A startup company called EFuel100 is taking orders for its new MicroFueler, an energy-efficient fermentation, distillation and dehydration system that turns sugar and water into ethanol.

The MicroFueler is the brainchild of Floyd Butterfield, who designed the award-winning Butterfield still back in 1980. The Butterfield still was designed for farm scale, energy-efficient ethanol production from carbohydrate-rich crops. 250 acres of corn could keep it going for a year. (Most new ethanol plants need about 200,000 acres of corn to operate at capacity for a year.) Although a modern ethanol plant gets about 15% more ethanol from each bushel of corn than the Butterfield still (2.7 vs. 2.3 gallons/bushel), Butterfield's system was more compatible with small, diversified farming operations, and didn't require long-distance trucking of feedstock.

With the MicroFueler, Butterfield takes the "small is beautiful" philosophy one step further, aiming to bring ethanol production from the farm scale to the home scale.

The MicroFueler makes fuel out of sugar, which is food. Most large-scale conventional ethanol plants start with starch, which is food. The first step in their process is to break down the starch into sugar for fermentation.

The holy grail of current ethanol science is the production of ethanol from non-food, high cellulose materials, like switchgrass or corn stalks. The major barrier to most cellulosic ethanol production is the development of efficient means of breaking cellulose down into sugar for fermentation. In other words, to make ethanol from non-food crops we're trying to figure out how to turn them into food. Whether the sugar comes from starch or cellulose, all fermentation starts with sugar.

Sugar is the building block of life. Photosynthesis is the light-driven reaction that makes sugar and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water. Organisms digest sugar to get energy, turning it back into carbon dioxide in the process. Plants store energy in the form of starch, which is a long string of sugar molecules that can be broken down relatively easily. They also make strings of sugar molecules into cellulose, a structural material that doesn't break down easily, and is found in cell walls.

Even if you aren't a chemist you can probably tell from the figure on the left that starch and cellulose are made from the same stuff. The molecule in the square brackets is glucose, or sugar.

The promotional material for the MicroFueler claims it will make a gallon of ethanol from about 12 pounds of sugar. For the past decade 12 pounds of unrefined sugar on the world market has cost about 30% less than a gallon of gasoline in the US. Between 1976 and 1996 a gallon of gasoline generally cost about 15% more than 12 pounds of sugar. Today's commodity investment advice? Buy sugar.

According to the promotional material (pdf), the MicroFueler "solves the ethanol transportation issue by containing the refinery and pump delivery system within the same system – in other words, people can produce where they consume, using the MicroFueler to both create ethanol and pump their vehicle with fuel."

Since the Energy Farms Network is based on the premise of local resource cycling and local production, I was curious to estimate the land needed to produce enough sugar to use the MicroFueler to run my car. Last year our sweet sorghum crop gave us about three-quarters of a pound of sugar per square yard. Each gallon of ethanol, then, would require about 16 square yards of sweet sorghum to be harvested, juiced and fed into the MicroFueler. Ethanol has about two-thirds the energy density of gasoline, so I might expect my Toyota Corolla, which gets about 37 miles per gallon of gasoline, to get 25 miles per gallon on ethanol. To drive it 10,000 miles per year I would need about 400 gallons of ethanol, or about 1.3 acres of sweet sorghum.

That's about 8 times more land than I have in my backyard. I guess it's back to my bike...

Michael Bomford provides research and extension services related to organic agriculture and farm-scale renewable energy production through Kentucky State University's Land Grant Program.

I just spent three days talking about biofuels with other scientists who work at historically black land grant universities. These institutions exist in most southern states because of an 1890 law requiring states to either set up a land grant institution for people of color or demonstrate that race was not an admission factor at their existing institution. Kentucky State University, where I work, is one of these '1890 land grants.'

The 1890 land grants are interesting because of their mission to serve under-served constituencies, including minorities and people with limited resources. The 'get big or get out' prescription sometimes associated with land grant universities ought to be an anathema to 1890 land grant universities.

This week's meeting was called to explore ways for 1890 land grants to contribute to USDA goals, including "the development of biofuels and processes to efficiently convert renewable plant products to fuel." It came at a time when food prices are skyrocketing and people are going hungry, in part because a growing proportion of America's corn is being turned into fuel.

At one point I expressed to a USDA economist my opinion that the large scale corn to ethanol program has been a complete failure, neither reducing carbon emissions, nor contributed to energy independence. The economist surprised me with his defence that neither of these were program objectives. The real goal, he said, was to raise corn prices. By that measure the program has been a resounding success(!).

After three days of intense discussion we hammered out a list of research objectives for 1890 land grants working on biofuels. They are:

1. Identify, produce, characterize and improve alternative feedstock crops.
2. Develop and optimize small scale technologies for biofuel production.
3. Evaluate and improve biofuel and byproduct quality.
4. Educate and train students, farmers, and other professionals regarding biofuels.
5. Analyze economic, environmental and social impacts of biofuel production and use.

So those are my guiding principles as I continue to participate in the Energy Farms Network and collaborate with the Post Carbon Institute. Over the summer I'll work with researchers from Virginia State University and North Carolina A&T University to pull together a full proposal, based on these objectives, for a collaborative project involving all eighteen 1890 land grant universities.

Some of my current research is funded by Southern SARE, so I took note when the organization released a position paper on the type of biofuel research it will fund in the future. SARE identifies eight themes for future projects to "expand the focus in bioenergy beyond corn- and soybean-based ethanol and biodiesel:"

1. Energy conservation and efficiency;
2. Energy efficient production practices;
3. Non-biomass renewable energy sources;
4. Alternative biomass feedstock production systems;
5. Environmental impact of bioenergy production;
6. Community and rural development impacts of bioenergy production;
7. Local and regional economic impact of biofuel production; and
8. Whole farm integrated energy systems.

It looks like the Energy Farms Network is on the cutting edge.

-----

• The goal is to feed more people, not fewer people. There is an old adage that has already been quoted about putting all your eggs in one basket. If I were one of those fifty people who was being fed by only one farmer, I'd be more worried than if there were four or five-or ten. Suppose the one farmer dies?
• Two and a half percent of the population is feeding all the rest. That is very small. And as far as I can see, nobody is worrying about where the cutoff point is. There is always a bottom half. We are always concerned about eliminating the bottom half because we say they're inefficient. I think that our doctrine of efficiency is suspect anyway because it only applies to major quantities. We waste stuff at our place all the time because we can't sell it. It's too little to sell. You can't give it away unless you cook it for somebody.
• How small do you let the percentage of farmers get before you are in danger? We have no alternative energy source on the farm now. When one farmer's feeding fifty people he is absolutely dependent on petroleum. When the economy shifts to reflect the realities of energy, it may be too expensive to produce some of this food; certainly at current prices.
• --Wendell Berry, 1974 http://www.tilthproducers.org/berry1974.htm

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that Americans consumed about 105 exajoules (EJ) in 2006, and predicts that energy consumption will exceed 120 EJ by 2025. That projection looks unrealistic. Here's my attempt to do better.

EIA records show that US energy consumption has increased almost every year for a long time. A look at the period between 1950 and 1973 shows each year's increase in energy consumption was even greater than the year before.

High energy prices caused energy use to decline between 1973 and '75 and again between 1979 and '83. When growth resumed after the second energy crisis there was a difference: Each year's increase was less than the year before.

If the trend established in 1980-2006 were to continue then US energy consumption would crest around 2015 before starting to decline. Consumption in 2025 would be about the same as in 2006. This projection is much lower than the EIA's, but I still think it unrealistically high. A more likely scenario is an immediate reduction in energy consumption in response to high energy prices, as occurred in the previous energy crises. A 1.2% annual decline in energy consumption, sustained until 2025, would bring the nation back to consumption levels of the mid-1980s.

Renewable sources currently provide just 7% of the nation's energy. The EIA predicts this will be up to 11% by 2025. Just as the EIA appears to have overestimated the availability of non-renewable energy sources in the near future, it appears to have underestimated the contribution of renewables.

A coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups is calling for plans to increase renewable energy production to meet 25% of the nation's energy consumption by 2025. The 25 by '25 vision has its opponents, particularly now that the corn ethanol push is widely recognized as an environmental, social, and financial disaster. Sooner or later, though, the nation and the planet must return to 100% renewable energy.

What might a 17 year transition to a 25% renewable energy economy look like? One scenario would involve a 30% reduction in non-renewable energy use coupled with a doubling of hydro, biomass and geothermal energy use and 12 and 24-fold increases in wind and solar energy use, respectively. That might have some pretty serious economic, environmental and social ramifications, but it would get us to 25%. The rate of decline in renewable energy use would be pretty similar to the rate of increase that got us where we stand today.

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.

The
motto of Post Carbon Institute is “Reduce Consumption: Produce Locally”. We are
demonstrating that motto at the Willits Energy Farm located at Brookside
Elementary in a number of ways. For example, a mini-farm is being established
that can operate with intermediate
tools that do not consume petroleum. As a Community Supported Agriculture
project, the food is intended for local distribution within the community. Additionally,
rotations of compost
crops are being grown to cycle nutrients back to the soil in the form of aerobic
compost. Through this practice, we generate a form of fertilizer that is used
on-site (local production) and is capable of maintaining the long term
viability of the farm by securing healthy soil (reduced consumption).

The
plan for this summer is to grow a small area of biofuel crops at Brookside. The fuel can be used to cover our on-farm use.
However, since we do not rely heavily on petrol, we can potentially distribute
the ethanol to another local farm that intends to grow food for the town hospital.
I will speak more about the ethanol project as we near the time to plant the Dale Sorghum in
mid May. If you are interested in learning about how sorghum can be used for
ethanol and food check out the following links:

A Sweet Idea
Converting Sweet Sorghum into Ethanol

Sweet Sorghum
Culture and Syrup Production