Biofuel? How corny.

Recent article in the Washington Post gathered a lot of attention environmental/fuel debate.

The gist is that WaPo says that biofuels are not the answer because even using all the current US cropland to produce the fuel won't cover our projected gas needs. And using all of our crop land for fuel is bad because people will starve.

My first thought after reading this article was, "Who's out there saying that biofuel will completely replace gas? Who is this article debating?" And, "what kind of moron really thinks that it's being seriously debated to use our farm land for fuel only."

I'm fairly plugged in to the alternative fuel debate, and I've never heard anyone serious saying that biofuel will replace gas. It's always phrased as "biofuel can help replace our reliance on gas and reduce our C02 emmissions." That point was never discussed in the article, it was sort of an all or nothing debate. "Will using all our crop land replace our reliance on gas? And is it worth starving? No. Thus, biofuel is a 'False Hope.'"

But let's look at the debate another way. Biofuel will help replace gas. It won't be a magic bullet, in fact there probably won't be any kind of exact replacement for gas, and that's a good thing. Why would any rational person want to replace one monopoly, with all the economic turmoil that comes with it, with another? Ideally, in the future transport fuel will be a basket of products. Corn based fuel, sugar based, cooking by-product fuel, gas, hydrogen, etc. Because gas is a crucial product it makes sense to have multiple sources coming from multiple areas. Rather than have the stock market tank everytime crude prices increase, imagine that when crude goes up, maybe corn/sugar/switchgrass prices go down due to a bumper crop. This smoothes the market. A basket also decreases the amount of pricing (and political) power that any one provider possesses. Furthermore, giving consumers more choices is generally considered good for the consumer and the economy. In the end, our national security (economic, political, and physical), is enhansed by searching for a basket of transport fuel options, rather than seeking another single source fuel.

These choices may also be regional. Maybe more corn based gas in the midwest, more traditional gas in the northeast, more cooking waste fuel for city based delivery fleets, hydrogen for high-tech/high income regions, etc. This isn't that far fetched. Biodiesel can run in a regular diesel truck with zero modifications. GM has a "flexifuel" truck that can run on ethanol or normal gas.

I agree with WaPo, biofuel will not completely replace gas, but it can be a part of a much better solution (a diverse basket of fuel options). Anytime someone only presents one side of a debate, and argues against a point that no one is really discussing, beware. Here's what we do know. Oil prices are going up, oil is controlled by people who don't like us, oil is finite (although Limbaugh disagrees). Sitting around waiting/hoping/only searching for an exact replacement for oil is a bad idea. Plus, another monopolistic commoditiy is actually bad for the economy, security, and stablility.