At the UK Wood Recycling site, which has already stockpiled 30,000 tonnes of waste wood since last July (see letsrecycle.com story), waste wood is loaded into hammer mills, shredded and de-contaminated using magnet and air technology designed by the company.

The waste wood is sourced from local authorities, waste firms, furniture manufacturers and packaging companies and is tested by UK Wood Recycling to ensure it meets the chemical specification needed for the biomass plant.

Expected to be operational in July, the Wilton 10 plant run by SembCorp Utilities UK will require around 300,000 tonnes of wood as fuel every year in total. About 40% of this will come from recycled wood, while the remained will come from forestry management schemes, sawmills and specially-grown energy crops.

The power plant will generate 30MW of electricity, enough to fuel 30,000 homes.

Geoff Hadfield, managing director of UK Wood Recycling, a sister firm of Manchester-based Hadfield Wood Recyclers, said: "UKWR is a major step forward for renewable energy in terms of using wood waste to generate electricity. This is a first for us but we hope there will be many more such schemes replicated around the country. There are less than a handful of biomass plants in the UK and over 300 in Germany which gives a sense of what is to come."

Market

Hadfields now sends just 25% of its recycled wood for use in the panelboard industry – having in the past sent all of its wood to that market.

Mr Hadfield said the current surplus of waste wood in the panelboard market and the forthcoming increases in Landfill Tax was providing a good opportunity for biomass outlets for wood.

"This is a golden opportunity for our own business and the biomass industry in general," he said.

Toby Beadle, a consultant who helped SembCorp Utilities UK to get its biomass project off the ground, added: "This is an extremely important event for the whole sector as it brings to the attention of the government that this is real – you can build big biomass projects and you can get the fuel. A lot of potential developers are waiting for this to work before they give the go-ahead and it will open the tap when it does."

Nationally, the survey found that religious organizations and "other services" had the lowest gross energy intensity at 1.25 gigajoules per square metre followed by schools with a gross energy intensity of 1.35 gigajoules per square metre. Hotels and restaurants continued to have the highest gross energy intensity at 2.31 gigajoules per square metre.

Hotel and restaurant energy intensities were lowest in Atlantic Canada and Quebec at 1.74 gigajoules per square metre and 1.78 gigajoules per square metre respectively. British Columbia had the highest energy intensity for this sector at 3.13 gigajoules per square metre, but also had the lowest energy intensity of only 1.02 gigajoules per square metre for the education sector in Canada.

Gross energy intensity is the total energy consumed by type of business, institution or organization at the national or provincial level, divided by the corresponding national or provincial floor area total in square metres.

Differences in gross energy intensity may be explained by the different natures of business conducted by different sectors. Sectors with higher energy intensities tend to consist of establishments with longer operating hours or establishments that operate large pieces of machinery as part of their normal activities.

Conversely, sectors with lower energy intensities tend to consist of establishments that do not operate beyond core business hours or have little in the way of machinery besides general office equipment.

This survey was conducted on behalf of the Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada. Based upon the results, Natural Resources Canada will produce an analytical publication which will be available this summer on the Office of Energy Efficiency website.

Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 5034.

For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact Client Services (toll-free 1-877-679-2746, sbss-info@statcan.ca), Small Business and Special Surveys Division.

Declines in those two key sectors offset an increase in consumption in the transportation sector, particularly fuel used to pipe natural gas, as well as a small increase in the commercial and public administration sector.

In 2005, Canada consumed 7,654 petajoules of energy, down 0.4% from 7,681 petajoules in 2004. One petajoule equals roughly the amount of energy required to operate the Montréal subway system for one year.

Energy use derived from the three main fossil fuels (natural gas, refined petroleum products and coal) declined 1.0%, as a result of reductions in demand from the pulp and paper, chemical and residential sectors.

The industrial sector, the biggest user of energy, consumed 2.6% less in 2005 than the year before. The reduction was due primarily to two industries: pulp and paper, and chemical. Historically, the industrial sector accounts for just under one-third (31%) of total energy consumption, the highest proportion of all sectors.

Demand slipped 1.1% in the residential and agriculture sector, which accounts for about 20% of total consumption.

Energy consumption increased 1.8% in the transportation sector and edged up 0.5% in the commercial and public administration sector. The transportation sector, the second largest user of energy, accounted for about 30% of final demand.

Crude oil production falls

Canadian companies produced about 146 million cubic metres of crude oil in 2005, down 2.1% over 2004. (A cubic metre contains 1,000 litres). This amounted to about 401 000 cubic metres a day.

While decreases were recorded for all types of crude oil production, the most significant decline occurred in synthetic crude oil where a facility fire hampered output throughout the first three quarters of 2005.

Production levels in the fourth quarter were strong, however, reflecting the return to normal production in the oil sands area combined with the start up of production at the White Rose Field in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.


Alberta's oil sands remain an important source of crude oil production. In 2005, they accounted for over 39% of total crude oil and equivalent production, up slightly from 38% in 2004 and well above the proportion of 28% in 2000.

In 2005, the oil sands produced 149 000 cubic metres of oil a day. In 2006, this figure had jumped to an estimated 159 000 cubic metres of oil a day, roughly 50% of Canada's total crude oil production.

By 2010, oil sands production is forecasted to surpass 477 000 cubic metres of oil a day, or 67% of total Canadian crude oil production. Capital investment is expected to reach an estimated $11 billion in 2006 and $16 billion in 2007.

Exports of crude oil, primarily to the United States, decreased 2.4% from 2004. These exports now account for more than 62% of all Canadian production.

The US Midwest is still the most significant market for Western Canadian crude oil, consuming 57% of total exports to the United States. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, Canadian crude oil now represents 16% of total US demand for imported crude oil.

In 2005, average Canadian crude oil prices rose to more than $52 a barrel. This was a 30% increase over 2004, and more than double 1990 prices.

Natural gas production posts modest gain

Natural gas production increased 2.0% from 2004 to 2005. Despite record gas drilling activity in the last three years, production gains have been modest as a result of lower productivity from maturing wells.

Natural gas exports reached 4 066 petajoules in 2005, up 1.1% from 4 022 petajoules in 2004. Slightly higher production levels combined with lower domestic demand, due to milder weather in Canada, resulted in higher exports in 2005.

Well over half (56%) of total Canadian natural gas production goes for export. In the United States, Canadian natural gas accounts for 17% of total American demand for natural gas.

Canada's trade surplus for crude petroleum, refined petroleum and other products, natural gas, coal and electricity reached $53.0 billion in 2005, up from $43.5 billion the year before.

Marginal increase in electricity production

Electricity production from primary sources (hydro, nuclear, wind and tidal) increased 5.7% in 2005 as water conditions continued to improve in many parts of Canada. Nuclear generation posted a marginal increase in 2005.

Hydro generation accounted for 59% of electric power in 2005, the largest source. Nuclear energy provided about 14% of total Canadian electricity production.

However, in Ontario, nuclear power accounts for more than 51% of total electricity generation, enough to supply all the homes in the province.

Nationally, electricity generated using fossil fuels declined marginally in 2005, due to higher generation from primary sources and rising thermal fuel costs.

Although electricity generation from wind, solar and tidal continues to increase, total generation from these sources currently represents less than 0.5% of total generation.

Two large wind projects started up in late 2005: a 99-megawatt project located in St. Leon, Manitoba, and the 150-megawatt "Centennial project" in Swift Current, Saskatchewan.

Electricity demand increased 1.2% in 2005, mainly the result of increased demand by smelting and refining.

First decline in volumes of motor gasoline sales in 14 years

Volumes of motor gasoline sales declined in 2005 for the first time since 1991, possibly the result of soaring prices at the pump. Canadian drivers consumed more than 40 billion litres of motor gasoline, down slightly from 2004 levels.

Gasoline prices across Canada peaked in September 2005. In Montréal, prices reached an average of 118.5 cents per litre for regular unleaded at self-service stations. In Toronto, they averaged 107.2 cents, in Edmonton 102.2 cents and in Vancouver 112.7 cents.

Total demand for all refined petroleum products increased marginally in 2005 over 2004 levels.

Coal production, exports and consumption decreases

Coal production slipped 1.0% in 2005, the result of slightly higher imports.

Final demand for coal by the manufacturing sector declined 1.4% from 2004. Exports of coal fell 6.2%, due primarily to lower demand for Canadian coal from Japan.

Saskatchewan fastest growing province in energy consumption

Energy consumption declined faster than the national average in six provinces: British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta.

Saskatchewan's growth in consumption led the pack, increasing 2.9% from 2004. Higher demand for natural resource-based products, combined with agricultural gains, contributed more to the growth of the economy than any other industry.

Energy use by all sectors, or "final demand", declined 3.8% in Prince Edward Island; 2.2% in British Columbia, 1.1% in Alberta and Nova Scotia, 0.6% in Quebec, and 0.5% in New Brunswick.

The decline in Alberta was due primarily to lower energy use in the oil-producing province's pulp and paper and chemical sectors. Alberta accounted for 18% of total national consumption.

Energy consumption edged up 0.2% in Ontario, which accounted for over 34% of the country's entire energy demand. Consumption in Quebec fell slightly, putting its share at 21%.

Note to readers

In addition to the estimates for 2005, revised data are also available for the reference year 2004.

Factors influencing revisions include late receipt of company data and revisions to previously estimated or reported data. The revised data are available in the appropriate CANSIM tables.

TORONTO - Mondial Energy Inc. has been named the only winner for Canada of the prestigious European Energy Globe Award. Mondial is being recognized as an innovative renewable energy utility company. The award ceremony will take place at the European Parliament in Brussels on the evening of April 11, 2007.

In 2006 more than 700 projects from 95 countries participated in the ENERGY GLOBE AWARD competition. On April 11, 2007 the current highlight of this private Austrian initiative will take place at the Hemicycle of the European Parliament in Brussels. This follows gala ceremonies at the Expo in Japan in 2005 and in Vancouver, Canada at the Globe Fair in 2006. The major decision makers in Europe will attend this TV gala, which will be broadcast throughout Europe and internationally by 3sat and the EBU reaching more than three billion households.

The ENERGY GLOBE AWARDS are an invaluable contribution to helping find solutions to a better future as well as building awareness regarding the many obstacles we currently have to overcome in order to help our endangered environment.

What is ethanol?

Ethanol is moonshine. Hooch. Rotgut. White lightning. That explains why the last time Americans produced it in any appreciable amount was during Prohibition. Today, just like back then, virtually all the ethanol produced in the United States comes from corn that is fermented and then distilled to produce pure grain alcohol.

Will my car run on it?

Any car will burn gasoline mixed with a small amount of ethanol. But cars must be equipped with special equipment to burn fuel that is more than about 10 percent ethanol. All three of the major American automakers are already producing flex-fuel cars that can run on either gasoline or E85, a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Thanks to incentives from the federal government, they have committed to having half the cars they produce run on either E85 or biodiesel by 2012.

How fast is ethanol production growing?

About as fast as farmers can grow the corn to make it. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, ethanol production has doubled in the past three years, reaching nearly 5 billion gallons in 2006. With 113 ethanol plants currently operating and 78 more under construction, the country's ethanol output is expected to double again in less than two years.

Is ethanol better than gasoline?

For all the environmental and economic troubles it causes, gasoline turns out to be a remarkably efficient automobile fuel. The energy required to pump crude out of the ground, refine it and transport it from oil well to gas tank is about 6 percent of the energy in the gasoline itself.

Ethanol is much less efficient, especially when it is made from corn. Just growing corn requires expending energy - plowing, planting, fertilizing and harvesting all require machinery that burns fossil fuel. Modern agriculture relies on large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, both of which are produced by methods that consume fossil fuels. Then there's the cost of transporting the corn to an ethanol plant, where the fermentation and distillation processes consume yet more energy. Finally, there's the cost of transporting the fuel to filling stations. And because ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, it can't be pumped through relatively efficient pipelines, but must be transported by rail or tanker truck.

In the end, even the most generous analysts estimate that it takes the energy equivalent of three gallons of ethanol to make four gallons of the stuff. Some even argue that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you get out of it, but most agricultural economists think that's a stretch.

But aren't there environmental benefits to ethanol?

If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.

What about ethanol's economic benefits?

Making ethanol is so profitable, thanks to government subsidies and continued high oil prices, that plants are proliferating throughout the Corn Belt. Iowa, the nation's top corn-producing state, is projected to have so many ethanol plants by 2008 it could easily find itself importing corn in order to feed them.

But that depends on the Invisible Hand. Making ethanol is profitable when oil is costly and corn is cheap. And the 51 cent-a-gallon federal subsidy doesn't hurt. But oil prices are off from last year's peaks and corn has doubled in price over the past year, from about $2 to $4 a bushel, thanks mostly to demand from ethanol producers.

High corn prices are causing social unrest in Mexico, where the government has tried to mollify angry consumers by slapping price controls on tortillas. Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, predicts food riots in other major corn-importing countries if something isn't done.

U.S. consumers will soon feel the effects of high corn prices as well, if they haven't already, because virtually everything Americans put in their mouths starts as corn. There's corn flakes, corn chips, corn nuts, and hundreds of other processed foods that don't even have the word corn in them. There's corn in the occasional pint of beer and shot of whisky. And don't forget high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is added to soft drinks, baked goods, candy and a lot of things that aren't even sweet.

Some freaks even eat it off the cob.

It's true that animals eat more than half of the corn produced in America; guess who eats them? On Friday the Agriculture Department announced that beef, pork and chicken will soon cost consumers more thanks to the demand of ethanol for corn.

It's also true that there's a difference between edible sweet corn and the feed corn that's used for ethanol production. But because farmers try to grow the most profitable crop they can, higher prices for feed corn tend to discourage the production of sweet corn. That decreases its supply, driving the price of sweet corn up, too.

In fact, many agricultural economists believe rising demand for feed corn has squeezed the supply - and boosted the price - of not just sweet corn but also wheat, soybeans and several other crops.

America's appetite for corn is enormous. But Americans consume so much gasoline that all the corn in the world couldn't make enough ethanol to slake the nation's lust for transportation fuels. Last year ethanol production used 12 percent of the U.S. corn harvest, but it replaced only 2.8 percent of the nation's gasoline consumption.

"If we were to adopt automobile fuel efficiency standards to increase efficiency by 20 percent, that would contribute as much as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol," Brown said.

Isn't there a better renewable fuel substitute for gasoline?

Most experts think it will take an array of renewable energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. Ethanol's main drawbacks come not from the nature of the fuel itself, but from the fact that it is made using a critical component of the world's food supply. Ethanol would be more beneficial both environmentally and economically if scientists could figure out how to make it from a nonfood plant that could be grown without the need for fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. Researchers are currently working on methods to do just that, making ethanol from the cellulose in a wide variety of plants, including poplar trees, switchgrass and cornstalks.

But plant cellulose is more difficult to break down than the starch in corn kernels. That's why people eat corn instead of grass. Plus it tastes better.

There are also technical hurdles related to separating, digesting and fermenting the cellulose fiber. Though it can be done, making ethanol from cellulose-rich material costs at least twice as much as making it from corn.

How long will it take before cellulosic ethanol is competitive with corn ethanol and gasoline?

Some experts estimate that it will take 10 to 15 years before cellulosic ethanol becomes competitive. But Mitch Mandich, CEO of Range Fuels, thinks it will be a lot sooner than that. The Colorado-based company has started building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia that converts wood chips and other waste left behind by the forest products industry. Another company, Iogen Corp., has been producing cellulosic ethanol from wheat, oat and barley straw for several years at a demonstration plant in Ottawa, Canada.

How much more efficient would cellulosic ethanol be compared to corn ethanol?

Studies suggest that cellulosic ethanol could yield at least four to six times the energy expended to produce it. It would also produce less greenhouse gas emissions than corn-based ethanol because much of the energy needed to refine it could come not from fossil fuels, but from burning other chemical components of the very same plants that contained the cellulose.

How much gasoline could cellulosic ethanol replace?

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States could produce more than a billion tons of cellulosic material annually for ethanol production, from switchgrass grown on marginal agricultural lands to wood chips and other waste produced by the timber industry. In theory, that material could produce enough ethanol to substitute for about 30 percent of the country's oil consumption.

A University of Tennessee study released in November reached similar conclusions. As much as 100 million acres of land would have to be dedicated to energy crops in order to reach the goal of substituting renewable biofuels for 25 percent of the nation's fuel consumption by 2025, the report estimated. That would be a significant fraction of the nation's 800 million acres of cultivable land, the study's authors said, but not enough to cause disruptions in agricultural markets.

"There really aren't any losers," said University of Tennessee agricultural economist Burton English.

Really? No Losers at all?

There might be losers. Simple economics dictates that if farmers find it more profitable to grow switchgrass rather than corn, soy or cotton, the price of those commodities is bound to rise in response to falling supply.

"You can produce a lot of ethanol from cellulose without competing with food," said Wallace Tyner, an agricultural economist at Purdue University. "But if you want to get half your fuel supply from it you will compete with food agriculture."

There may also be ecological impacts. The government currently pays farmers not to farm about 35 million acres of conservation land, mostly in the Midwest. Those fallow tracts provide valuable habitat for wildlife, especially birds. Though switchgrass is a good home for most birds, if it became profitable to grow it or another energy crop on conservation land some species could decline.

Will Ethanol solve all our problems?

Ethanol is certainly a valuable tool in our efforts to address the economic and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. But even the most optimistic projections suggest it can only replace a fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that Americans consume every year. It will take a mix of technologies to achieve energy independence and reduce the country's production of greenhouse gases.

"I think we're in a very interesting era. We are recognizing a problem and we are finding lots of potential solutions," said David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota.

But if we're serious about achieving energy independence and mitigating global warming, Tilman and other experts said, one of those solutions must be energy conservation.

That means doubling the fuel economy of our automobiles, expanding mass transit and decreasing the amount of energy it takes to light, heat and cool our buildings. Without such measures, ethanol and other innovations will make little more than a dent in the nation's fossil fuel consumption.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press

Agricultural subsidies, mainly granted within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy

Total or partial de-taxation, which is indispensable, because energy taxes account for approximately half of the final price of petrol and diesel

Biofuels obligations, which establish that the fuels sold at the pump must contain a given percentage of biofuels

These three political measures need financial means, which are paid for by the European Commission (agricultural subsidies), by the governments (reduced energy revenues), and by car drivers (increase in the final fuel price). For this reason, an integrated analysis is needed in order to discuss whether investing public resources in biofuels and employing a large extension of agricultural land is the most advisable strategy to solve the problems associated with fossil fuels.

The main argument behind the policies in favour of biofuels is based on the idea that biofuels would not increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by biodiesel in the combustion phase is the same as that absorbed by the plant during its growth through photosynthesis, resulting in a neutral carbon budget. Moreover, substituting part of the oil products with biofuels would reduce the European energy dependency and increase energy security.

However, a more careful analysis of the life cycle of biodiesel reveals that the energy (and CO2) savings is not so high as it might seem at first sight, and in some cases might even be negative. In fact, the raw materials for biofuels are normally obtained with intensive agriculture, which imply a high use of fertilizers, pesticides and machinery. The reason is that, with less intensive agricultural methods, the yield would be lower and the land requirement and the costs would be higher. Also, fossil fuels are used in the processing phase (oil pressing, trans-esterification) and for transporting the oil seeds to the processing plant and from there to the final users.

In any case, even if the objective of the Directive were met, the savings would not be significant. In fact, since the transport sector accounts for 30% of the final energy consumption, the 5.75% of the fuels for transport corresponds to 1.8% of the final consumption. Taking into account that this amount requires the indirect use of fossil fuels, the final savings would be even lower.

For example, considering a very optimistic output/input ratio (the biodiesel produced using one unit of fossil fuels) of 2.5 , we obtain that reaching the 5.75% percentage (approximately 20 million tons of oil equivalent) would imply saving around 36 million tons of CO2 equivalent, i.e., less than 1% of the European Union emissions in 2004 (4,228 million tons CO2) If we take into account the emissions related to the transport of raw materials that are imported and the imports of food crops that would be substituted by energy farming, the savings would be even less, and if the oil seeds are imported from outside Europe possibly even negative.

Another point that is often raised to promote biofuels is urban pollution. Biofuels are not only seen as a "green" fuel on a global scale (reduction of greenhouse effect) but also on a local scale. They would contribute to reducing traffic contamination, and therefore the numerous ailments associated with it. In reality, the advantages from this point of view are very modest. For example, according to a study of the USA Environmental Protection Agency (2002), if diesel is replaced with a blend of 20% biodiesel (B20), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) would increase by 2%, particulate matter (PM), unburnt Hydrocarbons (HC) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) would decrease by respectively 10.1%, 21.1% and 11% . Therefore, it can be assumed that with a 5.75% blend, the reduction in PM, HC and CO would be respectively 3%, 6% and 3% (and the increase in NOx would be negligible).

Against the modest advantages (a small substitution of fossil fuels and a slight reduction of some contaminants with respect to diesel), the disadvantages of a large-scale biodiesel production are apparent.

Due to the low yield, the land requirement is enormous. In the Biomass Action Plan (Annex 11) it is calculated that in order to achieve the 5.75% target (18.6 million toe biofuels), about 17 million hectares would be needed, i.e. one fifth of the European tillable land (97 million hectares). Since there is not so much marginal and abandoned land in Europe, the consequence would be the substitution of food crops and a huge increase of the food imports.

For this reason, both in the Biomass Action Plan and in the EU Strategy for Biofuels it is stressed that Europe will promote the production of raw material for biofuels in extra-European countries, where the European Commission intends to incentive energy farming.

This means that the impacts of energy farming would be exported to Southern countries. It is easily foreseeable that if the European demand for biofuels increased because of biofuel obligations and other supporting policies, Southern countries may be stimulated to replace if not food crops at least native forests with large monocultures.

Energy farming would presumably have a big role in deforestation, because pristine forests would be cut down in order to cultivate energy crops. The consequences would be, besides a worrying reduction of wild biodiversity, a decrease in soil fertility, water availability and quality, and an increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as negative social effects like potential dislocation of local communities.

The European Directive, and in general all biodiesel promoting policies, do not only imply a competition for arable land but might also incentive plantations of palm trees, whose oil is cheaper than any other source. Palm plantations are responsible for most deforestation in South Eastern Asia and represent a real threat to the remaining native forests. Also they are responsible for a high soil erosion rate. For example, between 1985 and 2000 in Malaysia palm plantations caused 87% of the total deforestation and further 6 million hectares will be deforested to make room for palm trees . The same more or less applies to sugarcane plantations in Brazil.

Moreover, taking into account the CO2 emissions due to inter-continental transport and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation (forests are CO2 sinks), the final result might be an overall increase of the greenhouse emissions instead of the whished reduction.

Another possible negative consequence is a reduction in world food availability, which can be a particularly serious problem in a context of increasing population and energy demand. A recent example is the increase in corn price in Mexico by 30% in early 2007, caused by the growing demand for corn-derived bioethanol in the USA (Mexico is a net importer of corn from the USA). Some use the term "ethanolinflation" .

Also, a large scale biodiesel production would imply a strong environmental impact in the agricultural phase: the huge monocultures of energy crops would dramatically reduce agricultural biodiversity, with strong environmental impact in terms of soil erosion, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and water requirement. Also, one of the consequences may be an increase in the use of GMOs. In fact, soybean, maize and rapeseed (among the most used raw material to produce biofuels) are respectively the first, second and fourth most important GMO crops.

Another argument often used in favour of biofuels is rural development. However, it can be argued that support to biofuels should not be used as agricultural subsidies. If the objective is to support agricultural sector, subsidies should be granted to organic agriculture and landscape protection.

Concluding, using public funding to support a large scale biofuel production is not an advisable strategy. Obviously, these considerations do not apply to used oil or agricultural residue recycling, nor small-scale niche productions, all of which may be good strategies, instead.

Summing up, biodiesel cannot contribute to the solution of the problems related to the high dependency of our economy on fossil fuels. The idea that biodiesel could be a solution for the energy crisis is not only false, but also dangerous. In fact, it might favour an attitude of technological optimism and faith in a technological fix of the energy problem. We should never forget that if we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels there is no magic wand: the only possible solution is to modify consumption patterns.

Copyright © 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC

Drumm said she would buy E-85 if her car burned ethanol and if ethanol had the same fuel economy and was less expensive than gasoline.

Those questions are what Manitowoc Shell station co-owner Joe Lambert and other local gas station owners are asking about the cost-effectiveness of selling E-85, other ethanol blends and biodiesel to their customers, even as the state offers incentives.

In his 2007-09 state budget proposal last month, Gov. Jim Doyle recommended tax breaks and state funding to grow the state's renewable energy industry, particularly the production of ethanol and biodiesel, a blend of fuel made from animal fats or vegetable oils and petroleum diesel.

Doyle proposed tax credits of up to $5,000 to gas stations and fleet operators that would install E-85 or biodiesel pumps.

A 'strange' business

Local gas station owners are not sure if the investment in equipment to sell ethanol-blended fuels makes financial sense and if their customers are willing to opt for ethanol blends over gasoline.

Lambert and his business partners are exploring the cost to replace one of the station's fiberglass tanks with a state-approved tank to hold E-85. He could not give a specific figure for removing and replacing the tank, but said it would probably cost well above $30,000.

"It's a strange business," Lambert said. "Right now in the last month or so, ethanol has been more expensive than gasoline … the problem with what (the governor) is saying is that people aren't going to use it if it's going to cost them more."

The proposed state tax credits will help station owners install new equipment despite the considerable cost of ethanol and biodiesel pumps, said Gary Radloff, policy and communications director for the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

"It is true that ethanol does not get the same fuel economy (as gasoline), but it's a tradeoff and ultimately I think that our society is willing to make that tradeoff," Radloff said.

Research has indicated that ethanol and biodiesel produce less air pollution when burned in vehicles than regular gasoline and diesel, Radloff said. He added that ethanol prices could lower over time as the market for ethanol blends grows with increased production of flex-fuel vehicles, cars and trucks designed to burn gasoline or a blend up to 85 percent ethanol.

"If you can get ethanol from the producer … it is cheaper, but the problem is you have to market it through an existing infrastructure that is largely controlled by the big gasoline companies," he said.

But critics, including Richard McDonald, owner of the Exxon station, Bubba's Place on Rapids Road, claim that ethanol, which is primarily made from distilled corn, requires more energy to produce than gasoline and corn crops used in the production of ethanol would take away corn supplies for farming and food production. He would support, however, ethanol that was made more cheaply and without government subsidies.

"A year ago I was the only station in the county that didn't sell ethanol," said McDonald, who views ethanol as a stopgap measure in eliminating the country's dependence on foreign oil. "Now about half of them have gone on the bandwagon. The reason is because consumers were complaining that their high performance vehicles … cannot run more than 10 percent ethanol (before) pushing the envelope bec ause of excess heat."

New ethanol station coming

The Manitowoc Shell isn't the only local station with plans to sell ethanol-blended fuels.

By mid-May, Renew E-85 LCC will open an unmanned station on the 3800 block of Calumet Avenue in Manitowoc that will sell E-85, E-20 and an 89-octane premium unleaded gas, according to Jay Stoflet, director of retail marketing at Oshkosh ethanol producer Utica Energy, which is marketing the fuel with Renew E-85.

Renew E-85 is expected to receive an unknown amount of financial assistance from the state for the station's construction through programs not tied to the proposed state budget, according to Phil Younger, Renew E-85 alternative fuels director.

The Manitowoc stop will contain four pumps — one on each side of the two stations, Stoflet said.

E-85 has sold at other Renew stations for between $1.59 and $1.99 a gallon, Stoflet said, while E-20 usually sells for 5 cents a gallon cheaper than unleaded.

"Across the board, people want to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that they use, and contribute less to the model of big oil companies and Manitowoc is no different," Stoflet said.
Copyright Gannett Wisconsin Online

Through the 2006 Florida Energy Act, the Florida legislature has appropriated $15 million for renewable energy technology grants to promote the use of clean energy.

The funding was awarded to eight organizations, with at least $5 million to support bioenergy projects and $10 million for projects that generate or use other renewable energy resources, including hydrogen, biomass and solar energy. The recipients were selected from among 183 grant proposals seeking nearly $215 million in grant funding and providing more than $505 million in cost share for renewable energy projects.

"The grant program creates a receptive, inspiring environment for research," says Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, R-Fla. "Investments in cutting-edge ventures ensure a stronger economy and a cleaner environment for the next generation of Floridians."

Among the eight recipients is the Florida Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation, which received $1.9 million. The foundation's initiative is designed to increase the use of solar technologies as well as strengthen and stabilize the solar energy industry in Florida.

Copyright © 2000-2007 Zackin Publications Inc.

The combination of reduced farm program payments and increased tax revenues adds at least $1.30 to the U.S. Treasury for every gallon of ethanol produced. This figure even takes into consideration the ethanol incentive program. (AUS Consultants, Inc.)

Ethanol has a tremendously positive impact on the local economies around the plants themselves. Local people are employed; local crops are purchased to make the ethanol; and local tax bases are significantly expanded.

An average-sized ethanol plant employs about 40 people with good-paying, high-skill jobs and provides spin-off jobs through local providers of goods and services for the plant.

Ethanol's impact on agriculture

Ethanol is a great example of value-added agriculture. Ethanol takes corn and other crops and turns them from a commodity into a value-added product.

Ethanol is another use for our nation's corn, which means less is exported and more of our own dollars are kept here at home.

A common misconception is that large agribusinesses control the ethanol industry. Actually, nearly half of the nation's ethanol plants are owned by groups of local farmers or local investors in cooperatives or limited liability companies.

The energy balance of ethanol

Ethanol has a positive energy balance, meaning the ethanol yields more energy than it takes to produce it. It’s an efficient fuel made through an efficient process. It takes less than 35,000 BTUs of energy to turn corn into ethanol, while the ethanol offers at least 77,000 BTUs of energy. Ethanol's energy balance is clearly positive.

Copyright Boone Newspapers, Inc

Cheaper fuel sources

But to be successful long-term, Spence said, it is crucial that the plant migrate from making biodiesel from food crops such as soybean and palm oil, which are expensive and contain a low oil content, to nonfood crops with higher energy potential that are cheaper to buy, such as castor beans or Chinese tallow trees.

He is also confident Texas environmental regulators will come around on biodiesel. Last year, state officials nearly banned biodiesel from being sold in some of the populous areas of Texas, including Houston. They said there was conflicting science about whether the fuel produced more of a smog-forming tailpipe emission known as nitrogen oxide than petroleum diesel. In the end they gave the industry until the end of 2007 to make its case.

Ultimately, Chevron's investment in Galveston may provide a useful model for the oil industry's role in biofuels. But Zalesky said the company, no matter how big it is, knows not to wander too far from what it does best.

"Growing the crop," he said. "I don't ever see us doing that."

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

" Environmental issues and energy conservation has emerged as a top concern among Canadians," was the introduction of the survey emailed the morning of Friday 22, 2007. Because topical concerns draw attention, governments are being pressured to act.

The survey pays special attention to the view of "how businesses deal with environmental issues". As a service to small and medium sized businesses,CFIB wants to ensure that the needs and concerns of Canada's small- and medium-sized enterprises are considered as these environmental policies that effect them are developed.

Other Questions as by the CFIB:

Do You Need Another Property Tax?

City governments across Canada are looking to Vancouver to see if their new "parking tax" is going to take hold. CFIB is working hard to ensure that it doesn't succeed and become yet another municipal government money grab. The potential implications for businesses across the country are huge. Here's the background. Businesses in Greater Vancouver must now pay an additional property tax on the area of their property used for "parking". This includes driveways, walkways, bicycle racks, elevators, landscaped green spaces, and storage areas. The annual tax is levied at the rate of $0.78 per square metre--in addition to the property taxes already payable on the area.

Our members are concerned about this tax for a number of reasons. First, it is assessed only on non-residential properties. Businesses already pay many times their proper share of property taxes; the new tax makes the tax gap even worse.

Second, the tax is assessed by a regionally appointed authority. We believe it is wrong, or even unconstitutional, for an unelected body to have taxing authority.

CFIB has been very active on this issue, mobilizing SMEs to send more than 4,000 faxes to the board of TransLink and BC's Minister of Transportation, meeting with mayors and MLAs, and creating the Park the Tax Coalition. Our efforts have spurred hundreds of stories in the local and national media.

There have been some victories along the way. Our fight stalled implementation of the tax by one full year and forced a rate reduction from $1.04 to $0.78 per square metre. Our ultimate aim is to overturn the tax entirely. However, other cities across the country have expressed interest in the tax. Could yours be next? Let's stop this tax where it started - Battleground Vancouver.

For more information click here.

Big unions shouldn't have the right to put my small business at risk!

We need your help to stop a federal bill (known as Bill C-257) that will ban the use of replacement workers during a strike at federally regulated companies. This means that fundamental services such as railways, trucking, and telecommunications could shut down completely, crippling the distribution of goods and services right across Canada. This proposed legislation is confusing and unclear, and will only complicate labour relations that have been relatively stable for almost 10 years.

This bill is moving quickly through to law and is only one vote away from being passed by the House of Commons. We need your voice to stop this from moving forward - you need to contact your local MP TODAY and let them know that you are worried about the impacts of this bill on your business and on Canada's competitiveness.

CFIB encourages you to contact your MP directly by filling out the Online Action Alert. MPs need to hear from small and medium-sized businesses in their riding. Your input is critical to defeating bill C-257.

“Environmental issues and energy conservation has emerged as a top concern among Canadians," was the introduction to a member survey emailed to all CFIB members this morning (02.22.2007).

The survey pays special attention to the view of "how businesses deal with environmental issues". "Businesses who use energy are continually needing more and more energy" said Publisher of Exchange Magazine, Jon Rohr, "It's a challenge” Rohr states that at the same time a whole new energy conscious market develops and that becomes a major economic driver that “if you can catch that wave” would provide opportunity for some, but for others a “huge amount of frustration.”

As a service to small and medium sized businesses, CFIB wants to ensure that the needs and concerns of Canada's small- and medium-sized enterprises are considered as these environmental policies that effect them are developed.

Other Questions as by the CFIB:

Do You Need Another Property Tax?

City governments across Canada are looking to Vancouver to see if their new "parking tax" is going to take hold. CFIB is working hard to ensure that it doesn't succeed and become yet another municipal government money grab. The potential implications for businesses across the country are huge. Here's the background. Businesses in Greater Vancouver must now pay an additional property tax on the area of their property used for "parking". This includes driveways, walkways, bicycle racks, elevators, landscaped green spaces, and storage areas. The annual tax is levied at the rate of $0.78 per square metre--in addition to the property taxes already payable on the area.

Our members are concerned about this tax for a number of reasons. First, it is assessed only on non-residential properties. Businesses already pay many times their proper share of property taxes; the new tax makes the tax gap even worse.

Second, the tax is assessed by a regionally appointed authority. We believe it is wrong, or even unconstitutional, for an unelected body to have taxing authority.

CFIB has been very active on this issue, mobilizing SMEs to send more than 4,000 faxes to the board of TransLink and BC's Minister of Transportation, meeting with mayors and MLAs, and creating the Park the Tax Coalition. Our efforts have spurred hundreds of stories in the local and national media.

There have been some victories along the way. Our fight stalled implementation of the tax by one full year and forced a rate reduction from $1.04 to $0.78 per square metre. Our ultimate aim is to overturn the tax entirely. However, other cities across the country have expressed interest in the tax. Could yours be next? Let's stop this tax where it started - Battleground Vancouver.

For more information click here.

Big unions shouldn't have the right to put my small business at risk!

We need your help to stop a federal bill (known as Bill C-257) that will ban the use of replacement workers during a strike at federally regulated companies. This means that fundamental services such as railways, trucking, and telecommunications could shut down completely, crippling the distribution of goods and services right across Canada. This proposed legislation is confusing and unclear, and will only complicate labour relations that have been relatively stable for almost 10 years.

This bill is moving quickly through to law and is only one vote away from being passed by the House of Commons. We need your voice to stop this from moving forward - you need to contact your local MP TODAY and let them know that you are worried about the impacts of this bill on your business and on Canada's competitiveness.

CFIB encourages you to contact your MP directly by filling out the Online Action Alert. MPs need to hear from small and medium-sized businesses in their riding. Your input is critical to defeating bill C-257.

Yet, despite its benefits and growing popularity, biodiesel might not be the fuel of the future because, as demand grows, the amount of land needed to produce the oils could become untenable, experts say.

Biodiesel is created in a relatively simple process known as transesterification. Producers, including fuel companies or home brewers, start with clean or waste vegetable oil, then add methanol and a catalyst such as lye. A chemical reaction produces biodiesel and glycerine, which can be separated easily. The glycerine can be used in a variety of products, from soap to manufactured fireplace logs.

Biodiesel has been popular for years among farmers in the Midwest and in the South, where virgin soybean oil typically is used to produce the fuel. Yet its use in the West, until recently, was largely limited to hobbyists who brewed the fuel at home and people who prided themselves on not using oil.

The home brewers include people like Ben Jordan, who makes his own biodiesel and teaches an alternative fuels class at City College of San Francisco, in which students create a batch of biodiesel.

"It's very dangerous and potentially very problematic,' he said. "You're dealing with methanol and lye, and when you mix it together, it is very explosive and toxic. It's not something to mess around with. However, if you know what you're doing, you can safely and easily make it in your own home.'

Home brewers deserve much of the credit for the percolating interest in biodiesel, said Anna Halpern-Lande of Tellurion Biodiesel, a San Francisco marketing and distribution firm.

"The hobbyists make up a very small portion of the market," she said, "but they play a critical role: They capture the public's attention.'

In the past couple of years, biodiesel and other so-called alternative fuels have moved out of garages and workshops and into the mainstream. On Wednesday, Safeway, which operates 300 fuel stations in the United States, opened a biodiesel test pump in West Seattle. The fuel also is becoming popular with celebrities: Country music legend Willie Nelson, for example, is a partner in BioWillie Diesel, which markets the natural fuel primarily to truck stops.

The change hasn't gone unnoticed by some of biodiesel's earlier adopters, such as Ahri Golden, 32, a public radio documentarian from Berkeley, who has burned biodiesel in her 1980 Mercedes for four years.

"It was kind of hippie-ish," Golden said as she filled up at Biofuel Oasis. "Now you see a lot more people with nicer cars and more money coming for the practicality and not just the ideology.'

Yet it isn't practical for everyone. New diesel cars aren't sold in California because of air-quality regulations, and buying an older diesel can be competitive, biodiesel users say. No significant modifications are required to use biodiesel, but because it is a solvent, soft rubber gas lines need to be replaced with stronger tubing.

Biodiesel stations also are still hard to find: There are just nine in the nine-county Bay Area, according to the National Biodiesel Board. The small-scale operations usually have limited business hours.

"You can't just run down to the gas station,' said biodiesel user Jonathan Austin of Oakland. "You've got to plan ahead.'

Because fueling stations have limited hours, many biodiesel users fill their tanks, as well as one or more 5-gallon containers that can be stored in the trunk or stashed in the garage. Although the process of making it can be dangerous, the biodiesel itself is safe because it burns at a much higher temperature.

And while some users don't like to use petroleum diesel, the fuels can be mixed or used interchangeably. Many biodiesel users fill their tanks with blends -- B-20, a blend containing 20 percent biodiesel, is common.

Filling up with biodiesel can also be more costly depending on fuel prices and a vehicle's fuel efficiency, although many experts believe the price will drop as use of the fuel becomes more widespread. At Biofuel Oasis, the current supply of B-99 biodiesel, made from reclaimed soy oil from a potato chip factory, sells for $3.65 a gallon. Gasoline sells for around $2.79 a gallon nearby and petroleum diesel for about $3.01 a gallon. However, cars that run on diesel -- including biodiesel -- can get 40 to 50 miles per gallon.

Many biodiesel users say they care less about the cost and more about cutting America's dependence on oil and combatting climate change. Their bumper stickers reflect those opinions. "Biodiesel -- no war required,' read one on a car waiting to fill up at Biodiesel Oasis. "This car powered by vegetable oil,' read another.

Jennifer Radtke, one of the five women who own Biofuel Oasis, thinks growing concern about climate change and the diminishing oil supply is driving the popularity of alternative fuels.

"A lot of our customers switched to biodiesel because of the war,' she said. "That's probably common in the Bay Area, but across the country, it's probably because of concern about climate change and renewable energy. And that it's so cool.'

Yet biodiesel faces serious obstacles before it can become the fuel of the future.

A current challenge is availability. Interest in biodiesel may be rising, but so far local production isn't. Just one firm manufactures biodiesel in the Bay Area, according to the National Biodiesel Board, but two Bay Area plants are under construction and are expected to be producing the fuel later this year.

Yokayo Biofuels in Ukiah (Mendocino County) has produced biodiesel from waste vegetable oils for five years. The company only recently began making enough to supply Biofuel Oasis, in addition to three stations in Mendocino County.

Kumar Plocher, Yokayo's president and founder, said that although the process of making biodiesel is relatively simple, it can be difficult to efficiently and consistently produce high-quality fuel. Some firms, he said, have invested in top-of-the-line equipment and hired petroleum and chemical industry experts but still failed to produce and distribute the fuel.

Yokayo has grown slowly and learned along the way, he said. The company is still a small producer, he said, making about 15,000 gallons a month.

"Biodiesel has a lot of interesting little nuances that you need to get to know,' he said. "It's its own beast, its own molecule.'

Like oil, biodiesel may have its limits because of the sources of the vegetable oils used to produce the fuel.

"People are really excited about biofuels now,' Plocher said. "But there isn't much knowledge about them. For instance, the issue of sustainability.'

Much of the Bay Area's biodiesel is produced from waste vegetable oil that comes from restaurants -- including burger joints and Chez Panisse. Although that supply is now plentiful, it won't always be, especially if biodiesel use and healthier eating habits become more popular.

"It's extremely attractive and cost-effective, but it's very limited,' said Severin Borenstein, head of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley.

Most of the biodiesel produced and used nationally is made from soybeans, which yield 50 gallons of biodiesel per acre, Plocher said. Sunflowers can produce up to 100 gallons an acre and canola (rapeseed) as much as 150 gallons an acre.

The huge amount of land required to grow biodiesel oil could crowd out food crops. Aware of that concern, some biodiesel producers have started importing palm oil from the tropics. But the growing popularity and production of palm oil for purposes including biodiesel has caused the destruction of rain forests in Malaysia and Indonesia, according to environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth.

Researchers are looking for more productive, and sustainable, sources of biofuel -- including algae. They're focusing primarily on four types of high-oil algae -- diatoms, green algae, blue-green algae and golden algae -- that could be cultivated in farms or ponds. Oils could be extracted using chemical solvents, enzymes, expeller presses, osmotic shock or ultrasonic shock waves.

But whatever its future, biodiesel has already generated a fleet of loyal fans who say they would never go back to petroleum diesel.

"It feels good to be living your own ethics,' McNees said after filling his tank at the Biofuel Oasis. "It is a little bit of a hassle, but knowing that I'm not adding to the problem makes it so worth it.'

© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.

Bullfrog partners with Schneider Power to commission new wind turbines

TORONTO - Bullfrog Power(TM), Ontario's first 100 per cent green electricity retailer, and Schneider Power Inc., a leading Canadian owner and builder of renewable energy generation projects, announced February 20, 2007 the commissioning of two new wind turbines near Spring Bay on Manitoulin Island to meet the rapidly growing demand for green power in Ontario.

Together, the new Enercon E48 800kw turbines will produce approximately 3 million kWh of clean, emission-free power annually, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2,100 tonnes in the first year alone. Through the 20-year power purchase agreement between Schneider Power and Bullfrog, all of the power produced by the new turbines will be supplied to the Ontario grid on behalf of Bullfrog's customers. This new wind power project is in addition to the initiatives being driven by the Ministry of Energy to increase renewable power in the province.

The first 100 per cent green electricity retailer in Ontario, Bullfrog Power sources power exclusively from low-impact hydro and wind generators, such as Schneider Power, that meet or exceed the federal government's Environmental Choice(M) Program EcoLogo(M) standard for renewable electricity. Bullfrog Power provides businesses, non-profits and consumers with a new way to support renewable power.

"Bullfrog Power is building the market conditions necessary to enable renewable power generators like Schneider Power to build and commission new wind power projects," said Thomas Schneider, CEO, Schneider Power Inc. "We're excited to bring more clean, emission-free power to Ontario customers as a result of our partnership with Bullfrog Power."

"The commissioning of these new turbines represents another milestone in our ongoing effort to increase the role that clean renewable power plays in Ontario's energy mix," said Tom Heintzman, President, Bullfrog Power. "This new development is the second major new wind project in less than one year to come online in Ontario to meet Bullfrog customer demand. We're grateful to all of the individuals and businesses who have made this growth in renewables possible by making the choice for carbon-free power."

Since its launch in September 2005, Bullfrog Power has grown rapidly, signing up more than 2,000 residential customers and 150 commercial customers from across Ontario. Commercial customers include Wal-Mart Canada, Ivanhoe Cambridge, Cadbury Adams, RBC Financial Group and Credit Union Central of Ontario. Residential customers include Margaret Atwood, Gord Downie, Jamie Kennedy, Mark Cullen and Edward Burtynsky. The accelerating demand for Bullfrog Power has spurred the development of new renewable generation projects in Ontario including an expansion of the Sky Generation wind farm in the fall of 2006, and the recent Schneider Power installation.

That grain underwent a "green revolution in the 1960s as selective breeding and new growing techniques boosted crop yields to six times the tonnage per acre. As the world's largest scientific organization assembled this week in San Francisco, researchers talked of bringing the same revolution to bear on other energy crops, but they've dropped yesteryear's speculation about plantations of black trees for maximum solar absorption and grasses genetically inserted with self-devouring enzymes, programmed, in effect, with the seeds of their own destruction.

The change in message has been driven by the realization that genetically modified energy crops could be politically controversial and take years to gain regulatory approval.

"This industry is not going to be built on genetically modified plants. They're not going to appear within 15 years, biofuels expert

Chris Somerville, chairman of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Plant Biology at Stanford University, said Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Instead, many scientists are saving the tools of genetic modification and synthetic biology for the microbes that are the workhorses of every biorefinery. Those germs digest plant matter into sugars, then ferment those sugars into fuels.

For now, the U.S. biofuels industry is built on corn, milled and fermented by a highly inefficient process into the same kind of alcohol found in whiskey.

Berkeley researchers say ethanol costs almost as much energy to make as it delivers, while producing more planet-warming greenhouse gases in many cases than just burning plain gasoline.

"In the future there will be a variety of new species that have not been used on a large scale as energy crops, and these species will have different requirements as inputs than current field crops, said Somerville, who has been offered the directorship of the new Energy Bioscience Institute funded by energy giant BP Amoco PLC at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley. Those plants regrow year after year, unlike corn, and need less fertilizer and water, the costliest inputs to energy crops, Somerville said.

Ordinary grasses and trees are 75 percent sugars by weight, presenting more mass for conversion to fuel, but also have more complex plant fibers and more sugars that are more difficult to convert to fuel than simple corn starch.

That's where the bugs come in.

In the hunt for efficiently destructive bugs, scientists for such companies as Diversa Corp. are reaching into the stomachs of cows, tapping hot volcanic vents and hiking deep into Costa Rica's jungles to trap some of the worlds most ravenous termites. They are finding huge communities of bacteria, fungi and protozoa work together.

The trick is identifying the best recipe of genes and conditions for converting plant fibers into sugars or some other fuel precursor.

The U.S. Energy Departments Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek has been decoding the germs' DNA as part of a project with Diversa and other companies to identify those genes so they can be cobbled together into superbugs capable of turning different plant fibers and wastes into fuel.

Pursuit of such "frankenbugs" and new combinations of enzymes is really just beginning, according to Melvin Simon, a Caltech biology professor and Diversa board member.

"People are looking like mad, and there are hundreds and hundreds of these genes," Simon said at the annual meeting of the American Society for the Advancement of Science. "Nobody as far as I know can think of a superbug that can eat your table."

The potential gains in efficiency for the conversion of plant and waste mass into ethanol or other fuels are enormous, said Eddy Rubin, director of the Joint Genome Institute.

"Right now were where we were with the Human Genome Project 15 years ago. It's very inefficient and very costly," he said. "There's a lot of low-hanging fruit that will make things two times, three times and 10 times less in cost."

© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers

GILBERT, Ariz. - Diversified Energy Corporation announced today they have agreed to the terms of an exclusive worldwide license with North Carolina State University for an innovative and breakthrough biofuels technology.

The patent-pending process, termed Centia(TM), directly addresses President Bush's vision to reduce U.S. petroleum consumption by 20% and to increase the renewable fuels standard to 35 billion gallons per year by 2017. It provides several key advantages when compared with other biofuel processes like biodiesel, ethanol and others, including:

Delivers a more advanced and complex hydrocarbon fuel, suitable for demanding applications like jet fuel and as a biodiesel additive for cold-weather operations.

Provides up to a 50% reduction in external energy required in the process.

Utilizes any renewable lipid-based oil compound (soybean, canola, animal fats, algae, etc), thus avoiding being beholden to the price and availability of any one supply source.

Produces an aviation fuel competitively priced with petroleum-derived fuel, before considering the additional financial incentives available from the government.

Offers a "100% green" biofuel product containing no fossil fuel components.

Centia(TM), a name derived from Crudus Potentia (meaning "green power" in Latin), can utilize feedstock oils from edible and inedible animal fats, waste oils, agriculture crops like soybean, algae, newly proposed energy crops, or any other lipid-based feedstock. This provides the owner of a Centia(TM) biofuels plant the flexibility to use the most attractive feedstock at any given time or location. Centia(TM) is initially being positioned to produce commercial and military jet fuel and a cold-weather biodiesel additive -- both of which are challenging and complex hydrocarbon fuels and heretofore have received little attention by the biofuels industry. The overall process flexibility will allow for broad marketplace acceptance and unprecedented options for Centia(TM) biofuel plants to adapt to the ever-changing feedstock and fuels market.

North Carolina State University, a research and academic leader in engineering, agriculture, and bioenergy sciences, has been developing the pieces to Centia(TM) over the last decade. Recent results have proven the fundamental science and defined a path forward to an integrated demonstration and pilot-scale plant. The process is expected to deliver an end-to-end energy efficiency in excess of 85%, a key metric in determining the eventual affordability of the biofuel generated. This high efficiency is a result of the process requiring less than one-half the external energy to operate than other traditional biofuels techniques. The fuel will also be compliant to aviation fuel specifications, including energy density and cold flow properties. The process is "100% green," not relying on the use of any petroleum-derived products as components in the biofuel produced.

Diversified Energy Corporation has been supporting the university in systems integration, scaleup, and the overall commercialization of the technology. Phillip Brown, President and CEO of Diversified Energy, commented, "Centia(TM) represents an absolute breakthrough and we couldn't be more excited to be working with North Carolina State University to bring it to market. A highly efficient, enormously flexible technology has finally arrived that mitigates the many challenges associated with feedstock availability and pricing, process efficiency, and biofuel affordability." "Diversified Energy represents the capable and experienced partner the university needs to take this technology to the next step. The university is committed to the biofuels market area and is eagerly awaiting the introduction of Centia(TM) biofuel plants," remarked Dr. John Gilligan, Vice-Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies at North Carolina State University.

About Diversified Energy Corporation:

Headquartered in Gilbert, Arizona, Diversified Energy Corporation is a privately held alternative and renewable energy company focused on maturing innovative technologies, developing commercial energy projects, and providing engineering services support to project developers. Principal areas of expertise include biofuels, gasification, and next-generation solar.

About North Carolina State University:

A nationally recognized leader in science and technology with historic strengths in agriculture and engineering, North Carolina State University provides a high-quality education in the humanities and social sciences, design, education, life sciences, management, natural resources, physical and mathematical sciences, textiles and veterinary medicine. Whether educating students for the 21st century, improving lives through life-altering research, or partnering with communities, business, and government to create jobs, NC State's commitment to innovation creates a culture of excellence that spreads to every facet of the university and affects people's lives in relevant, powerful ways.

Celunol has recently commenced operations of the US's first cellulosic ethanol pilot facility in Jennings, Louisiana and expects to complete a 1.4 million gallons-per-year, demonstration-scale facility to produce cellulosic ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and specially-bred energy cane by the end of 2007. In addition, Celunol's process technology has been licensed by Tokyo- based Marubeni Corp. and has been incorporated into BioEthanol Japan's 1.4 million litre-per-year cellulosic ethanol plant in Osaka, Japan -- the world's first commercial-scale plant to produce cellulosic ethanol from wood construction waste. The combined company plans to bring its first U.S. commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants into production in late 2009.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Diversa will issue 15,000,000 shares to acquire the outstanding equity of Celunol. In addition, Diversa will provide Celunol with up to $20 million in debt financing to fund its operations prior to the closing, which will be assumed by Diversa at the closing. On a pro-forma, fully diluted basis, Diversa stockholders will retain ownership of approximately 76 percent of the combined company, and Celunol stockholders and option holders will own approximately 24 percent. The merger agreement has been unanimously approved by each company's board of directors and is subject to approval by their respective stockholders, regulatory agencies, and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. The transaction is expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2007.

"Merging our companies significantly accelerates Diversa's and Celunol's strategic plans and creates a new company capable of technical and commercial leadership in the emerging cellulosic ethanol industry," said James H. Cavanaugh, Ph.D., chairman of the Diversa board of directors. "I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ed Shonsey and his Diversa management team for establishing and executing a business strategy with increasing focus on biofuels that has paved the way for the creation of our newly configured company."

Carlos A. Riva, the president and chief executive officer of Celunol, will become the chief executive officer of the combined company and a member of its board of directors upon closing of the merger. John A. McCarthy Jr., the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Celunol, will become the chief financial officer of the combined company upon closing of the merger. As part of the merger, two members of Celunol's board of directors, in addition to Mr. Riva, will be added to the Diversa board. Due to the complementary nature of the two companies, few staffing reductions are expected to occur as a result of the merger.

"The growth of the biofuels industry, and cellulosic ethanol in particular, is one of the most important developments in today's energy sector," said Mr. Riva. "The global market demand for alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol is potentially massive. We believe the combined strengths of both companies will enable us to accelerate commercialization of cellulosic ethanol by leveraging our skills and proprietary knowledge into large-scale biofuels project developments. We have recently completed upgrades at our pilot-scale facility in Jennings, Louisiana, enabling it to be used to prove out our technologies across a range of biomass feedstocks. We will shortly commence construction of the nation's first demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol facility at the same site."

"Carlos is a seasoned executive with a track record of leveraging energy technologies and market knowledge into successful commercial enterprises," stated Dr. Cavanaugh. "In selecting Carlos to lead the combined company, the Diversa board is very confident in his ability to drive the combined companies to greater levels of success in their existing areas than either company could achieve separately."

Mr. McCarthy, 48, has spent fifteen years in the healthcare/life sciences industry in a variety of senior financial and operational roles, managing the transformational growth of early-stage companies into diversified, publicly- traded operating entities. Prior to joining Celunol, Mr. McCarthy served as chief financial officer of Xanthus Pharmaceuticals, Synta Pharmaceuticals, and Exact Sciences, as well as a divisional president of Concentra Managed Care. Prior to his life sciences career, Mr. McCarthy worked for Morgan Stanley & Co. in their investment banking division. Mr. McCarthy holds degrees from Lehigh University and Harvard Business School.

The growing need for alternatives to petroleum-based fuels has emerged as one of the nation's most urgent public policy priorities and enjoys strong, bipartisan support among public policymakers at the federal and state level. In the U.S. alone the total market size for automotive fuels is currently 140 billion gallons per year. Of this amount, five to six billion gallons per year of production capacity, or less than five percent, are currently met by ethanol primarily derived from corn and other grains. In January's State of the Union address, President Bush articulated a national "twenty in ten" goal of reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent over ten years, calling for a seven-fold increase in production of ethanol and other biofuels to meet this goal. The need for increased cellulosic ethanol supplies is due to a variety of factors, including the rising cost and dwindling availability of petroleum, the geopolitical risk of import dependency, and the vast potential environmental benefits from a significant reduction of greenhouse gasses created by non-renewable fossil fuels. The commercialization of cellulosic ethanol creates the potential for the production of significantly larger quantities of ethanol and other biofuels utilizing multiple feedstocks in the long term, and in a wider variety of locations throughout the world.
© 2007 Biofuel Review

"Biofuels represent a grand challenge in technology," Prather told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. "There is no single silver bullet that will make a robust transportation fuels industry a reality."

Most of the 5 billion gallons of ethanol produced annually in the United States comes from corn, but there's not enough corn available to make it a viable long-term source, according to Stephanopoulos.

Right now, about 16 percent of the U.S. corn crop is going into ethanol production, but the fuel makes up less than one percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels, once you take into account the amount of energy needed to produce the ethanol, Stephanopoulos said. Even if all U.S. corn went into ethanol production, there would only be enough for 4 to 5 percent of U.S. annual liquid fuel consumption.

To replace corn, scientists are turning to cellulose found in grasses and agricultural wastes. In his Science article, Stephanopoulos outlined several challenges to producing ethanol from cellulose and avenues of research scientists are pursuing to overcome them.

"The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol is not there yet," he said. However, he estimates that large-scale, economically feasible production of ethanol from cellulose could happen within 10 to 15 years.

One of the major advantages of cellulosic material is its abundance, according to Stephanopoulos. He cited a recent Department of Energy report that estimated the United States could sustainably produce about 1.4 billion tons of such material per year.

"If we can convert that into liquid fuel, that could become a pretty significant percentage of liquid fuels in the U.S.," he said.

In addition, the energy balance in making ethanol from cellulosic material is much more favorable than producing ethanol from corn.

There are two major steps to producing ethanol from plant energy crops and agricultural wastes. First, the plant material must be broken down into its main components (cellulose and hemicellulose), which is done by treatment with heat, acid, ammonia or steam. In the second step, the cellulose is broken down into sugars, such as glucose, and fermented into ethanol. That is usually done by yeast or other microorganisms.

To maximize efficiency, scientists need to improve both the amount of plant material that can be produced per acre and the amount of ethanol that can be produced from the biomass, Stephanopoulos says.

Current lines of research described in his Science article include:

Engineering grasses that can grow at high density, in close proximity to biofuels processing facilities.

Engineering microbes that can efficiently process the two types of sugars commonly found in plant biomass-hexoses and pentoses.

Consolidating the ability to break down cellulose and ferment sugar into ethanol in a single microorganism-"That would be a wonderful possibility, to have a single reactor," Stephanopoulos said.

Last year, Stephanopoulos and MIT colleagues reported that they had developed a new way to engineer the genome of yeast to produce desirable traits-in that case, the ability to tolerate high levels of ethanol, which is normally toxic to yeast. The technique holds promise for the development of other traits that would make yeast more efficient ethanol producers.

In her prepared statement during last week's Senate hearing, Prather pointed to that study as an example of the kind of research that needs to be done if the United States wants to commit to converting to alternative fuels like ethanol.

"If we're going to be serious about it, the government has to be serious about funding long-term research about how we're going to transform our infrastructure-our economy, really," Prather said this week.

Prather emphasized to the committee that the development of biofuels is a "systems problem, meaning that there are lot of components and each one has an impact on all the others."

While some researchers pursue genetic manipulation of microorganisms, they need to also coordinate with others involved in fuel production and consumption-for example, engineers designing new engines and agricultural scientists working with new crops.

"Those are conversations that have to be had all along the pipeline," Prather said. Her other primary message to the committee was that while ethanol is promising, other potential biofuels, such as biodiesel, butanol and hydrogen, should not be excluded from study.

Ethanol has only 70 percent of the energy density of gasoline, making it less efficient, and its tendency to absorb water makes corrosion a concern for the current U.S. petroleum storage and distribution network, she said.

"A broader vision should include the possibility of alternative biomass-derived fuels with better physical properties and better integration into the infrastructure-that is, fuels that will work in existing cars and which can be transported through existing networks," she told the committee.

© 2007 Biofuel Review

Industry spokespeople claim they will increase ethanol production by improving extraction technology, raising yields and expanding the acreage of land under production. Intensification comes at a price. Increased productivity requires more water, fertilizer and pesticides and means more genetically modified crops. Opening new farmland could bring some 10 million acres of fragile land protected by the government's Conservation Reserve Program into production. Otherwise, we may not have enough high-fructose corn syrup for our Cokes or corn-fed beef for our Whoppers.

The new extractive and genetic technologies for improved biofuels production are being developed through select partnerships among a cozy handful of corporate giants in grain, oil and genetic engineering - primarily Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto. The convergence of these powerful industries has far-reaching impacts that will transform food systems and rural economies worldwide.

Ethanol on the cob will come from "processor-preferred" corn hybrids custom-bred for select, centralized ethanol plants. ADM has already gobbled up farmers' biofuel co-ops in Minnesota. Unless there is support or government oversight, it is difficult to see how the rest of the Midwest's farmer-owned co-ops will avoid the same fate.

Biofuels can be produced in ways that spread economic gains and minimize negative environmental impacts. Simply employing sustainable farming techniques to grow fuel crops vastly reduces their negative environmental impact.

All biofuels are not created equal. While some may generate benefits for people and the environment, others may prove more destructive than the fossil fuels they replace. The question is not whether biofuels can solve our energy problems - they can't. The question is: Who pays the price and who reaps the benefits?

Thanks in large part to government subsidies, capital investments are pouring into this industry at a breakneck pace, directing it toward particular technologies and production pathways. The most socially and environmentally responsible options aren't necessarily the ones being pursued. The upcoming 2007 U.S. Farm Bill must determine the policies that shape an economically just and environmentally sound future for biofuels. Thus far, there is no indication the bill will ensure such objectives. For all the fanfare, biofuels are still just a partial fix. Kinder, gentler gasoline will not save us from our gas-guzzling SUVs and continent-crossing semis. If we hope to direct the development of the biofuels industry with a broader public interest in mind, we need to do so intentionally, by legislating for responsible growth, environmentally sound production techniques and equitable forms of production.

Copyright © 2007, The Des Moines Register

Oncore Deployed as Part of OPG's Cost & Schedule Improvement Program

CALGARY - Decision Dynamics Technology Ltd. (TSX-V:DDY) announced today that its Oncore cost and contractor management software is being deployed by the Nuclear Division of Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Oncore will streamline the collection and approval of contractor work tickets, automatically calculate charges based on contract terms, validate and enable payment of contractor invoices and allow project managers to manage and analyze cost and contractor performance in real time. The contract is expected to generate $750 thousand for Decision Dynamics during the first year of the contract and $1.5 million over the five year term.

Oncore is being deployed as part of OPG's Cost and Schedule Improvement Program, an initiative designed to improve efficiency and performance on the significant portfolio of capital, maintenance and outage projects undertaken by OPG each year. Decision Dynamics was awarded the contract after a multi-vendor evaluation process by OPG that included input from some of their contracting companies. Oncore supports multiple contract types, including time and materials, fixed price and lump sum contracts, and will be integrated with OPG's project planning, finance and work order management systems.

"Oncore continues to prove its value within the North American power utilities market," said Justin Zinke, Decision Dynamics' President and CEO. "And, OPG's adoption of Oncore has led to discussions with some of OPG's contractors on how they could leverage Oncore in their businesses."

Oncore tracks labor, equipment, materials and other costs for capital and operations projects by line item, provides robust analytics for complex calculations such as comparative contractor performance, and makes all information available in a central repository. The application provides real-time visibility into project status, reduces invoice disputes, helps prevent overcharges, flags cost or progress problems to allow timely corrective action, eliminates lengthy reconciliation of contractor invoices and timesheets to contract terms, and helps reduce post-project audit costs.

Stressing that NPRA members are among the largest users of ethanol, and refiners will continue to rely on it as a vital gasoline blendstock, Drevna presents some of the challenges facing refiners using biofuels and offered three recommendations. First, as relatively new biofuels enter the market, increased transportation and logistical issues are likely to arise. “Ethanol is not distributed through pipelines because of problems with water contamination and corrosion….Any significant increase in ethanol production will result in more stress on the distribution system,” explains Drevna. Secondly, Drevna recommends that Congress preempt state biofuels mandates. “Congress should preempt local biofuels mandates and reinforce the efficacy of the federal RFS credit-trading system to ensure that the distribution system has the flexibility needed to minimize costs for the consumer.”

Finally, biofuels should be developed with the full realization of their impact on air quality. When blended into gasoline, ethanol increases the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the fuel, resulting in higher volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions – an ozone precursor during summer months. Drevna recommended, “Congress should defer any support for a renewable motor fuels mandate until it completes an analysis of the ozone impacts of these additional VOC emissions and potential impacts on maintaining attainment with the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.”

Drevna concludes his statement by stating that the goal of the biofuels industry -- including both corn-based and/or cellulosic ethanol -- should be economic parity, or better, with that of refined petroleum products while not contributing adversely to air quality. “NPRA recommends that Congress avoid mandating increased volumes of biofuels or a hastened implementation schedule for biofuels beyond that of the existing federal RFS.”

© 2007 Biofuel Review