Yup. Don't assume away stuff, use the data. If data is lacking, first try to fill in the blanks. If not, state your assumptions, explain why they were made, and point out the pitfalls of using them.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

The reason is simple: farming runs on fossil fuels in the first place. Especially corn and soy bean oil rely on fertilizers made from natural gas, and by no means are the tractors and farm equipment, or the rest of the logistics and processing, running on the biofuel because it's far too valuable to "waste" that way.

The biofuels have an EROEI barely above 1 to start with, and if you converted eg. the soy oil into electricity to power the factory, the whole process would become energy negative.

It's been known for a long time that for every barrel of corn ethanol, about 0.73 barrels of oil (equivalent) is consumed but the rationale has always been that the whole process at least emits somewhat less CO2 than burning the oil.

Trick is, you wouldn't have to burn so much oil if you didn't try to produce the ethanol. It's like buying 3 candy bars to get one free. How much did you save? Nothing, because you were only going to buy one in the beginning.

Biofuels really should only be a stop-gap measure for those areas that cannot (yet) be converted - like heavy duty/agricultural/shipping operations. Possibly as a backup reservoir in case energy production from renewables is low on a particular day.

But the focus of research should shift away from them as soon as possible to get better (liquid) battery storage systems going.

Oh the "genius" of the AGW Cult. Burn fossil fuels to grow and convert FOOD into fuel.
We are saved, hallelujah!

"Biofuels really should only be a stop-gap measure for those areas that cannot (yet) be converted - like heavy duty/agricultural/shipping operations"

Well first of all they were purported to be the saviour of the world by the same 97% that approve of the AGW theory weren't they.

The truth is that the members of the AGW movement are little more than a sectarian religious cult masquerading as cutting edge science.

Does it really matter if we burn fossil fuel or biofuel? Internal combustion engines produce toxins much worse than CO2 only in smaller quantities. To begin to clean up the atmosphere we must first get rid of ICEs.

"challenges the widely held assumption that biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are inherently carbon neutral."

Was such an inherently counterintuitive position really "widely held"? Biofuels were also a terrible idea for multiple reasons, not the least of which is a misallocation of agricultural land and water. And how could that ever be "carbon neutral".

The figures given are probably accurate for current bio-fuels but they do not need to be the case for future bio-fuels. Choose crops that do not need fertilizer and restrict the use of fossil fuels to power farm machinery and processing and we should see a good result. I accept that not all "Green" ideas are good for the environment e.g. solar cells if they do not produce more power than was consummed in their manufacturer.

Does it really matter if we burn fossil fuel or biofuel?

According to the article

, the increased carbon dioxide uptake by the crops was only enough to offset 37 percent of the CO2 emissions due to biofuel combustion.

So yes, it does. Biofuels aren't good by any metric. But fossil fuels are way worse.

To begin to clean up the atmosphere we must first get rid of ICEs.

Easier said than done. For personal transport that seems doable almost immediately. For heavy duty applications/shipping there's still some groundwork to be done.

There isn't enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use.

There is an obvious answer that will appeal to our Marxist/socialist/totalitarian/fascist (but I quadpeat(tm) myself) betters. They can, as they always do when they seize power, commit mass genocide on a grand scale, through their usual methods; starvation and execution, plus the nomenklatura could mandate assisted suicide at a certain age for the lumpenproletariat. That will reduce the population and also lower the demand for energy - a twofer. Then they use the bodies as the new biomass, and call it ...

Soylent Black.

I expect the usual Warmists here to pick up the idea and run with it.

, the increased carbon dioxide uptake by the crops was only enough to offset 37 percent of the CO2 emissions due to biofuel combustion.

So yes, it does. Biofuels aren't good by any metric. But fossil fuels are way worse.

So the only real difference is 37% less CO2 that enters the atmosphere at one end while food production suffers and more food must be imported by using FF and emitting much more CO2 resulting in higher food prices at the stores. All while we conveniently avoid mentioning all the other toxic byproducts of internal combustion engines which are produced by biofuel and FF alike.

There isn't enough biomass to replace 30% of our petroleum use.

There is an obvious answer that will appeal to our Marxist/socialist/totalitarian/fascist (but I quadpeat(tm) myself) betters. They can, as they always do when they seize power, commit mass genocide on a grand scale, through their usual methods; starvation and execution, plus the nomenklatura could mandate assisted suicide at a certain age for the lumpenproletariat. That will reduce the population and also lower the demand for energy - a twofer. Then they use the bodies as the new biomass, and call it ...

Soylent Black.

I expect the usual Warmists here to pick up the idea and run with it.

Yes, pricing externalities and increasing corporate regulation to prevent pollution is akin to genocide. I hate to think what you believe preventing nuclear power plants from dumping radioactive material into water sources is akin to. Cannibalism?