Slashdot Mirror
Biofuels From Corn Can Create More Greenhouse Gases Than Gasoline
New submitter Chipmunk100 (3619141) writes "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."
It is brain-dead stupid!
How much of the total plant bio-mass are you processing to start with when you are dealing with corn? 2%? 3%? (That is until you get to
the actual fuel, which is much less than that.) When you do Biofuels from farming monoculture the proper way (if such a thing is possible at all), like from sugar-cane, where maybe 30-50% of the biomass is the part to be processed into biofuel, you may be getting some improvement over oil status-quo. With algae you maybe can achieve 100% of the biomass to start processing, sounds even nicer.
But from Corn? It is so stupid, it does not even deserve a proper adjective. It is even stupid to waste time making "studies" on it.
Trying to do it is only about corn super-production, hype, and abuse of government subsidies to plant corn, all mixed with a large, big
dose of the reverse of common sense.
-><- no
If oil companies are willing to pay off scientists, start entire shill foundations, websites and TV shows... why would this carry any weight?
As one sided as it might sound, I approach any article or discovery that would improve the oil industries' image or standing with the utmost distrust.
You hate the oil industry but you'll trust the corn lobby?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Surely it's still carbon neutral[?]
We use tons of petrochemicals to grow corn.
.: Semper Absurda
It's taking a lot of the carbon from the soil instead of the air... so no. Also, consider all the gasoline used to plant/harvest/transport it. Ethanol is a corn-state boondoggle. It drives up corn prices and brings in massive revenue to the midwest. Ethanol support is critical for any politician that wants to win in states like Iowa. When you hear a 60yr old farmer start talking about "green energy" you know he grows corn.
Both are fairly evil:
1: HFCS. Enough said.
2: I wish there were concrete figures if using for ethanol takes food out of hungry people's mouths. Food prices sure jumped when ethanol was mandated in the US in gasoline.
3: Ethanol does a number on small engines.
If ethanol wasn't jacking up food prices, engines were designed to handle it, and it didn't affect the shelf life of gasoline, it would be a useful fuel. I've found that my E85 vehicle gets more horsepower (useful when towing) than on plain gas... of course this at the expense of MPG.
Were I to have a still (I wish), then things definitely would be different. Toss 10 gallons of premium into the truck's tank, fill the rest of the way with white lightning, call it done.
If they're counting the carbon to harvest the stalks, then the comparison for gasoline should include the carbon from oil extraction, transportation and refinement. The article also doesn't state if the carbon reduction from plant uptake is offsetting the carbon emissions of burning biofuels. Sounds like they're saying, look at the carbon you get from burning ethanol, add in the diesel to run the tractor, worse than gasoline!
I remember a study by the airline industry trying to claim air transportation was more efficient than high speed trains. This study reminds me of that kind of science.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Biofuels are about government subsidies and nothing more. All the talk about biofuels and the environment is just to trick the rubes.
Anyone who knows anything about Ethanol knows that the two best sources are sugar cane and switch grass. Switch grass should be the choice for North America as it can grow just about anywhere. Corn, on the other hand, takes up valuable farm land, requires more water, and has higher production costs. Ethanol from corn is a nothing but a scam perpetrated by the corn industry. Believe this study or not, but there are much better options than corn...
http://www.scientificamerican....
no big surprises in the study. California established all of this a while ago when they enacted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Here is the lookup table of GHGs from all fuel alternatives: link. Once you include "upstream" emissions, the corn ethanol comes out pretty bad. Depending on the source of the corn and the way it is processed, many of the ethanol options are more carbon-intense than corn. The reason to push for ethanol is that corn ethanol could be a temporary bridge to cellulosic ethanol, which is much lower in GHGs. The science isn't there yet to do cellulosic at scale, but regs like the LCFS or EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard guarantee that there will be a long-term market, and make private industry more comfortable in investing in the technology. Of course, the fuel with the lowest GHGs is CNG made from landfill gas (or manure, or wastewater treatment plants). Otherwise it just escapes into the atmosphere!
No it's not that simple. Plants require nutrients from the soil, which have to be replenished each year[1] partly by natural in-soil processes that break down residue from previous crops, but mostly from the application of synthetic fertilizer, which is synthesized using a process that burn natural gas. See the wikipedia article on the Haber Process.
Also there are fossil fuels used in the planting, cultivation, harvest, and irrigation of the crop.
If corn could fix its own nitrogen like legumes do, it might be a lot closer to carbon neutral.
[1] In many parts of the world, including the Brazillian rainforest, farmers are actively "mining" nutrients from the soil. The soil left from burning the rainforest is extremely rich in nutrients, allowing intensive farming for a few years. After a while, though, the soil is depleted of nutrients and organic matter and yields drop. Sadly many farms just burn down more forest. Some methods of farming, including zero-till, try to foster natural soil processes to produce more nitrogen in natural ways, reducing synthetic inputs.
Contrary to what ignorant people believe, oil companies actually love the mandated 10% ethanol.
E-90 (10% ethanol blend) has the side effect of dropping the MPG of ANY vehicle by at least 20% ... meaning that you have to buy more gas ... and pay more for it.
The reason to push for ethanol is that corn ethanol could be a temporary bridge to cellulosic ethanol, which is much lower in GHGs. The science isn't there yet to do cellulosic at scale, but regs like the LCFS or EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard guarantee that there will be a long-term market, and make private industry more comfortable in investing in the technology.
Some times you do actually have to read the article, the article is not about making Ethanol from the sugars and starches in the grain portion of the corn plant like everybody is assuming, it's about making ethanol from the stalks, leaves and cobs normally left on the fields.
This is a bad idea because it removes organic matter from the soil and making it less fertile, more easily compacted and more prone to errotion. Fields in that condition require more fertilizer and increased tillage to maintain productivity.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Governments are fully able to solve difficult problems, see universal medicare, roads, sewers, city water. However governments only do what they are told to do, and if the voters only care about pork (and not success) then that's what you get. P.S. people who complain about government incompetence seem blind to corporate evils. The telco's basically run the NSA spying program, but nobody is complaining about anything but the NSA.
This is a bad idea because it removes organic matter from the soil and making it less fertile, more easily compacted and more prone to errotion. Fields in that condition require more fertilizer
Then we just add petroleum based fertilizers to the soil. Problem solved,
Corn (maize) is one of the worst possible plant masses you could grow to make biofuel. It's horribly inefficient compared to other crops.
We've always known this. And it drives up the price of food. Globally.
Why are we still using corn to make ethanol? Farm lobby.
The only purpose of the whole corn ethanol debacle is to transfer vast amounts of money from the taxpayers and the gasoline-buying public to Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland. Any other claimed purpose is, and always was, bullshit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Modern agriculture essentially converts oil into crops
"Modern agriculture" is based largely on annual crops, which deplete the soil and require massive inputs. Methanol can be made from perennial crops which can be harvested economically with little to no inputs.
And since perennials do not require tillage, there is very little environmental degradation. Indeed, if herbivores are incorporated in the farming scheme, the combination can actually increase the topsoil. Without tillage, such crops can be raised on lands which are currently considered marginal or unusable for conventional row-cropping. So methanol (unlike ethanol) would not compete with food crops at all.
How do you think methanol would be produced at industrial scale?
It already is produced at industrial scale. It's one of the most common "industrial" chemicals on the market. Unfortunately, a good chunk is currently produced from natural gas, but it is (and has been) made from various feedstocks for more than a century.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Methanol can be made from perennial crops which can be harvested economically with little to no inputs.
Perennial crops still need water, pest control, harvesting, tending, processing, and some amount of fertilizing, ALL of which require oil and other petroleum products. Methanol would likely be a big improvement on ethanol but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of eliminating the need for oil inputs and it's not even clear if it would get the need for such inputs below the energy output of the methanol produced. I don't have any problem with using methanol as a fuel source (at least no more than any fossil fuel) but so far the thermodynamics and economics of it just don't seem to make any sense other than as a supplemental or byproduct source of bio-fuel. Replace oil? Not going to happen.
Without tillage, such crops can be raised on lands which are currently considered marginal or unusable for conventional row-cropping. So methanol (unlike ethanol) would not compete with food crops at all.
It might help a bit at the edges but there are reasons we don't use those locations beyond just the soil quality. Difficult landscapes, poor irrigation, remote locations, etc. And if there is money to be had, it will compete with food crops to some degree. The only question is how much.
It already is produced at industrial scale. It's one of the most common "industrial" chemicals on the market. Unfortunately, a good chunk is currently produced from natural gas
A "good chunk"? Try the vast majority. There is essentially no industrial scale bioreactor on anything close to the scale relevant here. Right now the total capacity for methanol production in the US is 2.6 billion gallons annually, most of which is made from natural gas. Compare that with the 133 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in 2012. That doesn't even count diesel and other fuel products from oil.