MK 1 Student MK Dr. Matthew O.

Wilsey-Cleveland WRTG 3030 1 December 2010 Word Count: 1790

An Environmental and Economic Discussion of the Feasibility of Biofuels for World Scale Implementation The current rate of consumption of fossil fuels around the world is not sustainable. By 2042, it is expected that the United States will have to acquire the entire world production of petroleum if per capita consumption and population growth are maintained (Petzak 22). The rate of depletion of fossil fuel reserves, national security issues based in petroleum exporting countries, and environmental concerns due to carbon dioxide release and greenhouse gases emitted from the burning of fossil fuels all contribute to the looming energy crisis around the world. Fossil fuels are not a renewable source of energy because they require millions of years of heat and pressure applied to decaying life matter in order to be created. Many renewable energy options are being considered around the world including solar power, wind power, and geothermal energy. But, for transportation fuel, none of these renewable resources are feasible because they cannot be harnessed in liquid form to be used in operating combustion engines. One renewable energy source that has received vast amounts of attention in the past few years is biofuels. While biofuels are touted as the most sustainably feasible solution to the problem of fossil fuels, they are also considered as an economic dead end and environmental disaster. This essay will examine the practicality of implementing biofuels around the world as a solution to

MK 2 the fossil fuel problem and conclude that cellulosic, or next-generation, biofuels are a sustainable solution to all the negative issues involved with fossil fuels. Although biofuels have been used as a liquid energy source since the invention of the combustion engine in the 19th century, transportation systems have used mostly fossil fuel based energy for the last one-hundred years. It was during the 1973 oil crisis around the world when biofuels began to be considered as an alternative option to petroleum based fuels. This crisis was caused by oil producing countries, many of which were members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), limiting their production of petroleum with an embargo against the United States. This led to fuel rationing around the U.S. and similar impacts around the world. In the book Biofuels For Transport, the Worldwatch Institute describes how, In the past, oil-producing nations have sometimes used their power over supply and distribution to achieve specific political or economic ends (104). Biofuels can be generated in two ways: from first-generation feedstocks which are currently available and from next-generation feedstocks. First-generation feedstocks are converted to liquid fuels based on conventional technology using only their sugar, starch or oil content. Next-generation feedstocks are put through advanced technical processes to convert the entire biomass to liquid biofuels (Worldwatch Institute 23). More research and development must occur before next-generation feedstocks are a feasible option, but once this is accomplished these cellulosic feedstocks have tremendous potential for world-wide use. Most of the biofuels currently produced around the world only represent a small portion of transportation fuel. As described by the Worldwatch Institute, In 2006, biofuels comprised about 0.9 [percent] of the worlds liquid fuel supply by volume, and about 0.6 [percent] by transport distance traveled (3). Ethanol derived from first-generation feedstocks and biodiesel

MK 3 make up the majority of these biofuels, the most of which is produced in Brazil and the United States. But, as Tim J. Burkink and Raymond Marquardt, in their article Food or Fuel? An Analysis of Systems in Conflict, describe, Opponents [to first-generation biofuels] suggest that corn-based ethanol is not a sustainable answer to our energy challenges. They argue that there is not enough corn to make more than a negligible impact and that the negative implications of diverting corn to ethanol from food a feed has serious repercussions for food markets (375). This is one of many other reasons why there is a need for next-generation biofuels. Next-generation biofuels, derived from cellulosic biomass, differ from feedstocks described earlier in that the entire biomass of the crop is utilized for fuel rather than just the sugar, starch or oil components of the plant matter. The Worldwatch Institute explains, Cellulosic biomass such as wood, tall grasses, and forestry and crop residues are expected to significantly expand the quantities and types of biomass feedstock available for biofuel production in the future as new conversion technologies are developed that enable production of biofuels from these feedstocks. Over the next 10 to 15 years, it is expected that lower-cost residue and waste sources of cellulosic biomass will provide the first influx of next-generation feedstocks, with cellulosic energy crops expected to begin supplying feedstocks for biofuel production towards the end of this time-frame, then expanding substantially in the years beyond. (45) These feedstocks have a higher potential to be implemented on world wide scale because these cellulosic biomasses can grow in much more diverse and extreme climates. This, in concert with the full use of the biomass for fuel production, results in a production system that can have a zero or negative carbon foot-print on the environment; the amount of carbon utilized for energy by all of this biomass around the world will exceed the amount emitted by the burning of the fuels created from the biomass. This shows the positive environmental impact the use of nextgeneration feedstocks can potentially create.

MK 4 There is reason to believe these feedstocks will be economically feasible as well. A cost analysis performed by the Worldwatch Institute reports next-generation feedstock costs have a high potential to be within a range competitive with first-generation feedstock costs (67). Another economic benefit is found as a reduction in transportation costs because the crops can be grown in a variety of climates, compared to corn or sugar, which must be grown in temperate or tropical areas, respectively (Worldwatch Institute 24). If a crop can be harvested and transformed into liquid fuel close to large cities, the total cost would be much less than trucking ethanol from a single region within the borders or shipping oil from the Middle East. In opposition, some critics believe biofuels are not an environmental solution to the fossil fuel dilemma. In his article Can the Earth Deliver the Biomass-for-Fuel we Demand? author Tad W. Patzek suggests that, because of the vast amounts of biomass necessary to produce these liquid fuels, world wide biofuel production is impossible. Patzek argues, This outcome will not be much different from a collapse of an overgrown colony of bacteria on a Petri dish when its sugar food runs out and waste products build up (27). Opponents to biofuels feel that the limited amount of arable land on the planet Earth, coupled with the high rate of population growth, will forever prevent biofuels from being an economically feasible solution to fossil fuel consumption. They feel even cellulosic biomass refineries are too small and inefficient to feed the demands of the world population. The ecological consequences of removing all the biomass necessary for full implementation around the world would be disastrous, opponents insist. Petzak goes as far as to claim . . . with the exponentially accelerating mining of global ecosystems for biomass, the time scale of our extinction is shrinking (37). Biofuels have also been criticized as not being able to create the economic boom that many proponents, including President Obama, have claimed them to be. The burden of costs will

MK 5 fall upon the farmer, which will discourage people from entering and staying within the agriculture sector to grow feedstock for fuel. In his essay A Review of the Economic Rewards and Risks of Ethanol Production, author David Swenson goes in depth about the regional impacts of ethanol production from first-generation feedstocks. He explains, Modern corn farming is energy intensive requiring large amounts of distillates for tractors, fertilizers derived in the main from natural gas, and propane for drying grain. So the same high oil prices boosting ethanol demand, and consequently, the demand and price received by farmers for their corn, is also boosting variable production costs of the farm (67). Because the current agriculture industry is so governed by the cost of fossil fuels, opponents to biofuels insist it will be impossible to produce ethanol as an alternative. Misleading information, including broad assumptions and application of the wrong statistics, has persuaded many towards the feasibility of biofuels, when estimates on both the national and local level are actually very diverse and often incredible (Swenson 59). The lack of thorough paths of analysis of the economic impact of biofuels around the world linked with an actual increase in costs for the feedstock farmer have led many to believe biofuels are not a feasible alternative to fossil fuels. The opinion of these dissenters is easily summarized by A. Markevicius et al in their article Trends and sustainability criteria of the production and use of liquid biofuels. They emphasize, . . .more land will be planted with crops and increased demand of biofuels will cause land-use changes. Conflicts between various ecosystem services (economic production of food, fodder and fuels, biodiversity, social and cultural values, etc.) that are provided by fertile land are increasing as well (6). Despite how valid their point might be, it omits a very important consideration. Each analysis seems to focus mostly on first-generation feedstocks without considering the vast environmental and economic potential of cellulosic biofuels. This limits the

MK 6 discussion to which fuels are currently available rather than including the future potential for solutions to the fossil fuel dilemma. Biofuels are a highly debated alternative to the current fossil fuels based transportation system around the world. Proponents assert that biofuels have the potential to reverse the threat of climate change, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, improve national security and increase the quality of life in some of the worlds poorest nations (Worldwatch Institute 311). But, opponents to biofuels reject these implications. Because of the vast amount of land necessary to grow the crops for biofuels along with an increasing demand for a higher quality of life, a global scale implementation of biofuels is impossible, according to those resisting biofuels. Biofuel adversaries also see the dependence of agriculture on fossil fuels and a vague system for economic analysis as preventing biofuels from ever being utilized around the world. In the long run, with advances in processing technologies and increased support from governments to create a functioning world scale biofuels market, there is much potential to be recognized with nextgeneration biofuels. Next-generation feedstocks for biofuels utilize the entire biomass of the harvest and the crops can be grown in a much larger area of land than first-generation feedstocks. This can mean a fuel system that absorbs more carbon than it dissipates and that operates on a more regionalized scale, making next generation feedstocks for biofuels a feasible alternative to the current fossil fuels based transportation system around the world.

MK 7 Works Cited Patzek, Tad W. "Can the Earth Deliver the Biomass-for-Fuel We Demand?" Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems. New York: Springer, 2008. 19-55. Print. Swenson, David. "A Revuew If the Economic Rewards and Risks of Ethanol Production." Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems. New York: Springer, 2008. 57-78. Print. Worldwatch Institute. Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy and Agriculture. London: Earthscan, 2007. Print. Burkink, Tim J., and Raymond Marquardt. "Food or Fuel? An Analysis of Systems in Conflict."Journal of Macromarketing 29.374 (2009): 374-83. University of Colorado. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. Markevicius, A. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 1.14 (2010): 3226-221. Univeristy of Colorado. Web. 1 Nov. 1020.

de Hann, Peter, and Peters, Anja Reducing Energy Consumption in Road Transport Through Hybrid ehicles: Investication of Rebound Effects, and Possible Effects of Tax Rebates. Journal of Cleaner Production. 15 (2007): 1076-1084. ScienceDirect. Web 26 Nov. 2011

Frank, Andrew A. "Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles For A Sustainable Future." American Scientist 95.2 (2007): 158-165. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. Han, S. B., and Chand Y.H. Fuel Economy Comparison of Conventional Drive Trains Series and Parallel Hybrid Electric Step Vans. International Journal of Automotive Technology 10.2 (2009): 235-240. Print.