The author has clearly missed the key problems with biofuels. While he does point out that they have limited environmental benefit (the amount of CO2 released during the production and use of ethanol is similar to that of gasoline), he doesn't realize that biofuels will be an ecological disaster. If the price of crops increases, it will not be cattle farming land that will be used to produce these crops. Instead poor farmers will burn/chop down more forests to increase available land. In addition, much of the "open" land he refers to is unsuitable for large scale farming and using it will result in destruction of the top soil.

However, the biggest problem with biofuels is that even if 20% of crops were to be used for biofuel, they would meet less than 5% of American energy needs.

Someone needs to tell politicians that they need to stop ethanol subsidies before they distort the whole global food market.

The carbon emissions from burning biofuels are a net zero, as the plants that are burned get their carbon from the carbon dioxide in the air, so they are effectively recycling carbon (kind of like the evaporation and rain cycle). This is different than burning fossil fuels, in which case the carbon is transferred from the ground to the atmosphere.

Biofuels alone will not meet all of our energy needs, but they will form a transition from carbon-based, non-renewable energy to a hydrogen-based, renewable energy model that will be more economically feasible in 20-30 years. If we don't get away from fossil fuels now, it will be too late in 20-30 years.

"Poor" farmers won't chop down forests, they don't own forest land. Large companies may chop down forests, but they do that now for coal (in fact, they destroy entire mountains to get at the coal underneath). Then they burn the coal, emitting not just carbon, but a bunch of other harmful compounds that are not conducive to life forms.

So you are saying that the land most likely to be used to grow bio fuels is now used, or would otherwise be used, for coal mining?

Is it not more likely that areas such as rainforests would be more likely, given issues with irrigation requirements for that production?

Assuming that farmers would have to clear existing vegetation to plant the ethanol feedstock, your point about CO2 neutrality would no longer be valid.

No, I'm saying that some people destroy forests to get coal out of the ground, and leave a huge toxic mess in its' place.

Rainforests do not have to be cut down for ethanol. Brazil is constantly pointing out that their rainforest is a lousy place to grow sugar cane, their main source of ethanol. And in the U.S., switchgrass, which used to grow where grain farms are now located, will be a much better source of ethanol, and will help return many areas to their more natural state (although the grass will have to be harvested every year).

Also, my point about CO2 is valid. When plants grow, the use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide that they take in from the atmosphere into carbohydrates, which are then converted into ethanol. While the corn or switchgrass is growing, it removes CO2 from the air, and it is released back into the air when it is burned. The next growing season will again remove more CO2 from the air.

OK, so perhaps it is not rainforest that would be cultivated for sugar cane or whatever, but it almost certainly needs to be someplace with ample water. It is not likely to be the scrub brush of Wyoming's Powder River Basin which is currently being mined for coal.

As to switchgrass replacing wheat, that would of course mean a significant reduction in wheat production, which means someone, somewhere, is gonna go hungry. And that all of us will pay more for bread or pasta.

I understand your point on CO2 neutrality, but that is valid only if there would otherwise not be plant life growing on the land used. If one takes an acre of wheat land and cultivates it for switchgrass for the manufacture of ethanol, it will not be neutral, because you have to consider the CO2 the wheat was previously consuming. It is not as if the likely places to grow ethanol feedstock are now barren desert. Reality is that you will replace existing plant life with the feedstock, and will likely have little net impact on the amount of CO2 removed from the air.

And, of course, if it takes 50 BTU of fossil fuel derived energy to grow and produce 100 BTU of ethanol energy, that also negatively impacts the equation.

Not saying we should not pursue these things, but with realistic expectations of what can be acheived.

I would hope people would have realistic expectations about something like this. Certainly changes to the food system would have to be made. Surpluses are in fact very common in grains, both corn and wheat. A country like Russia has so much potential as a grower that threats of starvation shouldn't even exist.

But, questions are out there. However I would hope that finding the answers to those questions don't bog us down beyond a point to where ethanol becomes a moot point. The more time goes by, the worse our situation becomes.

Switchgrass does not need a lot of water, that is one of its' many great attributes. It does not need fertilizer, and it's far better for the soil than any of the grain crops that are grown in the U.S. and are depleting the aquifer (of course, as the climate changes, and rain patterns evolve, maybe water in the midwest in the summer won't be an issue - right now it's flooding in the midwest, very unusual for this time of year I was just told).

Because of the subsidies the US govt pays, we usually have a surplus of most grains. There is also a lot of farmland that is idle, due to the govt paying landowners not to grow crops. If the use of biofuels increases, of course, we will need lots more space, but maybe not. For instance, there is research being done on creating biodiesel from algea - which would be grown in the desert, and yield hundreds times more gallons per acre than the best oil producing plants.

For over 130 years, there has been no real competition in the energy industry, relative to new technology. As new companies get in the energy business via biofuels, they will bring a new mindset, one that thinks they must create better products every year, and not rely on lobbying and politicians to protect their business. In the technology world, this is ingrained in most companiy's DNA - come out with new products or go out of business. We've been using the same gasoline for over 100 years, and all that has changed is where we get the oil from. A switch to biofuels will end that archaeic way of doing business, as competition will deliver more efficient energy systems.

Poor farmers in Indonesia are burning down rainforests right now to plant palm plantations for the production of palm oil. This product is sometimes used as a biofuel and for a variety of reasons the price for palm olive has gone way up over the last few years. As a result of the slash and burn farming, Indonesia is the worlds third biggest CO2 producer.

In addition, biofuels will raise the prices of all crops, so that Brazilian farmers will grow rice and beans in what used to be the rainforest.

Switch grass is a pipe-dream in terms of cost and pollution prevention. Yes solves food contoversy but what fuel is used to distill the ethanol produced; what nutriants are used/produced to feed the microbes; where does the water come from to grow the plants; how are they harvested without fuel?

Come on. We are just susidizing big ag not helping our country. Brazil is a poor model for the US. Try electric cars No pullution; No oil; No susidy; No food crisis; No problem!

Well, electric cars are fueled by electricity. In this country, most electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. These certainly do pollute, although as they are steam engines and the combustion is external rather than internal, they burn the fuel more completely and with somewhat fewer pollutants (assuming they are fired with low-sulfur coal rather than soft coal, but soft coal is a lot cheaper). It's a TANSTAAFL thing (TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).

A better temporary sollution would be something like a steam car, fueled with pressurized alcohol or methane, or even propane. Pretty much pollution-free combustion. Efficient, quiet steam cars that ran on gasoline were built in the 1920s (do a web-search about the Doble steam car). That could get us "over the hump" until we solve the problem of hydrogen fuel cells.

Even hydrogen fuel cells aren't a perfect solution, though. They require hydrogen, which we simply don't have except in the form of water. Cracking the H20 into H and O2 requires energy in the form of electricity, which takes us right back to those coal-fired power plants (which are unlikely to be supplanted in the next century).

Would biofuels really be worse for the environment than continual reliance on oil, and the probable resource wars over it?

If all it takes to have "poor farmers" burn down the rain forests is an increase in crop prices - isn't it inevitable anyways?

Biofuels are used currently in Brazil - aren't the rain forests there already doomed then?

Thomas Paine:

As to switchgrass replacing wheat, that would of course mean a significant reduction in wheat production, which means someone, somewhere, is gonna go hungry. And that all of us will pay more for bread or pasta.

This quote typlifies a ubiquitous misunderstanding of the global food economy. There is absolutely not a shortage of food, or of land on which to grow it. We have enough land and food to feed everyone in the world many times over. The problem is one of distribution. Massive subsidies of food crops by developed nations prevent less-developed nations from improving their economies by growing and exporting food. So Saletan is potentially right. Any shift from subsidizing uneeded or wasted food production towards growing fuel should be a net positive.

kgsbca:

Biofuels alone will not meet all of our energy needs, but they will form a transition from carbon-based, non-renewable energy to a hydrogen-based, renewable energy model that will be more economically feasible in 20-30 years. If we don't get away from fossil fuels now, it will be too late in 20-30 years.