Economic Analysis of Utilization of Corn Stover for Bioenergy Production: Towards Diversifying Income Opportunities for Small Farmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioenergy production from plant wastes such as corn stover has the potential to improve energy security and mitigate climate change in the United States. However, there is a limited understanding of its utilization and economic potentials for bioenergy production. The overall objective of the study was to estimate the economic profitability of utilizing corn stover for different ventures after harvesting corn, which includes: 1) corn stover production, 2) ethanol production, and 3) electricity generation through on-farm gasifiers. The data for this study was based on secondary data from various sources. The benefit-cost model was applied for the analysis. Investment evaluation criteria include annualized net return from corn stover, ethanol, and electricity generation. Results show that under current conversion rate, the net return from marketing corn stover ranges from $80.61/kg to $394.11/kg, while the net return from ethanol production ranges from $-104.91/ha to $848.96/ha of corn stover under varying price and yield scenarios. Also, under the government subsidy scheme that covers 25% of equipment costs, there is an investment opportunity for on-farm gasifier with an NPV of $4,329.29. The findings of the study show the potential for using corn stover for bioenergy production since it showed a positive net return. Also, the production of ethanol from corn stover is not only economically feasible but also socially acceptable since it does not compete with food production, and serves as a means of income diversification for corn farmers. Keywords: Corn stover, plant waste, biofuel, ethanol, benefit-cost, gasifier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".