During a recent discussion about the formation of an Ag-Bio Cluster Leadership Council, a question was raised about the kinds of projects to be considered for inclusion in the portfolio: Are they food-related only?  Can they include advanced energy, especially if related to agriculture?  What about those that expand local, distributed manufacturing?  Is more weight to be given to those projects that encourage land use for multiple purposes?

The recent article on the Ohio Means Business blogsite, "State, Education, and Industry Leaders Discuss Ohio's Competitive Advantages in Advanced Energy" suggests there is a substantial play in Ohio's economic recovery game plan for renewable energy-related projects.  This sentiment was underscored in an article from the Toledo Blade and reprinted in the Columbus Dispatch entitled, "Solar-energy Rigs Touted as Way to Help Laid-Off Workers in Ohio".  The title says it all.

Land use trade-off between food or fuel, especially with agricultural products, is the potential outcome when renewable energy is to the mix.  With a shrinking number of acres of arable land available, which is the better use?  A recent Science Digest article "Bioelectricity Promises More 'Miles Per Acre' Than Ethanol" purports that bioelectricity is a better use of agricultural output than biofuel.  But does that really address the opportunity?

To help sort out the possibilities, a comparison in energy / acre given different alternatives is a useful exercise.  The table below is from the article, "Solar Produces 1000x More Energy Per Acre than Soy BioDiesel" offers one such comparison. 

Wind, algae, and solar--the three frontrunners--show the most promise with solar power winning top honors by far.  But the wind energy is inadequate in many locations and algae biodiesel is still in development.  The cost of solar power is a perennial stumbling block.  How Stuff Works responds to the question, How do plants compare to solar cells when it comes to collecting solar energy? and illustrates the dramatic differences in output versus cost.

Nonetheless, this condition is changing.  Like any technology development, costs drop and performance increases as the adoption curve extends into the future.  Solar power is definitely following this pattern.

California is a bellwether state when it comes to widespread installation of solar panels.  The July 16, 2009 NY Times article "With Push toward Renewable Energy, California Sets Pace for Solar Power" reports that use of solar panels in the Golden State have increased 100-fold in the past ten years with over 50,000 installations statewide.  Much of this upswing is driven by a state-legislated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which stipulates renewable resources generate 20% of the electricity consumed in California by 2010 and 33% by 2020.  Solar power features prominently in the overall solution due to its bullish prospectus based on decreasing cost and improving efficiency of the technology, and with it increasing demand for the results. 

Despite the average 1.5 hour difference in sun-hours per day between California and Ohio, the level is worth exploring.  The January 07, 2009 article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer entitled "Ohio Grant Program Encourages Solar Power" outlines some of those possibilities, especially in Northeast Ohio.  Of note in the article is the combination of solar power as a contribution to the RPS mandate for Ohio and as a source of business growth and job creation in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance.  Incentives for commercial and residential installations of renewable energy systems in Ohio are outlined by Dovetail Solar and Wind, a company which is a good example of a growing business in renewable energy applications in Northeast Ohio. 

The evidence clearly supports that there is ample room on the Ag-Bio Cluster Leadership Council portfolio for renewable energy business cases, especially those resources--like solar--that promote sustainable practices and multiple uses of land for BOTH food production and energy generation.