Replies

If biofuels can be made economically and without disrupting the food supply, then I am all for it.

Biofuels can be made economically. And can be made without adverse affect it to the food supply. The problem is there just isn't enough land, even in marginal or non agricultural areas, to grow enough biological feedstock, whatever the type, to supply more than a small fraction of the fuel necessary to maintain our level of fuel consumption, much less a growing demand. At best, biofuel replacements will be a local, niche oriented source of fuels and always will be, unless the US driver is willing to give up their large, low mileage vehicles for small fuel efficient ones. Ethanol is not the panacea that everyone is looking for, unless we have engines that can run on 100% ethanol, it's the only fuel source available and have delivery and storage systems that will not degrade in prolonged contact with it, and we have mandatory 100% conversion of all applicable waste products in the US to ethanol. Add to that the built-in 20% less energy content in ethanol than in gasoline, so you would have to have larger tanks, etc. Biodiesels are in the same class. They are not compatible with modern piezoelectric fuel injectors, and will actually destroy them, voiding the warranty. Another great choice is butanol, another biofuel that is nearly equal to gasoline in energy content and is made in much the same process as ethanol, but the same restrictions on land and feedstocks apply. It will take a new technology of some sort that will eventually replace the drive mechanisms of our current automobiles and trucks to get us out of foreign dependence on oil. Even if we drilled all our own oil and replaced the foreign oil with domestic, it would eventually run out sometime in the future and we would be right back where we are now. Yes, we can make good fuels out of coal and that is a proven method, but given the current environmentality against any use of coal, it's not likely to happen soon.