by Bedfordian

Created on: February 09, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

Biofuels were once touted as the wonder fuel with which we could solve all our climate problems, a carbon neutral alternative to gas/petrol or diesel that would let ou drive your car with a green conscience. That in the future all cars will be powered by this natural, green and sustainable fuel. Think again. Farmer's unions smell subsidies, the union's lobby groups start lobbying, politicians are lobbied, and then the public is told by the politicians exactly what the farmer's unions want to hear. A scientist would hopefully take an impartial view of the pros and cons of using bio-diesel (unless research funding was provided by someone with ulterior motives of course).

Not that I'm pro oil. The sooner we wean ourselves off the black gold, the sooner we can give the poor Muslims a break. The problems with bio-fuels (ethanol and bio-diesel) are numerous. Biofuels are only economic at the moment due to the high oil prices and relatively low cost of the raw materials used for making the fuels (eg corn). People have long known about the methods for making biofuels, it's just that until now, it has not been economic. If either, the oil price drops or raw material prices rise then biofuels will not be so attractive. President Bush has made huge subsidies available late in 2007 meaning that for the consumer, biofuel prices will be kept artificially low at the expense of a truly free market (and the taxpayer).

Raw material prices will rise due to the explosion in numbers of refineries producing bio-fuels. Tax incentives in states such as Iowa guarantee that some people will make a LOT of money, generally farmers and politicians. Right now, the field of bio-fuel production is the new gold rush. Most countries, especially in the EU are wising up to the problems associated with bio-fuels and are preventing further incentives and subsidies being handed out. Oil created by the micro-organisms, algae, is now becoming the next big talking point. Shell is investing heavily in this new field and some scientists say it is a massively more efficient process than using food crops, utilizing far less water and no fertilizers.

The sustainability of bio-fuels is repeatedly being called into question and appears to be a key factor in the debate. Research often shows that bio-fuels consume more energy during production than they save. The result could be a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions rather than a decrease. Think pesticides, transport of materials, tractors, refinery production, energy needs etc. This view has since been substantially backed up during 2008 by influential science bodies in the UK and EU.

If all of the USA's soybean and corn production was converted to bio-fuel production (and not breakfast cereals!), it would still only meet 5% of the total fuel requirement of the USA. Corn and soya prices have already risen substantially putting the brakes on the construction of many new biofuel plants in most countries apart from North America where it is heavily subsidized.

Not that bio-fuels are all bad. They will keep people employed, improve national security, provide animal food stock as a by-product and create new industries. R&D spending will likely increase. Pressure will be taken off the oil producers and 5% less reliance on politically unstable countries is always a good thing.

Learn more about this author, Bedfordian.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.