Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow 21 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Henry Ford was an early 20th-century visionary of alternative fuels, and planned on having his early cars powered by ethanol. In fact, his first Model T could run on gasoline combined with a biofuel alcohol mix. The car's 10 gallon (38 litre) fuel tank was mounted to the frame beneath the front seat; one variant had the carburetor (a Holley Model G) modified to run on ethyl alcohol, to be made at home by the self-reliant farmer.
Today, the global demand for alternative energy biofuels is expanding at almost 20 percent per year through 2012 to over 92 million metric tons, despite recent concerns about the impact of biofuels on the environment versus world food supplies. Market expansion is led by a more than doubling of the global market for bioethanol, with the biodiesel market achieving even more rapid growth. Other biofuels will also achieve double digit gains, though from a smaller base.
So far in 2009, 15 auto manufacturers including General Motors (GM), Fiat SPA-Chrysler (FIATY.PK), Volvo (VOLVY.PK), Volkswagon Group (VLKAY.PK) and Ford Motor (F) have introduced 17 biofuel diesel models to the U.S. market, and announced the development of at least 15 more diesel autos expected by 2010. Thus, the growing resurgence of clean biofuel diesel technology in the U.S., coupled with the additional environmental, government policy and economic requirements looks promising.
The Obama administration’s budget for USDA in 2010 is a mixed scenario for agriculture. President Obama, as part of his overall energy plan, seeks to bring some relief to struggling ethanol producers, including refinancing. The Environmental Protection Agency has raised the amount of ethanol that must be blended into gasoline to 15% from 10%.
Just last week, the U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program announced a $786.5 million program to rapidly development commercial bio-fuel. The money comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and is intended for the following specific projects:
- $480 Million Solicitation for Integrated Pilot- and Demonstration-Scale Biorefineries
- $176.5 Million for Commercial-Scale Biorefinery Projects
- $110 Million for Fundamental Research in Key Program Areas
- $20 Million for Ethanol Research
The stated goal of the money is to create "third-generation bio-fuels like green gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels." The highlights include $50 million to create a bio-fuels consortium that will push hard to make things like algae biodiesel manufacturing a reality and $20 million that will be used, in part, to "evaluate the impact of higher ethanol blends in conventional vehicles."
Companies such as PetroSun, Inc. are at the forefront of algae biodiesel production. When it comes to converting sunlight into biomass, algae is the most productive type of plant. Biodiesel from algae has the potential to produce enough fuel to drive a Prius-type car 370,000 miles per acre per year, compared to 2,000 to 31,000 for conventional biodiesel crops (i.e. corn), while ethanol from switchgrass could produce 32,500.
Furthermore, some strains of algae are as much as 40% oil by weight, leading to the hope of a large supply of oil which is much easier to convert into biodiesel than it is to ferment even corn (let alone cellulosic biomass) into ethanol.
The U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program plans to use $110 million to support fundamental research in key program areas, distributed in the following manner:
- Expand the resources available for sustainability research through the Office of Science Bioenergy Research Centers and establish a user-facility/small-scale integrated pilot plant ($25 million).
- Create an advanced research consortium to develop technologies and facilitate subsequent demonstration of infrastructure-compatible bio-fuels through a competitive solicitation ($35 million).
- Create an algal bio-fuels consortium to accelerate demonstration of algae bio-fuels through a competitive solicitation ($50 million).
This recent announcement came as part of a series of Administration announcements on the Renewable Fuel Standard, the Energy title in the Farm Bill, and investments in energy research & development.
The Obama administration policy outlines the EPA’s strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels, poised to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Increasing renewable fuels will reduce dependence on foreign oil by more than 297 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 160 million tons a year when fully phased in by 2022. EISA will establish four categories of renewable fuels.
The alternative energy categories include:
- Cellulosic bio-fuels;
- Biomass-based diesel;
- Advanced bio-fuels; and
- Total renewable fuel.
By 2022, the U.S. government requires 36 billion gallons annually of renewable fuels, of which 16 billion gallons must be cellulosic bio-fuels; and 1 billion gallons must be of biomass-based diesel. In order to relieve any food versus biofuel concerns at most 15 billion gallons of the renewable fuel mandate can be met with conventional bio-fuels, including corn and soy-based ethanol. The remainder can be met using algae or switchgrass crops.
The bio-fuel diesel commercial fleet and consumer markets are primed for potential growth in the U.S. due to the fact that diesels are now much cleaner and more fuel efficient, typically getting 20 to 40 percent more miles to the gallon than a comparable gasoline engine while emitting 15% less CO2 . Also, while different state regulations initially delayed the introduction of diesel technology in the United States, most automakers have now developed diesel engine technology that meets the emissions requirements in all 50 states. Analysts from J.D. Power & Associates expect continued growth in the diesel market, with diesels accounting for more than 9 percent of new vehicle sales by 2016, up from the current 2.3 percent in 2009. J.D. Power also predicts that U.S. diesel vehicle sales will exceed 1 million units by 2013. Some see the future of the U.S. diesel market resembling the Western Europe model, where fuel prices and concern for the environment have shaped public policy to encourage diesel vehicle sales so much that they now account for nearly 52% of new vehicle sales.
The bad news is the U.S. plans to cut spending for farm programs, placing a hard cap of commodity program payments of $250,000, phasing out direct payments to farmers with gross sales over $500,000 and making cuts in the federal crop insurance program.
The USDA just released its initial assessment of crop supply, demand and price prospects for the 2009/10 season. According to the May World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, total U.S. corn use for 2009/10 is projected to be three percent higher than the current year with higher expected food, seed, and industrial (FSI) use and exports more than offsetting a decline in projected feed and residual use.
Total usage in the FSI category use is projected seven percent higher with a 350-million-bushel rise in ethanol corn use accounting for most of the increase. The 4.1 billion bushel estimate for ethanol reflects the increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard, as well as improved blending incentives as higher gasoline prices increase demand for ethanol.
At the same time, exports are projected to increase by nine percent “as world corn trade and feeding are expected to recover modestly in 2009/10, partly reflecting a reduction in global supplies of low-cost feed quality wheat.”
Domestic corn feed and residual use is projected down 2 percent with reduced animal numbers and increased availability of distiller’s grains. U.S. corn ending stocks for 2009/10 are projected down 28 percent to 1.1 billion bushels as use is expected to exceed production by 470 million bushels. The season-average farm price is projected at $3.70 to $4.50 per bushel compared with the record $4.20 reported for 2007/08 and the $4.10 to $4.30 projected for 2008/09.
The latest planting progress update has less than half of the nation’s corn crop planted, which is the same as last year at this time, but well behind the five year average of 71 percent. The biggest concerns are Illinois and Indiana, with just about ten percent of the crop in the ground - compared to over 55 percent last year and the average of 70-85 percent. Another problem area is North Dakota with only seven percent complete.
Additional pressures on corn supply are due to the fact it is the primary feedstock for ethanol production. About 20 percent of the nation’s corn supply went into ethanol in 2008—some 3.0 billion bushels. Ethanol can also be made from other grains such as sorghum as well as from “biomass” sources such as corn cobs, cornstalks, algae, wheat straw, rice straw, switch-grass, vegetable and forestry waste and other organic matter.
A new campaign by American farmers and supporters of biofuels presents technological innovations over the last 20 years that have cut the land needed to produce one bushel of corn (56 pounds) by 37 percent and decreased soil loss by 69 percent.
- Energy used to produce a bushel of corn has decreased by 37 percent since 1987 and greenhouse gas emissions per bushel dropped 30 percent.
- Over the past 25 years, farmers have slashed the amount of fertilizer required to grow corn. Producing a bushel of corn today requires nearly 40 percent less nitrogen than in 1980.
- Natural gas is by far the largest supplier of energy for ethanol production, used in 85 percent of ethanol production.
- Ethanol production results in nearly twice as much energy than used in its production – and using ethanol in place of conventional gasoline helps cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 59 percent.
- Ethanol is replacing more and more foreign oil. The production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 is equivalent to eliminating 10 months of imports from Venezuela.
Each gallon of corn ethanol today delivers as much as 67% more energy than is used to produce it.
Benefits of alternative energy biofuels:
- Ethanol adds oxygen to gasoline—helping it combust more completely and reducing the level of toxic exhaust emissions.
- Ethanol reduces our nation’s dangerous and expensive dependence on imported oil.
- The ethanol industry creates jobs and investment across the nation—especially in rural areas.
- Ethanol increases America’s fuel supply—helping keep gas prices down.
- Ethanol adds value to America’s corn harvest and helps reduce the cost of federal farm programs.
Biomass materials such as corn stalks, wheat straw, switchgrass and other renewable feedstocks will contribute to the resource base available for energy use. It is estimated that America can supply a sustainable volume of biomass materials in excess of 1.3 billion tons per year—enough to produce approximately 60 billion gallons of ethanol each year.
Progress on the debate about biofuels is tipping towards supporting the next generation of biofuel industries: algae production, cellulosic ethanol, waste biomass utilization and fully integrated bio-refineries.
The U.S. currently consumes 140 billion gallons of gasoline annually. So a $1.00 increase in the price of gas represents a $140 billion impact on consumer spending—with many of those dollars flowing to foreign oil producers.
In contrast, about 7 billion bushels of corn are used for food and feed each year. Even a $2.00 increase of corn prices would have one-tenth the impact of gasoline price swings—if all costs were passed along to consumers - dollars that are preserved within communities throughout the United States.
The “bio-fuel holy grail” maybe found in accomplishing the challenge of growing and rapidly transforming algae cheaply into bio-crude for commercially. The entire United States’ supply of imported oil could potentially be grown on 20 to 40 million acres of marginal land, leaving the 450 million acres of fertile American soil that are presently farmland still available to feed the population.
Conclusion
The economic, security and environmental issues continue to spur biofuel demand. World bioethanol demand has benefitted from a powerful farm lobby in the United States that has succeeded in passing a renewable fuel mandate, as well as long term rising oil prices that have boosted bioethanol demand in Brazil. Growing concerns about global warming have helped stimulate both bioethanol and biodiesel demand in the European Union, while several countries in the Asia/Pacific region have instituted biofuel programs as a means of boosting their local economies. Though protective sentiments will remain high, global trade in biofuels will continue to develop, as many countries in Western Europe, North America and Asia/Pacific find that they cannot fully satisfy demand with domestic production.
Despite, or perhaps even because of, the success of biofuels in recent years, questions have begun to arise about the wisdom of using biofuels as an alternative energy source going forward. While the impact of biofuels on world food supplies is expected to be a short term issue, the potential negative impact of biofuels on the environment could have longer term consequences. In spite of these concerns, though, countries’ overarching need for energy security and domestic economic development will continue to drive rapid increases in consumption, most notably in the large North American market.
World biofuel production will track increases in demand as most countries seek to foster domestic biofuel industries, both to reduce reliance upon imported oil, and to foster domestic economic development. This will continue to favor the development of cereal-based (maize and wheat) bioethanol capacity in North America and Western Europe, as well as sugarcane-based bioethanol production in Latin America. Likewise, biodiesel production will center on soy oil in the Americas, rapeseed oil in Europe, and palm (and increasingly jatropha) in the Asia/Pacific. Third-generation cellulosic bioethanol and algae biodiesel technologies will remain an increasingly significant part of any sustainable energy plans.
Disclosure: At the time of writing this article, the author had no direct financial interest in the companies listed.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 21 comments:
I have verified lower gas mileage in my car when using ethanol, like Acrimonious has shown in his car. Try checking your miles per gallon when filling up in a town here in the midwest close to an ethanol plant, such as POET's plants. POET apparently promotes a little extra ethanol usage in local stations close to their plants, and I can see my mileage drop significantly when using gasoline that is supposed to be limited to 10% ethanol. I don't know how much extra they get locals to use in the towns where they have plants, but my mpg's dropped significantly when I bought gas in Laddonia, MO (POET has a ethanol plant there). I can get 24-25 miles per gallon normally, and I get only 18-19 mpg when I buy gas in Laddonia.
> Then why have there been 9 ethanol companies go bankrupt so far?
> Furthermore ethanol weighs less than gasoline and so has less BTU's.
> The result is less energy/power with a commesurate loss of MPG. This
> has been persoanlly documented using 11% ethanol gasoline with a
> loss of 10% mpg of my car.
Ethanol producers that went bankrupt were essentially victims of their own success. Consuming feed (and food) corn to make a replacement for gasoline (oil imports) was perhaps a good-sounding idea on paper, perhaps more political than practical or sensible. I for one was pretty irritated that a 2-litre bottle of Pepsi or Coca Cola products essentially doubled as a result of the reduced supplies and high demand for the corn-based sweetener (the currently evil-sounding high fructose corn syrup).
Anyway corn prices tend to fluctuate wildly with farmer plantings and weather-dependent growth patterns for the supply side, and product-dependent demand. Also crop rotation becomes a big issue with the extreme-nitrogen-consu... corn plant. Unpredictable (or poorly predicted) corn futures and speculation proved essentially ruinous to a new highly capitalized (and debt laden) ethanol industry that was essentially speculative in nature. In spite of everything, gasoline was and is still the "cheap" solution, as it was in Henry Ford's day.
What I would like to see developed is an "net petroleum-corrected mpg", or a total carbon-based formula (miles per kg?), and a "total miles per fuel dollar" in the EPA rating for vehicles. Those vehicles that use only "pure" gasoline (really 5% ethanol in 95% gasoline) would have essentially the current basic current mpg and a mp$ rating. Those that are E85 capable would have a correction factor or formula that shows that it uses only 15% petroleum and 85% renewable - therefore significantly higher petrol-corrected mpg. But since it apparently takes a certain amount of petroleum consumption (diesel fuel, coal, etc.) to produce the ethanol, it needs a net correction to a total "fossil fuel" mpg or something.
The miles per fuel dollar could be the basis for a proper full "cost to society" approach - but since all fuel prices fluctuate, it needs to be standardized to some annualized average fuel dollar. This could also be used to capture efficiency of Electric vehicles (often will be plugged in to coal-fired electric plants).
In any case, I think it would be a great idea for the Feds (and the States) to give an "mpg credit" for fleet EPA ratings and regulations - correcting for the fueling options relative to petrol-based powertrains. This would drive the automakers to make virtually all vehicles to be ethanol-capable, should the infrastructure for ethanol production and distribution ever stabilize. Taxpayers should then be given a substantial tax credit for selecting E85-capable vehicles, and then for also selecting environmentally and economy-friendly ethanol (or other - methanol?) -based fuels at the pump, and/or a penalty for continuing to use mostly gasoline-based fuels. If there was a substantial tax penalty on only the gasoline content of fuels, folks will naturally migrate away from using it.
be careful about using methanol (it's hygroscopic) in your family car, water-bottoming occurs in fuel tanks when gasoline/MeOH fuel is stored in damp weather.
> jack
You speak of"the "global demand" for biofuels as if it is consumer driven. In virtually every country where biofuels are used, the "demand" is a totally artificial one, created by mandated blending requirements (yes, even in Brazil), subsidies, or usually a combination of both. The only thing that is impressive about the growth in the use of biofuels is, as AlexS puts it, the enormous power of the special-interest groups who promote biofuels, and their influence over powerful friends in high places.
You say that "ethanol production results in nearly twice as much energy than used in its production". That is only true of sugar-cane ethanol. If you are speaking of corn ethanol, it is only true (and then only for the most-efficient plants in teh Midwest) if you phrase it as "corn ethanol production results in nearly twice as much energy than the energy contained in the fossil fuels used in its production." There is energy in the corn kernels themselves, but life-cycle analysts in the United States tend to ignore it, hence the confusion. By the way, elsewhere, you say "Each gallon of corn ethanol today delivers as much as 67% more energy than is used to produce it." That is far below "twice".
Some of your statements are downright bizzare, such as "The bad news is the U.S. plans to cut spending for farm programs, placing a hard cap of commodity program payments of $250,000, phasing out direct payments to farmers with gross sales over $500,000 and making cuts in the federal crop insurance program." Bad new to whom? Millionaire farmers? These are pure rents for land-owners; capping eligibility at those kinds of rates will have virtually no effect on production or prices, though it will save taxpayers some money.
All in all, this is an over-long, infomercial for the biofuel industry. Seeking Alpha can do better.
In Brazil they do drive more flex-fuel cars, and yes some still do use gasoline, but 90% burn ethanol. All you need to do is research Brazil's inports and exports.
Ethanol improves some air pollutants, increases others.
Suggest you do some simple research, User. This from Wikipedia: "by February 2009, the fleet of 'flex' cars and light commercial vehicles reached 7.1 million vehicles, which represents around 21% of Brazil's registered light motor vehicle fleet. The success of 'flex' vehicles, together with the mandatory E25 blend throughout the country, have allowed ethanol fuel consumption in the country to achieve a 50% market share of the gasoline-powered fleet by February 2008. Considering diesel-powered vehicles, sugarcane ethanol represented 16.7% of the country's total energy consumption by the automotive sector in 2007."
Yes, all spark-ignition vehicles in Brazil burn SOME ethanol; they can't avoid it, as it is blended in all gasoline. But the overall share is still only 50% of the gasoline-powered fleet, and less than 20% of the country's total energy consumption for ground transport.
If gasoline, kerosene / jet fuel, and diesel had never really caught on in Henry Ford's days and continued into the 21st century, perhaps due to dwindling or lack of oil reserves, it is not inconceivable that ethanol, methanol, and natural gas would have been the fuels of choice instead. If those trillions of petroleum industry dollars had been spent on developing these renewable fuels, there is not doubt that today they would be the cheap fuel. The engines of industry and transportation would have been optimized, to those fuels, rather than petroleum, and we would not be fussing about the point that ethanol is perhaps 15% less mass or volume efficient as gasoline. Our minds would have been "calibrated" to the predominant fuel, such as we had at our disposal.
Maybe it isn't to late to just throw down and start to invest the necessary trillions of dollars (over the next few decades) in the pursuit of developing the alternative renewable fuels. If the projections of a 40-year supply of known reserves is anywhere near "correct", we should probably get started now with replacing the old oil refineries with "X"-fuel processing plants. If we had started this in the 1920's (fermenting of plant matter to ethanol was very well known then, even during Prohibition), then we would be very much "there" now.
That said, gasoline production and use in autos was probably an inevitability. We could not keep dumping it into the river as a waste product along with the dishwater and sewage. But it has run its course.
One could just as easily speculate that vehicles powered by EXTERNAL combustion engines (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) would have taken the lead.
"Maybe it isn't to late to just throw down and start to invest the necessary trillions of dollars (over the next few decades) the pursuit of developing the alternative renewable fuels." May we quote you on that figure? And why are you so certain that investing in alternative rennewable fuels -- by which I assume you mean biomass-derived transport fuels -- would be the most cost-effective use of the public's (read: other people's) money, even if your only concern is to reduce dependence on petroleum?
in 1974 there was interest in external combustion engines, both stirling cycle and steam. the williams company had a project to make a high-pressure steam piston engine but they had trouble with cylinder lubrication, the high-temperature steam steam-distilled the oil off of the walls. if they had had a physical chemist on their staff they would have understood the problem.
> jack
1. Brazil has blend ratios E25 to E100 (0% gasoline) but actual ethanol penetration is about 50% of vehicles.
2. According to the Energy Information Administration, all power in the United States is subsidized not just biofuels and renewables.
3. According to the US Department of Agriculture, gasoline has a higher calorific value than bioethanol but bioethanol has a higher energy balance. The energy balance of bioethanol is about 1.34 though there are some reports of increasing values.
4. The estimates of oil reserves in places like the Arctic and the OCS are just those:estimates not proven. Even if those estimates for the Arctic for example are correct, they would only provide about 3 years' worth of supplies at today's consumption rates.
5. Some of the reasons for the failure of initial CORN-based ethanol programs in the United States have been discussed : 7xreferences.blogspot.....
home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img...
Algae biodiesel is a canard:
i-r-squared.blogspot.c...
Cellulosic is and will forever be just five years away from being affordable.
Success of biofuels? If government support for them ended tomorrow there would not be a refinery left within a year. Go here to see a refinery death watch (even with massive government support):
earth2tech.com/2009/04.../
And that list is missing several recent bankruptcies.
"...The economic, security and environmental issues continue to spur biofuel demand...."
There is no consumer demand for biofuels. They exist solely because of government subsidies and mandates. See myth # 9 on the security issue:
home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/b...
and the latest science has shown the fuels being used today are worse for the environment than fossil fuels:
home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/pa...
See also mythS 1 & 8:
home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/b...
"...Each gallon of corn ethanol today delivers as much as 67% more energy than is used to produce it....
Where did you get that from? It takes ten gallons of equivalent fossil energy to make about three gallons of corn ethanol.
"...While the impact of biofuels on world food supplies is expected to be a short term issue..."
Actually not. Humanity has consumed more grain than it has grown in 7 of the last 9 years. See this article:
ngm.nationalgeographic...
and this USDA graph:
home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/g...
Your cost analysis is weak. See myths 7 & 8
home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/b...
It seems to lean in favor of biodiesel from algae---which is fine with me, I think it is the odds on favorite to replace petroleum for heavy diesel and aviation fuel, heating and bunker oil.
I would not be too quick to dismiss ethanol however. It also has its advantages. Safety is a main one. It is very low in toxicity. It is water soluble which makes it safe to handle, and self mitigating in case of large spills. Large spills of the Exxon Valdez type would not be such environmental disasters with ethanol. Ethanol would have simply mixed with the water and been carried away by currents. Any damage would be very localized and transient----unlike petroleum, which is still a problem and fouling beaches 30 years later.
Ethanol has a high octane rating and can also support high compression combustion which is what makes diesel engines so efficient. The typical thermal efficiency of a gasoline engine runs around 20%, with ethanol widely available, we could easily achieve thermal efficeincies up to 45%. Ethanol also burns very cleanly---it has extremely low exhaust emissions.
Watch the Indy 500 to see what ethanol as a fuel can do. 100% ethanol was chosen as the fuel for Indy race cars for safety reasons. It does not produce thick clouds of black smoke, and any fire can be doused with plain water.
We can make ethanol from wood and have been able to for over 100 years using the Scholler process. Ethanol was produced from wood waste in both the US and Germany in commercial quantities as far back as the 1890's in both Germany and the US. In the US in WW2 ethanol was produced in a large plant in Wisconsin from wood. It was used to produce butadiene, artificial rubber. The proposal letter to the War Production Board in 1942 lists at least 20 similar plants in Germany, 3 in Italy, and plants in Manchuria, Korea and Japan that were known of by military intelligence. The plant was built and operated several years until it went out of business in the 1950s due to decline in demand. Scholler process is still an important part of pulp making today.
www.renewableenergywor...
Fischer-Tropsch process can produce hydrocarbons from any source by pyrolysis. By adjusting temperature, pressure and catalyst beds, any length of carbon chains can be produced. F-T was widely used on a large scale in Germany in WW2 to produce fuels after the loss of North Africa and the bombing of Ploesti. Fuels produced by F-T process powered everything from submarines to panzer tanks, even V1 and V2 rockets, and including the Me 262 Swallow---the world's first operational jet fighter. The Germans used coal and wood to produce mainly ethanol and methanol but also cetanes----long chain hydrocarbons for diesel fuel. Synthetic fuels were produced from coal, but wood was also used. Coal was needed for steel production, and wood was the prefered feedstock, cellulose is already a hydrocarbon so it is easier to work. There was plenty of waste wood available due to bombing. South Africa is producing jet aviation fuel and diesel from coal by the F-T process and has been for about 30 years.
Algae has been growing just fine on earth for about 4 billion years. Algae is the fastest growing plant on earth. Algae is the reason that earth has an oxygen atmosphere. The reason that algae failed as a means of capturing CO2 from smokestack emissions is sulphur(which caused the plants from which the coal was formed in the first place to fossilize). Sulphur mixed with the water in the algae medium and formed sulphuric acid which killed the algae. Sulphur mixes with moisture in the air when coal is burned to form sulphuric acid, this creates acid rain. Acid rain kills everything it comes in contact with. This has been known since Charles Dickens time.
Algae can be grown successfully several ways, and for many different reasons. PetroSun has an algae farm to raise saltwater algae for oil production in Rio Hondo TX. Production capacity is expected to be 4.4 million gallons per year of biodiesel oil on 1200 acres of ponds.
------" I adapted this graph to show how biofuel growth will either destroy carbon sinks or starve people:"-------------
How much dead tree limbs and pond scum do you eat? The final product of producing ethanol from corn is DDG---high protein animal feed, the same thing the corn was raised for in the first place. The last time I checked, meat, dairy products and baked goods were all still food.
The reason that people are starving is because we are not feeding them. People are starving at the same time that oil monopolies are posting the highest profits ever recorded. People are starving at the same time that Bush and company were requesting $900 Billion to fight a war over oil reserves, and ignoring a growing world famine. When he finally DID act to combat famine, he requested $770 million. This makes starving people .085% as important as securing cheap oil assetts for American companies to sell at inflated prices.
It isn't biofuels that cause starvation, it is fossil fuels. The monopolistic persuit of profit is the cause. Biofuels by their very nature of widespread availability and diverse methods of manufacture make them antimonopolistic.