We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Marginal yield, technological advances, and emissions timing in corn ethanol’s carbon payback time

  • LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose

Previous estimates of carbon payback time (CPT) of corn ethanol expansion assumed that marginal yields of newly converted lands are the same as the average corn yield, whereas reported marginal yields are generally lower than the average yield (47–83 % of average yield). Furthermore, these estimates assumed that the productivity of corn ethanol system and climate change impacts per unit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions remain the same over decades to a century. The objective of this study is to re-examine CPT of corn ethanol expansion considering three aspects: (1) yields of newly converted lands (i.e., marginal yield), (2) technology improvements over time within the corn ethanol system, and (3) temporal sensitivity of climate change impacts.

Methods

A new approach to CPT calculation is proposed, where changes in productivity of ethanol conversion process and corn yield are taken into account. The approach also allows the use of dynamic characterization approach to GHGs emitted in different times, as an option. Data are collected to derive historical trends of bioethanol conversion efficiency and corn yield, which inform the development of the scenarios for future biofuel conversion efficiency and corn yield. Corn ethanol’s CPTs are estimated and compared for various marginal-to-average (MtA) yield ratios with and without considering technology improvements and time-dependent climate change impacts.

Results and discussion

The results show that CPT estimates are highly sensitive to both MtA yield ratio and productivity of ethanol system. Without technological advances, our CPT estimates for corn ethanol from newly converted Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land exceed 100 years for all MtA yield ratios tested except for the case where MtA yield ratio is 100 %. When the productivity improvements within corn ethanol systems since previous CPT estimates and their future projections are considered, our CPT estimates fall into the range of 15 years (100 % MtA yield ratio) to 56 years (50 % MtA yield ratio), assuming land conversion takes place in early 2000s. Incorporating diminishing sensitivity of GHG emissions to future emissions year by year, however, increases the CPT estimates by 57 to 13 % (from 17 years for 100 % MtA yield ratio to 88 years for 50 % MtA yield ratio). For 60 MtA yield ratio, CPT is estimated to be 43 years, which is relatively close to previous CPT estimates (i.e., 40 to 48 years) but with very different underlying reasons.

Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of considering technological advances in understanding the climate change implications of land conversion for corn ethanol. Without the productivity improvements in corn ethanol system, the prospect of paying off carbon debts from land conversion within 100 years becomes unlikely. Even with the ongoing productivity improvements, the yield of newly converted land can significantly affect the CPT. The results reinforce the importance of considering marginal technologies and technology change in prospective life cycle assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Babcock B (2009) Measuring unmeasurable land-use changes from biofuels. Iowa Ag Rev 15:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Chum HL, Zhang Y, Hill J et al (2013) Understanding the evolution of environmental and energy performance of the US corn ethanol industry: evaluation of selected metrics. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 8(2):224–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delucchi M (2011) A conceptual framework for estimating the climate impacts of land-use change due to energy crop programs. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2337–2360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2010) Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell A, Plevin R, Turner B et al (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P et al. (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Clim. Change 2007 Phys. Sci. Basis Contrib. Work. Group Fourth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change

  • Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller A (2014) The role of scale and technology maturity in life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: a case study on carbon nanotubes. J Ind Ecol. doi:10.1111/jiec.12175

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand I, Zenone T, Jasrotia P et al (2011) Carbon debt of conservation reserve program (CRP) grasslands converted to bioenergy production. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:13864–13869

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbuhler K (2003) Discounting and the environment—should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD et al (2010) Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. Bioscience 60:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D et al (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:11206–11210

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney D (2008) Ethanol USA. Environ Sci Technol 43:8–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R (2010) Yield response and biofuels: issues and evidence on the extensive margin. World Congr. Environ. Resour. Econ. 28

  • Kendall A (2012) Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1042–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe B (2009) Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ Sci Technol 43:7142–7147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M et al (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liska A, Yang H, Bremer V et al (2009) Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol. J Ind Ecol 13:58–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lubowski RN, Bucholtz S, Claassen R et al (2006) Environmental effects of agricultural land-use change. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller S (2010) 2008 National dry mill corn ethanol survey. Biotechnol Lett 32:1261–1264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller S, Kwik J (2013) 2012 Corn ethanol: emerging plant energy and environmental technologies. Energy Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare M, Plevin R, Martin J et al (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ Res Lett 4:024001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piñeiro G, Jobbágy EG, Baker J et al (2009) Set-asides can be better climate investment than corn ethanol. Ecol Appl 19:277–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plevin R, Jones A, Torn M, Gibbs H (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ Sci Technol 44:8015–8021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Manning M (2011) Future changes in global warming potentials under representative concentration pathways. Environ Res Lett 6:024020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runge F, Johnson R (2008) The browning of biofuels: environment and food security at risk. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandén BA, Karlström M (2007) Positive and negative feedback in consequential life-cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 15:1469–1481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnoor JL (2011) Cellulosic biofuels disappoint. Environ Sci Technol 45:7099–7099

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwietzke S, Griffin WM, Matthews HS (2011) Relevance of emissions timing in biofuel greenhouse gases and climate impacts. Environ Sci Technol 45:8197–8203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R et al (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shapouri H, Duffield J, McAloon A, Wang M (2004) The 2001 net energy balance of corn-ethanol. US Department of Agriculture, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapouri H, Gallagher PW, Nefstead W et al (2010) 2008 Energy balance for the corn-ethanol industry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan P, Hellerstein D, Hansen L et al (2004) The conservation reserve program: economic implications for rural America. US Department of Agriculture, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Taheripour F, Zhuang Q, Tyner WE, Lu X (2012) Biofuels, cropland expansion, and the extensive margin. Energy Sustain Soc 2:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley J et al (2009) Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325:270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Varvel GE, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB et al (2008) Comparison of corn and switchgrass on marginal soils for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 32:18–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander S, Claassen R, Nickerson C (2011) The ethanol decade: an expansion of US corn production, 2000–09. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M (2013) The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation (GREET) model, 2012

  • Wang M, Wu M, Huo H (2007) Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environ Res Lett 2:024001–024013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang MQ, Han J, Haq Z et al (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic ethanol with technology improvements and land use changes. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1885–1896

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Han J, Dunn JB et al (2012) Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use. Environ Res Lett 7:045905

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright CK, Wimberly MC (2013) Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:4134–4139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S (2012) Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 46:3671–3678

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, 3422 Bren Hall, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-5131, USA

    Yi Yang & Sangwon Suh

Authors
  1. Yi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sangwon Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sangwon Suh.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Y., Suh, S. Marginal yield, technological advances, and emissions timing in corn ethanol’s carbon payback time. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 226–232 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0827-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0827-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation