I saw this today, had a morbid laugh, then got pensive.

(cartoonists web site: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx#cararch)

A couple of years ago, biofuels were hot. There were the promoters touting "green" fuels, getting off "foreign oil" and helping "American farmers." A perfect set of environmental, geopolitical and populist allies created a basket of incentives to boost corn-based ethanol production.

A few of us were decrying this as bad policy. The net energy of ethanol was around break even, so it couldn't be climate neutral or help with oil dependency. The rise in food prices would impact the poor around the world, causing much pain and unrest that could destabilize nations. And American farmers would go through another painful boom-bust cycle rather than transition to a sustainable agriculture system that is realistic about energy constraints.

Other issues are exposed by this fiasco. Why is it that so many people ARE dependent on cheap, often imported grains (especially in Africa)? Some have ridiculed the local food movement for potentially depriving farmers in the developing world of their markets in the wealthy nations. But if these developing nations are ones who can't feed themselves, shouldn't we ask if it might be better for them to focus on food self-sufficiency rather than production for export? Especially if our energy and financial policies can cut them off from our food so blithely.

Take a look at not only corn in the fuel tank, but coffee, tea, coconuts, palm oil, cane sugar, papayas, bananas, out of season vegetables, etc. All these tropical products may be produced in places dependent upon trade for money that is used to buy imported staples such as grains. What if they decided to relocalize instead? Would they be better off?

As crude oil reaches record highs of $110 a barrel, the connection between the cost of food and the rise in energy prices can no longer be ignored. In a recent statement, Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN's World Food Program, said the global economy had created "a perfect storm for the world's hungry, caused by high oil and food prices and low food stocks." Sheeran continues, “Higher food prices will increase social unrest in a number of countries which are sensitive to inflationary pressures and are import-dependent. We will see a repeat of the riots we have already reported on the streets such as we have seen in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal."

Sheeran notes that food prices have been aggressively increasing to historic highs and cites four major drivers for this:

1. The rise in oil and energy prices which affect the entire value chain of food production from fertilizer to harvesting to storage and delivering and access to water;

2. The economic boom in nations such as India and China, creating increased demand for all commodities including food and forcing China, which was a major food exporter just a little more than one year ago, to now being an importer of food;

3. Increasingly harsh and frequent climatic shocks like hurricanes, floods and drought, have made for some bad harvests in particular regions like Australia and regions of Africa;

4. The shift to increased biofuel production that has diverted hundreds of millions of metric tons of agricultural output out of the food chain, and has caused food prices to be set at fuel price levels in many places, including, for example, palm oil in Africa which is now being priced out of household reach because it is being set at fuel prices as a biofuel addition.

On the energy front, Sheeran's claim is supported by recent reports coming from farms across the globe. Although farmers appear to enjoy record commodity prices, the recent spikes in the cost of fertilizer and fuel are eroding gains. Not only has the price of nitrogen fertilizer risen 113% since 2000, but also potash has risen from $225 a ton to nearly $500 a ton and increasingly scarce phosphate has gone from $312 to between $800 and $900 a ton this year. The ingredients of these fertilizers are often imported to the United States from other countries and these resources are mined and processed using markedly energy-intensive processes that consume diesel and natural gas.

In other news, the world’s largest poultry processor closed a U.S. processing plant-cutting 1, 100 jobs. The processor blames record feed prices and U.S. ethanol policy for the current industry-wide crisis. Even if you are a vegetarian, the implication of this news is still hard to hear, as it is illustrates the fact that agribusiness is designed to grow food in a way that creates high profit. Once the profit margin is challenged the corporate producers of food may simply quit the job of growing food.

These trends should be clear indicators to all of us to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and begin to support those that are willing and capable of producing food, fuel, and organic fertilizer close to where we live. Click here to see if there is a CSA or farm in your area.

Soybeans hit a 34 year high as drought, increased demand from China, and falling U.S. stockpiles drive prices.

Check the article: Soybeans Rise After Government Cuts U.S. Inventory Forecast

Now, take a look at this graph.

Source: www.biodiesel.org

Notice the change in U.S. biodiesel production from 2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006 and you will see drastic increases in production. Between 2004 and 2005 biodiesel production tripled, and the estimate for 2006 is more than double 2005! A majority of biodiesel in the U.S. is derived from soybeans. During this time, U.S. stockpiles have been diverted to make increasing amounts of domestic biodiesel.

We are facing increasing global demand of soy for livestock rations, food, cooking oil, and now fuel. Check this out:

Source: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0608-adm.html

Archer Daniels Midland has a plan to increase the production of soy-based biodiesel in Brazil. Where is all the land coming from to make soy-based biodiesel? You guessed it, the rainforests-or at least what used to be rainforest. The operation was slated to begin August in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. Sadly, Mato Grosso is the site of some of the worst deforestation in the world, and while projected crop production looks rosy, it is far from clean, green fuel.

The trouble with planting crops in what used to be the Amazon Rainforest is that the soil is incredibly low in organic matter. Once the soil is stirred up (as a result of logging and cultivation), the soil biology quickly consumes the organic matter. This forces farmers to adopt a no-till system of farming that leaves crop residue on the surface and uses herbicides to kill the weeds as the next crop is seeded. No-till cropping systems try to preserve the organic matter in order to prevent the soil from quickly turning to dust. As you might expect from agribusiness it relies on substantial fertilizer inputs to prop up weak soils. While production of soy in Brazil may lower global soy prices, (for at least a short time), it is creating the biofuel nightmare that we are all afraid of! Think about it for a moment... Imported biofuel from Brazil, grown in what was once a rain forest, which utilizes huge amounts of artificial chemicals and genetically modified seeds. ....Terrifying, don't you agree?

Biofuel initially appealed to “greens” because it seemed to be a cleaner option. In some cases biodiesel can be made locally to be utilized by local consumers. From an agricultural standpoint, biodiesel still appears promising as an energy source to support farm s that will grow the world’s food. However, as consumers, we must be careful and temper our demand for liquid fuels with an understanding of the current state of the climate and the global food system. In short, we are faced with a dwindling food surplus and increasing demand by developing nations, while at the same time the climate is screaming to get our attention.

As always, we need to think about the way we use liquid fuel and oils and we need to prioritize the ways in which we use these scarce and vital resources. It is our responsibility to make choices for the future, and that means considering what is safe for the earth and the climate. Constant Growth is a False Assumption and if we do not choose to take the implications of climate change, food, and energy security seriously, we will be forced to address these issues when we have far fewer options to work with.

For those who want to read more you can click here to read the article: "Switch to Corn Promotes Amazon Deforestation". It is from the recent December 2007 volume of Science.

Yesterday I was reading chapter 4 of the book "Limits to Growth: A 30-Year Update," (http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/193149858X) and came across this description (pages 170-171) of their Scenario 1 (or baseline) model run:

As non-renewable resources become harder to obtain in Scenario 1, capital is diverted to producing more of them. That leaves less industrial output to invest in sustaining the high agricultural output and further industrial growth. And finally, around 2020, investment in industrial capital no longer keeps up with depreciation. (This is physical investment and depreciation; in other words, wear and tear and obsolescence, not monetary depreciation in accounting books.) The result is industrial decline, which is hard to avoid in this situation, since the economy cannot stop putting capital into the resource sector. If it did, the scarcity of materials and fuels would restrict industrial production even more quickly.

The book and models describe various ways in which the human economy can encounter limits, and Scenario 1 demonstrates the impacts of resource constraints. Another way to express what the authors are saying is that as more work is needed over time just to obtain the raw material resources needed for economic production, cost inflation eventually leads to industrial decline, followed by a shortfalls in food, medicine, and other basic services like delivering water supplies.

Now for anyone who follows the news in the sectors of construction, energy, or agriculture might get chills reading that paragraph. Take for example this item coming out of the central valley of California, one of the most important agricultural regions in the world:

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=7175

 

Diesel prices pick farmers' wallets

Fresno, Dec. 5, 2007

 

California farmers who are considering changing their cropping patterns due to the state's water shortage are now looking at growing crops that may also help them cushion the impact of the latest fuel crunch.

With diesel prices at record highs, California farmers and ranchers are trying to find ways to minimize fuel usage on the farm without compromising production.

One way is to farm crops that require less equipment usage, says Dan Errotabere, a Fresno County diversified farmer who grows almonds, pistachios, processing tomatoes, cotton, alfalfa, wheat and other crops.

....

Many farmers say they have continually changed how they operate their farms to try to conserve energy, and what they could do they've already done. What's left now is they must absorb the higher costs of doing business, says Fresno County farmer Russel Efird.

"I think most of agriculture has already pared down all the fat," says Mr. Efird, who grows grapes, nuts and tree fruit and has a commercial harvesting operation. "My concern with this pinch right now is there's not any more places to trim."

"Once you've done all that, you've already cut down on your trips through the fields, so now you're down to only the necessary trips," says Mr. Efird, president of Fresno County Farm Bureau.

Having already maximized his efficiencies, he says if he tries to cut back further, his crops will suffer and that will cost him more money down the road.

....

While some farmers have been able to adjust their practices on the farm to use less fuel, Sonoma County dairyman Domenic Carinalli says there hasn't been much he can do in his operation to curb his usage. Most everything on his dairy runs on diesel, including tractors that clean the barn and trucks that haul feed in and haul milk out.

 

So why are fuel prices so high? Here's what some people in the energy industry saying:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=53040

 

Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production

Nov. 19, 2007

 

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

 

....

 

Sadad Ibrahim Al Husseini, a former head of exploration and production at Saudi Arabia's national oil company, has also gone public with doubts. He said in London last month that he didn't believe there were enough engineers or equipment to ramp up production fast enough to keep up with the thirsty global economy. What's more, he said, new discoveries are tending to be smaller and more complex to develop.

 

....

 

Oil companies have seen several years of bull-market prices, and thus of trying to produce more. This has given their executives a better sense of what is and isn't possible.

One limit: Many people think most of the world's giant fields already have been discovered. By 1970, oil-industry explorers had discovered 10 giants that could each produce more than 600,000 barrels a day, according to Matt Simmons, chairman of energy investment banking firm Simmons & Co. International. Exploration in the next 20 years, to 1990, yielded only two. Since 1990, despite billions in new spending, the industry has found only one field with the potential to top 500,000 barrels a day, Kazakhstan's Kashagan field in the Caspian Sea. And Mr. Simmons notes it is proving expensive and difficult to extract.

....

Labor and construction bottlenecks also are making it difficult to develop proven fields. One of the largest obstacles is the booming commodity markets themselves: The prices of raw materials used in oil-field platforms and equipment has escalated. And during the years of low or moderate oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s, companies didn't develop enough geologists and other skilled workers to supply today's needs. "Years of underinvestment in new talent have led to a limited and aging pool of skilled workers," noted Andrew Gould, the CEO of oil-service giant Schlumberger Ltd., last month.

High oil prices have also led to steep cost inflation for drilling rigs and other equipment. Costs have soared so much that the industry is falling behind in the investment needed to sate expected future demand. To meet demand forecasts of 90 million barrels of oil a day in 2010, the industry needed to have spent $350 billion on drilling and producing in 2005, argues Larry G. Chorn, chief economist of Platts, the energy and commodities-information division of McGraw-Hill Cos. But the International Energy Agency estimates that spending on oil-field production in 2005 came to only about $225 billion, he says.

A failure to spend enough in the past few years "may have already put the industry behind the spending curve," Mr. Chorn says. As a result, he predicts "temporary shortages over several years, causing debilitating price spikes."

Compounding the problem: Most of the world's biggest fields are aging, and production at them is declining rapidly. So, just to keep global production at current levels, the industry needs to add new production of at least four million daily barrels, every year. That need is roughly five times the daily production of Alaska, with its big Prudhoe Bay field -- and it doesn't assume any demand growth at all.

Mr. Simmons scoffs at estimates that production from proven fields will decline only 4.5% a year. He thinks a more realistic rate of decline is 8% to 10% a year, especially because modern technology actually succeeds in depleting fields faster.

If he's right, the industry needs to add new daily production of at least eight million barrels -- 10 times current Alaskan production -- just to stay even.

Notice the references to shortages of the necessary equipment needed to coordinate an expansion of drilling activity. If more oil rigs, well pipes, pumps, etc. are needed, industrial capacity may have to be expanded, which relies on the construction sector. And yet, the construction sector is having their own set of problems related to rising costs, which makes it difficult to maintain and expand infrastructure:

http://www.agc.org/galleries/economics/CIA08.pdf

 

AGC's Construction Inflation Alert: Construction Costs: End of the Calm is Coming Soon

Oct., 2007

 

After years of minimal cost increases, prices of many construction materials skyrocketed from 2004 to mid-2006. Since mid-2006, some input prices have moderated, while others have fallen. But the cumulative increase in the producer price index (PPI) for construction inputs since December 2003 (28 percent through August 2007) remains more than double the 13 percent increase in the most common measure of overall inflation, the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers. Labor costs, in contrast, have risen at similar rates for construction and for the private sector as a whole.

 

The cumulative difference matters because the estimates for many projects now being bid, especially public facilities, were prepared in 2003-2005 under the assumption that construction costs would escalate at the same rate as the CPI. That divergence explains why some projects are being canceled, delayed or redesigned.

 

In the next several months, the PPI for construction inputs, which covers items used up in construction such as diesel fuel as well as materials that go into a project, is expected to accelerate to a 3-5 percent annual rate of increase from the recent 1.5-3 percent range. By the end of 2008, and indefinitely thereafter, construction input costs are likely to be rising at 6-8 percent. Labor cost increases could top 5 percent by the end of 2007 and 5-6 percent in subsequent years.

As the previous articles make clear, it takes energy to find and develop energy supplies. It takes energy to build the tools and run the machinery that develop energy supples. And it takes energy to house, transport and feed the workers that develop energy supplies.

Our current living arrangement appears to be entering a stage of rapidly diminishing returns, and there is much wringing of hands over it by people who don't understand why it is so, or that it is an inevitable consequence of a growth phase reaching its limits. I recommend reading the work of the authors who saw this happening long ago, because the worst thing we can do is keep behaving as we always have and expect things to get better. Change will be forced upon us, but if we get ahead of the curve we have a better chance at a decent outcome.

This past weekend was a busy one at the Sebastopol Demonstration Energy Garden. After a summer of soaking in sun and filling their stalks and seeds with sugars and starches, our Dale Sorghum crops went full cycle. From the 212 sq ft. that we had under cultivation we harvested 9 kg of dry seed and 115kg of sugar rich stalks. From the stalks that we harvested in addition to the 110 kg of stalk that were donated to us by Live Power farms (225 kg in total), we produced 10 gallons of sorghum juice. Of the 10 gallons produced, we fermented 8 gallons and with the other two produced approximately 57 oz of sweet sorghum syrup; this demonstrates the multiple possibilities that the crop offers. In addition we were able to utilize the carbon in the pressed stalks by adding what we didn’t use as a layer in our sheet mulch as an ingredient to our compost piles. The chickens quickly consumed the fresh leaves that topped each pile.

It took three of us approximately three hours on Friday to harvest the stalks and seeds; this includes removing the leaves from the stalks. The process entailed one man cutting the stalks at their base with a pair of hand held clippers while another tied the stalks in bundles and removed the seeded florets which were processed by a third. The seeds were separated and laid thin upon screens in the sun to be dehydrated and the stalks were stacked in the shade to be pressed the next day.

To press the stalks it required three people an additional 3.5 hours of labor on Saturday. We used the Improved Chattanooga #12 to press the stalks and caught the juice in 5 gallon buckets; the juice that emerged was a pea green and contained 15% sugar by volume. By comparing the measured weights (lbs) of bundles of four stalks with the volume (mL) of liquid that emerged we determined that on average 162.3 ml of juice is produced for every 1 kg of stalk pressed.

Overall harvesting and processing the stalks required about 21 hours of labor. We produced 10 gallons at 15% sugar from the 225 kg of stalk that we pressed giving us a 22.5:1 ratio of kilograms of stalk for each gallon of juice produced.

[video]

Data published in the Alternative Field Crops Manual reports yields of 10 ton/acre for Dale Sorghum, of which 70% is comprised of the stalk. This is synonymous to 6350.3 kg of stalk/acre, which would indicate that 282.24 gallons could be achieved for each acre of Dale Sorghum under cultivation. Seeing that the juice produced from pressing the stalks is 15% sugar, fermentation should yield 282.24 gallons of mash at 7.5% alcohol. This shows that from one acre of Dale Sorghum, 21.17 gallons of 200 proof ethanol can be produced; the theoretical yield that they indicate however is over 400 gallons/acre.

Data published by Morris J. Bitzer at Blairsville, GA, and Quicksand, KY shows yields of Dale Sorghum at 20 tons of stalk/acre, 20321.28 kg stalk/acre, double the yield proposed by the Alternative Field Crops Manual, whose data was compiled from Waseca, MN.

Data published by Oak Ridge National Labratory, acquired from 4 different test sites in Indiana and Alabama, reported yields of 22.2 Mg/ha (9.9 tons/acre), similar to that published by Alternative Field Crops Manual.

Data Published by Texas A&M Extension agronomist, Juerg Blumenthal said the highest yield he'd acheived was 12.4 tons of dry matter per acre with the production of 395 gallons of ethanol per acre.

No indication of the proof of alcohol produced was provided in any of these studies, but I do not see how it is possible to yield such high volumes per acre. In each case either the juice pressed from the stalks is of a higher sugar percentage, their method of pressing is more efficient, or the sorghum is being grown in higher densities; none of this information was provided. Somehow, in each case, higher volumes of ethanol per acre were produced from lower masses of stalks per acre

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed yields of sorghum stalk/acre: 10 ton/acre, 12.4 ton/acre, 22.2 Mg/ha (9.9 tons/acre), 20 ton/acre

Average = 13.075 ton per acre

1 acre = 43559.46 sqft

Harvested 212 sq ft = 0.005 acre

0.005 * 13.075 = 0.065 ton/acre

1 ton = 907 kg

Harvested 115 kg stalk = 0.127 ton stalk/0.005 acre = 25.4 ton stalk/acre

*25.4 tons stalk/acre being grown on site > 13.075 ton/acre proposed yield

Proposed yields of ethanol/acre: 400 gallons of ethanol/acre, 395 gallons

Average = 397.5 gallons ethanol/acre

Produced 10 gallon juice from 225kg stalk, of which 115 were grown on site

115/225 = 0.51 * 10= 5.1 gallons juice produced from grown sorghum

1 acre/0.005 acre = 200 * 5.1 gallons of juice produced = 1020 gallons of juice/acre

15% sugar will ferment to 7.5% ethanol

1020 gallon juice/acre * 7.5% ethanol after fermentation = 76.5 gallons ethanol/acre

*76.5 gallon of ethanol/acre produced < 397.5 gallon ethanol/acre proposed. This data correlates more with the projected 21.17 gallons of ethanol/acre that I proposed based on the obtained 22.5 kg stalk:gallon juice ratio and the assumption that starting with a 15% sugar content will produce a 7.5% alcoholic mash after fermentation.

As the crops grow, we are racing to equip the garden with the tools required for the production of ethanol as a fuel source.

Ethanol Production

1. Fermentation

To produce ethanol from the crops that we are growing we must first mascerate and press the sugar/starch rich part of the plant into what is called the wort.

By bringing the wort to a boil in a stainless steel kettle we are able to kill off the bacteria and other microbes that would compete with the distillers yeast that we introduce once the wort has cooled down. The quicker the cooling process the better; this reduces the risk of bacteria reestablishing residence in the mixture. Once the yeast has been added the contents of the kettle are refered to as the mash. It is the mash that we add to our airtight fermentation containers and allow to ferment for 1-3 days.

Before adding the yeast it is important to check the temperature of the mixture. Yeast prefers temperatures of 80-90 degrees farenheit.

Before adding the yeast it is important to check the sugar content of the mixture. Because yeast converts about half of the sugar to alcohol (the other half into CO2) and because yeast commonly perishes in alcohol percentages of 15% and higher, it important to dillute your wort to sugar percentages of 20-30%. By adding cooled sterilized water you can quickly cool the wort while reducing the sugar content.

C6H12O6 → 2CO2 + 2C2H5OH

Before adding the yeast it is important to check the pH of the mixture. Yeast performs best at a slightly acidic pH of 4-4.5. By using lithmus paper and adding an acid or base accordingly this pH can be obtained.

Yeast can be added once the mixture meets these conditions. Allow the mash to ferment for three days before disturbing the anaerobic process.

2. Distillation

After fermentation the mash should have an alcohol percentage ranging from 10-20%. So as to obtain the higher percentages required for running a vehicle distillation is necessary. Using a reflux still, obtaining alcohol percentages up to 95% is possible. The remaing 5% water can be removed using zeolite or corn grain as a filter. Constructing a still and obtaining our experimental distillers license is the next step in our goal of producing fuel from the crops that we are growing at the Sebastopol Demonstration Energy Garden.