Join
Search

New Study on Corn Waste Biofuel’s Emissions: Worthy Topic, Flawed Conclusion

Bookmark and Share

This blog appeared as a guest blog on the National Geographic Great Energy Challenge

A recent study in Nature Climate Change is attracting a lot of attention because of its headline grabbing claim that cellulosic ethanol made from crop residues produces higher carbon emissions than gasoline. (See related blog post: “Corn Waste for Biofuel Could Boost Emissions, Study Says.”)

Corn stover bales. Photo by F. John Hay, University of Nebraska Lincoln

Corn stover bales. Photo by F. John Hay, University of Nebraska Lincoln

Professor Adam Liska of the University of Nebraska Lincoln, who led the study, is absolutely right to focus on soil carbon in the lifecycle of corn based biofuels (taking crop residues off the ground, Liska concluded, keeps them from trapping carbon in the soil and allows that carbon to escape into the atmosphere).

Regrettably, the narrow framing of his analysis set the debate up as a choice between pursuing cellulosic biofuels or calling off the whole project and driving home in our gasoline-powered cars.  The real solution is biofuels that reduce carbon in the atmosphere while protecting the carbon in soils.

Oil remains the problem, not the solution

As Peter Frumhoff’s blog last year makes clear, oil is the primary climate problem in the transportation sector.  So just because we find that oil-saving solutions are not easy does not mean we can afford to stick with the status quo. Instead of writing (yet another) obituary for cellulosic biofuels, we should use this new research to improve and refine our quest for clean fuels.

Based on our analysis, there are real opportunities to make low carbon biofuel from agricultural residues such as corn stalks (also called corn stover and shown in the image).  These non-food-based biofuels are a key element of our overall strategy to cut oil use through efficiency, electrification, better biofuels and other oil saving solutions described in our Half the Oil plan. When we assessed the scale of the opportunity to use agricultural residues as fuel we paid very careful attention to protecting soil carbon, excluding residue sources that would lead to losses in soil carbon or increases in erosion.

Preserving soil carbon: An agricultural issue not limited to biofuels

There are a lot of problems caused by the way corn is grown, not least of which are the problems corn farming causes for water quality.  If the future of biofuels is just growing ever more corn, and harvesting not just the grain, but the whole stalk as well, we are going to make bad problems even worse.

In the near-term, use of residues must be accompanied by changes in crop rotations and incorporation of cover crops (some of these practices are discussed in this fact sheet).  To their credit, Liska and his team mention this crucial opportunity to replace lost soil carbon, though it is not getting much attention in the press.

While agricultural residues raise concerns about soil carbon, other cellulosic feedstocks are major soil-carbon winners. Perennial bioenergy crops store a great deal of carbon in the soil. The emphasis Liska’s work places on soil carbon points to the other large potential opportunity for bioenergy to play a productive role in agriculture, which is to shift from an emphasis on corn to perennial grasses and other crops that build soil carbon, improve water quality and deliver other benefits even as they can provide a low carbon source of biofuel.

Residues do address the food versus fuel and land use issues

Much of the enthusiasm for using crop residues for fuel is to limit competition between biofuel uses of corn and other uses (primarily as animal feed) and also to avoid expanding the global footprint of agriculture at the expense of forests.  Nothing in this analysis refutes that crucial motivation.  That’s why it’s important to take the lesson of Liska’s analysis that a status quo approach to corn farming is not sustainable, and to make sure we avoid the soil carbon loss his analysis describes.

The fine print

As I mentioned, it’s important to be mindful of the narrow focus of this study. Two key factors that fell outside the study boundaries have a major bearing on the final implications:

  1. The paper neglects the lifecycle impact of an important electricity coproduct. By Liska’s own admission, a portion of the crop residue used for biofuel can be burned to produce electricity, saving emissions that would otherwise be generated, in some cases, by coal. The effect of this electricity offset, according to Liska’s calculations, could be enough to reverse the conclusion that corn stover biofuel can’t meet the 60 percent reduction in carbon pollution required by the U.S. government’s standard.
  2. Time is another crucial factor, and the five or ten year period examined in the study is pretty short.. I have had a long-running argument (beginning on this blog, and continued in the letters and replies in the International Journal of Lifecycle Assessment) ) with some other experts on the need to be transparent in choosing a time interval for biofuels lifecycle analysis.  In that case I was arguing that using a 100-year timeframe obscured the real magnitude of land use emissions, particularly when making comparisons with other studies that were based on a 30-year timeframe.  In this case Liska made a controversial choice to focus on just a five- and ten-year timeframe, which amplifies the impact of soil carbon emissions changes.  There may be good reasons to focus on five to ten years, but the paper would have been stronger if it had included a discussion of how the results changed over 30 years or even a century, together with whatever argument the authors have for considering five to ten years the right timeframe to consider.

After making these two technical corrections I doubt that the emissions from soil carbon would disqualify corn stover-based cellulosic ethanol from qualifying as a cellulosic biofuel under the Renewable Fuels Standard, and the overall  emissions would certainly be lower than gasoline.  However, that doesn’t make protecting soil carbon any less important.  The broader point is that when studies like these highlight challenges on the road to cutting oil use, we need to meet the challenges rather than turn back, because the status quo is not a smart option for either transportation or agriculture.

Posted in: Biofuel, Vehicles

About the author: Jeremy Martin is a scientist with expertise in the technology, lifecycle accounting, and water use of biofuels. He is working on policies to help commercialize the next generation of clean biofuels (made from waste and biomass rather than food) that can cut U.S. oil dependence and curb global warming. He holds a Ph.D. in chemistry with a minor in chemical engineering. See Jeremy's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

  • Jens Stubbe

    I think Liska has left out a significant amount of important information in his article.

    The by product of Gen. 2 biofuels is a mineral rich lignite solution that is usable for production of bioplastics or can be fed back to the earth as a combined fertilizer and carbonizer. Lignite is a stable form of carbon that will benefit the soils because it retains water.

    The decomposition of stalks in the fields leads to release of CO2, Methane and other climate gasses.

    Elevated carbon levels in the ground can be attained by making sure that the fields are used for grass and clover after the corn harvest. The grass and clover will carbonize and fertilize the ground.

    The current status for Gen. 2 biofuels based on Novozymes technology is that the efficiency of the process is still about 40% of their targeted efficiency. Provided Novozymes ever get get to their targeted performance they will produce significantly more carbon offset than what they are currently able to.

    A major part of the cost involved in Novozymes process is actually energy used for transportation and the processing plant and there are of cause great prospects for using energy provided by renewables, which will further increase the gains in terms of decarbonizing the atmosphere.

    Quite often when renewables are compared with fossils the comparison is with refined fossil products without taking into account the entire lifecycle of oil production to your gas tank.

    Finally once you release safely stored CO2 to the atmosphere from deep underground fossil deposits you can really not deposit as safely again, so the global carbon cycle becomes more stressed with novel release of fossil carbon than with that of carbon released from agriculture. If you insert a few years of for instance hemp production in the fields you can stock up carbon in the ground very fast.

    On a different note I would also argue that rural industries that produce liquid fuel would be a very benign option for farmers everywhere because the farmland has been depleted of jobs for decades. I will also remind everyone that the actual case for biofuels at the moment is that many are Gen. 1, which means that they use food to produce fuel and that much of the biofuel actually is produced on soils that only a few years back was virgin forests.

    The important contribution Liska has served us is that decarbonization of the agriculture fields is a dangerous route but his conclusions that Gen. 2 biofuels are not to be recommended are probably not relevant.

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, obscene, rude or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. When commenting, you must use your real name. Valid email addresses are required. (UCS respects your privacy; we will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)