Category Archives: synfuels

The Day After Memorial Day – In all fairness to the Energy Conglomerates

Posted on by
Reply

The US Military is the largest single user of carbon based energy in the World. When you toss in the other worlds militaries, if we just cut the militaries of the world to patrolling borders global warming would backup by decades. Not only that but the Energy Companies are pushed around by the military big time. No military and the pirates take tankers…No Iraq war no Iraqui oil…No defense against China they suck all the world’s resources up like a vacuum cleaner…Do I feel sorry for the Energy Companies or the Military? No they deserve each other I just don’t think we deserve them. GO AWAY.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

I am not going to reprint the total article here…this guy did a lot of work on graphs and charts and things but it is interesting and he is not the only person to report on this. It is important to note that the Energy Bulletin has been adopted by the Post Carbon Institute (http://www.postcarbon.org/). Wonder when that happened?

Published May 20 2007 by Energy Bulletin
Archived May 21 2007

US military energy consumption- facts and figures

by Sohbet Karbuz

As the saying goes, facts are many but the truth is one. The truth is that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world. But as a wise man once said, don’t confuse facts with reality. The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.

Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.

FACT 1: The DoD’s total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.

Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than half of it was to Air Force.

FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.

FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5]FACT 5: DoD consumed 97 million gasoline gallon equivalent in its non-tactical vehicles and for that it spent 238 million dollars.

FACT 6: In 2006, its oil consumption was down to 117 million barrels (or 320 thousand barrels per day),[10] despite increasing activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FACT 7: In 2006, for example, DESC reports in its Factbook that it sold 131 million barrels of oil (or 358 kbd) to DoD but DoD Federal Energy Management Report states that DoD consumed 117 million barrels (or 320 kbd).[12]

FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD.

FACT 9: There exist no official estimates. Let me know if you see or hear one. According to my most pessimist estimates it is about 150 thousand barrels per day FACT 10: Whatever the true figure oil consumed by the U.S. military does not show up in world oil demand. See for more explanation under item #425 in October 2004 issue of ASPO Newsletter.

:}

For more of this incredibly insightful and well written article please go to the above website and see it..Even the Military is aware that it is seen as a BIG FAT energy PIG, but it is also aware that NO OIL = NO WAR

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/addressing-the-militarys-energy-efficiency/

Addressing the Military’s Energy Inefficiency

By John Lorinc

 

Report

The folks who gave the world the Hummer, the poster child of fuel inefficiency, want to spawn a new generation of eco-friendly military equipment with cross-over potential in the “civilian sector,” say a group of retired American military officers who released a sharply worded report on Monday calling on the Department of Defense to reduce its “carbon bootprint.”

“The American military gave you the Humvee, and now we’re taking it back,” said retired Adm. John Nathman, the former vice chief of naval operations and an adviser to President Obama, in a conference call on Monday. “You’re going to see some fairly dramatic movement by the Department of Defense in terms of public visibility.”

The report, “Powering America’s Defense,” was published by CNA Analysis and Solutions, a research group based in Alexandria, Va., that issued a previous study on defense and energy security in 2007.

In the new study’s preface, 12 retired military officers lay out the case for weaning the military — and the country — off oil:

Many of our overseas deployments were de?ned, in part, by the strategic decision to ensure the free ?ow of oil, to the U.S. and to our allies. Many of the troops we commanded were aided by air cover from high-thrust delivery systems that only an energy-intense society can provide. Many of these same troops were often burdened and imperiled by battle?eld systems that were energy-inef?cient. Some of the attacks on our troops and on American civilians have been supported by funds from the sale of oil. Our nation’s energy choices have saved lives; they have also cost lives.

As we consider America’s current energy posture, we do so from a singular perspective: We gauge our energy choices solely by their impact on America’s national security. Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inef?cient use of oil also puts our troops at risk.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told The Associated Press that he strongly agreed “with the stark conclusions” of the report, whose authors point out that fluctuating oil prices, dependence on foreign resources and an ailing electricity grid imperil national security both at home and abroad.

“Climate change is a threat multiplier,” said Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, a retired officer and former commander of the Third Fleet.

Defense officials have previously described the American military as likely the world’s largest consumer of petroleum products, with an annual outlay in excess of $13 billion.

Each $1 per barrel increase in oil prices translates into $130 million of extra cost.

Calls for the military to address its environmental performance are not new. But in the past year or so, energy efficiency seems have become more of a priority, from a new solar wall installation at Fort Drum to the purchase of a large electric vehicle fleet for military bases.

:}

After all is said and done, are we safer with all this energy consumption? I think not:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/19-9

Published on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 by Agence France Presse

US Energy Use a National Security Threat: Study

WASHINGTON – US dependence on fossil fuels and a vulnerable electric grid pose a perilous threat to the country’s national security, retired military officers warned Monday in a report.

The threat requires urgent action and the Defense Department should lead the way in transforming America’s energy use by aggressively pursuing efficiency measures and renewable sources, said the report by CNA, a nonprofit research group.

“Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy,” it said.

“The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk,” said the report titled “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.”

The authors, top ranked retired officers from the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, also point to the strained domestic electricity network as a possible hazard for US military bases.

“Our domestic electrical system is also a current and significant risk to our national security: many of our large military installations rely on power from a fragile electrical grid that is vulnerable to malicious attacks or interruptions caused by natural disasters,” it said.

:}

Archer Daniels Midland And Greenwash – They profess green but consistenly pollute

Posted on by
Reply

We are going to trust these folks with our watershed?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646

Green Fuel’s Dirty Secret

by Sasha Lilley, Special to CorpWatch
June 1st, 2006

The town of Columbus, Nebraska, bills itself as a “City of Power and Progress.” If Archer Daniels Midland gets its way, that power will be partially generated by coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy. When burned, it emits carcinogenic pollutants and high levels of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Ironically this coal will be used to generate ethanol, a plant-based petroleum substitute that has been hyped by both environmentalists and President George Bush as the green fuel of the future. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol, which it makes by distilling corn. ADM also operates coal-fired plants at its company base in Decatur, Illinois, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is currently adding another coal-powered facility at its Clinton, Iowa ethanol plant.

That’s not all. “[Ethanol] plants themselves – not even the part producing the energy – produce a lot of air pollution,” says Mike Ewall, director of the Energy Justice Network. “The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has cracked down in recent years on a lot of Midwestern ethanol plants for excessive levels of carbon monoxide, methanol, toluene, and volatile organic compounds, some of which are known to cause cancer.”

A single ADM corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004, according to federal records. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a “major source” of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.

Sulfur dioxide is classified by the EPA as a contributor to respiratory and heart disease and the generation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides produce ozone and a wide variety of toxic chemicals as well as contributing to global warming, according to the EPA, while many volatile organic compounds are cancer-causing. Last year, Environmental Defense, a national environmental group, ranked the Clinton plant as the 26th largest emitter of carcinogenic compounds in the U.S.

For years, ADM promoted itself as the “supermarket to the world” on major U.S. radio and television networks like NPR, CBS, NBC, and PBS where it underwrites influential programs such as the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Now, as it actively promotes its ethanol business, ADM has rolled out its new eco-friendly slogan, “Resourceful by Nature” which “reinforces our role as an essential link between farmers and consumers.”

Despite the company’s attempts at green packaging, ADM is ranked as the tenth worst corporate air polluter, on the “Toxic 100” list of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts. The Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency has charged the company with violations of the Clean Air Act in hundreds of processing units, covering 52 plants in 16 states. In 2003 the two agencies reached a $351 million settlement with the company. Three years earlier, ADM was fined $1.5 million by the Department of Justice and $1.1 million by the State of Illinois for pollution related to ethanol production and distribution. Currently, the corporation is involved in approximately 25 administrative and judicial proceedings connected to federal and state Superfund laws regarding the environmental clean-up of sites contaminated by ADM operations.

:}

:}

San Antonio Makes Money Off Human Waste – That’s right TX city makes cash off doodoo

Posted on by
Reply

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/11/san-antonio-generating-gas-from-sewage/

 San Antonio Generating Gas from Sewage

Written by Ariel Schwartz

Published on September 11th, 2008


san antonio

San Antonio, Texas is making use of its 140,000 tons of sewage generated each year to capture methane gas. The city’s utility board of trustees approved a contract this week to sell 900,000 cubic feet of natural gas derived from the sewage each day to Ameresco, a Massachusetts energy services company.

Though methane is a potent greenhouse gas, it has a variety of uses. The substance can be used for fuel in gas turbines or steam boilers, and it is also used as vehicle fuel in the form of compressed natural gas. Additionally, NASA is researching methane as a potential rocket fuel.

According to Steve Claus, the chief operating officer of the water system, San Antonio’s sewage generates 1.5 million cubic feet of gas each day—enough to fill seven commercial blimps or 1,250 tanker trucks. The facilities needed for the project will be ready in about two years.

San Antonio will get $250,000 a year for the methane—a sum that I hope will go towards more renewable energy efforts in the area.

:}

 http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN0937395520080909

San Antonio residents produce about 140,000 tons a year of a substance gently referred to as “biosolids,” which can be reprocessed into natural gas, said Steve Clouse, chief operating officer of the city’s water system.

“You may call it something else,” Clouse said, but for area utilities, the main byproduct of human waste – methane gas – will soon be converted into natural gas to burn in their power plants.

 The private vendor will come onto the facility, construct some gas cleaning systems, remove the moisture, remove the carbon dioxide content, and then sell that gas on the open market,” Clouse said.

The gas will be sold to power generators, he said.

Some communities are using methane gas harvested from solid waste to power smaller facilities like sewage treatment plants, but San Antonio is the first to see large-scale conversion of methane gas from sewage into fuel for power generation, he said.

Following the agreement, more than 90 percent of materials flushed down the toilets and sinks of San Antonio will be recycled, he said. Liquid is now used for irrigation, many of the solids are made into compost, and now the methane gas will be recycled for power generation.

(Reporting by Jim Forsyth, Editing by Chris Baltimore and Lisa Shumaker)

:}

 http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/900732.html

The utility already sells for reuse a portion of the water that’s cleaned up at its wastewater treatment plants. It also has contracts to turn up to 80 percent of biosolids into compost that’s sold for use in yards and gardens.

“As far as we know, SAWS is the only city in the United States that has completed the renewable recyclable trifecta,” Clouse”.

Clouse said it will take 18 to 24 months for construction of facilities needed for the contract.

:}

Not so delicate post

:}

http://sustainablog.org/2008/09/12/in-praise-of-poop-3-san-antonio-harnesses-power-from-sewage-methane/

For this the third entry in the annals of excellent excrement (after cow and E. coli poop), we will have to travel deep down into the heart of Texas…and then even farther down into the sewers of San Antonio. So don your rubber body suit, gas mask, and sense of humor, for sewage is no longer just stuff to be dumped and forgotten.

No, San Antonio is out to prove that sewage, and specifically the methane that it gives off oh so (i.e., too) naturally without any bother or cost to us, can be used as a source of alternative fuel…I mean it is natural gas, after all.

:}

:}

State Journal Register Supports Big Oil –

Posted on by
Reply

Last week the State Journal Register solicited a “Guest OP-ED” piece from the mouth piece for the Illinois Petroleum Council that in simple form says we must overcome our current energy crisis by,  Conservation and
fuel economy  (which he instantly discounts), Stronger energy-trading alliances with neighbors, Expand domestic resources, and  Diversify supply.  By diversify he means Nukes. You can read the rest of the slop at:

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x833727955/David-Sykuta-We-have-to-get-over-it-and-explore-energy-options

I know for a fact that many people have written to respond against most of his ideas because many environmentalists including Will Reynolds and Diane Lopez always do. I posting my letter here because I sent one and they did not publish it:

Editor

State Journal Register

One Copley Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

Emailed – 07/015/08

Dear Editor:

 

Dave Sykuta recent guest editorial “Get Over It” (the title of an Eagles song)  was nothing but one long environmental taunt. It had nothing to do with the irrationality we call the Oil Market.

 

Supply is not the overwhelming issue that he makes it out to be. The Iranians have 7 or 8 super tankers full of oil (depending on which report you listen to) parked in their main port because nobody is buying them. Why? Because the price is artificially elevated. Speculators beginning as far back as September of last year have bought up the cheap oil. We are now at a precipitous economic moment. An oil Mexican Standoff. The speculators can’t sell or the price will drop dramatically and hardly anyone is buying because they know the price is too high. Best guesstamates are that at least 40-50$$ of the current price of oil is due to speculators.

 

But the Drillers want to take advantage of this artificial shortage to get more Leases, because in their warped minds the leases that they hold are the leases the other guy don’t. The proof of this is the current 85 million acres that they lease that they won’t explore.

 

Really though nobody cares about the price of oil, what they car about is the prices of gasoline products. That price is being rigged as well. Refineries are at 85% of their capacity because if they ran the refineries at capacity they would lose money. In a perverse market flaw, the more they make the cheaper gas becomes and they lose money. Again the gasoline refiners are using the rigged higher oil prices to run up their profits by keeping refineries at the bare minimum it takes to run this country.

 

All the loud shouting at each other about the price we pay at the pump has obscured the realities on the ground. Oil production has been stuck on 85 million barrels a day now for sometime. Even though everybody has pledged to raise it. That may be the real limit on production and the world may have to learn live with it, discounting the fact that China is hording diesel in preparation for the Olympics.

 

Anyway, “if the drill here drill now” crowd had their way, what would they drill with? Brazil just bought or leased the 160 available rigs in the world to try to extract oil from their new alleged oil field off their southern coast.

 

When an oilman that I trust (there ain’t many – please see There Will Be Blood) T. Boone Pickens pledges to build a 1000 megawatt wind farm in Texas and then pays his own money for an TV advertisement to say why. (hint: we are running out of oil) Then I go with the wind farm guy every time.

 

I believe the Eagles said they would tour again when hell freezes over. Did I miss something?

  

Doug Nicodemus

948 e. adams st.

riverton, IL  62561

629-7031

dougnic55@yahoo.com

 

:}

AND YET THEY RUN STORIES LIKE THIS IN THEIR Business Section in the newspaper and don’t even acknowledge that they did on their web site:

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_S_oilprofits22.3ad2ac6.html

Big Oil steers record profits to investors

MONEY: Critics say too much is going into stock

buybacks and not enough into exploration.

By JOHN PORRETTO
The Associated Press HOUSTON – As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?The companies insist they’re trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.It’s good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel. The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn’t stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion — nine times what it spent on exploration.

Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.

“If you’re not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there’s no new oil,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who’s studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.

“It becomes a management decision,” said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor’s. “It’s not like they’re going to the board and saying, ‘Well, I can do one or the other or the other.’ The balance sheets are flush with cash.”
 

:}
:}

Thanks To Gas Turbine World – And Harry Jaeger for pointing out my error

Posted on by
1

In a post in-or-around May 28th I said that the Airforce was preparing to switch to a synthetic fuel made from coal. I said if done properly that it might not be a bad thing environmentally premised on the fact that the Death Comes From Above crowd was going to fly and going to kill no matter what. I mean it’s hard enough to sell a noncarbon economy without trying to argue for peace and harmony. I am for all of the above, but the Corporate Capitalists are never going to buy peace and harmony – it’s just not their thing. There is nothing good about flying from a global warming point of view. But that is for another post.

http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/

Anyway in that post I repeatedly and obnoxiously referred to the process as gasification and it’s not. It’s an entirely different process process using entirely different reagents and at entirely different temperatures. The proper term for that is Coal To Liquids Process(ing)(es) and Harry pointed it out to me. I am soooooo sorry. It has been corrected. I shall never do it again.

For more on this devastating mistake:

www.futurecoalfuels.org/

www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=423

www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

 

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
and even where to invest if you want to:
www.seekingalpha.com/article/22719-liquid–coal-four-stocks-to-watch

 
:}

But it still stinks, generates huge amount of CO2 and other Sox and Nox gases, and it is from the past not the future. Did I mention that it uses twice as much energy as it produces?

cl1.jpg

cl.jpg

cl3.jpg

images available from:

www.treehugger.com

www.celsias.com

Then there is this:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003569.html

July 09, 2006

First US Coal To Liquid Plant ComingThe New York Times reports on plans by Rentech to build a plant to convert coal to liquid fuel burnable in diesel engines.

Here in East Dubuque, Rentech Inc., a research-and-development company based in Denver, recently bought a plant that has been turning natural gas into fertilizer for forty years. Rentech sees a clear opportunity to do something different because natural gas prices have risen so high. In an important test case for those in the industry, it will take a plunge and revive a technology that exploits America’s cheap, abundant coal and converts it to expensive truck fuel.

“Otherwise, I don’t see us having a future,” John H. Diesch, the manager of the plant, said.

If a large scaling up of coal-to-liquid (CTL) production takes place then an increase in pollution seems likely. Though perhaps advances in conversion technologies and tougher regulations could prevent this. The use of coal to make liquid fuels will increase CO2 emissions since the conversion plants will emit CO2 and of course the liquid fuel will emit CO2 just as conventional diesel fuel does. Those who view rising CO2 emissions with alarm therefore see a shift to CTL as a harmful trend.

And, uniquely in this country, the plant will take coal and produce diesel fuel, which sells for more than $100 a barrel.

The cost to convert the coal is $25 a barrel, the company says, a price that oil seems unlikely to fall to in the near future. So Rentech is discussing a second plant in Natchez, Miss., and participating in a third proposed project in Carbon County in Wyoming.

That sounds very profitable. The longer the price of oil stays high the likelier that capitalists will decide it is worth the risk to build CTL plants. Many are holding back worried that oil prices could tank again as happened in the early 1980s. That price decline drove the Beulah North Dakota Great Plains Synfuels Plant into bankruptcy. Though it was restarted and now produces natural gas from coal profitably. Though the bankruptcy cut the capital cost of operating that plant and so is not a perfect measure of the profitability of processes to convert coal to gas or liquid.
:}

Thanks Harry!

Farming And Growing Food After The Oil Runs Out – We Shall Survive

Posted on by
Reply

People have been brainwashed to believe that our world will come to a crashing end without oil. The Peak Oil people in particular have a saying “back to the olduvai valley” because they believe that our civilization will crumble like the Egyptions, Greeks and other GREAT civilizations. Olduvai was the valley where they found the homonid Lucy’s bones.

Admittedly some of those societal “downs” caused famine and pestilence, but in others it merely led to lots of people going back to farming. As silly as it may sound, you can generate electricity with a bicycle and charge a battery to run a computer. Us modern humans have run on excess energy  for so long it might not hurt us or the planet to take a break and set some priorities.

So anyway from where I live in Riverton IL in the USA, I would just go back to farming and let a few yard birds run. Others are not so lucky. I have said with no malice or cruelty that a lot of people are going to die. But I think we will do what humanity has done for 1000’s of years…we hang together.

Here is what other people say:

http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/greenfutures/articles/602540

Farming without fossils

In a world on the cusp of fuel shortages, one enterprising collection of British farmers have come up with a solution they claim is practical, profitable – and close to home. They’re growing their own. Trevor Lawson reports

Barton reckons that the Goodwood estate’s tenant farmers could produce enough biofuel to supply the estate and themselves, and still have a surplus for sale. The key, he argues, is keep it local. “There’s no point in producing seed here, sending it miles for processing and then bringing the fuel all the way back. It’s too inefficient.” So Barton is looking at a combined rape press and refinery system that will produce 2,000 litres of fuel an hour, round the clock, for as long as there is rape seed to supply it. He’s also got plans for the pressed ‘cake’ that’s left over. “You can make it into dense briquettes for a superb solid fuel, burning more slowly than wood but at a higher temperature. So it can be used to feed boilers to generate heat and electricity.” Barton’s logic seems inescapable, and it’s finding allies in Whitehall, too. Nick Cooper manages the Farming Without Fossil Fuels project at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

http://globalpublicmedia.com/stephen_decater_on_farming_without_oil

 Stephen Decater speaks with Els Cooperrider of The Party’s Over on KZYX about biodynamic farming in Round Valley of Mendocino county. Stephen talks about draft horses, their history, and how he uses them. He also talks about the Live Power Community Farm, which is a community-based agriculture (CSA) project, and how this arrangement differs from a market-based relationship. They are looking for apprentices now. Contact info: livepower@igc.org and (707) 983 8196.

 :}

The above is a cool site complete with Post Carbon Institute and Energy Farming sections

:}

Then there are the back to the earth types:

 http://www.soilassociation.org/peakoil

Peak Oil: the threat to our food security

Peak oil refers to the point when the maximum amount of oil that can be extracted globally is reached. Thereafter, production will tail off as remaining reserves become more difficult and more expensive to harvest. Many of the services that we currently take for granted – cheap flights, cheap imports and global distribution of food – will be radically curtailed.
 One of the greatest impacts will be on how and where our food is produced. The dominant models of intensive agriculture and the global food trade depend on vast inputs of oil. In a post peak oil world, the combination of higher transport costs, climate change and increased conflict will necessitate us all relying far more on re-localised food supplies. Even though it requires far lower amounts of oil, organic farming is not exempt from the need to adapt.

You can find out more in our information sheets on peak oil and climate change and agriculture.

Over the last 20 years, the Soil Association has established organic farming as the most sustainable method of production and helped grow a burgeoning market for organic food. Now we must refine our focus if we are to adapt to the changing external circumstances which will touch all our lives very soon. The phrase that comes to mind is that we are ‘building the ark of sustainable agriculture’ for the new era ahead.

The challenge is immediate, but fear should not be the driver. The Soil Association is optimistic that we have the vision and means to create a new, localised food culture that will deliver long-term quality of life in place of the old dynamic of unrestrained globalisation and short-termist exploitation.

http://transitionculture.org/2006/12/20/applying-energy-descent-plans-to-food-and-farming-an-article-in-living-earth-magazine/ 

Applying Energy Descent Plans to Food and Farming – an article in Living Earth magazine.

samag1

The Soil Association is the UK’s organic certification body, and they are making peak oil and the relocalisation of food the focal point of their 60th Anniversary conference in Cardiff in February. I am editing a report that will accompany the conference, which explores this deeper, and to introduce this, I recently wrote an article that appears in Living Earth Magazine, the organisation’s publication. It suggests that the concept of Energy Descent Plans could be applied to food and farming in the UK, an idea that will be explored in more depth in the report. Here is the article followed by some additions from within the Soil Association.

Energy scarcity is an opportunity for a better world, says Rob Hopkins

I used to think that one day the world would literally run out of oil. A driver in Leicestershire would use the last drop and that would be that, similar to the felling of the last Truffula Tree in Dr Seuss’s The Lorax. It turns out that scarcity kicks in earlier than that. It’s not the last drop that is the problem but the mid-point of production, when all the oil that is easy and cheap to extract has been used up. It looks as if we are reaching that point soon.

:}

Where folks have “farmable” or “growable” land, all of us will have to plant Victory Gardens and raise rabbits and chickens. We will have to buy and sell local. For those that do not… well that is something we all should be planning for now. There are probably 2 billion people in harms way. What about the economy? Well what about it? Aren’t WE the economy. Money may be worrthless…but so what. That is only gona matter to people that gots a lot of it.

:}

Where Will Coal to Liquids Go? Maybe up in the air

Posted on by
1

This has been widely reported but I think people have overlooked the broader implications. This could actually work and be good for the environment:

 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/air-force-begin.html

Air Force Begins Testing Synfuel Blend in Fighter Engine

30 April 2008

Engineers at the US Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) have begun testing a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, the power plant for the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a blend of alternative synthetic fuel in the J-1 simulated altitude jet engine test cell. Once testing and evaluation is complete, this will be the first fighter jet engine to use the synthetic blend.

Since 2006, AEDC has taken an active role in its support of the US Air Force’s Alternative Fuels Certification Office in the evaluation and certification of the synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) alternative fuel, which is derived from natural gas or coal using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process, for use in all Air Force aircraft.

Testing at AEDC on the GE F101 engine, the power plant for the B-1 Lancer bomber, was the first series of testing of a high performance, afterburning engine with FT fuel for a combat aircraft. (Earlier post.) This engine was also tested in the center’s J-1 high altitude jet engine test cell.

The Air Force has already certified the engines for the B-52 Stratofortress bomber to operate on FT fuel and the C-17 Globemaster III transport has flown on SPK fuel.

 http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3167/Synthetic-fuel-testing-begins-on-fighter-engine.html

and

 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.military.naval/2008-05/msg02235.html

U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push Dependence on Oil Seen as too Risky

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Do you wonder why the Navy thinks nuke is a good idea?

U.S. Military Launches
Alternative-Fuel Push
Dependence on Oil
Seen as too Risky
B-1 Takes Test Flight
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
May 21, 2008; Page A1

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. — With fuel prices soaring, the U.S.
military, the country’s largest single consumer of oil, is turning
into an alternative-fuels pioneer.

In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-
named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the
first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic
jet fuel. A similar formula — a blend of half-synthetic and half-
conventional petroleum — has been used in some South African
commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
[Major Expense]

“The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas,” Capt. Fournier
said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane’s thrusters during
the test flight. “But you won’t know unless you try.”

With oil’s multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping — crude
futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New
York trading — energy security has emerged as a major concern for the
Pentagon.

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is
expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil
if it’s mass-produced.

Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its
dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq
alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring
countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security
advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers
could cripple military operations around the world. “The endgame is to
wean the dependence on foreign oil,” says Air Force Assistant
Secretary William Anderson.

Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the “peak oil”
theory, which holds that the world’s oil production is about to
plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of
the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they
brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for
a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, “energy
security becomes an oxymoron.” House Democrats have proposed creating
a new Defense Department position to manage the military’s overall
energy needs.

:}

Many Readers might be suprised that I might support this idea…But Why? Well, what if the military did it right. My main objection to Coal to Liquid Programs in Illinois  is that they either involve bogus methods of carbon sequestration (untested deep well injection into sandstone) or they don’t. Which would amount to just more global warming when alternatives are available. Using the end product of Liquid To Coal processes as jet fuel for The Defense Department makes excellent sense because there is no alternative. If the Liquid To Coal plant is on a military base there is no environmental ruckus, the US Goverment becomes liable for the Risks and the Cleanup. In addition, if they sited them near one of the depleted secure oilfields , like in OHIO or OKLAHOMA, the sequestration option is viable because they could build a pipeline and pump the effluent to the oil fields. They would in effect be waste free. But Mr. CES you say, will the military do things right? I know, but maybe this time they will.

:}