Fuels made from corn worse than gas for global warming, study says
Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.
A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won't meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.
The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.
The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.
"The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense," said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.
Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
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 knew this research would be contentious," said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "I'm amazed it has not come out more solidly until now."
Full Article: http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/04/fuels_made_from_corn_worse_tha.html#incart_river
Tags
Who is online
437 visitors
Really interesting article, Larry. It makes a distinction between the short term and the long term. But I find that a bit illogical. Because if we use it daily, the short term will always be present...right?
Absolutely Perrie, and that is their point if I'm reading this right. The constant demand for silage will cause the fields to go fallo. Or the farmers use what they need and the ethanol industry goes down. There will never be an equal trade off no matter how hard they juggle the numbers. We need the farmers more now than ever. And there are other alternative fuels that need to be developed more.
Great article; I learned something new today!
Thanks Larry.
:~)
Glad you liked it.
Good article Larry. Like Larry H, I learned something new today.
Then it was worth posting it. Always like to present as many sides of an issue as I can find just to keep things honest.
Dear Friend Larry Crehore: I concur. Corn fuel use increases corn prices. That in urn raises the price of animal feed, human food, as well as worsening the fuels for the engines of internal combustion vehicles. It isn't good for the seals when ethanol is used. This is in addition to the fact that corn as a fuel isn't as green as was firstthought.
Sawgrass provides ten or more times the fuel,. with no use of water. It grows naturally in places likeprairies. Wave and wind energy are sustainable, renewable, and create no pollution. They need to fertilizers, genetic modification or pesticides. Solar speaks for itself onthese topics.
Great article. Thanks for posting. Not all that appears green is.
Live and learn. Onwards and upwards.
E.
I think ethanol government subsidies are all about making an industry and investors extremely wealthy, and have absolutely 'nothing' to do with climate change, healthier environments, and such.
Great article! Thanks Larry.