Comments rbright has made

biodiversivist

A Prius only reduces fossil use 50% in stop-go driving, i.e., city driving cycles.  Extra urban and rural drivers -- which are plentiful in the U.S. -- will not benefit so much from hybrid (or electrified personal transport) technology.  Almost better off with a highly efficient diesel.  With that being said, liquid energy carriers will still be needed in personal road transport.  Biofuels -- as the only viable liquid energy carrier alternative -- will have to play a role in a world of rapidly diminishing oil over the medium-term (2025-2050) horizon.  This stems from the very nature in which we are and will continue to be wholly "locked in" to liquid energy carriers over the same period.  

I am much in favor of hybrid and PHEVs and electrified transport.  I am simply saying that each will have a place and a role in the oil-constrained future given the time frame in which we will continue to be "locked in" to infrastructure entirely dependent on the use liquid fossils.  Because we are "technologically locked in" to this infrastructure over the same time frame, we thus are also "carbon locked in," and sustainably produced biofuels are absolutely essential and necessary for mitigating against the latter.On World Bank finally releases 'secret' report on biofuels and the food crisis posted 1 year, 3 months ago 65 Responses

Tom P.

FYI -- Wheat IS used as a common ethanol feedstock  (via enzymatic carbohydrate hydrolysis, simple sugar fermentation)  In fact, in Europe, it's the largest single raw material source for ethanol production.

Good point tdmeeh.  We need to shift away from this never-ended reiterative ill-diagnosing of 1st Generations -- which is done what seems to be on a daily basis on this site -- and start creating more intellectual discussions enveloping the [what seems to be] promising medium-term 2nd Gen. biofuel production technologies (lignocellulosic biochemical and thermochemical ethanols/renewable diesels, pyrolysis oil upgrading to renewable gasoline/diesels, butanols, hydrogenation, and potentially promising 1.5 Gens, i.e., hydrogenated jatropha oils).  Let's face it: we NEED biofuels as part of that silver buckshot in transport ("we" meaning China, India primarily).  

For a comprehensive review of the heavily researched 2nd Gen. Technologies and a research roadmap for making lignocellulosic biofuels a "practical reality", I highly recommend this report produced by UMASS-Amhurst, DOE, NSF, and George Huber and released in March.  Let's start discussing these here.  For example, should we devote significant R&D energy into trying to render existing hydrocarbon refineries compatible with bio-based feedstocks and vice versa, or should that money today be primarily directed towards electrification?  How critical are liquid energy carriers in an post-peak oil America 20 years from now? I don't think we can abandon 1st gens. and 2nd gen. RDD&D flat out.

By far one of the most thorough and in-depth reviews of the indirect effects of biofuels (i.e., impact on food prices, land rights issues, land use change, land availability, other environmentally destructive "indirectly affected" impacts, etc.) that I have come across to date -- The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels (.pdf, July 11)-- finds that..

..based upon the balance of evidence, that if all subsidies and other support for biofuels were removed entirely, this would reduce the capacity of the industry to respond to the challenges of transforming its supply chain and investing in advanced [i.e., 2nd Gens] technologies.

Additionally, Tom P., JMG, justlou, biodiversivist

First commercial plants CURRENTLY being built.  Success with these will likely lead to construction of further plants before 2020.  Continued financial support LIKELY TO BE NEEDED as costs unlikely to fall enough to make the route cost competitive in this time period." [my emphasis]

Furthermore,

This review concludes that it SHOULD be possible to establish a genuinely sustainable biofuel industry provided that robust, comprehensive, and mandatory sustainability standards are developed and implemented. It further concludes that the risks of indirect effects can be significantly reduced by ensuring that the production of feedstock for
biofuels takes place on idle and marginal land and by encouraging technologies that utilise appropriate wastes and residues.

Robust EU-harmonized sustainability standards will come into effect within the next year.  During the week of July 14, the European Parliament tabled a series of "Compromise Amendments" to the current European Commission's proposed biofuel directive that would: lower targets from 10% [energy] share by 2020 to 4% share (energy) by 2015, increase the minimum GHG reduction potential to 45% (previously 35%) -- 60% at 2015 (thereby eliminating most 1st Gens), include an "Indirect Land Use Change" sustainability criterion, include a criterion requiring documented analyses of cropland displacement (and thus indirect affects on food prices)...

Point is, biofuels ARE necessary, and European governments ARE currently being proactive as far as doing everything they can to ensure that biofuels will be done in the most sustainable way over the medium-term horizon.  

Again, let's move away from corn/soy here at Grist and heat up the discussion on the 2G's, which ARE happening...On World Bank finally releases 'secret' report on biofuels and the food crisis posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses