The Biofuel Future

Scientists seek ways to make green energy pay off

July 28, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Rachel Ehrenberg, Science News

Biofuels are liquid energy Version 2.0. Unlike their fossil fuel counterparts — the cadaverous remains of plants that died hundreds of millions of years ago — biofuels come from vegetation grown in the here and now. So they should offer a carbon-neutral energy source: Plants that become biofuels ideally consume more carbon dioxide during photosynthesis than they emit when processed and burned for power. Biofuels make fossil fuels seem so last century, so quaintly carboniferous.

And these new liquid fuels promise more than just carbon correctness. They offer a renewable, home-grown energy source, reducing the need for foreign oil. They present ways to heal an agricultural landscape hobbled by intensive fertilizer use. Biofuels could even help clean waterways, reduce air pollution, enhance wildlife habitats and increase biodiversity.

Yet in many respects, biofuels are in their beta version. For any of a number of promising feedstocks — the raw materials from which biofuels are made — there are logistics to be worked out, such as how to best shred the original material and ship the finished product. There is also lab work — for example, refining the processes for busting apart plant cell walls to release the useful sugars inside. And there is math. A lot of math.

The only way that biofuels will add up is if they produce more energy than it takes to make them. Yet, depending on the crops and the logistics of production, some analyses suggest that it may take more energy to make these fuels than they will provide. And if growing biofuels creates the same environmental problems that plague much of large-scale agriculture, then air and water quality might not really improve. Prized ecosystems such as rain forests, wetlands and savannas could be destroyed to grow crops. Biofuels done badly, scientists say, could go very, very wrong.

“Business as usual writ larger is not an environmentally welcome outcome,” states a biofuels policy paper authored by more than 20 scientists and published in Science last October.

Many scientists have expressed concern that political support for the biofuels industry has outpaced rigorous analyses of the fuels’ potential impacts. Others see this notion as manure. Research needed to resolve that disagreement is now underway, as scientists in industry, national labs and universities across the country are assessing every aspect of these fuels, from field to tailpipe. Researchers are growing crops, evaluating yields and comparing harvesting techniques. Computer models are providing stats on each crop’s effect on environmental factors such as soil nutrients and erosion. The plant cell wall is under attack from several angles. And chemists and microbiologists are cajoling an expanding menagerie of microorganisms into producing higher fuel yields.

Green goals

Ideally, high biofuel yields come with minimal environmental baggage and maximum efficiency at every step. The raw materials for these fuels run the gamut from corn to municipal waste to algae, and each has its own benefits and headaches. To make fuels, researchers must first process the raw material to create fermentable sugars or a crude oil-like liquid. Further refinement yields fuels such as ethanol, butanol, jet fuel or biodiesel.

To read more of this article click here. To read other articles on energy by Science News staff reporters, visit the Matter & Energy channel at www.sciencenews.org.

Tags:
energy,
alternative fuels,
science

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

In think this is the solution to Dan's question: regular fossil fuels also have to be extracted, refined, transported, etc. so carbon is released to get them ready for you to use in your car, just like carbon is released in getting biofuels into a usable form. Neither type is necessarily better here.

The difference is, when the fossil fuels are burned in your car, they're adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because the CO(2) in fossil fuels was previously buried underground, out of the air. With biofuels, the carbon dioxide released during combustion was in the air before the plants (or algae) were grown, and is just being rereleased.

So unless biofuel production took a lot more energy than fossil fuel production, the net carbon released into the atmosphere would be less with biofuels.

Gabriela of IL 12:09AM December 01, 2009

Biofuels take energy to make, meaning carbon is released to make them, and then carbon is released again when they are burned. So, if biofuels release release more carbon than fossile fuel, how does that make them carbon friendly?

Dan of IL 12:11PM September 15, 2009

Human Waste Digester Plants that every city and town has and uses to treat feces by bacterial action also produces thousands or millions of cubic feet of methane as a by-product. We could put a collection cap over the digesters to capture the methane, compress it and use it as a fuel source. Are we doing this? Or are we letting this free energy source dissapate into the atmosphere?

Robert L. Matarainen of NY 10:34PM August 02, 2009

National Science Foundation

NSF

Science of Spatial Learning

Center seeks to transform teaching practices.

Studying Carbon in Rivers

Researcher explores physical, chemical and biological interactions.

Challenge: Quantum Computers

CAREER awardee focuses on what they can and cannot do.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement