The brush that has been used to bash biofuels of late is far too broad.  Thanks for articulating the (too often ignored) details.

Biofuels will not interrupt global warming, nor the ambitions and avarice of old men.  It all seems so irrelevant.  The end of species, human history, legacies, endowments -- everything of meaning -- makes the profits of our energies quite pointless.  Please join us in the search for solutions more powerful than politics and less forgettable than the WSJ license for fiction.  (I have also been punished by WSJ misrepresentations, at best only a passing humor from old farts.)

You hardly do yourself justice, using falacious arguments to try to debunk the critics.

Let's just start with the two articles in Science. Neither the Fargione et al. nor the Searchinger et al. articles concluded that "all biofuels have a big carbon debt." What they concluded was that the biofuels they examined could have a big carbon debt -- a finding with which I had thought (up until now) you would agree with.

Second,you have clearly missed their point, especially in the article by Searchinger et al., which was that the distinction between direct and indirect land-use effects is largely irrelevant: biofuels have an effect on land conversion through pressure on prices. We have seen that most strongly in the market for vegetable oils. Already, around half of the EU's rapeseed crop is used for the production of biodiesel, and in the U.S., increased planting of corn (largely at the expense of soybeans) in the 2006/07 season, combined with increased use of soybeans for biodiesel in the USA, has helped in the doubling of the price of all vegetable oils over the last two years, and an expansion of soybean area in Latin America and palm oil in south-east Asia -- some on previously forested land.

Finally, yes the Argonne scientists have posted a critique. But according to one of the authors of the Searchinger et al. article (with whom I have been in correspondence), after Searchinger provided Science with a rebuttal of their points, Science decided not to publish the Argonne letter, as they thought it did not meet their standards for publication.

These are only my personal opinions.

Let's just start with the two articles in Science. Neither the Fargione et al. nor the Searchinger et al. articles concluded that "all biofuels have a big carbon debt."

I said the media concluded this. And many blogs. Scientists have tried to respond to the irresponsible conclusions based on these controversial articles.

What they concluded was that the biofuels they examined could have a big carbon debt -- a finding with which I had thought (up until now) you would agree with.

It's not difficult to agree with this because it is stating the obvious. The question is: is it relevant to the debate? The answer is a square no, because the vast bulk of biofuels is produced on low-carbon land, and actually may even act like carbon sinks. Sugarcane would be the example. The crop alone (not the ethanol made from it) as it is currently planted on several million hectares in Brazil, actually stores more carbon in its roots than the ecosystems on which sugarcane "could" be planted.

It's like saying you "could" grow potatos in Greenland to make biofuels. But it would be irrelevant to the debate, because these potatos would obviously not make for very efficient ethanol.

I'm a realist looking for solutions. Not a speculator paralysed by baseless fear or by an agenda that is putting many people at risk.

Another example. We already knew that you "can" destroy peatlands for palm oil and pump GHGs into the atmosphere if you do so. But do we need outspoken anti-biofuels advocates to create an image based on this basic knowledge, so that they can falsely conclude that all palm oil grows on peatland? No, we don't. But that's what's happened.

I can guarantee you that if you ask 100 people in The Netherlands where the vast bulk of palm oil plantations can be found, 99 of them will say: on the peatlands in Borneo. While in fact only a tiny fraction can be found there, in that highly specific ecosystem.

So clearly, there's a lot of propaganda going on, that could push millions of people into poverty in  South Eas Asia and Africa. If the Dutch give a blank "no" to palm oil, they are causing a hecatombe.

In short, I agree with speculative conclusions like "you can grow potatos in Greenland". But I simply think they should not dominate the debate, when they are irrelevant to it.

Second,you have clearly missed their point, especially in the article by Searchinger et al., which was that the distinction between direct and indirect land-use effects is largely irrelevant: biofuels have an effect on land conversion through pressure on prices.

Again, nobody denies this. But the point is irrelevant.

The authors represent speculative thinking that cannot be expressed in scientific terms. It has some value as a vague warning, but not as a basis for a science-based debate.

Again, they either stated the obvious (biofuels induce land use change; humans breathe) or they stated the impregnable.

Nobody can empirically pinpoint the extent of the land-use changes induced by the price pressures resulting from changes in biofuel output.

There are so many factors at play, that it is too simplistic to point at biofuels as the leading factor of, e.g., the recent increase in deforestation rates in the Amazon - the context in which their article was clearly placed.

Their point is as weak as saying that the metals used in wind turbines 'may' have caused 5 million deaths in Congo, where these metals are mined and resulted in a resource conflict (even though the metals used in wind turbines are also mined in many other countries).

With the same speculative mindset as that of Searchinger and Fargione, I can prove that biofuels have saved tens of millions of lives of people who would otherwise have succumbed to hunger. (In fact, this counterintuitive idea is even easier to prove than what Searchinger et al did, because Goldman-Sachs recently did so - biofuels in the U.S. have helped combat poverty by pushing down the cost of liquid fuels by up to 15%).

We have seen that most strongly in the market for vegetable oils. Already, around half of the EU's rapeseed crop is used for the production of biodiesel, and in the U.S., increased planting of corn (largely at the expense of soybeans) in the 2006/07 season, combined with increased use of soybeans for biodiesel in the USA, has helped in the doubling of the price of all vegetable oils over the last two years, and an expansion of soybean area in Latin America and palm oil in south-east Asia -- some on previously forested land.

Exactly, and the assessments as to the price effects of these changes in biofuel output range widely.

That's the point. Let's take corn. Some analysts say corn ethanol has contributed only 2% to the increased in world corn prices, others put the number as high as 30%.

The EU says it devotes less than 1.5% of its acreage to biofuels, which is why they can never explain the huge increases in food prices.

Finally, yes the Argonne scientists have posted a critique. But according to one of the authors of the Searchinger et al. article (with whom I have been in correspondence), after Searchinger provided Science with a rebuttal of their points, Science decided not to publish the Argonne letter, as they thought it did not meet their standards for publication.

Well, the four other letters that did debunk Searchinger were published in Science. Enough said.

In conclusion, I have nothing against those who try to caution for potential future risks with biofuels.

But it is time we also start to write about the major benefits (like saving the planet from social collapse as a result of skyhigh oil prices; the fact that they can save the world's last remaining rainforests by combating the climatic changes that could turn these forests into deserts; the fact biofuels can alleviate poverty in the rural third world on an unprecedented scale; the fact that high food prices, partly caused by biofuels, are already making the world's poor, 75% of who are farmers, jubilant; etc...).

I feel the one-sidedness in the debate is not very productive. There is a true "war" on biofuels and I don't really like the weapons used. To paraphrase Fargione and Searchinger: these weapons "could" be killing a lot of innocent people in the future, especially the poor.

Jonas,

You deny saying that the articles in Science concluded that "all biofuels have a big carbon debt."

I said the media concluded this.

No you didn't. You left who was saying it vague, leaving an impression that it was the authors of the articles that reached that conclusion.

Then you write:

The authors represent speculative thinking that cannot be expressed in scientific terms. ... Nobody can empirically pinpoint the extent of the land-use changes induced by the price pressures resulting from changes in biofuel output.

Um, Searchinger et al. used the Iowa State model, other results from which have been treated with respect. And I would call modelling the effects not merely speculative thinking but working through their thinking in scientific terms. True, nobody can exactly quantify the extent of the land-use changes induced by the price pressures resulting from changes in biofuel output, but that caveat should apply equally to the people that you like to quote who produce estimates of enormous untapped land for biofuels. (How many of them factor in water as a limiting factor?)

That the media draws its own conclusions from scientific studies is nothing new. At least it -- and we -- now have those scientific studies to debate. Two years ago, when all reporters had to go on was statements from biofuel advocates, the mainstream media was falling all over itself in adulation, repeating any exaggerated claim the biofuel industry cared to make. So for those of us who have been following this debate for some time, what we see is just the usual and predictable swing of the media's pendulum, not some conspiracy by the oil industry.

But to return to the topic, pointing to indirect effects is NOT the same as saying you "could" grow potatos in Greenland to make biofuels. You then defend this reasoning by claiming that "the vast bulk of biofuels is produced on low-carbon land, and actually may even act like carbon sinks."

Again, you miss Searchinger et al.'s point. It is not just the direct land-use effects that count, but the indirect. One may indeed produce corn or canola on low-carbon land. But if new, high-carbon land is cleared to make up for those displaced crops, that should be a cause for concern.

Also, Searchinger et al. and others are, properly, looking at what is coming down the pipeline, which are much, much larger mandated levels of use and (because of trade barriers) probably production in the north. It is proper to ask what would happen under those scenarios, and not simply point to the land use patterns of 2005.

These are only my personal opinions.

...  in the debate over biofuels.

What a laugh. Two years ago there was hardly any debate, and the news coverage was one-sided -- predominantly pro biofuels and, more importantly, pro biofuel subsidies and mandates. Nowadays what we are witnessing is vigorous, multi-sided debate. And none too soon.

These are only my personal opinions.

On one side, there's the argument that crop production uses very little oil.

One the other side, there's the argument that the price increase in crops is almost entirely dependent on the cost increase of oil.

So which is it?

_

(Or is it because the value of turning crops into fuel goes up proportionately to the value of oil.)

I spent all day collecting a cord of Madrona for winter fire heat.  Firewood conversion efficiency is better than 85%.  Burner capital cost $300/kW(t).  

My point here is that I had two offers of free Madrona at building sites (the best firewood).  One was 25 minutes away and I refused, too far with a loaded truck.  The other was 15 minutes driving time and just close enough to make sense.  

When I think of the distance of transporting cellulosic biomass, the weight, and the efficiency of conversion, I would instinctively decline.  Too much work, too much oil and coal, too little net delivered energy.

Maybe I wasn't imagining that cogeneration would prolong the life of the really GHG intensive sources it is attached to.  Like coal, nuclear, and fuel farmed ethanol?

Is cogeneration being used to delay the demise of these spectacularly bad energy systems?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I believe ethanol is still an important part of the solution even if it is only a small part.  We can't continue to produce fuel from corn because corn is food, but we can still use ethanol from sugar cane, even if we have to buy it from Brazil.  In terms of geopolitics, it would be nice to have the alternative of buying our fuel from Brazil as opposed to buying it from OPEC.  At the very least, it would diversify our fuel sources and give OPEC a little competition....

BTW, I wouldn't give up on cellulosic ethanol just yet, it's still in its infancy.

Rich.