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

Biofuel production is limited by the quantity of biomass on the planet. As we’ve demonstrated in our report Biofuel vs. Photovoltaics, there isn’t enough arable farmland on the planet for biofuel to even begin to replace crude oil. But what if farmland is not the only source for biofuel feedstock?

There are two primary categories of biofuel; bioethanol which is distilled from fermented plant sugars, and biodiesel which is refined from plant oils. Sugar cane is a good example of a bioethanol feedstock, and the African oil palm is a good example of a biodiesel feedstock. In most of these cases biofuel must come from an actual crop, usually from a crop that is also part of the human food chain.

What if biofuel could be extracted from crop waste after the food is harvested, or from grasses or from wood? An interesting report entitled “The World’s Most Productive Ethanol Plant” from The BioPact, a website that promotes economic cooperation between European and African nations to develop biofuel, describes the potential for extracting biofuel from plant fibers.

In this report, the author claims that one of the world’s best sources of biodiesel, the African oil palm, will yield bioethanol from its leaf and trunk fiber. Harvested and replaced on 25 year cycles, these trees grow so rapidly that their leaf and trunk fiber can potentially yield, on a yearly average, nearly twice as much ethanol as the same tree will yield each year in biodiesel oil!

As always, the devil is in the details. These so called “2nd generation ethanols” have to be produced from cellulose fiber, the actual material of plants, becoming “lignocellulosic ethanol.” The methods to extract ethanol from cellulose are not as energy-efficient or cost-efficient as the methods used to extract ethanol from crops. To find out more read “Extracting Ethanol From Cellulose” written by P.C. Badger in 2002.

As the report on the BioPact website states “In the world of second generation biofuels, total biomass yield is the single most important factor determining the final energy balance of those green fuels.” If we are to properly assess the potential of biofuel to replace crude oil, we need to consider not just yields of current biofuel crops, but the potential of all biomass on earth – from crop residue, or sustainably harvested forest biomass, or farmed algae, to name a few examples. With feedstock literally everywhere, and extraction methods still being rapidly developed and improved, it is unwise to underestimate the role biofuel may someday play in balancing energy supply with demand.

It finally happened. The future is here. The future is now. Tesla Motors in San Carlos, California, a company we scooped about a month ago in Silicon Valley- The New Detroit?, has released specifications on its revolutionary battery powered car.

Several years ago we published The Car of the Future, which described the ambitious plans of a start-up company to build a fuel cell powered car they would deliver to a grateful world. Then last year we published The Battery Powered Car, which, among other things, demonstrated that batteries are twice as efficient an energy storage mechanism as fuel cells, and considerably cheaper to obtain – and that grid electricity can power a car for a fraction of what gasoline cars cost to operate.

And now the next generation, 100% electric car is here, and it runs on laptop batteries! Mass produced Lithium Ion batteries with an energy density of well over 200 watts per kilogram. And this isn’t just any car – this car will perform like a bat out of hell.

Back in the 1990′s, for a while, battery-powered cars were in vogue. But it was too soon, in spite of the legendary General Motors EV-1 coming out of that era. The EV-1 was a very hot sports car, although few recognized it at the time. It had a top speed of 185 miles per hour, and the manufacturer had installed a governor to prevent drivers from going that fast.

But if the EV-1 was a brilliant piece of engineering, ahead of its time, kind of like the first combat jet ever produced, the German ME-262, then the Tesla Roadster is kind of like America’s 2006 top-of-the-line F-18 Hornet.

Compare these stats: The EV-1 had 137 horsepower and went 0-60 mph in 7.4 seconds. The Tesla Roadster puts out 185 kilowatts (248 horsepower) and goes 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. If the EV-1 had a top speed of 185 MPH with a 1,600 pound battery pack, what do you think the actual top speed of the Tesla Roadster is, with only 1,000 pounds of batteries? The Tesla Roadster’s spec sheet only discreetly says “over 130 miles per hour.” Gentlemen, get these cars on the autobahn.

Most important, the Tesla Roadster has a range on one charge of 250 miles, and can be recharged on the road in a few hours. The EV-1 only went about 100 miles on a charge, and took all night to charge on a normal wall socket.

Keep your eyes on Tesla Motors. They make me very proud to be a Californian.

To say “create carbon sinks” is another way to say “reforest the planet.” Ever since EcoWorld posted its first page back in May 1995, our original and enduring mission is to promote reforesting. Our goal is to record a doubling of the timber mass of planet earth during the 50 year period from 1995 to 2045. But only trees? Why don’t environmentalists reforest their dogma? Why are environmentalists usually perceived to be a leftist? More specifically, why are environmentalists usually perceived to be anti-development, anti-capitalism, anti-nuclear, anti-genetic-modification, pro-recycling no matter what, and pro-carbon-reduction by any means?

Of course we need to quickly reforest the earth. Until we know for certain that forests cannot absorb anthropogenic CO2, we must put at least as much efforts into reforestation as we put into further regulating and cutting human industrial carbon emissions. If only 5% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is caused by human industrial activity, then certainly if we double the timber mass of the planet we will be able to take up this amount of carbon.

If increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 could be the “tipping point,” catalysing the warming of a world already warming from more water vapor because the sun is hottor this millenium compared to the last – the sun does flicker – then why isn’t the “urban heat island effect” a tipping point too? Human civilization is now nearly 50% urban with the percentage rising every year. Densely-packed habitat and urban infrastructure for three billion people creates heat sinks on a planetary scale. Why don’t we plant millions and billions of big canopy trees in every city on earth? Why isn’t every urban heat island on the planet already carpeted with cooling canopies of big shade trees? It wouldn’t cost even one-millionth as much as converting to hydrogen fuel cell cars.

Nobody can say for certain if the glacier on Kilimanjaro is melting away because of more heat, or for lack of precipitation. Certainly with a little more rainfall, that peak would be white year-around through another epoch. So where did the forests go that once marched for thousands of square kilometers up her slopes, bringing rainclouds with them, and why don’t we put them back? If you want a bigger global carbon sink, you could sure make a good start with billions of new trees right there on the slopes of Kilimanjaro, and on all the other denuded slopes in the world, and across the tropics, and everywhere else.

If you are willing to regulate carbon, going to the point of classifying it as a pollutant, why don’t you reforest the Congo basin instead, to absorb more carbon? Why not dig a water tunnel north from the Ubangi River into the Lake Chad watershed? The water might even be gravity-fed, or lifted with pumps powered by thermal collectors. Let’s refill Lake Chad with water from the Ubangi river, and re-green the vast expanses of the Sahel with carbon-absorbing plants.

There seems to be no doubt that the earth is warming. But if the looming catastrophe is so huge we must avoid it at all costs, why don’t we build non-carbon emitting nuclear power plants in Siberia to move 25+ cubic kilometers of fresh water per year from arctic-bound rivers to refill the Aral Sea, and replant the Aral basin? This would help counteract the fresh water being introduced by icecap melt, and would bring the moderating effects of life back to one of the most desicated places on earth. The disappearance of the Aral Sea has been called by Al Gore the biggest environmental disaster in human history.

For the money we would spend on bureaucrats and lawyers every year trying to regulate carbon emissions, we could easily build 50 gigawatts per year of photovoltaic panels that require minimal maintenance. For even less, today, we could do the same with windmills, and we should. Why don’t we stop spending billions on experiments with hydrogen, and instead increase our photovoltaic and windmill capacity so that within twenty years they generate up to 200 quadrillion BTU’s per year?

If the precautionary principle must be invoked – and carbon emissions must be banned – because the potential catastrophe is so huge, then why is a discussion of the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops so unspeakable? If algae was successfully genetically modified to efficiently produce ethanol feedstock, we might have a carbon-neutral biofuel source capable of worldwide production of 50+ million barrels per day.

It is difficult to have a vision of nature and technology in harmony that wouldn’t permit one to believe nuclear power of any kind will ever be feasible. Fusion energy uses limitless fuel and consumes its own waste. Should we forget about that? Genetic modification is bringing us cures to deadly ailments, and preventing countless others. Should we stop learning about that, too? Who can dogmatically say on what grounds an environmentalist might excommunicate an environmentalist?

Reforest the planet, the far flung open forests and the urban forests, everywhere. Maybe that is something we can all agree upon.

About a year ago, we published a story entitled “The Radical Center,” which reported on a group in New Mexico called the Quivira Coalition who are drawing together ranchers and environmentalists to work together. They are promoting the fact that underdrawing on a regenerating resource – such as forage on rangeland – will cause the sustainable output of that resource to increase each year. That is, by letting ecosystems recover, the amount of sustainable grazing that can eventually be permitted will become greater than the land previously endured when being overgrazed.

This isn’t the only example of a win-win that occurs when rationality prevails. “The Radical Center” is a perfect way to describe this approach, because it takes courage to move away from entrenched extremes and find common ground. Agreement is usually possible, when emotions are removed and competing positions are distilled to their most logical elements.

Philippe Cousteau, grandson of the great oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, and founder of the environmental group Earth Echo International, in a recent television interview said the following: “One of the worst things that ever happened to the environmental movement was that it became associated with leftist ideology.” We couldn’t agree more.

Radical centrist is just another word for moderate, problem solver, consensus builder – it is an ideology unto its own, or perhaps it is an anti-ideology. Whatever it is, the world could use more of it.

A related notion worth mentioning, in our attempt here to question environmentalist stereotypes, is the idea of severability. That is, there is not a monolithic environmentalist “party line.” No matter how fanatically one environmentalist may believe something to be urgently true, another environmentalist may completely disagree, yet both of them are environmentalists.

According to the notion of severability, you can be an environmentalist and question whether or not anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. You can be an environmentalist and believe that measured use of DDT would cause more good than harm in the world. You can be an environmentalist and believe that business and technology are just as responsible for solving environmental challenges as they are for creating them to begin with.

Environmentalism will advance faster in the world if these two factors – centrist approaches, and acceptance of diverse views on environmental issues – become commonplace, and are celebrated instead of fought.

The Dabancheng Wind Farm At 100 megawatts, China’s largest

By the end of 2004, China produced 200,000 off-grid wind turbine generators, ranking it number one in the world.

Chinese enterprises have mastered advanced off-grid wind turbine generator technology through technology transfer from foreign companies.

There are two kinds of utilization which must be discussed in any review of wind power developments: off-grid and in-grid. Off-grid utilization is used primarily as an independent power operation system, often in remote regions. The power generation capacity of a single off-grid generator ranges from 100 watts to 10 kilowatts. In-grid power is integrated within conventional power grids, providing the most economical utilization of wind power. The maximum power generation of a single in-grid wind turbine in 2006 is five megawatts.

China’s abundant inland and offshore wind energy resources provide potential for large-capacity, in-grid wind farms. By the end of 2005, China had built 59 wind farms with 1,854 wind turbine generators and a 1,266 megawatt in-grid wind power installed capacity, ranking it number ten globally.

CHINA’S WIND POWER POTENTIAL

green=great, pink=good, blue=ok, yellow=poor (offshore & coastal potential not shown)

Today, wind power in China is developing rapidly and receives particularly strong government support. The new Renewable Energy Law and its detailed incentive policies reflect the Chinese government’s intention to build up this industry. By 2020, China plans to have 30 gigawatts of wind power.

European companies dominate China’s wind power equipment market. Among U.S. companies, only GE Wind Power is active in China. In 2005, GE Wind Power occupied 3% of the in-grid wind turbine market in China.

According to the China Academy of Meteorological Sciences, the country possesses a total 235 gigawatts of practical onshore wind power potential that can be utilized at 10 meters above the ground. Annual potential production from wind power could reach 632.5 gigawatts if the annual, full-load operation reaches 2,000-2,500 hours. A detailed survey is needed, however, for economically utilizable wind power resources. The potential for offshore wind power is even greater, estimated at 750 gigawatts. Offshore wind speed is higher and more stable than onshore wind, and offshore wind farm sites are closer to the major electricity load centers in eastern China. Areas rich in wind power resources are mainly concentrated in two areas: northern China’s grasslands and Gobi desert, stretching from Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang provinces; and in the east coast from Shangdong and Liaoning and the Southeast Coast in Fujian and Guangdong provinces.

In 1986, China built its first wind farm in Rongcheng, Shandong Province. From 1996 to 1999, in-grid wind power developed very quickly, entering a localization stage. By the end of 2004, there were 43 wind farms with 1291 wind turbines in China, with 764 megawatts of installed capacity. Liaoning, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Guangdong experienced the fastest wind power development, representing 60% of the installed power generating capacity of national wind power. Currently, Xinjiang’s Dabancheng is the largest wind farm in China, with 100 megawatts of installed power generating capacity. Most generators range from 500 kilowatts to 1 megawatt, accounting for 84% of China’s wind turbine generators.

To support the development of wind power technology and growth of the in-grid wind power market, the Chinese government has recently pushed hard on renewables, and it implemented a series of projects and also stipulated a series of economic incentive policies:

– Ride the Wind Program

Windmills, while still subsidized, are economically viable in high-wind areas (photo: Nordex 2.5 MW units)

To import technology from foreign companies and to establish a high-quality Chinese wind turbine generator sector, the former State Development and Planning Commission (SDPC) initiated the “Ride the Wind Program” in 1996. This initiative led to two joint ventures, NORDEX (Germany) and MADE (Spain). These JVs effectively introduced 600kilowatts wind turbine generator manufacturing technology of 600 kilowatts into China.

– National Debt Wind Power Program

To encourage the development of domestic wind power equipment manufacturing, the former State Economic & Trade Commission (SETC) implemented the “National Debt Wind Power Program.” This program required the purchase of qualified, locally-made wind power components for new generation projects. China’s government provided bank loans with subsidized interest to wind farm owners of as compensation for the risk of using locally-made wind turbine generators. These loans funded construction of demonstration project wind farms with a total installed capacity of 8megawatts. This program has been completed.

– Wind Power Concession Project

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) initiated the “Wind Power Concession Project” in 2004 with a 20-year operational period. This program aims to reduce the in-grid wind power tariff by building large capacity wind farms and achieving economies of scale. Each of the wind farms built in this program must reach a 100 megawatts capacity. By 2006, NDRC had approved 5 wind farms, in Jiangsu, Guangdong, Inner Mongolia, and Jilin Province.

China’s latest “Five Year Plan”

In any typical wind power concession, the power grid company signs a long-term power purchase agreement with the wind power project investor and agrees to purchase electricity generated by the project. The bidding competition determines in-grid tariff and the agreement clearly prescribes the quantity of in-grid wind power to be purchased. The duration of the agreement covers the total operation period of the wind project.

Therefore, the investor minimizes risk in recovering investment costs. The concession agreement between the government and project investor guarantees the power-purchase agreement. All end-users of the grid’s electricity share the tariff increase due to wind power purchase. As incentives, the government waves import customs tariff and VAT on the equipment and accessories.

Although China’s government has, for many years, encouraged the use of wind power, favorable conditions for wide-scale development have yet to develop. Through the wind power concession project, the Chinese government hopes to create further incentives for companies to develop this renewable energy resource. The concession agreement and long-term power purchase agreement protect the interests of wind power investors, encouraging large companies, especially foreign ones, to invest in the Chinese wind power sector. Under this policy, market risk is reduced significantly, which in turn reduces the risk premium of the internal rate of return for wind power projects. Eventually, the wind tariff shared by end-users will be cut due to this decreased risk.

The Chinese government has expanded the capacity of wind farms to a 100 megawatt level, and has created new wind power tariffs based on the market mechanism and tendering process. This has attracted a number of Chinese companies into this program. Through successful implementation of the project, the Chinese government hopes to make wind power an economically-viable power choice, effectively competing with conventional power sources in China.

Incentive policies have finally begun to emerge within China. China encourages the development of wind power in its “National Middle and Large Term Development Plan.” According to the plan, by 2010, China’s installed capacity of wind power will reach 5 gigawatts. By 2020, it will achieve 30 gigawatts. In order to achieve this level of growth, China needs to build 800 megawatts of new wind power capacity each year from 2006 to 2010.

In Feb 2005, China’s Renewable Energy Law was formulated and was put into effect on January 1, 2006. The law stipulates that the power grid company must sign a grid connection agreement with the wind power generating company and purchase the full amount of the wind power generated by it. The wind power tariff will be determined by the wind farm project tendering. The winner’s quoted tariff will be the tariff of that wind farm project.

Wind power is a priority “National Clean Development Mechanism Project,” i.e., wind farm developers can sell Certified Emission Reduction Certificates (CER’s) to developed countries under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Chinese government reduced the Value-added Tax (VAT) for wind power from 17% to 8.5% in 2001 and adjusted the import custom tariff of wind turbine generator sets to 8% and that of its components to 3% in 2004. The import duty of wind power equipment and accessories can be waived if it is for the wind farm developer’s own use.

Some local governments in Guangdong, Jilin, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia formulated their own incentive policies to develop wind power. By the end of 2005, China’s wind power installed capacity was about 1gigawatts. According to NDRC’s planning, China’s wind power installed capacity will reach 5gigawatts by 2010 and 30-40 gigawatts by 2020. According to statistics, the cost of wind power is 33%-60% higher than that of coal, which makes the wind power tariff 68%-94% higher than the coal tariff. Industry expert predicts that the wind power can be commercially viable and compete with clean coal-fired power economically by 2020.

On any listing of the very best prospects for China-focused wind sector business development, these would be amongst the top priorities:

” Large capacity wind turbine generators, especially at the 1megawatts level and above.

” Design and operation technology of large-scale wind farms.

Development trends for single wind turbine generators favor large capacity sets, especially at the 1 megawatt level. Before 1997, the 1 megawatt-level wind turbine generators occupied less than 10% of the worldwide market share. In 2001, that figure had risen to 52.3% and reached 62.1% in 2002. Although China has the ability to manufacture wind turbine generators below the 750 kilowatt level, production of higher capacity generators remains a challenge.

Although China has made a prototype of a 1.2 megawatt level wind turbine, it has only been used for demonstration projects. International suppliers will find strong demand in China for wind turbine generators at 1 megawatt and above levels. Beyond the manufacturing sector, Chinese companies also lack experience for investment, design, and operation of large wind farms.

Chinese Domestic Suppliers

Although China’s wind turbine generator industry has been developing for more than 20 years, it still remains in a research phase. By 2002, there were nearly 10 wind turbine generator manufacturers in China: six generator manufacturers, two joint ventures, and three research and development entities. By the end of 2004, the installed capacity of locally-made wind turbine generators reached 48.5megawatts, accounting for 18% of China’s accumulated wind turbine generators. That figure increased to 28% by 2005. China still has to import 90% of its large-capacity wind turbine generators.

THE WINDIEST PLACE IN CHINA

China’s highest sustained winds are the central coast of the Fujian province. Darker areas indicate higher winds. Source: China Wind Atlas

CHINESE WIND TURBINE MANUFACTURERS:

Chinese manufacturers and their key products:

–Xinjiang Goldwind Co. China’s largest wind turbine manufacturer with a 20% market share. Manufactures 600 kilowatt and 750 kilowatt wind turbines. Made a prototype of 1.2 megawatt wind turbine. More than 400 units in operation.

–Zhejiang Yunda Co. Manufactures 120 kilowatt, 200 kilowatt, 250 kilowatt and 750 kilowatt wind turbines. More than 45 units in operation.

–Shenyang Industry University (Shenxin Co.) Manufactures 75 kilowatt and 200 kilowatt wind turbines. Developing a 1 megawatt wind turbine.

–Wandian Co. Manufactures 600 kilowatt wind turbines. 6 units in operation.

–Shanghai Bluesky Co. Manufactures 300 kilowatts wind turbines. 2 units in operation.

–Dalian Heavy Machinery. Developing and manufacturing 1.5 megawatt wind turbines with German-based Furlander.

Chinese Wind Turbine Manufacturers Licensing Technology:

–Dongfang Electric Group. Developing and manufacturing 1.5 megawatt wind turbines with German company REPower’s license.

–Baoding 550 Co. Developing and manufacturing 1 megawatt wind turbines with the German-based Furlander Corporation’s license.

–Xi’an Weide Co. A joint venture of Xi’an Aero Engine Co. with the German-based Nordex Corp. Manufactures 600 kilowatt wind turbines.

FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF WINDMILLS TO CHINA:

European government financing has helped European companies penetrate the China’s wind power equipment market and occupy a dominant position. Danish equipment comprises 52.37% of in-grid wind power projects in China, followed by Germany 20.27%, Spain 8.05%, the United States 3.75% and the Netherlands 3.74%. By 2004, Danish company NEG Micon dominated the wind turbine market in China, occupying a 35% market share.

The world’s largest production wind generator RE Power’s 5.0 megawatt windmill

Foreign manufacturers and their country of origin:

NEG Micon, Denmark

Nordex, Germany

Vestas, Denmark

MADE, Spain

GE Wind, USA

Nedwind, Netherlands

Zond, USA

Bonus, Denmark

Gamesa, Spain

REPower, Germany

More than 30 Chinese companies, including the five large power generation companies, are building wind farms in China. The total investment exceeds USD 1.24 billion. The largest wind power investor is Longyuan Power Co. under China Guodian Corporation. By the end of 2005, the installed capacity of wind power under Longyuan Power’s operation reached 416 megawatts, 40% of the national total. It has another 564 megawatts of new capacity under construction now.

CHINA’S MAJOR WIND FARM DEVELOPERS:

1. Long Yuan Electric Power Group Corp (China Guodian Corporation)

Tel: 8610-6657-9803

Fax: 8610-6657-9899

www.cgdc.com.cn

2. Huaneng New Energy Industrial Co. Ltd.

Tel: 86-10-6827-3888

Fax: 86-10-6822-3990

http://www.hpi.com.cn

3. China Datang Corporation

Tel: 86-10-5196-7608

Fax: 86-10-5196-7612

http://www.china-cdt.com

4. China Power Investment Corporation

Tel: 86-10-5196-8745

Fax: 86-10-5196-8741

http://www.zdt.com.cn

5. China Huadian Corporation

Tel: 8610-5196-6767

Fax: 8610-5196-6874

http://www.chd.com.cn

With the gradual opening of Chinese markets, customs duties have dropped for many imports. Duties on renewable energy equipment are lower than average. Beginning in 2003, the import duty for a complete wind turbine generator set was 8%; the duty for wind turbine generator components is now 3%, and the VAT is 8.5%. There are no licensing requirements for imported wind power products. Since equipment cost makes up 70% of total wind farm construction investment, currently, the major barrier for foreign goods in the wind power industry is the high price of the wind turbine generator.

KEY BEIJING CONTACTS:

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)

Tel: 8610-6850-1441

Fax: 8610-6850-1443

http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/

Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST)

Tel: 8610-68512616

Fax: 8610-68530150

http://www.most.gov.cn/

China Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA)

Tel: 8610-68002615

Fax: 8610-68002674

http://www.creia.net

It may not be environmentally correct to say so, but with oil prices at $75 per barrel, it is profitable to bring heavy oil into production. Doing this buys the world – at current rates of consumption – nearly another century of supply based on known reserves of heavy oil.

A study by the London based World Energy Council, entitled “The Future for Heavy Oil and Bitumen” includes a chart showing world reserves of conventional oil, as well as world reserves of heavy oil. Their assessment of conventional oil agrees with most other reports, i.e., the world once had about 1.8 trillion barrels of recoverable light crude oil, and about 800 billion of those barrels have already been consumed. At current rates of consumption – approximately 30 billion barrels per year – we’ve got about a 30 year supply of easily recovered crude oil. Add to that the World Energy Council’s estimate of recoverable heavy crude oil, however, and you add another 2.4 trillion barrels of oil to the total. This increases the world’s supply of oil to 110 years!

When people talk of “peak oil” they make several assumptions that should be challenged. First of all, the world appears to be able to afford oil at $75 per barrel, so we need to reset what level of production costs are considered uneconomical. While light crude can be extracted for $10 per barrel or less, with market prices as high – and sustainable – as they are today, heavy crude can be extracted at costs of $30 per barrel and still be profitable to sell.

When the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, petitioned OPEC to recognize the heavy oil reserves in Venezuela’s Orinoco basin, he was simply acknowledging this reality. It’s interesting that news reports portray Chavez’s declarations as an “end to cheap oil,” because the opposite is true. Market forces have allowed us to produce oil economically from heavy crude oil. “Cheap” is relative.

Another interesting study on the availability of heavy crude oil, authored by Bill Kovarik at Radford University in Virginia, entitled “The Oil Reserve Fallacy,” estimates the global reserves of heavy crude at 3.0 trillion barrels. Moreover, this oil is everywhere, from tar sands in Canada to heavy oil in Venezuela, to oil shale in the USA, Brazil, India, and elsewhere.

It is a relatively safe assumption that 100 years from now, we will have perfected methods of generating energy that will not rely on oil – this challenges the notion that oil consumption will increase inexorably. Just as higher oil prices are making production of abundant heavy oil economically viable, they are also pushing develoment of alternative energy. Technology and market forces will always yield new ways to generate energy far faster than conventional sources of energy will be depleted.

Concern about the environmental effects of burning oil are an important, but completely separate issue. Environmental concerns shouldn’t motivate false and misleading statements about supplies of oil running out.

Fuel from sugar – ethanol from Sugar Cane is one of the world’s most efficient biofuels

Brazil’s successful development of an ethanol-based biofuels sector since the 1980s, hardly noticed at first, has been the envy of other countries more dependent on oil imports.

The government had the foresight to notice, long before the oil paradigm started to shift towards peak production, that its vast hectares of sugar cane could be put to good use as an ethanol source. Hence, it granted heavy subsidies to agricultural and related industries to alter the source of transport fuels.

Years later, many of those other countries are jumping on the biofuels bandwagon in an era where energy security has risen up the agenda – even the oil-rich country of Nigeria. “Nigeria would be $150 million (about N21bn) annually richer when she adopts the development and application of biofuel as an alternative energy source to crude oil,” states Funsho Kupolokun, group managing director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), which has been given the task of creating the new alternative industry.

It might seem surprising that the oil industry itself in this country has taken the job on board. In many nations, oil companies sign contracts with the emerging biofuels suppliers in deals based either on mandated biofuels content or tax incentives. However, in this case, the national oil company has been instructed by the government to develop the potential within cassava and sugarcane crops, both of which are plentiful in Nigeria.

National statistics suggest that more than 400,000 hectares of land could support high yield sugarcane operations, for instance. At the same time, Nigeria is a leading cassava producer. The crops would be used in the first instance to create a 10% biofuel-90% fossil fuel blend.

“Two potential crops have been identified for the fuel ethanol initiative in Nigeria: sugarcane and cassava. Nigeria is currently reputed to be the leading producer of cassava in the world of about 30 million tons annually,” states Onochie Anyaoku, group general manager of NNPC’s Renewables Division. “The potential must be seen against the background that the average yield in Nigeria is put at about 15 tons/hectare as compared to 25-30 tons/hectare obtainable in other countries. Moreover, cassava is most perceived as a food crop in Nigeria and not as an industrial crop, part of which the bio-fuel program is expected to radically change.” A step-by-step approach is being followed with cassava to ensure that all technical and market issues are addressed comprehensively.

The plans will be supported by the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), a public-private clean energy partnership established at the World Summit for Sustainable Development. Headquartered in Vienna, Austria, REEEP is providing part of the funds for detailed feasibility studies to establish the supply chain for several new ethanol production plants.

The second proposed crop is sugarcane. Though the cultivation of industrial sugarcane suffered a serious setback due to the poor performance of the government-owned sugar companies (now privatised), there is no doubt about the huge potential for growing sugarcane on a large scale in Nigeria, particularly along the entire length and breadth of the rivers Niger and Benue. The states of Jigawa (northern Nigeria), Benue and Taraba (middle belt region of Nigeria) are targets for further agricultural development, and further feasibility studies are planned for individual locations within each state.

Kupolokun recently met with the Benue state governor George Akume to discuss how NNPC could work to secure land and kick off initial partnerships in the region to generate a programme which would “improve automotive exhaust emissions in the country, reduce domestic use of petrol, free up more crude for export and position Nigeria for development of the green fuel.”

Nigeria is the world’s top grower of cassava with potential to greatly increase production

He said the company had identified locations in several states suitable for cassava and sugar cane plantations, adding that memoranda of understanding with the government would be signed as soon as agreements had been reached. Akume in his turn said the NNPC’s ethanol project crystallised local development efforts and provided employment opportunities to local people, adding that the programme might also halt the scourge of petroleum product pipeline vandalisation.

Cooperative agreements are on the table between the Renewable Energy Division of NNPC and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (a leading research institute for cassava production) as well as the Nigerian Cereals Research Institute (a national research institute with mandate for research on sugarcane). These agreements will focus on the low yield problems typical of many varieties of both sugar cane and cassava in Nigeria.

Once the agreement is signed, researchers will investigate how to produce and multiply cassava and sugarcane seedling varieties showing improved productivity and the higher yields necessary for sound profitability. NNPC is also looking to create commercial partnerships with local businesses so that negative impacts on food markets are minimised, while also building local support for the long term development of this new industry.

The REEEP-funded pilot project will generate a business model for the establishment and cultivation of the plantations themselves – in particular a 10-20,000 hectare sugarcane plantation fitted with an ethanol production unit making 70-80 million litres annually, as well as an 5-10,000 hectare cassava plantation fitted with an ethanol production unit capable of producing 50-60 million litres each year.

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, may create thousands of new jobs growing biofuel (Scale: 1 pixel = 5 kilometers)

Like Brazil, Nigeria is taking a more top-down supply-led approach than has perhaps been evident in other countries, many of whose policies are more market-driven. But the government is not just looking to Brazil for information; it also plans to start the industry up using a Brazilian import partnership. Brazil is to initially supply Nigeria with fuel ethanol in order to develop the market and fuel supply infrastructure. Both countries signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005.

The import reception facilities at the Atlas Cove and Mosimi areas are already being modified in preparation for the distribution of biofuel. The REEEP project, which started this April, will develop just as imports arrive from Brazil, allowing the plantations to grow within a rapidly developing market environment.

These events are taking place within a non-consolidated governmental policy framework, though there are campaigns to change this situation. “The policy environment has always been a challenge in Nigeria, and the biofuel industry is no exception. No current policy framework exists that directly addresses the challenges and peculiarities of a biofuel industry in Nigeria, however, a process for putting such a policy is currently in progress,” states Kupolokun.

New policy developments will involve all the ministries and governmental offices necessary, so that they take into account all the issues related to the various links in the value chain. At this stage, the policy emphasis is to stimulate the emergence of integrated operations showing the most potential for good economic performance. At the same time the policy will aim to set out the best conditions for the development of an outgrower scheme (a scheme that will involve the direct participation of local communities in the production of feed stock for the industry). It will also address access to the best international industry skills and financing available to underpin the sustained growth of the industry.

The new industry has the potential to radically change the agricultural sector in Nigeria, which is currently dedicated only to food production, and will create thousands of new jobs as Africa gears up for what is probably one of its first biofuel and certainly one of its many desperately needed agrarian revolutions. Commenting on the impact of the venture, Kupolokun said the entire process is capable of creating over 200,000 jobs, empowering rural farmers by generating greater earnings.

About the Author: Dr. Marianne Osterkorn obtained her Ph.d.in Business Administration at the University of Economics in Vienna, and received a Masters of Arts in Industrial Psychology from the University of Michigan. She started her career in the banking sector as a project manager for organizational projects at several Austrian banks. From 1981-2004, Osterkorn was employed by Verbund, the largest Austrian utility company. During her 23-year stay at this company she held various management positions, including 10 years as the International Relations Manager of Verbund where she was responsible for international lobbying and market development; she followed closely the liberalisation process of the European Energy Market. During these years she was also strongly involved in the development of the European Green certificate market and was for several years President of RECS International, a European green certificate organisation. In 2004 Dr. Osterkorn became the International Director of REEEP, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership. In 2006 Osterkorn was nominated to become member of the advisory board of the EU technology platform on Smart Grids.

We’ve been trying and trying to see if there really is compelling evidence that humans are the cause of global warming, and we can’t. With most contrarian positions we’ve published, whether they regarded DDT, GMO’s, Chemicals, Recycling, Nuclear Power, The Hydrogen Hoax, Transportation, or Suburban Sprawl, it’s been pretty easy to allow differing points of view to be expressed – and remain a passionate environmentalist. But are global warming theories, like these other issues, really still open to debate?

In our search for answers we’ve encountered countless informed individuals who didn’t have the slightest understanding of the science, and the scientists we’ve questioned have quickly either given up trying to explain, saying the issues were too complex for a lay person to understand, or they abandoned their initial position and acknowleged that we aren’t really sure whether or not global warming is a product of human industrial activity. This is too bad. Scientists who want us to believe in global warming should do more than paint apocalyptic scenarios for press releases – they should explain, chapter and verse, why they have reached the conclusions they have reached.

Many of the arguments for and against Global Warming theories are covered in our article on that topic, Global Warming, published in April 2006. But one new factor has turned up since then that deserves mention. In our attempts to determine the ratio of anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 in our atmosphere vs. natural (volcanoes, etc.) CO2, we stumbled upon an excellent article entitled “Why Does Atmospheric CO2 Rise?” authored by Jan Schloerer of the University of Ulm in Germany.

Schloerer has compiled charts, by source, that estimate the total CO2 sequestered in the earth and oceans, the total atmospheric CO2, and the yearly emission and absorption rates of CO2. Schloerer writes “Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or ‘anthropogenic’ input is enough to disturb the delicate balance.” This claim is one heard again and again – humans only produce about 5% of the yearly CO2 that spews into the atmosphere, so why is human CO2 that significant?

According to Schloerer and other atmospheric scientists, the isotopes of human produced CO2 differ from the isotopes of naturally produced CO2, and this slight difference in chemical composition makes the anthropogenic CO2 more difficult to be digested by the natural carbon sinks on the planet – hence, this small incremental yearly increase from human activities is causing total atmospheric CO2 to rise. This point, among others (such as why CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas than, say, water vapor which is millions of times more prevalent in the atmosphere), is a key point that must be better understood.

In the June 26th editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen, opined “There is no ‘consensus’ on Global Warming.” In his essay, he says “Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so.”

Global warming is an environmental challenge of potentially cataclysmic proportions. But that doesn’t justify pretending the theory – that global warming is caused by human-produced CO2 – is beyond debate. Responsible environmentalists hesitate to offer any challenge to the widening mandates to control CO2 emissions, lest their environmentalist credentials become questioned. Nobody who opines on the topic of global warming should fail to do their best to make their own conscientious, unbiased assessment of the science underlying their proclamations.