GreenForze's Blog

A first comment to the Copenhagen talks

greenforze — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:41:44 +0000

I followed the live broad casting all day, until I fell asleep early in the morning and I have also read a few comments and talked with some of my friends around the world – in particular African. First, I would say the trend is that; if you want to show the world you are a credible leader you have to take Climate Change seriously (Brazil, Japan etc)! Secondly, Hugo Chavez is just worried to lose his power base in Central America. But, he might be shooting himself in the foot. Other developing country leaders are bit naive. But it is all normal and expected.

What is a paradigm shift is that, if you listened to US, Russia, Brazil etc the new attitude and understanding, which we in Sweden has understood for a long time, is that “Independently of the outcome of this meeting we will cut carbon emissions as stated as it is good for our country”. And, when they say good they mean from a Sustainability point of view. It is good for Business, it is good for the People (social) and also for the Environment!

This is an attitude that could and should be adopted by the developing countries as well – Support and promote Green Business!

What I am sure of is that there will be a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, or something similar, that makes it possible to fund the movement to turn Africa Green again!

Stop Exporting the African Forests to EU!

greenforze — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:12:25 +0000

There is a general trend to start large scale production of pellets in Africa for the hungry, heavily subsidies EU Biomass-to-Power market. Take UK as an example; where the so called ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) makes it a good business to chop up trees in the heart of Africa, make pellets that has to be transported, usually, on dirt roads to the coast and shipped to a port in UK where only 40% of the energy is used for Power Production and the rest released to the atmosphere. And, 1/3 or more of the total value added is consumed by transportation (which in itself creates Green House Gases).

Sembcorp Biomass Power Station in Middlesbrough, UK, releases about 65% of the energy to the atmosphere.

This is a serious waste of resources:

1) By the UK to have such as generous subsidy on an electric production that wastes 60% of the energy.

2) A subsidy that do not have a LCA approach (Life Cycle Analysis, e.g. no consideration to transportation emissions/cost)

3) Exportation of biomass that is in short supply and soon will be of no supply in the producing countries.

Free Trade and other practices imposed by the West, in favour of the West, makes it very difficult to stop this development. However, the CDM (carbon credits) and other schemes makes it possible to compete with the prices in EU with the local Cooking Fuel prices in Africa. Especially if you compare the price for Charcoal and Plain Biomass for pellets used in an Improved Cooking Stove.

Lets come together and make a plan how we can organise a cost and environmental efficient production of Cooking Fuel and same time reduce emissions of Green House Gases, create additional jobs locally, save the little forest there is left and above all; save hundreds of thousands women’s and children’s life!

Please, help me connect with the NGO’s, owner’s of biomass and if there is anyone in central or local government you think would be interested in making making a difference.

All-Electric Cars a Better Alternative than Bio-Fuels for Africa!

greenforze — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:04:02 +0000

It might sound like a paradox to suggest an All-Electric car strategy to a continent that is suffering from cut-offs, load shedding and where 90% of the rural population and 46% of the urban population is without access to electricity! (Read ‘UNDP-WHO report on energy access in developing countries: review of LDCs & SSAs’)

What we suggest is a combined strategy producing power from biomass and other renewables and All-Electric vehicles!

Starting on the Road of Independence from Oil

Replacing fossil fuels by biological based fuels is the current approach for most governments to solve the addiction to oil. However limitations in biomass supply, competition with food and limited water supply may within a short horizon of time call for better solutions. Both fossil fuels and bio fuels are based on carbon. The bio fuel value chain suffers from low conversion efficiency at the bio fuel factory (25 – 40%) and even worse conversion efficiency in the vehicle (15 – 25%). This multiplies up to an unacceptable low total efficiency measured from biomass to kilometers. The valuable biological carbon deserves a better faith. By shifting the focus from bio-fuels to sustainable transport more efficient, climate neutral and reliable solutions show up.

Biomass-to-Power vs. Bio Fuels

Even if you compare the most efficient 2^nd generation bio diesel made from biomass with generating power from biomass, the Biomass-to-Power alternative ends up as winner:

Biodiesel from Biomass Replacing Fossil Diesel.

A factory producing biodiesel must be big and handle several hundred thousands tons of biomass yearly to be profitable. Hence huge logistic, transport and investment challenges are introduced. The over all efficiency of a biomass to liquid factory today is about 30 %. This means that the calorific value of the bio diesel is 30 % that of the feedstock. The upper limit is suggested to be about 40 %.

Figure 1: Assume the calorific value of a ton of biomass is about 4000 kWh. At current efficiencies the calorific value of the bio diesel produced will be 1200 kWh, corresponding to about 120 liters. Assuming a vehicle efficiency of 20 km/liter (0.5 liter per 10km) 120 liters will propel the vehicle 2400 km. Achieving plant efficiency of 42 % will propel the vehicle 3400 km. However, as the plants must be big the feedstock and the products must be transported over long distances. As a rough estimate we can assume that the total forest-to-tank efficiency is reduced by 10 – 20 % giving 2000 – 3000 km per ton biomass.

Figure 2: In a small-scale plant, say at a power output of 500 kW_e, the current power generation is about 850 kWh electricity per ton biomass. The electric conversion efficiency for biomass is then about 20 %. An electrical vehicle consumes about 0.18 kWh electricity per km, charging losses included. Hence the electric vehicle can be propelled about 4700 km per ton biomass. The electric efficiency of small scale biomass power plants are expected to reach 30 % as technology develops. This will propel the electric vehicle about 7000 km per ton biomass. In addition the electric car is silent, has no local emissions as particles or NOx or no CO₂ emissions.

The Fuel of the Future is Electricity – Power to the People!

Best utilisation of the resources, hence lowest CO₂-emissions
Does not compete with food
Independence of import, security of supply
Multiple energy sources: PV, wind, hydro, biomass, waves, waste
EVs are silent and zero local emissions – good for people
Potential for local business development
Makes people responsible
Local Power Production from Multiple Sources Increases Security of Supply.

Improved Cooking Stoves – 2,2 Billion CERs

greenforze — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:38:21 +0000

According to a recent (26 Nov 2009) report from UNDP-WHO 56% or 3 billion people rely on solid fuels for cooking. In Sub Saharan Africa the number is 620 million people or 82% of the population. 90% is biomass and the rest fossil coal.

A traditional standard, reasonable 3-stove fire uses about 7-8 kg of dry wood per day. And say the average family in the developing world is 6 people (World average is 4) 3 billion divided with six is 500 million times 3000 kg is 1,5 billion tonnes.

An Improved Cooking Stove does the same job with 2-3 kg of dry wood.

While we are waiting for electricity to reach these people and for them to make enough money to afford such a luxury, we should distribute the Improved Cooking Stove technology and Sustainable Fuel Production concept. This would half the overall use of biomass and possibly more than half the need to cut down trees as we would also make pellets of from forest (sawdust) and agriculture residues (from rice husk to straw) not used for any purpose today.

The main three results would be:

1) Many of the 2 million women and children dying from respiratory illnesses would not die and many, many more would not suffer!

2) We would possible save 5 million ha of forest every year (say there is 200 MT/ha of dry biomass) if we cut down half the amount of trees.

3) If we measure the saving in green house gases ONLY from the reduction in biomass used and ONLY in the 1,5 tonnes/1 tonne biomass of CO2. the reduction is 1,1 billion into account.

However, if we take a closer look at the statistics, more than 10% of the Biomass is actually Charcoal, which takes 5 times it weight in production and 6-12 times higher GHG emissions. If we replaced charcoal with virgin/plain biomass, this would save:

Another 5 million ha of forest and another 1,1 billion of CO2, equivalents.

If this concept was implemented it would equal 2,2 billion CERs. 2009 the total yearly reduction in ALL CMD project will be 329 million CERs.

This is what the developing countries should have brought with them to Copenhagen!

Torrefaction

greenforze — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:29:01 +0000

Torrefaction is a process whereby biomass is heated to 250-300°C during 15-60 min in an oxygen free environment. Woody biomass consists of hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin and extractants (chemicals absorbed during the growing cycle through air and dirt, generally <3%). During torrefaction the molecular structure of the wood is altered, enhancing some of the wood’s physical properties – from a biofuel perspective.

As can be seen from the mass and energy balance in the chart above, during the torrefaction process most of the energy value of the biomass is preserved with the product losing 20-30% of its mass while retaining 90% of its energy. The calorific value of the wood increases from 16 to 22 MJ/kg

Torrefied bio mass can further be compressed and pelletized for transportation and ultimate conversion into heat. Torrefied pellets have a number of enhanced physical properties:

Higher energy density – lower transportation cost
Improved grindability – suitable for dust burners (coal power stations)
Hydrophobic – does not absorb water
No biological degradation – can be transported and stored in the open air
Clean combustion – suitable for indoor heating/cooking

Torrefication is a very flexible process that is not just limited to high quality wood. A wide range of biomass is suitable for conversion into BioCoal, including all kinds of forest and agriculture residues.

The initial target markets for BioCoal are industrial users who are mainly focusing on energy content and predictability of supply. Being able to use a variety of bio-mass scrap for the torrefaction process reduces feedstock costs while increasing access to biomass. BioCoal pellets therefore compare favourably to wood pellets for the residential market which have fewer applications and require more expensive feedstock due to DIN+ minimum quality standards in the European market.

The key benefit of torrefied biomass pellets over conventional wood pellets is its ability to act as a substitute for coal or charcoal. For example, torrefied pellets can be mixed with coal and used in coal burning power stations, thereby allowing electricity generators to achieve certain renewable energy targets without the need to build expensive dedicated bio-mass burners.

Electric cars vs Biofuel

greenforze — Sun, 17 May 2009 10:06:35 +0000

During the last decade the production of biofuel has increased dramatically and had severe impact on rain forests in many places of the world and also on the price of food. This chosen strategy was in many ways orchestrated by the fossil fuel sector who’s only interest is that their distribution system is used.

Last two years steep increase in oil price culminating mid 2008 when the world begun to understand the reality of the financial meltdown, the focus changed to the electric car as the better alternative and huge amount of funds moved into battery development projects.

We are in the middle of a paradigm shift. 2010 will possibly be the year of the electric car. The cost and mileage per charge will by then make the electric car a very attractive alternative.

Still the expansion of the biofuel industry is continuing, mainly due to heavy subsidies.

In a number of articles I will give you the background and the arguments why, in all instances it is by far better to produce power from biomass, feed the electric and charge an electric car than making biofuel and transport the biofuel by sea and road to fuel a fossil fuel car.