ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 12471250

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Viewpoint

Virtual biofuelsA cheaper, better, faster alternative?

Harry D. Saunders
Decision Processes Incorporated, 2308 Saddleback Drive, Danville, CA 94506, USA
Received 12 December 2007; accepted 17 December 2007
Available online 8 February 2008

Abstract
This viewpoint article offers the proposition that purpose-grown biomass buried in landlls constitutes a virtual biofuel that is more
practical, economic, and immediate than the use of actual biofuels from cellulosics. While not a permanent solution, it may be a useful
bridge to the hoped-for era of actual biofuels prior to the time technology for economically converting cellulosics to actual liquid biofuels
is realized.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biofuels; Landll; Cellulosic

1. Introduction
Biofuels generate carbon emissions, just as do petroleum-based fuels.
But the promise of biofuels lies in the notion that while
they are indeed emitters of greenhouse gases when burned
to fuel economic activity, they also, in the course of their
growth and development, sequester carbon from the
atmosphere.
The full promise of biofuels can be appreciated by
considering the following idealized end-state:
Picture a situation in which all transportation fuels are
derived from biofuels. The carbon emitted from burning
these biofuels enters the atmosphere, adding to greenhouse
gases. But since the growing of these biofuels has
sequestered from the atmosphere the identical amount of
carbon as is released by their burning, the net contribution
to atmospheric carbon of this burning is zero. In plainer
language, if the annual quantity of biofuels grown and
harvested equals its annual quantity of use in transportation, biofuels-based transportation is carbon-neutral in
its impact on climate.
Now a key difculty, as of this writing, is such biofuels
are often derived from biomass that has alternative use in
the form of food for human and livestock consumption,
Tel.: +1 925 743 8400; fax: +1 925 743 8406.

E-mail address: hsaunders@decisionprocessesinc.com

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.12.024

such as corn, vegetable oils, and sugar. This creates

obvious problems. Perhaps more worrisome, the carbon
cost of their production for use as fuels is not zero owing to
the energy needed for their cultivation, processing, and
distributionand in the case of corn this is evidently
substantial.
The commonly perceived holy grail of biofuels
production is technology that could economically extract
biofuels from biomass not used for food. For instance, if
biofuels could be extracted from corn plant biomass left
over when the corn ears themselves are harvested, the
impact on food markets would be de minimus. Such
biomass is commonly referred to as high-cellulose or
cellulosic material and the holy grail is technology
that uses cellulosics for the production of liquid biofuels.
However, creating the technology to do this is extremely
challenging and is currently not developed to the point of
being economic.
At present most such material is left unharvested.
Cellulosic material left in the eld will eventually decompose and thereby return to the atmosphere whatever
carbon it has sequestered in the course of its growing.
2. Virtual biofuels
If instead this material could be prevented from
returning its carbon to the atmosphere, there would be
created a carbon sink that continually removes carbon

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1248

H.D. Saunders / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 12471250

from the atmosphere. One could picture a carbon-neutral

scenario, different from the one above, wherein petroleum
continues to be used for transportation but a sufcient
amount of cellulosic material is removed from the
decomposition and atmospheric re-injection cycle to
entirely offset what carbon is added to the atmosphere by
the burning of petroleum products for transportation.
Such an idea was presaged in somewhat narrower
fashion by Metzger et al. (2002). These researchers
concluded on the basis of a straightforward carbon-touseful-energy-output analysis that it was carbon-better
(our term), rather than burning leftover cellulosic corn
material in power plants, to instead burn natural gas in
these plants and dispose of the cellulosic materials by
dumping them in the ocean, injecting them below the
thermocline to prevent unwanted ecological impacts.
We suggest a somewhat more comprehensive approach.
The idea is to take waste cellulosics, and perhaps more
importantly, purpose-grown biomass and at each harvest
bury this biomass in landlls designed for this purpose.
Such buried biomass would be what one might call virtual
biofuel. Virtual biofuels energy content continues to
come from conventional petroleum, but conventional
petroleums carbon signature is erased by burial of the
biomass.
An important recent development comes in the form of
research by Tilman et al. (2006), who demonstrated that
high-quality biofuels material can be productively grown in
the form of mixtures of native grassland perennials on
agriculturally degraded lands. These biofuels accordingly
neither displace food production nor cause loss of
biodiversity via habitat destruction. This strongly suggests
purpose-grown biomass could exploit these advantages.
So the idea is to grow such biofuels materials in an
amount equivalent to a quantity of biofuels that would
entirely displace petroleum-based transportation fuels, but
to then bury these materials in landllsinstead of
attempting to convert them to biofuels. If sufcient
biomass can be grown and disposed of in otherwise

unutilized land, ecologic and economic impacts will be

minimized and the transportation sector would thereby
become carbon-neutral. An important caveat: such a
solution is only a temporary one, and beyond this does
not reduce dependence on fossil fuels, imported or
otherwise. Fossil fuels are exhaustible and subject to noncompetitive and political forces. To the extent transportation is fossil fuel-based, virtual biofuels cannot extend
the lifetime of these non-renewable fuels nor increase
energy security in the way actual biofuels would. But
virtual biofuels could buy the world precious time climatewise.
We offer the proposition that virtual biofuels may
provide a useful bridge to the hoped-for era of actual
cellulosic biofuels prior to the time technology for
economically converting cellulosics to actual liquid biofuels
is realized.

3. Comparison of virtual biofuels to real biofuels

Table 1 provides a qualitative side-by-side comparison of
virtual to real biofuels.
Let us take each comparison dimension in turn:
An objection might arise that purpose-grown virtual
biofuels may have large impacts on arable land use.
However, purpose-grown actual biofuels would have an
identical impact. Whether the biomass is grown for
conversion or burial is immaterial to the amount of land
used. And this is true whether the biomass is purposegrown or notthe cellulosic waste material from growing
corn does not care whether it goes to a landll or a gas tank
with respect to the amount of land it requires for its
cultivation. In fact, it might be argued biomass grown for
the purpose of sequestering carbon might have a land use
advantage if such biomass can sequester more carbon per
hectare than biomass grown for its energy content.
Similarly, the same water to grow virtual biofuels would
be needed to grow actual biofuels.

Table 1
Qualitative side-by-side comparison of virtual to real biofuels
Grow and convert: actual
biofuelscellulosics

Grow and convert: actual

biofuelsnon-cellulosics

Grow and bury: virtual

biofuels

Use of arable land

Use of water resources
Conversion infrastructure
Transportation/distribution infrastructure
Technology availability
Use of land for disposal

Identical
Identical
Yes
Nation-wide
Future
None

Identical
Identical
Yes
Nation-wide
Now
None

Identical
Identical
None
Local/regional
Now
Yes

Cultivation costs
Transportation costs to Processing/landll
Feedstock costs
Conversion costs
Conventional fuels Production costs
Distribution costs to end use
Landll costs

Comparable
Comparable
None
Yes
Small
Yes
None

Comparable
Comparable
Competes with food
Yes
Yes
Yes
None

Comparable
Comparable
Crude oil
None
Yes
None
Yes

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.D. Saunders / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 12471250

Actual biofuels require facilities where biomass can be

temporarily stored, processed, and converted to biofuels.
Conversion is an expense (and a use of land) totally
avoided by virtual biofuels.
Transportation and distribution infrastructure would
likely be much less for virtual biofuels. Actual biofuels
ultimately require distribution to gas tanks in a broad
geography. Virtual biofuels require transportation to a
dump site. Landll sites would be regional and are likely to
be located near where the biomass is grown. Further, it is
conceivable some landlls could be on-site, with topsoil
removed and replaced each growing season, thus eliminating transportation costs altogether.
Virtual biofuels are available today. The technology for
transport and burial in landlls is hardly something
needing to be developed. In contrast, the technology for
producing actual liquid biofuels from high-cellulose
materials economically is not available today. Virtual
biofuels also have the technology advantage that they can
be grown for their carbon afnity, not their extractable
energy content. An associated technology benet is there
need be no specic conversion processes tailored to any
specic plant species for maximizing energy recovery.
Virtual biofuels require land for landlls. This is the only
dimension on which virtual biofuels are plainly inferior to
actual biofuels. This disadvantage will be smaller to the
extent landlls can be located in uninhabited areas where
ecological impacts of landlls are smaller, perhaps in arid
or semi-arid regions. By way of perspective, it should be
noted most countries make extensive use of landlls for
garbage disposal with strong attention paid to minimizing
environmental impact. And again, if landlls could be
located on-site, impacts on land use will be reduced.
From the above, one would incline toward the strong
presumption that virtual biofuels are also less costly than
actual onesno conversion processing needed, no distribution needed to gas tanks in broad geographies, the
same land and water required for growing. However, to
make a fair comparison to actual biofuels, we have to
account for the fact that actual biofuels deliver usable
energy directly to transportation while virtual biofuels do
not. So the cost comparison has to account for the cost of
continuing to produce the conventional fuels that will not
be displaced by biofuels, if they are virtual. A wrinkle is
that actual biofuels also require conventional fuels for their
production.
The dimensions of the cost comparison are shown in the
lower part of the table above. Two of these dimensions can
be set aside for comparison purposes. That is, let us assume
the cultivation costs are identical for actual and virtual
biofuels. Let us also assume the cost of transporting the
material to actual biofuel-processing sites is the same as
that to transport virtual biofuels to landlls. This is
generous to actual biofuels to the extent landlls can be
located on-site.
But assuming these costs are identical, the cost analysis
fundamentally becomes one of comparing feedstock,

1249

conversion and distribution costs on the actual biofuels

side to feedstock, continued conventional fuels production
costs and landll costs on the virtual biofuels side.
Feedstock costs for actual cellulosics biofuels will be
solely the costs of cultivation and transportation to the
conversion site. In contrast, feedstock costs for noncellulosics need to account for the opportunity cost of
their use as food. To the extent their cultivation displaces
agriculture aimed at food markets, this cost could be
signicant. Feedstock costs for virtual biofuels are the cost
of crude delivered to reneries for processing into
replacement transportation fuels. To the degree crude
prices are high and alternative-use food prices low, actual
biofuels are advantaged; to the degree the opposite is true,
virtual biofuels are advantaged. On this dimension, the
economics appear to favor actual cellulosics biofuels over
virtual ones, but this assumes actual cellulosics biofuels
overall economics makes them practical. For non-cellulosics, the economics can go either way, but in current
conditions in the United States, these costs appear
comparable or slightly in favor of virtual biofuels.
Currently, conversion costs for cellulosics are much
higher than conventional fuels production costs. In fact,
these costs are difcult to even dene given the early state
of technology for cellulosics conversion. Realistic conversion costs need to await the development of such practical
technology. Even then, the economics may favor virtual
biofuels for some time.
Virtual fuels, because they require ongoing production
of conventional fuels, carry a replacement production
cost. However, actual non-cellulosic biofuels carry an
analogous penalty because conventional fuels are required
for their production. Currently, the US Department of
Energy (2007) nds that for every unit of energy put
towards ethanol production, 1.3 units are returned; most of
this energy goes for conversion. Actual cellulosic biofuels
would carry corresponding costs for cultivation, transportation, and conversion. Virtual biofuels would likewise
carry such costs for cultivation, transportation, and
burialbut not conversion, substantially lowering net fuel
(and crude) replacement needs. Net replacement production costs for virtual fuels would reect prevailing rening
costs. So on balance, the conventional fuels production
costs/biofuels conversion cost comparison would certainly
favor virtual biofuels over actual cellulosic biofuels, and
the comparison to actual non-cellulosics at present is
perhaps slightly in favor of actual non-cellulosicsbut it
may be close excluding government incentives.
The cost of distributing fuels to end users is non-existent
for virtual biofuels but may be signicant for actual
biofuels. These fuels must make their way to reneries or
petroleum product distribution depots.
What about landll costs? Landll costs should be much
lower than those seen for typical municipal landlls.
Typical municipal landlls require expensive handling
equipment to sort and separate materials. For virtual
biofuels, there is no need to do this. Further, the landlls

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1250

H.D. Saunders / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 12471250

we envision would likely be large and able to take

advantage of economies of scale not available to individual
municipalities. Moreover, these landlls would not face the
costly challenges associated with handling hazardous and
toxic materials.
All this strongly suggests a cost advantage for virtual
biofuels by comparison to actual cellulosic-based biofuels
in the near term: high conversion costs plus distribution
costs on the actual biofuels side compared with (net added)
conventional fuels production costs and landll costs on
the virtual biofuels side. And virtual biofuels may well have
a cost advantage even over non-cellulosic-based biofuels, at
least in the near term.
In summary, while it clearly awaits detailed cost analysis
to validate the economics, on the basis of this high-level
qualitative analysis virtual biofuels look like a highly
attractive alternative to actual cellulosics-based biofuels
along nearly all dimensions, and perhaps an attractive
near-term alternative to non-cellulosics-based ones.
4. General caveat
There is no fundamental reason to attach virtual biofuels
to the quantity of petroleum fuels used in transportation.
The case is easily made that high-carbon-afnity biomass
should be purpose-grown and buried to capture carbon
independently of whatever petroleum may be used in
transportationor in any other sector, for that matter.
The only real connection comes if governments require
transportation fuels producers to supply a certain percentage of biofuels in their mix. In such a case, conventional
fuels producers may nd such a virtual regime more

economic than producing biofuels directly, especially if

biofuels requirements outstrip what can be realized from
non-cellulosic feedstocks.
Linkages aside, the economy broadly considered may
nd virtual biofuels an attractive possibility solely due to
their appeal as a direct near-term means of sequestering
carbon.
5. Conclusions
It is possible to disagree on the urgency of introducing
biofuels in a signicant way to the world energy economy.
But if one views it as urgent virtual biofuels hold out at
least the possibility of making this happen practically and
quickly. And it is entirely possible it could be done
relatively cheaply. Whether this is really true, the promise
appears signicant enough to call for energy economists,
and ecologists, to sharpen their pencils and either validate
this proposition or demonstrate it can be safely dismissed
without further consideration.
References
Metzger, R.A., Benford, G., Hoffert, M.I., 2002. To bury or burn:
optimum use of crop residues to reduce atmospheric CO2. Climatic
Change 54, 369374.
Tilman, D., Hill, J., Lehman, C., 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from
low-inputhigh-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314 (5805),
15981600.
US Department of Energy, 2007. Net Energy Balance for Bioethanol
Production and Use /http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_
balance.htmlS.