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)

From the 2010 USDA “2008 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry” detailed study …
(a) which used the ACTUAL energy input results of a survey of 1,814 corn farmers in 19 States on corn production practices and costs, and;
(b) which used the ACTUALproduction results of a survey of 22 ethanol producers in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and eastern South Dakota conducted in late 2008 and early 2009 including questions about the extent of thermal and electric energy use, the type of energy used,
the type of ethanol production process used, and processing yield
… they find the following:
“Together, the recent energy use estimates show that the ratio of energy in ethanol to the external energy used to produce ethanol is about 1.4, even WITHOUT allowing for the processing component of the byproduct credit. After fully allowing for heat used to produce byproducts, the energy ratio is between 1.9 and 2.3.”
“Biomass power reduces the external fossil energy needed to produce ethanol … some of the fossil energy used to produce corn ethanol is recovered. … survey responses shown in Column 3, external thermal energy [is reduced] by about one-half … on an output basis …
Under these circumstances, the energy balance ratio increases to 2.8, even using the lower byproduct credit from the regression results. Similar calculations that used a short rotation woody crop (willow) instead of stover yielded similar energy balance estimates. ”
“… complete replacement of external processing energy for thermal energy and electricity extends beyond the range of survey responses. But the possibilities are interesting. Corn residues, which contain about the same energy (BTUs) as the corn, are presently discarded. But residues represent enough energy to replace ALL of the process heat and electricity needed for ethanol, and combined heat and power plants are capable of producing the required process heat and electricity. Hence, the energy balance could increase to about 25.7 when half of the renewable energy produced in corn production (the residue) is no longer discarded.”
“Conclusion:
A dry grind ethanol plant that produces and sells dry distiller’s grains and uses conventional fossil fuel power for thermal energy and electricity produces nearly two times more energy in the form of ethanol delivered to customers than it uses for corn, processing, and transportation. The ratio
is about 2.3 BTU of ethanol for 1 BTU of energy in inputs, when a more generous means of removing byproduct energy is employed.
Some dry mills are already using up to 50 percent biomass power. The energy output for these plants is near 2.8 times energy inputs, even using the conservative byproduct allowance. As processors master the logistics of handling bulky biomass, the energy balance ratio could reach
26 BTUs of ethanol per BTU of inputs used. ”
Based on direct survey responses from farmers and ethanol plants – on the ACTUAL detailed real world data on growing expenditures and ethanol production, current corn ethanol production shows a positive energy yield of 1.9 to 2.3 units of energy produced per unit of energy expended.
Add in the fact that many plants are generating appx. half of their own power onsite, from the waste material from ethanol production, and the energy balance ratio increases to 2.8 units of energy created for every unit of energy expended.
And when the plants become sophisticated enough to use biomass for all of the power needed, when they start replacing all the plant energy needs with biomass, the study notes the net energy yield jumps to over 25 units of energy created for each one unit expended.
In the alternative, as many new plants are already doing, when you add a cellulosic biomass plant to produce ethanol alongside a corn ethanol plant, so you use ALL of the corn – the corn kernel and the crop residue – the stover – the net energy yield from a bushel of corn skyrockets far above these numbers. Cellulosic biomass net energy yields are in the 6 to 8 to 1 range – add 2.8 to 1 for corn ethanol after co-products are accounted for and you get net energy yields of well over 10 to 1, before taking into account onsite power generation from production waste materials.
I will repeat – this was a highly detailed 2010 report that used all ACTUAL corn production costs from over 1800 farms surveyed … and used ACTUAL ethanol plant costs and production numbers from 22 operating corn ethanol plants.
I’m sure you’ll find reason to ridicule it anyway though …
http://www.usda.gov/…/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf
Yep Strangelove – Wang is a clueless idiot … NOT. I’m sure he’ll be interested in your assessment of his abilities … again NOT. Paying attention to the willfully clueless and ignorant accomplishes nothing.
http://www.anl.gov/contributors/michael-wang
Oh, the cog dis! All of a sudden I may be in favour of ethanol and biofuels.
That really hurts!
Kinda like what happened to turn me from a warmist to a skeptic … when facts – real documented and sourced facts, and not made up blind recitation of dogma – are presented, those who care about the truth sometimes learn a bit and become able to make a more intelligent and informed decision.
I didn’t really try too hard in this thread, considering the caliber of the attackers – but if you search WUWT or my username and ethanol there is a lot more. In particular the detailed review of the data on claims that ethanol drives up cost of food in places like Mexico or Guatemala is particularly interesting.