Large-scale use of biofuels does not make sense

According to the report of the non-governmental organization “ World Resources Institute ”, attempts to convert a tangible part of energy consumers to biofuels actually do not make sense. According to their calculations, in the pursuit of the extraction of biomass for processing into fuel, humanity will be unable to gather the necessary amount of it. The summary of the report includes the following items.

Increased biomass fuel extraction reduces food production capacity.

In 2050, it is projected that food production will be 70% more than now. If you follow the ambitious plans of developed economies, which by this time will need to transfer about 20% of consumers to biofuels, the amount of biomass collected will need to be at least doubled - and this is unrealistic.

Using bioenergy is too inefficient

Cane sugar grown in the tropics converts only 0.5% of solar energy into sugar, and only 0.2% into ethanol. Maize, which can be grown in Iowa, processes 0.3% of energy into sugar and 0.15% into ethanol. On three quarters of the Earth’s surface, today's solar cells are capable of producing about 100 times more energy than plants ever can, even according to the most optimistic forecasts.
')

The use of biofuels does not reduce CO ₂ emissions

There is a theory that excessive carbon dioxide emissions from human activity affect the planet’s climate. Proponents of biofuels love to prove that since plants need to first grow and consume carbon dioxide, this amount of gas can be “subtracted” from the resulting exhaust when biofuels burn. However, since these plants would grow in any case (for example, for food), the fact that they will be used for fuel production does not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The benefits of biofuels are exaggerated

Of course, there are, for example, waste when processing plants - sawdust, pruning, stalks, and so on. But their volume and use are simply limited.

The report appeared as a result of many years of fears of various scientists who criticized the Napoleonic plans of the United States and Europe to increase the cultivation of crops for the production of biofuels. For example, according to the decree that has been in operation since the Bush administration, 30–40% of the grain yield should be converted into biofuel for automobiles in order to replace about 6% of the gasoline demand.

Another example is the transition of Europe to burning compressed wood waste instead of fossil coal. The Americans supplying this waste to Europe convince everyone that burning this waste does not increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because the newly growing trees absorb it - but the fossil coal adds CO2 to the atmosphere, which was previously stored in a bound form under the ground. However, scientists are concerned that in reality this process reduces the number of trees on the planet.