I like how everyone comes into this debate with a different concept of what bio-fuels "do."
If you think about supplying the worlds energy needs using bio-fuel it is a non-starter, and that is basically what the editorial says. Converting incident sunlight into useful energy through existing photo synthesis processes is inefficient and does a great harm in terms of food production.
If you think of it as a way of converting sunlight into something that pre-existing infrastructure can use (fuels) that can be justified on the expense of swapping out the existing infrastructure.
Big picture -> move everything to electricity and gas, since those two forms of energy are pretty readily convertible into the other forms we need.
Intermediate points -> you need a petroleum fuel cycle while you're converting everything else.
If you think about supplying the worlds energy needs using bio-fuel it is a non-starter, and that is basically what the editorial says. Converting incident sunlight into useful energy through existing photo synthesis processes is inefficient and does a great harm in terms of food production.
If you think of it as a way of converting sunlight into something that pre-existing infrastructure can use (fuels) that can be justified on the expense of swapping out the existing infrastructure.
Big picture -> move everything to electricity and gas, since those two forms of energy are pretty readily convertible into the other forms we need.
Intermediate points -> you need a petroleum fuel cycle while you're converting everything else.