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

It seems solar thermal power has quietly grown up, while photovoltaic power has gotten all the attention. It isn’t as though there isn’t a lot to like about photovoltaics – they require almost no maintenance, they last for several decades, they emit zero pollution, and if the claims of companies like Nanosolar are to be believed, they are about to get several times cheaper to make and they will change the world.

In the meantime, however, solar thermal power is probably one of the most cost-effective ways to generate renewable energy; using solar power for water heating is something that countless innovative homes and commercial buildings have already implemented. But by using solar concentrators, where the reflective solar collectors are many times the size of the heat absorber area, transfer fluids can be super-heated to drive turbines to generate electricity.

It isn’t clear why solar thermal power for electricity generation hasn’t taken off in a big way. There are three basic designs – a “power tower” where mirrors tracking the sun surround an absorber tank on a tower in the middle of the array, a parabolic reflector that tracks the sun with its own absorber tank at the focal point of the dish, and “parabolic trough” collectors, where a stationary curved mirror extends in a straight line, with an absorber tube running along the focal point of the trough’s curved surface. For more information on solar concentrator designs, go to Solar Thermal Fact Sheets, or to the solar thermal pages at the Energy Information Agency.

The most cost-effective way to generate electricity using solar thermal power is with the parabolic trough design, which is not as efficient as the other systems, but is far cheaper since the entire array is stationary and doesn’t require tracking systems. One company manufacturing equipment for parabolic trough electric power generating stations is Schott Solar Thermal, who have already supplied solar receivers used in several 100+ megawatt installations.

A surprising fact about solar thermal systems is that the amount of land they require to produce meaningful amounts of electricity is not that great. Our calculations indicate they can produce over 64 megawatt-years of electricity per square mile per year. By contrast, large-scale photovoltaic systems can produce about 93 megawatt-years per square mile per year. As we prove in “Power the Earth with Photovoltaics,” it would only take about 670 square feet of surface for each person on earth allocated to photovoltaic arrays to replace 100% of the energy we currently consume worldwide. By this logic, it would only take about 950 square feet per person, an array 30′ x 30′, for solar thermal systems to replace 100% of the energy currently consumed by humanity. Land, clearly, is not the issue.

Photovoltaic power and solar thermal power have more potential to replace conventional sources of energy than any other clean renewable sources known. Unlike hydro-electric, wind power, or nuclear, there is nothing problematic about their operations and impact. Unlike biofuels, they will not compete for land with agriculture.

The Tesla Roadster is the first all-electric car to rely on lithium ion batteries. But these batteries, which have the highest energy density of any battery available, are also prone to overheating. How has Tesla addressed this potential problem?

According to the Tesla website’s “how it works” page, “The system addresses thermal balancing with a liquid cooling circuit. Multiple passive and active safety devices ensure safe operation over the wide range of driving environments and scenarios. An array of sensors and a dozen microcontrollers communicate with the vehicle to allow efficient use and management of the battery pack. Finally, the entire assembly is housed in a rugged enclosure, which protects the system from the harsh road environment while supporting the internal components.”

It’s interesting that advancements in battery technology that are leading us towards all-electric battery powered cars have come as much from the laptop computer industry as from the hybrid automobile industry. The computer press is a good place to turn for more about the lithium ion battery. A good article on the website ZD Net Asia “Can Anything Tame the Battery Flames?” offers several insights. They boil down to this “…manufacturers have continued to increase the energy density–or the amount of energy the battery can hold–of lithium ion batteries by thinning out separators (which keep the electrodes apart) and changing other components. These changes lead to longer run times–something consumers are demanding–but also raise the potential that something can go wrong.”

You can find discussions on the Tesla Roadster at Future Pundit, or Washington Monthly. From these posts many good points emerge, including the following two:

Nickel Metal Hydride battery heat management and load management is highly evolved and, at least right now, hybrid batteries using NMH technology are safe and cost effective. With some hybrid taxis now having logged over 200,000 miles, to-date not one hybrid battery pack has been replaced due to battery degradation. And the replacements that have been made, because of damage from accidents, only cost about $3,000.

Lithium Ion batteries are still a risky technology to use in automobiles, and Tesla evidently is banking on rapid advancements in their longevity and their safety. Currently the Tesla battery pack is only rated for 500 charge/discharge cycles, which isn’t nearly enough. The nickel metal hydride battery packs in hybrid cars can easily turn in 5,000 cycles.

Tesla Motors has done one thing very well, they have put to rest the common misconception that electric vehicles are anemic, oversized golf carts. And Tesla is just the most recent and visible embodiment of a gathering momentum both politically and technologically towards cars that use renewable energy and don’t pollute. Greener cars are coming.

Our last post on global warming, where we referenced a Wall Street Journal article by MIT Professor of Meteorology, Richard S. Lindzen, received more than a few comments.

There is an excellent resource online that identifies many of the high-profile individuals around the world who are on record as challenging global warming theories – it’s called SourceWatch and their list can be found on their Climate Change Controversy page.

We dug into Professor Lindzen’s background a little more, we even left a message on his voicemail to which, for the record, he will hopefully respond. In addition to his Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled “Climate of Fear,” he has authored for the Cato Institute an essay entitled “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus.” They are worth reading.

Unlike many global warming skeptics, Dr. Lindzen is acknowledged even by his critics as being an outstanding atmospheric scientist. Even those who accept global warming theories usually agree there is a range of predicted global warming outcomes – between 3 and 15 degrees centigrade. This is the difference between a manageable change and a catastrophe. Which is it?

While Al Gore, for whom I have huge respect, stumps the globe with newfound and natural passion, preaching the need for urgent action, I wonder how many people have really thought about what, in practice, it would mean to regulate carbon emissions. It would mean this: The biggest power grab by big business and government – operating in tandem – in the history of the world.

Meanwhile, at least to this non-scientist, there are many unanswered questions. Here’s one: If anthropogenic CO2 is only responsible for 3-5% of CO2 emissions, why not simply reforest the planet to absorb more CO2? We’ve lost over 60% of the original forest canopy on earth. Why not just put some of it back?

Here’s another: While we’re spending precious energy trying to redefine CO2 as a pollutant, has anyone noticed we’re not tackling the remaining major air polluting industries, and getting the gross polluting cars off the road? We love photovoltaics and battery powered cars – we love them and fight for them because they don’t pollute and they will provide energy independence. They are urgently needed for these reasons alone.

Skepticism with integrity is not a crime for which any environmentalist should be excommunicated. And for every global warming skeptic with a hidden agenda, there are global warming alarmists with equally compelling hidden agendas of their own.

There aren’t too many things more important to human survival and environmental health than watersheds. As much as any other criteria, the boundries of watersheds delineate the eco-regions where we are either meeting or failing to meet the challenge of preserving and cleaning up our ecosystems. Do you want to monitor and manage global climate change? Don’t forget to follow the watersheds – because the hydrological cycle of our planet, and ultimately, our ability to store and manage fresh water – comes down to how we manage each and every individual watershed on earth.

Some of the world’s greatest ecological disasters as well as some of the greatest opportunities lie in how we manage (or mismanage) our watersheds. Diversions from the Syr Darya and Amu Darya river for cotton irrigation has caused the Aral Sea to dry up. Diverting excess water from the Volga watershed might help us fill the Aral Sea back up. Who knows, maybe diverting excess water from the Ubangi watershed (a northern tributary of the Congo) might help us fill back up Lake Chad.

The Water Resources eAtlas is a fantastic website that shows in useful detail every major watershed on earth. For example, here are the watershed maps for the < href="http://www.waterandnature.org/eatlas/html/as27.html"a title="Syr Darya watershed map">Syr Darya, the Amu Darya, the Volga, and the Ob-Irtysh. These maps include land cover and use variables, population density and political boundries, and basic indicators such as area, water supply per person, number of dams, and biodiversity information. They also provide links to the sources for their data. For a good synopsis of how these watersheds could be interlinked to save the Aral Sea, read “Refill the Aral Sea” and “Arctic to Aral – Siberian Rivers Save the Aral Sea.”

Sugar Cane Probably today’s top bioethanol crop

The biofuel component of the bioenergy sector is certainly an important one.

The International Energy Agency did an analysis and projection of oil consumption measured in Million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) from 1971 to 2030. Whereas in 1971 transport consumption of oil to total oil was roughly 50%, by 2030 transport will account for around two thirds of oil consumption. More concerning, total oil consumption is predicted to increase to 5,000 Mtoe, more than doubling the total consumption of 1971 (1). A significant portion of this increase in consumption is driven by the developing economies and is therefore very difficult to reduce due to their rapid economic growth. Both in terms of reduction of CO2 emissions from this increasing consumption as well as reducing the dependency on oil as the primary product the demand for viable biofuels will increase in the years to come. From the same analysis bioethanol production was estimated at around 30 million tons per year in 2004 and biodiesel at only an estimated 2,5 million tons per year as of 2004.

The demand is thus clearly there for a substitute to oil, and would be even more pronounced if this substitute could be “greener.” As regards biofuels however, the key imperative would seemingly remain the economic viability of the substitute. As Nobel prizewinner, Sydney Brenner, once noted “the only ‘omics’ that really counts in Biotechnology is economics. (2)

How then do you consider the viability of a project, whether it be biodiesel or bioethanol?

It should be noted from the outset, that there is a perplexing myriad of country, location, and project specific data that cannot possibly be covered in a short article such as this. Further, it may be quite possible that a specific project may have other factors specific to that project that completely erode the assumptions of this article. This is exacerbated by the lack of published and scientific data available. That is not in any way whatsoever saying that a huge a mount of scientific research has not been done on biofuels, but simply that a) the biofuel field is in itself a huge field of study, b) new technological advances have presented themselves (or are in the pipeline) that affect current assumptions, c) some advances are driven by economics and these will present themselves by way of company performances in the future.

This article focuses on environmental analysis of the biodiesel and bioethanol industries. Focus is mainly placed on a PEEST analysis (Political, Economic, Environmental, Social, and Technical). The Social and Technical factors are covered briefly. This analysis is not intended to be exhaustive and is intended only to highlight some of the salient points pertinent to such an analysis and reflect on some of the current thinking around these factors. Strategists might argue that there are a number of other environmental analytical techniques which should be applied to an environmental scan of the industry; again such an analysis would be so extensive that it falls outside the scope of this article. Further, the focus of this article is mainly on the external environment as it is far too complex a subject to cover internal environmental factors affecting a project, and even the external environment is only approached from a generic approach so as not to create undue complexity.

POLITICAL FACTORS

The environmental benefits of biofuel is especially important in the European Union

The main political drivers for the biofuel industry in Europe is directed towards the environment, and therefore lowering carbon emissions as much as possible. As a secondary objective the Europeans aim to reduce their dependency on petro-energy (3). This perspective is closely related to the objectives and structure of the Kyoto protocol, which is endorsed by the EU. Interestingly, in terms of concrete actions in the EU, the focus seems more to be on developing biofuels in the member states to meet the objectives (4). The objectives include a 5.75% bio-to-petrofuels blend envisaged by the European Union by 2010.

Americans view biofuel as a way to help them achieve energy independence

In contrast, in the US the primary objective is to reduce dependency on imported oil. More specifically, the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy (EERE) invests in research to achieve the following goals:

- Dramatically reduce, or even end, dependence on foreign oil.

- Spur the creation of a domestic bioindustry. (5)

The two main political drivers therefore are energy independence and environmentally friendly energy. It should be noted that on both sides of the Atlantic these drivers concentrate on internal markets/projects. It follows therefore that development of the industries are directed to addressing local concerns and therefore feedstocks and technologies are directed towards that.

Rapidly industrializing nations such as India see biofuel as a source of jobs and wealth

In the developing world it is worthwhile to note that an additional driver is the potential of job creation for the local economies, particularly where labor intensive feedstocks can be utilized such as harvestable nuts and crops for biofuels.

In short, as countries focus on developing their own biofuel industries, the direction of research and development for biofuels will be driven by the countries and their corresponding corporations and financial markets who invest the largest amounts of capital to these endeavors. Thus for example, the primary development in terms of economically viable research and studies in biodiesel and bioethanol centre around the first world countries. This significantly hampers assessment of projects which fall outside this scope as there is much more limited research available, and often the published research available centers more on developmental than commercial factors in contrast to similar research in the developed world.

ECONOMIC/ENVIRONMENT FACTORS

In the particular case of biofuels, Economic and Environmental analysis are often intertwined. Under this heading some of the main measurement criteria to be covered are Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCA) and Net Energy Balance (NEB):

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Life cycle cost analysis covers the costs incurred “from cradle to grave of the project.” (6) It focuses mainly on the environmental impact, but the generic methodology could readily be applied to the economic cost-benefit of the project (although this is not done too frequently). LCA can often be complimented by other measurements such as external-cost analysis. The LCA does prove to be a beneficial tool to analyse projects. In terms of biofuels the main focus seems to be towards energy consumption – utilising it as a decision making tool to compare the owning and operating costs for energy using systems. There is relatively limited research still available in this field but most apply the LCA to automobiles, comparing using different fuels as inputs. These studies are however subject to academic limitations and a number of factors have the potential to change the outcomes of the studies such as price of fuel (and also which fuel is the baseline – petroleum or diesel), efficiency of the engine, cost of the vehicle, cost of manufacturing, service costs, fixed costs, end-of-life salvagability of the automobile, etc.

An example of this variance in research output due to varying underlying factors is an LCA conducted in 2000 on alternative biofuels (7). Essentially the article concluded that given the underlying factors at the time biofuels where not cost effective due to their high fuel price. Excluding subsidies, biodiesel from soybeans did prove about 20% more cost-effective than Ethanol (C2 H5 OH). Ethanol from corn was determined to be marginally more effective than herbaceous and woody biomass respectively. Similarly a research paper presented in 1998 utilising both LCA and an External Costs Analysis noted that: “The LCA analysis shows that the benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions are being compensated by higher environmental impacts, especially for eutrophication. The External Cost Analysis, shows that external costs of biodiesel and fossil diesel are in the same range and are dominated by the impacts of the use phase.” (8)

Oil Palms in the Niger Delta Probably the top biodiesel crop, but no study can fail to take into account local conditions.

The main problem is that most research done using LCA is fundamentally linked to the economics of the country and region in which it is produced. Therefore, performing a study in the US and attempting to replicate that study in Europe could likely lead to different results. This variations could be attributed, but not limited, to the following factors – cost of input stock, type of input stock, planting, harvesting and processing of input stock, economic factors, subsidies, etc. In a nutshell, although LCA is highly relevant to a specific market or possibly project, it is not necessarily possible to use this data to extrapolate to other countries or projects.

It is important to note that the country conducting the research will typically focus on the crops that are viable within its location – thus for example a study in the UK would not consider a plantation of Palm Oil as input stock as although it is far superior in yields to crops available in Europe it is not suitable for the climate and would hence be disregarded from the specific country perspective.

For these reasons, comparisons of biodiesel vs. bioethanol should be done with extreme caution and the scientific principles behind such a study must be defensible. Furthermore, the LCA studies come with the additional caution that they are time sensitive – the studies referred to above, would quite likely have different outcomes in the year 2006 given changing oil prices, technological advances in agriculture of the input crops, refining, and the end use products (such as automobiles).

NET ENERGY BALANCE EQUATES TO ENERGY INPUT VS. ENERGY OUTPUT

The other factor predominant in literature is the Net Energy Balance (NEB). This represents an overview of production and consumption of primary and secondary biofuels for a specific project, area, country or region. Energy balances should cover all the primary and secondary energy sources, showing clearly the non-energy use of such sources. (9)

NEB is an interesting counterpoint to LCA analyses in that NEB purely focuses on energy input versus energy output of the production cycle and therefore does not take cost variables into consideration. This is helpful in that it focuses on efficiency throughout the energy crop to biofuel cycle. In this sense the main impact on the reliability of the NEB analyses is the development of technology both from an agricultural and refining perspective.

A report by the US Department of Energy comments that the NEB of ethanol is estimated at around 1.38 for ethanol from corn, but that cellulosic bioethanol (from plant mass) can reach 2.62. The same report anticipates an NEB potential of around 5.0 based on further research on cellulosic ethanol production. The same report notes that biodiesel NEB can reach around 3.2 from soybeans. (10)

Low-tech biofuel for lamps and stoves work now, as refining methods and markets evolve. photo: www.jatropha.org

MAKE BIOFUEL? – WHY NOT JUST BURN IT!

A study in the Netherlands noted that it is far more efficient to utilise the feedstock for electricity generation (bioenergy) than it is to use it for the production of biofuels. Further, this study indicated that given the input feedstocks compared (Sugar beet for bioethanol and rapeseed oil for biodiesel) and the country (the Netherlands) that biodiesel was more energy efficient and therefore had a more positive energy balance (11). A similar study focusing on rapeseed oil for biodiesel and wheat for bioethanol production also indicated that biodiesel was the superior fuel in terms of NEB – both crops however were found to be NEB positive (12). Bioethanol in particular has often been held to have a negative NEB, although recent studies do seem to indicate it is possible to produce bioethanol with a positive NEB (13).

The essence however is that it appears with current feedstock output biodiesel consistently has a higher NEB (14). Of course depending on the amount of research and development done on bioethanol, this may likely change if such R&D is invested in ethanol and the technology, processes, and crops are improved. Furthermore, the matter is highly subjective to location and feedstock, so for example, Brazil which has a very large sugar cane industry may prove much higher NEB’s if ethanol is consumed in country. Transport costs and energy consumption of feedstock plays a significant role, and therefore a high NEB crop in say a developing country producing sugar or palm oil may be eroded if such stocks are transported to a refinery in a developed country. Again, if research is not conducted on a sound scientific basis then comparing outside of the scientific parameters can result in incorrect assumptions of the merits of a biodiesel or bioethanol project.

It is reasonable then to expect the NEB’s of crops to improve in the future. The reasons for this are as follows. First, only existing commercial crops are used. These existing crop yields could be improved with further genetic engineering, crop selection, etc. Second, commercial activity has not been undertaken or materially developed yet for specialist biofuel crops such as Jatropha Curcas, Ponga Mia, etc. Large scale commercial activity will likely yield more energy efficient production of feedstocks, which will then improve the NEB. Third, current production primarily concentrates on annual crops. Particularly so in Europe and America where the crops have to be replanted each year to be harvested. If plantations are used less energy is expended to produce the crops because the plantation is harvested annually without having to replant the crop. Of course Palm Oil and to a lesser extent sugar do cater for this requirement and are therefore at a higher NEB level already.

There are of course a host of other measurement factors that should be considered in analyzing the economic and environmental factors, however the above two have been covered in some detail as they are often encountered in literature and do provide a sound basis for analysis.

SOCIAL FACTORS

A pertinent social factor affecting biofuels is that particularly in the developed world society has become increasingly environmentally conscious, and therefore it has become more important for the man on the street to consume greener energy. More importantly the increased public interest in greener energy has translated into political interest and “Green” parties have increasingly come to the fore in politics in some European countries.

Faces of the future: Will biofuel become a vital part of the eventual energy solutions for huge emerging nations such as China? photo: www.pbs.org

In contrast to the already fully industrialized world, there are many countries which are experiencing population booms as well as growing economies. Specifically in India and China the population sizes coupled with strong growth is increasing demand for energy and fuels. In the developing world the demand for energy combined with the pressures of unemployment have made bioethanol and biodiesel popular areas of interest. This interest has been enhanced particularly for biodiesel crops such as Palm oil and Jatropha where manual labor is often utilized for harvesting and thus the development of these industries assists in job creation as well as energy independence.

TECHNICAL FACTORS

Technical advances both in terms of actual crop yields and refining technologies have significantly improved in the past few years. For refining one only has to look at the refining technological improvements companies such as Lurgi (15) have made over the past decade to appreciate this. On the crop side research has improved crop yields for plants such as Palm Oil – see for example the research done by the Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (16) and academic institutions (17) both on crop development as well as increased utilization of crop waste (18).

Again, as noted in the Economic/Environment factors, the research remains context specific, and it is important not to extrapolate data without a sound scientific base and due consideration for all factors influencing the research data. So, for example, a study was conducted for the UK Department of Transport using 2002 as a basis year comparing international resource costs for biodiesel and bioethanol, with extrapolations for 2020. The study was limited in scope to Europe, US and Brazil and concentrated on wood, straw, wheat and corn for bioethanol and oil seeds (soybeans and rapeseed oil) for biodiesel. For the 2002 year it indicated that given the feedstock and environment, that biodiesel produced more energy per investment than bioethanol as regards Europe and the UK, however when the US and Brazil were included bioethanol proved more effective. In their 2020 projections, accounting for technological improvements and using the same input factors, the study anticipated that the most cost-effective solution would be biodiesel produced from biomass (wood & straw) given the technologies anticipated by that time (19).

The importance of the UK study lies not in the predictions of the year 2002, but in the fact that it is realistic to expect significant technological improvements in both the agricultural and processing/refining productivity of biofuels. To this extent it is recommended that biofuels projects be approached on a case by case basis to determine viability and that a definitive position is not taken as regards viability of biodiesel versus bioethanol. There are a number of current views and comparisons drawn for the different feedstock crops for biodiesel and bioethanol, see for example a recent article on this site (20).

BIOFUEL PRODUCTIVITY DATA STILL HARD TO FIND

Current published and scientific data as regards to technological advances both in terms of crops (for example yields per hectare of different crops) as well as processing and refining advances are hard to come by. The main reason for this is that the biofuels field has only received serious attention from commercial investors in the last few years and to this extent it is seen as an exciting market to be entering. Consequently, this has lead to most research being proprietary, patented or not published and utilized for commercial purposes. This is not to say that some of the advances are not scientifically credible, only that they are not always accessible. The consequent risk is that a lot of unsubstantiated data is assumed, either over or under estimating the realistic yields of crops, efficiencies of processes and technologies, etc.

It is possible that the nature of the feedstocks themselves will allow the industry to change, for example, by-products that are now seen as waste or used for one purpose may change to be used for completely different purposes in the future. So for example certain tropical and sub-tropical crops may end up driving a wider bioenergy business rather than a solely biofuels business if the byproducts are converted into electricity. This could in turn effect how the LCA or NEB of a project is calculated and consequently change the economic viability of future projects.

The main issue constraining definitive comment on evaluating biodiesel vs. bioethanol is that both fuels are not fully developed yet. The reasons for this are as follows:

First, only limited existing commercial crops are have recorded data on their NEB. These existing crop yields could be improved with further, crop selection, genetic engineering, etc.

Jatropha seedlings getting a start in India There is much still to learn about this promising crop

Second, commercial activity has not been undertaken or materially developed yet for specialist biofuel crops such as Jatropha Curcas, Ponga Mia, etc. Large scale commercial activity will likely yield more energy efficient production of feedstocks, which will then improve the NEB.

Third, current production primarily concentrates on annual crops. Particularly so in Europe and America where the crops have to be replanted each year to be harvested. If plantations are used, less energy is expended to produce the crops when the plantation is harvested annually without having to replant the crop. Of course Palm Oil and to a lesser extent sugar do cater for this requirement and are therefore at a higher NEB level already.

Regardless of the seeming higher NEB viability in the developing world for biofuels, a number of firms have built or are in the process of building major biofuel refineries in the US, Europe and other developed countries (21).

Conclusion – Bioethanol & Biodiesel are a toss-up – they both work well depending on the crop and the planting environment.

Attempting to analyze an industry such as biofuels is a very complex task. Both bioethanol and biodiesel crops, processes and refining technology is constantly improving. Further, it is important to appreciate that crops and technologies may be developed to a scientifically reliable stage, yet data thereon is not yet available in the public domain. The purpose of this article was to extract and review some of the current data and drivers impacting on the biofuel sector within the conceptual construct of a PEEST analysis to thereby highlight some of the current factors, thinking and research in this field and thereby provide the reader with a basic construct for future analysis of biofuel projects.

Footnotes and Reference Sources:

1 Fulton, L. 20/21 June 2005. (back)

Assessing the biofuels option.

Presented at a conference in Paris – Biofuels for Transport: an International Perspective

2 Whelan, J. November 6, 2004. (back)
The Insider : European Biotech – No Pain, No Gain. New Scientist p54 – 55.
www.newscientistjobs.com

3 Anon. 17 August 2004. (back)

Greencars : Euractiv.com

www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-117504-16

4 British Associations for Bio Fuels and Oils (back)

www.biodiesel.co.uk/babfo.htm

5 Tyson, K.S. et al. June 2004. (back)

Biomass Oil Analysis: Research Needs and Recommendations.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

www.nrel.gov

6 De Nocker, N. et al. December 3-4, 1998. (back)

Comparison of LCA and external cost analysis for biodiesel and diesel.

Presented at 2nd International conference LCA in Agriculture, Agro-Industry and Forestry.
www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/30743_tcm24-124248.pdf

7 MacLean, H.L. et al. 2000. (back)

A Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Alternative Automobile Fuels. Journal of Air & Waste Association (50:1769-1779).

www.msu.edu/~satish/jawma.pdf

8 De Nocker, N. et al. December 3-4, 1998. (back)

Comparison of LCA and external cost analysis for biodiesel and diesel.

Presented at 2nd International conference LCA in Agriculture, Agro-Industry and Forestry.
www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/30743_tcm24-124248.pdf

9 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (back)
www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/j4504e/j4504e10.htm

10 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (back)
www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/j4504e/j4504e10.htm

US Department of Energy – Net Energy Balance for Bioethanol Use.

http://eereweb.ee.doe.gov/biomass/printable_versions/net_energy_balance.html

11 Kampman, B.E. et al. November, 2003. (back)

Biomass: for vehicle fuels or power generation? CE: Solutions for environment, economy and technology.

www.cedelft.nl/eng/pdf/4583_Biomass_abstract.pdf

12 Richards, I.R. June 2000. (back)

Energy balances in the growth of oilseed rape for biodiesel and of wheat for bioethanol.

British Association of Biofuels and oils – Levington Agricultural report.
www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/27781_tcm24-124189.pdf

13 Anon. January 29, 2006. (back)

New Study Makes case for Bioethanol. Euractiv.
www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-152035-16

14 Anon. April 4, 2006. (back)

Net Energy Balance for Bioethanol production and use.

U.S. Department of Energy – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program

15 www.lurgi.com/website/index.php?L=1 (back)

16 http://ecoport.org/ep?Plant=972 (back)

17 Corley, H. Est. 1999. (back)

New Technologies for Plantation Crop Improvement. Cranfield University.
www.taa.org.uk/WestCountry/corley.html

18 Khalil, H. et al. 2000. (back)

The effect of various anhydride modifications on mechanical properties and water absorption of oil palm empty fruit bunches reinforced polyester composites. Polymer International. Volume 50, Issue 4 : 395 – 402.

www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/77502740/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1

19 AET Technologies (back)

International resource costs of biodiesel and bioethanol. UK Department for transport.

www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/pdf/dft_roads_pdf_024054.pdf

20 www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=380 (back)

21 Winnie, J. June 10, 2005. (back)

Major Biofuel projects.

ttp://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=845

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 International Group on fire/casualty risks, niche products and political risks in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, UK and USA.

Already the world capital for high technology, the Silicon Valley appears poised to distinguish itself as the undisputed leader in green technology as well. Not only is the most interesting new battery powered car getting built by a Silicon Valley company, Tesla Motors, but now a four year old company “Nanosolar,” based in Palo Alto, California, has announced they are ready to manufacture photovoltaics on a massive scale. It’s hard to imagine two more transformative green innovations than battery powered cars and photovoltaic power that are both affordable and practical.

According to their website, “Nanosolar has developed proprietary technology that makes it possible to simply roll-print solar cells that require only 1/100th as thick an absorber as a silicon-wafer cell (yet deliver similar performance and durability).”

On June 21st, 2006, Nanosolar announced that it now has $100 million in funding to take its breakthrough photovoltaic (PV) solar electricity technology into volume production. They intend to build a plant capable of producing 430 megawatts of photovoltaic cells per year. And they intend to build their manufacturing plant in the Silicon Valley. Bravo!

Seed-financed by the founders of Google, the company’s team started pursuing its mission of making solar electricity vastly more affordable in 2002. After four years of research, the company now claims they are ready to produce a far less expensive, mass-manufacturable solar cell.

In a press release dated June 21, 2006, Chris Eberspacher, Nanosolar’s head of technology, stated “Thin-film printing overcomes the complexity, high cost, and yield and scalability limitations associated with vacuum-based processes. Nanosolar’s technology enables low-cost, high-yield production previously unattainable. This allows us to produce cells very inexpensively and assemble them into panels that are comparable in efficiency to that of high-volume silicon based PV panels.”

According to Nanosolar, a factory with a capacity of 430 megawatts per year would cost more than one billion dollars to build if one used conventional solar technology. They intend to do it for a fraction of that cost.

Photovoltaic electricity could well be the cleanest and most abundant future source of green power. It’s well known that nano-technology had the potential to bring costs down and possibly bypass the need for polysilicon. If Nanosolar’s claims are true, they are ushering in the revolution.

Thank you Nanosolar, and best wishes. Once again, sunny California is changing the world.

How large would your photovoltaic array have to be, if you wanted to power your electric vehicle with sunlight?

The first step is to calculate the mileage of your electric car. With a gasoline car, mileage is measured in miles per gallon. With an electric car, mileage is measured in miles per kilowatt-hour. If you read our recent post “Electric Car Cost Per Mile” you will see we calculate a light-duty electric car can achieve about 3.0 miles per kilowatt hour. A more in-depth set of calculations can be found in our feature “The Battery Powered Car.”

The charge/discharge efficiencies of batteries are high, usually over 90%, and the efficiency of the on-board vehicle batteries is taken into account in our calculations of 2.9 miles per kilowatt hour. But if your car is being powered by photovoltaics, presumably you will be off driving to work and back during most days when you want to collect electric power. Therefore you will need a battery system at home to store the photovoltaic electricity before discharging your home batteries in order to charge your car batteries at night. This will add 10% to the size of the photovoltaic array required.

Using a 1,000 square foot photovoltaic array as an example, assume 10 watts per square foot of array in full sun. Assume 8 hours of full sun or full sun equivalent (two hours of rising or setting sun, or sun obscured by clouds equals one hour of full sun) per day. This means that 1,000 square feet x 10 watts per square foot x 8 hours = 80 kilowatt hours of stored electricity per day. If you multiply by 2.9 miles per kilowatt hour and deduct 10% for the charge/discharge efficiency of your home storage system, then you have a 209 mile range.

This is a most encouraging fact. The average commute is well under 100 miles, meaning a homeowner owning a battery powered car would only need 500 square feet of photovoltaic panels to drive to work for free. At ten dollars per watt installed, this means that for $50,000, you would never buy gas again.

Clearly anyone owning a battery powered car is better off today buying power from the grid at night-time rates of, say, 10 cents or less per kilowatt hour. But photovoltaics are going to get cheaper. When they do, there are no practical engineering obstacles to seeing cars increasingly powered by the sun.

The Bengal Tiger Fighting for a slice of earth to call its own

Humans admire tigers as much as they fear them, and the animals figure prominently in Asian myths, religion, arts, and imagination.

Tigers were once found throughout the forested regions of tropical and temperate Asia. Excessive hunting and destruction of tiger habitat have now narrowed the tiger’s range to a few isolated patches. According to estimates, at the beginning of the 20th century over 100,000 tigers flourished throughout Asia, from eastern Russia and Korea through eastern and southern China, South-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and into Pakistan, with separate populations around the Caspian Sea and on the Indonesian islands of Bali, Java, and Sumatra. But less than 20% of todays tiger habitat is located in national parks or other protected areas, which means that the majority of the areas where tigers live could be lost to other uses.

A Bengal Tiger in captivity Are their days numbered, living in the wild?

Large carnivore populations like tigers are highly vulnerable to extinction in small and isolated reserves. According to a recent study, tiger habitats worldwide have shrunk 40% in the past decade – they now reside only in 7% of their historic range – and their survival depends on cracking down on poaching, working to reduce conflicts with humans, and protecting key ranges. This landmark study, produced by some of the world’s leading tiger scientists at theWorld Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park and Save The Tiger Fund, calls for specific international actions to safeguard remaining populations. The worldwide tiger population has steadily declined to about 7,500 globally, and the big cats continue to face many threats including the trade in tiger parts to meet demand for traditional medicines in China and South-east Asia.

The study, entitled “Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of the World’s Tigers 2005-2015,” identified for the first time 76 areas, mostly in Asia, that have the best chance of supporting tiger populations. Large carnivore populations like tigers are highly vulnerable to extinction in small and isolated reserves. About half of the 76 areas can support 100 tigers and “offer excellent opportunities for the recovery of wild tiger populations.” Researchers are focusing on few key regions in India, Russia’s far east and parts of South-east Asia. The group’s key conclusion from the study is that to safeguard the remaining tigers, increased protection of the 20 highest priority tiger conservation landscapes is required. The group also stands ready to support the 13 countries with tigers in a regional effort to save the species.

Conservation efforts have so far helped stabilize certain tiger populations, but many initiatives were “ad hoc” and “did little to stem the crisis,” the study found. Tiger breeding areas must be protected and efforts to link different tiger habitats need to be improved, as per the study. According to the Wildlife Conservation Society, tiger conservation requires commitment from local groups, governments, and international donors to “bring the species back to all parts of its biological range.” Groups said authorities must curb the demand for the skins and parts of tigers, and other Asian big cats as also strengthen enforcement efforts along trade routes.

In the words of an official at the WWF-UK, “as tiger range spans borders, so must tiger conservation. Asia’s economic growth must not come at the expense of tiger habitat and the natural capital it protects.”

Reprinted with permission. This article was previously published in TerraGreen, edited by R.K. Pachauri and published every two weeks. TerraGreen, headquartered in New Delhi, India, is an online magazine that reports on sustainable development, forestry, power and energy conservation, biotechnology, pollution and climate change, and on people trying to make a difference. For further information, contact: Editor, TerraGreen, TERI, Darbari Seth Block, IHC Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, India. Telephone 91-11-2468-2100, 11 Ext. 2421/2422, Email terragreen@teri.res.in.

INFORMATION ABOUT TIGERS AND HOW TO HELP THE TIGERS SURVIVE:

Turn in Tiger Poachers: Contact information is provided on the Forever Tigers website including agencies to contact to turn in Tiger poachers; click here:

http://www.forevertigers.com/organizations.htm

Map of Tiger Ranges: From the World Wildlife Fund website a map showing original and current 2006 ranges of Tigers; click here:

http://www.worldwildlife.org/tigers/images/tcl_web_lg.jpg

Photographs & Information on Tigers & Other Big Cats:

EcoWorld – Big Cats

GROUPS ACTIVELY HELPING TIGERS TO SURVIVE:

Wildlife Conservation Society

Centre for Wildlife Studies

823, 13th Cross,

7th Block West, Jayanagar,

Bangalore, 560 082, India

Tel: 080-2671-5364

Fax: 080-2671-5255

Email : info@wcsindia.org

http://www.wildlife.in/

The Corbett Foundation

405 International Trade Tower, Nehru Place,

New Delhi, 110 019, India

Tel: 91-11-4160-8505

Fax: 91-11-4160-8506

Email: corbett_foundation@yahoo.com

http://www.corbettfoundation.org/

WildAid – India/WPSI

D 923 New Friends Colony (2nd floor)

New Delhi, 110 065, India

Tel: 91-11-5166-5049

Email: askacapindia@wildaid.org

http://www.wildaid.org

WildAid – China

Beijing Gateway Building, Suite 1202

No. 10 Yabao Road, Chao Yang District

Beijing, 100020, China

Tel: 86-010-8562-6337

Fax: 86-010-8562-6336

Email: askacapchina@wildaid.org

Save China’s Tigers

P.O. Box No. 4877

General Post Office, Hong Kong

Tel: 852-2525-8786

Fax: 852-3171-1971

Email: info@savechinastigers.org

http://www.savechinastigers.net/

Save The Tiger Fund

1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 900

Washington DC, 20036, USA

Tel: 202-857-0166

Fax: 202-857-0162

http://www.savethetigerfund.org

The Tiger Foundation

Suite 1780 – 999 West Hastings St.

Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2W2, Canada

Email: action@tigers.ca

http://www.tigerfdn.com/

INFORMATION ABOUT THE EIGHT SUBSPECIES OF TIGERS:

Source: The Tiger Foundation

Indochinese Tiger

Panthera tigris corbetti

(1,000-1,500 survive in the wild)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/indochineseframe.html

Sumatran Tiger

Panthera tigris sumatrae

(400-500 survive in the wild)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/W3A1.html

South China Tiger

Panthera tigris amoyensis

(less than 50 survive in the wild)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/southchina.html

Bengal Tiger

Panthera tigris tigris

(3,000-4,500 survive in the wild)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/W3A4.html

Siberian Tiger

Panthera tigris altaica

(about 500 survive in the wild)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/W3A5.html

Balinese Tiger

Panthera tigris balica

(extinct)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/balineseframe.html

Javan Tiger

Panthera tigris sondaica

(extinct)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/javanframe.html

Caspian Tiger

Panthera tigris virgata

(extinct)

http://www.tigerfdn.com/Tigerworld/caspianframe.html

Hogs are probably the most intelligent farm animal; they also turn feed into edible protein very efficiently.

Pigs stink. That fact of life is accepted by all of us who grew up on farms. We went to school after we did the chores and ignored the jibes of the town kids because we knew that pigs helped pay the bills.

But times change, and so has agriculture. Pigs left the scene here in Atchison County, Missouri, as we all concentrated on growing crops and chasing government subsidies, enjoying winters without chores and the fact that our hair and shoes didn’t smell. The changes have led our population to drop by 30 percent in the last two decades and by two-thirds in the last century. In 1920, our county had 100,000 pigs and 16,000 people. The last agriculture census didn’t bother to count the pigs, and there are only 6,000 people left in our county.

A CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) looks rather innocuous from the outside…

The same trends are obvious across the Corn Belt of the United States, as small hog producers have left the industry in droves, and integrators have increased the size and scale of the remaining hog units now called CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). From farms that might have 100 sows to units that house 5,800 mother pigs, the industry has changed. As it has, the conflict between pig farmers and their neighbors has increased.

If my 4-H project of eight sows and 100 baby pigs made my schoolmates wrinkle their noses, imagine the smells around a concentration of nearly 6,000 sows and tens of thousand of baby pigs! As a result of huge open lagoons, manure spills of Herculean proportions, and environmental concerns caused by e coli bacteria and noxious oders, hog farms are viewed with revulsion by those who live nearby. A cottage industry of environmental organizations, small far advocates, and animal rights groups has sprung up to oppose the siting of these large units, and Willie Nelson and Robert Kennedy Jr. are always available for a sound bite or an interview. One result is that Brazil is rapidly increasing hog production, as we’ve exported parts of our hog industry to places more willing to accept what we no longer will.

But there is more to the story. The main source of the smell and pollution is also an increasingly valuable – and organic – source of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that our corn crop needs. And those hogs are some of our best customers. Even with the boom in ethanol production and the slow but steady increase in farm exports, domestic livestock producers are still the largest users of our corn and soybeans.

My family owns a farm we call the Martin place, where we raise corn and soybeans. Like most farms around here, it has an abandoned barn and empty lots. About a mile for the farm, a large producer of hogs is getting ready to build a 5,800 sow confinement unit. Nobody lives on the Martin place (all my family members’ homes are several miles away), so we won’t smell the hogs. But we will be close enough to accept manure from the barns. Worth about $10,000 per year, that manure will far outweigh any prospective loss in property value. But it is important that others, who may feel differently, have some recourse.

A fairly moderate discussion of CAFOs from the Environmental Defense Fund

A study by the University of Missouri found that the existence of a CAFO decreases property values of nearby farms by about $100 per acre (Mubarak, Johnson, and Miller 1999). A broader study (Palmquist, Roka, and Vukina 1997) found a 9 percent drop in home values caused by nearby CAFOs.

On the other hand, manure easements available to farmers near these facilities have been shown to increase rental rates. The facilities will buy the corn we raise and will increase local corn prices. THe payroll is not large in absolute terms, but it will make a difference. Property taxes will accrue to the school district and other public entities, and local businesses will sell electricity, feed, and all the other things that a large farm must buy. The community really needs these benefits: I graduated with 65 kids in my high school class; my kids had about 30 in their classes; my grandson, 2, will have about 20 unless something changes.

CAFOS COME TO ATCHISON COUNTY

Now that our county is in an uproar over the prospective large hog operations, what should we do?

To begin with, hog farms are policed much more closely than they were when farms first started getting larger. They are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (which delegates authority to the state of Missouri), and the farm will have to obtain permits from the Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources as a CAFO. It must hire an engineer who will certify that construction meets state requirements.

Farm Sanctuary on Factory Farming

The latest hog farms no longer use earthen lagoons, but store the manure in deep concrete pits underneath the buildings. The manure is injected into neighboring fields rather than spread on the ground. Both changes help control the odor and lessen the risk of manure washing into nearby streams.

But it is still hogs, and it still smells.

The traditional way of handling problems like smells is nuisance law. Plaintiffs could sue in the past, but farms were protected if plaintiffs had “come to the nuisance.” That is, you couldn’t move next to a feedlot and sue the farmer feeding cattle, because you knew what it smelled like when you moved there. Several prominent cases weakened the “come to the nuisance” protection, however.

RIGHTS TO FARM AND RIGHTS TO SUE

This opening of the gates to lawsuits led to the passage of state “right-to-farm” laws in the late 1970′s, which granted farmers some protection from nuisance suits. Missouri’s law, however, gives a one-year window for nuisance suits, so a new facility would be vulnerable to suit from disgruntled neighbors.

“Mechanized Madness” courtesy of PETA

These right-to-farm laws do restrict the rights of property owners near farming operations – but not completely. At least that is what the Supreme Court of Iowa found in the 1998 case Bormann v. Board of Supervisors. Iowa’s right-to-farm law allowed for the establishment of an “agricultural area” which, once established, gave nearly blanket immunity from nuisance suits. The Bormanns, farmers in the area, and their farming neighbors petitioned to establish such a district, received the designation, and were promptly sued. In the ensuing appeal, the Iowa court made several findings.

First, the court found that Iowa law had indeed given the Bormanns a right to farm, essentially, an easement that allowed the passage of odors onto their neighbors’ property. Second, the court found that the easement was a protected property right. And, third, the granting of the easement was a “taking” under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and so compensation was owed the plaintiffs. In this case, no compensation was ordered, since the case was a test and no nuisance existed. The case has been cited since, however, and the protection that right-to-farm laws give farmers has been considerably reduced as a result.

A case decided in Iowa since the Bormann that arrives at a decision that seems fair to all parties, Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., was a nuisance suit filed by the Gackes against a neighboring hog operation. The court applied Bormann and agreed that there was a taking. But the court also found, following U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that the Iowa legislature did have the ability to limit legal actions against agriculture operations. So the court awarded damages to the Gackes for the loss of value of their property, but did not allow punitive damages or grant an injunction to close down the CAFO. The Gackes were made whole, and the CAFO was allowed to continue as an existing business.

COUNTY HEALTH ORDINANCES

Piglets turning into pigs – how often do most of us think about how they arrive at our table?

Other attempts to restrict hog farms have been tried. One is to keep them out through zoning, but Missouri law does not allow that. About a decade ago, a state senator in Missouri, Harold Caskey, had the inspiration to regulate hog farms through county health ordinances. Counties have always used health ordinances for public sanitation and the like, but until then they had never been used to regulate agriculture. Fourteen counties in Missouri now have health ordinances aimed at animal agriculture, and only one of those counties has ever issued a permit for a new or expanded livestock facility.

Opponents of the CAFO in our county are lobbying the county commission for this kind of health ordinance. We’ll no doubt be inundated with outside groups who both favor and oppose the ordinance, and the fight will pit neighbor against neighbor. It won’t be much fun.

Opponents like their chances with the county commission, as emotion often carries the day and they don’t want to subject their case to the rigor of a court by filing a nuisance suit. When a health ordinance is passed, the CAFO owners just move elsewhere.

In my view, the siting of hog farms is a decision best made on a case-by-case basis, and that can only occur justly if suing against nuisance is effective. The proper siting of a CAFO is highly dependent upon local conditions. The traditional land use in the area, the distance from neighbors, the distance from streams, the soil types, and the reputation of the owner should all be considered by the court. In our county, for example, it would matter to the court that we are not rapidly urbanizing. Only four building permits were issued in our entire county last year.

Missouri’s right-to-farm law needs to be amended so that the courts or arbitrators can hear both sides and decide whether a CAFO is a nuisance. If neighboring property owners suffer a loss in property value, that cost should be borne by the person causing the loss. If the neighbors feel that the facility would be a nuisance, then injunctive relief should be sought before construction begins.

At the same time, hog farmers need some protection from large punitive judgements. Without that protection, we’ll rapidly move hog production offshore. Agriculture is the lifeblood of places like Atchison County, Missouri. There are places where hog farms shouldn’t go, and the law and custom should take that into account. But there are still places that can host these facilities with little risk and many benefits to the surrounding communities. The best way to solve these conflicts is still the traditional way, with the use of common law nuisance to allocate the various rights between the competing interests.

REFERENCES

Mubarak, Hamed, Thomas G. Johnson, and Kathleen K. Miller. 1999.

The Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations on Rural Land Values

Report 4-99-02, Colombia, MO, College of Agriculture, University of Missouri

Palmquist, Raymond B., Fritz M Foka, and Tomislav Vukina. 1997

Hog Operations, Environmental Effects and Residfential Property Values

Land Economics 73 (February) 114-124

CASES CITED

Bormann v. Board of Supervisors, 584 N.W. 2d 309 (Supreme Court, Iowa, 1998).

Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., 684 N.W. 2d 168 (Supreme Court, Iowa, 2004).

About the Author: Blake Hurst, a contributing writer for the American Enterprise, grows flowers, corn, and soybeans in northwest Missouri with his wife Julie. Roger Meiners, Andrew Morriss, and Bruce Yandle also contributed to this article.

This article originally appeared in “PERC Reports,” a publication of the Politics & Environment Research Center. Republished with permission.

A car running on electricity drawn from the power grid and stored on-board can be fueled at about one-third the cost per mile compared to a gasoline-powered car. We prove this in our recent post Electric Car Cost Per Mile.

There are at least three technologies to store electricity on-board an electric vehicle; hydrogen which is turned into electricity using onbard fuel cells, ultra-capacitors, and batteries. We reject fuel cells for reasons clearly stated in our posts The Hydrogen Hoax, and Fuel Cell Cars Aren’t Ready.

Ultra-capacitors are a wild card – while there probably aren’t nearly insurmountable problems in eventually lowering their manufacturing costs, as there are with fuel cell / hydrogen systems, they have a relatively low energy density. This makes them impractical for vehicle applications. There is some evidence that “nanotube enhanced ultracapacitor” prototypes can now achieve an energy density of 75 watt-hours per kilogram, which lags well behind lithium ion batteries. But the theoretical energy density of ultracapacitors is much higher. Their time may come.

In the race to be the electrical storage mode for the imminent wave of next-generation electric cars, however, the battery continues to show the most promise. The latest lithium ion batteries, used in laptops, display the ability to recharge in minutes instead of hours, and retain 99% of their capacity after 1,000 charge cycles. With a gravimetric energy density approaching 200 watt-hours per kilogram, and a gravimetric output density of over 5 kilowatts per kilogram, these advanced batteries now have solved two of the three inherent problems to-date with batteries; longevity, and ability to produce adequate surges of power.

One of the pioneers in lithium ion batteries is Toshiba, who has already commercialized this advanced battery for use in laptops. Applications for hybrid cars and battery powered cars won’t be far behind, as the laptop battery powered Tesla Roadster will attest.

If battery powered cars have battery packs that can be warrantied for ten+ years, and can be recharged in less than one hour, their third problem of still marginal energy density becomes less significant – particularly since battery energy density has been increasing by 6% per year for decades, with no end in sight.