I would support biofuels if we had already radically reduced our dependence on cars. As it stands, it's just burning topsoil.

I agree that the combustion engine for personal transportation is antiquated technology, but I also think that the way in which we've developed it – and our lifestyles around it – is a major aspect of it's declining usability. Certainly, the demand side of energy must be addressed before we can "replace' our current fuels and lifestyles with alternatives. I recognize the strain bio-fuel crops could put on world food sources, although I believe political boundaries pose more of a barrier to feeding the world than the supply of food crops. But if money is going to drive us to clear forests and farms for crops to fuel cars, then bio-fuel is no better than petroleum in terms of sustainable energy. And on that note, I think petroleum IS a sustainable fuel source; yet our consumptive habits negate that aspect. Our energy usage does not facilitate sustainable living. It's not the fuel that is bad, so much, as our naive use of it.

I do support biofuels production, but it's not a way to reduce carbon emissions. That’s not what it was meant to do. It was emant to reduce our dependence on oil (especially foreign oil). I don’t want my children (or yours) fighting over the last of the oil supplies in the middle east.

In general, we need to diversify our energy needs. I should be able to order a car that runs on biofuels, hydrogen, a hydrid or strictly electrical, depending on my needs. A purely electric car or hybrid might be practical for a short distant commuter, but not for someone that has to drive all day long like a salesperson or contractor. Relying on one type of energy will only put us in the same position we are in with oil.

On another note, the only way we can really solve environmental problems is by reducing consumption. All this other stuff about carbon footprints, water footprints, recycling, sustainable build, etc.. is all nice and earth friendly, but if you really want to make a different, COMSUME LESS and keep consuming less. That’s all there is to it.

Biofuels are getting a lot of negative press lastly because they use food crops to produce and they use a lot of energy to produce. Well, on the second point, they probably done use any more (an probably less) energy that it takes to refine petroleum. Oil doesn’t magically come from over seas, they come by tankers running on diesel fuel. The tanks that bring the gas to the service station run on diesel too. Where do you think the refineries get their MASSIVE amounts of electricity? Mostly coal burning power plants. Biofuel production may not be carbon free but neither is oil.

I think the soul focus in the US right now should be on Solar.

These red-herrings are really throwing the eye off of the prize. Advancements in solar will change the way we live. Our highways could be paved in panels, all of our roofs could have solar shingles. We can have solar paint EVERYTHING.

We also need green battery technology.

We do need a stop-gap but biofuels seem to be causing more problems and distractions than they are worth.

I only support environmentally neutral biofuels. Algae oil and carbon offsets would be an example.

I definitely agree with the above comments on reducing consumption and inefficiency. I would like to add that it should be remembered that there are a wide variety of "biofuels" from different feedstocks, methods of production, cropping practices, etc. If you base your analysis on starch based ethanol production using corn grown on existing food production lands as your feedstock, with heavy nitrogen fertilization, diesel powered tractors, trains for shipping to the plants, a coal fired ethanol plant, trucks to deliver the fuel, etc you will undoubtedly get one set of very negative set of metrics.

Grass-based cellulosic ethanol will have a different range of results, as will methane produced from agricultural waste, processed in biodigesters, and used in natural gas burning vehicles, furnaces, or boilers. Any type of biofuel is going to be best utilized in local growing/production systems, and used with the least amount of shipping possible. Sunny, warm climates may soon find that growing algae to produce biodiesel as their most cost effective method of creating liquid fuels. This creates regionally specific economies for different appropriate types of "biofuels", and of course that still only gets us part way towards our total energy needs, even with dramatic improvements in efficiency and reducing our consumption.

Just lumping biofuels together in a "for or against" debate is grossly oversimplified argument.

Algae biodiesel? Sure. Butanol? Why not. Cellulosic ethanol? Okay...I guess.

Corn ethanol? Hell, no. Even if you're intelligent enough to figure out it's not the true reason for rising food prices, you'll still realize corn is a lousy fuel stock.

Since hydrogen, solar, and battery tech aren't even close yet, running a fleet of hybrid diesels on algal biodiesel is a decent enough stopgap, isn't it?

I'm in favor of biofuels. While environmental benefits are the ultimate goal right now I feel that we need to create a source of energy that will permit us to continue our needed usage (milewise) yet allow the everyday individual to get such usage at a cost that wont destroy them.

Hydrogen, electric, etc. these are all great, and diesel cars in general get better mileage so there is still some degree of benefit. The current attitude of screaming at the everyday commuter while throwing running shoes, bikes, and a bus pass at them isn't the best approach, so overall I think biofuels (namely those that wont wind up strangling our food supply) are a fair compromise right now.

biofuels, yea i i support with the exception of ethanol derived from corn.

one more reason to hate the current administration...

The term biofuel is so broad, it causes massive confusion in the media and amongst the bitter masses. There are a myriad of subcategories under that umbrella term, and they all have pros and cons. Responsible pundits may qualify the term by saying bio fuels derived (or not) from food crops. This is a good start, but some clearer terminology would reduce many misperceptions. Maybe a term like "waste-based fuels" would work?
In my opinion corn based ethanol is a bad idea, but cellusosic ethanol hasn't gotten off the ground yet in any useful scale. I hope corn-based refineries can be converted to cellusosic technology without too much trouble.
Algae based biodiesel seems worthy of funding also.

I think cellulose ethanol, algae biodiesel or any biodiesel that you can derive from scrubs like plants llike Jatropha which does not need to be grown on valuable agricultural land are the best ways forward in the biofuel front. Many countries such as Indonesia or surrounding pacific ring of fire countries have very good potential for the developement of geothermal energy and must be quickly realised by its governments.

There are too many good ways to go about solving our energy crisis and halt global warming but various interest groups from the traditional energy sectors are impeding it with excuses about job losses and lower economic growth. Look around you boys, the path that we have taken was the path that brought us to an economic halt. The gears for economic growth have been jammed by your short sighted vision of solving all our energy needs with oil and sure enough when the gears are jammed and you continue to apply force, all else will break!

Basically, no.

Automotive technology should go to plug-in hybrids and electrics; the faster the better.

Nor should we burn biofuels to obtain electric power, or for heat. We've got the sun, wind, waves, hydro (within limits) and geothermal for that.

The one possible application in the medium term is aircraft. Longer term, aircraft should switch to hydrogen, or perhaps methane derived from hydrogen and CO2, with the hydrogen obtained from water using renewable energy.

Basically, no.

Automotive technology should go to plug-in hybrids and electrics; the faster the better.

Nor should we burn biofuels to obtain electric power, or for heat. We've got the sun, wind, waves, hydro (within limits) and geothermal for that.

The one possible application in the medium term is aircraft. Longer term, aircraft should switch to hydrogen, or perhaps methane derived from hydrogen and CO2, with the hydrogen obtained from water using renewable energy.

Corn ethanol is an embarrassment.

Cane ethanol isn't too bad. But, whoops, mainland US can't grow sugarcane.

Butanol is more attractive than ethanol.

Biodiesel is marginally acceptable.

Algal biodiesel is good in concept, but not remotely feasible in the near term.

Biofuels are a stopgap measure to enable the contined use of our current vehicle technologies and car-based community paradigm.

The ultimate goal is the elimination of inefficient internal combustion engines, which were once practical due to cheap oil. Also, people must embrace less driving and flying, period.

I support biofuels and and all sorts of renewable, clean ,energy sources. Although at this point we are simply diluting petroleum with biofuels. As previous people have already said we need to be less reliant on petroleum in order for biofuels to be a viable alternative . We need to create and bring to market hybrid vehicles or vehicles that run on only biofuels. Furthermore I dont believe biofuels should be made from plants used for human consumption. That will only drive up prices, and give support for non organic agriculture.
The true alternatives are in wind , solar, hydro electric, and hydrogen.