The European Commission is backing a complaint over US biofuel subsidies launched by the European Biodiesel Board.This from the Britain’s The Guardian newspaper:

Washington will be asked this week to answer allegations that subsidies amounting to 11p a litre on B99 [biodiesel with up to 1% petroleum added] exports from the US, plus “splash-and-dash” operations being conducted through the US, represent unfair competition.

The European Biodiesel Board lodged a formal complaint against the US with [the European commissioner] at the end of last month after a disastrous period for British, German and other biodiesel producers.

D1, one of the leading UK firms, announced in April that it would be closing its newly built refineries and laying off all its staff there because it could not compete against cheap US imports. Elliott Mannis, D1’s chief executive, said it was an “unbelievable situation” that Europe had sat on its hands so long and let B99 cause turmoil in a market that has opened up to huge new demand.

The case against the US will not be one-sided. Manning Feraci, of the US National Biodiesel Board, has said: “It is hypocritical for the EBB to cry foul while they benefit from a blatant trade barrier.”

Byron King in Energy and Oil is bullish on another alternative energy source: coal to liquid or CTL.

“The US will adopt CTL, because it has to do so,” says Byron. “There are few other large-scale industrial alternatives. Windmills, biofuels, conservation and every other energy-saving and energy-extending idea will help. But the world we live in is built to run on oil, and nothing else will cut it for some things when it comes to running a fast-transforming economy. So stand by for CTL.

“It is not a question of if the US will adopt CTL. It is a question of when. And looking ahead, every month is precious. As I said above, we are running out of time. So it will matter greatly how much will we as a nation fool around with our national obsession of navel-gazing over ancillary issues before we get around to making a decision to bend steel.”

“The biofuels debate is interesting from a number of angles,” says Merryn Somerset Webb in Money Week. “Firstly, it is not absolutely true to say that the commitment of land to the production of biofuels automatically reduces food production everywhere (although that hardly makes the European Union’s full-on encouragement of plant-derived fuel right).

“Supporters of biofuels tend to use the Brazilian experience as justification for the dash to plant-derived fuel alternatives, not that that country’s success should detract from the fact that there are a lot of other places where land which would otherwise have been used to grow food for human consumption has now been given over to the production of biofuel to feed machinery!

“The EU could, for example, call a halt to its pre-announced intention to derive 5.75% of petrol and diesel to be manufactured from plants, although we understand the EU’s difficulties given growing stresses in the oil market too.”