Wind Turbines

Curt Felix sent me the following informative response. Obviously, his response in too long for frambors.

I wonder is you could put Curt’s write-up on the frambors website so that I can post his opening paragraphs, and provide a link to the full article. A brief summary of Mr. Felix’s credentials is to be found at the very bottom.

Thanks,

Yaakov

Thanks for the forward. Yaakov’s comments are very thoughtful and I enjoyed reading them. With regard to “BIOFUEL” the Globe and the Post are doing a poor job of informing the public on this issue because of the lack of distinction between ETHANOL and BIODIESEL. When they use the term BIOFUEL, throughout the article they are referring to CORN BASED ETHANOL, about which the piece is accurate. To be responsible, every new fuel alternative must be compared with petroleum including all of its exploration, refining, distribution, combustion, trade flow, global peace, economic and social development aspects.

The public interest is not well served by lumping biofuels together. I have provided links to explore more information below but what we need is clear environmental, energy security and economic development information on:

The article’s broad brush, would indeed help accelerate environmental disaster, and cut off development of highly beneficial solutions.

There are substantial Global Warming (CO2), food vs. fuel, energy balance, pollution, economic development and energy security differences between:

The multinationals that Yaakov mentions are in part responsible for the PR around “food vs. fuel” and “razing the rainforest for biofuels”. Here are some facts focusing on biodiesel not ethanol:

The carbon neutral case for biodiesel is the result of several exhaustive studies by both the US Department of Energy and US Department Agriculture showing a 78% reduction in CO2 from biodiesel compared with petroleum (and they assume petroleum is used for transportation and production, not biodiesel). The studies included a full lifecycle analysis which looks at all aspects of production, including exploration, refining and transportation as well as final combustion. Biodiesel was also found to produce 3.2 units of useful energy for every unit required to get it to market, whereas ethanol was 1.34 (from sugar cane) and petroleum is just 0.83.

After many trips this year meeting with farmers, cooperatives and food producers in Argentina and Brazil, it is clear that biodiesel from soybeans, canola and other crops can actually increase available food. When beans and seeds are crushed, only 15% to 45% is oil, leaving 55% to 85% available as high quality protein. This does not create competition for food, but exactly the opposite and is more likely to lower food prices than increase them once agribusiness and farmers have adjusted to the increased demand. And in a senseless ironic twist, US taxpayers are still paying US farmers NOT to plant some of their acreage.

The linkage of deforestation to biofuels is tenuous at best. The destruction of the rainforests and forest land started long before biofuels. This is clearly a PR ploy by those against palm oil and biodiesel (corn and petroleum interests) and is not supported by the vast majority of evidence, please see supporting data below. In some cases, rainforest, particularly in Malaysia and Indonesia has been destroyed for Palm.

Palm is not a good source for biodiesel in the U.S. In addition, the rainforest has been destroyed for petroleum exploration, wood, roads, mineral and resource extraction, farmland etc. for decades. Those pressures continue (which have nothing to do with biofuel) and we must use all our efforts to stop it and find sustainable alternatives.

There have been huge strides in research on low cost, high productivity Algae and other non-food crops, grown on land that otherwise cannot be used for food. Many Massachusetts companies and Universities are already at the forefront of this research. Algae may be able to produce on 1 acre of non-arable land, what 10 acres of soybean land can produce today. Based on a study from the University of New Hampshire, on 2% of US land we could supply all of the countries transportation fuel needs from algae. China, in a major reverse desertification effort is planting Jatropha, which will grow on otherwise barren land. Jatropha is an excellent source for biodiesel. So the future is even brighter than the present.

Our failure to act now is not an option. The productivity improvements for producing fuel thru biotechnology may rival improvements that have come in computer processor chips over the last 10-15 years. Biotechnology holds the potential for more efficient oil production from plant life using less land and/or non arable land while providing a reverse course for global warming, deforestation, air toxics and acid rain. Massachusetts is a world leader in this field.

Biodiesel is only one of many solutions that must be pursued to solve global warming and our energy problems. This solution, using the sun and the energy conversion of plants is in plain site, much like Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison harnessed electricity which had always been in plain site. Plants are the most efficient harnessers of the sun’s limitless energy. Our mission must be to better understand and use what they have evolved to do so efficiently for the sake of the planet.

Supporting biodiesel production will also help move the US to energy independence; reduce our dollars going to unstable/dictatorial regimes like: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran etc.; increase global security, by reducing the US’s need to defend international oil flows and drying up petrodollars which “leak” to Al Qeda and other sworn enemies of the US; and will help support the flagging US dollar, by reducing the gush of dollars out of the US for oil.

Biodiesel reduces SOx, particulates, CO, VOC’s, CO2 & Unburnt hydrocarbons 20% to 100%. Jet Fuel is higher in sulfur 2000ppm than diesel 15ppm, home heating oil 500ppm or gasoline 300 ppm. So the effect of B20 in jet fuel, for which are are few alternatives, could be quite significant. In a study by Mass Oil Heat Council, they found that there was an 83% reduction is SOx with B20 in home heating oil. There may be a corresponding reduction in jet fuel. NOx reductions will depend on changing the fuel combustion system to optimize for the 80/20 blend. If they do, there could be up to a 10% reduction in NOx.

GE, Boeing and Virgin Atlantic plan a test flight next month of jet flying with a 20% blend of biodiesel. Sir Richard Brandson’s environmental credentials are well known. Signing moratoriums on biodiesel sends the wrong messages and only serves to help the oil industry. Here are the facts on flying for example:

I spoke recently with a dear friend who is a corn and soybean farmer in Minnesota. He has bought 2,500 hectares in Brazil and is now farming there as well, because in his words, “the railroad just came to our town and its exciting to witness what it must have felt in the US at the turn of the century”. He also said “Brazilian farmers are world class agronomists and there are none better”. He went to Brazil to organize farmers to avoid their becoming captive to the large multinationals like Cargill. He opposes ethanol production from corn and supports, biodiesel and ethanol from sugarcane due to the widely recognized global warming, social and economic development, national security, environmental pollution and trade benefits.

Oil, gold, diamond, copper, lumber and other mining interests are the main drivers in deforestation. Often emotional pictures of scarred rainforest ascribed to biofuels are in fact pictures of gold mines, road clearing, timber or oil exploration clearing and this was in fact the case for a recently circulated “article” on the harms of biofuels. They have been the major culprits for decades so it would be more than a little disingenuous to point at biofuels as a cause. Nontheless, deforestation and the source of biofuels is absolutely critical and we must be vigilant about our sources, just as we are vigilant about organic food. We must not however, lose sight of the fact that oil and corn interests are likely behind the misinformation campaign and that any downsides to biodiesel or other biofuels must be compared to the exploration, refining, distribution and combustion perils of oil. In addition, the national security, trade and local pollution impacts must also be taken into consideration

Taking poisons out of the ground to burn them does not make environmental sense. Biodiesel is a global warming solution and one day soon will also come from other materials like algae at low cost.

90% of biodiesel feedstocks (worldwide) come from Soy and Canola according to Wikipedia data below. So to single out Palm as in the Arise action circulated piece, is misleading. R&D on new feedstock sources like Algae/Jatropha will produce a radical improvement in biofuel efficiency and LESSEN land impacts: Please note the land estimate below is for ALL US transportation.

And then there is a new exciting source of biodiesel: Jatropha which is being supported from the bottom up. Currently the oil from Jatropha curcas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_curcas> seeds <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed> is used for making biodiesel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel> fuel in Philippines <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines> , promoted by a law authored by Philippine senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Miguel Zubiri. Likewise, jatropha oil is being promoted as an easily grown biofuel crop in hundreds of projects throughout India and other developing countries. [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha#_note-Fairless> [4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha#_note-2> The rail line between Mumbai <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai> and Delhi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi> is planted with Jatropha and the train itself runs on 15-20% biodiesel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel> . [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha#_note-Fairless> In Africa, cultivation of jatropha is being promoted and is grown successfully in countries such as Mali. [5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha#_note-3>

The plant can grow in wastelands <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland> , fertilises the soil that it grows in, and yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean; more than ten times that of corn. Jatropha produces about 1,892 liters of fuel per hectare <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare> (about 202 US gallons <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallons> per acre <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre> or 4.8 barrels <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel#Oil_barrel> per acre <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre> ).[6] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha#_note-MIT>

Jatropha can also be intercropped <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercropping> with other cash crops such as coffee, sugar, fruits and vegetables.

Palm is a terrible biodiesel feedstock because the biodiesel quality is unacceptable for winter use and leads to tricky use for the balance of the year. Palm biodiesel becomes solid at about 10 deg C or 50 deg F, thus the blanks in the table and not at all good for running in homeheating, or for fall, winter or spring transportation use in New England. It is only a useful feedstock for warm weather climates. From a serious production perspective it is the wrong feedstock for technical reasons and is not likely to play a significant role in the US or Northern Europe.

In Europe, soybean and canola are the preferred source of biodiesel which is relatively clear from the data below:

I hope this is helpful.

Best Regards, Curt

Curt Felix President – Wellfleet Group Wellfleet, MA

Mr. Felix has over 25 years experience in the energy industry, including 10 years in the electric utility industry, developing energy conservation programs for Asian countries while at the World Bank and recently 10 years in the Petroleum industry working on aspects of exploration, refining and production. He also developed the Logan Airport CNG facility and is an expert on alternative energy

YaakovCohnHomepage (last edited 2008-02-09 19:48:57 by LindaDunbrack)