 | Cyclone Gonu Thread 2-Muscat and Bandar Abbas now in the projected path of Gonu (updated at 8p EDT) | The Oil Drum | Localism and some thoughts on Social Change |  |
| Cyclone Gonu Thread 2-Muscat and Bandar Abbas now in the projected path of Gonu (updated at 8p EDT) | The Oil Drum | Localism and some thoughts on Social Change | |
I challenge the learned readers and posters of TOD to do something, a special favor if you will.
It's easy, it will not cost you a thing, and it will not take long. Given that many TOD readers enjoy research anyway, you should even find it fun.
Go to Google, and put these two words in the search bar: Mountaintop removal
Click on a few of the links, especially the ones that say they have photos.
That's it.
Humans have lost patience with nature, and do not wish to engage in the old fashioned "coal mining" described by Heading Out. There is a faster way.
In fact, given the demand for energy and the lack of capital and labor in the coal belt, it may be the only way to grow the coal industry.
You simply blast the region from which you intend to extract the coal to bits.
You convert the surface to splinters and cinders with massive amounts of explosives, and then go in and scrape up your coal. It makes the surface look like an area used for the testing of small nuclear devices.
This is happening NOW. It must be understandable why, for us aware Kentuckians, West Virginians, and others in the Appalachian Mountain region, we are a bit less hysterical about these "scenarios" depicting some future ecological catastrophe, and we don't blush and faint at Al Gore's astounding footage of a block of ice falling into the sea.
We have more pressing problems NOW, within a couple of hours drive of Al's old home town.
Check out the links. See what is happening to the most diverse wilderness area in North America NOW. Then come back and tell us how coal will be removed in the future. And solar and wind are all "toys" and "silver bb's" and nuclear is forbidden, while we do what we are doing to remove coal because we refuse to change. Preach to us about cause and effect.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom (and freedom ain't coal)
Getting the coal from a surface mining operation is safer, cheaper and gets more of the coal out that does underground mining (rough rule used to be 50% for underground 85% for surface). Most surface mining operations are disruptive while they are going on, since they are moving large quantities of soil and rock to reach the underlying coal. Mountain top removal is one of the more controversial of these, since it does not replace the rock, as it was. However there are relatively strict regulations for the restoration of the land after mining is over. Some of this land then provides places to build things such as hospitals and schools, and has more value than it had previously. However there are some strong opinions on both sides of this issue. One rarely sees pictures, for example, of how the land looks after it is restored, generally it is shown during mining, or from areas that were extracted before the current regulations were put in place.
Is that because there are not pictures, or because an environmentalist conspiracy exists to suppress the good things about modern coal mining?
Well I thought about putting up a golf course picture (Twisted Gun Golf Course, W.Va or Stonecrest in Kentucky), but instead thought that this is a bit less controversial, it is just a farm.
From the windshield of a car, many of these "reclaimed" strip mines look fairly lush. However, if you get out on the ground and walk them, they are quite barren -- usually just a sparse cover of Kentucky 31 Tall Fescue with a little trefoil or sericea mixed in. I'd bet that most of these that are less than 5 years old have no more than a 30% ground cover. Without significant organic amendments -- yard waste, sewage sludge, what have you -- these areas will take decades to develop a healthy and productive vegetative cover.
In my opinion, the "improving the economics of the region by making flat land" argument is crapola. There isn't significant enough economic activity (for a variety of reasons that aren't likely to change) in Appalachia to make use of much of this area. But if you tell someone that you've just created a great parking lot, I guess they'll be more likely to overlook the fact that the mine spoil supports only a sickly stand of fescue.
has anyone tried reclaiming and rebuilding the soil with permaculture techniques? Is it effectively lost forever?
Seems like with some care,quite a lot could be done -- and it would be cheap land for all the millions who will be displaced from the coast with rising sea levels.
A lot more could certainly be done. But it all costs money and no one spends any more than they have to.
I worked on some coal mine reclamation projects when I was employed by one of the Southeastern Land Grant schools and I think we were able to improve some things -- particularly in the areas of topsoil salvage, spoil mixing (some rock types for reasons of texture and chemistry just naturally weather to a more desirable soil parent material), and (top)soil amendments. But it would admittedly have been much more expensive to implement all of the things that we recommended. And some of our recommendations were not politically popular (sewage sludge amendments). So, in the end, what you end up with are a lot of half-measures.
Bottom line: It's just damned hard to create a healthy vegetative cover with only bulldozed rock and a hydro-seeder. Mother Nature will eventually finish the job for you but on her own time. Meantime, you're living with a destroyed ecosystem, you've grossly increased rainfall runoff (which, in the narrow stream valleys characteristic of the Appalachian Region is just what you don't want to do) and you've created a lot of just plain ugly places.
Sure...
But why should I care?
I'm being a bit smarmy here sure, but I really dont know why I should care about mountaintops being scarred in the middle of nowhere. Isn't this just an aesthetic issue?
Well, I guess that depends on what you value. In my mind, it is rarely a question of simple aesthetics. The Appalachian corrider is, for instance, an important flyway for migratory songbirds -- songbirds that help to control insects in wood-producing forests in Appalachia or in New England or South America. It also happens that the Appalachian Highlands sit atop the sub-continental divide between the Atlantic and the Gulf and so essentially form the headwaters region for much of the freshwater runoff in the Southeastern US. So, there are water quality issues, as well.
But your question does, I think, reflect our attitude, as a society, about things that are "out of sight, out of mind." The coal-bearing portion of the Appalchians has been made, in effect, a national sacrifice zone. But that was well underway before anyone thought about Peak Oil or Climate Change and I expect that process to continue.
But why should I care?
I'm being a bit smarmy here sure,
No, you've already emotionally invested in seeing Fission Power be the "way to go", so you don't care.
in the middle of nowhere.
Your 'middle of nowhere' is someone else's somewhere.
Isn't this just an aesthetic issue?
No. Educating you on heavy metal issues is pointless however, as you have shown a desire to remain ignorant.
It's clearly different out west here in Wyoming but as we produce so darn much of the stuff (480 million tons last year) it might be interesting to compare how the land is mined. Most of the Powder River Basin is gently rolling with the largest seam, from the Fort Union formation, dipping gently to the west toward the Bighorn Mountains. On the western edge of the basin it dips much more steeply to the east and very little is economically minable. Seams are to thick to mine underground. State regs require the mining companies to set the topsoil aside, seed it and keep it separated from subsoil and subsequent overburden layers. The topsoil is to be replaced at the end of reclamation and seeded to "similar" vegetative cover. It takes over a century to create one inch of topsoil so it's clearly a precious commodity. The overburden layers are replaced in the same stratigraphic order in which they were found. Digging 100 foot seams of coal does not produce 100 foot deep holes as the overburden expands greatly while sequestered and does not seem to compact nearly as much as pre-mining. Mined areas are made to blend in topographically with surrounding land. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but no open pits or highwalls left behind.
I have personally seen some decent reclamation done on pits opened in the early 80s. One big problem has been reestablishing native shrubs such as sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata). A lot of experimenting was taking place in the mid-80s with direct planting of sage seedlings. At least reclamation today doesn't simply consist of seeding crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)as was done along hundreds of miles of highways in Wyoming and some of the oldest mine pits in the region. It's a great vegetative cover but pure stands lack diversity of plant species and it has low value as wildlife forage. Plus, any monoculture is not desirable for long term ecosystem stability. I don't know if companies have gone that extra mile including shrubs as it was more expensive than just drilling seed with machines. Still, so much of that land is/was good pronghorn habitat it made sense to try. It has been a number of years since I worked directly with the federal coal program there but it's quite a different world out here in the dry west. Areas that are seeded are irrigated with water produced on site from pit de-watering. Acid mine leaching is not a problem in the Powder River Basin as there is so little sulfur in the coal and not nearly the precip to carry acids off site.
This is not meaning to imply mountain top mining back east is environmentally acceptable. The sulfur/acid leaching and poisoning of fresh water streams draining old mines is inexcusable. Many of my kin still live in those hollers and towns in the region. Don't want to see their homeland destroyed in the name of efficiency and economy.
jbunt
It will take "decades" to recover. Wow!!!! How long is that relative to the age of the earth? 50%? We cannot wait decades.
Thanks. Are there more? All I hear is stories about destroyed environments and displaced people and ruined rives. It's good to see that isn't always the case
Heading Out said,
Mountain top removal is one of the more controversial of these, since it does not replace the rock, as it was. However there are relatively strict regulations for the restoration of the land after mining is over. Some of this land then provides places to build things such as hospitals and schools, and has more value than it had previously.
Sadly, by reading the words of Heading Out and others, I have failed terribly in my effort to gain any concern about the blasting of the Appalachian region.
While concern is great about the ecological damage befalling the 18 to 30 sqaure miles of Alberta, an area with (and I do not want to make it a contest, it is simply true) far less ecological diversity than the Appalachian Region, we will get a place to build buildings, as Heading Out points out, and so there is considered no great loss in the American South....
Let's look at just a small sample of what is being lost, as the mining regions of Appalachia have become the biggest North American market for explosives:
http://zeeman.ehc.edu/envs/Hopp/resources.html
http://www.dlia.org/
http://www.dlia.org/atbi/species/index.shtml
We will for the moment use the Smoky Mountains as an example of Appalachia, although there are many "micro environments" in Appalachia containing even greater variety of species:
If we take the catagory of “flowering plants, we get:
Arales
Calamus, Arum, Duckweed
Commelinales
Spiderwort, Yellow-eyed Grass
Cyperales
Sedge, Grass
Juncales
Rush
Liliales
Century-plant, Yam, Iris, Lily, Catbrier
Najadales
Pondweed
Orchidales
Orchid
Typhales
Bur-reed, Cat-tail
Magnoliopsida
(Dicotyledons)
Apiales
Carrot, Ginseng, Birthwort
Asterales
Aster
Callitrichales
Water-starwort
Campanulales
Bellflower
Capparales
Mustard, Caper
Caryophyllales
Amaranth, Pink, Goosefoot, Carpet-weed, Four o'clock, Pokeweed, Purslane
Celastrales
Holly, Bittersweet
Cornales
Dogwood
Diapensiales
Diapensia
Dipsacales
Honeysuckle, Teasel, Valerian
Ebenales
Ebony, Sweetleaf
Ericales
Clethra, Heath, Indian Pipe, Shinleaf
Euphorbiales
Boxwood, Spurge
Fabales
Pea
Fagales
Birch, Beech
Gentianales
Dogbane, Milkweed, Gentian, Logania
Geraniales
Touch-me-not, Geranium, Wood-Sorrel
Haloragales
Water Milfoil
Hamamelidales
Witch-hazel, Plane-tree
Juglandales
Walnut
Lamiales
Borage, Mint, Verbena
Laurales
Strawberry-shrub, Laurel
Linales
Flax
Magnoliales
Custard-apple, Magnolia
Malvales
Mallow, Linden
Myrtales
Loosestrife, Melastome, Evening Primrose, Mezereum
Nepenthales
Sundew
Nymphaeales
Water-lily
Papaverales
Fumitory, Poppy
Plantaginales
Plantain
Podostemales
River-weed
Polygalales
Milkwort
Polygonales
Buckwheat
Primulales
Primrose
Ranunculales
Barberry, Moonseed, Buttercup
Rhamnales
Oleaster, Buckthorn, Grape
Rosales
Stonecrop, Currant, Rose, Saxifrage, Storax
Rubiales
Madder
Salicales
Willow
Santalales
Sandalwood, Christmas Mistletoe
Sapindales
MapleSumac, Horse-chestnut, Rue, Quassia, Bladdernut
Scrophulariales
Acanthus, Trumpet-creeper, Butterfly-bush, Olive, Broom-rape, Figwort
Solanales
Morning-glory, Dodder, Waterleaf, Phlox, Potato
Theales
Mangosteen, Tea
Urticales
Hemp, Mulberry, Elm, Nettle
Violales
Rock-rose, Cucumber, Passion-flower, Violet
Or how about some mosses?
Bartramiaceae
Bryaceae
Mniaceae
Buxbaumiales
Buxbaumiaceae
Dicranales
Bruchiaceae
Dicranaceae
Ditrichaceae
Leucobryaceae
Fissidentales
Fissidentaceae
Funariales
Ephemeraceae
Funariaceae
Grimmiales
Grimmiaceae
Ptychomitriaceae
Hookeriales
Hookeriaceae
Hypnales
Amblystegiaceae
Brachytheciaceae
Entodontaceae
Fabroniaceae
Hylocomiaceae
Hypnaceae
Leskeaceae
Myriniaceae
Plagiotheciaceae
Pterigynandraceae
Sematophyllaceae
Thamnobryaceae
Theliaceae
Thuidiaceae
Isobryales
Fontinalaceae
Leucodontales
Anomodontaceae
Climaciaceae
Cryphaeaceae
Hedwigiaceae
Leptodontaceae
Leucodontaceae
Neckeraceae
Orthotrichales
Orthotrichaceae
Polytrichales
Polytrichaceae
Pottiales
Pottiaceae
Seligerales
Seligeriaceae
Tetraphidales
Tetraphidaceae
Or Liverworts, Hepatophyta
Order
Family
Jungermanniales
Acrobolbaceae
Calypogeiaceae
Cephaloziaceae
Geocalycaceae
Gymnomitriaceae
Herbertaceae
Jubulaceae
Jungermanniaceae
Lejeuneaceae
Lepidoziaceae
Plagiochilaceae
Porellaceae
Pseudolepicoleaceae
Radulaceae
Scapaniaceae
Trichocoleaceae
Marchantiales
Aytoniaceae
Conocephalaceae
Marchantiaceae
Ricciaceae
Metzgeriales
Aneuraceae
Blasiaceae
Fossombroniaceae
Metzgeriaceae
Pallaviciniaceae
Pelliaceae
Of over 11,000 moth and butterfly varieties in North America, there are more than one thousand in the Great Smoky Mountains alone, much less the entire of Appalachia
Bombycoidea
Bombycidae
Silkworm moths
Saturniidae
Emperor moths
Sphingidae
Hawk moths
Choreutoidea
Choreutidae
Metalmark Moths
Cossoidea
Cossidae
Carpenterworm Moths
Drepanoidea
Drepanidae
Hooktip Moths
Thyrididae
Picture-Winged Leaf Moths
Gelechioidea
Amphisbatidae
Moths
Autostichidae
Moths
Coleophoridae
Casebearer Moths
Cosmopterigidae
Cosmet Moths
Deoclonidae
Moths
Elachistidae
Grass Miner Moths
Gelechiidae
Twirler Moths
Glyphidoceridae
Moths
Oecophoridae
Concealer Moths
Xyloryctidae
Moths
Geometroidea
Geometridae
Geometer Moths
Uraniidae
Swallowtail Moths
Gracillarioidea
Bucculatricidae
Moths
Gracillariidae
Leafminer Moths
Hepialoidea
Hepialidae
Ghost Moths
Hesperioidea
Hesperiidae
Skippers
Incurvarioidea
Adelidae
Longhorned Fairy Moths
Incurvariidae
Leafcutter Moths
Prodoxidae
Yucca Moths
Lasiocampoidea
Lasiocampidae
Lappet Moths
Mimallonoidea
Mimallonidae
Sackbearer Moths
Nepticuloidea
Opostegidae
White Eye-Cap Moths
Noctuoidea
Arctiidae
Footman and tiger Moths
Lymantriidae
Tussock Moths
Noctuidae
Owlet Moths
Nolidae
Nolid moths
Notodontidae
Prominent Moths
Papilionoidea
Lycaenidae
Gossamer-winged butterflies, and blues and coppers
Nymphalidae
Browns, fritillaries, admirals, and monarchs
Papilionidae
Swallowtail butterflies
Pieridae
Yellow-white butterflies and sulphurs
Pterophoroidea
Pterophoridae
Plume Moths
Pyraloidea
Crambidae
Snout moths
Pyralidae
Snout Moths
Schreckensteinioidea
Schreckensteiniidae
Bristle-Legged Moths
Sesioidea
Sesiidae
Clearwing Moths
Tineoidea
Acrolophidae
Tube Moths
Psychidae
Bagworm Moths
Tineidae
Fungus Moths
Tischerioidea
Tischeriidae
Trumpet Leafminer Moths
Tortricoidea
Tortricidae
Leafroller Moths
Yponomeutoidea
Acrolepiidae
False Diamondback Moths
Glyphipterigidae
Sedge Moths
Lyonetiidae
Lyonet Moths
Yponomeutidae
Ermine Moths
Zygaenoidea
Limacodidae
Slug Caterpillar Moths
Megalopygidae
Flannel Moths
Zygaenidae
The people who preach environmentalism and "localism" are now so far removed from their own nation that they are not capable of even seeing the real damage for the smokescreens.
My apology for interrupting the important discussions, thank you though for your time in reading and looking.
Roger Conner Jr.
Roger:
A thought: Why not let the people who actually live in the area -- the people that are effectively the "caretakers" of that local environment, and are the ones that actually have to live with the consequences -- why not let THEM be the ones that get to decide whether, and to what extent, such coal mining takes place? Who else would be in a better position to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs?
What we have right now are big, non-local corporations funded by big, non-local investors making decisions approved by big, non-local governments to exploit this resource, and then telling the local people that the jobs from the mining and the restoration work afterwards will be to "their benefit". I don't see much evidence that the local people are actually consulted about any of this.
WNC, if I can butt in here, the mineral rights, as you would expect, are often owned by large corporate enitities that are often located many miles away. That is part of the ongoing tragedy of Appalachia (though, the region is in no way unique in this regard; it just happens to have been the focus of a lot of attention, historically).
Coal (as in "King Coal") is the entire economy in much of the coal-producing Appalachians. This owes to the fact that the land is poorly suited for larger scale ag and is geographically remote (and difficult to traverse). Hence, it is relatively sparsely settled. Coal mining, when things are booming, can provide a decent wage, but as you would expect, when the entire economy is dependent upon a single industry, when things go bad, everyone suffers.
When you talk to the local population, you find that they have a love-hate relationship with coal. They like the money but hate what mining does to their health and their environment. There is also a tendency among long-timers to be a bit fatalistic, having been through many economic downturns, seen the health of their loved ones (particularly earlier generations) deteriorate and having had to live with decisions that are made by rich, powerful men in far-away places, for so many years.
I hear what you are saying, but this isn't the way that the extractive industries work.
Part of the problem is an interpretation of the law of mineral rights that allows more than minimal disturbance of the land surface in order to extract minerals under the surface. I would define a "minimal" amount of disturbance to be that caused by typical oil drilling or deep shaft mining operations. Those have enough of an impact on the land as it is.
I am not saying that open pit mining should be totally prohibited, just that subjecting it to a higher level of regulation is not an unjustified violation of property rights.
Roger,
No need to for me to Google mountaintop removal, since I have seen it with my own eyes.
I used to have a mountain chalet in WV. While traveling on some back winding road, I came across a huge clearing I could see in the distance. I'd say about 700 acres.
The landscape looked artificially flat amongst the mountains and obviously devoid of any trees.
Operating in this "flat spots with steps" was maybe a dozen pieces of very heavy diesel powered equipment spewing clouds of black smoke easily visible from a distance. Aside from the obvious environmental destruction, it certainly put many things into perspective, and raises so many questions that it starts to boggle the mind.
It takes energy to get energy.
How much energy did it take to make the awesome earth digging and moving equipment? How much energy does it take to make a ton of high quality steel? How did they move this huge equipment from a Caterpillar factory to the middle of nowhere? What kind of maintenance does this equipment need, how long does it last, and how much does it cost?
How much diesel is this operation burning in a day? There were no visible train tracks (or cars), so how far were they trucking it? How do those asphalt roads hold up to such tonnage, day in and day out? (The tandem dump trucks were lined up)
If CTL is implemented to make diesel, how much would they have to dig to power themselves, and how much would be leftover for electric power generation? Hey much energy does the CTL process use to make a gallon of liquid fuel? What is the value of this coal if it is used to make liquid fuels as well as electricity? (Law of Receding Horizons, HeIsSoFly?) What is the scalability of CTL?
How many acres of Palm Oil trees will be needed to power this single operation every day using biodiesel? How much used frying oil?
I guess it comes down to ERoEI. How does all of this compare (BTU wise) to a single well bore on the Arabian peninsula that has been flowing for years?
Conclusion:
One barrel of oil contains an awesome amount of energy and replacing any portion of it with coal will not be easy or cheap, and certainly will not be easy on the environment.
Sandor:
You're right on the money about the energy economics of coal. When oil replaced coal in the early 20th century in the US, it did so because of cost. Spindletop in Jefferson County, Texas is considered the beginning of the modern oil age in Texas. The well blew in at 100,000 barrels per day, and the well was so prolific that the operator put up an earthen dam to contain the oil.
Petroleum can be piped, petroleum can be pumped. So its a lot less expensive to use than coal which must be shoveled. Oil has very little waste compared to coal, which produces a lot of ash and smoke. And in modern operations the ash must be disposed of and the smoke cleaned up.
The labor differential cost is why the world rapidly converted to oil from coal. And in a post peak world labor is going to get a lot cheaper if we want to maintain an energy intensive lifestyle for many people. And there's not going to be enough money around to support many of the rich. And, I think that's what peak oil is all about.
The cornucopians are right that we will never run out of oil. There's lots of places where you can complete a well and make a couple of barrels a day of oil seeping into the well bore from depleted sands and limes. Oil production started in Texas at Nacodotches in a lignite area producing out of 50-100 ft wells. In Milam County there is a field, Minerva-Rockdale, which used to be produced by rednecks with vacuum trucks sucking out a barrel or two a day of seepage, and in Fayette County at Cistern and Muldoon an operator used to produce using windmills. My father told me that in Humble a guy used to just lower a bucket in old wells and pull the oil up by hand. And those kinds of places are all over the world. The Sumerians used to produce seeps for tar to use on mud brick, the Chinese out of wells with bamboo casing, the indians of Mexico out of seeps for canoe caulking.
My thoughts exactly. I have been toying with the idea that somehow, someone seeing grass being turned into bio-diesel to be used in a tractor must consider at one point to simply use a horse and feed that off the biodiesel field.
Suppose peakoil will initially will turn out to be a major economic problem, we might see an enormous increase in unemployment. That same farmer could consider hiring, for very small pay, people to remove weeds, or other heavy farmwork that nowadays is being done the mechanised way.
P:
A man with a horse can plow about 10 acres a day, a guy with a shovel can spade up about 1/8-1/4th of an acre a day. Either way, the draft animal/person has to be fed 12 months a year, and a horse or mule eats about 15 lbs. of oats a day. Its not pretty, just brutal, hard peasant work-subsistance agriculture. Not many people are going to be able to afford boutique organic food prices at the local farmer's market when its brought in on a wagon.
That's why Alan's electric rail plan is so important-we need efficient transportation, and to save our petroleum for useful purposes if we expect a modern lifestyle. In the US around 100 years ago we had 25% of the population as farmers, and many of them were "dirt poor". Now we have about 1/2 of 1 percent producing food for the rest of us, most rural people work off the farm and are long distance commuters in the US.
A team of horses on good well plowed land might just manage
10 acres a day. One horse on unbroken land will be lucky
to plow 2 acres a day.How many gallons of bi-diesel can be
made from an acre of rapeseed?
How many gallons dose tractor use to harvest and plant an
acre?
Can an acre of crops produce enough fule for a tractor to
do the work of a horse for a year?
The future isn't production of rapeseed, or anything else, to run tractors.
A lot has been learned about agriculture that produces more food with less labor and less chemical input-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture for starters.
Trouble is, such approaches aren't really designed to develop the surpluses necessary to build an advanced industrial culture, and I doubt they can be.
In the future, human beings may be reduced to living with each other in groups, talking and telling stories and making music for amusement-- how we will miss the atomic bombs and fighter planes and tanks! And you will actually have to look at those you call your enemy before you kill them.
Napper:
Bi-diesel- where can I find it, on an internet porn site?
Bad jokes aside, I'm not a subsistance farmer, my gardening experience is limited to a kitchen garden. I've never owned a horse or mule, but I expect the price of biodiesel to vary with the distance the oil crop has to be hauled and the distance from the press/refinery, plus the size of the farm equipment. All kinds of variables.
A round trip from farm to factory and back hurts the equation considerably, but is not really necessary. People have been pressing oil from oilseeds for millennia, there are small scale appropriate technologies to do it right on the farm. The original diesel engine ran on peanut oil, it was designed specifically to be used and fueled right on the farm. The veg oils will not work below 0C (neither will factory-produced transesterfied B100), but how much agricultural activity takes place at those temps?
Sunflowers are easy to grow, I have grown them myself. They can be grown on a small scale of a few acres, which is all most farms would need. I don't have any experience with rapeseed; it yields higher, but I can't assess how easy it would be to grow and process on the farm.
I'm more concerned about the energy required to process the food and transport it. The BoWash corridor is home to some 70 million people, over 20% of the US population. None of those states are, IIRC, anywhere close to self-sufficient in food, nor likely to become so. The food to feed those people is going to have to be transported hundreds of miles. How many gallons of bio-diesel to move a ton of food from Indiana to Manhattan?
How many gallons of bio-diesel to move a ton of food from Indiana to Manhattan ?
A drop or so of lubricant once you get the food to a railhead (electrified).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Actually, I'm not sure about the relative merits & costs of electrified freight train, midwest to NE corridor vs. barge down the Ohio & Mississipi, around Fla. and up the coast. Water has traditionally been a pretty inexpensive way to move heavy bulk goods. Your rail is probably the way to go for perishable produce (though much of that could be produced locally at truck farms, greenhouses, & community gardens), but water might possibly work out to be the better strategy for moving the grain.
WRT grain, see my post below in reply to Alan per water transport of bulk quantities of grain. The big question is not how you are going to get the grain supplies, but what you are going to produce to send on the return trip in payment?
The BoWash corridor used to get most of its produce from local truck farms. These have diminished (but not entirely gone away) due to competition from produce that could be grown and transported cheaply from California, Florida, Mexico, etc. When transport costs go up high enough, truck farming will again become profitable in the area. Community gardens can also be established on vacant lots; some of this is already happening, it just needs to be scaled up. For the less dense neighborhoods where houses actually have yards, people can grow their own gardens; when food prices get high enough they will do this. There is a lot of acreage in lawn grass that could go to produce a lot of potatoes and beans -- that's what Switzerland did to feed its population during WWII.
Many of the dairy products consumed in the corridor actually do not come from all that far away - there is an arc of dairy farms from New England through upstate NY, PA, MD and VA that supply most of the milk for the region. You do get some cheese and other processed dairy products from Wisconsin and other midwest states, and higher transport costs will drive the price of those up quite a bit.
Meat? Well, I suggest that you start shopping for cookbooks with lots of recipies for beans (and maybe lay in a lifetime hoard of Beano). Meat of all types is going to become pretty expensive, especially in that part of the country. Poultry products should be reasonably available at high but not impossible prices; chickens and turkeys can be produced in quantity just outside the cities (and even in city backyards if the zoning boards are hogtied and thrown in the dungeon). The ocean fisheries are dying, but there should still be some trash fish available. Pork will be an expensive but available luxury, eaten just occasionally; salt cured country ham transports slowly & without refrigeration, so people might need to relearn to use it. Beef will become the new caviar.
In general its a win situation for small tractors. But I'd like to add that tractors are a good target for SOFC solid oxide fuel cells coupled with electric motors and of course such a tractor could also run off of batteries or external supplies with a bit more work super capacitors might even be viable for a tractor. The SOFC itself could be on the tractor or brought nearby esp if you have viable super capacitors.
So if you consider fuel cell power for tractors and even better the use of some of the waste organic material straw etc for the power instead of the edible part you have a clear winner.
And of course the ash can be recycled back into the field.
People do post routinely about how farmers in third world countries don't find it economic to use tractors. But I think the argument if flawed.
1.) Most third world farmers own small plots of land often scattered because of inheritance.
2.) They generally don't have capitol and also the local currency is kept artificially low vs the dollar for exports
so they don't have buying power for imports. And they are fairly competitive so co-ops tend to be rare and are probably not that useful for such small plots.
3.) They have an abundance of cheap labor.
4.) They have their own pork barrel politics surrounding food production that tends to distort pricing from the free market.
5.) A lot of the poor countries are tropical or semi-tropical and irrigated rice is the major grain crop.
The economics of rice farming and mechanization are different from other grains. And I'd say in general hand labor is more competitive.
6.) In many cases the draft animals are used for a variety of purposes not just plowing the field so assigning all the energy used by a horse or water buffalo to just plowing is not correct.
None of these conditions apply to western farmers so its a completely different situation so it makes no sense to compare third world farming directly to how western farms might operate as peak oil continues. I see no reason for farms not to continue to be mechanized to a high degree albeit with more efficient equipment. The most important factor in choosing mechanization over hand labor is in my opinion the size of the farm once its over about 100 acres mechanization probably wins. So I don't see people moving back to the farm in the US simply because it won't be worthwhile for the farmer to feed them for their labor much less pay them.
If you don't find that statement disturbing you should. Since post peak with our overshoot condition in I suspect many people will find that their labor is not worth the food to feed them.
Wikipedia
127 U.S. Gallons per acre for rapeseed oil
Colorado state university 1.68 gallons per acre to plough a field
you could run a 150 acre farm with 2 good horses and use
no more than 3acres to feed them.
A tractor will need 2 acres just to plough the land, then
it needs to be sowed, and harvested. anthor 2acres.
So it is more land efficient to use horses, and of course
they can have a foal to replace them. I have never come
across a tractor that will not break down.
Napper-
I don't understand; It takes 1.68 gallons to plow a field. And we can get 400 gallons of corn ethanol (a figure that will rise with crop yields, which have risen 40 percent in the last 20 years, and are still climbing). In tropical climes, we might get 1000 gallons of jatropha oil.
According to USDA, inputs are declining for farming, as productivity rises each year.
Do farmers really use that much fertilizer, that it amounts to hundreds of gallons an acre? (Of course, fertilizer comes from natural gas, although I was surprised watching an old war show, that during WWI fertilizer was made at hydropower plants.)
Seems like biofuels will be coming on strong.
Coal is filthy dirty to burn, and destructive to mine. But, as a 30-year stopgap, maybe we have to use it. I cringe at the thought of wiping out mountaintops.
Surely PHEVs and biofuels can help us use as little of the coal as possible
Have you paid vet bills etc etc.
Horses need care. Also as I said in my first post.
Gasification of the waste straw will work for tractors
you don't need to use any farmland.
Nothing against horses I still don't see them as a sure fire win post peak in the technically advanced countries. If they were as cost effective as you say I'd think they would have significantly more use now since your claiming they are effectively free. I'm sure a lot of farmers would be willing to fore go the costs of tractors fuel etc etc and go with horses now.
So what you need to do is a total cost analysis not just the
fuel costs. Also 3 acres is a bit tight for 2 horses.
http://www.newrider.com/Library/Misc_Tips/land_horse.html
I'd go 4-5 in general since you also need land for oats.
And finally technically you don't have to calculate land use. Assume 10 dollars a gallon for diesel as a maximum price you can buy it for less now in bulk.
150*10*1.68 = 2,520 dollars.
Vet bills.
http://www.horsechitchat.com/equineforums/showthread.php?t=347
180 dollars to 2,200 dollars per horse.
Assuming a good horse is 4 grand you would max at somewhat less than that say 3 grand.
And ten a gallon is a maximum so say its 5 dollars a gallon
in farm country and your at 1260 for the fuel for the tractor. And you have 360 for vet bills alone assuming no problems. I don't think horses are cheaper overall than a tractor. If you think back to when tractors first came around if they really where so much more expensive you would have had to think that we would still have competitive farms using horses now. I can't see the difference in price for fuel vs horses as enough to change the equation a what I consider the highest price possible which is the cost of new food grade sunflower oil in a individual container.
So I don't buy into the concept of farming going back to horses on any large scale its not going to happen.
And neither will we have a lot of people move back into agriculture.
What will happen is we will continue farming similar to how we do it now but probably with more organic inputs if fertilizer costs increase too much.
As I said before the overall situation indicates that 25-50% of the population of the US is not needed and not even worth the price of food to feed them. Next considering the skill set I doubt they can make it as dirt poor subsistence farmers. This underlying extreme poverty will drop wages to almost nothing and cause effective slavery as in China.
Sorry I was not clear . I am only thinking in land use.
You can feed two good horses on less land than you would
need to use to grow biodiesel for a tractor.
I am sure that given the choice I would use the extra land
needed to keep my tractor going.
I grew up in and around small 100-200 acre mixed family
farms in southen England,early sixties we all used small
tractors,most still had horses for fun, and did not need
that much land to keep. They were not draft horses which
are bigger and will need more grain if worked hard, ie
ploughing.
I can remember talking to some of the old family retainers
who used to work on the farms before the 2nd world war and after and the number of people need to run a small farm
only useing horses and manpower is 6 or more during harvest
Today it will be only 1
The other main advantage of tractors is speed. If the
weather changes you can get a lot of crops in or planted
useing one compared to useing a pair of horese, so in the
long term you will get better yields.
I was surprised at the amount of land one would need to
plant to run a tractor for a year probably nere 10% for
a mixed farm. still much more economical than horses.