The grass isn't always greener with biofuels.
Corn-based biofuels are all the rage and often lauded as an "environmentally friendly" alternative to fossil fuels. But are they?
With President Obama arguing for a “greener” America, the push to develop alternatives to fossil fuels is growing ever more intense. An in-depth article by Rachel Ehrenberg and published in Science News discusses the current methods of biofuel production – which, in the US, largely relies on ethanol made from corn – and describes several perhaps lesser known alternatives to corn.
Alternative sources of biofuels are not widely appreciated by the public and Ehrenberg's article explains them in sufficient and clear detail. She does a nice job of describing where the key, critical breakthroughs are needed in biofuel production to make it cost-effective and “green.”
But, the article does not give the reader quite enough information to know why finding a different fuel source could be critical. Although not explicitly stated, if not done correctly, biofuels have the potential to make global climate change and other environmental problems worse rather than better.
The trouble lies, largely, with producing ethanol from corn. In the US, there are substantial federal subsidies in place to accelerate the production of corn for fuel. But, there are considerable downsides to generating ethanol from corn.
One, as Ehrenberg correctly states, is that corn production requires heavy fertilizer use which can contaminate streams and groundwater. Another, which is not mentioned, is that corn production also uses a lot of pesticides. One in particular, atrazine can have unintended health effects in amphibians and other wildlife and its runoff from agricultural fields pollute drinking water supplies.
Ethanol production also uses a tremendous amount of water, which strains natural resources and diverts a food crop to fuel production. The consequences could be higher food prices and food shortages.
Ethanol production also generates carbon dioxide, one of the key contributing factors to global warming. By some estimates, ethanol produces more carbon dioxide than the burning of fossil fuels. This is because with current technology, ethanol production is inefficient
Although increasing the efficiency of ethanol from corn is touched on, the bulk of Ehrenberg's article focuses on the selection of alternative biofuel materials and the emerging technology needed to make them work. This information is both informative and important. Feedstock and cellulose rich nonfood plants, such as switchgrass, may generate less pollution than corn based ethanol. They also do not reduce the current supply of food.
Although the public is now largely aware that increased production of greenhouse gasses contributes to global warming, and coming to terms with the notion that we need to emit less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, quality information on the science behind the new technologies needed to achieve this is scarce. The Science News article, despite its minor shortcomings, addresses this information gap very well.
