Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Our latest story on EcoWorld concerns global warming. It’s only with some trepidation we post stories questioning the conventional wisdom about global warming – regarding either the cause or the eventual severity. EcoWorld has posted numerous feature stories with contrarian perspectives; Recycling, DDT, Nuclear Power, and GMO’s, to name some. In those articles points were raised that we stand behind. These issues are not beyond debate.

Global warming, however, is an issue so complex, so cataclysmic, and so interrelated with other political battles, that it almost seems best to leave it alone – go with the conventional wisdom.

The author we commissioned to write this story claims to have done his research with no bias, and his best guess as to the cause of global warming is probably that the sun – which fluctuates in output – is simply entering a hotter phase. What blasphemy!

In every attempt we made to learn more about this touchy subject, the experts we contacted claimed we wouldn’t really be able to understand this issue – that you had to be a climatologist, or a meteorologist or atmospheric scientist. But as our story documents, no fewer than 18,000 scientific experts have disputed the contention that human industrial activity is the cause of global warming, in the Oregon Petition, signed in 2001.

It is also interesting that repeatedly we were told by the experts, when we brought up points thoughtfully presented by Michael Crichton in his book “State of Fear” – challenging the contention that C02 is causing global warming – that “Mr. Crichton is not a climatologist.” First of all, this sort of condescension avoids having to answer the questions Crichton raises, but more importantly, this sort of criticism seems to be terribly selective. Very few of the media commentators, politicians or book authors who claim humans are causing global warming are climatologists – all of them are simply repeating what they’ve been told.

Click here to read our latest feature “Global Warming,” by Ed Wheeler.

Access to year-round water can greatly increase yields of biodiesel feedstock

My experience on projects concerning biodiesel perennial crops and subsequent refineries began a few years ago when I was approached to raise funds for a biodiesel project.

It turned out that particular project was poorly planned and it was therefore not viable for me to proceed on it. In 2005 a client of mine was investigating the initial viability of promoting a Biodiesel project in Kenya, East Africa. The initial advisors he had never focused on the fundamentals of the project and thus it never got off the ground. I was then approached to develop this project into a bankable undertaking. This has required much research and in the process we have been in discussions with a variety of parties and consultants (including from India, Australia, Africa, Europe, UK and the USA) on this and other biodiesel projects. What has become clear over this period was that:

Abundant land and willing investors are only part of the successful equation to create a viable biodiesel enterprise

Not all entities have considered their undertakings in detail, although most portray themselves as experts, which has resulted in some cases in a serious lack of sound business approaches to make their existing or intended projects viable;

Some of these parties have actually managed to raise millions of dollars on their projects without having a sound business plan and viable business structure to make their projects successful, and yet investors seemed willing to provide funds to these undertakings.

This article looks at a specific segment of the biodiesel market and based on our experiences investigates some of the basic requirements to promote a successful project within this market segment. The article does however not cover issues pertaining to crops and other input alternatives (such as recycled oils) in first world countries, which have significantly different market dynamics.

For the purposes of this article the market segment in question is the development of a biodiesel project that covers both the agricultural input for biodiesel production (crops) as well as the refining thereof.

General Criteria for a Viable Biofuel Operation:

Not Dependent on Subsidies: The project should be sufficiently viable not to require any kind of subsidies, thus not requiring government support to keep the projects afloat. All subsidies come from the consumer at the end of the day and thus the more viable the project can be without subsidies the more the benefit to governments and their citizens. There is however one caveat, “Carbon Credits” as provided under the Kyoto protocol can initially enhance the viability and provide a sufficient return on investment on the project so as to attract investors.

Vertical Integration of Farms and Refinery: The project must have primary control over the crop feedstock. This results in a more controllable cost scenario for the feedstock and thus the project can be competitive against petro diesel at lower petro diesel prices.

Location in Developing Nation: The reason for this is that land and labor are significantly cheaper which reduces both capital and working costs.

More than 50% of the vast continent of Africa may support biofuel crops But success depends on many factors

Large Scale: The project must be done on an economy of scale in order to attract appropriate investors. Given the scale of the project and the commercial objectives, mechanization of the project is required as far as cost-benefit analysis allows. Out-grower schemes can however be added as a secondary production feedstock and to enhance corporate responsibility and job creation. Further, even with mechanization, a significant number of employment opportunities will be created.

Perennial Crop: The project must have a perennial crop. This increases the initial input cost, but thereafter the annual costs significantly decrease as the crop does not have to be replanted annually and therefore only maintenance costs are incurred.

Local Market for Biofuel Sales: The primary output – Biodiesel – must be sold in the country it is produced. The reason for this is because the project business model is based on becoming a low-cost leader, thus the main objective is to keep operational costs as low as possible. This is done to enhance the shareholders return and also aims to deliver a substitute to petro diesel that can be competitive at the same prices as petro diesel world market prices. Given the typical location of such projects in rural areas, logistics are often difficult in terms of land and sea transport to get the product to an alternative end market.

In order to cover some of the basic requirements necessary for the evaluation of a biodiesel project within this framework, let us consider the particular project we are working on in Kenya. Although this project is still in the due diligence phase, we believe that some of our experiences may be of benefit to promoters of similar project, financiers and investors.

Our project is located along a perennial river on land currently not being used for commercial purposes. The project size is 150,000 acres (~60,000 hectares), with land being leased from a state owned enterprise. The crop we have selected is Jatropha Curcas and the refinery will be onsite. It is interesting to note that there are quite a few international companies that intend to use this crop as their main feedstock. It is particularly in this regard that we have encountered some companies that do not fully consider all the requirements to make a project work using this feedstock.

Our approach has been that a viable biodiesel operation will require a number of areas of expertise, and we have sought to secure the partnership and or services of some of the leading international experts in each particular field of specialization with appropriate management structures to support the successful development of the project. Apparently, there are companies that do not consider it pertinent to follow such a “best-of-breed” philosophy to provide a suitable turnkey solution to their projects.

It should be further noted that although Jatropha Curcas is a crop touted by many parties as the solution to biodiesel feedstock, there is not a significant amount of reliable scientific data on the crop in terms of commercial application.

Most of the current reliable data covers the use of the crop on marginal land and preliminary research into long term commercial viability. A lot of research is of course being done in terms of commercial use but from a scientific perspective we have not yet encountered proven data for commercial application on issues such as crop yields, optimal phenotype selection, etc. This of course does not mean that Jatropha Curcas is not a viable crop, it does however mean that one should be diligent when evaluating the crop’s potential in a specific area for commercial cultivation. It also means that although it is very reasonable to expect significant crop yields from Jatropha Curcas per hectare, it is imperative to ensure that the botanical and agricultural assumptions surrounding the projected crop yield are sound.

Commercial Viability of a Jatropha Plantation

Detailed Checklist:

Potential biodiesel plantations can’t just look good from the air – they also have to be close to markets

Site Accessibility: In terms of being readily accessible for all input and logistics factors required for production as well as getting the end products to market at the lowest cost. We have encountered a number of projects where the promoters focus on the land that is available and yet do not consider the cost of accessing the site as well as getting the end products to market. If the logistic costs are not minimized over the long term then there is a material risk that the biodiesel output will not be competitive against petro diesel. We have found some projects which seek to produce and market the biodiesel in the production country as well as certain refineries who seek to purchase either crude Jatropha Curcas oil or refined oil to sometimes not analyze the issue of logistics to market sufficiently. Particularly, from the perspective that in-country the transport costs to a credible market can affect the return on investment and that for export the logistics of transporting the product from site to harbor and then off-shore can adversely affect a project.

Multiple Harvests per Year: In terms of producing high crop yields per hectare, and besides the soil requirements, it is necessary to get three harvests per year. This allows for a reasonable estimate – subject to soil quality, nutrient and fertilizer application, water application and macro and micro-environmental variables – of 10 tons per hectare. In order to achieve this a relatively low rainfall area is required (~500 mm) with a limited and relatively short rainy season, which allows for irrigation as the main source of nutrient and water provision and thus sufficient crop control to enable three controlled harvests per year. We have found hugely varying estimates of crop yield, and often with very little scientific basis therefore.

Phenotype Selection: Although there is relatively limited supply of scientific data in this field for Jatropha Curcas, it is still crucial to select the best available phenotype given the data available. Furthermore, research and development facilities for the project is critical to ensure the best possible phenotype can be developed. Jatropha Curcas provides a major advantage in that it can be grafted and thus as optimal phenotypes are developed these can be brought into production in a relative short space of time.

Land Preparation, Nursery and Planting: On smaller scale projects this of course does not have such a major impact but on large scale plantations this area plays a significant role. The main driver being that the quicker the crop can be planted and growing the quicker a return can be realized to the investors. A detailed cost-benefit analysis therefore needs to be done with the main focus being on cultivating and planting the seedlings in as short as possible time. Mechanization of the process as far as possible greatly enhances the success of this component. During the analysis we found some companies do not consider this factor adequately. Furthermore, there appears to only be a limited amount of companies/projects that include detailed forestry assessment of the soil preparation (including ripping to ensure better root establishment) and fire risk management.

The dry season in Kenya, near the site of the author’s proposed biodiesel plantation and refinery

Irrigation: In our analysis we found that drip irrigation is the most optimal solution. Without controlled water application some of the projections on crop yield published in the media should be considered very critically as it is uncertain if there is proven a scientific basis for these projections. Drip irrigation does significantly increase project capital costs initially, but it addressed a number of areas required for a successful feedstock production. Scientific application of drip irrigation allows for short harvest production periods. This is very pertinent to the harvesting process which is discussed later on, without a controlled harvesting period where the seeds ripen in a short time the cost of harvesting and mechanization of this process is adversely affected.

Climate: Given a relatively low rainfall with a short rainy season it enables the harvests to be controlled, allowing for 3 harvests per year. If the water application for the crops is not controlled, it is not possible to control the harvest production pattern and thus the crop yield will be materially affected.

Application of Nutrients and Insecticides: Some nutrients and insecticides can be applied through the drip irrigation system thus reducing amount of labor required and the logistics surrounding the management of labor to apply these manually.

Plantation Management: It is important to appreciate that on a large scale Jatropha Curcas a plantation is effectively created. It is therefore necessary to bring to the project plantation management expertise. We have to date found only few projects that have considered this issue, or have credible expertise in-house in this area.

Harvesting: This is a critical element to the project. First, if an effective harvesting process is not in place the quality of the crop will deteriorate. Jatropha Curcas seeds build up Free Fatty Acids (FFA) once they have ripened and lie on the ground. Fortunately refining technology has improved to handle high amounts of FFA but nevertheless the better the quality of the harvested crop the better and more efficient the refining process. Second, if grown on a commercial scale the labor requirements without mechanized harvesting can be very large and the time to complete the harvesting process ineffective. It is therefore necessary to mechanize the process as far as possible – subject of course to cost-benefit analysis. We have found projects to cover this component insufficiently to the extent that we have seen some very large plantations underway without due consideration of the harvesting factor. Our approach has been to look to expertise in other harvesting industries where expertise is available that can deal with the mechanized harvesting of the Jatropha Curcas crop.

Jatropha seedlings ready to plant

Processing of Crop/Refining: There are a number of excellent companies who have developed suitable processes to deal with the turn-key refining process of Jatropha Curcas seeds. Two excellent companies who can supply equipment for large-scale refining are Lurgi AG and Energia. From the Jatropha Curcas perspective however two areas that do require a specific focus are fertilizer and biogas. On fertilizer it is necessary to do a detailed cost-benefit analysis to determine if the conversion of the expelled residue from the refining process can be viably sold as fertilizer. Of particular note is considering the transportation costs of the fertilizer and the determination of a suitable market given these costs. This is of particular importance given that the specific fertilizer requirements, in terms of composition and volume, of the country in which the crop is produced may not suit the type of fertilizer being produced and export and transport costs of the fertilizer do not make sales to off-shore markets viable. In our case we found it more productive to focus efforts on the development of biogas processing capabilities to generate electricity from the expelled Jatropha Curcas residue. There does not however appear to be an established industry norm and these factors are project specific.

Carbon Credits: There are a number of consultancies who will advise and structure application for all carbon credit application covering Carbon Emission reductions, Clean Device Mechanisms, Carbon Sinks, etc. Areas for consideration regarding Jatropha Curcas with our project context include that in some cases there are not established protocols for the applications under the Kyoto protocol such as Carbon Sink applications. It is therefore better to separate the various areas where application can be made for Carbon Credits into separate submissions thus increasing the overall possibility of some of the applications being successful and not possibly being held up by an overall approval under one submission. Further, at this stage it is uncertain for how long the Carbon Credit markets will continue to be in existence and in what form and to this extent caution should be applied to the extent to which these potential cash flows are included in the financial projections.

Strategy Implementation & Monitoring: Various expert companies are required to bring sufficient expertise to the project as described in this article to ensure reaching commercial viability. Most of these companies will at least be required to enter into technical support agreements if not into turn-key management contracts for certain components. This will inadvertently result in varying labor and management practices for certain components of the project. It is therefore necessary to ensure that sufficient overall strategy implementation and monitoring expertise is available in-house, or brought in externally. From my interaction with a number of companies seeking to participate in this particular market sector it seems that a number of future projects seem to neglect this component. A number of future projects and established companies involved in similar projects appear not to have applied the process at all. This typically results in declining investor confidence and lower return for investors due to either the changing of objectives due to an inappropriate initial business model or to due to poor communication and remedial action resultant from non or poor achievement of initial strategic objectives.

This article is not intended to cover all issues relating to a Jatropha Curcas or similar crop plantation and refinery project. It does however seek to share some of the experiences we have encountered on our project and some of the weaknesses we have detected in other similar projects. To this extent, the article seeks to provide a basic checklist of some of the key areas to address when considering such a project either from a development or a financial perspective.

About the Author: Louis Strydom is an expert in new venture creation and project finance with wide experience on projects in the developing world. One of Louis’ main projects for the last year has been conducting a pre-feasibility study and promotion of a 230,000 acre site for a Jatropha plantation and biodiesel refinery in Kenya. Previously he was Senior Vice President of Project Finance at Decillion – a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Other positions included Senior Economist managing the Credit Policy and Risk Management division of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation of South Africa. Prior to that he was a Director with Triumvirate responsible for Marketing and Consulting on Crisis Management. Louis also has extensive experience in short term insurance with American Insurance Group on fire/casualty risks, niche products and political risks in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, UK and USA.

A massive, newly calved “tabular” iceberg breaks loose into the Weddell Sea to meet its destiny

The catch all term “global warming” (GW) has evolved to the point where true believers use the term to mean that not only is the earth rapidly warming, but that the warming is almost entirely due to human industrial activity and the resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, especially in the United States and Europe.

It appears that a majority of climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and meteorologists (we will call them collectively “CAMs”) believe this. The term “climate change” is used by those who, while allowing that the earth is warming to some degree or other, do not necessarily believe that CO2 emissions from human power generation has much, if anything, to do with it.

HOW HOT WILL THE PLANET GET?

NASA’s Global Climate Model predicts the Earth’s temperature will increase by up to 10 degrees centigrade by 2060

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years on average since the last ice age, when most of North America and Europe were covered with glaciers. Over hundreds of millions of years the earth has gone through periodic cycles of warming and cooling without the help of humans. Radiation from the sun is variable over eons. In 2001, the prestigious National Academy of Sciences issued a report suggesting that increased radiation from the sun (our very own thermonuclear fireball) may be responsible for much of the climate change in the last century. In other words, over the centuries, the sun flickers!

The average person who only gets his information from the mass media would never know that the GW concept is actually debatable, with many very heated (pun intended) debates going on at scientific meetings of CAMs. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. sponsored group of more than 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, has concluded that human activity is a major factor in elevated atmospheric CO2 levels (probably true), and this will result in rising temperatures and sea levels that could prove catastrophic for multi-millions of coastal dwelling folk all over the world (very debateable).

The IPCC panel concluded that in the last century, earth’s average global surface temperature had risen between 0.4-0.8 °C. They also estimated (read “guessed”) that by 2100 the global average would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 °C., depending on a, very wide range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions. This was widely reported in the mass media. On the other hand, the “Oregon Petition” of 2001, signed by some 18,000 scientists from all disciplines, said there was no convincing evidence that human activity is responsible, or will be responsible, for any catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. That was not widely reported.

Examples abound of media hyperbole that convinces the average person that the world is in deep trouble (aside from movies like “Day After Tomorrow”). Tom Costello of NBC says, “From tsunamis to catastrophic hurricanes, famine in Africa and wildfires in California, the evidence of human induced GW, they say, is overwhelming”. CBS’s “60 Minutes”, recently featured a CAM who is warning of the worst case scenario (let’s all get really scared), that the earth is warming due to human generated CO2 emission, sea levels will rise by three feet (a few inches or more is the mainstream CAM thinking) in another hundred years, and there is nothing we can do about it now so get used to it!

After hurricane Katrina, famed environmentalist (and CAM?) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., blamed president Bush for the damage from the hurricane because Bush didn’t endorse the Kyoto Protocols of 1997 in which many countries vowed to limit their CO2 emissions in the future to fight GW. It seems he was implying that if Al Gore had won the election in 2000, Katrina would not have happened because Gore would have seen to it that the U.S. would comply with the protocols. Never mind that the U.S. senate voted 95 to 0 not to ratify it because of the huge hit on the U.S. economy compliance would entail. And Bill Clinton never even brought it up for a vote. In fact, even many true believer CAMs, including Al Gore, realize that the agreement was so flawed that signing it would only have symbolic value. China and India (nearly half the world’s population) were exempt, and there were no means of enforcement. Anybody could sign and then ignore, which they have done. Several European countries that signed on are now emitting MORE CO2 than before.

State of Fear by Michael Crichton

Here are two diametrically opposed views on this subject: In, “State of Fear”, Michael Crichton’s recent best selling novel about eco-terrorists, he advances a very well researched contrarian viewpoint. Although a fiction novel, he presents real scientific data arguing against greenhouse gas induced warming. A book by Ross Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe reporter, entitled “Boiling Point” is a disaster scenario book about GW, in which he predicts mega-droughts and huge sea level increases, refugees, a Northern hemisphere deep freeze, malaria, etc. etc. He calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him “criminals against humanity”. But even he believes that if the U.S. did ratify the Kyoto treaty, it wouldn’t make any difference; the CO2 level in the atmosphere would continue to rise, as would the earth’s temperature. The IPCC, in the same report cited above, estimates that the global temperature will rise by about 1 deg. C by 2050. They go on to say that if the Kyoto agreement were to be fully complied with, including the U.S., global temperature would still rise by 0.94 degrees. That’s a difference of 0.06 degrees!! Obviously Kyoto is nothing more than politically correct symbolism.

Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan

It is no wonder, however, that average folks think the GW theology is absolutely true. A (small?) majority of CAMs are true believers. A CAM wrote in a recent issue of Scientific American magazine, “Scientists know that carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, which in turn is causing sea level to rise, and that the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is acidifying the water”. This is the kind of CAM that the media always quotes, not the infidel CAMs. He then goes on to say, quite rightly, that no one knows what the long term effects of this “fact” on the earth’s ecological systems might be. The real fact is his statement is not true in the first place. NOBODY knows for sure whether climate change is natural or human induced, or possibly both; if and how much overall global temperature may be rising; and whether CO2 generated by human activities has anything to do with it.

Few would argue that the various greenhouse gases (discussed below) present in the atmosphere don’t have a significant effect on global climate; it’s just that their effect is virtually impossible to quantify. In fact, a theory has been put forward that the earth would be entering a new ice age if not for the various greenhouse gases. Atmospheric science is even more inexact than economics. Are your local weather forecasts always right, even more than one or two days ahead of time? The climate is so complex and poorly understood that elaborate computer models are used to make all those doomsday predictions you read about. A computer model, however, is only as good as the assumptions that the programmers put into it. The enormous number of variables affecting the earth’s climate, some probably we are not even aware of, and feedback from one variable that affects another cannot be modeled realistically. Weather forecasting is, at best, problematic even over a period of days; so why do we think we can predict the weather/climate 50-100 years from now?

NOAA’s U.S. National Temperature record from 1900 to 2000 (Red line = average weighted temperature)

Let us consider some of the actual debate about scientific evidence involved in the GW debate among CAMs. Believers point to temperature records over the last 100 years or so that show a definite increase. Infidels say this is due to the fact that 100 years ago temperatures were measured in rural environments, while later in the last century urbanization of our society led to temperature measurements influenced by the heat generated by the concrete and steel of the city. Some evidence seems to show that the Antarctic ice is melting away, threatening future rise in earth’s sea level.

Some evidence points to the likelihood that the southern icecap is actually thickening. On the other hand, glaciers are melting all over the world and the Arctic ice is melting, but maybe that’s just what you would expect in a normal interglacial period over thousands of years. A greater frequency of hurricanes is evident due to GW? Maybe, but it also could be a normal hurricane cycle similar to what we had from 1950-1970. Increased ocean temperature due to the greenhouse effect may be causing the hurricanes to be more intense than before?

Perhaps not, El Nino and La Nina cycles may be major influences also. Then again, maybe last year’s hurricane season was an aberration. These are questions being debated by CAMs under the mass media radar. What are we non-theological people to believe?

Here’s the crux of the whole debate. Before 1998, CAMs generally accepted that the earth had undergone large temperature fluctuations over eons. The Vikings named it “Greenland” probably because it was discovered in a global warm period in the tenth century. There were lush pastures for raising cattle, which they did. The idea that they named it “Greenland” to lure unsuspecting settlers is probably just a myth. During the “little ice age” from about 1500 to 1800 A.D., Greenland froze over and George Washington’s troops practically froze to death at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777. It never gets that cold in New Jersey anymore. The perceived global warming since then was attributed to natural rebound, especially since most of the warming occurred before 1940. Whoops, most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels occurred after 1940. Think about it.

Then came the now famous “hockey stick” study by Michael Mann, an American CAM, published in the prestigious journal “Nature” in 1998. The alarmist IPCC report cited above based its assessment of climate change almost solely on Mann’s study. In essence, he said all the historical temperature data was wrong. He claimed his data showed that there has been only a gradual global temperature change over the last millennium, but that there has been a very sharp rise in the last 100 years, i.e., his temperature graph looked like a hockey stick.

Industrial emissions of CO2 now became the bad guy because its concentration in the atmosphere increased from 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1957 to 370 ppm in 2002. Hotter temperatures, greenhouse gas CO2 increase; ergo GW is due to emissions from human use of fossil fuels, which when burned, emit CO2. It’s a theory that has not been proven scientifically. A scientist can perform a laboratory experiment to determine how strong a greenhouse gas CO2 is and what its affect is in some laboratory model system. But to extrapolate laboratory results to predict what is actually happening in the earth’s atmosphere is impossible. It’s all assumptions and imperfect computer models.

Here’s how scientific research is, in general, supposed to work. Some researchers conduct some laboratory experiment or statistical study and get results that appear to support some hypothesis or theory. After peer review, the results are published in a scientific journal. The Mann paper is an example. In this case, it was a sensational paper that rattled the conventional wisdom of CAMs, thus it attracted lots of media attention. The next step is for fellow scientists from around the world to either criticize or support that data by trying to reproduce those reported results. If the original research is confirmed by other scientists from around the world, it becomes generally accepted as true.

ee

In the case of Mann’s influential study predicting a “hockey stick” increase in global temperatures due to increased CO2 emissions, however, Mann’s results have not been reproduced. In fact, Mann’s results have been called into serious question by two scientists, Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick. They revisited Mann’s own data and concluded, in 2003, that his results were riddled with “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, and incorrect calculations of principal components.” In other words, Mann’s study is in their eyes, deeply flawed. When they corrected Mann’s results for these errors, they contend, the hockey stick model disappeared! Mann has not responded except to say he’s a victim of intimidation. We shall see, but this calls into BIG question the whole CO2 induced GW paradigm. Other CAMs must now step up to do research that might either support or not support these opposite views of data.

As a scientist myself (a chemist, not a CAM), I find it very difficult to believe that such a tiny amount of CO2 (370 ppm) in the atmosphere could be responsible for GW. That is only 0.036% of the earth’s atmosphere. Let’s consider another greenhouse gas, methane, which is ignored in all GW discussions in the media and the Kyoto protocols. Methane is over 20 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2, although it is present in the atmosphere at a 100 times lower concentration. But, it is still significant in the whole story. Methane is, of course, the main constituent of natural gas. So when we drill for natural gas, we release lots of methane, which contributes to greenhouse warming even before we burn it to form all that CO2. It is also generated in all bacterial fermentations, which includes landfills, rice paddies, wetlands, termite farts, waste treatment plants, burps from ruminant animals, and most important the brewing of beer (I would never agree to limit my beer intake just to save the planet). I wonder how much methane is exhaled by the billions of cows, sheep, goats, buffalos, etc., which are domesticated by the 4 billion humans on this planet? Of course all that livestock also exhales CO2 with every breath they take, just like us humans do.

Anyway, it is estimated that about 60% of methane in the air is from human activity, and its concentration in the air is increasing twice as fast as is CO2! Kyoto didn’t even consider methane! We won’t even discuss nitrous oxide (released during forest fires and use of nitrogen fertilizers), 300 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Now let’s discuss the most potent contributor to the greenhouse effect, by far, i.e., water vapor. There are various estimates, but the best estimate is that about 95% of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is due to water vapor, good old H2O, and it’s virtually all natural. Nearly three fourths of the earth’s surface is covered by water, and water evaporates into the air. Apparently, few if any of the computer models invented to try and predict future climatic conditions take water vapor into account, and there is absolutely nothing we humans could do to limit levels of water vapor in the atmosphere anyway; nothing, nada, zero and nichts. The bottom line is that human activities contribute less than 1% to the greenhouse warming effect, probably less than 0.5%.

In April 1911, an iceberg like this sank the mighty Titanic. Will global warming really melt the icecaps and inundate the world? And if so, is there anything we can do?

Given the uncertainty in climate models, my guess is as good as anyone’s, so I’ll give it. The sun is in a hot period, raising earth’s average temperature. This in turn causes more water from the oceans to evaporate and raise water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, which in turn accelerates warming. Increases in atmospheric CO2 and methane may also be contributing to the warming, but it can’t be quantified.

So what to do? Humans have lived through warm and cold periods for hundreds of thousands of years and always adapted. So just don’t live to close to what is now the sea level, and maybe think about buying property in Norway or Canada to plant orange trees. Oh, yeah, don’t buy stock in companies selling ski equipment and parkas. And, if you are still worried about human induced CO2 emission and want to do something, even if only symbolic, you should stop lighting fires (emitting CO2 AND water), using your furnace, water heater and anything electrical, driving cars and SUVs, and breathing (however, if you stop breathing, you will emit lots of methane as your body decomposes). Also, lobby for less stringent air pollution rules to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air pollution, as is commonly found in great profusion in places like Mexico City, Los Angeles, Rome, and New York promotes global cooling because all that dirty particulate matter blocks the sun’s rays from hitting the ground. It’s an anti-greenhouse effect. Also, pray for another volcanic eruption like Krakatoa in 1883, which resulted in severe winters all over the globe due to the millions of tons of particulate matter spewed into the atmosphere.

One final thought: Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal, a favorite of my liberal friends, had this to say about global warming “the problems associated with climate change (whether manmade or natural) are the same old problems of poverty, disease, and natural hazards like floods, storms, and droughts. Money spent directly on these problems is a much surer bet than money spent trying to control a climate change process that we don’t understand.”

Today is Earth Day, and right here in Sacramento U.S. President Bush is going to make an appearance at the California Fuel Cell Partnership – a depot of experimental fuel cell cars sponsored by a consortium of automakers, located just west of Sacramento’s downtown. It will be interesting to see what quotes come out of this visit from the President.

The astonishing thing about fuel cells and hydrogen is even environmental activists, for the most part, don’t have the slightest idea what a fuel cell is, or that hydrogen is not a primary fuel. The truth about fuel cells is this – they aren’t ready for vehicles and they may never be. We’ve written extensively about this in our blog “Fuel Cell Cars Aren’t Ready” as well as in articles on our main website “The 100% Electric Car.” To make a long story short, fuel cells cost way too much, use extremely expensive materials, break easily, and degrade quickly. Breakthroughs in fuel cell technology have been just around the corner for the last twenty years.

Moreover, hydrogen has to be refined from something else. Doing this is expensive and inefficient. Why electrolyse hydrogen using electricity and water, when you can just store the electricity in batteries and retain twice as much of the energy that was in the original electricity? Ditto for extracting hydrogen from, say, bioethanol – why not just burn the bioethanol and use all those BTUs that would have been lost in conversion?

Even worse, hydrogen has to be stored either under extreme pressure, or liquified under extreme cold. Some new storage techniques claim to store hydrogen by bonding it to metals using nanotechnology, but don’t hold your breath. Hydrogen is interesting as a fuel in the future precisely because you can make it many different ways, but until it can be made more efficiently, and stored in a safe, practical and cost-effective manner, forget about it ever becoming a replacement for conventional fuels.

Back in 2000 we reported on the California Fuel Cell Partnership in the story “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars.” They were about as close to getting cars on the road back then as they are now – a few more years. There are a lot of ways to get cars to get better mileage and run on alternatives to petroleum – new diesel engine technologies, biodiesel and bioethanol, hybrid and even all-electric cars. And meaningful quantities of these cars are making it onto the road today, far sooner than hydrogen fuel cell cars.

U.S. President Bush’s Earth Day 2006 visit to the California Fuel Cell Partnership apparently is his way of telling us he cares about the environment. California Governor Schwarzeneggar has also been a great proponent of fuel cells with his support for California’s “Hydrogen Highway.” But they are off the mark if they think fuel cell cars are going to ever going to replace gasoline powered cars.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who even detractors generally believe is a man with integrity, released a book in 2005 entitled “Our Endangered Values.” In this book he has a chapter titled “The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism.” He includes in this short but powerful chapter a definition of what he characterizes as a “more intense fundamentalism” that, according to Carter, is on the rise in America.

Here then are some of Carter’s definitions of a fundamentalist:

Usually lead by authoritarian males.

Believe they are right and anyone who disagrees is evil.

Militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs.

Demogogic with emotional issues.

This seems to be a pretty good definition of intense fundamentalism not just in America, but all over the world. When Carter was President, he once gave a speech in the middle east where he pleaded that “the people of Palestine want peace now,” and “the people of Israel want peace now,” with his emphasis on people. Maybe his quest was futile, maybe his methods have been criticized, but he was sincere. And he reflected a good side of American character.

The media coverage of Carter’s Christian testimony when in the Presidential election of 1976 he acknowledged he was a “born again Christian,” was, according to Carter, his contribution to the rise of Christian political activism in the United States, concurrent with the rise of intense fundamentalism. So what is the Christian testimony of those who are not Christian fundamentalists except in the purest, simplest, most ecumenical terms? What would it be? What is our answer to the intense fundamentalists? What might one claim to be the opposite?

One conjecture might go as follows: That God is love, and love is Christ, and if you accept love you accept Christ. You accept love as supreme to all else. And if you accept love as supreme but you call that love Allah, or Buddha, or Jehovah, or Shiva, then you accept Christ. And Christ would agree. That is a most ecumenical version of Christianity to evangelicize, though fundamentalist Christians – and many others – may completely disagree. But returning to Carter’s book, and his definition of fundamentalism, how would you define the characteristics of such a non-fundamentalist?

Some definitions of Non-Fundamentalists (inspired by Carter’s book):

Lead by anyone.

Adhere to doing right and doing good, and open to reason and reasonable ideas.

Negotiate with those of different opinions.

Search for the most important issues, not the most emotional ones.

So there you have it! Thank you Jimmy Carter for such an outspoken book. At the very least, might it encourage American Christians of all political stripes to arise.

In our feature “Photovoltaics – The Ultimate Renewable” we demonstrate why photovoltaics are a compelling long-term investment even at 2006 prices. In short, the reason you would pay a lifetime cost of $.20 per kilowatt-hour to install a photovoltaic system is because once you’d absorbed that initial installation cost, your annual cost to replace photovoltaics at the rate they degrade is well below the market price of conventional electricity, under $.02 per kilowatt-hour. For this reason, even at today’s high prices, photovoltaic manufacturers are selling them as fast as they can make them.

So why isn’t there more photovoltaic manufacturing capacity? Why is the installed base of photovoltaics in the world barely over 10 gigawatts?

Most photovoltaics are manufactured using polysilicon, the same semi-conductor substrate used for integrated circuits. For years, the photovoltaic manufacturers have bought their polysilicon from manufacturers who primarily produced this product for the computer industry. But in 2005, photovoltaic manufacturing output rose to over 1.6 gigawatts, and for the first time, the solar energy industry was competing with the computer industry to buy polysilicon. Photovoltaic panels consumed about one-third of the 30,000 tons of polysilicon produced worldwide in 2005, about 10,000 tons. Some people think there’s going to be a shortage of polysilicon, and in the short run, they’re probably right.

The economics of polysilicon production, however, rule out the possibility of a long term shortage. Currently polysilicon costs $60 per kilogram. According to an excellent report authored by Jesse Pichel and Ming Yang, Research Analysts with Piper Jaffray, posted on the website Renewable Energy Access, it costs $200 million to build a manufacturing plant capable of outputting 3,000 metric tons of polysilicon per year. That means that at $50 per kilogram, such a factory would gross $150 million every year. Considering the raw material, unprocessed silicon, is one of the most abundant materials on earth, the margins must be pretty good. When the photovoltaic industry only consumed 10% of the world’s polysilicon manfacturing capacity, manufacturers were reluctant to build new plants since the integrated circuit industry – their primary customer – is cyclical and experiences booms and busts. But now the solar cell manufacturers are consuming over 30% of worldwide polysilicon manufacturing capacity, with no end in sight. Demand from the photovoltaic segment is significant, sustainable, and growing fast.

This changes things. Look for the major polysilicon manufacturers – Hemlock, Tokuyama, Wacker, REC, and MEMC – to ramp up production significantly by 2008, and expect many new entrants.

Why, for example, aren’t the major solar customers for polysilicon – BP Solar, Energy Conversion, Evergreen Solar, Kyocera, Mitsubishi, Motech, Q-Cells, Sanyo, Sharp, Sunpower, Suntech, and Shell Solar – investing in their own polysilicon manufacturing?

For $200 million these value-added photovoltaic manufacturers can build their own polysilicon plants to create 3,000 tons of polysilicon per year, which at $50 per kilogram would have a market value of $150 million. When one considers that a kilogram of polysilicon can then be turned into a photovoltaic panel with an output of about 125 watts, then at a price of $2.00 per watt (much lower than today’s prices), another $750 million in revenue is possible per year per plant, or $600 million in margin after purchasing the polysilicon – plenty of money to cover the cost of the value-added processes to turn the polysilicon ingots into photovoltaic panels.

What is most amazing is that the worldwide photovoltaic industry is still so small. The entire world output of polysilicon for photovoltaic panels could be doubled with an investment of $600M for three plants producing 3,000 tons per year each. World energy consumption from all sources, last year, topped 20,000 gigawatts – and only 10 of these 20,000 gigawatts (that’s 0.05% or one-twentieth of one percent) were supplied by photovoltaics – the ultimate renewable. This industry is going to take off in a very, very big way.

If you are looking for examples of how concerned people have mobilized to help a species, the worldwide efforts to save the Great Sea Turtles is a good place to start. If it weren’t for individuals getting involved on every continent, these ancient species, with lifespans that exceed humans, who travel thousands of miles through open ocean, might well be completely extinct by now.The list of organizations helping to protect the seven species of Great Sea Turtles is partially represented at the end of EcoWorld’s current top story on the home page “Saving the Great Sea Turtle” but there are far more than we could compile there. A good place to find the names of hundreds of individuals and organizations helping the Great Sea Turtles is to access the directory at www.SeaTurtle.org.

In the personal account by EcoWorld correspondant Daniela Muhawi, the struggle of the Hawksbill Sea Turtle to nest on Kamehame beach in Hawaii is described in some detail. Probably the biggest threat to the Great Sea Turtles is the encroachment of civilization on their nesting beaches. Very few Sea Turtle hatchlings ever made it from these nests to the ocean, but nowadays with introduced predators including domestic cats, artificial lighting that make females think it’s daytime and keep them from coming ashore to lay their eggs, roads that block females from their nests, and of course poachers who remove and sell the eggs, the chances for the Sea Turtles to reproduce is slim indeed.

With the help of volunteers around the world who monitor beaches where Sea Turtles establish their nests, however, the odds swing back somewhat in favor of the species. These efforts, along with the steady adoption by fishermen of nets that provide an escape for large sea animals, have given the Great Sea Turtles hope, though they remain endangered.

A newly planted jatropha plantation in April 2004 Tree Oils of India Ltd.

Jatropha seeds – seeds of prosperity?

Economic development in India has led to huge increases in energy demand, which in-turn has encouraged development of the Jatropha Cultivation and Biodiesel Production Systems

Communities in rural India need to develop alternative energy options that will be good for the environment and help promote sustainable livelihoods in the region, without exposing them to such adverse effects of modernization as cultural transformations, and allowing them to retain independence in the face of globalization.

The establishment of the Jatropha cultivation and local, community-based production of environmentally friendly biodiesel fuel can lead to income improvement in these regions. Establishment and ongoing improvement of a Jatropha System will benefit four main aspects of development and secure a sustainable way of life for village farmers and the land that supports them.

THE FOUR MAIN BENEFITS OF JATROPHA CULTIVATION:

(1) Renewable Energy

(2) Erosion Control and Soil Improvement

(3) Promotion of Women employment

(4) Poverty Reduction.

WHY AND HOW TO BUILD A BIODIESEL INDUSTRY:

Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel production should be a low-risk venture with attractive returns.

Private investors can help in funding Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel production development.

Jatropha refining is a challenge that will build the technical capacities of rural entrepreneurs.

There are new work opportunities in Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel production related sectors, and the industry can be grown in a manner that favors many prosperous independent farmers and farming communities.

A compendium of the latest biodiesel developments through 2005 in India:

Jatropha seedlings

Price Policy for BioDiesel: Public sector oil firms have announced a price of Indian Rupees 25 (US$ 0.56) per liter for procuring bio-diesel extracted from non-edible oilseeds for mixing in diesel. The program to sell diesel mixed with non-edible oil extracted from Jatropha Curcas and Pongamia Pinnata, which could cut India’s import dependence, but would take 4-5 years to launch on commercial scale. It will take time for adequate quantities of Jatropha Curcas and Pongamia Pinnata to be planted and oil extracted for mixing in diesel.

Bio-Diesel Credit Bank: The Petroleum Conservation Research Association (PCRA), launched a Bio-Diesel Credit Bank. It will co-ordinate activities relating to Carbon Credits. Several Field trials have been performed.

Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) placed an order of 450 kiloliters of bio-diesel in 2004, for field trials with the Indian Railways and State Roadways. IOC will be able to supplement 5% of diesel with bio-diesel in three years. The first phase of the project, by Daimler-Chrysler India, in 2003-04 saw production of the indigenous biodiesel and completion of road trials on two C-Class Mercedes-Benz cars. The cars, powered by pure (neat) Biodiesel, traversed the rugged terrain of the country in April-May, 2004, and clocked over 5,900 kilo meters under very hot and humid conditions.

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is now in talks with country’s biggest truck and bus maker Tata Motors and Indian Oil to take its biofuel project to the next stage, for testing its vehicles on bio-diesel developed from jatropha plant.

Jatropha flowers

It is likely there will be a clear-cut and updated Indian government bio-diesel policy by early 2006, after the Energy Policy Committee submits its report to the government by November 30, 2005. An in-principle approval is expected to be given by that time, which will be worked into a formal bio-fuel policy later. The report from the committee is expected to make specific proposals which will then be forwarded to the Energy Co-ordination Committee for final acceptance by the government.

The Indian government is likely to change the excise duty structure for biofuels in the next Budget to make their use attractive. Petroleum ministry officials said the excise duty on biodiesel and ethanol is likely to be made nil and states would be asked to have a favorable sales tax regime.

The Indian government plans to assist states to promote Jatropha cultivation for increasing bio-diesel production in the country under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the Rajya Sabha was informed on 7 Dec 2005.

The Andhra Pradesh government has introduced a draft biodiesel policy to facilitate both investors and farmers to plant oil-bearing trees on 1.5 million acres in the next four years. Also, a risk fund of Indian Rupees 2.0 Billion is expected to be created, as a loan to the state government, to support small and marginal farmers having up to five acres of land. There is also a proposal for constituting a biodiesel board, which would be an autonomous board for integrated development of jatropha cultivation and bio-diesel oil in the state. The proposed board, having legal authority, will monitor the tripartite agreement signed between the stake holders, besides assisting, encouraging, and promoting jatropha cultivation, according to the officials involved in preparing the draft policy. Following the constitution of policy, the government is determined to promote contract farming for buyback of jatropha seeds. The minimum buy-back price will be fixed considering the different variables including the quality and quantity of the produce. A special department called the Rain Shadow Area Department has been created as a special purpose vehicle for planning, coordinating, monitoring and implementation of the biodiesel program. Two small units are already in commercial production.

Jatropha fruits

Aatmiya Biofuels Pvt Ltd, 68,G.I.D.C. Por Ramangamdi Taluka & District Vadodara, Gujarat- 391243, Phone No : 0265 2885009, Mobile No : 09879359010, has commercialized the production of biodiesel in Gujarat on 8th March 2005 and now producing 1000 liters/day. The company is promoted by Mr. Umakant Joshi, umakantjoshi@hotmail.com a Chemical Engineer who graduated with an M.S. from the University of Vadodara, then was a post-graduate in Chemical Engineering at Delaware University (USA), specializing in Bioenergy.

Gujarat Oelo Chem Limited (GOCL), a Panoli-based firm started on 12th of March 2005, producing bio-diesel from vegetable based feedstock. It released the first commercial consignment of bio-diesel to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). Head Office : Gujarat Oleo Chem. Ltd., D-315, Crystal Plaza, Oshiwara Link Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai- 400053, Tel : 91-22-2673 3369 / 70 / 71, Fax: 91-22-2634 9195. E-mail: gocl@bom5.vsnl.net.in, Website: www.gujaratoleochem.com. Regd. Off & Works: Plot No. 631-639, GIDC, Panoli, 394 116, Tel : 91-2646-271 730 / 731 / 647, Fax : 91-2646-272195. A number of companies are planning to set up new units.

Kochi Refineries Ltd. (KRL) is setting up a pilot plant with a US firm to extract biodiesel from rubber seed oil. An R&D exercise, the company proposed to look at the feasibility of the project and would initially have a pilot plant set up with a daily capacity of 100 liters. The company has initiated studies into the availability of rubber seed oil from neighboring Tamil Nadu, especially from the Nagercoil belt.

Another Kochi-based company, TeamSustain Ltd., a division of US-based Dewcon Instruments Inc, is in talks with a US firm for setting up a biodiesel plant in Kochi.

Some of India’s ideal growing regions for jatropha

Pune-based Shirke Biohealthcare Pvt. Ltd., 11, Navrang Plaza, Tingre Nagar, Vishrantwadi, Airport Road, Pune, India, 411 015. Tel: 91-20-5623 3110, Cell : 91-9422010236, Fax : 91-20-2581 3993, jet_india@rediffmail.com, is setting up a refinery at Hinjewadi, with a capacity to process 5,000 liters biodiesel per day from Jatropha plant. The refinery will also produce 1 MW power with the oil cake, apart from natural gas which will be used to run the power plant.

Renewable energy company Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd, has received a grant of 100,000 dollars from the US government to conduct a detailed feasibility report for a bio-diesel project in State of Karnataka. The study envisages use of Neem or Pongamia non-edible oilseeds for production of bio-diesel as well as power.

Southern Online Biotechnologies Limited, which is setting up a bio-diesel project in Andhra Pradesh, has signed memorandum of understanding with several government bodies and non-governmental organisations, for procuring raw material like Pongamia Pinnata (Karanja or Kanuga) and Jatropha seed. The oil extracted from this seed is used to produce bio-diesel. The company is setting up the bio-diesel project at an estimated cost of Indian Rupees 150 million at Choutuppal in Andhra Pradesh, with technology from a German company named Lurgi. The plant capacity is 30 tons per day or 90,000 tons per annum. It would require around 100 tons of seeds per day. The annual requirement of seeds is around 32,000 tons. As the current availability of seeds in the state is less than 4,000 tons, company will use other raw materials like acid oils, distilled fatty acids, animal fatty acids and non-edible vegetable oils like neem, rice bran, etc.

Jain Irrigation System Ltd., has plans to set up a Indian Rupees 480 million large-scale commercial bio-diesel plant, with a capacity of 150,000 tons per day in Chattisgarh by 2008. R&D work is being done at a 3.0 tons per day biodiesel pilot plant at Jalgaon, built at a cost of Indian Rupees 5.0 million. This will be followed by another biodiesel plant with a capacity of 10 tons per day at Jalgaon. The current concern in the biodiesel industry is finding adequate farmland to make sure the industry receives a regular supply of feedstock.

Nova Bio Fuels Pvt. Ltd., is setting up a Indian Rupees 200 million, biodiesel plant with a capacity of 30 tons per day in Panipat in 2006. Their plant would also supply glycerine to local pharma companies.

Natural Bioenergy Limited is setting up an integrated biodiesel facility in Andhra Pradesh. The 300 tons per day biodiesel plant will come up in the port town of Kakinada at an estimated cost of Indian Rupees 1.4 billion and would be a 100 percent export-oriented unit.

An modern biodiesel plant (cost: Indian Rupees 9.0 million) is coming up in Ganapathipalayam village, about 20 km away from Pollachi. KTK German Bio Energies India, commenced commercial production of biofuel in January 2006. The plant will use rubber seeds for extraction of biodiesel.

Biodiesel extracted from Pomgamia pinatta (Karanja) seeds was commercially launched in Pune in January 2006. The fuel has been produced and marketed by Pune-based Mint Biofuels, Though the plant initially had a capacity of 100 litres per day, it was scaled up to 400 litres per day. The company will set up a Indian Rupees 300 million plant at Chiplun, which will have a capacity of producing 5,000 tons of fuel per year. Plans are afoot to increase the capacity of the plant to 100,000 tons within a period of four years. Mint Biofuels is using karanja (Pongamia pinnata) as the feedstock based on its high yield per acre. They have found karanja starts yielding from the 4th or 5th year after plantation and yields more than 10 kg per tree from the 10th year onwards. The Wealth of India report on this plant says that the yield varies between 9-90 kg per tree, but trees giving more than 90 kg are found in natural habitat. Mint Biofuels are using rigorous selection procedures for selecting planting material. Since karanja is a tree growing to a height of 20-25 feet (even if it is unattended) it requires minimal aftercare and irrigation after it has established.

Vijayawada based Sagar Jatropha Oil Extractions Private Limited is setting up an Indian Rupees 100 million jatropha oil extraction unit at Gannavaram. The company has also experienced success with contract farming of the jatropha plant in the state. Jatropha oil is mixed with diesel to produce biodiesel.

British Petroleum on Feb. 2, 2006, declared that it will fund a $9.4 million project in India to see if biodiesel can be produced from a non-edible oil bearing crop. The project by The Energy and Resources Institute in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh will study the feasibility of producing biodiesel from the crop Jatropha Curcas. The 10-year project will cultivate around 8,000 hectares of wasteland with the crop and install equipment needed for seed crushing, oil extraction and processing, to produce 9 million liters of biodiesel per year. The project will also include an environmental and social impact assessment. TERI will run the project’s daily operations.

Alcohol: There is hope for petrol users dreading the prospect of paying more. With the government’s decision to go ahead with the ethanol blended petrol, the cost of petrol may actually go down in the coming months, even if the government decides, as looks likely, to hike petrol prices.

Last year, India’s central government directed 10 states and a few Union territories to go green by blending ethanol (the fuel mix being 95% petrol, 5% ethanol) with petrol. With the central government having finalised tenders for procuring ethanol, north Indian states will get the green fuel faster than others. At 5% cars do not require any design changes.

Rising crude prices: The rising crude oil prices will lead to higher usage of vegetable oils and fats as alternative fuel. Demand for bio-fuels will invariably increase, it is expected that the demand for bio-fuel from vegetable oils and fats will shoot up to 3 million tons a day.

Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam President of India

PRESIDENT PLANTS JATROPHA SAPLING IN RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN

The President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has planted Jatropha saplings in Rashtrapati Bhavan. To begin with 800 plants are being planted for educational purposes to promote the use of herbal plants for extracting oil from which biodiesel can be produced. This is being done in collaboration with G.B. Pant Agricultural University, Pantnagar and National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow. A demonstration of Agricultural implements being operated by biodiesel was also made before the President. President of India Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam always emphasizes the potential of plantations of Jatropha Curcas. Every State Government is taking steps to promote Jatropha Curcas and Pomgamia Pinatta.

Chhattisgarh: The government has planted 80 million saplings of jatropha in 2005, a source of biofuel, as the state attempts to tap non-conventional energy sources. It has set a target of cultivating jatropha plantations in one million hectares in 2006, covering 20,000 hectares in the first phase. The government would work with NGOs for starting 350 jatropha nurseries, each spread over a maximum of 500 hectares, in 2005.

The state of Andhra Pradesh has taken the lead in encouraging Jatropha Plantations. The state government has set up a separate department for bringing into productive use the 728,000 hectare cultivable wasteland available for cultivation of Jatropha plantation for production of bio-diesel. The state government is drawing up a roadmap, which will see the involvement of oil majors like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and Reliance Industries, to make the state the biggest producer of bio-diesel. It is planning to bring between 4 and 5 million acres of land in seven to eight districts of the state under biodiesel plantations and ensure that micro-irrigation is used in a big way in these areas. This will change the ecology of the area.

In Tamil Nadu underutilised lands could turn into fertile farms and farmers can be assured of a price for their produce. There is a project to produce 100 per cent biodiesel from jatropha. D1-Mohan Bio Oils Limited (a joint venture of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries and U.K.based D1 Oils Plc) plans to bring one lakh hectares under jatropha cultivation in Tamil Nadu. Indian Overseas Bank signed an agreement with Coimbatore based Classic Jatropha Oil (India) Ltd for promoting cultivation of jatropha curcas in Tamil Nadu under contract farming. Classic Jatropha Oil, a subsidiary of Tirupur based major knitwear exporters, has been involved in developing the Jatropha cultivation for a long time.

India’s vehicular pollution is estimated to have increased eight times over the last two decades. This source alone is estimated to contribute about 70 per cent to the total air pollution. With 243.3 million tons of carbon released from the consumption and combustion of fossil fuels in 1999, India ranked fifth in the world behind the U.S., China, Russia and Japan. India’s contribution to world carbon emissions is expected to increase in the coming years due to the rapid pace of urbanisation, shift from non-commercial to commercial fuels, increased vehicular usage and continued use of older and more inefficient coal-fired power plants.

The same jatropha plantation only 14 months later Tree Oils of India Ltd.

D1 Oil Plc. : A UK producer of green fuel, Newcastle-based D1 Oil Plc, has 10,000 hectares of the crop planted in India and its target of 267,000 hectares by the end of 2006 is on track. Labland Biotech have tied up with British oil company D1 Oils to produce jatropha and trade in it. The company will encourage hundreds of farmers to cultivate the crop under an arrangement with the company.

A jatropha seed contains 31 to 37 per cent extractable oil. A jatropha plantation over 100,000 hectares is expected to yield 250,000-300,000 tons of crude jatropha oil per annum. It is estimated that an initial 100,000-hectare jatropha farm will yield revenues of $100 million per annum. Reliance is also in talks with Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan Governments, to get access to land for contract farming.

Godrej Agrovet Ltd is planning to invest over Indian Rupees 5.0 billion, for jatropha and palm oil cultivation in the states of Gujarat and Mizoram. The company would cultivate jatropha or palm oil according to the nature of the waste land in these states.

According to industry sources, Godrej Agrovet would invest Indian Rupees 2.5 billion for bio-fuel plant cultivation along with the palm oil processing and plant cultivation project in Gujarat while it would invest Indian Rupees 2.5 billion for both jatropha and palm oil cultivation in Mizoram. Godrej would be cultivating both jatropha and palm oil in an area over 10,000 acres in Mizoram as per the fertility of the land. The company is also in the process of setting up mills in Walia (Gujarat) at an estimated cost of $ 10 million.

Emami Ltd, one of the leading toiletries outfit in the country, is planning to enter into the farming of jatropha, a source of biodiesel. The company might float a joint venture outfit with a leading European company in the field of bio-diesel for the new business. Emami group is now talking to some companies in United States, UK and Austria for technical collaboration for the extraction of oil from jatropha. The project will be first of its kind in the Eastern India. The company will start farming of jatropha in Suri in West Bengal and Balasore in Orissa.

Biodiesel will have a pronounced impact on edible oil prices : Prices of both palm and soy oils will firm up in the coming months, with demand for biodiesel alone grabbing at least six million tons of oils despite the slower growth of the economy.

Crude Palm Oil futures have gone up from 1,300-1,500 ringgit to a new higher range of 1,400 to 1,600. As the period October to February advances, prices will creep towards the upper end of this range. Crude de-gummed soy oil would be in the range of $460-500 per ton free on board, while RBD palm olein will be in the $400-450 band and crude palm oil will be between $370-420 free on board.

Malaysia and Indonesia are the world’s largest producers and exporters of palm oil, while Brazil and Argentina are among the top soy oil producers. From mid-2006, the use of soy oil for biodiesel will have a pronounced impact on prices, and the total biodiesel capacity coming on stream by the end of 2006/07 will require 1.6 million tons of soya oil. Edible oil imports by India, the world’s leading buyer, in 2005/06 could remain flat at around 5.65 million tons, but imports of soy oil will go up at the expense of palm oil.

Satish Lele

About the Author: Satish Lele’s services seek to make Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel production a low-risk venture with attractive returns. He is helping to attract private investors in Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel production development, and promotes and recognizes endeavors to build the technical capacities of rural entrepreneurs.

We have just released a new feature story entitled “India’s Biodiesel Scene” written by Satish Lele, a chemical engineer and entrepreneur from India who has become an expert on biofuels; jatropha in particular. Reading Lele’s story on EcoWorld should not substitute for visiting the biodiesel sections of Lele’s website, which is one of the most comprehensive websites we’ve ever seen on the topic of biodiesel.

It is important to assess the potential of biodiesel crops to meet the increasing demand for fuel in India and elsewhere. On one page of Lele’s website, where he describes in great detail the botanical and chemical features of jatropha, as well as the economics of growing jatropha and the types of land where it can grow (midway down the page), Lele claims that there are 13.4 million hectares of underutilized land in India that could immediately be planted with jatropha.

Lele also claims that jatropha yields 250,000 tons of crude jatropha oil per year per every 100,000 hectares of plantation. This converts to 2.5+ tons of jatropha crude oil per hectare, which at 5.2 barrels of oil per ton, equates to 12.9 barrels of oil per hectare per year. If one multiplies this figure by 13.4 million, which is only 4% of India’s land area, immediate jatropha oil potential in India would be 173 million barrels of oil per year – 22% of India’s current consumption of petroleum-derived crude oil.

We ran a story recently entitled “Biodiesel – The Alternative Fuel That’s Already Here” which has a chart showing yields per acre of various biodiesel crops. We got the data for that table from a website operated by Journey to Forever, which is also an excellent reference source for information about biodiesel. The data from this source claims jatropha can yield a more modest 1.6 tons of crude jatropha oil per hectare, but even so, under this assumption planting 4% of India’s land with jatropha would supply 15% of India’s current petroleum consumption. Moreover, the assumptions from this source probably weren’t based on prime land – and within India there are additional millions of hectares of marginal lands that will still support a jatropha crop that is economically viable.

Worldwide, the potential of biodiesel and bioethanol is huge, although by themselves not sufficient to completely replace petroleum. But in conjunction with development of other alternative energy sources, and more efficient energy consumption, biofuels will play a vital role in meeting the energy requirements of tomorrow.

The California Air Resources Board is holding a symposium in September 2006 to discuss ZEV (Zero Emissions Vehicle) technology. If you want to submit a presentation visit their Call For Abstracts and follow the instructions.

It’s not surprising the call for abstracts includes topics such as “hydrogen storage technologies” and fuel cells “balance of plant” components. They had better hope some rather dramatic breakthroughs have occurred, or fuel cells will remain a mantra turned into a mandate, but not much in the way of real progress on clean vehicles.

What was surprising and encouraging was the call for presentations on topics such as “battery-electric vehicle products” and “plug-in hybrids.” Now those are interesting ideas! Read The 100% Electric Car to learn why batteries are currently a superior electricity storage medium compared to hydrogen, and probably always will be.

Isn’t a “plug-in hybrid” just a battery-powered car with a gasoline engine for extra oomph? In a serial hybrid, the gas engine isn’t even connected to the drive train, it just turns a generator to charge the batteries. Such a car could have the internal combustion engine run on various fuels; ethanol and gasoline, or diesel, and the car could have a large battery-pack for long range (a “strong” hybrid).

These cars are available now – just buy a hybrid and find a good tinker. This is where the market is going, and it’s unstoppable.