Robert "Buddy" Babcock and Ed Clausen, professors of chemical engineering in the College of Engineering, reply:

 Most people would agree that the burning of biofuels is better for the environment than the burning of fossil fuels.  Biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel burn cleaner, producing negligible levels of harmful sulfur gas and nitrogen oxide emissions in comparison to coal and oil.  However, let's also consider the production of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas.  CO2 is a by-product formed in the production of ethanol, and is produced in the burning of ethanol, biodiesel or fossil fuels.  It can be argued that CO2 is used in the production of biomass during photosynthesis, so that the net production of CO2 in burning biomass-derived fuels is neutral.  Fossil fuels, which are sequestered in the ground before their use, are not renewable and increase the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere upon burning.  Thus, the use of biomass-derived fuels is better for the environment than fossil fuels. 
 The real issues are the amount of biofuel that can be generated from biomass, the biomass feedstocks that will be used and their impact on agriculture, and the availability of biomass conversion technologies.  This can be the subject of another question. Hydrogen and nuclear power are touted as fuels for the future, but also have problems.  Hydrogen can be produced from coal or biomass, but the carbon in these feedstocks ends up as CO2.  Hydrogen can be produced from water, but a significant amount of energy is required for this reaction.  Nuclear fuels are promising, but we must then deal with the radioactive waste. Recycling the nuclear waste is a possibility.

Office of University Relations, University of Arkansas • 800 Hotz Hall, Fayetteville Arkansas, 72701

479-575-5555 • 479-575-4745 (fax)