Energy Efficiency on the Farm

Employing energy-efficient measures on the farm is a win-win situation — farmers get to save a few bucks (maybe even thousands), while also conserving valuable energy resources.

However, when it comes to making their farms more energy efficient, many farmers don’t know where to begin. According to Ohio’s Country Journal, an energy audit is a great place to start.

Often conducted by agricultural energy consultants or local electricity providers, energy audits typically consist of an hour-long phone interview to review the types of equipment on the farm followed by an on-site visit and detailed audit and assessment of the farm’s energy usage.

“In many cases, farmers are not aware of how much they can be saving,” said Dana Koppes, an engineer with New Energy Systems. “Lighting and ventilation are two of the big areas for energy savings on many farms. Dairy pumps, heating and cooling systems on livestock farms and greenhouse operations can see real savings just by changing a few things.”

Farmers interested in becoming more energy efficient can apply to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) to receive funding for an energy audit and financial and technical assistance to implement energy-conservation measures through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Applications are accepted continually throughout the year for the program, but are evaluated and ranked according to the environmental benefits that could be derived from approved conservation measures.

Don’t have time or money for an energy audit? Here are some tips and steps farmers can implement now to save energy and money around the farm, courtesy of Corn and Soybean Digest:

• Review your farm’s energy usage: Tax reports and a year’s worth of utility bills will help you identify how much energy you’re using and the associated costs. Typically, grain operations, diesel, electricity and propane top the list of farm-energy expenditures.   

• Upgrade lighting systems: Swapping out incandescent lights for more energy-efficient fluorescent lamps can result in big savings and many utilities offer rebates or incentives to help cover costs.

• Maintain tractors and trucks: Replacing air and fuel filters on tractors and pickups can deliver a 3 to 4 percent bump in fuel efficiency. Maintaining proper tire inflation will also make vehicles more efficient.

• Insulate pipes: Insulating a water heater and pipes can reduce heat loss by 25 to 45 percent and reduce water-heating costs by 4 to 9 percent.

Have you taken measures to reduce your energy usage at home or on the farm? Have any tips or suggestions to share?

Photo obtained from: community.lighting.philips.com

More fuel from the cob

Everyone understands the benefits of getting more from less — especially regarding energy production. America is seeking a reliable, domestic fuel base and numerous sources have been tested and employed, including corn ethanol.

Corn ethanol is a clean-burning fuel additive made from corn-kernel starches and is regularly blended with petroleum to diversify the fuel supply and decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil to offset the cost of standard gasoline.

The ethanol sector is one of the corn industry’s chief markets, and the future of the U.S. ethanol industry depends on its ability to increase yields, be competitive with fossil fuels and fill a growing need for energy independence.

Ethanol production is accomplished either after a wet or dry milling process, though dry milling is most common and is explained as follows: (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

“Corn grain is milled then slurried with water to create ‘mash.’ Enzymes are added to the mash and this mixture is then cooked to hydrolyze the starch into glucose sugars. Yeast ferment these sugars into ethanol and carbon dioxide and the ethanol is purified using a combination of distillation and molecular-sieve dehydration to create fuel ethanol. The byproduct of this process is known as distiller’s dried grains and solubles (DDGS) and is used wet or dry as animal feed.

An emerging technology called hydrodynamic controlled-flow cavitation is advancing the capabilities of ethanol production.

According to an Ethanol Producer Magazine story, hydrodynamic cavitation is the process of “passing a liquid through a constricted channel at a specific velocity. The formation and implosion of bubbles in the liquid releases tremendous localized energy in the form of shockwaves. Controlled-flow cavitation technology controls the location, size, density and intensity of the implosion of bubbles in the zone to create optimum process conditions”.

The following diagram from a Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) story illustrates how cavitation "liberates" more starch from milled corn before it's fermented and distilled to ethanol (courtesy of Arisdyne Systems Inc.).


"Corn grain containing between 70 and 73 percent starch is distilled to ethanol," said Fred Michel, an OARDC biosystems engineer. "While the recovery of starch in commercial ethanol plants is high, as much as 4 percent of the starch remains in the byproducts after fermentation. We are targeting that 4 percent from the use of cavitation."

With support from a $1 million Third Frontier grant awarded in 2008, OARDC has partnered with Arisdyne Systems Inc., a Cleveland-based company, to test cavitation technology:

• The project generates 13 Ohio jobs
• Cavitation helps increase ethanol yield by 2 to 3 percent
• A 3 percent yield boost can increase the revenue of a 100-million gallon ethanol plant by approximately $3.75 million annually
• If the entire U.S. ethanol industry (13.2 billion gallons in 2010) were to use cavitation, the revenue increase could reach at least $500 million annually

“We need to be looking at yield enhancement as a top priority,” said Fred Clark, executive vice president for Arisdyne.

Yield enhancement has always been and will continue to be a major industry goal for the profitability of U.S. corn. Cavitation has the promise to improve corn farmers’ financial success and the energy security of the country simultaneously.

Energy Farming

Though the traditional forms of agriculture, crop and animal farming aren’t the only farm sectors anymore.

Feedstock farming – growing varying cellulosic, non-food material such as miscanthus and switchgrass, which is then fermented for conversion to biomass pellets and fuel – is emerging as a new industry market.

Biomass comprises several types of herbaceous grasses that are converted into fuel using special processing equipment. Pellets are a byproduct of the conversion and can be used as livestock feed and to generate electricity.

Farmers receive a price based upon each feedstock’s net-energy value and moisture content. According to FarmEnergy.org, 1 ton of pellets contains as much energy as 190 gallons of propane.

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), instituted in the 2008 Farm Bill, was designed to stimulate new crops for renewable energy feedstocks. It demonstrates the importance of this emerging ag market.

“Farmers are the foundation to drive [the new biomass energy] technology — not technology driving farmers,” said Steve Flick, president of Show Me Energy’s (the first U.S. producer-owned biomass cooperative) board of directors.

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), administered by the Farm Service Agency, provides financial assistance to owners and operators of agricultural and non-industrial private forest land who wish to establish, produce, and deliver biomass feedstocks. BCAP provides two categories of assistance:

• Matching payments may be available for the delivery of eligible material to qualified biomass conversion facilities by eligible material owners. Qualified biomass conversion facilities produce heat, power, biobased products, or advanced biofuels from biomass feedstocks.

• Establishment and annual payments may be available to certain producers who enter into contracts with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to produce eligible biomass crops on contract acres within BCAP project areas.

BCAP-qualified producers are eligible to receive up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and planting biomass crops within a BCAP project area. The USDA provides annual payments to compensate for lost opportunity costs until these crops are established and provides financial assistance for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of biomass crops by matching the amounts paid to producers by the biomass conversion facility, up to $45/dry ton.

Not only does feedstock farming impact the farmer, it significantly impacts the entire economics of the business supply chain. Biomass conversions creates hundreds of direct and ancillary jobs in rural economies.


“Hauling massive amounts of feedstock long distances has a tremendous effect on the economy,” said Steve Carter, director of Iowa State University’s Research Park in Ames.

Some farmers are participating in feedstock farming to power their own equipment. This may become an increasing trend as oil prices continue to escalate.

A farmer interviewed for a recent Herald-Review story, said that he’s found using 1 ton of biomass pellets to cost $165, compared to 149 gallons of propane for $387.40 and 101 gallons of fuel oil for $383.80.

In Ohio, Aloterra Energy develops biomass conversion facilities by handling both feedstock development and its conversion to fuel using advanced biofuel production. One biomass conversion facility is currently in operation in Conneaut, Ohio, and the company is in the process of expanding its network of farmers for energy-crop production.

As fuel and other energy costs continue to increase, so too will the interest in feedstock farming. It will be interesting to witness how farmers react to this emerging new-income opportunity.

Photo obtained from: farmenergy.org

Government funds biorefinery developments

To increase the production and use of renewable-energy sources, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting federal grants for biorefinery projects.

One such project, the Biorefinery Assistance Program, provides guaranteed loans for the development and construction of commercial-scale biorefineries or for the retrofitting of existing facilities (including, but not limited to, wood-products facilities and sugar mills) for the development of advanced biofuels.

“Renewable-energy production is a key to sustainable economic development in rural America,” said U.S. Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack. “We must rapidly escalate production of biofuels to meet the 2022 Federal Renewable Fuels standard goal, and much of this biofuel will come from feedstocks produced by America’s farmers and ranchers. This will be an increasing source of income for rural America and it represents an opportunity to increase the number of green jobs available not only to farm families, but also to residents of rural communities.”

Vilsack specifically mentioned feedstocks – crops or products that can be used as or converted into biofuels and bioenergy. Common feedstocks include soybeans and rapeseed while alga and ethanol byproducts are emerging feedstocks.

Farmers of these and other sources of feedstock can benefit from biorefinery developments because of increased market opportunity. However, the advancement of this renewable energy comes with a price tag.

According to a blog at Biofuels Digest, “Because biofuels projects cost in the hundred of millions, the “family member” guarantor of choice in the U.S. is Uncle Sam – the one with the balance sheet and the policy interest to make commercial biofuels happen.”

But programs such as the Biorefinery Assistance Program expand the promise for biofuels in America.

Program Information:

• Eligible applicants: Individuals, tribal entities, state-government entities, local-government entities, corporations, farm cooperatives, farmer cooperative organizations, associations of agricultural producers, national laboratories, institutions of higher education, rural-electric cooperatives, public-power entities and other groupings of any of the previous entities

• Loan limits: Maximum of $250 million; no minimum requirement; maximum loan will be reduced by the amount of other direct federal funding the eligible borrower receives for the same project

Eligible projects:

• Projects must be located in a rural area (50,000 or less population)
• Projects must use “eligible technology,” which is defined as either:

1. A technology that is being adopted in available commercial-scale operation of a biorefinery that produces an advanced biofuel; or
2. A technology not described in the previous paragraph that has been demonstrated to have technical and economic potential for commercial application in a biorefinery that produces an advanced biofuel

In 2009, this initiative, and other provisions within the overarching program to stimulate energy development, funded 1,557 projects in 50 states, the territory of Puerto Rico and the Western Pacific Islands, expecting to reduce greenhouse gases by 1.5 million metric tons of carbon. These investments will generate a projected equivalent of 1.5 million kilowatts of electricity.

As America works to develop a clean-energy economy, the use of programs like the Biorefinery Assistance Program, is vital. This program, and others modeled like it, provide rural, green jobs and propel us toward energy independence. They also provide more economic incentive for American farmers to continue the production of feedstock crops.

*Photo obtained from www.clear.certh.gr/img/bio-refinery%201.jpg

Obama, McCain: Who will win the rural vote?

With the election four short weeks away, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain are focusing heavily on rural America to win this election. And they’ll need it. According to the National Rural Assembly, 60 million people live in rural areas.

Rural
Obama says he wants to make sure that family farmers have fair access to markets, control over their production decisions and fair prices for their goods. He says farm programs are designed to help family farmers instead of corporations. Obama also says he wants to encourage organic agriculture and would like to see more young people become farmers. He plans to provide tax incentives to make it easier for new farmers to afford their first farm.

McCain wants to provide sustainable, market-driven risk management for America’s farmers to reflect the outcomes of the global marketplace. He claims this system would eliminate the influence of special interests on American agricultural policy. He argues this agricultural plan will meet America’s need in food, fiber, feed and energy. Technology will help to reach these needs. McCain is heavily pushing the continuation of positioning America as the leader in agriculture technology.

Both candidates want to provide jobs, education and health care for people in remote locations.

Energy
Obama said in the Oct. 7 debate that he plans to invest $150 billion a year over a 10-year period to free the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. He claims this plan will improve the bio-fuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emission coal plants and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. He also plans to execute an economy-wide cap-and-trade program suggested by scientists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to McCain’s Web site, he has proposed a $300 million award for “the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the number of commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” He supports the increased use of alternative energy sources like wind, solar and natural gas. McCain’s plan also focuses on increasing the number of nuclear power plants in the United States. He wants to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030.

Both candidates focus on advancing technology and green jobs. Obama plans to create an energy-focused Green Job Corps to help disadvantaged youth gain the job skills they need. Obama also wants to create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to bridge the gap in U.S. technology development. He would make a $10 billion investment per year for five years. They both also want to advance clean-coal technology. McCain plans to spend $2 billion annually to help the science, research and development to improve this technology. By doing so, he claims he will restore the jobs lost and create new ones in the coal industry.

Dee Davis, president of the Kentucky-based Center for Rural Strategies, says whoever wins the rural vote will win the presidency. At this point, it’s still hard to tell who is leading with the polls continually changing. The rural population is still torn between the two candidates. Many people living in rural communities approve of McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate because of her understanding of agricultural issues. However, Sen. Joe Biden has repeatedly shown his support for America’s farmers as well. He supported the farm bill and has fought to maintain a competitive marketplace at home for America’s farmers.

Let’s hear your thoughts. Which candidate do you think has a better plan for developing and assisting rural communities?

Biofuels: Finding an Answer to the Energy Problem

The search for alternative fuels and energy sources has moved from a unique scientific pursuit to an economic and global necessity in the last decade. Immersed in controversy due to the soaring costs of fuel, food and other living expenses, the biofuel and ethanol industries are scrambling to find new and better ways to power our homes, cars and tractors.

Currently, the most common and widely produced biofuel is corn-based ethanol. However, even supporters of the industry realize that it is not the final answer to our energy needs. Corn ethanol is helping us reduce dependence on oil, but most agree that the future lies in using cheaper non-food material.

There are dozens of solutions in the works, but one of the most promising sources of cellulosic ethanol is switchgrass, a perennial that can thrive on poor soil with little water, fertilizer or pesticides.

Jeffrey Bennetzen, a professor of molecular genetics at Franklin College studying biomass energy, said that the advantages of using a cellulosic approach are that switchgrass captures carbon dioxide very effectively. It also reduces runoff from fields and does not take valuable acreage away from food production.

Sunflower stalks, sugar cane and sweet sorghum are all being studied for their use in creating cleaner and more efficient bioenergy. Their ability to grow quickly in conditions where corn and soybeans cannot, allows these energy sources to yield 250 percent more ethanol per acre than corn.

Other creative sources of fuel are pond algae, certain fruits and animal food wastes.

“Any kind of relief or help we can get from a cheaper source of oil could impact the agriculture industry tremendously throughout the country, throughout the world,” said Florida citrus farmer Bryan Beer. During peak harvesting, his tractors consume 120 gallons of fuel a day.

Many of America’s best minds are working to create what many believe will be one of the keys to a truly renewable energy system in this country and around the globe. It is projected that the impact of these research developments won’t be seen for about five to 10 years, but we do know that whatever the solution, farmers will have major roles to play.

There are still many questions that need to be answered, and many seem to directly influence the American farmer. Do you believe that cellulosic fuel is the answer? Is moving away from corn and soy-based fuel – products that many in the industry are finally catching up with – a wise decision? Could you see yourself growing these new crops? Let me know your thoughts. Please comment below.

Election 2008: Energy and Agriculture

With the hot-button issues of fuel, energy and food at the forefront of national and world debate, there is no question that rural America will have a huge impact on the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.

John McCain and Barack Obama both seem to realize how important the topics of agriculture and energy are to their success.

While on the campaign trail, both have agreed the United States must take steps to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, develop new technology and invest in renewable energy. The candidates understand the importance of ethanol, clean coal, lower consumer costs and a strong economy, but each has approached these goals in very different ways.

The biggest difference between the candidates’ plans are their views on the subsidization of corn-based ethanol and ethanol import tariffs.

According to a June 23 article in The New York Times, McCain strongly opposes continuing these multibillion-dollar annual payments and supports the removal of the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on highly efficient sugar-cane ethanol. In a speech at Fresno State University in June, McCain cited the “unintended consequences” of global price distortion, high costs to consumers and a desire to “level the playing field” for all ethanol types as the reasons for his stance.

Other key components of McCain’s plan include uniform incentives for the purchase and development of flex-fuel vehicles, new nuclear power facilities, offshore drilling expansion and a $300 million prize for the development of a car battery that would jump-start the market for hybrids and plug-ins.

Obama is placing his bet on U.S. ethanol production and the continuation of subsidies and the ethanol tariff. According to his Web site, he will push for increased ethanol production and funding and research for new cellulosic ethanol development, which he believes is the future of the fuel market. Obama does not support offshore drilling or new nuclear power plants.

Obama presented his energy plan in a speech in New Hampshire in October of last year. He outlined additional portions of his proposed policy, including a focus on increasing regulations for power plants, capping carbon emissions, a $150 billion investment in clean energy development and an immediate push to phase out incandescent light bulbs.

While these two camps continue their battle for the White House, we are left to ponder the impact of their plans. Balancing our empty pockets and our desire for a healthy America will make this a tough decision. For now, the question remains: Who will be the best candidate for the American farmer?