End of the Line for Biofuels?

Once held up as the future of alternative energy, and our key to independence from fossil fuels, it is remarkable to see just how much (and fast) the tide has turned against biofuels. Rightly blamed for everything from rising food and commodity prices to water degradation and soil erosion, biofuels have seen their cachet plummet in recent months -- even among some of their most ardent boosters -- and are now widely considered to be little more than a boondoggle for farmers. The leaking of an internal World Bank report claiming that biofuels have driven up food prices by a whopping 75% certainly didn't help.

Of course, it was always foolish to think that so-called first generation biofuels like corn ethanol would do much to alleviate our energy woes. Even now, flex-fuel vehicles only account for an infinitesimal proportion of the American car market -- at most a few million out of more than 130 million registered vehicles. And there are still so few gas stations that dispense E85 fuel (85% ethanol, 15% gas) that most drivers are forced to fill up with regular gasoline.

According to a recent study published in Conservation Biology, it would take 157 - 262% of existing U.S. crop land to even meet half of our current demand for fuel. While it's true that Brazil has more or less successfully weaned itself off Middle Eastern oil by investing in sugar cane-based ethanol, a much more cost-efficient biofuel, there are concerns it may be contributing to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.

In any case, any small improvement in fuel efficiency would be more than offset by the millions of carbon emissions generated during the production process, which is both extremely water- and land-intensive. In the U.S. and Brazil alone, the destruction of forests and other land releases roughly 17 - 240 times more carbon emissions than the fuels ethanol replaces. Let's not also forget that this whole misguided enterprise is being propped up by the federal government to the tune of $5.5 - $7.3 billion a year, according to the Global Subsidies Initiative.

Fortunately, there are finally some signs of progress: France, the EU's incoming president, recently indicated that the European community was considering revising its renewable energy guidelines by shifting the focus from a strict quota system to one based on ethical, sustainable production methods. And, according to an influential EU lawmaker, the international body may reduce one of its targets -- producing 10% of vehicle fuels by 2020 from renewable sources -- to 4% by 2015. The new measure would also require governments to derive one-fifth of their renewable energy from advanced, second-generation biofuels and electric vehicles.

In light of this gradual shift away from food-based biofuels (at least outside the U.S.), it's hardly surprising that other renewable fuels, such as algal biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol, have been receiving a lot more attention. Insofar as biofuels remain a key component of the world's renewable portfolio, it is essential that governments and businesses invest more into these types of fuels. Unlike corn ethanol, the feedstocks used to make these biofuels, such as switchgrass and wood residues, do not displace food production and can easily be grown on abandoned or fallow farmlands.

The message here is that not all biofuels are necessarily bad. True, most of these second generation biofuels probably won't see the light of day -- in terms of large-scale commercial production -- for another few years. And, yes, there are probably better ways we could be spending our time and money in finding renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. We should of course expand our solar and wind energy capacity and, in some areas, examine other sources, such as geothermal energy.

While I fully agree with critics that the farm bill's wasteful ethanol subsidies should be done away with entirely, I believe the Democrats in the Senate should push harder to get the renewable tax credits extended. If we ever hope to become fully energy independent (a faint hope at this moment, I know), the next president will have to commit to overhauling our existing energy infrastructure by pursuing a smart, aggressive renewable agenda.

Comments

[josetony]

Trying to run a car on ethanol made from corn is one of the worst ideas that I have ever seen. The problem with using corn is that corn is used on almost everything else. Most of the process food and drinks we consume contains corn syrup. Diverting the corn to be used as fuel, is the same as trying to decide which is better ,to eat or to drive. Plus, the rise in food prices is something that is inevitable. Sugar cane is a better alternative for fuel. It can be harvested in the southern states and the alcohol yield is about 20 times bigger than corn. There is also the switchgrass and algae alternative with very imppresive results. There is also the alternative of running a car using natural gas instead of gasoline. I understand that there are CNG conversion kits for cars being sold The CNG is produced here in the US, so is a way of cutting the 70% foreign oil dependency.

[research]

Run cars on batteries for 60+ miles, then if needed use a multi-fuel generator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[leduck]

Corn based ethanol was not based on science
it was always based on federal subsidy and making money for farmers

Corn was always a loser

[research]

Wind and solar can replace all nukes oil and coal for the cost of oil subsides in ten years.

Plug in Hybrids can reduce our oil consumption by 90%. existing oil and natural gas can fill in for decades at the reduced use.

See my profile for details and links.

[Photofarm]

Rising food prices is not the fault of biofuels. All of the negative's about biofuels is just wrong, written by those that have a mission to get rid of them for other reasons. Oil Companies and Food Processors are using biofuels as a scapegoat to raise their prices even more.

The reality is that without biofuels, food prices in the United States would be higher, because of higher fuel costs. Fuel costs make up a higher percentage of food costs than the raw commodity prices.

[leduck]

erpoie of corn is low
about 1:1
what's the point in producing corn for fuel if the amount of fuel we get equals the amount we put into to obtaining it?

there is no point
corn will never solve depletion or peak oil
ever

[jsarets]

There's also bacterial ethanol pathways that can use syngas (mixture of CO2 and H2) as a feedstock. This also happens to be the output of biomass gasification. In other words, we can dump our garbage into a fancy incinerator and get ethanol out of it.

Bacteria are even more efficient than algae because they are prokaryotic cells, lacking most of the eukaryotic organelles that add biological overhead. Because they have a short, simple ring of DNA, it's easy for us to manufacture bacteria that have only the enzymatic pathways that we need and perform no unessential activities (including growth and reproduction). They are tiny enzyme factories that can carry out desired chemical reactions much more efficiently than we could do in a non-biological lab process.

There's a certain beauty to the potential symbiotic relationship between humans and domesticated bacteria. We are the opposite extremes on the food chain. We are the great respirators, converting oxygen and complex organic molecules into carbon dioxide. They are the great synthesizers, converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and complex organic molecules. Whatever we can do, they can undo. Our waste is their fuel. Their fuel is our waste. A marriage truly made in heaven, don't you think?

[VeggieCar]

Most promising bio-fuel at the moment is biodiesel from algae. Extremely high yield and takes zero food crop land. Hemp is a political hot potato that just complicates things more, and is just not as efficient as algae.
Easy to grow, eats CO2 from smokestacks and tailpipes, easy to harvest, easy to extract oil from. Can be produced in the large industrial scale settings that it will take to produce millions of gallons a day. (though I'd prefer small scale, local)

If we're smart we will pursue algae as the source of our liquid bio-transportation fuel.

What are we waiting for?

[neoconsareliars]

because it is too expensive and it does not work. you believe everything in print?

[VeggieCar]

where'd you read that?

you can set up a cheap algae photobioreactor in your backyard and squeeze out the oil with a low cost press. it's cheap and it does work.

yes, more work needs to be done, but at the moment it's the most promising bio liquid fuel.

[andygaus]

Switchgrass isn't the only kind of grass that can be grown for biofuel. Hemp is also a plant that grows in land that might otherwise be fallow, grows fast, and produces a lot of biomass. But that seems like something nobody's supposed to mention for some reason.