Don't Throw Biofuels Out with the Bathwater

By: Richard T. Stuebi

A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled "U.S. Biofuel Boom Running on Empty", which presented a blistering across-the-board slam on biofuels. Perhaps more interesting than the WSJ article itself was an email reaction I received from a prominent energy tech venture capitalist with keen visibility into the transportation fuel space (whom I will keep anonymous), who said:

The article makes the common mistake of using the broad term 'biofuel' when they should be focusing down to 'biodiesel' and 'corn-based ethanol'....Renewable diesel and 'green' gasoline are still alive and attracting big VC dollars. Engineered microbes, bacteria and algae work to produce drop-in fuels are still going.

Notwithstanding the bad recent press -- a virtually-forecastable reaction to the excessive biofuels hype of the 2005-2007 era -- reasonable potential for biofuels still remains. To wit, a new report from the United Nations entitled "Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Biofuels" makes clear that certain biofuel feedstocks and production approaches are much more environmentally-friendly than others. And, as more of these biofuel production schemes turn away from inputs subject to the vagaries of food market dynamics, the financial volatility facing producers should substantially decline (though price fluctuations in the output fuel markets will always remain).

Biofuels have fallen prone to oversimplification. Because corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel are both environmentally marginally beneficial and economically unattractive at current prices for feedstocks and fuels, many immediately leap to the conclusion that all biofuel technologies are inherently and forever unattractive. Don't fall prey to that mistake. It's just not true.

Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.

Comments

[john s. gordon:]

if biofuels fail in the market what will we do with all our excess chickenfat?
> jack

Nov 10 09:03 AM

[jerrydd:]

This is just wrong. Both corn ethanol and biodiesel done by good companies will do very well as oil hits $5/gal late next yr. Now is the time to buy as prices are low.

Most of the bad press, info is from the very good oil propaganda machine most everyone has bought hook, line and sinker. They did it to EV's and even bought the NiMH patents and wouldn't let anyone build EV size batteries from it. Biofuels is a big threat to them already making 7-8% of the market.

Vs cellulosic ethanol which may never be viable as algae. None is now. These like H2/Fuel cells are just head fakes to stop competition from biofuels, EV's at bay while the price of oil rises as do their profits.

Good investments are Ford, Nissan which are ready to profit big time from EV's, PHEV's next yr as oil prices rise again as the economy recovers as they can ramp up production fast vs the others who can't..

Nov 10 09:59 AM

[Erich J Knight:]

A Biofuel that builds Soil Carbon;

All political persuasions agree, building soil carbon is GOOD.
To Hard bitten Farmers, wary of carbon regulations that only increase their costs, Building soil carbon is a savory bone, to do well while doing good.

Biochar provides the tool powerful enough to cover Farming's carbon foot print while lowering cost simultaneously.

Another significant aspect of bichar is removal of BC aerosols by low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease emissions. At Scale, replacing "Three Stone" stoves the health benefits would equal eradication of Malaria.
terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems biocharfund.org/
The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF).recently funded The Biochar Fund $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
(1) Hunger amongst the world's poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
(4) Climate change.

The Biochar Fund :
Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon
scitizen.com/screens/b...

www.carboncommentary.c...

The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all ( that , and the size of the Biochar corn root balls )
biocharfund.org/index....

Mark my words;
Given the potential for Laurens Rademaker's programs to grow exponentialy, only a short time lies between This man's nomination for a Noble Prize.


This authoritative PNAS article should cause the recent Royal Society Report to rethink their criticism of Biochar systems of Soil carbon sequestration;

Reducing abrupt climate change risk using
the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory
actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions
www.pnas.org/content/e...


There are dozens soil researchers on the subject now at USDA-ARS.
and many studies at The up coming ASA-CSSA-SSSA joint meeting;
a-c-s.confex.com/crops...


The Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009
The bill is designed to ensure that any US domestic cap-and-trade bill provides maximum incentives and opportunities for the US agricultural and forestry sectors to provide high-quality offsets and GHG emissions reductions for credit or financial incentives. Carbon offsets play a critical role in keeping the costs of a cap-and-trade program low for society as well as for capped sectors and entities, while providing valuable emissions reductions and income generation opportunities for the agricultural sector. The bill specifically identifies biochar production and use as eligible for offset credits, and identifies biochar as a high priority for USDA R&D, with funding authorized by the bill.
To read the full text of the bill, go to: www.biochar-internatio....


Senator Baucus is co-sponsoring a bill along with Senator Tester (D-MT) called WE CHAR. Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration Act! It focuses on promoting biochar technology to address invasive species and forest biomass. It includes grants and loans for biochar market research and development, biochar characterization and environmental analyses. It directs USDI and USDA to provide loan guarantees for biochar technologies and on-the-ground production with an emphasis on biomass from public lands. And the USGS is to do biomas availability assessments.
WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1713, The Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration (WECHAR) Act of 2009

Individual and groups can show support for WECHAR by signing online at:
biocharmatters.org
www.biocharmatters.org/


Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
assets.opencrs.com/rpt... .

United Nations Environment Programme, Climate Change Science Compendium 2009
www.unep.org/compendiu.../
www.unep.org/compendiu...


Endorsements;
Bill Clinton said Biochar;
Mantria Industries inducted in Clinton Global Intuitive
www.mantria.com/eg_pre...

Al Gore got the CO2 absorption thing wrong, ( at NABC Vilsack did same), but his focus on Soil Carbon is right on;
www.newsweek.com/id/22...

Research:
The future of biochar - Project Rainbow Bee Eater
www.sciencealert.com.a...

Japan Biochar Association ;
www.geocities.jp/yasiz...


Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Cheers,
Erich

Nov 10 11:31 AM

[SubsidyEye:]

"This is just wrong. Both corn ethanol and biodiesel done by good companies will do very well as oil hits $5/gal late next yr. Now is the time to buy as prices are low."

The only time that corn ethanol has been truly profitable was during a brief period when corn prices were low (thanks to the reduced ability to export through Gulf ports, following Hurricane Katrina, and the phase out of MTB, which forced blenders to scramble for supplies of ethanol at any price. History has shown that as gasoline prices rise, so do the prices of feedstocks. Even Al Gore is publicly regretting pushing corn ethanol as a "solution". You should, too, Jerry DD.

As for biodiesel, that which is based on vegetable oils has NEVER been profitable without the blenders credit. The global supply of vegetable oils is a drop in the bucket compared with the global supply of petroleum. As soon as oil prices rise, demand for vegetable oils for all uses drives the price up. The more it is subsidized, the higher the price goes -- harming consumers of those oils as food, which include large numbers of people who do not own vehicles in southern and south-eastern Asia.


"Most of the bad press, info is from the very good oil propaganda machine most everyone has bought hook, line and sinker."

Man, you really do believe that, don't you Jerry DD? So, we are supposed to believe that none of the proponents of biofuels are at all interested by the profit motive, but that all critics of first-generation biofuels, and of biofuel policies, are zombies whose brains have been brainwashed by Big Oil? Get up from your computer terminal, Jerry DD, and actually talk with those critics. You will find that most have arrived at their opinions through reasoned analysis and hard facts that have nothing to do with the propaganda of Big Oil.

Nov 11 02:24 AM