The studies cited in the Washington Post article looked at traditional corn-to-ethanol and the impact of clearing rainforest, peetlands and grasslands in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Some of the newer US companies are trying to use hybrid grasses and other low maintenance crops.  The ethanol per acre yield is greater because thewhole plant is used, not just the corn kernals.  And it is my understanding that one objective is to crow these cops on lands currently cultivated for tobacco and other failing markets.

Using this type of production should reduce the impact on greenhouse gases.

All that science stuff is for scientists.  Policy is for politicians.  Never shall the two cross paths.

Cellulosic ethanol or butanol has the potential to take agricultural waste and turn it into usable auto fuel.  Dead leaves, wood chips, the corn stalks that go with the corn that is being used for food...  I agree with the report that it makes little sense to clear forest land -- which absorbs a LOT of carbon dioxide -- to grow a fuel.  But a lot of the land that would be used for growing switchgrass, for example, is already cleared.  And switchgrass would capture a lot more carbon dioxide than regular grasses do.

So don't condemn biofuels as a whole -- let's just figure out a way to make intelligent judgments about the best use for our land.  Sometimes that may mean growing a biofuel.

from dead leaves, etc?  Remember, the United States consumes 21 million barrels per day of oil.  Good luck replacing even 10% of that with corn stalks, wood chips, etc.

You don't need to clear any new land at all to displace all petroleum with biofuels in the US.  Tobacco farm land is all ready to go and algae, which is the highest yeilding crop requires no farm land at all.  And industrial and farm residue can displace between 20-30% of the petroleum we currently use. The entire premise of the post is a hoax.

Biofuels bombshell: Researchers find corn ethanol, switchgrass could worsen global warming (that one's from the respected environmental blog Gristmill)

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt (that one's from Science magazine)

Look, there's no question that how good or bad bioefuels are depend on how they're produced. As Science magazine writes:

Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

So, what you're focused on is the last sentence, "waste biomass" or "biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands."  The question is whether there's enough of either of these to produce a sizable fraction of U.S. oil consumption (21 million barrels per day).  I'd love to see your math, but I'm extremely skeptical that it can be done without cutting into productive farmland, forests and wetlands.

That's more in terms of foreign development.  In the states we already have open fields in west and switch grass is proving to be much more efficient to convert to energy than before.  Check out this recent article.  But ethanol like other renewables, will only play a role in regions which are suitable for such production.  

For Virginia, however, like wind, solar, tidal, thermal, wave, etc., biomass combined with others will only contribute in minor way.  If we are expected to do our part, how can Virginia reduce 2005 C02 production by 50-80% by 2050 by initiating a mass effort with those renewables?  A RPS comprised of this will only lead to higher prices and leave us with failed investments dollars, similar to betamax technology of the 1970's.  Forcing utilities to buy a % of renewable power from other out-of-state utilities where renewables are more efficient, is more sound and market-oriented.

Since Virginia is not bless with higher efficient sources of renewables, I think we should stick with co2 reduction goals, and let other states more blessed environmentally take the lead on other renewables and allow them to be our test lab.  Should those resources work here, moving forward when that becomes established is more sound.  

So how can Virginia do its part w/o those renewables?  

EEC can increase capacity up to ~20%, decreases the price of kwh, and reduces wasteful infrastructure overlap.

Nuclear is cheaper than ever before.  Today's technology is safe and nuclear by thorium produces 1/3 the waste as uranium.

New coal can replace high polluting old coal plants with new technology, and where new plants are not feasible, convert & expand existing plants.  Shutdown Alexandria's 585MW plant with new coal in Wise or expand Mt. Storm for example.  With petroleum supply reaching peak by 2012, eliminating coal from national energy is unrealistic.  Obama and most Dems are on board with CCS & IGCC.

Off-shore wind is double the efficiency as on or in-shore, has 300GW potential, nearly invisible from shore, and avoids visual pollution in our state's ecologically sensitive mountains and baywaters regions.