As with nearly everything these days, whether something is “good” or “bad” depends on how it’s made and implemented into the market. There is a lot of debate about whether biofuel production is good or bad, and in the U.S. the debate centers on ethanol production using corn. As usual, much of what is wrong with the debate is the way in which it is framed—currently that frame is drawn around corn production only.

 

In the U.S., the main criticisms of large-scale corn-based ethanol production are:

 

•    It is not competitive with gasoline prices without subsidies

•    It will compete with food crops for land; American ethanol production is almost entirely made from corn, and takes up about 27% of the U.S. corn crop. Critics see the percentage and the cost of corn going up with increasing biofuel demands

•    Production will only produce marginal energy savings

 

However, ethanol can also be produced from biomass waste, hays, and some wood crops, dubbed “cellulosic” crops to differentiate them from corn. Currently production from these sources is not cost-effective, but technological advances will soon make it cost-effective, perhaps brining it to market before 2010. Unlike corn, production of switchgrass or poplar for ethanol production would not drive up food prices (which with corn negatively affects food production for the world’s poor). And these other ethanol sources will not complete with food crops for land, since they thrive in marginal areas and in poor soils.

 

Ethanol produced from biomass waste has the added benefit of using waste to create fuel. Additionally, cellulosic crops:

•    Have 2-3 times the biomass yield of corn

•    Restore degraded land and prevent soil erosion because they are often perennials with deep root systems

•    Require less fertilization, perhaps not needing any

•    Require less herbicide and pesticide, being native to the prairies of North America