Author: admin

  • Olive crop rots due to finance worries

    From the Australian Financial Review

    Up to 19 giant olive harvesting machines, each referred to as “The Colossus”, were switched off at 7pm on Monday on two Victorian olive plantations by an entity that is 19.4 per cent owned by the failed Timbercorp Securities.

    According to The Australian Financial Review, Boundary Bend, an entity that harvests and processes olives on behalf of Timbercorp, stopped the harvest on Monday night because of fears that it wouldn’t be paid.

    Boundary Bend is 19.4 per cent owned by Timbercorp but the Timbercorp administrators don’t have control of it because it is majority owned by businessmen Rob McGavin and Paul Riordan.

    Timbercorp administrator KordaMentha yesterday made an application in the Federal Court seeking a legal opinion on whether it had the right to use some of the proceeds of the sale of olive oil from the 2008 Timbercorp crop to help fund the harvesting and processing of the 2009 crop.

    The court was told that if the 2009 crop at two plantations at Boort in north central Victoria and Boundary Bend near Swan Hill was not harvested, the $26 million from future olive oil sales would be lost.

  • ACF splits over backing of Rudd plan

    Greens leader Bob Brown launched a scathing attack on the ACF executive in the wake of its decision.

    “I’m a life member of the Australian Conservation Foundation,” he said.

    “I can tell you that the Australian Conservation Foundation supports the Greens’ target of 40 per cent reduction by 2020. It opposes a delay in implementing this scheme and it’s absolutely opposed to the free kick going to the polluters.”

    Senator Brown said the media would “have to ask Don Henry” about his stand.

    The Greens’ deputy leader Christine Milne said Mr Henry and Mr Lowe would have to “will answer to their members and their constituents for supporting… (the) weakening of the CPRS.

    “I find it difficult to reconcile with their stated positions,” she said.

    See related story
  • China heats up biocoal debate

    From Renewable Energy World and National Bio Energy

    Coal, which started out as the cheapest of fuels, is a victim of its own success. The more coal we burn the more expensive it becomes as we are forced to deal with more and more unintended environmental consequences. A clean power plant requires expensive additions to protect public health by removing particulates, Nox, sulphur and mercury. Now climate change is adding an urgent need to remove CO2 emissions. Since every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2, this is an almost impossible task that will take at least ten years to develop and will almost double the cost of coal power. Coal is no longer cheap when you consider these extra costs.

    Wind, solar and geothermal power can provide clean sustainable energy but it will take decades of work to grow enough capacity to satisfy our power needs.  We can solve our problems quickly by converting our existing coal power plants to biomass power.  Biomass is carbon neutral and has virtually no sulphur or mercury.  Conversion cost will be much less than the cost of adding carbon capture and mercury scrubbers and more importantly, it can be done now!

    Biomass has about half the energy density of coal so transportation costs could be high for large urban power plants.  The solution is simple: torrefy the biomass at its source. This will convert the biomass to biocoal, which has the same energy density, moisture resistance and friability as coal.

    Torrefaction is like coffee roasting. When any woody biomass is heated to about 270° C in the absence of oxygen it undergoes a transformation that increases its density while retaining most of its heating value.  The result is extruded into pellets that have an energy density of 11,000 Btu/lb, just like coal. Since it doesn’t absorb water, biocoal can be shipped in the same train cars and barges as coal. It can be stored outdoors, fed into a coal pulverizer and burned just like coal. The big difference is much less ash and NOx, and virtually no sulphur or mercury.

    Biomass waste is abundant. China has an estimated total supply of 700 million tons/year. About 100 million of this is currently being burned in the fields. Using biomass to produce power qualifies for carbon credits. One ton of biocoal prevents several tons of CO2.

    National Bio Energy is a new Chinese company specializing in building new biomass power plants that use waste straw from grain production as fuel.  Since their founding in 2005 they already have approval for 40 biomass plants, mostly in Northern China. Twelve of their projects are already in production, producing 324 MWe.  The plants are relatively small and located near the biomass sources. An excellent presentation by Dragon Power gives many more details. These power plants provide independent power and jobs for local farmers and eliminate the pollution of burning fields.

    Our massive investment in existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by repowering them to burn biomass. In the U.S., Georgia Power is planning to convert an existing 96MW coal plant to biomass power.  The fuel cost compared to coal is expected to be roughly 30 percent less per year and maintenance costs are expected to be about 13 percent less. FirstEnergy is converting a 312 MW plant to biofuel and will thus avoid the $330 million cost of adding scrubbers to remove mercury. In Canada, Ontario Power Generation is considering a similar move. The U.S. already has 80 biomass power plants in operation. A recent government report found that fuel and maintenance costs were lower than coal.

    Large existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by building a network of regional torrefiers along the tracks or waterways currently used for coal supply. These centers should be close to sources of farm or forestry waste or marginal land that can be used to grow specially adapted biomass. In the South, giant reed, elephant grass or other fast-growing perennial grasses can produce up to 20 tons/acre with little watering or fertilization. Agave can produce as much in semi-desert. Other specialized plants can grow on saline, acid or polluted soil.

    There are several manufacturers of torrefiers who have working prototypes but none have yet reached the full-scale production stage. The project that is the probably the furthest along was developed by Ecocern in the Netherlands. Integro, in the U.S., is building a fleet of 10 plants. And 4Energy Invest in Belgium is collocating a torrefaction plant at one of its biomass power plants. The waste heat from the power plant will be used to dry biomass and start the torrefier and the biocoal produced will be sold to existing coal power plants.

    Repowering or cofiring existing coal plants is a quick fix that can be implemented now to slow global warming while providing good jobs. However, since coal plants average only 33% efficiency, this is only a stopgap solution.  When new plants are built they should be much smaller in size so that waste heat can be put to good use.  Wherever heat is needed, cogeneration plants can generate power and sell it to the grid while putting the excess heat to good use.  Overall efficiencies of 85% are possible with good design. New turbine and heat recovery technology and the reduced need for pollution control equipment makes smaller plants economical.

    Biomass is also a perfect match for solar thermal hybrid plants.  As the sun grows weaker the biomass is gradually fired up to keep the turbines running at full speed even at night. Think of biomass as a store of solar power that can be used when needed. Wood pellets are already taking over the heating market in some areas because fuel costs are cut in half. Torrefied pellets will be even more cost effective.

    Future economics will be even better as we learn to increase the tons/acre yield using highly efficient C4 photosynthesis plants. Further research will certainly increase future yields significantly as it did with food crops.  Mixtures of plants that grow well together may be even better than monoculture. As the real costs of coal grow more expensive, innovation will drive the cost of biomass down.  The world will be a cleaner, safer, sustainable place.

    Google Earth makes it easy to explore the practicality of growing biomass near actual coal power plants.  Just click on the Coal Plant Names here for a satellite view. Zoom back to see the large amount of unused land surrounding most coal power plants.

  • Scientists unravel low-light photosynthesis secrets

    The scientists found that the chlorophylls are highly efficient at harvesting light energy. “We found that the orientation of the chlorophyll molecules make green bacteria extremely efficient at harvesting light,” said Donald Bryant, Ernest C. Pollard Professor of Biotechnology at Penn State and one of the team’s leaders. According to Bryant, green bacteria are a group of organisms that generally live in extremely low-light environments, such as in light-deprived regions of hot springs and at depths of 100 meters in the Black Sea. The bacteria contain structures called chlorosomes, which contain up to 250,000 chlorophylls. “The ability to capture light energy and rapidly deliver it to where it needs to go is essential to these bacteria, some of which see only a few photons of light per chlorophyll per day.”

    Because they have been so difficult to study, the chlorosomes in green bacteria are the last class of light-harvesting complexes to be characterized structurally by scientists. Scientists typically characterize molecular structures using X-ray crystallography, a technique that determines the arrangement of atoms in a molecule and ultimately gives information that can be used to create a picture of the molecule; however, X-ray crystallography could not be used to characterize the chlorosomes in green bacteria because the technique only works for molecules that are uniform in size, shape, and structure. “Each chlorosome in a green bacterium has a unique organization,” said Bryant. “They are like little andouille sausages. When you take cross-sections of andouille sausages, you see different patterns of meat and fat; no two sausages are alike in size or content, although there is some structure inside, nevertheless. Chlorosomes in green bacteria are like andouille sausages, and the variability in their compositions had prevented scientists from using X-ray crystallography to characterize the internal structure.”

    To get around this problem, the team used a combination of techniques to study the chlorosome. They used genetic techniques to create a mutant bacterium with a more regular internal structure, cryo-electron microscopy to identify the larger distance constraints for the chlorosome, solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy to determine the structure of the chlorosome’s component chlorophyll molecules, and modeling to bring together all of the pieces and create a final picture of the chlorosome.

    First, the team created a mutant bacterium in order to determine why the chlorophyll molecules in green bacteria became increasingly complex over evolutionary time. To create the mutant, they inactivated three genes that green bacteria acquired late in their evolution. The team suspected that the genes were responsible for improving the bacteria’s light-harvesting capabilities. “Essentially, we went backward in evolutionary time to an intermediate state in order to understand, in part, why green bacteria acquired these genes,” Bryant said. The team found that the more evolved, wild-type bacteria grow faster at all light intensities than the mutant form. “Indeed, the reason that chlorophylls became more complex was to increase light-harvesting efficiency,” said Bryant.
     
  • Climate change evacuations begin

    The men climbed silently from the boat and into the shallows. They splashed towards us, carrying almost nothing. From beside me, others who had come to meet them walked out quietly in welcome. The air was still, both sad and happy, which seemed to suit the moment. That single boat carrying these five men is the first wave in what is, as far as I can tell, the world’s first official evacuation of an entire people because of climate change. Some say they will be ready to bring their families here next month when the houses are completed. Others that it will be June, when the first crop of sweet potatoes will be ready to feed them.

    It was a combination of a little planning and a lot of luck that allowed me to be among the very few to see this. I heard the evacuation was beginning only yesterday, a day after arriving in Buka. It has been on again and off again many times over the past year, but Papua New Guinea seems to like throwing surprises. Given the chance to be there when it finally began, I leapt and travelled to Tinputz this morning, first by boat across Buka passage, which separates the island on which I am staying from Bougainville, and then through the jungle in the back tray of a Toyota Hilux 4-wheel drive with a crowd of local people. Some were from the NGO the Carterets established to broker their own move. Others were from the Carterets themselves, who had travelled to Buka on trading boats and wanted to be at Tinputz to welcome their friends. There were also a Kiwi and an Aussie, Kim and Kirsten, who have spent months as volunteers working towards today. We arrived only minutes before the boat itself.

    After the arrival, the men sat in the shade of two unfinished timber frame houses among the trees – the beginnings of the homes they are to complete. The women cooked; clams and corned beef sandwiches, greens, rice and cassava wrapped in palm leaves. After hours the two parties came together to eat, to pray and to formally welcome the newcomers to Tinputz. There were speeches in Tok Pisin, only a little of which I followed. The five fathers sat in a line and nodded their heads in silence.
     
    On the ride home, hundreds of children streamed along the road, in bright white shirts above blood red skirts and trousers, proving completely false my first thought that the dense forest on either side must be uninhabited. The only bitter taste to today came also on this return journey, riding high on the tray of the Toyota. We hit and killed a pig and then a dog that scampered out into the jungle road; fortunately our driver had no licence plate, or the call for retribution would have been swift (this is a country that puts a pig on its 20 kina note). A full beer-bottle also came screaming at us from a passing truck, but shattered harmlessly on the road. Possibly it was aimed at me, the only white guy in sight. At least that is what the others with me in the Toyota thought. On the other hand, I saw a man carrying a stone-tipped spear along the road, which is also something you don’t see every day.

  • Hero or Boofhead? – Professor Ian Plimer

    PlimerHis claim to fame is that he took on the Creationists and won accolades from the scientific community and thoughtful members of the clergy.

    His disgraces are legion, however. In 1997 as many scientists and engineers dug through slow and freezing mud to discover the causes of the landslide in Thredbo, Plimer announced from the comfort of his ivory tower that they were all looking in the wrong place and that he knew the cause of the landslide. His announcement got a lot of media attention and diverted funds away from the work on the ground.

    When he was subsequently proved wrong he had earned the ire and disgust of his colleagues and the distrust of many politicians and old friends in the media.

    Since then he has been busy earning money from fossil fuel lobby groups.

    You can read more about him in the following articles and vote on his value in our poll at the left.

    NFF bets the farm on climate denier.