Now we have a definition of biofuels, and it is clearly not confined to corn ethanol and soy biodiesel. I’ll define the energy challenge the world faces now as identifying new and viable sources of energy which can be integrated with conventional sources and infrastructures in ways that are ecologically, politically and economically sustainable.
Everything is on the table, even military hardened pebble bed reactors in stable seismic regions.

The resultant mosaic of solutions might be a peak-shaving geothermal plant integrated with a wind/solar array in the Southwest United States or a rural Indian village co-op using rope engines in an oilseed crushing facility, captured CO2 from clean coal plants feeding algae farms in Ohio.

On what planet have you ever heard anyone credible espouse a total conversion to corn ethanol and soy biodiesel for transport fuels? No one is advocating for this. Corn ethanol and soy biodiesel are first generation, prototype fuels, and for all their shortcomings doing a damn good job of preparing and transforming our formerly aging petroleum distribution to meet the demands ahead. The principal failures of these fuels are related to greed, lobbyists, farm subsidies and political insularity. Ethanol should have been introduced at a blend of about 17 to 25%, not E85 or E10. Every closed loop gasoline engine management system since 1996 can handle this much ethanol, and there is none of the anomalous vapor pressure problem found in E6-10. Too late for that, maybe, but soon variable compression engines like the Saab Biopower will be available stateside to run on any blend of gasoline and ethanol, delivering the highest power and efficiency when burning E85. Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition is approaching commercialization, and will revolutionize diesel engine technology.

Furthermore, Ben, you state, in what I consider a specious hit piece, “And the science is clear that biofuels currently require just as much energy to produce, mostly coming from fossil fuels, as the energy we can get out of them–it doesn’t matter if we’re talking corn ethanol or biodiesel.”

I defy you or anyone else to prove why it matters if a transport fuel has a negative energy balance, which is in fact untrue for current ethanol and biodiesel. As I’ve stated before here on BFD, “ Despite the solar energy embedded in fossil fuels through millions of years of accretion, the modern processes of extraction, refinement and delivery always, always consume more energy than is ultimately available for combustion. The tradeoff is portability for wide distribution and mobility, stability in storage, access to embedded energy and uniform quality control for optimized combustion.”

Do not assume that the level of sophistry formerly tolerated and digested by American consumers is not going the way of $30 oil.

http://www.25×25.org/

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E04-22_FutureNucPwr.pdf

Jonathan, it never was or is all about cars…sometimes I think you come to pick arguments. Maybe it’s your tone.

Power generation has done more than Detroit has in the way of embracing renewable energy.

It is true that it will require more than choosing a Prius over a Hummer to solve our energy puzzle. This will take some public policy because relatively cheap coal makes the business want to maintain the status quo.

We also need leaps in fuel efficiency from our vehicles. Neither of those ideas is sexy but hey, they make sense.