Study finds that environmental impact of corn-ethanol E85 is 23% to 33% higher than that of gasoline; environmental problem-shifting
16 March 2012
|
|
| Environmental impacts of gasoline and E85. Error bar shows regional variations for E85. GW = global warming; Eut. = eutrophication; ET = ecological toxicity; FEC = fossil energy consumption; WU = water use; LO = land occupation; “The rest” includes acidification; smog formation; ozone layer depletion; and human health effects. Credit: ACS, Yang et al. Click to enlarge. |
When 12 different environmental impacts and the regional differences among 19 corn-growing states are taken into consideration, E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) blends made with corn ethanol from dry mills show a worse total environmental impact than gasoline, according to a new study by a team from the Universities of Minnesota, Troyes (France), and California, Santa Barbara.
In a paper published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology, the authors reported that if the impacts are aggregated using weights developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), overall, E85 generates approximately 6% to 108% (23% on average) greater impact compared with gasoline, depending on where corn is produced, primarily because corn production induces significant eutrophication impacts and requires intensive irrigation. If greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from indirect land use (iLUC) changes are included in the analysis, the differences increase to between 16% and 118% (33% on average).
Although ... previous studies have followed the general framework of life cycle assessment (LCA), they have focused almost exclusively on quantifying the energy balance and GHG emissions associated with biofuels production. Such a narrow scope in environmental impact contradicts one of the core principles of LCA: whereby the results of an analysis are meant to prevent problem-shifting between different life-cycle stages and among different environmental impact categories. The singular emphasis on energy balance and the carbon footprint neglects numerous other impacts associated with biofuels production including those related to irrigation, fertilizer application, and pesticide use for feedstock growth.
In a similar way, the full breadth of impacts attributable to conventional gasoline production, such as natural resource consumption and hazardous pollutant emissions, must also be considered in order to make balanced comparisons to biofuels. Few studies have endeavored to make such comparisons between gasoline and corn ethanol on the basis of such a comprehensive set of environmental impact categories, with no study in particular including more than a few environmental impact categories and an assessment of their relative importance.
—Yang et al.
The new study uses of a life cycle inventory (LCI) database that the team recently compiled under a project funded by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The new LCI database covers a wide array of environmental pressures associated with biofuels production including releases of toxic substances and criteria pollutants to air, water, and land; emissions of nutrients that cause eutrophication; consumption of water; and occupation of land.
|
|
| Process flow diagrams for E85 and gasoline. Credit: ACS, Yang et al. Click to enlarge. |
For the study, the team compared the suite of environmental impacts attributable to gasoline with that of corn ethanol produced in 2005, including GHG emissions as a consequence of possible indirect land use change (iLUC), as well as measures of the uncertainty associated with the calculations.
In recognition of the impact of local climate, soil, and topography can all have on corn production, they also conducted an LCA of corn ethanol at the state level and for each of 19 corn-growing states surveyed by the USDA.
This full analysis considered feedstock production, shipment of the feedstock to the refinery, refining/conversion, shipment of the fuel to the refueling station, and vehicle operation. For gasoline, the study reflects the US context in which crude oil is to a large extent imported and refined domestically. They used the amount of fuel required to drive 1 km in an average gasoline-powered car and a flexible-fuel vehicle—both as modeled in the Argonne National Laboratory’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model.
They found that E85’s heavy impacts on eutrophication, water use, and land occupation outweigh the modest benefits in other impact categories, such as global warming, ecological toxicity, and fossil energy consumption. To check the robustness of the overall conclusion against different choices of weighting factors, they performed a Monte Carlo simulation. The results of that confirmed the general conclusion that gasoline is more favorable than E85. They also applied an alternative allocation method based on substitution, and found that it did not change the overall conclusions either.
Our study seeks to draw attention to the importance of impacts other than climate change in renewable-energy policies, including Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), that use narrow environmental criteria. A careful evaluation of environmental impacts other than GHG emissions in those policies would be important to minimize the unintended consequences of biofuel development. Particularly, our analysis shows that addressing eutrophication and water consumption impacts is essential in limiting environmental degradation due to biofuel development. Achieving substantial reductions in the nutrient runoff and water consumption associated with biofuel feedstock production are identified as priorities in the effort to mitigate the overall environmental impact of corn ethanol. For this, our analysis indicates that the significant regional variability in eutrophication and water consumption impacts may play an important role in planning future biofuel feedstock production at minimum environmental costs.
...Given the importance of cultivation stage in the total life-cycle impact of corn ethanol, however, the inclusion of other conversion technologies in the analysis will not affect the central message of our study: that replacing gasoline with corn ethanol may result in problem shifting, especially to eutrophication and local water scarcity.
This study highlighted the environmental impacts of corn ethanol in comparison with gasoline. Biofuel policy, however, needs to consider not only the aggregate environmental impacts but also other socio-economic and political issues which were not analyzed in this study. Biofuel’s potentially positive impacts toward, e.g., energy independence, energy security, job creation, and revitalization of rural economy and stabilization of gasoline price, as well as its other adverse impacts toward, e.g., increasing food price, should be duly considered in biofuel policy.
—Yang et al.
Resources
Yi Yang, Junghan Bae, Junbeum Kim, and Sangwon Suh (2012) Replacing Gasoline with Corn Ethanol Results in Significant Environmental Problem-Shifting. Environmental Science & Technology doi: 10.1021/es203641p
Once again, the majority was not told the whole truth. Corn ethanol that we all thought was a very clean replacement fuel turns out to be a lot worse than even dirty Tar Sands gasoline. What an awakening!
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 March 2012 at 07:00 AM
Probably ethanol is not worst thing . Hydrogen or photovoltaic could be much more worse from carbon footprint point.
Posted by: Darius | 16 March 2012 at 07:50 AM
Start hydrogen and photovoltaic commercialisation to push gas and ethanol price down and reduce pollution from the oil lobby.
Posted by: A D | 16 March 2012 at 08:26 AM
This doesn't surprize me at all.
@Darius
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk
Posted by: ai_vin | 16 March 2012 at 08:28 AM
.... primarily because corn production induces significant eutrophication impacts and requires intensive irrigation....
Well duh!.. corn must be grown responsibly.. and growing corn for ethanol in drought stricken Texas and California is very irresponsible.
Its very hard to compete with free fuel that bubbles out of the ground.. until it runs out.
Posted by: Herm | 16 March 2012 at 08:37 AM
Kind of ironic that this news is right above the news regarding E15 approval.
Presumably any amount of corn-ethanol added to gasoline has a proportional affect.
If E85 increases GHG by 33% on average, E10 increases GHG by 4% on average and E15 increases GHG by 6% on average.
The only thing corn-ethanol might do is slightly reduce oil imports (how much oil goes into a gallon of corn-ethanol?)
Posted by: Dave R | 16 March 2012 at 09:46 AM
@HarveyD, there is no mention or comparison to Tar Sands gasoline. That is a inaccurate and misleading and I can assure you that almost anything is cleaner than tar sands oil.
Furthermore, the fact that they used data from 2005 is ridiculous, as most of the recent energy efficiency developments in the ethanol industry have occurred in the last 3-4 years.
There is simply no comparison in my mind to almost any alternative fuel to petroleum, as the true cost is never taken into account for both environmental and financial concerns with wars, convoy attacks and our military's continued protection of oil shipping lanes around the world.
@ Herm, great comment about the magical, energy dense liquid called petroleum, which currently has 100 million years of free sunlight, heat and pressure head start on all other alternatives.
Humans pump out of the ground over 3 billion gallons of oil a day... not sustainable and not going to last.
Posted by: Barclay | 16 March 2012 at 10:55 AM
About the only thing that won't increase GHG outputs is the use of stuff that's already being grown to make fuel instead of letting it rot.
The USA produces large amounts of biomass as excess cornstalks (must be removed to plant), corncobs, urban "green waste" and municipal garbage. Recent advances in thermal hydrolysis appear to allow most of the cellulose in these to be converted to 5-carbon and 6-carbon sugars. These can be fermented with existing techniques, producing fuel without changing any land use or adding to irrigation or fertilizer runoff. The conversion of green waste and garbage even eliminates tipping fees and transportation to dump sites.
Today's pressurized-water reactors operate hot enough to supply the process heat without emitting carbon. If there's a way forward, it's going to look something like that.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 16 March 2012 at 11:03 AM
Here is where the flaw is in this analysis. The assumption is made that corn would not be grown (or any other agricultural activity would take place) if the the ethanol were not being made. But, farmers farm. The presenters of this work would have to tell me that they are only considering the additional corn being grown because now there is a market for more corn, and more land is being farmed than previously, and that the corn specifically grown for ethanol is somehow more impactful than corn grown simply for feed (or other crops). I however know that is not the case for most corn and most farms. For the most part corn is grown for animal feed, and some is converted to ethanol and the protein part, after having the sugars produce ethanol, is sent for animal feed. I assume this was a hatchet job by someone hired to do so. If this is the actual level of intellectual thought going on in the universities now, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.
Posted by: Brotherkenny4 | 16 March 2012 at 11:09 AM
Bro4...what would your percentage be if corn farms were returned to nature (pasture and/or forest land)?
EU studies recently revealed that fuel from tar sands was 17% dirtier than from regular crude. Assuming that this 17% and the above study are both correct, corn derived ethanol, at certain mixture level, is worse than our very dirty tar sands fuel?
Just amazing, isn't it?
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 March 2012 at 01:14 PM
Last time I looked the U.S. had 100 million acres planted in corn, and 30% of that was for ethanol. Use all the corn grain for feed/food and the stover (stalks and cobs) for fuel.
If you want to use cellulose fermentation methods fine, gasify what is left over and make gasoline. Use the heat from the gasoline plant to ferment and distill in the ethanol plant. We are still going to need an oxygenate for cleaner air.
One day we may all be driving electric cars, but not in the next 10 years. In 10 years the price of oil went from $15 to $145 per barrel and we need all the methods at our disposal to keep from being buried by what is coming our way.
Posted by: SJC | 16 March 2012 at 01:48 PM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 16 March 2012 at 02:59 PM
Look what happened in the 20 years from 1990 to 2010, we have faster computers and flat screen TVs, but no flying cars nor fusion energy.
The point being there have been endless projections of a shiny bright new future and it turns out about the same with some changes. These are the ways of humans over time and not wishful thinking.
By 2020 there will be some changes, buy 2030 there will be some more, but one thing I would count on is oil becoming harder to get and more expensive from here on out. 100 million people will NOT be driving EVs in the U.S. in 2020.
Posted by: SJC | 16 March 2012 at 03:53 PM
corn ethanol has an EROI of 1.6 to 2.0 in the most modern plants, yet it only requires one gallon of diesel to make 21 gallons of ethanol.. the rest of the energy is about a gallon equivalent also, but in NG and coal.. plus sunlight of course.
If we stop making corn ethanol, corn prices will collapse again, the farmers will need price supports and local growers in third world countries will not be competitive with cheap US corn... but it would boost the consumption of gasoline.
Posted by: Herm | 17 March 2012 at 06:07 AM
Why not buy the corn stalks and cobs from the farmer, instead of letting them rot in the field and turn them into ethanol and gasoline. Then we would not have the incentive for corn grain future price speculators doubling the price of corn.
Posted by: SJC | 17 March 2012 at 08:09 AM
The sustainable solution is to use less and less liquid fuel year after year. That is very possible to do but due to the large current ICEV fleet and long turn over it may take 15 years or so.
The switch over to more efficient ICEVs, HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs has started and will pick up speed in the next few years.
Upgrading current light and heavy trucks and locomotives to NG could certainly be a quick and easy way to reduce liquid fuel consumption while creating needed local jobs and using local very cheap NG.
What is USA waiting for?
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 March 2012 at 09:19 AM
What have they been waiting for since the oil embargo 40 years ago? The size and scope of the oil industry has locked them into place, we need synthetic fuels, we knew this in 1979 and we did nothing. Waiting for 100 million EVs is foolish, by that time the Arabs and Chinese will own us more than they do now.
Posted by: SJC | 17 March 2012 at 10:09 AM
In the last 20 years we've gone from ICE-only through 3 generations of hybrids, with the start of PHEVs. The power that used to require a V8 engine now comes from turbocharged direct-injection 4-bangers. We have all kinds of batteries that didn't exist then. You couldn't get a Li-ion hand-held circular saw at any price in 1990.
It wouldn't take much to use near-term or even today's technology to make radical improvements over what's in showrooms now. For instance:
- Chop a 4-cylinder engine down to an Atkinson 3-banger. Keep the intercooled turbo and DI.
- "Unwrap" the induction motor from the BAS II system. Double its power and put it on the rim of the engine flywheel. The depth of this package would be similar to the original 4-cylinder, and might be made bolt-compatible.
- Add a dry clutch between the engine and flywheel.
- Mate this to a 6-8 speed dual-clutch transmission.
- Grow the battery pack to 1.5 kWh with the first base model, and as desired later. Allow a charger for plug-in operation.
That would yield a vehicle that has similar power and performance, zero idling losses, silent electric operation at low speed, and much greater fuel economy than today's models. It would require no technology that isn't shipping today, though silicon-anode batteries would fit right in if they could charge fast enough.The BAS-II system puts out about 15 HP in motor mode. Doubled, this is about 30 HP. If a car takes 4 HP to roll at 30 MPH, the remaining power could accelerate it at nearly 1/10 g. This is adequate for most city driving and much traffic-jamming.
A concerted push could have this technology industry-wide within a few years, and 50 million vehicles by 2020 would not be out of the question.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 17 March 2012 at 04:12 PM
Farm Baby Farm and Did Baby Dig will tend to perpetuate the use of inefficient (21 to 22 mpg) ICEVs, just like the Ford Model T did over 100 years ago.
Left free to decide, car manufacturers and Oil producers will manage to sell the majority 22 mpg vehicles forever.
Strict application of accelerated CAFE is probably one of the sure way to force manufacturers to produce 80 and 100 mpg vehicles. Going from 20 mpg fleet to 80 mpg fleet would reduce imported crude to almost zero. Going to 100+ mpg fleet would make USA a crude exporter again.
All other liquid fuel produced could be exported!!!
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 March 2012 at 06:55 PM
Correction....should read.....Dig Baby Dig....
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 March 2012 at 06:56 PM
ai_vin
All those studies are biased. Since PV generated tiny amount of power everything has big impact on energy consumed during LC. For instance even transportation from manufacturing site to the installation site has big impact. Network integration and synchronization systems cost energy and money as well and etc.. Therefore I do not trust those studies. If LCA calculated as it should be it would demonstrate completely different results.
Posted by: Darius | 18 March 2012 at 01:26 AM
"The BAS-II system puts out about 15 HP in motor mode."
dont disregard BAS II (eAssist), its cheap and it can make a Buick LaCrosse get 29mpg in real life city driving and 44mpg while cruising the hwy at 70mph.. all for only about $800 to the driver if not bundled with other options.. lately it has been made a no-cost option on the 2012 LaCrosse, Regal and Malibu ECO.
It should be standard on all GM trucks, but I wish they got rid of the belt and drove the flywheel directly.
Posted by: Herm | 18 March 2012 at 04:51 PM
"Why not buy the corn stalks and cobs from the farmer, instead of letting them rot in the field and turn them into ethanol and gasoline."
Some of the Coskata plants are experimenting with this.. cellulosic ethanol from such a low value source is a very iffy proposition, its very bulky, expensive to stockpile, transport and dry up. It may be better just to burn the corn waste for process heat in the ethanol plants, like the brazilians do with bagasse waste from sugar cane.
Posted by: Herm | 18 March 2012 at 04:56 PM
Corncobs aren't that hard to stockpile; whole dried corn ears are kept in corn cribs for animal feed. Transportation is another issue.
The problem is the difference in scale between the biomass supply that can be economically brought to a plant and the size of the plant required to process it into product as opposed to boiler fuel. If transport is by ICE truck, the economical gathering radius shrinks as the price of fuel rises.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 19 March 2012 at 05:46 AM
You locate the fuel plants near the biomass, this is why we develop small modular gasification facilities that can be built in factories and assembled at the location of operation.
We can get two tons of stalks and cobs off of each acre of corn, at 100 gallons per ton and 100 million acres, that is 20 billion gallons of biofuel just from the stover, not the grain.
It is not Farm Baby Farm, it is income for the farmers from land that they have in production now with no extra water nor fertilizer. This is just corn, the same can be done for wheat and other farm crops.
Liquid fueled cars are not going away in 10 years, the sooner we face that reality the sooner we will be on a reality based mind set. This will not keep us from getting to EVs, that is a foolish notion, we will get there if and when it makes sense.
Posted by: SJC | 19 March 2012 at 08:24 AM