This one’s just a big biofuel bummer.
A new report concludes that the industrial farming methods needed to produce biofuel plants in volume also product greenhouse gases. A LOT of greenhouse gases.
Turns out that the fertilizers used to grow these crops generates three to five times more greenhouse gases than previously thought, especially nitrous oxide (yes, the same stuff you get at the dentist or Grateful Dead concerts), which can be as much as 300 times more effective an atmospheric insulator that carbon dioxide.
And this report doesn’t come from any kind of quack organization; it was written by Paul J. Crutzen, a Nobel prize winner in chemistry.
Using biofuels produced from rapeseed, a popular source crop in Europe, can generate up to 70 percent more greenhouse gas than just using standard, petroleum-based diesel. Corn, one of the main crops in the United States, is a bit better; depending on how it’s produced it can cut greenhouse gas product by 10 percent, or increase it by up to 50 percent. And sugarcane, widely used in South America, can cut emissions by 10 percent to 50 percent.
Worse, none of these numbers even considered the emissions produced during the process of refining crops into fuel.
“The nitrous oxide emission on its own can cancel out the overall benefit” of switching to biofuels, said Crutzen’s co-author Keith Smith.
However, they report did not look at all potential biofuel crops, and there are some contenders that may not require much, or any, fertilizer (algae, anyone?).
I guess the hunt continues.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Good Advice
This may seem too obvious to even mention, but it’s a good idea to build wind farms in places that actually, you know, get a decent amount of wind.
But amazingly, it seems that many of the wind farms in the U.K. don’t get enough wind to make them a reliable source of energy.
The wind industry rates locations by their average annual wind speeds, which is called a “load factor.” The recommended load factor for a wind farm is at least 30 percent.
Though there are plenty of windy spots in the U.K. – some wind farms in Scotland and Wales come in at about 45 percent – there are many more that fall far short. One, in Cumbria, for example, rates at only 20 to 21 percent, and of the 25 wind farms in Eastern England only five (5!) have load factors that meet the 30 percent threshold.
Wow. That just seems amazingly short-sighted.
How could this happen? Some energy consultants blame government pressure to produce green energy. The U.K. wants 15 percent of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2014, and power companies are rushing to put up wind farms.
Certainly, I’m not privy to what went into the decisions to build the under-performing sites, but I can’t help but think that the subsidies that the government used to offer for building wind farms played a role.
Those subsidies are no longer available; now the government sets targets that power suppliers must meet, selling a certain percentage of green electricity each year, and imposing fines on those that don’t make their numbers.
Hopefully, these penalties may make some power companies realize that the windless wind farms are bringing their averages down.
But amazingly, it seems that many of the wind farms in the U.K. don’t get enough wind to make them a reliable source of energy.
The wind industry rates locations by their average annual wind speeds, which is called a “load factor.” The recommended load factor for a wind farm is at least 30 percent.
Though there are plenty of windy spots in the U.K. – some wind farms in Scotland and Wales come in at about 45 percent – there are many more that fall far short. One, in Cumbria, for example, rates at only 20 to 21 percent, and of the 25 wind farms in Eastern England only five (5!) have load factors that meet the 30 percent threshold.
Wow. That just seems amazingly short-sighted.
How could this happen? Some energy consultants blame government pressure to produce green energy. The U.K. wants 15 percent of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2014, and power companies are rushing to put up wind farms.
Certainly, I’m not privy to what went into the decisions to build the under-performing sites, but I can’t help but think that the subsidies that the government used to offer for building wind farms played a role.
Those subsidies are no longer available; now the government sets targets that power suppliers must meet, selling a certain percentage of green electricity each year, and imposing fines on those that don’t make their numbers.
Hopefully, these penalties may make some power companies realize that the windless wind farms are bringing their averages down.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Off Hiatus
Wow, take on a few side projects, get out of town for a vacation, and pretty soon it’s been almost two months since my last post.
I’ll try to update the site a bit more regularly now, especially since alternative energy seems to be in the spotlight more than ever these days.
Here’s an item I thought was especially… tasty.
Remember the Tyson Foods plan to convert the byproducts of its meat-packing operations into biofuel? Well, think for a minute about what those “byproducts” actually are.
OK, don’t think too hard, because it’s not a pretty mental image. Yes, we’re talking about slop and slime and fat and guts. Blech.
Turns out that there’s already a company testing the production of biofuel from animal byproducts, Renewable Energy Solutions, of Carthage, Mo., which went live in May 2004, which turns turkey waste from several nearby packing plants into fuel.
Unfortunately, the plant has its own unpleasant byproduct, a serious smell problem, and some local residents are raising a stink about the stink.
The governor ordered the plant shut down in December 2005, but it reopened three months later, after the company invested about $3 million in industrial grade odor eaters.
But that doesn’t seem to have done the trick, and one local resident has filed a lawsuit against RES.
I have to admit, the meatpacking plant/biofuel plant combination seems great on paper, but sometimes real-world complications don’t show up on paper.
While this is an example of NIMBY politics with which I can sympathize, there are plenty of other examples of alt-energy projects that have been stalled for other reasons that I think are just lame.
But we’ll cover Cape Wind another day.
I’ll try to update the site a bit more regularly now, especially since alternative energy seems to be in the spotlight more than ever these days.
Here’s an item I thought was especially… tasty.
Remember the Tyson Foods plan to convert the byproducts of its meat-packing operations into biofuel? Well, think for a minute about what those “byproducts” actually are.
OK, don’t think too hard, because it’s not a pretty mental image. Yes, we’re talking about slop and slime and fat and guts. Blech.
Turns out that there’s already a company testing the production of biofuel from animal byproducts, Renewable Energy Solutions, of Carthage, Mo., which went live in May 2004, which turns turkey waste from several nearby packing plants into fuel.
Unfortunately, the plant has its own unpleasant byproduct, a serious smell problem, and some local residents are raising a stink about the stink.
The governor ordered the plant shut down in December 2005, but it reopened three months later, after the company invested about $3 million in industrial grade odor eaters.
But that doesn’t seem to have done the trick, and one local resident has filed a lawsuit against RES.
I have to admit, the meatpacking plant/biofuel plant combination seems great on paper, but sometimes real-world complications don’t show up on paper.
While this is an example of NIMBY politics with which I can sympathize, there are plenty of other examples of alt-energy projects that have been stalled for other reasons that I think are just lame.
But we’ll cover Cape Wind another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)