The French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir recently made statements on bioethanol, but failed to take into consideration two essential objective facts which AGPB, AGPM and the CGB wish to cite.
1. The cost for authorities of any partial tax cuts on bioethanol needs to be assessed by factoring in the following: - the economic impact of creating and maintaining thousands of jobs in rural areas. A study by the consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers calculated that 6.2 workers are needed to produce 1000 tonnes of bioethanol, compared to only 0.01 for 1000 tonnes of petrol - income from taxes and social charges generated in this production sector - capital expenditure (one billion euros) by private groups and cooperatives to build production facilities.
2. The energy value of bioethanol cannot be assessed on the basis of energy efficiency Ý when comparing bioethanol to diester. The reference for comparison must be petrol. The energy efficiency of bioethanol is currently 1.5 to 2.5 times the efficiency of petrol, depending on the method of calculation. With optimised processes in new production facilities in the future, the differential will be between 3 and 4.
European authorities have understood what is at stake: the recommendation for 10% biofuel blends by 2020, after meeting the first target of 5.75% by 2010, shows their support for the strategic importance of biofuels in reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and the energy dependency of the European Union.
Ý the quantity of energy produced through combustion of a fuel as a ratio of the hydrocarbon-based energy needed to produce it
Bioethanol: UFC-Que Choisir overlooks objective facts