Several posts have raised some interesting points I feel compelled to respond to:
The motivation to write this piece came from the need to counter many of the misperceptions of biofuels being perpetuated in the popular press today. If you believe that all you read about this Food vs. Fuel debate is simply accurate, unbiased journalism, I suggest you read Senator Grassley’s comments on the Senate floor on May 15 in which he revealed that a prominent DC firm had been retained to run an anti-biofuels media campaign.
(http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/may08/may26/Bitingthehandthatfeedsyoudo.cfm?title=Biting%20the%20hand%20that%20feeds%20you%20doesn )
and
(http://grassley.senate.gov/public/releases/2008/051520082.pdf)
To be open, I included the fact that I work for a biodiesel company in the link on my name. In an attempt to narrow the scope of my piece, I focused exclusively on biodiesel. There are far more in depth studies defending the merits of ethanol out there as it obtains much more coverage. If you are interested in what I would consider a more in depth and objective look at biofuels, read Robert Zubrin’s In Defense of Biofuels. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
The best argument for biodiesel and all alternative fuels is supply/demand for oil. While I have heard varying estimates, API suggested to me that demand was growing at 6% and supply at 3%. Consequently, we now have $130/barrel oil. Can biodiesel replace petroleum demand, no but I would suggest it could easily replace 5% of U.S. diesel demand, and drive investment in second generation feedstocks and technologies such as algae, camelina, and jatropha that are non-food crops that can be grown on marginal land. Biodiesel is not a silver bullet, but it can be a critical piece. Given the effect high energy prices are having on our economy and current global instability, we need every domestic solution we can come up with.
Misc. Notes:
Energy Balance: 3.5 to 1 according to new research conducted at the University of Idaho in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). A table reflecting old data and comparison to other fuels can be found at : http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm
Farmland: Camelina is a often a rotation crop for wheat. Wheat acres are left fallow every 2-3 years. Camelina can be planted instead of leaving acre fallow. Because of its low water and fertilizer requirements it can also be grown on marginal land not otherwise planted. Thus, the meal and oil produced is additive, not competitive. (Camelina oil is not consumed by humans as suggested.) Camelina therefore increases land capacity utilization, it does not compete. Other crops have similar potential.
There is also more land available. The U.S. has about 800 million acres of farmland, 280 million of which are currently cultivated. (Zubrin, 2008) The objective of using developing second generation crops is to utilize marginal land not plow under virgin prairie lands as suggested. According to a study by Texas A&M Agriculture Food Policy Center, Texas alone has 4 million acres of expriring CRP lands, rangelands and center pivot corners.
Usage Integration: We do not suggest using 100% biodiesel. ASTM is currently considering and amendment to its diesel fuel spec D975 which would allow up to 5% biodiesel. Like any fuel however, proper handling and storage recommendations should be followed.
Carbon Footprint: According to NREL, biodiesel’s lifecycle CO2 reduction is 78% (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf) No one would suggest that clear cutting tropical rainforests to grow alternative fuels is positive. To suggest the carbon foot print of biodiesel should be tied to the clear cutting of a forest lacks much scientific basis, especially when 80% of U.S. biodiesel is currently made from soybeans. Only about 5% of palm oil produced is made into biodiesel.
Price of Food: Texas A&M’s Agriculture and Food Policy Center recently conducted a study (http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf) that found that the effect of increased ethanol use on rising food costs are relatively inconsequential. The big drivers of increase in food prices were increased energy costs and speculative fund activity. Additionally increased global demand has a huge influence.
