From the “we told you so back in 2010″ department and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Study casts doubt on climate benefit of biofuels from corn residue
The fuel could generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline
Lincoln, Neb., April 20, 2014 — Using corn crop residue to make ethanol and other biofuels reduces soil carbon and can generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline, according to a study published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The findings by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln team of researchers cast doubt on whether corn residue can be used to meet federal mandates to ramp up ethanol production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Corn stover — the stalks, leaves and cobs in cornfields after harvest — has been considered a ready resource for cellulosic ethanol production. The U.S. Department of Energy has provided more than $1 billion in federal funds to support research to develop cellulosic biofuels, including ethanol made from corn stover. While the cellulosic biofuel production process has yet to be extensively commercialized, several private companies are developing specialized biorefineries capable of converting tough corn fibers into fuel.
The researchers, led by assistant professor Adam Liska, used a supercomputer model at UNL’s Holland Computing Center to estimate the effect of residue removal on 128 million acres across 12 Corn Belt states. The team found that removing crop residue from cornfields generates an additional 50 to 70 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule of biofuel energy produced (a joule is a measure of energy and is roughly equivalent to 1 BTU). Total annual production emissions, averaged over five years, would equal about 100 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule — which is 7 percent greater than gasoline emissions and 62 grams above the 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as required by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.
Importantly, they found the rate of carbon emissions is constant whether a small amount of stover is removed or nearly all of it is stripped.
“If less residue is removed, there is less decrease in soil carbon, but it results in a smaller biofuel energy yield,” Liska said.
To mitigate increased carbon dioxide emissions and reduced soil carbon, the study suggests planting cover crops to fix more carbon in the soil. Cellulosic ethanol producers also could turn to alternative feedstocks, such as perennial grasses or wood residue, or export electricity from biofuel production facilities to offset emissions from coal-fueled power plants. Another possible alternative is to develop more fuel-efficient automobiles and significantly reduce the nation’s demand for fuel, as required by the 2012 CAFE standards.
![]() |
||||
Liska said his team tried, without success, to poke holes in the study.
“If this research is accurate, and nearly all evidence suggests so, then it should be known sooner rather than later, as it will be shown by others to be true regardless,” he said. “Many others have come close recently to accurately quantifying this emission.”
The study’s findings likely will not surprise farmers, who have long recognized the importance of retaining crop residue on their fields to protect against erosion and preserve soil quality.
Until now, scientists have not been able to fully quantify how much soil carbon is lost to carbon dioxide emissions after removing crop residue. They’ve been hampered by limited carbon dioxide measurements in cornfields, by the fact that annual carbon losses are comparatively small and difficult to measure, and the lack of a proven model to estimate carbon dioxide emissions that could be coupled with a geospatial analysis.
Liska’s study, which was funded through a three-year, $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, used carbon dioxide measurements taken from 2001 to 2010 to validate a soil carbon model that was built using data from 36 field studies across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia.
Using USDA soil maps and crop yields, they extrapolated potential carbon dioxide emissions across 580 million 30-meter by 30-meter “geospatial cells” in Corn Belt states. It showed that the states of Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin had the highest net loss of carbon from residue removal because they have cooler temperatures and more carbon in the soil.
The research has been in progress since 2007, involving the coordinated effort of faculty, staff and students from four academic departments at UNL. Liska is an assistant professor of biological systems engineering and agronomy and horticulture. He worked with Haishun Yang, an associate professor of agronomy and horticulture, to adapt Yang’s soil carbon model, and with Andrew Suyker, an associate professor in the School of Natural Resources, to validate the model findings with field research. Liska also drew upon research conducted by former graduate students Matthew Pelton and Xiao Xue Fang. Pelton’s master’s degree thesis reprogrammed the soil carbon model, while Fang developed a method to incorporate carbon dioxide emissions into life cycle assessments of cellulosic ethanol.
Liska also worked with Maribeth Milner, a GIS specialist with the Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Steve Goddard, professor of computer science and engineering and interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and graduate student Haitao Zhu to design the computational experiment at the core of the paper. Humberto Blanco-Canqui, assistant professor of agronomy and horticulture, also helped to address previous studies on the topic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![Corn+Gas+Tank[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/corngastank1.jpg?resize=640%2C280&quality=83)

Oh, the irony.
Over the years how much money has our government wasted to get us to the same point they started with — ie. gasoline is the most efficient way to fuel transportation?
Subsidizing something into existence that would not come about under free market conditions must always lead to increased waste.
My instincts that told me that manufacturing veggie oil would require more energy than letting oil flow out of the earth. So… I’m not surprised here.
Tell me greenies, does a C-C bond in a veggie oil release more energy than a C-C bond in an Exon oil well?
That photo does not depict the kind of corn used to make ethanol.
1 BTU = 1055 joules.
Just sayin . . . .
Corn ethanol is a horrible idea. We should use our farmland to grow food (including livestock feed), not fuel. Second, there is no oil shortage and third, the threat of global warming through “carbon pollution” is speculative and has no sound scientific basis.
The powerful “Big Ag” lobby sold the tax-payers a bill of goods when they pushed the ethanol mandates and subsidies on us. The fact the Iowa plays a huge part in the presidential nomination process should not be overlooked, either.
Off topic I know, but…
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/21/keystone-pipeline-transcanada-delay/?__lsa=d545-abff
This summary is confusing. The writer is trying to make it sound like research is important for carbon emissions, but the research results are more about soil degradation. The key sentences are:
Importantly, they found the rate of carbon emissions is constant whether a small amount of stover is removed or nearly all of it is stripped. “If less residue is removed, there is less decrease in soil carbon, but it results in a smaller biofuel energy yield,” Liska said.
I think what they mean by that is “the corn stover is going to turn into CO2 whether you turn it into biofuel and burn it, or leave it to rot in the Nebraska soil.” So biofuels are carbon neutral. The problem is that the stuff that does not rot is needed for soil quality. If you strip it off the soil, that stuff ends up as waste gunk in the biofuel reactors, rather than enriching the fields.
All the talk about carbon emissions at the top of the summary page just serves to illustrate the damage done to the environment by focusing on “CO2 pollution” (which is a false concept in so many ways) rather than on “deep earth carbon preservation” (which is a noble objective).
Rhoda R wrote;
“Over the years how much money has our government wasted to get us to the same point they started with — ie. gasoline is the most efficient way to fuel transportation?”
Slight addition, the free market and entrepreneurship got us to the starting point, i.e. gasoline is currently the most cost effective, safe, and very low polluting with modern catalytic convertors way to power personal vehicles (automobiles). Given the distances in large countries (outside of large urban areas) and peoples design for schedule flexibility the gas powered automobile is here to stay for a while longer.
If the government had attempted to force us all to drive electric cars (batteries and motors only) back in the early 1900’s when H. Ford (and others) where perfecting the “petrol” fueled car there would likely be a large black market in cars that looked “electric” but had a hidden “petrol” engine inside. Kind of like a “speakeasy” under your hood.
Cheers, Kevin.
This is absolutely no surprise. it was known from the start that corn biofuels produced more CO2 when combusted. What they did was deduct an estimated amount of CO2 taken up by the plant while growing from the amount released after combustion and produced a net figure that was lower than CO2 from gasoline.
The real tragedy of corn biofuels was the dramatic increase in global food costs, especially in developing nations and the number of people who starved.
Food for clunkers.
Michael D says:
April 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Surely it can’t be carbon neutral when you consider the emissions associated with collection?
The greens – killing the planet with good intentions.
It is always thus.
lee: Surely it can’t be carbon neutral… I wondered about that too. One could presumably use biofuels when collecting the corn stover to make it carbon neutral?
This is true of every green scheme.
Windmills cost more energy to manufacture and install than they ever return.
Same for solar.
Up north here we have a government supported scheme to harvest boreal forest for wood pellets.
In the name of CO2 emission reduction, we will have crews going out on frozen ground in diesel pickups, using gasoline powered 2 cycle chainsaws, diesel powered skitters, trucks. loaders to haul these minuscule trees to a processing plant.
I guess firewood is just too old-fashioned.
Liska’s study, which was funded through a three-year, $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, used carbon dioxide measurements taken from 2001 to 2010 to validate a soil carbon model that was built using data from 36 field studies across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia.
At least this model was validated before conclusions were drawn.
Spellcheck.@ur momisugly#*! Skidders
Killing the planet my arse – they’re killing the poorest inhabitants of the planet.
From the “I coulda tol’ ya, but ya wouldn’a lissened” department:
Ethanol has been a bad bet from the get-go. Alcohol burns at a considerably faster rate than gasoline does, so that means you lose fuel mileage. Ethanol isn’t the best alcohol for engines anyway, most engines that use pure alcohol for fuel are designed for methanol which comes from trees. Gasoline burns in engines at about 14 parts air to 1 part gasoline. Alcohol is approximately 8 parts air to 1 part alcohol. Now you want this fuel, which needs more of it to burn right in an engine, to return better fuel mileage. Not gonna happen. I’m not surprised to find that this fuel produces more CO2 either– again, you’re burning more fuel so of course you’re going to have a problem with more by-products.
I keep a log, in it I record my gas mileage amongst other things. I can tell there’s a difference when I’m able to get pure gasoline, and when– most of the time here in the Midwest– I have to buy the 90/10 fuel we usually get. I have a friend who has a flex-fuel vehicle, he says his mileage isn’t good on the high-ethanol fuels so he runs the 90/10 all the time.
To me this is a nice bit of research, and it is good to see researchers being straight up and honest with the results. Especially as I suspect that this would not have been the result the government wanted or expected when the half million dollars of funding was approved.
This is a coldly calculated simple bit of science, honestly reported. This IS a step forward, people.
Another note: This is about cellulosic ethanol, which used the inedible (for humans) parts of the plant, supposedly to some degree solving the often illogical situation of growing food and using to make fuel. I thought it sounded like a good idea, but the results of this research clearly show the shortcomings, and what we saw as waste was really an important component of the farming cycle.
Altogether nice work, and I hope we see more of it.
Er, does it not take more energy to make this fuel than it provides in the end? Net that total through the production cycle; plowing, fertilzing, watering, harvesting, processing, transporting, distributing etc…
Just sayin,,,,,,, the math doesn’t add up……..
To say nothing of massive Eco Damage
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23188-biofuel-rush-is-wiping-out-unique-american-grasslands.html#.U1PbkabqUo1
=====================================================================
And not just when it’s burned. CO2, and a lot of it, is produced in ethanol production itself.
All of which has been known qualitatively by farmers, agricultural scientists & soil geochemists for decades.
Of course, this quantitative finding, on acceptance, makes it INVALID to use the generic word “sustainable” in relation to corn stover processes. There is no logical separation from petroleum processes that are deemed unsustainable. One cannot justify systematic depletion of soil carbon and the consequent trashing of soil quality.
So why do it?