Technology Review: Blogs: TR Editors' blog: The High Costs of Biofuels

About Us

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Add RSS Feed

The High Costs of Biofuels

A new report warns of the dangers of relying on biofuels to reduce carbon emissions and oil consumption.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

By Kevin Bullis

Although biofuels continue to have strong political support, they may not be a smart way to address global warming or wean countries off of oil. A new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a respected international group with 30 member countries, including the United States, warns that increased use of biofuels will cause high food prices, won't do much to offset petroleum consumption, and is an extremely expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.

The idea that as farmers grow more crops destined to become fuel, rather than food, food prices will increase, isn't new. The report adds that biofuels aren't worth the cost. For various reasons, biofuels will only account for 13 percent of liquid fuels by 2050, doing little to offset petroleum consumption. What's more, there are cheaper ways to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. To achieve one ton of carbon-dioxide reductions costs more than $500 in subsidies in the Unites States. In contrast, a businessperson wishing to offset carbon emissions from airline flights can do so for less than $15 a ton. (Such offsets use efficiency measures, reforestation, and various renewable sources of energy to reduce carbon emissions.)

What, then, should be done about carbon-dioxide emissions from vehicles? Private offset programs will probably only take us so far. More-efficient gasoline and diesel cars, as well as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, can help. (See "Electric Vehicles 2.0.") Biofuels can still play a role, but government investment should focus on research on second-generation biofuels (for example, ethanol from grass and agricultural waste), since these could have a far greater impact on carbon emissions than, say, the ethanol from corn grain produced today. Ultimately, instead of mandating the use of biofuels--or any particular technology, for that matter--the government should instead put a price on carbon-dioxide emissions, and let the market sort out the best strategy.

Tags: greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, biofuels, ethanol, oecd, petroleum, plug-in hybrids, price on carbon, subsidies

Comments

	Hmmm... devassocx on 09/14/2007 at 1:57 AM
Posts: 20 Avg Rating:	might it not make more sense to see if CO2 is really a problem before doing all this draconian activity??? And by the way, food costs are already up because of the silly ethanol thing...Thanks for nothing GW Bush! Between him and Al Gore I don't think the American public has much of a chance. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Re: Hmmm... H24meNu on 09/14/2007 at 5:08 PM
Posts: 10	To all Hmmm...ers out there, it has been shown that reduction of carbon dioxide, CO2 is associated with bringing about an ice age, so if we're seeing increasing CO2 melting all the ice, well duh! Stanford researcher measured the presence of strontium carbonate, SrCO3 in rainwater runoff from the top to the bottom of Himalayan mountain to find it increasing all the way down. Since the mountains are replete with strontium and their era of emergence (beginning 70 million years ago, coincide with the long-term decrease in Earth's average temperature since the mid-Eocene, 40 million years ago, the beginning of the fourth major ice age, and still geologically active) they correlate the increase of local precipitation (rain) and precipitation of SrCO3 (CO2 removal). The effect intensified during the late Pliocene, around 3 million years ago, with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere into the Pleistocene. Subsequent characteristic changes in glaciation correlate with steady increase of CO2 from 2.5 to 3.5 ppm. Even huge Himalayan glaciers are receding (see: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/ newsid/42387/story.htm ) presenting huge threat. Hmmm... Rate this comment: (Reply)

	What Happens in A Drought? BillQuapp on 09/17/2007 at 11:59 AM
Posts: 1	Besides the cost of biofuels and the impact on food prices, it seems that there has been little evaluation of the impact of a drought on the growth of corn, price of corn, and the supply of ethanol. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Renewable Resource? oconnmic on 09/21/2007 at 11:48 AM
Posts: 21 Avg Rating:	The concept of using a societies food supply to create power has no face validity. What can you live without food or power? Ethenol is touted as a renewable resource. What about the topsoil in Kansas? Is that a renewable resource? Economics drives everthing and subsidies for biofules are driving the destruction of rain forests to grow sugar cane to make ethenol. What's wrong with this picture? Rate this comment: (Reply)

	I simply don't get it... CountZ3ro on 09/24/2007 at 10:45 AM
Posts: 12 Avg Rating:	... why all this fuzz about higher food prices? In Europe at least and most likely in the USA also, farmers are encouraged to leave agriculture. In the EU there is this tug of war over crop quotas, the EU being confronted with overproduction. Why could this effort not be redirected to produce biofuel? Apparently we do have the resources and the technological advantages offered by latest technology in agriculture, but we don't see the forest for the trees... Rate this comment: (Reply)

	The best way to reduce CO2 levels . DJTal on 10/01/2007 at 1:24 PM
Posts: 109 Avg Rating:	What the US needs to do is to get rid of farm subsidies as we have done here in Britain . Then farmers can stand on their own two feet by going into biofuel production . It would be wrong to totally dismiss the use of biofuels since it is a primary source of energy for a large proportion of the world's population , and since it can be produced from sources of biomass which will not affect food supplies . It is an inevitable consequence of forestry and farming that surplus , crop residues and waste are produced all of which can be used as biofuel . Just as it would be wrong to use food supplies as biofuel , it would be equally wrong to plant new forests on land where people need to produce food . There is limited land available for planting forests , therefore it is necessary to use agricultural land as much as possible as a carbon sink . The inevitable consequence of enriching soils with carbon is that they become more productive , allowing us to produce more food and or biofuel . If we wish to feed a growing world population it will be necessary to increase food production , which means either creating new farmland , or increasing the productivity of existing farmland . Fact of the matter is we need increased biomass production for a variety of reasons . Both food and biofuel production are good motivations for doing this . The International Biochar Initiative ( see the website ) offers a very promising means of achieving this , by using charcoal , a product of gasification , as a soil improver . Agriculture offers one of the very best ways of reducing CO2 levels and should not be overlooked . Rate this comment: (Reply)

	More Biofuel Problems RD on 11/08/2007 at 1:02 PM
Posts: 49 Avg Rating:	Why isn't it mentioned that most biofuels are corrosive to some metals, rubbers, plastics, and fiberglass; some are conductive; most absorb water which shortens their shelf-life, reduce ability to be tranported through pipelines; have significant viscosity and performance problems; and will result in increased replacement of liguid fuel equipment? Why should US taxpayers subsidize biofuel production estimated to be $92 billion (2006-2012)? Read the motor company warranty limitations on use of biofuel above 5% to understand that biofuel proponents are using politics, not common sense, in spending our money. Want liquid fuel? Extract the 800 billion barrels of high-quality shale oil (value of $48 trillion value at $60/bbl) in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Then use the proceeds to fund real research in revolutionary electric vehicle technology, while diminishing the funding of terrorists and rogue states. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Re: More Biofuel Problems DJTal on 12/09/2007 at 9:26 AM
Posts: 109 Avg Rating:	Why isn't the ever increasing cost of fossil fuel blamed for the high cost of food . Fossil fuels ain't gunna last for ever even if we do use oil shale , which we probably will have to at some point . Rate this comment: (Reply)

	coop shoutout on 04/23/2008 at 4:10 PM
Posts: 1	somewhat agree with DJTal ...all the same problems, politicians taking advantage of issues & claim to be THE experts of technology. Why not get all those rubbish we produce by the tons everyday to useful energy?! Common decisions should be based on making progress for all nations, rich & poor, not just the major players.. FAIR TRADE NOT FREE TRADE Rate this comment: (Reply)