Some lonely faces of 2009.
Happy new year to all my readers on this blog. May you have a blessed new year 2010.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Merry Christmas and happy new year 2010.
Some lonely faces of 2009.
Happy new year to all my readers on this blog. May you have a blessed new year 2010.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Copenhagen meeting regarding Bioenergy Future.
Source: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/12/23/copenhagen-cop15-bioenergy-industry-reacts/
Copenhagen (COP15): Bioenergy industry reacts
Copenhagen climate summit (COP15) has concluded without a definitive climate treaty. Inductry reactino follows from Renergie CEO Brian Donovan (US), Alkol CEO Al Costa (Brazil), Biomass Advisors’ Mackinnon Lawrence (US), and Biofuels Digest South Asia correspondent Joelle Brink:
Joelle Brink, South Asia correspondent for Biofuels Digest, writes:
Biofuels leaders invited to the Copenhagen came away from the first week of negotiations assured that they will receive priority in the UN’s renewable energy plans, and eager to partner with one another to speed up the pace of innovation. In the second week, however, the negotiations with national governments bogged down over the issue of emissions cuts by China and the developed economies. In the end a nonbinding agreement between the major polluting nations was signed with many others dissenting, leaving the real work for the Mexico City round n 2010.
Not only were many developing nations left hanging, but also US utilities that had planned on utilizing cap and trade credits. A global recession, heightened economic competition between developed nations and emerging superpowers, and historic neglect of the environmental problems of the poor led to a collective reluctance to address the thornier aspects of global warming. In particular, the question of “carbon budgets” linked to population size was a sticking point. By this measure the US would not be eligible for carbon credits and would have to pay into a fund to assist poor nations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived at the talks with a pledge of US $100 billion per year to fund environmental action in the most endangered developing nations. President Obama later acknowledged that more was needed but said the $100 billion pledge was the best the US could do in its present circumstances. He attempted to broker a last minute emissions reduction agreement among the major polluters, but came away with a nonbinding voluntary commitment only.
China subsequently declared itself satisfied with the non-binding resolution, which leaves it free to maintain or even increase its emission levels and does not require it to accept international monitoring. The same line was taken by other governments that lack political transparency. India, which already has a monitored civilian nuclear agreement in place with the US, took the American side. Indian Climate Minister Jairam Ramesh, who was among the chief negotiators in Copenhagen, declared that the Indian delegation was “preparing for 2010” and would continue to press for a binding resolution.
Climate activists gathered in the cold outside the Bella Center and representatives of environmental NGOs gathered inside reacted at first with disbelief, which slowly turned to anger. Al Gore canceled a scheduled personal appearance “with great annoyance” according to the publisher of his upcoming book, Our Choice. As Friday night wore on some proposed uniting to take on the challenge of global warming collectively. It was a moment Ghandhi would have approved of, in which people at last understand that they must be the change they wish to see in the world.
In 2010 the discussions move on to Mexico City, and to what was originally intended as a meeting to resolve the logistics of the Copenhagen action plan. There is no action plan at present, but political heat from environmental activists and pro environment governments, which is likely, may produce one over the next several months.
Durwood Zaelke, President of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, said:
“While the accord negotiated in the closing hours by a small number of heads of government, including China, India, and the US, is a disappointment to many—in process, form, and content—others will see the full engagement by heads of government as a milestone in climate policy. The true value of the accord depends on the follow-up. A key aspect of follow up is the fast, forgotten 50% of warming caused by non-CO2 gases and aerosols. Not only do non-CO2 pollutants make up half of warming, they are the half that can be solved quickly. Cuts in CO2 are essential but won’t result in cooling benefits for up to 1,000 years. The islands have recognized the urgent need for fast, near-term solutions, in addition to CO2 reductions.”
Mackinnon Lawrence, a policy analyst with Biomass Advisors, writes:
Last week, world leaders emerged from the two-week Copenhagen conference (COP-15) with an Accord falling well short of the binding agreement many had argued was necessary to combat the worst effects of human-induced climate change. To be fair, with a slumping global economy draining political will and lethargy in the U.S. Senate raising questions about U.S. climate leadership, expectations were low heading in. Just weeks before the Conference kicked off on December 7th, world leaders announced they would pursue a two-step strategy, which included a framework agreement as a foundation for follow-up talks in Mexico City in December 2010.
To this end, the Accord seems to have delivered with provisions that include aid to developing countries, transparency, and most notably, commitments among the world’s major economies to curb emissions and report actions. But it fails to agreements Reports suggest that the deal was brokered in large part by some 11th-hour bargaining by Obama among the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which salvaged a diplomatic deadlock that took negotiators through an all-night marathon session.
First, it represents the first time that all major economies (including emitters) have made commitments to curb global warming pollution and report their actions. This latter point is especially encouraging in anticipation of future talks.
Perhaps the most difficult obstacle for international consensus on climate change has been the rift between developed and developing countries. Developed countries that have long enjoyed the benefits of industrialization and resulting economic prosperity want to hold developing countries accountable for their emissions as they modernize their economies. Developing countries, including China, India, and Brazil, argue that they should be exempt from having to report their emissions so long as they are playing “catch up.” The deadlock slowly eroded Kyoto’s efficacy and has more recent efforts to reach an agreement.
Getting China on board is perhaps the biggest breakthrough, especially in light of their increased willingness to exercise its growing economic influence. Although China forced a roll-back of emissions reduction commitments, they are now not only putting numbers on the table with a pledge to join the global fight to reduce climate pollution, they have agreed to open their books on their rising emissions and allow a transparent review of their progress toward their emission pledge. The China excuse is now off the table for the U.S. Senate, which could lead to action on the Kerry-Boxer bill.
Second, the Accord establishes the first ever “Green in the amount of 30 billion dollars for 2010-2012 to be allocated between adaptation and mitigation, including forestry.
Third, while fingers have been fixed on the U.S. over the last decade for its part in styming international efforts to combat climate change, Obama may have single-handedly salvaged U.S. reputation and leadership through, what is being hailed, as a skillful diplomatic meneuvering.
Still, the Accord falls well short on a number of issues.”
Renergie CEO Brian Donovan offers a detailed policy analysis: “Why Carbon emissions should not have been the focus of the U.N. Climate Change Summit and why the 15th conference of the parties should have focused on technology transfer. ” Donovan writes, “Unfortunately, this conference focused primarily on setting a cap on carbon emissions and providing financial aid to developing countries to build capacities to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change… the focus should have been on the transfer of proven renewable energy technology from developed to developing countries and how this technology transfer can be financed with currently available funds.”
Al Costa, CEO of Brazil’s Alkol, writes:
Thank you Lula for saving COP15 (a “basic” solution)
One of the first things anyone who lives in Brazil learns is the famous “jeitinho brasileiro” (”brazilian little way”), or the ability to find some loophole, a legal backdoor, some little-known or used judicial tool to get things done. We see them happening everywhere: in fact, it was the only way former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso found to run the country: by issuing “MP – Medidas Provisórias” (”Temporary Measures”), or measures only to be used in times of war. So you get the point.
Still, there are times in which that artifice actually shows its value, and COP 15 is a prime example, for anyone who actually thought that COP 15 would be able to produce a legal document was to say the least a dreamer. In fact, the UN only accepts decisions that are made unanimously. And if we consider the fact that there 193 nations involved in an event that was already in its 15th edition, and that the event saw 3 presidents give their places to others, we easily see we were dreaming indeed.
And in fact, after almost 2 weeks of going in circles and with the event nearing its very end, no real agreement was done. Yes, there were plenty of drafts, ideas, proposals, etc presented by several parties but none seemed to satisfy everyone: when one almost seemed to be “the one”, some party would disagree on something and everyone would have to go back to the drawing board. So just when everyone was about to go home totally empty handed, 4 countries that were named “BASIC” (Brazil, South Africa (”Africa do Sul”), India and China), lead by Brazil, decide to have a secret meeting at 2:00 AM to actually work in a draft.
And Brazil has plenty of credibility to call such a meeting: the country actually made it into a law the proposition to cut greenhouse emissions from 36,1% to 38,9% until the year 2020: almost twice what was being proposed in COP15. It will also decrease the cutting down of the amazon forest by 80% until that year. It has also allocated R$1 billion a year from the pre-salt oil money for a fund destined to cover for global warming changes destined for the north-east region (which lacks water) and the coastal regions (because of the danger of the sea level elevation). It has also passed a law that allows sugarcane to be grown only in especific areas of the country, far from the amazon, cerrado, etc. And all that will come at a cost of US$16 billions a year: a very respectable number considering we are talking about a developing country. Lula even claimed in his final speech that if need be Brazil will step forward and actually lend or give money to developing countries to help them achieve their CO2 commitments.
During the secret meeting, Obama asked to sit besides Lula. The chinese promptly reminded Obama that they would not accept international inspections to check if their emissions were in fact being lowered, as they understood that was a breach in their sovereign, self-determination etc. Lula saved the day simply by suggesting a change of name: so, instead of “inspection”, the term “analysis” was chosen. Even so Obama objected, and was finally convinced when reminded by India that the term is actually used by the OMC. Finally, and to give the document a legal ground, a rarely used legal loophole was used and so the meeting ended, everyone went to their hotels and in the morning the draft was presented to the UN board. This promptly accepted the thing, glad that SOMETHING was finally signed and agreed upon!
So what it amounts here is basically a meaningful and united group got fed up with the indecisions and excessive babble of the event, got together in a secret meeting, was able to create a draft, and invited the US to bless it. The text basically recognizes the need to keep world climate 2 degrees down until 2020 and promises US$ 30 billion in financing to developing countries. So, after almost 2 weeks of intense debates that went basically in circles, the world saw COP15 ending up with a draft that had no legal binding and was not widely shown nor really understood. A very disappointing document indeed.
But the question remains: what if that document was not written? Most probably over 190 countries represented there would go back to their homes totally empty-handed. The unbelievable shame of that would completely destroy any possibility of ever reaching any sort of agreement on any COP16, 17, 18, you name them.
Still, the document was rejected by the usual US enemies: Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela. This last one very ungratefully to Brazil, as the country recently approved its entry to Mercosul. And not to mention Bolivia, which took over US$1.3 of brazilian oil investment a couple of years ago and payed mere US$150 million back for it. (If these are friends who needs enemies?) Other countries such as Tuvalu made the usual pseudo-impressive biblical remarks, saying they would not sell their countries for 30 pieces of silver, etc.
But the fact of the matter is that the usual legal tools to get things done have shown their inefficiencies for too long. And curiously enough, the jeitinho brasileiro is showing up in places known for being radically opposite to that. In the US, last week the EPA issued a ruling that greenhouse gas emissions actually endanger human health. And since anything that has to do with human health is under its unbrella, that effectively cleared the way for it to be able to regulate carbon without congressional legislation. In a similar fashion, Senator Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is leading an effort to overturn that ruling through a rarely used congressional joint resolution of disapproval.
So, again, anyone who truly thought that over 190 countries with radically different views on a subject that even in the scientific community is still debated would be able to produce a legal document under the UN framework is just not for real. That doesn´t mean however that we can´t still find ways to create some levels of commitments, as Lula proved.
In fact, Brazil showed without a doubt that it is definitely leading the way in nature conservancy and is in the right and fast track to be considered a a world leader. And let us not forget that Brazil is also being a very important part in the Honduras crisis, and was recently a peace keeper in Haiti as well. Brazil and Lula are definitely showing world-class leadership and COP 15 is a shining example of that.
Copenhagen (COP15): Bioenergy industry reacts
Copenhagen climate summit (COP15) has concluded without a definitive climate treaty. Inductry reactino follows from Renergie CEO Brian Donovan (US), Alkol CEO Al Costa (Brazil), Biomass Advisors’ Mackinnon Lawrence (US), and Biofuels Digest South Asia correspondent Joelle Brink:
Joelle Brink, South Asia correspondent for Biofuels Digest, writes:
Biofuels leaders invited to the Copenhagen came away from the first week of negotiations assured that they will receive priority in the UN’s renewable energy plans, and eager to partner with one another to speed up the pace of innovation. In the second week, however, the negotiations with national governments bogged down over the issue of emissions cuts by China and the developed economies. In the end a nonbinding agreement between the major polluting nations was signed with many others dissenting, leaving the real work for the Mexico City round n 2010.
Not only were many developing nations left hanging, but also US utilities that had planned on utilizing cap and trade credits. A global recession, heightened economic competition between developed nations and emerging superpowers, and historic neglect of the environmental problems of the poor led to a collective reluctance to address the thornier aspects of global warming. In particular, the question of “carbon budgets” linked to population size was a sticking point. By this measure the US would not be eligible for carbon credits and would have to pay into a fund to assist poor nations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived at the talks with a pledge of US $100 billion per year to fund environmental action in the most endangered developing nations. President Obama later acknowledged that more was needed but said the $100 billion pledge was the best the US could do in its present circumstances. He attempted to broker a last minute emissions reduction agreement among the major polluters, but came away with a nonbinding voluntary commitment only.
China subsequently declared itself satisfied with the non-binding resolution, which leaves it free to maintain or even increase its emission levels and does not require it to accept international monitoring. The same line was taken by other governments that lack political transparency. India, which already has a monitored civilian nuclear agreement in place with the US, took the American side. Indian Climate Minister Jairam Ramesh, who was among the chief negotiators in Copenhagen, declared that the Indian delegation was “preparing for 2010” and would continue to press for a binding resolution.
Climate activists gathered in the cold outside the Bella Center and representatives of environmental NGOs gathered inside reacted at first with disbelief, which slowly turned to anger. Al Gore canceled a scheduled personal appearance “with great annoyance” according to the publisher of his upcoming book, Our Choice. As Friday night wore on some proposed uniting to take on the challenge of global warming collectively. It was a moment Ghandhi would have approved of, in which people at last understand that they must be the change they wish to see in the world.
In 2010 the discussions move on to Mexico City, and to what was originally intended as a meeting to resolve the logistics of the Copenhagen action plan. There is no action plan at present, but political heat from environmental activists and pro environment governments, which is likely, may produce one over the next several months.
Durwood Zaelke, President of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, said:
“While the accord negotiated in the closing hours by a small number of heads of government, including China, India, and the US, is a disappointment to many—in process, form, and content—others will see the full engagement by heads of government as a milestone in climate policy. The true value of the accord depends on the follow-up. A key aspect of follow up is the fast, forgotten 50% of warming caused by non-CO2 gases and aerosols. Not only do non-CO2 pollutants make up half of warming, they are the half that can be solved quickly. Cuts in CO2 are essential but won’t result in cooling benefits for up to 1,000 years. The islands have recognized the urgent need for fast, near-term solutions, in addition to CO2 reductions.”
Mackinnon Lawrence, a policy analyst with Biomass Advisors, writes:
Last week, world leaders emerged from the two-week Copenhagen conference (COP-15) with an Accord falling well short of the binding agreement many had argued was necessary to combat the worst effects of human-induced climate change. To be fair, with a slumping global economy draining political will and lethargy in the U.S. Senate raising questions about U.S. climate leadership, expectations were low heading in. Just weeks before the Conference kicked off on December 7th, world leaders announced they would pursue a two-step strategy, which included a framework agreement as a foundation for follow-up talks in Mexico City in December 2010.
To this end, the Accord seems to have delivered with provisions that include aid to developing countries, transparency, and most notably, commitments among the world’s major economies to curb emissions and report actions. But it fails to agreements Reports suggest that the deal was brokered in large part by some 11th-hour bargaining by Obama among the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which salvaged a diplomatic deadlock that took negotiators through an all-night marathon session.
First, it represents the first time that all major economies (including emitters) have made commitments to curb global warming pollution and report their actions. This latter point is especially encouraging in anticipation of future talks.
Perhaps the most difficult obstacle for international consensus on climate change has been the rift between developed and developing countries. Developed countries that have long enjoyed the benefits of industrialization and resulting economic prosperity want to hold developing countries accountable for their emissions as they modernize their economies. Developing countries, including China, India, and Brazil, argue that they should be exempt from having to report their emissions so long as they are playing “catch up.” The deadlock slowly eroded Kyoto’s efficacy and has more recent efforts to reach an agreement.
Getting China on board is perhaps the biggest breakthrough, especially in light of their increased willingness to exercise its growing economic influence. Although China forced a roll-back of emissions reduction commitments, they are now not only putting numbers on the table with a pledge to join the global fight to reduce climate pollution, they have agreed to open their books on their rising emissions and allow a transparent review of their progress toward their emission pledge. The China excuse is now off the table for the U.S. Senate, which could lead to action on the Kerry-Boxer bill.
Second, the Accord establishes the first ever “Green in the amount of 30 billion dollars for 2010-2012 to be allocated between adaptation and mitigation, including forestry.
Third, while fingers have been fixed on the U.S. over the last decade for its part in styming international efforts to combat climate change, Obama may have single-handedly salvaged U.S. reputation and leadership through, what is being hailed, as a skillful diplomatic meneuvering.
Still, the Accord falls well short on a number of issues.”
Renergie CEO Brian Donovan offers a detailed policy analysis: “Why Carbon emissions should not have been the focus of the U.N. Climate Change Summit and why the 15th conference of the parties should have focused on technology transfer. ” Donovan writes, “Unfortunately, this conference focused primarily on setting a cap on carbon emissions and providing financial aid to developing countries to build capacities to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change… the focus should have been on the transfer of proven renewable energy technology from developed to developing countries and how this technology transfer can be financed with currently available funds.”
Al Costa, CEO of Brazil’s Alkol, writes:
Thank you Lula for saving COP15 (a “basic” solution)
One of the first things anyone who lives in Brazil learns is the famous “jeitinho brasileiro” (”brazilian little way”), or the ability to find some loophole, a legal backdoor, some little-known or used judicial tool to get things done. We see them happening everywhere: in fact, it was the only way former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso found to run the country: by issuing “MP – Medidas Provisórias” (”Temporary Measures”), or measures only to be used in times of war. So you get the point.
Still, there are times in which that artifice actually shows its value, and COP 15 is a prime example, for anyone who actually thought that COP 15 would be able to produce a legal document was to say the least a dreamer. In fact, the UN only accepts decisions that are made unanimously. And if we consider the fact that there 193 nations involved in an event that was already in its 15th edition, and that the event saw 3 presidents give their places to others, we easily see we were dreaming indeed.
And in fact, after almost 2 weeks of going in circles and with the event nearing its very end, no real agreement was done. Yes, there were plenty of drafts, ideas, proposals, etc presented by several parties but none seemed to satisfy everyone: when one almost seemed to be “the one”, some party would disagree on something and everyone would have to go back to the drawing board. So just when everyone was about to go home totally empty handed, 4 countries that were named “BASIC” (Brazil, South Africa (”Africa do Sul”), India and China), lead by Brazil, decide to have a secret meeting at 2:00 AM to actually work in a draft.
And Brazil has plenty of credibility to call such a meeting: the country actually made it into a law the proposition to cut greenhouse emissions from 36,1% to 38,9% until the year 2020: almost twice what was being proposed in COP15. It will also decrease the cutting down of the amazon forest by 80% until that year. It has also allocated R$1 billion a year from the pre-salt oil money for a fund destined to cover for global warming changes destined for the north-east region (which lacks water) and the coastal regions (because of the danger of the sea level elevation). It has also passed a law that allows sugarcane to be grown only in especific areas of the country, far from the amazon, cerrado, etc. And all that will come at a cost of US$16 billions a year: a very respectable number considering we are talking about a developing country. Lula even claimed in his final speech that if need be Brazil will step forward and actually lend or give money to developing countries to help them achieve their CO2 commitments.
During the secret meeting, Obama asked to sit besides Lula. The chinese promptly reminded Obama that they would not accept international inspections to check if their emissions were in fact being lowered, as they understood that was a breach in their sovereign, self-determination etc. Lula saved the day simply by suggesting a change of name: so, instead of “inspection”, the term “analysis” was chosen. Even so Obama objected, and was finally convinced when reminded by India that the term is actually used by the OMC. Finally, and to give the document a legal ground, a rarely used legal loophole was used and so the meeting ended, everyone went to their hotels and in the morning the draft was presented to the UN board. This promptly accepted the thing, glad that SOMETHING was finally signed and agreed upon!
So what it amounts here is basically a meaningful and united group got fed up with the indecisions and excessive babble of the event, got together in a secret meeting, was able to create a draft, and invited the US to bless it. The text basically recognizes the need to keep world climate 2 degrees down until 2020 and promises US$ 30 billion in financing to developing countries. So, after almost 2 weeks of intense debates that went basically in circles, the world saw COP15 ending up with a draft that had no legal binding and was not widely shown nor really understood. A very disappointing document indeed.
But the question remains: what if that document was not written? Most probably over 190 countries represented there would go back to their homes totally empty-handed. The unbelievable shame of that would completely destroy any possibility of ever reaching any sort of agreement on any COP16, 17, 18, you name them.
Still, the document was rejected by the usual US enemies: Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela. This last one very ungratefully to Brazil, as the country recently approved its entry to Mercosul. And not to mention Bolivia, which took over US$1.3 of brazilian oil investment a couple of years ago and payed mere US$150 million back for it. (If these are friends who needs enemies?) Other countries such as Tuvalu made the usual pseudo-impressive biblical remarks, saying they would not sell their countries for 30 pieces of silver, etc.
But the fact of the matter is that the usual legal tools to get things done have shown their inefficiencies for too long. And curiously enough, the jeitinho brasileiro is showing up in places known for being radically opposite to that. In the US, last week the EPA issued a ruling that greenhouse gas emissions actually endanger human health. And since anything that has to do with human health is under its unbrella, that effectively cleared the way for it to be able to regulate carbon without congressional legislation. In a similar fashion, Senator Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is leading an effort to overturn that ruling through a rarely used congressional joint resolution of disapproval.
So, again, anyone who truly thought that over 190 countries with radically different views on a subject that even in the scientific community is still debated would be able to produce a legal document under the UN framework is just not for real. That doesn´t mean however that we can´t still find ways to create some levels of commitments, as Lula proved.
In fact, Brazil showed without a doubt that it is definitely leading the way in nature conservancy and is in the right and fast track to be considered a a world leader. And let us not forget that Brazil is also being a very important part in the Honduras crisis, and was recently a peace keeper in Haiti as well. Brazil and Lula are definitely showing world-class leadership and COP 15 is a shining example of that.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Feasible Energy source and processing-Biogas
The possibility of processing/design of portable digester for private energy generation using microbe is attracting.
If you have to digest 50 kg of organic material, theoretically 34-37% percentage will generate into biogas and more than 70% of the biogas is biomethane. Compressing that into a tank and injecting into your car engine could save more liters of fossil fuel save more money and run extra mile efficiently.
This is the new technology emphasising down stream processing and can be done by any person.
Today when unstable fuel market high prices and climate change propaganda, the general direction is self sufficiency in fuel production for own use. Surplus energy and cheaper source,feasible,sustainable and more importantly renewable is the correct ingredient for today's society.
The genration of biogas from agricultura waste,local biomass,backyard waste/garden compost and anaimal waste is uniquely attracting.The cheap ,more emphasised fossil fuel has blinded these generations and we have been somewhat addicted to depending on it so much and this is good for producers.
However, the view in this blog persents the potential at our disposal that can make us more independent from within our graps on such important item as fuel.
The importance of genrating biogas at lcal home scale has long being surpressed for fear of turning people's attention.
Given the todays' changing geopolitical status, supply of fuel can go into jeopardy and millions or even billion population into stone age choas.
The PNG LNG project will come and go, if skills and knowledge cannot be used to exercise self-producing today,the glories will go with it. LNG glories will come and go,nothing changed,PNG and her people will still remain faithful consumer to foreign producers and deadly dependent.
My study in producing biogas using domesticate livetsock waste successfully indicated that free energy can be easily processed and locally go independent.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
New Algae 2020 Study Asks: Can Algae Feed and Fuel The World?
(BIOFUELS DIGEST NEWSWIRE: Houston, September 23) Emerging Markets Online, a strategic management consultancy specializing in energy forecasting and technology commercialization, recently published a study Algae 2020: Biomass Market Strategies and Commercialization Outlook (460 pages, June 2009). Algae 2020 is a strategic guide for investors, fuel producers, agribusiness, researchers, stakeholders, and consultants.
The Algae 2020 study asks: Can Algae Feed and Fuel The World?
The answer is: it already does.
Can Algae Fuel The World?
We already use algae for fuel. It is in the car you drive, a fossil fuel. Today's crude oil originates from algae that has cooked in the layers of the earth for hundreds of millions of years. Fast forward 20 years. The US Department of energy estimates global demand for energy will increase by 50% by the year 2030. Most of this energy growth will come from the Emerging Markets of China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas.
"Emerging Markets Online asks - how will the world meet this increasing demand for energy? The Algae 2020 study answers these questions and presents real-world, practical, achievable mid to long-term solutions for algae biomass and biofuels production," said Thurmond. "The US, Europe, China and India are addicted to imported foreign oil. Each of these countries has a plan to reduce oil consumption with biofuels. Oil and gas majors BP, Chevron, Exxon and Shell are investing in algae as their logical feedstock of choice to produce biofuels without compromising the rainforests or arable land. Plus, algae consumes CO2 from power plants, a double benefit for carbon reduction and biofuels production." said Thurmond.
Can Algae Help Feed The World?
We already use algae to feed livestock. Fish and cattle feed on algae produced from oceans, rivers and in ponds. Chickens feed on proteins from algal biomass, and humans consume these livestock. In the Emerging Markets of China, India, Africa, the Middle East and Africa, there is an increasing demand from rising middle classes for more beef, chicken, fish and protein in their diets, representing a huge opportunity for algae feedstock. According to of the United Nations, agricultural output will need to double by 2050 to feed more than 9 billion people, which notes increasing food production is a moral imperative to meet growing population demands.
"Emerging Markets' Algae 2020 study examines these challenges and finds algae will play an increasing role in bio-industrial production systems to create high-value feed for livestock and human consumption, “ said Thurmond. "Algae feedstocks have a key role to play in feeding this massive demand for food from the Emerging Markets by 2050," said Thurmond.
Will Industrial Algae Projects Help to Feed and Fuel The World?
"The increasing needs from Emerging Markets for feed and fuel are creating greater demands on arable lands" said Thurmond. "Algae 2020 concludes the commercialization of algae technologies will play a key supporting role in bridging the gap between today’s resources, and the future Emerging Market demands for feed and fuel," said Thurmond.
The Algae 2020 study was written by Will Thurmond, President of energy strategy and forecasting firm Emerging Markets Online. The Algae 2020 study was based on dozens of on-site visits with algae producers and more than four years of collaborations with scientists, biofuel producers, associations, governments, investors, inventors and NGOs, and includes a forward by Jim Lane, Editor of Biofuels Digest.
The Algae 2020 study asks: Can Algae Feed and Fuel The World?
The answer is: it already does.
Can Algae Fuel The World?
We already use algae for fuel. It is in the car you drive, a fossil fuel. Today's crude oil originates from algae that has cooked in the layers of the earth for hundreds of millions of years. Fast forward 20 years. The US Department of energy estimates global demand for energy will increase by 50% by the year 2030. Most of this energy growth will come from the Emerging Markets of China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas.
"Emerging Markets Online asks - how will the world meet this increasing demand for energy? The Algae 2020 study answers these questions and presents real-world, practical, achievable mid to long-term solutions for algae biomass and biofuels production," said Thurmond. "The US, Europe, China and India are addicted to imported foreign oil. Each of these countries has a plan to reduce oil consumption with biofuels. Oil and gas majors BP, Chevron, Exxon and Shell are investing in algae as their logical feedstock of choice to produce biofuels without compromising the rainforests or arable land. Plus, algae consumes CO2 from power plants, a double benefit for carbon reduction and biofuels production." said Thurmond.
Can Algae Help Feed The World?
We already use algae to feed livestock. Fish and cattle feed on algae produced from oceans, rivers and in ponds. Chickens feed on proteins from algal biomass, and humans consume these livestock. In the Emerging Markets of China, India, Africa, the Middle East and Africa, there is an increasing demand from rising middle classes for more beef, chicken, fish and protein in their diets, representing a huge opportunity for algae feedstock. According to of the United Nations, agricultural output will need to double by 2050 to feed more than 9 billion people, which notes increasing food production is a moral imperative to meet growing population demands.
"Emerging Markets' Algae 2020 study examines these challenges and finds algae will play an increasing role in bio-industrial production systems to create high-value feed for livestock and human consumption, “ said Thurmond. "Algae feedstocks have a key role to play in feeding this massive demand for food from the Emerging Markets by 2050," said Thurmond.
Will Industrial Algae Projects Help to Feed and Fuel The World?
"The increasing needs from Emerging Markets for feed and fuel are creating greater demands on arable lands" said Thurmond. "Algae 2020 concludes the commercialization of algae technologies will play a key supporting role in bridging the gap between today’s resources, and the future Emerging Market demands for feed and fuel," said Thurmond.
The Algae 2020 study was written by Will Thurmond, President of energy strategy and forecasting firm Emerging Markets Online. The Algae 2020 study was based on dozens of on-site visits with algae producers and more than four years of collaborations with scientists, biofuel producers, associations, governments, investors, inventors and NGOs, and includes a forward by Jim Lane, Editor of Biofuels Digest.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Algae is future!
It’s an economically viable fuel option—producing algae fuel is low in cost and can yield high returns. Not only are the two main inputs free (sunlight and carbon dioxide), the fuel source itself is not subject to political price fluctuations. It also appeals to fuel companies as a way to reduce carbon emissions, and would become even more popular if the U.S. were to implement a carbon cap-and-trade system. Once dried, algae as a fuel source is versatile—it can be burned like coal, liquefied to produce oil, or used in other ways to make plastics, foods, or nutraceuticals—occupying many of the same niches as corn and fossil fuel but in a more cost-efficient manner.
It’s actually sustainable—algae farming doesn’t require arable land or potable water to produce an abundance of energy (it grows in brackish waste or sea water), and the energy used to turn the algae into liquid fuel can be excess heat from a nearby power plant or from photo-bio-voltaic panels. Algae removes inorganic carbon dioxide—excesses of which cause global warming—from the air, eventually turning it into the organic carbon dioxide that powers our cars, trains and planes. Though there might not be a net loss of carbon dioxide in the process, by displacing fossil fuel and other fossil fuel-intensive bio-fuel sources, algae fuel would eliminate the introduction of new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
It’s scalable—enough algae fuel can be produced to sustain our fuel-guzzling habits. The constraints common among other alternative fuel sources don’t affect algae farming: algae reproduces at a rapid rate, can be harvested, dried and turned into liquid fuel within a two-week period, and is a sustainable practice. Currently, algae is the only crop capable of being converted into biodiesel fuel to support the world’s current consumption rates.
Admittedly, there are some remaining glitches in the proposition of large-scale algae farming. It has been tried before and met with mixed results; however, the newest fuel-production method is both more energy efficient and less expensive. New techniques such as gravity and non-thermal drying have greatly improved the process of algae biofuel harvesting.
Both corn and soybeans use arable land and potable water, require longer growing seasons and rely on fertilizers made from fossil fuels or natural gas. Additionally, these other biofuel contenders take away from food that could otherwise be consumed. Compared with other available options, including fuel made from corn and soybeans—not to mention fossil fuels—algae biofuel seems to be the best option if the world’s current fuel and food consumption patterns continue at their current level or increase.
It’s actually sustainable—algae farming doesn’t require arable land or potable water to produce an abundance of energy (it grows in brackish waste or sea water), and the energy used to turn the algae into liquid fuel can be excess heat from a nearby power plant or from photo-bio-voltaic panels. Algae removes inorganic carbon dioxide—excesses of which cause global warming—from the air, eventually turning it into the organic carbon dioxide that powers our cars, trains and planes. Though there might not be a net loss of carbon dioxide in the process, by displacing fossil fuel and other fossil fuel-intensive bio-fuel sources, algae fuel would eliminate the introduction of new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
It’s scalable—enough algae fuel can be produced to sustain our fuel-guzzling habits. The constraints common among other alternative fuel sources don’t affect algae farming: algae reproduces at a rapid rate, can be harvested, dried and turned into liquid fuel within a two-week period, and is a sustainable practice. Currently, algae is the only crop capable of being converted into biodiesel fuel to support the world’s current consumption rates.
Admittedly, there are some remaining glitches in the proposition of large-scale algae farming. It has been tried before and met with mixed results; however, the newest fuel-production method is both more energy efficient and less expensive. New techniques such as gravity and non-thermal drying have greatly improved the process of algae biofuel harvesting.
Both corn and soybeans use arable land and potable water, require longer growing seasons and rely on fertilizers made from fossil fuels or natural gas. Additionally, these other biofuel contenders take away from food that could otherwise be consumed. Compared with other available options, including fuel made from corn and soybeans—not to mention fossil fuels—algae biofuel seems to be the best option if the world’s current fuel and food consumption patterns continue at their current level or increase.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Bioethanol news in brief.
Kentucky sets biomass, biofuel production goals
Kentucky has developed a 21-member executive task force to facilitate the development of a statewide sustainable biomass and biofuels industry and to educate state legislators on the ability to utilize local biomass to achieve this goal. The task force held its first meeting Sept. 2, and determined the state needs to produce 25 million tons of biomass annually by 2025 in order for Kentucky to adequately contribute to the federal renewable fuel standard and a state renewable portfolio standard. The state should also produce enough biofuels by 2025 to meet 12 percent, or 775 million gallons per year, of its transportation fuel demand.
NDPSC files motion on VeraSun Hankinson grain elevator
North Dakota's Public Service Commission will seek permission to pursue a state insolvency case against VeraSun Energy Corp.'s grain storage facilities at Hankinson, in southeastern North Dakota. Specifically, the Public Service Commission asks in the filing that the grain elevator "may be liquidated and distributed to certain farmers who allege they have not been paid for grain they delivered to a public warehouse facility operated by [VeraSun Hankinson, LLC.]" While the case proceeds, the commission wants a federal bankruptcy court order allowing it to be appointed trustee of the grain elevator where the corn was stored.
WASDE: Record yields meet increased demand from ethanol
The USDA lowered its expectation for beginning corn stocks by 25 million bushels due to higher expected corn use for ethanol in 2008-'09, according to its Sept. 11 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate. The U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency reported record blending of ethanol into gasoline in July and August and the trend is expected to continue. The USDA now expects over 4 billion bushels of corn to be used in 2009-'10 for ethanol production
South Dakota adds ethanol storage for state fleet
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds recently announced that ethanol fuel tanks will be installed at three state Department of Transportation regional yards in an effort to increase the use of renewable fuel by the state fleet. Although nearly 40 percent of South Dakota's 3,395 government vehicles are flexible fuel vehicles, state employees have not had access to high ethanol blends, such as E85, at state fueling facilities. Instead, they had the option of purchasing E85 at commercial stations. During the 2009 fiscal year that ended June 30, state employees purchased only 32,640 gallons of E85.
North Carolina explores biofuel feedstock options
The Biofuels Center of North Carolina, Oxford, is investigating the potential for in-state biofuels production from energy crops and forest biomass. Industry leaders, elected officials and others recently toured the center's 4-acre plot of more than a dozen energy crops and fast-growth trees as part of the North Carolina Grows Biofuels event. The state allocated $5 million to the center to fund research and development in three main areas: agronomics, conversion technologies and workforce development, according to Norman Smit, director of communications and education for the center. Grants have been awarded to several companies and liquid biofuels projects. "The biofuel center's goal is to replace 10 percent of all fuel used in the state with homegrown and produced biofuels by 2017," Smit said. North Carolina buys 5.6 billion gallons of liquid fuels annually, according to the center.
Canadian software company targets ethanol producers
Canada-based STI Corp. said despite current difficulties within the industry, ethanol is a growth market and long-term energy demands will prove it's an industry worth investing in. The manufacturing operations management company last year determined that ethanol should be a part of the company's long-term strategy and is now focused on providing ethanol producers with its Manufacturing Execution Systems as a way to increase plant productivity and reduce costs.
Brazilian organizations unite in alliance to fight climate change
Fourteen major Brazilian organizations representing the agribusiness, planted forests and bioenergy sectors recently announced the creation of the Brazilian Climate Alliance, with the goal of contributing solid proposals for the negotiations related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Brazilian Climate Alliance stresses that Brazil, a country with one of the cleanest energy matrixes in the world, with over 40 percent of its makeup originating from renewable sources, should play a leading role in global climate discussions.
In New Hampshire, Mascoma announced that it has entered into a feedstock processing and lignin supply agreement with Chevron Technology Ventures. Under terms of the agreement, CTV will provide various sources of lignocellulosic feedstock to Mascoma. Mascoma will then convert the feedstock to cellulosic ethanol through its proprietary process, which produces lignin as a by-product. Mascoma will provide this lignin to CTV for evaluation.
There has been considerable research on the use of lignin as a feedstock for hydrocarbon-based fuels, and last year, Chevron and Weyerhaeuser announced the formation of a joint venture, Catchlight Energy, to research the production of fuels from forest materials, including lignin.
In Iraq, the national government has approved a plan to improve agricultural productivity by commencing a project to convert surplus dates into ethanol. The national date palm board said that an unnamed company from the UAE would process dates from the Tigris-Euphrates region in a project intended to assist the agricultural sector which has been beset by soil salinity and exhaustion.
Kentucky has developed a 21-member executive task force to facilitate the development of a statewide sustainable biomass and biofuels industry and to educate state legislators on the ability to utilize local biomass to achieve this goal. The task force held its first meeting Sept. 2, and determined the state needs to produce 25 million tons of biomass annually by 2025 in order for Kentucky to adequately contribute to the federal renewable fuel standard and a state renewable portfolio standard. The state should also produce enough biofuels by 2025 to meet 12 percent, or 775 million gallons per year, of its transportation fuel demand.
NDPSC files motion on VeraSun Hankinson grain elevator
North Dakota's Public Service Commission will seek permission to pursue a state insolvency case against VeraSun Energy Corp.'s grain storage facilities at Hankinson, in southeastern North Dakota. Specifically, the Public Service Commission asks in the filing that the grain elevator "may be liquidated and distributed to certain farmers who allege they have not been paid for grain they delivered to a public warehouse facility operated by [VeraSun Hankinson, LLC.]" While the case proceeds, the commission wants a federal bankruptcy court order allowing it to be appointed trustee of the grain elevator where the corn was stored.
WASDE: Record yields meet increased demand from ethanol
The USDA lowered its expectation for beginning corn stocks by 25 million bushels due to higher expected corn use for ethanol in 2008-'09, according to its Sept. 11 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate. The U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency reported record blending of ethanol into gasoline in July and August and the trend is expected to continue. The USDA now expects over 4 billion bushels of corn to be used in 2009-'10 for ethanol production
South Dakota adds ethanol storage for state fleet
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds recently announced that ethanol fuel tanks will be installed at three state Department of Transportation regional yards in an effort to increase the use of renewable fuel by the state fleet. Although nearly 40 percent of South Dakota's 3,395 government vehicles are flexible fuel vehicles, state employees have not had access to high ethanol blends, such as E85, at state fueling facilities. Instead, they had the option of purchasing E85 at commercial stations. During the 2009 fiscal year that ended June 30, state employees purchased only 32,640 gallons of E85.
North Carolina explores biofuel feedstock options
The Biofuels Center of North Carolina, Oxford, is investigating the potential for in-state biofuels production from energy crops and forest biomass. Industry leaders, elected officials and others recently toured the center's 4-acre plot of more than a dozen energy crops and fast-growth trees as part of the North Carolina Grows Biofuels event. The state allocated $5 million to the center to fund research and development in three main areas: agronomics, conversion technologies and workforce development, according to Norman Smit, director of communications and education for the center. Grants have been awarded to several companies and liquid biofuels projects. "The biofuel center's goal is to replace 10 percent of all fuel used in the state with homegrown and produced biofuels by 2017," Smit said. North Carolina buys 5.6 billion gallons of liquid fuels annually, according to the center.
Canadian software company targets ethanol producers
Canada-based STI Corp. said despite current difficulties within the industry, ethanol is a growth market and long-term energy demands will prove it's an industry worth investing in. The manufacturing operations management company last year determined that ethanol should be a part of the company's long-term strategy and is now focused on providing ethanol producers with its Manufacturing Execution Systems as a way to increase plant productivity and reduce costs.
Brazilian organizations unite in alliance to fight climate change
Fourteen major Brazilian organizations representing the agribusiness, planted forests and bioenergy sectors recently announced the creation of the Brazilian Climate Alliance, with the goal of contributing solid proposals for the negotiations related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Brazilian Climate Alliance stresses that Brazil, a country with one of the cleanest energy matrixes in the world, with over 40 percent of its makeup originating from renewable sources, should play a leading role in global climate discussions.
In New Hampshire, Mascoma announced that it has entered into a feedstock processing and lignin supply agreement with Chevron Technology Ventures. Under terms of the agreement, CTV will provide various sources of lignocellulosic feedstock to Mascoma. Mascoma will then convert the feedstock to cellulosic ethanol through its proprietary process, which produces lignin as a by-product. Mascoma will provide this lignin to CTV for evaluation.
There has been considerable research on the use of lignin as a feedstock for hydrocarbon-based fuels, and last year, Chevron and Weyerhaeuser announced the formation of a joint venture, Catchlight Energy, to research the production of fuels from forest materials, including lignin.
In Iraq, the national government has approved a plan to improve agricultural productivity by commencing a project to convert surplus dates into ethanol. The national date palm board said that an unnamed company from the UAE would process dates from the Tigris-Euphrates region in a project intended to assist the agricultural sector which has been beset by soil salinity and exhaustion.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Biofuel is mandatory,indefinite fossil fuel price is not promising.
Future is molded by today's choice.
There are very imminent catatrophies ahead whether be it money (economies) natural and manmade. Major concerns are resource scarcity,booming population,rising pollutions and changes associated with these dynamics. Major concern are widespread fears of carbon dioxide and other green house gases to which the global climate change is subjected as is the main believe in geoppolitics worldwide.
In facts policies and international relations are truning new angles with common ground to battle or reduce or more appropriately control. Some newers poicies that will affect our daily lives are though strigent measures soon to be impossed on human populations, indusries, economic activities. For instance, baby cabon, where total carbon dioxide as green house gas is realesed from a single person as infant througout his entire live until death, the total green house gas contributed and the impact on climaye change. Take the wolrd population and measure toatl green house gas and impact magnetude for climate change etc..etc.
The issue of population control or depopulation is at hand.
While biofuel development took rocket high interest in the worst economic crisis period, now being abit over with it would see more industries multiple worldwide as they rush to supply the ever increasing demand the fossil fuel has maintained for past 150 years since machines came to be automated.
Given the low resource scarcity worldwide, few with resources are going resource boom exploitation as the world rushed to get more out. PNG is one of this country where the world powers come to have their batlle for resources.
There are many things to consider here, outside climate change fears,fuel crises,biofuel development are majors issues and fears. I have said issues in regard to biofuel developments are mandotary for PNG development, fuel security and stability.Without repeating what i have said, it is a serious matter when the government will alow foreign firms to produce biofuel from PNG resoruces and feed the national demand.The national economy is not safer, nor the ecomony control for the sake of its booming 6.2 m people but PNG will still be exposed to outside to take advantage.In the age when fuel will be manufactured ,importing biofuels is no acception.
There are very imminent catatrophies ahead whether be it money (economies) natural and manmade. Major concerns are resource scarcity,booming population,rising pollutions and changes associated with these dynamics. Major concern are widespread fears of carbon dioxide and other green house gases to which the global climate change is subjected as is the main believe in geoppolitics worldwide.
In facts policies and international relations are truning new angles with common ground to battle or reduce or more appropriately control. Some newers poicies that will affect our daily lives are though strigent measures soon to be impossed on human populations, indusries, economic activities. For instance, baby cabon, where total carbon dioxide as green house gas is realesed from a single person as infant througout his entire live until death, the total green house gas contributed and the impact on climaye change. Take the wolrd population and measure toatl green house gas and impact magnetude for climate change etc..etc.
The issue of population control or depopulation is at hand.
While biofuel development took rocket high interest in the worst economic crisis period, now being abit over with it would see more industries multiple worldwide as they rush to supply the ever increasing demand the fossil fuel has maintained for past 150 years since machines came to be automated.
Given the low resource scarcity worldwide, few with resources are going resource boom exploitation as the world rushed to get more out. PNG is one of this country where the world powers come to have their batlle for resources.
There are many things to consider here, outside climate change fears,fuel crises,biofuel development are majors issues and fears. I have said issues in regard to biofuel developments are mandotary for PNG development, fuel security and stability.Without repeating what i have said, it is a serious matter when the government will alow foreign firms to produce biofuel from PNG resoruces and feed the national demand.The national economy is not safer, nor the ecomony control for the sake of its booming 6.2 m people but PNG will still be exposed to outside to take advantage.In the age when fuel will be manufactured ,importing biofuels is no acception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)