Biofuels+Energy+Review

After reading the biofuels dossier several times, we – group W – conclude that the dossier provides a realistic account of the alternative energy source. Group S compares the positive and negative characteristics of the energy source objectively, and as a result, they come to an honest conclusion that biofuels are currently not a feasible energy source on a meaningful scale. While examining the introduction of the dossier, a few concerns were brought to light. The dossier does not begin in the typical fashion because there are no “big picture” sentences that can justify the relevance of this project. By jumping into the mechanics of biofuels before introducing the problem at hand (ie. energy crisis), the dossier lacks a sense of context. Additionally, when presenting non-intuitive knowledge within the introductory paragraphs, proper citations should have been used more freely. For example, the third paragraph states that “In Brazil…15% of vehicles run on pure ethanol while all gas stations are required to provide at least E10” and should have been cited appropriately. In general, the introductory paragraphs were clear, concise, and did not have any glaring grammatical errors. Moving on to the body of the dossier, nicely placed transitional sentences give the dossier a pleasant flow. For example, the transition “this leads into the two main issues concerning biofuels: land use and environmental impact” effectively segued into the discussion of environmental impact and land use associated with biofuel production. We find that the sentence structure within the body paragraphs is choppy at times, wherein each thought is isolated from one another, as opposed to being connected through the use of linking words. In addition, we believe it might have been a better choice to describe fermentation in addition to hydrolysis, rather than hydrolysis alone, since fermentation is integral to the production of ethanol. A potential point of interest is the section concerning the possibility of obtaining more land dedicated to biofuels on page 3 of the dossier. Group S introduced three possible remedies, but then proceeded to substantiate only two of their ideas (ie. converting feedstock crops to croplands and creating altogether new croplands), leaving out the concept of converting degraded land into arable land. The mention that 8-36% of Canada’s arable land would have to be used for biofuel production to meet 10% of Canada’s transportation needs on page 3 was not an entirely effective statistic since the large range in required land diminished the impact of the statement. One of group S’s strengths was establishing that Canada’s cold, seasonable climate limits the country's production of biofuels to an uneconomical level. Group S did a nice job of incorporating the main conclusion of their lab into their dossier. More specifically, they conclude that increasing yeast concentration in a constant glucose solution did not produce a larger amount of ethanol, but merely increased the rate at which ethanol was produced. However, after group S notes this observation, they proceed to restate the same conclusion for some unknown reason. Another minor qualm we had with the lab was the measurement of temperature during the experiment. After talking with group S, it was explained to us that the temperature was being measured to document the potential experimental error caused by a fluctuating climate. However, this motivation could have been stated in the lab protocol to substantiate an apparent unnecessary measurement. The actual lab protocol was clear, concise, and easy to follow, especially the section devoted to the SPARK equipment. We did not have any trouble performing the lab, and we commend group S for their expository writing abilities. Overall, we enjoyed the dossier and gained a strong sense of the process behind biofuel production. The mechanics of the energy source were presented effectively, as well as the application of the primary mechanism set within a Canadian context. The language was appropriately scientific for a group of undergraduate students, and there were no sections of writing that did not make sense. The majority of our suggestions were minor structural concerns and did not overwhelm the dossier in the least. There could have been one or two figures to complement your dossier, but in the end we feel as though your dossier was very polished. Lastly, the main strength of your dossier was your honesty. You stuck to your conclusion that at the moment biofuels are not a sustainable realistic energy source. Thanks for being honest, we – group W – enjoyed the dossier.

edited by: helen