Bad Biofuels Vibes, but no Break for Solar

Last week the National Academies released a report about the federal Renewable Fuels Standard - and the scientist-authors basically panned it from top to bottom. As a policy tool, the NAS said, the RFS is unlikely to work. They point out that production of cellulosic ethanol - the type of renewable fuel the policy is supposed to spur production and use of - still struggles to get off the ground. As Jeff Johnson reported in this week's issue, the government estimates this year's haul of cellulosic ethanol will be a mere 6.6 million gal, far below the RFS target for 2011 of 250 million gal. The standard mandates a huge upswing in production of cellulosic ethanol - 16 billion gal by 2022 - at which point it would pass the amount of ethanol the country is supposed to get from corn. NAS points out what most folks would likely observe - that this goal would be very difficult to meet. But NAS goes farther by questioning the green credentials of cellulosic ethanol. As a second-generation or advanced biofuel, cellulosic ethanol was supposed to be much better for the environment than corn ethanol, and certainly a vast improvement over fossil fuels. But, Johnson reports, the authors forecast major downsides from growing crops for biofuels including "the one-time release of greenhouse gases from disturbed biomass and soil may exceed future reductions of greenhouse gases expected as a result of the shift from gasoline to biofuels." Meanwhile the solar saga continues. The Washington Post is still digging into government e-mails related to the Obama administration's dealings with Solyndra - the defunct solar firm that benefited from a $535 million loan guarantee. It looks like there will be plenty of material to keep this topic open for a while - as I predicted - and the issue will continue to cast a shadow over government actions in the green manufacturing sector. That said, the U.S. will soon become a leading destination for solar installations, as I report in this week's issue. This is a positive development in terms of the country's ability to generate renewable power. But it comes at a price - the low, low cost of crystalline silicon solar cells, mainly imported from China, is likely to blast a hole through a portion of the U.S. solar manufacturing base. If I were to put on my policy hat (first I'd have to dust it off and remove some cobwebs), I'd be pondering a few questions this week. Is it more important for the U.S. to be able to ramp up its capacity to generate renewable solar power by installing cheap solar modules or should the U.S. try to spend more money to spur more solar cells, panels, and modules to be made in this country? Right now, those two goals are not aligned. And what should the future of cellulosic ethanol be? If there are questions about the environmental benefit of a production system that can generate 16 billion gal of the stuff, how should we begin to answer those questions? Biofuel backers say we should move forward and get facilities and feedstocks going and work to improve the climatic impacts as part of the learning curve. Critics say we should acknowledge the trade-offs up front, which may minimize the role of cellulosic ethanol.

Author: Melody Bomgardner

Share This Post On

1 Comment

  1. It’s time for the US to take a strong look at algae as a biomass for Bio-fuels. Grown in basically 3D, rather than a flat pane like row crops, yielding a higher return per hector. Cellulosic production is a pipe dream.