We applaud the development of alternative energies but add this caveat for all supporters: it will be an extraordinary feat if the percentage of alternative energy powering the world’s grid comes anywere close to reaching five percent of supply in the next 20 years.

That brings us to the subject of power plants. Here are some power plant facts, according to the PowerPlantCCS website: 

“There are over 50,000 power plants in the world. These power plants constitute the single largest emitting industry for CO₂ emissions.”

One solution for solving this problem: carbon capture and sequestration, one of the reasons the PowerPlantCCS website was launched. The site provides a report, starting with CO2:

“Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas after water vapor. Burning fossil fuels, land clearing and other activities of modern industrial society have caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to climb from about 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million, causing warming and other climate changes.

“From 1991 to 2000, CO₂ accounted for 82% of total U.S. GHG emissions in terms of its global warming potential. About 96% of these carbon emissions resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy. With the increased emphasis on GHG abatement, it is imperative that these power plants undertake serious efforts to cut down their CO₂ emitted and sequester it.”

Now comes an argument for carbon capture:

“Energy efficiency improvements and switching from fossil fuels toward less carbon intensive energy sources were once seen as the only realistic means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. In recent years, however, analysts and policymakers have begun to recognize the potential for a third option—the development of “end-of-pipe” technologies that would allow for the continued utilization of fossil fuel energy sources while significantly reducing carbon emissions. “

Whether pro or con, there are numerous developments in this field — some that appear to provide plausible solutions that may help abate global warming. To help with the development of technologies like these, one of the best tyools available will be active involvement from a population that understand far more about global warming than it presently does.

“I am issuing a challenge for the year 2010: Build out a 100 acre turnkey algae production facility (growing, harvesting and extraction) without any local, state or federal grant funds.”

Mr. Cohen’s greeting to all for the beginning of 2010 is well worth reading, especially by all who want to see alternative fuels gain more solid footing on the American (and world) energy charts.

The accounting of his challenge ias worth the read:

“When this (American oil production) all started in 1859, nobody had all of the answers. 150 years later, the oil industry is still looking for answers. A 100 acre turn-key commercial-scale algae production facility will allow algae producers to look at real commercial algae production and operations as well as economies of scale issues. It will give algae researchers a much better understanding of commercial-scale algae production issues to work on as opposed to small raceway ponds and desk-top lab photobioreactors. It is, at this point, useless to continue to fund algae research without seriously funding commercial-scale algae production farms. As some have already learned, intellectual properties have no practical use if there is not an industry to use them. In order to create any value in existing algae technologies, we must have commercial-scale algae production facilities that can use them!

“Commercial-scale algae production is key to our industry and is one solution that helps to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to create new jobs and reduce CO2 emissions. The NAA challenges the algae industry to build a 100 acre commercial-scale algae production plant without any local, state or federal grants – this will be the true test of algae production farming and algaepreneurism at its finest!

“I would like to see the first 50 acres of production with proven benchmarked results – totally designed, developed and put into production without a single dollar of government money. The next 50 acres can be improved by making minor changes based on what was learned from the first 50 acres. I know it can be done, and you know it can be done – it´s time to do it!”

The entire document can be read at the association’s website .

Mark Edwards, PhD

For those wanting more information on algae and its low-carbon potential as an alternative fuel source, take a visit to Oilgae , a blog focused on this subject.

Some might even want information on how to grow their own. Below are clips from today’s post:

“Cultivation of Algae in Photobioreactor”

“Algae can also be grown in a photobioreactor (PBR). A PBR is a bioreactor which incorporates some type of light source. Virtually any translucent container could be called a PBR, however the term is more commonly used to define a closed system, as opposed to an open tank or pond.

“It allows more species to be grown, it allows the species that are being grown to stay dominant, and it extends the growing season, only slightly if unheated, and if heated it can produce year round. Because PBR systems are closed, all essential nutrients must be introduced into the system to allow algae to grow and be cultivated.

“A PBR can be operated in “batch mode”, but it is also possible to introduce a continuous stream of sterilized water containing nutrients, air, and carbon dioxide. As the algae grows, excess culture overflows and is harvested.”

The entire article is available at at the Oilgae blog. I happened on this site on the recommendation of a friend who is attempting to link me with Mark Edwards, PhD, professor at the Morrison School of Management and Agribusiness at Arizona State University, and author of “Green Algae Strategy: End Oil Imports And Engineer Sustainable Food And Fuel.”

I am glad to have visited and think it is important for many of us to learn more about this alternative, sharing our discoveries with plenty of others.

]]> http://ourgreenstreetsblog.com/wordpress/2010/01/make-a-visit-to-oilgae/feed/ 0 http://ourgreenstreetsblog.com/wordpress/2009/12/global-low-carbon-energy-already-far-far-away/ http://ourgreenstreetsblog.com/wordpress/2009/12/global-low-carbon-energy-already-far-far-away/#comments Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:24:05 +0000 grmeyers http://ourgreenstreetsblog.com/wordpress/?p=792 A world turning with low carbon energy is no small feat, even if everybody wants such a clean place. Poised before the open of the the summit at Copenhagen, there is no better time than now to equip oneself with the correct information in setting goals to switch to low-carbon energies. Implementing change for world climate issues, no matter how good it might be for all, is an action requiring an extraordinary amount of time, infrastructure, and will.

In the December 3 issue of Nature, Gert Jan Kramer and Martin Haigh point to this reality in their article, “No quick switch to low-carbon energy.”

In the first of two pieces on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, the two writers analyze historic growth in energy systems in explaining why deploying alternative technologies will be a long haul that could span multiple decades.

Below is a summary of their content, plus highlights of facts all should consider.

* There are physical limits to the rate at which new technologies can be deployed * Governments need to design policies targeted at specific technologies to accelerate deployment
* More action is required on demand side to increase efficiency and curtail consumption.”
“To combat climate change, the world’s entire energy system needs a major overhaul before the middle of the century. But can we build new energy supplies that quickly? …… Because the scale of the energy system is so huge, it takes time to build the human and industrial capacity to achieve substantial deployment.”

Source: Nature.com

As Jan Kramer and Haigh clearly show, time is not our ally in this case.

“There have been high-profile proposals to ‘repower’ the world in a decade, loosely based on the way innovative consumer goods such as mobile phones or iPods conquer their markets. Unlike with consumer goods, we believe that there are robust empirical ‘laws’ that limit the build rate of new and existing energy technologies and thereby the potential to deliver much of the hoped-for transformation by 2050. To accelerate deployment, policy-makers need to tailor their policies to specific technologies in ways that recognize the stage of development.”

The two writers then produce an eye-opening historical perspective concerning how long it actually takes for changes of this magnitude to occur.

“In the twentieth century, it took 30 years for energy technologies that were available in principle to grow exponentially and become widely available. This reaching ‘materiality’ can be defined as delivering about 1% of the world’s energy mix. After that, the growth becomes linear until the technology captures its final market share. This pattern is remarkably consistent across energy technologies and the two growth phases can be seen as the ‘laws of energy deployment.’ Policy-makers concerned about carbon dioxide emissions will want to accelerate the first phase, making energy technologies ‘material’ within one decade instead of three. But we see two fundamental reasons why the exponential growth in the early, pre-material phase will be hard to beat.”

This article is worth reading, especially when seeing how ill-understood is the reality of emitting too much carbon dioxide. We hope the negotiating table has been well-sprinkled with some of these reality salts. Worldwide commitments by those attending, including President Obama, need to be taking place now, not two or three decades from this time.

“Carbon emissions by industrialized nations increased one percent in 2007, a ‘worrying’ rise ahead of a crunch climate summit in Copenhagen in December, the UN climate agency said Wednesday. Emissions in 2007 by 40 industrialized countries with reporting obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were around four percent below 1990 levels, the UN Climate Change Secretariat (UNCCS) said….” [Agence France Presse/Factiva]

AP adds that “…EU countries did cut their emissions year-to-year, by an average of 1.6 percent, led by Denmark’s 6.1 percent reduction. But the US, the biggest emitter in this group, increased its emissions by 1.4 percent, and the output of heat-trapping gases by Japan, Canada and Australia also rose, the data show….” [Associated Press/Factiva]

Greenwire reports that “…emissions in 2007…were around 4 percent below 1990 levels, the secretariat said. However, from 2000 to 2007, emissions rose 3 percent….Much of the decrease in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels is due to the economic decline of countries in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of communism….” [Greenwire (US)/Factiva]

Auto graveyard - Nebraska farm Photo: Glenn Meyers

The following clips come from  Matt Cawood, writing on a study from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists at farmonline:

“Agricultural land could be the focus of an “economic opportunity of unparalleled scale”, according to the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, which has called for a re-write of emissions trading legislation to properly recognise “terrestrial carbon”.

“In a discussion paper released earlier this week, the Group argues that by focusing on terrestrial carbon sequestration as a solution to climate change, Australia can simultaneously address many of its most pressing environmental challenges.

“Terrestrial carbon includes carbon stored in forests, woodlands, swamps, grasslands, farmland, soils, and derivatives like biochar and biofuels.

“We’re about to create a multibillion dollar terrestrial carbon market, and that has the potential to radically change our rural landscapes,” said Wentworth Group director Peter Cosier. “We have to maximise the benefits and minimise the consequences.”

“According to the paper’s introduction, global warming science now regards it as impossible to avoid dangerous climate change solely through emissions reduction. Positive change in the carbon balance can only be achieved if parallel efforts are made to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

The Wentworth Group sees much potential for managing carbon. “At a global scale, a 15 per cent increase in the world’s terrestrial carbon stock would remove the equivalent of all the carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution,” the paper says.

“A recent CSIRO study that examined Australia’s capacity to sequester terrestrial carbon suggested that carbon-friendly grazing practices could be capable of storing 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (Mt Co2-e/yr) for the next 40 years.”

To review this article and related papers, go to http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/farm-carbon-offers-unparalled-economic-opportunity/1655404.aspx

The video is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYZ9I_aYYb4

from Environmental News Network: “More than 800 students in 20 teams from the United States, Canada, Spain and Germany will compete all week in ten contests that evaluate the architecture, engineering, comfort, marketability, appliances and lighting of the solar houses. The teams will perform everyday tasks, such as cooking, laundry, and washing dishes, to test the energy efficiency of their homes.”

The 2009 Solar Decathlon Teams are:

• Cornell University (Ithaca, New York)
• Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa)
• Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio)
• Penn State University (University Park, Pennsylvania)
• Rice University (Houston, Texas)
• Team Boston (Boston Architectural College, Tufts University) (Boston, Massachusetts)
• Team California (Santa Clara University, California College of the Arts) (Santa Clara, California)
• Technische Universität Darmstadt (Winner, 2007 Solar Decathlon) (Darmstadt, Germany)
• Team Missouri (Missouri University of Science & Technology, University of Missouri) (Rolla, Missouri)
• Team Ontario/British Columbia (University of Waterloo, Ryerson University, Simon Fraser University) (Ontario, Canada)
• Team Alberta (University of Calgary, SAIT Polytechnic, Alberta College of Art + Design, Mount Royal College) (Alberta, Canada)
• Universidad de Puerto Rico (San Juan, Puerto Rico)
• Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Madrid, Spain)
• University of Arizona (Tucson, Arizona)
• University of Louisiana at Lafayette (Lafayette, Louisiana)
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
• University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Champaign, Illinois)
• University of Kentucky (Lexington, Kentucky)
• Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, Virginia)

One potential large supplier of such captured CO2 might be coal-fired electrical power generating plants.  The impact could be  significant, said Carbon Sciences CEO, Byron Elton. “We strongly believe we are developing the most efficient and viable renewable fuel technology in the world. We estimate tat that with less than half of the the CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, we can produce 30 percent of the world’s fuel supply.”

The conversion of captured CO2 to liquified fuels Source: Carbon Sciences

CutCO2.org estimated in 2006 that more than 9.3 billion tons of CO2 were being emitted and unsequestered each year from coal-fired power plants. Today, with growing worldwide demand to take action to reduce global CO2 emissions. One solution: capture CO2 and sequester it, storing its deep underground or in the ocean.

Byron Elton, Carbon Sciences CEO

“We happen to think sequestration is not a very good idea,” said Elton in an interview. “What do you do with it?”

Mr. Elton sees two significant challenges facing this planet’s population: energy and climate. With the world population growing by staggering multiples, the demand for energy is increasing by a factor equivalent to population growth.

“We have extraordinary problems in terms of climate; we’ve got to do something different. We’re doing irreparable damage to the world in which we live. All fuel starts with CO2. Is there a way to provide significant amounts of liquid portable fuel without destroying the planet? We think there is.”