Archive for the ‘Energy Technology’ Category

« Older Entries

Keep Kicking that Ethanol Can

Friday, August 10th, 2012

By David L. Brown

Yesterday I posted an analysis of the current forecasts for a poor corn crop due to heat and drought, and also mentioned that the obvious step to take is to suspend all ethanol production to free up the approximately one-third of the U.S. corn crop mandated to go to distilleries and into our gas tanks. If the corn crop drops by a significant degree, as seems likely, that mandated amount of corn will take an even larger bite out of the supply, perhaps even surpassing one-half of the total.

It’s deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra said. Back in 2008 I posted this editorial cartoon that appeared on the cover of Quill, the magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists. (I am a 50-year member of SPJ and am immediate past-president of the New Mexico chapter.)

That cartoon is even more appropriate today, because the USDA is refusing to put a stop to the travesty even though a world food crisis is inevitable, putting hundreds of millions at risk of famine. And today, writing in The Financial Times, José Graziano da Silva, the director-general of the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization, wrote (as reported by Reuters here):

“Much of the reduced crop will be claimed by biofuel production in line with U.S. federal mandates, leaving even less for food and feed markets,” he wrote in an op-ed just a day before the U.S. government issues a pivotal crop report that is expected to show U.S. corn output falling to the smallest in six years and stockpiles at near record lows.

“An immediate, temporary suspension of that mandate would give some respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channeled towards food and feed uses,” he wrote in a high-profile yet indirect message to Washington.

Obviously, the line has been drawn in the sand by those in charge in Washington and it’s to favor the owners and operators of ethanol plants vs. hundreds of millions of endangered human beings. And not to mention the “inconvenient truth” of food shortages and higher prices right here at home. Already, as I mentioned yesterday, ranchers are liquidating their herds in the face of dried-up pastures and hay crops. How bad is it way out West? I saw a post a few days ago from a rancher in west Texas who said that he’s received just three inches of rain in the last two years.  His critters have long since gone to market and he’s facing a bleak future.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Age of Oil, Agriculture Issues, Energy Technology, Famine, Fossil Fuels, Global Security, Transportation | Comments Off

Seeing the Future Dimly

Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

By David L. Brown

One of the news websites, Fox News (here), today featured excerpts from a number of predictions made 25 years ago by “science thinkers,” predicting conditions in our time of 2012. I recognize the names of most of these “science thinkers” and they are actually “science fiction writers,” but that’s okay because they’re in the business of imagining the future as much as anyone. I’ve always had a passing interest in futurism, the attempt to predict how things will be in future times. In general, these tend to be wildly inaccurate due to the many uncertainties and the phenomenon of straight line thinking. Too often futurists tend to look at what’s been happening recently and simply project a straight line into the future.

Even a cursory look at history will knock enough holes in this procedure to make Swiss cheeses look like solid objects. Imagine the application of straight line thinking to the U.S. economy in the summer of 1929, the likelihood of war in Europe in 1913, the future well-being of the little Roman village of Pompeii in 78 AD (Mount Vesuvius erupted the following year), and so many more examples of unexpected and unpredictable events that dramatically change the future.

One thing that struck me abut these predictions was that they were for the most part pessimistic, in contrast with the usual fol-de-rol about a Jetsons future with flying cars and an abundance of everything. Here are some excerpts with my comments:

Isaac Asimov: “Assuming we haven’t destroyed ourselves in a nuclear war, there will be 8-10 billion of us on this planet and widespread hunger.”

Isaac’s view was fairly accurate, even though he was a little on the low side on population (it’s actually just something over 7 billion). He was dead on about the looming hunger, hastened by this year’s worldwide drought.

Jack Williamson: “If we had a time-phone, now in 1987, we would beg you to forgive us. We have burdened you with impossible debts, wasted and polluted the planet that should have been your rich heritage, left you instead a dreadful legacy of ignorance, want, and war.”

Of all the predictions, I nominate this one as the most accurate. I have expressed similar thoughts myself, many times. Anyone who looks around the world today with open eyes can recognize Williamson’s vision of our time.
Sheldon Glashow: “The American economy will have experienced a gentle yet relentless decline. Our children will not live such comfortable lives as we do. The spread between the rich and the poor will have grown, and crime will have become so prevalent as to threaten the social fabric. The rich and the poor will form 2 armed camps.”
(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conflict and War, Energy Technology, Essays and Opinion, Extinction, Famine, Fossil Fuels, Medicine, Politics, Population Issues, Resource Depletion, Space Exploration, Technology | Comments Off

Technology—Promise or Curse?

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

By David L. Brown

Historian Niall Ferguson in an article published in The Daily Beast raises a question that’s long interested me. He asks, in effect, which vision of the future we should embrace: The idea that technology will make the world a better place, or the vision of a world in catastrophic economic decline?

Here”s a brief excerpt from the beginning of his essay, titled “Don’t Believe the Techno-Utopian Hype” (you can read the whole thing here):

Are you a technoptimist or a depressimist? This is the question I have been pondering after a weekend hanging with some of the superstars of Silicon Valley.

I had never previously appreciated the immense gap that now exists between technological optimism, on the one hand, and economic pessimism, on the other. Silicon Valley sees a bright and beautiful future ahead. Wall Street and Washington see only storm clouds. The geeks think we’re on the verge of The Singularity. The wonks retort that we’re in the middle of a Depression.

Let’s start with the technoptimists. Last Saturday I listened with fascination as a panel of tech titans debated the question: “Will science and technology produce more dramatic changes in solving the world’s major problems over the next 25 years than have been produced over the last 25 years?”

They all thought so. We heard a description of what Google’s Project Glass, the Internet-enabled spectacles, can already do. (For example, the spectacles can be used to check if another speaker is lying.) Next up: a search engine inside the brain itself. We heard that within the next 25 years, it will be possible to take 1,000-mile journeys by being fired through tubes. We also heard that biotechnology will deliver genetic “photocopies” of human organs that need replacing. And we were promised genetically engineered bugs, capable of excreting clean fuel. The only note of pessimism came from an eminent neuroscientist, who conceded that a major breakthrough in the prevention of brain degeneration was unlikely in the next quarter century.

Ferguson,  a professor at Harvard and also associated with Oxford University in England and The Hoover Institution at Stanford, takes the same point of view that has always struck me as the right path. In effect, he asks: What is the value of technology that merely puts people out of work and provides wonderful whiz-bang stuff that has no real benefits for anyone. He points out that fifty years ago we were promised flying cars, and instead we have Twitter.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Conflict and War, Economics, Energy Technology, Politics, Resource Depletion, Technology | Comments Off

California Stays the Course on Green Energy

Friday, November 12th, 2010

By David L. Brown

Another example of the way in which energy moguls work to block development of sustainable, clean energy was the recent introduction of Prop. 23 in California. This proposition, which came to a vote on November 2, quite simply was aimed at dismantling the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. Also known as AB 32,  the GWSA calls for the state’s producers of greenhouse gas to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Many initiatives are well under way to replace fossil fuels, create greater efficiency in existing technologies, and move the state toward a cleaner “green” future. Beginning to take effect in 2012, the act will require about a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from present levels by the target date ten years from now.

This seems a moderate goal, perhaps even less than might be hoped. But nonetheless, it had drawn fire from the usual suspects, who organized Prop. 23 to demand that AB32 be suspended until the state’s employment rate dropped below 5.5 percent for a full 12 months. Because this is an unlikely event (that level has been reached only three times in the past 40 years), the proposition in reality was a move to permanently gut the GWSA.

And who was behind this end run to set California up to continue down the dead end path toward oblivion as resource depletion continues to undermine the old economic infrastructure while forward-looking nations such as China and Germany stake their futures on rapid development of alternative energy? Why, the usual suspects, of course. Although the California Republican and Libertarian Parties signed on to support the proposition, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger strongly opposed the proposition and was joined by GOP candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman among others, proving that the party structure is increasingly at odds with its own candidates.

But politicians weren’s the real conspirators behind the proposition. The individuals and corporate entities that acted in support of the proposition wrapped themselves in a cloak of deception, claiming to be concerned with jobs. In fact, they called their effort the California Jobs Initiative. And yet, a look at the list of major donors to the movement tells a different story. Top contributor was a company called Valero Energy ($4.05 million), followed by (among others) Tesoro ($1.525 million), Flint Hills Resources, LP ($1 million; this is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, a major supporter of anti-global warming initiatives); Occidental Petroleum ($300K), National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. ($100K), Tower Energy Group ($200K); World Oil Corp. ($100K); Southern Counties Oil ($50K); Frontier Oil ($50K);  Murray Energy ($30K); and Berry Petrochemical ($30K).

Hmm, do we see a pattern here? Are these leading supporters of a move to block California from improving its greenhouse gas footprint acting out of concern for the jobs of Californians—or from their own self-interested desire to continue to profit from fossil fuels and the destruction of the environment? It’s rather clear that the answer is the latter, the profit one, the evil one, rather than the charitable desire to protect jobs. for ordinary Californians. In fact, suspending the act would have put paid to at least 50,000 new jobs relating to clean energy initiatives.

To put this in further perspective, let’s take a closer look at some of those supporters of the proposal to block the green act. No. 1 contributor Valero operates two oil refineries in California. No. 2 donor Tesoro is the 24th largest producer of air pollution in the United States. And Koch Industries, the third largest contributor, is one of the top 10 corporate polluters in the nation.

What more can we say, except to applaud the wisdom of California voters who soundly defeated Prop. 23 by a 22 percent margin, approximately 61 percent to 39 percent. The Golden State may face deep and serious problems but at least its people have the courage to stand up against polluters and those that Ayn Rand called “looters,” the corporate highway robbers who want to continue their nasty ways at all costs.

California, and the world at large, needs to vastly expand support of alternative energy programs. It’s not the time to listen to those who advise us to inserting our heads into the sand in ostrich-like denial.

In an editorial written prior to the election, Science magazine editor Bruce Alberts had this to say:

The public and private investment in energy innovation now totals only about 0.3% of U.S. energy expenditures. California’s Proposition 23 needs to be soundly defeated, sending a clear signal to Washington that the people of the United States are ready and willing to mobilize its considerable resources in the vital drive to a sustainable energy future.

To which I add, bravo! And thanks to California voters the message has been sent.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Age of Oil, Climate Change, Conservation Issues, Economics, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels, Melting Planet, Politics, Pollution | Comments Off

Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts!

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

By David L. Brown

factsThat headline may sound like a joke, but it often seems to be exactly the reaction many people have when faced with facts that may threaten their preconceived notions about how things work. A recent article in The Boston Globe (link here) sheds light on this mysterious effect.

Titled “How facts backfire,” the article is focused on voter opinions about political questions. It makes the unsettling conclusion that most people are unlikely to change their opinions when provided with contrary facts, and may actually tend to cling even more strongly to mistaken ideas. Here’s a take-away from the article:

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

…

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

This concept helps shed some light on the subject of climate change denial, in which scientists are frustrated by the apparent effect that as they reveal more and more information about the dangers of global warming, large numbers among the public actually seem to become more skeptical. This is not least seen among politicians, broadcast and print commentators and other opinion leaders. It’s not uncommon today to hear or read statements such as “global warming is a hoax,” or “climate change has been disproved.” This is completely contrary to the mass of evidence.

The article points out that people today are deluged with “endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth,” making it easier than ever to be wrong.  It also makes people feel more certain that they are right.

And even more vexing is the fact that the most informed people are the most resistant to changing their mistaken ideas when provided with new information. The article describes a 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University which “showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong.”

Hmm, that may explain a lot about some of the stuff you hear coming out of the mouths of supposedly well-informed people on “Meet the Press” and other venues. They appear to be completely confident in their statements, even though to others they sometimes seem more like delusional paranoid ravings than sound opinion.

Thanks to Google I found the original paper by Taber and Lodge, “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs” (PDF here), and it adds some interesting perspective to the subject. It seems that even scientists are subject to the backfire effect, as described in their paper:

Physicists do it. Psychologists do it. Even political scientists do it (cites withheld to protect the guilty among us). Research findings confirming a hypothesis are accepted more or less at face value, but when confronted with contrary evidence, we become “motivated skeptics,” mulling over possible reasons for the “failure,” picking apart possible flaws in the study, recoding variables, and only when all the counterarguing fails do we rethink our beliefs. Whether this systematic bias in how scientists deal with evidence is rational or not is debatable, though one negative consequence is that bad theories and weak hypotheses, like prejudices, persist longer then they should.

The backfire effect poses a serious problem for scientists, not only because their profession is fact-based but also due to their human tendency to hold onto their notions. The statement of Arthur Schopenhauer comes to mind: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” The concept of backfire also resonates with the maxim of Ben Franklin, who said “So convenient a thing is it to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to.”

When scientists find it difficult to understand why their increasingly solid data and conclusions don’t seem to change opinions among the general public, the effect described in the Globe article could be the reason. If that’s the case, what can be done about it? Since the problem appears to lie in human psychology rather than the rational processes of logic and reason, the answer can’t be found in the stubborn ranks of the misinformed. And, simply piling more and more facts onto the table doesn’t work and may even have a negative effect. It’s a conundrum indeed.

The author of the Globe article, Joe Keohane, suggests that those who spread falsehoods might be subjected to shame, which could cause them to change their behavior. However, he concludes that the “shame-based solution” runs into the fact that “fast-talking political pundits have ascended to the realm of highly lucrative popular entertainment, while professional fact-checking operations languish in the dungeons of wonkery.”

I’m reminded of how the many magical feats of Moses (plagues of frogs, locusts, serpents, etc.) failed to convince Pharaoh to release the Hebrews and that each feat only “hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” Climate scientists probably face a similar impossible task in trying to convince the public about the importance of their work. In the end, Moses had to simply gather up his people and leave Egypt, thus:

mosesandtheredseabiblestory

Unfortunately, parting the Red Sea and leaving Egypt is not an option for climate scientists  today. I  guess we’ll have to wait for the jury to come out on global warming and climate change. That’s when the facts will become so manifest that they can no longer be denied.  Unfortunately, that will also be when it’s too late to do anything about it.

Posted in Energy Technology, Politics, Psychology | Comments Off

Is the Biodiesel Nightmare Over?

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

By David L. Brown

Congress has allowed a $1 per gallon subsidy on biodiesel fuel to expire, causing the struggling “faux fuels” enterprise to stumble to a halt. According to The Brock Report, an agri-business consultancy, “that industry has all but closed up shop.” The Brock announcement also included this:

“Pretty much every plant is idle,” said Michael Frohlich, Director of Communications for the National Biodiesel Board (NBB).

Even with the federal tax incentives, the biodiesel industry was already in deep trouble. U.S. biodiesel production was down 31% last year compared to 2008 due to a lack of profitability.

Monte Shaw, Executive Director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association says only 73 million gallons of biodiesel were produced last year from that state’s production capacity of 320 million gallons. Nationwide, last year’s capacity utilization was even worse than in Iowa at only 15%.

Bio-diesel fuel is made from soybeans, an essential foodstuff. As we have discussed repeatedly here, to divert crops from the world food markets as hundreds of millions hover on the edge of famine is a travesty.

Like its evil twin, ethanol, biodiesel is an unnatural product that has no place in the world. Not only do these faux fuels take food from hungry humans, they encourage over-planting, resource depletion, and soil erosion. By causing commodity prices to be bid up, they increase food prices worldwide, a cascade effect that hits eveyone from middle class Americans to the poorest of the poor in the Third World.

I don’t know if the Senate failed to extend the subsidy on biodiesel through wisdom or mere carelessness, but whatever the reason, the result is one that we can heartily support.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Age of Oil, Agriculture Issues, Energy Technology | Comments Off

A World Teetering on the Brink of Instability

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

By David L. Brown

A news release from Earth Policy Institute this morning features a peek at the subject of global stability as reported in Lester Brown’s new book Plan B 4.0. This is a critical issue because nations that are failing create difficulty for any response to climate change and resource depletion.

I was intrigued by the list Brown presents, a ranking of the Top 20 failing states in the world as of 2008 (the 2009 list is out now, and is essentially unchanged). The table is from Foreign Policy magazine, based on statistics developed by the Fund for Peace in cooperation with the magazine. Together they each year measure the instability index of the world’s nations, that is, the chances they are failing or have already failed. These are the worst-cases:

top_20_failing_states

The rankings are based on 1-10 scores in 12 critical areas, with 10 being the worst. Thus, a completely failed state will score 120 points. (It’s hard to imagine such a place; it would probably consist of radioactive slag.) It’s no surprise to see that Somalia is No. 1 with 114.7 points. Zimbabwe is less than a point behind, followed by Sudan, Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It’s interesting to examine some of the other failed or failing states on this list. Extremely notable, to me at least, is that coming in Nos. 6 and 7 are nations familiar to most Americans … Iraq (108.6) and Afghanistan (108.2). These scores represent 90% of “perfect,” and yet we must scratch our head in puzzlement at the fact that our nation and many of its allies have spent the better part of a decade in the mission of creating successful democratic societies in those very places.

Now I am all in favor of peaceful democratic societies, but it’s generally been proven that nearly-failed states are not usually places where they are found. Does it make sense to attempt to plant the seeds of Western civilization in such infertile soil?

Iraq was formerly ruled by a ruthless dictator, “peace” being maintained under the iron-shod boot of tyranny. As Western troops depart, will that unhappy nation continue to move in the direction of “peaceful, Western-style democracy,” or will it break down into bloody rivalry between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions? As a very nearly failed state, the latter scenario seems a more likely outcome than the emergence of a Jeffersonian Golden Age.

And in Afghanistan, things are even worse. That benighted place has never really been a nation at all, but a ragtag collection of fiefdoms ruled over by warlords and funded by the opium trade. Even today, after years of military operations against them, the Taliban control wide areas of the region. Now that the U.S. has set its departure date for  2011, what hope is there for this failed state to suddenly thrive and grow into a peaceful member of the world’s democratic nations? To demonstrate my guess about the odds of that happening, try this experiment: Place one large snowball in a microwave oven; set the controls to “high” and the timer for ten minutes; and hit “cook”. Later as you mop up the floor, you’ll have a good analogy of what will likely be the future in Afghanistan, a place that has been impossible to rule since the days of Alexander the Great. Namely, a huge mess.

The place is absolutely unready to take responsibility for its own governance and security. The U.S. Marines have been assigned the task of training native Afghan soldiers, and according to a recent report from The Guardian, it’s a near fruitless exercise, dealing with illiterate, lazy, hash-smoking peasants who are completely ill-suited to function as modern-day soldiers.

So the outlook is dim for Afghanistan, No. 7 on the list  of Top 20 Failed States. But what can we learn from some of the others?

Well, there’s Pakistan right there at No. 10. The world’s sixth most populous nation, Pakistan is a nuclear power. How do you feel knowing that a nation that ranks 104.1 on an instability scale of 120 has nuclear bombs and missiles? Imagine how India feels, having to live right next door.

Pakistan isn’t the only unstable nation with a large population to make the list. Bangladesh, with a score of 98.1 is the seventh most populous nation, and right behind it is Nigeria, the eighth largest by population and a score of 99.8.

But that’s not all, for the Top 20 also includes North Korea, another nuclear power. Talk about instability!

Now, from the Fund for Peace website, here is a graphic to give you the “big picture” about world instability. You might be surprised and even dismayed, may even feel chills go up and down your spine. The nations colored in red are the most seriously failed or failing. There are presently 38 of them including Iran, another dangerous and potential nuclear power with a score of 90.0.

failedstatesYes, the red is where the most trouble is, but notice how much of the world is covered in orange, indicating a “warning” stage. And as far as those nations shown in green and judged “sustainable,” meaning safe, there are only 13 of them, not including the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Japan and many other advanced nations. As you can see, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, along with Ireland and five Scandinavian countries including Iceland are the main “safe” places, along with Switzerland, Holland, Austria and Luxembourg.

In case you’re wondering, here are the scores for some of the “yellow” countries: Germany 36.2; France 35.3; United States 34.0; United Kingdom 30.5; Japan 31.2. And the “safest” place of all: Norway 18.3.

It is interesting to note that the further you get from the “center” as indicated by this map, the safer. Central Africa, the Middle East and a few nations along the fringe  of Asia are worst off, surrounded by a sea of orange. It is only when you get far away from these areas that the colors fade to yellow, and finally to green.

And all of these nations, with perhaps only a rare exception or two, are presently meeting in Copenhagen to discuss a global plan to cooperate in mitigating CO2 emissions, no doubt the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. What could go wrong?

Posted in Conflict and War, Default File, Economics, Energy Technology, Essays and Opinion, Global Security, Politics, Population Issues | Comments Off

$100 Million Funding for Algae Biofuels Plant

Friday, December 11th, 2009

By David L. Brown

A $50 million federal grant has been awarded to Sapphire Energy of San Diego, CA, for a revolutionary bio-fuels plant to be built in New Mexico. The announcement was made by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department issued the grant under the economic recovery program. At the same time Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the USDA would further back the program with loan guarantees up to $54.5 million.

The company is pioneering what it calls “green crude oil,” created from renewable algae. The “green crude” will be used to make biodiesel and jet fuel. The company has already demonstrated the concept with research facilities at Las Cruces, NM and Portales, NM. The process has been demonstrated with several airliner test flights powered by fuel made by the company, and experiments are underway to prove the ability of algae-oil to be used to make gasoline.

potential_mainThe project will demonstrate an integrated process in which algae will be grown in ponds, then processed to remove water and extract oils. In a second stage the oils will be processed to produce fuels. Algae, pictured at left, not only grows fast (think kudzu here), but naturally contains a high percentage of oils.

According to Sapphire CEO the project will create as many as 750 direct and indirect jobs in New Mexico during construction, and 30-40 full-time positions after the plant is opened. Construction is expected to begin next year.

Sapphire claims that the new energy model, which uses water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to grow the algae, will be carbon neutral and produce fuels identical to those made from fossil fuels. It does not require large inputs of water and energy, nor does it rely on agricultural crops as is the case with some other alternative fuel processes such as those used to produce ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans.

New Mexico Senator Tom Udall hailed the project, saying it “will decrease our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our carbon footprint, and create jobs for hardworking New Mexicans.”

Algae offers one of the best sources for bio-fuels, since it can be grown relatively cheaply in ponds or tanks in areas with lots of sunlight, even deserts as in southern New Mexico. Corn for ethanol, on the other hand, is a farm crop requiring many inputs of land, labor, chemicals and seeds. Using farm crops to replace oil is unsustainable, uneconomical, and just plain foolish.

This is not the only such program in the works. On July 15, 2009, I reported (here) a major investment by oil giant ExxonMobil in an algae energy joint venture with Synthetic Genomics, a company founded by geneticist Craig Venter. ExxonMobil was reported to be putting $600 million into the plan. BP and other companies are also jumping on the algae bandwagon, making this one of the hottest areas in alternative fuel development.

All is not roses in the risky business of alternative energy. On May 13, 2009 it was announced that GreenFuel Technologies was closing down, a victim of the credit crunch. I posted an extensive report on this company’s algae fuel program on October 20, 2006 (here). GreenFuel was a joint venture between Harvard and MIT, and invested millions before falling victim to the economic troubles.

Posted in Age of Oil, Agriculture Issues, Bio-Engineering, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels | Comments Off

Biodiesel from Algae Holds Promise

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

By David L. Brown

The challenge of finding renewable sources of energy continues to haunt humanity. The misguided ethanol program that turns corn into alcohol has backfired, driving up food prices and helping create scarcity. Biodiesel made from soybeans is similarly plagued with problems. Other ideas such as growing switchgrass or utilizing wood chips and plant residue have failed to prove practical. One of the problems with those is the high input required to collect, transport and process the plant material.

Another option that has been kicked around for several years now is the idea of producing ethanol from algae, a.k.a. pond scum. Algae actually produces oil which can be extracted and used to replace petroleum. In the presence of sunlight and CO² algae has the ability to double its weight several timea a day. Under controlled conditions, an acre devoted to algae can produce as much as 15 times more biomass per year than an acre devoted to corn. And the good news is that algae does not require large inputs in the form of fuel, fertilizer and chemicals.

But that isn’t all—in theory algae actually grows even more rapidly when fed additional CO² and it can thrive on organic input from sewage, animal waste and other effluents. According to an article that appeared last year on the Science Daily website (here), algae could not only help replace fossil fuels, but help remove carbon from the air while reducing soil and water pollution.

Now no less an entity that ExxonMobil, that giant of fossil fuel companies, has joined the algae bandwagon, according to a report today on the web site of the British newspaper The Independent. Because shis story is so important (and not too long), I will quote it in its entirety:

Oil giant Exxon sees the future–and it is green algae

By Stephen Foley in New York

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

The oil giant that environmentalists love to hate, ExxonMobil, which for years denied the existence of man-made climate change, is sensationally “going green” in a very literal sense – investing $600m (£369m) in algae.

The company says it believes it can make a new kind of fuel for cars and aircraft, one that can be produced in its existing refineries and will not require modification of vehicles’ engines.

At the heart of the project is Craig Venter, the scientist best known for his private-sector effort to sequence the human genome, and his latest company, Synthetic Genomics.

Exxon is putting $300m into its own research and at least as much again into Synthetic Genomic’s efforts to build a lab and, ultimately, large-scale production facilities. Both sides were enthusiastic but cautious announcing the partnership yesterday. “We need to be realistic,” said Emil Jacobs, vice-president of research at Exxon. “This is not going to be easy, and there are no guarantees of success.”

Spending on the algae fuels project will require only a fraction of Exxon’s annual capital budgets of $25bn to $30bn, but it will be the world’s largest biofuels development project of its kind, Mr Venter said.

Environmentalists are keen on algae as a fuel source because, unlike many ethanol products, it is not taking up land, water and crops that might otherwise be given over to the production of food.

ExxonMobil has come under pressure from shareholders – including descendants of its founder, John D Rockefeller – to diversify from fossil fuels, though management insists oil and gas will continue to be the dominant sources of fuel for decades to come.

BP already has a partnership with Synthetic Genomics. Royal Dutch Shell, which is second to ExxonMobil in global refining capacity, announced plans in December for an algae project in Hawaii.

As you can see, ExxonMobil is hardly the first to explore this alternative fuel concept, but it is noteworthy that the world’s largest energy company has recognized the necessity to begin seeking ways to replace petroleum. It is also noteworthy that Craig Venter’s company, Synthetic Genomics is involved with Exxon in the endeavor. Venter is famous for having been the first to map the human genome. On the home page of its web site (here), Synthetic Genomics, Inc. provides the following brief position statement:

The world is facing increasingly difficult challenges today. Population growth resulting in the growing demand for critical resources such as energy, clean water, food and medicine are taxing our fragile planet. To fulfill these needs we need disruptive technologies. We believe genomic advances offer the world viable, sustainable alternatives.

At Synthetic Genomics Inc. we are creating genomic-driven commercial solutions to revolutionize many industries. We have started by focusing on energy, but we imagine a future where our science could be used to produce a variety of products, from synthetically derived vaccines to prevent human diseases to efficient cost effective ways to create clean drinking water. The world is dependent on science and we’re leading the way in turning novel science into life-changing solutions.

The latest news about algae demonstrates that there may be viable long-term alternatives to fossil fuels. It’s too bad progress on these and similar programs was not begun several decades ago when the first oil shortages occurred. Exxon’s spokesperson states that oil and gas will remain “dominant” for decades to come, but falling production tells a different story. We are past the Oil Peak and the era of cheap and plentiful oil is over. We are now in a period where prices and supplies are creating a yo-yo market, and that cannot provide a sound basis for economic stability.

Here is an artist’s rendering showing a conception of how an algae farm could be built in a desert environment unsuited for agricultural use. The facility would produce biodiesel fuel.

algae_farm

We need to develop all kinds of truly sustainable energy sources as rapidly as possible. That includes wind, solar, wave, geothermal, and now algae farming. Our future depends upon it.

Posted in Age of Oil, Agriculture Issues, Energy Technology | 1 Comment »

An Efficient ‘Hobbit House’ In Wales

Saturday, May 23rd, 2009

By David L. Brown

I recently included in a post about a demonstration solar house in Michigan (“Bumps Along the Way to Clean Energy,” May 15) some discussion of my long-time interest in the concept of underground dwellings. A major advantage is that building below the frost line would require little energy to keep the house warm in winter and cool in summer.

Now the house pictured below isn’t exactly what I had in mind, but it’s in the right ballpark. It shows a “Hobbit house” built in Wales by British nature photographer Simon Dale.

ba-hobbit_front_0500170559

You can imagine that Bilbo Baggins would feel right at home here. You can read more about this project and admire his photography on Simon’s web site, here. As you can see, his newhouse, which he terms a “low impact woodland home,” is not entirely underground as I have envisioned, but built into a hillside. It is heavily insulated with straw bales and a layer of sod on the roof. It features all-natural materials, a wood burning stove for heat and solar panels for lighting and electronics. Even the floor and walls are layered with straw bales, making it remarkably energy efficient. Virtually all the materials used to build the house are natural, with a total investment of about £3000, or around $4500.

Explaining why he chose to build this energy efficient house using natural materials, Simon writes on his web site:

Our society is almost entirely dependent on the availability of increasing amounts of fossil fuel energy. This has brought us to the point at which our supplies are dwindling and our planet is in ecological catastrophe. We have no viable alternative energy source and no choice but to reduce our energy consumption. The sooner this change can be begun, the more comfortable it will be.

Below is an elevation cross-section drawing showing how the house was constructed. The structural rafters and beams were all made using limbs and wood trimmings from the surrounding forest. The house features a skylight and an interior composting toilet.

ba-hobbit_-_draw_0500170540Simon’s house is probably more, well, basic than most people would prefer, but the underlying ideas concerning energy efficiency and the use of low-impact materials are important. Concepts like these must be developed as quickly as possible as resources continue to dwindle. I think it is particularly interesting to note the modest cost of Simon’s new house compared with the demonstration house in Michigan, which was built for a reported $900,000 (£600,000). That’s about 200 times what Simon paid for the materials used in his Hobbit house, most of which probably went for the solar panels.

Simon estimated that construction required approximately 1000-1500 man hours by himself, his father-in-law, and “passers by and visiting friends.” Incidentally, he said that essentially the only tools used in the project were a chain saw, a hammer and a one-inch chisel.

In the long run, only if humans can learn to live with a far smaller “footprint” on Mother Earth can we expect to continue to exist. I hope to see more examples of innovative thinking such as this. Let’s hope Simon and his family enjoy many happy years of living in tune with nature.

Here’s one more view of Simon’s amazing house, a wide angle interior shot. Nice, eh?

ba-hobbit_roof_s_0500170576

Posted in Energy Technology | Comments Off

« Older Entries