Fuels made from corn actually worse than gasoline, study says

[IDemo]

WASHINGTON (AP) — According to a new study, commissioned by the federal government, says that biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are actually worse than gasoline -- when it comes to global warming in the short term.

The research published in the journal Nature Climate Change challenges the Obama administration's conclusions that biofuels are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help fight climate change.

The study is being criticized by the biofuels industry and Obama administration as flawed.

Corn residue is one of the most promising ways to make cellulosic biofuels. Biofuels have struggled to reach the volumes required by law.

http://www.mynews4.com/news/story/Fuels-made-from-corn-actually-worse-than-gasoline/-15cPssoI0OtMkYZxJz8cw.cspx

That's a poorly structured first sentence, understood. How about the rest?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Source here:

Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions

Adam J. Liska,
Haishun Yang,
Maribeth Milner,
Steve Goddard,
Humberto Blanco-Canqui,
Matthew P. Pelton,
Xiao X. Fang,
Haitao Zhu
& Andrew E. Suyker

Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author

Nature Climate Change
(2014)
doi:10.1038/nclimate2187

Received
13 August 2013
Accepted
05 March 2014
Published online
20 April 2014

Removal of corn residue for biofuels can decrease soil organic carbon (SOC; refs 1, 2) and increase CO2 emissions3 because residue C in biofuels is oxidized to CO2 at a faster rate than when added to soil4, 5. Net CO2 emissions from residue removal are not adequately characterized in biofuel life cycle assessment (LCA; refs 6, 7, 8). Here we used a model to estimate CO2 emissions from corn residue removal across the US Corn Belt at 580 million geospatial cells. To test the SOC model9, 10, 11, we compared estimated daily CO2 emissions from corn residue and soil with CO2 emissions measured using eddy covariance12, 13, 14, with 12% average error over nine years. The model estimated residue removal of 6 Mg per ha?1 yr?1 over five to ten years could decrease regional net SOC by an average of 0.47–0.66 Mg C ha?1 yr?1. These emissions add an average of 50–70 g CO2 per megajoule of biofuel (range 30–90) and are insensitive to the fraction of residue removed. Unless lost C is replaced15, 16, life cycle emissions will probably exceed the US legislative mandate of 60% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared with gasoline.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2187.html

[IDemo]

2. Thanks

[NYC_SKP]

3. And thank you for the post. Never a fan of ethanol, Bush supported it. Big Corn Lobby.

Life Cycle Assessment shoots it down!

[TreasonousBastard]

10. This seems to say that making ethanol from...

corn waste rather plowing it under increases the atmospheric carbon loading. Well, of course it would. Duh!

However, it doesn't mention that the ethanol is replacing gasoline that isn't being burned and ignores the net effect of that.

How about how much carbon is released per mile in a typical car-- ethanol vs gasoline. And don't forget to take into account the entire manufacturing cycle, too.

[NYC_SKP]

13. I hope that they are including that fossil fuels used for cultivation and haves and processing....

...and fertilizerl

This is where ethanol often becomes a net energy failure, if it comes from commercially produced corn, as opposed to other bio-sources.

[Indyfan53]

4. Ethanol can also be made for trash and waste

Companies like Coskata and POET figured out ways to make safer feedstocks for ethanol without sparking a food vs. fuel debate or causing nutrient depletion in soil.

[jeff47]

5. This isn't food vs fuel.

This is cellulosic ethanol. The corn kernels still become food, the rest of the corn plant is turned into ethanol.

[quadrature]

6. these people are against anything new

(they are also against anything the
US's middle class is trying to do,
but that is a different story)

of course, they don't say that.

they were in favor of biofuels...

until ethanol started to show up
until palm oil started to show up
(related)until wind turbines disturbed their view
etc etc etc

[NickB79]

7. "These people"?

What, you mean people who aren't in favor of cooking the planet into another mass extinction event and killing a few billion by the end of the century?

Damn those party pooping environmentalists, fucking with the middle classe's dreams of buying McMansions and muscle cars!

[quadrature]

8. practical (fuel)ethanol from cellulose...

would be a blessing to humanity.

............
Ok, most of humanity.

would not be a blessing to ...
people in the middle east
Exxon
Al Gore's carbon offset business

[NickB79]

9. Not according to the studies in the OP

Which clearly show current cellulosic ethanol practices are NOT a "blessing" at all since they'll accelerate climate change.

Most of humanity would not consider 3-4C of warming a blessing, unless you're a climate change denier.

[quadrature]

11. ethanol...carbon from the air, oxygen and ...

hydrogen from rain.
minerals can be returned to the soil.
I don't understand your complaint.

[NickB79]

14. Per the research presented by the OP, if you've read it yet

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/study-fuels-corn-waste-gas-23399763

The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

I've been saying this for YEARS: crop residues aren't "trash" or "junk" that you can simply strip from the soil after you've harvested your corn and soy. They are vital to maintaining soil fertility by returning organic matter to the land. Modern farming practices already remove so much organic matter just by harvesting the crop component that we have to apply massive quantities of synthetic fertilizer (because God knows it's too hard these days to do simple things like add animal manure and rotate crops like my grandfather used to do). Soil is a living, breathing thing that must be cared for and nurtured if you want it to keep providing you with food. Starve it's organisms by stripping off the leaves, stems and stalks, and your land will suffer. One of those consequences is increased greenhouse gas emissions, as this new study shows.

Really, the only way this isn't clear is if you haven't bothered to read the study, think the study is flawed in some way, or don't care about climate change.

[quadrature]

16. in the long term, rotting vegtable matter will return...

CO2 to the air.

[TexasProgresive]

12. A question-

Why is the release of CO2 from this process worst than the release of CO2 by natural decay of "corn waste"? If the corn stubble is plowed under with adequate nitrogen to balance the carbon there will be some temporary sequestering of carbon in the soil, but most corn farmers now use zero tillage methods where they plant in the stubble.

We need to keep our focus on the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere from sources that are naturally sequestered (coal, petroleum and natural gas) as opposed to those that are naturally occurring. All the carbon in plant matter comes from the air and when it oxidizes most returns.

My guess is that this study is bad science- what I would like to see is a breakdown of the unnatural carbon footprint of producing ethanol - tractor and truck fuel, production of fertilizer (NG is heavily used), the electrical power of the ethanol plants and so on.

If ethanol production is to be carbon neutral all aspects of the process needs to be fueled by sources that do not add unnatural carbon to the air. I've yet to see any breakdown of the unnatural carbon footprint of ethanol production.

[NickB79]

15. "most corn farmers now use zero tillage methods"

Maybe where you are, this is the case, but here in the Corn Belt of the Midwest (where I live) I see very few farms using zero-till methods.

At best, it appears about 1/3 of the nation's farmland is in zero/low-till: http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/usda-report-on-no-till-farming/

Corn comes in at only 25%, and most of that is in areas outside the Corn Belt.

My guess is that this study is bad science- what I would like to see is a breakdown of the unnatural carbon footprint of producing ethanol - tractor and truck fuel, production of fertilizer (NG is heavily used), the electrical power of the ethanol plants and so on.

Well, it's been reviewed by David Tilman, one of the premier researchers doing exactly the work you suggested, and here's what he had to say:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/study-fuels-corn-waste-gas-23399763?page=2

"The study says it will be very hard to make a biofuel that has a better greenhouse gas impact than gasoline using corn residue," which puts it in the same boat as corn-based ethanol, said David Tilman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has done research on biofuels' emissions from the farm to the tailpipe.

Tilman said it was the best study on the issue he has seen so far.

[Indyfan53]

17. Was pollution from oil refineries taken into consideration?

Think out the pollution and dumping that occurs with oil refineries. Many of them illegally dump refinement waste and petroleum coke. Mercury and other toxins are also emitted from oil refineries.

I smell big oil influence in this study. If corn stover is a bad feed stock, will they say the same thing about hemp?

[poopfuel]

18. It is always possible to do a good thing stupidly

As such studies show. Indyfan is right. It smells of big oil.
Here is a response from
Tom Buis CEO of Growth Energy

“The conclusions reached in this study are flawed and are in no way representative of the methods that are applied in this field. For starters, the authors assume that all 10 Corn Belt states would be harvesting 75 percent of corn stover, which is completely unrealistic and far beyond what any cellulosic ethanol producers are actually considering. Furthermore, the farmers providing cellulose to ethanol plants understand that smart and responsible farming is the key to success year after year. To conduct a study that assumes farmers would blatantly disregard sound farming practices is useless and is not worth the paper it is printed on.

“Our member plants that are developing commercially viable cellulosic ethanol are committed to responsible residue removal and sustainable farming to help fuel America and feed the world. They understand the effect that removing too much stover would have on soil quality and crop yield. There has been extensive research done, including hundreds of years’ worth of site data that demonstrate that responsible biomass harvesting, which is what we see today, is a valuable part of good farm management. Most of the agronomic and academic community is aligned in the understanding that biomass can be removed within reason. This is one study among many, and it flies in the face of research by most agronomic experts.

“The USDA and the EPA have both refuted this study, calling out the authors’ unrealistic assumptions and concluding that the study ‘does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.’

“When it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, what is needed is a long-term, comprehensive approach that successfully partners first and next generation fuels, not a short-sighted, unrealistic and misleading study such as this one.”

- See more at: http://www.growthenergy.org/news-media/press-releases/growth-energy-responds-to-flawed-corn-stover-study/#sthash.mTJUrsCv.dpuf