The pros and cons of biofuels

The Oregonian published an interesting article by Gail Kinsey Hill and Scott Learn yesterday, on “The drive for biofuels”. Since it will disappear into the paid archives after two weeks, except if you search through the Multnomah County Library site, I’m coping the parts I find most compelling here. Emphasis mine.

“…. the scrutiny of corn ethanol, like other feedstocks, is rising. U.S. government researchers say burning corn ethanol averages a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gases versus gasoline.

Critics — including some researchers who’ve gotten grants from oil companies — say corn ethanol can result in more greenhouse gas emissions than burning gasoline, particularly if petroleum-based fertilizers are used and coal fires the electricity in the ethanol plant.

Like other biofuels, corn ethanol also takes a lot of land without making a huge dent in America’s fuel use, agriculture economists say. By 2017, two University of Michigan researchers predicted this spring, corn ethanol would take half the corn crop while offsetting gasoline use by about 10 percent.

Biofuel demand has helped increase corn prices and prompted concerns from livestock growers, who rely on corn for feed. Some economists — and some United Nations officials — worry that biofuels will drive up food prices, hurting the poor.

Canola oil — Imperium’s feedstock of choice — is good for making biodiesel, and its emissions are as much as 70 percent lower than gasoline. It’s also good for the heart, however, and projections are for worldwide consumer demand to grow. It’s already the highest priced biodiesel feedstock.

Nancy Mills, a project manager with the Kline Group, recently researched and authored a study on biodiesel’s prospects.

“I went in with the general opinion that this was a great idea, but I started to see more and more caveats,” Mills said. “The intentions are great — we need to diversify our fuel supply. But there’s still work to be done on how best to go about that.”

William Jaeger, an Oregon State University economist, worries that biofuels are taking tax subsidies and attention away from more environmentally effective — albeit more politically difficult — tactics.

Jaeger issued a study this summer that concluded that Oregon’s potential feedstock production would reduce greenhouse gasses by less than 1 percent — the rough equivalent of raising vehicle mileage standards by 1.5 miles a gallon.

Writ large, Jaeger said, “the analysis we did signals to me that it’s a drop in the bucket.”

Biofuel advocates say the environmental payoff will improve.

Technology will boost crop yields. Farmers will rotate in biofuel crops. And biofuel refineries will transition to better feedstocks.

The gold standard of biofuels is “cellulosic” ethanol, using perennial switchgrass, poplar trees, and crop byproducts such as corn stalks and wheat chaff. It generates an estimated 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gases versus gasoline. It also avoids using food crops for fuel.

Making that a reality requires breaking down tough plant cell walls, and the technology remains unproven at large scales. But research is fast and furious, in the Northwest and elsewhere.

Pacific Ethanol sees cellulosic ethanol in its future and expects Oregon to offer up plenty of fodder — scrap from its forests, for example.

As breakthrough technologies develop, the network of refineries will provide new jobs and establish Oregon as a green industry leader, said David Van’t Hof, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s sustainability adviser. “We’re creating opportunities for agriculture and manufacturing to flourish in Oregon.” “

I’m impressed with the coverage of pros and cons in Gail and Scott’s article. I’ve been concerned about one-sided cheerleading for biofuels for some time. Sure, they can help address energy needs and global warming. Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil, and switch to renewable energy resources. But biofuels aren’t the whole answer, and they aren’t without negative impacts on people or the planet. As I wrote here in April, shouldn’t we discuss the morality of burning food for fuel? In July, I compiled this list of concerns, in relation to the information in the Oregon State University study. What is happening about requiring higher fuel efficiency in all vehicles, while time/money is being spent on biofuel subsidies?

I want to see more emphasis on cellulosic ethanol production in Oregon. Not only does it avoid driving up the price of corn tortillas in Mexico (the topic of one of the early posts on this blog) and of heart-saving canola oil for Americans, but also the majority of cars (that use regular gasoline rather than diesel) can run on ethanol. Biodiesel can’t be used in most passenger vehicles on the roads here in the United States. Before national policy encourages automakers to provide more diesel cars, as in Europe, there should be a thorough evaluation of the nation’s capacity to produce biodiesel from non-food sources.

In the push for green solutions, decision-makers should consider and remember how real people live.