This only covers traditional methods, which are very water and soil intensive and also contribute to reduction in biodiversity.

There's a brief mention of algal biodiesel, which is strange, because it's likely to become the primary method of both fuel production and carbon recycling from fossil power plants. Algal biodiesel production is a closed loop process which allows water to be filtered and reused.

First generation biofuels are often worse for the environment than petroleum, but are a necessary interim step.

Companies such as Solix and LS9 and others are working on the second generation processes, and studies which only take into account traditional farming of soil-based crops are less than meaningless. Except, of course, to tell us that we need to move very quickly to the next phase of the energy transition.

They are kidding. US Biodiesel production increased 10 fold between 2004 (25 million gallons) and 2006 (250 million gallons)

and 25 million gallons = 945 million liters. The above table puts US potential at 3.2 billion liters which is just another 3 fold growth.

Thats incorrect. US potential could be even higher.

Ethanol, Biodiesel, Bio-Methane have much higher potential. Its time to take our auto's to these fuels.

@Max
25 million gallons x 3.78 litres/gallon = less than 100 million. Perhaps you're talking Barrels?

Algal biodiesel will be the way, but it will be hybrid approach producing starches for ethanol/butanol, and proteins for animal feed.

It kind of begs the question, when are we going to use algae for lots more things? If it really is the most efficient way to produce food products, when do we get to algal people chow? Beef takes a lot of corn to fatten. If we can produce so much more algal mass per acre than corn, when do we see wholesale replacement with algal feed? I guess one problem with algae is control of the specific strain, with some strains having bad characteristics for food.

Soylent green is algae?

The calculated potential seems to barely meet 5% of the fuel required. Where will the other 95% come from, specially after fossil liquid fuel has run out?

Can second generation (and subsequent generations) agrofuels fill the gap and leave enough agro-land to feed 10+ billion people at an affordable price?

Accellerated electrification of most, if not all, our ground transportation vehicles may be inevitable. For that to become a reality, we have to invest much more in EESUs (batteries and super-caps) development and production. A few million $$ will not to it in time. A 100+ billion $$ program in required.The Irak war could have paid for it many times over and many could be driving affordable PHEVs and BEVs today.

Problem with algae: you need a lot of water and holding facilities and or natural ponds. They cannot live on dry land. This means building a huge infrastructure and takes away the little advantage that biofuels have over electricity generation: the ideal scenario is that to grow biofuels on dry or marginal land which doesn't need much infrastructure. For both you will still need the processing infrastructure.

Biofuels are acting unfortunately as a "green" Trojan Horse...people thought they were "green" and let them into the gates but then they wreak havoc with people's common sense.

HB: LOL imagine slapping the label "Soylent green" on a product and putting it in stores. (or would nobody remember the movie)

Michael: Since algae grows in salt water you could always try oceanic farms.

For assessments of the future biofuels potential - that is biofuels made from crops grown on the the vast swathes of currently unused land -, check the International Energy Agency's Bioenergy Task 40.

Global bioenergy potential is 1300 Exajoules by 2050 under a max scenario.

Current global fossil fuel consumption is 380Ej (that is all energy from coal, gas and oil).

These studies take into account the needs for food, fiber and fodder of growing populations and livestock, and take a 'no deforestation' scenario.

In short, there's pretty huge potential in the future.

Biodiesel from current oilseed production is lame.

A quickscan of global bio-energy potentials to 2050.

1. A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050

Edward M.W. Smeets, André P.C. Faaij, Iris M. Lewandowski and Wim C. Turkenburg (2006) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Volume 33, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages 56-106

2. Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050. An assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials.
Edward M.W. Smeets and André P.C. Faaij (2006) Bioenergy Potentials from Forestry in 2050. An assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Climatic Change.

@Max Reidl,

no, they are not kidding. They just make a dumb assessment: suppose you were to turn all current vegetable oil production into biodiesel, how much could you make. This is not very interesting.

The interesting studies deal with the question: how much potential is there for biofuels, when you grow energy crops on unused land.

And the result is: the potential is huge (see the studies mentioned above).

Salt water-based algae resistant to invasive species grown under controlled conditions near shore can produce lipids for biodiesel and eventually H2 for a hydrogen economy that will evolve. None of the doomers talking about biofuels without acknowledging aquatic species algal solutions - can be serious. It's a little like denying that the greatest contributor of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

You are still talking about a lot of work and fuel input for harvesting, transporting and processing either algae or other biofuels...something that the Smeets analysis leaves out. Also you need to take a step back and ask: why do all of this to get a liquid fuel that you will most likely combust? Combustion engines are maximally 30% efficient and then you have local pollution to deal with, PM, NOx.

Also managing huge algal blooms in the ocean sounds like an environmental nightmare.

You will use a lot less land with solar or wind which by 2050 could serve a vast majority of power needs.

Biofuels will remain a niche for marine and aviation fuels.

You guys don't seem to be happy with a niche role and want to burn stuff in vehicles for the sake of continuing the status quo. Maybe SOFC would up the efficiency to 50-60% which would be more acceptable in the context of a plug-in hybrid.

I actually think that biomass (not biofuels) have a future as a carbon negative alternative in combination with CCS and electrical power generation. That is a unique feature of biomass that could give it extra value in carbon markets.

I personally have some problems with the assumptions underlying a study that pegs the Dutch “absolute potential” at 2.5B liters at a cost of $ 0.75/L and assessing Spain’s potential as 1.07B Liters at $ 1.71/L. If I read the press release correctly - take what’s being done, apply more inputs for yield increase, pay lip service to 2nd generation alternatives, which clearly seem the way to go nod at the cautions against Business as Usual, and publish.

Michael,

While electric will handle commuters in a sunny/windy climate, the interstate extends beyond the burbs, and not all the world’s population lives and uses energy in areas where those conditions are the norm. It’s not so much unhappiness with a niche as a recognition that utility has utility.

Don’t the production/handling issues apply equally to BioEletric as BioFuels?

I do think oceanic alga has real problems.

Wasn't there one proposal to cut a canal from the gulf of Baja to the Sonora desert in California/Arizona to bring in salt water for algaculture? I'm not sure where all the carbon inputs come from in a plan like that. I'm not sure what all that salt water leaking into the desert does to the broader ecosystem. It does explain how you can get a lot of salt water and a lot of sunshine to mix together for bioreactors.

I would think there would be lots of briny marsh land along the gulf of Mexico where marine algaculture could take place.

I guess the ideal profile for algae cultivation (freshwater kind) is to put the cheap plastic tube bioreactors over sunny non-productive lands adjacent to ample carbon sources such as farm runoff, smokestacks, and sewage...that happen to be near enough to where the fuel is needed (which sounds like much of Texas).

The "grow-in-the-bag" algae farming methods actually use less water than conventional land crops (no evaporative losses, once you have your closed-loop water that's it).

Of course what fun would GCC be if we spent time discussing real world solutions like algae farming? There has been no significant R&D in this area since the end of the DOE Aquatic Species program more than a decade ago. Time to rethink? Re-invest? Does algal energy threaten the Li-H2 transport industry? RFPs anyone?

Looks like Africa got a raw deal again in this report!

No mention of Jatropha potential or Elephant grass that can grow along side food crops such as maize in extremely arid locations.