XXX
September 13, 2010
Writing Assessment 2010
Biofuels Policy Brief
Word Count: 750
Attention:
Steven Chu, Secretary
U.S. Department of Energy
As we enter the second decade of the millennium, it is necessary to reexamine the role of biofuels within the context of America’s domestic energy portfolio. Biofuels are frequently heralded as a lower-emission alternative fuel source when compared to oil. Additionally, critics have praised biofuels – particularly corn-based ethanol – for their ability to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign energy and invigorate the domestic economy. Echoing these sentiments, Congress has invested heavily in biofuel development. Unfortunately, data released within the past several years have made ethanol’s purported benefits increasingly suspect. The following document attempts to more accurately evaluate the impacts of biofuel production, and provides recommendations for how best to advance with domestic biofuel development.
Biofuels have consistently been touted as a low-emission fuel source. Unfortunately, most models fail to account for several critical components of biofuel production. These components include emissions released during land-use changes and the transportation of feedstocks. When all emissions sources are accounted for, explains the World Resources Institute, “…most of today’s biofuels actually lead to an increase in GHG emissions compared to gasoline or diesel fuel.”[1] The negative impacts of biofuels often extend far beyond the realm of greenhouse gases. For instance, irresponsible crop management can also result in “nutrient runoff…displacing species…[and] damage to local ecosystems” (WRI).
The prospect of reduced dependence on foreign oil also makes domestic biofuel production an attractive alternative to gasoline and other fuels. But once again, calculations for biofuel production efficiency often neglect critical energy inputs. According to a recent study presented in Natural Resources Research, “about 29% more energy is required to produce a gallon of [corn-based] ethanol than the energy that actually is in the gallon of ethanol produced.”[2] Thus, the production of domestic ethanol is in fact increasing America’s dependence on foreign energy sources.
The economic practicality of biofuel is a more convoluted issue that depends largely on the level at which production is examined. On a local scale, biofuel production often offers significant benefits in the form of increased employment, dividend payments to local investors, and greater demand for local corn and other plants as feedstock.[3] However, corn-based ethanol is highly subsidized in order to compete with gasoline fuel prices, with producers receiving more than $1.4 billion per year in government funding (Pimentel). When considered alongside the fact that corn-based ethanol is not energy efficient, ethanol production appears highly uneconomical from a national standpoint.
Recognizing the potentially adverse environmental and economic consequences of current U.S. ethanol policies, it is recommended that the U.S. Department of Energy adopt a new, three-pronged approach for future biofuel development:
1)Redirect generic biofuel subsidies toward more aggressive investment in the development of cellulosic ethanol. Future investments in the biofuel industry must be directed toward only the most efficient, eco-friendly, economically viable biofuels, particularly cellulosic ethanol. As a fuel source, cellulosic ethanol offers numerous advantages over corn-based ethanol. Cellulose-based biofuels can be generated from a myriad of low-cost plant products, thereby reducing prices for livestock feed and international food supply.[4] Cellulosic ethanol’s plant sources also require less energy to produce and can be grown on marginal lands, offering a lower-emission, lower-environmental impact alternative to corn-based ethanol. Perhaps most importantly, early experiments suggest that energy yields for cellulosic ethanol may be up to three times as high as corn-based ethanol products.[5]
2)Improve biofuel infrastructure and automobile compatibility. Biofuels cannot begin to significantly replace gasoline as a fuel source if they are not widely available to consumers, nor can they if consumer vehicles are incapable of using them. In anticipation of increased biofuel production, the DOE should encourage fuel distributors – through subsidies, tax breaks, or other means – to begin increasing ethanol and biodiesel-compatible fuel terminals and storage facilities. Additionally, the DOE must promote the development and production of more fuel-efficient, biofuel-compatible vehicles.
3)Incorporation of biofuel development into a broader high-efficiency, low-carbon fuel strategy. Although it is possible that domestic biofuels will eventually significantly contribute to U.S. energy supply, the reality remains that ethanol currently provides less than one percent of fuel for the transportation sector (Pimentel). Recognizing that increasing biofuel production is a slow process, greater emphasis must be placed on more immediate emission reduction strategies such as improved automobile efficiency and public transportation.
Additional actions and research are no doubt necessary to ensure an effective biofuel program. Nonetheless, it is firmly believed that an adherence to the aforementioned policies will minimize environmental costs, improve national fuel security, reduce global food prices, and reinvigorate the domestic economy.
And God Bless America.
[1]World Resources Institute Climate and Energy Policy Series: “Plants at the Pump: Reviewing Biofuels’ Impacts and Policy Recommendations”. July 2008. 8 pp.
[2]Pimentel, David. Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics, and Environmental Impacts are Negative. June 2003. Natural Resources Research. 12(2): 127-134.
[3]Issue Brief: economic impacts of ethanol production. A publication by Ethanol Across America. June 2006. 12 pp.
[4]World Development Report 2008. Biofuels: The promise and the risks. 2 pp.
[5]NRDC.Bringing Biofuels to the Pump. July 2005.