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.

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.

I want to link to an article written by Ann Keller, director
of new services for the American Farm Bureau. The short article discusses the
upcoming expectations for fertilizer production and demand in the United States
and is titled: Harvest
Season Thoughts Turn to Spring Fertilizer Prices.

In short, global supplies are expected to be tight because developing
countries are competing for fertilizer in order to secure yields. If supplies
remain tight, it is going to cost farmers more money to fertilize their crops. As
this article notes, many countries-including the United States,
cannot produce enough local fertilizer to supply their farms. Again, since fertility has
to be imported, the food system is threatened by rising energy prices
for transport and freight. This highlights an intrinsic vulnerability in the
global food system which does not seem to have much flexibility to absorb
disruptions in necessary imports of fuel, food, and fertilizer.

Here are some noteworthy quotes from the article:

--“The U.S.
imported about 57 percent of its nitrogen last year, compared to 31 percent in
the 1999/2000 growing season. One reason for the import increase is rooted in
the price of natural gas, nitrogen fertilizer’s key ingredient. Trinidad, a
tiny island in the Caribbean, has an abundant supply of natural gas, and it
manufactures anhydrous ammonia more cheaply than the U.S. Trinidad is expected
to be this country’s largest supplier of anhydrous for some time to come, while
other popular nitrogen fertilizers such as urea are imported from Russia and Eastern Europe.”

--“While the U.S.
is a major manufacturer and exporter of phosphates, stocks are relatively low
at this time. If disruptions in the manufacture or distribution of these
fertilizers materialize, then the probability of spot market price spikes
increases. More than 90 percent of the potash fertilizer used in the U.S. is imported, the bulk of it from Canada but also some from Russia and the Congo. Given recent flooding that
affected the production of potash, this also suggests supplies may be tight in
2008.”

Unseasonably
dry weather in Kansas, Oklahoma,
and Texas
have farmers concerned about next summer’s yields. Over-winter wheat, sown in
October and November is still awaiting rain before going dormant for the
winter. Common practice is to sow grain and allow autumn rains to germinate the
seed early in hope of establishing a healthy stand before the winter freeze.
However, there are alarming reports that scant November precipitation has seed
lying in the ground un-germinated. With global grain reserves at their lowest
in half a century poor germination is sure to disappoint--likely spelling lower
yields.

A
lower yield from the U.S.
makes many nervous as current demand is outpacing yield and domestic and
international grain reserves continue to decline. When tracking the recent
spike in prices of major agricultural commodities you will find that global
demand for wheat is increasing due to the simple fact that a majority of
nations do not have surplus and must import. Drought, disasters, lack of
domestic production, and the falling value of the U.S. dollar are driving the
demand to import surplus U.S.
grain.

For
instance, Bangladesh
is intent on purchasing 500,000 tons of grain after the recent cyclone
destroyed their stockpiles and crops. Japan,
Taiwan, South Korea, India,
and Pakistan
are also looking to purchase grain this month-and it is no surprise why. These
nations have dense populations that cannot grow enough food within their own
land-base to support the nutritive and energetic demands of their citizens. These
issues are compounded by rising energy prices and shipping cost. Crude oil continues
to flirt with $100 a barrel, and there is little flexibility for importing nations
to avert paying higher prices for ocean freight.

As
this discussion revolves around global food and energy security it appears that
politicians appear focused on their own careers. The tensions between demand
and supply are increasingly influenced by climate uncertainty, advancing
population, and global petroleum dependence.

We
have an opportunity to take these issues seriously by making connections
locally to provide for ourselves in the places we live. This effort is called
Relocalization. Visit the Relocalization
Network to link with groups in your area working to address these issues
and build strong, self-reliant communities.

Also,
check Bloomberg’s report: Wheat
Rises as Drought Hurts Crops in Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma

Google has announced a new strategic initiative to develop
electricity from renewable energy sources in order to obtain energy cheaper than that produced from coal. As energy prices and carbon dioxide
emissions continue to rise, Google is setting both an environmental and
economic example by investing their capital to secure their business and their
community. The ambitious program is called “RE<C” or (Renewable Energy Cheaper
than Coal) and aims to demonstrate that large scale renewable energy installations
are cheaper than coal. Larry Page, co-founder of Google says: "With
talented technologists, great partners and significant investments, we hope to
rapidly push forward. Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy
capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in
years, not decades." (One gigawatt can power a city the size of San Francisco.) Presently, Google is working with two companies
that have promising scalable energy technologies:

eSolar Inc., a Pasadena, CA-based company specializing in
solar thermal power which replaces the fuel in a traditional power plant with
heat produced from solar energy. eSolar's technology has great potential
to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal. For more information, please
visit http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/esolar.pdf.

Makani Power Inc., an Alameda, CA-based company developing
high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at harnessing the most
powerful wind resources. High-altitude wind energy has the potential to
satisfy a significant portion of current global electricity needs. For more
information on Makani Power, please visit http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/makani.pdf.

Click here
to read the Google Press Release related to this exciting initiative.

The discourse has been heating up around biofuel for well over a year now. The classic food versus fuel debate has been engaged recently by the United Nations, while scientists, climate change experts, and farmers begin to question the scale and logistics of biofuel replacement of the current liquid fuel demand.

This June, one of us (Dr. Jason Bradford) interviewed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory staff scientist and Post Carbon Fellow David Fridley on the bi-weekly radio show the Reality Report. The topic for the interview: “The Myths of Biofuels” finds Bradford and Fridley engaged in a devastating analysis of the scale and logistics of replacing our current fossil fuel demand with ethanol and biodiesel. In short, a large scale industrial biofuel system will wreak havoc on the soil, require an entirely new distribution infrastructure (due to the corrosive nature of ethanol), not easily adapt to the current fleet of USA autos, will compete heavily with food production and natural ecosystems that are seen as potential cellulosic biofuel feedstocks, and will do little to actually replace the current (or future) energy demands of liquid fuel.

Two weeks later, the Reality Report picked up where the Fridley show left off and we both joined Yokayo Biofuels President, Kumar Plocher on the show. The question was: If biofuel is not going to be sustainable on a large industrial scale, then would a local biofuel system be an appropriate response to the limitations of long-distance transport and petrol dependent methods of cultivation and processing of biofuel? If biofuel is produced for local consumption how much land would be needed, what crops would be used, and how would they be processed? Again, simple math painted a picture of an inflated hope and hype. We ran the numbers and with the 35,000 acres (14,000 hectares) of remaining prime farm land in Mendocino County approximately 84,900 acres (34,000 ha) would be needed to replace current county diesel consumption if canola was used as the prime feedstock.

Additionally, approximately 231,100 acres (94,000 ha) of farm land would be needed to replace the current gasoline consumption with corn-based ethanol. It doesn’t really matter much which crops, or combination of crops, are considered--the land base isn’t available to support a biofuel industry even on a local scale that meets current fuel demand. These analyses also absurdly assume the use of all agricultural land for fuel production, leaving no room for food! This is unconscionable and not the direction that any serious farmer or environmentaly aware person desires to advocate.

As the hype around biofuel already begins to dissipate, serious researchers and planners are advocating curtailment of long distance transport and the adoption of electric vehicles as one of the most sustainable options to replace the work and carbon footprint of the internal combustion engines. Vegetable oils and ethanol are useful products and should not be omitted from agricultural production, but their uses require further consideration. Why do we have to burn these useful feedstocks when they have multiple alternate uses? Should biodiesel production be limited to the reuse of waste food oil?

In an article published by AlterNet, David Morris from the Institute of Local Self Reliance makes two important observations related to the uses of vegetable oils and plant-based sugars that are consistent with the position of the Local Energy Farm Program. Morris suggests that

“human nutrition is the highest use of plants, followed by medicinal uses and possibly clothing [and…] we should first use biomass to substitute for industrial products that use fossil fuels rather than for the fuels themselves. [W]hile there is insufficient biomass to displace a majority of fuels; there is a sufficient quantity to displace up to 100 percent of our petroleum and natural gas-derived chemicals and products. And these are much higher value products.”

Additionally, he recognizes that: Electricity, not biofuel, will be the primary energy source [note: we consider electricity an energy carrier, with wind, solar radiation, etc. being renewable sources] for an oil-free and sustainable transportation system. But biofuel can play an important role in this future as energy sources for backup engines that can significantly reduce battery costs and extend driving range.

While biofuel might remain a short-term transition technology, it is being recklessly advocated by the United States Senate as a panacea for the liquid fuel appetite. One response is to advocate appropriate uses of biofuel, including its role in agriculture. Another is to adapt to new information and seek alternate ways of powering crucial societal infrastructure. One such component is a relocalized agricultural system.

We should remember that biofuel was originally produced by farmers for on-farm use. Just because you can power an internal combustion engine on bio-blends does not necessarily mean that it is a suitable energy replacement or clear cut solution to salvage the industrial model which is so deeply dependent on cheap liquid petroleum.

Before agriculture began to juggle the burdens of constant soil degradation, increased mechanization, and cheap labor (see Steinbeck’s ‘Grapes of Wrath’), animals were used for the cultivation of crops. However, like a biodiesel tractor, some land must be dedicated to feeding a team of horses. On good pasture land it is estimated that 5 acres (2 ha) of land is needed per horse. Marginal land could require about 13 acres (5 ha) per horse, and possibly much more.

Similarly, to produce 1000 gallons (3,800 liters) of biodiesel requires the cultivation of 10.25 acres (4 ha) of canola. This is assuming you have access to processing equipment and methanol (which is normally derived from natural gas). Whether you consider horses, oxen or biofuel to reduce dependence of fossil fuels, cropland is used that will often compete with land needed to grow food.

For example, data from the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory shows that the performance of small, modern tractors at around 20 hp requires about 1.7 gallon (6.4 liters) of diesel fuel per hour of work. If we estimate that a tractor will be in use about 1000 hours per year, this would require 1700 gallons (6,400 l) of fuel. In biodiesel terms, it would take 17 acres (6.9 ha) of prime crop land to grow the fuel for one small tractor per year. Of course we should also think about how much land such a tractor could cover in a year. A small tractor could cultivate about 25 acres (10 ha) in those 1000 hours, meaning that after fuel crop use only 8 acres (3.2 ha) would remain for non-fuel crops.

Post Carbon Institute’s Energy Farm Program is addressing the tension between food vs. fuel, or land vs. energy. In our search for ways to reduce these tensions comes the latest Energy Farm Demonstration Project: The Electric Tractor.

We have made connections with activist and inventor Stephen Heckeroth and are seeking to test cutting edge agricultural equipment for a post-petroleum world. The electric tractor does not compete for food and prime agricultural land for fuel, has a significantly reduced carbon footprint, increases the scale of acreage that can be cultivated, and is easy to operate for the 50 Million New Farmers that Richard Heinberg is calling for in the coming century. Stephen is not the only person who has made the electric tractors. John Howe has been working on retrofits of agricultural equipment powered by electricity.

This week we took a (petroleum-powered) scenic drive through the redwoods to the Mendocino coast to visit Stephen Heckeroth and demo his “Solar Electric Tractor.” Stephen has been working on alternatives to fossil fuel use in both his private and professional life since 1970. His company, Homestead Enterprises, has been doing electric tractor conversions since 1993, and has become an internationally recognized consultant on industrial and agricultural electric equipment. In 1996-97, Ford-New Holland commissioned Homestead Enterprises to build an electric tractor prototype. In 1997-98, a Japanese company, Eifrig Ltd. Commissioned another prototype. A fully functional design was completed in July 1998 and several provisional patent applications were filed in August 1998.

As Stephen points out: Our future is only as sustainable as the tools we use to get there. The daily energy income from the sun is gigantic and it is feasible to use already existing renewable energy infrastructure to “re-fuel” the Electric Tractor. If the farm has yet to invest in renewable energy infrastructure, it is also possible to charge the batteries with standard 110V power (or 240 volts in other parts of the world).

Let’s run through some numbers to help us evaluate the land requirements of electric tractors versus tractors operating with biofuel. Electric motors are about 90% efficient at converting energy to work, and solar panels are the most efficient way of converting radiant sunlight energy into electricity (approaching 20% vs 1% or much less for plants). Stephen’s tractor can hold 5 kWh of battery packs that will give the same kind of performance in terms of work over a year as the 1700 gallons of diesel fuel in a small tractor. 5 kWh of batteries can be recharged each day with a 1 kW photovoltaic system covering about 40 sq ft (3.7 sq meters) of roof space. By contrast, 43,000 sq ft (4,000 sq m) are in an acre (which is 0.4 hectares).

In terms of fuel dollars, 1700 gallons of diesel cost about $5,100 in 2007. Installing a 1 kW photovoltaic system might cost about $10,000. By investing once in double the annual cost of fuel, a farmer could power a tractor for decades.

Not only does this appear to be an economically wise investment, but electric tractors are a pleasure to use. As you would expect from an electric motor there is no diesel exhaust emissions and no loud engine noise. While driving the tractor we could actually hear birds chirping (a rare experience when operating heavy machinery). With an electric tractor there is no longer a need for engine oil or oil filters, a radiator and coolant, no need for fuel filters, no engine overhauls, and it offers a lower operating cost ($0.50) to charge the 5kWh battery pack. There is a 1500W charger/inverter on the tractor and a complementary AC power outlet. This is a useful feature because it allows the use of electrical equipment in the field (e.g. sorghum press, or thresher and winnower). The ability to process certain crops in the field (like sorghum) is a good way to circumnavigate the need to transport large amounts of material to a central processing facility.

We plan to put the tractor through its paces and provide data that farmers will find useful as they begin to evaluate the efficacy of this exciting technology. Although in theory we should have great performance from an electric tractor, a lot of questions exist related to how long the tractor can work (similar to the range of an electric car) and whether or not the machine has enough power for the rigorous demands of cultivation. To test the machine we will attempt to run a dryland grain demonstration in Willits, CA. We intend to plant a fall crop of wheat or oats using a disk, harrow, and seeder. These classic implements used to be horse-drawn and do not require the intense energy that PTO (Power-Take-Off) implements require (less draw-down on the battery bank). The over-winter rains will help to get the crop established without relying on intensive irrigation and we plan to come back in the next summer to harvest and process the cereal crop. The experiment is two-fold in which we get a chance to demonstrate and produce grains with minimal amounts of fossil fuel and high energy inputs while also collecting data related to operation time and power capacity of the prototype electric tractor.

Aside from John Howe and Stephen Heckeroth, we have not heard of other people using electric tractors for other than mowing; we hope that many are out there. We would like to hear from you. We invite readers to check our numbers and the assumptions above and please tell us how realistic we are, based on your data, calculations and experience.

If you want to see Stephen’s tractor in operation, check out this link.

For more information about the Willits/Brookside Energy Farm and about the electric demonstration, please contact Dr. Jason Bradford or Christoffer Hansen.

For more information about the Energy Farms Program, please contact Julian Darley, President Post Carbon Institute (email or call 1 800 590 7745)

Electric Tractor Front View

Jason Testing The Front Suspension on a Hill

1500 Watt Charger/Inverter with Battery Bank (Mounted Over Rear Tires)

AC Power Outlet to Use Tools In the Field

The Little Lake Grange hosted a workshop related to local food
producers. A diverse group assembled to discuss issues including: Access to
Markets for Farmers and Ranchers, Long Term Possibilities for Connecting Local Agriculture
and the Community, and Production Diversity for Food Security. Two volunteers
took notes and recorded responses to topic headings. The discussions and these
notes are in the process of being sorted and typed into a useful form. When I receive
my copy of the notes I will post it.

Farmers and community members
arranged chairs into a circle, introduced themselves and then participated in
and listened to discussions about key topics. As people shared their
perspective new points were mentioned and much common ground was found. This
session brought people together in a context of cooperation that was intended to
improve the connectivity of the agricultural oriented sectors of the community and to potentially expand market penetration of locally grown produce.
Many communities have a Grange and it serves as an
excellent meeting place to facilitate such meetings. What
might happen if these sorts of conversations were taken up in your community?

I want to share note worthy aspects of this meeting:

-Farmers talked about integrating farms together: (ex. A neighboring
farmer grows hay to fuel the horses that pull the plow on another farm. In turn
that farm produces vegetables and grain.)

-An interesting point made about the changing demands
of the consumer. With all the negative reports of chemical herbicides, pesticides,
and fertilizers some people are demanding more nutritious, organic food. The
consumer demand for organic is a change because usually farmers are in a position
to struggle to sell their produce. This is an example where the market is consumer
driven vs. farm driven. Organic and “beyond organic” farmers may find
themselves in a good position to meet local demand and grow their food in a way
that is wholesome for the body and the planet.

-Participants voiced a unanimous call for a reconnection of the public
to locally grown food. This education would illustrate best practices and how
organic food need not be trucked 1500 miles to reach the consumer. Consumers
need to know about local sources of food in their own community. Steve Decater,
from Live Power Community Farm located in Covelo, provides CSA boxes for
subscribers. However, most of his produce goes south to San Francisco. This is a long distance and is
becoming increasingly expensive over time. Perhaps if more people had
information about the benefits of local agriculture and produce then Steve
might sell the majority of his produce locally.

-There was a discussion related to gaps in the Willits food
system. The gaps included: Dairy, Stone Fruit, Grains, Nuts, Quantity of Local
Vegetables, Dry Beans, and Vegetable Oil. In relation to grain, there is also a
lack of silos that could store the grain, small scale threshers, and seed
cleaners. Grain and dairy stood out as significant gaps in the Willits food
system.

-When the topic of growing biofuel to meet petroleum demands was mentioned
the farmers seemed resistant and hesitant. It was then mentioned that the
biofuel would be used to power on-farm machinery, not necessarily for export to
the transportation infrastructure. Farmers were more open to growing small
portions of biofuel that would not compete with their food production if it could
be applied for on-farm use. On the other hand, farmers were very open to using solar power to drive their irrigation systems. Additionally, each farmer seemed very excited about
the possibility of having an energy audit performed on their farm to see where
they might reduce their dependence on petroleum. They said someone else would
have to do it because they didn’t have the time.

Welcome to part two in a four part exploration. This exercise is intended to stimulate thought and imagination. What might future Local Energy Farm Demonstration projects look like? What issues will they attempt to confront? What are some of the guiding agricultural principals and how will the research and actions at these farm sites connect with community needs or local economy?

As was mentioned in part one, food and energy are interrelated. Without doubt, energy farms will also confront the issue of Energy Security. These farms are interested in developing a broad base of knowledge and practices in order to inform communities about the opportunities and limitations regarding the local production of consistent, reliable, and storable forms of fuel, electricity, and organic fertilizer.

Using the models of sustainable agriculture practiced on the food security farms, these farms are interested in using biological methods to remove carbon from the air and convert it, (through the process of photosynthesis), into natural hydrocarbons and usable forms of energy. These sites are expected to use marginal land or farm land that might not be cultivated otherwise. The crops grown on an energy farm range from oilseed to above ground biomass crops, starch and sugar producing crops, to mixtures of compost and biogas crops. These crops are processed into biofuel such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, and biogas.

Nestled in the context of energy security is the issue of resource management. If energy and biofuel crops can be grown with sustainable land and water use principles, then it is conceivable that marginal lands will be recuperated, and thereby become better suited to grow food crops. Portions of the biomass and fuel crops will be returned to the land in the form of charcoal and organic matter, feeding nutrients back into the land and bolstering the microbial life in the soil.

Example 1: Six acres of compact and nutrient depleted pasture land is offered to begin research on energy crop production. Although the land owner has no real vision for future use, she hopes that someday one acre will be suitable for food production. Canola and an experimental seed crop of native Meadowfoam are grown and harvested on two and a half acres (oil component, carbon sequestration). Jerusalem artichokes are grown on two more acres (production of biomass and starch crops, loosen compacted soil). Hearty, fast growing Honey Locust trees would be planted in areas needing wind breaks up to a full acre. This tree is a legume that fixes nitrogen in the soil and supplies edible pods for livestock (improve the land, biomass, charcoal source).Clover and fava beans can be intercropped with flax to round out the remaining space and is intended to produce more oilseed, biomass, and to fix more nitrogen into the soil.

Ideally, some of the biomass products from this farm would be burned in an onsite gasifier that could generate electricity. Seed oil and starch crops would be diverted to the local biofuel processing plant or synthesized onsite to make biodiesel, ethanol, and soap. Plant wastes can be composted, creating an organic fertilizer and soil amendment that can then be distributed to local organic food producing farms.