posted April 20, 2014 03:30 PM            

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.

posted April 24, 2014 11:20 AM            

April 24, 2014
Renewable Lies
Seldon B. Graham, Jr.

The ethanol industry has issued a campaign of lies about the oil industry. As Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The American Petroleum Institute, the only lobby for American oil, will not defend the oil industry, so I will give it a try.

The Ethanol Renewable Fuels Association, (hereafter "Ethanol") sponsors a website containing seven lies about the oil industry.

Lie No. 1 is that "big oil" has been "rigging Congress." Ethanol intends to deceive the public into thinking that legal campaign contributions to congressmen are somehow improper or unethical.

Lie No. 2 is that "big oil" has a near-total monopoly on the marketplace so when oil prices go up, you get gouged. This shows Ethanol's ignorance about "big oil," oil prices, the market, and gouging. Ethanol has no idea who "big oil" is. The "Seven Sisters" were destroyed by Carter. XTO, Devon, Chesapeake, Anadarko, EOG, Enervest, Pioneer, Lewis, BHP, and Burlington are the top 10 oil producers in Texas. These names are not familiar to the public. Ethanol does not know that U.S. oil prices are cheaper than foreign oil prices. So, if foreign countries are "gouging" by an excessive oil price, then, since Obama was elected president, foreign countries have "gouged" Americans out of $64.7 billion at the pump.

Lie No. 3 is that, for over 100 years, oil companies have held onto sweetheart tax breaks, supercharging "big oil's" profits with hard-earned wages from American families. This lie is especially defamatory and egregious. Oil is the only depleting resource industry that has lost its depletion allowance. The aforementioned Domestic Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax caused half a million Americans to lose their jobs and wages, and caused hundreds of oil companies to go bankrupt. Those are "sweetheart tax breaks" to Ethanol?

Lie No. 4 is that oil companies made $100 billion in profits last year but have refused to pay for infrastructure to sell more renewable fuels in spite of a law requiring them to do so. Benjamin Franklin said, "Half a truth is often a great lie." This is that great lie. This half truth intended to deceive the public would require a for-profit company to throw away money on capital investments which could never be used. Ethanol production peaked in 2011 and has been less since. Ethanol production can never be more than 6% of oil demand. The EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard for 2013 was 16.55 billion gallons of ethanol; yet, ethanol production in 2013 was only 13.3 billion gallons, a 3.25 billion gallon shortfall. Only the stupid would spend money relying upon a shortfall to vanish.

Lie No. 5 is that oil companies like to quote a study that said ethanol damages engine valves, suggesting that the study was false. The AAA has warned that increasing the percentage of ethanol blended in gasoline could damage engines. Is Ethanol calling the AAA a bunch of liars? If so, why did Lexus recalled 214,500 vehicles in 2009 due to ethanol having a potential to corrode fuel delivery pipes?

Lie No. 6 is that "big oil" has spent millions on slick advertisements attacking clean ethanol. "Big oil" is the villain again. Somehow, I have not seen any of those alleged advertisements. Do they even exist? Clean ethanol? Ethanol is not clean. Ethanol is dirty. Ethanol emits more carbon dioxide into the air than using gasoline. A gallon of gasoline contains 124,238 British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy and 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide. A gallon of ethanol contains 77,000 BTUs and 12.57 pounds of carbon dioxide. Thus, for every 10,000 BTUs of energy used, gasoline emits 1.58 pounds of carbon dioxide, and ethanol emits 1.63 pounds of carbon dioxide.

posted May 10, 2014 12:34 AM            

The ethanol industry has seen four extended periods of plant profitability, with the most recent one being the longest one, starting in spring 2013 to the present."