Biofuels are not the answer to oil dependency

[Aurora]

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/comme ... /xp-130510

roanoke.com - 03/09/07

Robert F. Boyd

Boyd lives in Daleville and was a professor and science writer at Marquette University before his retirement.

The U.S. government became interested in biofuels when Brazil demonstrated several years ago that ethanol, produced from sugar cane, could power cars. Today the United States produces nearly as much ethanol as the Brazilians do. The major difference between the two countries is that in the U.S. corn is substituted for sugar cane.

It has been suggested that substituting biofuels for fossil fuels will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil and decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, thereby preventing further deterioration of the planet from global warming. Our president has proposed that biofuels replace at least 15 percent of the gasoline we'll need by 2017.

Sounds like a win-win situation doesn't it? But wait. Are biofuels everything they're cracked up to be? Following the president's proposal, we would need 35 billion gallons of fuel if corn remains the primary source. This means that all of the U.S. corn crop would be consumed, leaving none for food for people or animals. Since 70 percent of the corn grown is fed to livestock and poultry, this means that there will be higher prices for meat, milk and eggs.

You might have noticed their increase.

Using corn as a source of fuel is an energy inefficient process. Mass production of corn uses more pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer than any other crop in the United States. The amount of fertilizer used in growing corn is three times that for any other crop.

This economic inefficiency is exacerbated when the corn is processed. The grain is first crushed and fermented, followed by as many as three distillation steps. Further steps are required to produce 99.9 percent pure ethanol.

All of these processes require energy. That energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that if ethanol is more energy efficient than fossil fuels, producers would use it in their production processes. Even in Brazil, where sugar cane is a more energy-efficient source of ethanol than corn, power plants use fossil fuels in their processing, and they are building more of them to accommodate that operation.

Some producers of fuel ethanol are considering using the leaves and stalks left in the field after corn harvesting as a source of raw energy. Unfortunately, that is not such a hot idea since that after-harvest material (leaves and stems) is left on the soil to reduce soil erosion.

President Bush now suggests we use soybeans as a biofuel source. Brazil is growing soybeans as a source of biofuel, and large plantations are created from deforestation of rain forests. Since 80 percent of carbon emissions in Brazil are directly related to deforestation, soybean as a biofuel is not solving overall greenhouse gas emissions. Research has demonstrated that soybeans as a biofuel are only slightly more efficient than corn.

Biofuel enthusiasts reject much of the scientific research I have described, but that is to be expected considering how scientific research has been rejected or stifled by this current administration. Even if ethanol delivered a net energy gain over petroleum gasoline, other considerations must be taken into account:

* The exorbitant price of farm land has risen to a point where new farmers wanting to grow crops other than those for biofuel are squeezed out of the market. Among this group are those who are interested in using organic methods to grow vegetables and fruits -- a recent growing industry.

* Increased cost of foods affects low-income people who already suffer from stagnant median wages.

* Increasing greenhouse gas emissions to produce biofuels does not seem like an intelligent strategy for crop utilization.

* Placing so much land for biofuel production increases soil erosion and with it further contamination of various water systems.

* More land for crop production also means more power plants for processing, which leads to increased demand for more fossil fuels.

* How long the biofuel industry would be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.

If biofuels are to be used as alternatives to fossil fuels, we must use only those that offer the greatest environmental benefit. Several European organizations have called for mandatory environmental certification programs for biofuels. To date, that idea has not even been mentioned in the United States.

It is imperative the American consumer have access to information on our proposals for energy security. Biofuels are an important part of the 2007 Farm Bill. We should be careful about supporting another government decision that is not based on reliable scientific research.

[isenhand]

We should be careful about supporting another government decision that is not based on reliable scientific research.

Making decisions from reliable scientific data does not form part of the function of governments

In the end, I think, things like bio-fuels only form one part of a solution. We would also need to look at ending economic growth (which means thinking about an alternative socioeconomic system) and about balancing our needs with the ecosystem. Again, not something government want to know about.

.ui

[Blue Peter]

In the end, I think, things like bio-fuels only form one part of a solution. .ui

Do they form any part of a large-scale solution?

Just so I can get my prejudices in order , is there any (large-scale) merit in biofuels of the take crop and turn it into liquid fuels variety?


Peter.

[clv101]

Define "large-scale"? By specifying large scale are you supporting small scale? What factors determine the threshold between large and small? Where does that threshold lie?

[Blue Peter]

Define "large-scale"? By specifying large scale are you supporting small scale? What factors determine the threshold between large and small? Where does that threshold lie?

Help!

I said "large-scale" to avoid answers like "Well, it might be useful on my farm if I produced oil to run my tractor" or some such.

I suppose that by large-scale I mean the sort of amounts that are going to get mentioned on the news, allow us to (try to) do business-as-usual. But, I don't have a figure in my mind.

As I say, the question is more to allow me to dismiss (or not) all the various government schemes which seem to be in the pipeline. From what I can tell, I get the impression that the are not a solution. But maybe that's my selective reading, the fact that most stories seem to concentrate on corn ethanol, or some such.

Or, to put it another way, it seems to me that whenever the hydrogen economy is raised, it is dismissed more or less out of hand. When nuclear is raised, there are lots of arguments pro and con. There seem to be perfectly respectable positions to be adopted for or against it. So are biofuels more like the hydrogen economy or nuclear?


Peter.