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.
![Corn+Gas+Tank[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/corngastank1.jpg?resize=640%2C280&quality=83)

I like how the Administration is quoting another study that says this study is BS. Of course, they aren’t trumpeting the fact that the study they are quoting was paid for by Du Ponte, who just happens to be building a monstrous alcohol processing plant….
But, Obama!
/ sarc
It’s really great news that carbon can be trapped in the soil. That will be extremely important when the Holocene ends.
One of my dad’s buddies owned a farm, and he used to organically process the corn residue through his cows to produce methane.
A UN economist (sorry, can’t recall his name) said that at least 2 million of the world’s poorest die each year as a direct result of US ethanol subsidies and the impacts they have on world food stocks/food prices.
Food-for-fuel subsidies are just bribes to get political donations from Big Ag cronies and electoral votes from corn-belt states; pure and simple.
Food-for-fuel subsidies are immoral, wasteful, ineffective, corruptive, distortional and downright evil.
California drought raising prices on these fruits, vegetables
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589388
Behind the cornucopia of higher food prices
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589514
Agreed, farmland should definitely grow food not fuel. IEO
Ed Mertin says:
April 21, 2014 at 8:10 pm
California drought raising prices on these fruits, vegetables
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589388
Behind the cornucopia of higher food prices
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589514
=======================================
Although the US drought obviously did have an adverse effect food prices, it was exacerbated by EPA laws, which forced billions of gallons of reservoir water to be dumped into rivers and streams to “save the salmon and sand darter”…
EPA rules and regs have also prevented the expansion of much needed dam and reservoir construction to provide sufficient water to a growing Western US population.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve’s insane QEternity policies has greatly inflated the money supply leading to dollar devaluation and higher prices.
Stupid government policies are greatly decreasing our standard of living.
Nobel Prize winning biochemist says ALL biofuels are “nonsense.”
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/nobel-prize-winning-biochemist-says-all-biofuels-are-nonsense/
Not only this, but they are very expensive as they are taxed in UK. Plus the facts, they are endangering agriculture because they replace farming land grown for food. On a lighter note,
some British tourists went around Oz using filtered vegetable oil to run their camper van. It is illegal in Oz, but fish and chip shops were happy to hand over their used oil. Other than the smell from the exhaust of fish and chips, it seems to have gained some followers.
We knew that corn-based ethanol was a net CO2 loser back in 2009, as California Air Resources Board calculated 117 Btu input required for each 100 Btu of ethanol produced. This included land use changes.
see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ab-32-and-low-carbon-fuel-standard.html
It’s important to point out that they are talking about cellulosic ethanol, and NOT ethanol produced from corn kernels themselves! In other words, harvesting corn stalks, stover, cobs etc., which are then size-reduced, treated with acids & enzymes, and then fermented into ethyl alcohol.
As dumb a corn-based ethanol is as an energy policy, this is even more stupid for the reasons listed (soil erosion, loss of soil carbon etc.). It would be far better to just grow hemp, which has many side-benefits. Fiber, oil seeds etc.
They sell lead free petrol in Australia, and ethanol is mixed too in some brands. We really have no choice, but my garage is the only one that sells pure lead free petrol, so I keep to that. I find it gives me better kms per litre but I have an older car.
Take a look at the wiki and stuff on ‘The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000’ by ‘papa Bush’s other son’ SAMURAI. The only times food and fuel prices are not boosted up or spiked & bubbled way above supply & demand is when the financial institutions are unable to afford to invest in futures. Bail them out and they go right back at it. And because of them it doesn’t get counted in core inflation figures by the fed.
Here’s a good read too…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/air/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/
“Stupid government policies are greatly decreasing our standard of living”
Agreed, you sure have that correct!
mjmsprt–
Agree with you on EtOH-free gas. I get about 4 mpg more in my Honda Gen 2 Insight hybrids, or about 9%. You can find ethanol-free gas stations at
Ihttp://pure-gas.org/?stateprov=VA (enter the state of your choice). Further, the car just runs BETTER!
PJM
It’s not like corn is pulling soil carbon from any significant distances or that there is endless supply of soil carbon in the field where it grows. You got to either replenish that soil carbon somehow, leave the corn to pull it from air, or stop growing corn. And since corn is grown in the same areas for years, it’s obvious farmers have already found a way how to get things balanced.
Of course it’s worse. Oil doesn’t need to be planted – corn does and in doing so creates more CO2 – and it takes more of it because ethanol burns faster.
Ed Mertin says:
April 21, 2014 at 10:11 pm
Take a look at the wiki and stuff on ‘The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000′ by ‘papa Bush’s other son’ SAMURAI. The only times food and fuel prices are not boosted up or spiked & bubbled way above supply & demand is when the financial institutions are unable to afford to invest in futures. Bail them out and they go right back at it.
===============================================
Yeah, the Fed is pumping bogus dollars into Wall Street investment banks like a firehose. As soon as the Fed turns off the spigot, the economy will collapse. The irony is that as long as the economic news is bad, the investment banks know the Fed will continue to keep the firehoses wide open. Moreover, the banks can totally disregard risk because even if their bets go tits up, the Federal government will have to bail them out as institutionalized under Dodd/Frank…
The Fed makes the hilarious claim that they can turn off the money spigot at anytime and easily unwind their bloated balance sheet… What I want to know is to whom they’re planning to unload the $trillions of toxic waste they’re holding? China? (they’re already dumping US bonds), Japan? (they’re on the brink of insolvency), Russia? (they’re broke, too), EU? (busted), Middle East? (totally insufficient funds)…
Last one out, turn the lights off…
“…. and 62 grams above the 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as required by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.”
So it seems that the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act has little to do with Energy Independence and Security .
Stuff the CO2 angle. None of this argues against using corn stover as an energy source.
Greg Goodman says: April 21, 2014 at 11:48 pm
Stuff the CO2 angle. None of this argues against using corn stover as an energy source.
Except it will deplete the soil AND will be uneconomical …. it won’t currently meet the needed ‘carbon reduction’ target to qualify for the subsidy needed to allow it to compete fossil fuels.
DuPont Biofuels is pushing this approach. From the AP.
“The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,” said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.
Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
they also get lousy mileage and increase engine maintenance requirements – but green zealots don’t care.
GUARDIAN & GEORGE MONBIOT
Sorry Monbiot but this is what happens when you shout WOLF! He should acknowledge his own part in this co2 scandal. The Guardian included.
The lousy mileage is from the fact that alcohol burns at a different rate than gasoline does. Much different. If you could burn pure ethanol, your system would have to be set to alcohol’s nearly 8 parts air to 1 part alcohol rate. You would burn nearly twice as much fuel using straight alcohol. Gasoline burns in an engine at about 14 parts air to 1 part gasoline. It’s a big difference.
The only good reason I can think of to use alcohol is if you’re running a dragster. Those things run a methanol/nitromethane mix and produce obscene power at the drive wheels. The downside is that engines running that mix don’t last long, a couple of races tops is about it. Alcohol runs at 8 parts air to 1 part alcohol, nitromethane runs at just about 1 to 1 rates. More fuel to the engine=more power– but at the cost of blowing engines a lot.
A rhetorical question: Rather than flushing $billions/$trillions down the toilet on “Green” energy, why don’t the kleptocrats simply spend 10’s millions establishing LFTR rules and regs and allow the private sector to build as many LFTRs as they feel the market requires?
For this to work, all energy subsidies must be abolished and just let the free market work it out…
Not a DIME of taxpayer money would be needed…
This is but yet another example of the pointless boondoggles unleashed on Society by the Brigade of Warmistas with their hald-baked scientific concepts. In twenty or so years they nay come to their sebses, or then again, they may never get there.