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
![Corn+Gas+Tank[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/corngastank1.jpg?quality=83)
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.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: Corn residue is being baled on a University of Nebraska-Lincoln field experiment site in Saunders County, Neb.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
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.
“mjmsprt40 says:
April 22, 2014 at 4:39 am
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.”
In an engine like this it’s how much air you can ram down the induction system, with a slightly “lean” mix as it burns hotter and faster (Top end burn outs results). That is why there are superchargers and turbochargers bolted to the induction system. Forced induction increases volumetric efficiency of a cylinder.
Has anyone found free access to a copy of the actual Liska study? It seems sufficiently complex and nuanced to require a close reading of what it says and doesn’t say.
One of the more likely benefits of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be that most of the tax dollars devoted to the green subsidies and the studies of carbon dioxide and global warming would be cut off. Only when money seems to be never-ending can this nonsense be funded year after year, regardless of the economic distortions and actual damages incurred.
And yes, I realize this is a study that supports “our side,” but left to the free markets, the most efficient use of corn stover would have been sorted out eventually. Around here, it’s baled and used for bedding cattle, with enough left on the ground to prevent erosion. It’s rarely plowed into the ground any longer, as no-tillage planting is practiced by most of the bigger producers.
And, believe it or not, a round bale of corn stalks (stover) has an actual price attached to it since it competes with other bedding products, leading the producer to decide how much to remove and how much to leave, while bearing in mind that at least some of it must be removed or it will interfere with the planting of next year’s crop. Pricing–what a novel idea!
Another thing about pricing vs. subsidization: With pricing, usages change to reflect new opportunities (efficiencies), whereas subsidies tend to lock in usages regardless of new opportunities (efficiencies) because it takes a significant change in relative pricing to overcome a significant subsidy. For example, if there is a shortage of a bedding competitor, say oat straw, then corn stover bales will increase in price, encouraging producers to remove more of it. Subsidies overwhelm the price signals.
Which is why, if you ask a liberal about free market pricing today you will generally get the response that “Free markets have failed humanity” or similar gibberish. Seriously. Ask one.
For those that doubt the above research conclusion, they have none other than the world’s greatest (and Nobel winning) climate expert to back them up (in 2010!):
“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol,” Al Gore told a gathering of clean energy financiers in Greece this week. The benefits of ethanol are “trivial,” he added, but “It’s hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”
He further explained:
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President.”
(WSJ Nov 27 2010)
A rare outbreak of honesty from the warmists.
And it was quite predictable that the POTUS and many lawmakers attacked the study because it does not fit the political science. Actually, the study represents a minimum net negative impact because it does not account for consumers and businesses working proportionately longer and harder to pay for the policy distortion in the first place.
“dp says:
April 21, 2014 at 6:37 pm
Killing the planet my arse – they’re killing the poorest inhabitants of the planet.”
That’s right, DP. and it’s always been their intent. The biggest difference is that with the increases in cost of living, the “middle class” is now part of “poorest inhabitants” as well, so population reduction is even greater. We don’t need no stinking useless eaters, just like Kissinger said, and Ted Turner’s statement of Earth supporting only about 750 million, well, that would be what they are aiming at – a million or so of the new nobility and the remaining to be the surfs that support them in luxury.
mjmsprt40 says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:00 pm
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.
Not from the get-go, the original reason for adding oxygenates to gasoline (1970s) was to reduce emissions from carbureted engines which were the predominant type at that time. At this they worked well and also gave a slight octane boost. It does not have the same benefit with modern fuel injected engines. The one preferred by the fuel industry was MTBE but when that hit pollution problems they switched to ethanol, Bob Dole anxious to look after his Kansas constituents had a law drafted that said that the ethanol had to be manufactured from corn!
@Michael D (April 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm), who says: “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.”
No, they are not, methinks, because producing ethanol out of the residues will require expenditure of energy (for field machinery, trucks for transportation, and equipment for processing the residues into fuel). The process not only keeps the soil from incorporating the organic carbon and nitrogen contained in the residues, thus ultimately degrading soil fertility, but also forces more energy use, and thus more emissions, than should be needed in case the residues are left to rot in the field.
How much CO2 do they assume is returned to the air and how much is assumed to be sequestered in soil if the corn residues are left to decompose in the field? I’ve been curious to see what ratio they use for quantitative studies such as this and especially for livestock studies where purportedly huge amounts of aCO2 are generated. Anyone actually seen their numbers?
What is the feeling over Jatropha seed to produce biofuel? I have done some deep study`s regarding Jatropha and i can not really see that it will cause a grate deal of damage to the environment?
The same uninformed and in many cases ignorant comments regarding ethanol biofuels as we always see here.
This study would make a global warming kook like Michael Mann proud. Cooked books, falsehoods and outright lies. Alleged facts presented in worst possible light with no connection to reality.
And even with all that – the report claims biofuels from corn waste biomass was still only 7% worse than gasoline … and then ONLY in the short term. They admit in the long term the headline claim is NOT true.
You people are acting like Dana Nuccitelli to a Stephan Lewandowsky masterpiece – buying a manipulated headline claim – that ignores the fact the report shows the long term benefit is POSITIVE – lock, stock and barrel.
Ethanol from corn does not have a negative energy balance – there are large numbers of credible peer reviewed reports that prove the outright falsity of that claim – a claim made almost exclusively by Patzek and Pimental at Berkely. Corn used to produce ethanol generates appx 1.6 units of energy for every 1 unit expended in production. PLUS the same bushel of corn used for ethanol returns effectively almost 50% of the feed value the corn originall had, thru creation of Distillers Dried Grain Solids – a high quality animal feed, along with corn oil, corn meal and other co-products.
Ethanol produced from corn waste – cellulosic biomass – has a net energy yield, conservatively, of 4 to 6 units of energy for every 1 unit expended in production.
And last I have repeatedly shown – with real world facts and data – from the actual USDA Field Crop Yearbook data – and other sourced documentation – that corn used for ethanol is not causing anyone to go hungry, nor is it causing any significant increase in food costs.
The REALITY is the areas experiencing food price pressure – Mexico and Guatemala to good examples – IMPORT US corn to help LOWER food prices – because US corn is CHEAPER.
The Dept. of Energy is wasting $1 billion on R&D on corn ethanol. It is already known that it uses more energy than its output. To produce 1 liter of ethanol requires more than 1 liter of gasoline or its equivalent energy. Ethanol is more expensive to produce. It’s more sensible to just burn gasoline in your car and drink ethanol. Your 80-proof vodka is 40% ethanol.
It takes almost ZERO effort to show this report for the complete garbage it is:
rom the USDA Crop Production data:
The USDA tells us 97.4 million acres were planted in corn of all types in 2013 … and the most corn ever planted was 102 million acres back in 1936.
This alleged scientific study used corn residue removal on 128 million acres in its model. These crack scientists inflated the corn acres planted by 131.5% over reality and even with this massive cooking of the books, still found ethanol would see just a 7% higher emissions scenario than gasoline.
The U.S. has NEVER planted anywhere remotely near 128 million ares of corn, nor will they in ANY foreseeable future. And there is no way in hell farmers, who the study points out “… have long recognized the importance of retaining crop residue on their fields to protect against erosion and preserve soil quality” … would destroy their soils by taking away ALL of the crop residue.
This “study” is of no more value than a Lewandowsky paper. A sensationalized headline treatment of a MINOR finding which is supported by the barest of data (even AFTER they cooked the books – inflating planted acreage by 131+%) all while IGNORING the major finding, that corn residue based cellulosic biomass is a net BENEFIT in the long term.
And people here sadly blindly buy it – with zero critical thought or attempt to verify the claims made.
Strangelove:
An outright, bald-faced lie.
A LARGE number peer reviewed studies, including from government entities/agencies show that ethanol from corn produces appx 1.6 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy consumed in making it. Cellulosic biomass as discussed in this “study” produces 4 to 6 units of energy for every 1 unit expended in production.
Scot
Of course these government agencies must show ethanol is viable in order to continue getting research funds. But to quote an objective study from Cornell University and UC Berkeley:
“Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).”
“In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/ethanol-biodiesel-corn-and-other-crops-not-worth-energy
Sorry “Strangelove” … quoting a single study from 2005 by the widely and completely discredited Patzek and Pimentel – which was virtually the ONLY paper making these ridiculous claims – shows you aren’t the least bit serious about the facts. There are somewhere around a dozen papers that refuted Patzek & Pimentel’s grossly erroneous claims.
This current paper is right up there with them, or Lewandowsky, for the gross and apparently intentional false and/or inaccurate claims
Not only does this alleged “scientific paper” grossly overstate corn acres planted – 128 million acres – by over 131% compared to 2013 plantings, had they looked at the USDA corn planting projections for the next 10 years they’d have found the USDA (and analysts) says plantings are projected to DROP – down to appx 88 million acres in next several years, increasing to appx 92.5 million acres in 2022-23 season.
The USDA projects an annual average appx 89.8 million acres of corn planting over the next 10 years. Compared to this “scientific paper” which claims 128 million acres will be planted in corn – this puts their planted acres at 143% above USDA projections for the next 10 years.
And even with that massive error they find in the short term ethanol from corn residue is just 7% higher emissions than gasoline … and that in the long term – 10 years – the ethanol from corn residue has better emissions than gasoline.
They also completely ignore ACTUAL practices in the fields today …
The authors assume ALL farmers across the ALL of the alleged 128 million acres they say will be planted in corn (which is inflated by more than 141+% than USDA projected corn acres planted over the next 10 years) would purposely remove 60-75% of the corn residue from their fields – completely ignoring best tillage practices, soil types, crop rotations, and similar factors.
A grossly inflated assumption ignoring best mgmt. practices – which generally recommend removing no more than 40-50% of the residue in no-till systems, no more than 20-30% in conservation tillage practices, and less than 10% under conventional tillage.
Corn residual removal rates recently have been in the 10-25% range, with higher rates shown sustainable under certain conditions. The farmer’s most important asset is their soil – destroy or weaken it and you destroy you ability to grow. Every farmer understands their success depends on maintaining and improving their soil quality. No farmer would purposely degrade their most important asset.
The authors here ignore that most basic and important principle.
They also admit there are mitigation strategies that can offset impact of higher corn residual usage rates, but fail to include or consider any such mitigation, which can be as simple as spreading generally readily available manure on fields.
Last – the authors completely ignore that many, if not most, of the new cellulosic biomass ethanol plants use the waste plant material after ethanol production to burn as fuel to power the plant. This means considerably less power is consumed from the grid. The majority of the grid is powered by coal fired plants. Using the corn residue significantly reduces coal fired fossil fueled electricity, thus significantly reducing the emissions overall of the cellulosic biomass process.
All of the above is readily verifiable. Unlike the authors specious and grossly inflated claims.
A. Scott: Some references would help make your case.
Sorry Scot your handwaving is less credible than the study of two professors from Cornell and Berkeley. You should enroll at these fine universities and learn basic chemistry. It’s hard for biofuels to beat gasoline in energy efficiency because crude oil is already fuel to begin with. You have to plant, harvest and process corn to turn it into ethanol. All that require energy input. People who say manufacturing biofuels is more energy efficient than fossil fuels don’t know what they’re talking about or trying to mislead the public.
bernie – search ethanol and my username here at WUWT – you’ll find I have provided detailed data and sources many times here for these same items/issues
Strangelove … there is no point wasting time with someone with no clue – and that is what you have by continuing to rely on the findings of Patzek and Pimentel – who were thoroughly and completely refuted in 1999 and 2005. You go right ahead and continue to believe their claims – it only shows an ignorance – or lack of caring – about actual facts …
“Patzek is the director of the university’s Oil Consortium, which receives funding from the oil industry including Chevron and Phillips Petroleum. Patzek also worked for more than a decade for Shell Oil Company as a research, consultant, and expert witness.”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/addicted-to-bad-data
Wang from Argonne Labs 2005 (using old EROI numbers for ethanol):
Here is the link to a summary of the Argonne National Laboratory study by Wang. look at it for yourself:
http://ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/documents/981/energy_and_ghg_emissions_-_wang_2005.pdf?nocdn=1
“As you can see, the fossil energy input per unit of ethanol is lower—0.74 million Btu fossil energy consumed for each 1 million Btu of ethanol delivered, compared to 1.23 million Btu of fossil energy consumed for each million Btu of gasoline delivered.”
More links:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/reports-and-studies-archives
Scott
Your materials are propaganda not science. The whole case is summarized in Slide 4. It is wrong. Only fossil fuels energy input is included in the calculation of efficiency. All engineers know that
energy efficiency = total energy output / total energy input
Michael Wang is probably not an engineer or just trying to fool us.
It’s easy to demonstrate gasoline is more energy efficient than ethanol. The energy content of crude oil is 45 MJ/kg without energy input for refining. The energy content of biomass is 14 MJ/kg. Less than one-third of crude oil and you still need energy input to convert it into ethanol.
Ethanol yield is 0.15 liter per kilogram of biomass. The energy content of ethanol is 29 MJ/liter. So you get 4.38 MJ of ethanol per kg of biomass but biomass contains 14 MJ/kg. Therefore, the energy efficiency of biomass to ethanol production is 4.38/14 = 0.31
In short, you start with 1 MJ energy and end up with 0.31 MJ of ethanol. All “studies” that claim the energy output of ethanol production is greater than the energy input is false because it violates the law of conservation of energy. It created energy out of nowhere. Dear Michael Wang, surely you this because it is taught in high school physics.
Scott, don’t believe everything you read on the internet. With a little basic knowledge in science, you can easily dismiss the nonsense.
Ah yes Strangelove … that must be it – Wang is an idiot – a complete buffoon – who knows nothing about the topics he has repeatedly published peer reviewed work on … #needsmoretinfoil