We’ve written about biofuels, and we’ve written about solar power, but Joule Biotechnology is trying to combing these two very different concepts.
The company emerged from stealth mode today, touting its “Helioculture” system that it claims can turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and some kind of proprietary organism into Ethanol. Now that’s some kind of secret sauce!
The basic process seems to be based on photosynthesis, and though the company hasn’t released all the details, it’s clearly an intriguing concept. Joule claims it has developed a “photosynthetic organism” that uses the energy in sunlight to “metabolize” carbon dioxide to create a variety of fuel products.
Joule says its first commercial product, SolarEthanol, will be ready for commercial production next year.
The system requires open space, but can be anywhere, and doesn’t displace any land that can be used for crops. Nor does it need fresh water. And unlike other types of Ethanol that need to be refined from various source crops, the end product of the Helioculture process is SolarEthanol – no need for additional steps. Just pour sunlight into one end of the process and fuel comes pouring out the other end.
Wow, we’re dying to know more about how this works.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A Fatal Flaw
If T. Boone Pickens can’t make wind power an economic reality, who can?
The famed oil tycoon announced last year that he wanted to build in Texas one of the world’s biggest wind farms.
Under his PickensPlan, he initially signed on to buy more than 600 turbines that would be able to generate up to 1,000 megawatts; the ultimate goal was to quadruple that figure.
But his plan hit a few snags. First, he announced in November that he was having trouble lining up financing. Something kind of global credit crunch was to blame, he said.
But the real hurdle was more fundamental: Pickens said last week he was pulling the plug on the whole project because of a lack of transmission lines that would carry the power from the windswept plains of Texas, where he planned to install the turbines, to the cities, where it’s needed. The power lines aren’t there, nobody is stepping up to build them, and with Pickens having trouble with financing, he couldn’t cover them himself.
We’ve touched on this concept before, and it’s a bit distressing that such an ambitious project would fail because of such a fundamental flaw.
So what does this say about the future of wind power? I guess that it’s still out there, in the future.
The famed oil tycoon announced last year that he wanted to build in Texas one of the world’s biggest wind farms.
Under his PickensPlan, he initially signed on to buy more than 600 turbines that would be able to generate up to 1,000 megawatts; the ultimate goal was to quadruple that figure.
But his plan hit a few snags. First, he announced in November that he was having trouble lining up financing. Something kind of global credit crunch was to blame, he said.
But the real hurdle was more fundamental: Pickens said last week he was pulling the plug on the whole project because of a lack of transmission lines that would carry the power from the windswept plains of Texas, where he planned to install the turbines, to the cities, where it’s needed. The power lines aren’t there, nobody is stepping up to build them, and with Pickens having trouble with financing, he couldn’t cover them himself.
We’ve touched on this concept before, and it’s a bit distressing that such an ambitious project would fail because of such a fundamental flaw.
So what does this say about the future of wind power? I guess that it’s still out there, in the future.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Green Nukes?
Asia’s green energy approach may actually have a soft blue glow.
Experts at a recent alternative energy confab in Manila are pushing nuclear energy as an important option for the rapidly growing region, according to this article.
It’s better than coal or oil, they say, and delivers more power than any existing alternative sources. India, for example, is planning to quintuple its nuclear capacity, from about 4,000 megawatts now to 20,000 megawatts in the next decade, and is getting technology and resources from the United States.
China, too, is developing more nuclear plants as part of a push to diversify its power-production capabilities. The country currently derives 70 percent of its energy from coal, while alternative sources and nuclear plants contribute less than 10%.
"Developing Asian countries whether they like it or not should take a look at nuclear power as a source of energy," Piyasvasti Amranand, a former Thai energy minister and now chief advisor for a Bangkok lobbyist group Energy for Environment Foundation, said at the conference.
It may sound like heresy, but I’ve got mixed feelings about nuclear power. I know the waste is a huge issue, and the potential impact of a major malfunction is huge (Chernobyl, anyone?).
But it’s a lot cleaner than burning coal or oil, and the technology is proven and effective. Switching from fossil fuels to renewables like wind or solar is the goal, right? But that won’t happen overnight. Does it make environmental sense to push for more nuclear energy as a way to wean ourselves from oil and (hopefully) slow down global warming?
I’m not sure where I stand on this one, but I’m willing to entertain arguments for either position.
Experts at a recent alternative energy confab in Manila are pushing nuclear energy as an important option for the rapidly growing region, according to this article.
It’s better than coal or oil, they say, and delivers more power than any existing alternative sources. India, for example, is planning to quintuple its nuclear capacity, from about 4,000 megawatts now to 20,000 megawatts in the next decade, and is getting technology and resources from the United States.
China, too, is developing more nuclear plants as part of a push to diversify its power-production capabilities. The country currently derives 70 percent of its energy from coal, while alternative sources and nuclear plants contribute less than 10%.
"Developing Asian countries whether they like it or not should take a look at nuclear power as a source of energy," Piyasvasti Amranand, a former Thai energy minister and now chief advisor for a Bangkok lobbyist group Energy for Environment Foundation, said at the conference.
It may sound like heresy, but I’ve got mixed feelings about nuclear power. I know the waste is a huge issue, and the potential impact of a major malfunction is huge (Chernobyl, anyone?).
But it’s a lot cleaner than burning coal or oil, and the technology is proven and effective. Switching from fossil fuels to renewables like wind or solar is the goal, right? But that won’t happen overnight. Does it make environmental sense to push for more nuclear energy as a way to wean ourselves from oil and (hopefully) slow down global warming?
I’m not sure where I stand on this one, but I’m willing to entertain arguments for either position.
New Challenger
Here’s another candidate claiming to be the perfect source of biofuels: jatropha.
My Dream Fuel, a Florida farming company backed by an Indian tech firm and a Costa Rican agriculture operation, is trying to convince U.S. farmers to buy and raise jatropha, which it claims is ideal for biodiesel production.
The numbers are impressive. The trees cost $6 to $7, according to an article by the Associated Press, and can be grown 400 to an acre. When harvested, each tree yields more than two gallons of oil that can be converted to biodiesel. The company says the trees are easy to maintain and require little water or care.
Jatropha-based fuel has already powered some commercial air flights, and the energy giant BP is involved in jatropha projects in India and Africa.
The downside, naturally, is convincing people to take a leap of faith and actually cultivate the trees. The economics, the basic numbers, aren’t always enough to make the case when they’re all based on rosy projections that assume a market for a new product. You can’t blame farmers for being wary, and doing something new is always a little scary. But that shouldn’t be a reason not to try.
My Dream Fuel, a Florida farming company backed by an Indian tech firm and a Costa Rican agriculture operation, is trying to convince U.S. farmers to buy and raise jatropha, which it claims is ideal for biodiesel production.
The numbers are impressive. The trees cost $6 to $7, according to an article by the Associated Press, and can be grown 400 to an acre. When harvested, each tree yields more than two gallons of oil that can be converted to biodiesel. The company says the trees are easy to maintain and require little water or care.
Jatropha-based fuel has already powered some commercial air flights, and the energy giant BP is involved in jatropha projects in India and Africa.
The downside, naturally, is convincing people to take a leap of faith and actually cultivate the trees. The economics, the basic numbers, aren’t always enough to make the case when they’re all based on rosy projections that assume a market for a new product. You can’t blame farmers for being wary, and doing something new is always a little scary. But that shouldn’t be a reason not to try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)