2GreenEnergy super-supporter Cameron Atwood asked for my take on this article in Scientific American on the environmental issues associated with biofuels.Craig: I’m bearish on biofuels for many reasons. The main problem, and it seems insurmountable, is that plants didn’t evolve to have more chemical energy content than they need to grow and reproduce.
The caption under the pic here (credit: Nuseed) reads: “Carinata is a crop that produces an energy-rich oil and can help to sequester carbon.” Seriously? It grows for a season then gets combusted in our gas tanks a few months later?
If there IS a path forward for biofuels, it lies in algae, which has ~30x more energy per unit of weight than any terrestrial plant. But algae has been a consistent failure outside of the laboratory.
Coupled with this we have the falling price of everything else, and the environmental concerns noted in the article re: about fertilizer run-off, the use of water (and energy) for irrigation, the cannibalization of arable land, etc.
Cameron: Yes, I agree, and recall similar discussions in the past. I find it interesting that this article discusses many of the disadvantages including the overuse of marginal land and the impact on the food stocks.
It seems to me that the obvious answer remains solar, and yet as a country we’re only pursuing it to a limited degree.
It also seems to me that ethanol is being used as a crutch to prop up fossil fuels, and extend their life in the market.
Craig: I would say solar, wind, and nuclear.
Corn ethanol was put into place before environmental issues arose, when the big problem was OPEC (access to oil).
It’s written into the federal laws, and it’s impossible to remove because of the lobbyists.
