JBS News

It's your right to be informed!

The Economist: China and Europe’s emission-trading scheme – MY COMMENT

| 1 Comment

Not free to fly  – Feb 8th 2012, 18:55 by J.A.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/02/china-and-europes-emission-trading-scheme

Why not the simplest solution of all?

Every country should copy the EU law and apply it in 2013.

To eliminate double-charging, the fee need only be charged to each airplane at landing, (or, at take-off) but not both.

Airlines, such as Virgin and others which already use a 50/50 blend of biofuel, should receive a ‘free pass’ regarding this program – everywhere they fly.

Net reduction of emissions is the goal – after all.

The difference flying with biofuel? Reported up to 80% reductions in CO2 according to Boeing. See: http://johnbrianshannon.com/ for more information.

johnbrianshannon@gmail.com

AFP Photo

This gallery contains 1 photo.

The Difference between Fossil Fuels and Biofuels – MY COMMENT

| Leave a comment

The burning of fossil fuels over the past 90 years or so, has released trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over that limited timeframe.

Previous to the large-scale commercial extraction of petroleum beginning around 1920 or thereabouts, CO2 “HAD” been permanentl­y stored undergroun­d since the time of the dinosaurs. It wasn’t going anywhere near our atmosphere until mankind started bringing it up to the surface and burning it.

It is a huge source of NEW CO2 introduced into our atmosphere (after combustion)­, from our point of view here in 2012.

Burning plant-based biofuels on the other hand, burns parts of plants that grow in our timeframe – plants that absorb CO2 over their entire lives out of our modern atmosphere­.

Jatropha trees for instance, live for 40 years or longer. Although only the plentiful fruits are harvested each year (several tons per hectare) and processed into biofuel, the rest of the tree continues to live, drawing CO2 out of the environmen­t for decades.

Eventually­, at the end of that tree’s life, almost exactly what CO2 it captured during it’s lifetime – returns to the environmen­t – making it’s CO2 footprint effectivel­y neutral. What it took in, it released – when measured over a 50-year timeframe.

Then, new plants can be grown and the neutral process begins again.

Not so for fossil fuels. It is a huge source of “new” CO2 which we are bringing up from deep undergroun­d.

Therefore ALL fossil fuel combustion adds to the total CO2 level of our atmosphere - while plant based fuels are CO2 neutral.

Where am I going with all of this?

We should be blending our fossil fuels 50/50 with biofuels to lower our NEW (fossil fuel attributed) CO2 additions to the atmosphere.

Of course, replacing food-growing crops with biofuel crops is a bad idea. Fortunately, the new generation of biofuels grow in conditions and areas inhospitable for food crops (which require plenty of water, fertilizer and pesticides) – not so with 2nd and 3rd generation biofuel plants.

Please visit these links for additional information on 2nd generation biofuels:
http://www­.biofuelin­vestments.­net/jatrop­ha.php
http://www­.biofuelin­vestments.­net/millet­tia.php

(FYI – I am not affiliated with either of these investment entities)

johnbrianshannon@gmail.com

This gallery contains 0 photos

Biofuel a Win-Win: Green and Cost-Effective – response to comment against my Huff Post blog

| Leave a comment

My article appeared in The Huffington Post Canada Feb 2/12

A comment appeared detracting from my points, this is my response to that commentator.

———————————————————————–

I did address both your concerns right in my article.

1) It is important to grow biofuel crops in NON-food growing areas.

Fortunatel­y, the biofuel crops I mentioned grow in areas with poor soil, blistering heat and require very minimal pesticide use – the exact opposite of food crops!

Desolate “junk land” where food crops could NOT be grown anyway, is often considered desirable land to grow Jatropha biofuel, for example.

Therefore, growing the right biofuel crops won’t displace food crop land – notice that was item #1 in my blog.

2) Your second point is completely off.

Rainforest land HAS been demolished to grow sugarcane for both biofuel & food use in Brazil. Sugar cane is NOT the best biofuel, nor are Brazil’s environmen­tal practices.

Just because Brazil isn’t a good example, is that reason enough to write off an entire industry? Just because the Taliban uses guns improperly­, is that a good enough reason to write off the whole gun industry? No guns for our police, our army, etc…?

Separate from Brazil: If 1000 hectares of “junk land” is cleared of its vegetation (if any) and Jatropha is planted there instead, it is still 1000 hectares of green plants which capture and use CO2 from the air!

Far from carbon negative, Jatropha plantation­s take bare, or sparsely vegetated land and turn it into a forest!

Please visit these links:
http://www­.biofuelin­vestments.­net/jatrop­ha.php
http://www­.biofuelin­vestments.­net/millet­tia.php

The only way to overcome the flood of misinforma­tion surroundin­g the entire biofuels debate is to become fully informed by employing research.

johnbrianshannon@gmail.com

This gallery contains 0 photos

Biofuels 101 – with some easy to understand links

| Leave a comment

I am a biofuels advocate, but it must be recognized that corn – of all the biofuel crops uses the most water and fertilizer by a significant margin.

It also must be pointed out that growing corn for biofuels on prime land displaces land that could be used to grow human food crops.

Don’t get me wrong I am strongly in favour of biofuels, but it is now time to begin the switch to 2nd-generation biofuel crops, such as sugar cane.

“…producing ethanol from sugarcane is six times less expensive than producing ethanol from corn. Growing sugarcane requires fewer chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers.”

Source: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/10-biofuel-crops3.htm

For diesel biofuel crops such as castor, jatropha, millettia and camelina, these give bountiful production and investor returns with minimal new infrastructure, pesticides and fertilizers.

Not only do these plants use much less water and fertilizer than corn, they can tolerate low-drought conditions and grow readily in non-prime soils. Indonesia, India, China and other countries are growing these crops and harvesting them for biofuel – and reaping much better product returns per input. The economics work better too!

Some countries have decided that biofuels belong in their future and have set thousands or millions of hectares aside for biofuel crop agriculture, as discussed in his new book:

Biodiesel 2020 – 2nd Edition by Will Thurmond.

He writes:

“Biodiesel growth from non-food feedstocks is gaining traction around the world.

For example, China recently set aside an area the size of England to produce jatropha and other non-food plants for biodiesel.

India has up to 60 million hectares of non-arable land available to produce jatropha, and intends to replace 20 per cent of diesel fuels with jatropha-based biodiesel.

In Brazil and Africa, there are significant programs underway dedicated to producing non-food crops jatropha and castor for biodiesel.”

http://www.emerging-markets.com/biodiesel/

Here are some other excellent links for you:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/10-biofuel-crops.htm

http://sweeteralternative.com/blog/three-big-winners-from-ending-ethanol-subsidies

http://www.biofuelinvestments.net/millettia.php

http://www.biofuelinvestments.net/jatropha.php

This gallery contains 0 photos

The Economist online — Watts Next? — MY COMMENT

| Leave a comment

My response to an article published in The Economist online

January 25, 2012

What will be fueling the world in 2030?

“THE world will consume 40% more energy in 2030 than it does today, according to BP’s World Energy Outlook, though the rate of growth will decrease…”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/energy

————————————————————————–

On sustainability front-runners:

Germany, Spain and Argentina are getting close to 25% of their electricity from solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power. It’s a safe bet that within five years, those targets will be met or exceeded.

On top of all that, Germany is shutting down it’s entire nuclear power industry by 2022 and is ahead of schedule there too. (They’re German’s after all!)

A new industry is taking hold in Germany, the UK and in other European countries – pure vegetable oil is being used to fuel (formerly) diesel cars and trucks.

It’s NOT bio-diesel as there is no petroleum diesel mixed into the veg oil fuel. Bio-diesel is a different product altogether, but IS available there as an optional fuel. (minor alterations are needed to the vehicle in order to use each different kind of fuel)

See: http://www.vegoilmotoring.com/eng/

———————————————————————-

On German environmental law:

“The 2012 EEG sets a minimum requirement of not less than 35 percent of renewable energy in electricity supply by 2020, not less than 50 percent by 2030, not less than 65 percent by 2040 and not less than 80 percent by 2050.

However, the law actually sets a target of between 35 and 40 percent of supply within the next decade. This conforms to a decision made by the Ministry of Environment in 2010. Rather than reducing its commitment to expanding renewable energy, Germany has codified a more aggressive target than in the previous law.”

This quote is from:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/07/germany-pas

———————–

At the same time as all the above is occurring:

The UK has already dropped it’s feed-in tariff for sustainable electricity. Germany is lowering theirs twice within a 12-month period.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop

It’s a simple equation, solar panel prices have dropped dramatically in the past 24 months, which is why Solyndra (and others) failed.

In 2011, China passed both the U.S. and Germany as the world’s largest manufacturers of solar panels and wind turbines.

Here’s a basic, but excellent link for you:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/30/german-solar-power-production-surges…

————————————————————————–

On conventional nuclear power:

Many nuclear plants are getting close to the end of their lifetime. It is often less expensive to build new, state of the art nuclear plants – than to refurbish or renovate old plants to meet modern standards – as the Japanese are now finding out.

A majority of Japan’s 54 nuclear plants are shut down for inspection since the Fukushima disaster. Japan has just inked a deal with Saudi Arabia to purchase more oil to make up for the loss of all that nuclear power generation. How much more oil? THREE TIMES Japan’s total 2010 oil imports from all sources!

See: http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article560501.ece

————————

On ‘Modular” nuclear power:

To help you get up to speed in the modern nuclear power age, here is some general info.

Old, large nuclear plants all over the world, are nearing the end of their (safe) lifetime. They need to be decommissioned as soon as time and circumstance allows. Germany is decommissioning all their plants by 2022. Japan has shut down most of it’s 54 nuclear plants – a few may restart if, after rigorous inspections they are deemed safe enough.

The trend now is towards much higher safety and security standards and much smaller nuclear power plants – so called ‘modular’ nuclear power.

Here’s a great link for modular N-power:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2012/01/20/feds-to-finance-small-…

If you need more info on this use keywords “modular, nuclear, power” on Google, plenty of info there.

Modern and safe, modular nuclear is the perfect partner for solar and wind power – as N-power can quickly ramp up to meet demand (at sundown) or when wind speeds suddenly drop. Nuclear does this far better than any other electrical grid partner.

The sore point with nuclear for decades – apart from old, obsolete N-plants has been ‘spent’ fuel rods. Some types of fuel rods require secure storage facilities and continuous cooling for 20,000 years(!) which significantly add to the cost of nuclear power.

Those old rods are hot and can become very dangerous if allowed to come into contact with the atmosphere, or if mis-handled in any way. Terrorist incidents are always a danger with both nuclear plants and long-term storage facilities, again, adding to the overall cost of nuclear.

Yet, there is a solution if the option is chosen. France’s nuclear power plants can ‘burn’ our ‘spent’ rods and eventually render them into a low radioactive state and France can store those (almost) fully-spent rods. The cost to dispose of N-rods in this way are much lower than 20,000-year storage.

Safe transport to France is imperative.

What I have outlined above is not the entire solution to all of our electrical power generation requirements, but can be considered huge steps in the right direction.

We need voices on this to make it happen.

Very Best Regards, johnbrianshannon.com

This gallery contains 0 photos

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers