BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

This is the opportunity to put pressure on Bush & Co to get some environment creds before the democrats can. Let's set up some research institutes specifically for this purpose and get some money. Here's what I propose as a dividing line between public and private interests in the field.

 - There should always be a way for labor-rich but capital-poor areas to produce clean and efficient transportation fuel. The basic research and low-tech "sustainable technology" should come from research & development funded by this ethanol tax and other government sources.

 

- Areas where there is a comparative labor shortage and comparative surplus of capital can invest in high-tech, private venttures which take up less land, use less labor, etc.
 

I'm not quite sure what you're proposing. Please elaborate.

natescape:

I'm not quite sure what you're proposing. Please elaborate.

 Well, I meant this to end up in the Bush/Lula thread, but anyway.....

 

What I am proposing is the we need a mixed public/private way of financing the research and development that needs to be done regarding biodiesel and other alternative transporation fuels. Lula had asked Bush to use the tariff the US imposes on Brazilian ethanol to fund this type of research. Now that it's out in the open, we have an opportunity to pressure the administration (rather than congress) to fund energy research in a way that doesn't conflict with the great American idea of free enterprise (Remember, we're proposing this to Republicans).

If you look around the world you see places with a lot of capital (the 'developed world') in relation to population, and places with less. Labor in the undeveloped world does not have the knowledge and skills to put technology provided by the developed world to efficient use. (Note that I did not say that these people are unskilled - rather, they just have different skills - I'd like to see a computer programmer try to tan hides, or a bushmen try to use an ATM). The concept of Appropriate Technology says, essentially, to provide equipment that is easier to use and maintain, and that replacement parts are available locally as is the skill for the repair and duplication of the useful device.

I suggest that the governments of the developed world fund basic research into the Appropriate Technology for home-grown biofuels. This includes the basic research that benefits everyone, and the development of low-tech (or "clever tech") methods which may require more physical labor to produce a given amount of fuel, or produce fuels which are less favored. Venture Capital and MegaCorps could fund Cambridge biolabs and Silicon Valley hotshots to come up with advanced methods, which use less labor to produce a given volume of fuel but require more capital to be invested. I consider things like genetically modified oilcrops, new and efficient ways of purifying ethanol, etc to be in this realm.

Do not assume that I am suggesting only two camps within which all work falls. There is a continual scale in the cost of labor versus capital in different times and places all around the world, and various government policies to distort and complicate things. For instance I often wonder what circumstances would make it more beneficial for Brazil to export its ethanol to countries where it is used with vegetable oils to produce biodiesel, as opposed to Brazil maintaining its push towards an ethanol economy.  Certainly, if countries were able to be confident in their trading partners, then brazil could trade its ethanol of US vegetable oils and both gain in the advantages of a specialized and more developed economy. On the other hand, if political or economic difficulties isolate countries, they would best make sure that they are not dependent on a hostile country for something so vital as transportation fuel (It would be interesting to study world history from the point of view of fuel price manipulation).

But biodiesel vs. ethanol is only one part of a much larger economy. As far as I know, no one has succeeded in making a jet engine run on biodiesel, so there is still the requirement for replacement for fossil fuels. Thus my great interest in the microalgae Botryococcus braunii, which is able to provide this. Yet I point out that the processing of the oils from Bb is much more complex, and the optimal growth environment so sensitive, that it is not an optimal technology for the backyard home-brewer to attempt to use.

 That all being explained, I think that various foundations need to be established, to solicit proposed research projects from Universities and other labs and perhaps even run their own labs. The people involved in these projects need to in communication with the private research so that the minimum amount of fuss is created (i.e. patent rights vs. socialized energy). Who is to get this done? We are. Let's get it done. Let's set up the organizaions, write the grant applications, do the research and write the books. It's time to cut the strings of control that are energy dependence, and that goes in all directions.

 This post has been the major component of a speech I want to deliver when we have a meeting here in Boston. It's time to get moving. Spring is here, the green will shortly be upon us, we need to be ready.
 

I did a quick read ... so what you are really suggesting is that the US (and other developed countries) increase the amount of aid provided to 3rd world countries, specifically as it relates to producing some of their own fuels -- using their low cost labor? The 'extra' aid would be used to help them grow and process their own community based biofuel infrastructure and that in the US, the tariff received from Brazilian ethanol should be allocated for this purpose? Right?

bobk:

 That all being explained, I think that various foundations need to be established, to solicit proposed research projects from Universities and other labs and perhaps even run their own labs. The people involved in these projects need to in communication with the private research so that the minimum amount of fuss is created (i.e. patent rights vs. socialized energy). Who is to get this done? We are. Let's get it done. Let's set up the organizaions, write the grant applications, do the research and write the books. It's time to cut the strings of control that are energy dependence, and that goes in all directions.

 This post has been the major component of a speech I want to deliver when we have a meeting here in Boston. It's time to get moving. Spring is here, the green will shortly be upon us, we need to be ready.
 

If i could be so bold.

There is this facility, its called venture (vulture) capitalists and angel investors and grant proposals to private,local,state and fed's.  If you really have something worth while, more than just a pipe dream but a real piece of the puzzle...there are plenty of funds and avenues out there for you to get $$$'s.

So get off ur butt, write up a business proposal so others can understand what you think (and maybe have proved) you can do and get it out there. If no one bites, that means either u are far too smart for them...or the opposite and u need to improve ur 'idea'.

I just dont think that everyone with some hairbrained idea should be able to get a load of gov. money to develop their idea because that pot of money is limited and it should go to best qualified to get real results. Personally, i think that is how the present system works.

Here is the counter argument for pushing gov to subsidize biofuels research. there is only a specific pot of money and if gov mandates biofuels, that means solar, wind, and now technologies must necessarily receive less monies. AND that would also lessen $$$ for the REAL solutions, like fusion. US gov. isnt in the job of picking winners in science, they are there to facilitate the fair playing field so that the best really do win. In your proposal, you are assuming that biofuels is THE answer but i will question that assumption. That is the problem with mandates many times...they pick the winner and if the assumption is wrong...everyone loses in the end.

we have the same administration in power that funded the rebuilding of Iraq

and I see the same attitude and procedure used for reasearch into energy that is not oil

we had several tons of money printed up for this purpose now it is gone. sucess.

I made a small list of commpanies that I think will be benifitial 

Brion, abengoa, iogen, LDCommodities, Goldman Sachs

I would like to see United States efforts in energy independence tied to China's

I would think we would both benifit .

two countrys one sysytem  build it, build it, then we can plant the saw grass the willow the miscanthus the tallow tree. there is no market for this stuff now. the seed corn is sold out I'd like to plant soybean for biodiesel . 

 

Rich:

I did a quick read ...

 

I hope you get the time for a close reading

Rich:

so what you are really suggesting is that the US (and other developed countries) increase the amount of aid provided to 3rd world countries

3rd world is a loaded term, so I prefer not to use it. In fact, there is no "us" and "them" but a continual scale of industrial and capital development. The aid that I propose is not cash, or machines, but rather access to scientific knowledge, combined with some application of that knowledge.

 

Rich:

specifically as it relates to producing some of their own fuels -- using their low cost labor? The 'extra' aid would be used to help them grow and process their own community based biofuel infrastructure and that in the US, the tariff received from Brazilian ethanol should be allocated for this purpose? Right?

 I am cautious about the extent of "help them grow and process" you mean. I propose that my country (the US) and others fund R&D and share it openly. Having the ethanol tariff support grants for R&D is an appropriate source of funding.

 

froggy:

If i could be so bold.

There is this facility, its called venture (vulture) capitalists and angel investors and grant proposals to private,local,state and fed's.  If you really have something worth while, more than just a pipe dream but a real piece of the puzzle...there are plenty of funds and avenues out there for you to get $$$'s.

I am well aware of VCs. If you read my plan closely, you'll see that I refer to private R&D as part of the plan. But VCs are interested for one reason: to make money. There's nothing wrong with making money, in fact there's a lot right with it. But it is up to governments to fill in the gap that commercial interests cannot cover. If global warming is real and it is caused by human activity, and that global warming is harmful yet we can reduce that harm, then it is up to governments of the world to do so. I do not propose that we wait for the UN or other machinery of "one world government" to do the work, but rather for each nation to martial what resources it can towards solving the problem. I believe that "greenhouse gas" emissions from the less developed countries of the world is far greater than is reported. It goes unreported simply because the monitoring infrastructure is insufficient.

We've build this great global communications infrastructure, the Internet being its pinnacle. It is extending its reach further into the undeveloped world every day.This tool can be leveraged by providing content of real value. Appropriate technology regarding alternative energy, of with transport fuels is but one segment, has real value.  The development of transportation fuels  will lead to less greenhouse gas emissions. Do I need to explain this?

 

froggy:

So get off ur butt, write up a business proposal so others can understand what you think (and maybe have proved) you can do and get it out there. If no one bites, that means either u are far too smart for them...or the opposite and u need to improve ur 'idea'.

I am familiar with business plans.  Not all good ideas have a place in business plans.  

froggy:

 

I just dont think that everyone with some hairbrained idea should be able to get a load of gov. money to develop their idea because that pot of money is limited and it should go to best qualified to get real results. Personally, i think that is how the present system works.

I am not sure of what to make about the above statement. I know a fair number of scientists, and there's a lot of work involved in writing research proposals and getting  grants. Some ideas get funded that perhaps shouldn't be, while other worthy ideas starve. The system isn't perfect. Everyone knows this. But it does function, and efforts are being made to improve it. 

 

froggy:

Here is the counter argument for pushing gov to subsidize biofuels research. there is only a specific pot of money and if gov mandates biofuels, that means solar, wind, and now technologies must necessarily receive less monies. AND that would also lessen $$$ for the REAL solutions, like fusion.

How is this true? How is there only a certain amount of money? In a given budget cycle, yes there are limits to the amount of money available, but there is some room for flexibility. It is also true that there are only so many minds and hands and tools available to do all the work in the world. But the idea is that work applied now saves us from work later, and that investing money in this area now we will reap the rewards in the future. It's pretty straightforward, really.

 

froggy:

US gov. isnt in the job of picking winners in science, they are there to facilitate the fair playing field so that the best really do win. In your proposal, you are assuming that biofuels is THE answer but i will question that assumption. That is the problem with mandates many times...they pick the winner and if the assumption is wrong...everyone loses in the end.

No, I am saying that biofuels need more funding, and am proposing a method to address various concerns. I don't think that the flux capacitor and Mr. Fusion are likely to power your deLorean any time soon, if ever,  and in the meantime we need something that works. Biodiesel works. We can make it work better. We can make money in doing so, regardless of where we live and our skill set. Other technologies have appropriate uses as well. Where I live, there's a heck of a lot of wind, and I've been involved with efforts to harness it and still am (though to a lesser degree than I used to be). Wind may still be an appropriate method of pushing ships across the ocean...I've even thought of using it to move trains across land...but most of us can't take a windsurfer to work, so we need engines and fuels.

zed:

we have the same administration in power that funded the rebuilding of Iraq

and I see the same attitude and procedure used for reasearch into energy that is not oil

we had several tons of money printed up for this purpose now it is gone. sucess.

I made a small list of commpanies that I think will be benifitial 

Brion, abengoa, iogen, LDCommodities, Goldman Sachs

 

Yes, I know, they don't having a shining track record, Halliburton and all. But I am not trying to make politics here, just trying to take advantage of a crack in the giant facade of The Administration. 

 

zed:

I would like to see United States efforts in energy independence tied to China's

Here I was, saying I didn't want to get political. But I am going to for just a little bit: P.R. China is the last country (or among the last) that the US should have a special cozy relationship with. OK, I'll try to turn my politics off now.

zed:

 

I would think we would both benifit .

two countrys one sysytem  build it, build it, then we can plant the saw grass the willow the miscanthus the tallow tree. there is no market for this stuff now. the seed corn is sold out I'd like to plant soybean for biodiesel . 

 

Certainly there are ways that each country could publish R&D that could be of use to  the other, and the world as a whole.  I have to admit I am more knowledgeable regarding oils from algae  than vascular plants like you've mentioned. What areas of research need to be done in this area?  Who is doing them?

http://www.lincolncountyedc.org/Business%20Resource%20Guide05.pdf        here is an example of the public assistance in the great state of Wisc. My guess,ur state or area also has the same from dept of commerce. millions and millions...that you can compete for. do u got a better idea that joe lunchbucket? if you do...u win the game. IF (and that is where the question falls, if) if you have something worthy of funding, there IS funding available. There are business that its their sole job to marry U to big money, if U have something big money wants or needs. grants, VC, angels, banks... IF u got the stuff.

Can i ask how exactly you would propose to screen out hairbrained from serious research? I think a good way is if local experts say 'yes, that makes sense. its worthy of some money, here'. To me, that makes sense. Im not sure i want my tax $$$ going to people that have virtually no education on the matter that think they might be able to produce something if they had enough money, that would be $$$ foolishly spent in my opinion.

IMO, its not that you dont have a good idea, its that you dont know how to propose it. A business plan helps that process so that people that dont understand your technology and ideas have something TO understand ur technology and ideas and how you are going to spend their $$$ well. There are business plans that never make money, R&D plans. there are all sorts of 'plans'. No, no one will fund a hairbrained 'i think i can break the first law of thermodynamics and use lights to grow algae to produce energy' unless there is a few juicy details explaining how u plan to do that. Nor should it. In a perfect world, things might be different but that isnt the world we live in. we live in a world where you have to explain yourself completely before someone hands you a big pot of money. There are bazillions of $$$ for loans and grants, u need to be able to access that better. Could there be more? absolutely and i would vote for anything to that end because R&D is a economic engine.

 

GS CleanTech Corporation 212-994-5374 Fax: 646-572-6336

In addition, and on the technology commercialization front, we are in the late-stages of our commercial pilot development of our CO2 Bioreactor, a technology that can potentially convert the exhaust carbon dioxide from the fermentation stage of the ethanol production process into an algae-based biomass and oxygen for additional fuel production via gasification. Once complete, we plan to install our pilot CO2 Bioreactor at an early adopter ethanol production facility for commercial scale testing. If our pilot is successful, our CO2 Bioreactor has the potential to significantly increase the fuel production of host ethanol facilities.

Let"s get it done

AP
Gov't to Review Energy Loan Applications
Wednesday March 7, 6:42 pm ET

Energy Department to Review Applications for Loan Backing on Alternative Energy Projects

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department will spend the coming months examining 143 initial applications for loan guarantees designed to encourage alternative energy technologies that reduce pollution or limit greenhouse gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement Tuesday that the number of applications "demonstrates a great desire from industry to get federal loan guarantees in place to spur innovative and novel technologies that lead to clean energy."

In total, the government has authority to guarantee up to $4 billion in loans this budget year. For next year, President Bush has requested a limit of $9 billion.

The government backing is designed to support technologies that are nearly ready for market, but need an added boost. Companies as well as state and local governments were allowed to apply.

Several members of Congress have criticized the Energy Department for being slow to start the program, which was enacted as part of the 2005 energy bill. But Craig Stevens, a department spokesman, said the government was unable to hire experts to review applications until Congress provided $7 million in funding last month.

Of the projects that applied, nearly 50 percent were for biomass energy, 16 percent were for advanced technologies and 12 percent were for solar energy. In total, the applications ask for $27 billion in guarantees.

Companies that have announced they are interested in the program include: BlueFire Ethanol Inc., Nuclear Solutions Inc. and Southridge Enterprises Inc.

WILTON, Conn., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Startech Environmental Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: STHK), a fully reporting company, announced today that Popular Science Magazine, in its March '07 issue now on the news stands, has produced a 9-page, well-illustrated feature article on the Startech Plasma Converter as the "Miracle Energy Machine -- How to Turn Toxic Waste into Clean Power."

Joseph F. Longo, Startech president said, "The response to the piece continues to be enormous, and very favorable. However, because of few clarifying questions asked in phone calls, I felt we should produce this message.

"Several months ago, Popular Science magazine reached out for Startech to do a feature article on the Company. In addition to their own due-diligence, the lengthy interviews and conferences I have had with various Popular Science editors and writers over the months since then have resulted in a well- illustrated 9-page feature article in the March 07 issue.

"The writer took some good-natured liberties to help lighten the reading of what could have been a somewhat dry technology story. The writer, the photographer and the editors have my compliments and thanks in making an otherwise confounding subject interesting, understandable and, most of all, relevant."

He also said, "Among the thousands of words in the piece, there were a very few inaccuracies, that are probably not noticeable except to those closest to Startech, and probably not worth fussing about. Nevertheless, I would be happy to receive a phone call or an e-mail on the piece.

"Award winning Popular Science magazine has chronicled science and technology since 1872. It is a monthly magazine, published in English, with a readership of more than seven million people."

About Startech -- The Environment and Energy Company

Startech Environmental is an environment and energy industry company engaged in the production and sale of its innovative, proprietary plasma processing equipment known as the Plasma Converter System(TM).

The Plasma Converter System safely and economically destroys wastes, no matter how hazardous or lethal, and turns most into useful and valuable products. In doing so, the System protects the environment and helps to improve the public health and safety. The System achieves closed-loop elemental recycling to safely and irreversibly destroy Municipal Solid Waste, organics and inorganics, solids, liquids and gases, hazardous and non- hazardous waste, industrial by-products and also items such as "e-waste," medical waste, chemical industry waste and other specialty wastes while converting many of them into useful commodity products that can include metals and a synthesis-gas called Plasma Converted Gas (PCG)(TM).

Among the many commercial uses for PCG, is its use to produce "green electrical power," Gas-To-Liquid (GTL) fuels such as ethanol, synthetic diesel fuel and other higher alcohol "alternative" fuels. Hydrogen, for use and sale, can also be separated and recovered from the PCG synthesis gas mixture.

The Startech Plasma Converter is essentially a manufacturing system producing commodity products from feedstocks that were previously regarded as wastes.

Startech regards all wastes, hazardous and non-hazardous, as valuable renewable resources.

For further information, please visit http://www.startech.net or contact Steve Landa at (888) 807-9443, (203) 762-2499 EXT 7 or sales@startech.net.

 

March 15, 2006

Ethanol From Tires Via Plasma Converter Plus Fischer Tropsch

Future Fuels, Inc. (FFI) and Startech Environmental Corporation (OTC BB: STHK.OB <http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=STHK.OB+>) have signed a global strategic alliance to obtain contracts for waste-to-ethanol facilities and also for FFI's own $84 million waste-to-energy facility to be constructed in Toms River, New Jersey. FFI has issued a letter of intent to Startech for purchase and installation of a 100 ton-per-day Startech Plasma Converter System (PCS) for installation at Toms River, scheduled to go on line in late 2007. Plans also call for the Toms River Facility expansion to include a series of additional Startech 100 ton-per-day PCSs.

The Toms River Facility will produce 52 million gallons per year of ethanol from used tires. The PCS, using a plasma that reaches 30,000 degrees Centigrade, will first completely destroy the tires, producing a synthesis gas called Plasma Converted Gas (PCG). For each unit of electrical energy the Converter uses it will produce between four and ten units of energy residing in the PCG. The PCG, a mixture of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen is the input for FFI's catalytic ethanol synthesis process, a modified Fischer-Tropsch <http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/04/the_panacea_for.html> process. The process applies heat and pressure in the presence of a catalyst to chemically transform the PCG into ethanol.

According to the Startech website:

Plasma is simply a gas (air) that the Converter ionizes so it becomes an effective electrical conductor and produces a lightning-like arc of electricity that is the source of the intense energy transferred to the waste material as radiant energy. The arc in the plasma plume within the vessel can be as high as 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit ... three times hotter than the surface of the Sun. When waste materials are subjected to the intensity of the energy transfer within the vessel, the excitation of the wastes' molecular bonds is so great that the waste materials' molecules break apart into their elemental components (atoms). It is the absorption of this energy by the waste material that forces the waste destruction and elemental dissociation. The Plasma Converter is computer controlled, easy to use and operates at normal atmospheric pressure, very safely and quietly

The plasma vessel is a cylindrical two-part container made of stainless steel with an opening in the roof through which the plasma torch is inserted. The vessel is lined with insulation and refractory to allow both maximum retention of internal energy and to protect the stainless steel container from the intense heat inside the vessel. The plasma vessel is equipped with inspection ports (including a video camera so the operator can see real time images inside the vessel to assist in PCS operation), openings for introduction of feedstock, and an exit port for removal of excess molten material (melt). ... A design enhancement incorporated into the most recently constructed system is a continuous melt extraction feature which maintains the level of molten material in the plasma vessel at or below a preset limit without interrupting the operation of the system. This melt extraction system can be deployed with all sizes of Plasma Converters.

The plasma vessel is specially designed to ensure that no feedstock material is able to reach the exit port without first passing through the plasma energy field and undergoing complete molecular dissociation. The method by which this is accomplished forms a part of Startech's intellectual property. In addition, the plasma vessel is maintained at a slight negative pressure to ensure that no gases can escape to atmosphere.

The plasma torch system is a commercially available product that Startech can purchase from any number of reputable vendors. Comparable plasma systems have been used extensively in the metallurgical industry for decades. The most maintenance-intensive aspect of the PCS is the need to periodically replace electrodes, which occurs approximately every 300 to 500 hours of operation (typical). Electrode replacement can be accomplished in approximately 30 minutes thus ensuring minimum downtime of the PCS.

The PCS is also equipped with a torch positional system that allows the operator to aim the torch at different points within the plasma vessel. This aspect of the PCS allows the operator to quickly and efficiently treat feedstock as they enter the vessel and move around inside the vessel to avoid any build-up of solidified melt that may occur on the vessel walls.

The PCG exiting the plasma converter vessel (PCV), this vessel is analogous to the gasifier in the energy industries, goes to the gas treatment system where it is cooled and undergoes several steps of treatment to remove undesirable impurities.

The PCG is first cooled from approximately 1000°C down to 650°C by direct water injection in a spray dryer. The PCG then flows through a conventional, insulated cyclone fabricated with high temperature alloy and designed to operate at high temperatures which removes particulate matter, which is then collected and batch-fed back into the PCV.

PCG then flows to a spray dryer designed to rapidly cool the gas from approximately 650°C down to 120°C. to ensure that dioxins and furans, do not form. In order for dioxins and furans to form, the gas would need to remain in a specific temperature zone (e.g., 190°C to 330°C) for some period of time - conditions which are precluded by the quench.

PCG then flows to a commercial pulsejet cartridge dust collector with high-temperature cartridges and heating elements to prevent condensation. This unit automatically batch-feeds the collected solids into the PCV.

The PCG from the dust collector is reheated to approximately 310°C for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx in a standard unit where hydrogen present in the PCG reacts with NOx to form atmospheric nitrogen and water. During periods where there is no hydrogen in the PCG (e.g. during start-up, when processing materials that do not contain carbon), urea is added to reduce the NOx.

Upon exiting the SCR, the PCG is cooled by direct water injection to below 50°C. prior to entering a standard horizontal packed column scrubber for acid gas removal. Inorganic species in the PCG dissolve into the scrubbing liquid. Make-up water is added to control the build-up of these salts. The wastewater typically requires no further treatment prior to discharge to sewer unless there is a high concentration of heavy metals entering the system with the feedstock. Approximately 75% of metals go into the melt with the remainder being volatilized and entrained in the PCG where they are captured by the scrubber and in a carbon filter . The wastewater also contains particulates below one micron.

Finally, a standard variable speed fan at the exit of the gas treatment train pulls PCG through the entire system and maintains a constant, slight negative pressure within the PCV.

The PCG is then piped to the FT unit where it is converted to ethanol.

The Future Fuels Inc., a subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions Inc.(OTC BB: NSOL.OB <http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NSOL.OB>), has received preliminary approval from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority for $84 million tax-exempt bond financing. FFI has the lease agreement in place to construct the facility in Toms River and it has also secured pre-approved state and local environmental permits to operate the new facility. It already has the source of feedstock, on site, and available from its tire recycling network, suitable for complete life cycle production of clean ethanol. FFI also has a 10-year contract with Eco-Energy, Inc., of Tennessee for Eco-Energy to purchase approximately 50 million gallons of the ethanol produced annually from FFI's new waste-to-ethanol facility.

Resources:

Startech Environmental and Future Fuels Form a Strategic Alliance for the Production of Ethanol Fuel from Tires <http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060315/nyw001.html?.v=41>, Startech press release, March 15, 2006
Future Fuels, Inc. and Startech Environmental Corp. form Global Strategic Alliance <http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/060313/95559.html>, Nuclear Solutions press release, March 13, 2006
Startech Environmental Corp <http://www.startech.net/index.html>. Bristol, CT, USA
Nuclear Solutions, Inc. <http://www.nuclearsolutions.com/> Washington DC, USA

Fascinating, if far-out, stuff there, Zed.

coal to oil

Air pollutants
Air pollutants throughout the process would be emitted from the refinery's six stacks (five 200 foot stacks and one 300 foot stack) and from the storage tanks, which are expected to leak over one ton of diesel and naphtha each year. The state DEP has permitted the refinery to annually release up to 99.9 tons each of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter (including up to 15 tons of sulfuric acid mist) as well as 49.9 tons of volatile organic compounds, 100 tons of ammonia and unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide and other unregulated pollutants. In total, the refinery would release hundreds of tons per year of health-damaging air pollutants, including 38 pounds of mercury. The amount of mercury in one thermometer is enough to contaminate a 20 acre lake to the point where the fish are unsafe to eat. 38 pounds of mercury is equivalent to about 25,000 thermometers. Pennsylvania is already one of only 3 states where the general population is advised to restrict their consumption of all types of fish from any body of water in the state due to mercury contamination.

Since the gasification process enables the separation of hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2), Rich has also proposed using the refinery to produce and market hydrogen. Of the 832,000 tons of carbon dioxide they'd produce each year, they hope to sell a small amount to produce dry ice or carbonated beverages. The rest would be released to the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

Sulfur
The refinery would produce about 4,000 tons/year of sulfur, which they plan to sell to Koch Inc. for use by the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries. While there is currently a demand for sulfur in the U.S., global sulfur production is increasing while global demand is decreasing, which could end up leaving the refinery without a market for their 13 tons per day of sulfur waste product. Dumping large volumes of sulfur in eastern Pennsylvania landfills could worsen landfill leaching and odor problems.

Trading coal ash for slag
Every day, the gasification process would produce 1,600 tons of "glass-like" slag (about 800 tons once dry). They hope to market this waste to the construction and building industries to be used in concrete, mortar, cinder blocks and plaster and possibly for use as antiskid material to be spread on highways. If these markets don't work out, this massive waste stream would be dumped throughout the region, used as backfill for the culm banks -- the same culm piles that the project proponents say would disappear when the plant uses them for fuel. The volume of slag produced over the refinery's projected 26-year lifetime would be enough to fill a football field to the height of 1.5 miles (nearly six World Trade Center's tall). Although coal gasification slag can pass laboratory tests that enable it to test "non-hazardous," in real-world field tests, the slag does leach unsafe levels of toxic metals. If the slag had to be handled as hazardous waste and placed in lined landfills, it's very unlikely that the project could be economically viable.

The gasifier would also produce about 500 tons of "fine solids" (slag filter cake) each day (about 200 tons once dry). This would be even more dangerous than the ash produced by waste coal power plants like the John B. Rich Memorial Power Station next door to the proposed refinery. Such ash has been shown to be leaching and damaging groundwater at Pennsylvania ash dump sites. This toxic waste stream would be dumped on land in the area as part of mine reclamation, but there is the possibility that it will be too likely to leach toxins into groundwater, requiring that it be dumped in area landfills instead.

About 7,400 tons/year of sludges from water and wastewater treatment would be produced. These sludges, full of iron from filtered mine pool water and toxic and cancer-causing contaminants from refinery processes, would be dumped on mine lands if not required to go to landfills. Treated wastewaters would be dumped in a tailings pond near the plant, where any contaminants would build up over time in the soil.

Mercury in the waste streams
In addition to the mercury air emissions, over 500 pounds of mercury each year would be present in the slag, fine solids, and other refinery wastes streams. The mercury pollution from this one refinery would be equivalent to adding 3-4 more waste coal power plants like the five already in the area.

Other feedstocks
In addition to processing anthracite waste coal (culm), the facility would be able to process a wide range of coals and waste products. Rich has stated his intentions to process anything that could go to a landfill (which, in Pennsylvania, is nearly every type of waste imaginable).

Chemical inputs
Dangerous chemicals to be used as inputs for the refinery include about 11,400 gallons/year of methanol for the sulfur separation process, about 5,000 gallons/year of sulfuric acid used for processing and wastewater treatment, and about 3,200 gallons/year of ammonia to be used in the pollution control system of the on-site gas-burning power plant. 57 tons/year of biocides and 53 tons/year of chlorine gas would also be used.

An expanding disaster?
As polluting as this proposed refinery would be, it could get much worse. Rich has stated that, eventually, "he sees the plant building out its capacity, requiring a $4.2 billion investment" -- possibly expanding to be as large as the others he hopes to build (10-12 times larger).

endangered species into oil 

 

Published on Worldwatch Institute (<http://www.worldwatch.org>)

Chinese Biofuels Expansion Threatens Ecological Disaster

By Yingling Liu

Created Mar 13 2007 - 4:00am

The recent agreement between China’s top forestry authority and one of the nation’s biggest energy giants to develop biofuels plantations in the southwest reflects rising Chinese attention to non-fossil energy sources. But the excitement may come at great environmental loss to the region’s forests and biological diversity, suggesting significant tradeoffs associated with the renewable fuels.

According to the agreement, signed by China’s State Forestry Administration [1] (SFA) and the oil company PetroChina [2] in January, the parties will join efforts in developing two Jatropha curcas plantation bases in Yunnan and Sichuan provinces, with biofuel production capacities of 10,000–30,000 tons each and a combined area of more than 40,000 hectares, according to China Green Times [3]. Jatropha, a hardy oilseed bush with seeds containing over 30 percent oil, is regarded as an ideal raw material for biodiesel production.

The Chinese government has since embraced additional biofuels expansion. On February 7, an SFA spokesman told the press that the country was ready to devote more than 13 million hectares of forestlands to biofuels production, Xinhua News Agency [4] reported. And several local governments have embarked on or are planning ambitious long-term oilseed plantation projects. According to blueprints [5] from the Yunnan Provincial Forestry Department, the province will construct 1.27 million hectares of biofuels plantations and aims to become China’s biggest biofuels base by 2015, achieving an annual production capacity of 4 million tons of ethanol and 600,000 tons of biodiesel. Forty counties in the province have begun to develop biofuels plantations.

Ever-rising demand to fuel the country’s motor vehicle fleet is driving these developments. A recent study by the National Bureau of Statistics reports that private vehicle ownership in China reached 29.25 million by the end of 2006, a 23.7 percent increase over 2005. While it took nearly two decades for Chinese car ownership to exceed 10 million (in 2003), an additional 10 million cars were added in only three years [7]. China currently shows a ratio of 60 people per motor vehicle, compared with a world average of 11.5 [9], indicating huge growth potential for the Chinese market.

Development of the new biofuels plantations will be funded by PetroChina and carried out by forestry authorities at various levels. Both parties have stated that the efforts will be undertaken in the interest of national sustainability, though there is strong suspicion that these actors are placing greater priority on fast and lucrative returns.

An all-out development in ecologically sensitive southwestern China will almost certainly wreak havoc on the environment. The region is home to the country’s largest remaining intact natural forests [9], which are vital for maintaining the local and regional climatic balance. These areas have already shrunk rapidly due to rampant logging in recent years, while the new biofuels craze will likely pull the last string of ecological collapse in the region.

The biofuels plantations will allegedly be built on marginal lands, including degraded forestlands and croplands, of which Yunnan province alone has more than 4 million, according to a local official [10]. Yet it is not rare in China for local governments to sell off lush hills to logging companies as "waste forestlands [10]." With the new incentives created by biofuels, such "black-box" deeds will likely continue and possibly worsen.

Equally daunting is the looming damage to the region’s biodiversity from massive monoculture plantations of biofuels crops. Blessed with a favorable geographic location and unique landscapes, natural forests in southwestern China have long been a paradise for flora and fauna, home to more than 6,000 plant species and over 1,000 animal species. Nibbled away by plantations of jatropha and other biofuels plantations, the future of those species appears startling bleak.

 

Indonesia"s Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology signed a deal with China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Hong Kong energy Holdings to develop biofuels project

One million hectares of oil palm. sugar cane and cassava in Kalimantan and Papua to generate bioethanol

Indonesias President Susili Bambang Yudhoyono wants to develop six million hectares for biofuels