FIRST RULE OF CIVILIZATION: DO NOT BURN YOUR FOOD FOR FUEL...................
Posted on 06/21/2017 7:58:54 AM PDT by Rio
Corn is grown not only for food, it is also an important renewable energy source. Renewable biofuels can come with hidden economic and environmental issues, and the question of whether corn is better utilized as food or as a biofuel has persisted since ethanol came into use. For the first time, researchers at the University of Illinois have quantified and compared these issues in terms of economics of the entire production system to determine if the benefits of biofuel corn outweigh the costs.
Civil and environmental engineering professor Praveen Kumar and graduate student Meredith Richardson published their findings in the journal Earth's Future.
As part of a National Science Foundation project that is studying the environmental impact of agriculture in the U.S., the Illinois group introduced a comprehensive view of the agricultural system, called critical zone services, to analyze crops' impacts on the environment in monetary terms.
"The critical zone is the permeable layer of the landscape near the surface that stretches from the top of the vegetation down to the groundwater," Kumar said. "The human energy and resource input involved in agriculture production alters the composition of the critical zone, which we are able to convert into a social cost."
To compare the energy efficiency and environmental impacts of corn production and processing for food and for biofuel, the researchers inventoried the resources required for corn production and processing, then determined the economic and environmental impact of using these resources - all defined in terms of energy available and expended, and normalized to cost in U.S. dollars.
"There are a lot of abstract concepts to contend with when discussing human-induced effects in the critical zone in agricultural areas," Richardson said. "We want to present it in a way that will show the equivalent dollar value of the human energy expended in agricultural production and how much we gain when corn is used as food versus biofuel."
Kumar and Richardson accounted for numerous factors in their analysis, including assessing the energy required to prepare and maintain the landscape for agricultural production for corn and its conversion to biofuel. Then, they quantified the environmental benefits and impacts in terms of critical zone services, representing the effects on the atmosphere, water quality and corn's societal value, both as food and fuel.
In monetary terms, their results show that the net social and economic worth of food corn production in the U.S. is $1,492 per hectare, versus a $10 per hectare loss for biofuel corn production.
"One of the key factors lies in the soil," Richardson said. The assessment considered both short-term and long-term effects, such as nutrients and carbon storage in the soil.
"We found that most of the environmental impacts came from soil nutrient fluxes. Soil's role is often overlooked in this type of assessment, and viewing the landscape as a critical zone forces us to include that," Richardson said.
"Using corn as a fuel source seems to be an easy path to renewable energy," said Richard Yuretich, the NSF program director for Critical Zone Observatories. "However, this research shows that the environmental costs are much greater, and the benefits fewer, than using corn for food."
The hell you say! How many taxpayer dollars did it take to arrive at this stunning conclusion?
The researchers at the University of Illinois even think more so if they knew how to make good cornbread up there.
“Study finds”?
I’m old. I’m not impressed with a lot of research anymore.
damn, you mean they have finally figured out what most people have know for over 100 years; corn is a food source not a fuel source!
Put it in terms libtards can grasp. Did the Native Americans burn corn as fuel?
Well, duh.
Renewable? How do you renew something that’s been burned as fuel? Once energy is converted through use it can’t be used as energy anymore.
In a word - duh.
Those greenies are taking food out of poor children’s mouths.
I would think that after considering the energy costs required for making fuel out of corn, we are not looking at much of an energy gain at all.
We must always remember that math and science are not friends of progressives, no matter how much they pretend that they are smart.
After all, when one is a STEM candidate, journalism, politics, “studies” and the law profession are generally regarded as things one goes into after failing calculus and/or physics. (Apologies to the good lawyers out there.)
No sh*t, Sherlock!
Unless you consider corn starch to be a basic food necessity, the use of corn as an ethanol feed stock doesn’t eliminate its use as an animal feed.
I drive 25 miles to a gas station which sells non-ethanol fuel (for lawn and power equipment.) Perhaps I won’t have to drive that far in the near future.
Field corn is used to feed livestock and make ethanol. If you grab an ear of field corn and try to take a bite, you’ll probably break your teeth.
“Research” anymore is tailored to fit a fixed narrative.
Use it for food first, THEN use it for fuel.
It is what that have for brains anyway, used corn.
There's tax money in the soil!
FIRST RULE OF CIVILIZATION: DO NOT BURN YOUR FOOD FOR FUEL...................
Add to that all of the years they told us corn oil was bad for cooking while hoisting canola and other crap on us. Now they’ve decided it’s not (in moderation, as with all cooking oils). Similar to the same nonsense about how sugar was evil while pushing Saccharin, Aspartame, and high fructose corn syrup on non-diabetics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.