Iowa’s Ethanol Plants Create 15 Percent of its Emissions
The Des Moines Register reported the other day that Iowa’s ethanol plants contribute 15 Percent — 7.6 million metric tons out of a total of 52 million metric tons — of greenhouse-gas emissions found in the state’s new inventory of major manufacturers, businesses and power plants.
Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources found that the largest portion of the state’s overall emissions came from fermenting grain at the plants and not from burning natural gas or coal. In addition, burning biomass such as switchgrass at various industrial plants added another 0.13 million metric tons.
- » See also: GM Working On Efficient, Shape-Changing, Memory Metal Engine
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
The emissions generated by ethanol production are one reason why some environmentalists downplay the benefit of renewable fuels, while others insist they are far more beneficial than burning fossil fuels.
It may be getting worse. As Global Warming brings more rain to the corn belt, it affords farmers the opportunity to grow even more corn, something the farmers are looking forward to.
Under four different scenarios of climate change, which vary by projected temperature increases, yields in Iowa and the rest of the Corn Belt could increase anywhere from 5 percent to 19 percent by 2030. With adaptations by farmers, yields could rise by even more, 6 percent to 23 percent.
Adapting to climate change also will mean figuring out ways to combat expected increases in diseases and pests that are expected to flourish in the warmer, more moist conditions. In temperate climates such as Iowa’s, scientists say global warming is likely to mean more flooding like the deluge this spring that devastated corn and soybean crops.
With more carbon dioxide in the air, weeds are expected to be hardier and grow faster. USDA research has found that at least one major weed, the Canada thistle, could become immune to Roundup weed killer, which is used throughout agriculture and on the vast majority of soybean fields.
If reliance on foreign oil isn’t bad enough, this could leave us at the mercy of genetically modified seed companies, who patent and sell the next years disease resistant fuel crop.
Source: Desmoines Register
Photo courtesy of Sroemerm via Creative Commons License
If you are going to electrify transportation you still have to produce electricity to put into those batteries. The only non-CO2 solution to that problem which will work 24/7-365 in Iowa is nuclear.
To Lonnie B:
I suppose corn could be considered a carbon sink but when it is turned into ethanol and combustion takes place the carbon is released. So there is no carbon being removed from the system.
Ross:
Regardless of where the corn is diverted from, the diversion would not happen unless it was more profitable to divert it. When subsides distort the market, the market is no longer able to determine the best economic use for a commodity. That’s where corn ethanol has taken us. If it is so great, why do we have to subsidize and protect the industry that manufacturers it?
I’m no expert or anything… but isn’t carbon released during fermentation already in the system to begin with? The carbon from burning fossil fuels is added to the system when it is extracted from deep underground, but I’d have to think that on the global balance sheet, fermentation is a net zero. It’s not introducing new carbon to the system. Its carbon is already in the wild, so to speak. It’s just converting it from one form to another. Or am I missing something?
Since there is no global warming and tempertures have been trending down for 10 years now due to the low solar activity cycle, crop yields are going to go down, not up.
Just thought I help the author out with that correction.
To add one more thing, it’s very disheartening that none of the commentators are questioning the assumption that CO2/carbon is a problem at all.
It is not. And all the schemes to reduce it, regulate it, sequester it, trade it, and tax it have absolutely nothing to do with any effect on the global environment. The only relevence is that it is a great excuse to shift power and money relationships among humans which is precisely the real purpose.
15% of greenhouse emissions. Which ones? CO2 or H2O, or something else? I think this matters, and should be included in the post. Otherwise the story is meaningless.
Tell us what you REALLY think, RKV!
I do agree with you on the natural cycles of earth. Our palnet is on an eliptical orbit and it wobbles, add the Moon to that and you get cyclical variances.
However, I must admit that our reckless puking of pollutants into our environment makes the problem worse, but no, we humans didn’t CAUSE global warming.
BTW - I heard on the news the other day that the Alaskan ice shelf has actually gained volume, not lost it, as all the paniced tree-huggers are claiming.
Could it be that our amazing planet CAN heal itself, despite what man and outer space throws at it?
JimR,
I agree, no carbon is being removed from the system. Perhaps my question was overly simplistic. The article reads as though the emissions are piling up, not being recycled.
As others have posted, this kind of carbon cycle is far preferable to the fossil fuel cycle, which is actually a one-way street, not a cycle, at all.
says the wymen’s studies major, because she can’t write and she can’t do math so she’s just a breeder without a brain.
True, except wymen’s studies majors don’t breed, because children are slavery and sperm is evil.
That is not a photo of any corn ethanol plant I’ve ever seen. Can you indentify it by caption? Or is that just stock photo of generic industry?