Biofuel for Air New Zealand

For those advocating biofuels as one way out of the energy crisis, here is some good news.
Air New Zealand will make the world's first commercial aviation test flight using fuel created from the seeds of the African jatropha plant next month.

Rolls Royce had certified the sustainable second-generation biofuel as suitable for use in the airline's Boeing 747-400 jumbo jets. The two-hour test flight on December 3 would use a 50-50 blend of standard jet fuel and synthetic paraffinic kerosene derived from jatropha oil in one of the plane's engines.

The jatropha oil refined for the test flight comes from seeds grown on environmentally sustainable farms in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and India.

The jatropha plant as we know produces seeds that contain inedible lipid oil used to produce fuel. This can be grown on dry, wastelands, we have been told.

The recent furore has been over the prices of food grains being pushed up as biofuel crops (like corn) were harvested for fuel overlooking their food value. However unlike corn which is an edible crop, jatropha is not. Yet, there are mixed signals out there.

Proponents claim the yield can be as high as 2 ton per acre while those on the ground say it is less than 1 ton per hectare! The oil content too has been contested as lying anywhere between 40 to 20 percent.

Unlike what it is brandished as, jatropha is not a wasteland crop, say many. It needs water, warm climate, soil with good drainage, right pruning to increase yield.

Since only one crop can be harvested in a year, it may after all not be so economical for the farmer. Given rising labour costs and unavailability, picking seeds becomes a task.

Perhaps it is best to grow these biofuel crops as fence crops? Or is it better to go for local versions like Honge?

Let us hear from you, folks.

PS: We just heard someone has already flown on biofuel. Green Flight International President and CEO Douglas Rodante and Chief Pilot Carol Sugars became the first flight crew to successfully cross the U.S. this month in a jet powered predominantly on environmentally-friendly Biofuel.

Biofuel powers flying car

Caught in traffic jams, what do most of us wish for? Simply that we could fly over the gridlock, right? In an exercise that could possibly make that wish come true, an engineer designer team in Britain has come up with a Skycar that flies using technology already existing.

The buggy uses a motorcycle engine modified to run on ethanol. The car has a wing and a big fan attached to its back, besides a parachute for emergency landing.

The Skycar’s abilities will be tested to limit later this month when two explorers set off from London in the propeller-powered dune buggy heading for the Sahara.

While the fan gives the initial thrust for take-off, cables attached to the wing help steer the car once in the air where it cruises at altitudes of 2500 ft. Not costing more than a BMW saloon, this may not be the ideal solution for everyday transport. The jams will merely be lifted from ground level! But this could be ideal for ambulances, or rescue operations.

Using ethanol is an advantage as the emissions are not damaging. At least not as damaging as normal aviation fuel which emits nitrogen oxides that leads to the formation of another greenhouse gas, ozone. Condensation trails, which can develop into cirrus clouds, may also have a warming effect. International experts say aviation will account for 5% of total warming in 2050.

An alternative fuel that is eco friendly is hydrogen, but aircraft able to run on this fuel are still at a conceptual stage. Biofuels like the one our Skycar uses could save the day. Or do they?

While biofuels have been taken up aggressively, are they the best option? It is a solution to the transport fuel and nations pursuing biofuel research are spurred more by energy independence than clean fuel.

Last year, a study had found that emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save. Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised.
The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review.

What has been your experience on biofuels? Let us know. We will be taking this up in our next few posts.

Roadblock for solar PV?

Checkmate! Checkmate! Checkmate!

In what could be viewed as one unending chess match between nature and Man, the latter keeps coming up with new solutions to challenges, only to be trapped in yet another new challenge.Just when green alternatives to energy are being taken up seriously, hidden problems associated with these, spring up.

Take solar energy. Just when news comes in of large scale solar plants being commissioned, research has thrown up a twist.Emissions of a greenhouse gas that has 17,000 times the planet-warming capacity of carbon dioxide are at least four times higher than had been previously estimated. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is used mainly by the semiconductor industry to clean the chambers in which silicon chips are made. The industry had in the past estimated that most of the gas was expended during the cleaning process and only about 2 percent escaped into the air. But the first-ever measurements of nitrogen trifluoride levels in the atmosphere, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters show that emissions could be as high as 16 percent.

Making integrated circuits involves depositing layers of materials such as semiconductors and metals on a silicon wafer. These materials also stick to chamber walls. So after each layer is deposited, nitrogen fluoride is pumped into the chamber and is split to release highly reactive fluorine atoms that clean the walls.

A less harmful (for the climate) method is to produce fluorine at the site, but calls for more costs by way of health safety (as fluorine is corrosive and can damage teeth and bones.)

As flat panel LCD television takes off, as also thin film solar cells, there is hurry in production which implies that safeguards may not be adequate. The hitherto unregulated gas will have to be monitored better, says the study.

Perhaps its time to look at new materials for solar cells, besides silica, like dye-sensitised cells. Made with a new type of ruthenium-based dye that helps boost the light-harvesting ability, the new cells showed efficiencies as high as 10 percent, a record for this type of solar cell. Most silicon-based solar cells have so-called efficiencies of around 12 percent. Manufacture of silicon is anyway costly.

Is solar thermal the best bet?

Waste again

The latest edition of Power Line has some interesting overviews of the national scene on biomass, cogeneration, captive plants, etc among which is one on big benefits from biomass and cogeneration. The case studies give details of projects. Among this is one on waste to energy (WTE) run by Shriram Energy Systems in Vijayawada and Guntur.

The plant processes municipal solid waste into refuse-derived fuel fluff. Put up at a cost of Rs 460 million, it generates 6 MW of power which it sells to AP Transco at Rs 3.70 per unit. Other renewable biomass fuels like rice husk are also used.

Around 505 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) from the two cities is first treated for a reduction of moisture content from 45 to 25 percent. The dried combustible material has a calorific value of 1800-2400 K cal per kg.

The project was registered as a CDM one last year and enjoys a 10-year credit period.
Not only has the plant saved the cities the problem of finding landfills for its waste, it has turned the waste into wealth.

Experts often dismiss WTE in Indian scenario due to high moisture content and a low calorific value of waste generated. Costs as high as Rs 8 cr for 1 MW and a minimum requirement of 150 tonnes to generate 1 MW have been cited as unfavourable conditions. It is better to segregate waste and turn the organic part into composite, say some.

Some have even cast suspicions about the ‘actual’ fuel used to run the plants, claiming that many times these are the conventional fuels!

If you have authenticated information on successful WTE, do let us know.

Turbines on car tops? ..Yes, we can!

A school kid threw an interesting question to the adults around: why can’t we have small turbines fitted to the roof tops of cars and buses? As the vehicle is moving, you have wind all the time. Won’t that generate enough energy for the vehicle at least?

The aesthetics apart, of cars that sprout horns, can anyone tell us if this is a feasible idea. If not, why?

After all, similar thinking has already seen some amount of ground action in terms of fitting solar panels to car roofs, not only to generate electricity, but eventually also to store the same into the grid from the parking slot where a stack of such vehicles can generate substantial power. Paris and some other European cities are working on that.

Innovative, and yet simple design changes are constantly being fed into the wind energy technology. The Swift turbine is a new ultra-light, ultra-quiet wind turbine that has begun showing up on rooftops, mostly of commercial installations. Swift Turbine's patented design has several advantages over traditional turbines. The costs, says the site, are almost on par with grid power. The design too is such that the dual tail on either side of the turbine keeps it facing into the wind, and also greatly reduces noise and vibration. While many wind turbines can roar in high winds, the Swift Turbine is whisper quiet, making it ideal for in-city use.

Large wind farms involve substantial costs and other problems like noise and potential harm to birds. But small scale projects show the way out.

Wind power is key technology to prevent dangerous climate change, was the message at the recent Global Wind Power Conference at Beijing. Wind power could produce 12% of the world’s energy needs and save 10 billion tones of CO2 within 12 years, according to a new report, the ‘Global Wind Energy Outlook 2008’, published by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and Greenpeace International, recently. By 2020, wind power could save as much as 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 every year, which would add up to over 10 billion tonnes in this timeframe. The report also explains how wind energy can provide up to 30% of the world’s electricity by the middle of the century.

Moreover, wind energy is becoming a substantial factor in economic development, providing more than 350,000 ‘green collar’ jobs today both in direct and indirect employment. By 2020, this figure is projected to increase to over 2 million.

With Obama taking over reins in the White House very soon, it is expected that he will power a Green Deal in the US. Looking at alternative energy sources to secure energy independence, and mitigating climate change, it will create a host of green jobs and spur research in alternatives.

Can we hope for our government and research institutions to go on a similar Mission Mode? Yes, we can.. ??

Coal thoughts

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has some very interesting posts on his blog, very imaginatively called Dot Earth. From semi-philosophical thoughts on the interconnectedness of the human race, to the very earth-bound coal shopping that took the Indian coal minister to the US, the blog is worth adding to your daily read.

It’s not surprising that India, despite big domestic coal reserves, is shopping in the United States for new coal sources to feed its climb toward electrification, industrialization, and prosperity. The giant boilers at the planned fleets of “Ultra Mega” power plants will need millions of tons a year.

It also has interesting comments posted. As always it does become a tussle between lobbies, like the development vs environment ones, or the nuclear vs solar ones.

But one mention he makes in the blog talks of an NRI’s anguish over coal based thermal plants in his home town along the Konkan coast. This is an issue we have decided to take up for our debate as it is very relevant. Not a day passes without some news of opposition to power plants. Why? In this case, for instance, while his concerns about acid rain, and emissions, as also the damage to the habitat are serious, these can be contested. We invite your comments.

Send us facts to back what you say. There is no fun in having a slang match between those who believe poverty can only be eradicated through more thermal plants, or those who think family planning is the answer to India’s energy challenge.

Yes, the vast millions have to be empowered with basic energy, is there only one way to do it? For one, distributed generation based on locally available renewable resources can be harnessed. This has been done in a couple of places and needs to be scaled up. There will be problems but research and efforts can overcome these. If you have heard of any sustained case studies, do let us know.

Upholding the sanctity of a place like Western Ghats is not about aesthetics but a more deeper environment issue of biodiversity and the need to retain our fast shrinking forests. Most of our rivers originate in these forests. The ghats also play a crucial role in bringing rain to the plateau.

Are there other routes to empower the 40 percent with no access to electricity? We have some amount of coal reserves though there are contradicting claims to how long they will last. Many of the operators in generation have hardly ten days of stock on hand.

Coal is termed ‘dirty’ because of the greenhouse gases it emits on combustion. Yet, it is one of the fuels we still have, but also depleting. Do you think we should continue with fossil fuels simply because there is no other 'easy' alternative?

Let us have your thoughts.

Time to harvest nuke?

The Indian nuclear market is estimated to be about $100 billion with a rough generation capacity of 40,000 MW expected to come up by 2020. Going further, the government expects to increase the share of nuclear from the present 3 percent of the total installed capacity to 25 percent by 2050.

Big gameplan. Even as private players wait for the Atomic Energy Act to be revised to allow independent private players, there are many challenges too. The low capacities of existing nuclear power plants, the timescale of getting a plant operational, the costs, lack of technical skills, are serious problems. Then there is the big issue of fuel costs and waste disposal.

While the state-owned NPCIL plans to increase capacity from 4120 MW to 20,000 MW in five years, it plans to import ten light water reactors that can generate 1000 MW each and costing a total Rs 800 billion. Add to that the requirements of over 400 tonnes of uranium fuel annually for its reactors, and it becomes clear that this is no cakewalk.

The costs and timescales involved have been brought out in an article by Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute. He speaks of ‘Over the last few years the nuclear industry has used concerns about climate change to argue for a nuclear revival. Although industry representatives may have convinced some political leaders that this is a good idea, there is little evidence of private capital investing in nuclear plants in competitive electricity markets. The reason is simple: nuclear power is uneconomical.’
The costs are not only for setting up plants but as much for decommissioning them after their lifetime, he explains.

China too is going nuclear in a big way, paving the way for more nuclear reactors. Should India lag behind?

But even if the arguments are proved wrong, do we have enough fuel to go nuclear in a big way?