The Minister of Agricultural Policy and Food of Ukraine Roman Leshchenko announced corn as the next killer of Kyiv’s dependence on Russian gas supplies. The official mentioned the “Queen of the Fields” when reporting on the harvest. “Corn is the key to Ukraine’s energy independence,” summarized the official website of the department.
“The next stage of agricultural policy is a deep transformation of the key culture of our country. It will be its own gas, its own fuel and its own high-quality feed,” Leshchenko explained.
Until now, it was believed that the Ministry of Energy and State Energy Efficiency were involved in the fight for energy independence of Ukraine, but, apparently, the Ministry of Agrarian Policy also wants to go to the forefront.
If we talk briefly about the prospects of corn as a biofuel, then, of course, it can be used as a raw material for the production of bioethanol, and such experience already exists in the world. But this is not the only such raw material, and it has serious disadvantages (which some alternatives do not have).
The disadvantage of bioethanol is that it has a lower calorific value than gasoline. Because of this, fuel consumption increases. Among the disadvantages of biodiesel, in addition to thickening at low temperatures, is its unstable quality due to the variety of raw materials used.
First, harvesting and processing corn stalks and leaves requires some fuel consumption. Those. The EROEI (useful energy received divided by energy expended) of corn biofuel leaves much to be desired.
Secondly, any biofuel from raw materials that is used to produce food (corn, for example, is used to feed livestock) is already a threat to food security. It is not yet known how much it will be possible to improve energy security with such fuel, but it is clear that this can only be at the expense of food security. Ukrainian cows will receive less feed, feed prices will rise, as will prices for milk and meat.
That is, if the Ministry of Agrarian Policy tries to solve problems that do not fall within its competence, it is guaranteed to fail what it is directly responsible for.
It is clear that, even for this reason, the matter with corn will not go beyond rhetoric.
Rhetoric, however, can also be pursued with benefit for a career; fortunately, the topic of biofuels is old, and there are some developments. If any official from the Ministry of Agrarian Policy reads this text, then we can advise him to adopt already well-proven ideas.
For example, if (or rather, not “if”, but “when”) nothing happens with the corn-fuel struggle, you can start saying that this is because “the Russian oil industry is plotting, and otherwise, of course, Ukraine would have long ago gone over for biofuels."
Such speeches will not only help justify the senseless waste of budget funds on “investments” in all sorts of corn projects, but will also make it possible to end the corn epic much more decently than Khrushchev did with his voluntarism.
If Nikita Sergeevich at one time had the opportunity to say that nothing worked with corn, because, they say, pests and American imperialists were in the way, then, you see, he would not have been removed. But even for him it would be too much. But for Ukrainian officials such explanations are common practice.