Whiskey Waste to Biofuels - Sustainable Whiskey Production

That cliche - TGIF - Thank God it's Friday -  comes to mind.  Time for something a little more light hearted, although it is actually a serious topic.

The European Parliament's TV channel has published a video looking at a project in Scotland which is aiming to produce high value fuels and products such as biobutanol from the whisky industry's waste.

According to the report around 97% of the products that are used to make whiskey in the distillation process end up as waste, which at the Tullibardine Distillery in Perthshire has to be discarded at a cost of some €293,000 per year.  That is a significant amount of money, so there is money available to invest in something better.  And that is just one whiskey distillery - think of the fact that there are many more in Scotland.

The report explains that while much of this waste has traditionally been recycled as fertiliser and animal feed, the recovery of far more valuable products such as biobutanol – a next generation biofuel – can be produced by refermenting whiskey industry by-products.

According to Mark Simmers, managing director of Celtic Renewable, the idea is to take two low value commodities, or residues and convert them into five or six high value products, including acetone.

The report said that while scaling the five litre lab model up to a 10,000 litre working plant will cost millions, Celtic Renewables is in talks with large companies such as drinks industry giant Diageo and hopes to have a plant in operation by the end of this year.

Reminds me of the story on this blog last year about sustainable rum production.  See the story here:
http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com.au/search/label/rum

Anaerobic Digestion - Is the Time NOW?

Anaerobic digestion seems to have had a recent surge in development around the world.

While small communal facilities are relatively common in rural areas of many less developed countries, including China, where in general they provide a decent contribution to energy and heat, often for hot water, it seems the first world has "discovered"the idea as well.

A recent article has shown an enormous increase in the UK, essentially a doubling of facilities since 2010.  While scale is not mentioned, it seems thay are referring to medium, industrial scale developments, not the sort that featured on Kevin Mcleod's  "Cabin in the Woods" tv show, for a single small weekend cabin.

It is a sensible idea - generate the methane upfront, with the organic residuals then suitable composted, or sometimes even gasified and used for energy.  I prefer the compost route, but not all areas are able to handle the volumes of compost generated.
Nutrients are a critical part of the remainder organics - too much of these are simply transported from farm to city and then lost down the sewer, or as food waste.  That connot continue, as the supply of most nutrients is finite.

The article is here - http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2013/03/rapid-expansion--uk-waste-to-biogas-anaerobic-digestion-industry.html

and clearly shows the rapid development in the UK.

Not so sure about Australia, but the trend is likely to develop.  There have seen some smaller systems developed including in WA, but none in the tropical north that I am aware of, yet that is where the bulk of organic residuals from crops - think sugar cane - are generated, along with food waste from cities and towns of modest size that could easily allow for development of suitable digestion and biogas systems.

 

The Emerging Carbon Economy in North Australia

The print media is all over this today, with syndicated versions of the press release on line and in print at many regional newspapers.

It could be a good thing - but there is work to do beforehand, and it will not happen overnight.

There are some issues also worth considering, that are not in the report.  Algae production has started at Karratha - growing algal cultures and harvesting for conversion to biofuel or other materials including animal feeds is promising.   So is use of duckweed especially in wastewater ponds, or any nutrient rich water source, even irrigation tailwater [ ther ewill be more of that] to clean it of nutrients before it re-enters downstream rivers.

Northern Australia has and is suffering from disinvestments in agriculture [broadly interpreted term] over many years.  There are few if any crops specifically with varieties developed for the region [ sugar may be an exception] and with major seed companies now dominating this sector I cannot see them investing in the region as the market is so small.

It may be possible to identify crop varieties from eg Brazil, or possibly through varieties developed in international centres eg IRRI or ICRISAT and used in Asian or African / Indian areas, but some work will be needed to identify them.  And governments have little appetite to spend those $$ at the moment.
While it is possible that the beef herd could expand significantly, the Australian government has not helped over recent years with their activities in curtailing the live cattle trade.  Yes, new abattoirs are coming, but they may not necessarily quickly allow for herd increases.  And can these animals be more methane efficient anyway?  If feed quality went up - maybe, and that often involves more legume in the diet - will we see more of a pangola / leucaena finishing system?  It works and that was demonstrated in the 1970s at Kununurra.

Do not hold your breath........but actively offer ideas.

The media release by the Federal government is below but the report is more difficult to find.  Try the link here for the report, and there is a summary also available -

http://www.regional.gov.au/regional/ona/carbon-economy-for-northern-australia-2012.aspx

The report is brief, 20 pages and easy to download.

Media release

Tapping the carbon market of northern Australia could provide a valuable new revenue stream for the region – once key obstacles are removed, according to a government report.

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from fire and livestock, sequestering carbon in soils and vegetation, and the production of renewable feedstock for aviation biofuel are three of the main opportunities identified in The Emerging Carbon Economy for Northern Australia report.

"These opportunities will provide northern farmers the potential to reap a billion-dollar return," Regional Australia Minister Simon Crean said.

"CSIRO found the benefits of the carbon economy will not be confined to climate change action, but could generate environmental and livelihood benefits," he said.

 

The region covers some 300 million hectares north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Mr Crean said the federal government would work with state and local governments to help regions "embrace the carbon economy" by generating credits that they can sell to big emitters under its carbon market.
While the report identifies possible areas of income generation – such as a potential of $200 million dollars a year in abatement of carbon emissions through better savannah-burning management and $240 million from the livestock industry – it also specifies how much work still needs to be done.

For instance, the property rights to carbon would need clear ownership rules, while the scale of carbon stocks in the soil and its potential enhancement "warrant continued scientific enquiry", the report said.

Similarly, while indigenous groups have been able to earn carbon credits for savannah-burning under the government's Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), the report found "practical barriers to wider implementation of this method remain".

Likewise, the government is yet to approve a methodology allowing farmers to earn credits under the CFI for methane abatement efforts in the livestock industry. The northern beef herd counts some 13 million animals.

The biofuel potential could amount to 5 per cent of the jetfuel use in Australia, although that assessment also is based on "early stages of investigation", the report said.

The Coalition has vowed to scrap the carbon tax and planned emissions trading market if it wins office, although it has signalled it may continue with some of the government's carbon farming program.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/northern-australias-carbon-market-potentially-vast-report-finds-20121129-2ahnv.html#ixzz2DfTApk3T

Renewable Energy IS Getting Cheaper

A series of reports published on 6 June 2012 by the International Renewable Energy Association  [IRENA] [See www.irena.org ] shows some detailed figures in the publications about the costs of renewable energy form various sources, and the expected costs over the next few years.

Solar energy in various formats seems to be trending strongly lower in costs, while hydro power is already about the lowest cost around for renewable energy.

Cost of solar has reached very attractive costs for domestic use in a number of countries, with Germany among the lowest cost countries.

The reports are free and easily downloadable from their web site, and provide a fairly non partisan view of renewable energy costs in various forms, covering a rang eof solar types, hydropower, wind energy, biomass and similar.  It is interesting to note that biomass can be an attractive option cost wise in areas where residuals exist and can be converted to energy.  The reports are separate for the various energy forms.

  

Cheap Distributed Energy for Rural Development

In India, Tata, one of the industrial giants of the country is working through concepts to invest in cheap distributed power supply in rural areas.

The company believes there is a market.......if not today, then soon. And they are positioning themselves to be part of it.

Sure, one thinks of solar powered telephone towers, remembering that the entire microwave repeater system across the north of Australia was run on solar power, and that was 25 years ago. So that is not new.

There are other options too, including local use of biomass produced for fuel such as palm oil, or other crop oils used in small diesel motors to run local cottage industry or produce modest amounts of electricity.

Tata is doing this big time though.

Does their model also offer some hope for many other rural and remote regions across Asia and Africa especially?

Read more here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20047974-54.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related

Can Energy be Less Black in Australia?

Australia's energy markets, their regulation and development might be in for some serious challenges it seems, right at the nub of change - policy intervention.

Australia has much of our energy production from coal, including some from particularly dirty brown coal. These are all on one side. Shall we say the brown, or maybe black corner.

Then there are the new energy producers, with renewable energy in various forms, but commonly wind in the majority at present, but more alternatives coming, or at worst, gas as the primary energy source. The green corner, you might think.

Lobbying from the black corner has so far been quite successful, with their success relatively undiminished. Even a few more recent successes. There has been a focus on preservation of the policy status quo. BUT.......the green corner is pushing hard, and might be on the cusp of some decent gains.

Read the article here and look at the links. An interesting time is upon us.

http://www.environmentalmanagementnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=1564856&sectionsource=s0

Can the politicians yet be convinced that it is within their power to actually do something??

Agriculture WILL be Part of Biofuels Future

While there have been many naysayers about the role of crops in biofuel production, recent developments do show a somewhat different pattern emerging as new generation production facilities are coming on line.

In 2007, the US Department of Agriculture estimated cellulosic ethanol production costs at $2.65/gal., compared to $1.65 for corn-based ethanol.

POET recently reported that it lowered production costs for cellulosic ethanol - including capital expenses - from $4.13 to $2.35/gal. in one year, as of November 2009, at its South Dakota pilot plant and hopes to lower it further.

Novozymes, the leading producer of enzymes in the world, recently estimated that the cost of enzymes for cellulosic ethanol production [ in the USA] has been reduced significantly in the last two years to about 50 cents/gal., reducing total production costs in the near term to about $2/gal.

Algae has great yield potential, but production cost estimates (net of capital costs) for growing and converting algae to fuel are significantly higher, ranging from $9 to $35/gal. depending on the production technology, the report notes. "Developing the capacity to use multiple feedstocks and to produce bio-based fuels that are equivalent to fossil fuels that can be used in current vehicles without limit and distributed seamlessly in the existing transportation sector may become the least-risky business model to pursue," the report concludes.

Read the full report at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/BIO%200101/BIO0101.pdf

Some new plants are producing biodiesel from waste fats, rather than new farm based oils or similar eg palm oils.

Work continues in a range of countries, with biodiesel small scale plants making some inroads in developing countries.

Australia still seems to be locked into ethanol from sugarcane and grains..........yet the new cellulosic ethanol option would seem to be of increasing importance.

Will we see Australian grassy weeds - with lots of biomass for example gamba grass - be seen as valuable for cellulosic ethanol production. Many sure do produce a lot of biomass!!

There is also a good article here:
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/role-for-ag-in-advanced-biofuels/1837573.aspx?storypage=0

Vale - Norman Borlaug

The name might not mean much to many people, but to most agricultural scientists his name is synomous with the dramatic improvement in crop yields over the past 50 or so years...........commonly known as the Green Revolution. He received a Nobel prize in 1970.

He died after a long battle with cancer, at 95, a pretty good innings, and an active one until very recently.

The following article in New Scientist provides an excellent overview of his lifetime of work on crop genetics and related areas.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17778-norm-borlaug-the-man-who-fed-the-world.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17778

The article is headed - Norm Borlaug: the man who fed the world.
Written on 14 September 2009 by Debora MacKenzie

As was said - They don't make 'em like Norm Borlaug anymore!

Feeding the World - Agricultural Development BACK on the Agenda

Addressing the world's food problems should be the Obama administration's topmost aid priority, according to Catherine Bertini and Dan Glickman. Both are co-chairs of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs' Global Agricultural Development Project. Bertini was executive director of the World Food Program from 1992 to 2002, while Glickman was the U.S. agriculture secretary from 1995 to 2001.

This article puts agricultural aid firmly back on the high priority list in the US foreign policy agenda, previously dominated by defence - spending and military activity. They argue that in simple terms, people with full bellies do not want military activity nearby, and that the US could do a lot to redress the view of them that the rest of the world has, by forging a new agricultural revolution in the areas most desperate for agricultural productivity. Real agricultural productivity gains. Sadly, not a lot said about the agricultural trade issues though - maybe that might get back on the agenda too.

The media coverage has been extensive, but getting the full article is a bit tricky as Foreign Affairs magazine, where it appeared in the May / June 2009 edition, pp93-105, restricts access.

However, some excerpts have been published in various formats. It was a full article in The Australian Financial Review last Friday, July 17, 2009 and excerpts are available if you search around on line.

This link takes you to the extensive executive summary [23 pp] of the main report that formed the basis of the article in Foreign Affairs Magazine.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/globalagdevelopment/pdf/GADP_Final_Exec_Summary.pdf

The activity in this area has big implications for the foreign aid operations of not only the USA but Australia too. Like them, 20 -25 years ago Australia and Australians were very active and prominent in agricultural research and development world wide, in major R and D organisations and in real, on the ground rural development activities. Much of that has been degraded.......but it might be about to get a new lease of life.

A strongly commended article to read for all those interested in real agricultural development. It links well with a previous post on using GM technology in rural development areas too. There is technology around, useful technology [ salt tolerance in cereals too] but it needs harnessing for those really needing a boost in food production.

Bioplastics from Sugarcane

The Cooperative Research Centre for Sugar Industry Innovation through Biotechnology (CRC SIIB) today announced strong progress in providing new and diverse bioproduct opportunities for the Australian sugar industry in their 2007/08 Annual Report released in late October, 2008.

The CRC SIIB 2007/08 achievements include:
- together with its American-based member company Metabolix, the CRC SIIB reported the production of sugarcane containing 3.5% PHA (polyhydroxy alkanoate – a new class of biodegradable plastics). The CRC SIIB has made significant progress in producing bioplastics in sugarcane plants that can be used for a wide range of commercial applications and confirming that sugarcane is a preferred feedstock (over corn and sugar beet) for the production of bioproducts.

The chief executive of the CRC SIIB, Dr Peter Twine says he is now looking for investors to turn the research into a viable business venture. He hopes biodegradable plastic extracted from sugar cane will be used to produce a multitude of products in around five years time. "It could be used for any form of plastic where you want to get rid of it at the end of the day," he said. "Mulching in agriculture, mobile phone cases, beer keg tops. It can be injection-moulded or it can be created into sheet plastic."

Sugarcane has high biomass yields, significantly greater than competitive crops, which then offers a major cost advantage to sugarcane with high bioplastics yields. Combine that with other uses for sugarcane and maybe Australian biotechnology has a real winner. There is likely to be greater returns from this technology rather than the current simplistic process of producing ethanol from sugarcane.

Some additional detail is on the CRC website www.crcsugar.com

Fate of New Biodiesel Manufacturing Plants

Oilseed prices have rocketed up in price and availability has plateaued. Soybean oil prices have increased about 300% over the past 2-4 years, as have palm oil prices.

These two feedstocks have been seen as the cornerstone of the supplies for the biodiesel plant constructed in Darwin at the Darwin Business Park. It cost around A$75 million, but will it be a silver elephant?

These radical increases in feedstock prices for what has been imported materials, along with rapidly escalating logistics and transport charges might mean the local refinery will fail, at least in the current structure.

At present the system is apparently refining glycerin to meet high quality demands in the food and pharmecutical industries, and not biodiesel, but really............it needs to be producing biodiesel. While local NT and even Australian demand is fair, under current government arrangements over tariffs, excise and other issues, the big hiccup is feedstock.

The plant owners are keeping very quiet, very quiet and it is rumoured they are struggling financially.

How many other production plants are in the same predicament?

There is no local production of agricultural produced vegetable oil materials, although some research has been running on a oil soybean industry. While this development is occurring independent of the biodiesel plant, it is likely to be some years away from, if ever, efficient production of economic crops of oil based soybeans, on a large enough scale to contribute significantly to a feedstock source.

Some other species are also being investigated.

The NT does not have a good track record on cropping on the scale required, and anyway the local NT environmental lobby would not want land cleared and used for this purpose.....almost under any set of circumstances. And they are well organised.

And even if enough was produced, would it be cheap enough to use as a feedstock anyway given world prices for the soybean oil?

An interesting conundrum.

Are there other biodiesel plants where feedstock prices are cruelling biodiesel production, even at current mineral oil prices of around US$100 + ?

Jatropha - a Better Biofuel Option?

While many write of doom and gloom about biofuel crops, and that they are actually negative in terms of carbon balance [ see post below], interest is growing [pardon the pun] in jatropha, as a oil source and biofuel.

Jatropha is NOT a food crop, so it is somewhat different to many other options. In fact more of a weed and potential medicinal species in many tropical countries.

The Indian government has been pushing to increase the area of this species, with a focus on small, village level developments, and local processing using modest presssing or extraction equipment. That is probably a great thing, eliminating the need for cash outlays to purchase expensive imported diesel. The jatropha oil, often with minimum further processing can be used in small diesel engines, for lighting, electricity, small workshop and industrial power and machinery operation.

Others are pushing the use on better land, mainly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in India. Sometimes this land is currently idle or damaged in some way eg landmines and in these cases a larger agro-industrial approach is being developed. In Africa, in Mali, a project has been in various phases since around 1993, with generally good results. And the Indian scientists have been developing superior genetic materials with superior establishment and performance.

In Australia jatropha has a stigma as a weed, and development will be, and is, quite muted. Are we missing out on this apparent growth and development? Maybe not, as the Australian owned biofuels plant in Singapore has signed up to buy jatropha oil as a biofuel feedstock.

Will we see weed fueled buses in Darwin?

There are some excellent online resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil - a bit dated but ok for a start point

http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/aboutJatrophaPlant.php

http://cals.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln40/jatropha.html

http://www.jatrophaworld.org/

Like all energy crop projects over the past 25 - 30 years there is a lot of hype with some substance. But with oil now hovering around $100 US per barrel, has the time come to seriously push harder for use of biofuel options, especially those capable of being grown in marginal areas where food crops are not possible?

BUT....jatropha seems to have a significant drawback that is rarely discussed. Seed harvest currently seems to rely on cheap highly intensive labour. Hardly a good option for the industrialised countries. However, one item in abundance in many developing regions IS the supply of labour. Maybe, just maybe, it will be hand harvested while superior semi- mechanised options are developed. They will be needed if it is to expand.

Biofuels Worsen the Carbon Balance and Do Nothing for Climate Change

Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.

Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.

Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce "green" alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants. The scientists found that, in the case of some crops, it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. Those environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of pristine rainforest.

"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture," said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.

The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush to grow biofuels, encouraged by policies in the United States and Europe where proponents have been keen to extol biofuels' virtues as a green alternative to the fossil fuels used for transport.

Both studies looked at how much carbon dioxide is released when a piece of land is converted into a biofuel crop. They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt.

The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields. The scientists found that it would take 319 years of making biodiesel from the soybeans to pay of the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.

Such conversions of land to grow corn (maize) and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.

"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question 'is it worth it?' Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peat lands outweigh the carbon you 'save' by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?" Dr Fargione said. "And surprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere," he said.

The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers for instance used to rotate between soybean and corn crops but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are growing corn only. As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.

"In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease," said Jimmie Powell, a member of the scientific team at the Nature Conservancy. "We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of converting land for biofuels. Doing so means we might unintentionally promote fuel alternatives that are worse than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace. These findings should be incorporated into carbon emission policy going forward," Dr Powell said.

The European Union is already having second thoughts about its policy aimed at stimulating the production of biofuel. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, admitted last month that the EU did not foresee the scale of the environmental problems raised by Europe's target of deriving 10 per cent of its transport fuel from plant material.

Professor John Pickett, chair of the recent study on biofuels commissioned by the Royal Society, said that although biofuels may play an important role in cutting greenhouse gases from transport, it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another."The greenhouse gas savings that a biofuel can provide are dependent on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used," Professor Pickett said. "Given that biofuels are already entering global markets, it will be vital to apply carbon certification and sustainability criteria to the assessment of biofuels to promote those that are good for people and the environment. This must happen at an international level so that we do not just transfer any potentially negative effects of these fuels from one place to another."

Professor Stephen Polasky of the University of Minnesota, an author of one of the studies published in Science, said that the incentives currently employed to encourage farmers to grow crops for biofuels do not take into account the carbon budget of the crop. "We don't have the proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products but not rewarded for carbon management. This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions," Professor Polasky said.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/destroying-native-ecosystems-biofuel-crops-worsens-global-warming-15441.html is the link to one Polasky article, and he has an excellent presentation on biofuel economics on line as well.

These studies apparently point to a very different dynamic in the use of biofuels. We do not seem to be able to have it both ways it seems with current systems. But the next generation of biofuel production systems that mostly use lignocellulosic products [commonly waste biomass] which are converted microbiologically are generally a very different proposition with the economics apparently positive. But whether the carbon balance is positive or negative is currently still being debated. At least the initial products used are not being diverted from primarily food production.

In Australia the rush to use biofuels has not been as great as elsewhere, mainly due to supply constraints, and the paucity of production plants.

[partially sourced from original sources, http://www.independent.co.uk/ and others]

Low Level Biodiesel Blends DO Reduce Greenhouse Gas

A new CSIRO report shows a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from biodiesels, even with a low 2pc biodiesel blend. Every little bit does count!

Biodiesel is a diesel substitute made from renewable materials such as tallow and vegetable oils which typically is blended into diesel at ratios of 2, 5 and 20pc here in Australia, depending on the type of customer.

Caltex in australia is a significant supplier of these blended biodiesel fuels, and CEO, Des King, says, "Biodiesel blends also reduce emissions of very fine particles from diesel vehicle exhausts, while reducing greenhouse gas." “Every litre of diesel supplied from Caltex's Newcastle terminal is New Generation Diesel containing 2pc biodiesel." "The supply of our biodiesel blends from Newcastle saves our customers about 20 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

In addition, Caltex supplies 5 and 20pc blends to commercial customers in various locations.

According the recent CSIRO report, a 2% biodiesel blend can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5% compared with the effect of unblended diesel, assuming the biodiesel is made from tallow. The reduction for a 5% biodiesel blend is 3.7pc and the reduction for a 20% is 15%.

Caltex has not purchased imported palm oil based biodiesel and will not, unless it can be shown to be sustainable, to the satisfaction of key stakeholders in the countries where it is produced.
Biodiesel made from palm oil sourced from existing plantations, offers similar greenhouse gas emission savings to tallow-based biodiesel. However, imported palm oil sourced from cleared rainforest or peat swamps would greatly increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Caltex commissioned CSIRO to conduct the research on the greenhouse gas benefits of biodiesel blends to support development of renewable fuels, and to provide updated, authoritative information for our customers and everyone with an interest in biodiesel.

"Caltex supports development of biofuels in Australia," says the CEO. "We achieved our volume target for 2006 under the former government’s Biofuels Action Plan and have already achieved our target for 2007. "We advocate continuation of this plan under the new Labor government.

“We also see the need for the government to prepare a comprehensive plan for biofuels in Australia through to 2020, including consideration of some pressing short term regulatory and financial issues including the biodiesel blend standard and the longer term transition to non-food biofuels feedstocks."


* The report on greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends in Australia, can be downloaded at www.caltex.com.au or www.csiro.au/resources/pf13o.html

Better toilets for all

The 2007 World Toilet Summit has opened in the Indian capital, Delhi, with more than 40 countries taking part.

The four-day meeting will examine solutions and technologies that can be used to provide a basic need for nearly half the world's population.

According to estimates, 2.6 billion people around the world lack access to a hygienic toilet. The U.N. hopes to halve this figure by 2015 as part of its millennium development goals. In India alone, more than 700 million people have no access to proper waste disposal systems.

While hygienic toilet facilities are seen as a normal facility in developed countries, anyone who has worked or lived in developing regions knows of many horror stories about using a toilet. After the event, it may become a funny story.........but the reality is that it is really not a joke!

With a wide range of composting, low water use, waterless, biological, sewered, and various other toilet facilities available at modest cost, a major improvement in poor country facilities is needed. The effect that improved hygiene has on overall well being of the population is enormous, but seems to have often been forgotten or ignored.

See http://www.worldtoiletsummit2007.org/

Biofuels -will they impact on water?

Green energy, blue impacts:Biofuels aggravate water scarcity

In the biofuel discussion, water has not received the attention it deserves. It is high time it does.
Pursuing biofuels in water short countries turns green energy into a blue threat.

A recent scenario analysis by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) indicates that biofuels will add to the strain on already stressed water resources.

Biofuel production will increase demand for land at the expense of nature.

It will also require large quantities of water, already a major constraint to agriculture in many parts of the world.

An estimated 40% of the world’s population lives in areas where water scarcity must be reckoned with. IWMI’s research under the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Mangement in Agriculture shows that at a global average, the biomass needed to produce one litre of biofuel evaporates between 1000 and 3,500 liters of water, under prevailing conversion techniques.

IWMI uses the WATERSIM model consisting of two integrated hydrological and economic modules to support its analysis. Using this model, IWMI has explored the water and land implications of increased biofuel production globally with a special focus on two countries : India and China. In India more than 60% of the cereals are irrigated. In China, more than 70%.

Almost all Indian sugarcane - the crop that India uses to produce ethanol - and about 45% of Chinese maize – China’s main biofuel crop - is irrigated. Both countries, responding to severe water shortages, initiated large projects to transfer water from water abundant to water short areas. These projects are controversial because of their costs, environmental impacts, and number of displaced people by big dams.

Charlotte de Fraiture, an IWMI scientist and lead author of the biofuels study says, “Biofuel production in China and India raises special concerns, because the crops to be used for biofuels—maize in China and sugarcane in India—would rely mainly on irrigation. “Even without increased biofuel production, water scarcity in these countries will worsen, as rising incomes and growing populations boost food demand.”

India and China have set ambitious goals for biofuel production to curb their rapidly growing appetites for fossil fuel imports.

Together, they account for almost 70pc of projected worldwide growth in oil demand between now and 2030.

Yet, the two countries are already struggling to find enough water to grow the food they need.

The survey also found, however, that at the global level, the rush to boost production of ethanol from crops like maize and sugarcane will most likely have only a modest impact on water use and food systems.

The report focuses on the many areas where water is already scarce, with special focus on China and India.

Unless other less water intensive alternatives are considered, the conclusion is that biofuels are not environmentally sustainable in India and China. Discussions on biofuel energy should put green energy into a blue context and take water issues into account.

While this may not be the same in other countries, particularly if crops are not irrigated, it is the outcome for these two countries where biofuel is being increased. India also has potential to develop other crops including Jatropha [ see this blog] that are labour intensive, but do not use valuable cropland or water.

The real issue is that energy use is likely to affect food production.

For more information see:www.scidev.net/content/opinions/eng/biofuel-crops-could-drain-developing-world-dry.cfm

www.iwmi.cgiar.org/EWMA/files/papers/Biofuels%20-%20Charlotte.pdf

Also see :Linkages between Energy and Water Management for Agriculture in Developing Countries - Conference Papers (January 2007)

[partially sourced from IWMI]

Terra Preta soils - can the NT reach this level of improved soil carbon

Terra Preta: Black is the New Green

Carbon sequestration faces some major hurdles. Technical geosequestration methods could pump large amounts of CO2 deep underground but are still under development. On the other hand, natural methods that store carbon in living ecosystems, such as trees, may be possible in the short term but require huge swathes of land and are only as stable the ecosystems themselves. An ideal solution, however, would combine the quick fix of biological methods with the absolute potential of technical ones. Terra preta [sometimes seen as terra petra] may do just that, as a recent article in the journal Nature reveals. Soil sequestration of carbon has many proponents, incluidng a number of very experienced and knowledgeable scientists, in numerous countries. Australia has been slow to solidly examine this option, yet our soils - some of the oldest and most depleted on planet earth, could really get a kick start with higher soil carbon levels.

Amazonian Dark Earth, or "terra preta do indio", has mystified science for the last hundred years. Three times richer in nitrogen and phosphorous, and twenty times the carbon of normal soils, terra preta is the legacy of ancient Amazonians who predate Western civilization. Scientists who long debated the capacity of 'savages' to transform the virgin rainforest now generally agree that indigenous people transformed large regions of the Amazon into amazingly fertile black earth. The Amazonians' techniques remain an enigma but are believed to have used slash-and-smoulder to lock half of the carbon in burnt vegetation into a stable form of biochar instead of releasing the bulk of it into the atmosphere like typical slash-and-burn practices.

The difference between terra preta and ordinary soils is immense. A hectare of metre deep terra preta can contain 250 tonnes of carbon, as opposed to 100 tonnes in unimproved soils from similar parent material, according to Bruno Glaser, of the University of Bayreuth, Germany. To understand what this means, the difference in the carbon between these soils matches all of the vegetation on top of them. Furthermore, there is no clear limit to just how much biochar can be added to the soil.

Claims for biochar's capacity to capture carbon sound almost audacious. Johannes Lehmann, soil scientist and author of Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, believes that a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions!

Indeed, there is profit to be made in this black earth, for if green is the new black, then black could be the new green. Biofuels are touted as 'carbon neutral', but biofuels combined with biochar [ now generally referred to as agrichar] together promise to be 'carbon negative'. There are a number of competing technologies and some have fuel oil as a potential product, with agrichar the byproduct.

One technology - the Eprida technology uses agricultural waste biomass to produce hydrogen-rich bio-fuels and a new restorative high-carbon fertilizer (ECOSS) . Trials in tropical or depleted soils with ECOSS fertilizer sustainably improves soil fertility, water holding and plant yield far beyond what is possible with nitrogen fertilizers alone. The hydrogen produced from biomass can be used to make ethanol, or a Fischer-Troupsch gas-to-liquids diesel (BTL diesel), as well as the ammonia used to enrich the carbon to make ECOSS fertilizer. Ecocarbons from Australia have another system, with Dynamotive Energy Systems of Canada also in the mix.

Terra preta's full beauty appears in this closed loop. Unlike traditional sequestration rates that follow diminishing marginal returns-aquifers fill up, forests mature-practices based on terra preta see increasing returns. Terra preta doubles or even triples crop yields. More growth means more terra preta, begetting a virtuous cycle. While a global rollout of terra preta is still a long way off, it heralds yet another transformation of waste into resources.

Organic Waste to Oil and Agrichar - Energy and Better Soil?

The Companies and Organizations Poised to Turn Garbage into Fuel, Fertilizer and a Means of Carbon Sequestration

When Desmond Radlein heard about Richard Branson and Al Gore's Virgin Earth Challenge, a contest in which the first person who can sequester one billion tons of carbon dioxide a year wins $25 million, he got out his pencil and began figuring whether or not his company was up to the task.

Radlein is on the board of directors at Dynamotive Energy Systems, an energy solutions provider based in Vancouver, British Columbia, that is one of several companies pioneering the use of pyrolysis, a process in which biomass is burned at a high temperature in the absence of oxygen. The process yields both a charcoal by-product that can be used as a fertilizer, and bio-oil, which is a mix of oxygenated hydrocarbons that can be used to generate heat or electricity.

Because the charcoal by-product, or "agrichar," does not readily break down, it could sequester for thousands of years nearly all the carbon it contains, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Along the way, it would boost agricultural productivity through its ability to retain nutrients and moisture. "I developed this rough back-of-the-envelope calculation of what it would require if one were to [attempt the Virgin Earth Challenge] with the agrichar concept," Radlein explains. "One would need about 7,000 plants each processing 500 tons of biomass per day, which is a large number, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility." Such facilities would produce four parts bio-oil to one part carbon sequestered, so it would rake in money as well as carbon.

An International Movement

Radlein is not alone in his belief in this technology—in early May 2007 in Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia, the newly formed International Agrichar Initiative held its first ever conference, which included 135 attendees from every corner of the globe. According to Debbie Reed, an environmental policy expert who organized the conference, keynote speaker Mike Mason of the carbon offset company Climate Care urged attendees to unify in an effort to apply for the Virgin Earth Challenge. He also encouraged them to submit their method to the United Nations's Clean Development Mechanism program, which is designed to transfer clean technology from the developed to the developing world.

Although no officials from the U.S. government attended the conference, there is a nascent stateside movement pushing for adoption of agrichar. "[Democratic Senator] Ken Salazar of Colorado is drafting a stand-alone bill on this, and he may also promote it as part of the Farm Bill," notes Reed. The Farm Bill, whose terms are decided every year, determines what agricultural initiatives can be funded by the U.S. government. Inclusion in the Farm Bill would virtually guarantee subsidies for research and application of the agrichar process.

A Technology with a (Potentially) Huge Upside

In 2100, if pyrolysis met the entire projected demand for renewable fuels, the process would sequester enough carbon (9.5 billion tons a year) to offset current fossil fuel emissions, which stand at 5.4 billion tons a year, and then some. "Even if only a third of the bioenergy in 2100 uses pyrolysis, we still would make a huge splash with this technology," remarks Johannes Lehmann, a soil biogeochemist at Cornell University and one of the organizers of the agrichar conference.

There are other perks: Increasing production of bio-oil could decrease a country's dependence on foreign oil. In the tropics, boosting soil productivity increases the number of growing seasons per year, which could help alleviate the pressure to deforest biodiversity hot spots. The new markets for agricultural crops, which would in effect become sources of fuel, could boost rural economies worldwide, just as the demand for ethanol has bolstered the price of corn.

One calculation by Robert Brown, director of the Office of Biorenewables Programs at Iowa State University, revealed that if the U.S. adopted a cap and trade program in CO2 emissions like the one already in place in the European Union, farmers in the Midwest could almost double their income by using corn stover—the leaves, stalks and cobs that remain after harvest—to fuel pyrolysis.

The use of char also promises to combat marine dead zones, like that in the Gulf of Mexico caused by nitrogen- and phosphorus-rich agricultural runoff. Char reduces the need for man-made fertilizers by helping the soil retain nutrients. In addition, it can be made out of the very same manure and sewage that would otherwise pollute the oceans.

Amazonian Origins

Agrichar is not a recent invention. Rather, it is a modern-day attempt to re-create the terra preta, or dark soils that cover some areas of the Brazilian Amazon. These soils were created over thousands of years by pre-Columbian Indians, who covered their fields with the charred remains of domestic and agricultural trash. This practice boosted the carbon content of the soils from a meager 0.5 percent to 9 percent.

"This is actually slash-and-char agriculture," Brown notes, contrasting it with the modern day slash-and-burn variety. "Instead of biomass being burnt down to a fine ash, charcoal remains, just like after a campfire." In addition to retaining nutrients, the porous charcoal helps microorganisms colonize and build up the soil. Charcoal is known for remaining stable over long periods of time, and alternating rainy and dry seasons preserve it even more. "You basically are drying out a steak," explains Danny Day, president of Eprida, a renewable energy development company based in Athens, Ga. "So you get beef jerky, which will last you for years." Even today, the Amazonian dark earths are so fertile that farmers continue to till them.

"What we're looking at is producing those kinds of charcoals in a modern pyrolysis reactor," notes Brown, who received a $1.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to attempt to recreate terra preta using corn stalks. He plans to have enough char generated by this spring to run field trials this year. By his calculations each square mile of corn farm that uses this "fiber to fertilizer" pyrolysis process can offset the emissions of 330 automobiles.

But is it Viable?

As with all new technologies, many questions about the ultimate utility of agrichar have yet to be answered. "As of now agrichar is not a uniform product," explains John Kimble, a retired USDA soil scientist. "And there's no easy way for farmers to apply it with existing equipment. They also need to know there is a large enough source of the material. Farmers are driven by profit, as is everyone, and they need to be shown that it will improve their bottom line."

Complicating debates about the costs of agrichar is the paucity of data on the subject. "No one is sure what types of biomass should be used as raw material," Kimble notes, "or exactly what production methods work best, so calculating the costs is really an exercise in speculation."

In addition, scientists are finding it hard to replicate the original terra preta soils. "The secret of the terra preta is not only applying charcoal and chicken manure—there must be something else," says Bruno Glaser, a soil scientist at Bayreuth University in Germany. Field trials in Amazonia using charcoal with compost or chicken manure find that crop yields decline after the third or fourth harvest. "If you use terra preta you have sustaining yields more or less constantly year after year," he says. "I'm skeptical about adding just a pure carbon source," says Stanley Buol, a professor emeritus from the Department of Soil Science at North Carolina State University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences who spent 35 years studying Amazonian soils. "It will be black and look good," but will it contain enough inorganic ions, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, essential to plant growth?"

Many of the interactions between the char, the soil and the microorganisms that develop with time and lend the soil its richness and stability are still poorly understood. Glaser believes that the key to making agrichar behave like terra preta lies in the biological behavior of the original Amazonian dark earths—a difference he attributes to their age. "You would need 50 or 100 years to get a similar combination between the stable charcoal and the ingredients," he cautions. "I think [research into the biological behavior of terra preta] is where the new frontier will be," Lehmann counters. If he is right, and scientists can perfect a modern-day recipe for agrichar, then its fans will not need Richard Branson's $25 million to jump-start their initiative—the annual demand for fertilizers exceeds 150 million tons worldwide.

[from Scientific American with additional reporting by Coco Ballantyne and Christopher Mims ]
----------------------------

The systems developed by Dynamotive are proposed to be installed at the Darwin Council landfill site in Darwin, assuming all agreements are met, sometime in 2008. There are more details on the web site of the council www.darwin.nt.gov.au .

What will happen to the agrichar is still unknown, but with north Australian soils very deficient in soil or sequestered carbon, there is a home for the material. See the earlier posts on this subject.

This is exciting for agriculture.........if it can be developed. BUT, even without that terra preta soil, the presence of soil carbon can help drive moisture, nutritional and biological activity in soils, all needed in Northern Territory soils, especially in the wetter regions.