America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by cacman. 6 replies replies.
What color is green?
Abrignac Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,297
Apr 21, 4:02 AM EDT

Study: Fuels from corn waste not better than gas

By DINA CAPPIELLO
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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."

The Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.

Cellulosic biofuels that don't meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn't earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn't meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study "does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol."

But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA's analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.

The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programs with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programs if too much corn residue is removed.

A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95 percent better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions. That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it's unclear whether future biorefineries would do that.

Liska agrees that using some of the residue to make electricity, or planting cover crops, would reduce carbon emissions. But he did not include those in his computer simulation.

Still, corn residue is likely to be a big source early on for cellulosic biofuels, which have struggled to reach commercial scale. Last year, for the fifth time, the EPA proposed reducing the amount required by law. It set a target of 17 million gallons for 2014. The law envisioned 1.75 billion gallons being produced this year.

"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.

---


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIOFUELS_GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-21-04-02-59
cacman Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Now Biofuels aren't good because of Global Warming??? d'oh!
More big oil propaganda to keep big money in their pockets.
They also say Electric Cars are not viable either, yet Tesla stock is worth more than GM, Ford, and Toyota's combined.
Abrignac Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,297
cacman wrote:
Now Biofuels aren't good because of Global Warming??? d'oh!
More big oil propaganda to keep big money in their pockets.
They also say Electric Cars are not viable either, yet Tesla stock is worth more than GM, Ford, and Toyota's combined.



Yes and no, though Tesla's stock trades at a higher price, the company's market value is less than half of GM and considerably less than Toyota.

Tesla stock is trading at ~ $196.50/sh, market capitalizaion is ~ $24.54B
GM stock is trading at ~ $33.84/sh, market capitalization is ~ $53.92B
Ford stock is trading at ~ $16.00/sh, market capitalization is ~ $63.22B
Toyota stock is trading at ~$53.49/sh, market capitalization is ~ $173.17B

All that being said, for a company that is a few months older than 10, they are doing remarkable well.
Abrignac Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,297
But, the greater issue is just how green are green fuels?

IPCC 2014 Chapter 8 wrote:
“Biofuels have direct, fuel‐cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis”


Oxfam International wrote:
Won’t using biofuels help reduce carbon emissions?
No, in fact some biofuels actually accelerate climate change through what is known as indirect land use change. Even when crops for biofuels are grown on available farming land, new areas have to be cleared to grow crops for food, including carbon stores such as forests and peat lands. As a result, millions of tons of greenhouse gases are released – in many cases even more than those produced by fossil diesel.


Environmental Working Group wrote:
The ethanol boom launched U.S. corn prices to a ten-year high of $4.38 per bushel this past March. As gas tanks gobble up more of our nation’s corn supply, rising commodity prices may result in sinking profits for livestock producers. Hog farmer and director of purchasing for Iowa Select Farms Joe Kerns says that feed costs have risen by about forty percent.


One of the more important tenets of economics is opportunity cost. As such, the push for ethanol dilution in gasoline has contributed to inflationary pressure on food prices. As the requirement milestones for more ethanol in fuel become due, we will see higher and higher food prices. These milestones will also result in larger farming based green house gas emissions. In essence we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Another unintended consequence of ethanol laden fuel is the added wear and tear on internal combustion engines and their accessory systems. Since Ethanol is hydrophillic it is corrosive. Where are the studies that define the additional green house gas emissions to account for the need for corrosion resistant parts not needed for 100% carbon based fuels? How about the economic costs related to more expensive parts needed?

Then there's the moral dilemmia. How many more people will go hungry due to upward pressure put on food prices as a direct result of increased grain prices created by the grain demand of ethanol production?
scompay Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 04-17-2010
Posts: 1,721
Bio fuels are the dumbest thing since asbestos filters on cigarettes.
cacman Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
scompay wrote:
Bio fuels are the dumbest thing since asbestos filters on cigarettes.

How long has South America been producing their own biofuels instead of relying on imports?
Users browsing this topic
Guest