UN urges biofuel investment halt

[[R_H]]

BBC

The UN's new top adviser on food has urged a freeze on biofuel investment, saying the blind pursuit of the policy is "irresponsible".

Olivier de Schutter also wants curbs on investors whose speculation is, he says, driving food prices higher.

UN officials liken the rise in food prices to a silent tsunami, threatening 100 million of the world's poorest.

The use of food crops for alternative sources of energy like ethanol is one factor behind the price hike.

Mr de Schutter did not go quite as far as his predecessor in the job, Jean Ziegler, the BBC's Laura Trevelyan reports from New York.

Mr Ziegler had condemned biofuels as a "crime against humanity" and called for an immediate ban on their use.

'Predictable' crisis

But the new special rapporteur on the right to food did insist the American and European goals for biofuel production were unrealistic.

"The ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the United States and the European Union are irresponsible," he said in an interview for France's Le Monde newspaper.

"I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector."

The biofuel rush was, he argued, a "scandal that only serves the interests of a tiny lobby".

Calling for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council to discuss the food crisis, Mr de Schutter also said he wanted to find ways to limit the impact of speculative investments in food commodities like wheat, which had further driven up prices.

And the rapporteur, a Belgian professor of international law, said it was "unforgivable" that the international community had failed to anticipate the riots sparked last month by soaring food prices.

"Nothing was done to prevent speculation in raw materials, though it was predictable investors would turn to these markets following the stock market slowdown," the UN official said.

"We are paying for 20 years of mistakes."

[Sidewinder]

De Schutter obviously didn't do his homework. There are ways to manufacture biofuels WITHOUT using food crops.

One of the greatest technical challenges is to develop ways to convert biomass energy specifically to liquid fuels for transportation. To achieve this, the two most common strategies are:

1. To grow sugar crops (sugar cane, and sugar beet), or starch (corn/maize), and then use yeast fermentation to produce ethanol (ethyl alcohol).

2. To grow plants that (naturally) produce oils, such as oil palm, soybean, algae, or jatropha. When these oils are heated, their viscosity is reduced, and they can be burned directly in a diesel engine, or the oils can be chemically processed to produce fuels such as biodiesel.

Wood and its byproducts can be converted into biofuels such as woodgas, methanol or ethanol fuel. Some researchers are working to improve these processes.

And if manufacture of biofuels is stopped, as Mr. de Schutter demands, WHAT, pray tell, can be used in place of fossil fuels and the powerplants that use them? The Holy Spirit? Qi? If you say, "electricity," you'll have to explain how you'll produce the needed amounts IN ADDITION TO everything else that uses it (lights, microwaves, radios, TVs, the computer I'm typing this on), how you'll develop a battery that is light enough to be installed in a motor vehicle while giving it a reasonable range, and how to dispose of the batteries WITHOUT fucking up the environment with lithium, lead acid, and all the other nasty chemicals and heavy metals that make up a battery.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

De Schutter obviously didn't do his homework. There are ways to manufacture biofuels WITHOUT using food crops.

The point is, that food crops are being used in large quantities to make biofuels and he is taking aim at that.

And if manufacture of biofuels is stopped, as Mr. de Schutter demands, WHAT, pray tell, can be used in place of fossil fuels and the powerplants that use them? The Holy Spirit?

Then go back to damn oil or coal.

Qi? If you say, "electricity," you'll have to explain how you'll produce the needed amounts IN ADDITION TO everything else that uses it (lights, microwaves, radios, TVs, the computer I'm typing this on), how you'll develop a battery that is light enough to be installed in a motor vehicle while giving it a reasonable range, and how to dispose of the batteries WITHOUT fucking up the environment with lithium, lead acid, and all the other nasty chemicals and heavy metals that make up a battery.

What on earth are you belly aching about? He is criticising the use of crops for the use of biofuels and you are grumbling that he is calling for a halt on research on alternative energy sources? What?

[Ender]

De Schutter obviously didn't do his homework. There are ways to manufacture biofuels WITHOUT using food crops.

So instead of using food crops, you propose that we gorw other crops instead of food. HINT: this doesn't solve the problem.

And if manufacture of biofuels is stopped, as Mr. de Schutter demands, WHAT, pray tell, can be used in place of fossil fuels and the powerplants that use them? The Holy Spirit? Qi?

Nuclear and solar power for the power plants, reduced dependency on cars

If you say, "electricity," you'll have to explain how you'll produce the needed amounts IN ADDITION TO everything else that uses it (lights, microwaves, radios, TVs, the computer I'm typing this on), how you'll develop a battery that is light enough to be installed in a motor vehicle while giving it a reasonable range,

Already exists. It can't match conventional cars, but it is more then adequate for most needs.

Moving away from automobiles has been covered extensively by others here in other threads. Reduce the drain of private cars in favor of other means, and most of this issue disappears. Dutchess and others have cvered plans to convert to trains and other forms of public transportation in great detail.

In that time it took for me to type this up, 16 people starved to death. You, meanwhile, are more concerned about your car. There will be deaths as we shift over, this is unavoidable. But the amount can be minimized.

[Sidewinder]

What on earth are you belly aching about? He is criticising the use of crops for the use of biofuels and you are grumbling that he is calling for a halt on research on alternative energy sources?

Read the article again, specifically, these lines:

Mr de Schutter did not go quite as far as his predecessor in the job, Jean Ziegler, the BBC's Laura Trevelyan reports from New York.

Mr Ziegler had condemned biofuels as a "crime against humanity" and called for an immediate ban on their use.

'Predictable' crisis

But the new special rapporteur on the right to food did insist the American and European goals for biofuel production were unrealistic.

"The ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the United States and the European Union are irresponsible," he said in an interview for France's Le Monde newspaper.

"I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector."

Let me repeat that.

"I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector."

As noted in the fucking Wikipedia article I linked to, there are ways to produce biofuel WITHOUT using food crops, e.g., algae. Mr. de Schutter's demand to freeze all investment in biofuels is what I'm having problems with.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

As noted in the fucking Wikipedia article I linked to, there are ways to produce biofuel WITHOUT using food crops, e.g., algae. Mr. de Schutter's demand to freeze all investment in biofuels is what I'm having problems with.

You are still avoiding the issue of high food prices aren't you? Has the production of biofuels yielded much that justify the deaths of thousands? Do you seriously think he meant to freeze the research?

[Ariphaos]

So instead of using food crops, you propose that we gorw other crops instead of food.

No, he is not.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Scale, people. Bio-fuels are simply not going to match what crude gives us now and only prolong the problem of allowing people to carry on with BAU. If we want to make things harder in the future when we reach a new limit after moving to bio-fuels, then be my guest. The problem is growth, which isn't going to be solved by any new fuel, however sustainable it would be presently and environmentally friendly.

[Sidewinder]

As noted in the fucking Wikipedia article I linked to, there are ways to produce biofuel WITHOUT using food crops, e.g., algae. Mr. de Schutter's demand to freeze all investment in biofuels is what I'm having problems with.

You are still avoiding the issue of high food prices aren't you?

Can you eat microalgae? Wood chips and sawdust? How about Jatropha?

Jatropha curcas, Barbados nut or Physic nut is a perennial poisonous shrub (normally up to 5 m high[1]) belonging to the Euphorbiaceae or spurge family. It is an uncultivated non-food wild-species.

The plant, originating in Central America [2], whereas it has been spread to other tropical and subtropical countries as well [3] and is mainly grown in Asia and in Africa, where it is known as Pourghère. It is used as a living fence to protect gardens and fields from animals. [4]

It is resistant to a high degree of aridity and as such does not compete with food crops.

The seeds contains 30% oil [5]that can be processed to produce a high-quality biodiesel fuel, usable in a standard diesel engine.

There goes your argument. Or are you suggesting we level every forest and root out every Jatropha plant in the world to make room for fields that grow food?

[Sidewinder]

And if manufacture of biofuels is stopped, as Mr. de Schutter demands, WHAT, pray tell, can be used in place of fossil fuels and the powerplants that use them? The Holy Spirit? Qi?

Nuclear and solar power for the power plants, reduced dependency on cars

Good luck getting solar panels to work in Barrow, Alaska, where "On November 18 or 19 the sun goes down, and remains below the horizon for about 65 days until it re-appears, normally on January 22 or 23. During the time of polar night there is a decreasing amount of twilight each day, and on December 21, about the shortest day of the year, civil twilight in Barrow lasts for a mere 3 hours."

If you say, "electricity," you'll have to explain how you'll produce the needed amounts IN ADDITION TO everything else that uses it (lights, microwaves, radios, TVs, the computer I'm typing this on), how you'll develop a battery that is light enough to be installed in a motor vehicle while giving it a reasonable range,

Already exists. It can't match conventional cars, but it is more then adequate for most needs.

You're thinking of cars in first world countries, which have long stretches of paved roads, extensive electical infrastructure to recharge those electric cars before their batteries run out, and economies strong enough to fund such projects. What about third world countries like Djibouti, where only 364 km out of its 2,890 km of highways is paved?

Moving away from automobiles has been covered extensively by others here in other threads. Reduce the drain of private cars in favor of other means, and most of this issue disappears. Dutchess and others have cvered plans to convert to trains and other forms of public transportation in great detail.

Good for you. Now convince the 589,999,998 other car owners in the world to do the same. And don't forget, you'll also have to invest billions of dollars in public transportation infrastructure to match the availability of cars and trucks, e.g., so someone in Barrow, Alaska can just hop on a train to get to Anchorage.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There goes your argument. Or are you suggesting we level every forest and root out every Jatropha plant in the world to make room for fields that grow food?

Does it bloody even matter? So long as Biodiesel demand is high, there will be demand for just about anything that can be produce biodiesel. This does not change the fact that a good portion of biodiesel is produced using food crops. Not to mention, the article also highlights the fact that the UN official is also decrying the inflation of prices due to commodities speculation which is in part due to the fact that food crops are used for biodiesel.

[Ariphaos]

Scale, people. Bio-fuels are simply not going to match what crude gives us now and only prolong the problem of allowing people to carry on with BAU. If we want to make things harder in the future when we reach a new limit after moving to bio-fuels, then be my guest. The problem is growth, which isn't going to be solved by any new fuel, however sustainable it would be presently and environmentally friendly.

100,000 gallons per acre per year is 8 barrels per day per acre. This of course assumes that the vertical growth idea is feasible, but it has the advantage of being carbon neutral and building on an existing supply. They certainly can't now (the production in the linked article is only 4% of that - requiring a quarter of a billion acres to match world crude production), but what's wrong with it functioning as a supplemental fuel source?

[Sidewinder]

There goes your argument. Or are you suggesting we level every forest and root out every Jatropha plant in the world to make room for fields that grow food?

Does it bloody even matter? So long as Biodiesel demand is high, there will be demand for just about anything that can be produce biodiesel. This does not change the fact that a good portion of biodiesel is produced using food crops. Not to mention, the article also highlights the fact that the UN official is also decrying the inflation of prices due to commodities speculation which is in part due to the fact that food crops are used for biodiesel.

It bloody does bloody matter because governments have ways of controlling the prices and availability of food crops.

The United States Department of Agriculture (also called the Agriculture Department, or USDA) is a United States Federal Executive Department (or Cabinet Department). Its purpose is to develop and execute policy on farming, agriculture, and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger, in America and abroad.

Mr. de Schutter could've asked the world governments to pass laws restricting the use of food crops for biofuel production, implement price controls, and crack down on the black marketeers selling food at inflated prices. But noooo, he had to say, "I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector," instead of "I am calling for a freeze on all investment in THE USE OF FOOD CROPS FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION."

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

[It bloody does bloody matter because governments have ways of controlling the prices and availability of food crops.

Bullcrap. Net Importers of food crops don't have that option and quite a bit of the developing world consumes more than they can produce. Which is precisely why there is even a problem of food prices in the first place.

Mr. de Schutter could've asked the world governments to pass laws restricting the use of food crops for biofuel production, implement price controls, and crack down on the black marketeers selling food at inflated prices. But noooo, he had to say, "I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector," instead of "I am calling for a freeze on all investment in THE USE OF FOOD CROPS FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION."

Has it fucking slipped your mind that there is also a land issue since land that would have been used to produced food crops is being used to produce other crops used for biofuel?

[Sidewinder]

Has it fucking slipped your mind that there is also a land issue since land that would have been used to produced food crops is being used to produce other crops used for biofuel?

Did you NOT read about the use of wood chips and sawdust to produce wood gas? Or that Jatropha curcas "is resistant to a high degree of aridity and as such does not compete with food crops"?

Researchers are also developing sources of ethanol (yeah, I know) that do NOT use things human beings eat.

The anaerobic bacterium Clostridium ljungdahlii, recently discovered in commercial chicken wastes, can produce ethanol from single-carbon sources including synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen that can be generated from the partial combustion of either fossil fuels or biomass. Use of these bacteria to produce ethanol from synthesis gas has progressed to the pilot plant stage at the BRI Energy facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas.[25]

Another prospective technology is the closed-loop ethanol plant.[26] Ethanol produced from corn has a number of critics who suggest that it is primarily just recycled fossil fuels because of the energy required to grow the grain and convert it into ethanol. There is also the issue of competition with use of corn for food production. However, the closed-loop ethanol plant attempts to address this criticism. In a closed-loop plant, the energy for the distillation comes from fermented manure, produced from cattle that have been fed the by-products from the distillation. The leftover manure is then used to fertilize the soil used to grow the grain. Such a process is expected to have a much lower fossil fuel requirement.[27]

Though in an early stage of research, there is some development of alternative production methods that use feed stocks such as municipal waste or recycled products, rice hulls, sugarcane bagasse, small diameter trees, wood chips, and switchgrass.[28]

So in the future, we can use crops for BOTH food AND biofuel.

[Ender]

Nuclear and solar power for the power plants, reduced dependency on cars

Good luck getting solar panels to work in Barrow, Alaska, where "On November 18 or 19 the sun goes down, and remains below the horizon for about 65 days until it re-appears, normally on January 22 or 23. During the time of polar night there is a decreasing amount of twilight each day, and on December 21, about the shortest day of the year, civil twilight in Barrow lasts for a mere 3 hours."

Oh hey, you chose to deliberately ignore the other half of my answer because you have no counter for it.

Who's a dishonest little fuck?

SIDEWINDER IS!


By the way, I LOVE how you didn't respond to the point that an alternative to using food is just going to mean they don't grow as much food in the first place.

You're thinking of cars in first world countries, which have long stretches of paved roads, extensive electical infrastructure to recharge those electric cars before their batteries run out, and economies strong enough to fund such projects. What about third world countries like Djibouti, where only 364 km out of its 2,890 km of highways is paved?

Gosh, imagine that, I said the idea was to reduce it, so I looked at the areas where theere were the most cars. Shocking. You are right, I should have expected the areas that consume a fraction of what we do to hold back. Makes much more sense. Tell me, if you were shot would you put a bandaid on your papercut?

Good for you. Now convince the 589,999,998 other car owners in the world to do the same. And don't forget, you'll also have to invest billions of dollars in public transportation infrastructure to match the availability of cars and trucks, e.g., so someone in Barrow, Alaska can just hop on a train to get to Anchorage.

No counter, so we will be a little bitch again. Wow, billions of dollars huh, gosh, I wonder where I am going to find a few billion dollars to throw around, its not like I can just make one decision and have an additional 50 billion dollars a year in my budget or anything.

So, summary time - Sidewinder deserves his car more then poor people deserve to eat, and tries to justify it with snark and wikilinks. I point out that hey, we have the solutions, we've gone over them many times before, adn we can forego a lot of human suffering acrioss the world by implementing these solutions here. Sidewinder, rather then being a man and admitting he was wrong, decides to dodge my point by pointing you the parts of the overall plan will need different options for the ends of the earth and claims we can't afford it despite the fact that it would be a rounding error in our 3 trillion dollar a year budget. But we knew Sidewinder wouldn't be responsible enough to admit he was wrong, because if he was in the first place he would acknowledge how he was contributing to the problem.

[Ender]

Did you NOT read about the use of wood chips and sawdust to produce wood gas?

Good plan, we will level all the forests instead! Because that is readily sustainable.

Or that Jatropha curcas "is resistant to a high degree of aridity and as such does not compete with food crops"?

Hrm, you are right, we will move out and plow new fields and grow this, or just convert existing farms over for a fraction fo the price. Which will happen, which will happen, which will happen...

Researchers are also developing sources of ethanol (yeah, I know) that do NOT use things human beings eat.

The anaerobic bacterium Clostridium ljungdahlii, recently discovered in commercial chicken wastes, can produce ethanol from single-carbon sources including synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen that can be generated from the partial combustion of either fossil fuels or biomass. Use of these bacteria to produce ethanol from synthesis gas has progressed to the pilot plant stage at the BRI Energy facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas.[25]

Another prospective technology is the closed-loop ethanol plant.[26] Ethanol produced from corn has a number of critics who suggest that it is primarily just recycled fossil fuels because of the energy required to grow the grain and convert it into ethanol. There is also the issue of competition with use of corn for food production. However, the closed-loop ethanol plant attempts to address this criticism. In a closed-loop plant, the energy for the distillation comes from fermented manure, produced from cattle that have been fed the by-products from the distillation. The leftover manure is then used to fertilize the soil used to grow the grain. Such a process is expected to have a much lower fossil fuel requirement.[27]

Though in an early stage of research, there is some development of alternative production methods that use feed stocks such as municipal waste or recycled products, rice hulls, sugarcane bagasse, small diameter trees, wood chips, and switchgrass.[28]

So in the future, we can use crops for BOTH food AND biofuel.

AND it will give us caancer. Triple win! Or did you forget that ether is a carcinogin, and that it is produced when the wate products of burning ethanol recombine in the atmosphere?

And sidewinder, do remember that wikipedia is not a valid source here. In about three minutes I can make all those pages say "cake & bacon". So start finding some valid sources that back you.

[Sidewinder]

Note to Ender: I assumed the other half of your rebuttal, nuclear energy sources, has obvious limitations, i.e., the expenses of R & D on nuclear reactors, construction (you can't cut back on safety features like radiation shields, after all), and the disposal of nuclear wastes.

As for sources...

Air Pollution Rules Relaxed for US Ethanol Producers
Environment News Service

Thursday 12 April 2007

Washington, DC - The federal government said today that it will permit corn milling facilities that make ethanol for fuel to emit more than double the amount of air pollutants previously allowed. The new rule is expected to increase the amount of ethanol available for fuel.

The final rule issued today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, treats facilities producing ethanol for human consumption, industrial use or fuel equally under Clean Air Act permitting requirements.

Until today, corn milling plants that make ethanol for use as a fuel additive have only been allowed to emit 100 tons of polluting emissions per year, while plants that make ethanol for human consumption have been permitted to emit 250 tons per year.

The new EPA rule allows all ethanol producers using corn or other carbohydrate feedstocks to emit 250 tons of air pollutants per year.

Previously, the agency had classified drymill ethanol plants as "chemical process plants" and had subjected them to the 100 ton per year threshold that applies to other chemical process plants.

The decision will not impact existing state and federal air quality standards and existing emission control technologies will continue to be required.

The American Coalition for Ethanol, ACE, the nation's largest ethanol association, applauded the rule change. ACE Executive Vice President Brian Jennings said, "Correcting this procedural inconsistency is a necessary and just step as the U.S. ethanol industry continues to ramp up its production of renewable fuel for America."

Currently there are 118 ethanol production facilities in the United States and 76 more under construction, according to ACE. Dozens more are in various stages of planning.

By the end of 2006, the total ethanol production capacity reached nearly 5.5 billion gallons.

"Today's ruling by the EPA is a major step forward for the homegrown production of one of America's cleanest renewable fuels - ethanol," said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who sent a letter to the EPA, supported by 32 members of Congress, which called for the reclassification of ethanol production.

"This decision will result in greater, more efficient ethanol production, which will lower fuel costs for consumers and reduce automobile pollution and America's dependence on foreign oil. In addition, ethanol production emits 20 percent less greenhouse gasses than petroleum production, which ultimately means less pollution on a per-gallon basis when people fill up their vehicles using ethanol blended gasoline," said Thune.

Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol, drinking alcohol or grain alcohol, is the alcohol found in liquors. It is also used for human consumption as a solvent in dissolving medicines, food flavorings and colorings that do not dissolve easily in water.

Examples of industrial uses of ethanol would include ethanol used in perfumes, aftershaves and for cleaners.

The vast majority of ethanol produced in the United States is used for fuel. It is blended with gasoline to increase the fuel blend's octane or to produce a cleaner burning fuel.

A primary difference between production of industrial or fuel ethanol and ethanol for human consumption is that a small amount of gasoline or solvent is added to the fuel ethanol to make it undrinkable and the process does not generally use food-grade equipment. Otherwise, the processes are generally similar. For that reason, the EPA says it has decided to treat all ethanol manufacturers equally with regard to air pollution emissions.

Ethanol manufacturers will get another break under the new EPA air pollution rule.

Pollutants released to the air other than those from stacks or vents are called fugitive emissions. They can be due to equipment leaks, evaporative processes, and windblown disturbances.

Before today's rule, fuel and industrial ethanol facilities were required to include fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants in their emissions threshold totals.

Today's rule eliminates that requirement at fuel and industrial ethanol plants where the ethanol is produced by processing carbohydrate feedstock through a natural fermentation process.

The six criteria pollutants are particulate matter, ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. These pollutants can harm human health and the environment, and cause property damage.

Jennings said, "Ethanol is a clean fuel made through a clean process. Ethanol projects must undergo a rigorous permitting process to ensure compliance with all state and federal air quality standards. U.S. ethanol producers operate using the best available state-of-the-art technologies to control emissions within the limits set by law and will continue to do so in the future."

Ethanol can also be made from other products such as grain sorghum, wheat, barley, sugar cane or beets, cheese whey, and potatoes.

Cellulosic feedstocks such as municipal waste or recycled products, rice hulls, sugarcane bagasse, small diameter trees, wood chips, and switchgrass may also be used to produce ethanol. These cellulosic feedstocks and the process used to convert them to ethanol are close to being commercialized.

* BRI is proud to introduce the world's most efficient, renewable energy technology for the low-cost co-production of ethanol and such by-products as electricity, anhydrous ammonia for fertilizer, process steam or hydrogen from any organic wastes or hydrocarbons.
* Fully validated and ready for commercial plant construction, the BRI process is a generation beyond cellulosic ethanol. Not only can the BRI process efficiently convert to ethanol any purpose-grown plant materials, it can produce ethanol from any carbon-based feedstocks.
* The environmentally-sensitive BRI process thermally decomposes carbonaceous materials into synthesis gas using an enclosed gasification step that creates no air emissions. A patented bacterial culture then reconstructs the synthesis gas into ethanol and water in a biocatalytic reaction that requires two minutes or less.
* The technology is also capable of producing electricity without combustion, generating the power to operate its plants internally from their own waste heat.

November 2, 2006
Closed-Loop Ethanol Plant to Start Production
Mead, Nebraska [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The first closed-loop system for distilling commercial quantities of ethanol using methane gas recaptured from cow manure is set to begin production next month in Mead, Nebraska. The plant's technology will virtually eliminate the need for fossil fuels in the production of ethanol.

"It may surprise you to learn that the most promising solution to our nation's energy crisis begins in the bowels of a waste trough, under the slotted concrete floor of a giant pen that holds 28,000 ... beef cattle."

-- Vinod Khosla, Sun Microsystems, co-founder

The closed-loop system -- derived from an exclusive patent co-owned by an affiliate of E3 BioFuels -- combines a 25-million-gallon ethanol refinery, beef cattle feedlot and anaerobic digesters to maximize energy efficiencies unavailable to each component on a stand-alone basis.

This system eliminates the potential for manure to pollute watersheds, and it enables the wet distiller's grain from ethanol production to be fed on-site to cattle without energy-intensive drying and transportation costs.

In the October edition of Wired Magazine, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla wrote, "It may surprise you to learn that the most promising solution to our nation's energy crisis begins in the bowels of a waste trough, under the slotted concrete floor of a giant pen that holds 28,000 ... beef cattle."

Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, continues, "E3 BioFuels is about to fire up the most energy efficient corn ethanol facility in the country: a $75 million state-of-the-art biorefinery ... The output: a potential gusher of renewable, energy-efficient transportation fuel."

"The Genesis plant at Mead will be the first to market ethanol produced from closed-loop, self-sustaining ethanol technology by at least a year or two, in comparison to any other competitors," said Dennis Langley, Chairman and CEO of E3 BioFuels. "This plant will make ethanol more than twice as energy-efficient as any other method of producing ethanol or gasoline."

E3 BioFuels-Mead has named the plant Genesis to celebrate that it's the first commercially viable facility on the planet to use this new technology -- which officially begins production in December 2006 -- as well as signifying the birth of a revolution in energy production.

"This is the new low-cost alternative for meeting America's energy needs with domestically produced ethanol," Langley said. "E3 BioFuels' system enables America to take a giant leap from the oilfields of the Mideast to the cornfields of the Midwest. The future is now, the future is here -- with the opening of the E3 BioFuels-Mead's Genesis plant."

"The Genesis plant effectively serves as a diligent steward of the environment -- producing a clean-burning motor fuel, solving water run-off pollution from agricultural wastes, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions," added Langley.

Langley said E3 BioFuels plans to build 15 more such plants near feedlots and dairy farms, of increasing size, within the next five years.

Step 4: Brew Better Ethanol (With a little help from our termite friends)
By Tom Clynes Posted 07.02.2006 at 2:00 am 0 Comments

The appealing prospect of throwing money at American farmers rather than Middle Eastern sheiks is just one reason that ethanol–the 200-proof moonshine used in early versions of Ford's Model T–has come back into favor. This year, U.S. automakers will churn out a million flexible-fuel vehicles, and the number of ethanol-stocking gas stations will increase by a third, to about 1,000.

The catch? Most ethanol currently produced in the U.S. is made from corn kernels in a process that consumes significant amounts of fossil fuels, in everything from fertilizers to gasoline for farm equipment.

We can do better, says Berkeley's Daniel Kammen, who sees corn-based ethanol as a "transition" fuel: "To have ethanol make a dent in gas consumption and global warming, we'll need a wide-scale switch from corn to cellulosic ethanol," a fuel made from switchgrass, wood chips and agricultural waste such as corncobs and stocks.

Today the cost of the enzymes needed to manufacture the fuel is high, although the solution to that problem may be very, very small. "Termites have microbes in their hindguts that they put to work to convert plant cellulose into carbohydrates," says Eddy Rubin, director of the DOE's Joint Genome Institute. "We're sequencing the DNA of those microbes so that we can eventually consider bioengineering new organisms to secrete these enzymes." And, essentially, run our cars on bug juice.

July 28, 2007

Poison plant could help to cure the planet
Ben Macintyre

The jatropha bush seems an unlikely prize in the hunt for alternative energy, being an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed. Hitherto, its use to humanity has principally been as a remedy for constipation. Very soon, however, it may be powering your car.

Almost overnight, the unloved Jatropha curcushas become an agricultural and economic celebrity, with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies and deeply alarmed by the effects of global warming.

The hardy jatropha, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content. When the seeds are crushed, the resulting jatropha oil can be burnt in a standard diesel car, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.

As the search for alternative energy sources gathers pace and urgency, the jatropha has provoked something like a gold rush. Last week BP announced that it was investing almost £32 million in a jatropha joint venture with the British biofuels company D1 Oils.

Even Bob Geldof has stamped his cachet on jatropha, by becoming a special adviser to Helius Energy, a British company developing the use of jatropha as an alternative to fossil fuels. Lex Worrall, its chief executive, says: “Every hectare can produce 2.7 tonnes of oil and about 4 tonnes of biomass. Every 8,000 hectares of the plant can run a 1.5 megawatt station, enough to power 2,500 homes.”

Jatropha grows in tropical and subtropical climates. Whereas other feed-stocks for biofuel, such as palm oil, rape seed oil or corn for ethanol, require reasonable soils on which other crops might be grown, jatropha is a tough survivor prepared to put down roots almost anywhere.

Scientists say that it can grow in the poorest wasteland, generating topsoil and helping to stall erosion, but also absorbing carbon dioxide as it grows, thus making it carbon-neutral even when burnt. A jatropha bush can live for up to 50 years, producing oil in its second year of growth, and survive up to three years of consecutive drought.

In India about 11 million hectares have been identified as potential land on which to grow jatropha. The first jatropha-fuelled power station is expected to begin supplying electricity in Swaziland in three years. Meanwhile, companies from Europe and India have begun buying up land in Africa as potential jatropha plantations.

Jatropha plantations have been laid out on either side of the railway between Bombay and Delhi, and the train is said to run on more than 15 per cent biofuel. Backers say that the plant can produce four times more fuel per hectare than soya, and ten times more than corn. “Those who are working with jatropha,” Sanju Khan, a site manager for D1 Oils, told the BBC, “are working with the new generation crop, developing a crop from a wild plant — which is hugely exciting.”

Jatropha, a native of Central America, was brought to Europe by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century and has since spread worldwide, even though, until recently, it had few uses: malaria treatment, a windbreak for animals, live fencing and candle-mak-ing. An ingredient in folk remedies around the world, it earned the nickname “physic nut”, but its sap is a skin irritant, and ingesting three untreated seeds can kill a person.

Jatropha has also found a strong supporter in Sir Nicholas Stern, the government economist who emphasised the dangers of global warming in a report this year. He recently advised South Africa to “look for biofuel technologies that can be grown on marginal land, perhaps jatropha”.

However, some fear that in areas dependent on subsistence farming it could force out food crops, increasing the risk of famine.

Some countries are also cautious for other reasons: last year Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals.

Yet a combination of economic, climatic and political factors have made the search for a more effective biofuel a priority among energy companies. New regulations in Britain require that biofuels comprise 5 per cent of the transport fuel mix by 2010, and the EU has mandated that by 2020 all cars must run on 20 per cent biodiesel. Biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 80 per cent compared with petroleum diesel, according to the US Energy Department.

Under the deal between BP and D1, £80 million will be invested in jatropha over the next five years, with plantations in India, southern Africa and SouthEast Asia. There are no exact figures for the amount of land already under jatropha cultivation, but the area is expanding fast. China is planning an 80,000-acre plantation in Sichuan, and the BPD1 team hopes to have a million hectares under cultivation over the next four years.

Jatropha has long been prized for its medicinal qualities. Now it might just help to cure the planet.

- D1 Oils, the UK company leading the jatropha revolution, is growing 430,000 acres of the plant to feed its biodiesel operation on Teesside — 44,000 acres more than three months ago, after a huge planting programme in India. It has also planted two 1,235-acre trial sites this year in West Java, Indonesia. If successful, these will become a 25,000-acre plantation. Elloitt Mannis, the chief executive, says that the aim is to develop energy “from the earth to the engine”.

Jatropha: costs and benefits

- Jatropha needs at least 600mm (23in) of rain a year to thrive. However, it can survive three consecutive years of drought by dropping its leaves

- It is excellent at preventing soil erosion, and the leaves that it drops act as soil-enriching mulch

- The plant prefers alkaline soils

- The cost of 1,000 jatropha saplings (enough for one acre) in Pakistan is about £50, or 5p each

- The cost of 1kg of jatropha seeds in India is the equivalent of about 7p. Each jatropha seedling should be given an area two metres square.

- 20 per cent of seedlings planted will not survive

- Jatropha seedlings yield seeds in the first year after plantation

1.2 The present case for wood gasifiers
After the double fuel crises of 1973 and 1979, the harmful effect of high and rising oil prices on the economies and development efforts of oil-importing developing countries have become apparent. There has, as a result been increased interest in indigenous, renewable energy sources, of which biomass in the form of wood or agricultural residues is the most readily available in many developing countries.

Figure 1.1 Wood gasification citations in Chemical Abstracts
<snip bar graph>

A characteristic of the energy system in many developing countries - in particular in rural areas - is that internal combustion engines are widely used in stationary applications such as electric power generation and operation of water pumps and mills. Technologies such as gasification, which allow utilization of biomass fuel in such engines after minimum preparation, are therefore of particular importance.

In industrialized countries internal combustion engines are mainly used for vehicles. Electricity generated in large central power stations is used for most of the stationary applications.

These different structures of energy systems explain why there appears to be fairly small interest in using biomass gasifiers for operation of internal combustion engines in the industrialized world, whereas several developing countries are either introducing small biomass gasifiers or are in the process of evaluating the technology.

Charcoal gasifiers dominate the present re-introduction of small gasifiers for engine operation in developing countries. They are the basis of the systems used in the Philippine programme and in Brazil, see (5). Much of the indigenous research and development now carried out in developing countries is also concentrated on charcoal gasifiers in view of their good prospects for early commercialization.

As illustrated by Figure 1.2, the utilization of charcoal gasifiers does, however, imply higher demands on the biomass resources, resources which are indeed already over-exploited in many developing countries. On the other hand, at least some designs of charcoal gasifiers are less likely to cause operational trouble than wood gasifiers or gasifiers for agricultural residues. This is because one of the potential problems with the latter, the excessive tar content in the gas, is virtually eliminated by the removal of most of the volatiles in the production process for charcoal.

Experience from the Second World War shows, however, that properly designed wood gasifiers, operated within their design range and using fuels within the fuel specifications (which may differ between designs), can provide a sufficiently tar free gas for trouble-free operation.

One of the objectives of this publication is to make decision-makers more aware of the possibilities of using wood gasification as a substitute for gasoline and diesel oil, without unreasonable increase of the demand on the natural resource.

1.3 Overview of the contents of this publication
In this publication, an overview of gasifies technology and the main design rules for downdraught wood gasifiers are presented together with some accounts of recent experiences from practical operation, and assessments of the economy of the technique.

The possibilities of fuelling different types of engines by producer gas, the theory of wood gasification, gasification fuels, gasifier types and their design rules are presented in chapter 2. This chapter should not be considered as a complete design handbook for downdraught wood gasifies systems, but as a guide to those who wish to be able to assess the suitability of a particular gasifier system for a particular engine. Health and environmental hazards associated with the use of producer gas are also outlined.

Figure 1.2 Comparison between the amounts of gasoline which can be substituted by producer gas if wood or charcoal is utilized in the gasifier
<snip diagram>

The economy of using wood gasifiers for different stationary applications is discussed in chapters 4 to 6. These chapters also include accounts of recent operating experiences.

Use of gasifiers for operation of modern vehicles is discussed in chapter 3, on the basis of recent Swedish experiences. This chapter is designed to assist in evaluating the feasibility of wood gasifiers for road vehicles or tractors.

Even if the results presented in chapters 3 to 6 are valid in the strict sense, only for the particular circumstances of the cases described, they should be useful as indications of what can be expected in similar situations. The information can be adapted for applications where the operating conditions or the economic circumstances are different.

The future of wood gas as engine fuel is discussed in the final chapter where the need for continued international cooperation in this field is also emphasized.

1.4 What to expect from a wood gasifier system
Operation of modern spark ignition or compression ignition stationary engines with gasoline or diesel fuel is generally characterized by high reliability and minor efforts from the operator. Under normal circumstances the operator's role is limited to refuelling and maintenance. There is little need for action and virtually no risk of getting dirty. Start and operation can in fact be made fully automatic.

Anybody expecting something similar for wood gas operation of engines will be disappointed. Preparation of the system for starting can require half an hour or more. The fuel is bulky and difficult to handle. Frequent feeding of fuel is often required and this limits the time the engine can run unattended. Taking care of residues such as ashes, soot and tarry condensates is time-consuming and dirty.

It is a common mistake to assume that any type of biomass which fits into the opening of the refuelling lid can be used as fuel. Many of the operational difficulties which face inexperienced users of gasifiers are caused by the use of unsuitable fuels. In order to avoid bridging in the fuel bunker, reduced power output because of large pressure losses, or "weak" gas, slag cakes, tar in the engine and damage to the gasifier caused by overheating, it is necessary for most designs that the fuel properties are kept within fairly narrow ranges. This is not necessarily a more serious limitation than the need to use gasoline of super grade for high compression spark ignition engines rather than regular gasoline or diesel fuel. But in the case of gasifier operation, more of the responsibility for quality control of the fuel rests with the operator. The need for strict fuel specifications is well documented in the experiences reported from the Second World War (43). It is unfortunate that some commercial companies, with little practical experience, but trying to profit from the renewed interest in gasification, have advertised the possibility of using almost any kind of biomass even in gasifiers which will work well only with fuels meeting fairly strict standards. This has in some cases created unrealistic expectations and has led to disappointments with the technology.

Operation of wood gas engines can also be dangerous if the operator violates the safety rules or neglects the maintenance of the system. Poisoning accidents, explosions and fires have been caused by unsafe designs or careless handling of the equipment. It may be assumed that modern systems are designed according to the best safety standards, but it is still necessary to handle the equipment in a responsible manner.

Finally, it must be realised that the current technology is generally based on the designs of the mid-1940's. Only a few persons have retained detailed practical knowledge of design, material selection and operation and maintenance procedures. Many of the currently active manufacturers have no access to the experience of such persons and base their designs on information available in the literature, and on recent and comparatively limited experience. There has been some improvement of the technology, for instance of filter designs based on new materials, but the practical operating experience with these improved systems is limited. A consequence of this is that equipment failures caused by design mistakes, choice of the wrong materials, or incomplete instructions to the user on operation and maintenance, must be expected in the first period of reintroduction of wood gasifiers.

The reports on operational difficulties presented in this publication and elsewhere must be evaluated with this in mind. It can safely be assumed that second generation systems will show improved performance.

Those interested in the technology must accept that it demands hard work and tolerance of soiled hands by a responsible operator, and that it is not yet perfect. But as will be shown, it is both serviceable and economic in many applications in spite of its inconveniences.

Chapter 2 - Small wood and charcoal gasifiers for operation of internal combustion engines
<snip table of contents>

The gasification of coal and carbon containing fuels and the use of the gas as fuel in internal combustion engines is a technology which has been utilized for more than a century.

There has recently been renewed interest in this technology, mainly as a means to utilize biomass fuels instead of imported petroleum fuels in-developing countries. This interest derives from the documented evidence that, during the Second World War, more than a million vehicles buses, trucks, motorcars, boats and trains - were powered by gasifiers fuelled by wood, charcoal, peat or coal. After the war, nevertheless, there was a complete reversion to liquid fuels as soon as these again became available, obviously because of their convenience, reliability and economic advantages.

Therefore, the impact of biomass gasification on the energy supply systems of developing countries seems to hinge on the answer to one central question: has modern technology and gasifier development led to improved gasifier designs and gasification systems, that can work reliably, efficiently, economically and at a suitable technical level where special skills may be lacking?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to review a number of aspects of the gasification technology. The type of system considered is schematically illustrated in Figure 2.1.

The internal combustion engine uses as fuel gas generated by gasification of vegetable matter with-air. The gas is cleaned and cooled before entering the engine. In Fig. 2.1 the engine is shown driving an electric generator, but it may of course be utilized for any other purpose where such engines are employed.

The possibilities of using different types of engines with producer gas, and the quality of gas needed, will first be reviewed in order to provide the necessary background for an understanding of the effects on gasifier system design.

The theory of gasification, different type of gasifiers and gasified fuels will then be discussed and design guidelines for down-draught gasifiers will be presented. Techniques of gas cleaning and cooling will then be examined. The chapter concludes with a discussion of possible applications, and the hazards and environmental consequences associated with this technology.

Figure 2.1 Scheme of a producer gas power plant
(figure is at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e0u.gif )

From the treatment of these subjects it will become clear that severe constraints still exist to the introduction of gasification systems. However, it will be shown that, within the current state-of-the-art of gasification technology, several technically and economically sound possibilities exist.

In order to assist users and designers of gasification equipment, examples of the power output of an internal combustion engine fuelled by producer gas are given in Appendix I; and the design of a simple downdraught gasification unit, fuelled by wood blocks, is presented in Appendix II.

2.1 Fuelling of engines by producer gas
<snip table of contents>

Producer gas, the gas generated when wood, charcoal or coal is gasified with air, consists of some 40 per cent combustible gases, mainly carbon monoxide, hydrogen and some methane. The rest are non-combustible and consists mainly of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour.

The gas also contains condensible tar, acids and dust. These impurities may lead to operational problems and abnormal engine wear. The main problem of gasifier system design is to generate a gas with a high proportion of combustible components and a minimum of impurities. How this can be achieved will be shown later. First, the peculiarities of producer gas engines will be discussed both from a theoretical and operational point of view.

2.1.1 Possibilities of using producer gas with different types of engines
Spark ignition engines, normally used with petrol-or kerosene, can be run on producer gas alone. Diesel engines can be converted to full producer gas operation by lowering the compression ratio and the installation of a spark ignition system. Another possibility is to run a normal unconverted diesel engine in a "dual fuel" mode, whereby the engine draws anything between 0 and 90 per cent of its power output from producer gas (17), the remaining diesel oil being necessary for ignition of the combustible gas/air mixture. The advantage of the latter system lies in its flexibility: in case of malfunctioning of the gasifier or lack of biomass fuel, an immediate change to full diesel operation is generally possible.

However, not all types of diesel engines can be converted to the above mode of operation. Compression ratios of ante-chamber and turbulence chamber diesel engines are too high for satisfactory dual fuel operation and use of producer gas in those engines leads to knocking caused by too high pressures combined with delayed ignition (20). Direct injection diesel engines have lower compression ratios and can generally be successfully converted.

2.1.2 Engine power output using producer gas
The power output from an engine operating on producer gas will be determined by the same factors as for engines operating on liquid fuels, namely:

- the heating value of the combustible mixture of fuel and air which enters the engine during each combustion stroke;
- the amount of combustible mixture which enters the engine during each combustion stroke;

- the efficiency with which the engine converts the thermal of the combustible mixture into mechanical energy (shaft power);

- the number of combustion strokes in a given time (number of revolutions per minute: rpm);

Conversion of an engine to producer gas or dual-fuel operation will generally lead to a reduced power output. The reasons for this and possibilities to minimize the power loss will be discussed below.

(a) Heating value of the mixture
The heating value of producer gas depends on the relative amounts of the different combustible components: carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane.

The heating value of these three gases are given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Heating values and stoichiometric oxygen demands of combustible producer gas components.
<snip table>

In order to achieve combustion however, the producer gas has to be mixed with a suitable amount of air. The combustible mixture will have a lower heating value per unit volume than producer gas alone.

The amounts of oxygen necessary for complete burning (stoichiometric combustion) of each of the combustible components are also presented in Table 2.1.

The heating value of such a stoichiometric mixture can be calculated from the following formula:
<snip formula>

Heating values of producer gas and air mixtures are around 2500 kJ/m³. When this value is compared with the heating value of a stoichiometric mixture of petrol and air (about 3800 kJ/m³ ), the difference in power output between a given engine fuelled by petrol and by producer gas becomes apparent. A power loss of about 35% can be expected as a result of the lower heating value of a producer gas/air mixture.

(b) Amount of combustible mixture supplied to the cylinder
The amount of combustible mixture which actually enters the cylinder of an engine is determined by the cylinder volume and the pressure of the gas in the cylinder at the moment the inlet valve closes.

The cylinder volume is a constant for a given engine. The actual pressure of the combustible mixture at the start of the compression stroke depends however on engine characteristics (especially the design of inlet manifold and air inlet gate), the speed of the engine (higher speeds tend to result in lower pressures), and on the pressure of the gas entering the air inlet manifold. The former two factors are incorporated in the so called "volumetric efficiency" of the engine, which is defined as the ratio between the actual pressure of the gas in the cylinder and normal pressure (1 atm). Normally engines running at design speeds show volumetric efficiencies varying between 0.7 and 0.9.

The pressure of the gas at the air inlet manifold depends on the pressure drop over the total gasification system, i.e. gasifier cooler/cleaner, and gas/air carburettor. This drop reduces again the entering pressure by a factor of 0.9.

In sum, it must be concluded that the actual amount of combustible gas available in the cylinder will be only 0.65 - 0.8 times the theoretical maximum because of pressure losses on the way to the cylinder. This will obviously reduce the maximum power output of the engine.

(c) Engine efficiency
The efficiency with which an engine can convert the thermal energy in the fuel into mechanical (shaft) power, depends in the first instance on the compression ratio of the engine.

The influence of increasing the compression ratio of an engine can be calculated from the following formula.
<snip formula>

Figure 2.2 shows the influence of compression ratio on maximum engine power output.
<snip graph>
Figure 2.2 Relation between compression ratio and thermal efficiency of an engine (34)
<snip graph>

In the case of engines fuelled by petrol, the possible compression ratio is limited by the "octane" number of the fuel, which is a measure of the compression ratio at which detonation or "knocking" (which can lead to severe engine damage) occurs. Producer gas/air mixtures show higher octane numbers than petrol/air mixtures.

It is for this reason that higher compression ratios (up to 1:11) can be employed with producer gas, resulting in better engine thermal efficiencies and a relative increase in engine shaft power output.

(d) Engine speed
Because the engine power output is defined per unit time, the engine power output depends on the engine speed.

For diesel engines the power output is nearly linear with the rpm. For spark ignition engines the power increase is less than linear because of changes in the different efficiency factors.

When the power output of a 4-stroke engine is calculated, allowance must be made for the fact that only one out of every two rotations represents a compression and combustion stroke.

The maximum speed of engines fuelled by producer gas is limited by the combustion velocity of the combustible mixture of producer gas and air. Because this speed is low as compared to combustible mixtures of petrol and air, the efficiency of the engine can drop dramatically if the combustion speed of the mixture and the average speed of the piston become of the same order of magnitude.

In the types of engines that are currently mass-produced, one can expect this phenomenom to occur at engine speeds of around 2500 rpm. Engines fuelled by producer gas should therefore generally be operated below this speed.

2.1.3 Maximizing the power output in producer-gas operation
The possibilities of maximizing the power output are generally related to the theoretical causes of power loss discussed in the preceding section. They will be treated in the same order here.

(a) Heating value of the mixture
It is evident that the highest heating values for the combustible mixture are achieved at the highest heating value of the producer gas itself. As will be explained later, the heating value depends on the design of the gasifier and on the characteristics of the fuel provided to the gasifier. Minimization of the heat losses from the gasifier is important in order to achieve a high heating value of the gas. The moisture content and the size distribution are two of the most important fuel characteristics.

In mixing the producer gas with combustion air there is an additional reason for power loss because of changes in the composition of the gas, as well as of variations in pressure drop over the gasifier installation and it is very difficult to maintain continuously a stoichiometric mixture of producer gas and air.

Because both excess and deficiency of air lead to a decrease in the heating value of the mixture (per unit volume), both will lead to a decrease in power output as illustrated in figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Decrease of the heating value of a producer gas/air mixture as a function of air deficiency or excess (34)
<snip graph>

The only feasible way to adjust the mixture to its stoichiometric combustion is by-installing a hand operated valve on the combustion air inlet of the engine and operating this regularly for maximum engine power output.

If maximum engine power output is not needed, it is usually better to operate the engine with a slight excess of air, in order to prevent backfiring in the engine exhaust gas system.

(b) Amount of combustible mixture
Apart from minimizing the pressure drop over the gasifier, cooling and cleaning system and carburettor (while still maintaining adequate gas/air mixing as discussed above) the amount of combustible mixture per engine combustion stroke can be maximized in two ways:

- increasing the volumetric efficiency of the engine by introducing a wider air inlet manifold resulting in less gas flow resistance and smaller pressure drops. The influence of a well designed air inlet manifold is often underestimated. Experiments by Finkbeiner (11) show that a well designed air inlet manifold can increase maximum engine power output by 25 per cent.
- supercharging or turbo charging the engine. From the remarks made earlier, it will be clear that increasing mixture pressure at the engine inlet will increase the engine's maximum power output. The recent development of turbo-chargers driven by the exhaust gases of the engine makes this option attractive. However care should be taken to water-cool the turbo charger in order to prevent explosions of the combustible mixture.

(c) Engine efficiency

The increase in engine efficiency that can be reached by increasing the compression ratio of petrol-engines (for example to 1:10 or 1:11) has been discussed earlier. Gas engines have standard compression ratios in this range and for this reason are especially suited to producer gas operation.

The influence of correct air/gas mixing has been described by Finkbeiner (11) and has recently been studied by Tiedema and van der Weide (42). Installation of suitable gas/air mixing devices (such as the type of carburettor developed by TNO, (the Dutch parastatal research organisation) can lead to an increase in maximum engine power output of 10-15 percent as compared to the usual two-valve pipe and chamber type carburettors.

(d) Engine speed and ignition advance
Because of the slow combustion speed of the gas/air mixture the timing of the ignition in producer gas fuelled petrol engines must generally be changed.

The optimal timing of the ignition in petrol engines depends on the load and the engine speed. This is also the case in producer gas operation. Experiments by Middleton and Bruce (29) indicate that, in general, ignition timing should be advanced by 10° - 15°, leading to ignition advances of 35° - 40° before top-dead-centre (TDC).

If a diesel engine is operated in a dual fuel mode, it is also advantageous to advance the timing of the diesel fuel injection. Again the necessary advance depends on the engine speed, as shown by Nordstrom (33), Tiedema e al. (42) report good results with injection timing advances of 10° as compared to full diesel operation.

A problem sometimes encountered in dual fuelled engines is detonation. Apart from engines with too high compression ratios (above 1:16), this phenomenon mostly occurs when an attempt is made to remedy low power output of the engine by introducing increased amounts of diesel fuel. Depending on the composition of the producer gas and on the mixture strength of the fuel, an excess of pilot fuel can lead to detonation. For this reason the amount of pilot diesel fuel, in dual fuel operation, must have an upper limit. Generally a limitation at around 30 percent of maximum engine power output will prevent detonation.

The amount of pilot diesel fuel in dual fuel operation also has a lower limit. Depending on the engine speed (30) a certain minimum amount of diesel fuel per cycle has to be injected in order to ensure ignition. The minimum amounts vary from 3-5 mm per cycle.

In practical operation however a somewhat higher amount of diesel fuel is injected per cycle in order to stay on the safe side. Diesel fuel injections of 8-9 mm³ per cycle and cylinder is recommended.

2.1.4 Resulting power output
Assuming that the engine modifications described above are correctly implemented, decrease in maximum power output of petrol engines without turbo or supercharging can be limited to about 30 percent. Turbo or supercharged combustion running engines on producer gas can have power outputs equal to those in petrol operation.

Derating of direct injection diesel engines in dual fuel operation can usually be limited to 15 - 20 percent (80 percent producer gas, 20 percent diesel fuel).

2.1.5 Gas quality requirements for trouble-free operation
When a gasifier system is used in conjunction with an internal combustion engine, an important requirement is that the engine is supplied with a gas that is sufficiently free from dust, tars and acids. The tolerable amounts of these substances will vary depending on the type and outfit of the engine. Tiedema and van der Weide (38) give as tolerable average amounts for currently available engines the following values:

dust:
lower than 50 mg/m³ gas preferably 5 mg/m³ gas

tars:
lower than 500 mg/m³ gas

acids:
lower than 50 mg/m³ gas (measured as acetic acid).

2.1.6 Use of Stirling engines or gas turbines with producer gas
In addition to the use of producer gas with internal combustion engines, other possibilities are the combination of gasifiers with gas turbines or with Stirling engines. Because high inlet gas temperatures aid the thermal efficiency of gas turbines, these in principle present an attractive option for converting hot producer gas into mechanical and/or electric power. However, the current state-of-art of gasifier as well as turbine technology prevents their use. Gas turbines are very sensitive to dust, especially at high inlet temperatures, and it is doubtful if gas quality requirements can be met with the filtering systems described in section 2.6.

Another problem stems from the sensitivity of current turbine vanes to corrosion by alkaline vapours (Na, K and Ca) which are usually present in tiny amounts in producer gas. An optimum system would require a pressurised gasifier, which would add considerably to cost and complexity and probably will only be economic for very large installations.

Beagle (6) mentions the possibility of using Stirling engines in conjunction with gasifiers especially in micro scale applications. Stirling engines in this power range are now becoming commercially available.

Because of a number of advantages as compared to the use of internal combustion engines (low maintenance, high efficiency, low lubricant consumption etc.) this concept should be further evaluated and tested.

May 17, 2006
Biodiesel Made from Algae in Sewerage Ponds
Marlborough, New Zealand [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation has produced its first sample of homegrown biodiesel fuel using algae sourced from sewerage ponds in its region of New Zealand. In what could be the first such sample of biodiesel in the world, the breakthrough came after Aquaflow undertook a pilot project to extract algae from its excess pond discharge.

"To date, biodiesel from algae has only been tested under controlled laboratory conditions with specially selected and grown algae crops."

-- Barrie Leay, Aquaflow Bionomic Corp., spokesperson

"We believe this is the world's first commercial production of biodiesel from algae outside the laboratory, in 'wild' conditions," said Barrie Leay, Aquaflow spokesperson. "To date, biodiesel from algae has only been tested under controlled laboratory conditions with specially selected and grown algae crops."

By taking the waste product, Aquaflow can create biodiesel and remove a problem for councils by producing useful clean water, a process known as bioremediation. Dairy farmers, and many food processors too, could benefit from recycling their waste streams that algae thrive in. The exact biodiesel manufacturing technology is secret, stated the release, but the process involves processing the algae pulp before extracting lipid oil, which is then turned into biodiesel.

Blended with conventional mineral diesel, biodiesel could run vehicles without the need for vehicle modifications. It would also help to meet the New Zealand Government B5 (5% blended) fuel targets by 2008 moving up to B20 as biofuel production increases. Biodiesel could eventually become a sustainable, low cost, cleaner burning fuel alternative for New Zealand, powering family cars, trucks, buses, and boats and for use in heating or distributed electricity generation.

Aquaflow's next step is to increase the production from its new technology and test its product in a range of diesel engines. It has applied for funding for further R&D of the technology from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.

"The market potential for this product is almost unlimited in the 'Peak Oil' environment we are in, as there is now a global demand for biodiesel of billions of liters per year," said Leay.

Contact Barrie Leay (barrie@actrix.co.nz) of Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation Ltd., with questions (in the UK: 03 545 1154).

I admit there are problems with some of these potential sources of biofuels (as noted in the articles), but the point I'm making is biofuel production does NOT have to negatively impact food production.

[Sidewinder]

Yes, I know biofuel production cannot meet demand for fuel without negatively impacting food production, but it can help to reduce the use of fossil fuels, which is best combined with an overall reduction in the use of fuels, e.g., for cars (as Ender has stated).

[Tanasinn]

I'm not necessarily seeing the dilemma. Big food producing nations like the U.S. aren't short on arable land, you don't need to stop growing food to invest in an alternative biofuel source (Isn't hemp one of several? Switchgrass? Algae?).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm not necessarily seeing the dilemma. Big food producing nations like the U.S. aren't short on arable land, you don't need to stop growing food to invest in an alternative biofuel source (Isn't hemp one of several? Switchgrass? Algae?).

Yes, but try removing the subsidies given to farmers to make crops that are used for Biofuel. That is the real challenge. Also, who's going to pay for any of the expansion? There's the issue of supply and demand where some farmers might be more content with high prices and don't expand.

[Sidewinder]

One reason I'm supporting biofuel (and coming into conflict with Ender as a result) is because I don't see NOT using biofuel as an option within the next few decades. The US and Western Europe might be able to switch from the use of fossil fuels to nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, and wind for power generation (good luck convincing voters to fund the billions of dollars that'll require, though), but what about China?

Electricity - production:
3.256 trillion kWh (2007)

Electricity - consumption:
2.859 trillion kWh (2006)

Electricity - exports:
11.27 billion kWh (2006)

Electricity - imports:
5.39 billion kWh (2006)

Oil - production:
3.73 million bbl/day (2007 est.)

Oil - consumption:
6.93 million bbl/day (2007 est.)

Oil - exports:
79,060 bbl/day (2007)

Oil - imports:
3.19 million bbl/day (2007)

Oil - proved reserves:
12.8 billion bbl (2007 est.)

Natural gas - production:
58.6 billion cu m (2006 est.)

Natural gas - consumption:
55.6 billion cu m (2006 est.)

Natural gas - exports:
2.874 billion cu m (2006)

Natural gas - imports:
976 million cu m (2006)

Natural gas - proved reserves:
2.45 trillion cu m (2006 est.)

China's Car Drive

New Chinese exports

13 June 2005

As the growth in car sales on the mainland stabilises, Chinese car producers will look for markets overseas.

Since 2003, when sales increased by more than 80 per cent to 2 million units, China's domestic market for cars has stabilised. In 2004 sales rose by 15 per cent. They are likely to expand by a further 12 per cent in 2005, and then grow by 15 per cent annually during the next five years.

This would take sales to 5 million by 2010, with China overtaking Japan as Asia's largest car market - and the second-largest in the world.

Caution
But the complexity of economic and social conditions in China, counsels caution in accepting claims that the mainland has already entered the era of mass car consumption.

Rapid income growth and the further expansion of the middle class will generate a steady rise in domestic car demand in the coming years.

However, this is likely to leave excess capacity from the rapidly-expanding factories.

That will lead manufacturers to seek to exploit new markets overseas, posing a fresh challenge to American, European and Japanese car firms.

Car ownership
Ownership in China is overwhelmingly an urban middle-class phenomenon, available only to those in the highest income brackets.

In 2003 13.6 out of every thousand urban households had a car. The highest ownership rates were in Beijing (66 per 1,000) and Guangdong (43.7).

In municipal Shanghai, the figure was only 18 per thousand, though inclusion of neighbouring regions in the Yangtze Delta pushed this figure closer to 30.

Beijing, Tianjin, the Yangtze and Pearl River Delta regions account for more than half of the domestic market share.

Motorcycles
In cities, motorcycle use is more prevalent than cars, and continues to rise -from 188 to 240 per 1,000 urban households between 2000 and 2003.

Car ownership is almost unknown in the countryside, but motorcycle ownership among rural households is rising fast.

Such figures should induce caution about claims that China is becoming a 'car-owning society'.

Per capita car ownership is only marginally higher than in India. It will take many years to reach current levels in Asian countries such as Taiwan, Malaysia and South Korea.

How about India?

Electricity - production:
661.6 billion kWh (2005)

Electricity - consumption:
488.5 billion kWh (2005)

Electricity - exports:
67 million kWh (2005)

Electricity - imports:
1.764 billion kWh (2005)

Oil - production:
834,600 bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - consumption:
2.438 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - exports:
350,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - imports:
2.098 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

Oil - proved reserves:
5.848 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)

Natural gas - production:
28.68 billion cu m (2005 est.)

Natural gas - consumption:
34.47 billion cu m (2005 est.)

Natural gas - exports:
0 cu m (2005 est.)

Natural gas - imports:
5.793 billion cu m (2005)

Natural gas - proved reserves:
1.056 trillion cu m (1 January 2006 est.)

Much of the citizen’s income goes towards buying hot wheels — Delhi bought 15,89,872 cars in 2006-2007 as compared to 14,31,638 in 2004-2005. However, public transport has taken a hit with fewer buses on the Capital’s roads these days. The number of people taking public transport has also gone down.

Indian consumers bought about 7 million two-wheelers and 1 million cars in 2006/07.

If these nations do NOT use biofuel, what alternatives do they have for transportation and power generation?

[K. A. Pital]

If these nations do NOT use biofuel, what alternatives do they have for transportation and power generation?

You mean "power generation" and "transportation" in the First World, China and India are more important than people affording the fucking food and not starving or getting mass malnourished?

In that case I want you to say that loud and clear again: "The belly of my car is more important than a person's starvation" and stop pretending the cause of conflict over biofuels is people misunderstanding you.

You know full well that most biofuel production is run in a way that actively harms food prices, and it won't automatically just shift to algae without serious oppsition to the issue. Which specimens like you are blocking quite obviously, since you "don't see NOT using biofuel as an option within the next few decades" and claim that possibilities of not harming food production are the reality, when they are not.

Here's what. If you have biofuel produciton shifting to a process that does not harm the global food supplies, that's fine. Until that process is run and other processes are not, biofuel produciton is a threat to world food supplies and must be protested, fought and, if nothing helps, ultimately extinguished.

Foods make a greater budget of mine than car fuel; I don't even have a fucking car to begin with. I can't believe people can think that continuing the idiotic obsession with cars, that is now spreading from the US to China and India, are more important than food supplies.

[Coyote]

Algae can be grown in vats in barren places where no crops would ever be viable-- vast tracts of southwest desert, for example.

[EDIT]-- to expand on that, the reason biofuels are being made from food crops right now is because it is easy and some infrastructure already exists... doing it from algae will be the creation of a whole new infrastructure in its infant phase (as shown in the link).

Ditching food-based biofuels right now is not a bad thing. If we keep soaking up all the food and pouring into our cars, there's going to be food riots, and things are going to get ugly. Uglier, I should say.

[Sidewinder]

Ditching food-based biofuels right now is not a bad thing.

I agree with ending the use of food crops for biofuels. I do not agree with the ending of investment in biofuel research and production, as the UN official in the OP demanded. Before you claim that I'm putting my car over the lives of starving people, remember that emergency services, i.e., ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars, also use internal combustion engines. That trains, trucks, and ships transporting food from where it's grown to where people need it, need fuel, either for their internal combustion engines or for the powerplants generating the electricity their motors need. That refrigerators, which allow food to be stored without spoiling in hot environments, need electricity to run. That a shortage of heating oil can lead to people freezing to death. That the inavailability of air conditioning can lead to people dying of heat strokes.

Posted 9/25/2003 10:56 AM Updated 9/25/2003 9:23 PM
France heat wave death toll set at 14,802
PARIS (AP) — The death toll in France from August's blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday, surpassing a prior tally by more than 3,000.

Scientists at INSERM, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, deduced the toll by determining that France had experienced 14,802 more deaths than expected for the month of August.

The toll exceeds the prior government count of 11,435, a figure that was based only on deaths in the first two weeks of the month.

The new estimate includes deaths from the second half of August, after the record-breaking temperatures of the first half of the month had abated.

The bulk of the victims — many of them elderly — died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare. Others apparently were greatly weakened during the peak temperatures but did not die until days later.

The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.

Two INSERM researchers who delivered the report were to continue their analysis of deaths to determine what the actual cause was for the spike in mortality, the Health Ministry said.

The researchers, Denis Hemon and Eric Jougla, were also to recommend ways of improving France's warnings system to better manage such heat-related crises in the future.

The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country.

Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has ordered a separate special study this month to look into a possible link with vacation schedules after doctors strongly denied allegations their absence put the elderly in danger. The heat wave hit during the August vacation period, when doctors, hospital staff and many others take leave. The results of that study are expected in November.

The role of vacations is a touchy subject. The National General Practitioners Union says that only about 20% of general practitioners were away during the heat wave.

Other European countries hit by the heat have been slower than France to come out with death tolls, but it's clear they also suffered thousands of deaths.

Environmental experts warn that because of climate change, such heat waves are expected to increase in number in coming years, meaning Europe — a continent that historically has enjoyed a temperate climate — will have to make adjustments.

Before you accuse me of selfishness for my support of biofuel research, please provide a practical replacement for the kerosene that people burn in heaters to avoid freezing to death in northern areas; that powers the trucks, trains, and ships that transport food to where hungry people need it; that powers the refrigerators that store the food so it won't spoil; that powers the air conditioners to prevent people from dying of heat strokes; that fuels the ambulances that take people to hospitals, the firetrucks that firefighters drive to burning buildings, the police cars that police officers drive to arrest suspects and criminals.