[Biofuel] As the Feds pull out, dreams of “clean coal” fade - Fortune
http://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/ [links in on-line article] As the Feds pull out, dreams of clean coal fade by Richard Martin February 6, 2015, 7:01 AM EST The death of the flagship FutureGen project could spell the end of U.S. government investment in carbon capture and storage in the industry. FutureGen proved exceedingly hard to kill. Like a TV zombie, the troubled carbon capture and storage project, once heralded as the future of the coal industry, survived more than a decade of false starts, cost overruns, federal funding cancellations, and utility abandonments. The Illinois-based program to capture carbon from a coal plant smokestack and store it in geological formations will evidently not survive, however, this week’s Department of Energy decision to shut off the money spigot. The FutureGen Alliance, which revived the project after federal support was withdrawn under the Bush Administration, in 2008, said with the loss of federal funding it has run out of options and will not move forward with plans to begin construction later this year. The cost of FutureGen 2.0 had been pegged at $1.65 billion, of which $1.1 billion was slated to come from the Department of Energy. To date the DOE has invested around $202 million in the project. It decided to pull the plug there. “Despite the Alliance’s commitment to advancing carbon capture and storage technology and cleaner energy from coal, … the Alliance must comply with DOE’s directive,” Ken Humphreys, CEO of the Alliance, said in a statement. A look at the failed history of so-called clean coal technology, though, indicates that the decision to cancel FutureGen was more mercy killing than murder. The project faced long odds at its inception, nearly a dozen years ago, and with the onset of the shale gas revolution, which has dramatically reduced the cost of natural gas for power production and accelerated many utilities’ movement away from coal, it was clearly doomed. Energy Moonshot After George W. Bush greenlit the first version of FutureGen, in 2003, he declared that, “By the year 2012, we’ll build the first clean-coal power plant that will remove virtually all pollutants and greenhouse gases from burning coal.” Carbon capture formed a key element of the oilman president’s strategy to rein in greenhouse gas emissions while promoting the burning of fossil fuels. That inherent contradiction has plagued the FutureGen concept ever since. The project’s difficulties stemmed from a fatal combination of flawed technology and nonviable economics. On the technological side, separating carbon from combusted coal is simply really, really hard. FutureGen 1.0 called for a new 275-megawatt power plant to be built from the ground up at Mattoon, Ill., using an integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) system—a technology that was relatively exotic in 2003. Competition among states to host the project was fierce. But cost overruns and tepid utility support caused the Bush Administration to pull the plug on that idea in 2008, causing outraged responses from the coal industry and the Illinois congressional delegation. FutureGen supporters refused to give up, and the project – which had been vocally supported by the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama – was revived on a more modest scale by the Obama Administration in 2010. FutureGen 2.0 called for retrofitting an existing, 165-megawatt plant in Illinois with what’s known as an oxy-combustion system, which burns coal in a mix of pure oxygen and flue gas, making the CO2 coming out of the smokestack easier, in theory, to capture. The Department of Energy pledged $1.1 billion over five years to equip the plant. But oxy-combustion has proven no easier to achieve, or less expensive, than IGCC, and carbon capture could add 30% or 40% to the cost of power generation—a non-starter in the era of cheap natural gas. That’s to say nothing of the cost of transporting and storing the captured CO2. Some analysts estimate that moving 90% of the CO2 produced by America’s coal plants to suitable storage sites would require a pipeline network equivalent to the existing natural gas pipeline system, built from scratch. New Life? As a result, private-sector investment dried up and power generators have abandoned carbon capture and storage. When Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utilities, dropped out of FutureGen 2.0 in 2013, the company said, “Our decision reflects our long-held position that customers should not be forced to pay enormous above-market charges for electricity, as the project is now seeking.” The end, at least for now, of FutureGen raises anew serious doubts about further investment in carbon capture and storage—a technology that costs as much as it did a decade ago even as the price of solar panels, and thus of power from solar installations, has fallen drastically, to where solar is
[Biofuel] BP wants claims administrator out for helping fish oil company
http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/investigations/david-hammer/2015/02/05/bp-alleges-ties-between-claim-administrator-company/22944893/ [If I'm reading this right, BP wants to dump Claims Administrator Juneau - who was endorsed / selected by BP for the job - because BP did not do their own due diligence on Juneau's work history. Well, actually, they want to dump him because he's doing his job - apparently fairly well - but the settlements are costing BP more than they had budgeted. Really?! BP miscalculated on the claims cost, so they want a do-over on the hiring of the guy doing the claims work? I bet a lot of folks would like a do-over on another BP miscalculation - or actually the series of mistakes by BP and their agents which led to the 2010 blow-out. BP also complains a claimant company approached politicians to see if they could help expedite their claim to stave off bankruptcy. Whew, good to know approaching politicians is a line BP won't cross in trying to further their corporate agenda. Still, there's this: Western States Petroleum Association Spent $8.9M Lobbying Against Climate and Fracking Efforts in California Last Year (http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/05/western-states-petroleum-association-spent-8-9m-lobbying-against-climate-and-fracking-efforts-california-last-year), and 5 Energy Companies Pouring Money Into Lobbying (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/22/5-energy-companies-pouring-money-into-lobbying.aspx) and ... Oh, dear! So, 11 dead, more injured, environmental devastation which will impact the Gulf for decades ..., but accelerated payment of $45 million to protect local jobs is where BP draws the line. Sheesh. No saints marching in New Orleans related to this story. video in on-line article] NEW ORLEANS -- A fish oil company with ties to a former Republican president enlisted the help of Louisiana's GOP governor to get its oil spill claim paid four years ago, and now BP is arguing in federal court that the independent settlement claims administrator should lose his job because of it. The fish oil company is Houston-based Omega Protein Corp., a spinoff of an old oil company founded by George H.W. Bush and later run by the late sports mogul Malcolm Glazer. It fishes around the world for menhaden, or pogies, tiny shallow-water fish that are too bony to eat, but are great for making fish meal and are rich in the omega-3 oil that is used to make popular health supplements. A key part of its operations are in the Gulf of Mexico, where its fishing boats and production plants help rake in tens of millions of dollars. The BP oil spill shut down most fishing in the Gulf for months in 2010. Omega Protein touts itself as the largest commercial fishing operation in the Gulf, so it's no surprise that it had the largest corporate claim with BP's Gulf Coast Claims Facility – nearly $45 million. According to documents filed in federal court last month, it was struggling with cash flow immediately after the spill and was desperate for BP claims czar Ken Feinberg to release an emergency payment. Omega Protein spokesman Ben Landry said the firm approached Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's office. State billing records show state officials sent an email inquiring about the company's claim on Aug. 26, 2010, just as Feinberg was taking over the claims process. On Sept. 2, 2010, Omega Protein's President and CEO Joe von Rosenberg sent an email to Louisiana's secretary of Economic Development, Stephen Moret. In it, von Rosenberg tells Moret that he's going to see Jindal in person at an event for the governor on Sept. 7. By the next day, Sept. 8, state emails show the company had received its emergency payment. Jindal spokeswoman Shannon Dirmann issued this statement about the emails and billing records: While the governor supports fair compensation for all victims of this terrible tragedy, he has taken no action to support or encourage any individual claims. The state billing records, released through a public records request and first reported by the blog The American Zombie, show that at least four state officials – Jindal Administration Chief of Staff Mark Brady, Assistant Economic Development Secretary Jason El Koubi, Kris Van Orsdel of the Disaster Recovery Unit and Louisiana Workforce Commission Executive Director Curt Eysink – pushed the claim. And they did that through an attorney hired by the state to consult and work with Feinberg on setting up the Gulf Coast Claims Facility process. That Lafayette attorney, Patrick Juneau, went on in 2012 to take over for Feinberg running the whole claims program, but this time, instead of working for BP as Feinberg had, Juneau was presiding over a court-supervised legal settlement. BP has been trying for much of the last two years to get rid of Juneau, claiming he hijacked the settlement to pay ridiculous or undeserving claims. BP ramped up its complaints
[Biofuel] Czech scientists develop new source for producing biofuels - watch on - uatoday.tv
http://uatoday.tv/society/czech-scientists-develop-new-source-for-producing-biofuels-407563.html Czech scientists develop new source for producing biofuels Method transforms tannery waste into clear biodiesel Scientists at the Tomas Bata University in the Czech city of Zlin have found a new source for biofuel in highly toxic tannery waste. The team developed a procedure for transforming tannery waste and other fats into clear biodiesel with the use of biological agents. Pure vegetable oils or fats currently used in the production of biofuel are often expensive and the scientists were looking for cheaper alternatives. Karel Kolomaznik, professor: We are solving a serious ecological problem, in principle, by processing the waste tannery fat - fleshings. It is very dangerous to burn them, because dioxins and nitrogen oxides (from the process) are highly polluting for the environment. Tannery waste consists of toxic substances, which are difficult to get rid of without harming the environment. The research team developed an innovative refining technology based on programmed melting and chemical extraction of the free acids. The result is high quality fat suitable for biodiesel production, which can be processed with a classic approach or using the technology proposed by the research team. Jiri Pecha, researcher: Here we are testing how much biodiesel was produced from the fats and we are also confirming that the produced biodiesel fulfills all the parameters required by the European quality norm. The new technology could be effective mainly in countries with high leather production, like Italy, China, the United States or Asian countries. If it finds the right investors, researchers say they hope the process will be implemented globally. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] France to axe coal subsidies while EU stalls | EurActiv
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/france-axe-coal-subsidies-while-eu-stalls-311878 [Wait a second - if governments stop subsidizing major corporations to destroy our ecosystems, won't that make their products more expensive for their customers? And doesn't that raise the spectre those clients might look for more affordable energy sources - perhaps, gasp, even some which are sustainable? Zooks, using economic signals to incent the changes citizens want to maintain a survivable habitat? Now, that would be a sea-change in the world. links in on-line article] France to axe coal subsidies while EU stalls EXCLUSIVE / The French government intends to end to its support for coal in developing countries. EurActiv has seen a Commission document that shows that the EU has more modest ambitions. EurActiv France reports. France has confirmed its plans to cut all export credits for the construction of coal power stations, but has not indicated when this new policy will come into force. The French Minister for Ecology, Ségolène Royal and the Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, announced the end of French aid for coal power during the presentation of their environmental roadmap for 2015, ahead of the Paris Climate Conference. Objective Paris 2015 France will do everything it can to reach an agreement at the COP 21, which will be held in Paris in December 2015. We will be adapting our export aid in order to set a good example, said Manuel Valls. Ségolène Royal said the conditions and the timetable for the withdrawal of this support would be specified very soon and in consultation with the businesses that may be affected. First among these is Alstom, a French energy company that has launched numerous projects in the global South with the benefit of government guarantees. The measure will be written into the energy transition for green growth bill, now up for examination in the French Senate. €1.2 billion for coal projects While coal accounts for only a small part of the French energy mix, the country still subsidises coal energy abroad through public guarantees from the French export credit agency, Coface. The agency has guaranteed over €1.2 billion of coal projects since 2011, and was the fifth largest subsidiser of coal energy exports from the OECD between 2007 and 2013. The Prime Minister stated that French public funds could no longer be used by coal power stations in developing countries without CO2 capture and storage systems. A foreseeable bump in the road for this new policy is that carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), meant to capture emissions from power stations to reduce their impact on climate change, is still under development. Only a handful of such projects are currently operational. Carbon capture and storage For Lucie Pinson, a campaign leader for Friends of the Earth, we have to know if factories must be equipped with a capture and storage capacity or not, that is to say, a technology that will effectively reduce their CO2 emissions. France had already partly committed to ending these subsidies in 2013, when President Hollande promised that the French Development Agency (AFD) would no longer support coal-fired power stations in developing countries. This promise was formalised in the framework law on international development and solidarity in July 2014. The text specifies that the French Development Bank does not finance coal-fired power stations, except those which include an operational carbon dioxide capture and storage system. Lucie Pinson believes this is an important specification. Coface has recently provided guarantees for the Medupi power stations in South Africa, which should become operational in June 2015. This station also benefitted from the support of the World Bank on the grounds that it would be equipped with a CCS system, she said. But the system is far from ready and the power station is expected to emit 29 million tons of CO2 per year. France emitted 35.1 million tons of CO2 from coal in 2011; a small portion of the 328.3 million tons released by burning fossil fuels in the country each year. Negotiations at the OECD The question is also under discussion at the European Union, but progress is slow. According to a document seen by EurActiv, the European Commission is still pursuing a less ambitious agenda in its negotiations with the OECD, the organisation charged with regulating credit export agencies. The Commission text, prepared for a meeting in March 2015, suggests only stopping support for the most polluting power stations, and asks the OECD and the IEA to carry out further analysis on the technical constraints of clean coal. The European Commission's position appears to be very close to that of the energy sector. Positions: Although this roadmap confirms France's commitment to put an end to its coal subsidies, its conditions and timetable remain vague. It
[Biofuel] Plain old baking soda may help stop greenhouse gases : TreeHugger
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/plain-old-baking-soda-may-save-us-greenhouse-gases.html [Months or possibly years ago, in response to an open call for workable, affordable CCS solutions by the Alberta government on behalf of their energy sector clients, a company I was associated with provided a proposal on rough net costing of developing a CCS system based on salts and selling the outputs (heat and a mineral product). No interest. Since then, funding has followed which captures CO2 gas for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. links in on-line article] Plain old baking soda may help stop greenhouse gases A.K. Streeter February 5, 2015 Power plants are still the single largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that traps heat and makes the planet warmer. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, coal- and natural gas-fired plants were responsible for a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. At TreeHugger we used to comment frequently on ways to capture greenhouse gases and (ostensibly) reduce global warming. Around 2009 there were plenty of strategies and talk about how carbon capture was definitely going to be a tool to slow global warming. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) was a very real idea but a very expensive proposition for power companies, and after some spendy pilot programs - like at the Mongstad plant in Norway - the idea started to fade away. But not entirely. At the University of Illinois, for example, one project recently celebrated sequestering one million tons of CO2. And a recent Harvard team has reported on materials that enable a safer, cheaper, and more energy-efficient process for carbon capture at power plants. The new materials are based on good old kitchen-grade baking soda. You know - in the orange box with the arm and the hammer. Otherwise known as sodium carbonate, the baking soda achieves an order-of-magnitude increase in CO2 absorption rates compared to the type of absorbing materials currently used. These materials, based on caustic amine solvents, separate CO2 from the flue gas escaping the power plant's smokestacks. But they are expensive, result in a significant reduction in a power plant's output, and yield toxic byproducts. The new technique developed by the Harvard team encapsulates the baking soda and is called microencapsulated carbon sorbents (MECS). While currently-used amines break down over time, carbonates have much better staying power. MECS provide a new way to capture carbon with fewer environmental issues, said Roger D. Aines, leader of the fuel cycle innovations program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a co-lead author. Capturing the world's carbon emissions is a huge job. We need technology that can be applied to many kinds of carbon dioxide sources, with the public's full confidence in the safety and sustainability. With the EPA proposing rules that would require reduced emissions from new plants, the cheaper MECS process for capturing greenhouse gases may bring CCS back to life, and help stall climate change. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Used Cooking Oil From 934 Wetherspoon Pubs To Be Turned Into Biodiesel | CIWM Journal Online
http://www.ciwm-journal.co.uk/archives/12034 Used Cooking Oil From 934 Wetherspoon Pubs To Be Turned Into Biodiesel Posted on 6 February 2015 by Darrel Moore Brocklesby, specialists in the recycling of used cooking oil, edible fats and food that has a high fat content, will recycle used cooking oil from J D Wetherspoon’s chain of 934 pubs. J D Wetherspoon’s sustainable supply chain agreement with its logistics partner involves numerous initiatives to reduce carbon footprint and environmental impacts. One of these measures is that when ambient, fresh and frozen produce are delivered to J D Wetherspoon establishments, the delivery vehicles take back used cooking oil to its centre for recycling. Brocklesby will collect the used cooking oil from this central location for recycling, using its own dedicated fleet of articulated tankers. The used cooking oil from JD Wetherspoon’s pubs will be processed into a refined oil at Brocklesby’s national treatment centre, based at North Cave in East Yorkshire – a 10 acre site with a bulk storage capacity of 3000 MT (metric tonnes). The oil will then be used as prime stock for the UK’s biodiesel industry as well as other technical applications. Brocklesby owner, Rob Brocklesby said: “We are immensely proud to be working alongside J D Wetherspoon and its logistics partner to support their commitment to sustainability and demonstrate our environmental engineering capabilities through our uniquely designed plant and process. “Increasing recycling and lowering carbon footprint whilst reducing costs are a priority for forward thinking organisations and we are working with leading businesses in the hospitality and catering industries, food manufacturing and food retail industries to help them achieve their environmental goals.” Brocklesby Ltd works with a large number of food manufacturers in the UK and Ireland and provides a bespoke supply chain management service for all their waste vegetable oil streams. This recyclable material is then used as a prime ingredient in the UK’s biodiesel industry. Brocklesby Ltd also work closely with the major UK retailers and process their used cooking oil into products primarily for use in the biofuels industry. The company also procure bio-diesel soap stock and allied products, which they manufacture into fatty acids for technical use. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Will low oil prices be the downfall of cellulosic biofuels?
http://theconversation.com/will-low-oil-prices-be-the-downfall-of-cellulosic-biofuels-37088 [images and links in on-line article] February 6 2015, 1.16am EST Will low oil prices be the downfall of cellulosic biofuels? Over the past decade, there have numerous efforts to replace petroleum-based fuels with fuel made from plants, or biofuels. One challenge to commercializing biofuel made from non-food sources — called cellulosic biofuels — has been cost. Unlike ethanol made from corn, cellulosic biofuels are made from the inedible parts of plants or organic materials, so there isn’t competition between food and fuel. But given the rapid decline in crude oil prices since last summer, it is logical to ask what the impact of lower crude oil prices on future development of cellulosic biofuels will be. As you might expect, plunging oil prices make it tougher for makers of cellulosic biofuels. But much of the uncertainty regarding the future stems from policies forged in Washington D.C. Falling well short, technically The source material, or feedstocks, for cellulosic biofuels can be dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass, miscanthus or poplar trees. Or they can be crop residues, such as corn stover and wheat straw, or even residues from logging. Municipal solid waste also contains cellulosic components. In a 2011 study, Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimated that there is enough cellulosic biomass available in the US to displace about 30 percent of the country’s petroleum consumption. The primary driver for the development of the biofuels industry is the federal government. Legislation in 2007 established US renewable fuel targets. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in the legislation calls for 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels by 2022 and the legislative mandate for 2015 is 3 billion gallons. (There are three other types of fuels, including corn ethanol.) The mandate requires fuel refiners or importers to purchase some biofuels along with petroleum-based fuels. However, the industry has not developed at the hoped-for pace, so the US Environmental Protection Agency has had to waive most of the cellulosic portion of the mandate each year. Actual 2015 cellulosic biofuel production will be less than 100 million gallons, well short of the original three billion mandate. In principle, the RFS guarantees any cellulosic biofuel producer a market for what they produce. That is the case for biodiesel, corn ethanol, and sugarcane ethanol, which refiners purchase to blend with petroleum-based gasoline or diesel. Not guaranteed market However, for cellulosic biofuels, there is an out-clause in the RFS that enables obligated parties, including refiners and fuel importers, to buy out of their cellulosic biofuel blending obligation. The current cost of this option is about $1.45 per gallon. That is, an obligated party can pay about $1.45 per gallon in lieu of purchasing cellulosic biofuel. So the RFS is not an iron-clad guarantee of a market. In essence, the out-clause puts a cap on the price of cellulosic biofuels. If the difference between the wholesale price of gasoline and the cost of the cellulosic biofuel is greater than $1.45, obligated parties will pay, instead of purchase the fuel. One final point of background information is that cellulosic feedstocks can be made into a wide range of biofuels. If the cellulose and hemi-cellulose in plants are separated from the lignin and converted to ethanol, this is done in a biochemical process. The lignin is then used for fuel in the plant or for other purposes. When making a fuel, the cellulosic feedstock can be thermochemically converted to hydrocarbons, including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other hydrocarbons. In thermochemical processing, the entire feedstock is converted to a bio-oil (pyrolysis) or a synthesis gas (Fischer Tropsch), either of which can be further processed on to fuels and other products. These fuels are called drop-in because they are very similar to existing fossil fuels and can be used directly in existing infrastructure, unlike ethanol. Ethanol cannot be shipped in pipelines, is normally blended at 10%, and cannot be used in some applications. Long-term investments With this background in mind, what are the impacts of the plunge in crude oil prices? First of all, my estimate is that it takes crude oil at about US$140 for most cellulosic biofuels to be economic without subsidies or mandates. Thus, without government intervention, there would be no future for cellulosic biofuels with crude oil prices well below US$100. Crude oil prices have hovered around $50 for the past month. So the real ques[sic] what is the future given that we do have the RFS? The answer to that question is uncertain. There have been a number of efforts in Congress to reform or outright repeal the RFS. How will investors view the current situation? Making a profit on a cellulosic
[Biofuel] Illinois Soybean Growers Launch 20% Biodiesel Club | Domestic Fuel
http://domesticfuel.com/2015/02/06/illinois-soybean-growers-launch-20-biodiesel-club/ [links in on-line article] Illinois Soybean Growers Launch 20% Biodiesel Club Posted on February 6, 2015 by John Davis Soybean growers in Illinois are recognizing fleets in the state that run on a 20 percent blend of biodiesel, B20. This news release from the Illinois Soybean Association (ISA) says the group has partnered with the American Lung Association in Illinois to launch the B20 Club. “B20 offers economic and environmental benefits to the fleets that use it, so we wanted to bring these leading fleets together and recognize them for taking the initiative to move up to B20,” says Rebecca Richardson, ISA biodiesel lead. “We’ll also provide resources for our B20 Club members, and others in the state, who have questions about how to use biodiesel in their fleets.” Inaugural members include: The Fleet Services Division of Public Works Department in the City of Evanston, Ill., which operates 366 units that include all diesel police and fire vehicles, heavy equipment, utilities and forestry departments and pool vehicles and parks and recreation buses. Cook-Illinois Corporation; Kickert School Bus Lines, Inc., one of their leading subsidiaries which also is one of the largest family-owned and -operated school bus contractors in the country, runs more than 2,100 school buses every day. Peoria CityLink operates 58 buses and 35 Paratransit vans that carry three million passengers annually. RN Trucking LLC, with 17 trucks that together travel more than a million miles a year. S.K. Davison, a family-run business specializing in local and regional hauls with 18 trucks travelling approximately 800,000 miles per year. GD Integrated, serving central Illinois for more than 100 years with transportation, freight transfer and storage services, and currently more than 400 long-haul trucks. The six members of the B20 Club run more than 2,700 vehicles burning more than 2.2 million gallons of biodiesel. That cuts carbon dioxide emissions of more than 253 tons — a reduction the equivalent of taking 48 cars off the roadway. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Indian scientists turn coconut oil into biofuel | Business Standard News
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/indian-scientists-turn-coconut-oil-into-biofuel-115020600715_1.html Indian scientists turn coconut oil into biofuel IANS | Kochi February 6, 2015 Last Updated at 15:06 IST Scientists who have been running the four-stroke diesel engine of a light pick-up truck on coconut oil for the past one year have approached the union government to commercialise the biofuel. The scientists are attached to the Kochi-based SCMS Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology Research and Development and the SCMS School of Engineering and Technology. While the manufacturers of the Tata Ace claim mileage of 16 km to a litre of diesel, the vehicle can run 22.5 km per litre of the biofuel, the scientists say. We purchased this brand new vehicle a year back. By now, it has done 20,000 km and has proved beyond doubt that coconut oil can replace diesel. We can provide this product at Rs.40 a litre, C. Mohankumar, who heads the team of six scientists, told IANS. Mohankumar said they have already applied for a US patent and also approached the union ministry of renewable energy to take this biofuel to its logical conclusion by commercialising it. The emission levels are lower than other forms of biodiesel, making it a very eco-friendly product too, said Mohankumar. Explaining the process, he said 760 litres of biofuel can be produced from the oil of 10,000 coconuts. There are also five other by-products. This includes 5,000 kg of husk, 2,500 kg of coconut shells, 1,250 litres of coconut water, around 1,200 kg of cake (that can be used as cattle feed) and 70 litres of glycerol. Each of these products has a market value and that's how we are able to commercially supply this biodfuel at Rs.40 a litre, Mohankumar said. We have conducted numerous tests on this coconut biofuel that are for anyone to see. It shows that all the parameters are much lower than other biodiesel products, he added. The study was published in the December 2014 issue of the journal 'Fuel'. Coconut Development Board (CDB) Chairman T.K. Jose said he had studied the performance of the vehicle that the scientists have been using. We (CDB) don't have the funds for taking forward their innovation and hence they have approached the centre. I have gone through all their reports on the biofuel. The emission levels are much less than other similar products, Jose told IANS. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Carpe Diem: Low Oil and Gas Prices Could Be a Clean-Energy Opportunity
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/02/carpe-diem-low-oil-and-gas-prices-could-be-a-clean-energy-opportunity?cmpid=WNL-Friday-February6-2015 [links in on-line article] Carpe Diem: Low Oil and Gas Prices Could Be a Clean-Energy Opportunity Clint Wilder, Clean Edge February 05, 2015 The recent dramatic plunge in oil and natural gas prices, to their lowest level since the global recession in 2009, has some observers worried about the effect on clean tech. Conventional wisdom has it that renewables have a tougher time competing when fossil fuels are cheap, making grid parity (in the case of natural gas-fired electricity) more elusive for solar and wind power. But could it be that the current environment — with gasoline at less than $2 a gallon in much of the United States — is actually a good time to double down on policies to move away from fossil fuels to more renewables and efficiency? That’s the conclusion of a special report on energy in the January 17 issue of The Economist headlined “Seize the Day.” “The fall in the price of oil and gas,” writes the venerable magazine that dates back to 1843, “provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix bad energy policies.” Chief among these policies are fossil fuel subsidies, at least some of which were born out of decades-old governmental fear of oil scarcity and soaring prices (I’ll let others debate how many came from mere lobbying power). The Economist calls fossil fuel subsidies a “rathole” which swallowed an estimated $550 billion from governments across the globe last year. “Falling prices provide an opportunity to rethink this nonsense,” the magazine continues. “Why should American taxpayers pay for Exxon to find hydrocarbons?” The Economist is not a big fan of subsidies for clean energy either, and Ron Pernick and I recommended phasing out all energy subsidies in the Seven-Point Action Plan presented in our 2012 book Clean Tech Nation. Renewables and efficiency could compete on their own merits on a truly level playing field, if that is ever possible in the energy sector. The recent plummet of oil and natural gas prices may be grabbing headlines, but it’s nothing compared to the (longer-term) drop in the cost of solar PV panels — by a factor of five in the past six years, according to the International Energy Agency. Returning half a trillion dollars to global government coffers could obviously fund myriad infrastructure projects including grid modernization (plus projects like schools and hospitals, which nations like India and Indonesia are doing after cutting fuel subsidies). But low oil prices also create the opportunity to modestly raise taxes on fossil fuels without major economic (and one hopes, political) pain. This idea has been proposed in Congress — somewhat amazingly, by members of both parties. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) recently co-sponsored a bill that would raise the gas tax by 12 cents over two years. Other prominent Republican senators like South Dakota’s John Thune and (really!) Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe have said a gas tax increase is on the table. America’s bridge and highway infrastructure is crumbling, and the current 18.4 cents-per-gallon tax has not been raised in more than two decades. And the Congressman from my northern California district, second-term Democrat Jared Huffman, introduced a bill last month — the Gas Tax Replacement Act of 2015 — that would replace the current per-gallon levy with a tax based on the carbon content of all transportation fuels throughout their life cycles. Huffman thinks that low oil and gasoline prices create an opportunity to open debate on the issue of a carbon tax, and he says some Republicans are quietly supporting the idea. In California, a de facto carbon tax on transportation fuel went into effect at the beginning of this year – and drivers hardly even noticed. The ‘tax’ resulted from bringing fuels under the state’s landmark carbon cap-and-trade system. That change was vehemently opposed by the state’s petroleum industry, which warned of 75 cent-per-gallon price jumps which would devastate low-income drivers. Instead, the tax amounted to a few cents, an increase dwarfed by plunging prices at the pump. In the electricity sector, the slow-but-steady transformation of the century-old centralized generation model is also upending the traditional price-comparison calculus of renewables and on-site generation vs. centralized natural gas plants. “Low gas prices can help accelerate distributed generation by making options like CHP [combined heat and power] and fuel cells more cost-effective,” says Richard Kauffman, chairman of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Kauffman is helping lead New York’s efforts to shift utility incentives from new generation plants to demand-side management and better grid capacity utilization, which currently averages just 54
[Biofuel] The Other War: Underreported but Not Insignificant - Institute for Energy Economics Financial Analysis : Institute for Energy Economics Financial Analysis
http://ieefa.org/war/ [image in on-line article] Karl Cates January 31, 2015 Read More → The Other War: Underreported but Not Insignificant Judging by press coverage both mainstream and marginal, there’s one epic fight—and pretty much one epic fight only—going on in America’s utility-energy industry: The “war on coal.” A Google News search today turns up 6,160 articles that use that exact phrase, which has become a rallying cry in the mining and utility industry campaign over federal crackdowns on smokestack emissions. The “war on coal” is old news in some respects. It was part of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, when he used it in campaign tours through Appalachia, where he sought to create the impression that he had something in common with working people. Romney’s campaign even released a television ad called “The War on Coal.” Probably the most prominent recent usage of “war on coal” is from April of last year, when Tony Alexander, the erstwhile CEO of FirstEnergy, got beaucoup press for a speech in Washington before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in which he said a “war on coal” was hurting FirstEnergy’s business. The gist of Alexandar’s complaint was that the “war on coal” was adding to the coal-fired portion of the utility industry’s vulnerability to the rise of renewables and energy-efficiency initiatives. Slogans supporting war on pretty much anything have a ring to them, evidently. They date back to LBJ’s War on Poverty, the war on drugs of the 1970s and 1980s, and the all-too-current war on terror. Fox News is the petri dish of war-on word constructions, seasonally trotting out the “war on Christmas” every year and running “war on marriage” screen crawls whenever gay-rights movements make progress. There’s even a Fox News “war on food,” which is being diabolically orchestrated by General Michelle Obama from her White House kitchen garden. Yet there’s one war Fox News has studiously avoided and that most of the rest of the press has overlooked too: the war on solar. Just like Googling “war on coal,” you can search for “war on solar” and get different outcomes depending on how you go about the search. Googling the three words together—war on solar—will yield 151 million hits in which each word appears in the same article in one fashion or another. Isolate the phrase by putting quotation marks around it—“war on solar”—and the number drops off a cliff, to 62,600. Narrow it even further, limiting it to Google News, and it shrinks to 340, not much compared to the 6,160 for “war on coal.” A similar search on Meltwater News, a private database that delves deeper into media activity in some ways than Google News does, shows a similarly striking disparity: More than 16,000 “war on solar” hits in 2014 compared to fewer than 100 for “war on solar.” It may come as a surprise that the war on solar is articulated at all in the press. The still-nascent solar industry lacks the public-relations muscle of the utility and mining industries. Whatever direct lobbying influence it has in Washington or in state legislative corridors is picayunish compared to the kind of firepower a Peabody Coal or a FirstEnergy can bring to bear. Solar companies also lack much of a competitive presence in the campaign-contribution industry. But there is a war on solar. It’s happening nationally in congressional reluctance to extend tax credits that encourage solar-energy development. It is being waged locally and effectively in states that most recently include Hawaii, Indiana and Washington, where utility and mining interests have had lawmakers draft legislation to put restrictions on solar development. Organizations pressing the war on solar are numerous and well funded. They include the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a regressive organization that brings big companies and lawmakers together to write or rewrite state laws. (ALEC has crossed the line in so many ways on so many issues that some high-profile corporate members have left out of sheer embarrassment, including most recently Northrop Grumman and—before them—Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Kraft.) Other soldiers in the war on solar include the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based utility-company association that lobbies Congress; Americans for Tax Reform, the Grover Norquist group that focuses maniacally on undermining the financial stability of the U.S. government; and Americans for Prosperity, the shadowy and notoriously well-financed organization that works at the behest of the industrialist Koch Brothers. The goal of the war on solar, of course, is to kill a budding industry before it can get its legs. Much of its strategy is in a state-by-state campaign the employs two tactics: reducing state-government commitments to the percentage of energy acquired from renewables and repealing “net-metering” laws that fairly compensate homeowners
[Biofuel] Big, Expensive Power Plants Undermine a Clean Energy Future
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2015/02/big-expensive-power-plants-undermine-a-clean-energy-future?cmpid=WNL-Friday-February6-2015 [links and images in on-line article] Big, Expensive Power Plants Undermine a Clean Energy Future John Farrell February 05, 2015 With the rich history of cost overruns in the nuclear industry, Xcel Energy and Minnesota regulators shouldn’t have been surprised when the retrofit cost for the Monticello nuclear power plant ballooned to more than twice the original estimate. Regulators asked tough questions last year about whether the cost overruns were the responsibility of poor management and the definitive answer came back this week: yes. This example only reinforces why nuclear power (and other large-scale power generation) isn’t cost-effective or compatible with a clean energy future. Nuclear is Expensive The Minnesota nuclear problem actually starts in 2005, when Xcel Energy applied to extend the life of the Monticello power plant beyond its initial 40-year license. The Public Utilities Commission ignored evidence suggesting that the use of a wind and natural gas hybrid system could replace Monticello’s output more cost-effectively than continuing operation of the nuclear plant. Among the data ignored were the potential economic value of community-based wind power, the value of capturing the federal Production Tax Credit for wind energy production, and the high capacity factor of modern wind turbines. (They also ignored an earlier study from the state’s Department of Commerce on the relatively low cost – $6 per customer per year – of closing down the state’s other nuclear plant, Prairie Island). The massive cost overrun of the Monticello retrofit – $665 million compared to an initial estimate of $320 million – doubles down on the mistake to extend the power plant’s life. Alone, it’s enough money to install over 400 megawatts of new wind power. When coupled with investments in energy efficiency – itself the lowest cost electricity resource – the money spent to extend the life of Xcel’s nuclear reactor could have purchased cleaner and less expensive power from other sources. The following chart illustrates the competitive clean alternatives to extending the life of this nuclear power plant. If you missed it in your first look at the chart above, note that both wind and solar PV are less expensive than cost estimates for new nuclear power plants. The cost overrun at the Monticello nuclear reactor is part of an ongoing story of nuclear cost explosions. The following chart from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows the sordid history of expensive nuclear power plants. The story isn’t much better for new reactors added to existing power plants. Georgia Power’s Vogtle expansion, for example, is $900 million (6%) over budget through 2014 (and it just slipped again this week), with the estimated operation date already delayed by nearly two years, until 2018 (plenty of time to balloon the budget!). You’d think the utility learned a lesson when the original project went 1200% percent over budget! Let’s not forget, either, that nuclear power has some of the largest per kilowatt-hour subsidies of any electricity source. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said, “a new nuclear project may be the hardest large-scale construction venture to keep on schedule and on budget, because of the cost, the regulations, and the infrequency of such events.” Compare that with solar power, with prices falling 50% in five years and new installations completed every 2.5 minutes. A Poor Fit for a 21st Century Grid Nuclear power is an expensive energy source, especially because it’s such a poor fit for a 21st century grid system. In a grid centered on distributed renewable energy resources, the best energy supply is one that is flexible (can rapidly change output to match grid demands). As a “baseload” resource, nuclear is the least flexible electricity supply, with nuclear power plants requiring very stable output around the clock. The following ILSR infographic explains: Nuclear power plants have some flexibility, but only if they’re already operating at 50-60% of capacity. Below that level, they have to be shut down as renewable energy resources grow. Nuclear energy had its heyday when advocates believed it would be “too cheap to meter,” but the cost and operational parameters of large-scale power plants do not align with the needs of a modern electricity grid. Maybe the future will look more like the miniaturization of nuclear power in Isaac Asimov’s sci-fi novel Foundation, but until then, using already-available and cost-effective distributed renewable energy makes more sense. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] ASTM Ups FAME Tolerance, Helps Biodiesel for Jets | Domestic Fuel
It is my understanding that the acceptable level of biodiesel in jet fuel, now at .005 percent, i.e. 50 parts per millions or 0.5 gal per 10,000, is the acceptable level of contamination. Although many of the larger airports have jet fuel delivered by pipeline, the distribution chain includes one or more intermediate storage facilities (terminals). Several modes of transportation may be used: barge, railroad tank car, and even tanker truck. Smaller airports may rely heavily on tanker trucks for delivery. If the storage facility, barge, or tanker previously contained biodiesel, contamination of the jet fuel may occur. Ex: typical tanker truck (9,000 US gal capacity) with as little as 0.5 US gal of biodiesel residue (or 2.25 gal B20 residue) then filled w. jet fuel would be at the upper limit of acceptability (0.005%). Although this residue may be lost in the millions of gallons of jet fuel used daily at larger airports, in smaller airports it could pose a problem. I believe that a similar problem exists for those companies that transport both untaxed home heating fuel and taxed diesel fuel. The untaxed heating fuel is dyed and illegal to use on the highway. The dye will show up in the highway fuel with even a very small amount of contamination. The ASTM standards are not so much about adding 0.5 gallons of biodiesel to 9,950 gal of jet fuel (50 gal per million), but rather allowing for a small amount of contamination that may occur during distribution w/o liability to the airline or supplier. Tom On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 19:23:53 -0500 Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: It certainly isn't much, but I would note two things. 1) The aircraft hardware guys are notoriously conservative. As an occasional airline passenger, in general, I appreciate that. Moving from zero biofuel to any amount of biofuel was an accomplishment. This time, they are allowing a 10-fold increase in the amount in the standard jet fuel, and anticipating a further doubling from that level. Agreed 0.005 BD seems pretty trivial, but better than 0.0005. 2) We went through these hoops with diesel fuel standards for land vehicles years ago. First it was 0.5%, then 1%, then 2%, then 5% and now there are pumps at fuelling stations with B20 blend available retail. And nothing to stop pioneers from running B50 in some fleets, and true visionaries among us from kicking the dino juice altogether. Small steps to be sure, but at least in the right direction. Tom, treasure and use your impatience - it is what will help drag the rest of the world forward. Darryl On 05/02/2015 8:45 AM, Tom wrote: So they will allow B .005 for jet fuel and this will open the door for more biofuels to be used in aviation? Tom -Original Message- From: Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com Sent: 2/4/2015 6:21 PM To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] ASTM Ups FAME Tolerance, Helps Biodiesel for Jets | Domestic Fuel http://domesticfuel.com/2015/02/04/astm-ups-fame-tolerance-helps-biodiesel-for-jets/ ASTM Ups FAME Tolerance, Helps Biodiesel for Jets Posted on February 4, 2015 by John Davis A change in the amount of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) allowed in jet fuel will open the door for more biodiesel to be used in aviation. This news release from ASTM, a group that sets quality standards for a number of items including fuels, says that revising the safety standard of the allowable cross-contamination of FAME in jet fuel from 5.0 parts per million to 50 parts per million under the Aviation Turbine Fuel Standard (ASTM D1655) will help get more biodiesel into aviation fuels without compromising safety. “The jet fuel specification keeps the aviation industry safe while adapting to the expanded presence of biofuels,” says ASTM member David J. Abdallah, Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering. “In fact, no discernible negative impact on jet fuel product quality was observed with up to 400 ppm of biodiesel.” Abdallah noted that a potential future revision could further increase the standard to allow 100 parts per million. ASTM D1655 was developed by ASTM Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels and D02.J0.01 on Jet Fuel Specifications, part of Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels and Lubricants. ASTM used information from the EI-JIP Report, Joint Industry Project: Seeking original equipment manufacturer (OEM) approvals for 100 mg/kg fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) in aviation turbine fuel as the basis for the change. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
