In 2007, the EU used 7.7m tons of oil equivalent (TOE), which accounted for 2.6 percent of all fuels used for road transport that year. This is half of the 2010 target of 5.75 percent usage of biofuels, which means that Europeans will need more imports and to increase production if this target isn't changed.

Europe's leader in biofuel use is Germany, burning more than 4 million TOEs, followed by France (1.4 million), Austria (0.4 million) and Spain (0.35 million). EurObserv'ER published a report on EU biofuel use under sponsorship of the European Commission as well as the European Agency for Environment and Energy Control. Get it here.

[Source: Eurobserver]

Up to three percent of the energy needs of Latin America and the Caribbean could be covered by biofuels in 2018. This is the main finding of a report published by the Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia (Olade, Latin America Energy Organisation) that was presented during the 3rd Biofuel Latinamerican and Caribbean Summit held in the Dominican Republic. Latin America's main biofuel producer is Brazil (no surprise there), a country that produced 3.25 billion m³ of biofuels last year. Using the most recent figures available (from 2006), the study found that Colombia came in a distant second with 165,000 m³ and then Costa Rica, which produced just 25,000 m³. Paraguay, with 34,000 m³, came in fourth.

[Source: Agroinformacion]

I covered the AFVI Expo last week and that trip was my first visit to Las Vegas. I've heard the stories, the advertising campaign that tries to sell Sin City as, well, Sin City that takes your credit card. What interested me the most, though, was how my environmentalist mind would react to being in a city that, quite honestly, celebrates excess and waste. I didn't expect to feel comfortable in an oasis of VIP come-ons and bright lights surrounded by a harsh desert. I arrived in town around noon and, during my lunch at a quite reasonable buffet (Indian food, not one of those with endless tables featuring every food ever), I happened to read Wendel Berry's essay Faustian Economics from the latest issue of Harper's. Whoops.

Berry, who wrote an astounding collection of essays called The Long-Legged House back in 1969, takes on biofuels in the Harper's essay. Well, he starts with biofuels and smoothly segues into a discussion of limits, reductions and how it will ever be possible to really come to terms with the way we're consuming the world's resources. More thoughts on this after the break.

Photo by Yandle. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.

As expected, Congress made sure the Farm Bill (actually called the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008) became law yesterday despite some sort of clerical error that resulted in a number of pages being dropped from the final version. Democrats were embarrassed. The Senate voted 82 to 13 to override President Bush's veto. The Farm Bill contains a lot of biofuel-friendly sections, as we detailed the other day. To mention a few of the provisions: Cellulosic ethanol producers have their eye on $348m in new tax credits for the second-generation biofuel. The bill also includes grants worth $320m to build biorefineries to make advanced biofuels and $70m for farmers to grow switchgrass for energy.

So, who's happy about the new law? A good number of people, including Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, who said the energy "programs are good for all Americans -- they are a win-win-win for our energy security, environment, and economy." Farm Press talked to a handful of economists and found the bill to be a "mixed bag."

[Source: WaPo, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Farm Press, AP]

Certainly not an unbiased observer, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued an economic analysis that reveals that crops grown for biofuels (in the U.S., that means mostly soybeans for biodiesel and corn for ethanol) are not responsible for the recent increase in food prices. In fact, the USDA found that just about anything but biofuels are to blame: high energy prices, increasing global demand, drought and other factors are all called "primary drivers" of the increased food costs. The National Biodiesel Board liked what it heard, and has put out a statement saying that the USDA analysis "affirms wisdom of U.S. biofuels policy" (read it after the jump). The USDA's food and fuel website is here. Last month, the Grocery Manufacturers Association issued a statement that claimed just the opposite of what the USDA is saying, and we all know that this debate has gone on for a long while. There is little reason to believe the USDA will have the last word. Who's up next?

Photo by qthrul. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.

Since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 went into effect, there has been a nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) in the U.S. The amount of biofuels required by the bill were increased by the Energy Independence and Security Act in December of last year. As we all know, the economic realities of corn ethanol have been quite the topic of discussion since then, and the state of Texas is looking to take advantage of a provision of the the 2005 Energy Policy Act that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the RFS "if implementation of the RFS would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country, or if EPA determines that there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel." An economic hit is exactly what Texas governor Rick Perry is worried about, and wrote a letter to the EPA on April 25 asking the Agency to halve the nationwide renewable fuels standard mandate (2008, the RFS is nine billion gallons). The EPA is accepting comments for 30 days here and will decide within 90 days of the April 25 receipt. Read the EPA's call for comments after the break.

Photo by merfam. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.

Sure, you might be able to describe the difference between cellulosic ethanol made by Coskata and that made by Mascoma. Or, perhaps your biofuel knowledge is just right to explain how cellulosic ethanol and corn ethanol are different, and what each might mean to the environment. But trust me, the general public has a long way to go to understand what all these new fuel types are. Remember the posts about filling up with the wrong fuel?

Anyway, I'd just like to point out this letter to the editor that appeared in today's Washington Post. In a May 3 editorial called "The Greening of Montgomery," the WaPo mangled the difference between biodiesel and ethanol, suggesting that while switching Montgomery County's fleet of diesel cars to biofuels would be a good move, because of the problems with ethanol, care should be taken. A reader, Lynne Tucker of Bethesda, wrote in to clarify just which biofuel can go into what type of engine. What we can learn from this is that, as we educate ourselves the latest and greatest green car news, there's a lot we need to do to educate others.

[Source: WaPo]

The single most expensive environmental initiative put forward by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative) was a biofuels initiative that is now seeing significant new opposition. The CDN$2.2 billion (about a $1 trillion at current exchange rates) was intended to provide incentives for biofuel development north of the border. However, recent spikes in food prices and criticism of using food crops to make transportation fuel has caused some who previously supported the plan to switch sides.

Opposition International Development critic (Liberal) Keith Martin went as far as calling for a moratorium on biofuel subsidies until the problems are better understood. NDP members of parliament also opposed the plan while the Bloc Quebecouis officially supports it. However, Bloc environment critic Bernard Bigras is opposed to the use of corn ethanol. Conservative Environment Minister John Baird is arguing in favor of the legislation and says that $500 million of the total is set aside for research into next-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. The legislation looks likely to pass regardless of the new opposition, although an amendment to the bill calls for a review of the environmental and economic impact of the 5 percent ethanol target one year after the law passes.

[Source: Globe and Mail]

Some countries believe that their development expectations can be improved if they switch from oil-based fuels to biofuels. Such is the case of Colombia, a country that has just received the support of the United States to produce biofuel to satisfy some of the country's energy needs. Gregory Manuel, from the U. S. State Department, stated that part of the $1 billion program the U.S. is investing in biofuels includes estabilishing partnerships with nations such as Brazil and Colombia. Speaking to the recent flare-up of criticism against biofuels, Manuel said that the reason for high food prices is not biofuels but bad logistics. According to his figures, only four percent of the world's grain production goes to biofuels.

Colombia's target is to produce sugarcane for ethanol in about 1 million ha, and palm trees for biodiesel in 2 million ha. The Colombian government also said that it will be extremely careful to avoid certain communities to become dependent on only one crop, and keeping the Paramilitary forces and the Narcos out of the biofuel industry.

[Source: EFE via Econoticias]

Over at the La Pena Cultural Center in Berkeley, California on Wednesday night, the people behind Berkeley's Biofuel Oasis are hosting a biodiesel film night in order to raise funds and biofuel awareness. The funds are intended for BBO's new solar powered fueling station and the awareness, well, that's just there for its own sake. One of the films, Fat of The Land, documents a 1994 trip by four women around the U.S. in a biodiesel-powered "Fat Mobile," making their fuel in fast-food restaurant parking lots. The filmmaker will be attending the festival, so if you have questions on how biodiesel was received by the general public in the mid-1990s, this could be a chance to ask. Other video entertainment on the schedule includes excerpts from Revolution Green and Freedom Fuels. There will also be an "Ask a Mechanic" booth and free homemade organic popcorn. If you've got a biodiesel co-op or other green group in your neighborhood, using the template from this event might be a good idea. Whether you want to include puppetry is up to you.

[Source: BBO]

The Grocery Manufacturers Association. Not a group we hear from a lot on a site dedicated to cleaner vehicle technology. Today, though, in preparation for Earth Day, we saw a message from the GMA titled "This Earth Day, an Unlikely Foe: Biofuels" and wanted to see what they had to say. As the headline suggests, the GMA is taking a stance against biofuels made from food sources and all of the problems that can occur thanks to "the rush to find a 'homegrown' solution to global warming." The GMA invited three people - Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group, and Jonathan Lewis of the Clean Air Task Force - to Washington, D.C. this week to speak out against using food sources to make biofuels. The short list of what's wrong with growing crops to make fuel are:

• increased environmental damage in the form of pollution from coal-fired ethanol refineries
• runoff from fertilizer
• rapid deforestation in the developing world
• an inflationary effect on food prices
• potential to prove a major setback to organic farming

We've heard a lot of criticisms of corn-based ethanol in the past, but that the drive to grow more corn for ethanol could hurt the organic farming movement in the U.S. is a new one. Makes sense to me, though. More details in the press release after the jump.

The U.K. has been planning on requiring 2.5 percent of all road fuels sold to come from biofuels, rising to 5 percent by 2010, as part of a plan known as the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). The time has finally come for that plan to commence, as April 15 marked its official start.

Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick says,"Making it easier for motorists to use greener fuel is an important step towards reducing carbon emissions from transport. It should help save millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in the coming years." Requiring biofuels is not enough, thought, as the methods used to create the fuels and the sustainability of the process is equally as important. The DfT is on it and, starting in September of this year, the Renewable Fuels Agency will publish reports from fuel suppliers regarding the sustainability and environmental impact of the fuels that they deliver.

There are three ways for suppliers to meet the standards as required by the RTFO:

• By supplying the relevant amount of biofuel themselves
• By purchasing certificates from another transport
• By paying a 'buy out' price in respect of some or all of their obligation

Perhaps we could do without the 'buy out' capability, but we'll be monitoring the situation to see how effective the RTFO is in the coming months. Read the press release after the break.

There are plenty of flex-fuel capable cars on the roads, but there is not nearly enough ethanol available to power all of them on the gasoline alternative. It's no secret that corn-based ethanol is not the answer to our oil woes, but if that's the case, what alternatives should we be looking closest at? Regular readers are surely aware that cellulosic ethanol is the way to go when it comes to alcohol-based fuels, but even with that process, a crop of some sort is required. Additionally, biodiesel offers plenty of advantages over petroleum-based diesel fuel, but an oil-rich crop is required for its creation as well. A new study from the University of Washington was commissioned to find the most desirable crops for biofuels which suggests that algae and fast-growing trees be considered as the cream-of-the-crop, so to speak.

"While some biofuels may be an improvement over traditional fuels, we believe we should focus much more on the biofuels of the future that can be developed in small spaces, rather than extensively on crop lands," according to lead author Martha Groom. "We also must shun biofuels that are grown by clearing biologically-rich habitats, such as tropical rainforests, as has occurred with oil palm and some other biofuels," she adds. The study also recommends that a special look be taken at crops which sequester carbon as they grow.

We may add that another benefit to both algae and fast-growing trees is that nobody is growing them already for food.

[Source: Science Daily]

As our brothers at Autoblog like to say, it's "officially official." GM has confirmed their plans to offer all Hummers with biofuel-capable engine options. According to Automotive News, a Hummer official has said that the 2009 H2 and H2 SUT will be equipped with flex-fuel engines capable on running on gasoline or ethanol, making them the first such Hummers available. The 2010 Hummer H3 will be offered with a flex-fuel version of GM's direct injection 3.6L V-6 and we've heard plenty of rumblings regarding diesel Hummers too. Currently, the Hummer H3 is offered with a five-cylinder gasoline engine and a 5.3 liter small-block V8, both of which struggle to get fuel mileage in the mid-to-high teens. The H2 is available only with a larger 6.2 liter V8, which, as you can probably surmise, offers dismal fuel economy, and it would use even more fuel if it were running on ethanol. Emissions would probably be improved, but we're still talking about lots of fuel being burned here. We'll be on the lookout for more information on the biofuel capabilities of the Hummer brand, but we remain firmly in the bandaid-on-a-broken-arm camp on this particular announcement.

[Source: Automotive News (sub. req'd)]

Diesel engines have been widely accepted in Europe for decades, mainly because the oil-burners are much more efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts. Here in the U.S., however, the loud and smelly performance of diesels in the '70s and '80s has left a bad taste that obviously hasn't gone away. Oklahoma City NBC affiliate KFOR quotes a study by a "well respected" market research firm that says car buyers here in the states still aren't ready for diesel engines.

When given the choice of hybrids, diesels, hydrogen fuel cells, and biofuels, only six percent of those surveyed thought diesel was a viable fuel source for the future. Furthermore, the same people in the study were under the impression that gasoline-powered cars achieved better fuel economy than diesels. Almost half also thought that diesels were still loud and odorous.

The good news is that the American public has yet to see the diesel marketing campaigns from VW, Honda, Mercedes, and others. If that bearded guy can sell 50 million tubs of Oxy Clean, we're pretty sure our nation's auto consumers will give diesel another chance, especially if it comes with the promise of 50 mpg.

[Source: KFOR]