It is becoming more and more apparent that the planet will not be able to provide both food and fuel for even its current population at their present standard of living, let alone with the doubled population forecast for 2050. As well as addressing alternative energy we have to seriously look at developing sustainable economies based on a stable or even decreasing population. As I see it, we can either try to engineer a soft landing for humankind or look forward to a really rough time ahead. Why politicians refuse to even discuss population control remains a mystery to me.

Hydrocarbons can be made from water or methane and carbon dioxide and energy (sunlight). Using plants that need other attributes to survive is not a cost effective way to produce biofuels. We need biofuel factories (plants) that operate without "natural plants". Put research and development dollars into things like synthetic photosynthesis and we can solve the liquid fuel problem and even start to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

It may be possible to have both carbon capture and sustainable biofuel via thermochemical processing of garbage, stubble and forestry waste. Some of the char produced can be returned to the soil so it gradually withdraws carbon from the atmosphere. That may also lessen the need for fertiliser on food crops. I'd rate this technology as more promising than 'clean coal'. When petrol is $2 a litre it will become more competitive. I think these second generation biofuels will have a niche when oil is gone and cars are mostly battery powered but needing small liquid fuelled engines as range extenders. Public transport must also increase.

The big question is how many cars? If electricity becomes a fuel substitute we will need more clean power generation. At this point of time there is no convincing evidence that any form of solar can meet that demand, plus run aluminium smelters and the like. We'll just have to travel and transport less.

Billions of dollars being ripped off taxpayers who don’t seem to mind all that much because they are desperate to believe that all of the whacky ideas hurled around by the people grabbing this money will actually work and save them from climate change.

The author’s reference the competition with food production that could occur if large scale production of bio-fuels went ahead has been mentioned before, but largely ignored, by the wannabe bio-fuel billionaires, and the motoring addicted public.

It could boil down to a simple question: fuel or food. The world is struggling to feed itself already and paradoxically, climate change is already hitting agriculture in Australia.

Presumably, the growing of bio-fuel crops would require the same weather conditions to thrive as food crops.

It’s good to see Simon Upton mention the “self- interest” of people who want our money to help them become richer. Self-interest is behind most of the absolute rubbish currently talked about climate change and “solutions”.

Cast your minds back to the beginning of concern about climate change. Remember the ‘optimists’ who talked about the ‘opportunities’ to be had from global warming?

It seems, now, that those opportunities were for the people our idiot politicians are handing our money to without question

I find when trying to explain to others the difficulties with biofuels
that people are unaware of the scale of the problem.
I saw a figure for the US where they have currently some 150 to 200
ethanol plants. It was shown that to provide ethanol for 100% of the
vehicle fleet they would need 87,000 more ethanol processing plants.

On the back of an envelope I transfered those figures to Australia and
we would need some 6000 ethanol processing plants of that size.

Just think about it for a moment and it becomes an impossibility.

All of the reasons Simon Upton gave indicate that the use of biofuels should be regulated.
There are two more.
Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs) are very inefficient, over 75% of the energy in the fuel is wasted as heat and does nothing to turn the wheels.
ICEs are very polluting and the ultra-fine particles produced can have a direct effect on the heart.

Biofuels should only be available for mass transit.
If people want personal transport they can go for solar powered electric vehicles.

Neither the author nor any of the commenters really has their finger on the scale of biofuel's potential to address problems of energy and equity, nor even of the variety of technologies that the generic term "biofuel" describes.

Plants have done photosynthesis for four billion years and they've gotten *very* good at it. I doubt "synthetic photosynthesis" can improve on this quickly enough to matter. Can't hurt to develop the technique, though :-)

It might be true that agriculture can't supply today's volumes of liquid fuel demand. But no biofuels of any kind will ever have to.

As petroleum prices soar and production declines, we *will* learn to make do with less. Internal-combustion engines can achieve good thermal efficiency, but most of today's drivers and vehicles use them in a very inefficient way. Worst-case, less than 1% of the fuel's chemical energy moves the driver of a single-occupancy vehicle.

And what's with "so-called second-generation biofuels"? This is an empty perjorative. There are several blurred "generations" of biofuel technology, representing dozens of ways to harness energy from plants, and *all* of them work. Many are ecologically viable and many will become ever more commercially viable as fossil fuel becoms less available and less desirable.

The subsidies Upton decries are indeed wasteful. But they're a flash in the pan; a rich-world farm subsidy like any other that refrains from ticking off the big oil companies as genuine support for a global biofuel industry would. The subsidy-free expansion of biofuels in developing countries (which are already experiencing "demand destruction" thanks to high petroleum prices) is a force for prosperity. For the USA and EU to end these subsidies and tarrifs would be for them to relinquish pipe-dreams of "energy independence" and let cheap developing-world biofuels flood their markets.

http://biopact.com/2007/08/worldwatch-institute-chief-biofuels.html
http://biopact.com/2007/08/report-biofuels-key-to-achieving.html

But it's important that relevant energy research continues in the West: liquid fuels are just the beginning of the story.

http://www.scandinavianbiogas.com/
http://www.greenprices.com/eu/newsletter/GPBE_45_070329/Biogas.asp

BTW although oil palm in is associated with South-East-Asian deforestation, it's an urban myth that sugarcane for ethanol is responsible for Amazonian clearing.

http://biopact.com/2007/07/nrel-brazilian-ethanol-does-not-harm.html

Peak oil will extinguish global warming well before the problem has the possibility of really becoming a problem.

Until the looming daze of $200+ for a barrel of oil (plus much higher commodity prices, higher interest rates AND rising inflation), lets just keep doing what we do so well as a species... deny, justify, spin, emotionalise, rationalise and most importantly spew foggy, self serving propoganda.

In that vein...

... keep breeding more hungry mouths and future insatiable consumers of the good life
... keep buying useless stuff
... keep building and buying bigger houses that we cant afford
... release land on the metro fringe, drive the sprawl further and keep the petrol pumps pumping
... come up with all sorts of 'alternative' energy sources in the futile attempt to substitute for the oil that drives our wantonly self absorbed, acquisitive, materialistic and expansionary way of strife
... label everything green
... paint everything green
... put green dye in the emmissions
... hold your breathe and stop breathing out
... let up on blowing so much hot air
... keep doling out money, signing bits of paper that impose unenforceable penalties for non-compliance with said bits of paper
... sit in a circle, usher in the new age of fuzzy feel good rhetoric and,

last, but most importantly...

lets all hold hands and sing coombayaah.

"It's an urban myth that sugarcane for ethanol is responsible for Amazonian clearing." Thanks xoddam, that's going to inadvertently confuse a few bystanders.

Now, what about the clearing of *carbon sinks* for planting of *corn fields*, not to feed hungry mouths, but to feed America's transport fleet? This is not a myth. Would you care to elucidate?

I assume you know about the subsidies and trade deals George W has with certain South American countries.

Grain ethanol as one of the main biofuels currently being promoted, mainly in the USA. We only need the back of an envelope to see that this has the potential to cause humanitarian disaster very soon.

One tonne of corn makes 100 gallons of ethanol. Today the USA used 70 million tonne of corn to produce 7 billion gallons of ethanol( USA billions).

Their politicians are presently considering an Energy Bill which will mandate the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022.

Using corn, 360 million tones would be used. This represents the current USA total corn production, one sixth of the total world all grains production or the whole of the world’s increase in grain production over the next 15 years. ( World grain production has risen from 600 million tonnes in 1950 to 2000 million tonnes in 2006, projecting this straight line gives us about a 360 million tonne increase in the next 15 years.)

Add to this the similar efforts by other rich countries to secure their energy and the increasing demand the new rich in developing countries for grain fed meat and it does not add up.
The rich countries are already sucking in grain/ palm oil from poorer countries or limiting exports of grain to them, prices are rising , with one consequence--- people will starve but will fight for the food first.

For what? Not for decreasing CO2 but so we can still build freeways and drive cars.

Many points are being ignored here.

Some very smart venture capitalists claim that they can in fact
produce highly competitive stage 2 biofuels.

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9811702-54.html?tag=nefd.lede

Last time I looked, something like 300 billion$ a year was being
spent on agro subsidies, many of them to reduce grain production
in set aside programmes etc. So 11 billion$ is peanuts in comparison.

Fact is that in the past, grain has been so cheap, that far less
was produced then could be produced at higher prices.

Energy is energy, wether people eat it or put it in their cars,
there is no good reason to differentiate. The 28c worth of wheat
in your loaf of bread, has little to do with its final retail
price of 3$ or whatever.

People should stop looking for one single silver bullet to solve
our impeding energy crisis. Biofuels are just one of a myriad of
solutions that can play a role. Not investigating them further,
would be rather foolhardy.

The author would spend taxpayers money on storing CO2. What about
using it for algae farming? Algae need large amounts of CO2 to
multiply and grow. The figures look promising.

Given that we in Australia still pour billions of $ into MV
manufacturing, which is essentially a fairly old industry, not
investigating new sources of energy such as biofuels, would be
rather foolhardy and shortsighted.

I for one am happy to know that I can grow a few acres of canola
to power all my vehicles. I am also happy to know that the tallow
from my animals could power some of yours. But if you prefer to
walk, so be it :)

I read recently that tallow demand from China has pushed the price beyond the economic threshold for bio-diesel. Most of our bio-diesel producers are scaling back because feedstocks are so expensive. Canola at $600/tonne means the canola oil is worth at least $1.50/litre to start with.

The great thing about bio-diesel is it has put some upward momentum into grain prices. Profitable agriculture is the only way to sustain the worlds growing population. Profit encourages production but more importantly research and innovation, if we can spare production for bio-fuel in the short term thats great. We need to be producing more than we need for food otherwise we'll run short if disaster strikes any major grain producing country. Wheat reserves are at very low levels because no-one wants the expense of hanging onto stockpiles anymore. With wheat doubling in price those in control may view allowing that rundown in stocks as a serious mistake. A run-down that occured prior to current bio-fuel industry expansion.

Spot on Goeff and Bazz.

Bio fuels would require enormous infrastructure, equally enormous amounts of corn, wheat, whatever and massive amounts of money. All this so we can indulge in a happy motoring?

We would be better to build mass transit systems and reduce our reliance on i.c engines or start building really efficient i.c engines (and less V8's / S.U.V) -- although as the cost of oil increases then this may happen.

Bio fuels may play a part in maintaining a transport system but there is no way they can replace oil.

A simpler solution may be to change the way we live while we still have the luxury to do so and well before peak oil forces us to do so.

Spot on Yabby.

People do not starve because there is a global shortage of food. They starve because they're short of cash. Crops fail at a time and place. People with savings, or with non-agricultural income, do not die from crop failure.

The principle that cash crops (coffee, chocolate, tea, biofuels) feed people better than food crops is the result of a distorted but very real market, not something that biofuels really change.

Agricultural subsidies are an iniquitous addiction. They have nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with balance of payments: the EU and the USA wish to remain wealthy indefinitely and not bleed money to low-wage agricultural economies. Financial services income is honey, but it's fickle.

Q&A: Ethanol from US Midwestern corn is a taxpayer-funded pork-barrel boondoggle generating near-zero benefit in either energy or emissions. It does keep more people in work, though, than paying farmers to grow nothing. It also doesn't scare the oil barons. Quietly, perspicacious oil barons themselves are investing in biofuels. Probably not in America.

High prices for corn thrill corn farmers. The people protesting them are landless and without reliable income. High food prices improve the general economy of any agricultural country, landowners and workers alike.

Market distortions, political upheavals and disease have resulted in severe and prolonged underinvestment in agriculture across Africa and elsewhere. Secure prices, sound infrastructure and recovering labour forces could bring an enormous renaissance, without resulting in large-scale ecological destruction.

In the most optimistic scenario (barring agricultural collapse due to climate change, and supposing secure and reliable investment in agricultural infrastructure), Africa and Latin America alone could produce more energy from biofuels by 2050 than we currently use from *all* fossil fuels, whilst feeding themselves and without clearing any forests or damaging other ecologically sensitive areas. Biofuel-related ecological devastation is purely optional :-)

http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/smeetsglobalquickscan2050.pdf

That scenario is very optimistic and likely won't be realised in our lifetime. But it's a real potential and shouldn't be sneezed at. Far from leading to a humanitarian disaster, biofuels are more likely to improve food security and sustainability worldwide.

Article on Life After The Oil Crash:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2007/HeinbergEat.html

Covering food and Bio Fuels if anyone is interested.

Rojo, with canola it really depends how you can use the residues after
crushing. Not so long ago canola was 400$ and at that sort of level,
the economics actually start to make sense. A friend of mine crushes
his own and powers his farm vehicles. Residues are fed to the livestock.

Its as much for peace of mind as anything. Lets face it, they must
be laughing all the way to the bank in the ME. The West is hooked
on their oil, its an unstable place and if the Straits of Hormuz
was blocked or some bombs went off in the Saudi oil pipeline
network, oil could easily go to 150$. At 10 million barrels a day
for SA, that would earn them an extra 500 million$ a day!

Some of the stage 2 biolfuels are looking at gaining energy from
biomass and that would change the equation of agriculture completely.
I think some serious volumes of energy could be produced.

Whole new species could be used, perinnials instead of annuals, etc.
Large amounts of carbon would be locked up in soils, by this process,
which would be an extra benefit. You are starting to talk 20-25
t/ha of biomass, compared to say 2 tonnes of grain.

Australia is already subsidising the oil industry in a huge way,
by sending troops to the Middle East. To deny that oil has anything
to do with this, is foolhardy.

To shoot down the biofuels industry before its even got off the
ground and options are explored, is rather foolhardy too, IMHO.

Unless of course, all these people are happy to be under the
Arab thumb and happy to keep sending them ever more money.
Its kind of ironic. So called "civilised" countries like Australia
and America are running up ever larger current account deficits
due in part to oil, whilst those so called "primitive" Arabs, as
some refer to them, are making a trillion.

Possibly with the new GM Cannola greater crop yields will improve the viability of biofuels.

Likewise, a more appropriate crop could be developed.

Yabby, I agree on the residue values importance, and I estimated that if sold as feed it would cover the haulage/processing and storage of bio-diesel.
Originally was doing my sums on cottonseed oil a few years ago, but a jump from $120/tonne to 350$/tonne made the decision easy. Cotton seed has 20-25% oil. Made normal diesel much cheaper in the short term, but at least we know we can be self sufficient fuel-wise in the future. We felt the residue would be best used as a fertiliser, since we have no livestock.

Bio-diesel has a much better energy return on energy invested, about 3:1 compared to ethanol from grain at 1.67:1

I think there is a danger in extrapolating N. hemisphere research on heavily subsidised Corn ethanol and ethanol derived from Sugar Cane in N. Queensland.
Which as far as I know is not subsidised and even the waste-bagess is used to fuel & run the sugar- mills.

In Queensland sugar cane can be turned into rum, sugar or fuel.

I would prefer to see Queensland Cane Framers get some of the massive subsidies given to oil multi-nationals.
(Howard gave $60 million to Chevron-Mobile last year)