[Keith_McClary]

Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

[KaiserJeep]

I understand the chemistry part of what they said: grain that is consumed as food undergoes a rather complete "burning" as fuel, whereas grain that is first brewed and then distilled as an alcohol vehicle fuel produces less carbon dioxide due to less complete combustion.

That does not change the opinion that I have always held about alcohol fuels: you take grain that could either feed humans or human food animals and use it to haul your fat and lazy carcass from one spot to another. This is happening when people elsewhere are starving, you are diverting food that would otherwise go to some other country such as some place in Africa as part of a grain shipment. I have always had a morality issue with this.

To those of you who promote the welfare of the mythical "Earth Mother" over that of human beings, you are advocating actual suffering and misery. It really is that simple:

[Tanada]

Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

I call BS on that claim. When you convert a grain to biological energy you get out water and CO2. When you ferment grain to get Ethanol you get out water, Ethanol and CO2. When you then burn that Ethanol in any way you get more water vapor and CO2. The chemistry has exactly the same result with much added complexity and energy input to ferment the grain and then transport the Ethanol that results, and most leftover mash from the process is then used as feed stock for animals. No water or CO2 output is prevented by fermentation, quite the opposite.

[vox_mundi]

Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

I call BS on that claim. When you convert a grain to biological energy you get out water and CO2. When you ferment grain to get Ethanol you get out water, Ethanol and CO2. When you then burn that Ethanol in any way you get more water vapor and CO2. The chemistry has exactly the same result with much added complexity and energy input to ferment the grain and then transport the Ethanol that results, and most leftover mash from the process is then used as feed stock for animals. No water or CO2 output is prevented by fermentation, quite the opposite.

T - Your analysis is flawed.

Grain converted to EtOH = H2O + CO2 (EtOH burns to H2O + CO2)
Grain converted to beef = H2O + CO2 + Methane

...Even if only 3% of the residual product is converted to Methane the GW effect would exceed that produced by CO2

Mash is depleted of carbohydrates (sugars) and is used principally as a protein and fiber supplement.

From the original post ...

The study looked at three models used by U.S. and European agencies, and found that all three estimate that some of the crops diverted from food to biofuels are not replaced by planting crops elsewhere. About 20 percent to 50 percent of the net calories diverted to make ethanol are not replaced through the planting of additional crops, the study found.

The result is that less food is available, and, according to the study, these missing calories are not simply extras enjoyed in resource-rich countries. Instead, when less food is available, prices go up. "The impacts on food consumption result not from a tailored tax on excess consumption but from broad global price increases that will disproportionately affect some of the world's poor," Searchinger said.

Both the models used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board indicate that ethanol made from corn and wheat generates modestly fewer emissions than gasoline. The fact that these lowered emissions come from reductions in food production is buried in the methodology and not explicitly stated, the study found.

The European Commission's model found an even greater reduction in emissions. It includes reductions in both quantity and overall food quality due to the replacement of oils and vegetables by corn and wheat, which are of lesser nutritional value. "Without these reductions in food quantity and quality, the [European] model would estimate that wheat ethanol generates 46% higher emissions than gasoline and corn ethanol 68% higher emissions," Searching said.

[Keith_McClary]

The article is a full copy from Princeton U By Catherine Zandonella, Office of the Dean for Research (including "decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste", so I can't blame PhysOrg science journalism).

Author Tim Searchinger writes on the WRI blog:

Studies that find bioenergy reduces greenhouse gases incorrectly view plants as a carbon-free fuel and ignore the very real carbon emitted by burning them. The theory has been that the original growth of the plants absorbs enough carbon to offset the carbon released when they burn. But if those plants were going to grow and absorb carbon anyway – and typically they would – then diverting them to bioenergy does not remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere. Instead, bioenergy comes at the expense of some other uses of those plants. When the expense is food or agricultural land, the effect is poorer nutrition. When the expense is forests or woody savannas, the effect is less stored carbon.

[Tanada]

Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

I call BS on that claim. When you convert a grain to biological energy you get out water and CO2. When you ferment grain to get Ethanol you get out water, Ethanol and CO2. When you then burn that Ethanol in any way you get more water vapor and CO2. The chemistry has exactly the same result with much added complexity and energy input to ferment the grain and then transport the Ethanol that results, and most leftover mash from the process is then used as feed stock for animals. No water or CO2 output is prevented by fermentation, quite the opposite.

T - Your analysis is flawed.

Grain converted to EtOH = H2O + CO2 (EtOH burns to H2O + CO2)
Grain converted to beef = H2O + CO2 + Methane

...Even if only 3% of the residual product is converted to Methane the GW effect would exceed that produced by CO2

Mash is depleted of carbohydrates (sugars) and is used principally as a protein and fiber supplement.

From the original post ...

The study looked at three models used by U.S. and European agencies, and found that all three estimate that some of the crops diverted from food to biofuels are not replaced by planting crops elsewhere. About 20 percent to 50 percent of the net calories diverted to make ethanol are not replaced through the planting of additional crops, the study found.

The result is that less food is available, and, according to the study, these missing calories are not simply extras enjoyed in resource-rich countries. Instead, when less food is available, prices go up. "The impacts on food consumption result not from a tailored tax on excess consumption but from broad global price increases that will disproportionately affect some of the world's poor," Searchinger said.

Both the models used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board indicate that ethanol made from corn and wheat generates modestly fewer emissions than gasoline. The fact that these lowered emissions come from reductions in food production is buried in the methodology and not explicitly stated, the study found.

The European Commission's model found an even greater reduction in emissions. It includes reductions in both quantity and overall food quality due to the replacement of oils and vegetables by corn and wheat, which are of lesser nutritional value. "Without these reductions in food quantity and quality, the [European] model would estimate that wheat ethanol generates 46% higher emissions than gasoline and corn ethanol 68% higher emissions," Searching said.

As a rule of thumb grain does not digest into methane, fiber like grass does. Therefore the fiber in the mash is much more likely to produce that Methane from cattle belching you seem to be concerned about than feeding them a mixed cracked grain and hay diet. It is all about the gut microbes and input stream when it comes to intestinal methane production.

My biggest objection is they are comparing two theoretical models, not real world data. You can tweak any model in dozens of ways to get any result you desire or conversely to diminish any result you do not desire. If you grow it and do not immediately char or otherwise sequester it you will be getting all that carbon dioxide back out into the air sooner or later. Here is a theoretical model for you on how to prevent grain from returning back into CO2 in the air. Grind the grain into flour, add enough water to make it into a paste and fill weighted 55 gallon steel barrels with the paste. Sail them out to deep water far from any subduction zone and drop them over board. They will sink to the bottom of the water at high speed and bury themselves in the anoxic mud layer where they will remain undisturbed for millennia.