Energy (Renewable – Biofuel)

 

• Biofuel may be defined as any fuel source (such as for example biogas) derived from some renewable biological source (such as for example, biomass from algae materials, animal waste, plants or treated industrial and municipal waste).

 

• Although biofuels may cause less damage to the environment or to people, they are by no means harm-neutral.Biodiesel and ethanol are indeed biodegradable and non-toxic, but for example ethanol is processed to contain denaturants (added ingredients that alter some of the general properties, so as to make the ethanol unfit for a particular purpose, such as for example adding some terrible flavor to the ethanol finished product, to discourage anyone from drinking it).Both biodiesel and ethanol are highly flammable (due to their higher octane content). Biofuels in general produce fewer emissions of particulates, sulfur dioxide, and air toxics when burned than do fossil/nonrenewable fuels, but may produce in higher amounts of nitrogen oxides (which may cause serious lung damage in humans if inhaled on a regular basis) relative to fossil/nonrenewable fuels.Biofuels may also have higher levels of evaporative emissions than fossil/nonrenewable fuels, which may contribute to the result in the generation of ground-level ozone and smog. Oddly, although biofuels emit carbon dioxide – CO2 – which is a prominent greenhouse gas (GHG), biofuel CO2 emissions are not counted when calculating global GHG inventories, because scientists generally assume that the benefits to the environment resulting from growing the feedstocks utilized in the production of the biofuels offset the CO2 emissions resulting from burning the finished biofuel products. Further, there is continuing disagreement among the experts regarding whether the various emissions resulting from the use of any fossil/nonrenewable fuels for the production of the finished biofuel products should be added when calculating global GHG inventories.

 

• Conscientious international biofuel producers are currently attempting to produce biofuel products through the use of cellulosic biomass ingredients (meaning ingredients with a higher cellulose content, since such ingredients require less energy to produce – in terms of cultivation, fertilizer, and pesticides – and also produce fewer and less-harmful emissions in the production processes, than do traditional ingredients.Some examples of cellulosic feedstocks used outside the United States (US) – there is apparently no current domestic commercial cellulosic production, due to legal and technical challenges – in the current commercial cellulosic production of ethanol may be fast-growing trees, native prairie grasses, sawdust and waste paper.Lipid stocks – such as for example: animal fats; grease; and, used cooking oil – may be used for US domestic commercial biofuel production, because of their relatively-low carbon content. Apparently, experts believe that much of the carbon content GHG emissions they may once have had were already burned up in their previous use – such as cooking – and thus to count any carbon content GHG emissions they may cause during the biofuel production process would be double-dipping regarding the calculation of GHG inventories.Again, there is disagreement among the experts regarding whether any emissions from trains and trucks to and from the biofuel processing facilities should be added to the calculation of global GHG inventories. One biofuel production method for lipid-based biofuel production requires the addition of significant amounts of hydrogen during the processing.If such hydrogen was produced from fossil/nonrenewable fuel sources, that would significantly increase the magnitude of CO2 GHG emissions during that production process.

 

• Another source of controversy within the biofuels community (particularly in the US) is whether the use of any woody-biomass fuel sources should be used for the production of biofuels or for the production of any electricity.This is because wood generally has an average 50% carbon content. Thus, burning any wood may result in higher GHG emissions than coal (perhaps contingent upon the process by which the wood and coal respectively are burned), for example, which may generally have a 35% carbon content.Both sides have produced numerous conflicting scientific papers, backing their respective positions. However, the Europeans seem to favor the position that both wood and coal are equally good (or bad) for the environment, and further, that wood can be classified as a renewable energy source (even though it may take 25-50 years to grow replacement trees). For example, there is one mega-power plant in one of the European countries, which was designed to burn both wood and coal for the production of electricity. Now it is always prudent to design power plants to be able to use more than one source of fuel, to allow continuous generation despite fluctuating sources of supply. The irony here is that this particular European plant actually imports all the wood it may burn from states in the southeastern US. Thus, US natural resources are being consumed on a daily basis through much energy expenditure and GHG emissions (all the equipment used in the harvesting process generally runs on regular diesel fuel), and the harvested trees are then transported by ships (another enormous expenditure of energy and GHG CO2 emissions) to Europe, where that plant provides what the owners of the plant and the consumers may consider to be energy-efficient “sustainable” electricity (meaning electricity produced from renewable fuel sources). It is unknown whether the experts in that European country include the GHG emissions resulting from the harvesting of the trees in the US and the shipping of those trees across the Atlantic Ocean, in the calculation of global GHG inventories they produce.

 

• Drafting and negotiation of all agreements, contracts and documents related to the production, sale and distribution of various biofuels.

​

    Progress_Page_Last_Updated_230108_2319