Food, fuel and the future: biofuels in the age of electrification

In his influential article "The Nonsense of Biofuels", Nobel laureate and director of the Max Planck Institute Hartmut Michel criticized biofuels, shaping the opinions of influential figures in the world, such as Vaclav Smil and, more recently, Bill Gates, in the book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". Michel's main arguments against biofuels were:

• The low energy conversion efficiency (MJ per hectare) of biofuels compared to solar panels.

• The enormous land use required for biofuels, which leads to direct competition with food production.

These points have fueled the ongoing "food vs fuel" debate, which often links the production of biofuels, especially ethanol, to the deforestation of tropical forests and competition for land use, in a decision between producing fuels or food (See more about this debate in the text published in Agro In Data). These arguments have a great influence on public policy debates in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Europe and Japan.

We recently published a scientific study/article (reference available at the end of this text) that offers a technological perspective on the biofuels sector in Brazil, focusing specifically on sugarcane ethanol. Some of the main counterarguments to Michel's position are:

• Tropical Agricultural Productivity: Tropical crops such as sugarcane, grown in Brazil, have a much higher productivity than estimates made for temperate climates, which served as the basis for Michel and Smil's calculations. In addition, the use of crop residues to produce second-generation ethanol or biomethane further improves efficiency.

• In addition to the calculation in megajoules (MJ): Sugarcane energy production cannot be measured solely in megajoules (MJ), as it generates ethanol and sugar (energy and food). The carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules present in ethanol and other biofuels enable applications that today go beyond light vehicles, such as sustainable fuels for sectors such as the navy (Bunker) and aviation (SAF), polymers and other sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, where electrification is currently considered unfeasible (read more in an article published by Insper Agro Global). Furthermore, sugar is a valuable raw material for biotechnology, with the potential to produce chemicals, pharmaceuticals and, among others, generating products such as high-protein foods to decarbonize, including livestock farming. This complex integration of food, energy and materials is known as IFEMS (Integrated Food, Energy and Materials Systems).

• Carbon Negative Systems: Emerging technologies such as BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage), biochar and rock weathering can help biofuel systems create negative carbon footprints. These systems could become highly efficient carbon sinks, supporting biofuel production, food security and atmospheric decarbonization. With the right policies, biofuels could be redirected to food production during shortages or allocated to higher-value products during bumper harvests. This would ensure a resilient food and energy system.

• Outlook for 2050: By 2050, a largely electrified and low-carbon energy grid is expected. Thus, marginal investments in solar energy may yield diminishing returns in terms of CO2 mitigation, while biofuels still have large decarbonization potential, especially in hard-to-decarbonize sectors such as aviation, polymers and shipping.

• A New Metric – Decarbonization Density (DD): Rather than using MJ per hectare as the sole metric for comparison, we propose “decarbonization density” (DD). This metric compares production systems based on their potential to decarbonize different sectors. Our study showed that future biorefineries could increase their DD from 20 tCO2/ha to 145 tCO2/ha, and could reach 290 tCO2/ha with agricultural advances. In comparison, solar panels in Brazil are expected to reach 42,5 tCO2/ha by 2050, even with new solar technologies.

The goal is not to claim that biofuels are better than solar panels, but to demonstrate that the two are complementary in the long-term transition to a decarbonized energy system. Local solutions like biofuels can have a global impact and need to be carefully considered to promote an inclusive energy transition. Rather than letting biases dictate policy, we should remain open to exploring diverse solutions as innovations continue to evolve, especially considering regional considerations.

While Hartmut Michel, Smil, and Bill Gates are visionaries, no one can fully understand all decarbonization systems and their specific contexts. Policymakers, who often lack the depth of these thinkers, are even less equipped to determine which technologies will drive the energy transition. Instead, in my view, policy should focus on emissions reduction targets and allow the market and innovators to deploy the most effective pathways. So far, ethanol and electrification have emerged as leaders, not competitors, in this journey toward a sustainable future.

References and recommended readings:

SILVA, FTF et al. Integrated systems for the production of food, energy and materials as a sustainable strategy for decarbonization and land use: The case of sugarcane in Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 190, p. 107387, 2024.

About the author:

Matthew Schreiner Garcez Lopes
Global Director of Energy Transition and Investments at Raízen, member of the board of Iogen Energy Corporation, a Canadian bioenergy company, and of Carbios, a world leader in biochemical recycling in France. Vice-president of the board of the Brazilian Bioinnovation Association (ABBI) and member of the Advisory Committee of the MIT Energy Initiative. 

The text above is the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Insper Agro Global.

Are you already following our official channels? Click and follow our whatsapp channel, follow us on LinkedIn and sign up to receive our biweekly Newsletter. Stay up to date with research and knowledge on global agribusiness issues.