The Mythical Ethanol Threat
Posted by Robert Rapier on May 29, 2007 - 9:05am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: ethanol, ethanol production, gasoline demand [list all tags]
There have been many claims in recent years that ethanol is going to help wean us off of fossil fuels. In fact, many of our political leaders claim that as long as we just keep subsidizing the ethanol industry, eventually cellulosic ethanol will take over and we will all motor happily along on E85. We are making energy policy decisions based on this assumption.
As this analysis will show, the data we have to date don't support those kinds of projections. Let's consider the effect to date of the explosive growth in grain ethanol production. The difficulty in producing ethanol from cellulose is probably an order of magnitude greater than it is for producing ethanol from corn. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the growth curve for cellulosic ethanol production (presuming it is ever commercially viable) will rival that of grain ethanol. So, let's take a look at how gasoline consumption has evolved as we ramped up billions of gallons of ethanol production.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association's Ethanol Industry Outlook 2007 (PDF warning):
As a result of the implementation of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), increased octane demand and other market forces, the U.S. ethanol industry produced a record 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol from 110 biorefineries located in 19 states across the country in 2006. 2006 production exceeded the previous year’s production by a record one billion gallons, or more than 25%. Since 2000, ethanol production in the U.S. has increased more than 300%.
2006 was also a record year for construction, with no fewer than 15 new biorefineries coming online. The addition of these biorefineries, including the completion of expansion projects, added 1.051 billion gallons of new production capacity for the year. Additionally, 2006 closed with no fewer than 73 biorefineries under construction and 8 expanding that will add 6 billion gallons of new production capacity by 2009.
(Note to self: Corn futures to double again by 2009).
Ethanol production in 2000, again according to the Renewable Fuels Association's page on industry statistics, was 1.63 billion gallons. According to their data, production in 2006 was 4.86 billion gallons, an increase of 3.23 billion gallons (77 million barrels). So, how much gasoline consumption have we displaced with this amazing growth in ethanol production? What have consumers and taxpayers gotten for their money?
According to the EIA, gasoline demand in 2000 averaged 8.4 million barrels per day. In 2006, gasoline demand averaged 9.3 million barrels per day. That is an increase in demand of 0.9 million barrels per day. This is 329 million barrels per year, or an overall demand increase of 13.8 BILLION GALLONS OF GASOLINE!
So, the next time someone tells you that ethanol production is going to reduce our fossil fuel usage, tell them that in the last 7 years annual ethanol production grew by 3 billion gallons, while annual gasoline demand grew by 14 billion gallons. This, despite steadily rising oil prices and record high gasoline prices. But, I would also point out that average annual rack ethanol prices have never - not once in 25 years - been lower than gasoline prices. And note this is a comparison versus 87 octane, which is always more expensive than the 85 octane that most people buy (85 octane has about an 80% market share).
Figure 1: 25 Years of Ethanol versus Gasoline. Source: Official Nebraska Government Website
I Am Still Not Convinced
A skeptic, eh? Good for you. Make me prove my point beyond reasonable doubt. That's fair. I am sure you would agree that if the claims of ethanol proponents are true - that in fact ethanol is displacing some portion of our gasoline usage - the displacement should show up if we plot gasoline demand growth. What I would expect to see is that as ethanol production ramped up exponentially from about 2000, the gasoline demand curve should drop down below the historical trend. This would be fairly compelling evidence that something - which could be ethanol - is causing people to reduce gasoline consumption. Is that what we see? (Note: Gasoline production has been corrected for the contained ethanol in the demand numbers reported by the EIA).
Figure 2: Ethanol's Impact on Gas Consumption. Source: Me - using data from EIA and RFA
As you can see in the graph, until 2005 there is no variance from the gasoline demand growth curve as ethanol production ramped up. To argue that ethanol has had any mitigation on gasoline demand, a proponent has to resort to special pleading by suggesting that gasoline demand would have otherwise been stronger if ethanol production had not ramped up. In 2005 and 2006, we do see some slightly lower growth in gasoline demand, but the culprit there is almost certainly record high gasoline prices.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit, followed by a fast run-up in gasoline prices. At the time, there were wide spread media reports of high prices lowering demand for gasoline. 2006 also saw gasoline prices hitting the $3 mark. Given that ethanol ramped up by 2 billion gallons from 1999 to 2004 with no apparent effect on the gasoline demand curve, it is unlikely that the 1.5 billion gallon increase in 2005 and 2006 is responsible for the small degree of variance.
So there you have it: Billions paid out in subsidies, food prices going up, farmland being used up at a faster pace, increased pollution from herbicide and pesticide runoff - and no apparent impact at all on our gasoline consumption. This is shaping up to be the largest boondoggle in U.S. history. But this analysis is exactly the reason I discount the recent reports that refiners might not expand because of the growth in mandated ethanol. I think this is merely a political shot at those who are demanding that the oil industry should spend billions to expand while also demanding that we reduce our gasoline consumption by 20%.
I generally buy 87 octane, with the other choices usually being 89 and 90-something. I don't recall even seeing 85 octane for sale. Is that a regional difference?
Yes. Some regions don't sell N85 at the retail level. Some mountain states sell N85.5. California probably sells plenty of N85, but then it is blended to N87 with an octane enhancer (like ethanol or toluene). But I have been told that you can't purchase N85 for your car in California.
The figures you are citing do not show 85 octane with a 80% share. They show regular gasoline with a ~80% share:
Regular - Gasoline having an antiknock index (average of the research octane rating and the motor octane number) greater than or equal to 85 and less than 88.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_cons_refmg_tbldef2.asp
This includes the 'more expensive' 87 octane.
I guess I have never lived in a location that calls 87 octane regular. In the 3 states I have lived in - Oklahoma, Texas, and Montana - regular is either 85 or 85.5 octane. 87 is mid-grade and 91 is premium. But note that this isn't even a hard and fast rule, as the EIA site says "Note: Octane requirements may vary by altitude."
I know that California requires N87 as the lowest grade, but I think in most of the rest of the country it is N85 that is the lowest grade. And I can tell you - as a former gasoline blender - the lowest grade is always the biggest seller.
I have been trying to find out what constitutes "regular" in Nebraska, the source of the above graph. I haven't found that out yet.
Well, I've lived in NH, CT, NY, PA, DC, MD, VA, and driven north to Maine, south to Florida and west as far as Wyoming, but I don't ever recall seeing 85 for sale.
Very interesting. It is amazing the things I sometimes learn after writing these essays. My assumption for years has been that most of the country has N85 as the lowest grade. I have traveled around the country a lot, but mostly before I was involved in gasoline blending. But that's a major benefit in doing these essays - learning new information.
Ethanol is currently a small percentage of US gasoline consumption. But Monsanto and others are working on higher yielding strains, while the new ethanol plants (powered by animal dung) are achieving very positive energy returns (3 to 1 being conservative). Farmers are happy with $4 corn, but many suspect it won't last. Too much is being planted. Meanwhile, new farm equipment is more fuel-efficient than old. Corn was at this price in 1980, but tumbled (and that is before adjusting for inflation).
Looking ahead a generation, even with corn (not the best crop) we will see very positive and increasing energy returns. Remember, it was an infant industry, and is getting better at what it does. Combined with PHEVs, we can anticipate radical reductions in fossil crude demand out 10 years.
Interestingly, US demand for fossil crude is already dropping, according to the EIA. We used less, not more, oil in 2006 than 2005. And the real energy-saving technologies are just coming to the fore now or in next five years.
World consumption of crude rose 3.1 percent in 2004, then 1.8 percent in 2005, then 0.9 percent in 2006. I sense a pattern here. It is not as dramatic as the declines following the price spike of 1979, but then thse declines may have more staying power.
In most industries, growth like this is called a "dud." In the hysterical nomenclature of modern-day reportage (fueled by hedge funds who went long, no doubt) this is called "runaway" growth.
A remarkable scenario, unexpected by most, may be unfolding; Peak Demand perhaps 10-30 years before we see Peak Oil, if this price regime can be maintained.
If the price regime can be maintained, it will be Fat City for oil barons: The average cost of bringing a barrel up (including sunk capital costs) is probably under $20. The worldwide marginal cost is well under $10. The EIA said it was $3.57 a barrel in 2003.
If you believe that this price regime can hold, then buy oil stocks. Sell your house, sell your jewels, sell your booty, go deep into hock. It will mark an era of profits the world has never seen, for oil kings. You can also play options on the NYMEX. You will get very, very rich, while everyone else grows very, very poor. You will have gorgeous maidens doing your bidding. All for just seeing what the investing public cannot see. You have your hands on the gold nearly now!
The sad part is, I doubt this price regime can hold. Demand is falling across the developed world, and even further declines are being mandated and institutionalized worldwide.
Fat City is nearly always just out of reach. But if you really, really believe....
But Monsanto and others are working on higher yielding strains, while the new ethanol plants (powered by animal dung) are achieving very positive energy returns (3 to 1 being conservative).
Absolutely untrue. Some thought that's what they would get, but as far as I know E3 Biofuels is the only one to actually attempt to run a commercial plant off of biogas. And I have been told that things did not work according to plan.
But feel free to prove me wrong by showing me some references. I don't mean stuff that's on the drawing board. I mean stuff that has been demonstrated to get the energy returns you claim.
It's coming. New technologies take time. I'll put in some e-mails. Based on reporting, people were estimating much higher energy returns. Bio0gas is not science fiction.
Meanwhile a Michigan State U. prof says we can get 2 billion barrels a year from ethanol, see http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9793 .
The professor said with methods dating back to WWII, we can get ethanol for $2 and change a gallon. Going forward, a lot less. Maybe he is optimistic, maybe he wants funding.
If this is true, in 20 years, between biofuels and PHEVs, Americans could dispense with fossil crude as source of power for cars, trucks. What an acheivement that would be. Right now, it seems doable. Crop yields keep rising, methods improve, the amount of acreage needed to win net energy gains is radically reduced. Corn farmers already worried about a glut. American farmers have never met a demand they could not glut. It will be fascinating to watch this time around. A minute percentage – I think 1 percent – of Americans work on farms now. What if the ethanol boom brings it to 2 percent? No sweat. Do we have enough land? Probably. Other inputs? Let's see.
I suspect we will see Peak Demand, at $60 a barrel, for fossil crude worldwide this year. US demand already down in 2006 from 2005, according to EIA. We have already peaked, if this price regime is maintained. Yet our economy keeps growing.
It is a remarkable era. We may be witnessing a transition to post-fossil society, and seamlessly, without major recessions. I hate to be the bearer of glad tidings in this forum, but it seems to be unfolding that way right now.
The only problem is that crude prices could collapse in the face of falling demand. Then we go back to our glutton ways. I suspect prices will tumble to $40 somewhere ahead.
87 in Illinois and Wisconsin, and as far as I can recall from my occasional travels, in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, though it's not something I've paid close attention to. I had no idea 85 existed.
hmpf. Here in Norway (and Europe I suppose), 95 octane is standard. 98 octane is also available at stations but apparently only accounts for 6% of total sales. Plans to introduce 92 octane has met with resistance at gasoline distributors and AFAIK is only sold today by Jet, a distributor owned by ConocoPhillips. They started to distribute 92 instead of 98 back in 2002.
92 octane accounts for some 30% of gasoline sales in continental Europe. This has lead car-importers in Norway to accuse the oil-industry of wanting to preserve market-share for the more premium blends. The oil-industry itself maintains that the engines of Norwegian cars can't handle lower than 95 octane.
source (in Norwegian)
Note that in Europe the octane number on the pump is RON and not AKI (=(RON+MON)/2).
Yes, it depends upon region but it really is a function of altitude. You don't need 87 octane in Sante Fe, NM or Denver, CO because the already less dense atmosphere does not require higher octane. The compression ratio is the same at altitude but the absolute pressure reached during the compression stroke of the 4-cycle spark-ignited engine does not require the high octane rating to avoid knock from predetonation in the cylinders.
In the Four Corners region of NM you can run straight-run gasoline at 79 octane and have no problems. But it seems that most of the gasoline I saw in Colorado and Wyoming last year was 83 octane. Just don't take your vehicle below 2000 feet above MSL with that 79 octane gas in your tank.
Eastern Nebraska is about 1200 feet above MSL. Western Nebraska is at 4000-5000 feet, But most of the region within normal driving range is well-suited to the lower octane gasoline.
Just what is "Octane" anyway? By the way, I remember, back when I was a kid in the '60s, with my parents in the car, when we went to the gas-station, signage on some of the pumps proclaimed "100+ Octane." Yet now I never see any references to Octane levels above the low 90s. What does Octane do, and what happened to the 100+ stuff?
Antoinetta III
Octane is a measure of the ability of gasoline to withstand compression without spontaneously igniting.
Back in the old days, preignition in gasoline-engines was a major problem. This phenomenon, known as knocking, affects performance, but has largely been eliminated in modern gasoline engines. Today, high octane is mostly desired by high-performance engines, such as gasoline turbo engines.
Supposedly, the availability to the RAF during WW2 of tetra-ethyl lead, was one of the factors that won the battle of Britain. Tetra-ethyl lead, the blending component which is added to make leaded gasoline, was able to give the british aircraft engines the extra performance they needed to outfly the Luftwaffe.
This is as far as my knowledge goes... Hope it helps.
Yes, the allies steadily increased the octane rating of their avgas during the war. At the end of the war they were using 115/145 (lean/rich) octane avgas. Or to be pedantic, when the number is >100, it's called "performance number" instead of octane, due to a different way to determine it (basically % power increase vs. 100 octane).
These high ratings were achieved mostly by ridiculous amounts of TEL.
Whatever solutions come about to in any way help us survive the peak oil/peak natural gas/peak coal disaster, the easiest one (from a technical, not political standpoint), is to stop population growth and start population decline. Americans using 14 billion more gallons of gas yearly than 2000 wouldn't have happened if we had the same amount or fewer Americans.
The inevitable snide reply to the overpopulation argument is to ask whether anyone is volunteering to lead the charge towards lower population by dying. Limiting population seems to go against our DNA, but it has been accepted in societies with limited resources, and I suspect it will the case again.
Isnt kind of "1 child per mother" slogan good enough? Is it really impossible to have such an attitude in our society?
Couldnt the govenrment quickly start a campaign to sell such a hip message (with Britney spears maybe, in a daycare center on a poster)(or the Jolie girl: "if I have more - I adopt" on commercial in youtube).
Perhaps not - so then its hunger for the masses instead...
or rather: worse and worse conditions for the working poor the next 30 years... that could be ME. Ouups.
Isnt kind of "1 child per mother" slogan good enough? Is it really impossible to have such an attitude in our society?
Right now American society still thinks immigration of well over a million people a year is a good thing. Probably way too early to ask native Americans to cut their birth rate but I'd love to see someone try.
Ugh, doomers ;)
You don't need a "1 child per mother" campaign across the US or even the world. Birth rates are already dangerously low as it is, the last thing we want is governments encouraging the situation. Italy has the right idea - pay mothers to have babies. Go babies!
The number of places in the world where population trends are still pointing upwards is small and getting smaller all the time. It's not just a 1st world problem anymore either. Places below replacement rate include countries like Albania, Brazil, Belarus and even China (yes! hard to believe I know).
There are some interesting exceptions. America is one of them. Breaking it down by state gives the reason - the coastal/urban areas have the same trends as Europe and many other countries (not having enough babies to replace the parents). The southern/middle states are having more.
Other exceptions are most of Africa (for obvious reasons), Saudi Arabia and the Gaza Strip.
A couple of things should be clear.
Firstly, population is not liquid. Just because populations are going up in some places doesn't mean it's OK that they go down in others. Immigration only delays the inevitable - as immigrants integrate into their host society they adopt the same norms. Importing a steady supply of young adults from Africa doesn't work, they don't speak the language and aren't trained in the skills we need.
Secondly, the demographic trends we're talking about here are huge. Somebody in this thread said they couldn't imagine what could reduce the worlds population to 3 billion. Who would have guessed that such a massive drop could in fact be entirely natural? Yes, that is what widespread cultural changes can do over time.
Thirdly, having a population that is too small is bad. Nobody really knows what the "right" level of population is, and the guesstimates the doomers on TOD throw around are simply pulled out of thin air. There's not even any real reason to believe fewer people would decrease consumption (as opposed to simply making the ones who are left richer). What we do know is that a large population decline can have serious detrimental effects on infrastructure. There aren't enough engineers to repair things when they go wrong. There aren't enough trained people to keep it all going - so you can forget about developing new things.
Don't underestimate the benefits of having a big population - only big populations can tackle big problems.
The overwhelming majority of the big problems we face are caused in the first place, or severely exacerbated, by having a big population.
Resource depletion - too many people
Disease - too many people
Famine - too many people
Drought - too many people
War - too many people
Poverty - too many people
AGW - too many people
"Mortality", in and of itself, is about the only big problem we face that isn't caused by overpopulation.
Resource depletion - exploitation by a small fraction of the world, mostly western civiziation at the moment
Disease - always been a problem, even back when there were only 1 bill people
Famine - in-effecient food distribution, food produced/person hasn't significantly decreased in a long time. Most bad famines could be greatly reduced with better managment of existing resources
Drought - too many people (although in most droughts its bad resource management - having less people would of only prolonged the enevitable)
War - greed/bad managment/defending 'honour' - war doesn't kill that many people, although it does tend to damage economies, causing the next problem
Poverty - unequal distribution of resources/political mismanagment in some caes
AGW - misuse of (carbon-based) resources w/o understanding the long term concequences
while i agree that having lots of people can make those problems worse, most of the above problems are directly caused by human greed (or political mis-managment, which ususally amounts to the same thing)
Mike, one of the generally accepted reasons for the advent of the renaissance: the plagues reduced the European population suffiently that there was a sudden surplus of resources for the survivors.
Birth rates are already dangerously low as it is, the last thing we want is governments encouraging the situation. Italy has the right idea - pay mothers to have babies. Go babies!
Here we go with another ill-informed neo-Julian/cornucopian "birth dearth" myth promoter. This at a time when we've passed yet another population milestone (6.5 billion and rising), and there are few ecosystems on earth that have not been degraded by the ever-expanding human footprint.
Despite there being a few high-population density countries, like Italy, facing a declining birthrate (which should be cause for celebration, not panic), the vast majority of the world --especially the poorest, least stable regions-- is still full steam ahead, adding 75 million a year. Far from facing a "Children of Men" dystopian scenario, we are probably a lot closer to a "Soylent Green", or perhaps Star Trek's mythical planet "Gideon".
If we are ever lucky enough to have world leadership enlightened and courageous enough to tackle population growth, this would be a cause for celebration not worry, as the neo-Julians would have us believe. Imagine a world of "only" 1 or 2 billion (already larger than the human population for all but the last 200 years of our existence).
Imagine every human being being able to enjoy an American or European standard of living, with first-world food, clothing, shelter, education and health care, while simultaneously reducing our ecological footprint. Now contrast this with a population roughly double the current size, which will happen within 50 years, assuming our current growth rate just holds steady. Imagine 13 billion people --most born in the third-world-- in a post-peak oil world of vastly degraded ecosystems and fierce competition for dwindling resources.
Which future would you prefer?
I think it is more like population growth rates are near zero for most of the developed world except for the US (due to immigration). In developed countries, people have social welfare programs that take care of the old, women have careers and children are more of a financial burden on their parents than a source of labor and income for them.
So, development seems to be the best way to stem the world growing population and eventually reverse it. Better than a big die-off that would wreck the world.
The earth is about 4 billion beyond it's carrying capacity . This strictly a result of oil. It's a mathematical impossibility that these peopole can be fed. DO a little research and look at what percentage of imported food places like ALgeria and Morocco rely on. These places will be seeing massive famines before 2020. What would it be like to watch your child starve to death? This is going to happen millions and millions of times over. The end result of overpopulation is cruelty and suffering on a massive scale.YOu will easily live to see this. Soon.
I think you are ignoring many of the options we and others have available in regards to food production. You could easily build several wind farms on or near farm rich land whose sole purpose is to produce fertilizer.
You use the wind farms to produce electricity to electrolyze water into O2 and H2 and use the H2 and the abundant N2 found in the atmosphere to make Natural Gas, which in turn is made into fertilizer. Note that the vast majority of fertilizers are created using NG, not oil.
A fairly elegant approach to solving one of the 'problems' of feeding the world, at least on the LOCAL scale.
Do you have a successful example of your scenario that you can point to?
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/fertilizer.html
They talk about it about 2/3rds of the way down the page. Specifically:
Some have suggested the wind farms be used to produce hydrogen, but liquefying hydrogen for transport is very inefficient, and piping hydrogen long distances is very expensive. About two-thirds of our current hydrogen production (from natural gas, which is a very limited resource in North America) is used to make ammonia and nitrates for fertilizers. It makes more sense to first use wind farms in the Dakotas to produce all the renewable fertilizer our nation needs (this would take about 250 GW of peak wind power), as fertilizers are much more easily stored and transported (by rail) than hydrogen. (Of course, these renewable fertilizers would be somewhat more expensive than current fertilizers, but perhaps that would limit their use enough to save the world's coral reefs.) Then, additional power can be transmitted to Chicago (and other cities along the way) via HVDC-SC transmission lines. As this technology develops, cities farther away could begin to be powered by the wind.
Note: this was the first relevant link that I found doing a simple Google search for 'wind farms to produce fertilizer'. It took me all of 15 seconds to do so, and there are dozens of other articles on the subject!
Now imagine such a setup coupled with Alans rail system and and the proposed HVDC lines criss crossing the nation and you have the makings of a sustainable energy and agricultural system!
Forgive my skepticism, but there seems to be a lot of cheerleading with only one hard number, 250GW. That's 250,000 MW, or 250 million KW.
With another 15 sec Google search http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2744/is_1999_Sept/ai_56249948, I found that the total electrical energy production for the entire country in 1998 ( a little dated, granted) was 3.6 trillion KWH.
3.6e12 / 8760 hours per year yields an average of 410 million KW continuous production.
Not sure what you mean by peak, KW is a measure of power not energy, but it looks like by your own number we'd have to generate an additional 60% of the nation's total energy production (250 / 410) in new wind energy, in North Dakota, just for fertilizer.
I'm all for any new, innovative ways to solve this energy thing, but unless I've shifted a decimal point badly, this doesn't seem to add up.
And the reality is likely much worse than this, since peak generally does not mean continuous. The average continuous power output of a 250GW system would be substantially less.
Cracking hydrogen from bio-methane is much more feasible than electrolysis with renewable power. Locally we have large quantities of nitrogen fertilizer production all from hydrogen cracked from NG. They are seriously considering running a pipeline from the coal mines to the large NH3/urea plant to replace NG with coal gas for hydrogen cracking, but no one is considering nuclear or renewable electrolysis for hydrogen.
SHEC labs has a solar assisted hydrogen from landfill methane pilot plant being built near where I live.
The hydrogen output from cracking from bio-gas is several times higher than would be possible even with 100% efficient electrolysis.
Interesting...I'd be curious to find out how that ends up working out. I'm rooting for it. When is construction to be complete?
You do realize the articles context is just about producing enough energy for the renewable fertilizer scheme to work. The rest could be used as power for cities in the region. I don't believe that article specifically states that 250GW would power the entire US infrastructure...
But you are saying that the energy required to do that is 60% of our nation's current (ok, 1998) total capacity to generate electricity. It's a huge number, and the article throws it out there like we can pop a couple of wind turbines up in the plains of North Dakota and all of our problems are solved. Any idea how many wind turbines 250GW equates to?
Unless I am still misunderstanding the point.
Keep your nitrogen fertilizer. We don't need any.
Plant roots generally involve two functions: water uptake and feeding. The root hairs combine with fungi (sometimes bacteria) in the soil, trading starches for minerals and resistance to parasites. See fungi.com for specific examples of plant growth with and without fungal partnership. In the case of legumes, the partner breaths Nitrogen in from above the soil (assuming good soil structure, appropriate water conditions, etc). Sometimes, the partner can be bacteria, including as Nitrogen fixer.
See also soilfoodweb.com for more information.
When you use these fertilizers, the plant will take these salts up and result in a weak partnership with the soil life. The fertilizers also destabilize the soil pH. A weak and bloated plant signals the insect community to come for a feeding frenzy (particularly when you have a huge field of weak and bloated plants).
Then you have to deal with pesticides. With less insects going into the root structure, there will be less air feeding what should be an aerobic soil community. With the resulting anaerobic life, now you have blights.
Then you have to deal with fungicides and antibacterial sprays. Having such weak soil now begs for nature to help out with a few volunteers. The dandelions, plantain, and docks come to set down deep roots and mine iron and copper while the pH makes these minerals otherwise unavailable (part of why organic tomatos have so much more Fe).
Then you have to deal with herbicides. Other "weeds" come to help as nitrates build, like pigweed, milkweed, and dogbane. Eventually, you find yourself buying a camel and selling tours in a man made desert (desertofmaine.com).
When natural farming techniques have proven to have the same record productivity as "conventional" fertilizer based production, it sounds ridiculous to have a debate how to produce fertilizer. Talk about wasted energy. This is to say nothing of the heavy metal contamination happening in the Phosphorus part of this equation. Don't get me started on the Potassium.
You want population control, limit local populations to local resources. Prosecute for waste like sewer systems and septic tanks. Make contaminators the new enemy of humanity, not the web of life we mutually depend, yet casually discuss biocides to destroy.