A TALE OF TWO BIOFUELS

Jacobson and Chu offer different futures for biofuels
John Guerrero, August 31, 2009 (SF Examiner)

"Biofuels are a complicated issue and seen to draw up conflict at the mere mention of their name. Figuring the economic, social, and environmental implications of developing a biofuel industry requires the use of complex computer models (much like those used in climate change scenarios) with numerous input variables that affect the outcome of the individual studies.

"Two of the main players in the foreground of the debate have come up with very different views based upon their studies." [Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson, author, Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution and Energy Security:] 'Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels.' [U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu:] '…developing the next generation of biofuels is key to our effort to end our dependence on foreign oil and address the climate crisis, while creating millions of new jobs that can't be outsourced…'"

Professor Jacobson's study showed biofuels to be a pretty weak choice for powering personal transport. (click to enlarge)

"The difference of opinion may be that these two scientists are talking about different generations of biofuels. The first generation of biofuels relied on food crops for their feedstocks; this was primarily corn, soy, palm, and sugarcane crops. Then came along second generation biofuels, or cellulosic ethanol; the feedstocks for this kind of biofuel came primarily from switchgrass, miscanthus, and agricultural waste. Third generation biofuels rely on genetically modified plants that ultimately increase energy yield per acre or decrease the amount of energy needed to process the feedstocks into fuel. Fourth generation biofuels…are not only engineered to have high energy yields and low conversion costs, but they also are engineered to soak up more CO2 than regular plants…

"Jacobson's report on biofuels ultimately recommended against ethanol made from corn and switchgrass…Corn and switchgrass ethanol finished last and second to last in his list of worst vehicle fuel options…Steven Chu…[talking about miscanthus] gives a different impression of cellulosic ethanol…Jacobson's report [may not have considered miscanthus or]… the use of agricultural waste residues like sugarcane bagasse and corn stover, feedstocks that do not require water, fertilizer, or the use of farm machinery to harvest…[Other researchers such as the] Genomics: GTL research program [see] benefits and challenges facing cellulosic ethanol…"

Secretary Chu has a very different take. From USDepartmentofEnergy via YouTube

"…[F]irst generation ethanol[has been commercialized] to the point where we have learned its limitations; second generation facilities are set to come online next year; third and fourth generation biofuels are still in the experimental stage. Many problems surface for biofuels going from the laboratory phase to commercial scale, but scientists continue to build off of their successes to evolve the industry toward sustainability.

"Perhaps the difference between Jacobson and Chu is that while Jacobson is a realist, Chu is a dreamer…Chu's vision is one that spans the entire twenty-first century and looks toward finding solutions to biofuels' limitations. Jacobson is correct in his assessment that current forms of biofuels are not much better than the fossil fuel systems that currently power our society. The difference of opinion in the general public comes from whose eyes you choose to look through and how much time you think we have to solve the developing energy and environmental crises."