Rated as OPINION  |  Add Comment

Biofuels are proposed as having such benefits as: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, reduction of fossil fuel use, increased national energy security, increased rural development and a sustainable fuel supply for the future.

However, biofuel production is questioned from a number of angles. The chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, notably observed in March 2008 that questions arise on the emissions implications of that route, and that biofuel production has clearly raised prices of corn, with an overall implication for food security.

Biofuels are also seen as having limitations. The feedstocks for biofuel production must be replaced rapidly and biofuel production processes must be designed and implemented so as to supply the maximum amount of fuel at the cheapest cost, while providing maximum environmental benefits. Broadly speaking, first generation biofuel production processes cannot supply us with more than a few percent of our energy requirements sustainably. The reasons for this are described below. Second generation processes can supply us with more biofuel, with better environmental gains. The major barrier to the development of second generation biofuel processes is their capital cost: establishing second generation biodiesel plants has been estimated at ?500million.

Recently, an inflexion point about advantages/disadvantages of biofuels seems to be gaining momentum. The March 27, 2008 TIME magazine cover features the subject under the title "The Clean Energy Myth":

Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternatives to oil. All they?re really doing is driving up world food prices, helping to destroy the Amazon jungle, and making global warming worse.

In the June, 2008 issue of the journal Conservation Biology, scientists argue that because such large amounts of energy are required to grow corn and convert it to ethanol, the net energy gain of the resulting fuel is modest. Using a crop such as switchgrass, common forage for cattle, would require much less energy to produce the fuel, and using algae would require even less. Changing direction to biofuels based on switchgrass or algae would require significant policy changes, since the technologies to produce such fuels are not fully developed.

This topic is internationally controversial. There are those, such as the National Corn Growers Association, who say biofuel is not the main cause. Some say the problem is a result of government actions to support biofuels. Others say it is just due to oil price increases. The impact of food price increases is greatest on poorer countries. Some have called for a freeze on biofuels. Some have called for more funding of second generation biofuels which should not compete with food production so much. In May 2008 Olivier de Schutter, the United Nations food adviser, called for a halt on biofuel investment. In an interview in Le Monde he stated: "The ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the United States and the European Union are irresponsible. I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector." 100 million people are currently at risk due to the food price increases.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel for many links and more information on this subject.