Biofuel Is Biofuelishness

Using biofuels as a source of mobile liquid fuel is biofuelishness, and spending much (any?) research money is a waste of scarce funds. As much as I favor all avenues of research for developing new forms of usable energy, whether it be from nuclear transformations and finding ways to dispose of remnant wastes safely, capture of solar or wind energy, water movement from tides and at river mouths, and other possible forms, I am very concerned that many scientists, politicians and the public, have been sold a bill of goods about biofuel.

Switchgrass (above), a fast-growing plant native to the Americas, has been getting some attention from the scientific and agricultural community as a potential ingredient for biofuels.

We already have witnessed the folly of making ethanol by growing corn, leading to the use of good food-producing land to feed infernal combustion engines rather than people, increasing erosion, creating a liquid that cannot be distributed by existing pipelines, and leading to grain price increases and shortages all over the world. Brasil was able to get away with using sugarcane because more than 3 crops can be harvested for more than 4 years in a row from one planting.

Temperate climates cannot compete with the tropics, even with perennial crops like switchgrass, jatropha or forestry trimmings. Switchgrass cannot succeed as a source of fuel because:

1. photosynthesis is by its very nature an inefficient way to capture solar energy, less than 2% efficient (compared to photocells [15%] and photofilm [150%], {that percentage is almost ridiculous}, and increasing this yield will take much time and research;
2. high-quality land will be needed for high yields to feed the expanding world population, and such land should be reserved for food, feed and fiber production, neither for switchgrass nor for shopping malls; (3) no grass can grow without nitrogen fertilizer after native soil fertility has been exhausted, and nitrogen fertilizer manufacture requires natural gas as feedstock;
3. even if biomolecular genetics could improve soluble carbohydrate content of switchgrass by a factor or 10, that would only bring it to competitive levels with sugarcane;
4. it will take much time to develop efficient microorganisms to break down cellulose from switchgrass and other plants or crop plant residues;
5. we still do not know the structure of lignin, let alone how to break it down on an industrial scale to generate ethanol.

Many agricultural researchers have become advocates of switchgrass because policies of the Bush_43 administration essentially eliminated federal grants in production agriculture research except for that dealing with switchgrass and other potential biofuel sources.

The thrust of this message is not to advocate the elimination of research into biofuels, but primarily to express deep skepticism about the potential results of working with switchgrass and similar feedstocks to generate mobile liquid fuel. Limited resources should not be wasted on expanded research with biofuel sources when more direct and promising means of capturing usable energy exist, such as hydrogen fuels cells, electric cars, or better batteries for mobility or electric storage.

I am not alone in these feelings, but there are many others, who have spoken up and published much more extensively than I on this topic. There are also many agricultural researchers who have not divulged their negative thoughts about biofuel because of their need to placate their administrators and to compete successfully for research grants.

Decisions should be based on facts. There is more than the "established" wisdom on biofuel. Additional details can be obtained on this topic at NACTA Journal, Spring 2008, pages 40-57, http://www.nactateachers.org/nacjournal.htm.