Five Disadvantages of Biofuels—and Why They Matter Now

Five key disadvantages of biofuels are: land-use change that can erase climate gains; competition with food crops that raises prices; heavy water use and runoff pollution; technical and air-quality drawbacks, including lower energy density and higher NOx in some cases; and high costs with policy dependence and limited scalable feedstocks. These issues shape how far biofuels can go in cutting emissions without creating new environmental or social problems.

The core drawbacks at a glance

The list below summarizes the most widely cited disadvantages of biofuels across scientific assessments and policy debates. It reflects both first-generation fuels made from food crops and newer, “advanced” fuels made from wastes and residues.

• Land-use change and uncertain lifecycle emissions
• Food-versus-fuel pressures and price volatility
• High water demand and agricultural pollution
• Technical limits and air-quality trade-offs
• Cost, scalability, and policy dependence

Taken together, these drawbacks highlight why many governments are capping crop-based fuels and steering incentives toward waste-based or truly advanced options, even as demand rises in hard-to-electrify transport such as aviation.

How each disadvantage plays out

1) Land-use change and uncertain lifecycle emissions

Biofuels can cut tailpipe carbon, but what matters is the full lifecycle. When forests, peatlands, or grasslands are converted to grow biofuel crops—or when existing crops are displaced and new land is cleared elsewhere—the resulting “indirect land-use change” (ILUC) can release large carbon stocks. That creates a carbon debt that can take decades to repay, undermining near-term climate targets.

Studies continue to diverge on the net climate impact of some pathways. For example, U.S. corn ethanol has been estimated in some analyses to offer meaningful reductions relative to gasoline when ILUC is low, while other peer-reviewed work has found equal or higher emissions once land-use effects and fertilizer-driven nitrous oxide are fully counted. Policymakers have responded: the EU caps food- and feed-based biofuels and restricts high-ILUC-risk feedstocks like palm oil, while directing growth toward wastes, residues, and advanced fuels.

2) Food-versus-fuel pressures and price volatility

When biofuel production uses corn, sugar, soy, or vegetable oils, it competes with food and feed markets. That competition can raise commodity prices, exacerbate food insecurity during shocks, and expand cropland elsewhere. The effect is most visible during supply disruptions—such as droughts or geopolitical crises—when diverting edible oils to biodiesel or corn to ethanol tightens global markets and pushes up prices for staples.

Some producers mitigate this by using non-edible feedstocks (e.g., used cooking oil, tallow) or agricultural residues. But these waste streams are limited, and demand from renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has already tightened supply, with spillover effects on food and industrial uses.

3) High water demand and agricultural pollution

Many biofuel feedstocks are water-intensive when irrigated, and processing plants also consume significant water. In water-stressed regions, expanding irrigated corn, sugarcane, or oil crops can strain aquifers and rivers. Beyond quantity, increased fertilizer and pesticide use for energy crops amplifies nutrient runoff, driving algal blooms and “dead zones” in downstream waters.

Lifecycle assessments routinely flag eutrophication and freshwater ecotoxicity as notable impacts for crop-based biofuels. While perennial energy crops and better nutrient management can reduce runoff, broad deployment on marginal lands has proved difficult at scale and can depress yields, raising land-use pressures elsewhere.

4) Technical limits and air-quality trade-offs

Biofuels often have lower energy density than fossil fuels (e.g., ethanol contains about one-third less energy per liter than gasoline), which can reduce range and complicate logistics. Many vehicle fleets face “blend walls” (such as E10–E15 for ethanol, B5–B20 for biodiesel) due to material compatibility, cold-flow behavior, and warranty limits; going beyond them typically requires engine or infrastructure upgrades.

Air-quality trade-offs also matter. Biodiesel blends can increase nitrogen oxides (NOx) in some engines and duty cycles, even as they cut particulate matter, CO, and hydrocarbons. Ethanol blends may elevate emissions of acetaldehyde and influence ozone formation under certain conditions. Modern engine controls and aftertreatment can mitigate some effects, but outcomes vary by vehicle, blend level, and operating conditions.

5) Cost, scalability, and policy dependence

Many biofuels are more expensive than fossil fuels without subsidies or credits. Their economics hinge on volatile feedstock prices and policy instruments such as renewable fuel standards, low-carbon fuel standards, tax credits, and blending mandates. Rapid growth in renewable diesel and SAF has exposed a hard constraint: truly sustainable lipids and waste oils are limited, and competition for them is intensifying.

Advanced pathways—cellulosic ethanol, gasification/FT fuels, and power-to-liquid e-fuels blended with bio-based components—promise lower land and water impacts, but commercialization has been slower and costlier than expected. As of 2024–2025, SAF still accounts for a tiny fraction of jet fuel use, and most volumes come from HEFA routes that depend on scarce waste oils, underscoring scalability limits.

What’s changing in policy and markets

Regulators are tightening sustainability criteria while preserving a role for biofuels in sectors with few alternatives. The EU’s latest renewable energy rules cap crop-based biofuels and raise sub-targets for advanced fuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin. In the United States, updated renewable fuel standards and state low-carbon fuel programs are pushing producers toward lower-carbon pathways; new SAF tax credits reward verified lifecycle performance. These shifts acknowledge biofuels’ potential while attempting to curb their biggest downsides—especially land-use and food-market impacts.

Summary

Biofuels can displace fossil fuels, but five disadvantages limit their upside: land-use change that can wipe out climate benefits, competition with food markets, heavy water use and runoff, technical and air-quality compromises, and costs tied to finite sustainable feedstocks and policy support. The future of biofuels hinges on shifting from food-based feedstocks to wastes, residues, and genuinely advanced pathways—and proving those can scale without repeating the same environmental and social trade-offs.

What is the biggest problem for biofuels?

Biofuel production and use has drawbacks as well, including land and water resource requirements, air and ground water pollution. Depending on the feedstock and production process, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy -equivalent basis.

What are five disadvantages of biofuels?

Disadvantages of biofuels

• Impact on drive units.
• Less energy efficiency.
• Increase in food prices.
• Risk to biodiversity.
• Water demand.
• Degradation of natural habitats.
• Technical problems.

What are 5 advantages and 5 disadvantages of biomass?

What are the pros and cons of biomass energy?

Pros of biomass energy	Cons of biomass energy
Renewable energy source	Land use and deforestation
Potential for carbon neutrality	Competition with food production
Reduces and utilizes waste	Air pollution
Job creation	Resource intensive

What are 5 disadvantages of renewable energy?

Here are some of the cons of renewable energy projects today:

• High upfront costs.
• Location and landmass requirements.
• Production volatility.
• Storage requirements.
• Supply chain limitations.
• Carbon footprint and waste.