|
SA biofuels plan 'makes sense'
15/04/2008 17:26 - (SA)
Tiisetso Motsoeneng
Johannesburg - Using maize as a feedstock for the
production of biofuels is more expensive than sugar cane, a senior official at Accenture said on Tuesday.
Sander van't Noordende was speaking at the release of the global
management consulting firm's study on the global biofuels industry, which predicted that although it was a "dot-com bubble" in the making, it would become a major player in the energy sector in the next four years.
Producing biofuels from maize "is not the most economical option"
compared with sugar cane or beet, he said when asked to comment on South Africa's decision to exclude maize as feedstock for biofuels production.
Late last year, South Africa banned maize as a feedstock for grain-based fuels production, citing food security concerns and the possibility of pushing maize prices higher.
Van't Noordende said that sugar cane conversion to ethanol was a more
efficient process for biofuels than maize - despite maize being dubbed the biofuels king.
But industry players have argued that South Africa is not suited for mass production of sugar cane because of erratic rainfall and bad soil, while mass production of maize could help build a viable biofuels sector.
Other arguments against the sole use of sugar cane include the
logistical challenges of transporting fuel from KwaZulu-Natal - the only place where climatic conditions allow sugar cane plantations - to inland retailers, while maize is mainly grown inland, which could sharply reduce the cost of transporting the fuel.
"Transport is just an additional cost. Petrol refineries are currently located in the coastal areas," said Van't Noordende.
|
