We'll need to make fuels from renewable sources, that's something everyone can agree on. The folks who think that biodiesel and ethanol will solve all our problems (and I used to be one of them) are assuming we can maintain a lifestyle similar to the one we have now, with suburban McMansions and empty cities. To put it bluntly; they're afraid of change.

Since I've moved into the city, I've become less of a biofuels nut. Sure, it woudl be great if my car ran on vegetable oil, but it would be even better if I didn't need a car at all.

We're not addicted to oil. We're addicted to our cars.

This is exactly what I've been saying ever since I've been posting here.  There are no magical solutions to anything.  The only real solution to problems caused by overconsumption (which include problems caused by consuming things we shouldn't be consuming at all, like oil) is to stop consuming.  We should be advocating for a major simplification of lifestyles, not material enrichment of people at the expense of the planet and those people who live naturally (i.e., traditional indigenous people).

Tha

Jeff Hoffman

Monbiot's article addresses the deforestation that certain biofuel production would lead to. But essentially biofuel production would worsen all the standard problems of chemical, large scale agriculture. At the moment it seems clear that the energy output in the form of biofuel is actually less than the energy input in the form of fossil fuel; if any way is found to produce such high yields as to raise the energy output, you can bet that such a method would hardly be sustainable. Exhausting our soil fertility is a far worse prospect than exhausting our fossil fuel reserves, with more consequences.

Over 80% of WVO (waste Veggie Oil) is incinerated.  And in the process the biproducts are very similar to burning in a vehicle, all that energy is wasted.  I understand that the overconsumption bit makes sense to all of us, but to get my neighbors and a majority of Americans to stop eating fatty fried foods is probably not going to happen anytime soon.  So that oil just goes to the flame.  Why can't we burn it and travel guilt free?  I do everyday.  if 50% of all diesel vehicles on the road today started burning WVO it would still not keep all of the WVO from being incinerated.  I think we need to use it while its here.  Smile!

Before I dive in to my take on biofuels, let me state clearly that I am avid supporter of biofuels derived from a sustainable feedcrop.  I've come a long way from my extreme enthusiasm, to a much more guarded support for this budding industry, especially in light of biofuels being exported.  My enthusiasm remains for domestically produced fuels, derived from existing agricultural land.  

The Pimental article makes some grossly imprecise assumptions about energy input and output.  For example, he assumes that biofuels are derived from crops planted on what used to be forests.  Which, of course, is perfectly applicable when evaluating palm oil plantations built on what used to be rainforests.  However, it's a useless evaluation of energy balance when the feedcrops are planted on existing agricultural land, like they are throughout the entire United States.  Moreover, biodiesel and ethanol have vastly different production methods.  One is refined (read: high energy input) and one is extracted (read: low energy input) so it's ridiculous to lump the two together.

Pimental does not evaluate cellulosic ethanol nor biodiesel made from anything except soybeans.  Soybeans, as it so happens, are one of the least efficient feedcrops for biodiesel.  He also never considers that the soybeans, after they are used for the oil that goes into biodiesel, are then added to animal feed.  The whole plant is typically used, but he really doesn't consider that.  

I'm not trying to be an apologist here, I'm just trying to put a very controversial study in perspective. This is the only study to say that biodiesel has a 1 to 1 energy balance while dozens of studies claim it to have a 3 to 1 energy balance.  Ethanol can't be  as easily defended but as I said, ethanol and biodiesel are not the same fuel, all biofuels are not created equally. Biodiversivist, you've done this for months, lumping the two biofuels together in terms of energy balance, and it is truly unfair, you're just plain wrong. Ethanol is a push, biodiesel much more efficient.

And obviously, commodity biodiesel, imported from foreign countries that are stripping down rainforests is indefensible.  If this trend continues, then I'll likely be changing my tune.  But as long as my biodiesel is produced domestically, I'm still a supporter.  It's almost the same as making an effort to buy local produce.  Domestically produced biodiesel from recycled waste vegetable oil and domestic crops deserves the support of environmentalists, not their scorn.  Shame on the finger pointers.

Ultimately though, I tend to agree with Icelander, we need better designed communities and fewer cars, that's the only real solution.

Biodiversivist,

It seemed to me that the sentiment on this thread was to dismiss biofuels as a whole, so I thought it was worthwhile to remind everyone that biofuels can indeed be produced from recycled oil.  You and most of the comments were happy to jump on the "we hate biofuels" bandwagon, failing to mention the fact that there are some highly sustainable biofuels.  So while you call it a strawman argument, I felt someone needed to point out the obvious positives that were so egregiously overlooked.  

Second, domestic crops does not equal soybeans.  Although soybeans are the predominant crop, they are the least efficient.  You have a current agricultural industry subsidized to grow soybeans for food, until relatively recently when biodiesel started growing in popularity.  As it becomes more popular, farmers are growing crops better designed for oil and fuel, like rapeseed, which happens to be much more  efficient.  And you still ignore the fact the the leftover pant material from soybean biodiesel is used in animal feed, it's not as if biodiesel is the exclusive end use of the crop.  

Not surprisingly, you don't mention any of the benefits of biofuels at reducing CO2 emissions, I guess global warming is a good thing for biodiversity?