Gary Simon, Dalian Day Three

The main theme today was biofuels and their conflict with food production. The most searing moment was the collage of pictures of starving children with the caption “Why do you need my food for your fuel?” The conflict between food and biofuel is simply assumed at this point. It doesn't need to be that way. Everyone is focused on variations of ethanol as the only biofuel worth consideration. This is of course madness. There are many other, better biofuels involving microbes that will make liquids similar to gasoline instead of ethanol, plus purely thermochemical techniques that will take any biomass and make liquid fuels. All of these have higher energy efficiencies and greater biofuel yields than ethanol production from corn, whether the grain or the stalk.


I made the comment at one session that ethanol was not chosen as a biofuel solution after careful screening. It was just an idea hatched to aid corn farmers and then it just grew and grew. Ethanol is not a particularly good fuel. It sucks moisture from the air and rusts ordinary steel containers and distribution pipelines, so needs special transport. It makes rubber seals on existing vehicles swell and fail prematurely, requiring rebuilding of engines and fuel tanks. And of course on a net energy basis it is no great winner. In contrast taking wastes to gasification and then to synthesis of liquid fuels is much better. Those products can blend with existing fuels and no infrastructure would need to be changed or protected. If the US and other countries want a rational biofuel solution, they need to start with a rational selection process. And many feedstocks for the biofuel can be chosen which avoid the conflict with food production, and many conversion processes can be chosen that have superior yields of liquid fuels per Btu of feedstock.



So in essence, the US promotion of ethanol is like seeking to improve public health by subsidizing cigarettes because it helps tobacco farmers. There is as little connection in that case between the policy and the goal as there is in the case of ethanol and reducing imports and greenhouse gases. And now with the opposition of cattle ranchers and chicken ranchers to a policy which has dramatically increased their price of feed corn, it is clear that the US ethanol subsidy is being exposed as a bad idea.



Unfortunately, the rest of the world is swayed toward ethanol because the US is doing it. And several hundred ethanol plants are in operation or being built in the US, making it difficult now to end the ethanol subsidy without huge disruptions to workers, investors, and companies. So there is a need for a broad dialog on what to do about biofuels and the many issues it raises. That dialog may conclude there is a need to phase out of the ethanol subsidies quickly.



The discussion identified ten issues that were central to the biofuel debate: GHG policy, water use, soil degradation, biodiversity, technology R&D, local and national laws, economic development, rural incomes, air quality, and of course the conflict with food production. The one area on which the group felt progress could be made quickest and with the least need for finding a new consensus among firmly entrenched interests was in accelerating biofuel R&D. Not just any R&D, but that which focuses on approaches with high yields, high energy efficiencies and which favor non-food feedstocks and wastes.



These conclusions fit extremely well with the agenda for action in the Sacramento region, which has excellent R&D resources and groups already pushing for the non-food-based biofuels.



The final session of the day considered where the tipping points are in our energy future—things that will trigger an avalanche of change and are perceivable on the horizon. On the list were (1) more effective delivery of energy efficiency (having your incandescent bulbs changed to CFLs for you, rather than giving you rebates to buy CFLs and install them yourself; putting wireless controls on all refrigerators and air conditioners in homes and offices when built, rather than back-fitting them); (2) confirmation that carbon dioxide sequestration in deep geologic formations works and is economical and safe; (3) empowering individuals to make a difference through ways to purchase credits for renewable energy and carbon reductions directly and at small scale; and (4) significant reductions in the cost of solar PV.