If the push for biofuels creates larger scale farming with increased ..?

Question

use of genetically modified plants and fertilizer run-off in our waterways, are these eco-friendly fuels really an environmental trade-off.

Also, ethanol in particular takes more energy to produce than it yields.

(Please note, this isn't a question about any alternative fuel other than biofuels ... you don't have to tell me about hydrogen, et al)

Answer 1

There was an article in the “Economist” or “Time” the other month that made the point that there is only so much excess farmland in the world, and that bio-fuels couldn't completely replace oil anyway. Even if you consider the fact that bacteria & fungus can digest agricultural waste (corn stalks, bean pods, pig & cow poop, etc.) and turn them into fuel, there is still a theoretical limit that is below what we need to fully replace petroleum as an energy source.

Besides, burning bio-fuels still produces carbon gas. And the use of pesticides & fertilizer also pollutes, as you have noted. So bio-fuels are not a cure-all.

Answer 2

You make a good point in some ways. The possibility exists that an increased effort in agriculture would lead to increased pollution. But, we can legislate, regulate and remediate that.
I also don't buy the claim that it takes more energy to produce than it yields. It makes me wonder why Brazil would be using ethanol for over 30 years. It would seem to be a contentious issue. The DoE states that ethanol has a positive net energy balance.
You can certainly and more easily claim that oil is more expensive to produce. When you critique gasoline, cradle to the grave, you see the military costs and more. The war fought in Afghanistan that led to a pipeline being built, the 12% of oil lost in Algeria due to organized rebels, soil contamination from gas emissions, or contamination of creeks etc etc.
Another thing to look at is cellulosic ethanol. The Bush Administration has severaly cut R&D on alternative fuels, but I believe we should support research because cellulosic ethanol would create much higher energy output.
Also, we could import ethanol from brazil. Currently there is a tax put on ethanol from Brazil (yeah free trade!) that makes it unprofitable to import it. If you dropped it, that would increase supply at no cost to domestic production.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that once we reach diminishing returns on our oil, it will be more efficient (cost versus energy output) to produce ethanol, not oil.
-------
Anyway you said not to talk about other fuels. But really the best approach is to even handedly approach every fuel, giving them an even starting point on the market. In other words, let every renewable fuel share a 51 cent subsidy, not just ethanol. I'm no laissez faire, but if it's out on the market, the costs of production and pricing would, ideally, show us the best fuel(s).

Answer 3

You are right. That is why our farm in Europe is BIO only we make sure we have a little run off as possible. We also only produce "SuperGrass" much better more efficient in conversion then corn. There are some palm species that are also wonderful.

Answer 4

good question....bio-fuels would help our economy by making is actually proffitable for farmers to farm(less subsidies). we would not be dependant on oil nations(the middle east and south america). and with today's plant strains and plant research, it's less likely that we would depend on heavy duty poisons to keep crops healthy.

Answer 5

Yes explore all bio fuels as I don't trust the Arabs and we may need all we can get.

Answer 6

I like your avatar, unique.