I've posted many times before about sleazoid Democrats and their Republican war on science nonsense, noting that politicians of all stripes are guilty and that if anything Democrats have prosecuted the war most vigorously. If we hope to have reality based policies we need to denounce these nutters for their attempts to conceal the predations of their favored politicians. For example:

If you weren't living under a scientific rock for the last 20 years, you know that everyone from environmental groups to Senator and then Vice-President Al Gore believed biofuels were the renewable way to cut dependence on foreign oil and have a cleaner environment.

If you weren't living under a scientific rock for the last 20 years and know anything about how biofuels are made you always knew that was complete hoopie, but it wasn't until a Republican president and Congress agreed they were good that everyone knew they must be terribly wrong.

But biofuels are not as bad today as some make them out to be, just like they were not as good as many of those same people used to make them out to be. Renewable energy continues to be the goal and biofuels can be a part of that, though most have switched to wildly optimistic projections about solar energy as the magic cure-all of the future now.

This is sick. The value of a technology or policy is not a function of which venal politician currently occupies the throne, and things will not be all better if only a new king is crowned.

That doesn't mean biofuels should be eliminated from consideration. Just like it was a mistake for politicians and activists groups to overstate the benefits and costs of biofuels then it would be a mistake to abandon them entirely now.

Cellulases, enzymes which can break down cellulose, a major component of plant biomass, are getting a new look. Traditional methods of generating enzymes for biofuel production currently operate at over five times the target cost required to make the fuels financially competitive.

The perfect solution for truly green energy that can be produced greenly are cellulases which can break down the plant material into useable compounds in industrial quantities and at a low cost. Cheaper and better is always good.

This would be an improved method, but hardly perfect. It fails to grapple with the chief defect of biofuel schemes: competition for biomass. It isn't only human food, fiber and fuel uses that compete for biomass, the entire ecosystem runs on this basic form of solar power. When you divert that energy stream there are consequences so you'd better understand the whole system if you don't want nasty surprises.

A smarter way to approach this issue is to look for value not currently being captured, money left on the table, so to speak. Systems that seek to capitalize on those found resources are less disruptive, but you have to do a complete and honest job of understanding the system to truly identify stranded value. Corn stover, for example, or any crop grown primarily for fuel, is not available. It already has higher uses. In general, what is available is problem wastes such as tainted municipal wastes, forest slash, and pond scum.

There's a conflict here perhaps as well since it is our habit to elect toxic wastes and pond scum to political office, making them unavailable for fuel production as well, but if we must trade something off I'm in favor of diverting that waste stream rather than another.