Why do we like biofuels? Because they are a substitute for oil. Because oil will run out, maybe sooner, maybe later, but someday it will all be gone. There aren’t any gasoline bushes growing out there.
But we can grow plenty of algae, or jatropha, or soy, or even turkeys – all of which can be converted to fuel. However, that only solves one of the two big issues we’re facing today. Biofuels address our energy needs, but what about the environment?
Well, since biofuels are designed to replace gas in an internal combustion engine, they don’t really do much for that side of the column. Cars running on biodiesel still generate carbon-dioxide. Well, at least we’re dealing with one of the problems, so don’t we come out ahead?
Well, maybe not. According to an article in Science Express this month, producing biofuels can significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, hastening global warming. Apparently, converting land use to grow food crops to biofuel source crops will sharply increase CO2 emissions. Converting natural areas (you know, those beautiful pristine places out in the wilds) is even worse.
Oh, there’s one more thing. The fertilizer needed to grow biofuel source crops will generate huge amounts of nitrous oxide, which is even worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
"Large greenhouse gas emissions from these indirect land-use changes are unintended consequences of a global biofuels program; consequences that add to the climate-change problem rather than helping to solve it," the report found.
So, let’s go back to where we started this conversation? Why do we like biofuels? Maybe I’m not as certain as I was before.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Good Investment
Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced this week that three universities will receive up to $8 each million to develop more efficient turbines and fund students who want to do research in the field.
The University of Maine plans to study offshore turbine designs, including a nifty project to evaluate a floating turbine. Illinois Institute of Technology will evaluate new “aero elastic models” aimed at improving efficiency. And the University of Minnesota will be looking at new ways to transmit power from the turbine to the grid, as well as designs that can “increase energy capture.” Not sure exactly how those ideas all work, but they sound cool, no?
And here’s why this initiative is a double-plus: the funding is coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Why is this cool? Because it’s investing twice. First, it’s a much-needed push to boost U.S. green technology. And second, it’s a clear statement that the government sees green research as an area that will likely deliver long-term economic returns. In fact, despite record unemployment figures, green industries are hiring. This is an industry with a future.
The University of Maine plans to study offshore turbine designs, including a nifty project to evaluate a floating turbine. Illinois Institute of Technology will evaluate new “aero elastic models” aimed at improving efficiency. And the University of Minnesota will be looking at new ways to transmit power from the turbine to the grid, as well as designs that can “increase energy capture.” Not sure exactly how those ideas all work, but they sound cool, no?
And here’s why this initiative is a double-plus: the funding is coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Why is this cool? Because it’s investing twice. First, it’s a much-needed push to boost U.S. green technology. And second, it’s a clear statement that the government sees green research as an area that will likely deliver long-term economic returns. In fact, despite record unemployment figures, green industries are hiring. This is an industry with a future.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Photosynthetic Phuel
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Solar Power at Night
Researchers at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Labs say they have solved one of solar energy’s biggest problems with a new kind of thin-film solar cell that will generate power at night.
Traditional photovoltaic solar cells absorb photons from visible sunlight, converting the absorbed energy into electricity.
The key technological breakthrough coming from Idaho Labs is a tiny nano-antenna that can absorb mid-infrared rays, otherwise known as heat. The Earth absorbs sunlight all day long, and emits infrared energy constantly.
These nano antennas are stamped onto a polyethylene sheet, and researchers said the production process is easy and inexpensive. Even better, they said the new design can capture up to 80 percent of the energy in the IR light, compared to photovoltaics, which are often only about 20 percent efficient.
Of course, there’s a snag. Once the nano antennas absorb all this energy, they begin to oscillate with alternating current at a trillion times per second; the researchers say they still have to come up with a new kind of rectifier that can convert that power into usable, direct current.
Existing rectifier designs can’t handle such high-frequency oscillation, and are way too big. The researchers now must create a nano-scale rectifier, which would have to be about 1,000 times smaller than commercial rectifiers that are currently available.
Traditional photovoltaic solar cells absorb photons from visible sunlight, converting the absorbed energy into electricity.
The key technological breakthrough coming from Idaho Labs is a tiny nano-antenna that can absorb mid-infrared rays, otherwise known as heat. The Earth absorbs sunlight all day long, and emits infrared energy constantly.
These nano antennas are stamped onto a polyethylene sheet, and researchers said the production process is easy and inexpensive. Even better, they said the new design can capture up to 80 percent of the energy in the IR light, compared to photovoltaics, which are often only about 20 percent efficient.
Of course, there’s a snag. Once the nano antennas absorb all this energy, they begin to oscillate with alternating current at a trillion times per second; the researchers say they still have to come up with a new kind of rectifier that can convert that power into usable, direct current.
Existing rectifier designs can’t handle such high-frequency oscillation, and are way too big. The researchers now must create a nano-scale rectifier, which would have to be about 1,000 times smaller than commercial rectifiers that are currently available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)