Cited by 147Environmental Impact and SustainabilityBiofuel production and bioconversionBioenergy crop production and management

Replacing Gasoline with Corn Ethanol Results in Significant Environmental Problem-Shifting

Yang, Yi, Bae, Junghan, Kim, Junbeum, Suh, Sangwon·2012·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Previous studies on the life-cycle environmental impacts of corn ethanol and gasoline focused almost exclusively on energy balance and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and largely overlooked the influence of regional differences in agricultural practices. This study compares the environmental impact of gasoline and E85 taking into consideration 12 different environmental impacts and regional differences among 19 corn-growing states. Results show that E85 does not outperform gasoline when a wide spectrum of impacts is considered. 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 GHG emissions from the indirect land use changes are considered, the differences increase to between 16% and 118% (33% on average). Our study indicates that replacing gasoline with corn ethanol may only result in shifting the net environmental impacts primarily toward increased eutrophication and greater water scarcity. These results suggest that the environmental criteria used in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) be re-evaluated to include additional categories of environmental impact beyond GHG emissions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es203641p

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. FAPRI, 2010, World Agricultural Outlook Database
  2. Babcock B., 2009, Iowa Agric. Rev., 15
  3. USDA, 2006, Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary
  4. Wang M., 1999, The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation (GREET) model, version 1.5
  5. NREL, 2008, U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory
  6. Ogle S., 2008, The Lifecycle Carbon Footprint of Biofuels, 68
  7. USDA-NRCS, 2006, Model Simulation of Soil Loss, Nutrient Loss, and Change in Soil Organic Carbon Associated with Crop Production
  8. ISO, 2006, ISO14040, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework
  9. USDA-ERS, 2004, Energy Use on Major Field Crops in Surveyed States
  10. 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme
  11. Bare J., 2003, J. Ind. Ecol., 6, 49
  12. USEPA, 1995, Emissions Factors & AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission factors, Chapter 9: Food and Agricultural Industries
  13. USDA-NRCS, 2000, Environmental Indicators of Pesticides Leaching and Runoff from Farm Fields
  14. USDA-NASS, 2009, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008)
  15. Mueller S., 2008, Biotechnol. Lett., 1
  16. AgMRC, 2011, Weekly Ethanol, Distillers Grain, and Corn Prices
  17. Tursun U. D., 2008, Environmental and Rural Development Impacts Conference
  18. Steffen M., 2009, Determining the Land Use Impact of Two Midwestern Corn Ethanol Plants
  19. Plevin R., 2010, Environ. Sci. Technol., 1120
  20. USEPA, 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis
  21. CARB, 2009, Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Vol. I, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons
  22. Wang M. Q., 2011, Biomass Bioenergy
  23. Goedkoop, M. J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; De Schryner, A.; Struijs, J.; Van Zelm, R.Recipe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; first edition report i: Characterization;http://www.lcia-recipe.net/: 2009.
  24. USGS, 2009, Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005, Fact Sheet 2009-3098,
  25. USDA-NRCS, 2009, Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory
  26. Kim J., 2012, J. Ind. Ecol.
  27. USDA-AMS, 2010, Study of Rural Transportation Issues, Chapter 4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Y., Bae, J., Kim, J., & Suh, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Université de Technologie de Troyes (FR)
Corresponding author
Suh, Sangwon
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2012-03-14
Volume
46
Issue
7
Pages
3671-3678
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1968583049
Cited by
147
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
11.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
Keywords
corn ethanol, E85, gasoline, life cycle environmental impact, eutrophication, irrigation, water scarcity, indirect land use change, greenhouse gas emissions, Energy Independence and Security Act, biofuel policy
MeSH terms
Ethanol, Vehicle Emissions, Zea mays, Environment, Gasoline, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review