Biofuels strike back
The editorial “Biofuels, exposed again” unfortunately drew its conclusions from a flawed experiment.
The University of Nebraska study cited by the editorial flies in the face of established research. A 2012 study by Argonne National Laboratory found a 90 percent to 103 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of cellulosic biofuels compared to gasoline.
Likewise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found a 60 percent reduction when looking at the very same issue in 2010.
So, what's the reason for this discrepancy?
The University of Nebraska study removed over 75 percent of corn residue from farmland being experimented on. In reality, no farmer removes nearly that much residue, because it would quickly render the soil barren and destroy the farmland's viability.
According to biofuels producer POET, most farmers remove only around 30 percent of corn remains. Since retaining a higher percentage of leftover corn on farmland reduces the carbon footprint for advanced biofuels, the University of Nebraska findings are clearly inapplicable to modern cellulosic biofuels production.
The Trib is correct to consider how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation sector, since transportation contributes to 30 percent of total U.S. emissions.
Research shows that cellulosic biofuels are the solution, not the problem.
The writer is director of transportation for the American Council on Renewable Energy (acore.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Thanks for the coverage
- Ferguson & contradictions
- More answers, please
- Positive & healthy ...
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Sticker shock
- Russia, not Rice
- Blame judges
- Atheists & religious expression
- ‘Trust’ in God