ethanol 10% blend (a)

Billion litres/yr

175

126

49

Sugarcane area necessary for E10

Million ha*

29

21

"Suitable and very

sugar crops (FAO)

Million ha

383

116

217

Million ha

1455

496

959

suitable"

All sugar crops (all cultures, FAO)

Table 4. Land use with to produce ethanol to be blend to gasoline in 10%

(volume) basis) (E10 ). Source: FAO, 200518
Note: conservatively considered (a) 6,000 liters of ethanol/ha.yr; LHV (gasoline) = 33MJ/liter,
LHV (ethanol) = 22 MJ/liter

17

The huge success of these flex fuel vehicles is due to the freedom of choice for the consumers, depending of the price of each
fuel at the pump station. Alcohol prices can be up to 70% of gasoline pricesand a global ethanol market, allows the utilization of
FFVs, which can address eventual fossil or renewable fuel shortages. Volkswagen, General Motors, Fiat, Ford, Peugeot, Renault
are some of manufacturers producing flex-fuel vehicles in Brazil - a fleet of 700,000 units in 2005
18
Source: FAOSTAT (2005)
http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Production.Crops.Primary&Domain=Production&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=e
xt&language=EN
17

From Table 4 it can be seen that considering the blend of 10% (in vol)
of ethanol to gasoline the sugarcane area necessary would be 29 million
hectares, much less than the 383 million hectares of suitable and very
suitable sugar crops mentioned by FAO, 2005.
In fact, Brazil is endowed with vast agricultural areas. Plentiful land,
favorable climatic conditions and low cost labor were indeed necessary for the
success of alcohol program based on sugarcane. But several other tropical
countries can handle a large alcohol program like Brazil. Although sugarcane is
a highly intensive culture possible to be produced in regions that have an
average temperature above 20oC and plenty of available sunlight and water, it
does not imply that areas covered with forestry are the most suitable for the
culture. Figure 8 gives an idea of the regions that meet these conditions; from
this figure it can be seen that most are developing countries.
Biofuels produced by developing countries correspond to a significant
opportunity for job creation and rural development. Conclusions from a recent
workshop organized by STAP/GEF/WorldBank shows that biofuels can offer
a sustainable and carbon neutral alternative to petroleum fuels, provided that
environmental safeguards are put in place, and that sustainable land
management is applied. This would exclude the production of biofuels from
cleared forest land for example, and biofuels with negative or uncertain GHG
emission reductions. The potential negative impacts on soil, water and
biodiversity in the case of large-scale monoculture plantations must also be
recognized. Hence, the question of the role of biofuels in mitigating climate
change is also a question of natural resource management, pertaining to the
land degradation, biodiversity, POPs and international waters focal areas of
the GEF.
Among commercial biofuels today, sugarcane ethanol gives the highest
land use efficiency for GHG mitigation, and is therefore an attractive biofuel
from a GHG perspective. Provided environmental externalities are addressed
in the production, and no natural ecosystems are converted, sugarcane
ethanol has a significant potential for reducing GHG and improving energy
security. Sugarcane ethanol also offers the distinct advantage of generating
18

bagasse as a co-product, which can be used for electricity generation. The

combination of the unique climatic and soil conditions in the South East of
Brazil, the sustained commitment from the government, learning by doing
and good infrastructure, brought the production costs of bioethanol down to
the point where (unsubsidized) ethanol became competitive with a 25$/bbl oil
price. The question whether the Brazilian example can be replicated, the
steps that would need to be taken and the conditions that would make it
possible, was a central topic of the workshop.
Both small and large-scale production of biofuels can be sustainable
and beneficial in terms of global and local benefits. Large-scale exploitation of
biomass for energy and fuel uses requires a national strategy for the energy
and other uses of biomass (food, substitution of other petroleum products)
(STAP/GEF, 2006)
An improved, liberalized global market for biofuels produced especially
in developing countries (where natural resources and labor force are more
available) would thus create more jobs, reduce emissions of local pollutants
and greenhouse gases, reduce oil imports, benefit external trade balances
and develop a whole new industry of goods and services.
In very simple terms, poorer countries ask for funds; rich countries want
to sell technology and to promote their own efficiency achievements. In the
middle of these there can be opportunity windows based on well-established
programs. This is the case of transport biofuels today, which are starting to be
supported by the automotive industry worldwide and can benefit both
developing and developed nations. Biofuels for transport match perfectly with
the UNFCCCs Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
(SBSTA) objectives for climate change mitigation, together with exchanging
information and sharing experiences,. The low interest in biofuels much
probably is still a consequence of the conventional approach for renewables,
which considers that they should only be produced domestically and not
traded as global commodities. Behind this scene are interests such as the
agricultural subsidies in developed nations and fossil fuel industries, which
prefer more expensive options like carbon capture and storage, cleaner coal,
19

energy efficiency for conventional energy sources.Tackling barriers against a

global biofuel market is perfectly achievable.

Figure 5. Sugarcane potentials (SI, suitability index). Source: FAO

(2005)19

Geographic and distributional considerations (such as need for

proximity to a sufficiently large market for the biofuel produced) are a
common failure in biofuel assessments. These arguments miss the point
because they consider domestic production and consumption as as the only
possible use for the fuel. Biofuels are liquids and can be transported over
significant distances, as occurs today with all liquid fossil fuels (and with
alcohol in Brazil, despite being a very large country). In fact, distances depend
more on logistics and production scale.
The Brazilian experience shows that existing technology for alcohol
production has had an increase of 3% per year on industrial productivity
during the alcohol program and became commercially available. Brazil has a
mature fermentation process, self-adaptative to different feedstocks and
production conditions (startup, temperature changes etc), resulting in an
efficient process with little undesirable byproducts, flexible, robust and

20

inexpensive. The distillation process is also efficient (despite the fact that
there is still room for further improvements in efficiency) and available at low
costs. The cogeneration process from bagasse has also undergone significant
improvement in recent years and high efficient steam systems using
sugarcane bagasse are commercially available.
Althought, in the case of Brazil, alcohol production for the blend of up
to 25% cannot be a candidate for CDM projects (because this situation
corresponds to a baseline before the base year for Kyoto Protocol) other
developing countries can start such a program and would be excellent
candidates for CDM.

4.3. POLICIES PROPOSED FOR OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Based on the Brazilian experience with sugarcane-ethanol, those
countries could successfully introduce ethanol-biofuel in their economies. This
introduction does not need to start from the very beginning, as happened with
Brazil; they could start from an advanced step, avoiding past mistakes and
benefiting from lessons learned by Brazil.
In any case, it appears as the best option the production of anhydrous
ethanol to be blended to gasoline (in several countries the sugarcane option
appears to be a good opportunity). Despite the fact that anhydrous ethanol
production costs are around 10-20% higher than hydrous ethanol, there is no
need for changes in existing vehicles, as it would happen for the use of
straight ethanol (in this case it would be necessary to change vehicles engine
to run with pure ethanol).
There are two main issues to be addressed:
1.

Countries already producing some sugarcane for sugar and

interested in producing ethanol for local consumption, reducing oil/derivatives

imports: these countries could start an alcohol program using part of the
existing sugarcane production for alcohol production
19

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGL/agll/gaez/ds/da.htm?map=24

21

2.

Countries with no sugarcane production but with existing

deforested land: these countries must start since the very beginning, including
the choose for the best crop to be used for biofuels
For countries in the first group, when interested in the alcohol
production, it would be necessary a preliminary global (technical / economic /
environmental / social) evaluation of the alcohol production. If perspectives
are positive, existing policies could be discussed, together with perspectives
for changes, including:

Assessment of existing technical expertise, financing resources,

policies, key economic players, other stakeholders;

Development of an information exchange, technology transfer

and capacity building program;

To foster pilot projects for alcohol production for local

consumption;

Establishment of policies for a phase-in of (anhydrous) ethanol

blends in gasoline without need of adaptation in the existing fleet, up to 5% in

volume;

Discussion of fiscal policies (if necessary) regarding economic

competitiveness of alcohol fuel.

For countries in the second group, aiming to use existing degraded
land, other issues must be addressed, besides a preliminary global (technical
/ economic / environmental / social) evaluation of the alcohol production, such
as:

Assessment of current and potential areas of arable land, sugar

crops production, other cultures, rainfall and water demand and other physical
conditions;

Assessment of existing technical expertise, financing resources,

policies, key economic players, other stakeholders;

22

Development of an information exchange, technology transfer

and capacity building program;

Foster pilot projects, then pre-commercial scale plants;

Establishment of policies for a phase-in of ethanol blends in

gasoline without need of adaptation in the existing fleet, up to 5% in volume;

Discussion of fiscal policies (if necessary) regarding economic

competitiveness of alcohol fuel.

In both cases, issues regarding ethanol export could be addressed in a
second phase program, including the discussion on existing trade barriers in
developed countries, especially import taxes, quota allocation and harmful
domestic subsidies against the WTO rules, as discussed in previously by the
authors (Coelho et al, 2005).
In this context it is important to mention the opportunities for developing
countries as discussed in by World Bank, 2004, that presents the
opportunities and barriers to the implementation of ethanol production as a
poverty alleviation vector.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Many biofuel programs in the developed world have benefited from
policies designed primarily to support domestic agriculture. This is the case of
the US corn producers and the EU rapeseed farmers. In any cases, agricultural
support policies are an existing reality, a political challenge that has the World
Trade Organization (WTO) as one of the possible discussion forums.
In spite of the benefits from biofuel production to sustainable
development, exports to developed countries faces several barriers and local
producers are against the removal of domestic subsidies. On the other hand,
society, as a whole, will benefit from trade liberalization, through the
introduction of an available renewable fuel. Local trading policies can balance
quite well the supply of domestic and imported ethanol, in order to introduce an
alternative to gasoline or diesel (Coelho et alii, 2005).

23

Biofuels are energy sources produced in rural areas to primarily service

the energy needs of cities that can afford to pay. Often, biomass programs are
created to produce energy for the poor living in rural areas. These programs
have their merits but are limited economically because of size, given that the
buyers have little purchasing power or are not even involved in the
commercial market. Biofuel programs in developed countries are very often
treated as a domestic issue only a difficient strategy that provides
ammunition for the defenders of fossil fuels in terms of reliability and potential.
The main barrier to ethanol production in developing countries is the
lack of funding. Developed countries, international agencies or international
banks are options that could be explored. The opportunities from the Clean
Development Mechanism also appear to be a good option for developed
countries as a way of collaborating in the sustainable development of poorer
countries.

24

6. REFERENCES
Abrantes, R., A Emisso de Aldedos e Hidrocarbonetos Policclicos
Aromticos de Veculos Comerciais a Diesel, CETESB, SIMEA 2003, So
Paulo, Brazil.
Air Quality Impacts of the Use of Ethanol in California Reformulated Gasoline,
California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, USA, 1999.
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2005) World Wide Fuel Charter 1998
http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/000090.html
Anderson, L.G. et alii, Effects of Using Oxygenated Fuels on Carbon
Monoxide, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Concentrations in Denver, Air &
Waste Management Association'
s 90th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, June 8 - 13 1997.
ANFAVEA (2005) Ethanol Fuel Vehicular Application Technology.
Presentation of Henry Joseph Jr. (Brazilian Automotive Industry Associations
Energy & Environment Commission anfavea@anfavea.com.br) at
CEPAL/CENBIO/USP Seminar So Paulo, August 17th, 2005
Apace Research Ltd., Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles,
EDRC Project N 2511, Australia, December 1998. Available at
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF
CARB (2004) California Air Resources Board data base
CAPCOA (1993) California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Air
Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines.
CETESB (2003) Relatrio de Qualidade do Ar no Estado de So Paulo.
Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental
CETESB (2004) Air Quality Report 2003
Cdigo Florestal (1965) Federal Law 4771/65
COELHO, S.T., GOLDEMBERG, J., LUCON, O., GUARDABASSI, P.
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol: lessons learned. Volume X, Number 2, June,
2006. Available at: ESD www.ieiglobal.org/ESDv10n2/brazilethanol.pdf
Coelho, ST; Lucon, O; Guardabassi, P (2005) Biofuels advantages and
trade
barriers.
UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2005/1
www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=5741&lang=1&intItemID=13
97
F.O.
Licht
(2005)
World
http://www.distill.com/berg/

Ethanol

Production

FAO
(2005)
Sugarcane
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGL/agll/gaez/ds/da.htm?map=24
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGL/agll/gaez/ds/ds.htm

2001.

Apud

potentials
and

25

FAOSTAT
(2005)
http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Production.Crops.Primary&Doma
in=Production&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=ext&language=EN
FAOSTAT
(2005)
Primary
crops
http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Production.Crops.Primary&Doma
in=Production&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=ext&language=EN
Goldemberg, J (2002) Brazilian Energy Initiative. www.worldenergy.org/wecgeis/focus/wssd/goldemberg.pdf
Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S. T., Nastari, P. M., Lucon, O. (2003) "Ethanol
learning curve- the Brazilian experience", Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol 26/3
pp
301-304.
http://www.iee.usp.br/biblioteca/producao/2004/Artigos%20de%20Periodicos/
BiomassandBioenergyVolume26.pdf
Goldemberg, J (2004) The case for renewable energies. Renewables 2004
Conference,
Bonn,
http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01rationale.pdf
EPA (2005) IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System: Acetaldehyde (CASRN
75-07-0) http://cfpub.epa.gov/iris/quickview.cfm?substance_nmbr=0290
EPA (2005) IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System: Formaldehyde
(CASRN
50-00-0)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/iris/quickview.cfm?substance_nmbr=0419 .
IEA (2004) Biofuels for Transport - An International Perspective. International
Energy Agency, ISBN 92-64-01512-4
International Energy Agency (2003) Energy Statistics Of Non-OECD
Countries, 2000-2001 - II.9
IPCC (2001) Third Assessment Report (TAR) "Climate Change 2001"
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/tar.htm and http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/online.htm
Macedo, I.C.; Leal, M.R.L.V. and Siflva, J.E. A.R (2004) Assessment of
greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil.
So
Paulo
State
Environment
Secretariat.
Also
at
www.unica.com.br/i_pages/files/pdf_ingles.pdf
Macedo, IC (2005) Evoluo e Perspectivas do Etanol. Seminar Brazilian
Experience with Ethanol Fuel, CEPAL - S. Paulo, 15-19 Aug
Magnetti Marelli (2005) Personal communication to Olimpio Alvares Jr,
CETESB
Mnsson, T., Clean Vehicles with Biofuel - A State of the Art Report, KFBReport 1998:18, Sweden, 1998.
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply - Secretariat of Production
and Agrienergy (2005) Sugar and ethanol in Brazil, Brasilia - July 2005
26

MME (2005) Brazilian Energy Balance 2004, www.mme.gov.br

Nastari, PM (2005). Information Services on the Sugar and Ethanol Industries
in Brazil. Personal Communication from Plinio Mario Nastari. Email address
plinio@datagro.com.br website http://www.datagro.com.br/ingl/index2.asp
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy, USA,
2002.
O Estado de So Paulo newspaper (2005) Cana: formao de preo em
debate, 17Aug 2005, p. G4
PROCANA (2005) Alcool e acar derrubam o preo da terra. Available at
http://www.jornalcana.com.br/conteudo/noticia.asp?area=Mercado%26Cotaco
es&secao=Cana-Clipping&ID_Materia=11027
Sao Paulo State (2002) Decree 47.397 (4th December 2002)
Sao Paulo State (2002) Decree 48.523 (2nd March 2004)
So Paulo State (2002) Law 11241
So Paulo State Secretariat of Environment (2005). Personal communication,
statistics provided by Ms Elisabeth Kono, www.ambiente.sp.gov.br
Sher, E., Handbook of Air Pollution from Internal Combustion Engines,
Academic Press, USA, 1998.
STAP / GEF STAP Guidance Paper on Liquid Biofuels for Transport - Main
findings of the STAP Workshop on Liquid Biofuels, June 2006 (draft version)
U.S. Department of Energy, Ethanol for Sustainable Transportation, USA,
April 1999.
UK DTI (2003), Technology status review and carbon abatement potential of
renewable
transport
fuels
in
the
UK.Report
B/U2/00785/REP
www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/b200785.pdf
UNDP (2002) World Energy Assessment 2000. United Nations Development
Programme, Washington
UNDP (2002b) Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil. Available at:
www.pnud.org.br/atlas
UNICA (2005 a) Observations on the Draft Document entitled Potential for
Biofuels for Transport in Developing Countries, prepared by Plinio Mrio
Nastari, Isaas de Carvalho Macedo and Alfred Szwarc for The World Bank
Air
Quality
Thematic
Group,
July
2005
www.unica.com.br/i_pages/files/ibm.pdf
UNICA (2005 b) Personal communication, Alfred Szwarc.
USDA (1995) Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol. Report by
Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield, and Michael S. Graboski. U.S.
27

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy.

Agricultural
Economic
Report
No.
721.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/AER721.PDF
Whitten, G., Ethanol'
s Clean Air Impact, 9th Annual Renewable Fuels
Association Conference, Miami Beach, FL, USA, February 18th 2004.
WTO (2001) Ministerial Declaration. Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session,
Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001 (015859). http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm
World Bank Energy and Poverty Thematic Group (2004, forthcoming).
"Ethanol: Re-examining a Development Opportunity for Sub-Saharan Africa"

28

ANNEX

EMISSIONS FROM ALCOHOL VEHICLES COMPARED TO GASOLINE AND

GASOHOL VEHICLES
Several countries aiming to start an alcohol program are interested in
real figures related to atmospheric emissions from such vehicles.
Table 1 below shows recent results from Cetesb for recent vehicle
models in Brazil.
CO

HC

(g/km)

(g/km) (g/km)

(g/km)

(g/km) (km / l )

0.40

0.11

0.12

0.004

194.0

11.2

0.77

0.16

0.09

0.019

183.0

7.5

FFV with E22

0.50

0.05

0.04

0.004

210.0

10.3

FFV with E100

0.51

0.15

0.14

0.020

200.0

6.9

NA

NA

NA

Fuel
Gasohol
dedicated

(E22)

Ethanol
dedicated

(E100)

NOx

Range for FFV

0.15 0.038 0.06
with E61 (50% E22
0.74
0.14 0.19
/ 50% E100)

Aldehydes CO2

Autonomy

Table 1. Average emission factors for 2003 light vehicle models (1.6 and
1.8 liters) in Brazil. Source: CETESB, 200420

Also, a comprehensive Australian study (Apace Research Ltd., 1998)

has shown positive results with low ethanol-content blends, including pollutant
reduction effects associated to blends containing up to 10% ethanol by
volume (E10 blends).

20

Weighed average by production volume, according to Brazilian standard NBR 6601. In 2003, for gasohol models
1.0 l engines are dominant; for ethanol, from 1.0 to 1.8 l. In 2004, for gasohol models there are engines between 1.0 l
and 2.0 l; for ethanol, 1.0 l. In flex-fuel vehicles, engines from 1.6 e 1.8 l are dominant. Part of the production was
tested with gasohol and the other part with neat ethanol. The largest differences due to engine size were observed in
CO2 emissions. Gasohol for tests: blend of 78 % gasoline and 22 % anhydrous ethanol (v/v). Emission tests were
performed according to the FTP 75 procedure.
29

In older carburated vehicles (as those existing in many developing

countries), the use of gasoline-ethanol blends transfer to gasoline most of
ethanols benefits, especially those regarding carbon monoxide emissions,
which could be reduced up to 60 percent.
There is an increase in exhaust emission of aldehydes when ethanol is
blended to gasoline and, depending on engine characteristics and on ethanol
content in the blend, exhaust emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) may increase.
In fact, total aldehydes emissions from alcohol engines are higher than those
from gasoline, but these aldehydes are less toxic than the formaldehydes
from the fossil fuels (EPA, 2005a and 2005b)21. A 2003 model-year Brazilian
vehicle fueled with the reference blend for governmental certification (a blend
with 22%v/v ethanol E22) emits 0,004 g/km of aldehydes (formaldehyde +
acetaldehyde), a concentration that is about 45% of the strict California limit
that is required only for formaldehyde.
An increase in evaporative emissions may occur, depending on
gasoline volatility and ethanol percentage. Emissions factors showed above
indicate that substantial reductions in exhaust emissions have been achieved
from both alcohol and gasohol-fueled vehicles, especially when comparing
modern electronic injection and catalytic technology to the older carburated
generation. Also, blend volatility varies as a function of base-gasoline
composition. Gasoline types with lower concentration of light hydrocarbons
will show a smaller volatility increase when blended with ethanol. Second,
blend volatility varies as a function of ethanol concentration in the blend. And,
compared to CNG22, ethanol has less HCs fugitive emissions.
Another relevant aspect is that ethanol has a latent heat of
vaporization higher than gasoline, what means that ethanol may contribute to
lower combustion temperature and therefore to reduce NOx. Besides that,

21

CETESB (2003) obtained in 1993 the concentration ratio acetaldehyde/formaldehyde based on ambient air
monitoring data. The results were in the range of 1.7-1.8 and in 1996/1997, 1.6-2.1. Comparing these figures to the
typical values encountered in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Chicago (0.18 - 0.96), the higher concentrations of
acetaldehydes were observed in So Paulo due to the intensive ethanol use as an automotive fuel. It must be
emphasized that during this monitoring campaign period, only a very small portion of the Brazilian light-duty fleet was
equipped with catalytic converters - which help significantly in the reduction of aldehydes emissions.
22
Compressed Natural Gas
30

modern vehicle technology allows efficient NOx control, reducing tropospheric

ozone.
Also, the solvent effect of ethanol that contributes to clean the
combustion chamber from deposits might be another factor to avoid the
increase of NOx with mileage accumulation or even reduce NOx after cleanup
is completed. In this regard it is necessary to recognise that cleanup of
deposits may have a pronounced effect in the reduction of other important
pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOC/HC) over vehicles
lifetime usage.
Ethanol is a substance of very moderate toxicity, posing less health
risks than gasoline or diesel. Generally speaking, similarly to neat ethanol
effects, the Brazilian experience with gasoline-ethanol blends (up to 25
percent of anydrous ethanol addition, by volume) has not shown any
deleterious health effects.

31