Don't make biofuel--burn oil and plant forests. Wow, is that politically incorrect (but probably correct). Saint Al would have a fit.

It's still couched in terms of "global warming."

It's rational, but it's a rational response to an irrational foundation (global warming)

But isn't that what Al Gore says he does -- consumes gobs of energy, but purchases carbon offsets, presumably in the form of planting forests with the odd wind mill thrown in?

I'd like more forests. Forests are nice. Trees are marvelous natural air-conditioners, too. I moved recently about 3 blocks, and the difference between the old place (surrounded by trees) and the new (no big trees) is substantial. Way hotter. Phooey.

Outside all the inefficiencies of ethanol as a fuel, I can't seem to recall seeing anyone address the production of carbon dioxide associated with fermentation. I used to do a fair amount of home brewing and the airlocks used to sound like little outboard motors.

The article this links to implies simply burning the acreage rather than converting it to bio-fuel:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10759-humble-grasses-may-be-the-best-source-of-biofuel-.html
The use of fossil fuels to power the process releases 0.3 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year - but the growing grasses store 4.4 tonnes of CO2 in the roots and soil, meaning the net result is 4.1 tonnes removed from the atmosphere. The stems, leaves and flowers of the grasses also absorb CO2 but this is then released again when the grassland biofuel is burned later on – meaning no net gain or loss of CO2.

Seem like a simpler approach to generating electricity. No need for filters or scrubbers. Can burning grass be regulated? Where do I find plans to build my own power plant? I’ll take my land out of CRP if someone can point me in the right direction. Otherwise I’ll be satisfied with the check the government sends me.

I'm in the surprising position of agreeing with Rand on a non-space-related issue. Using biomass as fuel - whether you're growing sugarcane or corn, or harvesting peat or wood - seems like a bad idea to me. It's reasonable to recover energy that would otherwise be wasted, like turning restaurant grease into biodiesel, or extracting methane from landfills, but deliberately growing plants as fuel seems a lot less efficient than burning oil and coal.

Using biomass as fuel - whether you're growing sugarcane or corn...seems like a bad idea to me.

Whoa. Won't your mitochondria be shocked to hear this!

Outside all the inefficiencies of ethanol as a fuel, I can't seem to recall seeing anyone address the production of carbon dioxide associated with fermentation.

Since all that carbon was initially in the atmosphere before the plants absorbed it, its reemission does not cause a net increase in atmospheric CO2. However, you could conceivably sequester it, which would cause biomass-derived fuels (assuming their production did not use too much fossil fuel) to be 'carbon negative' -- to actually reduce atmospheric CO2 over time.

Alternately, there are biomass-derived fuel cycles in which non-fossil hydrogen (say, from nuclear-powered water-splitting) would be added. These could potentially convert all the carbon in the biomass into useful fuels, not just part of it. A partial example is a system based on acetogenic fermentation, which anaerobically converts sugars to acetate, which is then catalytically hydrogenated to ethanol.

How about not burning oil (or at least less of it) and planting the forests anyway?

FC,
your not going on that "losing forests faster than we can grow them" kinda crap are you?

If we raise every building in America, plant the entire country with trees and kill ourselves, it won't replace the rain forest. The Earths ecosystem doesn't work that way.

Plant switch grass. It looks like the best crop for alcohol production.