Why Biofuels Burned Up (Your) Dollars

Farm politicians, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have sold us the rest of biofuels as a way to revitalize rural America, to attack the problem of global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 
       
In response, investors and taxpayers have paid millions of dollars in corn ethanol. Yields have been poor. 

This at least is the conclusion of a new report from the Worldwatch Institute Red, White and Green: The Transformation of U.S. biofuels. The sad news is that it does not seem to have learned much from our sad experience with corn ethanol, and unless things change in Washington, we will record more. 

"From an environmental perspective, ethanol from corn has not delivered in terms of climate," said Alice McKeown, an author of the report. 

Worse, we can repeat the problems once again the so-called new generation of biofuels. The sorghum, below. 
A field of sorghum. 

Both science and the economics of biofuels are complex, McKeown said by phone today, after reading 50 pages of the report, which provides a useful overview. It's easy to find people who say exactly the amount of corn ethanol reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, if any. (It depends on how and where maize is grown, and how to feed the ethanol refineries, among other things). There is also much debate about the impact of corn ethanol on food prices. (Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in 2007.) There is currently a debate raging in Washington over whether the increase in demand for corn is produced by biofuels are the origins of other farmers to convert forest lands for food or cultivation of biofuels. 

The study says: 
Of particular concern is the link between the expansion of biofuels and the conversion of land for agriculture, as competition with crops for biofuels forests and food crops for limited land and other resources. 
The ethanol industry hates the idea that it could be held responsible for what is known as the indirect effects of land use of ethanol from corn. You can read the blog of Tom Zeller, Kate Galbraith blog, the New York Times' Green Inc., for more details about this controversy, to be debated in Congress this fall. 

Despite these uncertainties. There are certain things we know about corn ethanol. On the one hand, we know that the ethanol industry was built with massive public subsidies - 45 cents per gallon credit for production with a renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandate will require the production of biofuels to 36 billion in 2022, such as import tariffs on imports of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Rates persist despite the fact that Brazilian ethanol is cheaper to produce and better for the environment. The fact that the presidential campaigns after the Iowa caucus has been very, very good for the corn ethanol industry. 

Government support is the only reason that the industry is moving, "says McKeown." Otherwise, it would not pay. "While much of the industry not to survive the combination of higher maize prices, declining oil prices and the credit crisis. Last October, VeraSun, the second largest ethanol producer, declared bankrupt. So far in 2009, ten ethanol production plants went bankrupt, including those operated by Aventine Renewable Energy and Pacific Ethanol, according to Zacks. 

"When it is considered a mature industry that does not need government support?" McKeown asked. 

Moreover, while about one third of the corn grown in the United States this year will be used to transport fuel, ethanol provides about 10 percent of these fuels is not enough to save the United States much closer of energy independence, according to the Worldwatch Institute. 

However, ethanol from corn is not far away in the near future because the mandate of government in each year of cliques. Under the mandate, to 15 billion gallons of biofuels a year failed to meet newly imposed standards of sustainability if they are provided by existing facilities. "It's 15 million mandate will probably be met by corn ethanol," says McKeown. 

While we are moving slowly to the so-called new generation of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol or fuel made from algae, what can we learn from the experience of ethanol from corn? The Worldwatch Institute has three recommendations to be reasonable: 
1. Base tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel in performance, with fuel to achieve further reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases are eligible for support. 
2. Review the mandate for renewable fuel standard to ensure that it will promote second-generation biofuels instead of supporting first-generation biofuels. 
3. Ethanol lower or eliminate tariffs on imports of fuels that meet sustainability criteria. 
Put simply, do not provide services funded by taxpayers with no tangible benefits. 
Strolling in Venice Beach. 

The problem is the next generation of biofuels has been slow in coming. And if a lot of money the government is on track to accelerate its development - the Ministry of Energy has committed $ 385 million for six cellulosic ethanol plants, according to Worldwatch - there is no guarantee of not creating environmental problems in their own, especially if adapted to a large scale. 

My take? For all the promise of biofuels (and, indeed, electric cars), we must not neglect the less glamorous action that will undoubtedly result in environmental benefits. Support public transportation, by one. (Metro Washington DC, I walk, it is literally falling before our eyes.) Driving smaller, more efficient cars. Work from home. Bicycling. 

Or walk - that costs nothing, improves your fitness, reduce their dependence on foreign oil, generate zero emissions of greenhouse gases (other than the food they need to fuel your body) and does not require the support of Congress