The biofuel industry, once heralded as the golden child of renewable energy, is now facing a series of catastrophic failures that underscore its inherent inefficiency and lack of economic viability. The dream of turning agricultural products into clean fuel has been shattered by the harsh realities of economics, technology, and logistics. Despite the grand promises made by industry leaders and policymakers, biofuel companies have struggled to deliver on their claims, leading to a cascade of failures that highlight the fundamental flaws in this sector.

The Biofuel Industry: A Failed Experiment
The concept of biofuels gained significant traction in the early 2000s as a potential solution to reduce carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Governments around the world, particularly in the United States and Europe, poured billions of dollars into subsidies and incentives to kickstart this industry. The idea was simple: convert crops like corn, soy, and sugarcane into ethanol or biodiesel, which could then be used as cleaner alternatives to gasoline and diesel.
However, the biofuel industry has failed to live up to its hype. Many companies, once considered the darlings of the green energy movement, have gone bankrupt or are on the brink of collapse. The Wall Street Journal article highlights the struggles of these companies, pointing out that
Startups promising to power planes, ships and trucks with clean fuel are sputtering before they get off the ground, showing how hard it will be to wean many industries off oil and gas.
A company backed by United Airlines that raised hundreds of millions of dollars to turn trash into jet fuel appears to have shut down. Another, backed by Airbus, JetBlue and GE Aerospace, that was working on using hydrogen to power planes went bust. Chevron, BP and Shell, meanwhile, are scaling back projects to make biofuels from cooking fats, oils, greases and plant material.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/clean-fuel-startups-were-supposed-to-be-the-next-big-thing-now-they-are-collapsing/ar-AA1oZDQQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This statement encapsulates the broader trend of failure that has plagued the biofuel sector.
The Inefficiency of Biofuels
One of the primary reasons for the failure of biofuel companies is the inherent inefficiency of the process. Turning crops into fuel is an energy-intensive process that often results in a net loss of energy. In other words, the amount of energy required to grow, harvest, and process the crops into biofuel can exceed the energy content of the final product. This inefficiency makes biofuels economically unviable without significant government subsidies.
Moreover, the use of food crops for fuel production has raised ethical concerns. The diversion of crops like corn and soy from food production to fuel production has led to higher food prices and food shortages in some parts of the world. This has sparked criticism that biofuels are contributing to global hunger rather than solving the energy crisis.
Economic Realities: The Collapse of Biofuel Companies
The economic realities of the biofuel industry have caught up with many companies, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and closures. The article notes that
Many clean-fuel projects have become money pits, in part because of the great amounts of power they need. High interest rates, supply-chain disruptions and expensive power-grid upgrades have driven up electricity prices.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/clean-fuel-startups-were-supposed-to-be-the-next-big-thing-now-they-are-collapsing/ar-AA1oZDQQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This observation is critical because it highlights that the failures are not isolated incidents but rather symptomatic of deeper issues within the industry.
Several factors have contributed to the economic struggles of biofuel companies. First, the price volatility of oil has made it difficult for biofuels to compete in the market. When oil prices are low, biofuels become less attractive to consumers and investors. Second, the high costs associated with biofuel production have made it challenging for companies to achieve profitability. Even with government subsidies, many biofuel companies have struggled to break even.
“The excitement of the early days has not lived up to the hype,” said Andy Marsh, chief executive of Plug Power, a startup that recently opened one of the country’s first plants making green hydrogen, a potential replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel making and chemical production.
Shares of Plug Power have tumbled more than 90% since the passage of the U.S. climate law two years ago. Shares of biofuels startup Gevo, where Marsh is a board member, are down about 80% in that span.
The failures and delays are all but extinguishing the early optimism after the climate law passed. Rising costs have pushed out project timelines and made it more difficult for companies to raise money. The government’s delays in completing tax credits are adding to the challenges.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/clean-fuel-startups-were-supposed-to-be-the-next-big-thing-now-they-are-collapsing/ar-AA1oZDQQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This is a common theme in the biofuel industry, where ambitious projects often fail to translate into viable business models.
Environmental Concerns: The Myth of Clean Energy
One of the most significant selling points of biofuels has been their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this claim has been increasingly challenged by scientists and environmentalists. The production of biofuels can generate significant carbon emissions, particularly when considering the entire lifecycle of the fuel—from crop cultivation to processing and transportation. This revelation is a critical blow to the industry, as it undermines one of the key arguments in favor of biofuels.
Furthermore, the environmental impact of large-scale biofuel production extends beyond carbon emissions. The intensive farming practices required to produce biofuel crops can lead to deforestation, soil degradation, and water shortages. These environmental costs further diminish the appeal of biofuels as a sustainable energy source.
The Role of Government Subsidies
The biofuel industry has been heavily reliant on government subsidies to stay afloat. These subsidies, often justified on the grounds of promoting green energy and reducing carbon emissions, have propped up an industry that is fundamentally uneconomical. The article highlights that “without government support, many biofuel companies would have gone bankrupt years ago.”
However, the reliance on subsidies has created a dependency that is unsustainable in the long term. As governments face mounting budget pressures and shift their focus to other forms of renewable energy, biofuel companies are finding it increasingly difficult to secure the funding they need to survive. The withdrawal of subsidies has exposed the underlying weaknesses of the biofuel industry, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and closures.
The Future of Biofuels: A Grim Outlook
Given the numerous challenges facing the biofuel industry, the future looks grim. The article concludes that the collapse of the biofuel industry is a cautionary tale for other sectors of the green economy.”
The failure of biofuels highlights the importance of critically evaluating the economic and environmental viability of alternative energy sources before committing significant resources to their development.
The lessons learned from the biofuel industry’s failures should inform future energy policy. Rather than blindly subsidizing technologies that are not economically viable, policymakers should focus on supporting energy solutions that are both efficient and sustainable. The biofuel debacle serves as a warning against the dangers of letting ideology drive energy policy at the expense of sound economic and scientific principles.
Conclusion: The Biofuel Industry’s Legacy of Failure
The biofuel industry was supposed to revolutionize the energy sector by providing a cleaner, more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Instead, it has become a cautionary tale of economic and environmental mismanagement. The cascade of failures among biofuel companies underscores the inherent inefficiency and lack of economic sense that has plagued the industry from the start.
This sentiment captures the essence of the biofuel industry’s downfall. Despite the grand promises and billions of dollars in government support, the biofuel industry has failed to deliver a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
In the end, the biofuel experiment has left behind a trail of bankruptcies, environmental degradation, and unfulfilled promises. It serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of green energy solutions must be grounded in reality, not wishful thinking. As we look to the future of energy, it is crucial to learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that our energy supply and development is based on sound science and economics, not on ideological fervor.
In conclusion, the biofuel industry’s collapse should prompt a re-evaluation of our approach to energy. Rather than chasing after every new technology that promises to save the planet, we must carefully assess the feasibility and impact of these solutions. The biofuel industry’s legacy of failure is a testament to the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in the development of energy policy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This inefficiency makes biofuels economically unviable without significant government subsidies.
Better to omit that weak mention of ‘government subsidies’ altogether. Biofuels are unviable, period – since you and I must be looted to provide those oh so generous ‘subsidies’, a.k.a bribes.
Even better to identify where the subsidies come from….The Tax Payer.
I’m hoping we’ll hear from Rud Istvan on this. My recollection is that the waste from creating biofuels from crops can still be used as cattle feed, which takes away, to some degree, the argument that biofuel production cuts into the food supply. I’m not sure it does much to address the issue that biofuels are a net energy loss, however.
Food is a source of energy for living beings. Taking most of the energy content out of the food reduces it’s usefulness to almost nothing. Rud has mentioned his use of the “waste” for cattle feed, but the cattle are just squeezing the last bits of energy out of the cellulose. I don’t think Rud has ever stated how much feed he gets vs. how much crop was initially added to the process.
Cattle are methane producers and must be eliminated. Haven’t you read the headlines?
My comment is specific to ethanol only. It is technically a biofuel, but the motive always was as a gasoline additive providing two things:
The 10% ethanol blend wall was set by LA needs for premium summer gas. Most places it is significantly less. And most rural,places (or Geogia mountain cabin, my farm) have one pump selling no ethanol regular, solving any ethanol induced small engine problems.
About 44% (by dry weight, dry meaning 7% or less moisture) of US corn production goes to ethanol. But my dairy farm gets back the post fermentation, yeast protein enhanced distillers grain, 27% by dry weight. It is an ideal ruminant feed supplement, allowing us to grow less alfalfa and more corn. So both my dairy cows and my farm’s bottom line are happier.
It was asked…”I don’t think Rud has ever stated how much feed he gets vs. how much crop was initially added to the process.”
So 27 percent of the biofuel corn (by dry weight) is used for dairy cows?)
Methanol (aka “Wood Alcohol” can be made from underbrush, woodchips, scrub brush) but can’t compete with oil (mostly cuz we just pump that out of the ground unattended to reach the “harvested” point). Bio anything ends up costing about 4 times as much. Also we make ethanol from grains resulting in some of the largest businesses on the planet after petroleum and military weapons. (And we don’t give a RA about the food crop reduction as a result of that)
We presently seek raw petroleum in the high Arctic and the bottoms of oceans. The time is coming, about 50 years away, when the finding costs of petroleum will cause bio and synthetic hydrocarbon liquids to be viable substitutes. (Maybe even lithium batteries will be viable…/s)
In the intervening 50 years, gov’ts worldwide have decided they need to get on the bandwagon and collect as much tax revenue as possible from easily metered hydrocarbons, then take credit for saving the planet from burning of fossil fuels thus “protecting” their citizens. Meanwhile they are doing whatever they can to convince the public that the future is going to be more energy constrained…mostly by wasting tax money buying breakeven-or-less tech junk.
The biofuel fiasco is a clear example of government interfering with the market. Bureaucrats and administrators can jack their jaws and throw good money after bad all they want it will not make good things bad or bad things good. With the government backing off ever so slightly the market can show us which paths to follow.
Worldwide there are millions more cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths
Cold air causes our blood vessels to constrict to preserve heat and this causes our blood pressure to rise causing more strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months.
About 4.6 million people die from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 that die each year from heat-related causes.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Gevo mentioned in the article is an amazing example of survival as well as fleecing the government and shareholders alike for a company that only loses money. Its stock began trading in 2011 and it reached an adjusted high of $152,000/share shortly thereafter. Its price today is $0.75, and yet insiders, such as the CEO, pull out a million or so annually.
In late 2021, I made the mistake of working for a subcontractor for the Gevo process. The basic idea was to produce isobutanol from fermentation, use a catalytic process to dehydrate isobutanol to isobutene, then another reactor to polymerize isobutene to branched hydrocarbons such as iso-octane and C12 and C16 hydrocarbons that can be blended into jet fuel after distillation.
The subcontractor used the work of many process engineers to develop the process, which was extremely complex, due to the difficulty of separating the isobutanol from much larger quantities of other mixed products of fermentation such as other alcohols, aldehydes, and organic acids.
The cost estimate for the project was over a billion dollars, in order to produce a few thousand barrels per day of biofuels. A similar amount of jet fuel could be produced from petroleum for less than 5% of this cost. When this cost estimate was revealed, whoever was subsidizing this project cut off the money, and all the process engineers (including myself) were laid off.
This does not necessarily mean that all biofuels projects are colossal boondoggles. But government subsidies for these projects should be cut off. If somebody invents a process to produce biofuels that is economically viable, let it be financed by venture capitalists (who understand the risks), not taxpayers, who don’t want to waste their hard-earned money on projects they may not even want.
Wasn’t it the conversion of grain crops to bio-fuels that caused the food riots that led to all the mid east civil wars known as Arab Spring?
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks to Bryan A’sComment, I learned a new term, and the above headline can be reworded to read:
The Cascade of Failures in the Subsidy Farm Industry: A Case of Economic and Environmental Mismanagement
“company backed by United Airlines that raised hundreds of millions of dollars to turn trash into jet fuel”
I suppose this means United’s Chief Trash Officer, Oscar the Grouch will be looking for a new position.
Just like wind and solar, when actually applied in practice, these systems are net energy negative. It is only by subsidy and government interference that they exist at all. No rational engineer would specify an energy “source” which uses more energy than it can ever produce.
The Subsidy Farming industry is being funded to such a degree by governments handing out tax payer’s money, it is creating its own momentum. Those on the receiving end of this (latest) state enabled get filthy rich industry are acting as ambassadors for green energy.
Why wouldn’t they? They have the ultimate vested interests to look after.
A one time local farmer a decent man, decided to go into bio digester gas fed electricity generation. He quickly realised, if he engaged at a meaningful scale, the government will give him grants for the green energy activity, plus the food industry companies and supermarkets, desperate to rid themselves of bio waste would pay him to take their articulated lorry loads of unsaleable product. He then uses the gas to power generators feeding into a local high energy user at an agreed healthy price.
He was right.
The farmer no longer grows food, He retained sufficient land around the site to accommodate the subsidy farming activity. He now owns a large house and estate in the Caribbean, a yacht necessary to fit in with the local habits and customs. When here in the UK, he drives a good but not ostentatious car. He keeps a low profile and is making literally £millions/yr. from a well run business based principally on subsidy farming.
He is a keen supporter of converting waste to wealth by any means and the state ensures by giving him tax payers money he is on their side no matter what.
And who can blame him? All he’s doing is meeting a demand created by stupid politicians and their unquestioning followers…
“The Subsidy Farming industry is being funded to such a degree by governments handing out tax payer’s money, it is creating its own momentum.”
Indeed, we do the same (in a small way), with solar panels on the FITs
schemescam; & are currently being paid £0.68/kWh for generation + 4p for ‘export’ ; All index-linked until 2037, been a super investment for us … but not for the UK.Reminds me of another Subsidy Farming Industry, far greater in fact: The military-industrial complex…
Quite, but at least you do get some bangs for your bucks, not always in the right place though…
“A Case of Economic and Environmental Mismanagement”
It is not mismanagement…it is intentional Economic and Environmental VANDALISM.
“Rather than chasing after every new technology that promises to save the planet, we must carefully assess the feasibility and impact of these solutions.”
Let’s carefully assess the risk to the climate system from using natural deposits of hydrocarbons as fuel:
Risk of warming? Negligible.
Risk of harm from the byproducts of combustion? Manageable.
The planet will be fine. Greener too. Tell the children.
My personal experience with the ethanol additive in gasoline when it first came out
was a number of equipment/vehicle failures in older units. I despise this program
and the people behind it.
If one thinks upon how carbon based fuels are created, we have had an abundant source of coal and gas and crude oil that is mined in a relatively efficient manner. But those fuels took tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years to produce by the deposit of dead plant matter. We are going to mine it all out eventually, though when that may be is difficult to predict given the effects of recent and potentially future technology developments. But whether we run out of fossil fuels in 100 years, or 300 years, we know we’re going to run out and we have to have alternative means of fueling human civilization by the time that occurs.
But with “biofuel” (all fuel is biofuel, by the way) its proponents are attempting to accelerate tens or hundreds of millions of years of accumulation into a timeframe based upon annual production. There is no way we can accelerate biological matter production to meet current, let alone future energy needs. We would have to starve the human race in order to energize the human race.
That biofuels could never be a significant source of our energy needs seems to have escaped the imaginations of the renewables crowd.
“We would have to starve the human race in order to energize the human race.”
Isn’t that the plan ???
Just keep enough plebs to serve the elites & maintain them in the manner they’ve become accustomed to.
Recent journey from North Shropshire to South Devon showed E10 to be 20% less fuel efficient in my car than E5. E5 itself is about 5% less fuel efficient in my car than non-bio fuels. So being forced to use E10 means I get 25% range reduction.Insanity upon insanity.
Which would mean you should carry on using E5 instead as it will probably save you money.
Corn should be food or feed, not fuel.
I wonder how many children died in underdeveloped countries from malnutrition while waiting for the wealthy west to discover that biofuels is a boondoggle. And what sort of person needs to see their entertainment budget shrink because of their own stupidity before they care about a policy they supported that steals food from helpless children?
I think biofuels are stupid. But the oil industry is old, mature and super efficient so for new technologies it can be difficult to compete.
You are so right! An example can be found in the space craft industry. Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, Rocketdyne have decades of experience in space craft, booster, and rocket engine technologies. They had decades of development money from the US Government to get and keep that head start, as well as limitless support from the geniuses at NASA. No new company can catch up, let alone best them.
Oh… wait… SpaceX. Maybe Blue Horizon. SpaceX may be getting some development money now, but they proved themselves by launching many rockets, landing and reusing them. Musk uninvited NASA’s “help”. They’ve been sending astronauts to the space station for years – and BRINGING THEM BACK! Their launch schedule is so robust they build an engine a day, and each one has slightly better performance than the last. They beat the performance of the old companies’ engines by a country mile, and many of those engineers swore the Rocketdyne F1 engine couldn’t be beat significantly. I loved those guys – but they were wrong.
Meanwhile, the company that pays my pension finally got two astronauts to the space station, where they’ll likely have to stay until 2025 in lieu of an eight-day tour. Their spacecraft should be named the Minnow.
“The biofuel debacle serves as a warning against the dangers of letting ideology drive energy policy at the expense of sound economic and scientific principles.”
You can say the same for wind generators and solar panels. Think I’d also throw EVs into that mix as well. While they might be fun to drive and even have their use in certain limited circumstances they have yet to pass muster on the “sound economic principles.” :<)
It seems that every modern environmental disaster is the result of a government policy.
Can’t take a lesson from Brazil’s cheap ethanol exercise, going on nigh on to 50 years. Dominating the sugarcane-to-ethanol fuel industry world wide, still importing petroleum, continuing inflation of a near worthless currency, and forced to expand agriculture further into the jungle just to supply food. Great fun.
I have been in oil and petrochemicals for 46 years., and have watched the biofuel boondoggle from the beginning. I soon realised that is was a no-go by looking at the thermodynamics.My last job title was Head of Feedstocks and Petrochemical Technologies. and I still work in that role as a consultant.In economics you follow the money, in petrochemicals and fuel you follow the thermodynamics. Petchems generally make more money than fuels. I have not see on eprocess that can make base petrochemicals (the building blocks) at even twice the cost of fossil derived products. All the promises of cellulosic ethaneol, algae fuels, woodchip to gasoline (Kior) have done little more than line the pockets of CEO’s who have taken investors money and pissed it up against the wall. 15 years ago a company approached our business with a route to butanol (an alcohol). We had a 500 kt plant which we had shut down due to economics. they proposed a 50 kta plants based on woodchip. The process required 600 kta of woodchip. It was no a process it was a logistics exercise.. I could go on endlessly. The next big boondoggle is green hydrogen and carbon capture. Just think how much air you will need to remove carbon dioxide form the air at 400 ppm, is about 0.72 g per cubic metre or about 1.4 million cubic metres or air per tonne carbon dioxide. Follow the thermodynamics and you will see that this is simply a joke.