Shifting Subsidies From Corn Ethanol to Solar

Evan Chakrin: Horticulture

Ryan White: Animal science

Tim Miragliuolo: Building and Construction Tech.



A sun tracking solar panel in a corn field. (



Nobody likes wasteful government spending on programs that don’t benefit consumers or the environment, but that is exactly what’s happened with decades of corn ethanol subsidies. The American taxpayer is forced to underwrite the production of an inefficient energy source, and forced again to buy its product when used in gasoline mixtures at fuel stations across the country. Gasoline-ethanol mixes cost consumers miles per gallon and clog the fuel systems of seasonal use equipment and recreational vehicles (Regalbuto, 2009; Patzek et al., 2005) and do little to help the environment (Vedenov & Wetzstein, 2008). After having cost US taxpayers over 40 billion dollars from 1978-2012 (Melchior, 2016), federal tax code supports over 26 billion in subsidies for corn ethanol through 2024 (“Federal subsidies”, 2015). It is time to shift federal incentives toward truly renewable energy systems, and solar photovoltaic [PV] technology provides an excellent answer to our future energy needs. Due to the relative land usage, flexibility of installation, and greenhouse gas emission efficiency of PV systems, we believe that all future corn ethanol tax incentives should be redirected toward the installation of photovoltaic solar panel systems either in isolated systems or through collocation with viable biofuels and vegetable crops.


Compared to the corn ethanol fuel cycle, the solar PV energy cycle is relatively simple. It’s true that they require manufacturing and installation, but the energy required in their manufacture is easily offset by their use in 1-2 years (Mariska de Wild-Scholten, 2013). When a photon, or unit of light energy, hits a solar cell it knocks lose an electron from one of the atoms within the cell. If wires are attached to the positive and negative sides of the solar cell, they create an electrical circuit for the electrons to flow along. The solar cells create electricity directly, and send it along their circuits to be used locally, or added back to the electric grid to be used somewhere else. (DeBono, 2017) When electricity is added back into the grid for public use, the owner of the PV system is selling this power to the electrical company. When being used in fields previously occupied by corn grown for ethanol use, the farmers will be able to power all of their own equipment and facilities from the PV system and still have enough excess power to sell for profit.


What is corn ethanol and how is it used? First corn that could be used for human or animal consumption is grown by relying on the use of industrial fertilizers  (Crutzen, Mosier, Smith, & Winiwarter, 2016), liberal use of groundwater reserves (Dominguez-Faus, Powers, Burken, & Alvarez, 2009; Patzek et al., 2005) and chemical pesticides (Hill, Nelson, Tilman, Polasky, & Tiffany, 2006). The corn kernels are then ground into a powder and more water is added along with enzymes that ferment the starches, which is then heated using more energy to further break down the starches. Then, a second enzyme is added to reduce the starches to sugars, before yeast is added to finally turn the sugars into ethanol and carbon dioxide. The product is then heated again to evaporate the ethanol for collection and further dehydration to create the final product, anhydrous ethanol ready for blending with gasoline. (“Ethanol: What is it?”, 2009; Mosier & Lleleji, 2006)

Due to the energy needed for production and processing, North American corn ethanol may not offer a net an energy gain (Gagnon, Belanger, & Uchiyama, 2002; Murphy, Woods, Black, & McManus, 2011). From the requirements of tractors, fertilizers, and pesticides used, and that of their manufacture, to the energy needed for fermentation and distillation, some sources claim that corn ethanol may require much more energy to produce than it creates. (Pimentel, 1991; Murphy, Hall, & Powers, 2010) Corn ethanol is also less efficient to refine than petroleum, and offers a net carbon increase in its usage when compared to petroleum fuel sources due to refining and land degradation due to its production. (Fargione, Hill, Tilman, Polasky, & Hawthorne, 2008) The nitrous oxide emissions resulting from biofuel production offset any positive effect their use may have in reducing greenhouse gases. (Crutzen et al., 2016) Corn requires heavy nitrogen applications that can lead to nitrogen leaching which can contaminate the already limited water supplies. The processes involved with farming corn (intensive tillage of the soil) leads to soil erosion which degrades the quality of crop grown each year. (Vadas, P.A., et al. 2008)

The Net Energy Balance from the corn is about 25%, this is due to the corn also being used for a secondary product, animal feed. (Hill et al. 2006) This is a lot of wasted energy that translates into money. Imagine you run 5 miles just to get to your car to then only drive 1 mile. Energy is wasted getting to the goal when the PV systems act like a car the entire 6 miles. Putting these subsidies towards the installation of PV systems, either by themselves or alongside current biofuels or vegetable crops can be beneficial for the environment as well as the consumer, costing less money to install and maintain than other energy sources.   


After costs of manufacturing, installation and maintenance are considered, advanced PV technologies have an economic payback threshold of between 0.75 and 3.5 years (Peng, Lu, & Yang, 2013, p. 271). After this, the PV systems pay for themselves and take little time for maintenance when compared to managing fields for corn production. After energy used during the manufacturing, transportation, installation and maintenance are considered, over their lifetime PV systems have a greenhouse-gas emission rate of between 23-50 grams of CO2-eq./kWh (Peng, et al., 2013, p. 271). This compares favorably with corn ethanol systems, which produce between 58-179 grams of CO2-eq./kWh (Dressler, Loewen, & Nelles, 2012).


Due to climate change, the area available for efficient field crop production may decrease by the end of the 21st century. (Zhang & Cai, 2011) With a growing population and limited space, being as land efficient as possible is key to keep our society functioning comfortably.  Compared to corn ethanol energy, field installed PV systems are between 15 times (Trainor, McDonald, & Fargione, 2016) and 28 times as efficient at producing energy on an average square meter of land (Cheng & Hammond, 2014), including the manufacturing, assembly, and maintenance of the systems. PV systems do not necessarily reuquire direct land usage due to the ability to be installed on roof tops or over parking lots. (Denholm & Margolis, 2008).

When growing corn ethanol, it is often suggested to only use land that is marginally productive or on land that is idle or abandoned. (Fargione JE et al., 2010) Because of this, farmers that change biofuel crop fields over to PV systems will not be permanently losing a farmable field that might be used for other crops in the future.  If farmers do not currently have fields that they are using for corn ethanol production, or if they have never produced corn ethanol, a field dedicated to a PV system can be reverted back to its original farmable state to continue to grow crops after decommissioning the PV system. (Dijkman TJ, Benders RMJ., no year)

The ability of PV systems to be placed anywhere is a big argument for solar as it is one of the only energy sources able to do this. There are several researchers investigating land use efficiency modifiers such as PV systems installed alongside traditional agricultural systems. Some involve the combination of PV arrays in arid regions with biofuel or other non-food crops (Ravi, Field, & Lobell, 2014; Ravi et al., 2016). This can create usable space out of land that was previously barren and can keep habitable land free from industrial use.

Other research investigates the collocation of PV systems with vegetable crops (Dupraz et al., 2011). Due to the relatively lower photosynthetic efficiency of plants compared to modern PV systems, their collocation with vegetable crops in arable lands may increase the overall economic productivity of land usage by 35% – 73% (Dupraz et al., 2011). The angle of the PV system can also act as a way to water the crops, as the rain runs off the panels and into the soil, not only to clean the panel of any dirt or debris but to also tend to the gardens and fields.


The conversion of farm fields to solar farms can be more profitable for farmers. In a case study from North Carolina, the state found that it could supply it’s peak summer energy need of about 30 gigawatts by converting the states 232,000 acres of tobacco fields into solar fields, and do so at a net profit to tobacco farmers that gains each year as electricity rates go up and the cost of installation goes down. (Krishnan & Pearce, 2018). Depending on the rate of electricity increase and the cost of solar installation, farmers in the year 2030 could profit between 3,000$/acre/year to 50,000$/acre/year (Krishnan & Pearce, 2018) This range is due to the complexity of factors involved and represent the far ends of their calculations: 109 kilowatts per acre, installed at 2$/watt, charging 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, with rates increasing by 5.7% yearly for the lowest profit, and 126 kilowatts per acre, installed at 0.8$/watt, charging 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, and increasing by 5.7% yearly for the highest profit. Projected profits of most factor combinations nearly double again by 2040. Not only would this be profitable for the farmers, but solar will provide energy that is sustainable and not harmful to the environment. While the initial cost of these PV systems are expensive, about $10 million, the long term profits will not only help the families of the farm, but can help save lives throughout the country as less people will be affected by the greenhouse gasses the farming of tobacco can cause as well as have less people use the product and harm their own bodies.

Corn ethanol also wastes space that could be better utilized to grow food crops, causes more soil erosion than any other crop, and increase the cost of feed for livestock, costing consumers an additional $1 billion each year. (Pimentel, 2003) The counter argument to this is that PV systems also take up too much land; however, this is not the case.  Although they do take up a lot of land, if we were to cover all the land currently in use for producing corn ethanol with PV systems, we would be able to produce 433% of the United States total electricity requirements. If we were to aim for only 30% of the United States total electricity requirements, it would only take up 0.08% of the land in the United States. (Silber, 2016)  For perspective, this is less space than if you laid every parking lot in the country side by side. (Silber, 2016) This just shows that although solar takes up a lot of land, it is much more efficient than corn ethanol production.


This is perhaps the most important variable when considering a change from corn to solar. Many farmers like what they do and want to continue in their current ways.  In order to get farmers on board for trying something unknown to them there has to be an incentive in the form of profit for them. Income from a solar farm on their land can be significantly higher than if that same land was used for agriculture, no matter what the crop is.  Most solar contracts are signed for somewhere between 15 and 20 years. Most solar companies would be willing to pay between 800 and 1000 dollars (sometimes higher) per acre per year, for the duration of the contract. Much of this farm land is valued at around $3000. (Carroll, 2017) In Michigan, where the market price for an acre of farmland is around $1000, many farmers are leasing their land to solar companies for up to $2000 per acre per year.  (Bao, 2018) This would be a much larger profit for the farmer than if he was using this same land for crops, or even if the solar company was to buy that same land from the farmer. This program of leasing the land from the farmer creates an opportunity for huge profit for the farmer and the community, while also allowing the farmer to continue farming on their land. Many have adopted PV systems as they have already recognized the profits they can make using the land for the renewable source. Dawson Singletary, a 65 year old farmer, has gone on to say that there is no crop that can generate the same income than what they get out of the solar farms (Ryan, 2016).


Changing the flow of government subsidies from biofuels to PV systems, farmers will have the ability to continue to support their families and provide a reliable and sustainable form of energy. While the initial costs of these systems may appear to be a burden towards the farmers, the long term benefits will greatly improve lifestyles. The reduction of biofuel productions and replacement to the land efficient systems will reduce the emissions of CO2 into the environment while giving people access to energy. Not only will the PV systems provide energy, they can collocate with other forms of agriculture and become an instrument in the care of the plants and crops with runoff from rain. PV systems prove to be an investment that can lead farms to produce for the community as well as providing greater profits than previous uses of the land.








Bao Agnes. More farmers may lease land for solar projects in michigan. Great Lakes Echo Web site. Updated 2018. Accessed 4/20/18, .

Carroll, Mike . Considerations for transferring agricultural land to solar panel energy production. NC cooperative extension Web site. Updated 2017.

Cheng, V. K., & Hammond, G. P. (2014). Energy density and spatial footprints of various electrical power systems. Energy Procedia, 61, 578-581.

Crutzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A., & Winiwarter, W. (2016). N 2 O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. In Paul J. Crutzen: A pioneer on atmospheric chemistry and climate change in the anthropocene (pp. 227-238). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27460-7_12

DeBono, M., (2017, October). What is solar energy and how to solar panels work?. Retrieved on April 22, 2018 from

Denholm, P., & Margolis, R. M. (2008). Land-use requirements and the per-capita solar footprint for photovoltaic generation in the united states. Energy Policy, 36(9), 3531-3543. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.035

Dijkman TJ, Benders RMJ. Comparison of renewable fuels based on their land use using energy densities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14(9):3148-3155. doi: //

Dominguez-Faus, R., Powers, S. E., Burken, J. G., & Alvarez, P. J. (2009). The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue? Environmental Science & Technology, 43(9), 3005–3010. doi:10.1021/es802162x

Dressler, D., Loewen, A., & Nelles, M. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the supply and use of bioenergy: impact of regional factors on biogas production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(9), 1104-1115.

Ethanol: What is it?. (2009, March) Retrieved April 22, 2018 retrieved from

Fargione JE, Plevin RJ, Hill JD. The ecological impact of biofuels. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2010;41(1):351-377. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144720.

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867), 1235-1238. doi:10.1126/science.1152747

Federal Subsidies for Corn Ethanol and Other Corn-Based Biofuels. (2015) Retrieved April 07, 2018, from

Gagnon, L., Belanger, C., & Uchiyama, Y. (2002). Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy policy, 30(14), 1267-1278.

Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Tiffany, D. (2006). Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(30), 11206-11210. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604600103

Kwasinski, A., Krishnamurthy, V., Song, J., & Sharma, R. (2012). Availability Evaluation of Micro-Grids for Resistant Power Supply During Natural Disasters. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(4), 2007–2018. doi:10.1109/tsg.2012.2197832

Krishnan, R., & Pearce, J. M. (2018). Economic impact of substituting solar photovoltaic electric production for tobacco farming. Land Use Policy, 72, 503–509. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.010

Mariska de Wild-Scholten, M. J. (2013). Energy payback time and carbon footprint of commercial photovoltaic systems. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 119, 296–305. doi:10.1016/j.solmat.2013.08.037

Melchior, J. K. (2016). Trump’s Support for Ethanol Is Bad for Taxpayers and Their Cars. Retrieved April 07, 2018, from

Mosier, N. S., & Lleleji, K. (2006, December). How fuel ethanol is made from corn. Prudue Extension, Retrieved April 22, 2018 from

Murphy, D. J., Hall, C. A. S., & Powers, B. (2010). New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13(1), 179–202. doi:10.1007/s10668-010-9255-7

Murphy, R., Woods, J., Black, M., & McManus, M. (2011). Global developments in the competition for land from biofuels. Food Policy, 36, S52–S61. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.014

Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., & Nicholls, R. J. (2015). Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding-a global assessment. PloS one, 10(3), e0118571.

Ortiz, R., Sayre, K. D., Govaerts, B., Gupta, R., Subbarao, G. V., Ban, T., & Reynolds, M. (2008). Climate change: can wheat beat the heat?. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 126(1-2), 46-58.

Patzek, T. W., Anti, S.-M., Campos, R., ha, K. W., Lee, J., Li, B., Padnick, J., Yee, S.-A. (2005). Ethanol From Corn: Clean Renewable Fuel for the Future, or Drain on Our Resources and Pockets? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(3), 319–336. doi:10.1007/s10668-004-7317-4

Peng, J., Lu, L., & Yang, H. (2013). Review on life cycle assessment of energy payback and greenhouse gas emission of solar photovoltaic systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 255-274.

Pimentel, D. (2003). Ethanol fuels: energy balance, economics, and environmental impacts are negative. Natural resources research, 12(2), 127-134. doi:/10.1023/A:1024214812527

Pimentel, D. (1991). Ethanol fuels: Energy security, economics, and the environment. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 4(1), 1-13.

Ryan, J. (2016). Solar Power More Lucrative Than Crops at Some US Farms … Retrieved April 18, 2018, from

Trainor AM, McDonald RI, Fargione J (2016). Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0162269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162269

Regalbuto, J. R. (2009). Cellulosic Biofuels–Got Gasoline? Science, 325(5942), 822–824. doi:10.1126/science.1174581

Silber, Andy . Land use: Ethanol vs solar. A Silber Lining Web site. Updated 2016. Accessed 4/20/18, .

Vedenov, D., & Wetzstein, M. (2008). Toward an optimal US ethanol fuel subsidy. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2073-2090.

Vadas, P.A., Barnett, K.H. & Undersander, D.J. Bioenerg. Res. (2008) 1: 44.

Willis, H. L. (Ed.). (2000). Distributed power generation: planning and evaluation. Crc Press.

Zhang, X., & Cai, X. (2011). Climate change impacts on global agricultural land availability. Environmental Research Letters, 6(1), 014014. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014014




  1. Solar energy is booming but it’s not without its challenges. The cost of solar panels has decreased to the point where they are more affordable than ever, but one thing that hasn’t changed is subsidies. Here you get paving contractors Tauranga more new tips for construction ideas. Sure, there are different subsidies for different uses of solar energy, but right now corn ethanol still receives over $6 billion in annual subsidies and both wind and solar PV receive $0. In this article I’ll explain why switching subsidies away from corn ethanol could help make carbon-free renewable energy more competitive and financially viable in most areas such as on farms and small businesses.

Leave a Reply