Comments for BIOMASS HUB » Biomass Hub

Comment on ILUC and the Food Versus Fuel Paradox by Kevin Christopher

Kevin Christopher — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:38:26 +0000

Good reference sheet or primer for emerging transatlantic issues surrounding biofuel production. For a domestic, agrarian perspective, I further recommend Wendell Berry’s collection of essays “What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Commonwealth.”

Comment on Biomass Power Potential Huge but Unrealized by admin

admin — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:35:20 +0000

@urmil Mangaldas – Agree about the need for domestic use, but logistics can be tricky. Economics for distributed biopower are working itself out, but still a long way to go to make it viable. A lot depends on the feedstock and technology utilized as well as available incentives. At the utility scale, more robust policies are needed to make it cost-competitive with traditional sources of power.

@Ron Kirchner – Couldn’t agree more about the questions surrounding environmental and climate impacts and the need to ensure that the benefit is more sustainable than fossil resources. However, one-size fits all approach will surely frustrate market penetration. Federal policy, at least in the U.S., has a long way to go to sort out some of the differences among/viability of different feedstocks.

Comment on Biomass Power Potential Huge but Unrealized by Ron Kirchner

Ron Kirchner — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 07:36:12 +0000

Thanks for the good article about the various approaches to biomass for different countries. The biggest stopper for faster biomass development is, that the question about the environmental and climate impacts of bioenergy (biofuels, biogas, woody biomass) is not surely answered yet. How should we use biomass to make it more market competitive and also guarantee, that the serviced product is much “greener” then the one out of fossil ressources?

Comment on Biomass Power Potential Huge but Unrealized by urmil Mangaldas

urmil Mangaldas — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 07:04:56 +0000

sounds great . To popularise it , it has to be developed into simple and usable modes for domestic use. That is ,if it is meant for that apart from commercial usage.

What is the range for using it for different purposes in the house?

What are the initial expenses ?

Has it been used experimentally in homes or in small projects?

Like the Solar cooker which has immense uses ,but not been utilised as much in homes ,this should be made practicable and taken to people tobe used everyday for house hold purposes ,If it is possible.

Comment on Vietnam: Japanese Government to Spend $5 Million for Bioethanol Project in Vietnam by Victoria

Victoria — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:35:21 +0000

To me this looks like the best process ever. The simplicity of the Genesyst Waste to Ethanol procedures using the patented gravity pressure vessel – a very well-proved and simple autothermic tubular device that was previously used in wet air oxidation of sewage sludge – is unquestionably the best use of technology ever. This speeds up and updates the process that was the mainstay of the acidification hyrolysis procedures (dilute acid hydrolysis) used in the 20th Century before the “wxpensive chemical processes” were even considered.
This is the process which Genesyst is using at the yorkshire project (Britain) by the company Mytumm and Selby on their Maltings Organic Treatment plant (I read about following the previous comments) which at GB£70 million will be producing 75 million liters of ethanol by 2014, and it is also being used in the Malta Bioethanol facility by Applied Biofuels Limited a further €90 million project to make 87 million liters of ethanol by 2014, and in Morocco and Israel.
What I didnot realise though is that Genesyst is working in Hardenberg holland and its sister company Agresti Biofuels has also a project in Ho Chi Minh City which will be the fore-runner of a further 40 such projects in the whole of Viet Nam.
The particular interest I see though from Italy is the fact that by using Waste and Sea Weed (in this case Farmed lagoons grown in shallow 400 mm lagoons and in arid-desert regions) there is no impact on the food chain and as its technology is so simple and cheap it would provide a cheap and effective means to produce bioethanol at less than the Brazilians.
Go for it and lets see more of these developments by Geneyst and Applied Biofuels.

Comment on Vietnam: Japanese Government to Spend $5 Million for Bioethanol Project in Vietnam by Charroll

Charroll — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:51:49 +0000

Sírs: You are missing the fundamentals here.

You can make over 40% ò the Country ò Viet Nam’s needs in Ethanol from Wastes discarded in the Municipal Solid Waste sector alone.

Imagine the issue where for example in Ho Chi-Minh City the 8000 tonnes per day of Municipal Solid Waste (the fraction which we hear about) is converted to almost 630 million litres of ethanol per year using the proprietary Genesyst Waste to Ethanol process and the use of its patented gravity pressure vessel. The process which is fully vetted by the EU and UK is being rolled out in a massive development in Malta (with three plants which will produce over 300 million litres of ethanol per year) the UK (with two large plants to produce over 400 million litres of ethanol per year) in Morocco (with a major development which will be located in 100 cities and produce over 50% of the country’s needs in fuel grade ethanol by the early 2020s) in Israel and beyond.

As a country, you in Viet Nam, cannot afford to use food waste when you have so much Municipal Solid Waste available for the same purpose. The Genesyst process can produce Ethanol from waste at a cost which is by far the lowest of all systems around and is a world beater.

Go for it.

Comment on Kenya, Brazil Ink Agreement to Boost Biofuel Production by Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:01:00 +0000

I have seen lots of croton trees in my rural home, and would like to do a viability study of biodiesel production, it will requir funding please help us.

Comment on Hawaii: Curtailed Water Rights Threaten to Derail Biofuel Production by anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:51:34 +0000

85% of all water used to grow algae is recycled in a vertcal closed-loop PBR. I don’t think that will derail algae biofuels. Farmers growing terrestrial crops use more water than algae growers. To learn more about the algae production industry you may want to check out the National Algae Association, the trade association.

Comment on Summary of USDA's Proposed Biomass Crop Assistance Program Rules by Dean Thiessen

Dean Thiessen — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:46:22 +0000

Miscanthus is a genus of perennial grasses, historically researched in the EU and US to identify the ideal energy crop for combustion to generate heat and electricity. Miscanthus satisfies these criteria, and the result is a crop that is both economically profitable and environmentally friendly.

Comment on EPA Sets 2011 RFS2 Targets by New CBO Report Examines Biofuels Tax Incentives | BIOMASS INTEL

New CBO Report Examines Biofuels Tax Incentives | BIOMASS INTEL — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:25:55 +0000

[...] policy overhaul in Washington as reported by Biofuels Digest. With the U.S. biofuel industry struggling to meet RFS2 targets, trade groups are calling for harmonization of policies to create a more competitive [...]