Who's Fueling Whom?

Why the biofuels movement could run out of gas

  • By Richard Conniff
  • Smithsonian magazine, November 2007, Subscribe
View Full Image »
$Alt
(Cheryl Carlin)

Related Links

More from Smithsonian.com


(Page 3 of 4)

But don't biofuel subsidies buy us energy independence? President Bush, a former oil executive, declared last year that we are "addicted to oil." In this year's State of the Union speech, he set a national goal of producing 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017. The next morning, C. Ford Runge, who studies food and agriculture policy at the University of Minnesota, calculated that this would require 108 percent of the current crop if it all came from corn. Switching to corn ethanol also risks making us dependent on a crop that's vulnerable to drought and disease. When the weather turned dry in the Southeast this summer, for instance, some farmers lost up to 80 percent of their corn.

In a recent Foreign Affairs article, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," Runge and co-author Benjamin Senauer noted that growing corn requires large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and fuel. It contributes to massive soil erosion, and it is the main source, via runoff in the Mississippi River, of a vast "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. (This year the dead zone, expanding with the corn crop, was the third-largest on record.) The article made the switch to corn ethanol sound about as smart as switching from heroin to cystal meth.

Biofuel subsidies might make sense, other critics say, if they favored "cellulosic" ethanol instead—fuel that comes from breaking down the cellulose in the fibrous parts of the plant, such as the corn stalk instead of the kernel. That wouldn't put direct pressure on food prices, and might even reduce them by providing a market for agricultural waste products. Cellulosic technology is also the key to exploiting such nonfood plants as switchgrass, and it promises an improvement of more than 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional gasoline. But while an experimental cellulosic ethanol plant is now operating in Canada, and several others are being built in this country, most experts say it will take years for the technology to become economically competitive. There are also political realities. "Corn and soybean interests haven't spent 30 years paying campaign bills" for national politicians, says Runge, "to give the game away to grass."

Even if cellulosic ethanol becomes practical, biofuels will provide at best only part of the solution to the problems of global warming and energy supply. That's because biofuels will never match the one thing fossil fuels do brilliantly: concentrating solar energy. A gallon of gasoline represents the power of the sun gathered up and locked away by about 196,000 pounds of plants and animals. To produce all the petroleum, coal and natural gas on earth, it took an entire planet's worth of plants and animals growing and dying over about 700 million years.

Switching to biofuels means getting our energy only from what we can grow in the present day, and that's not much. In the course of a year, an acre of corn yields only as little as 60 gallons of ethanol, after you subtract the fossil fuels used to cultivate, harvest and refine the crop.

So let's flash forward five years. Twice a month you swing by the biofuels station to fill the 25-gallon tank in your sporty flex-fuel econo-car. (Pretend you've kissed the SUV goodbye.) Even this modest level of energy consumption will require a ten-acre farm to keep you on the highway for a year.

That might not sound too bad. But there are more than 200 million cars and light trucks on American roads, meaning they would require two billion acres' worth of corn a year (if they actually used only 50 gallons a month). The country has only about 800 million acres of potential farmland.

What if we managed to break out of the corn ethanol trap and instead set aside 100 million acres for high-yielding cellulosic ethanol crops? That's an attractive option to almost everyone outside the corn industry, including such environmental groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council. But it would still produce only about an eighth of the nation's projected energy consumption in 2025, according to a University of Tennessee study.


I first started to think that the biofuels movement might be slipping into la-la land when I spotted a news item early this year about a 78-foot powerboat named Earthrace. In the photographs, the boat looked like a cross between Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose and a Las Vegas showgirl. Skipper Pete Bethune, a former oil industry engineer from New Zealand, was trying to set a round-the-world speed record running his 540-horsepower engine solely on biodiesel.

Along the way, he spread the word that, as one report put it, "it's easy to be environmentally friendly, even in the ostentatious world of powerboating."

Well, it depends on what you mean by "easy." Bethune's biodiesel came mostly from soybeans. But "one of the great things about biodiesel," he declared, is that "it can be made from so many different sources." To prove it, his suppliers had concocted a dollop of the fuel for Earthrace from human fat, including some liposuctioned from the intrepid skipper's own backside.

Given the global obesity epidemic, that probably seemed like a sustainable resource. You could almost imagine NASCAR fans lining up for a chance to personally power Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s Chevy Monte Carlo into the tunnel turn at Pocono. But biofuel skeptics were seeing warning flags everywhere.

Over the past few years, biofuels have acquired an almost magical appeal for environmentalists and investors alike. This new energy source (actually as old as the first wood-fueled campfire) promises to relieve global warming and win back America's energy independence: instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or oil, which fill the atmosphere with the carbon packed away during thousands of years of plant and animal growth, the idea is to extract energy only from recent harvests. Where we now pay larcenous prices to OPEC, we'd pay our own farmers and foresters instead.

Of course, biofuels also produce carbon dioxide, which is the major cause of global warming. But unlike fossil fuels, which don't grow back, corn, soybeans, palm oil, grasses, trees and other biofuel feedstocks can recapture, through photosynthesis, the massive quantities of carbon dioxide they release. This makes biofuels seem like a good way to start bringing the carbon ledger back into balance. Other factors have made the promise of biofuels even more tantalizing.

• Ethanol producers in this country receive a tax credit of 51 cents a gallon, on top of billions of dollars in direct corn subsidies. (In 2005, the most recent year for which figures are available, it was $9 billion.) In Europe biodiesel subsidies can approach $2 a gallon.

• Some biofuel entrepreneurs are coining energy, and profits, from stuff we now pay to get rid of: methane from municipal dumps, wood chips piling up around sawmills, manure from livestock facilities, and paper-mill sludge that now usually ends up being trucked to a landfill.

• With a little planning, proponents say, biofuels could give us not just energy but wildlife too. Switchgrass and other potential feedstocks provide good habitat for birds and other animals between harvests.

All this, and in the minds of people like Pete Bethune, we get to keep our muscle boats too.

So what's the hitch? Partly it's that bit about doing a little planning. The move to biofuels thus far looks more like a stampede than a considered program to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Critics in the financial community have used words like "gold rush" and even the dreaded "bubble," fretting that "biofool" investors are putting too much money into new refineries, which could go bust as markets and subsidies shift or as technologies and feedstocks become obsolete.

Betting the farm on biofuels has become commonplace: this year alone American farmers planted an additional 15 million acres in corn, and they were expecting one of the largest harvests in history. The share of the corn crop going into ethanol is also increasing pell-mell, from about 5 percent ten years ago to 20 percent in 2006, with the likelihood that it could go to 40 percent in the next few years.

Not surprisingly, the price of corn doubled over the last two years. This past January, angry consumers took to the streets in Mexico City to protest the resulting surge in the price of tortillas, a staple food. In China, rising feed costs boosted pork prices 29 percent, prompting the government to back off its plan to produce more biofuels. Even titans of agribusiness worried out loud that we might be putting fuel for our cars ahead of food for our bellies.

The chief executive at Tyson Foods said the poultry producer was spending an extra $300 million on feed this year and warned of food-price shocks rippling through the market. Cargill's chief predicted that reallocation of farmland due to biofuel incentives could combine with bad weather to cause food shortages around the world. Cattle ranchers and environmentalists, unlikely bedfellows, both called for rethinking those incentives.

Not that anybody seems to have given them much thought in the first place. One problem with current subsidies is that they act as if all biofuels were created equal—while some may actually be worse for the environment than conventional gasoline. For instance, corn ethanol on average produces about 13 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline, according to Daniel Kammen, a public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley. But when ethanol refineries burn coal to provide heat for fermentation, emissions are up to 20 percent worse for the environment than gasoline. Yet that ethanol still earns the full subsidy.

In the United States, state and federal biofuel subsidies cost about $500 for every metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions they avoid, according to a study by the Global Subsidies Initiative, an environmentally oriented nonprofit. We could pay somebody else to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, via the European carbon emissions trading market, for about $28 a ton.

But don't biofuel subsidies buy us energy independence? President Bush, a former oil executive, declared last year that we are "addicted to oil." In this year's State of the Union speech, he set a national goal of producing 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017. The next morning, C. Ford Runge, who studies food and agriculture policy at the University of Minnesota, calculated that this would require 108 percent of the current crop if it all came from corn. Switching to corn ethanol also risks making us dependent on a crop that's vulnerable to drought and disease. When the weather turned dry in the Southeast this summer, for instance, some farmers lost up to 80 percent of their corn.

In a recent Foreign Affairs article, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," Runge and co-author Benjamin Senauer noted that growing corn requires large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and fuel. It contributes to massive soil erosion, and it is the main source, via runoff in the Mississippi River, of a vast "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. (This year the dead zone, expanding with the corn crop, was the third-largest on record.) The article made the switch to corn ethanol sound about as smart as switching from heroin to cystal meth.

Biofuel subsidies might make sense, other critics say, if they favored "cellulosic" ethanol instead—fuel that comes from breaking down the cellulose in the fibrous parts of the plant, such as the corn stalk instead of the kernel. That wouldn't put direct pressure on food prices, and might even reduce them by providing a market for agricultural waste products. Cellulosic technology is also the key to exploiting such nonfood plants as switchgrass, and it promises an improvement of more than 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional gasoline. But while an experimental cellulosic ethanol plant is now operating in Canada, and several others are being built in this country, most experts say it will take years for the technology to become economically competitive. There are also political realities. "Corn and soybean interests haven't spent 30 years paying campaign bills" for national politicians, says Runge, "to give the game away to grass."

Even if cellulosic ethanol becomes practical, biofuels will provide at best only part of the solution to the problems of global warming and energy supply. That's because biofuels will never match the one thing fossil fuels do brilliantly: concentrating solar energy. A gallon of gasoline represents the power of the sun gathered up and locked away by about 196,000 pounds of plants and animals. To produce all the petroleum, coal and natural gas on earth, it took an entire planet's worth of plants and animals growing and dying over about 700 million years.

Switching to biofuels means getting our energy only from what we can grow in the present day, and that's not much. In the course of a year, an acre of corn yields only as little as 60 gallons of ethanol, after you subtract the fossil fuels used to cultivate, harvest and refine the crop.

So let's flash forward five years. Twice a month you swing by the biofuels station to fill the 25-gallon tank in your sporty flex-fuel econo-car. (Pretend you've kissed the SUV goodbye.) Even this modest level of energy consumption will require a ten-acre farm to keep you on the highway for a year.

That might not sound too bad. But there are more than 200 million cars and light trucks on American roads, meaning they would require two billion acres' worth of corn a year (if they actually used only 50 gallons a month). The country has only about 800 million acres of potential farmland.

What if we managed to break out of the corn ethanol trap and instead set aside 100 million acres for high-yielding cellulosic ethanol crops? That's an attractive option to almost everyone outside the corn industry, including such environmental groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council. But it would still produce only about an eighth of the nation's projected energy consumption in 2025, according to a University of Tennessee study.

One other problem with the rush to "greener" fuels is that, despite the biodiversity happy talk, wildlife is already prominent among biofuel victims. Last year, for instance, farmers were protecting about 36 million acres through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which works to restore degraded lands, reduce soil erosion and maintain wildlife habitat. CRP land is what biofuel proponents often have their eyes on when they talk about producing biofuels and biodiversity by growing switchgrass. But farmers look at the bottom line, sizing up the $21 per acre they net with the CRP payment (to take a representative example from southwest Minnesota) against the $174 they can now earn growing corn. And they have begun pulling land out of CRP and putting it back into production.

Other countries are also rapidly surrendering habitat to biofuel. In Indonesia and Malaysia, companies are bulldozing millions of acres of rain forest to produce biodiesel from oil palm, an imported species. The United Nations recently predicted that 98 percent of Indonesia's forests will be destroyed within the next 15 years, partly to grow palm oil. Many of the new plantations will be on the island of Borneo, a mother lode of biological diversity.

Apart from the effect on wildlife, critics say Indonesia's forests are one of the worst places to grow biofuels, because they stand on the world's richest concentration of peat, another nonrenewable fuel. When peat dries out or is burned to make way for a plantation, it releases huge quantities of carbon dioxide. Indonesia, despite its undeveloped economy, already ranks as the world's third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after China and the United States. When you add the peat effect into the equation, according to the conservation group Wetlands International, Indonesian palm oil biodiesel is up to eight times worse for the environment than gasoline.

Oh, and one final irony. The Christian Science Monitor recently reported that because of the way U.S. biofuel laws are written, foreign tankers loaded with Indonesian biodiesel can stop briefly at an American port, blend in a splash of regular petroleum diesel and qualify for a U.S. subsidy on every gallon. It's called "splash and dash," because the tankers generally push on to Europe to collect additional subsidies there. All in the name of greener fuels.

None of this means we should give up on biofuels. But we need to stop being dazzled by the word and start looking closely at the realities before blind enthusiasm leads us into economic and environmental catastrophes. We also should not let biofuels distract us from other remedies. Conservation and efficiency improvements may not sound as sexy as biofuels. But they are typically cheaper, faster and better at dealing with the combined problems of global warming and uncertain energy supply. They also call on what used to be the defining American traits of thrift and ingenuity.

And what about Pete Bethune, gallivanting around the planet in his powerboat and telling us it's easy to be environmentally friendly in this newfangled world? I think he must be kidding. Our brief infatuation with biofuels has already taught us, with every high-priced tortilla, that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Richard Conniff, a longtime contributor to the magazine, is a 2007 Guggenheim Fellow.


Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.



 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (26)

Yeah, we need new energy sources... However, making fuel out of food sources (soy) is a very, very bad idea.

Posted by steve on March 16,2010 | 07:14 PM

Just a quick note of correction. The federal subsidy for ethanol is now 45 cts/gal, not 51 cts/gal as was mentioned in the article, and it goes to blenders, not producers.

Posted by Robert Gough on March 16,2010 | 05:12 PM

A couple of points the author conveniently left out.

--> Brazilian sugarcane gives an 8:1 return on energy investment. Brazil gets half of the fuel from ethanol, while using 1.5% of their arable land to do so.

--> Corn based ethanol is much better than the author points out, for the following simple reason. Corn in this country is often feed to cows. When you turn corn into ethanol, you get distillers grain as a by-product, which can also be fed to cows. In fact, distillers grain is a better feed product for cows than the original corn.

Finally, the author seems to falling into the "full substitution" fallacy of alternative fuels. It is not required that gasoline be fully replaced by biofuels. The goal is rather fuel diversity - replace 15% of gasoline with biofuels, another 15% with electrification, another 10% with natural gas, another 10% with greater vehicle efficiency. The combined effect of all these efforts will collectively protect the American consumer from dramatic shifts in oil prices, while also providing domestic jobs.

Posted by pjcpjc on March 16,2010 | 02:50 PM

"Of course, biofuels also produce carbon dioxide, which is the major cause of global warming."

This statement, so often repeated, is a lie. CO2 output has gone up 40% in the last 10 years, yet the global temperatures are in decline. CO2 levels rise when the planet warms, due to increased vegetation, and release from the oceans. CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause of global warming. And, CO2 is a very poor GHG. Stopping all CO2 emissions would decrease the concentration ~10 ppm, which would have no measurable effect on temperature (Christy,Spencer @ UAH).

Posted by Nick on March 16,2010 | 01:45 PM

Some facts that I have noticed:
My car, which is a very common one, gets half the mileage out of gasoline mixed with ethanol. It also smokes when the ethanol mixture is used. The average mileage I obtained from the gas ethanol mixture was 17 miles on each gallon. I also had to clean the throttle plate and injectors every 3000 miles (every oil change). I have since switched to gasoline and have seen an increase in mileage to about 27 miles per gallon. My question is, how is Ethanol, one of the "bio products" supposed to be better than regular gasoline when it not only causes more emissions, it also halves the mileage.
My car is in tip top shape and is kept that way. (My family owns an auto repair business) I used the ethanol in a few other vehicles also and got similar results. We also see several vehicles in the shop having major mechanical problems from using the ethanol blend.
The bottom line is, all of these vehicles, once put back on regular gasoline, emitted fewer emissions and got much better mileage. My car doesn't smoke at all anymore. After spending about 50 dollars to clean the ethanol residue out of the fuel system. (at cost, this wold cost much more if you pay a shop to do it.)

Posted by Jesse on March 16,2010 | 09:29 AM

Everyone forgot the paleoground water required for biofuel.
1200 gallons of water per gallon of corn ethonol.

Posted by Sustainability PDX on March 16,2010 | 03:21 AM

Algae has the biggest potential as a source for biofuel.

It can be raised in seawater, and thus doesn't deplete freshwater stocks.

It doesn't need to be created on arable land.

It has the potential to produce far more fuel per acre than any other source.

There are problems to be solved, but they probably aren't insurmountable.

Posted by Catch22 on September 28,2009 | 04:47 PM

Without a lot of time and money spent on additional research the energy crisis could be greatly alleviated by changing lifestyles and still have a lot of wiggle room for enjoyment. The consumers need to reduce the amount of stuff they buy do based on want rather than need especially in all areas that are energy intensive.
A good example is the vehicle they drive. When I am driving my two wheel drive, 30+ MPG car at the speed limit and I am passed by a 10 miles + over the speed limit 4 wheel drive pickup truck or a 4 wheel drive boxcar size SUV with two adults and two children in it that is driven 98% of the time on smooth pavement I get justifiably angry. Another of many examples is children driving cars to school and parents lining up to pick up children; in both cases school buses are available or they ase within a reasonable walking distance in reasonably safe environments. How about drive thru every things? How many of you reading this use them? I've quit! Hey I'm tired and in a hurry too and maybe my shoes aren't shinned but I park and go in anyway. Many times I'm out and gone while the drive-thuers are still waiting.
Pushing consumer subsidized ethanol is not the answer based on many studies and now actual use. Hydro electric is overlooked. After many decades a dam on the Mississippi at Alton IL was tapped for electricity and I was told that it now supplies electricity for one hundred thousand homes.

Posted by Norman Reindl on September 20,2009 | 11:07 AM

As pointed out by many of the other reviewers of this article, there are many fundimental problems with ethanol that are not discussed in this article. One, you have to use fossil fuels to make ethanol. Two, by simple chemical law, the law of conservation of matter, you cannot just "get rid" of carbon. When you make these plants into ethanol, the carbon is trapped inside also, so it still burns dirty and puts out just as much as it took in while it was alive. Three, there are millions of people that are dieing of starvation this week, and what do we use our food for, we burn it, that makes perfect sense.

Posted by phear monger on November 28,2008 | 12:25 PM

when I read the title who's fueling whom i was hoping this article would mention the often looked over point of ethanol. Ethanol is the newest framed solution to make american feel cozy. It takes a lot of petrochemical fertilization to produce corn and ethanol is the dumbest alternative since it takes a calorie of petroleum to produce a calorie of ethanol, but now it takes up space and drives up food costs, while lowering our surplus that could otherwise be given to countries that need it instead of powering our lifestyles. I forget who said it while accepting his nobel prize for technology of food but he said his technology was just going to feed the problem instead of mitigating the problem of population (the two are directly related). Has anyone seen the price of cereal go up. THIS CROP/FUEL IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY OIL, lets see a sustainable breadbasket where oxen till the earth, better yet lets not till and have sustainable farms that exist in harmony. DOWN WITH MONOCULTURE.

Posted by tomlyle on March 19,2008 | 12:23 AM

Check out butanol from switchgrass.Ethanol has 75% of the energy equivalent of gasoline while butanol is almost equivalent.

Posted by Philip Bernstein on December 22,2007 | 07:29 AM

I see Hawaiin Electric's name mentioned How much geothermal heat does it use for power production?

Posted by lionel on December 14,2007 | 08:19 PM

Yes, both ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans or palm oil are not viable long term solutions. However, algae has been researched for over 50 years and there are probably a dozen US universities doing advanced research on algae strain optimization. Yields of biofuels are 30-80 gallons per acres of soy or corn, but approximately 2000 gallons per acre of pond algae. Thus, instead of needing billions of acres under cultivation, and consuming vast quantities of water, we can produce vastly more feedstock with 1/100 of the irrigation water. Now, what is good about the current growth of biodiesel plants is that many are multiple feedstock capable and will be able to switch, more or less easily, to using algae as a primary source. Stand by, this will happen sooner than you think, as these 2nd generation feedstocks become profitable.

Posted by Michael Sarin on December 14,2007 | 06:32 PM

Very little energy seems to be being expended looking at alternative vehicle design. The average car weighs some 2000lbs or more, and carries an average 500lbs payload. I can't see why it would be impossible to design a 500lbs car that would carry a 500lbs payload using a small IC engine. Motorcycles and light aircraft already do this. This could reduce fuel use by 75% right out front. The big problem of course is little cars getting wasted by big cars.

Posted by Hunt Johnsen on December 10,2007 | 10:28 AM

Love the part about NASCAR fans.

Posted by Neo on December 8,2007 | 04:08 PM

Algae? Pipedream, baby, pipedream! Don't hold your breath on that technology happening anytime soon. Meanwhile, please join those of us in Hawaii in the outrage for Hawaiian Electric's plans to open a palm oil pipeline to SE Asia, furthering the destruction of rainforest and endangered species habitat. The two largest biodiesel refineries in the world are in the planning and permitting stages, one on Oahu and one on Maui. Bad choice, REALLY bad choice.

Posted by ROB on November 26,2007 | 03:27 PM

Using biodiesel derived from sources that do not compete with the human food supply, such as algae, would balance the carbon cycle in the short run. The problem with using coal and oil is that it releases, in a very short period of time, carbon dioxide stored in solid form over a very long period of time. In geologic time, of course, the carbon cycle remains balanced. Since, as Keynes famously observed, in the long run we'll be dead, most people are primarily concerned about the short run. Short run changes in the climate, such as 2 or 3 degree changes over 400 or 500 years can produce significant geopolitical changes. Just ask the Greenland Vikings. Of course, the nuclear-electric option would also work. It's a matter of cost which, left to itself, the market will sort out. The core of the environmentalist argument is that government action to suppress the use of coal and oil is necessary to allow the market to bring forth the alternatives. The problem with the environmentalists is that they don't like any of the alternatives. Ted Kennedy doesn't like windmills off Cape Cod, Jane Fonda doesn't like nuclear energy, if anyone started largescale harvesting of algae as a biodiesel source, a legion of environmentalists will come forth to denounce our "devastation" of the fish's food supply, etc and so forth.

Posted by aubrey yates on November 26,2007 | 02:22 PM

This article perpetuates the carbon recycle myth. It states "Unlike fossil fuels, which don't grow back, corn, soybeans, palm oil, grasses, trees and other biofuel feedstocks can recapture, through photosynthesis, the massive quantities of carbon dioxide they release." The only way to remove carbon from the atmosphere is to either increase the amount of worldwide photosynthesis (carbon removal) or decrease carbon emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks, etc. (Carbon release). However corn, soybeans, palm trees, and switch grass are, or will be, grown where plants are already grown today so in macro terms the removal part of the equation can't be changing much. If you look at biodiesel the carbon emissions are about the same as petroleum since the carbon count in each respective molecule is about the same. Similarly, when you include carbon emissions from fermentation the carbon released from fermenting and burning ethanol is about the same as gasoline. After measuring all the ins and outs the ultimate gain or loss may be favorable or unfavorable we still keep acting as if ethanol, especially from corn, will dramatically impact the balance. I just can't see how and multiple personal discussions with biofuels experts have only confirmed my suspicions.

Posted by C. Smith on November 26,2007 | 08:54 AM

Nuclear energy powering electric cars is the only real answer that exists today. Maybe the ever cheaper costs of rockets will allow us to send our glassified nuclear waste to the Sun. In the mean time the Yucca Mountain repository will, like it or not, be a reality in 2 years.

Posted by Greg on November 25,2007 | 10:44 AM

The article raises many important issues but doesn't do justice to many others. For example, biodiesel (not ethanol) can also be made from domestically grown soybeans and many other sources, not only from palm oil. I agree that we need to keep an open mind and be critical about the biofuel craze. But at the same time, we need not be unnecessarily pessimistic about its future. We also need to be suspect of artificial impediments that the energy and transportation industries have seen before due to entrenched interests. Brazil is energy independent because of biofuels, shall we dismiss this potential so glibly ?

Posted by Rod on November 25,2007 | 03:28 AM

Ay yes the simplistic solutions never really work. Always an integrated approach to big problems work best, as they consider the different(sometimes many) imputs that make the problem. No doubt the combination of conservation(efficiency), production(oil and other non grata sources), nuclear, geothermal, and solar is the way to go. However, those who have vested interests in any one source have got to stop blockading the developement in the other areas. Of particular concern is the no growth people, who want the equivalent of the Islamists; a return to the Middle Ages where there are fewer of us without any technology, spending all of time trying to survive.

Posted by Les B. on November 24,2007 | 08:03 PM

Generally a good summary of the limitations of biofuels as presently constituted. Keep in mind though that only 0.2% of the solar energy that strikes the US would meet our annual energy needs so putting limits on what biofuels can achieve is pretty premature. Oh and one other thing. Ethanol fermenters are cooled not heated. The energy use in an ethanol plant is divided roughly equally between drying the coproduct distillers grains and distilling the ethanol from the mash.

Posted by C. Massie on November 24,2007 | 11:46 AM

You never mentioned wood as a cellulosic material. Trees provide better habitat than switchgrass and are more robust to weather variations such as a dry summer. Trees can be grown without adding nitrogen and annually disturbing the soil. Thinning over-crowded forests could produce vast amounts of wood from hundreds of millions of acres in the U.S. Wood is the original bio-fuel used by our ancient ancestors. We have an abundance of wood in the U.S. Why was it ignored in this article. I'll answer the rhetorical question. Cutting trees has become an environmental anathema. We'd rather watch 10 million acres per year burn, than do some logging.

Posted by Xavier Modsden on November 24,2007 | 10:42 AM

maybe...just maybe we could drive our escalade a little less. how 'bout a little ol common sense im embarrassed of us

Posted by corey on November 22,2007 | 02:38 PM

Excellent Article!

Posted by L. Gribbin on November 22,2007 | 08:03 AM

Algae, baby, algae.

Posted by Joe on November 16,2007 | 04:07 PM

Algae, baby, algae.

Posted by Joe on November 16,2007 | 04:07 PM



Advertisement


Advertisement

Follow Us





First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store