SubsidyEye

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

There is one flaw (well, actually, more than one flaw) in your argument, Tdot: had gasoline not been available, it is unlikely that spark-ignition engines would have developed in a big way, period. That is because the scale of grain production that would have been required to feed growth in demand for transport fuels would not have been able to keep up. Even today, if the United States converted all of its corn crop to ethanol, it would satisfy only 12-15% of gasoline demand.

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?

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

User 40970. Got any figures on how much Verenium/BP, Mascoma, BFRE Iogen/Shell, Poet, etc.? are now producing ethanol from waste -- crop waste or otherwise? The sum total is not even equal to one moderate-sized corn-ethanol plant.

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.

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

WTF? There is so much propoganda and misinformation in this article, I don't know where to begin. "Brazil runs 100% on biofuels, Europe 52% of all new vehicles are biofuel"? Where did you get those figures from? Most new passenger vehicle registered in Brazil are flex-fuel vehicles, but the share of gasoline in the country's total consumption of light transport fuels is still around 50%. And if you are saying that any diesel engine can use at least low-level blends of biodiesel, that is true. But the share of biodiesel actually used in vehicles in Europe is no more than 2%.

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.