New fuel for debate

To some, it's a great answer to global warming issues and the need for energy sources other than oil. To others, it's a waste of resources that could foul the environment and lead to increasing food scarcity.

At the center of all the debate is biofuel -- liquid or gas energy derived from plant products.

The idea is getting more attention and more funding dollars than ever before as the focus of the world turns increasingly to combating global warming and finding less-polluting alternatives to fossil fuels.

Defenders roll out a litany of arguments in favor of biofuels. Often, they cite the issue of national security. Why not grow biofuel crops like corn and soybeans in the vast fertile spaces of the U.S., they say, rather than rely on oil imports from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia?

Supporters of ethanol in particular -- and they include Great Valley Ethanol, a company that still has plans on the books to bring an ethanol plant to Hanford -- say it's a cleaner-burning alternative to petroleum.

But obstacles to greater biofuel production abound.

For one, there is the practical problem. So far, only ethanol from corn has proven to be economically viable. Other potential biofuel crops are being heavily researched to find ways to extract the energy more efficiently.

Even corn ethanol has its problems. There's an ongoing argument over whether it takes more energy to make it than is produced from burning it. Recent advances show a modest net gain in energy output, according to the University of California.

But there are bigger problems confronting biofuels than just the scientific ones.

A major issue is the effect of giant biofuel crop plantings on the cost of foodstocks, both for livestock and humans.

Believers in biofuel point out that it might work on marginal lands on the Westside, where salt- and drought-tolerant crops like safflower might be grown for biofuel production. Such production has the advantage of not displacing food crops.

Others see a darker side to biofuel production. They use ethanol as an object lesson.

When petroleum prices soared in 2007, corn ethanol production rose along with it. The side effect was that the price of corn soared along with virtually every other foodstock for farm animals. Dairy farmers around Hanford weren't happy, because the price of virtually everything they rely on to feed their cows increased.

In fact, the soaring commodity prices helped kick-start dairy's slide into a severe, months-long depression it is beginning to climb out of. The ethanol issue has declined in significance because gas prices have dropped below the point at which ethanol production becomes profitable. So ethanol corn acreage has dropped, ethanol production has declined and commodity prices have also dipped to more manageable levels.

But with biofuels now the focus of enormous amounts of research and interest, the issue isn't going way.

Critics say that virtually any large-scale biofuel crop is going to displace food production and drive up food prices.

One of the biggest local skeptics is Mark Cartwright, an agricultural engineer in Hanford.

Cartwright predicted that large-scale biofuel plantings would lead to the destruction of rainforest destruction as more land is pushed into production to meet world food demand.

He called it a "net negative" for the environment.

The issue of rainforest destruction is becoming a major factor in the biofuel debate.

Accounting rules in both the climate bill now in Congress and rules used in the European Union don't count emissions from biofuels as global warming contributors. They also give credit to biofuels no matter what the source. So, farmers in Brazil could just chop down trees in rainforests and sell them as credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

UC researchers say the research needs to be revised to close the loophole.

University of California experts say all the drawbacks, including possible destruction of rainforests, need to be factored into the equation.

So far, the only real impact locally of the move toward biofuels has been a few ethanol plant proposals in Kings County and the higher commodity costs bemoaned by dairy farmers.

Kings County is unlikely to see major biofuel crops because conditions aren't optimal for growing them here, according to Cartwright. Such crops are more likely to be grown in places like Brazil and Indonesia where water and power are cheaper, he said.

Again, the ethanol example crops up. Cartwright said some local producers of oil from cottonseed and safflower saw oil prices soar as more and more acreage of corn ethanol was planted.

The same thing happened to growers of corn silage for dairy cows. Prices soared along with the ethanol boom. That was good news for farmers that sold to dairies, but not so good for the dairies that had to rely on outside feed purchases (some dairies grow most of their own cow feed).

Cartwright predicted that a biofuel boom would create winners and losers in agriculture.

He noted "a lot of debate both ways" on the subject.

Amid all the controversy, there is one kind of biofuel that has everybody in ag cheering -- biofuel from waste products. Grasses, wood chips, ag waste, compost, even urban garbage have all been seen as promising biofuel sources that have the distinct advantage of not taking away from food production.

The California Farm Bureau Federation has long pushed for more research into such byproducts.

"Society and the environment are the biggest beneficiaries," Cartwright said.

With crops planted specifically for biofuels, the problem of competition with food production comes up.

With the world's population expected to hit 9 billion by 2050, the issue of food sustainability may loom even larger than the issue of energy sustainability.

Either planted food acreage has to increase or yield will have to rise, said Joel Karlin, product manager at Western Milling Co. in Tulare County.

Karlin said he believes the biggest hope resides in greater yields per acre, which he linked to increasingly sophisticated genetically modified crops and seeds.

Seed-making giants like Monsanto are now pouring more and more resources into developing genetically modified seeds for specific traits like drought resistance.

Meanwhile, the debate over biofuels has kicked into high gear. So has the research.

At least $650 million is being spent in UC laboratories on biofuel research, a UC press release said this week.

Perhaps surprisingly, the biggest contributors are oil companies BP and Chevron.

As if to underscore the controversial nature of biofuels, UC policy experts warn that despite billions of dollars spent globally to support biofuels, they may have unintended but real adverse impacts.

"As the world emerges from the first global food crisis in three decades and controversy surrounds the greenhouse gas savings of biofuels, policymakers have begun to question the promotion of a technology that takes land away from two predominant uses -- food production and environmental preservation," wrote lead author Steven Sexton and UC Berkeley co-authors in the latest edition of "California Agriculture."

The reporter can be reached at 583-2432.

(Nov. 4, 2009)