Impacts of Increased Ethanol Production
Tripling of corn for ethanol and more reliance on yield enhancing seeds and chemicals

USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins recently presented analysis projecting some dramatic impacts from future growth in ethanol production. Below are some highlights, summarized in our words.

• The share of the US corn crop committed to ethanol will have tripled, from 6 percent in 2000 to nearly 20 percent for the 2006 crop.
• Corn ethanol alone cannot greatly reduce US dependence on crude oil imports. In 2006, it will account for the equivalent of just 1.5 percent of US crude oil imports.
• Oil prices have a greater effect on the profitability of ethanol production than corn prices. Crude oil prices would need to fall by more than half from their current $70 per barrel for ethanol to no longer be competitive with gasoline. With continued relatively high oil prices, ethanol plants can make money at much higher corn prices. Higher corn prices will not likely halt the ethanol expansion.
• Corn prices could set new record highs over the next 5 to 6 years in response to growing ethanol production. Corn usage will likely shift from exports to domestic ethanol production. Brazil and Argentina will produce more corn to take up the reduction in US exports.
• Corn acreage will increase in response to growing ethanol production. Higher corn prices may bring some land back into production from expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. Higher corn prices may also prompt Congress to reduce CRP enrollments in the next farm bill.
• Corn stocks will be tight and markets volatile. A drought or increased demand by a major player like China could cause dramatic corn price increases.
• Cellulosic ethanol production appears to be the best renewable alternative for reducing crude oil imports, but it will be some years into the future before the technology is developed and its impact is felt.

Recent analyses by Citigroup of New York City mirror USDA projections. Citigroup projects ethanol profit margins of over 20 percent for the next 10 years and a tripling of production. Increased ethanol production is projected to use 31 percent of US corn supplies, raising corn prices to $2.90 a bushel or higher. Growing demand for corn will likely cause shifts from soybean acreage to corn and lead to big increases in use of yield enhancing seeds and chemicals.

Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018 for information.

Study Places a Price Tag on Outmigration
Research estimates a loss of nearly $1 billion in North Dakota’s net taxable income

A new report from North Dakota shows that outmigration is not only bad for rural communities and their social and civic institutions, but it costs money. According to the North Dakota State Center, outmigration cost North Dakota nearly $1 billion in net taxable income from 1993 to 2005.

The report shows that people moving into North Dakota during the 13-year period brought about $1 billion less in net taxable income than the people leaving the state took to their new states of residence. During the period in question, North Dakota had a net outmigration of 44,000 people (people leaving the state minus people who moved into the state).

The income levels of people moving into the state also contributed to the decline in taxable income. In some of North Dakota’s largest population centers, an increase in population was accompanied with a loss in net taxable income, suggesting that those moving in had lower income levels than those moving out.

Only two of North Dakota’s 53 counties had increases in net taxable income during the 13-year period – one a small, rural county and the other the home of Bismarck, the state capitol.

This report not only places a price tag on outmigration that could be useful in demonstrating impacts on rural communities, but it also suggests that public policies and initiatives that seek to address outmigration in rural communities could have a net financial benefit to the community and to taxpayers. Significant outmigration in rural areas is eventually a cost to the society – infrastructure stills needs to be maintained and upgraded, institutions like schools still need funding, and the population left in many rural communities – often the very young, the very old, and the poor – need more services.

Rural outmigration renders communities less economically self-sufficient and places a greater burden on the rest of society to maintain the community. Investing in programs like the New Homestead Act and community development initiatives like HomeTown Competitiveness that have addressed rural outmigration as a goal may eventually prove to be a cost-effective response.

Rural communities are in need of public policy and local initiatives that work together to address the issues of outmigration and youth attraction. Society and taxpayers also need efficient responses to enhance the economic self-sufficiency of rural communities.

Solutions to these issues and needs exist – will and action are necessary to push them forward. The coming 2007 Farm Bill debate provides an opportunity to demonstrate both. As rural issues are pushed to the forefront of legislative action during the 2007 Farm Bill debate, we will all have opportunities to reveal costs of the past and display potential rewards of the future.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org  or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information. Sign our Strengthening Rural America petition and join the National Rural Action Network here.

USDA Programs Lack Benefit for Family-Scale Farms and Ranches
Only a small percentage of select research and grant programs are relevant to their target audience – smaller farmers and ranchers

A new Center for Rural Affairs report, The Impact and Benefits of USDA Research and Grant Programs to Enhance Mid-size Farm Profitability and Rural Community Success, found USDA research and grant programs lacking in either benefit or relevance to small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers as well as beginning farmers and ranchers.

The report analyzed the benefits to small and mid-sized farms and ranches of four mainstay USDA research and rural development grant programs – the Value Added Producer Grant program (VAPG); Rural Business and Enterprise Grant program (RBEG); National Research Initiative (NRI); and Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS).

“Our analysis revealed that, in total, of nearly $500 million dedicated to these four programs, only five percent went to projects determined to be beneficial to small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers or beginning farmers and ranchers,” reported Kim Leval of the Center for Rural Affairs.

The Value Added Producer Grants (VAPG) and IFAFS were the two programs, among the four analyzed, that offered the most benefits to small and mid-sized producers as well as beginning farmers and ranchers. “Which is understandable, because value added grants and IFAFS came into being shortly after the National Commission on Small Farms recommended the creation of such programs to assist small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers in creating new markets and economic opportunities,” added Leval.

Consequently, the Center for Rural Affairs recommends in the report that the Value Added Producer Grant program be reauthorized in the 2007 farm bill and provided with $50 million annually in mandatory funding.

The report goes on, however, to state that “despite recommendations and challenges of the National Commission on Small Farms and the rhetorical commitment of USDA to small agricultural operations, we found that the vast amount of funded projects and program funds do not benefit small and mid-sized and beginning farmers and ranchers and are not relevant to their needs.”

You can find a full copy of the report and recommendations here. A four-page Issue Brief on the report is available as well. Check the Rural Development and Asset Building Virtual Library.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org  or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information.

Number of Senior Citizens Increasing in Our Rural Communities
The elderly often end up segregated from the community – instead we should embrace their experience and desire to contribute

Last month we looked at the assets seniors bring to small rural communities and how we don’t use their skills and experience in meaningful ways to help our communities grow. Let’s look at some demographic trends to bring the picture into clearer focus.

Currently, over 70 percent of the nation’s counties are considered non-metropolitan. While the definition of rural includes towns of 2,500 or less, remember we have over 15,000 communities in our country this size. And over 25 percent of all older people in the United States live in or around them. More than a quarter of elderly Americans reside in rural areas.

The Midwest is home to a good portion of settled seniors. Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska have upwards of 20 percent or more senior residents. Another factor to consider, the population base of senior citizens continues to grow and does not appear to be anywhere close to stabilizing yet.

What does this mean in terms of how we work in community development? With rural areas suffering depopulation of all ages, health care becomes an issue for seniors. When economically the community begins to lose health care facilities, pharmacies, doctors, dentists, and other providers, the real victims become the increasing population force of senior citizens.

Much like youth, we often fall into the trap of trying to figure out what we can do for the senior population. What we really need instead is open dialogue. Rather than building senior citizen housing, assisted living facilities, hospice care, and more senior citizen centers to segregate our most prized assets, why don’t we ask them what they would like to see done?

More often than not, the biggest request from the elderly is a wish to contribute to the community in a meaningful way rather than to be segregated. Through years of experience, they have answers to all sorts of community problems. As we advocate for our communities and their survival for the future, let’s ask the people who live in the communities what that survival may look like!

Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1015 for information.

Corporate Farming Notes
Sow production concentrates at Smithfield; request for merger review unanswered; jury awards $4.5 million in damages against PSF

>> Successful Farming’s annual Pork Powerhouses edition hit the newsstands in October, detailing an expansion of 323,000 sows in production over last year. Seventy-five percent of that expansion was concentrated in the hands of Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer and packer.

Comparing last year’s numbers to 2006, Smithfield’s proposed merger with Premium Standard Farms (PSF) would bring nearly one million sows from 2005 under Smithfield’s banner. However, Successful Farming lists 1.2 million sows in production under Smithfield, representing an additional increase of 240,000 sows for the pork conglomerate. Presumably, this represents increases at both Smithfield and Premium Standard facilities.

The magazine’s list of largest producers shows an increase of nearly 50,000 sows for Triumph Foods in St. Joseph, Missouri, the only other large increase among the nation’s 20 largest producers. The remaining sows were added in smaller increments spread among six of the remaining 18 largest producers.

>> As of this writing, we know of no response from the Department of Justice or USDA’s Packers and Stockyards Administration to numerous calls for a thorough review of the Smithfield acquisition of Premium Standard. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), National Farmers Union, the Center, and others have requested action from Justice and USDA.

>> On September 22, only weeks after the announcement of Smithfield’s acquisition of Premium Standard, a jury in Jackson County, Missouri, ordered PSF to pay $4.5 million in damages to three families who live near Premium Standard’s production facility in Trenton, Missouri. The lawsuit was focused on neighboring families’ battles with odor from the facility.

The jury also found grounds for punitive damages against Premium Standard, but the company agreed not to appeal the actual damages in exchange for the plaintiffs’ agreement to drop their requests for punitive damages.

According to the families’ attorney the verdict is “the biggest award in the nation against a major confined animal producer.” Premium Standard has fought a long, running battle with neighbors and some Missouri regulators and policymakers. But there was no indication that the verdict surprised Smithfield, nor any indication it will impact the merger.

Contact: John Crabtree at 402.687.2103 x 1010 or johnc@cfra.org for more information.

GenerationEngage Co-Hosts Rural iChat
Former Senator Tom Daschle featured in Internet-based video conference

As many communities across rural America look for strategies to keep their youth from leaving their hometowns and heading for the big city, they have realized the significant role public policy can and should play. Yet the youth who would be most affected by those policies – the very ones we are trying to keep at home – are often not involved in these policy and political debates.

Stereotypes portray rural young adults as unconcerned with political or policy debates, with little to offer. Consequently, they are frequently not engaged on the issues most important to the survival of our rural communities.

But this stereotype is false. Many young adults in rural communities are concerned with remaining in their hometowns and have good, creative ideas on how they can do so. The current political system, though, ignores young adults in rural America.

If politics today focuses on young adults at all, it looks to college students at big schools in big cities or students at expensive private schools. The hardworking student at the local community college or small four-year state college is bypassed, not to mention young adults who are not in school and are already making vital contributions to the rural American economy.

To help fix this problem, the Center for Rural Affairs partnered with Generation Engage, www.generationengage.org, to discuss rural issues with young adults on October 30 at Alexandria Technical College in Alexandria, Minnesota. Utilizing internet-based videoconferencing technology, young adults from around the country were poised to discuss their role in politics and the many issues that affect all of rural America.

At this writing, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota will answer questions during the event, and we expect an interesting and lively discussion. The Center hopes to create more opportunities to engage the young adult population of rural America. We think they will make a valuable contribution to policies that will shape the future of our communities.

Contact: Dan Owens, dano@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1017 for more information.

USDA Announces CSP Watersheds for 2007
Sign-up period to follow USDA’s announcement of 51 eligible watersheds nationwide

USDA recently announced the eligible watersheds for the 2007 Conservation Security Program (CSP), limiting them to as few as 51 watersheds across the country.

The CSP is a voluntary stewardship incentives program designed to reward farmers and ranchers for adopting advanced conservation systems that provide environmental services benefiting the country as a whole. This landmark “green payments” program, adopted as part of the 2002 farm bill and implemented by USDA for the first time in 2004, pays farmers for clean water, better soil management, improved habitat, energy efficiency, and other natural resource benefits on their farms or ranches.

The actual sign-up period has not yet been announced. USDA stated they were announcing the eligible watersheds ahead of time “to allow farmers and ranchers adequate time to gather resource information on their operations in preparation for a prospective sign-up.”

While it is good to give the advance notice of where the program will be available, it is still difficult for farmers and ranchers to fully understand all that is needed to qualify for the program. Changes with each new sign-up have made the program unpredictable and inconsistent.

Our recently released report, The Conservation Security Program: An Assessment of Farmers’ Experience with Program Implementation, discusses the nature of the changing rules and unpredictability of the program, as well as other concerns with the program. The report, as indicated in our last newsletter, concludes with recommendations for improving the program. We will be working to ensure Congress and USDA act on the report’s recommendations.

Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1016 for more information on the Conservation Security Program.

New Publication from Rural Maine Highlights Rural Entrepreneurs
Report illustrates that unique culture and character, combined with creativity and talent, can lead to a successful business venture

Readers of this newsletter know that the Center for Rural Affairs has long advocated for rural policy based on entrepreneurship and small business development. We have witnessed in Nebraska how rural policy based on entrepreneurship can transform individuals, families, and communities through our REAP program.

We have witnessed the strength of the rural entrepreneurial spirit in our studies of the economy of the Great Plains and the Midwest. Now, another example of the entrepreneurial spirit in rural America has come our way, and we are honored to recommend it to our readers and anyone interested in how rural policy should look.

Telling Their Stories: Women Business Owners in Western Maine is a new publication of the Western Mountain Alliance, Coastal Enterprises, Inc., and the University of Maine at Farmington’s Women’s Studies Program. Telling Their Stories looks at 14 different rural entrepreneurs, their businesses, their motivations, and the risk-taking and perseverance required to make a success of each venture. Just as important, the publication also discusses the community, culture, and character of rural western Maine and how that influenced the success of each business.

While Telling Their Stories focuses on entrepreneurs in and the character of rural western Maine, it is a symbol of all of rural America. All rural areas have unique cultures and characters that can inspire entrepreneurs. And all rural communities have creative and talented residents who – often with a little assistance – can transform those ideas and talents into their own successful business ventures.

What is needed is a realization in rural communities that the kinds of businesses highlighted in Telling Their Stories are important and a vital part of the future of those communities. What is needed is a new rural policy that allows that realization to become reality by focusing resources on approaches to take advantage of rural character, culture, creativity, and talents.

Telling Their Stories is an important addition to pointing us down the path of that realization and a new rural policy. As debate begins on the 2007 farm bill and the kind of rural policy and the kind of rural communities we want to create, anyone interested in the future of rural America should read the inspiring stories in Telling Their Stories.

You can download a copy at the Western Mountain Alliance website, www.westernmountainsalliance.org , or contact them at 207.778.3885 to request a copy.
 
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x 1013 for information.

Top 10 Reasons Small Schools Work Better
Participation, belonging, personalization just a few of the findings from a new report

With the start of each new legislative session, small school supporters across the nation wonder what attempt will be thrown at them to cease their existence. Whether it is through some “tweaking” in a state aid formula to tighten and restrict their funding or outright disassembly, small schools know how to educate their students and can do it with greater results than their larger counterparts.

A report recently released by the Rural School and Community Trust reiterated what the Center for Rural Affairs and many other small school advocates have been saying for some time. Lorna Jimerson, Ed.D, author of the report The Hobbit Effect: Why Small Works in Public Schools offers her top 10 research-based reasons why small works for schools.

1. There is greater participation in extracurricular activities, and that is linked to academic success.
2. Small schools are safer.
3. Kids feel they belong.
4. Small class size allows more individualized instruction.
5. Good teaching methods are easier to implement.
6. Teachers feel better about their work.
7. Mixed-ability classes avoid condemning some students to low expectations.
8. Multi-age classes promote personalized learning and encourage positive social interactions.
9. Smaller districts mean less bureaucracy.
10. More grads in one school alleviate many problems of transitions to new schools.

The report goes into detail about each of these 10 reasons and can be found on the Rural School and Community Trust’s website, www.ruraledu.org/hobbiteffect . Contact Lorna Jimerson, Ed.D (author) at 802.425.2497 or Marty Strange, Policy Director and Center for Rural Affairs co-founder, at 802.728.4383 for more information regarding this report.

Notables this Month

ENTREPRENEURSHIP WEEK USA - FEB. 24 TO MAR. 3, 2007 -- More than 70 percent of young Americans envision starting a business or doing something entrepreneurial as adults. But very few learn how to go about it. Entrepreneurship Week USA is designed to turn that around. (The Center’s MarketPlace on Feb. 28, 2007 coincides with this national celebration.) 

The National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship is looking for individuals to serve as EntrepreneurshipWeek USA Ambassadors in all 50 states. These Ambassadors will help recruit organizations to join as partners, engage local entrepreneurs and business leaders as EntrepreneurshipWeek USA champions, talk to local media, and encourage everyone they know to plan and participate in activities during the week.

Interested persons are invited to call the organizers at 202.467.2779 or visit their website, http://www.entrepreneurshipweekusa.com.

FARM POSITIONS AVAILABLE AT THE FOOD PROJECT -- A nationally recognized agriculture, youth, and community development organization in Massachusetts, the Food Project is seeking a full-time, year round Farm Manager to operate 31 acres and a 450 member CSA which integrates youth and volunteers. They are also seeking a fulltime, year round Assistant Farm Manager to oversee their delivered CSA program and manage 10 acres with youth interns. finally, they are looking for 2 seasonal Grower’s Assistants to work from April thru November 2007. For more information, visit www.thefoodproject.org or email jobs@thefoodproject.org .

Focus on Critical Ethanol Issues Now: Profit, Conservation, Hunger
Now is the time to ask critical questions and set farsighted strategies to develop ethanol production in a way that serves the common good.

High oil prices are driving a dramatic increase in ethanol production that will reshape agriculture and rural economies (see article front page). We need to steer it in the right direction.

>> PROFIT – We should help beginning farmers, family farmers, and workers in ethanol plants become the owners. Keeping the profits in rural America in many hands will increase the benefit to rural communities.

Ethanol production is capital intensive. Small and beginning farmers struggle to come up with the capital to share in the ownership. Meanwhile, potential profits are attracting capital from large investment funds.

One solution would be to provide the 51 cent per gallon ethanol tax credit only to plants that are majority locally owned and provide assistance to workers and small farmers to buy in.

>> CONSERVATION – If land is removed from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to feed ethanol plants, will the conservation benefits be maintained? There should be incentives to leave parts of fields in contour grass strips, grass windbreaks, grass waterways, and buffer strips.

Ethanol production will eventually come from biomass – grasses, crop residues, etc. That could encourage stripping land of crop residue and widespread destruction of wildlife habitat. But with forward thinking public policies, it could enhance the environment.

We should focus some research on producing ethanol from alfalfa, to give farmers a market for a resource conserving rotation crop. We should condition tax credits on leaving sufficient crop residue to maintain organic matter and prevent erosion. And we should develop new approaches to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that allow grass to be harvested for ethanol production only if timed to maintain wildlife and erosion control benefits.

>> LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION – Ethanol production has already contributed positively to the reemergence of farmer cattle feeding in states like Iowa, prompted by availability of feed byproducts.

However, one proposed model for ethanol production would do just the opposite. Some propose co-locating ethanol plants with big feedlots and using the manure to power the ethanol plant while feeding the byproducts on site. Publicly funded research institutions should focus on developing models that integrate ethanol production with dispersed family farm based livestock production.

>> FOOD SECURITY – There is no direct tradeoff between hunger and ethanol production. Hunger is largely not the result of insufficient grain supplies. Nonetheless, extreme shortages prompted by increased ethanol production could contribute to world hunger. USDA projects much more volatile markets in which a severe drought could prompt severe shortages.

Congress should consider reestablishing farmer-owned grain reserves and other policies to hold grain off the market for use at times of severe shortages.

Agree or disagree? Send your opinions or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2103 x 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.

FEATURE ARTICLE:

Renewable Energy: Seeking Real Solutions to Complex Problems

Once again we are searching for a practical energy source that does not pollute. A century ago horse power and all the smells, manure, flies, and support system were replaced with petroleum. It was cheaper, cleaner, and more convenient than the horse powered energy system, especially in the cities. But even in the country the sales pitch was, “You only have to feed it when it’s working!” Many a John Deer “B” or International “H” replaced a team of horses.

Not until recently did we start to understand how pollution from fossil fuels would affect our environment and actually change it. Now, with competition increasing for limited energy supplies, the pressure is on to find an energy source that will not pollute, can be replaced as it is used, and can be adapted to the system now in place.

But remember, even though this article is about renewable energy, the best and most effective way to reduce energy costs and cut emissions is through conservation. As part of the Small Farm Energy Project sponsored by the Center for Rural Affairs in the late 1970’s, I [author Martin Kleinschmit] was one of 24 farmers in northeast Nebraska who learned to reduce energy use by 19 percent by adopting behavioral changes and using farm-based technologies to save and capture energy.

However, since renewable energy is a hot topic and much more exciting, although not as profitable as conservation, this feature will focus on replacing fossil fuel energy sources. Researchers are looking at our most common crops, corn and soybeans, for the energy to replace gasoline and diesel fuel.

ETHANOL: CORN and more CORN
Henry Ford designed the Model T to run on alcohol. Today’s ethanol fuels blend with petroleum to extend gasoline supplies and curb emissions. Pushed as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil, it is more likely to fill the gap between current oil supplies and increased demand. Over a decade ago experts predicted demand would outstrip supply between 2000 and 2020.

Corn, a crop that can be grown every year in almost all parts of the country, is the first choice for making alcohol. The corn is processed to remove the starch, which is converted to sugar, then fermented to produce alcohol, and finally distilled to eliminate all the water. It needs to be dehydrated when mixed with gasoline or the water will be displaced and settle out in the tank. The byproduct, distillers grain (DDG), is suitable for livestock feed since it still has most of the protein and minerals contained in the grain.

Even though ethanol plants are profitable now and more are being built, many question if they are the solution or only part of a bigger problem down the road. Alan Guebert, author of the Farm and Food File, has written, “The tussle goes like this: If ethanol demand continues to grow at today’s pace, American consumers soon will be forced to choose between corn-based fuel and corn on the cob, or corn-fed beef.” Alan quotes Keith Collins, chief economist at USDA: “US farmers need to plant 90 million acres to corn by 2010, 10 million more than 2006.” (See related articles, front and back page.)

Collins suggests the extra acres needed for corn production can come from the now idled, 35-million acre Conservation Reserve Program. These are the acres deemed too sensitive to produce crops because of erosion and water quality issues. Is this the price we pay to increase the supply for renewable energy?

Anticipating a shortage of grain, researchers are now looking at using crop residue as well. To most of us it is just trash, but to the soil microorganisms this waste is food. It is how they survive to make it possible for crops to be grown at all. Removing too much residue will deplete the fertility of the soil, setting up a disaster for future generations.

BIO-DIESEL: SOYBEANS and other OIL SEEDS
Crops are also being tapped to provide a replacement for diesel fuel. Presently we need tractors to help produce food and trucks to deliver it. If supplies for diesel become short or prices get too high, who will get the fuel, tractors or trucks? Extracted from our other major crop, soybeans, bio-diesel can be mixed with petroleum-based diesel or used alone. Again, the byproduct can still be used as a protein source. Bio-diesel is also sulfur-free, making it a good fit with current rules on exhaust emissions.

Bio-diesel can be made from almost any oil seed crop. Iowa State University lists soy oil, palm oil, tallow, animal fats, yellow grease, and waste vegetable oil as probable sources. Others include brown mustard, sunflower oil, canola, and even certain algae that could be grown locally in warm climates. Using these diesel substitutes may require seasonal adjustments or matching crops to your region. The unique feature of most bio-diesel products are that they can be made locally and used directly instead of being processed further.

Real Renewable Energy Systems: WIND, SOLAR
The bio-fuels listed above are a starting place to a more renewable energy system. But reliance on a bio-based energy system may lead to dire consequences according to Fred Pearce, with the New Scientist. Although bio-fuels come from the surface of the earth rather than below the earth’s surface, they often require enough fossil fuel inputs to break even at best. As water resources are taxed and food supplies become shorter, the push will be to crop residues, putting more pressure on already stressed soils.

These fuels fit our present dispatch and delivery systems. They can make our engines run and move vehicles. It is a place to start. But the real challenge is to develop and build energy systems that don’t compete for food (animal, human, or other), don’t create hazardous waste, and yet meet our needs.

WIND POWER: Clean and Non-toxic
Powered by the sun’s heating of the earth, wind will always be with us. Wind turbines are designed to capture some of the force of the wind and produce electricity, a clean, transportable, salable energy source. Wind energy creates no toxic wastes or hazardous byproducts to dispose of once it is manufactured. It doesn’t affect air or soil quality.

Like other energy systems, the wind is more abundant in some parts of the country than others, but it can be moved through wires to fill shortages. The best part about wind energy is the fuel to power the generators is free!

Since the wind does not blow all the time on any one location, technologies need to be developed that can go where the wind is, or figure ways to store the energy until it blows again. One concept is floating an inflatable kite-like device upwards of 600 feet to capture wind at greater height where the wind is stronger and more constant.

A more conventional approach is to convert the energy to a storable form. Existing technology can store the energy in water, compressed air, or separate hydrogen that could then be captured for later use. New battery developments allow for more storage in smaller units, and “flash charging” allows batteries to be recharged faster than it takes to fill a normal car with gasoline, making it a good fit with electric plug-in cars.

SOLAR POWER: New Developments
Solar collectors are also powered by the sun. New price and product breakthroughs in solar collectors, once thought to be too costly, too heavy, and/or too fragile, were featured in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“Researchers at the University of Johannesburg and at Nanosolar, a private company in Palo Alto, have announced major breakthroughs in reducing the cost of solar electric cells… . The technology reduces solar cell production costs by a factor of 4-5, bringing the cost to or below that of delivered electricity in a large fraction of the world.” (See more at http:// www.energybulletin.net/19262.html .)

LOCAL OWNERSHIP: Plug the Leaks
Renewable energy can do more than replace and supplement current energy demands. Michael Kinsley, in the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Economic Renewal Guide, points out the need to “plug the leaks” to build a sustainable economy. If the energy sources are local, the community is stronger.

Minnesota has adopted the Community-Based Energy Development system ( http://c-bed.org ), which allows individuals to group together to actually own multimillion dollar wind turbines and benefit financially from the energy output. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, locally-owned wind turbines in Minnesota generate five times more economic impact than out-of-state-owned units.

Bio-diesel and ethanol can be made locally and used locally. Not everyone wants to process bio-diesel or have an alcohol plant in their backyard, but certainly there are advantages in placing them locally in communities or regions. Remember much of the cost for energy is getting the resource to the plant and the residue away. Local plants can take advantage of local resources and effectively and efficiently use the waste products that are generated.

More RESOURCES
The Nebraska Renewable Energy Association, 115 North Charde Ave., Oakland, NE 68045, 402.685.4848, was recently formed to provide advice and support for individuals wanting to be more energy self-sufficient. They can advise and demonstrate homemade and farm based bio-fuel, solar and wind systems, www.nebraskarenewableenergyassociation.org.

Grassroots Energy is a Nebraska-based initiative to make ethanol available to individuals and businesses rather than selling it into the present fuel systems and buying it back at a higher price, www.grassrootsenergy.net.

To learn more about renewable energy, conservation options, and resources visit the Iowa Energy Center. If you don’t have access to a computer, visit your local library. Although focusing mostly on Iowa, most of the information is adaptable to your state, www.energy.iastate.edu .

Contact: Martin Kleinschmit in our Hartington office, 402.254.6893 or martink@cfra.org for information about renewable energy.

Editor: Marie Powell, mariep@cfra.org