Author:

BIOMASS 200 2012

Interesting Video , , , , 0 Comment

The Serrat Biomass recovery mulcher consists in a pick-up rotor which lifts up the pruning of fruit trees, vineyard and branches in a second rotor to mulch it. It can be operated by tractor from 120 to 140 CV and 130 to 200 CV with power take off on the front lift. In the case of a standard tractor with a front power takeoff, it’s possible to hitch a trailer behing to store the mulched material. Mulcher with double reversible hydraulic feeder (system BRALAKC). This mulcher is capable of mulching branches up to 12-15 cm of diameter. The size grading is adapted so that the material can be directly use in waste heat boiler of biomasse.

The Great Biofuel Hoax of 2008 – Energy Policy and Climate Change

The Facts , , , 0 Comment

Biofuels. What a great name! It just sounds green. Looking around I see a proliferation of Biodiesel bumper stickers everywhere I look. In my home state of Oregon all filling stations will be required to add at least 10 % ethanol to all gasoline by next year. Environmentalists are cheering as politicians and the media are jumping onto the Biofuel bandwagon. Sounds like a big win for the environment and society – think again, in reality Biofuels are much more brown than they are green.

Here are five reasons why Biofuels may actually be harmful for the environment:

1. Biofuels are so profitable that rain forest, the most efficient absorber of greenhouse gases, is being cut or burned to grow grains and sugarcane to make ethanol or Biodiesel.
2. Farmers growing highly profitable Biofuel crops are looking for the fastest growth and biggest yields and use heavy amounts of chemical fertilizer; which strips key micronutrients out of our increasingly scarce topsoil, and the nitrogen-rich runoff causes massive algae growth that destroys our streams, rivers and lakes.
3. Because Biofuels are more profitable than food crops large amounts of prime farmland is being devoted to Biofuel production creating grain shortages and increasing the price of grain products, especially in third world countries.
4. Although Biofuels emit less greenhouse gases per gallon than petroleum fuels they still emit significant amounts. Biofuels are also less fuel-efficient. In my vehicle mileage drops substantially when I use a fuel containing ethanol. So, overall Biofuels do not reduce greenhouse emissions nearly as much as claimed.?
5. This is perhaps the most important reason. To permanently solve both the energy crisis and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions we will have to move away from consumable fuels to toward energy sources that do not consume fuel, emit heat or produce pollutants. At the moment electricity is the cleanest energy source available and companies are beginning to develop and produce powerful electric cars that can go a few hundred miles on a charge. For these vehicles to be practical we will need to establish charging stations in every town and alongside every highway. This requires a massive transition from filling stations to charging stations. The use of Biofuels will perpetuate the existing infrastructure of filling stations and delay the transition to charging stations. The longer we delay this transition the more greenhouse gases will be released into our atmosphere.

At this point some of you might be wondering why our political leadership and big business is so supportive of Biofuels – yet they never even mention electric vehicles. It might be worth your time to see the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”, which is available on DVD. Click Here to go to their website.

To begin with most big grain producers are large corporate farms with a strong lobbying presence in Washington and a history of making campaign contributions to politicians that support their agendas. Biofuels are big business for these companies.

The auto industry also is heavily involved in politics, lobbying efforts, and campaign contributions. These companies have a big investment in continuing to make internal combustion engines that burn fuels. Moving to electric motors will require major retrofitting for these companies. Biofuels allow them to avoid making this investment.

The petroleum industry has perhaps the most to gain from the implementation of Biofuels. They know that the public will eventually demand a move away from petroleum. All the other solutions will take business away from them. However, they will be refining and distributing Biofuels just like they do with petroleum – and crude Biofuels are cheaper too. So, the petroleum industry stands to make a great deal of money from the distribution of Biofuels.

The petroleum industry makes huge campaign contributions to certain politicians. They have been successful at having many of their supporters and former executives elected and appointed to the highest levels of power in our current administration. It is not surprising that our political leaders are embracing Biofuels.

The solution to both the energy crisis and pollution is to transition to non-consumable fuels. This means solar, geothermal, wind and tidal energy production of electricity. Even nuclear energy could be a viable alternative if spent fuel can be safely transported out of the Earth’s atmosphere using the low-cost rocket technologies recently developed. All of these kinds of energy production are already in use and are becoming cheaper and more efficient every day. We have not yet begun to see the economies of scale and innovation that will make this kind of energy production much cheaper the more that it is developed and used.

At this very moment several companies are planning massive solar energy installations in Arizona, which is beginning to be called the Silicon Valley or Middle East of Solar energy production. Huge wind farms are being planned for the Plains states. We could be only years away from a massive transition to electric vehicles. For this to be successful we need to get big business and our political leadership to focus on this transition. This will take a lot longer if we allow them to remain focused on Biofuels instead.

When comparing non-consumable energy sources to fuel based energy production remember that all fuels must be transported to where they are sold. The transportation of fuels burns more fuel – so these transportation costs must be figured into the numbers used for greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. Distribution of electricity does involve some energy loss, but it is fractional compared to how much energy is used to transport fuel and does not emit greenhouse gases.

Some of you might be wondering why I have not mentioned hydrogen fuel cells. There are three reasons why: 1. Hydrogen combustion still produces heat, 2. Our engineers still have not figured out how to produce hydrogen without using large amounts of energy to do it, and 3. The other renewal energy sources mentioned earlier have already moved beyond the experimental stage and are in real-world use.

On the Bright Future website we offer a comprehensive discussion about energy and climate. Check out our radio show: Click Understanding Climate Change on the Listen page. On our panel for this discussion is Greg Jones, a distinguished climate scientist from Southern Oregon University. This discussion reveals some of the complexities of properly addressing Climate Change.

Randy Bisenz is the founder of http://www.BrightFuture.us, a non-partisan article hub and online community focused on solutions to worldwide problems.

Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Randy_Bisenz

Removing the Biofuel Confusion

The Facts , 0 Comment

I cannot recall a time when there has been so much consternation and confusion among fuel site operators as has been caused by the introduction of a percentage of biofuels.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of advice, but much of it is contradictory, biased and over-technical. So I have tried to cut through this with what I believe is a free, straightforward, easy to understand 10-point advice sheet, that can be obtained from the web site below.

There is now the added problem that the industry could have invested in equipment to gear up to deal with a problem that may possibly, if some environmentalists get their way, not continue; at the moment, this is as categorical as anyone can be.

One of the main proponents of biofuels has been the US Government. For America, biofuels had the dual advantage of increasing its flagging environmental credentials in the world, while tackling some of the problems with its rural economy and reducing its dependence on Middle East oil.

However, many in the environmental lobby have pointed out that the farming and production of biofuels actually creates more CO2 than oil derived fuels and that its cultivation has resulted in a huge increase in world food prices, due to land formerly used for food production being transferred to biofuel crops.

Now the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved E15 (petrol with 15% bio-ethanol) for cars made in 2007 and after, but has delayed a decision on allowing it for use in 2001 to 2006 models. This decision is being legally challenged by the American Petroleum Institute and various food industry groups. Without the US, global momentum for biofuels could slow down. This cooling in enthusiasm is also beginning to show on this side of the Atlantic. The Guardian has reported that UK ministers have said that Britain’s policy of supporting the EU commitment to biofuels is proving counter-productive and the greenhouse emissions associated with biofuels are substantially greater than the savings.

They are now urging the European Commission to rethink the plan.

The admission coincides with a major study published recently, which concludes that biofuels will create an extra 56 million tonnes of CO2 per year – the equivalent of 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020.

Also, for Europe to source the amount of biofuel needed within its own borders, it would need to cultivate an area somewhere between the size of Belgium and the Republic of Ireland.

Added to this is the problem that a small proportion of bio-diesel is made from animal fat, a fact that the growing number of vegetarians in the population has not yet realised. This is likely to cause something of a back-lash when they do wake up to it. At the moment, there is no way for retailers to know whether all or part of their bio-diesel delivery has come from an animal source, so they are unable to offer a vegetarian alternative.

All this means that we could be faced with a complete reversal of policy, stuck at the current 5% level, or it might be decided to press on eventually to 15-20%, with the probable need to have more than one blend available on the forecourt. Or one of the current research projects involving different methods of biofuel production may bear fruit.

The only certainty is uncertainty.

This means that we are faced with the situation that there is an undoubted current problem with which fuel site operators have to deal, but there is a disincentive for companies to invest in research and equipment to tackle the problem more efficiently.

For this reason, I have kept my approach as straightforward as possible, approaching it step by step, so fuel site operators can understand it as well as research chemists.

The first thing I have done is set out the three main symptoms that operators and maintenance companies are likely to spot: pumps running slowly, filters continually clogging, pump motors burning out and, worst of all, customers’ vehicles breaking down.

The most likely cause is the fact that biofuels are extremely good cleaning agents. All tanks, except brand new ones, will have a build-up of sludge in the bottom of the tank and rust and other contaminants around the walls and in the pipes. Biofuels will pick up dirt and particulates and deliver them to the pumps.

The other two causes are biological: bacteria and algae.

Algae forms a dark green to black slime when collected by filters out of suspension and bacteria form gelatinous clumps, which resemble jellyfish when viewed in the tank; these can be up to a foot across.

Both organisms need water, food and a conducive environment in which to thrive. Biofuels provide the food and, because of their propensity to absorb water, they can also provide the hydration. Bio-diesel is more susceptible than the ethanol in petrol, as ethanol is a mild bactericide.

If it is a simple sludge problem and the tanks are not too old, changing the filters a few times, until the sludge has passed through the system, may cure the problem and be the cheapest option.

I also recommend the regular testing of fuel by a specialist company, whether there is an apparent problem or not. Sometimes problems are not obvious by eye alone. A test will show just what problems there are and their extent. It will also establish a base line against which to judge the effectiveness of any remedial work that may have to be carried out.

As well as testing for particles and bio-contamination it is worth testing the specific gravity of the fuel. Normally, water in the fuel is reasonably obvious, but biofuel absorbs water and masks the problem. Often, the only indication is a change in the density of the fuel. Water in the fuel helps the growth of bacteria and algae.

There is also the question of where the water is coming from. The biofuel could be masking another problem – a topic I will return to later.

If these first steps lead to the conclusion that there is a sufficient problem, then, and only then, would I recommend tank cleaning.

All the advice from the USA and Australia, where they have had biofuels longer than we have, is that it is vital to have a clean tank when dealing with biofuel.

Our experience has shown that removing the fuel and thoroughly cleaning all sediment from the tank will cure a clogging problem caused by sediment. It will also remove bacterial colonies and algae clinging to the inside of the tank or in the residual sludge.

From reading the trade press, I noted with interest that other companies are beginning to support the line I have consistently taken for some time, that the only way is to thoroughly clean a tank. This is especially true if the aim is to end up with a thoroughly dry tank.

There has been pressure from some quarters towards remote cleaning from the outside. This, of course, uses a great deal of water, which has to be disposed of as contaminated, and makes it difficult to get a dry enough tank to deal with biofuel problems. I also firmly believe that tank entry is perfectly safe if the proper procedures are adhered to and operatives are correctly trained.

Also, while the tank is empty and clean, it can be checked for leaks and thinning, both by eye and by ultrasound probe.

This is also a good opportunity to get the tank lined, which can reinvigorate a corroded or leaking tank, provide leak detection and help keep the tank clean. There is, of course, also the value of contaminated stock to consider. If the volume of fuel and contamination is such that it cannot be sold through, or its safe disposal would represent too much of a financial loss, it is worth considering fuel polishing. This is where contaminated fuel is sucked out of the tank and put through a series of filters to clean it. For optimum results, I recommend the processed fuel should then be delivered to a cleaned tank. If the contamination is heavy, the fuel may have to go through the filters more than once.

Fuel polishing and tank cleaning go together, as there is little point in returning polished fuel to a contaminated tank, or contaminated fuel to a clean tank.

Once a fuel site operator has clean fuel in a clean tank, we recommend keeping it that way. As each new tanker load can bring in fresh biological contamination and, possibly, water, we believe it is prudent to schedule regular fuel analysis. This may lead to further polishing and cleaning, but taking action early will reduce subsequent costs and disruption.

Finally, I recommend regular tank cleaning. The best way to head off future problems is to schedule a programme of cleaning dependent on site conditions. Again, scheduled maintenance is always going to be cheaper and less disruptive than emergency remedial action.

Nigel Plumb, director DP Fuel Tank Services

Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nigel_Plumb

Advantages and Disadvantages of Biofuels – The Energy Source of Our Future

Future Of Biofuels , , , , 0 Comment

With all of the talk about our dependency on foreign oil and its economic and environmental costs people are very hungry a cheaper alternative that is also good for our atmosphere and biofuels could be that next energy source. We should however analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using biofuel to replace gasoline as the dominant fuel source not just in our country but globally.

Advantages of biofuel

1. It is a very green friendly fuel that can help to halt and even in some cases reverse our current rising levels of green house gas that oil has had a major contributing factor in.

2. It can be made from many sources such as plant material, fungi and algae and since these source are available in abundance and can potentially reproduced on a massive scale they are an energy source that is potentially unlimited.

3. It will end our need to depend on opec and other foreign countries for our energy needs and can potentially help to bring world peace.

4. Biofuels can also help to stimulate jobs locally and can thus have the potential to turn around a global economy that has been slumping for a while now. They are also much safer to handle than gasoline and therefore cause lesser long term health effects on the human body.

As you can see these are all very good advantages in favor of this awesome new fuel source but just like all others, there are also some negative factors involved here.

Disadvantages of biofuel

1. As of right now even though biofuels produce much lesser green house gases the machines that are used to cultivate and produce them still have some problems with carbon emissions so we still need to work on newer ways to produce them in a more greener way.

2. Our technological process to produce biofuels are way to costly for us to be able to afford on a massive scale. We still need billions of dollars of research money into having a manufacturing process that will produce them at a cheaper rate.

3. We still don’t have anywhere near the amount of biofuel converted cars to be able to take advantage of this fuel source. We will need to invest trillions of dollars to change the automobile infrastructure to allow us to take advantage of this awesome natural fuel.

4. Once we are able to build large manufacturing plants we will need to find a way to deal with the very bad smell that is the outcome of the biofuel production cycle and large towns will not want to put up with this bad odor produced.

While there are some disadvantages to biofuel the potential is just to great to ignore and push forward with. This is the energy source of the future so the sooner we can get it to the manufacturing process and made available to the masses the faster we will be able to solve the problems we are now facing with gasoline only lasting another 20 to 30 years.

Author loves writing about new alternative energy sources such as Biofuel. To get the latest information visit http://www.biofuelguide.net to get up to date on the latest biofuel research and information.

Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bob_Randooke

Run Your Car on Bio-Diesel – The Good and Bad Points of Bio Fuel

The Facts , , 0 Comment

If your mode of transport is a diesel oil burner, then your motoring is probably not as clean as you may want it to be. We all should do our bit to keep our planet clean, it is the only one we have after all. In an ideal world we would all switch to electric or at worst hybrid type cars, but this is too expensive for many of us. The good news is you can improve the green credentials of your current transport if you run your car on bio-diesel. If you are trying to decide if this is right for you, below are listed the good, and bad points of bio fuel.

Bad. Using land for producing oil:

One of the bad points of increasing bio fuel production is the amount of land that is going to be needed to grow the oil producing plants that are needed. Concern has been raised that farm land previously used for food production will be used for fuel production, and this will lead to food cost inflation, or at worst food shortages that will effect developing nations.

Good. Can use almost any biomass:

A solution to the point above is to expand the type of organic material we use to make the raw oil. There are tons of food thrown away daily due to spoilage or over production, and much of this can be used to produce fuel. There has even been research done that converted used coffee grounds into bio-diesel. In fact if all the used coffee grains in the world were used, they could provide 1% of the worlds diesel needs. This is something that would usually get thrown away.

Bad. Not good in low temperature environments:

At low temperatures there can be problems with gelling, which in turn will cause fuel system blockages.This can be overcome by using additives or even a tank warmer to pre heat the fuel.

Good. Naturally cleans engine:

It contains detergent that will keep your engine cleaner and also natural lubricants that reduce wear.

Bad. Dissolves rubber due to solvents:

Older diesel engines may have rubber seals and hoses. There are solvents in bio-diesel that eat rubber. Modern engines use artificial silicone rubber and therefore this is not a problem. If yours is an older model however changing the rubber components before you switch is advisable.

Good. Renewable:

Oil will eventually run out. This bio fuel is from a renewable source and so will never run out.

Good. Available now:

It is the easiest way to improve the green credentials of your daily motoring. It is available right now in most areas. Most engines can use it with no modification. You can even make your own, and you can do it using waste cooking oil that most people just throw away.

Good. Cheaper:

Making your own is much cheaper, and plans or kits are available. However even the commercially made stuff is getting cheaper as more people use it, and production methods improve. Fossil oil produced fuel is only going to get more expensive.

Good. Low emissions:

It produces 80% fewer greenhouse gases than traditional diesel. Plus no soot or sulfurous smell. As the gasses that are released are the ones tat where absorbed by the plants used to make the fuel you add nothing to the atmosphere. As well as producing more, burning fossil fuels releases gasses that have been locked away since prehistoric times.

I hope the above points have helped you to decide to run your car on bio-diesel. The pros outweigh the cons, and you can do your bit for the planet, whilst reducing your motoring costs at the same time.

Make your own bio-diesel:

Did you know you can save money by producing your own bio fuel at home? For comprehensive instructions visit this make bio-diesel website at www.how-to-make-biodiesel-today.blogspot.com/.

Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tony_Kitson