RIYADH, Dec 15: The emphasis on biofuels seems to be growing, and many perceive it to be the answer to global energy woes.

With energy security emerging as a major strategic objective, and question marks about security of supplies making rounds, many see it as the silver bullet, solving the riddles of the current energy- driven civilisation. Is it really so?

Biofuels today have the connotation of an energy source of the future. These are made from plant material distilled into alcohol that can be blended into gasoline or used as energy source in flexible fuel cars.

Most pundits agree that biofuels are here to stay and they are going to get bigger over time. The real issue in the debate seems however, on how big could be the contribution of biofuels in the global energy mix within a given frame of time and at what cost?

Most growth in biofuel sector over the past two years has been politically-driven. The EU wants to replace 10 per cent of its transport fuel with biofuels by 2020. China is aiming for 15 per cent. The US seems to be on track of doubling the volume of ethanol used in motor fuel to 7.5 billion gallons (28.4 billion liters) by 2012.

Plans unveiled by Democratic presidential hopefuls in the United States call for production of biofuels to touch 60 billion gallons or more by 2030. (Current production of ethanol is expected to reach 6.4 billion gallons by end 2007). Presidential hopeful Barack Obama is calling for a requirement of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, and 60 billion gallons by 2030. Hillary Clinton’s plan is nearly identical. John Edwards is however, proposing a more ambitious goal of 65 billion gallons of ethanol by 2025.

A bill before Congress targets 36 billion gallons by 2022 whereas President Bush has proposed a mandate of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017.

Reaching these goals will require new sources for ethanol in addition to the corn.

Beyond corn-derived ethanol, there are calls for a transition to cellulosic sources, such as perennial grasses and wood chips too. For example ethanol could be produced from non-corn sources too.

Making ethanol from cellulosic sources requires more steps and hence the cost is more than making it from corn. And there are still no commercial facilities able to make cellulosic biofuels.

Requiring the use of 60 billion gallons of ethanol could also lead to increased fuel prices by limiting consumers’ options.

Crop yields and prices can vary widely from year to year, depending on the weather and other factors.

Taking away the flexibility to turn to other fuels could also drive up fuel prices.

Political rhetoric apart, there are some unintended consequences of the biofuels rage. And the most important of these is the increased price of foodstuffs derived from grains predominantly used to produce ethanol.

Wheat prices in the global markets have gone up, and is evident in Pakistan too.

Diverting corn or wheat into ethanol production is thus paradoxically forcing up prices of low-cost feed grain too, fed to cattle all around.

Consequently products, such as beef, milk, mutton and eggs, may register sharp rise in the world too.

In order to avoid this, Beijing intends to provide financial support to biofuel producers, including farmers, if they are to be made from non-food crops, such as agricultural waste, sorghum or cassava. Aware of the pitfalls, China seems to be trying to avoid a scarcity of staple grains in the process.

China, a huge net importer of vegetable oils, faces a major challenge on biodiesel as it is currently made from oils, such as palm oil, rapeseed and soy oil.

It looks as if the drive for energy security could be matched by an increasing level of food insecurity, especially for the poor of the world.

Reducing greenhouse emissions is another stated objective for the rush toward biofuels too. However, corn-based ethanol does little to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, says John Reilly, associate director for research at MIT’s Joint Programme on the Science and Policy of Global Change. It takes a lot of energy to both grow corn and convert it into biofuels. As a result, corn ethanol only saves about 15 to 20 per cent of the carbon emitted from burning gasoline, Reilly says. If reducing greenhouse gases is the priority, cellulosic ethanol is attractive. It requires much less fossil fuel to produce, and it can save about 90 per cent of the carbon released by burning gasoline, he says.

In its report, “Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?” an OECD report says: “Global production of biofuels amounted to 0.8EJ (quintillion joules) in 2005, or roughly one per cent of the total road transport fuel consumption. Technically up to 20 EJ from conventional ethanol or biodiesel, or 11 percent of total demand for liquid fuels in the transport sector has been judged by 2050.”

Thus despite all the growth, biofuels share in the global energy mix would at most be around 10 per cent. And with the rate of global consumption projected to go up rapidly, in the overall analysis, the world would still depend on still greater supplies of fossil fuel. In absolute numbers, the demand for fossil fuels is to grow significantly.