Nobody wants to admit they were wrong, so the debate rages and people keep pushing biofuels. Kudos to the students at UW!

It's good to point to some of the problems with first-generation simpleton non-fuels. Nobody is saying they are the fuels we need to invest in.

But it would be rather silly to throw first generation fuels on the same heap as second, third and fourth generation fuels.

That would be like saying that 1950s solar panels which were 3% efficient are the same as modern CSP plants.

None of the Nobel prizes is "wrong" about biofuels or has to "admit a mistake" about their work, because they're only beginning to work on biofuels.

Biofuels are most obviously the only bet we have to avoid economic and social breakdown on a planetary scale. There is no alternative.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be critical about current practises.  But it also means we have to be patient and let the brilliant minds do their work.

The students, who seem to be the real biofools (as in: they don't know much about biology), must simply be more nuanced. Yes, first-gen fuels encounter some minor problems; fourth-gen fuels will encounter fewer problems. Give it some time.

The governor says it's because it hurts poor families.  Some have speculated it's because of his big ties to oil and gas.

Either way.

Biofuels are most obviously the only bet we have to avoid economic and social breakdown on a planetary scale. There is no alternative.

There is nowhere near enough biomass on this planet to replace our present energy use:

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.

Let's hope biofuels are not our only bet.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

Specifically:

1. Biofuels do nothing to help reverse human-caused global warming.  ANY fuel burned, including biofuel, emits pollutants, and the BEST one you can get is CO2.  The rest are even more toxic.  (To be more accurate, CO2 is not "toxic," but the immense and unnatural human emissions of it are one of the main causes of global warming.)

2. Using plants for biofuels either destroys natural land, such as the tropical rainforests in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brazil that are currently being destroyed for biofuels, or takes the land used to grow those plants out of food production, either making food more scarce or raising its price.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

No, no no, we need to drive to get our new toys. We need to drive so we can look like we are too rich and busy to give a damn about the early victims of climate change. We are children who need to pin our hopes on unrealistic pipe dreams of unlimited energy free from all environmental consequences. Stop messing with our fantasy.

Are you assuming the continuation of subsidies ($1.00 per gallon, minimum, from the feds, plus up to another $1.00 per gallon from the states in the case of biodiesel) and mandates? If so, then I suppose any energy source will be "a small and important part of our energy mix" if the government requires you use it and throws lots of money at it.

If not, how much biofuel production (e.g., as a fraction of current consumption of transport fuels) do you think would exist in the absence of subsidies and mandates?

These are only my personal opinions.

Aircraft, Cargo Ships, and Military vehicles will be wanting their liquid fuels for a long long time.

Trains too for quite a while.
(Although most of these are already series diesel hybrids.  Halfway there.)

Catch of course being,
We have the option between biofuels, heavy oils, tar sands, and liquid coal. Frankly I'm not sure which one is best out of those choices. Because they all include a considerable amount of emissions.

-David Ahlport

Biodiesel with its much better EROEI and option of being made from waste is likely to remain a boutique fuel for those who want to use it in low blends for its superior effects on engine performance, like fleet managers, and guys like me who run their vehicles on 100% waste feedstock because the mileage is as good as a Prius and it's a better idea than using gasoline. (Yes I'd prefer to bike to work, but that is not an option for me and a lot of other folks right now. The western half of my state lacks transit options.)

But also, as GreyFlcn says, there's an awful lot of inertia in the system that'll keep the liquid fuel industry going and biorefineries operating. Even with removal of all subsidies, these fuels will likely persist going forward, just not at the grand scale that the industry had hoped for. Unless they deliver on the holy grails they like to talk about...algae, cellulosic, etc.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

Aircraft, Cargo Ships, and Military vehicles will be wanting their liquid fuels for a long long time.

Trains too for quite a while.
(Although most of these are already series diesel hybrids.  Halfway there.)

Not to pick on Grey, who merely posted what so many others could have, but notice who the active agents are in his comment -- the vehicles who "will be wanting their liquid fuels."

This is a very revealing comment.  

We have created millions of tools but invested them with so much of our psychic energy and let them occupy such a huge space in our national consciousness that it's a regular occurrence to hear people talking about what their car "wants" or "needs."  

No wonder we are on a collision course with the brick wall named reality--we can't even decide "who" is driving or "who" gets to decide where we go.

The 5% Project

Even with removal of all subsidies, these fuels will likely persist going forward, just not at the grand scale that the industry had hoped for.

Going forward? Soon as the refineries start paying the prices for feedstock we're seeing, it would be hard for them to compete with petroleum fuels (except perhaps to the extent that ethanol commands a premium as an oxygenate).

At $7 per bushel of corn (recent futures prices are higher than that), and assuming a (slightly generous) 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel, the cost just for the feedstock comes to $2.60 per gallon. To that, add labor and processing costs, especially the energy for distillation and dewatering. According to Robert Rapier, those operating costs come to around $0.70 per gallon. Subtract credits for sales of distillers grains (around $0.80 per gallon, assuming a 30% yield by weight and that DDGs sell at the same price as corn), and you end up with a net production cost of around $2.50 per gallon -- excluding any return on investment. That is at the plant. Add in at least $0.20 per gallon distribution and marketing costs (probably more), and the pre-tax retail cost is $2.70 -- before taxes. If ethanol were charged at the same volumetric tax rate as gasoline, that would add another $0.38 per gallon, bringing the total expected retail price (with no return to profit) of $3.08 per gallon. But let's say taxes would be proportional to its energy content, then that brings it to a retail price of $2.95.

But ethanol has an energy value of around 67% of gasoline. Let's boost its effective energy value up to 70% because of its higher octane rating. That brings the price up to $4.21 per gallon of gasoline equivalent, compared with an average retail price for gasoline of $4.04 per gallon on 9 June 2008.

But don't necessarily take my word for it. Here is what Rick Kment, an analyst for DTN wrote today:

Ethanol plant profit levels continue to spiral downward like a plane shot out of the air. Corn futures prices increased another 5 3/4 cents per bushel, which decreased overall net profit levels by nearly 6 cents per gallon Thursday afternoon. Neeley Biofuels Inc [their hypothetical plant] is currently posting a net loss of 56.9 cents per gallon of ethanol produced, and if corn prices continue to move higher, these losses are likely to increase.

Now let's look at biodiesel. Soybean Oil Futures are currently trading at $0.66 per pound. It takes approximately 7.6 pounds of soybean oil to produce a gallon of biodiesel. That makes the feedstock cost $5.02 per gallon. According to a recent study by Iowa State University's Miguel Carriquiry and Bruce Babcock, operating costs other than the cost of feedstock currently average around $0.59 per gallon. By-products of biodiesel production (glycerin, fatty acids, and filter cakes) provide revenues of perhaps $0.08 per gallon. That brings the production cost to $5.53 per gallon -- before taxes, and before distribution and marketing costs, which would add another $0.73 per gallon, or let's say a total cost at the point of retail sales of approximately $6.25 per gallon.

By comparison, the national average retail price for a gallon of diesel on 9 June 2008 was $4.69 per gallon.

Obviously, averages hide local differences. So if the ethanol or biodiesel plant is far from a competing petroleum refinery, its economics will look better.

But to conclude that "with removal of all subsidies, these fuels will likely persist going forward" seems highly dependent on the assumptions one makes about future, highly volatile feedstock and petroleum prices. The above calculations suggest that, at the moment, the $0.51 per gallon blenders credit for ethanol, and the $1.00 per gallon blenders credit for biodiesel, are what are helping to push up the prices of biofuels enough so that producers can cover their costs. Without those subsidies ...

These are only my personal opinions.