« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »
July 2008 Archives
July 2, 2008
For ethanol rain's a pain on the plains
Good report on how flooding in the midwest is making life hard for ethanol companies trying to get their product to market by rail from Dow Jones Newswire. Hattip to the Cattlenetwork.
Abengoa irritates European Federation for Transport and Environment
Abengoa irritates European Federation for Transport and Environment. The is the response from the EFTE, good points about fuel efficiency.
I particularly like this statement from EFTE
to which I say
I particularly like this statement from EFTE
Running Europe's fleet of heavy, gas-guzzling cars on biofuels rather than petrol is no cure. If Europe truly wants to end its addiction to oil, it should start by making cars twice as fuel-efficient as they are today.
to which I say
hear, hear!
Is the price of corn related to the price of crude?
Is the price of corn related to the price of crude? Many in the US ethanol business say that it isn't this chap isn't so sure...
July 3, 2008
Biofuels push 260m people in to hunger, ActionAid
The charity Action Aid estimates that 260m people have been driven into fuel poverty by biofuels in a story reported in today's Guardian Unlimited.
Dr Claire Melamed, ActionAid's head of trade policy says.
Dr Claire Melamed, ActionAid's head of trade policy says.
"The world needs to start again and plan properly. If biofuels are to play a part in a renewable energy strategy we must ensure that they benefit the environment and that poor farmers and consumers are not harmed by their use."Melmand was talking in an Action Aid publication, Biofuels in the firing line. This is strong stuff from people who professionally worry about the poor. Perhaps we should look at the amount of biofuel growth we've got planned over the next couple of years.
July 8, 2008
Sustainable biofuels are possible says Gallagher report
The Ed Gallagher, chair of the UK's Renewable Fuels Agency says that sustainable biofuels are possible but:
Commodity prices, food security and economic impacts; Advanced technology; and the direction of policy. Perhaps we could talk about it a little later.
We cannot afford to abandon biofuels as part of a low carbon transport future. Equally, we cannot continue producing biofuels which are ultimately more environmentally damaging than the fossil fuels they seek to replace.This is a whale of a report, and too big for one person to get hold of in an hour or two's reading. Have a look at the Report of the Gallagher review yourself and make your mind up. I'll be examining three areas over the next couple of days:
Commodity prices, food security and economic impacts; Advanced technology; and the direction of policy. Perhaps we could talk about it a little later.
July 9, 2008
Are biofuels causing food price rises? Gallagher's answer
The Gallagher Review into biofuels has a view on how the diversion of food into biofuel crops affects prices but its not clear.
Partly that's because it's economics (if predicting the weather is hard, why do economists try to produce simple models when meteorologists don't? )
Gallagher says that the apparent impact of biofuels on food prices depends on the economic model that people use. There are two views: one assumes that the whole economy adjusts to the change; the other that only part of the change can be adjusted for. The first looks like the long term to me, the second the short term.
Gallagher quotes from the International Food policy Research Institute, this organisation recently produced a report showing that prices rises could be between 16% and 34% at best and 30 and 76% at worse. Gallagher thinks that this is probably too high, and the results from the other model are too low. The long term model shows rises of around 5%.
The effects of these prices are greater on the urban poor, who cannot grow food or take advantage of the opportunities that biofuels might offer their country cousins. A world bank working paper shows that a 10% rise in the main categories of food prices raises poverty by 0.4% in developing countries. Nicagraua was the worst affected country with poverty up 2%.
Another question I've been mulling, if not talking about out loud is
The role of speculators in the futures markets for grains. This is what Gallagher says...
He recommends
Biofuel targets and policies that don't disadvantage the poor in the short term.
So food prices must not be affected by the price of biofuels.
Gallagher also recommends international, short-term targeted assistance to reduce the current spike in food prices on the poorest.
That social criteria including land rights, should be incorporated into sustainability criteria. Targeted support to develop biofuel feed stocks to Southern Africa, Latin America and parts of South East Asia where the existence of considerable amounts of underused arable land offers considerable potential for biofuels to deliver economic benefits.
His preferred crops are sugar cane in countries where there is enough spare land, and palm oil, under the right conditions, if the price is higher than alternative uses. He's not so sure about Jatropha, except as a local fuel source.
It's hard to disagree with this. His request for the Treasury to investigate futures trading in food commodities is a sensible idea as are his calls for an international response to the current spike in food prices.
Partly that's because it's economics (if predicting the weather is hard, why do economists try to produce simple models when meteorologists don't? )
Gallagher says that the apparent impact of biofuels on food prices depends on the economic model that people use. There are two views: one assumes that the whole economy adjusts to the change; the other that only part of the change can be adjusted for. The first looks like the long term to me, the second the short term.
Gallagher quotes from the International Food policy Research Institute, this organisation recently produced a report showing that prices rises could be between 16% and 34% at best and 30 and 76% at worse. Gallagher thinks that this is probably too high, and the results from the other model are too low. The long term model shows rises of around 5%.
The effects of these prices are greater on the urban poor, who cannot grow food or take advantage of the opportunities that biofuels might offer their country cousins. A world bank working paper shows that a 10% rise in the main categories of food prices raises poverty by 0.4% in developing countries. Nicagraua was the worst affected country with poverty up 2%.
Another question I've been mulling, if not talking about out loud is
The role of speculators in the futures markets for grains. This is what Gallagher says...
Some futures traders argue since they never take delivery of the crop they cannot affect street prices but this ignores the affects on short term market volatility, a feature of current high prices. In these circumstances speculative price rises lead to positive feedback loop in which price4s rise far above the underlying value of the commodity creating an economic bubble that eventually bursts and prices crash... George Soros, the renowned financial speculator and investor is quoted as saying " you have a generalised commodity bubble due to commodities having become an asset class that institutions use to an increasing extent."Which is a pretty clear view of what I've had at the back of my mind. Gallagher says this needs "thorough examination by the Treasury" so quake in your boots if you've been a naughty trader.
He recommends
Biofuel targets and policies that don't disadvantage the poor in the short term.
So food prices must not be affected by the price of biofuels.
Gallagher also recommends international, short-term targeted assistance to reduce the current spike in food prices on the poorest.
That social criteria including land rights, should be incorporated into sustainability criteria. Targeted support to develop biofuel feed stocks to Southern Africa, Latin America and parts of South East Asia where the existence of considerable amounts of underused arable land offers considerable potential for biofuels to deliver economic benefits.
His preferred crops are sugar cane in countries where there is enough spare land, and palm oil, under the right conditions, if the price is higher than alternative uses. He's not so sure about Jatropha, except as a local fuel source.
It's hard to disagree with this. His request for the Treasury to investigate futures trading in food commodities is a sensible idea as are his calls for an international response to the current spike in food prices.
India's state-subsidised biofuel project close to launch
India's state-subsidised biofuel project close to launch, according to the Indian Financial Express Newspaper on Monday. One of the high points will be a trial plantation of 4m acres of Jatropha, according to the report. The other is that the Indian government expects that the programme will not have any impact on the price of food in India.
The tax position of Biofuels in India looks to be a mess, if you get to the bottom of the article, you'll see why.
The tax position of Biofuels in India looks to be a mess, if you get to the bottom of the article, you'll see why.
July 10, 2008
Second generation biofuels and Gallagher
The Gallagher review has this to say on second generation biofuels
they are immature, they could produce greenhouse gas savings, but only if they're not grown on land currently used for agriculture and that they need significant incentives and support if they are to become significant players after 2010.
Gallagher has a good proposal when he says
Good to see that Gallagher is looking at the alternative value of feedstock as other fuels. Later in this section he adds
(Translation: not on your life!)
His most important recommendations in this area are:
and
they are immature, they could produce greenhouse gas savings, but only if they're not grown on land currently used for agriculture and that they need significant incentives and support if they are to become significant players after 2010.
In general, GHG savings from advanced technologies producing ethanol are about
90% compared to petrol whilst syndiesel can generate savings in excess of 100%
through co-generation of renewable energy (excluding emissions from land-use
change).
These new biofuels are unlikely to see significant market penetration until 2018.
Gallagher has a good proposal when he says
A specific obligation on transport fuel suppliers to supply fuels produced fromThat approach to me looks better than promoting individual technologies such as lignin or pyrolysis of wood over other areas that might be more energy and carbon efficient.
wastes, residues and feedstock grown on marginal land will encourage investment
in these technologies and provide a mechanism to encourage production on
marginal land.
The use of agricultural or forest residues as biofuel feedstock will also have an
opportunity cost since, in some instances, the GHG savings for heat and power
may be better than for biofuels. A similar issue was recently identified in the use
of tallow for biodiesel in an AEAT report43 for the Department for Transport. This
highlighted that the use of a limited feedstock, in this case tallow, for biodiesel
production can lead, indirectly, to higher emissions in another sector (in this case,
the oleochemical and meat rendering industries).
Good to see that Gallagher is looking at the alternative value of feedstock as other fuels. Later in this section he adds
The EU has suggested that by 2020 advanced fuels could make a contribution
of up to 30% towards the proposed 10% target. Given the current stage of
development of technologies this appears optimistic.
(Translation: not on your life!)
Based upon current evidence a market share of 1-2% by energy of transport fuels by 2020 seems feasible. A higher target market penetration may be possible but will require(Translation: you'll be lucky to get over 2% by 2020 anything else will be jam)
technology to develop, and new feedstock supplies to be identified, more rapidly
than currently envisaged. Further detailed work is needed before firm targets
should be set.
His most important recommendations in this area are:
There should be a specific obligation on transport fuel suppliers to supply
biofuels achieving a high level of GHG saving (possibly greater than 75%) from:
- Appropriate wastes and residues;
- Feedstock grown on marginal land; and
- Other technologies and feedstocks that avoid indirect land change (for
example algae).
and
The EU needs to determine how increasing targets for heat, power and
renewable transport fuels compete for wastes and residues and how this
competition should be managed.
Pushing for a brighter greener future by making your own biofuel
A seventeen year-old from Maryland is making his own biofuel. Get to Maryland there's a Chinese restaurant that's giving away used fat free!
July 11, 2008
Gallagher: the direction of biofuel policy in the UK
Gallagher has some thoughts on the direction of biofuel policy in the UK. I've left this to the last because, although it is the most interesting and proposes significant divergency from the EU position, I am not certain that the UK can move that far from the EU position.
The key paragraph is
He doesn't think that a Moratorium is a good idea...
His recommendations to reduce the rate of increase in the UK's renewable transport fuel obligation looks sensible, with an aim of 5% of fuel by volume by 2013.
His suggestion that the
Looks like he could be paving the way for the UK to limit its uptake of biofuels. Given the tenor of his report its possible.
His suggestion that
Is also very sensible.
If you argue with this type of point in this report then, you really should whether you're into biofuels for the right reasons. For what its worth this is the kind of biofuel policy that should be adopted by the European Union, and could resonate well in other heavy biofuel areas like the US. Of course the farming lobby and the big grain producers are likely to disagree in the short term.
The key paragraph is
Based upon this evidence the RFA have concluded that there is a significant risk
the current policy will not deliver its intended objective of significant net GHG emissions
savings. Accordingly, the RFA believe it would be unwise to proceed with
the introduction of biofuels in the manner, or at the pace, presently envisaged.
He doesn't think that a Moratorium is a good idea...
A moratorium is likely to lead to a stagnant, unprofitable industry that is less prepared and able to invest in new technologies or source feedstock that does not cause land-use change.
An EU-wide moratorium is also likely to lead to a further increase in fossil fuel prices (due to the additional demand created from the removal of biofuels) with knock-on impacts for both food prices and the poor. A moratorium on biofuels could also discourage much needed investment in agriculture that is required to address increasing global food demands and to
encourage the development of a more productive agricultural system. This could
have particular benefits for the poor in the medium and long term.
His recommendations to reduce the rate of increase in the UK's renewable transport fuel obligation looks sensible, with an aim of 5% of fuel by volume by 2013.
His suggestion that the
EU should not allow Member States to supply more than 5.75% (by energy) of biofuels; and allow more cautious Member States to supply to 4% biofuels (by energy).
Looks like he could be paving the way for the UK to limit its uptake of biofuels. Given the tenor of his report its possible.
His suggestion that
A target range of 5% to 8% (including 1-2% from advanced technologies) with a higher target triggered only if milestones in 2013/14 are met.
Is also very sensible.
If you argue with this type of point in this report then, you really should whether you're into biofuels for the right reasons. For what its worth this is the kind of biofuel policy that should be adopted by the European Union, and could resonate well in other heavy biofuel areas like the US. Of course the farming lobby and the big grain producers are likely to disagree in the short term.
July 14, 2008
Biofuels and the whole of non-meat farming
Andy Posner, over on the Huffington Post raises some good questions about land use in a world where we're increasingly using biofuels.
I suggest in a comment that perhaps a little high-fructose corn syrup should be fermented to ease the US obesity crisis.
Fat chance of that happening then.
I suggest in a comment that perhaps a little high-fructose corn syrup should be fermented to ease the US obesity crisis.
Fat chance of that happening then.
Sao Paulo marshalls its biofuel resources
Over on Temas blog, my friend Keith Ripley has a piece on how the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo is getting all of its resources together to study the future of biofuels. This is big potatoes in a state which rivals the US in the volume of ethanol it produces.
In the English language synopsis, Keith says:
The state Research Foundation of São Paulo (Fapesp) has just launched a special program Research on Bioenergy (Bioen) that aims at marshalling the state's considerable public and private R&D resources to adavance and apply all knowledge linked to ethanol production. São Paulo leads Brazil in ethanol production, and Brazil rivals the US in global production.
There's more in English and considerably more in Portugese. Enjoy
In the English language synopsis, Keith says:
The state Research Foundation of São Paulo (Fapesp) has just launched a special program Research on Bioenergy (Bioen) that aims at marshalling the state's considerable public and private R&D resources to adavance and apply all knowledge linked to ethanol production. São Paulo leads Brazil in ethanol production, and Brazil rivals the US in global production.
There's more in English and considerably more in Portugese. Enjoy
July 15, 2008
Ethanol without the microbes
Interesting comment from David Benson, a bit off topic, but bang on the money about alternative technologies. This has a lot of things I like, especially the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis plant which uses hydrogen from electrolysed water, (electricity generated by wind) and smokestack carbon dioxide to make ethanol. It would be interesting to see how Doty Energy's economics of production stack up and also if the ethanol/acre claim is based on the factory's footprint or that of the turbines.
The high cost of corn in the US is choking off demand from ethanol producers
The high cost of corn in the US is choking off demand from ethanol producers, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. The report goes on to add that around 1.6bn bushels of corn will be left from last year's harvest compared to earlier forecasts of 1.4bn bushels.
Louisana signs advanced biofuels law into being
Lousiana has signed the HB1270 Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative into law. It features the use of hydrous and anhydrous ethanol as a fuel blend stock that will be derived from plants grown in Lousiana (but not corn) and capable of producing 600gal/acre, with only one-third nitrogen input of con and half the water of corn. It will be available in blends from 10, to 85% by volume of the gasoline it is blended with. In addition to 10% income tax reductions there will be a grant to trial the process.
Looks to me like they're pushing sorghum as a biofuel crop that could help to regenerate a state which is still suffering from the effect of Hurricane Katrina .
Looks to me like they're pushing sorghum as a biofuel crop that could help to regenerate a state which is still suffering from the effect of Hurricane Katrina .
Nuclear could get a boost from current low opinion of biofuels
The nuclear industry could get a boost, given the low opinion many people have about biofuels, if this piece from Biofuels to BioFailiure from the Heritage Foundation is anything to go by.
July 16, 2008
Ethanol subsidies could be safe for a while
Ethanol subsidies could be safe for a while.There's a really nice explanation of why subsidies are hard to abolish in Price of Oil: Hidden Oil Subsidies from Tree Hugger.com and on Huffington Post. I couldn't put it any more clearly than in the first paragraph.
July 23, 2008
1000 entries and what have we learned?
Put out the flags. I've reached the 1000 post mark. I started this in October 2006 with an open if sceptical mind. Its been a lot of fun so far. I've met a whole bunch of people who have commented on what I've written and offered suggestions and I'd like to thank you for that. I've also come to some conclusions about biofuels in my first 1000 posts on this topic. So here's my take on the state of the biofuel industry at the moment.
That there's a lot of misinformation.
That there's real potential for biofuels to make a difference, at least locally, in the developing world and building bridges between the world's rich and poor nations.
That there is a lot of waste that could be converted in to fuel, if we can persuade society to do it. The Ineos story, is a good example of what might be possible.
That there is not enough edible oil in the world to keep America on the road for more than three months (and there'd be no fried food).
That you can only use old cooking oil for biodiesel economically as a home brewer if there's no serious competition for it.
That America needs to improve the fuel efficiency of its vehicle fleet more quickly than it is probably capable of doing.
That second generation biofuels are an excellent idea in principle, but are still some way off.
That the price of food is almost certainly linked to the availability of raw materials, but global trade in food muddies the water.
That once people become accustomed to subsidies its hard to wean them off.
That farmers are one of the biggest and toughest lobbies in the world (see the last point).
That weeds are potentially biofuel crops (Jatropha, Pongamia ).
That sweet sorghum is underrated as a potential biofuel.
That algae could be used to sequester the carbon dioxide from power generation plants ( so could clever chemical catalysts).
That Corn is good on the cob and Gallagher is largely right
Right, I'd better get on with the next one...
That there's a lot of misinformation.
That there's real potential for biofuels to make a difference, at least locally, in the developing world and building bridges between the world's rich and poor nations.
That there is a lot of waste that could be converted in to fuel, if we can persuade society to do it. The Ineos story, is a good example of what might be possible.
That there is not enough edible oil in the world to keep America on the road for more than three months (and there'd be no fried food).
That you can only use old cooking oil for biodiesel economically as a home brewer if there's no serious competition for it.
That America needs to improve the fuel efficiency of its vehicle fleet more quickly than it is probably capable of doing.
That second generation biofuels are an excellent idea in principle, but are still some way off.
That the price of food is almost certainly linked to the availability of raw materials, but global trade in food muddies the water.
That once people become accustomed to subsidies its hard to wean them off.
That farmers are one of the biggest and toughest lobbies in the world (see the last point).
That weeds are potentially biofuel crops (Jatropha, Pongamia ).
That sweet sorghum is underrated as a potential biofuel.
That algae could be used to sequester the carbon dioxide from power generation plants ( so could clever chemical catalysts).
That Corn is good on the cob and Gallagher is largely right
Right, I'd better get on with the next one...
July 21, 2008
Corrected: Ineos to use municpal waste and algae to make ethanol
Corrected:
This article originally appeared with the headline Ineos goes down the Fischer Tropsch route to ethanol from municipal waste. The process will use algae to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen into ethanol not a chemical catalyst. This has been corrected in the first paragraph.
Ineos is to use municpal waste and algae to make ethanol according to a press release from the company, reported on ICIS news and in newspapers like the Times today.
I like this technology, as you'll know by now and I think that it is important that it is being widely talked about in the press in the UK. It might help move policy in a direction that I'd favour away from using food as fuel.
Ineos looks to be licensing technology based around Clostridium Ljungdahlii a microbe that likes concentrations of carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and helpfully excretes ethanol.
The technology was reported in Green Car Congress in 2005. It was developed by Bioengineering Resources near Fayetteville, Arkansas. There is a patent about the Biological production of ethanol from waste gases with Clostridium ljungdahlii on Patent Storm. You'll need to work your way down to example 10. Good things clearly come too those who dig around a little.
What's not clear in the releases that I've seen is the level of sorting of municipal waste that is needed and the yields using this bacterium. Or whether it would be possible to use it as a way of dealing with plastics waste. Would it be cost effective to mine landfill? And what are the terms of the relationship with Bioengineering Resources.
This article originally appeared with the headline Ineos goes down the Fischer Tropsch route to ethanol from municipal waste. The process will use algae to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen into ethanol not a chemical catalyst. This has been corrected in the first paragraph.
Ineos is to use municpal waste and algae to make ethanol according to a press release from the company, reported on ICIS news and in newspapers like the Times today.
I like this technology, as you'll know by now and I think that it is important that it is being widely talked about in the press in the UK. It might help move policy in a direction that I'd favour away from using food as fuel.
Ineos looks to be licensing technology based around Clostridium Ljungdahlii a microbe that likes concentrations of carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and helpfully excretes ethanol.
The technology was reported in Green Car Congress in 2005. It was developed by Bioengineering Resources near Fayetteville, Arkansas. There is a patent about the Biological production of ethanol from waste gases with Clostridium ljungdahlii on Patent Storm. You'll need to work your way down to example 10. Good things clearly come too those who dig around a little.
What's not clear in the releases that I've seen is the level of sorting of municipal waste that is needed and the yields using this bacterium. Or whether it would be possible to use it as a way of dealing with plastics waste. Would it be cost effective to mine landfill? And what are the terms of the relationship with Bioengineering Resources.
July 22, 2008
Straight from the cow to biodisel
Over on Domestic fuel there's a piece about a tallow rendering plant giving? selling? its output to a biodiesel producer.
Is it any wonder that the price of tallow is rising globally? Will the refiners be paying the market rate for the tallow or are they getting it at a fixed price or free?
Is it any wonder that the price of tallow is rising globally? Will the refiners be paying the market rate for the tallow or are they getting it at a fixed price or free?
EU consults on sustainability on using biomass
If you've not contributed to the EU consultation on new and renewable energy then you should.
Hat tip to GAVE.
Hat tip to GAVE.
EPA to rule on Texas' exit from biofuel mandate on 24 July
A piece on Bloombergg today goes into some detail behind Texas' Governors' plan to try and get out of the national requirement to make 9bn gallons of ethanol. The story says that there will have to be a decision by Friday. You may remember, I mentioned Texas' cattle ranchers plans in early June.
July 24, 2008
DuPont in cellulose ethanol trial in Tennessee
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC (DDCE) and the University of Tennessee (UT) Research Foundation, through its Genera Energy LLC,
have announced a partnership to construct an innovative pilot-scale
biorefinery and state-of-the-art research and development facility for
cellulosic ethanol in Vonore. There's more at the site. It'll use Switchgrass.
July 31, 2008
Ethanol plants recieve big subsidy cheques
A couple of plants in North Dakota have been heavily subsidised by the state in the past 18 months, according to the Grand Forks Herald and posted by Ron Steenblik onto Del.icio.us.
For me the interesting thing is that the plants have only been in existence for around 18 months...
For me the interesting thing is that the plants have only been in existence for around 18 months...
Search
About July 2008
This page contains all entries posted to The Big Biofuels Blog in July 2008. They are listed from oldest to newest.
June 2008 is the previous archive.
August 2008 is the next archive.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Powered by
Movable Type 4.37
Movable Type 4.37
Click here to get your own player.