by Ann Marie Dwyer

Created on: June 28, 2008

Bio-fuels seem to present a renewable resource alternate to fossil fuel. A closer examination of the costs of producing ethanol and biodiesel shows the true economic and ethical costs involved in choosing bio-fuel as a long term solution.

All of the following depend on fossil fuel to produce bio-fuel:
Hybridization of crops
Planting and irrigation
Fertilizer and pesticide

Harvesting
Grinding biomass
Transporting the crop
Production facility machinery

To gauge how efficient the bio-fuel alternative truly is, a joint study by Cornell and University of California -Berkeley determined that the energy output of both ethanol and biodiesel were not worth the effort of producing them.

Ethanol production from switch grass required 45 percent more energy than the resultant ethanol produced. This is the equivalent of spending $1.45 to buy a dollar.

Biodiesel produced from sunflower plants required 118 percent more energy than the biodiesel could produce. Would you spend $2.18 to buy a dollar?

These pitfalls are considered short-term shortfalls. As bio-fuel machinery becomes more widely available, the production costs will go down. Yet, the research into such machines is not likely to begin for more than another decade and only when the United States government decides which bio-fuel to endorse.

The long term pitfalls are more ominous. Ethanol and biodiesel do not burn as cleanly as burning biomass, pure wood or switch grass waste. The air emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect and further global warming.

Bio-fuels need a constant agricultural supply. To meet the United States need for liquid fuel, one of two scenarios present: 1. Residential property will be regulated to upward growth only (apartment dwelling). 2. Rural residential lands will be relegated to subsidized agriculture of biomass producing farms.

Both scenarios result in larger air pollutant emissions. The transportation of food contributes the second largest air pollutant emission in the United States. Multi-level housing creates traffic congestion and household emissions in higher concentration.

Additionally, the choice to use wood biomass to produce ethanol would result in fewer trees to protect the atmosphere, higher fossil fuel demand than even switch grass (12 percent) and increase prices of common wood based products. This price increase would impact industries that produce or use paper, cardboard, furniture, building supplies and wood as a fuel source.

Both scenarios impact the cost of food. As people move away from the source of the food, the price is higher. As farmland once producing food crops are regulated to grow biomass, food becomes more scarce. The law of supply and demand will drive the price higher.

Both scenarios negatively impact water and soil pollution. The production of bio-fuels requires a distillation process whose debris is distributed in the soil and can contaminate ground water. Urban dwelling has always had soil and water pollution implications in the form of landfills.

Current demand for liquid fuel would necessitate growing all available acreage every year. In the absence of allowing fields to lay fallow, dependence on more fertilizers and pesticides will increase, further consuming more fossil fuel, destroying more soil and polluting more water.

The need for the United States to abandon the bio-fuel solution is paramount. Other more attainable solutions exist in the forms of nuclear power, solar photovoltaic power, extended life batteries, wind power and hydrogen conversion. Bio-fuels should not be an option entertained by the United States.

References:
Cornell University/University of California-Berkley
American Institute of Biological Sciences
BioScience, July, 2005
BBC
Kennebec Journal

Learn more about this author, Ann Marie Dwyer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.