I know that there are sincere (if somewhat misguided) supporters of biofuels, but I have to say that the politicians,at least, are much more interested in votes than in biofuels.

Why do I say this?

Because we are concentrating on producing fuel from corn. On the surface this may sound like the idea source, but, in reality, it is probably the worst idea imaginable.

First, corn is a primary food and feed crop, so diverting it into fuel drives up all other food prices. Second, it is already a crop the government supports, meaning that the price is artificially elevated by government programs already, making an expensive source of fuel more expensive. Third, it is a relatively labor intensive crop, requiring a lot of attention form farmers, along with fertilizer. Fourth, it is a difficult crop to harvest, as only a small portion of the crop itself is valuable for biofuels.

On the other hand, there are numerous weeds which grow with relatively little attention, yet produce huge quantities of potential fuel. Some are even so intrusive they have been declared hazards to agriculture. This opens up the possibility of growing biofuels on marginal lands, unfit for other commercial farming, thus having much less impact on food prices. Granted, these lands will not be as productive as growing the same weeds on good farm land, but the cost savings by not competing for land with other uses should make it possible to cultivate more marginal land.

The weeds also have the advantages of needing less attention and being easier to harvest, as most of the plant can be used in the production of methane or ethanol. Granted, for commercial cultivation, we cannot rely entirely on the plant's hardiness, there will be some use of fertilizer and some tending, but much less than in the case of overly sensitive crops such as wheat and, to a less degree, corn. One need only look at the far from ideal situations in which people are able to grow the invasive weed hemp to see how a hardy weed can be largely neglected yet still produce*.

Nor is domestic cultivation of hardy weeds the only option. There is also the importation of ethanol from sugar growing nations. Importing ethanol from the Caribbean or Brazil is actually cheaper than producing our own ethanol from corn, and, thanks to our massive sugar price supports, the world price of sugar has negligible effect on us prices, as they are already pegged well above the world market price**.

The fact that we pursue neither of these options shows how much of our biolfuel program is politics rather than any serious energy policy. For example, to import sugar, or sugar derived ethanol, would be to run the risk of upsetting the very well connected US sugar lobby, cutting off one of the cheapest potential sources of biofuel. And the only reason is that, once we import some sugar or sugar products above the limits set by sugar quotas, it is easier for importers and others to challenge our sugar import quotas for non-fuel uses.

And the choice of corn is similarly idiotic. Ethanol from corn is clearly a give away to the farm lobby. If you doubt that, then ask yourself why, when food prices have been driven up by the biofuel program, we are giving price supports to farms, effectively paying some not to produce or to hold some part or their crop off the market? If food prices are already too high, why are our tax dollars being used to make them higher still?

While I think any government program to produce alternative fuels is foolish, and would rather leave it to the market to decide which fuels are used, I have to say that, if we must have a biofuels program, could we have one more sensible than our current one? At the very least, can we finally eliminate the idiocy of making food more expensive using tax payer dollars? I know farmers like the higher prices, who wouldn't? But no one is paying me not to write computer code to make programmers more expensive, so why should I do the same for farmers?

Better still, use a non-food crop to generate the biofuels the government deems necessary, preferably one that grows on marginal, or worse, lands, and requires little human attention***. At least that would only drive up food prices slightly, form competition for labor and equipment.

Or, even better, let us drill for oil, stop farm price supports, stop import quotas, eliminate CAFE rules, restrictions on refineries and pipelines, reduce government regulation, all government subsidies of any kind for alternative energy... OK. That's not going to happen. So, let us at least move to non-food crops and, at the very least, add some sort of sensible cut-off to farm subsidies, stopping price supports for a product when prices cross some threshold.

Sadly, even that is probably too "radical" to win support.

--------------------------------------------------------

* Admittedly, many marijuana cultivators go to great lengths to produce the "best" plants, but many large scale marijuana growing enterprises are largely "fire and forget" operations, where the plants are planted, provided with water, and visited rarely if ever before harvest. It is likely other biofuel weeds could be treated similarly.

** I am not saying this is a good thing, just that it is a fact.

*** I would recommend some sort of swamp grasses, but we run the risk of the officials declaring any farms a protected wetland once a standing puddle is found, and having to start all over again.

-----------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

For just one example of an invasive weed which can be used for biofuels, check out the arundo donax. It is invasive enough that it should require little effort to raise, yet it produces quite a bit of pulp suitable for methane production. I admit I have not checked out the impact on soil, it may strip too many nutrients to be viable, or viable without fertilizer, but I am only tossing out one possibility. I am sure there are better choices. My only thought is why are we using up food crops and good farm land for this, when we can switch to weeds on land now lying fallow?

POSTSCRIPT II

If a few of the links above seem a bit tangentially related, or even unrelated, it is because I am viewing questions such as subsidies as attempts to make the prices "right" in opposition to the market. In other words, price supports, government subsidized loans, and so on, are in my mind, efforts by those in power to "correct" the market. Admittedly, some may also use them simply to buy votes, but some really do believe they are fixing a "defective market".

POSTSCRIPT III

I know there was some talk of using grasses as biofuels, but it seems those largely dropped off the map and, thanks partly to intervention of large agribusiness and partly to the influential farmer voting blocks of the midwest (especially Iowa in a presidential election year) and elsewhere, corn has become the source of choice for biofuels. However, even when grass was being discussed, it often seemed to center on higher maintenance species, rather than hardy invasive weeds which seem the best choice.