Progress on electric cars....
Today’s post: Weds, 3-19-2008
Fossil fuel for cars & trucks is now one of our biggest uses. It definitely is the most visible one to the average person.
Biofuels are one way to power cars & trucks that will help replace fossil fuels. But initially they will be in limited supply. And, they still produce some air pollution in the cities where they are used. Using current technology, they are also mixed with fossil fuels NOT as total replacements.
Since most of the use of electricity is during the day for businesses & for air conditioning & for lighting at night before 11:30 pm & some after 4:30 am with light use from 10:30 am to 5:30 am,
there is existing electric generation capacity not now being used between about 10 PM & 6 AM, particularly between midnight & 4 am.
And, we can both use renewable sources to generate electricity and get increasingly better control of pollution generated by other, centralized sources than we can individual cars & trucks that burn fossil fuels. (As we will cover in next week’s post, some nuclear power as a transition use may also work.)
That means that a major shift to electric cars & plug-in hybrids can help free our cities of air pollution & be a major step to weaning our economy away from fossil fuels.
So drivable, acceptable, cars & trucks that run on electricity or as plug-in hybrids are an important piece of our switching to an economy that runs on renewable energy.
Plug in hybrids are coming. But real electric cars as opposed to slightly supersized golf carts may be available first.
Tesla Motors is close to production on its electric sports car. And, has plans for a sedan within a few years.
This has gotten car enthusiasts’ attention in part because the Tesla Roadster gets good enough acceleration to be very competitive with the best street racers & muscle cars.
It definitely appeals to people who want both performance and to support renewable energy & energy independence at the same time.
What may be less well known is that most electric cars will have better acceleration available at the driver’s demand than most gasoline powered cars – not just the electric sports cars.
Here are two articles relating to this theme.
The first one is about one of the more significant companies that will compete with Tesla Motors.
( I added some paragraphing to the article to emphasize some key points that I think deserve it that were made by the CEO, Jeff Boyd, who was interviewed.)
The second is about a minivan like electric car conversion.
( This article was in an online source called VentureBeat )
“Q&A with Jeff Boyd, CEO of Miles Electric Vehicle
Chris Morrison March 5th, 2008
Everyone knows the name Tesla Motors. High-profile VC fundings, a high-performance sports car and its layoffs have gotten the company endless coverage. However, there’s also a slew of lesser-known electric car companies. One of the handful with real potential (and real funding) is Miles Electric Vehicle, a Santa Monica, Calif. company with plans to release a highway-speed electric car, the XS500, in 2009.
Miles already sells a few low-speed models, but the XS500 will be the most acceptable to Americans — with a top speed of over 80mph, a range of over 120 miles, and the looks and features of a normal car, unlike some all-electric designs that many people find downright bizarre (see some examples here). The planned price is in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, cheaper than Tesla’s Whitestar, which is aiming for $50,000. The company caught my attention with a recent $15 million financing, so I called up CEO Jeff Boyd for a quick interview.
Do you think you’ll get competition from bigger companies?
We hope that there is a lot of competition. A decade ago, the all-electric car failed, for a variety of reasons.
But at this point, we’ve got the catalysts: The homeland security issue, the emissions issue — this is no longer a fad, a niche market or a matter of curiosity. We think it’s a revolution, and we hope manufacturers all over the world are working in the area.
It’s going to take a lot of work and money to make the dream come to fruition. There’s plenty of market to go after, and we anticipate being one of many.
Will you be competitive with larger automakers?
From a technology standpoint, we feel that we can compete. As far as branding and distribution, the traditional automakers are very advanced and mature. But there’s plenty of room in the market when there’s an emerging business. If you look at the US selling 16 million new cars a year, Europe doing a similar number and about 50 million total around the world, there’s no reason we shouldn’t have enough sales to make a business. We welcome competition, we want everyone to jump in so we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil and change how we handle transportation.
Tesla has taken a lot of money — nearly $150 million to date, with more than twice that planned in the future. Will you need to take less money than Tesla has to commercialize?
We don’t anticipate needing anywhere near that amount of money. Our original private funding and the first round of our equity financing looks like enough to continue research on the XS500 and expand our distribution model.
Where does design come in?
There are three keys to our business model. First and foremost, we want to be all-electric. Second, we want to be completely safe and meet all the regulations. And third, we want to be low-cost. In order to be low cost, we’ve adapted chassis that have already been manufactured. Rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper and coming out with a completely new chassis design for our low or high-speed vehicles, this is allowing us to keep our costs down. If we’re going to bring a car out that will really change our reliance on oil, it needs to be cheap. [ed. note: It’s also worth noting that Miles manufactures its vehicles on cheap production lines in China. Tesla also used a pre-existing chassis for the Roadster, but it was a very expensive model from Lotus.]
The cost is still high for the XS500 — will prices come down?
The cost of lithium ion [batteries], which is right now still a fairly expensive technology, will come down over time. We also have a five year development plan with a variety of models in it. The next model after the XS500 is a small cross-over unit that will be priced lower. Whether we can reduce the price on the XS500, we’re not sure. But even if we don’t, we’ll be bringing out lower-cost models over the next two to three years that will expand the market for all electric vehicles.”
….
“Will electric cars be competitive with plug-in hybrids?
I’m not aware of any [plug-in] hybrids that are very close to production. We’re a little over a year away, so we think we’re maybe two or three years ahead of most plug-in hybrid vehicles. We applaud the efforts of the ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen, fuel cell communities, but fundamentally, we think those are transitional technologies toward all-electric. In effect they [all-electric cars] have zero emissions.
About half of our electricity is from coal, but the technology exists to change that. It’s within our grasp to generate electricity without any emissions.
We also like all-electric because the US electric utility grid is capable of handling the charging requirements of a lot of vehicles without expanding greatly.
You took funding from a private equity firm, Angeleno Group, rather than a venture capital group. Why?
The principals [directors] of Angeleno Group have been associated with Miles Rubin [the company’s founder] for many years, so it was natural as we developed for them to reach out to us. We weren’t seeking investors, but upon engaging we were impressed with their true commitment to alternative energy. When you enter a partnership like that, it’s helpful if it goes beyond the cash infusion. If they can help with planning and business development, it can really be meaningful.
What sort of future do you envision? Acquisition, IPO, staying private?
We really don’t have any plans to do any more than continue on the path we’re on, as a private company.”
I found this info online looking for electric cars on Yahoo. I had also heard that there were Scion conversions. So far the progress has been on the boxy minivan model not the more car like Scion model. And, the conversions are a bit pricey. But it IS progress.
And, it shows what some of the potentials are for electric cars when cheaper lithium ion batteries are installed into cars as they are manufactured & the companies realize economies of scale to bring the cost down.
“Scion Electric Car Conversions”
"AC Propulsion, a California-based company that just debuted its eBox, a converted Toyota Scion xB with an electric engine. After you bring your own Scion, AC Propulsion will do the deed for $55,000. So what're the specs on the eBox? We're glad you asked: 180 mile range, top speed of 95 mph, and you can get a full charge in five hours right from your garage's wall outlet. Sure, that sounds like a lot for a car that's ordinarily pretty freakin' cheap (~ $18,000), but when you think that you'll never have to buy gas again over the life of the car, it just might be worth it."
"Sure, a few companies have recently introduced plans for two-seat electric sports cars in the $70,000-$100,000+ price range, but the eBox offers similar performance on a platform that can carry five adults. And the eBox is currently taking orders for delivery in 2007. It is true that I cannot afford $70,000 for a car right now, but if I could, I would insist on buying one that could haul my whole family of four. The eBox fits that bill without any struggle. The fact that it can blow away a Mustang GT is only icing on the cake. "
1. www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=152318 eBox Scion XB conversion
2. AC Propulsion's Scion xB electric car conversion keeps getting better ...
www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1172
3. AC Propulsion converts stock Scion xB into fully electric "eBox" car ...
... AcPropulsion, ebox, electric car, Electric Car, toyota scion xb, Toyota Scion Xb ... gas costs $4 per gallon, that the Scion normally gets 30 MPG, and that you drive ...
engadget.com/2006/12/11/ac-propulsion-converts-stock-scion-xb-into-fully-electric
4. Play Video YouTube - My Scion xA EV Electric car conversion project
We're converting a Scion xA from a gas car to a fully battery electric vehicle! ... ZAP Xebra and GEM Electric Car Race. 00:58 From: Xebranut. Views: 8,477 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmM4iO4W9c - 113k –
X * X* X* X* X*
As more electricity becomes available from renewable sources & the costs of electric cars & plug-in hybrids come down, we will make substantial progress to transport that is NOT dependent on fossil fuels. And even in the nearer future while some of our electricity comes from sequestered coal fired plants & nuclear, electric cars & plug-in hybrids will help drop the air pollution in our cities a lot.
So, three cheers from here for electric cars & the people who make them.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Potential Good News on biofuels....
Today’s post: Weds, 3-12-2008
Using arable land to grow biofuels is beginning to look increasingly like an undesirable idea for many reasons.
It competes with growing food & growing food in a health-supporting & sustainable way. And, it tends to lead to chopping down trees & rainforests that now remove CO2 for free & releasing CO2 when this & tilling that land are done. (Using agricultural & cooking wastes & maybe growing things like switch grass in less arable land or using switch grass or soybeans for biodiesel in a crop rotation system may still be good ideas though.)
The good news is that we may soon have a way to grow biofuels on rocky, arid/or nonarable land.
I live in the Silicon Valley as does my colleague Brad. So I see our San Jose Mercury newspaper.
Recently their columnist who writes a variety of commentary of interest to people here, Vindu Goel, reported on the many startups now exploring the use of algae many of which are located here.
The ones that can be easily installed on rocky, arid/or nonarable land look the most promising to me. They will have the least environmental impact. Many of these areas, as we have recently done a post on, also get abundant solar energy, so the electricity to power converting algae to biofuels will be available onsite as well. Further, today, NPR online news had a story pointing out that crops grown for biofuels are potentially likely to disruption from drought. Growing algae is NOT.
Here is Vindu Goel’s article. I found it extremely well done.:
“Grow algae for biofuel
Vindu's View: Algae startups chase green slime dreams
By Vindu Goel
Mercury News
Article Launched: 03/07/2008 01:00:00 AM PST
At Solazyme, a company based in South San Francisco, various forms of Algae... ( Pauline Lubens )«12345»
Related Sections
Green Energy: All about alternative energy
Green Living: Consumer oriented news you can use for a greener lifestyle
There's a certain poetry in the notion of jet planes shooting across the sky, powered by pond scum.
Throw in the prospect that fuels made from algae could slow global warming, replace petroleum and make a fortune for their creators, and the vision becomes irresistible. Dozens of start-ups, in Silicon Valley and around the world, are chasing green-slime dreams.
It's a daunting but important quest. With oil prices topping $100 a barrel and rising concern about manmade climate change, we need to find renewable fuels that reduce our dependence on petroleum and cut our carbon emissions.
"Algae has a chance to save the planet," said Michael Fertik, who is quietly working on a startup, Mighty Algae Biofuels, in addition to his main job as chief executive of ReputationDefender in Menlo Park. "It's not a category killer. It's category Armageddon."
Well, hopefully not Armageddon. But you get the picture.
Microscopic, single-celled algae have been around for billions of years. The simplest of plants, they are quite efficient at converting light, water and carbon into oily compounds called lipids that can be extracted and processed into diesel fuel, gasoline, crude oil, even salad dressings and skin creams.
"Algae are the original oil producers," said Jonathan Wolfson, chief executive of Solazyme, a South San Francisco company that is trying to grow algae in giant fermentation tanks more typically used for beer. "The last time you filled up your car, the gas came from oil that very likely originated with an algal bloom 100 million years ago."
The challenge for entrepreneurs like Wolfson: How do you convert algae into usable oil on a massive scale at a price comparable to pumping petroleum out of the ground?
It is, as the techies like to say, a non-trivial problem.
First, you have to find the right species of algae. Then you have to figure out the best way to make it grow. Then you have to devise a method for getting the oil out. Then you have to refine it into something that can run your car or an airplane. To top it all off, volume needs to be high enough to drive the cost down to $2 or $3 a gallon from about $20 now.
"People think all we have to do is grow this stuff, extract the oil and here we go," said Al Darzins, a group manager at the National Bioenergy Center, part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL spent two decades researching algal oils before federal policy makers decided ethanol had more commercial promise. Just recently, the lab resumed its algae work.
NREL studied algae in open ponds, an industrial farming approach used by some companies, including LiveFuels of Menlo Park. While ponds have the advantage of being relatively cheap, it's hard to control temperature and water loss. Unwanted algae species can also take over the pools.
Another strategy, advocated by companies like Mighty Algae and GreenFuel Technologies of Cambridge, Mass., is to grow algae in special containers, or bioreactors, which can be manipulated to optimize the plants' exposure to sunlight and nutrients.
High capital costs are the biggest problem with bioreactors, said Rich Hilt, a LiveFuels co-founder who left the company but still follows the industry. GreenFuel ran into financing trouble last year, forcing the company to slash its staff and bring on Bob Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet technology, as CEO. (Fertik claims his small team has licked the cost problem through a "galactically cheaper" design.)
Solazyme is pursuing a third path, one I find especially fascinating: growing algae in the dark in large tanks and feeding them sugar to supercharge their growth. "It's a thousand times more productive than the natural process," said Harrison Dillon, a geneticist and patent lawyer who serves as the company's president and chief technology officer.
Solazyme says it has already made thousands of gallons of high-grade biodiesel and even light sweet "biocrude" with its processes, which can use anything from chemical waste to wood chips as a source of carbon.
The company, which raised $10 million in equity financing and $5 million in debt last year, is still experimenting with different feedstocks, algae species and oil extraction methods. Scores of containers with telltale green scrawls dot the lab and computers are constantly measuring conditions in the fermentation tanks.
Dillon said he hopes to reach commercial-scale biodiesel production in two or three years. Refiner Imperium Renewables of Seattle and petroleum giant Chevron of San Ramon have already signed partnership agreements with the company.
To help pay the bills, Solazyme is using its technology to make specialty oils for the cosmetics industry, including one ingredient that could fetch more than $20,000 a liter.
Darzins and other experts caution that economical algal oil production is at least five years away and could take up to a decade. Rival biofuel technologies, such as the bacterial oil generation being explored by Bay Area startups LS9 and Amyris Biotechnologies, could prove to be more successful.
Still, the algae efforts are well worth pursuing. Recent research suggests that existing biofuels like ethanol and diesels made from soybeans and oil palms cause more environmental harm than they're worth.
Scientists estimate that a commercial algae farm could probably produce 5,000 gallons of oil per acre of land, compared to around 50 gallons an acre from soybeans and 600 gallons an acre from palm oil. Depending on the species and the manufacturing process, the algae could also be grown in the desert or other inhospitable places so they wouldn't tie up valuable land that could be used for food crops.
The potential of algae has certainly seduced investors, from the prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists to the poor suckers conned into giving money to De Beers Fuels, a South African company that collapsed last year in a web of deception.
"There's a lot of overpromising, and there's going to be a heck of a lot of people underdelivering," said Wolfson.
He doesn't plan to be one of them."
Of particular interest to me also is that Solazyme may be able to increase production&/or locate its algae biofuel producing tanks in the shade of photovoltaic panels or trees or in areas with very little to no sunshine.
X * X* X* X* X*
There is also significant progress being made in Spain in this area.:
(The links in these listings from Yahoo won’t show on my blog; but cutting & posting the exact word on Yahoo (or Google) should dredge them up for you.)
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages[ More results from www.greencarcongress.com ]
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF and Acciona Energía to Invest $365 ...
However, all of southern Spain would be an ideal place for photovoltaic solar ... see link for new ethanol feedstock from algae... it uses CO2 to grow... ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/repsol_ypf_and_.html - 23k -
Portugal & Spain are understandably interested in alternative energy & have the kind of sunny land that works for this kind of biofuel & solar energy.
Of the countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Portugal, Spain, & Israel have the most going on now in renewable energy efforts from what I’ve read. But all of the other countries around the Mediterranean & many of the countries in the Middle East have similar land.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Today’s post: Weds, 3-12-2008
Using arable land to grow biofuels is beginning to look increasingly like an undesirable idea for many reasons.
It competes with growing food & growing food in a health-supporting & sustainable way. And, it tends to lead to chopping down trees & rainforests that now remove CO2 for free & releasing CO2 when this & tilling that land are done. (Using agricultural & cooking wastes & maybe growing things like switch grass in less arable land or using switch grass or soybeans for biodiesel in a crop rotation system may still be good ideas though.)
The good news is that we may soon have a way to grow biofuels on rocky, arid/or nonarable land.
I live in the Silicon Valley as does my colleague Brad. So I see our San Jose Mercury newspaper.
Recently their columnist who writes a variety of commentary of interest to people here, Vindu Goel, reported on the many startups now exploring the use of algae many of which are located here.
The ones that can be easily installed on rocky, arid/or nonarable land look the most promising to me. They will have the least environmental impact. Many of these areas, as we have recently done a post on, also get abundant solar energy, so the electricity to power converting algae to biofuels will be available onsite as well. Further, today, NPR online news had a story pointing out that crops grown for biofuels are potentially likely to disruption from drought. Growing algae is NOT.
Here is Vindu Goel’s article. I found it extremely well done.:
“Grow algae for biofuel
Vindu's View: Algae startups chase green slime dreams
By Vindu Goel
Mercury News
Article Launched: 03/07/2008 01:00:00 AM PST
At Solazyme, a company based in South San Francisco, various forms of Algae... ( Pauline Lubens )«12345»
Related Sections
Green Energy: All about alternative energy
Green Living: Consumer oriented news you can use for a greener lifestyle
There's a certain poetry in the notion of jet planes shooting across the sky, powered by pond scum.
Throw in the prospect that fuels made from algae could slow global warming, replace petroleum and make a fortune for their creators, and the vision becomes irresistible. Dozens of start-ups, in Silicon Valley and around the world, are chasing green-slime dreams.
It's a daunting but important quest. With oil prices topping $100 a barrel and rising concern about manmade climate change, we need to find renewable fuels that reduce our dependence on petroleum and cut our carbon emissions.
"Algae has a chance to save the planet," said Michael Fertik, who is quietly working on a startup, Mighty Algae Biofuels, in addition to his main job as chief executive of ReputationDefender in Menlo Park. "It's not a category killer. It's category Armageddon."
Well, hopefully not Armageddon. But you get the picture.
Microscopic, single-celled algae have been around for billions of years. The simplest of plants, they are quite efficient at converting light, water and carbon into oily compounds called lipids that can be extracted and processed into diesel fuel, gasoline, crude oil, even salad dressings and skin creams.
"Algae are the original oil producers," said Jonathan Wolfson, chief executive of Solazyme, a South San Francisco company that is trying to grow algae in giant fermentation tanks more typically used for beer. "The last time you filled up your car, the gas came from oil that very likely originated with an algal bloom 100 million years ago."
The challenge for entrepreneurs like Wolfson: How do you convert algae into usable oil on a massive scale at a price comparable to pumping petroleum out of the ground?
It is, as the techies like to say, a non-trivial problem.
First, you have to find the right species of algae. Then you have to figure out the best way to make it grow. Then you have to devise a method for getting the oil out. Then you have to refine it into something that can run your car or an airplane. To top it all off, volume needs to be high enough to drive the cost down to $2 or $3 a gallon from about $20 now.
"People think all we have to do is grow this stuff, extract the oil and here we go," said Al Darzins, a group manager at the National Bioenergy Center, part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL spent two decades researching algal oils before federal policy makers decided ethanol had more commercial promise. Just recently, the lab resumed its algae work.
NREL studied algae in open ponds, an industrial farming approach used by some companies, including LiveFuels of Menlo Park. While ponds have the advantage of being relatively cheap, it's hard to control temperature and water loss. Unwanted algae species can also take over the pools.
Another strategy, advocated by companies like Mighty Algae and GreenFuel Technologies of Cambridge, Mass., is to grow algae in special containers, or bioreactors, which can be manipulated to optimize the plants' exposure to sunlight and nutrients.
High capital costs are the biggest problem with bioreactors, said Rich Hilt, a LiveFuels co-founder who left the company but still follows the industry. GreenFuel ran into financing trouble last year, forcing the company to slash its staff and bring on Bob Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet technology, as CEO. (Fertik claims his small team has licked the cost problem through a "galactically cheaper" design.)
Solazyme is pursuing a third path, one I find especially fascinating: growing algae in the dark in large tanks and feeding them sugar to supercharge their growth. "It's a thousand times more productive than the natural process," said Harrison Dillon, a geneticist and patent lawyer who serves as the company's president and chief technology officer.
Solazyme says it has already made thousands of gallons of high-grade biodiesel and even light sweet "biocrude" with its processes, which can use anything from chemical waste to wood chips as a source of carbon.
The company, which raised $10 million in equity financing and $5 million in debt last year, is still experimenting with different feedstocks, algae species and oil extraction methods. Scores of containers with telltale green scrawls dot the lab and computers are constantly measuring conditions in the fermentation tanks.
Dillon said he hopes to reach commercial-scale biodiesel production in two or three years. Refiner Imperium Renewables of Seattle and petroleum giant Chevron of San Ramon have already signed partnership agreements with the company.
To help pay the bills, Solazyme is using its technology to make specialty oils for the cosmetics industry, including one ingredient that could fetch more than $20,000 a liter.
Darzins and other experts caution that economical algal oil production is at least five years away and could take up to a decade. Rival biofuel technologies, such as the bacterial oil generation being explored by Bay Area startups LS9 and Amyris Biotechnologies, could prove to be more successful.
Still, the algae efforts are well worth pursuing. Recent research suggests that existing biofuels like ethanol and diesels made from soybeans and oil palms cause more environmental harm than they're worth.
Scientists estimate that a commercial algae farm could probably produce 5,000 gallons of oil per acre of land, compared to around 50 gallons an acre from soybeans and 600 gallons an acre from palm oil. Depending on the species and the manufacturing process, the algae could also be grown in the desert or other inhospitable places so they wouldn't tie up valuable land that could be used for food crops.
The potential of algae has certainly seduced investors, from the prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists to the poor suckers conned into giving money to De Beers Fuels, a South African company that collapsed last year in a web of deception.
"There's a lot of overpromising, and there's going to be a heck of a lot of people underdelivering," said Wolfson.
He doesn't plan to be one of them."
Of particular interest to me also is that Solazyme may be able to increase production&/or locate its algae biofuel producing tanks in the shade of photovoltaic panels or trees or in areas with very little to no sunshine.
X * X* X* X* X*
There is also significant progress being made in Spain in this area.:
(The links in these listings from Yahoo won’t show on my blog; but cutting & posting the exact word on Yahoo (or Google) should dredge them up for you.)
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF Leads Biodiesel Research Project
Robert Bosch Spain—suppliers of automotive components including diesel ... And their algae can be used to produce ethanol and biodiesel at the same time. ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/repsol_ypf_lead.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages[ More results from www.greencarcongress.com ]
Green Car Congress: Repsol YPF and Acciona Energía to Invest $365 ...
However, all of southern Spain would be an ideal place for photovoltaic solar ... see link for new ethanol feedstock from algae... it uses CO2 to grow... ...www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/repsol_ypf_and_.html - 23k -
Portugal & Spain are understandably interested in alternative energy & have the kind of sunny land that works for this kind of biofuel & solar energy.
Of the countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Portugal, Spain, & Israel have the most going on now in renewable energy efforts from what I’ve read. But all of the other countries around the Mediterranean & many of the countries in the Middle East have similar land.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Good news & bad on renewable energy….
Today’s post: Weds, 3-5-2008
There have been several really positive news stories lately.
Some time ago the large Silicon Valley technology company, Applied Materials bought a thin film solar company. Since then they have been quietly growing a quite large volume of sales in solar. They are large enough that this has become a quite substantial business already.
Now it’s just been announced that they have signed a deal, apparently with a company in China to build enough solar electricity generation –IN THIS ONE DEAL –that by itself it will increase current world-wide solar electricity generation by about 1/12th or 8 % above its current levels. They are using large arrays of large format, “garage door” sized, thin film panels in a solar energy farm to do this.
This is great news for three reasons. It shows we are beginning to get large scale increases of electricity generated from solar sources. The announcement said that they already are able to do this for about what a fossil fuel plant can do per kilowatt generated costwise. And, by simply continuing to build more capacity, the economy of scale alone will allow them to soon cut costs by another 15 to 20 %. That will make solar cost LESS than fossil fuels for generating electricity. Third, if this solar energy farm is located IN China, it will likely replace a new coal burning plant that otherwise would have been built to generate this electricity.
Secondly, it has been announced that both General Motors & Daimler will begin making & selling hybrid cars using lithium ion batteries.
That’s also very good news for several reasons. It means the energy efficiency of the fleets of cars these two large companies make & sell will begin improving sharply over time. And, as they & other companies perfect using lithium ion batteries, all electric cars like the Tesla cars & plug-in hybrids will increasingly be common & used widely.
Lithium ion batteries are so much lighter & more compact than batteries using heavier metals this is now looking more & more likely. Further, it suggests GM now expects it to MAKE THEM MONEY to make more energy efficient cars. And, if they once manage to do that, all major car manufacturers will do so as well.
Combining these two stories strongly suggests that within 20 years we will increasingly be able to use solar generated electricity to power our cars & SUV’s – or at least provide the majority of their energy needs with solar generated electricity.
These are very large players. So these stories are extremely good news.
The bad news is that not ONE of the three major candidates for President of the United States has yet begun to run as their most important campaign issue that they are the best candidate to lead the conversion of the economy of the United States & the world to run on renewable energy.
We are already about 20 to 40 years late in doing this to avoid serious economic problems from global warming & are within just a few years of the deadline to avoid great depression levels of economic disaster caused by global warming.
Secondly, oil prices have more than tripled in just the past few years. The resulting increase in gasoline prices this has caused have begun to exert a strong braking effect on disposable consumer spending. If increased world wide demand continues to rise faster than new supplies are developed – which looks likely – gasoline prices could easily triple again in 10 years. That won’t be kind to our economy or to people holding on to their jobs. And, this is a very real near-term problem.
Third, the money spent by the United States, Western Europe, Japan, & China on imported oil is directly & indirectly funding terrorists from the countries that have oil to export. This is a very dangerous situation that threatens our national security.
To avoid really harsh economic problems & slow global warming we must have as our next President a leader who will lead an extraordinary, focused effort by virtually every able person in the United States to switch our economy to one powered by renewable energy that we are increasingly efficient at using.
The comparison to the Manhattan Project is apt for this. But it really needs even more than that. It will require an effort comparable to all of what the United States did to win World War II.
John McCain clearly values national security. And, as a Republican, he likely wants to keep our economy & the businesses that make it up strong.
Barack Obama has written in his Audacity of Hope book statements that suggest he knows something about this issue; & most of his stated policy on energy listed on his campaign website is reasonably good. And, he clearly has inspirational leadership ability.
Hillary Clinton has said nothing to suggest she is against renewable energy. And, while Bill Clinton was our President, he did more to advance energy efficiency & renewable energy than is generally known.
But, so far not ONE of them has made this issue the main theme of their campaign.
Gentlemen, Lady, the handwriting is on the wall & has been for quite some time.
It’s the energy economy stupid!
I think the first of the 3 candidates who notices that & runs as the best person to lead us in that area -- & who explains how our economy, our jobs, & our way of life depend on us making this change, will be our next President.
Anything any of you reading this can do to get this to them or the people running their campaigns would be much appreciated.
Today’s post: Weds, 3-5-2008
There have been several really positive news stories lately.
Some time ago the large Silicon Valley technology company, Applied Materials bought a thin film solar company. Since then they have been quietly growing a quite large volume of sales in solar. They are large enough that this has become a quite substantial business already.
Now it’s just been announced that they have signed a deal, apparently with a company in China to build enough solar electricity generation –IN THIS ONE DEAL –that by itself it will increase current world-wide solar electricity generation by about 1/12th or 8 % above its current levels. They are using large arrays of large format, “garage door” sized, thin film panels in a solar energy farm to do this.
This is great news for three reasons. It shows we are beginning to get large scale increases of electricity generated from solar sources. The announcement said that they already are able to do this for about what a fossil fuel plant can do per kilowatt generated costwise. And, by simply continuing to build more capacity, the economy of scale alone will allow them to soon cut costs by another 15 to 20 %. That will make solar cost LESS than fossil fuels for generating electricity. Third, if this solar energy farm is located IN China, it will likely replace a new coal burning plant that otherwise would have been built to generate this electricity.
Secondly, it has been announced that both General Motors & Daimler will begin making & selling hybrid cars using lithium ion batteries.
That’s also very good news for several reasons. It means the energy efficiency of the fleets of cars these two large companies make & sell will begin improving sharply over time. And, as they & other companies perfect using lithium ion batteries, all electric cars like the Tesla cars & plug-in hybrids will increasingly be common & used widely.
Lithium ion batteries are so much lighter & more compact than batteries using heavier metals this is now looking more & more likely. Further, it suggests GM now expects it to MAKE THEM MONEY to make more energy efficient cars. And, if they once manage to do that, all major car manufacturers will do so as well.
Combining these two stories strongly suggests that within 20 years we will increasingly be able to use solar generated electricity to power our cars & SUV’s – or at least provide the majority of their energy needs with solar generated electricity.
These are very large players. So these stories are extremely good news.
The bad news is that not ONE of the three major candidates for President of the United States has yet begun to run as their most important campaign issue that they are the best candidate to lead the conversion of the economy of the United States & the world to run on renewable energy.
We are already about 20 to 40 years late in doing this to avoid serious economic problems from global warming & are within just a few years of the deadline to avoid great depression levels of economic disaster caused by global warming.
Secondly, oil prices have more than tripled in just the past few years. The resulting increase in gasoline prices this has caused have begun to exert a strong braking effect on disposable consumer spending. If increased world wide demand continues to rise faster than new supplies are developed – which looks likely – gasoline prices could easily triple again in 10 years. That won’t be kind to our economy or to people holding on to their jobs. And, this is a very real near-term problem.
Third, the money spent by the United States, Western Europe, Japan, & China on imported oil is directly & indirectly funding terrorists from the countries that have oil to export. This is a very dangerous situation that threatens our national security.
To avoid really harsh economic problems & slow global warming we must have as our next President a leader who will lead an extraordinary, focused effort by virtually every able person in the United States to switch our economy to one powered by renewable energy that we are increasingly efficient at using.
The comparison to the Manhattan Project is apt for this. But it really needs even more than that. It will require an effort comparable to all of what the United States did to win World War II.
John McCain clearly values national security. And, as a Republican, he likely wants to keep our economy & the businesses that make it up strong.
Barack Obama has written in his Audacity of Hope book statements that suggest he knows something about this issue; & most of his stated policy on energy listed on his campaign website is reasonably good. And, he clearly has inspirational leadership ability.
Hillary Clinton has said nothing to suggest she is against renewable energy. And, while Bill Clinton was our President, he did more to advance energy efficiency & renewable energy than is generally known.
But, so far not ONE of them has made this issue the main theme of their campaign.
Gentlemen, Lady, the handwriting is on the wall & has been for quite some time.
It’s the energy economy stupid!
I think the first of the 3 candidates who notices that & runs as the best person to lead us in that area -- & who explains how our economy, our jobs, & our way of life depend on us making this change, will be our next President.
Anything any of you reading this can do to get this to them or the people running their campaigns would be much appreciated.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
New Energy & Industrial Region ….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-27-2008
Today, solar generated electricity is still more costly than generating electricity by burning natural gas, oil, or coal.
However, that is rapidly changing on both ends of the equation.
Thin film solar promises to soon cost less than fossil fuels at today’s prices. Other new technologies are being developed all over the world to bring down the cost of solar electricity. And we are already seeing the increase in volume of solar deployment that will allow for economies of scale & drive developments in cost-effective manufacturing.
Increased worldwide economic & population growth have increased demand enough that oil has gone from $30 a barrel to $100 in the last six years or so. Unlike the spike in the late 1970’s & early 1980’s, the upward trend in prices caused by increased demand for energy is likely to continue -- though perhaps at a lower annual growth rate -- over the next 50 years.
And, increasingly, because of the problem of already having too much CO2 in the world’s air, use of fossil fuels will increasingly be taxed. Soon all uses in most developed countries of fossil fuels will be taxed directly by carbon taxes on natural gas, oil, & coal. And, increasingly, to use such sources, you will need to get licensed & will also need to pay enough to offset 100 % of the carbon dioxide generated.
Given these things, I believe solar generated electricity will soon cost less than generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. I think we’ll be best served if it happens in five years for new capacity. But it may take more like 10 or more.
However, it’s quite clear to me that sooner is better and that there will be huge amounts of money to be made as this happens whether it takes 5 years or 20. And, it’s equally clear that is certain to happen barring world wide disasters or somehow developing safe & cost effective controlled fusion power.
You may be aware that the thermal solar company Ausra and PG & E are already beginning to build large scale thermal solar electricity generation facilities in the desert of Southeast California.
(If not, see http://www.ausra.com .
Here’s a quote from their website:
“Amid growing public demand for clean energy, Ausra offers solar thermal electric power stations that provide large-scale low-cost, reliable, renewable energy. Unlike competing approaches, Ausra's technology is proven, easily manufactured and installed, and scalable to high volume.“)
And, here is the key quote from their website.:
“Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Ausra's business will benefit local economies by bringing “green collar” manufacturing and operating jobs to rural communities.”
Ausra’s is not the only thermal solar approach. From what I’ve seen it may well be one of the most cost effective. However, there are other companies already moving into this space. Some may eventually be more cost effective than Ausra.
And, it may be that in some locations, it may be most cost effective to combine thin film solar with thermal solar. Thermal solar has the advantage of being able to store the collected heat for use in nighttime electricity generation. However, for optimum cost effectiveness, it may make sense to have the increased daytime demand be covered by thin film solar “farms.” (So, far it looks to me as if thin film generated solar electricity will cost less per megawatt to install & operate.)
So why does this mean there is a “New Energy & Industrial Region “?
In North America, the locations that work best for large scale electricity generation need to be unusually sunny year round and have land that is not very arable & is currently not very populated.
Where is that found in North America?
1. In the United States,
It’s in California in Southeastern California, far Southern California, &, given less water access in the future, in the South end of the Central Valley at least in part.
It’s also in much of Nevada & a good bit of Arizona & New Mexico. To a lesser degree it’s also in parts of Utah, Colorado, & West Texas.
2. In Mexico,
It’s most of Baja California.
And, it’s in a huge area of Northern Mexico that lies South of California, Arizona, New Mexico, & West Texas.
Since this area taken as whole totals thousands of square miles & has abundant sunshine year round, once it is fully developed as a solar electricity generation zone, much of the electricity needed to power the economies of the United States & Mexico may well come from this area.
Some electricity will come from locally generated renewable sources such as local rooftop solar & wind. And, some will likely come from sequestered coal burning & nuclear -- at least during the transition phase.
I believe that as this area becomes a major energy generation zone, it will make increasing sense to locate server farms, manufacturing, & industrial plants that need large amounts of electricity, such as aluminum smelting, in this area.
In addition, the current populations of this area will need desalted sea water let alone increased populations. This will clearly be powered by solar thermal & solar electricity.
To me, this makes the area of California along the Pacific coast from San Diego to the Mexican Border, the coast of all of Baja California, & the part of Northern Mexico on the other side of the Gulf of California the site of real estate that will be quite valuable in the future for such businesses.
One of the interesting implications is that there may well be enough jobs in this overall area of Northern Mexico to mostly solve the problem of excess & illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico.
If this forecast is correct, there will soon be enough jobs in this part of Mexico, people in Mexico will no longer need to move to the United States to get good jobs. They will be abundantly available in Northern Mexico.
A policy implication of this is that the governments of Mexico, California, & the United States would do well to foster the development of such solar farms & new jobs in Northern Mexico as fast as it can be made to happen.
And, it will pay companies in the United States to plan on expanding into this area as well. In the Silicon Valley where I live, there are three companies that I think for various reason might look at this.: Google, Intel, & Hewlett Packard. These & similar companies thrived by adding facilities in Ireland. And the economy of Ireland has thrived because of it.
I predict this will now happen in Northern Mexico because of solar power available there already -- & the solar electricity that will be available there soon.
The good news is that the current governments of California & Mexico seem likely to like the idea. The President of Mexico just said recently that while he wants people from Mexico who do come to the United States to be treated humanely, he would much rather they could find the good jobs they want in Mexico.
The development of this Solar Energy Area in Northern Mexico has the promise of doing exactly that.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-27-2008
Today, solar generated electricity is still more costly than generating electricity by burning natural gas, oil, or coal.
However, that is rapidly changing on both ends of the equation.
Thin film solar promises to soon cost less than fossil fuels at today’s prices. Other new technologies are being developed all over the world to bring down the cost of solar electricity. And we are already seeing the increase in volume of solar deployment that will allow for economies of scale & drive developments in cost-effective manufacturing.
Increased worldwide economic & population growth have increased demand enough that oil has gone from $30 a barrel to $100 in the last six years or so. Unlike the spike in the late 1970’s & early 1980’s, the upward trend in prices caused by increased demand for energy is likely to continue -- though perhaps at a lower annual growth rate -- over the next 50 years.
And, increasingly, because of the problem of already having too much CO2 in the world’s air, use of fossil fuels will increasingly be taxed. Soon all uses in most developed countries of fossil fuels will be taxed directly by carbon taxes on natural gas, oil, & coal. And, increasingly, to use such sources, you will need to get licensed & will also need to pay enough to offset 100 % of the carbon dioxide generated.
Given these things, I believe solar generated electricity will soon cost less than generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. I think we’ll be best served if it happens in five years for new capacity. But it may take more like 10 or more.
However, it’s quite clear to me that sooner is better and that there will be huge amounts of money to be made as this happens whether it takes 5 years or 20. And, it’s equally clear that is certain to happen barring world wide disasters or somehow developing safe & cost effective controlled fusion power.
You may be aware that the thermal solar company Ausra and PG & E are already beginning to build large scale thermal solar electricity generation facilities in the desert of Southeast California.
(If not, see http://www.ausra.com .
Here’s a quote from their website:
“Amid growing public demand for clean energy, Ausra offers solar thermal electric power stations that provide large-scale low-cost, reliable, renewable energy. Unlike competing approaches, Ausra's technology is proven, easily manufactured and installed, and scalable to high volume.“)
And, here is the key quote from their website.:
“Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Ausra's business will benefit local economies by bringing “green collar” manufacturing and operating jobs to rural communities.”
Ausra’s is not the only thermal solar approach. From what I’ve seen it may well be one of the most cost effective. However, there are other companies already moving into this space. Some may eventually be more cost effective than Ausra.
And, it may be that in some locations, it may be most cost effective to combine thin film solar with thermal solar. Thermal solar has the advantage of being able to store the collected heat for use in nighttime electricity generation. However, for optimum cost effectiveness, it may make sense to have the increased daytime demand be covered by thin film solar “farms.” (So, far it looks to me as if thin film generated solar electricity will cost less per megawatt to install & operate.)
So why does this mean there is a “New Energy & Industrial Region “?
In North America, the locations that work best for large scale electricity generation need to be unusually sunny year round and have land that is not very arable & is currently not very populated.
Where is that found in North America?
1. In the United States,
It’s in California in Southeastern California, far Southern California, &, given less water access in the future, in the South end of the Central Valley at least in part.
It’s also in much of Nevada & a good bit of Arizona & New Mexico. To a lesser degree it’s also in parts of Utah, Colorado, & West Texas.
2. In Mexico,
It’s most of Baja California.
And, it’s in a huge area of Northern Mexico that lies South of California, Arizona, New Mexico, & West Texas.
Since this area taken as whole totals thousands of square miles & has abundant sunshine year round, once it is fully developed as a solar electricity generation zone, much of the electricity needed to power the economies of the United States & Mexico may well come from this area.
Some electricity will come from locally generated renewable sources such as local rooftop solar & wind. And, some will likely come from sequestered coal burning & nuclear -- at least during the transition phase.
I believe that as this area becomes a major energy generation zone, it will make increasing sense to locate server farms, manufacturing, & industrial plants that need large amounts of electricity, such as aluminum smelting, in this area.
In addition, the current populations of this area will need desalted sea water let alone increased populations. This will clearly be powered by solar thermal & solar electricity.
To me, this makes the area of California along the Pacific coast from San Diego to the Mexican Border, the coast of all of Baja California, & the part of Northern Mexico on the other side of the Gulf of California the site of real estate that will be quite valuable in the future for such businesses.
One of the interesting implications is that there may well be enough jobs in this overall area of Northern Mexico to mostly solve the problem of excess & illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico.
If this forecast is correct, there will soon be enough jobs in this part of Mexico, people in Mexico will no longer need to move to the United States to get good jobs. They will be abundantly available in Northern Mexico.
A policy implication of this is that the governments of Mexico, California, & the United States would do well to foster the development of such solar farms & new jobs in Northern Mexico as fast as it can be made to happen.
And, it will pay companies in the United States to plan on expanding into this area as well. In the Silicon Valley where I live, there are three companies that I think for various reason might look at this.: Google, Intel, & Hewlett Packard. These & similar companies thrived by adding facilities in Ireland. And the economy of Ireland has thrived because of it.
I predict this will now happen in Northern Mexico because of solar power available there already -- & the solar electricity that will be available there soon.
The good news is that the current governments of California & Mexico seem likely to like the idea. The President of Mexico just said recently that while he wants people from Mexico who do come to the United States to be treated humanely, he would much rather they could find the good jobs they want in Mexico.
The development of this Solar Energy Area in Northern Mexico has the promise of doing exactly that.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Energy Flags….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-20-2008
I recently read an interesting article. In much the same way that self-winding watches work, the article said that nanotech “cloth” had been developed that could use the normal motions of the wearer to generate electricity.
Due to severe skin irritation or serious health problems nanoparticles may be capable of causing, I’m not at all sure that using such devices would be wise or safe--in clothing.
Cloth tends to break down into dust particles. So you also have think about whether or not it’s safe to breathe nanoparticles before they get used in clothing.
Lightweight plastic film could seal in the electricity generating nanoparticles & prevent these problems. But it’s not very comfortable to wear.
So, I’m not sure energy generating shirts are a good idea at all.
However, the article also happened to mention that this kind of cloth would produce current if it was moved by a light breeze.
That suggests a potentially very useful application.
In fact, it may suggest a double application.
Windmills do work to convert wind in windy areas to electricity.
But they use a lot of metals to build. They have a significant lead time to install them. And, the big ones quite literally hit birds out of the sky when they are turning.
Why not put up multiple flags on each pole where the flags are made of this lightweight plastic film sealing in the electricity generating nanoparticles this article describes?
You could put up a lot of these flag poles quickly. With enough flags deployed & enough wind, I suspect you could out-generate the windmills you could fit on the same land. Even better, birds do not run into or get clubbed by stationary flag poles with flags on them.
The double application would be to put thin film solar cells on the outside of the flags. That way the outside would make electricity from sunlight. And the inside would make electricity from the wind.
I’m not technical enough or rich enough to try this myself. And, the basic idea may be too simple to patent directly.
(The precise processes needed to make it work properly at reasonable cost definitely would be.)
So, if anyone reading this can use this idea, by all means explore it or use it.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-20-2008
I recently read an interesting article. In much the same way that self-winding watches work, the article said that nanotech “cloth” had been developed that could use the normal motions of the wearer to generate electricity.
Due to severe skin irritation or serious health problems nanoparticles may be capable of causing, I’m not at all sure that using such devices would be wise or safe--in clothing.
Cloth tends to break down into dust particles. So you also have think about whether or not it’s safe to breathe nanoparticles before they get used in clothing.
Lightweight plastic film could seal in the electricity generating nanoparticles & prevent these problems. But it’s not very comfortable to wear.
So, I’m not sure energy generating shirts are a good idea at all.
However, the article also happened to mention that this kind of cloth would produce current if it was moved by a light breeze.
That suggests a potentially very useful application.
In fact, it may suggest a double application.
Windmills do work to convert wind in windy areas to electricity.
But they use a lot of metals to build. They have a significant lead time to install them. And, the big ones quite literally hit birds out of the sky when they are turning.
Why not put up multiple flags on each pole where the flags are made of this lightweight plastic film sealing in the electricity generating nanoparticles this article describes?
You could put up a lot of these flag poles quickly. With enough flags deployed & enough wind, I suspect you could out-generate the windmills you could fit on the same land. Even better, birds do not run into or get clubbed by stationary flag poles with flags on them.
The double application would be to put thin film solar cells on the outside of the flags. That way the outside would make electricity from sunlight. And the inside would make electricity from the wind.
I’m not technical enough or rich enough to try this myself. And, the basic idea may be too simple to patent directly.
(The precise processes needed to make it work properly at reasonable cost definitely would be.)
So, if anyone reading this can use this idea, by all means explore it or use it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
New directions needed for biofuels….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-13-2008
I. First, here’s the news article that prompted this post.:
“Biofuels Study Heats Up Global-Warming Debate Jennifer LeClaire, newsfactor.com
Mon Feb 11, 11:17 AM ET
A new study is heating up the global-warming debate. The report by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota concludes that converting land for biofuel crops results in major carbon emissions that make global warming worse. The study will be published in Science later this month.
The researchers ask: Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweigh the carbon you save by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels? They say no, but as with other environmental issues there are many who disagree.
Paying Back the Carbon Debt
The study found that land conversions for corn or sugarcane (ethanol), or palms or soybeans (biodiesel) release 17 to 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels.
The carbon, which is stored in the original plants and soil, is released as carbon dioxide, a process that may take decades. This "carbon debt" must be paid before the biofuels produced on the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and ease global warming, the researchers said.
The conversion of peatlands into palm-oil plantations in Indonesia ran up the greatest carbon debt and would require 423 years to pay off. The next worst was the production of soybeans in the Amazon, which would not pay for itself in renewable soy biodiesel for 319 years.
"We don't have proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products, but not rewarded for carbon management," said Stephen Polasky, a University of Minnesota applied economics professor and an author of the study. "This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions."
A Plausible Theory
As a researcher who has written several papers on biofuels, Kenneth Mulder, a professor and college farm director at Green Mountain College, views the findings as entirely plausible.
"We know that from strictly an energy perspective, the biofuels currently in heaviest production do not have a very high rate of return," Mulder said. "When environmental consequences are taken into consideration, they have been shown by several researchers to have a net negative impact on society."
In particular, Mulder said, many acres of marginally productive land that have been serving a vital function sequestering carbon are now being converted to intensive agriculture, resulting in a loss of soil carbon. There is more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere above it, he added, and the release of this soil carbon has strong implications for climate change.
Not Logical?
Wilfred Candler, author of Global Warming: The Answer, has a different view. Basically, he insisted, the notion that making ethanol will cause forest destruction is not logical. It could be that it would raise the price of corn or palm oil, he said, and people eat less chicken, or use less palm oil for cooking.
"It is probably right that cases can be found -- Malaysia comes to mind -- where serious amounts of forest are being cut down or burned to make way for palm-oil plantations, where the palm oil is intended to be used to make biofuels," Candler said. "They might even be building processing plants in the new plantations. This might appear to be pretty clear cause and effect, but if biofuel was prohibited, there is no assurance that the forest would not have been cut down. Would you believe coffee, coconut or even palm oil for soap?"
II. I see several implications of this study.
1. We need to minimize our reliance on biofuels while still eliminating fossil fuels & maximize other ways to power transport that use technologies such as battery power using solar generated electricity.
It also likely makes sense to use telecommuting & locally bought foods etc as much as we can to minimize the use of fuels for transport in those ways.
This makes all electric cars like the Tesla & plug-in hybrids with roof top solar cells an extremely good idea. It also puts a premium on improved battery technology.
It also may make electric powered mass transit more desirable.
2. We need to maximize our biofuels that are created from sources that do NOT require new fields to be planted & to create ways to grow crops for biofuels that do NOT create this problem.
We also need to be able to prevent the conversion of rain forests & other existing plants to uses that do not remove as much carbon dioxide from the air.
It also puts a premium on developing ways to generate biofuels from compost, agricultural waste, & harvesting already existing plants like grasses that can simply be mowed periodically.
One way to do this may pay double benefits.
a) Grain fed cattle & poultry are considerably more likely to promote disease than grass or pasture fed. Grain fed animals produce more fat than grass or pasture fed; their fat has MUCH less omega 3 oils & more omega 6 oils & saturated fat than grass or pasture fed; & they need more herbicides, pesticides, & antibiotics than grass or pasture fed.
It may make excellent sense to eat less meat; stopping eating it fro from grain fed cattle & poultry; & eat the meat we do eat from grass or pasture fed only.
That way, the grain that is now being fed to beef cattle & poultry can – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land can -- go to biofuels only.
b) Similarly, high fructose corn syrup is making people fat & sick with diseases like type II diabetes that it has been implicated as causing. That costs our economy to treat these diseases that could be prevented by eliminating high fructose corn syrup. And, that corn – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land – can go only to biofuels.
3. This also puts a premium on getting biofuels from algae that is grown in tanks on non-arable land.
It’s abundantly clear that ALL our liquid fuels need to come from biofuels as soon as possible.
But we also need to keep the near term carbon emissions from doing so as close to zero as we can possibly manage.
Here are some of the ideas & implications that have occurred to me.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-13-2008
I. First, here’s the news article that prompted this post.:
“Biofuels Study Heats Up Global-Warming Debate Jennifer LeClaire, newsfactor.com
Mon Feb 11, 11:17 AM ET
A new study is heating up the global-warming debate. The report by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota concludes that converting land for biofuel crops results in major carbon emissions that make global warming worse. The study will be published in Science later this month.
The researchers ask: Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweigh the carbon you save by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels? They say no, but as with other environmental issues there are many who disagree.
Paying Back the Carbon Debt
The study found that land conversions for corn or sugarcane (ethanol), or palms or soybeans (biodiesel) release 17 to 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels.
The carbon, which is stored in the original plants and soil, is released as carbon dioxide, a process that may take decades. This "carbon debt" must be paid before the biofuels produced on the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and ease global warming, the researchers said.
The conversion of peatlands into palm-oil plantations in Indonesia ran up the greatest carbon debt and would require 423 years to pay off. The next worst was the production of soybeans in the Amazon, which would not pay for itself in renewable soy biodiesel for 319 years.
"We don't have proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products, but not rewarded for carbon management," said Stephen Polasky, a University of Minnesota applied economics professor and an author of the study. "This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions."
A Plausible Theory
As a researcher who has written several papers on biofuels, Kenneth Mulder, a professor and college farm director at Green Mountain College, views the findings as entirely plausible.
"We know that from strictly an energy perspective, the biofuels currently in heaviest production do not have a very high rate of return," Mulder said. "When environmental consequences are taken into consideration, they have been shown by several researchers to have a net negative impact on society."
In particular, Mulder said, many acres of marginally productive land that have been serving a vital function sequestering carbon are now being converted to intensive agriculture, resulting in a loss of soil carbon. There is more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere above it, he added, and the release of this soil carbon has strong implications for climate change.
Not Logical?
Wilfred Candler, author of Global Warming: The Answer, has a different view. Basically, he insisted, the notion that making ethanol will cause forest destruction is not logical. It could be that it would raise the price of corn or palm oil, he said, and people eat less chicken, or use less palm oil for cooking.
"It is probably right that cases can be found -- Malaysia comes to mind -- where serious amounts of forest are being cut down or burned to make way for palm-oil plantations, where the palm oil is intended to be used to make biofuels," Candler said. "They might even be building processing plants in the new plantations. This might appear to be pretty clear cause and effect, but if biofuel was prohibited, there is no assurance that the forest would not have been cut down. Would you believe coffee, coconut or even palm oil for soap?"
II. I see several implications of this study.
1. We need to minimize our reliance on biofuels while still eliminating fossil fuels & maximize other ways to power transport that use technologies such as battery power using solar generated electricity.
It also likely makes sense to use telecommuting & locally bought foods etc as much as we can to minimize the use of fuels for transport in those ways.
This makes all electric cars like the Tesla & plug-in hybrids with roof top solar cells an extremely good idea. It also puts a premium on improved battery technology.
It also may make electric powered mass transit more desirable.
2. We need to maximize our biofuels that are created from sources that do NOT require new fields to be planted & to create ways to grow crops for biofuels that do NOT create this problem.
We also need to be able to prevent the conversion of rain forests & other existing plants to uses that do not remove as much carbon dioxide from the air.
It also puts a premium on developing ways to generate biofuels from compost, agricultural waste, & harvesting already existing plants like grasses that can simply be mowed periodically.
One way to do this may pay double benefits.
a) Grain fed cattle & poultry are considerably more likely to promote disease than grass or pasture fed. Grain fed animals produce more fat than grass or pasture fed; their fat has MUCH less omega 3 oils & more omega 6 oils & saturated fat than grass or pasture fed; & they need more herbicides, pesticides, & antibiotics than grass or pasture fed.
It may make excellent sense to eat less meat; stopping eating it fro from grain fed cattle & poultry; & eat the meat we do eat from grass or pasture fed only.
That way, the grain that is now being fed to beef cattle & poultry can – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land can -- go to biofuels only.
b) Similarly, high fructose corn syrup is making people fat & sick with diseases like type II diabetes that it has been implicated as causing. That costs our economy to treat these diseases that could be prevented by eliminating high fructose corn syrup. And, that corn – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land – can go only to biofuels.
3. This also puts a premium on getting biofuels from algae that is grown in tanks on non-arable land.
It’s abundantly clear that ALL our liquid fuels need to come from biofuels as soon as possible.
But we also need to keep the near term carbon emissions from doing so as close to zero as we can possibly manage.
Here are some of the ideas & implications that have occurred to me.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Some Energy Policy ideas that might help….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-6-2008
The world's economy today is almost exclusively based on burning carbon based fuels. (At this time, nuclear and renewable energy are supplemental only although in some places, are a significant supplement.)
As we spoke of last time, our national security in the United States, the health of the economy, & possibly our survival, look to depend on switching to a 100 % renewable energy based economy.
I. Since we are already desperately late in doing this, it needs to be done very rapidly and on a large scale.
II. And, if the effort is to succeed, it needs to reward current businesses for doing the right things far more than it does penalize them for doing the wrong things. In my view this is essential to avoid slowing the process.
Businesses, particularly the stronger ones, tend to go much faster when thy have something to gain. And, if they will lose money now available to them, they often try to get out of it or delay as long as they can, or implement these changes as slowly as they can manage. And, we need maximum speed here. Yes we need to have businesses stop doing some things as fast as possible. But to get them to do it quickly, we need to also give them some strong incentives & help them to avoid losing too much money. To the maximum extent, we need to put them in a position to make MORE by replacing the things they should no longer do with those that they should do.
In addition, these businesses are where most of the developed talent, people, management, & capital now are available to get the job done. And, this is critical since we need speed, scale, and a gradually accelerating pace of change.
One way to do this is to create the new businesses & technologies we need. And, that process is well started. Both venture backed startups & some of the more visionary & informed large companies are doing this.
In the area where I live, Ausra, Nanosolar, & Applied Materials are good examples of this. Honda in Japan is another. General Electric is a bit slow & behind based on what I saw on their website. But they show signs of moving in the right direction now.
And, my examples are likely less than one percent of what is already happening.
The bad news is that we are at least 25 years behind & we are only about one percent of the way to an economy based on renewable energy.
III. Here’s a partial to do list that would help.
1. A. We can dramatically expand the generation of solar energy to electricity. By doing that we can get close to 100 % of our electricity from renewable sources if we expand solar enough.
We can increasingly use electricity to power transportation, particularly by car with electric cars & plug-in hybrids.
This is clearly a very high priority item. So the development of thin film solar & other ways to drive the cost down; electric & plug-in hybrid cars; & improved battery technology are also imperative.
Germany has a special incentive program that is proven to sharply increase the deployment of solar electric generation. So, a logical policy would be to require every utility regulating entity in the United States to adopt that policy in whole or in part within a year.
A similar & related policy is to insist that when homes & businesses create more energy than they use, they be paid for it. In California now, you can pay for the grid electricity you use with solar electricity you generate, which can result in a zero utility bill.
But if you install a lot of solar & add energy conservation so well you generate MORE than you use, you get no money. Given the current energy & CO2 situation, that stupidity must be stopped everywhere as soon as is possible.
More money for venture capital in this area will help.
But one of the most important policies our government should adapt as soon as possible is to create a huge funding agency to finance the deployment of solar electricity generation & conversion costs for both industry & consumers.
As the dollar cost, let alone the real environmental impact cost, of fossil fuels rises, getting solar power instead will be cost effective within at least 20 years & increasingly much faster. But businesses & consumers need financing that allows them to pay for the installation & conversion now through the financing that also has at least half the interest cost paid by the government. It would also help if the payments could then become part of their utility bill & paid over a 30 year period. That way, the costs will be less than the savings very quickly and as many as ten times as many people will deploy solar soon.
Another policy area for government is the rapid installation of roofs with solar electricity generating cells in place over every parking lot in the United States. Such roofs will also provide shade in the summer & protection from the rain. Even better, they use land already available & paved over that is right next door to the potential users. That is a HUGE opportunity that government should boost in every way possible.
2. We will still need liquid fuels for air transport and for the transition period while most of our vehicles still use it. And, particularly at first, we will need a source of what is now called “natural” gas for heating.
We need gradually to develop sources like agricultural waste, switch grass & similar plants than can be grown on land not suitable to grow food, & algae as sources for hydrocarbons as this is powered by solar energy & removes CO2 from the air.
And, we will need to learn to use solar electric powered refinery & conversion sites that will enable us to replace, from this source, 100 % of the petroleum & natural gas we now use & cannot replace with solar electricity.
This will need venture capital, some of which it’s getting now. But of much greater importance it will need large amounts of expansion capital once the technology is in place.
The seed or starter funding for this is a good policy for our government to have.
3. Aggressive re-forestation & a slow down of the reverse is paramount, since we need the trees to continue to remove CO2 at no further charge.
So the development of effective & economically doable ways to do this is a priority.
4. The more energy efficient we are the faster we can reach 100 % of our energy from renewable sources.
Energy conservation is therefore paramount.
a) Conservation that involves doing without things requires sacrifice & constant attention to work. This can only be done successfully for a short time. So I think it should either be not done or done for a five year period only, when the extra energy will empower one of these other changes to get to 100 % faster.
b) Selling people on avoiding waste, however, & culling wasteful & unnecessary practices in part by taxing them, will work just fine.
That can be done by government policy & be a source of revenue besides.
c) The huge opportunity though, is in deploying energy conservation devices & infrastructure rapidly.
Those need not require sacrifice & can save money. Even better, they do not need continuous attention or effort once they are in place.
Examples, if homes & businesses become better insulated & are retrofitted to prevent summer heat from entering in other ways, we will need dramatically less energy for heating & cooling. And, that will free solar generated electricity for other uses & reduce the amount of heating oil & natural gas we burn.
Another example is LED light bulbs. They use even less energy than compact fluorescents; & they do not have mercury in them that is already causing dangerous mercury pollution problems from disposal of compact fluorescents.
Government must put incentives & financing in place to deploy the existing technologies & to deploy the better technologies as they come online.
Further, they need to partner with venture capital & large appropriate businesses like GE to get cost effective LED light bulbs & similar technologies developed & deployed.
5. We need to start taxing the use of fossil fuels.
Since doing it in huge amounts now will crash the economy & hurt innocent people & make enemies of businesses doing so is an absolutely horrible idea.
But in the same way that income tax started as a very small part of federal funding, I think we should begin to tax fossil fuels at least some immediately.
We can then fund the other programs from this tax. And, as the conversion process makes alternatives available, we can gradually increase the rate from the one % or so where we start to 500 % over the next 40 years.
Also, particularly in the early stages, vetting real & effective programs to offset CO2 emissions & allowing businesses to pay this tax or avoid it temporarily by buying carbon offsets is an excellent idea.
Since the places to put this carbon offset money have often NOT been vetted or been that effective now, a very important government priority needs to be putting that in place as soon as possible.
6. We need a President next time who makes this area a number one priority no matter what.
That even the candidates who say they understand this issue are not running as if this area is a priority, I am gravely concerned.
I’m also surprised & disappointed. In this I’m not alone. I’ve gotten an email from the Sierra Club requesting help in getting press coverage of this issue.
So, if you have the ear of a candidate or their campaign chairpeople, please put in good word for the idea.
I believe it will be a significant competitive advantage for the candidate who does it first & the one who does it best.
This is in part because the voters are quite concerned about the economy which will soon be in serious, serious trouble without these policies.
To re-phrase an old Bill Clinton slogan, “It’s the energy economy stupid.”
That’s my take on it.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-6-2008
The world's economy today is almost exclusively based on burning carbon based fuels. (At this time, nuclear and renewable energy are supplemental only although in some places, are a significant supplement.)
As we spoke of last time, our national security in the United States, the health of the economy, & possibly our survival, look to depend on switching to a 100 % renewable energy based economy.
I. Since we are already desperately late in doing this, it needs to be done very rapidly and on a large scale.
II. And, if the effort is to succeed, it needs to reward current businesses for doing the right things far more than it does penalize them for doing the wrong things. In my view this is essential to avoid slowing the process.
Businesses, particularly the stronger ones, tend to go much faster when thy have something to gain. And, if they will lose money now available to them, they often try to get out of it or delay as long as they can, or implement these changes as slowly as they can manage. And, we need maximum speed here. Yes we need to have businesses stop doing some things as fast as possible. But to get them to do it quickly, we need to also give them some strong incentives & help them to avoid losing too much money. To the maximum extent, we need to put them in a position to make MORE by replacing the things they should no longer do with those that they should do.
In addition, these businesses are where most of the developed talent, people, management, & capital now are available to get the job done. And, this is critical since we need speed, scale, and a gradually accelerating pace of change.
One way to do this is to create the new businesses & technologies we need. And, that process is well started. Both venture backed startups & some of the more visionary & informed large companies are doing this.
In the area where I live, Ausra, Nanosolar, & Applied Materials are good examples of this. Honda in Japan is another. General Electric is a bit slow & behind based on what I saw on their website. But they show signs of moving in the right direction now.
And, my examples are likely less than one percent of what is already happening.
The bad news is that we are at least 25 years behind & we are only about one percent of the way to an economy based on renewable energy.
III. Here’s a partial to do list that would help.
1. A. We can dramatically expand the generation of solar energy to electricity. By doing that we can get close to 100 % of our electricity from renewable sources if we expand solar enough.
We can increasingly use electricity to power transportation, particularly by car with electric cars & plug-in hybrids.
This is clearly a very high priority item. So the development of thin film solar & other ways to drive the cost down; electric & plug-in hybrid cars; & improved battery technology are also imperative.
Germany has a special incentive program that is proven to sharply increase the deployment of solar electric generation. So, a logical policy would be to require every utility regulating entity in the United States to adopt that policy in whole or in part within a year.
A similar & related policy is to insist that when homes & businesses create more energy than they use, they be paid for it. In California now, you can pay for the grid electricity you use with solar electricity you generate, which can result in a zero utility bill.
But if you install a lot of solar & add energy conservation so well you generate MORE than you use, you get no money. Given the current energy & CO2 situation, that stupidity must be stopped everywhere as soon as is possible.
More money for venture capital in this area will help.
But one of the most important policies our government should adapt as soon as possible is to create a huge funding agency to finance the deployment of solar electricity generation & conversion costs for both industry & consumers.
As the dollar cost, let alone the real environmental impact cost, of fossil fuels rises, getting solar power instead will be cost effective within at least 20 years & increasingly much faster. But businesses & consumers need financing that allows them to pay for the installation & conversion now through the financing that also has at least half the interest cost paid by the government. It would also help if the payments could then become part of their utility bill & paid over a 30 year period. That way, the costs will be less than the savings very quickly and as many as ten times as many people will deploy solar soon.
Another policy area for government is the rapid installation of roofs with solar electricity generating cells in place over every parking lot in the United States. Such roofs will also provide shade in the summer & protection from the rain. Even better, they use land already available & paved over that is right next door to the potential users. That is a HUGE opportunity that government should boost in every way possible.
2. We will still need liquid fuels for air transport and for the transition period while most of our vehicles still use it. And, particularly at first, we will need a source of what is now called “natural” gas for heating.
We need gradually to develop sources like agricultural waste, switch grass & similar plants than can be grown on land not suitable to grow food, & algae as sources for hydrocarbons as this is powered by solar energy & removes CO2 from the air.
And, we will need to learn to use solar electric powered refinery & conversion sites that will enable us to replace, from this source, 100 % of the petroleum & natural gas we now use & cannot replace with solar electricity.
This will need venture capital, some of which it’s getting now. But of much greater importance it will need large amounts of expansion capital once the technology is in place.
The seed or starter funding for this is a good policy for our government to have.
3. Aggressive re-forestation & a slow down of the reverse is paramount, since we need the trees to continue to remove CO2 at no further charge.
So the development of effective & economically doable ways to do this is a priority.
4. The more energy efficient we are the faster we can reach 100 % of our energy from renewable sources.
Energy conservation is therefore paramount.
a) Conservation that involves doing without things requires sacrifice & constant attention to work. This can only be done successfully for a short time. So I think it should either be not done or done for a five year period only, when the extra energy will empower one of these other changes to get to 100 % faster.
b) Selling people on avoiding waste, however, & culling wasteful & unnecessary practices in part by taxing them, will work just fine.
That can be done by government policy & be a source of revenue besides.
c) The huge opportunity though, is in deploying energy conservation devices & infrastructure rapidly.
Those need not require sacrifice & can save money. Even better, they do not need continuous attention or effort once they are in place.
Examples, if homes & businesses become better insulated & are retrofitted to prevent summer heat from entering in other ways, we will need dramatically less energy for heating & cooling. And, that will free solar generated electricity for other uses & reduce the amount of heating oil & natural gas we burn.
Another example is LED light bulbs. They use even less energy than compact fluorescents; & they do not have mercury in them that is already causing dangerous mercury pollution problems from disposal of compact fluorescents.
Government must put incentives & financing in place to deploy the existing technologies & to deploy the better technologies as they come online.
Further, they need to partner with venture capital & large appropriate businesses like GE to get cost effective LED light bulbs & similar technologies developed & deployed.
5. We need to start taxing the use of fossil fuels.
Since doing it in huge amounts now will crash the economy & hurt innocent people & make enemies of businesses doing so is an absolutely horrible idea.
But in the same way that income tax started as a very small part of federal funding, I think we should begin to tax fossil fuels at least some immediately.
We can then fund the other programs from this tax. And, as the conversion process makes alternatives available, we can gradually increase the rate from the one % or so where we start to 500 % over the next 40 years.
Also, particularly in the early stages, vetting real & effective programs to offset CO2 emissions & allowing businesses to pay this tax or avoid it temporarily by buying carbon offsets is an excellent idea.
Since the places to put this carbon offset money have often NOT been vetted or been that effective now, a very important government priority needs to be putting that in place as soon as possible.
6. We need a President next time who makes this area a number one priority no matter what.
That even the candidates who say they understand this issue are not running as if this area is a priority, I am gravely concerned.
I’m also surprised & disappointed. In this I’m not alone. I’ve gotten an email from the Sierra Club requesting help in getting press coverage of this issue.
So, if you have the ear of a candidate or their campaign chairpeople, please put in good word for the idea.
I believe it will be a significant competitive advantage for the candidate who does it first & the one who does it best.
This is in part because the voters are quite concerned about the economy which will soon be in serious, serious trouble without these policies.
To re-phrase an old Bill Clinton slogan, “It’s the energy economy stupid.”
That’s my take on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)