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

We are very close to learning whether or not what we’ve been waiting for all these years has finally come true: Cheap abundant energy via photovoltaics. What was required was a way to manufacture them for, say, one-tenth the current costs, and from what representatives of several photovoltaic manufacturers are telling us, that day has come.

We’re closely watching two Silicon Valley standouts in this field, Miasole and Nanosolar. According to Martin Wenzel at Miasole, they are within a month or so of starting up a 25 MW photovoltaic manufacturing line. Nanosolar, not far behind, claims they will start up a whopping 430 MW photovoltaic manufacturing line by the end of 2007. For a more complete list of companies producing photovoltaics read “The Photovoltaic Revolution,” posted on 10-20-06.

Photo: DayStar Technologies

Here are two more companies, both well established, who are diving into the breakthrough technology of thin-skin photovoltaics: DayStar Technologies, a public company located in New York with a branch in Silicon Valley. They claim their 3rd generation tools to manufacture thin-skin photovoltaics will be in place and profitably manufacturing by the end of 2008. DayStar already ships thin-skin photovoltaics (pictured above), but they believe sometime in 2008 they will be positioned to produce “gigawatt scale” quantities of PVs.

Another company already shipping thin-skin photovoltaics is Global Solar Energy, located in Tuscon, Arizona. From this sunny place they too are joining the hordes of companies that are poised to bring photovoltaics firmly into the mainstream.

The entire energy consumption of the world in 2005, expressed in electrical terms, was about 16,000 gigawatt-years. The current installed base of photovoltaics in the world contributed a paltry 5 gigawatt-years to that total. The entire manufacturing output of photovoltaics in 2005 was only about 1.5 gigawatts. But thin-skin photovoltaics don’t depend on finite supplies of polysilicon, and they are far less expensive to manufacture.

For these reasons, it may be that projections of how much photovoltaics are going to contribute to global energy supplies are way, way understated. Photovoltaic technology is the most promising alternative energy source we’ve ever seen to quickly usher in the era of clean, cheap, abundant energy.

We have just published a feature story “Saving Endangered Species” covering the courageous activities of the organization WildAid, a San Francisco-based organization that prosecutes people who traffic in wild animal parts. WildAid also works to raise public consciousness, especially in Asia, in an attempt to reduce demand for wild animal parts.

There are a few issues here worth exploring: Some are crystal clear, such as the need to strictly regulate hunting animals when the hunting itself is leading a species towards extinction. From that standpoint, hunting game animals even for food is hard to justify.

There is also the issue of keeping animals in captivity in order to harvest, for example, the bile from a bear’s gallbladder. This is typically a dreadfully cruel practice that can leave an animal in agony for literally decades. Again, this is pretty hard to justify under any circumstances.

But what if an animal species that isn’t endangered is hunted, killed humanely, and harvested so its organs can fulfill the demands for traditional Asian medicines? Is this any more justifiable than hunting for trophies? One would be hard pressed to explain why.

Well-regulated and humane hunting can be a force for conservation. An underreported fact about hunting and hunters is that in a properly regulated environment, hunters and the fees paid by hunters provide huge funds for wildlife conservation. Trophy fees for African big game provide the means to patrol against poaching and have helped many species recover from the brink of extinction. In many cases, animals have gone from being endangered to being so numerous that hunting is necessary to manage their populations.

It isn’t just hunting groups who have patiently attempted to spread the message that well-regulated hunting can help endangered species to recover. Not only will you get this message from groups such as The Hunter’s Institute, or the American Hunters & Shooters Association, but even from such environmentalist stalwarts as The Nature Conservancy.

Perhaps along with reducing demand for these traditional remedies, the welfare of some endangered species might be furthered by making provisions for legitimate hunting of animals who are sought for the perceived medicinal value of their organs.

While this may sound objectionable, the logic of the following assertion shouldn’t be beyond debate; there is no reason that trophy hunting should be condoned if hunting for medicines is banned. And if all hunting is banned, a powerful source of funding and support for wilderness preservation and wildlife management is lost, to the detriment of the very species we wish to protect.

Caged helplessly, with permanent catheters, Bears can yield gall bile for decades before dying. (Photo: International Fund for Animal Welfare)

Rangers provide protective cover (Photo: IFAW/Richard Sobol)

A person will do anything to feel better when they are sick.

While in Korea, one might find themselves sipping Asiatic Black Bear bile to cure an ailing liver. In China, ground tiger bone has been used to treat arthritis for centuries while a tiger’s penis makes a soup believed to work as an aphrodisiac. A rhino horn is believed to cure everything from fever to convulsions.

With a price tag of over $5,000 dollars for a bear’s bile producing gall bladder and up to $400 for a bowl of libido inducing soup, these are extremely costly remedies. Not to mention the cost of losing yet another wild animal to harvest its parts.

Billions of dollars worth of animal parts are bought world wide on a yearly basis. Traditional medicine is a major reason for the illegal trade of wildlife, a taste for the exotic is another. It might seem like a good idea to try some of the delicacies made from wild meat, but even if one finds shark fin soup, snake fillets, or pangolin (Asian ant-eater) steaks appetizing, it is important to realize that an animal (often endangered or threatened) was killed unnecessarily for the experience.

Illegal animal trade is most acute in Asia, and this is where one of the most successful environmental groups, WildAid, has managed to make the biggest difference. WildAid fights illegal trade aggressively by working with the local governments, communities and celebrities. The organization’s website explains that their “programs disrupt the trade at every level by reducing poaching, targeting illegal traders and smugglers, and drastically lowering consumer demand for endangered species parts and products.”

Co-founder of WildAid, Peter Knights, travels the world in an effort to help governments protect the endangered species of their country from poachers by any means necessary. In the past, it was not unheard of for Knights to expose poachers by taking the dangerous role of an undercover buyer. Most of WildAid’s current work, however, involves more traditional methods such as training the local rangers or educating the public.

Once majestic and fearless, this Congolese Elephant was no match for guns and the huge market for his ivory. (Photo: IFAW/Richard Sobol)

WildAid is unique on its focus on addressing world demand for animal parts.

“Over 80 celebrities, mostly Asians, have recorded public service announcements that they have stopped buying wild caught products. Top advertising agency J. Walter Thompson has produced amazing Nike quality commercials pro bono,” says Knights with pride, “and most importantly our message goes out all over the world to up to 1 billion people a week. We’ve had a tremendous response from Bollywood in India and great support from stars and the media in China, the largest source of demand. Our messages have aired prime time on the main government TV stations. Last month Yao Ming [the 7"5 foot tall basketball player famous for being the best and most dedicated player in China and welcome addition to the NBA], held a press conference for WildAid and vowed never to eat shark fin soup again.”

Jackie Chan, arguably the most famous celebrity in the world, known for his action packed Kung-Fu movies, is also a representative of WildAid. As one of the International ambassadors for WildAid’s ‘Active Conservation Awareness Program’ (ACAP), Jackie delivers WildAid’s message. A variety of Media Partners such as CNN, Discovery, National Geographic, StarTV, CBS, NBC, Fox, Bloomberg and China’s CCTV, provide WildAid with free air-time where celebrities can voice their opinion on wildlife trade.

“It is basically analogous to the drug trade,” Knights continues to explain, “law enforcement alone is not going to make the problem go away. If people want to buy drugs and enough people have the money to do so, then there will be people willing to grow, smuggle and sell the stuff no matter how many coca fields you destroy. The long term solution is for people to stop buying products. We need to stop demand. To do that you need to raise awareness and make it socially unacceptable.”

Shark fin is the most widely spread product in China. One can even purchase prepackaged, ready made soups that contain shark fin at most grocery stores. The sharks harvested for their fins are not classified as endangered largely because fishing records are too poor to document the declines. These sharks will eventually reach the endangered list if current trends continue. Knights explains why shark fin is so popular: “It is a prestigious thing to eat shark fin in China. It is a sign of respect because people know it is expensive. Wild animal meat is seen as an exotic luxury&We did a survey and 35% of the surveyed urban Chinese reported having eaten it in the last year. The Survey included 24,000 people in 14 cities. Snakes are another wild animal often eaten and China has recently banned the eating of snakes to discourage this. So there is hope that the government will act as well as supporting the education efforts.”

Dried Seal penises such as these await buyers succumbed to promises of traditional medicine (Photo: IFAW)

Various surveys were taken before and after WildAid launched their campaign to stop shark fin soup consumption, and the results are promising. “We don’t know the exact number of other illegally traded goods, “says Knights, “In Thailand, 30% of those surveyed said they stopped eating shark fin altogether. In Taiwan, 38% of the public said they ate less shark fin and 15% stopped completely. Another sign that our campaign has made a difference is that in Thailand, people of the shark fin trade actually tried to sue us.”

Wildlife poachers and traders are not too happy about WildAid reducing the appeal of their product, but Knights insists that they will be out of work shortly anyway if they continue their activities. “Finding alternative income sources for poachers is part of the solution, as is beefing up law enforcement,” he says.

What many people don’t know is that eating wild meat is risky. Many diseases are found in wild animals. What is worse is that illegally traded meat does not undergo a real health inspection. The meat from a tiger looks the same whether the animal is sick or not, and a poacher will get paid either way.

“There is a high risk of disease transmission,” says Knights, “the risk is also increased because it is unregulated. SARS was thought to initially be related to the trade and many are unaware of the anthrax and Ebola transmissions that could occur through bush-meat trade; there have been cases in Africa where animals have died from anthrax and this bush-meat was still sold for consumption. The most likely source to new disease outbreaks to which we have no immunity is from wild animals that haven’t been in close contact with humans previously. As deforestation goes on, new areas become accessible and bush meat hunters follow, shipping potentially tainted meat to cities and even internationally…You couldn’t find a better way to spread disease.”

A rescued Chimp in Northern Zambia whose parents were killed for bushmeat (Photo: IFAW/John Hrusa)

Commando, a rescued baby chimp, at Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage in Northern Zambia. Commando was orphaned as a result of illegal bushmeat trade in Central African Republic. Photographer: Jon Hrusa

Pets can also harbor dangerous diseases: The monkey-pox outbreak that affected dozens of people in the U.S who bought prairie dogs was traced back to a Gambian rat imported from Africa that was caged with the prairie dogs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that macaques can transfer the herpes B virus to humans and imported parrots carry psittacosis and reptiles salmonella. It can also be a threat to domestic livestock: Newcastle disease, carried by smuggled parrots, resulted in the deaths of millions of chickens and turkeys in the past decade.

Apparently, with illegally traded and wild caught animals, you never know what you’re going to get. You might have purchased an exotic virus to go along with the exotic animal. Importing wild animals and their parts is not just harmful for the species in question, but also for the consumer. In a bizarre way, these animals are retaliating.

Things are not just risky when it comes to eating wild animal meat, but can also be a waste of money. With the knowledge that a bowl of exotic tiger soup can bring in $500, restaurant owners will obviously try and sell that product whether the ingredients are at hand or not. Consumers will not be happy to know that the tiger penis soup they enjoyed earlier that evening actually contained a donkey tendon marinated in tiger urine instead of the main ingredient they had paid so much for.

Local populations are not the only ones that provide the demand for illegally traded products; Tourists have a major impact on wildlife trade. Tourists are drawn to remote locations where a variety of products can be bought from local merchants. Some of the most popular items sold are made from turtle shells, reptile skins, animal fur or ivory. The coasters, combs, forks, carpets or jewelry might look beautiful, but purchasing these items only encourages poachers to continue killing the animals that supply the necessary parts.

In a beautiful silk box, Rhino horn and Rhino horn medicine. (Photo: IFAW)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s brochure ‘Facts about Federal Wildlife Laws’ includes a large list of items sold to tourists worldwide. Items falling into the endangered species category which are commonly sold abroad but are prohibited entry into the U.S [and most other countries] include:

Whole shells or “tortoise” shell jewelry made from shells of sea turtles.

Sea turtle soup and facial creams.

Rugs, pelts, hunting trophies, and a wide variety of manufactured articles (such as handbags, compacts, coats, wallets, key cases etc.) made from the skins and/or fur of endangered or threatened animals.

Asian elephant ivory and whale teeth decorated with etchings (scrimshaw) or made into figurines (netsuke), curios, pendants, and other jewelry.

African elephant ivory, both raw and worked.

Sea turtle and some crocodile leather shoes, handbags, belts, wallets, luggage, and similar articles.

Sealskin toys, purses, wallets.

Whalebone and whale and walrus ivory.

Rescued too late – an elephant-foot footstool comprises part of an IFAW exhibit. (Photo: IFAW)

One of the more obvious and tasteless items sold abroad is a stool made from an elephant’s foot, cushioned with zebra hide.

“Many species are close to extinction, and many more may become endangered at a faster rate than ever before sometimes while the trade is still legal. Illegal trade is causing a decline in certain species, but the problem is that with globalization and economic growth trade has spread to different species sourced from all over the world. China’s middle class of potential consumers has grown to 250 million people in the last decade and is projected to double in another decade. So today’s legal wildlife trade can soon turn into tomorrow’s endangered species.

The illegal animal trade is a moving target. There are definitely areas where the situation has improved; elephant ivory poaching has decreased since the trade was banned in 1989, rhino horn poaching has gone down since major awareness efforts in 1993, but other animals like sharks are being hunted unsustainably now with some populations declining 80% in fifteen years. Tiger poaching is still a major problem and as some animals disappear new species replace them because there is a demand.”

According to the State Department of China, the United States is the second largest importer of illegal wildlife in the world. Knights attributes this to the countries’ wealth and ethnic diversity: “A lot of these trades are derived from specific areas and peoples of the world,” says Knights, “So while smuggled Russian caviar may be a rich Caucasian delicacy, shark fin soup is largely an East Asian dish. Rhino horn, tiger bone, bear bladder and sea horses are imported for Chinese health remedies, while sea turtle eggs is served in some Hispanic bars, and bush meat is served in some African restaurants.”

Sea horses are more appealing swimming in the ocean than in a pot. Rhino carcasses are left to rot for a horn that has not been proven to cure any illness. Massive flocks of colorful parrots are netted in the wild and only a few survive the trip out of the country hidden in tires and pipes. Protecting a habitat means nothing without protecting its wildlife. State parks exist all over the world, but they are meaningless if they are empty. The illegal wildlife trade needs to be stopped, and this is where WildAid comes in. As the only group that focuses on stopping the role of demand, they are protecting the parks and the animals that reside within them, too. Their slogan says it best: “when the buying stops, the killing can too.”

References:

- Shark Trust

- SeaShepherd (various Marine fish and mammals)

- White Shark Trust

- Shark Project

- Bear Bile Farming Info

- Earth Trust – Bear Farming

- Allied Effort to Save Other Primates

- MonkeyLand

- National Wildlife Federation

- Elephant Protection

- International Rhino Foundation

- Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network

- World Wildlife Fund

- The Humane Society of the United States

- Wildlife Conservation Society

- International Fund for Animal Welfare

- World Conservation Union

- Conservation International

- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

- Wildlife Protection Society of India

- Defenders of Wildlife

Forests are considered sacred by most environmentalists. Over the past twelve years we’ve reported on deforestation and reforestation, and there has always been a consistent refrain from environmentalists: Monocultures are not forests. This point of view, while debateable, is one we basically agree with.

So why are environmentalists relatively silent on the potential problems with biofuel plantations?

Most environmentalists as well make much of the “carrying capacity” of the planet. They point out, correctly, that there is a limit to how much the Earth’s biosphere can generate. Their concerns are manyfold – we will run out of forests, we will run out of farmland, we will run out of wilderness, we will run out of water – with all the attendant catastrophes that each of these depletions would cause.

So why are environmentalists so happy that we’ve just found a new way to deforest the planet and plant monocultures? Why are the Americans in particular suddenly embracing biofuel as though it is the solution to everything from global warming to energy shortages?

The following reports constitute just a small example of how dangerous the worldwide craze to develop biofuels could become:

Palm oil plantations decimating orang-utans says report

China funds massive palm oil plantation in rainforest of Borneo

Biofuels threaten rainforests as important European Commission decision lies ahead

Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?

Clearly, some environmentalists are beginning to understand how problematic massive development of a global biofuels industry could become. For biofuel to even make a dent in world energy hunger, literally millions of square miles of biofuel plantations would be necessary.

In a brilliant presentation to the California Air Resources Board in September 2006, Martin Eberhard, CEO of Tesla Motors, included a slide “What About Ethanol?” (see pages 25 and 26 of the .pdf file). In this slide he superimposes on a map of North America a square representing how much land, planted with biofuel crops, it would take to offset 50% of the car miles driven in the United States. The area covers about 1.0 million square miles.

We’ve covered the quantitative trade-offs between biofuel production and land use extensively in the past year. Read our Biofuel section for more information. What you find may concern you.

It is incredible that groups such as the Global Footprint Network can release stories such as “Ecosystems Face Collapse” yet take a nuanced position on biofuel. Anybody who claims we are already “Eating the Planet” ought to be horrified that now we’re also going to grow our fuel. The unpleasant fact is biofuel production will not be easily regulated in the places where regulation is most required, the developing nations. The genie is out of the bottle, and environmentalists are now going to have to undo the momentum they’ve encouraged.

One of the more interesting propositions to face California’s voters in November 2006 is Proposition 87, which would tax in-state oil producers to fund alternative energy projects. Proponents of this bill air a television commercial, narrated by Bill Clinton, where the Brazilian ethanol industry is referenced. The closing message is “If Brazil can do it, so can California.”

This is preposterous. First of all, Brazil, which only replaces a bit more than 10% of their petroleum with ethanol, has a per capita petroleum and ethanol consumption of about 4.0 barrels per year per citizen (ref. EIA). California, the most energy-efficient of all US states, nonetheless has a per capita petroleum consumption of over 20 barrels per year per citizen (ref. DOE). For this reason, California, with 33 million inhabitants and sitting on maybe 40,000 square miles of fully utilized farmland (ref. NetState), requires nearly 700 million barrels of petroleum per year. This is almost as much as Brazil; with 186 million people, and nearly 10,000 square miles of farmland already dedicated to growing sugar cane, Brazil requires only about 800 million barrels of petroleum and ethanol per year.

Where is California going to find enough land to make any dent whatsoever in their petroleum consumption through planting biofuel crops? Let’s not forget that sugar cane doesn’t grow in California, but corn does. Sugar cane, best case, will yield maybe around 11,000 barrels of ethanol per square mile per year (ref. UCLA), but corn yields less than half that, around 4,700 barrels per square mile per year (ref. USDA).

This math is not encouraging: For California to replace 10% of its current petroleum consumption with ethanol, California would have to convert 50% of its existing farmland to grow biofuel crops. Not a chance.

Obviously California can import ethanol from America’s cornbelt, but the issue remains of how to find sufficient land. As we note in Biofuel vs. Photovoltaics, there are around 5.0 million square miles of arable farmland in the entire world, and even at yields of 11,000 barrels of oil per year, to get 80 million barrels per day (to match world petroleum consumption), you would pretty much have to replace 100% of the world’s farmland.

Proponents of biofuel correctly point out that it isn’t meant to completely replace petroleum, and that new techniques to extract biofuel from cellulose or to grow it in self contained reactors may greatly increase capacities. What they aren’t saying is that meanwhile food prices are being driven up all over the world, particularly in poorer countries, and deforestation is accelerating, because of this new cash crop.

Bottom line – if this is the best proponents of Proposition 87 can come up with, they don’t have anything worth voting for. Let’s not forget it was government bureaucrats who wasted billions of dollars on hydrogen fuel cells, delaying the introduction of hybrids and all-electric cars by a decade or more.

It’s tempting to support Proposition 87 if the bureaucrats would use 100% of the funds to expand photovoltaic capacity. But investments are already going into photovoltaic research and new manufacturing. And the private funds going into photovoltaics today are coming from the Silicon Valley, where investors are managing their own money with an eye towards breakthroughs, not patronage.

That would be the proper title for the story just released today by Reuters, based on recent statements from NASA scientists. But the title, perhaps predictably, was “Greenland Ice Sheet Shrinking Fast.”

Once again, let’s do the math, based on NASA’s own data, as reported in this story: During the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, NASA scientists estimate 41 cubic miles of ice melted along the periphery of Greenland, while 14 cubic miles of new ice were deposited via snowfall in the interior of Greenland. This is a net loss of 27 cubic miles per year. Does that sound like a lot? It isn’t.

Given that there are 139 million square miles of ocean, adding 27 cubic miles per year of ice melt from Greenland to this surface area equates to a rise in sea levels of 1.2 inches per century. This amount is consistent with calculations based on other recent press releases from the scientific community, as noted in our posts “Antarctic Ice” and “Greenland’s Icecap.”

If you don’t make these calculations, and most reporters and most concerned citizens do not, then you would only base your conclusions from this story on its title, and on the quote from NASA scientist Scott Luthcke, who noted that Greenland’s ice melt now constitutes “an annual net loss of ice equal to nearly six years of average water flow from the Colorado River.” Need we add that at an annual flow of 4.5 cubic miles of water, by volume, the Colorado is a relatively small river?

We’ve ran two feature stories in the last month by the eminent atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT. Unlike many of his critics (and supporters), Dr. Lindzen voices his skepticism regarding global warming in a measured and reasoned tone. Anyone who is serious about learning more about whether or not there is a basis for global warming alarm should read Lindzen’s “Global Warming Facts,” and “Climate Catastrophe?”

Finally, we encourage anyone who believes we should do whatever we can to reduce global warming because the steps we may take are good things anyway to read our recent posts “Deforestation Diesel” and “Filthy Air With Less CO2.”

Nobody knows for sure how low conventional manufacturing costs are for photovoltaics, since at the wholesale price of $4.00 per watt they are being sold, everywhere, as fast as they can be made. Demand has exceeded supply for photovoltaics for several years, and even with incremental decreases in cost and increases in supply, this will continue.

But the revolution is here.

Thin film photovoltaics use far less silicon, which dramatically lowers costs. In fact – “thin film” is a catch all term – some thin film photovoltaics use no silicon at all. There are several companies pursuing thin film technology, Nanosolar, Miasole, Konarka, Heliovolt, and Innovalight. And we are getting very close to seeing the proof in the pudding: As we reported on September 29th in Miasole Photovoltaics, this company expects to have their production line up and running before the end of 2006, producing 25MW of output per year.

Nanosolar has even more ambitious plans and they aren’t far behind. As we reported on September 21st in Nanosolar & Conergy Group, within the next two years they intend to have a production line up and producing 430MW of output per year! Both of these companies claim they can replicate these factories all over the world, and both of them claim their manufacturing costs, compared to conventional processes, could drop by a factor of 10x or more.

They aren’t alone. The heavyweights who are already in this business – BP Solar, Energy Conversion, Evergreen Solar, Kyocera, Mitsubishi, Motech, Q-Cells, Sanyo, Sharp, Sunpower, Suntech, and Shell Solar – are working feverishly on thin film technology.

There’s more. While photovoltaics easily provide adequate energy per square foot of array – we prove in Power the World with Photovoltaics that it would only take 600 square feet of area per person, worldwide, for photovoltaics to replace ALL energy currently consumed by the human race – the efficiency of photovoltaics may be poised to make a huge leap.

Currently the Atwater Reserch Group at Caltech in California is working on “nanorods” and “optical micro-concentrators” which will dramatically increase the surface area of photovoltaic receptors within a given square foot of photovoltaic array. Partnering with them in this effort is BP Solar. If this development ever comes to fruition, photovoltaic panels won’t just be on rooftops, they might actually start appearing on the skin of electric cars.

The entire photovoltaic manufacturing output in the world in 2005 was a paltry 1.6 gigawatts. The entire installed base of photovoltaics in the world is only about 10 gigawatts. This is going to change overnight. If thin film technology is proven commercially, and we may know this within one year, the worldwide output of photovoltaics will go up by orders of magnitude. If that happens, the promise of cheap, abundant, clean and renewable energy will be well on its way to being realized.

Algae colors green the waters of this Tennessee catfish farm. The best way to extract fuel from algae, however, may be through using a totally enclosed “bioreactor.” (Photo: USDA)

Didymosphenia geminata, microscopic algae once scarce, but now in many streams and rivers of North America (Photo: US EPA)

Algae are microscopic, single-celled plants, growing in an aqueous environment.

For growth algae make use of sunlight as energy source and simple inorganic nutrients, predominantly CO2, soluble nitrogen components and phosphates. For many years, there has been a theory that noxious flue gases produced by industries could be substantially reduced by using algae. The algal biomass produced can then be used for generating high-energy biofuel. In the case of the cement industry, the biofuel produced can be directly fired in captive power plants and kilns.

Characteristics of algae cultivation are:

- The productivity per area is 2 to 5 fold higher as compared with traditional agricultural crops and fast growing ‘energy crops.’

- Lower quality water can be used for growing algae, e.g. the effluent of biological waste water treatment facilities.

- Algal systems can remove CO2 (and NOx) from flue gases.

- Many algal species produce valuable products, such as colorants, polyunsaturated fatty acids and bioactive compounds. These ‘fine chemicals’ are applicable as a natural ingredient in food products, pharmaceuticals, food supplements and personal care products.

- After extraction of these valuable compounds the remaining biomass (approx. 80%) can be used for production of ‘green’ electricity and heat. Alternatively, microalgae can be used for the production of methylesterfuel (bio-diesel).

Finding renewable energy sources has been a top concern for many scientists around the world and algae based biofuel has emerged as a viable resource. At present there are two common methods for algae based biofuel production: open ponds and bioreactors. The major technical challenges of these systems are how to: sustain highest photosynthesis and biomass productivity, reduce cell damage by hydrodynamic stress, reduce costs in fabrication, installation, and maintenance, and increase the capability of the system to expand to an industrial scale.

From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fuels Development funded a program to develop renewable transportation fuels from algae. The main focus of the program, know as Aquatic Species Program (or ASP), was the production of biodiesel from high lipid-content algae grown in ponds utilizing waste CO2 from coal fired power plants. The study demonstrated that more than 300 species of algae were well suited to the task. Gaseous emission was pumped through the base of a pond and algae grown on the surface. The project was eventually abandoned because of the difficulty in harvesting algae and high cost of energy required to agitate the pond to ensure sufficient algal exposure to sunlight. As photosynthesis efficiency is driven by complex cellular mechanisms that depend on having just the right exposure to light, past algal systems grew to be complex and ultimately too expensive for most industries to contemplate. They took the form of huge, shallow ponds with extensive pumping and distribution mechanisms.

GreenFuel Technologies Corp., a Massachusetts based research company, working in collaboration with theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), using the air-lift bioreactors for algal growth on flue gas, has succeeded in reducing the capital investment by streamlining the harvesting of algae, limiting the energy required to operate the system, automating many of the necessary controls (e.g., flow controllers and gas uptake), and minimizing the physical space required.

SCHEMATIC OF AN AIR LIFT BIOREACTOR

Solid arrows indicate the direction of the gas flow; open arrows indicate the direction of the liquid flow.

GreenFuel uses an implementation of an air-lift reactor (ALR), which is a type of pneumatic contacting device in which fluid circulation takes place in a defined cyclic pattern through channels built specifically for this purpose. The process, called photomodulation, rotates the algae in and out of the sunlight. On the basis of the ALR principles and the specific requirements of photosynthetic processes, a “triangular” ALR configuration was developed that is particularly suitable for algal growth. The GreenFuel bioreactor consists of a riser tube or channel, a gas separator, and a down comer tube or channel. The difference in the apparent fluid densities between the riser and down comer provides the driving force for liquid circulation. Air-lift reactors (ALRs) have great potential for industrial bioprocesses, because of the low level and homogeneous distribution of hydrodynamic shear.

In the GreenFuel Technologies beta system at MIT, a slipstream from the MIT Cogeneration Plant is passed directly from a sampling port on the stack into a bank of triangle-shaped bioreactors containing algae in a salt water growth medium. Each bioreactor is self-contained; the gas enters at the bottom two vertices, and makes a single pass though the tubular bioreactor before exiting at the top vertex. The bioreactor dimensions-approximately 8 feet tall by 6 feet long by several inches wide-are determined by the amount of time required for the gas to dissolve in the growth medium as it rises through the vertical and hypotenuse legs (The triangle design is patented by GreenFuel).

Greenfuel Technologies)

The GreenFuel team has been growing algae on the Cogen gases, and harvesting algae ‘crops’ daily. Algae reduced NOx day and night, regardless of temporal and weather conditions. The process is essentially an effect of the surface configuration of the algae cell walls. Even dead algae can reduce NOx up to 70 percent. The harvested algae can be used to generate biofuel products. A week-long evaluation by a third party called CK Environmental Inc. certified that over the seven-day test period, the GreenFuel beta system simultaneously removed 85.9 percent NOx (2.1 percent, regardless of weather conditions), and 82.3 percent CO2 (12.5 percent) on sunny days, or 50.1 percent CO2 (6.5 percent) on cloudy or rainy days. The testing methods conformed to EPA standards for measuring NOx and CO2 emissions.

The Academic and University Centre in Nove Hrady, Czech Republic developed a closed tubular photobioreactor. This “penthouse-roof” photobioreactor was based on solar concentrators (linear Fresnel lenses) mounted in a climate-controlled greenhouse on top of the laboratory complex combining features of indoor and outdoor cultivation units. The dual-purpose system was designed for algal biomass production in temperate climate zones under well-controlled cultivation conditions and for heating service water with surplus solar energy.

Greenshift Corporation

GreenShift Corporation has acquired rights to Ohio University’s patented cynaobacteria based bioreactor process for reducing greenhouse gases emissions from fossil-fuel combustion processes. Dr. David Bayless at OU designed a bioreactor based on a newly discovered iron-loving cyanobacterium (blue-green algae). In concept, this is very similar to GreenFuel Technology’s reactor. The algae grown in the bioreactor on 60 by 120-centimeter membranes of woven fibers resembling window screens interspersed between the Oak Ridge glow plates. Capillary action wicks water to the algae, fiber optic cables channel sunlight into the glow plates, and ducts bring in the hot flue gas. Spreading the cyanobacteria on membranes maximizes surface area for growth, minimizes water and optimizes the use of sunlight. The algae use the available carbon dioxide and water, giving off pure oxygen and water vapor in the process. The organisms also absorb nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. A prototype is capable of handling 140 cubic meters of flue gas per minute, an amount equal to the exhaust from 50 cars or a 3 megawatt power plant. Once the algae grow to maturity, they fall to the bottom of the bioreactor and are used as feedstock and fertilizers. The biomass can also be utilized for producing biodiesel.

Future research in this area would involve determination of the operational and economic feasibility of such systems for organic biomass production from the viewpoint of cement industry. This would lead to sequestration of CO2 produced from cement manufacturing and production of biofuel as an alternate fuel.

References:

Novakovic, G.V., Kim, Y., Wu, X., Berzin, I., and Merchuk, J.C., 2005. Air-Lift Bioreactors for Algal Growth on Flue Gas: Mathematical Modeling and Pilot-Plant Studies. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 44, pp. 6154-6163.

Sheehan, J., Dunahay, T., Beneman, J. and Roessler,P., 1998. A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program Biodiesel from Algae. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fuels Development.

De Boer, A.J., and van Doorn, J., 1998. Combined production of chemicals and biomass with microalgae in a closed photobioreactor. ECN Contribution to the 10th European Conference: ‘Biomass for energy and industry’. ECN RX-98-003, pp. 27-29.

Reith, J.H., van Doorn, J., Mur, L.R., Kalwij, R., Bakema,G. and van der Lee, G., 2000. Sustainable co-production of natural fine chemicals and biofuels from microalgae. Conference Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla, June 2000.

Bayless, D.J., et al., 2002. Enhanced Practical Photosynthetic CO2 Mitigation (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/5a4.pdf)

Masojídek, J., Papácek, S., Sergejevová, M., Jirka, V., Cervený, J., Kunc, J., Korecko, J., Verbovikova, O., Kopecký, J., `tys, D. and Torzillo, G., 2003. A closed solar photobioreactor for cultivation of microalgae under supra-high irradiance: basic design and performance. Journal of Applied Phycology, Vol. 15, pp. 239-248.

Website References:

GreenFuel: Using Algae to Capture Emissions

Vision: The World Student Community for Sustainable Development, April 22, 2005

Greenshift Licenses Bioreactor Technology

Green Car Congress, December 12, 2005

Beta Test Set for Emission-Fighting Algae Bioreactor

Power Engineering International, November 2004

Blue Green Acres

Scientific American, August 29, 2005

Algae Emissions Reduction Concept Shows New Promise

Electric Light & Power, March 2005

About the Author: Ramesh K. Suri is the Joint President for Alternative Fuels & Raw Materials Business Develoment at ACC Ltd., reporting to the ACC’s Managing Director. After completing his studies in Chemical Engineering at IIT Delhi in 1970, Suri joined ACC Ltd. and has held positions in the areas of plant operations, industrial engineering, design & construction, commissioning, project management, administration and consultancy services for cement plants within India and abroad. Suri has served on various national and international committees including the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), Regional CDM Initiative APAC, and the Thematic Advisory Group of TERI.

One might assume that after nearly 12 years of publishing strategic information about green technology and environmental issues we would know everyone, but it’s a bigger world than that. Today we found www.eco-web.com and want to report this as perhaps the best organized and current compilation of green technology companies we’ve ever seen.

Based in Zurich, Switzerland, Eco-Web’s so-called “Green Pages” provide information on over 7,000 companies in nearly every country in the world. Their classification system is pretty good; the primary categories they’ve created are:

Environmental Information
Waste Water Treatment
Water Supply & Purification
Air Pollution Control
Waste Management
Recycling
Soil Preservation
Noise Protection
Power Generation
Energy Efficiency

Within each of these categories are several sub-categories, and you are also able to cross-reference by nation. For example, when we search under Power Generation, the first result we get is Photovoltaic Solar Cells, and on that page we get 84 listings.

Eco-Web’s “Green Pages” then lets you sort by country. We selected India, and the following companies came up:

While there are undoubtedly more than seven companies manufacturing photovoltaics in India, this is the best engine we’ve ever seen for letting people search for green companies. It is surprising and a bit disappointing that this excellent site doesn’t have more traffic.

One minor complaint about this site is the background is a deep green – I like green, but not that much. Also, until you’ve figured out their layout, it’s hard to find the links from their records of companies to the actual home pages of those companies. As it is, on each company record page, they have two small buttons, one with the “@” symbol, which will automatically launch an email to a contact email address for the company, and the other a “W” which links to their website in a new window. Once you’ve learned how to use it, this website is a very, very effective tool to find something quick.

All in all, www.eco-web.com is a relatively undiscovered gem among the millions of green and not-so-green websites out there. If you are looking for a green company, the Eco-Web “green pages” are a good place to start.

Many people who question the claims of global warming alarmists are nonetheless pleased that in the process of regulating CO2 emissions we will clean up air pollution. They could be making a bad assumption.

If you read, for example, the text of the most recent revision of California’s Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, you will see that the regulation of “criteria pollutants” is almost an afterthought. Here is the heart of the bill:

“42877. (a) On or before January 1, 2008, the state board shall adopt regulations that will reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 emission levels by 2020, taking into account projected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from state agency programs not subject to this chapter. The emission limits shall be expressed in total tons of allowable emissions of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents, and shall include all emissions of greenhouse gases from the generation of electricity delivered by load-serving entities and consumed in California, whether generated in-state or imported. The state board shall consult with air pollution control districts and air quality management districts in the development of measures for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases that will affect emissions of criteria pollutants from stationary sources.”

As you can see, the final sentence of this section addresses the desire to coordinate reductions in greenhouse emissions with programs to reduce emissions of “criteria pollutants.” But there are no targets set to reduce emissions of actual pollution, only CO2.

Is this really what we want?

Global warming is something that might be characterized as “low risk but high impact.” Most responsible atmospheric scientists don’t believe that catastrophic global warming is likely, only that it is possible. Read the BBC’s recent article “A Load of Hot Air?” for several examples of how global warming scenarios are being over-hyped.

What if it isn’t carbon dioxide, but deforestation and desertification that are the main causes of global warming?

One of the primary steps in models of the earth’s greenhouse effect is the absorption of solar heat by the land masses, which then is radiated into the atmosphere primarily in the form of infrared energy.

Over the past 150 years, the planet has gone from over 30 million square miles of forest to around 18 million square miles of forest. Meanwhile deserts have increased by about 40% to around 8 million square miles. In other words, of the 56 million square miles of land surface on earth, more than 25% of this land has been either deforested or desertified in the last 150 years! Wouldn’t a desert absorb and radiate heat more than a forest?

Where is the political momentum to plant more trees in urban centers to mitigate the urban heat island effect? Where is the political momentum to develop water projects to can reverse desertification, or reforestation projects on a global scale? These projects, which are also good on their own merit, with or without global warming, deserve equal time. And beware of any CO2 reduction schemes that don’t also require us to clean up noxious pollutants.