Thermomechanical Biomass to Fuels Company Raises $3 million

Cool Planet Biofuels recently raised $3 million from an undisclosed funding source. Cool Planet converts biomass to fuels using a thermomechanical process:

CoolPlanetBioFuels is developing a revolutionary thermal/mechanical processor which directly inputs raw biomass such as woodchips, crop residue, algae, etc. and produces multiple distinct gas streams for catalytic upgrading to conventional fuel components.

In support of the above biomass fractionator , the company is also developing a range of simple one-step catalytic conversion processes which mate with the fractionator's output gas streams to produce useful products such as eBTX (high octane gasoline), synthetic diesel and proprietary ultra-high crop yield super fuels.

CoolPlanetBioFuels plans to package its proprietary biomass fractionator together with an "open architecture" chemical processing section in standard modular shipping containers which can each produce up to 1 million gallons of fuel per year. These modular fuel processors can be equipped with CoolPlanet's catalytic conversion processes and/or your own selection of dryers, separators, catalytic processes, etc. _CoolPlanet

Cool Planet's process sounds like a type of fast pyrolysis using mechanical pressing and vaporisation of ground biomass + catalytic hydrogenation/synthesis approach.

With private financing, the company doesn't need to disclose too many details. The technology sounds expensive. And we really have no idea about its current yields or realistic yields for the near to medium future. The company claims that one standard modular shipping container sized processor will produce 1 million gallons of fuel per year. The US consumes about 65 billion gallons of gasoline a year.

It is foolish to talk about replacing all petroleum fuels with one alternative process or another, but it would take about 65,000 of Cool Planet's container-sized pyrolysis processors plus catalytic refinery units to supply the US with gasoline, if they work as advertised.

There are too many unknowns to predict any type of timeline for this company. The biomass to advanced fuels race has a lot of contestants, but only a few of them will be winners on a large scale. On a smaller scale -- the local and regional scale -- there will be a lot of winners who go home with a modest prize of a sustainable local bioenergy industry. That is nothing to sneeze at for tens of thousands of communities and regions.

Part of the problem of the boom and bust cycles of global markets is the compulsion to build everything to such a huge scale -- to beat down all of the competition -- that the process is unsustainable.

Waste to Oil at the University of Twente

Researchers at a Dutch university claim to have developed a new type of oil-from-biomass which is superior to pyrolysis oil. The researchers state that their biomass-to-oil process yields an oil which can be fed directly into oil refineries for further processing -- without the expensive pre-processing required by typical pyrolysis oils.

Pyrolysis oil will only react with hydrogen at high pressure, high temperature, and in the presence of a catalyst.

The oil produced using the new method, however, can be fed directly into existing refineries, said the scientist.

"This upgrading process produces a mixture of an aqueous fraction and an oil fraction. The oil fraction can go directly to the refinery," he said. "We are therefore studying ways of improving efficiency, to cut the amount of hydrogen used to the bare minimum."

The scientists are already on the right track. They recently applied for two patents on techniques that have yielded promising results.

Comparing with the first generation biomass, the production of this new method has obvious advantage. "Those biofuels mainly use ethanol and sugar cane, which are known as edible or first-generation biomass," said Kersten. "We work with next-generation biomass, which consists of forestry and agricultural waste. This is available in much greater quantities, and it imposes less of a burden on the environment." _Xinhua

Biomass is made of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. It takes a lot of energy to convert these biochemicals into hydrocarbons suitable for use as fuels in modern engines. Whether via pyrolysis, gasification, or a similar process, the energy requirement for processing and refining biomass into hydrocarbons removes significant amounts of yield from a feedstock that is already low in energy density compared to coal and oil.

That is what makes the emergence of thermochemical biomass to fuels processes in the marketplace so difficult. Just a few simple breakthroughs might improve yields enough to make these fuels competitive with petro-fuels in Europe. If the Dutch bio-oil is better than pyrolysis oil, and can be produced as economically, it will probably find a use.

It is preferable to find alternative fuels as close in characteristics to fuels already used as possible. That is why NExBTL is considered superior to biodiesel, and why butanol is superior to ethanol. The future of biofuels will be with these more advanced fuels, not with ethanol or conventional biodiesel. But it will take roughly 10 years to make that transition.

Craig Venter Aims to Replace the Entire Petrochemical Industry

“Designing and building synthetic cells will be the basis of a new industrial revolution,” Dr. Venter says. “The goal is to replace the entire petrochemical industry.” _NYT

NYT

Peak Oil will occur when humans no longer want to bother drilling into the ground to extract dark, gooey, messy liquids to turn into fuels. Instead, humans are slowly but surely developing other, more reliable and sustainable ways to fuel their industrial base and somewhat affluent lifestyles. Dieoff.orgiasts and other members of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement hate to see any alternatives to Peak Oil Doom, or any skepticism to the orthodoxy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. But humans are innately a problem-solving and skeptical lot.

Craig Venter is one example of an unlikely problem solver. He was a poor student in his youth, and only after living through some harrowing experiences in Vietnam as a military medic was young Venter able to get his head on straight, and decide to do something with his life.

...Dr. Venter has a history of defying skeptics, and many people are betting that he will succeed this time as well. Dr. Walton, in fact, invested personally in Synthetic Genomics, and his venture firm, Oxford Bioscience Partners, recently wanted to sink a hefty sum into the company but was turned down when Dr. Venter found other investors offering better terms.

Exxon Mobil is giving Synthetic Genomics $300 million in research financing to design algae that could be used to produce gasoline and diesel fuel. (The new greenhouse will be used for that research.)

BP has invested in the company itself, turning to Synthetic Genomics to study microbes that might help turn coal deposits into cleaner-burning natural gas. Another investor, the Malaysian conglomerate Genting, wants to improve oil output from its palm tree plantations, working toward what its chief executive calls a “gasoline tree.”

...In the approach toward which Dr. Venter is driving, engineers would specify the entire genetic code of a cell — essentially the software that runs the cell — on computers, making design changes as if on a word processor. They would then press the “print” button, so to speak, and the DNA would be manufactured from its chemical components. The synthetic DNA would then be transplanted into an existing cell, where it would “boot up” and take control of the cell’s operations.

...Synthetic Genomics has about 130 employees. But much of its research, including the development of the synthetic cell, is done at the J. Craig Venter Institute. Synthetic Genomics pays for about 25 of the institute’s roughly 300 researchers, and has rights to their results. The rest of the institute’s funding comes mainly from federal grants and its endowment.... _NYT

Venter seems to love challenges and competitions. He lives to defy skeptics and to defeat rivals. And do you know the odd thing? The world is full of young Venters who have not yet -- and may never -- figured out what they want to do with their lives.

Pelted mercilessly with nightmarish predictions of doom and gloom, and instilled by governmenbt schools and indoctrinating universities with the futility of trying to fight their fate, hundreds of thousands of young Venters never amount to much -- when they might have done, given the right experiences in early life.

Nuclear Energy Carnival #17 at NextBigFuture

Brian Wang presents the 17th installment of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy.
Excerpts:

5. Atomic Insights by Rod Adams has Cooperative Effort is Required to Build Large New Nuclear Power Plants and Allow Those Projects to Create Jobs.

Article summary: One of the weapons used against nuclear energy is that building large, complex projects often requires government assistance. That is especially in an industry where the construction and manufacturing infrastructure experienced 30 years without an order. In this post, however, I argue that enabling a large, cooperative team to find financial resources is an appropriate role for a government interested in long term prosperity and near term employment opportunities.

6. World nuclear news had a table of accidents and immediate fatalities by energy source.
This was covered here earlier today, but is here again_NextBigFuture

Dan Yurman brings us up to date on the US NRC's ongoing reaction to small modular reactors

From Nuclear Green

Charles Barton asks: Are renewables are really competitive with nuclear in costs?

Nuke Power Talk compares risks of injury between different energy sources

Brian Wang also looks at this issue

Scamming the Nation: Green-Gov -- Industrial Complex

The only way to move smoothly from our present relatively primitive methods of energy production to a higher level of more advanced and sustainable energy, is if the most productive parts of society are working together to find solutions. If the productive parts of society are being parasitised by criminal elements from the government and elsewhere, things are going to become very difficult.

This is a seemingly unlikely story about a very small portion of the green-gov/industrial complex called USCAP - US Climate Action Partnership. It is but one of dozens of ways in which the US ruling class is stripping the nation for salvage, a corrupt cronyist means by which criminals within government, industry, and the faux environmental movement can siphon funds and resources from the productive economy and divert them to their own accounts and to the many factions of the green-gov/industrial complex.

Outside of the Silicon Valley-firm, businesses have teamed up with environmental groups to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). The effort was spearheaded by Immelt and Duke Power CEO Jim Rogers.

Their goal, according to USCAP’s website, is to “call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” But like it is the case with Doerr and KPCB, the members at USCAP have tried to use climate change and the war against fossil fuels as an excuse to lobby the federal government for policies that directly benefit them financially.

...Last summer, USCAP welcomed what it saw at the time as its first major legislative victory – the passage of cap and trade legislation in the House. Indeed, the CEOs of the member companies of USCAP had a very significant influence on the legislation, known as Waxman-Markey. They even claim responsibility for helping draft certain provisions in the bill.

At that time, USCAP was comprised of high-profile members like General Motors, Chrysler, Deere & Co., Caterpillar, BP, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. According to Myron Ebell, director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Energy Institute, their lobbying efforts on behalf of Waxman-Markey were purely for financial reasons. “Rogers [CEO of Duke Power] knew he could make a lot of money if cap and trade was institutionalized,” Ebell said in an interview with TheDC.

The irony is, however, that, for most, membership in USCAP was downright counterproductive and the financial profits never materialized.

Take Deere, for example. Just last week it was announced that the company gave up its membership in USCAP. “We came to the conclusion that Deere had other opportunities to be involved in climate change initiatives,” the company’s spokesman, Ken Golden said in a press release.
What is significant about Deere’s membership in the first place — and Caterpillar’s too, for that matter — was that it was essentially lobbying for legislation — cap and trade — that would not only hurt its business, but legislation that its shareholders did not want.

Before Deere left USCAP, other members had been dropping like flies. First, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and BP all left the organization for various reasons. Caterpillar and Xerox followed next, then Deere. Which begs the question, why were these companies members of USCAP in the first place?

According to Tom Borelli at the Free Enterprise Project, there are only two reasons why a company like Deere and Caterpillar would join USCAP, and neither have anything to do with creating a better product for consumers or being held accountable to shareholders.

The first is that lobbying for climate-change legislation was part of a larger public-relations strategy. But the second, and most important, is that these companies decided it would be better to join forces with those pushing for cap and trade so they wouldn’t be targeted by any future legislation and would instead receive some of the expected major cash flow. In other words, it was an ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ strategy.

“Everyone wanted a seat at the table,” Borelli told TheDC. “And yes, it’s good to have a seat, but not if you’re dessert.”

Hence the reason Deere and Caterpillar got out of USCAP, said Ebell. “It’s very likely they realized Waxman-Markey was harmful to their business.”

“Businesses joining USCAP was the politically fashionable thing to do,” said Ebell. “Some of them never even did any economic analysis or cost-benefit study… it was all about transferring wealth from the consumer to big business and big government.”

For example, General Motors, which has been a member of USCAP since May 2007, received $50 billion in government investment (i.e. taxpayer money) in 2009. Then, they turned around and used it to lobby for climate change legislation and promote cap and trade in the hopes of reaping major profits.

Likewise, Chrysler received $15 billion in bailout money from the federal government last year, after being a dues-paying member of the USCAP since 2007. Chrysler too, then lobbied for Waxman-Markey.

But these companies were following GE’s Immelt, who like Doerr, has been instrumental in weaving the web of the green industrial complex.

...The union was short-lived, however, when Lane and Mulva realized the downfalls of cap and trade and pulled out of USCAP. The same thing applies to Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens, who sits on Obama’s economic advisory board. Owens lobbied for the legislation, and then withdrew his company’s support once the bill’s consequences became known.
“These boards of directors are like a club,” said Borelli. “Lane and Mulva greatly contributed to passing Waxman-Markey. So Immelt goes laughing to the government bank, Lane is now retired and rich and Mulva is close to retiring. Nobody is going to hold them accountable for their actions.”

“Waxman-Markey absolutely would never have passed the House if it wasn’t for big business,” said Ebell.

“The CEOs didn’t do their homework,” said Borelli. “They thought they could just ride this short-term wave.”

Though some say climate-change legislation is not going to happen anytime soon, there is still a concern with the upcoming lame-duck session. There is a real worry that Congress might push through some kind of energy-oil cleanup bill during the lame-duck and merge it with the Waxman-Markey bill in the House.

But such are the policy consequences when big business gets cozy with big government. CEOs make bank and escape any kind of accountability, while unpopular legislation like cap and trade gets passed. In the case of USCAP though, a lot of the CEOs did not even know what exactly they were lobbying for and the billions in profits never materialized. _DailyCaller

This is just the beginning of the stripping -- the dismantling -- of the productive sector to benefit the ruling classes. It has happened elsewhere in the western world, and is always an ongoing problem whenever people allow their governments to grow too large for them to control.

These big government associated grifters will steal anything that they can, from whomever they can. If the productive classes and ordinary citizens do not stand up for themselves, they will be stripped clean.

This story reveals how far political agencies are willing to go to silence scientists who disagree with them. Okay, yes, they would go farther than that if they felt it was necessary. Almost every government aqency puts a little bit aside for "black ops."

Breakthrough CO2 - Based Gas to Liquid Fuels Process

Update: Commenter Jono points out that company R&D spending for Carbon Sciences is not impressively high. Some people have questioned the viability of the technology Carbon Sciences wants to use. Regardless of the viability of any particular company, the technologies of GTL, CTL, BTL, KTL (kerogens to liquids), bitumens to liquids, methane clathrates to liquids, etc etc. have high enough payoffs to assure that viable processes that place these products firmly in the competitive marketplace will be developed.

"Unlike other technologies, such as those for algae biofuels, that may require decades for commercial deployment, our plan for delivering a market-ready technology may be available as soon as early next year. Within a short period of time, we believe that the world can stop drilling for oil and start converting natural gas and greenhouse gases to gasoline.” _TGDaily

CarbonSciences

A new process from Carbon Sciences aims to convert CO2 plus natural gas into gasoline and other advanced hydrocarbon fuels and high value chemicals. Carbon Sciences is developing this technology as a set of highly scalable modular processes, which together will be capable of providing a wide array of hydrocarbon products.

Carbon Sciences' Gas to Liquids (GTL) fuel technology is based on a chemical catalyst that converts methane and carbon dioxide directly into gasoline. The gases can be sourced from natural gas fields or coal-fired power plants, landfill gas, municipal waste, and even algae.

The company says it could have the system ready as soon as next year.

"The ongoing tragic events involving BP’s unchecked flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico further underscores the urgent need to reduce and eliminate our addiction to petroleum, foreign and domestic," said Byron Elton, CEO of Carbon Sciences.

"Carbon Sciences’ breakthrough technology takes us closer to a world without petroleum by essentially transforming pollution into energy."

The latest announcement is the development of a standalone system that, says the company, can reduce overall systems and operating costs and produce a fuel that can be used in existing infrastructure, supply chain and vehicles. __TGDaily

Gas to liquids and coal to liquids are the two technologies which offer the most immediate prospects for large scale replacement of crude oil in transportation fuels. Eventually, other carbonaceous sources such as kerogens, biomass, and perhaps methane clathrates will provide relatively inexpensive substitutes for crude oil based fuels, as well. It is a matter of developing the proper methods of mining or harvesting the feedstock, and discovering the best catalysts and other processes for refining the product most efficiently and economically.

The scary bedtime story of Peak Oil Doom was never well plotted or thought out. There have always been too many potential substitutes for light sweet crude -- in very large and accessible quantities -- for mature and informed individuals and institutions to panic. The only prospect for severe hardship as a result of a shortage of energy, is the prospect of governmental incompetence when interfering in the energy industry, or deliberate energy starvation policies implemented by governments as a part of a larger, intentional scheme. Such energy starvation policies could be properly labeled "Political Peak Oil."

Political Peak Oil is a genuine possibility, given the sort of politicians which have been getting elected recently -- and the sort of regulators they have been appointing. But that is a different type of problem with a different sort of solution.

You Can Run Civilisation on Thorium for Hundreds of Thousands of Years and It's Essentially Free

"Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilisation on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free. You don’t have to deal with uranium cartels," he said.

Thorium is so common that miners treat it as a nuisance, a radioactive by-product if they try to dig up rare earth metals. The US and Australia are full of the stuff. So are the granite rocks of Cornwall. You do not need much: all is potentially usable as fuel, compared to just 0.7pc for uranium. _Telegraph

NBF

A sub-critical nuclear reactor is far safer than a conventional reactor, but it will only work when fed neutrons from the outside. In the case of the sub-critical Rubbia reactor design discussed below, the outside neutrons are provided via "spallation." The entire process is completely controllable, and thus safe.

...work by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) on the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors may be the magic bullet we have all been hoping for, though we have barely begun to crack the potential of solar power.

Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday - produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week.

Thorium eats its own hazardous waste. It can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner. "It’s the Big One," said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering.

...The Norwegian group Aker Solutions has bought Dr Rubbia’s patent for the thorium fuel-cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator at its UK operation.
Victoria Ashley, the project manager, said it could lead to a network of pint-sized 600MW reactors that are lodged underground, can supply small grids, and do not require a safety citadel. It will take £2bn to build the first one, and Aker needs £100mn for the next test phase.

...A few US pioneers are exploring a truly radical shift to a liquid fuel based on molten-fluoride salts, an idea once pursued by US physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee in the 1960s. The original documents were retrieved by Mr Sorensen.
Moving away from solid fuel may overcome some of thorium’s "idiosyncracies". "You have to use the right machine. You don’t use diesel in a petrol car: you build a diesel engine," said Mr Sorensen.

Thorium-fluoride reactors can operate at atmospheric temperature. "The plants would be much smaller and less expensive. You wouldn’t need those huge containment domes because there’s no pressurized water in the reactor. It’s close-fitting," he said.
Nuclear power could become routine and unthreatening. But first there is the barrier of establishment prejudice.

... _Telegraph_via_NextBigFuture

More on the Rubbia "energy amplifier" here and here (PDF)


H/T NextBigFuture

Prolific Biomass to Fuels: What I've Been Talking About

GCC

Too many people who look at algal fuels are only looking at algal biodiesel from algal oils. But that is not the quickest route to profitable algal fuels. As Al Fin has been saying for years, it is the prolific biomass production of algae which is the strength to be exploited. It may take as long as ten years to solve the problems of getting profitable algal oil biodiesel -- but algal biomass can be profitable much sooner.

Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed and demonstrated the feasibility of a two-step hydrolysis-solvolysis process to produce biodiesel directly from wet algal biomass. Their process eliminates the need for biomass drying, organic solvent extraction, and catalysts, and provides a mechanism for nutrient (e.g., N, P, and glycerol) recycling. A paper on the process was published 30 August in the ACS journal Energy & Fuels.

Levine et al. reported that a cursory investigation of the influence of some key process variables resulted in crude biodiesel and FAEE (fatty acid ethyl esters) yields as high as 100 and 66%, respectively, on the basis of lipids within the hydrolysis solids. Considering that about 80-90% of lipids in the original algal biomass were retained in the solids recovered after hydrolysis, the authors noted, the total process yield was somewhat lower.

...The team used the alga Chlorella vulgaris as the lipid-rich feedstock (53.3% lipids as FAEE). In the first step of the process, the wet algal biomass (ca. 80% moisture) reacts in subcritical water to hydrolyze intracellular lipids, conglomerate cells into an easily filterable solid that retains the lipids, and produce a sterile, nutrient-rich aqueous phase.

In the second step, the wet fatty acid-rich solids undergo supercritical in situ transesterification (SC-IST/E) with ethanol to produce biodiesel in the form of fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs).

Longer time, higher temperature, and greater ethanol loading tended to increase crude biodiesel and FAEE yields, which ranged from about 56-100% and 34-66%, respectively, on the basis of lipid in the hydrolysis solids. _GCC

The idea is to go with the strengths of your feedstock rather than to focus on processes which will take years or decades to become profitable. The UMich process is intriguing, and appears to avoid some of the most difficult and challenging problems of mainstream algal biodiesel production. But it is not necessarily the most likely process to reach profitability the soonest.

The strains of algae which produce the highest levels of lipids are not necessarily the strains which provide the highest biomass yields. Many newer processes of converting biomass to fuels do not require the expensive de-watering step. Most of them do not depend upon high-lipid feedstocks.

The UMich project is a worthy one, and we wish them good luck. But they are certainly not the only similar type of fish in the sea, so to speak. These are exciting times for prolific biomass -- both marine and terrestrial.

Coal Gasification Safe and Affordable Energy for Future

Gasification, as opposed to combustion, is the most thermally efficient and cleanest way to convert the energy content of coal into electricity, hydrogen, clean fuels, and value-added chemicals. The product of gasification the syngasis a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Sulfur, however, has to be removed from the mixture in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) to protect process equipment and meet environmental regulations.

The T-2749 Fluidized-bed Desulfurization Sorbent, developed by Santosh Gangwal, Raghubir Gupta, and Brian Turk of RTI International, Research Triangle Park, N.C., is a regenerable desulfurization sorbent used inside a transport reactor that allows sulfur to be removed to equilibrium levels in temperatures between 500 and 1000°F. Due to its improvements of the gasification process, the T-2749 allows for the gasification process to be environmentally safe and affordable. _R&DMag

ImageSource

More about RTI's syngas cleaning technologies:

Gasification is a process through which carbon-based materials such as coal, petroleum coke, and biomass are converted into syngas that can be used to efficiently produce clean electricity, transportation fuels, and chemicals using domestic fuel resources. Cost-effective syngas clean-up technology is a key to achieving near-zero emissions from gasification-based power generation and chemical plants. Additionally, gasification-based systems provide the lowest cost option for capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide from coal use.

The project includes the pre-front-end-engineering-design phase, during which Shaw will conduct a study for a 50-megawatt commercial demonstration unit to be built at Tampa Electric Company's 250-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle power plant in Florida.
"This 50 megawatt scale-up will mitigate the remaining technical risks before full commercial deployment," said David Myers, vice president of the Engineering and Technology Unit at RTI. "Beyond application in the power industry, the technology also holds tremendous potential to reduce the cost of producing hydrogen, chemicals such as methanol and ammonia, and fuels through gasification of coal or other low-value carbonaceous feedstocks, while enabling carbon capture through conventional or advanced CO2 removal technologies."

Traditional methods require warm syngas to be cooled before the gas cleanup process begins. The new technology, which eliminates the need for syngas cooling and expensive heat recovery systems, is expected to significantly reduce the capital and operating costs of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant. _RTISyngasCleaning

Carbon hysteria is perhaps the most dangerous mental disorder haunting the minds of persons in government, academia, media, and faux environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF, etc. Coal is perhaps the most hated repository of energy in the world, perhaps even including uranium and plutonium. This coal-phobia will prove extremely hazardous to the future of humanity, if the energy starvation policies of US and European governments continue to dominate the political stage of the advanced world.

Energy starvation is but one step in a progressive program to reduce the human population of the planet. (see Dieoff.orgy and Voluntary Human Extinction Mooment;-) You don't need to be intelligent to destroy the planet while claiming to be saving it. You only need to be in a position of power and have the sympathies of 95% of global media, academia, and media oriented special interests.

Algae Tec Multi-product Algae & KiOR Catalytic Pyrolysis

Australian company Algae Tec utilises the McConchie-Stroud closed algal bioreactor system to produce multiple algal products -- including oils-to-biodiesel, carbohydrates-to-ethanol, proteins-to-animal-feed, and biomass-to-jet-fuel.

The photo-bioreactors which are at the heart of the McConchie-Stroud algae production technology are designed to generate four revenue streams:

oils which can be refined into biodiesel;
carbohydrates (sugars) that can be used in the production of ethanol;
proteins that can be used as feedstock for farm animals; and
protein and carbohydrate biomass that can be combined to produce jet fuel.
Algae.Tec is currently undertaking an Initial Public Offering by way of a prospectus dated 16 July 2010 with the intention to list on the ASX by the end of September 2010. The Company’s ASX code will be AEB.

The McConchie-Stroud System consists of a modular bioreactor and related infrastructure used for harvesting algae and refining into algae products. As commercial plants will ideally be built on the site of large scale CO2 emitting companies, such as coal-fired power stations, the number of modules on each site will be dependent upon the CO2 available. Sites of more than 1,000 modules may be feasible as the modules may be stacked 4 high, the company says in its offering prospectus.

Light for growing the microalgae is supplied through a novel solar collector located adjacent to or in close proximity to the process. Research and development to date has shown that high yields of algae can potentially be produced by the McConchie-Stroud System, and converted into various products (although at this stage, only on a small scale research basis). _GCC

KiOR is a Houston based developer of a catalytic pyrolysis process which claims to be able to turn wood into a "near-perfect" match for petroleum.

KiOR plans to take biomass—in this case wood chips from local timber that can be made into energy—and add a catalyst to chemically turn the chips into a near-perfect match to crude oil in a matter of seconds. The product, the company says, can go through existing crude refineries and be used to make standard gasoline or diesel fuel.

KiOR will get no subsidies or state support until it has formed a partnership with a major oil company to refine it. The first site will be built in Columbus, Mississippi and could open by the end of 2011.

In 2008, Petrobras, through its research center (Cenpes), signed a cooperation agreement with KiOR to use its Biomass Catalytic Cracking (BCC) process to produce second-generation biofuels from sugarcane waste. _GCC

It should be obvious that profitability for biomass-based processes depends almost entirely upon the ability to concentrate and densify the biomass close to the source of acquisition or harvesting, in an efficient and economic fashion -- due to the natural low energy density of native biomass.

That requirement for economy and efficiency of energy densification at the point of harvest and acquisition points to an obvious need for automated, robotic equipment of a portable, mobile nature, to both harvest and densify biomass on-site, for economical shipment for further pre-processing, processing, and refining.

In other words, the pivot point for profitability exists at the local level, and to a lesser degree at the regional level.

Idaho Samizdat Hosts Nuclear Carnival #16

Here is an excerpt from the 16th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Idaho Samizdat Nuke Notes:

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus reflects on modern urban life without electricity following a thunderstorm in the Washington, DC, area that took it out. She asks people to remember where the juice comes from the next time they flip the switch. Will it be there if you rely on windmills?
At Areva’s North American Next Energy blog, Jarret Adams casts a skeptical eye on an essay by Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club, on Huffington Post. Pope says nukes don’t add up.
Adams asks how Pope can think that when nuclear energy’s revival already is well under waywith more than 50 new plants under construction worldwide. More than 20 of these new reactors are being built in China alone.
Steve Hedges writing at Nuclear Town Hall agrees. He notes that financial analysts at Standard & Poors published this note:
“In other countries, new nuclear construction is in full swing. Many have adopted nuclear generation as an integral energy source option; about 60 nuclear plants with various reactor technologies are currently under construction around the world, and many more are in the advanced development and planning stages.”
He also reports that S&P even has positive words for Europe where “a steady stream of new reactors in Europe and Asia has established a relatively cheap supply chain and a skilled labor force there.”
In the U.S. TVA has just committed $248 million for 2011 to continue the re-start of construction of its Bellefonte reactor in Scottsboro, Ala. Read all about it at CoolHandNuke. TVA has successfully re-started a reactor at Browns Ferry and will complete work on one at Watts Bar in 2012.

At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman writes that taxes and liability issues tie nukes in knots in Germany and India. If these two countries want nuclear energy, they have a strange way of showing it. India’s parliament finally passed the liability measure after protracted debate. It will open Indian markets to U.S. firms. Germany’s nuclear utilities now want to issue government backed bonds to pay for investment in alternative technologies instead of paying a tax on fuel rods. Stay tuned.

_IdahoSamizdatCarnival#16

The faux environmental movement is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, with strong tentacles extended deeply into all western governments and into inter-governmental agencies such as the UN and its IPCC. Besides blocking nuclear energy and all other workable forms of big energy and power, the faux environmental movement wants to reduce the human population of Earth by at least 90% -- see dieoff.org and the voluntary human extinction movement, for the barest hint of the deeper and unstated plans of the faux environmentalist industrial - political - economic complex. There are plenty of other websites where one can get a more explicit and intentional portrayal of the true aims of the movement, if one is willing to do a bit of digging.

With most of the world's large governments and governmental lobbies -- except Russia and China -- infested by the faux environmental movement, it is no wonder that Germany, India, and the US are unable to get a rational nuclear power construction program going.

Tres Amigas Superconducting DC Super-Hub Under Study

Tres Amigas claims its super hub and storage facility would be able to move substantial amounts of power among the three systems. The facility will use Xtreme Power’s grid storage and management technology in an attempt to decrease brown-outs by offering more reliability and stability across the U.S., and enable renewable-energy sources like wind and solar to be better utilized.

Tres Amigas CEO Phil Harris said in part from his statement, “The role of the SuperStation is multi-faceted, but one of the most critical aspects will be ensuring that the input from renewable energy sources is incorporated smoothly into the span of the three grids, while providing reliable, flexible storage.” Harris is the former head of PJM Interconnection, one of the largest grid operators in the U.S. _BrianWestenhaus

NewEnergyandFuel

The three super-sections of the US power grid will be interconnected by the Tres Amigas' superstation interconnect, as pictured above. The interconnect will utilise 5GW superconducting DC cables and high voltage DC power electronics, which will help prevent cascading failures from passing between the separate super-sections of the national grid.

Tres Amigas got approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in March of 2010 to offer transmission services at negotiated rates across the three main arteries of the U.S. electrical grid. The agency is now considering allowing it to build and connect the mega-hub based in Clovis, N.M. With the approval for services in hand, the likelihood that physically offering the service is quite high. For many, there is a sense of relief and for others alarm as one company has the handle on the rationalization of the grid. But the company isn’t named Enron.

...The major new technology going to work is using American Superconductor’s direct current superconductor power cables buried underground that will be powered by the company’s high-temperature superconductor wire and high-powered voltage-source AC/DC power converters. American Superconductor has said, obviously, that using underground superconductor cables greatly reduces the loss of energy during transmission compared to existing overhead power lines. Somewhere the calculation of the energy loss from resistance is more than the power needed to run the superconductor system.

The new station will answer some of the issues of using wind power from the Midwest and solar in the southwest. Having a fully interconnected national grid can bring much of the renewable energy potential into more complete utilization. The lowest cost producers get to stay up much longer because the grid covers all four time zones. Those four hours are a huge opportunity. Early in the day the low cost west excess power can go east and late in the day low cost east production can flow west. More complete base utilization should take some pressure off consumers if the savings pass through without being pocketed along the way. _NewEnergyandFuel

The high voltage DC super-hub will act as a central filter for significant power fluctuations or dirty power, which can cause problems throughout the network if not cleaned up. That is in addition to its role as a giant load leveler across the four time zones of the national grid, as described in Brian's article above.

Graphic Images of US Power Sources and Usage

Images from Impact Lab and Lawrence Livermore

Charlotte in Late October: Nuclear Construction Summit

The Nuclear Construction Summit will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, on October 25 and 26, 2010.

Ah yes, I once knew a girl named Charlotte. She was quite fine in late October, as I recall. If Charlotte, NC, is anywhere near so fine that time of year, it would be worth the trip. Rod Adams has more:

The second annual Nuclear Construction Summit will be held in Charlotte, NC on October 25-26, 2010. The meeting will include talks from leading figures associated with designing, licensing and building new nuclear power plants. The tentative speaker line up includes Ellen Ruff of Duke Energy, David Matthews of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jeff Merrifield of Shaw Power Group, Jim Moody of General Dynamics Electric Boat, Michael McGough of Unistar, Mark Campagna of Hyperion Power Generation, Cheri Diane Collins of Southern Company, Tom Sanders of the American Nuclear Society, Ashok Bhatnagar of Tennessee Valley Authority and many more.

Click here for the provisional meeting agenda.

The organizers at Nuclear Energy Insider are predicting that there will be more than 300 executives and senior managers associated with building new nuclear plants at the meeting. If you register by Friday, August 27, 2010, you will be eligible for a $400 Super Early Bird discount.

Atomic Insights is planning to cover the meeting and to participate as a media partner. I hope to see you there. I am looking forward to a trip to Charlotte, a place that is shaping up to be a hub of activity for nuclear power plant engineering, design and businessheadquarters.

Update: (Posted on August 23, 2010 at 1106) Thanks to a prompt suggestion from a commenter, Nuclear Energy Insider has agreed to extend a special conference discount to people who sign up based on reading about the meeting here at Atomic Insights. When you register, please use the code ATOMIC200. _AtomicInsights

There is a great deal of optimism on the topic of nuclear construction, in some circles. But is the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the US Department of Energy, and other agencies of the US government doing enough to justify that optimism?

The Obama Pelosi regime is a rat's nest of regressive dieoff.orgy green lefty-Luddites, who would like nothing more than to bring on energy starvation and an appreciable reduction of the planet's human population. No, I am not saying that dieoff is official O-P policy -- only that a large number of insiders within O-P would like to see dieoff happen, and would be willing to promote a policy of "energy starvation" to help bring it about.

The energy surrounding a Nuclear Construction Summit is exactly opposite to the darker, more ominous and destructive energies circulating through the US executive, legislative, and to a large degree, judicial branches.

The private sector of the US has always been the more positive, creative, and productive sector of society, and in healthy times the private sector always outgrew the public sector. Currently, the US is suffering through an extreme reversal of that balance, and there is some question of whether the US will be able to survive this imbalance over the long term without extreme re-structuring.

Will the mid-term US elections of November 2010 help to turn things around -- to justify the optimism of the Nuclear Construction Summit? Probably not nearly enough.

But you need optimists and resourceful planners who are prepared to grasp whatever opportunities may present themselves.

Peak Oil: Meet Joule Unlimited's Genengineered Phototrophic Bio-factories

A variety of microorganisms are known to encode light-activated proton translocation systems. In the present invention, one or more forms of light-activated proton pumps are functionally expressed in E. coli or other host cells to generate a proton gradient that is converted into ATP via an endogenous or exogenous ATPase.

The production and isolation of products from synthetophototrophic organisms can be enhanced by employing specific fermentation techniques. An essential element to maximizing production while reducing costs is increasing the percentage of the carbon source that is converted to such products.... _BD

Joule Unlimited (formerly Joule Biotechnologies) has emerged from hiding to unveil a startling and comprehensive approach to energy-from-sun-CO2-and-brackish water. Joule skips the middle man -- biomass -- and goes directly to production of high value hydrocarbons. Cleverly gene engineered E. Coli cyanobacteria have been given the capability to synthesise fuels and high-value chemicals from sunlight, waste CO2 from industrial plants, and saltwater or brackish water. If things work out as claimed, Joule may move up the timeline for microbial fuels significantly.

... in using a bio-based organism as the base for synthesizing fuels from sunlight, CO2 and water, Joule is very much making a biofuel. But it is a wholly different type of biofuel. For the photosynthetic properties of the organism are not being used to make biomass — and otherwise serve the energy and life needs of the organism — they are being directed to making fuel.

...It’s not new life, but its pretty close. Some plant-enhancing strategies, which knock out or overexpress certain genes to enhance, shut down, or insert some new property into an organism. Joule does all that, too....“Commencing with e.coli, they have used that well-studied bacteria as a base for layering on a series of genetic-based skills - a skill for fixing carbon dioxide, a skill for grabbing water molecules, a skill for fixing photons – and a skill for converting those inputs – in a series of chemical transformations known as a metabolic pathway – into a hydrocarbon which can be used as a fuel. All while using e.coli’s system for preserving its own life and regulating its own systems.

...We also heard the same 100,000 gallons per acre as everyone else, and we understand why people say what they say about 15,000 gallons per acre. But we already at 10,000 gallons per acre and that is 4 times what biomass can achieve using the old approaches. _BiofuelsDigest

So Joule is claiming 10,000 gallons of hydrocarbon per acre to be possible, using its engineered, continuous process E. Coli cyanobacteria bioreactors. Claims are easy to make, of course. Proving their claim at commercial scale will be more difficult.

The general timeline expectation for microbial and algal fuels is for commercial production to begin scaling up to competitive levels around the year 2020. Craig Venter is aiming to cut that 10 year development time in half. Joule Unlimited may have similar expectations. Al Fin is skeptical, and continues to see 2020 as the likeliest intersection point of price points for microbial fuels (in volume) with petroleum fuels.

It is best not to become too invested in any one approach toward bio-energy. There will probably not be any one "magic bullet." If you look at the multi-$trillion petroleum industry, you should begin to realise that there is plenty of market room to go around.

The promise of bio-energy is the promise of fuel (and other forms of energy, feed, chemicals etc) as a predictably priced commodity, produced and available virtually anywhere on the planet. And while the oil dictators of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. may not be able to eat their oil after 2020, they will be able to offer it on the market in competition with a wide variety of other fuels more readily available -- and considered cleaner. We hope the oil dictators can adjust their lifestyles downward accordingly without too much hardship.

15th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at NextBigFuture

Brian Wang has been the driving force behind the Nuclear Energy Carnival. Brian hosts the 15th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at his home blog. Here is an excerpt:

2. From Dan Yurma (Idaho Samizdat) NEI seeks consensus on licensing small reactors

Nuclear industry group leads efforts to overcome regulatory barriers to commercial success. In an exclusive interview with this blog, Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development at NEI, emphasized the serious nature of the work.

"This isn't a forum for people to trade marketing slides," he said. "We are looking for ways to meet the NRC's requirements, but in new or innovative ways that don't impose unnecessary costs on small reactors."

What NEI hopes to do, according to Genoa, "is to create a new regulatory paradigm for small reactors," and to do it in the next 18 months.

6. Power industry Trend has nuclear computers systems are complex but complex computer systems have been done before.Summary: NRC and other regulators are concerned about the complexity and independence of computer systems for new reactor designs. Such concern is not unexpected. It seems that the NRC and the nuclear industry is facing some of the same computer system issues encountered by the FDA and regulated Biotech and Pharmaceutical manufacturing.

7. Nuclear Green's Charles Barton has NUCLEAR ENERGY: A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE

It was written by three Oak Ridge scientists, including my father, 33 years ago. It looks at the health and safety consequences of choosing coal rather than nuclear power as an energy source. They write, "great concern has been expressed by scientists that the projected release of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion may lead to severe changes in global climate by the end of this century or shortly thereafter. On the other hand, the nuclear fuel cycle may release significant quantities of radioactive gases to the atmosphere and radioactive liquids to the hydrosphere. However, technology is available to contain most of these gases if it becomes necessary, and the potential effects of these radioactive gases and liquids are minimal in comparison to the biological harm associated with emissions from burning coal (variously estimated to be 3 to 125 excess deaths per year from a 1000-MWe coal burning plant)." If anything they underestimated the problems they foresaw.

8. Charles Barton and nucleargreen also wrote a two part post about Australian climate scientist and pro, nuclear blogger, Barry Brook:Barry Brook Charts the Path to the Future

and

Barry Brook has Reason to Celebrate

Barry who became a convert to the nuclear solution less than 2 years ago, and has become a major voice for nuclear power.

9. From Nextbigfuture, China plans to bring the capital cost CPR-1000 reactors to $1225 per KW by getting the cost of the 50th unit down by 30% from todays cost and meanwhile the USA has projects for nuclear fusion and 4th generation reactors which partial funding and commitment that might result in breakthroughs that are still more expensive in 20 years_NextBigFuture

Plus: Are billionaires feeling a strange attraction to nuclear power?

The nuclear renaissance will involve a rush to new mineral resources -- including uranium and thorium, and the auxiliary materials necessary for the new reactor designs. New mines, new factories, new transportation infrastructure will all be needed. Opportunities for investing will explode if Obama's NRC provides the slightest opening to nuclear enterprise -- particularly new, safe, cheap, small, scalable, factory-built, modular nuclear reactors.

DOE Powers Up Research on Coal/Biomass Syngas

A wide range of carbonaceous substances -- from solid municipal waste to wood to grass to coal -- can be gasified to syngas. Syngas can be turned into a wide range of valuable products, from fuel to high value chemicals to plastics to electrical power, and so on. The US DOE is investing in 8 projects for the development of better methods of gasifying coal/biomass mixtures for production of power, hydrogen, fuels, chemicals, etc.

The selected projects, which will be managed by the Office of Fossil Energy’s (FE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), are:

Area 1: Pre-Processing and Conditioning of Coal/Biomass Mixtures for Simultaneous Co-Feeding Systems. Projects in this area will focus on the development and characterization of multiple coal-biomass mixtures and types that are transportable, storable, and accommodate direct co-feeding into gasification systems.

CoalTek, Inc. (Tucker, Ga.) CoalTek, teaming with the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research in Lexington, Ky., Duke University in Durham, N.C., and the University of North Dakota Energy and Environment Research Center in Grand Forks, N.D., will blend coal and biomass to develop a feedstock for co-gasification. Microwave energy will be used to dry and soften high-moisture coals and form the dried coal into a durable briquetted fuel.
(DOE share: $999,472; Recipient share: $249,868; Duration: 36 months)

Gas Technology Institute (Des Plaines, Ill.) GTI, in partnership with Desert Research Institute and the University of Nevada, both in Reno, Nev.; Clean Coal Briquette Inc. in Lakewood, Colo.; and Parker Towing Company in Mulga, Ala., will produce quantities of Loblolly pine blended with ground coal and coal fines and formed into robust, weather-resistant pellets and briquettes. GTI will demonstrate how the pellets/briquettes are rugged enough to withstand transportation and piling and show how the pellets/briquettes can be processed into a crushed or pulverized product suitable for use in a commercial coal gasifier.
(DOE share: $1,000,465; Recipient share: $250,174; Duration: 36 months)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Blacksburg, Va.)—Partnering with the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Ky.; GreenFields Coal Company in Beckley, W.Va.; Alpha Natural Resources in Abingdon, Va.; and Dominion Energy in Richmond, Va., VPI will develop optimally engineered systems for manufacturing coal-biomass briquettes/pellets that are ideally suited for transportation, storage, and co-feeding fixed- and fluidized-bed gasifiers.
(DOE share: $999,061; Recipient share: $251,756; Duration: 24 months)


Area 2: Reactive Properties of Coal/Biomass Mixed Fuels. Research in this topic area will focus on definition and measurements of key reactive properties of several mixed coal-biomass fuels through the use of small-scale laboratory experiments and/or science-based computational models.

Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, Ga.) Georgia Tech will team with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., to obtain experimental reactor data and develop kinetic rate expressions for pyrolysis and char gasification for coal-biomass blends using lignite coal and switch grass; develop an understanding of the effect of pyrolysis conditions on the porous char structure; and build mathematical models for predicting gasification behavior for a broad range of pressures and temperatures.
(DOE share: $1,101,814; Recipient share: $463,585; Duration: 36 months)

Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford, Calif.) Leland Stanford Junior University will combine char mass loss measurements in selected environments containing CO2, CO, H2O, and H2 with specific surface area and temperature programmed desorption measurements to determine char reactivity as a function of temperature, pressure, and gas composition. The data will be used to develop a reaction mechanism and associated kinetic parameters that accurately describe the rate-limiting reaction pathways during conversion of the char to syngas. This will be done for each coal/biomass mixture examined.
(DOE share: $457,583; Recipient share: $114,396; Duration: 36 months)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Blacksburg, Va.)—VPI, teaming with the University of Delaware Energy Institute in Newark, Del., and Northeastern University in Boston, Mass., will perform experiments to determine the gas composition of sub-bituminous coal and biomass feedstocks (poplar wood, switch grass, and corn stover); model detailed reaction kinetics and product formation to provide an understanding of the major pathways involved; and simulate and predict the coal-biomass gasification mixtures.
(DOE share: $999,888; Recipient share: $252,504; Duration: 36 months)

Area 3: Design Concepts for Co-Production of Power, Fuels and Chemicals. Projects in this area will focus on the development of preliminary conceptual designs and techno-economic analyses that predict plant efficiency, cost of produced products, and environmental impacts.

Princeton University (Princeton, N.J.) Princeton will design, simulate, and analyze 20 process configurations to enable meaningful cross-configuration comparisons and insights into the potential impacts of advanced technologies. Each plant Princeton designs will produce a separate co-product: synthetic gasoline, light olefins, hydrogen, or ammonia.
(DOE Share: $442,121; Recipient share: $110,570; Duration: 12 months)

University of California Irvine (Irvine, Calif.) The University of California, Irvine, will develop design concepts incorporating advanced technologies in areas such as oxygen production, feed systems, gas cleanup, component separations, and gas turbines for gasification facilities equipped with carbon capture and storage for coproduction of power along with hydrogen, fuels, a petrochemical, and with an agricultural chemical. Three different plant types for three different coals consisting of a bituminous (Illinois No.6) coal, sub-bituminous (Powder River Basin) coal, and lignite co-fed with corn stover will be developed.
(DOE Share: $446,895; Recipient share: $111,725; Duration: 12 months) _GCC

As discussed here previously, it is cheaper to gasify coal and other hydrocarbons than to gasify biomass. The reason the DOE is financing research into coal/biomass mixtures is almost certainly out of "carbon emissions" concerns. But in the long run, the issues of availability and sustainability are far more important than "carbon emissions" -- given the flimsy science behind the hypothesis of anthropogenic carbon doom. In other words, you can grow or scavenge some type of biomass almost anywhere, but you cannot mine coal or other hydrocarbons -- or even geothermal heat, abundant sun, or wind -- just anywhere.

By learning to mix coal, oil, and natural gas with various forms of biomass-derived products, we will be extending our supplies of carbon-based fuels much farther into the future, and providing a more robust, renewable, and versatile feedstock.

How Much Power Does it Take to Run a Wind Turbine?

Most people wonder how much power a wind turbine can produce, and never stop to wonder how much power a wind turbine requires to operate. Mechanical engineer Jerry Graf believes that it is long past time for people to ask that question:

Big turbines often incorporate rechargeable batteries or ultracapacitors to power their own electrical systems. When those get depleted, the power must come from the grid. This power goes into running equipment such as yaw mechanisms that keep the blades turned into the wind; blade-pitch controls that meter the spinning rotor; aircraft lights and data-collection electronics; oil heaters, pumps, and coolers for the multi-ton gearbox; and hydraulic brakes for locking blades down in high winds.

Turbines in northern climes also need blade heaters to prevent icing. Reports I’ve seen say these heaters can consume up to 20% of a turbine’s rated power output. Many big turbines also need dehumidifiers and heaters in their nacelles. And until recently, large turbines employed doubly-fed induction generators that bleed power from the grid to create their magnetic fields. (It should be said, though, that designs now on the drawing boards use permanent magnets instead.)

Instances of low or no wind pose another problem. Large turbines may need to use their generators as motors to help get the blades turning. And some wind skeptics have posed a question about the direct-drive turbines now emerging from the labs: Large ships frequently must expend energy to slowly turn their heavy driveshafts when at port to prevent them from sagging. Could the same be said of these superlarge wind turbines?

Wind-farm operators don’t say much about turbine-power demands. Typically, turbine-power consumption is one of the factors that gets lumped into a wind-farm’s operation and maintenance costs. I’ve never found either a wind-farm operator or a wind-turbine maker willing to discuss these costs. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say the wind industry treats such information as a state secret. _MachineDesign

There are too many aspects to the operation of big wind farms which are treated as state secrets. No wonder the O-P reich promotes wind power so heavily. Politicians are no doubt attracted to the "all image and no substance" aspects of big wind power.

More bad news about big wind

Important Article at Idaho Samizdat: NEI Seeks Consensus on Licensing SMRs

The Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes blog has posted an extremely important article on the struggle to get small modular reactors licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The struggle is being enjoined by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear industry group, and it faces a very difficult uphill battle. Why? Here's an excerpt:

In an exclusive interview with this blog, Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development at NEI, (right) emphasized the serious nature of the work.

"This isn't a forum for people to trade marketing slides," he said. "We are looking for ways to meet the NRC's requirements, but in new or innovative ways that don't impose unnecessary costs on small reactors."

What NEI hopes to do, according to Genoa, "is to create a new regulatory paradigm for small reactors," and to do it in the next 18 months.

NEI's priorities are laid out in remarks Genoa made to the SMR conference last February. In this interview, he ticks off the items at the top of the list including annual fees, decommissioning costs, emergency response, and modularity, e.g., how to manage multiple small reactors at a single site.

Other issues include design certification, the licensing application process, and Price-Anderson liability issues. The last one will be tough, Genoa said.

"It is hard any time you have to make a statutory change."

That doesn't mean it will be easier to change the regulatory requirements to adapt them to SMRs. The NRC has a mature view of reactor safety issues especially for LWRs. Genoa said the NRC "is doing a good job to encourage the industry to organize itself to address the issues." Despite this assessment, the industry still has to make its case with the agency.

Part of it is what the NRC calls a “chicken and egg” issue. The agency wants to see customers showing interest in SMRs before it commits itself to diving deep into the regulatory issues for them. _IdahoSamizdat

The US federal government is largely composed of overpaid ass-kissers who exist to work their way up the civil service ladder to the ultimate golden pension, and take great pains not to stand out from the crowd more than can be avoided. Expecting the NRC or any other US governmental agency to adopt rational and progressive changes in a regulatory framework in order to free up the private sector to innovate and produce, is the height of naivety. That is why the NEI's effort to achieve a breakthrough within 18 months is so monumental.

This is a campaign that will be worth following. Thanks to Idaho Samizdat for their coverage.

Wood to Syngas to Methanol, Plus Seaweed Ethanol

In Soperton, Georgia (USA), Range Fuels has instituted a multi-phase plan to produce methanol from wood and grass, which can then be used to produce biodiesel.

The first phase of the Soperton Plant operations employs Range Fuels’ two-step thermochemical process, which first gasifies non-food biomass such as woody biomass and grasses into syngas. In the second step, the syngas is passed over a proprietary catalyst to produce methanol, which can then be converted in an additional reactor to ethanol.

The Soperton Plant will initially use woody biomass from nearby timber operations, but plans to experiment with other types of renewable biomass as feedstock for the conversion process, including herbaceous feedstocks like miscanthus and switchgrass.

Range Fuels plans to expand the capacity of the plant to 60 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels annually with construction to begin next summer. The Soperton Plant is permitted to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol and methanol each year.

...During phase two of the project, currently slated for mid-2012, Range plans to expand production at the Soperton plant and transition from a methanol to a mixed alcohol catalyst, according to the EPA report. _GCC

As better catalysts to produce butanol from syngas are developed, the higher-value alcohol should come into more common use as a fuel additive for both gasoline and diesel.

Seaweed -- or macro-algae -- can be harvested up to 6 times a year, which makes it a very prolific form of biomass. It can be grown in salt-water ponds virtually anywhere the sun shines.

Scientists from Tohoku University and Tohoku Electric Power Co. have developed a technology to efficiently generate ethanol from seaweed such as sea tangle and sea grape, group members said Saturday.

The technology uses natural yeast discovered by the group as well as a new fermentation method, according to the group led by Minoru Sato, professor of marine biochemistry at Tohoku University _JapanTimes

Since seaweed is considered a pest weed in many areas, its use as a cash crop should spur economic development among a wide range of the socioeconomic strata. Japan is not the only country looking at seaweed as a biomass crop:

The idea of using seaweed for ethanol is also being researched in Korea and the Philippines, as well as in Chile. One of the benefits to using seaweed as an ethanol feedstock are that it grows quickly and allows for as much as six harvests per year. Also, since seaweeds do not have lignin, pretreatment is not necessary before converting them to fuels, making it potentially less expensive than other cellulosic sources._DomesticFuel

Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, and a number of other maritime nations and island nations are also looking closely at the use of macro-algae for fuels, chemicals, plastics, feeds, and other products.