From the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” department:
Biofuels not as ‘green’ as many think
Go back to basics when calculating the greenhouse impact and carbon neutrality of biofuels, researchers urge
Statements about biofuels being carbon neutral should be taken with a grain of salt. This is according to researchers at the University of Michigan Energy Institute after completing a retrospective, national-scale evaluation of the environmental effect of substituting petroleum fuels with biofuels in the US. America’s biofuel use to date has in fact led to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, says lead author John DeCicco in Springer’s journal Climatic Change.
The use of liquid biofuels in the transport sector has expanded over the past decade in response to policies such as the US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). These policies are based on the belief that biofuels are inherently carbon neutral, meaning that only production-related greenhouse gas emissions need to be tallied when comparing them to fossil fuels.
This assumption is embedded in the lifecycle analysis modelling approach used to justify and administer such policies. Simply put, because plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, crops grown for biofuels should absorb the carbon dioxide that comes from burning the fuels they produce. Using this approach, it is often found that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel offer at least modest net greenhouse gas reductions relative to petroleum fuels.
Field data for assessing the net carbon dioxide emission effect of biofuels has been available since the Renewable Fuel Standard was passed in 2005. DeCicco’s team evaluated the data up to 2013, using the Annual Basis Carbon (ABC) accounting method he previously developed. It takes a circumscribed look at the changes in carbon flows directly associated with a vehicle-fuel system, and does not treat biofuels as inherently carbon neutral.
Instead, the ABC method tallies carbon dioxide emissions on the basis of chemistry in the specific locations where they occur. The system takes into account motor fuel consumption, fuel processing operations and resource inputs, including the use of cropland for biofuel feedstocks. Unlike lifecycle analysis, ABC accounting reflects the stock-and-flow nature of the carbon cycle, recognizing that changes in the atmospheric stock depend on both inflows and outflows.
DeCicco’s team found that the gains in carbon dioxide uptake by feedstock, such as corn, were enough to offset biofuel-related biogenic emissions by only 37 percent, rather than 100 percent, during the period 2005 to 2013.
“This shows that biofuel use fell well short of being carbon neutral even before considering process emissions,” says DeCicco.
In this regard, the researchers concluded that rising US biofuel use has led to a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions. This finding contrasts with those of lifecycle analysis models which indicate that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and soy biodiesel lead to a modest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
DeCicco’s work demonstrates that it is possible to empirically evaluate the necessary condition for a biofuel to offer carbon dioxide mitigation benefits.
“Doing so provides a bounding result that suggests a need for much greater caution regarding the role of biofuels in climate mitigation,” DeCicco concludes.
Reference: DeCicco, J.M. et al. (2016). Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use, Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4
###
Over at Climate Central, they interviewed the lead author. And they had this to say:
“The question, ‘How does the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compare to that of gasoline?’ does not have a scientific answer,” DeCicco said. “What I can say definitively is that, whatever the magnitude of the emissions impact is, it is unambiguously worse than petroleum gasoline.”
Ouch! That’s going to leave a mark.
Predictably, the Renewable Fuels Coalition files an “Is too!” response while doing some “big oil” labeling:
Click to access RESPONSE-TO-DeCicco.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So many factors here. Greenhouse gas emissions are not one of them.
Corn ethanol was initially sold as a way for the US to become energy independent. False advertising. The corn lobby and agricultural interests in Washington have great power(and money) and they have written the script for corn ethanol in the US by controlling policies/politicians. Stark realities of corn ethanol, like many ruinous policies don’t matter…….if the people that control the system support them.
So lets talk about real pollution. Corn is the most polluting crop that we grow. Fertilizer, from runoff after locally heavy rain events gets into local streams and rivers and settles into larger bodies of water, by itself greatly contributing to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Erie and many other places in the US. When the fertilizer feeds algae growth, it poisons the water for other life.
There are other chemicals used to fight insects/weeds/disease to boost corn yields.
When compared to unleaded gasoline, corn ethanol results in much more pollution and MUCH more environmental damage.
Irrigated corn, especially in states like Nebraska, that is 50% irrigated uses a tremendous amount of water. In the Plains states, irrigating corn grown for ethanol with water from the(drying up) Ogallala Aquifer has to be one of the most blatantly stupid things that humans have done in the history of natural resources. Ethanol plants also use up massive amounts of water.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article28640722.html
There are something like 35 million acres of corn grown in the US that goes to making ethanol. That’s 35 million less acres of the most fertile land on the planet not being used to grow other crops(or corn to feed animals), some of them food crops.
On the small engines. My local garden center service manager told me a couple of years ago that half of his business is to repair issues caused by ethanol. They recommend and sell ethanol free gas.
There are financial benefits to farmers, who get a higher price for their crops……..while others pay a higher price of course. Massive record breaking crops in recent years because of near ideal conditions……..weather/climate and higher CO2 levels, actually allows for the additional production to grow crops for biofuels and still have plenty left over for food and other uses. However, increasing the demand base this much to grow fuel causes huge price shocks in the years when adverse weather strikes and curtails supply/production. When the inevitable droughts hit, the price spikes higher will be much worse because of bio-fuels. We are complacent, mainly because of the best growing conditions in history during the past 3 decades.
Corn yields, much more than any other crop are determined by how much nitrogen fertilizer you can dump on. There have been tremendous advancements with technology to increase yields, including hybrids that are more heat and especially drought tolerant. However, they will never breed in genetics that cause corn to need very little nitrogen fertilizer. This also uses a tremendous amount of natural gas.
file:///C:/Users/Basement/Downloads/PM2089I.pdf
There are strategies now being employed(forced on) by farmers to lessen fertilizer runoff. However, if you stopped growing corn for ethanol, it would have a bigger positive environmental impact than any other action………by a wide margin.
This will never happen though. Maybe in some alternate universe where the government bases policy on good judgement in deciding what’s best for the environment based on authentic science and environmental impact, along with what’s best for all the people………not just the select few who control the rigged system to benefit them and their wealthy/powerful puppet masters.
The ethanol versus food argument is largely spurious. I own a dairy farm so know the facts. 41% of US corn goes to ethanol. But this returns 27% distillers grain, a roughage and protein (from yeast) enhanced excellent feed for ruminants (beef and dairy cattle). So we sell all the corn that isn’t chopped green for silage to ethanol plants, and buy back distillers grain. That lets us free up some alfalfa acreage for more corn. And corn prices are down by more than half despite ethanol thanks to two successive years of good harvests everywhere in the US.
Ristvan is correct … every bushel of corn produces appx 2.2 gals of ethanol and numerous other co-products including appx 17 lbs of Distillers Dried Grains – a high quality animal feed – better than the orig corn – which offsets nearly half (by nutritional value) if the corn originally used for ethanol production.
In effect ethanol only actually uses a little more than half of the total amount of feed corn that goes to ethanol production.
Corn Ethanol production also creates residuals that can be used for the enrgy to run the process, along with corn stover (the stalks etc left over after harvest) which also can be used both to create ethanol from cellulosic processes, but also – more easily – to be used to provide power to operate the ethanol process – thus greatly increase net energy balance.
Sorry Mike … much of that is simply not accurate …
ONE – corn based ethanol DOES significantly contribute to US energy independence. Without the 10% of US transportation fuels corn based ethanol provides we would not have been able to break the Middle East stranglehold on oil prices.
TWO – the pollution claims are old, refuted and as you note being addressed thru significant reductions in nitrogen based fertilizers. But none of that really matters – ethanol haters claim we should be growing that corn for food – not fuel. EXACT same inputs to grow food corn as to grow bio fuel corn.
THREE – the top 5 corn producing states are Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota and Indiana … together comprising the majority (appx 62%) of all corn production in the US. Of these only Nebraska has any appreciable irrigated corn. And Nebraska represents just 12.5% of the US corn crop and just 15.2% of the irrigated crop production acres in the US. Only appx 24% of the irrigation water use is for corn.
Of the water used for irrigation more than 50 percent of the water used is eventually returned to the environment where it replenishes water sources (water goes back into a stream or down into the ground) and can be used for other purposes. Irrigation withdrawals have continued to decline in the US — down by about 30 percent from peak withdrawals in 1980 to 2010.
Irrigation water use for corn is simply not a significant issue. The majority of corn is grown is not irrigated, and in Nebraska – the one major corn producing state that does irrigate, the water use, especially when considering more than half of irrigation water is returned to the environment, is simply not a significant issue.
Regardless, OTHER crops would still be grown on these acres using similar amounts of water.
FOUR – corn for ethanol consumes nearly 40% of the US corn production. Mike claims using those “fertile acres” for corn for ethanol means they are “not being used to grow other crops (or corn to feed animals), some of them food crops.” Every part of that claim is wrong.
The US is the worlds corn supplier. We have supplied the majority of our own and the world demand for corn for nearly a century or more. And we continue to be the worlds largest corn supplier – by far. US export is larger than all the other top producers combined.
The US corn producers meet 100% of the US demand for corn for food, feed and fuel. We also meet 100% of the export demand for corn – of all types; food (sweet & white corn), feed and fuel (seed/feed corn). And we still add to the US corn reserves every year.
There is already a GLUT of corn being produced in the US and the world. That is why prices have plummeted – by more than HALF – in the last 5 years. The US and the world has all the corn we need, and more, even after the corn used for ethanol.
FIVE – the cries about impacts on small engines, boats, old cars and the like affect a minute segment. It is a tiny problem – affecting boats, cars and small engines that are 25 years old and older. The issues are easily addressed and extremely well known. If you have a problem with any of these today its a result of your own stupidity and nothing more.
SIX – the claims that increased corn used for ethanol will create more severe price spikes in bad years is simply silly as well. And disproven by facts. You WILL have price spikes in years like 2012 – where serious drought affected the US. But ethanol did not exacerbate those spikes – it hugely moderated them. The US ethanol industry cut back corn use by nearly the entire amount of the corn production shortfall due to drought.
In effect the corn ethanol industry has created a massive corn reserve – that can and has been used to moderate shortages. In times of plenty the corn ethanol industry uses that corn production … when times are bad they step back and allow that corn to be used to make up a large share of the shortage. The claim corn used for ethanol increases volatility is simply false – demonstrably false by recent experience.
SEVEN – there have been significant changes in nitrogen use for corn production. It is simply not true that dumping more nitrogen increases yields. The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force was established in 1997 to coordinate activities to reduce the amount of nutrients used. The states bordering the Mississippi all have developed their own required nutrient reduction programs. A huge share is simply employing best mgmt practices with runoff and tilling of the soil to reduce nutrient loads entering the watershed.
Once again all of this is immaterial though. The haters want this land to continue to be used to produce crops. Which requires nutrients.
EIGHT – IF use of corn for ethanol was responsible for the massive hikes in corn prices and an alleged resultant increase in food costs, as we keep hearing … then how do these people explain the FACT that corn prices have dropped by over half in the last 5 years, despite corn used for ethanol remaining at nearly 40% of the US corn production?
The answer is this claim is simply ridiculous. It is wholly unsupported by the long term historical data – which shows virtually no effect on corn prices – not in the early years as corn used for ethanol rapidly increased and absolutely not in recent years – where corn prices have dropped more than half, all while ethanol production continued to use nearly 40% of the US corn crop.
Each of these usual claims are outdated, mostly false, and not remotely supportable if you include the last 5 to 10 years historical data.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1914331/stateirrigatedacres2013a.png
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1914259/2012map.png
http://www.worldofcorn.com/#us-corn-production-by-state
ristvan/A.Scott,
Thanks for the comments. There are some items that I failed to mention. Feel free to make additional posts.
DDG’s. You are correct ristvan. This is a significant contribution from the corn used for ethanol that goes back to feeding animals. It’s especially used feeding cattle.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/outlook/dgsbalancesheet.pdf
I have numerous farmer friends and have interacted with 100 producers in the last decade. I have yet to find one producer that can acknowledge realities about corn ethanol that I stated. I don’t hold crop farmers responsible, you just happened to be lucky and am along for the financially beneficial ride, doing what you/they do best, growing the crops which make you the most money.
I am very much in favor of the free market determining the price and viability of products(with minimal government intervention and supports). I am all for the farmers who are only supplying the current market for ethanol with what it wants. The US farmer is incredibly efficient. They don’t make the rules. They take tremendous risks every year, never knowing if a drought or flood or even a freeze is going to kill their crop(crop insurance is an issue for another day). My views are with great respect in mind for US producers.
You must have forgotten things like, when December corn(new crop) spiked to $8 in June of 2008 because of flooding in Iowa. Without the corn demand from the ethanol industry having recently ramped up then, I estimate that the price spike would have not exceeded $4. Incredibly high prices for years because of corn ethanol hurt the animal producers tremendously, especially the small guys. Rotten deal for them. A close friend, who’s family raised hogs for 3 generations in southwest Indiana, tried to hold on. Feed costs were killing him. The last time he went to the bank to borrow more money, 5 years ago, the bank told him “no, be a crop farmer”. Our government turned their backs on the livestock industry and gave the crop growing industry a gift…….favored one over the other because of political agenda.
With regards to all the information you supplied, none of it negates anything that I stated, some even bolsters my statements. Corn is the most polluting crop by a wide margin and uses the most natural resources, including billions of gallons of water from the rapidly depleting Ogallala Aquifer. If a person wants to honestly and objectively evaluate corn grown for fuel based on its environmental impact alone……..it’s a one sided street.
“A close friend, who’s family raised hogs for 3 generations in southwest Indiana, tried to hold on. Feed costs were killing him. The last time he went to the bank to borrow more money, 5 years ago, the bank told him “no, be a crop farmer”
Forgot to finish. He liquidated and now is doing well as a crop farmer. However, when he was losing the most money ~6-8 years ago, from the high price of feed(caused by corn grown for ethanol) while the price he got for his hogs was still low the man never complained once to me.
Crop farmers, who are the biggest cheerleaders for corn ethanol, can remember what it was like not that long ago……….when corn at harvest was under $2/bushel. If corn ethanol was taken away, no doubt we would go back to those days, which featured extremely unfair/low prices for crop farmers, who deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and risk. I understand the position and would probably share much of it if I made a living as a crop farmer. Corn ethanol will not be going away however and after 2 record smashing crop years in a row(with more than enough corn for everyone-for now), the policy will not be getting any serious scrutiny.
This comes across like marijuana advocacy talk. For No. 8, all commodity prices have been beaten down in part from a strong dollar and a no-growth global economy sucking air with zero or negative interest rates.
Argonne National Laboratory is the definitive source for bio fuel information. Their GREET model is the most extensive and highly developed source for data on bio fuels. Their Wells to Wheels articles provide direct insight into the data.
They review “life cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions” for each different biofuel feedstock. Their findings (from 2012 report) show corn ethanol reduces life-cycle GHG emissions by 19-48% comapred to gasoline. Incorporate corn stover and residuals into the mix and the reduction in life-cycle GHG emissions increases to 40-62%.
DeCiccio’s claim “the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compared to that of gasoline does not have a scientific answer” is silly and ridiculous. Numerous studies have shown exactly that – and Argonnes GREET model is one of the most highly developed and refined of them all. His comment shows his work for exactly what it is.
“This article presents results from our most recently updated simulations of energy use and GHG emissions that result from using bioethanol made from several feedstocks. The results were generated with the GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) model. In particular, based on a consistent and systematic model platform, we estimate life-cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions from using ethanol produced from five feedstocks: corn, sugarcane, corn stover, switchgrass and miscanthus. We quantitatively address the impacts of a few critical factors that affect life-cycle GHG emissions from bioethanol. Even when the highly debated land use change GHG emissions are included, changing from corn to sugarcane and then to cellulosic biomass helps to significantly increase the reductions in energy use and GHG emissions from using bioethanol. Relative to petroleum gasoline, ethanol from corn, sugarcane, corn stover, switchgrass and miscanthus can reduce life-cycle GHG emissions by 19-48%, 40-62%, 90-103%, 77-97% and 101-115%, respectively. Similar trends have been found with regard to fossil energy benefits for the five bioethanol pathways.”
It can also reduce consumer wealth, government coffers, and skew the economy even further from market equilibrium. We are even exporting tax incentives and related farm subsidies.
Seems like a lot of company line coming from this commentator.
Why are they using a model? The government has tons of information on all the inputs and outputs for the processes involved. What are the inputs into a farm? Fertilizer, seed, irrigation, harvesting, drying and more they are pretty well known. Average over several years to even out the yield fluctuations. Do the same thing for the ethanol plant. They’ve been running for quite awhile now and have sufficient numbers.
That is apparently what DiCiccio is doing and found that the overall process shows that more CO2 is produced by the process than the models(presumably GREET) show, resulting in less CO2 offsets being produced.
It sounds reasonable to me, although I’ll have to take a closer look at his methods, but working with actual data, rather than models of a process is always a better engineering solution.
philohippous … I encourage you to learn about what the GREET “model” is. It is EXACTLY what you describe. A MODEL directly based on extensive hard actual real world DATA collected on ALL aspects of the entire bio fuels process.
Diciccion (and Patzek & Pimetal from Berkely in years past) are both funded by big oil. And the work of each of them are equally unsupported by the data, and extreme outliers compared to large bodies of work by credible main stream sources. Places like Argonne natl Labs.
Ah, the specter of unintended consequences rears its ugly head once again. But fear not! It’ll only require a miner change in the modeling constants to make E85 California friendly once again… Just remember, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”
We can argue all day about efficiency of biofuels, GHG reductions, etc. We can even invoke the Argonne GREET model if we like. None of this addresses the potential for biofuels as a replacement for petroleum. Just like the problems with wind and solar energy, biofuels are another low density and inefficient means of capturing and converting incident solar energy, requiring VAST areas of land to produce a paltry amount of usable energy.
Arable land area of the U.S. = 407,739,283 acres
Average annual crop yield in the U.S. across all candidate biofuel crops = 3 dry tons/acre/yr
Average energy content of these crops = 10.25 MMBtu/dry ton
Total annual gross energy potential of biofuel crops [ASSUMING: 100% of arable land cropped, with yields magically harvested, dried, and direct-fired in place with no active farming, processing or other human intervention] = 13 Quadrillion btu/yr
Total annual U.S. Transportation Fuel Usage = 28 Quadrillion btu/yr
Add in production, processing and distribution inputs, and the NET production drops dramatically.
And this reveals how the biofuels lobby hides the pea. Never scale it up or compare it to demand.
No Pflash – that is how the critics hide the truth.
And that truth is corn based ethanol is not, and never has been planned, projected, or portrayed to replace any major share of US transportation fuel needs. It can and does however, do an excellent job of replacing a respectable and important share.
Enough of a share that when combined with gains from fracking and similar, that we have been able to break the Middle East cartel’s stranglehold on energy prices.
Current EROI’s (net energy balance) for conventional corn based ethanol production are in the appx 2.2 units of energy produced for every 1 unit of energy expended range. Second generation processes – including simple improvements to conventional corn based ethanol processes such as significantly increased use of corn stover and corn residue,
Net energy balance increased to appx 4.1 units of energy produced for every 1 unit of energy expended when biomass (stover, corn residuals etc) is used to supply just 50% of the power. With no other changes this would represent almost a 2 times higher energy yield from the same amount of corn.
Based on actual observed survey inputs, the energy balance for a hypothetical case of 100 percent biomass power would be large, in excess of 50 units of energy produced for every 1 unit of energy expended. Suddenly ethanol production – using the same amount of cropland as today – would become a major part of all US transportation fuel needs.
“Adoption of biomass power would improve energy and carbon accounts because an external
fossil fuel would be replaced by a fuel grown with existing energy inputs for corn. Also, the
carbon removed from the atmosphere while the corn plant grows is returned to the air when the
corn stover is burned for power–the atmospheric carbon removal and return cycle with biomass
power is environmentally superior to the continuous atmospheric carbon return associated with
fossil fuels.”
A dry grind ethanol plant that produces and sells dried distillers grains and uses conventional
fossil fuel power for thermal energy and electricity produces appx. 2.3 times more energy
in the form of ethanol delivered to customers than it uses for corn, processing, and transportation.
In areas like Iowa and Minnesota that use the lowest cost corn energy, with local ethanol plants that market Distillers Dried Grains to local livestock industry, and sell ethanol locally, the net energy balance ratio is 4.0 of slightly higher.
Increasing use of biomass (corn stover, crop and corn residuals etc.) to provide power for the ethanol process can increase the net energy balance exponentially – to more than 50 units of energy produced for each unit of energy expended.
That is what the facts show.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
Thanks Mike.
“may be” worse? Ask those who got hit by higher food prices.
To put it another way, if corn ethanol had to be used to fuel the production of corn ethanol, it would take 10 acres of corn to fuel each acre’s worth of ethanol at the pump. There are not enough acres of farmland in America. Corn is a food & feed crop, not a fuel crop. Soybeans are a little better, while cellulosic crops (e.g., switchgrass) are worse. But again, back to my original point, No matter the crop, there is not enough yield potential on available acreage to make a dent in meeting fuel demand.
An unintended consequence of such folly would be a global increase in food cost, worsening poverty and leading to malnutrition and starvation in some places.
The down-sides are almost endless. I haven’t even touched on ecological effects.
Not a shred of what you just said is factual Pflash.
Your claim makes zero sense.
The most recent (aug 2016) USDA Crop Production report indicates corn is estimated to yield an average 175.1 bushels per acre. Your “10 acres” of corn would generate 1,751 bushels of corn. Each bushel of corn generates appx 2.8 gals of ethanol. Your “10 acres” of corn would generate 4,903 gallons of ethanol.
Your claim that it would take 10 acres of corn to “fuel” 1 gallon of ethanol is patently ridiculous and wholly refuted by the facts.
At appx 76,300 BTU per gal of ethanol, that 4903 galls would represent 374,083,640 BTU’s. Each gallon of ethanol requires appx 8,708 BTU’s of “energy” to produce. This includes all energy from the diesel and gasoline for growing, harvesting and transport, plus the LP, Natural gas and electricity to process corn into ethanol.
Those 374+ million BYU’s would be enough power alone – the energy – to “fuel” the production of just under 43,000 gallons of ethanol.
If we take the total BTU equivalent of ALL inputs – incl seeds, fertilizer, energy, chemicals, drying, water and hauling … it took 37,666 BTU per gal of ethanol produced in 2010 (today’s total BTU per gal is far less) – the 374 million BTU’s in the ethanol produced from your “10 acres” are enough to cover the BTU equivalent of ALL inputs for just under 10,000 gallons of ethanol.
I’ll repeat – your claim is simply silly – unsupported by any shred of factual basis …
Biofuels – a big green con?
Inconvenient to whom??
http://www.foe.co.uk/news/biofuels.html
22 January 2008
The UK’s largest environmental groups have launched an advertising campaign attacking environmentally destructive ‘biofuels’.
Adverts (PDF†) appeared in the Guardian, Times and Independent on 8 May 2007.
The adverts, supported by campaign partner enoughsenough.org, call on the Government to reconsider it’s approach to biofuels.
Biofuels are touted as being ‘green’ fuels, but the Government’s dash for biofuels could:
Destroy forests and valuable habitats.
Produce more greenhouse gases than they save.
Threaten the food supply and livelihoods of some of the worlds most vulnerable people
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/08/scienceofclimatechange.biofuels
Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse
· Land conversion increases greenhouse gases – study
· Carbon debt may take centuries to pay off
Alok Jha, science correspondent
Friday 8 February 2008 00.14 GMT
Transforming ecosystems into farms for biofuel crops will increase global warming and result in net increases in carbon emissions, according to a study.
Scientists have found that converting rainforests, peatlands and grasslands can outweigh the carbon savings made from biofuels and produce “carbon debts” which could take centuries to pay off.
The study will add to concerns about the ability of biofuels to replace fossil fuels. The EU is reviewing its pledge that biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel should make up 10% of transport fuel by 2020. Britain has a separate target of 5% biofuels in petrol and diesel by 2010.
.
Smueller … a report based on 2007 data is literally worthless today. And that is the problem with the continued claims – such as that corn used for ethanol is driving up corn prices and thus increasing food costs.
Which is absolutely and completely refuted by the historical data from 2008 to present.
Soils store Carbon over time and plowing accelerates the loss of carbon by aerating the soil, supplying Oxygen to aerobic bacteria which feed on the stored C, thus producing CO2.
Water condensation in gas tanks is a problem in Winter and a little Ethanol fuel can help prevent gas line freezing by blending with any water in the fuel, if the engine components can take it.
Doing the math for energy content, 10% Ethanol gas is cheaper around here than 100% gas. My ride is built for multi- fuels, but won’t let Ethanol near my small engines, especially the two- strokes.
Do I read this correctly? That the CO2 that say corn absorbs during the plants growth is less than the CO2 emitted from the burning of corn based ethonal that plant would produce?
That is the paper’s assertion, but it doesn’t make common sense. See following comment that puts rough quantitative numbers on the logical problem.
After read the paper, did some research. The ABC accounting method depends on assumptions buried in the SI that may not be correct. Ignore secondary factors like tractor and truck fuel and fertilizer for the moment Just think about the main boxes in the paper. It cannot be correct.
In pure biological terms, the entire corn plant by weight is essentially photosynthetically captured CO2 plus water. By dry weight, ~55% corn grain and 45% stover. Stover is harvested for bedding then plowed in, or just plowed in. Mostly Soil carbon capture in that farm year. The starch/sugar in the corn is fermented by yeast producing one mole of CO2 to one mole ethanol, leaving 2/3 by weight (27 dg/41 corn) distillers grain used as ruminent feed. Some of that is oxidized by animal metabolism, some is converted to milk and meat. Dairy is o.8#feed per pound milk. Beef is 10# feed per pound usable meat. (1200# steer=>750#carcass=> 490# trimmed boneless beef). Take 5:1 as average. When burned, that mole ethanol produces two moles CO2. So net is 3 moles CO2 per mole ethanol. Per mole, 132g CO2 per 46g fermented ethanol combustion. 2.8x say 3 for simplicity.
So 100%corn plant carbon capture => 55 corn * (1-27/41) = 24 starch=> 12 ethanol +12 CO2 => 24 CO2. Fo the 27% distillers grain, 5/6 CO2 from animal metabolism so ~ 22CO2. Total CO2 produced is 12+24+22= 58% of what the plant captured. Say 60. Net CO2 reduction ~40%. Many other studies I looked at add in fuel and fertilizer and come out ~80, which a net GHG reduction of about 20%. This study seems wrong, just using its own ABC style accounting method.
Ristvan- a couple of things. These I believe currently most of the corn stover is simply left on the field, where it has to decay at roughly the same rate as it is produced or the field would get higher and higher. Plus the soil needs certain ratios of clay/sand/organic for best growth so excessive amounts of stover have to be dealt with either by composting or burning, but still produce CO2 at the same long term rate as the stover is produced.
The other thing is that all of the distillers grain is metabolized one way or another within the two year window of production use of a field. Virtually 100% of the cow is processed and eaten and or used up. Some of survives as leather(another CO2 producing process), but replaces by old leather goods that are incinerated/burned/decomposed. Even stuff that goes into landfills has to be considered “in process” since almost all the carbon will be returned to the air as CO2.
I love this site and enjoy reading it daily, but I can’t express how disappointing it is to see the ignorance on display when anything related to ethanol or biofuels is discussed here.
Dr. Bob, you’re full of b.s., Iowa farmland prices are not even close to $20,000 per acre. Never have been and won’t be for a very long time. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/pdf/c2-72.pdf
Concerning Ethanol Subsidies… GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND… Before making statements that people clearly know nothing about, try using Google. Ethanol subsidies were eliminated years ago, yet the oil industry continues to receive subsidies and special tax breaks from our government. Again, GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND
I’ll make one last comment. When anything related to AGW is posted on this site it’s scrutinized with a fine tooth comb, especially if it supports the alarmists position, but when anything is posted about biofuels it’s uncritically accepted as gospel. All of you should look in the mirror, because when it comes to biofuels, one can’t distinguish a difference between AGW alarmists and biofuel haters. Case in point: when AGW research mentions modelling, all of you are immediately skeptical, yet the research mentioned above uses modelling and it’s unquestioned. It’s a clear double standard.
You lost all credibility when you talk about subsidies for oil companies and tax breaks. Take a look at how much tax oil companies pay and how much ethanol produces pay. Oil companies are the largest source of revenue to the US Treasury after income tax. Can you name the subsidies, not what you call tax breaks?
Also using Google as your source of information reveals a lack of depth unless you want to know who won the Baseball Game.
Barry,
Before believing that Google is your friend please read this article which is typical of GOOGLE.
http://www.infowars.com/report-google-censoring-hillary-clinton-health-problems-search-results/
The main problem with biofuels is that they don’t make a dime’s worth of difference. Ten years ago I got the following analysis published in Oil and Gas Journal. Today we use a little less petroleum and we grow a little more corn, but otherwise the analysis remains applicable.
“As the price of crude oil continues to rise, political leaders and public officials have called for increased reliance on biomass-based fuels, such as ethanol made from corn and biodiesel made from soybeans, as substitutes for petroleum-based fuels. What is the potential contribution of biomass-based fuels to relieving America’s dependence on petroleum (of which 60 percent is now imported from foreign sources)?
To answer this question I calculated the amount of ethanol and biodiesel that could be produced from the 2004 US corn and soybean crops and compared it to our nation’s annual consumption of petroleum. Crop totals are from the USDA, the biofuel potentials of corn and soybeans are from industry sources.
The 2004 US corn crop totaled about 11.7 billion bushels, the largest ever. One bushel of corn yields 2.66 gallons of ethanol, so hypothetically the 2004 crop could be converted into 31.122 billion gallons of ethanol. However, a portion of the energy in the ethanol represents energy invested in growing, harvesting, transporting, fermenting and distilling the corn. According to the corn ethanol industry, the energy yield is 1.67 btus for each btu consumed in production, or a net yield of about 40.1 percent of total ethanol produced. Multiplying the hypothetical 2004 production of corn ethanol by this factor leaves a net yield of 12.48 billion gallons. But ethanol has less energy content than petroleum. One gallon of crude oil contains about 138,100 btus, while a gallon of ethanol contains about 84,100 btus, or about 60.9 percent of petroleum. So on an energy-equivalent basis, 12.48 billion gallons of ethanol would equal about 7.6 billion gallons of petroleum.
Using the same methodology one can calculate the potential contribution of soy-based biodiesel (soybeans constitute about 90% of the total US oilseed crop). The 2004 US soybean crop was 3.15 billion bushels, also an all-time record. One bushel of soybeans yields about 1.4 gallons of biodiesel. The energy yield of biodiesel is about 3.2 btus for each btu consumed in production, or a net of 68.75 percent, a much better rate than ethanol from corn. The energy content of a gallon of biodiesel is much higher, 128,000 btus, about 92.7 percent of petroleum. The 2004 US soybean crop converted to biodiesel would equal about 2.81 billion gallons of petroleum (3.15 billion bushels times 1.4 gallons of biodiesel per bushel is 4.41 billion gallons; adjusted for net yield, 4.41 billion gallons times 68.75 percent is 3.032 billion gallons; in terms of energy equivalency, 3.032 billion gallons of biodiesel would equal 2.81 billion gallons of petroleum).
The entire 2004 US corn and soybean crop, converted to biomass fuels, could replace about 10.41 billion gallons of petroleum (7.6 billion as ethanol and 2.81 billion as biodiesel). Petroleum is measured in 42-gallon barrels; the 10.41 billion gallon biofuel total would be equivalent to 248 million barrels of petroleum. The US consumed about 7.49 billion barrels of petroleum last year, or about 20.5 million barrels a day. This means that the total biofuel potential of the record 2004 US corn and soybean harvests would offset about 12 days of US petroleum consumption, or about 3.3 percent of our total yearly petroleum consumption. Given that most of the US corn and soybean crop is already committed to other uses, this analysis indicates that biomass-based fuels will have a negligible role in reducing US petroleum consumption, which in turn underscores that replacing petroleum in the US economy will be a monumental challenge.
Ted … the analysis is not remotely applicable or similar to today. Ethanol provides more than 10% of US transportation fuel consumption.
Ethanol was never, as I have noted, promoted, proposed or intended to replace a major share of US energy needs. It DOES provide a significant small share, which when added to the fracking and other domestic resources, has allowed the US to break the Middle East cartels stranglehold on energy prices.
In 2015 the US produced appx 13.601 billion bushels of corn. A less than 1% annual increase in corn production over 12 years. And those years saw the initial major ramp up in corn used for ethanol – from less than 1,500 million bushels in 2004 to more than 5,000 million bushels by 2010 (and 5,200 bushels in 2015).
Scott,
Ethanol only provides10% because it is mandated by the government, not because the customer wants it!
Isn’t it wonderful for the ethanol folks to have the government mandate ethanol content in another’s product, make the gasoline suppliers include it in their product, make the gasoline suppliers spend capitol to
accommodate it, let the gas suppliers responsible for handling it including being responsible for problems, cleaning tanks, etc.
What a free ride normally only available in a Communist world, then criticizing the host calling them dirty oil, etc. Kill the host, your product is dead meat too.
Back in the day of the Late ’80s, Toyota warned about using “bio” gasoline mix in their engines and suggested only high lead gasoline.
Boaters, with small combustion engines found out the hard way using the new “Bio” gasoline.
Their boat engines were quickly ruined!
An just like many Toyota Truck owners!
Well Toyota warned us !
Don’t forget the plowed up virgin prairies that had been part of conservation easements. Sure, destroy what the enviros fought and paid for with your tax money to save. Kind of like the bird choppers and whooping cranes, eagles, and other such birds in need of “saving”. Nothing really matters to enviros except money, money, money. For them, not you, silly.
We’ve seen plenty of studies that turned out to be a load of dingo’s kidneys. Perhaps best to moderate the enthusiasm about this one until it gets a 97% consensus.
Just imagine this; you go to the supermarket and after weighing your produce, they add 10% by weight, of broccoli, and charge accordingly. Now I like broccoli on occasion, and it’s good for you. But what if you didn’t want the broccoi? Too bad. It’s mandated by law. That’s what they’re doing with ethanol.
Good analogy, now they want to push it to 15% with the Worst Lobby in Congress.
What happened to choice in a free country.
From the Climate Central link included:
“They rejected years of work by other scientists who have relied on a more traditional approach to judging climate impacts from bioenergy — an approach called life-cycle analysis.”
“The research was financially supported by the American Petroleum Institute, which represents fossil fuel industry companies and has sued the federal government over its biofuel rules.”
Even if we assume his claims are correct … :
“Lifecycle analyses assume that all carbon pollution from biofuels is eventually absorbed by growing crops. DeCicco’s analysis found that energy crops were responsible for additional plant growth that absorbed just 37 percent of biofuel pollution from 2005 to 2013, leaving most of it in the atmosphere, where it traps heat.”
… his OWN claims shows crop based ethanol removes 37% of the “bio fuel pollution” (what a blatantly stupid term) – ie: removes 37% of the carbon from the atmosphere. With gasoline and other fossil fuels 100% of the carbon, and at a significantly higher rate than with ethanol, goes directly into the atmosphere.
The claim that ethanol is worse for the atmosphere is simply ridiculous .. AND wholly unsupported by even his own claims.
Further … DiCicco says “The question, ‘How does the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compare to that of gasoline?’ does not have a scientific answer” … how preposterous … we most certainly DO know the greenhouse gas emissions of gasoline. AND we know quite well the emissions of ethanol and other biofuels.
He himself admits ethanol based fuels remove 37% of the “carbon pollution” … vs gasoline’s 0% … there absolutely is a “scientific answer.”
A very large body of work shows a similar finding as DeCicco’s 37% reduction – that the life cycle impacts of corn based ethanol show a reduction of up to 50% in carbon compared to gasoline.
“Analyses by scientists who have studied the life-cycle impacts of growing corn and other crops to produce ethanol have generally concluded biofuels can create between 10 percent to 50 percent less carbon dioxide pollution than gasoline.”
This is oil industry sponsored PR hype – not science. It is the exact same kind of flawed, bad science as Patzek and Pimental.
Argonne Natl Labs GREET model uses extensive data – real world data collected thru surveys of actual inputs for each stage of the full lifecycle of the corn growing and ethanol production process. That is science. This cherry picked, industry funded, unsupported by even their own findings, nonsense is anything but science.
This WUWT story notes the Renewable Fuels folks response – and paints it with a ‘predictable’ label. This however, IMO belittles the credible, cogent, factually based, and scientifically supported CONTENT of their response.
The points they make are 100% relevant and accurate:
The Renewable Fuels response is entirely legitimate and supported by documented references and sources. We know – with certainty – that biomass based liquid fuels DO reduce carbon emissions. DeCicco admits this – noting a 37%reduction in carbon emissions. This is well supported by science … one simple example is that a share of the carbon absorbed by plants during the growing becomes sequestered in the soil in the growing and tilling process.
DeCicco’s claims, that corn based ethanol is worse regarding ‘carbon pollution’ than gasoline … are demonstrably refuted … by his own statements, findings and claims. And soundly refuted by the extensive work of many professionals over the course of many years.
This is junk science – nothing more. Just as Patzek & Pimental “cooked the books” by purposely excluding – refusing to include – ALL components of corn ethanol production … he simply ignored the inconvenient parts.
DiCicco does exactly the same thing here – ignoring and dismissing key, highly relevant, data – glossing it over with specious and outright false claims, such as; ‘there is no scientific answer to the question of how the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compare to that of gasoline.’
the claim there is “no answer” is simply false. It is a purposeful charade intended to obfuscate the facts. And the facts are clear and well documented with real, credible science – using corn based ethanol for transportation fuel generates a much smaller carbon foot print than burning fossil fuel based gasoline.
And despite their hype, The author of this junk science – DeCicco – agrees … using ethanol as a transportation fuel results in 37% less emissions than using fossil fuel based gasoline.
There is no credible science supporting the extensive use of Ethanol, it is all BS and payola from the ethanol lobby.
Another fact free comment from catcrack … with not a shred of credible documented evidence to support it.
Scott,
Since you claim to love data, here is a partial list of environmental and criminal violations from companies that claim to clean up the air, etc., while polluting the air and waterways, and committing criminal actions.
September 1, 2005
FACT SHEET: Clean Air Act Settlement With Cargill, Inc.
Over the past several years, the Justice Department and EPA have taken an industry-wide approach to environmental law enforcement, by targeting industries with significant compliance problems, including those that have been major sources of air pollution. A chief component of these enforcement actions is compelling companies in violation of the law to install state-of-the-art pollution controls and to build new facilities with controls in place. Recent successes include major settlement agreements with the wood products industry, refineries, and coal utilities sectors. With today’s landmark Clean Air Act settlement with grain industry giant Cargill, Inc., 81 percent of uncontrolled ethanol production capacity-those facilities without controls already in place-will now be under federal consent decrees.
Read more
Federal, Multi-State Clean Air Act Settlement With Cargill, Inc. Secures Major Pollution Reductions
The Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a multi-state Clean Air Act settlement with Cargill, Inc. (Cargill), which will result in a reduction of approximately 30,000 tons of pollution a year and set new standards for limiting harmful emissions from specialty oilseed plants. Cargill is a multi-state agribusiness that owns and operates 27 plants which process corn, wheat, soybeans, and other oilseeds into value-added products used in the food, feed, and ethanol industries.
Read more
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2005/December/05_enrd_689.html
WASHINGTON, D.C. – MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc. (MGP)—an ethanol producing company—has reached a settlement to resolve claims that it violated the Clean Air Act (CAA), which will result in a reduction of over 1,700 tons of air pollutants a year at its ethanol production plant in Pekin, Illinois, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Illinois announced today. With today’s settlement, approximately 83 percent of the ethanol production capacity nationwide will be under consent decrees requiring new pollution controls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QXR5DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=How+many+ethanol+plants+have+been+fined&source=bl&ots=qUhYkDh99T&sig=IrNDVvQT_As9UyxbT8CpCx4DkuI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCh-DrnOTOAhXC_R4KHd5aBeoQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=How%20many%20ethanol%20plants%20have%20been%20fined&f=false
In Iowa 11 of the 34 plants have been fined by the EPA, there were 276 violations for spillage into waterways
Then we have a large Ethanol producer paying the largest anti-trust fine ever in1996.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1996/Oct96/508at.htm
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CO. TO PLEAD GUILTY AND PAY $100 MILLION FOR ROLE IN TWO INTERNATIONAL PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACIES
Largest Criminal Antitrust Fine Ever
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Archer Daniels Midland Co. today has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $100 million criminal fine–the largest criminal antitrust fine ever–for its role in two international conspiracies to fix prices to eliminate competition and allocate sales in the lysine and citric acid markets worldwide, the Department of Justice announced today.
“This $100 million criminal fine should send a message to the entire world,” said Attorney General Janet Reno. “If you engage in collusive behavior that robs U.S. consumers, there will be vigorous investigation and tough, tough penalties.”
http://www.lockportjournal.com/news/local_news/medina-ethanol-plant-fined-for-illegal-dumping/article_5bc57719-b41e-5f2d-9f20-414ff6c706fb.html
MEDINA — An ethanol production plant was fined after illegally disposing of industrial waste on its property, the state Department of Environmental Conservation announced Monday.
Earlier this month, Western New York Energy LLC was ordered by Shelby Town Court to pay an $87,000 fine for violating state environmental conservation law.
In 2013, an investigation by the DEC’s Police Bureau of Environmental Crimes Investigation determined that Western New York Energy and Hydro-Klean LLC, an Iowa-based ethanol industrial cleaning operation, had disposed industrial waste at the rear of the ethanol plant.
DEC said the waste, a wash water applied on evaporators in the plant, contained trace amounts of ammonia and diesel range organics. The wash water was loaded into a vacuum truck and transported to the rear of the property for dumping in the ground.
http://globegazette.com/news/local/mason-city-ethanol-facility-fined-for-air-quality-violations/article_fe3f8ed6-2eb2-5698-9267-8c7079e37b47.html
MASON CITY | The Iowa DNR has ordered a Mason City-based ethanol production facility to pay $10,000 for air-quality violations.
The Department of Natural Resources in an administrative consent order says Golden Grain Energy LLC has violated numerous air quality construction permits and its Title V operating permit by:
• Exceeding permitted emission limits and failing to properly maintain required records.
• Failing to properly maintain equipment.
• Failing to continuously operate an emissions monitoring system.
• Failing to continuously monitor thermal oxidizer temperature.
The DNR says in the order the company adjusted equipment so lower emission rates were observed during required testing in 2012 and 2013.
It never has seemed to occur to anyone in the great fuel debate, that we throw 85-90% of the energy from any fuel away in any infernal reciprocating combustion engine.
Whether it’s bio or fossil based is largely irrelevant.
Our whole obsolete civilisation is based on throwing away vast amounts of energy in the pursuit of not very much of value, and that’s peanuts compared with what happens when you fire up the average fighter jet engine and use it to bomb innocent people into the next world as in Syria.
Yeah, we should go back to horses and wagons. That’s the ticket!
Dai,
Lots of mistakes in your post starting with the 85-90% of the energy being thrown away and ending with the claim that ISIS or the Syrian Leader are innocent.
so you are talking the total bollox about engine efficiency and rolling friction right?
The 10-15% fuel efficiency of the motor car becomes absymally lower the moment it enters city traffic.
Sitting for hours on end wasting all but a tiny fraction of the engine torque to move forward a few inches every 5 minutes..
Do you actually KNOW the average speed of traffic in central London by day?
Top gear went ahead to prove a cyclist could beat a car and it was pretty much dead evens.
Did I mention horses?
Did I mention you swallow the Putin propaganda of fighting ISIS when in fact all they are doing is killing 1000s of innocents and destroying hospitals on a daily basis.
I was simply illustrating a point, that as a civilisation we are utterly hopeless in the energy use debate, and clearly blind people like you can’t see war as the most completely hopeless waste of resources of all.
I don’t really give a damn what side of the ISIS debate you stand on.
They all use whatever the fuel they can find to bomb, and kill pointlessly in an industrialised fashion, just like we all did 100 years ago in VERDUN, or did you forget Verdun too?
If you have to subsidize and propagandize something to within an inch of its life, it may not be an inherently good idea.
To be perfectly green, biofield producers should not be allowed to make use of fossil fuel related goods and services.
In 2007 The Calgary Herald agreed to a multi-part series on climate and counter measures – but only the first was was ever published. It’s now at: http://winface.com/amt/ethanol.html – and there is nothing in this report that wasn’t there but they sure weren’t happy about it… 🙂
If ethanol is the next best thing to the marijuana advocacy miracles list, then why force it down the throats of everyone, including the fact checkers of efficiency and cost benefit analysis?