Redesign the Paradigm

In order for widespread Photovoltaic (PV) use to become an economically viable alternative to fossil fuel electricity production three components are required by the world governments: Research and development funding increases and additional R&D subsidies provided to the private sector to increase PV conversion efficiencies (converting the sun’s diffused solar rays into electricity). Subsidization and private sector incentives for expensive infrastructure development and for establishing economies of scale in critical production areas. Continue support for programs such as feed in tariffs, rebates and refunds, power purchase agreements will also be necessary to reduce installation costs to end users. There are many reasons that the United States and other governments, businesses and citizens need to increase funding for R&D, PV based infrastructure, and end user subsidies.

PV installations once installed can operate for years with little in the way of maintenance and operation costs. There are no long term mining, drilling, refining, processing, and transporting costs such as those associated with petroleum, coal, and natural gas fossil fuels. Commodity traders cannot influence or run up regional pricing. PV solar energy reduces the reliance on obtaining fossil fuel commodities from geopolitically unstable countries and contributes towards energy independence. It represents a good long term investment considering electricity costs have continued to rise every year for the past 20 years.

PV systems are outstanding sources of power in very rural areas where grid access is limited. It is also an excellent source of supplemental electricity within the grid since it can offset peak demand periods and is readily available in many of the Earth’s climate zones. Finally, there has been relatively little research done in both the PV and Solar Thermal sectors meaning that there is still considerable room for R&D improvements.

When considering electricity generation in general, PV provided electricity is the fastest growing global power generation technology averaging growth rates over the past 5 years of 40 – 60% per year. This growth has resulted in providing 21GW of world wide power, which is still miniscule when compared to world wide generation capacity which is at 4800GW. Global PV installation jumped 110% in 2008 to 5.95GW. Germany, Spain, Japan, and the United States represent almost 90% of total worldwide PV installation capacity. Germany installed 3800 MW of PV in 2009 creating 10,000 jobs contrasted to the U.S. at 500 MW. The vast majority of these installations are tied to the grid and not off-grid stand alone installations.

The U.S., the largest consumer of electricity and one of the countries best suited to propel PV into the mainstream, is reluctant to seriously move beyond fossil fuels and is playing catch-up having only installed 500 MW last year. More importantly, it is far behind in terms of R&D funding, net metering guidelines, feed in tariffs, and subsidy programs for commercial and residential PV installations.

Research & Development

New technologies and advancements on existing systems are critical to reach grid parity with fossil fuel generated electricity and to meet installation cost expectations necessary to ensure PV are a viable economic substitute. Grid parity is where PV electricity becomes equal to or greater than grid electricity which is dominated by coal and natural gas.

Government funding for research and development needs to be ramped up to ensure higher efficiencies can be achieved without increasing production costs. Advances in efficiencies generally come at higher module costs due to the use of more expensive materials and manufacturing processes. R&D expenditures can be utilized to discover alternatives to solar cell like non-semiconductor polymer cells and biomimetics, utilizing tandem/multi-junction cells, quantum dot technology, or development of  intermediate band or hot-carrier solar cells. R&D should also focus on improving the existing semiconductor materials Crystalline Silicon, Amorphous Silicon, Gallium Arsenide and providing additional advancements in thin film and polymer paint cell efficiencies. 

Due to current efficiency levels of solar cells and PV modules in general, concentrating efforts into new technology advances and development represent the most beneficial lines of investment at this point. Solar panel efficiency, as measured by the energy conversion ratio, is currently peaking at approximately 24% for production; market average is hovering between 12 – 18%. Solar conversion efficiencies are critical to economically reaching grid parity and reducing infrastructure costs and is one of the arenas R&D dollars should be concentrated.

There are high efficiency technologies being tested by some manufactures that claim to reach as high as 42% which should easily equate to grid parity. However, most of these have yet to provide prototypes for grid testing and research allocations are nowhere near comparable to other existing energy sources. Even promising applications such as light concentration approaches onto multilayer PV modules that have been around a while have yet to be put into wide-scale production.

PV systems are also intermittent energy sources that are dependent on available sunlight. While this is beneficial to utility companies who prefer to operate with less excess capacity and who can thus offer net metering. Net metering allows excess electricity from residential and commercial PV systems to be sold back to the grid offsetting daytime peak loads requirements and reducing the end users electricity bill. However, for off grid applications or those who desire energy independence, expensive and even less efficient batteries are required. This is another area where R&D funding needs to be significantly increased and the development of more efficient battery technology, high capacitance systems, and other type of electricity storage mediums made a priority.

Infrastructure and installation costs

PV produced electricity is still considered expensive for both end use installation and utility companies.  There is no guarantee on investment return if the commercial business sells the facility or homeowner sells the house. State or local tax assessments that are passed onto the new buyer are being considered in some States to offset this potential loss. For utility or solar companies intending to provide electricity to utility companies there are large infrastructure outlays required for initial buildup. Currently these costs for PV and especially solar thermal can be more than traditional coal fired or natural gas plants.

The cost of developing PV modules currently varies for a single PV device at $4.00 to $4.50 watts peak (Wp) and can be doubled initially with installation, wiring, and system costs until the system pays for initial infrastructure costs. Current capital costs for a commercial PV system range from $5.50 per watt to $6.60 per watt dependant on size and scaling of installations. The WP prices have dropped over 22% in the past 9 years but are no where near 2015 expectation levels of $1.25 WP. The reasons for such high prices are associated with the production costs of crystalline silicon panels which are increasing due to limited amounts of silicon and expensive clean-room manufacturing. These costs can be brought down some by government subsidization of large silicon production and increases in scaling and deployment.

However, additional economies of scale in silicon production and increased deployment may not be enough to drop costs to $1.25 Wp by 2015 and $1.15 by 2030 to meet the Solar American Initiative and industry and government targets. This is where the aforementioned research and development advances in new technology will be necessary to achieve these cost goals.  Economies of scale are a crucial element to drive and production costs down but even when combined with government infrastructure subsidies more actions will be required to meet grid parity, at least until new technology advances in efficiencies are ready for mass production. This brings us to the third component individual incentives and subsidies.

Financing, Subsidies & Incentives

Government and regional subsidies and incentives for the end users are a vital part of solar electricity equation. The following processes have proven beneficial in a number of countries:  Direct subsidization of PV systems by Federal, State, regional, and local governments to utility companies or to companies that build arrays for utility companies can be provided for infrastructure development. For end users, refunds, rebates, and tax incentive programs can offset PV system purchases and installation costs.

Another powerful program is the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) which grants free PV installations in return for 25 year contracts. These programs require the customer to purchase the electricity generated from independently owned PV system at a determined price usually at or just below current electricity rates for that region. Currently the majority of tied-to-grid installed PV systems are being done through PPA’s. There are a number of new PPA agreements under consideration to reduce or remove the significant upfront costs which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars to the consumers in exchange for a 20 – 25 year contract.

Two beneficial programs that encourage the adoption of solar electricity are Feed in Tariffs (FIT) and Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SREC). FIT’s are where electricity providers agree to purchase electricity generated from PV systems instead of traditional fossil fuel plants. The producers provide PV electricity at a guaranteed rate, usually for a set number of years.  Pricing can be subsidized initially to keep prices comparable to traditional grid pricing. SREC’s can require or  provide individuals and companies an incentive to invest in PV electricity that will guarantee PV electricity purchases and are designed to improve the distribution of electricity sources in the grid.

The purpose of R&D investment, scaling, and subsidies are not to only provide costs savings to utility companies and end users to encourage the adoption of solar electricity but to also reduce reliance on fossil fuels securing greater energy independence, create home grown high tech jobs, and reduce CO2 emissions.

Solar PV systems are beneficial in all regions with adequate sunlight but are most beneficial when concentrated in regions with the highest sources of available daylight which means a massive scale up in the southwestern United States and similar such geographic zones.

The real value of PV use over the next 25 years will be to supplement existing utility power generation during peak daytime use. This will offset the need to construct additional power plants to meet increasing demand from growing population centers. PV are also modular by design which allows for easy installation of additional units very suitable for commercial building and residential home expansion.

New applications building integrated PV should be more widespread in new and retrofit construction; other innovative technologies will be feasible as R&D increases yield new products. One such application might be solar roadways, thin film PV on skyscraper windows / grid panels, and paint on applications for irregular surfaces.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is another critical component to support PV build up. Lifecycle GHG emissions for PV systems will approach 15g/KWh (grams emitted per kilo watt hour of use) by 2015. Only wind generation produces less GHG at 11g/KWh. The remaining sources are as follows

• Nuclear – 40g/KWh, this figure is debated to be considerably more
• Combined gas fired facility – Traditional natural gas – 400 to 599 g/KWh
• Oil fired plant – 893g/KWh
• Coal fired power plant – 915-945 g/KWh, drops to 200g/KWh if carbon capture and storage is utilized.

Solar power integration will increase as solar efficiencies increase and costs come down. This effort must be driven at the government level with proper subsidies and funding allocated intelligently and barriers to entry removed through proper legislation. Initial profitability for companies will be gained through continuous improvements in efficiencies and from government/private funding and subsidization. PV combined with solar thermal facilities can supplement fossil fuel electricity production significantly within the next 15 years for a third of the world population and potentially replace it after that.

http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/1787/

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/PV/future.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-07-11/business/17380048_1_nanosys-fossil-fuels-energy-foundation/2

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/02/20_solarpanels.shtml

http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1501

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/03/03/will-solar-prices-fall-into-grid-parity/

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

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

In the previous blog, A Call For The Transition To Renewable Energy  it was discussed that industrialized nations of the world will soon have to address that a world energy crisis driven by demand from developing countries is looming within the next 25 years. Fossil fuels alone will not be able to meet demand. The easier to extract surface sources are rapidly becoming exhausted requiring more difficult and environmentally damaging drilling and mining procedures that are both more time intensive and expensive. The increased costs of energy and potential shortages can create more geopolitical stresses between countries as they scramble to meet their energy demands. It is beyond time to ramp up existing renewable energy sources (biofuels, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, tidal, and biomass) to supplement fossil fuels over the next 25 years while actively searching for long term, highly efficient energy systems to transition into beyond 2035.

The liquid fuel transportation sector is dominated by petroleum which is refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The transition process in this sector would involve escalating biofuels production in order to supplement future petroleum demand. Cellulosic ethanol can be economically derived from gasification processes and will represent the most cost effective and efficient production means of ethanol production. It also doesn’t compete against food crops, requires much less water, and can be attained from a multitude of carbon based sources including the unusable residue from crops, natural fast growing grasses and plants, disposable wood from logging, and even human waste. Increasing the additive rates of ethanol in gasoline up to E30 (30% ethanol / 70% gasoline) and providing government subsidies for fuel line conversions will contribute significantly to mitigating demand and reduce the chance of rampant  price increases due to regional gas shortages.

Diesel fuel necessary for commercial transportation (large trucks and ships) can also be supplemented by biofuels, in this case utilizing bio-algae, jatropha, and halophytes to create bio-diesel.  Microbial organisms can be used during the processing to increase yield and refinement efficiencies and reduce costs. Diesel blends up to B30 (30% biodiesel / 70% petroldiesel) can be attained without major modification in fuel lines. World governments can then provide similar subsides for fuel line conversions to trucking and shipping fleets. Jet fuel blends can be supplemented with bio-algae; the U.S. military and some commercial airlines have already taken keen interest and developed prototypes for this application.  The goal is to supplement petroleum based diesel and jet fuels with biodiesel which will mitigate demand and reduce the chance of price increases in commercial transportation which adversely affects consumer goods pricing and airline ticket prices.

In addition, supplementing petroleum based fuels should be done in unison with the generation of new hybrid (gasoline/battery) or completely battery based automobiles and light truck production over the next 25 years. Battery technology and high capacitance systems need to be elevated in importance and additional government funding for research and development put in place to provide economically viable batteries and ultra capacitors with greater yields and longer life capabilities. If necessary the patents held by the fossil fuel and aerospace defense industries need to be made available for public use instead of being put on ice as a potential threat of substitution to petroleum, or classified for military uses. Suitable battery technology may very well already exist but the public sector does not have access to it. Utilization of hybrid, battery, or high capacitance system will further reduce future demand for liquid petroleum fuels but will require increased demand in electricity production. Heavy trucks, trains, and ships used for commercial transportation require considerable power to move heavy loads. Battery and high capacitor systems are not currently able to provide adequate power to solely meet commercial transportation needs. They will be more reliant on hybrid systems and will require more energy from the biodiesel / petroldiesel blends than are required for cars and light trucks.

The unspoken and long term strategic goal of many developed countries appears to be to use up the petroleum resources of other countries while saving their own reserves for emergency or to sustain their countries liquid fuel needs decades from now.  This strategy needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new 25 year goal that includes drilling and refining the readily available global petroleum resources in combination with increases in cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production, government subsidization for replacing fuel lines on existing personal and commercial vehicles,  and creating high efficiency hybrid, battery and high capacitance electric cars and light trucks for personal transportation, and hybrid biodiesel large trucks, trains and boats for commercial uses. Then by 2035, begin the process of transitioning into hydrogen fuel based transportation models for developed countries, while allowing undeveloped countries additional time to become petroleum independent. This means limiting expensive and risky deep water drilling rigs, shale extraction, and production of more oil refineries limited only to petroleum. All government subsidization for the petroleum sector should cease and be transferred to companies generating second (cellulosic ethanol), third (bioalgae), and fourth (high yield genetically modified plants combined with microbial catalysts) generation biofuels, and for the development of biofuel infrastructure. This would include refineries that can be utilized for both petroleum and biofuels.

Resistance from the very profitable petroleum sector will be considerable and OPEC nations will put up a strong fight even going so far as to temporarily drop oil prices in order to draw attention away from the need to transition to renewables and to save the petroleum industry’s future profitability. Excuses for why renewables are a panacea will flourish and will need to be set aside. Our next generation of automobiles may not run as fast, or have the same mileage capability, but they will be clean and reduce our reliance on a polluting fuel source that has created enough geo-political instabilities and wars already. This 100 year old technology is past its prime and the world is certainly capable of doing better. The reason fossil fuels have been held in place this long as our dominate source of energy is because of the massive profitability and wealth generation it provides for a small percentage of the world’s population and not for its current benefit to humanity.

The other half of the fossil fuel equation is electricity production which is provided by coal and natural gas. Electricity production actually requires more fossil fuels than the transportation sector and demand is projected to outpace petroleum and will be further increased by the need for hybrids, electric, and high capacitance vehicles all of which will draw additional power from the grid. The transition of this sector, over the next 25 years, should be a move towards the existing renewable energy sources of solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, geothermal, and biomass facilities. Biomass which uses carbon based refuse (forestry, crop, animal, and industrial) and wastes (sewage and municipal solid) will be the only source that requires commodity based replenishment that could be subject to price fluctuations, but this resource will be derived from throw away material.  The transition process itself can begin with the removal of coal and natural gas subsidies and strict limitations on future coal or natural gas power plant production. One such limitation could require no more coal fired plants built without adjacent bio-algae photo bioreactors for algae based biodiesel production and CO2 sequestration. Instead, funds could be allocated to infrastructure development of large solar thermal, geothermal, tidal and wind generation systems. Subsidies should also be provided to business and homeowners to put photovoltaic arrays on their premises.  If regional electricity service providers heavily vested in coal and natural gas production want to continue as public electricity providers they will need to be required to build an increasing number of energy facilities that are completely renewable in nature. Some renewable energy plants are more expensive to construct than traditional coal and natural gas facilities, certainly the case for large solar thermal operations. However, over the 25 year life span of the facility the infrastructure costs become offset within a few years since there are no ongoing requirements for expensive and environmentally damaging drilling, mining, refining, and distribution expenses associated with acquiring oil, coal, and natural gas.  Renewable energy power plants will be cheaper for developed and developing countries in the long run, providing clean energy, and not require purchasing or extracting fossil fuel commodities from potential hostile countries.

Synergies exist between complimentary renewable energy sources and with existing fossil fuel sources. Large megawatt solar thermal facilities can be designed to provide power for cities, or smaller solar thermal power plants can be utilized for neighborhood or suburb electricity generation.  Residential and commercial photovoltaic arrays with government subsidies to assist business and resident affordability can be utilized in conjunction with solar thermal (or other renewable energy sources) to help reduce the regions demand. Solar thermal, geothermal, and wind farms can share space with bio-algae photo bioreactors (PBR’s) to reduce land costs and reduce space requirements.  Biofuels can be generated from sewage, waste material, food crop residue, and wood residues creating fuel sources from material that would otherwise be burned or sent to landfills. Fast growing and drought resistant plants requiring little irrigation can be grown and harvested on lands unsuitable for crops and utilize husks, stovers, and other discardable material from traditional crop harvesting.  All existing coal fire and natural gas plants could have bio-algae PBR’s in place to absorb the CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. In developed countries all new power plants should be renewable where possible and only natural gas if not. Coal plants should only be considered for poorer developing countries with large coal reserves.  

A new paradigm for worldwide renewable energy production can be implemented where profitability expectations are removed from future State owned and privately held renewable energy companies.  In countries with a private sector, existing renewable energy companies could be incentivized by their governments to switch to a strictly non-profit model. Another option is the creation of new private non-profit renewable energy companies with infrastructure development and scaling subsidies provided by their governments that would allow them to provide energy at lower costs to consumers and compete directly against for-profit renewable energy (and fossil fuel).  If full government subsidization is not possible then 0% infrastructure and scaling loans could be made available with repayment plans established that assure competitive energy pricing remains available to the public.  State owned energy companies with little incentive to eliminate their profit structure will still be able to provide energy indigenously and to the developing nations but in time will be hard press to remain competitive outside their own borders.

The goal of the non-profit renewable energy provider is to be able to produce and distribute electricity in the most efficient and low cost manner possible and to pass those savings onto their customers. It is also to provide energy sector jobs to replace those jobs lost from the fossil fuel industries.  Favorable government legislation and subsidization for private sector non-profits will be essential to ensure political barriers to entry are removed and to meet infrastructure costs and to develop economies of scale.  Subsidization can come from removing subsidies provided to very profitable oil, coal and natural gas companies and from tax revenues associated with providing clean energy. A non-profit model focused on efficiency and removing unnecessary expenses associated with pay for performance executive compensations, investor ROI expectations, profits for mining and drilling operations, costs related to exporting of fossil fuels, and short sighted profit maximizing decision making will be removed from the future energy equation.  I am not advocating government takeover of the western energy industry, but the establishment of true non-profit private companies in the free market economies. For already established state owned companies heavily vested in fossil fuels my hope is they will eventually operate under the same non-profit guidelines as they to transition towards renewable.  This should also decrease geo-political instability in certain regions of the world that use energy profits to sponsor terrorism or as funds to support military buildup and wars.

It is time for world governments especially those in developed countries with free market to start acting responsibly and considering its citizens. Energy is a basic requirement for all societies and the world has been limited to technology and policies that are outdated and no longer in its best interests. The question of how to pay for the transition to renewable energy is legitimate. Whether governments should increase taxes or use existing tax dollars to subsidize renewable energy infrastructure and provide assistance for companies to scale up production will be debate and heavily resisted from many channels. Interestingly enough, funding didn’t appear to difficult to acquire when it was necessary for bailing out irresponsible financial companies or providing massive subsidies to the ridiculously profitable fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel based companies know they will eventually have to venture into the renewable market as oil, coal, and natural gas become to scarce or expensive. Why should the world wait until governments are near financial collapse due to high energy costs affecting nearly every sector of their economies, or countries are on the brink of war due to scarcity and conflicts over meeting demand?

Prior to 2035, world governments, academia, and even private sector labs should have been be utilized to search out the most promising energy sources with the greatest efficiencies that will meet the world’s long term energy needs. The push should be to develop free or extremely low cost energy systems such as fusion or kinetic systems for electricity production, and a hydrogen based fuel source for vehicles. We must begin this researching process and planning for this process now.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

How is it that our scientists and technologies have created exponential growth in computing, super colliders, nano-technology, particle weaponry, world-wide satellite coverage, etc. and yet for energy production we are limiting ourselves to a polluting, 100+ year old technology that creates geo-political instability around the world and has most recently become subject to the whims of commodities traders?

Industrialized nations of the world will soon have to address that a world energy crisis driven by demand from developing countries is looming within the next 25 years. The bulk of the energy industry’s production motives which are dominated by fossil fuels and its obsession with profitability are not going to provide the solution for our upcoming energy problems. World energy producers have become very efficient at extracting, processing, refining, and distributing petroleum for transportation liquid fuels, and coal / natural gas for electricity production. However, production will not be able to keep pace with the growing world wide demand expected to rise almost 50% by 2035, much of that coming from the developing countries of China, India and in Southeast Asia. This is not a matter of peak oil or how much fossil fuel remains in the ground, but an issue of simple supply versus demand.

Fossil fuels have served our world’s growing energy needs extremely well, despite the fact that oil and coal use has been around since the turn of the 20^th century, but we are fast approaching the limits in improvements that can be expected from production capabilities. In addition, the easier to extract surface fossil fuel sources are rapidly becoming exhausted requiring more difficult and environmentally damaging drilling and mining procedures that are both more time intensive and expensive. The increased costs will be passed on to end users and when combined with potential shortages will create stresses between countries scrambling to meet their own energy demands,  this may even include going to war to guarantee energy  stability. This scenario can be further complicated by fossil fuel commodities traders who take advantage of regional problems to run up prices. This is an excellent formula for State owned or privately held oil companies interested in ensuring ongoing profits for decades, but not for the rest of the world.

There is also the matter that the regions containing fossil fuels are not only proving to be environmentally difficult to work in but geo-politically hostile as well. Many countries rich in fossil fuels (ie. Middle East and African countries) also divert funds to groups and organizations that sponsor regional unrest and acts of terrorism or can use earnings to build up military capacity and develop weapons of mass destruction.

We are fast running out of time to seriously implement existing renewable energy sources (biofuels, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, tidal, and biomass) as a supplement to fossil fuels over the next 25 years while actively searching for long term, highly efficient energy systems to transition into beyond 2035. The industrialized countries of the world and their private or state owned energy companies are going to have to set aside their fossil fuel based profitability expectations for energy production and begin thinking in terms of transitioning. This will not be done willingly, these companies and their holdings represent significant infrastructure investments and they are cash cows, in many cases representing the only significant source of income for the region. In countries with capitalism based economies the lobbying stranglehold the fossil fuel industry holds over energy legislation will need to be removed, and campaign contributions that help elect sympathetic representatives curtailed if there is to be any significant infrastructure support from those governments.

This process will have to be driven from the free market economies since State owned companies with large oil reserves will have little incentive to transition on their own since they can meet their domestic demand, and fossil fuels represents a substantial income source for the country and they will profit off of the projected 84% expected increase in demand from developing countries over the next 25 years. This sharp increase in demand will be buffered by developing countries themselves as S. America, China and India are currently taking their own measures to implement renewable energy sources realizing their own vulnerabilities. Even if these developing countries begin the transition process to renewable energy sources, State owned companies will be needed to fill the remaining projected demand. Privately held companies in the U.S., Canada and Europe can then be utilized to meet remaining 16% growth expectation from the developed countries with fossil fuels and renewables.

Existing renewable energy processes need to become more efficient and costs brought down through economies of scale. The purpose for expansion of these renewable sources is to increasingly supplement fossil fuels over the next 25 years.  This must become mandated. In addition, new technologies and system improvements investigated and existing patents that have been shelved to protect fossil fuels from competition should be re-evaluated. Their feasibility and economic viability analyzed, and those with satisfactory efficiencies implemented. World governments cannot immediately dump existing fossil fuel systems since renewable capacity falls far short of meeting demand. In addition, current levels of debt among industrialized countries are already to burdensome due to the irresponsible behaviors of governments and their financial leaders to sufficiently generate new infrastructure in a timely enough manner. We can however begin to aggressively supplement fossil fuels consumption with renewable energy sources in the industrialized worlds. This will allow the poorer developing countries to continue to use predominately fossil fuel sources while they implement renewable energy infrastructure themselves. This may require years of transitioning so it must begin now.

World energy demand can become as significant an issue as the 2008 world wide collapse of the financial markets and generate long term recessions. I would like to emphasize this point once again; regardless of how world fossil fuel producers try to ramp up production they cannot meet global demand. For the transition period over the next 25 years we must utilize all sources of energy and start the process of relinquishing the political stranglehold that the fossil fuel industry holds in the political arenas.

By 2035 renewable energy sources should play significant role supplementing fossil fuels and contributing towards global demand. During this transition period research and development initiatives from world government’s, academia’s, and even government funded and private sector laboratories’ should be utilized to search for new energy sources and refine existing systems for still greater efficiencies. Possibilities for new energy systems include hydrogen, advance fuel cells, new battery or high efficiency capacitors for transportation requirements, and fusion reactors and kinetic energy systems combined with advancements in solar, geothermal, wind and tidal power for electricity generation. 

The goal after 2035 is not to supplement fossil fuels but replace them. The motivation to look for energy systems that provide ongoing streams of company profits and investor return will have to be put aside and a new generation of non-profit energy providers created. Profit maximization will then be replaced with production efficiency and providing free or extremely low cost energy to end users. Research for these next generations of renewable energy systems must begin now with long term plans designed for the transition.

My next blog will discuss procedures necessary to implement the transition process to renewable energy sources in both the transportation and electricity production sectors.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

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 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