Redesign the Paradigm

Water is essential for human survival.  It is considered a renewable resource but its limits are determined by the water cycles within a geographic location. Water availability is directly affected by population growth.  There are approx. 83 million people added to the earth each year. Many of these people are born into impoverished and population dense areas, which in turn, escalates the burden on that regions surrounding water supplies. There already exist many regions in the world where population levels have surpassed what can be sustained by the local water resources. Numerous geographical regions also have high population growth rates and barring natural disaster or famine these rates are expected to escalate.

Geo-political tension is developing between nations over fresh water supplies especially from rivers. Disputes over who has water rights are becoming more prevalent as countries upriver are using increasing amounts of water for their farming or hydroelectric power generation leaving less water for those countries downriver.  Even in regions or countries once considered abundant with water, problems exist due to declining water tables. This is occurring because increasing population centers are draining aquifers and ground water faster than precipitation or underground rivers can replace it. Fossilized aquifers are not  replenishable, once depleted that source is gone for good. Projected demand for water has already exceeded available supplies in many regions. Those countries most affected by water shortages (developed and undeveloped) are falling behind in their attempts to seriously address this problem.

There are other issues affecting water shortages. Water is being drained out of aquatic environments (i.e. the Everglades) at an increasing rate which affects not only ecosystems but the regions ability to replenish ground water supplies.  Pollution is contributing to reducing potable ground water rendering some underground sources unusable due to toxicity or increasing the filtration costs beyond economically viable levels. This is due predominantly to industrial dumping, farming, mining, landfills, etc. Developed countries have experienced some success in curtailing pollution due to regulation and new technology but the developing world with its large population growth and reduced economic resources is struggling.

Fresh water availability is what is critical to humanity as 97.5% of the earth’s water is salt water and 90% of the earth’s fresh water is frozen in Antarctica, Greenland and North Pole ice sheets. Most of the remaining fresh water is soil moisture, and very deep aquifers that would require considerable drilling costs. This leaves approximately 1% of fresh water available for human use and includes mountain glaciers, surface sources like lakes, rivers, and reservoirs, and underground shallow aquifer sources. This amount is also renewable through rain water and snowfall.

The U.S. is an example of a country that has done fairly well with fresh water conservation and increasing efficiencies in fresh water use. In 2005 the U.S. decreased fresh water consumption levels down to 349 billion gallons per day (bgal/day) or a 5% decrease over the past 25 years. Fresh water consumption of 268 bgal/day was pulled from surface sources and 79 bgal/day was removed from underground sources. Most of the rest of the world is experiencing increased demand for fresh water.  

Consumption levels for fresh water in the U.S. are as follows: 41% or 143 bgal/day of all fresh water went for thermoelectric power generation; almost that entire amount was from surface sources. Farming utilized 129 bgal/day or 37 percent of freshwater. This amount has decreased 5% over the past decade due to sprinkler system and micro irrigation advances but are expected to increase again as population growth overtakes irrigation efficiencies. Farming uses also account for 67% of all the ground water extracted. Public supply is at 45 bgal/day or 13% and includes water requirements for residential homes, commercial factories, and other business needs. Industry used almost 15 bgal/day or approximately 4%. This amount is also decreasing due to efficiencies mostly in the mining sector. These figures roughly reflect worldwide demand as well.

Populations will continue to increase world wide especially in poorer developing countries with high poverty with less access to education and birth control. Farming requirements necessary to feed these increasing populations will strain existing water supplies to their limits and require developed countries to increase their farming output to help mitigate famine and starvation. This will in turn increase their water demands. Ground and surface water pollution will continue to increase especially in regions where government regulation for pollution does not keep pace industrial and economic growth.

Measures must be implemented world wide that:  

1. Conserve existing fresh water supplies while aligning population size to a regions water availability.  This may mean establishing population growth limits in some areas regardless of religious or cultural belief systems. Another possibility is redistributing some percentage of a population to more suitable regions, but this may create ethnic rivalries.
2. Create energy efficient and cost effective desalinization plants and pipeline infrastructure for large scale water distribution. This will be expensive and desalinization plants create their own set of problems beyond costs, but outside of transporting icebergs across large distances it is the only realistic solution available.
3. Generate legislation in both developed and undeveloped countries that addresses and limits industrial dumping processes. Another unpopular and expensive measure that will not likely be affordable to under developed countries and require the financial assistance of developed countries.

Failure to meet these requirements will result in decreased water availability, rationing, severe water shortages with decreased food production, and enough political tension to eventually result in regional wars over water. Water is one of the basic requirements of a civilization and more than one civilization has seen its demise due to sustained drought or a long term change in the ecosystem. Problems with limiting access are already upon us and will continue to grow. Sticking our collective heads in the sand and pretending the problem doesn’t exist or that there is still plenty of time to deal with it will put society’s in a reactive, self-preservation mode which generally triggers a reaction towards war to solve the immediate crisis. My conclusion is start funding and allocating resources now for long term, sustainable solutions or pay more money later for: escalating prices for water and the inevitable costs associated with war.

http://www.waterinfo.org/resources/water-facts

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/

Financialization has become the goal of the large banking institutions. Risky intangible financial instruments in a deregulated environment have been the greatest source for generating investor wealth and have provided billions in fees and commissions to the financial sector. Wall Street elites are once more attempting to increase the levels of financialization despite what it has done to the real economy over the past few years or could do again.

All the while, U.S. citizens have continued to put their money in savings and checking accounts of the very banks and financial institutions that created the credit crisis and its associated problems. Personal income that once was used for capital by banks for lending to businesses or consumers instead flowed into exotic derivative instruments that were understood by only a few and benefited only a few. Those benefits include billion dollar incomes for top hedge fund managers, lucrative banking executive bonuses even after the US taxpayer bailed out their messes, and tens of billions of dollars to select financial institutions that were “too big to fail”. Much of the bailout money enabled those same institutions to buy distressed and bankrupt financial institutions (not worthy of TARP money) for pennies on the dollar.

Profits during the run-up of financialization not only went towards investors or bonuses but to an ever increasing army of lobbyists whose sole goal was to buy the proper Congressional support for deregulation. This process is occurring again with campaign contributions and lobbyist giveaways to both the republican and democrat parties to ensure that any significant regulation doesn’t become implemented.

Financialization in a recession lengthens the recession as investment dollars are kept away from domestic companies. Without necessary injections of capital from the banking industry for expansion or for general operations companies will falter due to a lack of cash flow. Banks then look at the poor credit rating of these companies and the bad economic environment and the companies are deemed too risky to lend to. Then the distressed company is forced to sell off assets, lay off employees, or even dissolve.

There are long term consequences of financialization in developed countries as well. Investment dollars are diverted away from the next generation of science and technology endeavors essential to the development of future industries, companies, and projects critical for real future economic growth and job creation in our information age. Mainstream manufacturing jobs will continue to be exported to developing countries due to globalization and trade treaties making it difficult for established developed countries to compete in their labor intensive markets. This requires developed countries to invest in innovation and develop technology oriented companies to fill in for the losses in manufacturing if developed countries hope to remain economically sustainable and globally competitive. This will be increasingly difficult as long term tangible economic growth is sacrificed for the short term profits and commissions provided by more investing in financial instruments.

To counter financialization and grow a sustainable economy we must:

1. Reform the political process so that thousands of appointed lobbyists and campaign contributions can’t buy deregulation.
2. Recreate regulation that limits access of financial institutions to “vanilla” easily monitored financial instruments for investing.
3. Reform the tax structure so that profits are taxed according to standard tax code practices and not just to the 15% capital gains tax.

Financial resources must be concentrated back into the real economy. Financial institutions will need to have access to another round of exotic derivative investing if they expect to make the profits of the past, they cannot allow this to be curtailed through regulation. They will not willingly return to simple lending and basic banking. The short term profit motivation has led to such levels of greed that the entire economy has taken a back seat to profits. The process of financialization is already attempting to be reinstated in the U.S. and other developed countries that haven’t yet recovered from the current recession. The question remains to the middle classes, are you willing to linger in this recession to ensure that wealth generation and hording continues to grow amongst the financial elite?

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_525.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

http://wallstreetwatch.org/soldoutreport.htm

Financialization refers to economic conditions where financial markets become the preferred system for investments rather than investing in the real economy. The goal is to create an economic system where any tangible or intangible form of work, product creation, or rendered service can be valuated as an exchangeable financial instrument. These financial instruments can be cash instruments (cash, transferable securities, or an agreed upon transfer of loans / deposits) or preferably a derivative instrument (financial instruments that are valuated based off the perceived value and characteristics of an original asset). Financialization is what has led to the financial crisis recently experienced by most of the industrialized world.

Financialization has gained a significant hold over the American and world economies. In 2008 the Gross Domestic product or GDP of the United States was 14.2 trillion dollars. This was the value of the total economic output derived from all finalized goods produced and services provided in the United States. World GDP was 60.6 trillion dollars. In 2008 the sum total of all traceable international derivative exchanges was 1200 trillion dollars. Note: Derivative exchanges did not require the total 1200 trillion dollars to be exchanged only an agreed upon percentage.

The process has had three outcomes:

1. Wall Street financial elites, with their influence over financial institutions and markets, have used profits to provide 3.4 billion dollars on 2900+ lobbyists (figures do not include lobbying at the State levels) and 1.7 billion dollars on direct campaign contributions over the past 10 years to remove regulation and elevate the importance of the financial sector above that of the real economy.
2. Money has been transferred out of the real economy and into the financial sector where banks, security firms, hedge funds, private equity groups, etc. make money by essentially shifting money around and speculating on future derived values of the aforementioned financial instruments. Generally nothing real or tangible is created.
3. An increase in income inequality and a stagnation of wages as wealth becomes concentrated in elite circles. The more complex and exotic the derivatives traded, the more monitoring agencies (Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s, etc.) have difficulty understanding how these risky instruments should be valuated. This lack of monitoring capability is actually preferred since it allows financial institutions to sell or broker without guideline restrictions. The greater the risk the higher the potential yield or return for the investor and the larger commission and fees charged by the financial institution. As more dollars and income flow into these lucrative unregulated markets less is available for the real economy which contributes to GDP and in turn job creation.

The final outcome of these measures is an economy that experiences a drawn out recession, over-indebtedness, and a reluctance to invest or lend in the less profitable real economy. As long as regulation can be avoided through political influence and derivatives instruments still remain available for trade these outcomes will continue.

This also leads to the matter of moral hazard where financial institutions that are “to big to fail” feel insulated from risk because of the possibility of additional government bailouts. This has resulted in banking executives who have not learned the lessons of their high risk decisions in a regulation free environment and are scrambling for the next run of exotic derivative investing. In addition, the remaining large financial institutions are already profitable again, most having paid back their TARP loans and the U.S. government has in many cases seen a return on its investment in the TARP program. This quick turnaround has led to cries for no regulation and the allowance of free markets for continued derivative instruments trading despite what it did to create a credit crisis and lead the U.S. and world economies into severe recession. Large banks and financial institutions have already unleashed their lobbyists and are providing the next round of campaign contributions to political parties to ensure favorable legislation.

This process is cannibalizing our real economy. The American economy is producing significantly less than 20 years ago. There is little if any long term benefit to the U.S. or world economies where societies are sacrificed for the profits associated with shuffling around financial assets and instruments. What we need to do to pull the US and world economies out of a potential long term recession is tangible investments in manufacturing, infrastructure development, innovation, and the development of new technology crucial to industrialized nations in the information age.

Ask yourselves, who is benefiting from the manipulation of financial markets with derivative investments? Are you?

Solar thermal may represent a viable way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, but what will the cost be to implement the required infrastructure for the power facilities and grid connections, some of which may be required in isolated areas?

The U.S. produced 4,119,388,000 megawatts and consumed approximately 3,978,000,000 megawatts of electricity in 2008.  Production of electricity breaks down as follows:

• 1445 Coal generation plants represented 48.2% of electricity production providing 1,985,801,000 megawatts.
• 3768 Natural gas processing plants represented 21.4% of electricity production providing 882,891,000 megawatts.
• 104 Nuclear power plants represented 19.6% of production of electricity production providing 806,208,000 Megawatts.
• 3966 hydro electric plants represented 6% of production of electricity production providing 254,351,000 megawatts.
• 2576 Renewable energy plants represented 3% of electricity production providing 126,212,000 megawatts.  (Renewable sources included biomass, wind, wood derived, geothermal, and solar thermal / photovoltaic)
• 3768 petroleum power plants represented 1% of electricity and 46,243,000 megawatts.
• Other gases and their power facilities represented .25% of electricity production providing 11,707,000 megawatts.

Solar thermal even when combined with photovoltaics produces less than 1/20^th of one percent of U.S. electricity production.

Solar thermal energy (STE) systems utilize high temperature collectors that reflect concentrated sunlight collected from mirrors or lenses. The resulting solar radiation (heat) is focused to specific collection points. A liquid medium is passed through collection points where it is heated. This heated fluid can be used to produce steam necessary to drive a turbine used to produce electricity.

Most of the electricity today is still provided by steam turbines. STE systems are no exception. Traditional steam turbines have efficiencies approaching 40% with temperature conversions below 600 degrees. Above 600 degrees gas turbines can be utilized with even better efficiencies, but the highest temperature conversions are possible with liquid fluoride salts, molten salts, or synthetic oils and are approaching 800 degrees providing up to 50% efficiencies.

There are a number of STE design systems. Parabolic trough designs are currently the most common type  utilizing curved mirrors to reflect solar radiation into a pipe which contains the fluid and runs the length of the trough usually just above the collectors. Other designs include Power Tower designs or heliostat designs have arrays of flattened movable mirrors that focus solar radiation on a collection tower.  Dish systems implements a large parabolic dish that focuses sunlight on a collector positioned just above the dish. Linear Fresnel reflector designs use a series of slightly curved mirrors to focus light onto linear receivers located just above the mirrors.

STE plants need to be able to produce electricity in overcast conditions and in periods of darkness. This is possible via thermal storage mediums which store heat in an underground basin for later use. These mediums include molten salt storage commonly called saltpeter, graphite heat storage which use purified graphite, and organic or inorganic phase change materials.

There are a variety of proposed plants set for construction in the next few years. The world’s largest single planned solar thermal plant, a 340 MW facility, will be started in Arizona by the end of 2010. It will utilize parabolic trough design reflecting concentrated sunlight to a narrow tube containing synthetic oil that will be heated to 800 degrees before being pumped back to a central power block where steam will be produced to drive a turbine.

Molten salt will be the storage medium that will be heated and stored for night time use; allowing the facility to continue generating power when the sun is not shining. This will also help reduce water requirements in the arid desert environment.

A 340MW power plant regardless of type (coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, or solar) could in optimum conditions produce 340 x 24 x 365= 2,978,000 MW per year of electricity. This is contingent on the power plant running 24 hours per day, all year, without down time. For the proposed Arizona plant it means the heat retained in the molten salt must provide the same levels of steam for electricity generation in periods without direct sunlight as the heated synthetic oil during daylight hours.

The cost of comparable coal fired power plant can easily exceed one billion dollars while similar natural gas plants are pushing 700 Million. Costs for both types of power plants have been increasing significantly over the past decade.

If the United States were to be solely converted to solar thermal it would require 1383 of the 340MW plants schedule for construction in Arizona. Those STE systems would cost approximately $2.76 trillion dollars at current levels and require years to build.  Building the power plants would not be the only expenditure involved, electrical grid infrastructure will be necessary to connect the facilities to end users since most of the facilities may be in the  isolated areas of the southwest. Above ground power lines run approximately $10 per foot and up to 10 to 15 times that amount is buried.

This cost might seem ridiculous initially and from a short term position it probably is.  However, projected over 25 years the costs to build coal fired or natural gas plants are projected to continue to rise substantially while solar thermal facilities have yet to enjoy lower construction costs associated with the mass production of components. In addition operation costs for coal and natural gas are projected to increase further reducing the initial infrastructure costs.  STE designs will require ongoing maintenance and repairs as with all forms of power plants maintenance but will not require ongoing exploration costs, mining / drilling expenditures, and require distribution networks / pipelines to move the raw material to processing facilities.  These additional costs over time will overshadow initial infrastructure savings.

STE is also a completely clean source of energy releasing no pollutants and has a net zero carbon footprint. Coal and natural gas release considerable amounts of CO2 and a number of pollutants. Energy demand in the U.S. and especially worldwide will continue to grow and the more traditional fossil fuel plants built will contribute ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and pollutants.

The U.S. has other renewable non polluting options available so a 100% conversion will not be necessary. Combinations of renewable systems such as STE’s combined with bio-algae photobioreactors can be used in the same isolated areas and in close proximity, reducing land costs and the expense of running electrical power lines to separate facilities. Smaller STE plants can be positioned close to urban areas allocating power to sections of a city or suburbs.

STE may be initially expensive but remains one of the few truly clean power supply’s available.  Its current infrastructure development costs are on par with nuclear power plants but without the nuclear radiation storage issues or having to purchase uranium from volatile countries. These prices, as previously mentioned, will drop as more cost efficient technology and mass production takes hold. Once the facilities are built they will provide clean power for decades with only maintenance costs. If we cease building fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in favor of STE’s, geothermal, wind, and tidal facilities and start to slowly phase out older fossil fuel plants the U.S. can begin a slow but deliberate move towards sustainable energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/why-dont-we-bury-more-power-lines

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarthermal/solarthermal.html

http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/05/13/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-340mw-planned-for-arizona/

The global warming debate rages on, and despite spending way too much of my time reading articles about it I am not convinced about either side’s conclusions. My main questions still remain: to what level is global warming or climate change occurring? are human’s contributing to it with green house gas (GHG) emissions and if so to what level? If we are contributing to it can we fix the problem preferably without devastating our economy? How dangerous will temperature increases be to our cities and population, and how soon will they occur? It appears that my much of my confusion exists because of two opposing groups themselves. 

The group supporting global warming is called the consensus but seem to be made up largely of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a large group of scientists (2500 from the IPCC alone), many of whom have been engaged in climate research for many years. They propose that man-made GHG emissions driven mostly by carbon dioxide (CO2) are heating the surface of the planet. The second group is referred to as dissenters or skeptics of global warming. They do not believer man-made GHG contributions are having any significant impact on temperature change and in some cases doubt whether it is occurring at all. 

The consensus believes that from data collected from climate research, ice core analysis, and computer modeling that certain conclusions can be determined: 

• Human activity has changed the composition of the lower atmosphere (troposphere). The composition has been changed through the emissions of GHG’s
• Changing the composition of the troposphere is warming the planet. Increasing GHG’s increases the amount of reflected IR heat that is absorbed in the troposphere; this in turn heats the troposphere which causes more evaporation and leads to increased amounts of water vapor. It is water vapor that has the greatest impact on temperature increase.
• Human activity driven by GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide and ozone) has been making significant changes to atmospheric conditions that have been increasing over the past 100 years. These changes are now becoming evident by increasing surface temperatures, increasing water temperatures, and glacial melting
• If man-made GHG emissions from fossil fuel consumption (oil, coal, and natural gas) continue it will becoming increasingly difficult to stop or slow the heating process. Human activity has changed the climate in a few hundred years what it takes natural events 10 million years.
• Changes may occur more rapidly or become more severe. We will see the effects within our lifetimes. Disappearing glaciers and melting ice sheets at the north pole both resulting large fresh water losses, sea water levels rise flooding coastal regions, climate tier shifting i.e. the northern states will have temperature similar to the mid level states and so on.
• To slow global warming down will require decades of dramatic action. We will need to use less fossil fuel while increasing renewable energy sources. It doesn’t mean economies have to loose jobs and services but to realign them into new renewable industry.

Source: Listen to the Scientists: Global Warming & the I.P.C.C.              

The consensus has determined that man-made emissions are affecting our climate. They want to continue research to better understand the problem and the behaviors (burning of fossil fuel for power, transportation, and industry use) that perpetrate the problem. They want to stop what they call the false debate. They claim the science has already been agreed upon and dissenting opinions addressed numerous times. They want to begin to look for methods to deal with the basic problem of fossil fuel consumption and get renewable fuels established. Their goal is to have policy make the economy especially the energy and transportation sectors more efficient. Finally, most have come to some form of conclusion that temperature increases probably cant be stopped at this point, we will not be going back to where we were, but it can slowed down enough to provide governments a better chance to adapt and possibly avoid the worst case scenarios such as tipping point where positive feed back effects might lead to rapid warming. 

The dissenters or skeptics believe the data collected from climate research is inconclusive, ice core samples illustrate the irrelevancy of CO2’s contribution towards temperature increases, and that data and variables plugged into the sophisticated climate models are inaccurate or of little significance to predicting temperature change. They present a litany of errors found in the global warming theory and site numerous factors they believe are considerably more important causes of surface heating. Some examples Include: 

• Water vapor is the most significant GHG and the primary driver of surface heating. CO2 concentrations and its atmospheric heating capabilities are insignificant by many magnitudes compared to water vapor.
• The GHG effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has occurred multitudes of times in our past and will occur again in the future. It is driven by the sun which goes through its own heating and cooling cycles and it is the heat from the sun that warms the ocean which in turn creates precipitation and water vapor. IR radiation or heat reflected from the surface of the Earth becomes trapped by the water vapor and this increases the troposphere’s temperature.
• Ice core readings from Vostok and EPICA Antarctica demonstrate CO2 level increases that lag temperature increases by hundreds of years and therefore could not be the contributing factor for heating.
• The oceans release and absorb between 100 – 115 giga tons of CO2 each year. That’s a variance of approximately 15 giga tons. Ocean temperatures have increased 1 degree since 1960. As the ocean warms it absorbs less CO2 which causes a potentially greater variance. Trees exhale CO2 at night when not conducting photosynthesis at a rate of 40 to 50 giga tons each year. The variance there is approximately10 giga tons of CO2. Man-made GHG emissions constitute 3 giga tons per year. Skeptics claim that man-made CO2 contributions are insignificant compared to the natural carbon cycles of the ocean or all the trees on the planet. Plus GHG’s don’t warm the oceans, the sun does.
• Trees have a greater effect than CO2 in raising temperature. The northern hemisphere has experienced increased forest growth due to fire prevention. Also boreal trees do not act as the carbon sinks the same way tropical rainforests do and actually contribute more precipitation and hence water vapor into the atmosphere. When considering surface temperature increases, the increases are from the northern half of the hemisphere. The southern half is actually cooling probably due to the ongoing thinning of the Amazon and central African rainforests.
• Some site that heat and even CO2 may actually be good. It will create a warmer climate extending the growing seasons and food production. It will also reduce severe weather pointing out the middle ages between 1000 and 1500 as a period with relatively milder storm activity

There is also growing agreement among skeptics that as future fossil fuel production begins to decrease and oil, coal, and natural gas prices increase, the market will support the introduction of new alternative energy sources. This does not need to be prematurely forced onto the country at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lost jobs. 

There has definitely been mudslinging from both parties. Consensus believers argue that global warming or climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy including the science academies from every major industrial country. The final holdout – the American Assoc of Petroleum Geologists even revised their statement in 2007. The consensus scientists believe that  there is an attempt to replace the  scientific analysis conducted over that past two decades with politically motivated ideologies developed under the Bush administration and carried out today by overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, media commentators, and think tanks. The goal is an organized attempt to confuse public opinion with seemingly unrelated controversies or provide the public with an endless stream of seemingly important but irrelevant facts and questions. The real motivations are to preserve the status quo and big oil and coal profits while avoiding the economic hardships required to address the issues. They believe the actions of oil companies in their attempts to pay scientists to make dissenting comments or create / fund organizations whose main function is promoting global warming skepticism is both immoral and employs the same subversive tactics used by the tobacco companies to hide nicotine addiction. ExxonMobile alone they claim created a massively successful disinformation campaign between 1998 and 2005 where $16 million dollars was channeled to a sophisticated network of ideological organizations whose sole function was to generate uncertainty. 

The Skeptics site leftist political motivations and agendas as the driving force behind the consensus, and that the concensus scientists are altering science to create the appearance of something that either doesn’t exist or is not within the power of mankind to change. The IPCC they claim does not contain 2500 senior scientists and that global warming was created to ensure a continual stream of funding and research grants. They question why the same individuals doing the research are then allowed to lead the assessment committees assigned to evaluate the research. The IPCC they warn have used intimidation and censorship to limit any dissenting scientist’s ability to speak against any part of the global warming theory. They charge that any eminent scientist who wants to get grants and needs grad students to help with research will have to say yes to CO2 as the cause for global warming if they want to see the funding. They site numerous scientists who have complained about being placed under considerable pressure to distort or with hold research data that does not support human activity as the cause for global warming. They also claim that other more accurate hypothesis are not given the same level attention and that the so called consensus is not correct at all. Septics also claim that the IPCC stands to make a fortune if carbon becomes taxed or from a cap and trade system, and this is what is really motivates their actions. Finally, they warn that if global warming is occurring we should be looking for ways to predict and adapt to changes from the natural warming cycle as they occur and not engage in measures that drain 3 – 5% of our nation’s GDP away for something that cannot be controlled. 

There are at least a few things that the majority from both sides agrees on: 

• The Earth is showing signs of some type of climate change
• Since 1880 average temperatures have increased1.4 degrees Fahrenheit
• The rate of warming appears to be increasing
• The northern hemisphere artic is feeling a greater effect than the world at large
• Glaciers and mountain ice are melting
• Artic ice is showing signs of thinning and in some cases disappearing

Getting back to my original question, I would like to see information that is not tainted by political ideology and funding from either the left or the right. Tainted meaning information coming from scientists that have received financial compensation or are reliant on research funding from either the fossil fuel industry and their supporters or from the IPCC and those who stand to profit from cap and trade. I also don’t want to see or hear any more information from scientists / engineers who are not directly involved in climate research. This means scientists in other fields, think tank personnel, and media spokesman’s. If there is anything I have learned from the articles I have read,  it is that data can be manipulated to fit any agenda, and if the public is repetitively presented with even the most outlandish representation of the facts often enough from different sources many will come to believe it. There is certainly enough of this going on. 

Could some of the scientist’s actually conducting the climate research from both sides of the spectrum come together in a forum and discuss what is actually going on?  We need valid members from all sides, including the consensus, dissenting or skeptic scientists, and any neutral climate researchers to check their biases at the door and gather in the spirit of working together. This group could then go on to address the concerns of those who don’t agree that human activity is the cause of climate change. They could identify relevant data for analysis and determine what level if any the contribution of man-made GHG’s (mainly CO2) is having on the atmosphere.  Then if necessary decide what measures would be required to reduce the warming affect on the planet. The conclusions could then be presented through multiple channels to the public. If action is required the conclusions could be turned over to economic and professional councils to determine best potential solutions, courses of action to take, and economic costs associated with those actions. These recommendations could then be provided to the world governments and if necessary discussed at global summits or forums. What I am definitively not talking about, is any council or entity given authority to override a country’s sovereignty or introduce coercive tactics like economic sanctions to influence a country to its will. 

We are going no where with the constant back and forth bickering. It only sustains doubt and confusion and ensures that nothing meaningful will get done, which is probably the goal of some. I am not a scientist or researcher, so please provide corrections, comments, and constructive suggestions.   I only ask that you refrain from pointing out that these things have already been discussed since they have yet to be resolved despite the discussion. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.htmvl 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ 

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/global-warming7.htm 

The two primary methods currently available for growing and harvesting algae are open pond systems and closed system photobioreactors (PBR). PBR’s create an enclosed growing environment for algae cultivation where light, air, and nutrients are supplied at regulated levels to ensure optimized growth. The following bullet points illustrate the problems versus benefits between the two systems.

Problems with open algae systems (pond)

• Light only effectively penetrates 2’ – 3” in ponds resulting in large amount of algae not receiving enough light which lowers yields
• Temperature fluctuations can effect algae growths and yields
• Open to contaminates or more hearty local varieties of algae which could take over the pond requiring draining and/or treatment
• Excessive evaporation

Benefits of open algae systems (pond)

• Less expensive to create and maintain

Problems with closed loop algae systems (PBR)

• Capital intensive – more expensive to set up
• Facilities require greater amounts of maintenance

Benefits of closed loop algae systems (PBR)

• Controlled environment – species integrity can be maintained
• Productivity increases – able to monitor complete system more efficiently
• Less evaporation
• Interior lighting can be adjusted for proper exposure levels

The production cycle for growing algae and harvesting oil and biomass in a closed PBR system is as follows:

Algae strains are usually started in small containers in a laboratory and then the culture is either transported directly into a PBR or to shallow specialized raceway ponds that have paddle wheels to maintain water flow. If the raceway pond method is utilized the algae are then allowed to multiply in these artificial ponds and once a satisfactory density is reached it can then be transferred to the bioreactor. The algae/water mixture is then poured into the bioreactor system’s tank where it mixes with water, CO2, and nutrients already present in the system. CO2 and nutrients can also be introduced later in the system. The algae are then pumped into racks of translucent plastic containers. These containers may consist of long polyethylene bags, polyethylene sleeves, plastic tubes, or glass tubes. It is here the algae are exposed to light for photosynthesis. Pumps may continue to force the algae through the system or gravity may be used to allow the algae to flow down through the containers. Types of bioreactors include air lift, tubular, and flat plate.

There are two methods of operation, batch and continuous flow. In batch operations once the algae is ready for harvest, in some cases as quick as 48 hours, the entire PBR system is drained and algae is removed from the system and the PBR is restocked. In a continuous flow system only the excess mature algae are removed as the system becomes overloaded. Continuous flow systems can potentially run for very long periods. They may require new cultures to be introduced occasionally to re-kick start the system. Great care in monitoring must be taken to avoid a collapse of the entire algae colony within the system.  If a collapse occurs it will require draining the system and starting over with a new culture. The advantage of the continuous flow is that air, CO2, nutrients, light levels, water mediums, and water temperature can be adjusted to create customized growing conditions. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) which excrete lipids (oils) as waste can also be harvested in this manner.

Algae can grow in a number of different water mediums including saltwater, brackish water, and waste water. It can also grow in a wide range of water temperatures. CO2 requirements can vary as well but when optimized can increase oil yields; the general rule of thumb is 2.2 lbs. of CO2 inserted into the system for every 1 lb. of algae for its lifecycle. The preferred method to increase CO2 solubility and oil yields is to use fresh water in moderate temperatures.  Exposure to high (hot) water temperatures creates a metabolic burden in the algae that can slow growth rates. Lighting conditions are also critical to growth rates. Algae can grow successfully in different lighting levels. Bright light however, tends to degrade algal pigmentation and which can also lead to slower growth rates. 5% – 20% of full sunlight exposure subdues and preserves pigmentation creating a metabolic benefit that can lead to faster growth. This can easily be accomplished in a PBR system by adjusting internal lighting levels or by using plastic that are not 100% transparent or tinting in outdoor sections. Algae must be also be allowed a recovery period in darkness between 2 – 6 hours depending on species to allow for regeneration. Nutrient content and quantity can also be experimented with and adjusted depending on desired oil yield versus nutritional content in biomass residue.

When the growth cycle is completed and the algae colony has reached maturity it is ready for harvest (2 – 5 days dependant on species). The algae and water medium can be either completely drained from the system (batch mode) or harvested constantly in a continuous operation cycle. Operating in continuous cycle requires greater system monitoring and more precise administration of water, CO2, and nutrient levels but provides potentially greater yields. The algae can be harvested from the system by a number of different procedures or combination of procedures. The process usually involves some type of micro screening that allows water to pass through but retains the algae. This can be combined with centrifugation which involves high speed spinning and use of centrifugal force. Other methods include flocculation which uses chemicals or catalysts to promote formation of clusters which can then be easily gathered, or by froth flotation which involves grinding and crushing the algae repeated into froth and then skimming the surface for removal.

Once the algae has been dewatered and separated from the system it is allowed a period to dry. The lipids or oil must then be extracted from the dried algae. Again, there are a number of different methods available and can be used in combinations to increase efficiency.  One of the simplest methods is using oil presses to crush the algae. There are a variety of methods used for crushing and pressing including screws, expellers, pistons, and other traditional presses that have been used successfully for extracting vegetable oils. A second method involves using chemical solvents such as hexane, benzene, and ether. These chemicals when introduced to the algae cause the cell walls to rupture releasing the oils. Another method involves using enzymes in a water medium to deteriorate the cell walls eventually requiring the oil to be removed from the water medium as it floats to the surface. With this process the alga doesn’t have to be removed from the PBR system via dewatering but can simply be transferred into another section for enzymatic extraction. Ultrasonic waves can be used in conjunction with enzymatic extraction to expedite the processes.

What are left are raw oil and a biomass residue. The oil can be refined to produce bio diesel, jet fuel, and pharmaceutical components. The biomass residue can be broken down into protein, carbohydrates, and raw biomass.  The protein can be used for animal feed stocks, aquaculture feed stocks, and as a high quality protein source for human food and supplements.  The carbohydrates can be fermented into bio ethanol. The remainder of the biomass can be utilized as fertilizers and as a solid fuel source.

PBR’s can be placed anywhere even underground if artificial lighting is used. The ideal location would be to place the PBR in direct proximity to an existing coal power plant or similar CO2 producing facility and pipe the CO2 directly into the PBR or storage connected to the PBR. This would provide mutual benefits and create a synergistic system where algae oil can be used to help power the plant providing the CO2. Some of the CO2 will be returned to the atmosphere when the oil is burned as a bio fuel but even that is in essence net carbon neutral since the CO2 was either absorbed by the algae in the form of CO2 already present in the atmosphere or absorbed from CO2 about to be released from a smoke stack into the atmosphere. Water can be used in the PBR that is otherwise unsuitable for normal farming with the consequence of lower yield expectations. Although, brackish, brine or wastewater is an excellent source for other essential nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, silicates, and sodium.

Bio algae production has a way to go before mass production expectations can be fulfilled. PBR efficiencies still require fine tuning. Government funding or subsidies would be a necessity especially for start up and small bio fuels companies. More research is required to isolate the most cost effective extraction processes. Despite these limitations, bio algae production from PBR’s represents one of the United States’ greatest opportunities for transition away from strictly fossil fuels, while providing a high protein food source for humans and as a feed stock for animal, poultry, and fish live stocks. It can also assist in the reduction of greenhouse gases by sequestering CO2. As production levels increase, PBR’s will be able to use their own oil output to run themselves removing the argument that it still requires fossil fuels to support bio fuel production.  

There are future applications that may transcend even the current benefits. Possible applications include using bio diesel to fuel power plants and transitioning cars to electricity. Larger trucks can still remain powered on petrol diesel / bio diesel blends. CO2 emitted from using bio diesel to power the facilities could be reinserted back into the PBR creating a near closed loop CO2 sequestration system. Another application involves powering the steam reforming or electrolysis processes are to common methods used for hydrogen production. The CO2 emitted by both the steam reforming process and the bio diesel used to power that process could be fed back into the PBR system. This process has been traditionally powered by fossil fuels and criticized severely since the energy (usually fossil fuels) used to create the hydrogen is greater than the energy output of the hydrogen. Another even more potentially beneficial use would be to extract hydrogen direct from the algae during photosynthesis.

Please add to or make constructive corrections that will improve this blog.

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Grow-Algae-For-Biodiesel&id=829645

http://www.biodieselnow.com/general_biodiesel_21/f/7/t/18423.aspx

http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2008/05/petroalgae-looking-to-test-commercial.html

http://www.oilgae.com/algae/cult/pbr/pbr.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/18/forget-biodiesel-algae-could-produce-hydrogen/

http://www.biodieselnow.com/algae1/f/13/p/4934/159825.aspx#159825

One of our planet’s fastest growing organisms is algae. It is literally the bottom of the food chain and has been able to survive and even thrive by replicating itself faster than all other species are able to eat it. Algae can grow at rates 100 times faster than current production food crops or plants that can be used for bio fuel, producing yields as high as 5,00 to 15,000 gallons in one acre per year. The U.S. currently uses approximately 450 million acres for crop production, and 500 million acres for livestock. For less than 10 million acres, or 1% of the combined land mass for crops and livestock, we could produce enough bio diesel to replace gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. These figures are based off of open systems, ie. shallow ponds, closed loop bioreactor systems can produce even greater yields per acre due to vertically stacked designs which increase the surface area.

Depending on the species, algae can go from germination to harvest in as few as 2 days. During harvesting, the water is drained and the biomass is extracted from the system via filtration or a high speed centrifuge process. The biomass can then be separated into lipids to provide a high grade vegetable oil and a high protein / high carbohydrate byproduct residue. The oil can be tailored to produce bio diesel, jet fuel, and heating / cooking oil. Algae lipids can produce oil yields of about 30% – 50% at harvest. Approximately 1/3 of that amount can be lost in the extraction and separation phase. The byproduct residue can be used as an organic high-protein food source, and/or as a feedstock for animals, fish and fowl. The carbohydrates from the byproduct can be refined into gasoline or fermented into ethanol. Another option is to use cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) because this type of algae excretes lipids as waste material. This reduces processing costs since it removes the need for extracting algae from the system and the lipids are continuously harvested from the water.

Algae can also sequester CO2, leaving oxygen as the byproduct and can be placed next to facilities that produce CO2 intensive hot fue gases. This process occurs naturally in open pond systems but the real value is to position closed loop algae based bioreactors next to energy and chemical plants with high amounts of fue gas (CO2, NOX, and SOX) emissions. The growing conditions for algae require CO2, sunlight, and water (brine or salt water acceptable), therefore providing a synergistic value to both algae production and green house emitting gas reduction. Algae are also capable of absorbing SOX and NOX the two primary contributors to acid rain. For every two tons of algae growth, one ton of CO2 is removed from the fue gas emissions. Industry emits CO2 twenty-four hours per day from their plume stacks. Algae requires approximately four hours of darkness per day for regeneration, requiring the use of dual closed loop bio-reactor systems with staggered hours and internal lighting to handle the load.

Possibly the most beneficial thing about bio-algae is that it does not compete with U.S. food crops for land or with population centers for potable water. Algae is a robust organism and highly adaptable to any environment. With a closed loop system, the space requirements are even further reduced and yield expectations higher. In addition, no green house gases or pollution are emitted by algae, and it does not require herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers for growth. Its byproduct can actually be a source of nitrogen based fertilizer. Finally, algae can be utilized to clean waste, brine, and salt water.

With all of the information that supports the uses and benefits of bio-algae, it causes one to wonder why this organism is not being hailed as the answer to a multitude of problems the U.S. and global economies are facing? Consider the following: bio-algae has few lobbyists or political action committees (PACs), it receives no government subsidies (it is not part of the farm bill), there are no subsidies for the refining process. Due to the lack of government subsidization, the private sector banks are unwilling to lend for infrastructure development since there is no government moderation of risk. In addition, there are growing concerns that as bio-algae development is stalled, patents (intellectual property rights) can be locked up by the larger corporations interested in preserving their status quo.

Bio-algae requires government sponsored subsidies for ongoing research, more efficient extraction, separation and refinement processing and to develop efficient, mass production capabilities. With this funding, bio-algae stands to assist us to meet the transportation needs of the civilian and military concerns regarding heavy trucks, ships and aircraft that use diesel. It can supplement existing petro-based diesel and help stabilize rising petroleum costs (possibly another reason that it is not being considered for subsidization). It also can provide economical feedstocks, reducing the need for corn and wheat based products and provide a high protein supplement for the world’s hungry. It represents one of the fastest ways to reduce increasing CO2 levels.

With all of these benefits to the U.S. it is up to the U.S. populace to demand that the government supports bio-algae as one of the main components in a sustainable, renewable energy program. This can be accomplished by either direct funding for government laboratories or university research, and through funding of start-up or existing bio fuel companies.

http://www.desertbiofuels.org-a.googlepages.com/GAS_sum_and_FAQ.pdf

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/06/book-review-green-algae-strategy.html

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/21/carbon-dioxide-sequestration-via-algae-biofuels-an-overview/

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/algaepower27feb07.shtml

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/August/Pages/MilitarySeesPromiseinAlgae-BasedBio-Fuel.aspx

Bio fuels have met resistance from a number of different sources. The oil industry and automobile manufacturers have lobbyists focused on ensuring that the energy transportation sector remains firmly entrenched in petroleum. A strong lobbying arm combined with significant campaign contributions to key congressman and senators has resulted in an emerging U.S. bio fuels industry steered into first generation ethanol production based on inefficient corn utilization.

There is no incentive for the U.S. oil industry to embrace bio fuels. The majority of the largest oil companies in the world are state owned and U.S. oil companies are finding themselves restricted from an increasing number of oil fields as foreign governments use their own oil companies to drill and produce domestically.  Even with the increased growth of state owned oil companies it is unlikely that oil production will be able to keep pace with world demand driven by China and India. Oil producers must maintain a delicate balance between meeting growing demand with enough product that high oil prices and acceptable profitability levels are guaranteed while not allowing prices to increase to the point where there is public outcry for a substitute.

In addition, oil producers have significant investments in current technology and extraction processes and would prefer to avoid expensive infrastructure and development costs associated with extensive deep water off shore drilling or oil extraction from shale and oil sands deposits. Currently, the U.S. produces 43% of demand domestically, three quarters of that comes from Texas, Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, the remainder is from off shore drilling. Deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico like Tahiti and Jack #2 compare to Saudi Aramco fields but are 25,000 feet down and require intensive infrastructure costs for rigs that will be exposed to gulf hurricanes. Currently several companies are exploring deep water extraction with success but rig production costs are at $500,000 a day. The U.S. also  has the largest deposits of oil shale in the world located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming but extraction is expensive and complex requiring mining (strip mining is cheaper) and super heating the shale to a resultant liquid for refining or pumping super heated  liquid (water intensive procedure) into the shale reserves then extracting it conventionally. Oil companies realize these two potentials would add significantly to U.S. production levels they prefer instead to continue drilling from less expensive surface deposits.

 Allowing substitutes, even blends as low as 5% threaten the balance and opens the door to increasing requirements from governments and the public for higher concentrations of bio fuels in the blends, which could potentially reduce the demand and price. Reductions in oil prices would also make deep water drilling and shale production cost prohibitive.

Automobile manufacturers and their vast network of suppliers have considerable investments in their production lines. Redesigning new fuel systems and requiring suppliers to provide suitable components represents major costs and time obligations. The automobile industry has also believed that the U.S. consumer prefers large powerful gas consuming vehicles over fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. There also appears consensus that ethanol and bio diesel are inefficient and unsuitable to meet consumer or trucking power demands. Those assumptions have since changed and resulted in a serious decrease of sales associated with the increased cost of petroleum.

The oil industry and automobile manufacturing lobbyists have successfully provided talking points to politicians, sympathetic new outlets, and radio personalities. The purpose was to attempt to convince the congress and the public of the inefficiencies of ethanol production pointing out (correctly) the net energy loss of corn based ethanol production (it requires more energy to produce the ethanol than is returned in energy output). How increasing corn based ethanol threatens the food supply by lowering corn based food crop availability to third world countries and increasing costs in the U.S. Both true when considering that corn is one of our largest commoditized crops responsible not only for numerous food products but also a multitude of additives demonstrating that corn based products are vital to the U.S. food supply.

At the same time, members of congress were also encouraged to maintain the status quo thus ensuring U.S. economic stability. The arguments were mainly based on: the drastic and expensive changes to infrastructure that will be required; that U.S. industry will experience unnecessary costs spread throughout numerous sectors, hitting especially hard energy, automobile, and automobile parts manufactures forcing their companies to redesign perfectly functioning systems for inefficient bio fuels that would not reduce greenhouse gases (net energy loss argument); while creating political problems associated with higher food costs (reduction in corn production for food), and result in considerable legislative requirements that would be fought strongly both in courts and in media circles.

Politicians were allowed to make some token gestures towards bio fuels like replacing MTBE with ethanol in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as long as the primary bio fuel was corn based ethanol. However as far as providing committed incentives for research and production infrastructure towards the true future of bio fuels that being cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel from halophytes, jatropha, and algae the efforts were gestures at best. In addition, consumers and automobile / large truck parts manufacturers were provided no incentives for converting fuel lines. Finally, there was no support for developing the distribution infrastructure necessary to transport the bio fuels.

U.S. consumers themselves have not voiced a strong enough public outcry to warrant the attention of congress. As long as the oil industry doesn’t allow prices to rise too rapidly (and oil futures traders are held in check) the U.S. consumer seems willing to pay more of their consumable income for gasoline and the higher prices of products due to increased shipping costs.

Another reason for the resistance to bio fuels includes the geopolitical ramifications associated with the reduction of foreign imports. Countries with a long standing history of importing to the U.S. have certain political influences built into those relationships they would just assume keep. A shift towards bio fuels would alter those political relationships and weaken bargaining positions of those countries in other politically necessary arenas. Having the world’s last remaining superpower a reliable trading partner ensures more than financial rewards, therefore foreign political pressure to maintain the status quo has also occurred.

Second generation high yield cost effective cellulosic ethanol is now a reality and able to provide synergies with waste management, logging wood wastes, unusable grasses / weeds, and feedstocks. It will not compete against food crops such as corn but actually utilize the crop residues for raw materials. Numerous companies are past prototype generation ready for mass production with proven technology and processes. Third generation bio algae can exceed yields in multitudes over any other biofuel and has the potential to revolutionize the diesel fuel market. Competing technologies are demonstrating real viability and cost effectiveness. The U.S. military has shown growing interest bio algae, significant since it is the largest consumer of diesel in the world. Fourth generation genetically altered microbes are in the research stage but stand to enhance existing biofuels while being able to sequester CO2. These new generation bio fuels are the real threats to the status quo since they will be able to supplement the growing world wide demand for gasoline and diesel and stabilize petroleum prices. They will be met with strong resistance from the aforementioned sources. It is up to the U.S. populace to demand government subsidization and favorable regulation to ensure this emerging industry is able reach mass production and economies to reduce quickly.

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-09/mf_jackrig

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

http://cnx.org/content/m19515/latest/

In 2008, the United States used 128 million gallons of petroleum each day to produce diesel fuel for commercial trucks, trains and boats. 26 million gallons of bio fuels were also produced each day of which only 825,000 gallons per day was used for bio diesel production. The U.S. actually exported more bio diesel than it consumed. Bio diesel consumption was at 0.5% the rate of regular diesel. Its primary use was to supplement existing diesel thereby creating a blend product.

Bio diesel (a.k.a. mono-alkyl ester) is both a non-toxic and renewable fuel source. It can be produced from the transesterification of plant oils, animal fats, and microorganisms. Currently soybean and rapeseed oils are the primary feedstocks for commercial use, but serious consideration is being given to the jatropha plant, halophytes, and algae. Jatropha is a drought resistant bush (which means low water requirements) and can be grown in semi arid, rocky regions, and land generally unsuited for traditional farming. Halophytes are plants unaffected by salinity that can grow in swamps, marshes, and along seashores. Algae can be grown using seawater or wastewater utilizing a variety of different methods and has claimed to yield up to thirty times more than soybeans. These sources also don’t compete with food crops for land or entice third world farmers to switch to producing bio fuels instead of food crops due their higher market prices. Bio diesel production increases will create new farming and manufacturing jobs.

Biodiesel blends of B5, 5% bio diesel 95% mineral diesel (petroleum based) are suitable for any vehicle. In the U.S. most vehicle manufacturers approve B5 but become more restrictive for B10, B15 and B20 blends. In Europe B5 is accepted by all vehicle manufactures and blends up to B20 and even B30 are becoming more common place. Blends above B20 / B30 generally require engine modifications to avoid experiencing performance and maintenance troubles. Germany’s commercial vehicles and buses have such modifications and use B100 produced from rapeseed oil. Pure bio diesel (B100) provides the lowest emissions available for diesel.

Biodiesel has become Europe’s most common bio fuel whereas ethanol is more common in the U.S.  Europe’s increasing use of biodiesel has proven beneficial to struggling U.S. producers and refineries in need of new markets due to low domestic consumption levels. Why isn’t the U.S. developing bio diesel technology and pursuing greater production? Why is Europe so far ahead of the U.S. in their use of bio diesel in their commercial and civilian vehicles?  Every large commercial truck in the U.S. should be using at least B5 to lower our demand for oil. Many U.S truckers and bus operators actually prefer B20 blends recognizing its superior lubricating quality, better ignition and combustion qualities, and reduction in exhaust emissions. We should be demanding subsidies for B20 fuel system modification for our large truck fleets to ensure that manufacturing warranties remain honored. We should also demand all service stations and truck fueling depots be required to offer B5 through B20 blends as they do in Europe.

Both the U.S. and Europe are still predominately using first generation bio fuels which require the transesterfication of food based crops like corn, soybeans, rapeseed and palm oil to create ethanol and bio diesel. Second generation bio fuels are past prototype generation and experiencing limited production runs in the U.S. These are the cellulosic ethanol varieties produced through thermo chemical gasification. Feedstocks in this category include switchgrass, wood waste, and corn stovers (stalks, husks, and leaves) and do not interfere with food production. First and second generation bio fuels use extraction process driven methods to increase crop yields.

The future of bio diesel resides in the third and fourth generation of bio fuels. Third generation bio fuels seek to improve yields through improving the feedstocks themselves instead of the processes. An example of third generation bio fuel would be algae. Some strains of algae provide high oil yields (50%) and rapid growth rates (2-5 days to maturity). Other benefits include biodegradable waste products, husks can be used as a cellulosic ethanol source after the oil is extracted, husks are also an extremely high concentration protein source that can be used as feed, and CO2 sequestration capability which encourage third generation bio fuel production facilities to be placed near CO2 producing manufacturing plants. Fourth generation bio fuels will consist of genetic engineered feedstocks designed to increase oil yields and provide for greater levels of CO2 sequestration. Examples would include genetically altered mustard plants designed for high oil yields, drought resistant, and able to grow in terrain unsuitable to farming. These will be combined with genetically modified microbes and single celled fungus that not only assist feedstocks to produce high yields but are able to reduce the process requirements and costs of treating waste material from landfill and sewage for bio diesel production.

Biodiesel’s future is not limited to commercial / personal vehicles. It will also be used to create commercial / military jet and ship fuels. Jatropha based bio diesel has already been used successfully in trial runs as a jet fuel mixture. Bio algae remains of interest to both the U.S. Air Force and Navy for possible forward deployment fuel production. The U.S. military is currently one of the largest consumers of diesel in the world.

Biodiesel has not been without its problems and setbacks. Bio diesel modifications can be expensive, void warranties, and be subject to state and local regulations. Bio diesel is not as suited to lower temperatures requiring additional additives which raise costs. Feedstocks like Jatropha used in arid climates or difficult terrain have lower yields and may only produce one crop per year. Algae harvesting can be challenging since random or local algae strains may overtake the farmed algae ponds and new technology production methods have proven complicated and energy intensive. However, the benefits can exceed the problems. Modification prices will come down once bio diesel becomes more prevalent. Jatropha and halophytes will enable U.S. and third world countries additional farming opportunities that don’t compete with food crops for land and resources. Bio algae and genetically modified microbes will provide yields unapproachable with plant and animal feedstocks and generate new jobs for infrastructure development and production.

The demand for petroleum will continue to rise soon offsetting the world’s ability to produce in pace with future demand. Bio diesel, even with massive increases in algae production cannot hope to be more than a supplement to petro diesel for years to come, but will help ease the pressure from the need to import petroleum.

To meet this demand, the U.S. should take a three part approach.

1) Establish Jatropha and halophyte farming in non-food producing terrains. Under no circumstance should any biofuel compete with food producing crops unless they will be involved in crop rotation. In addition, genetic research should continue to increase yields in difficult terrains and provide for more harvests per year.

2) Direct funding for research, subsidies and incentives to universities and bio fuel companies to determine which technologies and extraction process methods are most effective. The most viable candidates will then be eligible for second round financing for mass production. Current algae pond farming, while beneficial, are not going to provide the yields necessary to meet demand.  Vertigrow is an example of one of the best methods to date. In addition, a food and feed farming subsector should be developed to utilize the algae husks, which are an extremely high protein source which can be used for human foods, additives, or to feed farmed stock. This can be sold to third world countries to help alleviate the hunger problems. Note: algae is at the very bottom of the food chain, it survives by reproducing itself than everything else can eat it. It is a very fast growing and nutritious organism.

3) U.S. government funding for private sector, university and federal laboratory research for genetically modified microbes and fungus’.  The goal is to enhance feedstock oil yields and CO2 sequestration with genetically modified microbes that will also reduce processing requirements and provide sugars as a byproduct which can be used for ethanol production. This can also be used for landfill and sewage waste management thus creating a synergy that would eliminate up to 50% of waste material, reduce CO2, while creating biodiesel and sugars for ethanol.

If the U.S. were to spend $50 billion dollars to set up bio fuels research facilities, develop infrastructure transportation methods and financing for mass production facilities with economies of scale it would in the long run cost hundreds of times less than what we are currently spending to import oil.  Jatropha and bio algae technology is available to us now, fourth generation microbes are available and with a few more years of research to refine them will result in applications that could revolutionize transportation and significantly reduce our need for fossil fuels. Why are we holding back?

Please provide any comments, corrections, or ideas how to make biodiesel a reality

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/be/bd/po/jat/jat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

http://www.desertbiofuels.org-a.googlepages.com/GAS_sum_and_FAQ.pdf

http://www.cyberlipid.org/glycer/biodiesel.htm

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Myths_and_Facts.pdf

http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/04/wtf-are-fourth-generation-biofuels/

www.bioroute.co.uk/biodiesel.htm

In 2008 28% of total U.S. energy demand was for transportation, and petroleum was used to meet 93% of those transportation needs.  The remaining 7% is from a combination of natural gas (2%), electricity, propane, and bio fuels (2%). The principle bio fuel in use today is ethanol used primarily to supplement gasoline.

The U.S. consumed approximately 819 million gallons of petroleum per day (worldwide consumption was 3.55 million gallons per day). 581 million gallons per day or 71% of that petroleum was used for transportation. Petroleum use in transportation breaks down as follows: 64% for gasoline to fuel cars and light trucks (378 million gallons per day), 22% for diesel to fuel commercial trucks, trains, and boats (128 million gallons per day), and 9% to provide for jet fuels (52 million gallons per day).

In 2008 9.6 billion gallons of bio fuels were used in the U.S. (26 million gallons per day). Production rates have increased seven fold in the past thirteen years driven by high oil prices, mandates and incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandated the use of 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008. That number will rise to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022.

Gasoline consumption in 2008 was 378 million gallons per day. Currently, we produce and refine domestically about 34% of all our gasoline needs. The rest must come from imports. In 2008 ethanol consumption was 9.3 billion gallons (25.5 million gallons per day). That equates to roughly 7% of gasoline consumption. Almost this entire amount has been used to supplement gasoline replacing MTBE when it was deemed hazardous and seeping into the groundwater.

Blends of gasoline and ethanol vary from zero to around 10% (E10). After 10% ethanol, vehicles need to be outfitted with special lines and injectors. The flex fuel modification cost for new vehicles is $200 when incorporated into vehicle mass production, but can be much more in older vehicles and void warranties.

The future of ethanol is not in corn which represents the vast majority of current ethanol production. The second generation of ethanol will be cellulosic ethanol that can be made from a variety of sources including switch grass, wheat straw, corn stover, wood chips, forest waste, fast growing trees, and other plant material. The advantage is that the whole plant can be used instead of only the grain. Raw materials can be collected from all over the country and production facilities can be located near potential sources and even be transportable. Subsidies or tax incentives can be and have been provided to farmers, loggers, and waste management companies to provide direct feeds into those production facilities providing benefits to both parties.

Cellulosic ethanol is not without its problems. Although Cellulosic material (basically anything carbon based) is readily available and less expensive than corn, the conversion process is more expensive and more complex. But even this is being over come; traditional methods have focused on enzymatic processes that have historically generated lower concentrations of ethanol. New methods use a thermo chemical gasification process which is more efficient, contains greater yield and is also competitive with sugar based ethanol production costs (Brazil’s method).

In addition, ongoing research from private ethanol companies, and national and university laboratories will continue looking at new methods of converting biomass, engineering and growing more productive strains of crops, and maybe even genetically engineering single organisms (microbes) capable of breaking down simple sugars and fermenting alcohols, thereby eliminating some of the conversion process and further decreasing costs.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has finally provided $385 million for six different companies utilizing slightly different bio refinery processes ranging from different types of thermo chemical gasification to concentrated acid and catalytic processes. The success of these companies and their processes will be monitored over the next few years.  By the time they become fully operational; the bio refineries may become eligible for additional financing and are projected to produce in excess of 225 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol each year (616,000 gallons per day).

While these projections are impressive they fall far short of replacing the existing inefficient corn based ethanol production by many magnitudes. There have already been considerable investments from agribusiness, venture capitalists, and private equity groups who certainly don’t want their product overtaken by cellulosic ethanol. However, cellulosic ethanol can be an enabling technology that allows the harvest of two crops from each field; a food production crop from the grains and a biomass crop from the residual stalks, leaves, husks, etc. Existing ethanol refineries will continue to be required for many years before eventually being converted.

In order to move beyond prototype demonstrations and into mass production with large economies of scale, second generation cellulosic ethanol will need significant loan guarantees and federal and state grants, subsidies, and tax incentives. These projects are for the benefit of all Americans and are a vital element to our country’s ability to sustain itself, not simply for the profit generation of companies or to create wealth for investors. We need to stop being so concerned about the private sector’s return on investment (ROI). Investors assume risk and expect to be justly compensated if the venture proves profitable. However, in the event taxpayer money is used to subsidize infrastructure development for bio fuel refineries and production facilities, the U.S. government should either be adequately compensated for its investment before turning it over to private companies, or profitability taken out of the equation allowing ethanol into the U.S. market at cost of production via a non profit entity or state ownership through the DOE. The latter possibility forgoes government tax revenues from ethanol sales for lower prices to consumers. I am not really sure that state ownership option would work in the U.S. It does appear to work for many other countries since the majority of the world’s largest oil companies are now state owned and control 77% of oil reserves.

Cellulosic ethanol will be critical to supplement our gasoline until automobiles can be run on batteries or water. With China and India each creating a middle class at alarming rates demand for oil will soon exceed the ability to extract, refine, and distribute enough petroleum quick enough to meet that demand. It is no longer an issue of when or if we will hit peak oil in our lifetimes but simple supply versus demand. We cannot wait or throw token dollars at a few companies and their refineries.  Oil companies have already demonstrated reluctance to drilling the expensive oil rich off shore sites preferring instead to drill less in deep water, tap easier sources, wait for the next run on oil prices, and buy back their shares of stock. They are investing in bio fuel research at a rate of about 1% – 2% of profits, probably the same amount used to market themselves as energy providers instead of oil companies. It is quite substantial when you consider the billions they make each quarter, but they haven’t done much beyond that.

We need to choose a couple of promising thermo chemical gasification processes or develop our own (these technologies are only modifications to existing gasification technology  used by chemical companies for years ) and ramp up production of fast, easy to grow, drought resistant crops. Combine this with incentives for agricultural waste, forestry waste, and landfill waste to be made available as a raw material. Then provide for immediate infrastructure financing for the next generation of refineries and facilities. Finally provide tax or relief incentives for fuel line conversion while the federal government or states mandate the use of greater concentrations of ethanol in gasoline. At minimum all service stations should be providing E10 which require no conversion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18227/

http://www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm

http://webecoist.com/2009/03/31/burning-green-15-cutting-edge-biofuel-sources/

The United States consumed 99.3 Quadrillion total btu’s of energy in 2008 (British thermal unit (Btu) is a unit of energy needed to heat 1 lb. of water 1 degree F). The breakdown follows below. What I found to be of interest is that for all the talk over the past several years regarding renewable energy we don’t produce or consume much of it. Solar is only one tenth of one percent of total consumption and it’s been around for 30 years. All the private equity money going into wind generation represents one half of one percent, and the bio fuels hope about replacing gasoline with ethanol and diesel with bio diesel appear to have stalled at about one half of one percent. I realize there are efficiency concerns and infrastructure costs related to establishing these sectors but for all the media discussion and political wrangling we have actually moved little.

When considering consumption by sector (table below), petroleum is primarily used for transportation (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel). Natural gas usage breaks down to 29% for electricity production, 29% for industrial uses and is utilized for building steel, glass, brick, etc. and 34% is for heating residential homes and commercial buildings. Coal has always been used for electric power generation and equates to almost half of the energy sources used to generate electricity. Nuclear is also almost exclusively for electricity generation as well and represents 20% of the energy sources used to generate electricity. All of these are considered non-renewable forms of energy.

U.S. Energy Consumption by sector for 2008:

• Petroleum                                      37.4%     36.7 Quadrillion Btu
• Natural Gas                                   24.0%     23.8 Quadrillion Btu
• Coal                                              22.6%     22.8 Quadrillion Btu
• Nuclear (Uranium)                           8.5%       8.9 Quadrillion Btu
• Renewable Energy                          7.0%       7.3 Quadrillion Btu

Breakdown of Renewable Energy sector for 2008

• Biomass                                        53%        3.9% of total sources of energy
• Hydroelectric                                 34%        2.5% of total sources of energy
• Wind                                               7%          .5% of total sources of energy
• Geothermal                                     5%          .4% of total sources of energy
• Solar                                               1%          .1% of total sources of energy

Breakdown of Biomass sub-sector for 2008

• Wood and wood waste                 64.5%     2.5% of total sources of energy
• Biofuels (ethanol & biodiesel)        23.5%       .9% of total sources of energy
• Garbage & Landfill gases               12.0%       .5% of total sources of energy

Although the total number for renewable energy comes in at 7% of consumption it is largely made up of wood burning in the biomass sub-sector and hydroelectric power generation both of which have been in use for years. The newer technologies of wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and bio fuels barely scratch 1.5% of total U.S. energy consumption. Total energy consumed from all sources indicates that traditional non renewable sources still dominate and will likely continue to dominate U.S. energy supply side.

When considering our nation’s demand for energy and how we use it, demand for transportation and electrical power generation make up more than half of that demand. Transportation represents 29% of energy demand. Electricity represents a 21.6% of energy demand. When considering electricity demand.  Industries and all their associated production facilities require 31% and electricity demand from industrial uses is 4.3%. The construction / maintenance of our commercial sector require 19% and electricity demands from commercial development are 7.8%. Residential construction represents requires 22%, and electricity demand for residential housing is 9.5%. The two most important energy demands regarding renewable energy is also for transportation and electrical power. 

Transportation needs are met through either importing petroleum/oil or domestically producing it. The United States produces 10% of the world’s petroleum and consumes 24%. We import 57% of our demand and, we produce 43% domestically. Of the 57% of our imports about half come from North and South America, including Venezuela. The Persian Gulf represents only 16% of our total imports, with 12% of that amount supplied by our ally Saudi Arabia. I am now wondering why there is so much diplomatic, military, and economic emphasis placed on a region that provides only 16% of the total imports of oil for our transportation needs.

More than half of U.S. Petroleum Imports Come from the Western Hemisphere

• Canada            19%
• Mexico              10%
• Venezuela          9%
• Others              10%

Remaining U.S. Petroleum imports come from the rest of the world

• Africa                   21%       (Nigeria              8%)
• Persian Gulf         16%       (Saudi Arabia   12%)
• Others                 14%

70% of all oil produced domestically or imported goes towards transportation, 24% towards industrial production, and 5% for residential / commercial heating oil. If we look at the transportation sector closely, oil constitutes 96% of the demand. The remaining 4% is made up of natural gas and biofuels. Even that is a bit misleading since the vast majority of the 2% from biofuels is ecorn based ethanol that is supposed to be used to supplement gasoline. Ethanol production has certainly seen its share of difficulties but remains the supplement of choice since it increases octane levels, and providing a safe alternative for oxygenation , and helps meet stricter emission guidelines.

62% of our oil imports are used for gasoline. Why is only 2% of ethanol being used with gasoline or as a replacement for gasoline? Ethanol is probably not going to be the sole replacement as an automobile energy source. It doesn’t have the high BTU/energy efficiency ratio that gasoline has, but it is a great supplement to our gasoline and we could be using it in greater concentrations. Current mixtures now range from 100% gasoline / 0% ethanol to 90% gasoline / 10% ethanol (E10). The E10 mixtures have had minimal negative effect on gas lines, but even E10 isn’t used throughout the country.

Second generation cellulosic ethanol can be a reality quickly. There are already cellulosic ethanol companies that have completed the prototype generation stage and are ready for full production. An additional bonus for cellulosic production is that it will not strain food crops or require thousands of gallons of water to produce one plant. We need to be stretching the use of existing oil/gas inventories and that can be done by integrating cellulosic ethanol. I don’t accept the arguments about it always costing $1000 to change fuel lines, injectors, etc. Once a mixture system for E15 or above is mandated, company’s will compete as they always do and drive prices down. So, why is this not being done immediately to relieve the pressure from all the imports? Maybe there are too many hands in the pot? Is big agribusiness trying to generate more demand from its biggest commodity cash crop, corn? Maybe big oil doesn’t like to have to share the profits with some upstart potential substitute? Maybe there is no rush to get the U.S. off of the imports from the Middle East because we really aren’t importing much from that region since 12% comes from our stable ally Saudia Arabia, leaving only 4% to come from other areas within the Middle East (essentially from Iraq). I certainly hope we end up with more oil from Iraq and that oil drilling rights do not end up in Russia’s hands for all that we have invested in the area.

Diesel and jet fuel make up another 31% of our oil imports. Both can be made from biodiesel. Biodiesel consumption currently represents less than one half of 1%. This technology has been around for a while and bio algae represents one of the greatest potentials in this field. Algae are the fastest growing organisms on the planet able to replicate themselves in a few days and some varieties can produce yields up to 50% oil. Why did all government funding get pulled from this potentially useful technology? Why is it that when a university has a breakthrough, a military defense contractor steps in and overtakes the project? Not that I don’t agree with running our fighters and transports off of biodiesel generated onsite via bio algae production, I would just like to see it fueling our semi-tractor trailers domestically as well. Trucking compannies could also benefit from access to simple inexpensive conversion processes that don’t void warranties. Perhaps federal tax incentives could be provided to trucking companies to help fund the conversion process for at least some trucks that are no longer under warranty. At the minimum the U.S. should be significantly funding research to try to increase the efficiencies of bio algae/bio diesel production.

The following breaks down the transportation sector:

Transportation    96% of all transportation needs are met by petroleum

• Gasoline              62%   Cars, Motorcycles, Light Trucks
• Diesel                  22%   Heavier Trucks, Buses, Trains
• Jet Fuel                 9%    Airplane
• Other                    5%    Cars, Light Trucks, Heavier trucks (2% from renewable energy)
• Natural Gas          2%    City fleet Cars & Light duty trucks

Energy consumption by vehicle type

• Cars & Trucks          60% of total energy used for transportation       – Gasoline
• Large Trucks            16% of total energy used for transportation       – Diesel
• Aircraft                      9% of total energy used for transportation        – Jet Fuel
• Boats                        5% of total energy used for transportation        – Gasoline & Diesel
• Agriculture                4% of total energy used for transportation        –  Diesel
• Trains & Buses          3% of total energy used for transportation        –  Diesel

In electric power generation, we clearly use non-renewable energy sources as well, and this constitute s almost 90% of electricity production. Renewable energy, when hydro-electric is taken out, is 2.5% and half of that is old style wood burning.

Electric Power – Used for electrical energy accessed through the grid

• Coal                                 48.5%
• Natural Gas                      21.6%
• Nuclear                            19.4%
• Hydroelectric                     5.8%
• Renewable Energy            2.5%
• Petroleum                         1.6%

Sources of the 2.5% Renewable Energy used for electric power generation

• Biomass                    1.3%
• Wind                           .8%
• Geothermal                 .3%
• Solar                           .02%

Percentage breakdown of the Biomass sources in electric power generation

• Wood and wood waste             70.2%
• Biofuels                                       3.7%
• Garbage & Landfill gases          26.0%

I am sorry, but these numbers seem ridiculous. I have heard all of the arguments about the inefficiencies of photo-voltaics, the poor birds hitting the wind turbines, and how geothermal is too expensive and can only be placed deep under water in volcanic rifts. But unless I’m mistaken, aren’t we one of the most advanced countries in the world? I cannot believe that we cannot come up with better electricity generation solutions than burning coal. Wasn’t this technology being used in the…1800’s?  Maybe in promoting our energy crisis we are simply guaranteeing that everyone stays in “crisis mode” and allows business as usual to continue. I do not think that there have been any serious attempts to do anything but keep the major players in place while throwing a few token renewable energy gestures out to the public.

I wonder if oil and coal had to deal with the same litany of excuses of why things can’t be done as renewable energy has faced. How were they ever able to start production in the … early 1900’s? Personally, I am grateful that we have oil and coal, they have gotten our country to where it is today, but they are polluting our environment and they are technology from our grandparent’s day. (I know, they have made amazing incremental advances in production over the years). Maybe 100 years ago we didn’t tell each other how we couldn’t do something and instead we set out to do it no matter what. Well, I think we are passed that stage. Let’s pull our heads out of our proverbial oil tanks and set to work to provide an economically viable solution for renewable energy integration.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

http://www.planetforward.org/pages/energy-consumption-by-sector

http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/BiomassI.pdf

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence

What should you be eating for maximum health benefits? The previous three blogs on food production discussed the problem with our current food supply and how it is affecting our health and contributing to obesity rates. Until we take measures to actually fix our current food growing and manufacturing systems, it is very difficult to avoid processed and refined foods laden with addictive fats, sugars and salts.

We have to take some level of personal responsibility for our eating habits that goes without saying. The next time you’re your watching your favorite team on the TV try something different. I guarantee you won’t eat a whole bag of full of chopped celery, baby carrots, and mini tomatoes (no ranch dressing) like you could your favorite bag of salty snacks. Try replacing sodas with water and a splash of lemon and see how many of those you put down. We have to show some resolve.

The following are possibilities collected from a variety of sources to assist you to choose a healthier eating life style.

• Avoid foods that are processed and refined; these foods are usually high calories and saturated with fats, sugars, salts, and simple carbohydrates. Unfortunately, this means most foods found in a box, bag, jar, or can.
• Be wary of massed produced products sold by a publicly traded company (a brand name) If the label contains numerous chemical additives it is most likely unhealthy.
• Get used to reading labels. In addition to looking at calories and the levels of fats, sugar, salt/sodium, and carbohydrates, also look for tricks like:
  • “Fat Free” that also contain high amounts of sugar and/or chemicals.
  • “Whole Grains” that also contain high amounts of refined flour.
  • “Sugar free” but also contain artificial/chemical sweeteners.
  • “High in Antioxidants” (usually beverages) but also contain high levels of sugars.
  • “Low in Fat” or “Reduced Fat” but also contain a high proportional rate of calories and processed carbohydrates.
  • “No added sugar” because it already has more than enough natural sugar present
• Be alert to foods or snack food that appear healthy and advertise “fat free”, “low in fat”, “cholesterol free”, and “low sodium” these can contain high levels of sugar, enriched flour and chemical additives.
• Avoid fast food restaurants, and limit eating in chain restaurants.
• Avoid soft drinks or sweetened sports drinks
• Avoid high glycemic foods such as candy.
• Be wary of diet products, do your research first.

Attempt to eat as organic as possible. A great indicator from the book, In Defense of Food, is if your grandmother didn’t eat it in her time you shouldn’t either. If you can, buy locally grown organic fruit and raw vegetables. If a local farmer’s market is not available, try to purchase organic food from the supermarket or a health food store. Be mindful there are three types of organic:

• 100% organic – is just that, 100% organic.
• Organic is only 95% organic, there are a lot of additives and chemical compounds, which can make up that 5% thereby negating the value of the organic part of the product.
• Made with organic ingredients – this only has to contain 70% organic product.

Try to buy meats and poultry from farms known to be free range, grass fed, with no hormones or antibiotics. Avoid farm raised fish and buy wild caught fish.

I know this list is tough, please try to do the best you can, it gets easier and you will get healthier. When you finally get comfortable with your diet of tree bark and goat urine, here are some tips that may be able to help you and might even save you some money.

• Join a food co-op – join with other families to buy whole foods in bulk at a discount
• Make one night a week (or weekend) either with your family or a few moms, get together and put together the meals for the week so that the healthy food is already prepared and ready to go during the busy week.
• Go in with another family or two and purchase a recently slaughtered range fed cow from a reputable farm
• Go meatless once or twice a week
• Discover your farmers markets; you will be amazed that real fruits and vegetables actually have taste.

We have a naive perspective that our food companies are looking out for us. Food manufactures and growers have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors – their interests are to be profitable, not to make you healthy. Our healthy food choices have become limited. There will be strong opposition from the food growers, manufactures, and chemical industries to fix any of the system wide problems facing our current model. It is up to us, the consumer, to become conscientious and do the best we can to hold onto our remaining healthy food choices.

To eat healthy will become more difficult as time progresses. The farmers ability to get public seeds that are not genetically modified (GMO) is becoming more restrictive and difficult. There have been attempts to loosen the guidelines on what constitutes organic and natural foods.  This would allow food manufacturers to operate business as usual while charging a higher price for natural or organic. Our foods are manufactured in the cheapest way they can be made. And while this is financially beneficial to the consumer in the short term, the long term health risks overshadow these savings.

This means that it is time for us to sacrifice the chemically enhanced and modified food choices and demand that our food be real food with the original taste of the food that it had naturally before being altered by GMO’s  and commodity based mass production. We can vote very strongly with our pocketbooks by purchasing greater amounts of real healthy options while decreasing our consumption of cheaper prepackaged processed and refine foods.

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100247679

http://www.projectswole.com/healthy-lifestyle/20-unhealthy-foods-that-you-think-are-healthy-but-are-actually-killing-you-slowly/

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php

Obesity in the United States is increasing at an alarming rate. In 1985 17% of the population was considered obese, that figure has risen to over 34% in 2009. Obesity is measured as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 and above for adults. It is also responsible for almost $80 billion dollars in health care costs, which is 9% of our overall spending. These figures are expected to increase within 10 years to $344 billion and over 21% of health care spending. This means all but 6 states will be at least 50% obese. Obesity will become one of the leading drivers of our overall health care expenses. It is one of the primary causes of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and contributes to more than 50 other diseases/illnesses.

Obesity is not affecting adults only; it is having a significant impact on our children. The CDC has collected data which illustrates the increases in the prevalence of obesity over the past 30 years for the following age groups: in 2-5 yr olds from 5% to 12%, in 6-11 yr olds from 6.5% to 17%, and in 12-19 yr olds from 5% to 17.6%. There is also an 80% chance that those children and adolescents will remain obese into adulthood.

Physicians and other health officials cite the primary reasons for increased obesity rates are poor eating habits.  These habits consist of the type of foods that are consumed, which include unhealthy processed and refined prepackaged foods, and fast food / restaurant food. A second habit is the increase in portion sizes consumed, including the ongoing consumption of super size meals at fast food establishments, eating at restaurants (especially chain restaurants) that serve larger portions, and purchasing prepackaged foods and not observing recommended allowance guidelines. In essence, we have become trained to expect and consume meals that have larger portions than meals contained 20 years ago. Finally, our snacks of choice between meals and after dinner tend to lean towards junk food and soft drinks. The end result is we are not only consuming more calories, we are consuming higher levels of addictive fats, sugars, and salts plus large quantities of calories and simple carbohydrates.

At the same time, our overall physical activity levels have decreased. We spend more time in front of a T.V. or on our computers, basically we are sitting which also tends to provide an opportunity for more snacking. We evolved under conditions which required physical activity in order to survive. We are genetically programmed to store energy for lean times. Our food manufacturers and fast food chains understand this and provide large portions of cheap processed foods. In addition, three compounds: fats, sugars and salts, have always been rare in our evolutionary pathways and very coveted so they (food manufactures, et al) laden the foods with addictive levels of these as well.

Eating well, that is healthier food, will cost you approximately 17% to 19% more. For most families this is not an option and the higher obesity rates in lower and lowers to middle income families bear this out. Interestingly enough, higher incomes and individuals with higher education levels tend to eat the healthiest not only because they can afford it, they are more health conscious. The problem for lower income families is they have to stretch their dollar further and therefore have to buy the more economical, prepackaged and processed food.

What it comes down to is profits for food growers and manufactures in many cases being one in the same. The farm bill subsidizes cheap commodity crops, which are then sold at a discount (in many cases less than the cost of production) to food manufacturers, the foods and associated compounds made from these crops are then mass produced into cheap refined and processed high in fats, sugars, salts, and additives. This in turn contributes to the increasing obesity rates. So, not only are we left with unhealthy food choices we are going to get stuck with the higher health care costs associated with obesity. When do we say, enough is enough? We are subsidizing the crops, getting poor food quality for our subsidization, the end product makes us unhealthy and fat, thereby making us pay more for health care and lowering our quality of life and productivity.

To eat healthy and wholesome meals should NEVER cost more than to eat food that is essentially harmful to our health. What can be done about this?

Potential solutions:

• Physical activity: reinstate physical education in schools and create a public exercise awareness program
• Set portion size limits on chain restaurant and fast food franchises, remove super sizing options. Restaurants can then reduce the price to the customer for the smaller portions
• Re-design the farm bill to stop subsidizing only the commodity based food production of corn, soy bean, wheat, and rice and instead subsidize a variety of health oriented foods to decrease price and increase availability for all income levels
• Regulate the amount of addictive salts, sugars, and fats that go into foods under the guise of meeting consumer taste preferences
• Create independent private or public laboratories to test for addictive qualities in additives and preservatives and require them to be removed
• Assess a tax on refined and processed foods that have been determined to contribute to obesity in order to ensure those prices are no longer inexpensive compared to healthier foods. The tax should be applied to fast food franchises and restaurants chains as well.
• Finally sue companies that knowingly put addictive compounds and additives in foods much like how tobacco companies were sued for covering up the addictive and harmful health affects of cigarettes.

Some additional health concerns we can address with possible solutions include:

• Re-scrutinize studies for antibiotic and growth hormone usage and if necessary re-determine long term health and environmental costs associated with its use
• Subsidize companies that lengthen the amount of time required for natural maturation of livestock which avoids or deceases the use of growth hormone
• Subsidize companies for increasing holding pen size /decreasing animal crowding which will lower antibiotic requirements
• Re-scrutinize studies for genetically modified crops to determine long term health risks associated with these crops
• Provide subsidies for non-profit food growers and manufactures dedicated to providing a greater variety of crops and healthier end product foods. Utilize large economy of scale and mass production methods implemented in our current system.

The above list may appear daunting considering the vast lobbying power and the number of congressmen and senators who receive campaign contributions from agribusiness. However, a failure to act will result in a continued deterioration of our food supply and further increases in obesity and its related illnesses if this system is allowed to continue unchecked.

The remaining food growers and manufacturers are all for-profit corporations. They have a fiduciary responsibility to increase their investor’s wealth. They accomplish this by meeting Wall Street Analyst’s profit expectations from quarter to quarter. If this is done, the analysts give positive reviews which reflect well on stock price and investor value. Much of executive compensation is also tied to profitability and stock price. The food production system in place now meets those ends, but at the expense of the health of the US population, its primary customer. As a populace we need to represent our interests which should far exceed those of a few thousand wealthy investors and executive officers.

This system can be redesigned but we need to act. One option might be to take the profit structure out of the equation. Subsidized non-profit food growing and manufacturing companies concentrated on increasing efficiencies and ensuring healthier varieties of inexpensive food. The type of non-profits I’m speaking off would be modeled after Swiss and German healthcare insurers. Another option may be to reign in the remaining for-profit companies through very strict regulation and compliance. Large corporations beholden primarily to profits have demonstrated that they should no longer have the controlling decision making capability over such a vital component of our national interests that being our food supply.

The remaining prepackaged processed foods can be taxed to help pay for their contribution to obesity and support the new farms and healthy food production facilities. The same can apply to fast food chains. To eat unhealthy and become obese should be a luxury similar to cigarettes and taxed accordingly.

Please provide any additional ideas or solutions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/17/health/main5683256.shtml

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_10_25/ai_111585626/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#County

We are told by experts here in the U.S. that we should be more individually responsible for maintaining our own healthy diets. While this is certainly true; it gets a bit difficult if we are constantly exposed to foods that trigger our addictive impulses. We humans are naturally drawn to three basic tastes that were scarce for the majority of our evolution; those are fats, sugars, and salts. When exposed to food containing these components we tend to want to eat as much of that food as we can.

That is just what the food industry is providing for us. Foods are being sold that are processed and refined, that meet our consumers’ tastes for high levels of fats, sugars, and salts, that are cheap to grow and produce, and that are readily available at affordable prices.

Food growers and manufactures can do this by utilizing large economies of scale and mass production. This method can be done with outstanding efficiencies and requires relatively small amounts of land.The mantra for success has become grow food faster, bigger, and cheaper than it has ever been at any point in our history.

This current model of food production developed out of a need to satisfy the emerging new fast food industry of the 1950’s. Fast food companies wanted to provide inexpensive food to customers that could be prepared quickly and thattasted good. They also wanted conformity in the food products they purchased so they would taste the same regardless of franchise location.

Over time the influence of the fast food industry over food production grew. Fast food companies were fast becoming the largest purchasers of ground beef and potatoes and among the largest buyers of chicken, pork, tomatoes, and lettuce in the world. This practice of conformity and efficiency eventually evolved to include all the prepackaged supermarket food items we have available today.

To meet the new requirements food growers and manufactures decided to concentrate on growing and producing a few commodity crops very cost efficiently. The harvested crops were then reengineered into the majority of the components found in today’s food. In essence, when you read the packaging labels, the long lists of difficult to pronounce items are derived from a few crops; corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice.

The U.S. Government then provides subsidies to farmers and agribusiness enabling these commodities to be produced and sold for less than the cost of production. Large Multi National Corporations (MNC’s) have lobbied strongly to create and maintain subsidization through the U.S. Farm Bill. MNC’s are best suited to profit from the subsidies with their ability to use large economies of scale, efficiencies in production, and ongoing research and development. Acquisition strategies and consolidation eventually led to four to five dominant companies in each segment.

The same has occurred in livestock (cattle, poultry, and pork) and diary production. Growth in both crop and livestock production has been substantial in the past fifty years in some cases approaching a tenfold increase in size. Unfortunately, as with all things allowed to rapidly grow without real checks and balances a few problems have crept into the mix.

In the 1990’s growers were coerced into using into using genetically modified herbicide tolerant and pesticide resistant seeds. There is mounting concern that initial safety tests were too few and lacked supporting data to be conclusive, and that the intended targets may develop resistances that create a super weed or pest. In concentrating on fewer crop varieties and larger farms we are loosing crop diversity necessary for resilience in the event of environmental or climatic change and may be creating extremely resistant disease and insects.

In livestock production, intense crowding and the use of commodity based feed (primarily corn) instead of grass has resulted in a much faster fattening of animals. It has raised concerns about the increase of harmful bacteria in the livestock’s digestive system, and whether that bacteria accompanied in the animal waste that could end up washed into the water supply as runoff or is possibly packaged with the meat for sale. In addition, wide spread use of antibiotics could lead to drug-resistant diseases, and studies supporting the widespread use of growth hormone remain controversial and it use is banned in many countries.

Another growing problem is that profits have been used by food growers and manufacturers to create a strong lobbying presence in Washington and has provided significant campaign contributions to elected officials. Also, many key government people in decision making positions for agriculture and food manufacturing are also key people in some of the biggest agriculture, chemical (GMO), and food production companies.

This has resulted in ongoing positive legislature such as the Farm Bill which benefits large MNC’s and Food Libel laws which grants a food manufacturer or processor the right to sue if disparaging comments are made about their food products. It has also resulted in a reduction in regulatory monitoring and inspection of farms and plants.  Finally, the research being conducted for the creation of the new drugs or compounds and that is used as data for FDA approval is usually not only inconclusive it is being performed by the very companies that are seeking approval.

These situations have all lead to an environment that favors large MNC’s profits while leaving the consumer to ingest foods that contribute to our nations exploding obesity rates and have potentially long term health safety risks.

So what can we do about this?

We need to change our policy. Currently we are practicing a type of agriculture that utilizes subsidization for a few commodity produced crops. These crops are used to cheaply produce processed and refine foods which equate to bad calories.

Why can’t we subsidize locally grown and organic food as well? How about funding research into alternative methods of farming like wide scale local hydroponics? Keeping some percentage of food production local would lesson the impact on food costs due to increases in diesel fuel costs.

Why can’t we demand subsidization for a healthier variety of crops and then utilize the food manufactures mass production models for organic and healthy food production while pulling subsidies away from foods that are refined and processed and that increase our nation’s health costs.

Why can’t we use the genetic insights used by large chemical companies to make GMO’s for purposes other than just pesticide and insect resistant crops. How about increasing their nutrition levels as well or tax the seeds to provide an even playing field for public seeds and use the proceeds for health benefiting GMO research.

Why don’t we create real enforceable regulatory boards and identify and remove people from bureaucratic office with private sector interests. One step further would be to make it illegal for public officials to take employment in the private sector for two years in an associated field.

Why don’t we demand the creation of real independent public or non profit labs for testing? Make it illegal for a company that stands to benefit from the sale of a compound to provide all the supporting data. Instead use the company’s data as a starting place for testing.

Please provide suggestion or comments to shed additional insight or improve the blog.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2009/11/burger-bashing-and-sirloin-slander-food-disparagement-laws-in-the-united-states/

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

What has happened that we, as a society, are becoming so overweight? Is it because we are all eating too much? Are we foregoing a quality diet for ready made and fast food? Are we choosing taste over health? I would probably say yes to all three. But here is an interesting argument, what if our current foods were actually designed by our food companies at the base ingredient levels, and even at the chemical level to make sure we get fatter? Why would a respectable food manufacturing corporation want to do that? Hmmm, good question, well lets see, maybe a fatter population could … eat more. Wait a minute, that’s ridiculous. No corporation would want me to get fat on purpose. That’s unethical and preposterous. Unless of course, if a whole population were to eat more, and by eating more, they bought more food, wouldn’t profits increase?

What is the goal of food manufactures? Is it our health? Perhaps, for those whose niche market is organic, natural, or health conscious consumers. Now what about the rest of the food manufacturers and producers? Isn’t their goal to sell as much food as possible? The food manufacturing industry already has some of the lowest profit margins of any industry. They are constantly experiencing pressures from price increases in raw materials and key input goods driven by China and India. I don’t think China and India are planning to slow down their economic growth any time soon. Another pressure is rising fuel and transportation costs. Manufacturers have little if any ability to influence these volatile expenditures. The only hope for food manufacturers is to increase food sales since their profit margins are so small.  Any increase in expenses can offset small profit margins and potentially eliminate profits.

In the past 25 years U.S. obesity rates have increased considerably. We have become more sedentary, but eat larger servings, and the food we eat is not as healthy for us as it once was. Let’s see, I come home from work or school and … watch TV, play video games, or work on the computer. All of which are very energetic activities, big calorie burners. Then its time to sit down at the table (or couch if a good program is on) for dinner and a nice pre-packaged meal consisting of largely processed and refined foods laden with carbohydrates (the bad ones), sugars, salts, and so many additives and preservatives that they have to be combined together in groups or the label becomes to long to fit on the wrapper or box. I’m sure there is nothing wrong with ingesting hundreds of different chemical additives in meals day after day for years and years. Food manufacturers are probably testing all those additives and preservatives for long term health risks just as often as they are testing for taste. If my wife or I don’t get home in time to heat up or microwave dinner, thankfully any number of fast food outlets are ready to provide a dinner that’s probably even less healthy for us. If the meal wasn’t filling enough or we burned too many calories playing video games there’s always those trusty soft drinks and snacks before bed. Nothing says a good night’s sleep and waking up fit and trim like eating 30 to 40 grams of simple carbohydrates and 10 to 15 grams of fat right before hitting the hay.

The problem with food in the United States is centered around the food manufacturing industry. Food manufacturers and industry as a whole have very small profit margins. In order for manufacturers to be profitable, they have to sell large volumes of their products, and they have to do it in very cost effective manner. To do this, they use large economies of scale. They purchase large quantities of raw materials and utilize huge production facilities to lower the individual cost of each item. Combined with this are the numerous additives and preservatives that are created and massed produced to ensure an extended shelf life. This whole process is not a recipe for healthy and nutritious food. It is a model for cheap production and chemically enhanced product longevity. One other interesting factor is that a lot of the laboratories that are used by food companies are highly secretive to ensure that secret formulas and ingredient combinations remain confidential. These labs constantly experiment with making food more appealing, better tasting, and lower in price to the public.

However, they are also the testing grounds to find the cheapest base ingredient combinations to ensure continued desirability. They want the people to want the product and to buy it over and over. The trends over the past ten to twenty years has been to use and combine simple compounds, such as increasing the levels of fat (trans & saturated fats), sugar, and salts, while increasing carbohydrate levels. Studies are being conducted at universities to determine why food companies are utilizing many times the needed amount of fats, sugars, and salts required to produce the desired taste. Ongoing ingestion of food high in these compounds results in a rewiring of the neurobiological networks in the parts of the brain associated with increased craving and addiction. A consensus is developing that the only reason that high levels of these compounds are being used is to increase obesity rates among consumers by creating addictive cravings. A more obese person consumes more food, more consumption means more purchases, and more purchases equal more profits.

The final part of the equation involves the use of different chemical compounds to enhance the taste of foods, increase their shelf life, provide coloring, and a variety of other things. However, many of these compounds have startling other affects as well. An example would be an additive used as a flavor emhancer, while it would enhance the flavor of certain foods; it would also have a tendency to make people want to eat more of those foods. As researchers are looking more closely at how the chemical compounds are used, some alarming questions are being asked, such as: why are some of these compounds even present in the food as they do not perform a preservative or additive function. In addition, some compounds when combined together and ingested can create potentially toxic reactions in the physical body. Some researchers are speculating that the increasing rate of certain diseases may be strongly related to all of the cheap, processed and refined foods that we eat each day. What happens when these chemical compounds are ingested over long periods of time?

Regardless of toxic reactions, much of this processed and refined food is not easily digestible in the human body and can end up being stored in tissues and organs. Humans are omnivores and capable of eating a wide variety of food stuffs but when the digestive system encounters many of the chemical compounds that have never appeared in nature before it simply doesn’t know how to process it correctly. After long term exposure to this situations health problems may develop.

One additinal note, food manufactures are beginning to use nano-materials to enhance food coloring, and flavoring. Its being used for antibacterial purposes in food packaging. It is utilized to increase the potency of chemical fertilizers. And of course, the applications to strengthen additives and preservatives are potentially endless.  Nanotechnology is a technology that’s stands to benefit many industries in vast ways, but the FDA isn’t even in the testing stage to determine what long term consequences to the human body might be.

The bottom line is – our current food is predominately processed, refined, and laden with high levels of fats, sugars, and salts. These compounds can cause cravings and addictions. When combined with all the combinations of chemical additives and preservatives is it causing an ever increasing portion of the U.S. population to become obese and unhealthy? I realize that the food tastes good and is easy to prepare or acquire, but is it also leading to increased problems with our health and well being? Is it in our best interests to allow our health to continue to suffer in order to have cheap food and maintain profit levels? Are there any measures available to us as a population that can provide a healthier alternative to the current system?

Please provide additional information, comments, recommendations, or corrections.

Some great websites for follow-up readings are:

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

http://www.healthrecipes.com/eat5.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-nanoparticles-in-food-pose-health-risk

http://www.drweil.com/