The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Military Biofuels Debate Continues: NDAA Could Kill Job, Economic Growth, Report Says

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
November 16, 2012  |  50 Comments

The military biofuels debate continues with the release of a new report that claims military investment would generate more than 14,000 jobs by 2020 and $10 billion in economic activity, among other benefits. Commissioned by Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), it claims that military investment would spark the biofuels industry and initiate further investment from other industries such as automotive and airline, but the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could derail progress.

The U.S. Navy particularly has been interested in the biofuels market for some time, pledging to use non-fossil fuel sources for 50 percent of its liquid fuel requirement by 2020.  In July 2012, the Navy showcased its Great Green Fleet at the biennial Rim of the Pacific Demonstration (RIMPAC), which used a 50/50 blend of traditional fuel and 450,000 gallons of algae- and cooking oil-based drop-in biofuels purchased in December 2011 from Solazyme and Dynamic Fuels. The demonstration was deemed a success and the fleet performed without issue, further fueling the military’s passion for biofuels advancement.   

But its ambitious goals have received backlash from several government groups. Just one month before the RIMPAC, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued Pentagon Budget Bill HR 4310 that included a measure to block the military from the development and purchase of biofuels that cost more than fossil fuels. The committee based its decision on military budget cuts, stating in its final report that it preferred funds to be used in vessels and other necessities rather than a new industry.

But after RIMPAC, the Obama Administration approved $62 million for Naval investment in biofuels under the Defense Production Act. The Pentagon also approved $210 million in matching funds to help private companies build three biofuel refineries, each able to produce 10 million gallons of biofuels a year for the military, according to Reuters.

The Navy now faces the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress is expected to address before the end of the year. E2 claims that Congress may remove the Department of Defense’s (DoD) ability to invest in and purchase biofuels from the legislation. 

“Under the current version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which funds the Department of Defense (DOD), those plans could be derailed or at the very least cause some major setbacks,” said Nicole Lederer, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs during a press conference. “Collectively these initiatives have become the single most important market signal to the clean energy industry and they constitute the most comprehensive federal energy policy that we have today to advance clean energy technologies in this country.” 

Though a huge benefit, the military isn’t investing in biofuels for environmental reasons — it is purely a national defense issue, explained Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn (ret.), president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), during a press conference this week.

“[The U.S. military] is charged by our elected officials to care for the national security of the United States. As they do that, they have to look over the time horizon, five, 10, 20 years out,” said McGinn. “And what they have concluded unanimously is that we have a strategic threat in terms of energy security, economic security, and in many dimensions, environmental security that is caused by an overdependence on fossil fuel, especially oil.”

E2 commissioned High Road Strategies, an industrial, economic and energy consulting firm, to conduct the study based on biofuels goals previously announced by DoD. Below are some highlights from the report (the full report can be found here): 

  • Between $9.6 billion and $19.8 billion of economic activity could be generated by 2020 if the DoD is allowed to meet its previously announced biofuel goals.
  • Between 14,000-17,000 new jobs could be created by 2020. If measured on a job-year basis, the total number of jobs created would be more than double that amount.
  • Of these jobs, more than 3,000 will be agricultural jobs from biomass production, and about 1,200 will be in biorefinery operation. An additional 10,000 jobs will be created from biorefinery construction.
  • These economic and job impacts will be broadly distributed geographically, with the greatest benefits to states that create the strongest incentives for biorefineries.
  • In order to meet the military’s cost and volume targets, advanced biofuel companies are leveraging $3.4 billion of private capital invested since 2007 to build new commercial facilities. 
  • Military demand is helping to shape the early market and scale the advanced biofuel industry, which could help the commercial aviation industry and other industries to meet their hopes and plans to expand their use of biofuels.

"Before the election concluded, there were a lot of politics that enetered the discussion about energy. Energy, especially when talking about the Department of Defense's use of energy, should not be a partisan issue — it is an American national security issue, and we really need to treat it as such," said McGinn. "This biofuels industry is just that, an idustry, and it shouldn't be used as a political football...We hope to move from politics to policy."

Lead image: Stuart Monk via Shutterstock

50 Comments

Register To Comment
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 28, 2012
I agree about the accordion characterization, and I think some are beginning to catch on and to be tired of this boom/bust cycling. I encountered a discussion of ways to generate oneself when the grid goes down recently, and I also have attended Solar Oregon events where tinkerers are showing off their solar charging set-ups.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 28, 2012
@PuviAL: Appreciate your thoughtful questions. Best of many EROI analyses for oil that I have found is Guilford, Hall, O'Connor & Cleveland. 'A New Long Term Assessment of Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for U.S. Oil and Gas Discovery and Production.' Sustainability 3, no. 10 (October 14, 2011): 1866?1887. http://www.mdpi.com//2071-1050/3/10/1866/. Hall and Cleveland have been doing EROI analyses across all primary energy sources for a long time. Hall pretty much invented the field, and he is a peak oiler, so I would not accuse him of favoring oil. He currently assesses oil between 10:1 and 20:1. As to peak oil, it is a flawed concept as proposed by Hubbert and held by most ASPO folks today. I do believe oil is a finite resource and I am not a promoter of oil, but rather a deflater of panic and alarmism and propaganda. Oil production follows a logistic curve, not a Hubbert curve. The first half of the curve looks the same, but it ends in a plateau at a higher value, not a symmetric decline. A secular plot of US oil production from 1859 to 1986 nicely follows a logistic curve heading for a plateau at 3.5B BOE annual production until the worldwide oil glut and price collapse of 1986 gutted US domestic market share. US production of corn ethanol is also following a logistic curve, which happens to be peaking (plateauing) this year below 15B gallons, and not because we are running out of corn. It is peaking for the same reasons as US oil production: market competition and market share against other alternatives within an overall bounding limit of carrying capacity. There is merit to your idea of the 'fourth phase of extraction,' but more fundamentally it is about phases of capital investment and return. The history of oil is a giant accordion of scarcity, high price, capital investment, oversupply, price collapse, capital contraction, scarcity. Since 1960 that ROI payoff has been a stable 40 barrels of crude per foot drilled--deeper holes but bigger reservoirs.
Atanacio Luna
Atanacio Luna
November 27, 2012
Cliff, I concur with all your arguments, except that peak-oil theory is invalid. We are in the 4th phase of extraction; more costly, and I suspect your EROI may be off.
I am interested in your sources that may be more current than mine: Richard Martin- Supper fuel, Laughlin - Powering the Future, Yergin -- The Quest, Rifkin etc. You seem to push for fossil fuels beyond the EROI issue. Do you have any solution in mind besides the old conserve idea? I do, and may be interested in your input.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 24, 2012
Interesting stuff. We need to remind Mr. Sklar that there are 5 branches of the armed forces----Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and the Coast Guard.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 23, 2012
Here is a link with references for some of the conversation above.

http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/powering-our-military-whats-th.php?comments=expandall#comments

The military has to report to congress about its fuel consumption. There are other links that may be of interest.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 23, 2012
Any other vets out there want to inform Mr. Claven about the probable reaction by military brass to his penchant for buying local and using non issue fuel, food, parts and other non specification materials? Here's a clue, they won't shake your hand or give you a medal. No matter how much money you think you've saved.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 23, 2012
Fred, you keep broadcasting your ignorance. Most fuel that the US military uses overseas is bought overseas. We don't have anything close to the tanker capacity to push it forward, and would burn too much of it moving it forward even if we did. Fuel and food are bought in theater. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan are just a few of the sources. The Defense Logistics Agency-Energy is the purchasing agent. Sorry, but physics and economics and reality keep getting in the way of your fantasies.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 23, 2012
CliffC----------" that would have to be shipped to the front lines all the way from the US rather than purchased locally during war-time;"-----------

You wouldn't last ten minutes in a war Mr. Armchair General. You don't use ANY fuel, under ANY circumstances that does not come from logistics control in the US. Period.

You can't even tell if that woman pushing the baby stroller is a mother and her child, or a suicide bomber trying to blow you to smithereens. You don't know which of those people walking up or down the street is hiding a gun just waiting for you to turn to other way so they can pull it out and fill you full of holes from behind.

If you buy fuel locally----the odds that you will be getting contaminated or booby trapped fuel are enormous in a war zone. Even fuel shipped in from the US is kept locked and secured at ALL times under heavy guard.

One lone sapper(yes, there is even a name for this type of warfare)could take out an entire tank brigade, or squadron of aircraft permanently.

One lone hostile could do more damage by getting access to your fuel or food and water supplies than the entire Japanesse Imperial Navy did at Pearl Harbor. And he'd be long gone----you'd never know you were under attack until too late----you lose.

Your grade on Strategic and Tactical Military Planning = F.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 23, 2012
CliffC----------" that would have to be shipped to the front lines all the way from the US rather than purchased locally during war-time;"-----------

You wouldn't last ten minutes in a war Mr. Armchair General. You don't use ANY fuel, under ANY circumstances that does not come from logistics control in the US. Period.

You can't even tell if that woman pushing the baby stroller is a mother and her child, or a suicide bomber trying to blow you to smithereens. You don't know which of those people walking up or down the street is hiding a gun just waiting for you to turn to other way so they can pull it out and fill you full of holes from behind.

If you buy fuel locally----the odds that you will be getting contaminated or booby trapped fuel are enormous in a war zone. Even fuel shipped in from the US is kept locked and secured at ALL times under heavy guard.

One lone sapper(yes, there is even a name for this type of warfare)could take out an entire tank brigade, or squadron of aircraft permanently.

One lone hostile could do more damage by getting access to your fuel or food and water supplies than the entire Japanesse Imperial Navy did at Pearl Harbor. And he'd be long gone----you'd never know you were under attack until too late----you lose.

Your grade on Strategic and Tactical Military Planning = F.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 22, 2012
Mary Saunders----" What we now haul to dumps or dump in rivers is considered to be substrate for the anaerobic production of fuel, so as not to allow carbon and nitrogen to leak into the atmosphere from aerobic composting."----------

There you go again Mary, thinking in circles again---you have been following the natural processes again.

And Cliff has been so patient in trying to tutor you in the fact that the ONLY way to restore the earth to it's pristine state is to continue to think in a direct linear way----tear it out, use it up, create mountains of waste, then walk off and leave the problems you've created for someone else to suffer with while you go look for more resources to tear out, use up, lay waste...........etc. etc. etc.

That kind of non-linear thinking will destroy the very foundations of civilization and throw us back into the stone ages when everyone lived in caves and hunted mammouths for food..............OOOOPS, wait a minute, that was Hunter/Gatherer philosophy, the same one we use today to bring us the modern miracle of fossil fuels.

BAD GIRL!!!! { wink }
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 22, 2012
-----" They are a wasteful indirect conversion of fossil fuel energy into biomass, instead of a more direct and efficient use of fossil fuels more directly as fuel"---------

Biofuels do not require the use of petroleum at all.

Any machinery that needs to be used can be run on biofuels.

It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 levels using biofuels---ALL the carbon in biofuels is removed from the atmosphere by the plants the biofuel is made from. If it is not, there are no plants to make the biofuels from.

Artificial fertilizers are heroin for the soil---gasseous ammonia is highly corrosive and toxic---it kills the beneficial bacteria in the soil, and leaches into the watersheds. We are better off without it. Compost is the richest most fertile soil you can have----and it is the final product(along with clean water) of treating sewage and agricultural waste to make methane(biogas). And compost stays where you put it.

Herbicides and pesticides destroy the environment and the interdependence of ecosystems---as well as health(of people and everything else). There are thousands of natural means to control pests through natural means that do not involve the mass poisoning of the biome that every living thing depends on to live.

It seems to me that what you say and what you advocate for are direct polar opposites. What is it exactly you want to do? All I've ever been able to tell is that you simply stand for more of the same old greed, exploitation, and self deluding blind destruction of people, the air, the waters, the land and economic damage the use of fossil fuels is causing.

What is YOUR plan to clean up the environment, promote clean air and water, reduce GHGs and do it all in a cost effective way----and to prepare for the day when the oil runs out?
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 22, 2012
The U.S. government has not been helpful in promoting a cleaner world. Nonetheless, independent thinkers are working on models to stop harmful heat/beat/treat/pollute practices. Farms for a Future, a BBC production discusses getting plant/animal balance to a place where plowing is unnecessary. Navdanya, in India, is working on saving diversity in seeds. An over-view of how some are thinking is displayed at the bottom of the page on the link that follows.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DreamFarm2.php

What we now haul to dumps or dump in rivers is considered to be substrate for the anaerobic production of fuel, so as not to allow carbon and nitrogen to leak into the atmosphere from aerobic composting.

One of our most serious challenges in getting to better nutrient cycles is communication. Old ways of doing things have access to mass communication. New ways usually have less in resources and must suffer insults about what kind of hats the put-down kings want to visualize on our heads. I received tickets to the science museum from the local rich-guy paper by joking back at them that my hat is silver-foil, and it is in the shop anyway.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 22, 2012
Anyone actually reading what I have written would see that one of my objectives is to reduce the use of fossil fuel, including petroleum, and to reduce GHG emissions. Another is to promote national security, which depends upon robust and secure and high-EROI and high-power density energy sources. I have been presenting evidence that cultivated biofuels are increasing our use of fossil fuels and GHG; that they are not energy sources but energy sinks. They are a wasteful indirect conversion of fossil fuel energy into biomass, instead of a more direct and efficient use of fossil fuels more directly as fuel. My allegations are supported by research cited above and throughout my posts. Misplaced zeal for biofuels based on swallowing whole the propaganda that they are clean and green without actually checking the facts is destructive and worth fighting. My motivation is not fear, it is trying to preserve some vestige of this self-immolating nation as a legacy for the next generation, in spite of horrendous public policy and the declining scientific literacy of our population.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 22, 2012
I have to wonder why Cliff Clavens is so deathly afraid that we will use some fuel other than petroleum to fuel our vehicles. ?

Every fuel has its advantages and disadvantages---no one fuel is right for every job. Biofuels offer a range of choices that make them right for any job we need done. We can even build engines that can use a multiple range of fuels. And all biofuels can be used in conjunction with petroleum, in one way or another.

So what is it Cliff? Why are so in love with using petroleum, and hate the idea of anyone using anything else? Even if 90% of the country changed to using ethanol in their vehicle---it would be with Flex Fuel engines----you could still use petroleum if YOU want to. Diesel engines and use petroleum or biodiesel in any proportion at all from 0 to B100 with no modification. If you don't want to use biodiesel---then don't put biodiesel or biodiesel blend in the tank. Most CNG vehicles are bi-fuel, they run on petroleum or CNG at the flip of a switch---if you don't want to use CNG, don't flip the switch.
\
It is easy--if you don't like ethanol, don't use ethanol. Use something else. If you want to use nothing but petroleum---then use petroleum, fine, nobody else cares what you use.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 22, 2012
Practices in this country could harvest fertilizer on land from waste (rather than pouring it into rivers and seas) and suspended use of fertilizer and chemicals from the oil industry.

Instead, the U.S. government subsidizes degradation of soil with practices that cannot be continued indefinitely.

Around the world, and even in the hubris-infected U.S. (exceptionalism), experiments to reduce pollution and damage from agriculture proceed.

The arguments in the military are between those who want to defend the homeland and those who want to extend an empire and its wasteful supply issues. Those who want to defend the homeland want to hold politicians, who incessantly promise us fuel-independence, to account.

This is a complicated strategic and tactical discussion. Who is going to come up with the next great wormlike drilling rig is part of it, but it is not the whole, global picture.

Around the world, the U.S. is noted for a high incarceration rate and high rates of "waste," which gets dumped "elsewhere." The notion of "elsewhere" is silly on a planet that turns.

If we evolve to willingness to put everything on the table in these discussions, we will put hemp on the table, a low-input crop that makes high-Omega-3 oils in its seeds and that has world-wide outputs that are in demand. Rees-Mogg and others do an elegant job of discussing this. Their arguments are being attended to by some.

I love corn, but it has been used as a front crop to skew the possibility of broad scientific examination of the issues in the U.S. Products made from it impair health to a point that is sad, to say the least.

People who carefully understand this dynamic and carefully avoid the harm vary in how they feel about the health of each individual.

Those who are concerned with the dignity of each individual outnumbered presently. Distressed farmers could grow hemp and make a profit. The PTB want them to grow other things.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 22, 2012
The global proved reserves of crude oil are growing faster than consumption, and that has been true on a secular basis since 1980. With a finite resource, at some point we would expect reserve growth to equal consumption (peak oil), and then to fall below consumption. The evidence is that we are still far away from peak oil. Crude oil doesn't suddenly cease to be found. No one of repute on either side of the argument is saying that the world will run out of oil. The debate is when humanity will run out of economically recoverable oil. That trajectory takes us out far past this century if not past the next century. We are currently in a drought that is affecting our bioethanol supply and causing us grief in higher food prices and slowed fuel deliveries when it only provides 6.5% of our transportation energy. Imagine what a drought would do if we supplied 100% of our transportation fuel with domestic biofuel. There is far more energy security in petroleum than there is in biofuel--and that is assuming the two are independent, which is false, as I have argued extensively above but Fred and others refuse to acknowledge. We need to pass a law in this country that no fossil fuel-based fertilizers or agrichemicals can be used in the production of biofuels. That would ensure that the energy in those crops is from the sun and not stolen from fossil fuel. Then we would see what yields the sun really delivers. If the biofuels industry can support itself under those circumstances and sell liquid fuel in a free-market without subsidies, then I am wrong and they truly have something. If they cannot, then the truth of my claims are validated. Bring it on.
ROBERT HALL
ROBERT HALL
November 22, 2012
@claven: " ....that has global proved reserves of over 1.6T barrels and growing." Assuming limited growth in supply beyond 1.6 T barrels, then if daily world-wide oil usage rate of 80 billion barrels does not increase, the 1.6T barrels will last 55 years. If the annual usage rate increases at a rate of 1.5%/year, the 1.6T barrels will last 40 years. In either case, then what??
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 21, 2012
Diesel is military (bio)fuel.
Reason 1: density - diesel has a high specific gravity which is especially important when used in ships: bunker oil 0.97-0.99, diesel ~.89-.96, ethanol .789, gasoline ~.69-.73.
Reason2: energy density: diesel 38.6, bunker oil ~37, gasoline 34.8, ethanol 21.2 MJ/l. you can go a lot farther on a gallon of diesel than a gallon of ethanol. Which one would you want in a combat vehicle.
Reason 3: safety: diesel & bunker flash point ~62 C, ethanol 16 C, gasoline -43 C. Which one would you want to be sitting on top of during desert ops?
Reason 4: hygroscopy: ethanol is very hygroscopic (saturates at 1000000 ppm) and even a problem in E10 gasoline where the saturation point is ~50 times higher than for pure gasoline (~2000 ppm). Diesel is saturated at a very modest ~50 ppm.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 21, 2012
National Security Case 1: Depending upon a fuel from an energy source that is produced in over 80 countries and available globally at every port and airfield, that is completely fungible and benefits in price from a truly global market, that has global proved reserves of over 1.6T barrels and growing, that has an 8:1 or better EROI, that supplies $9.01 per barrel in corporate and excise tax revenue to the US federal government and similar largess to state and local governments against total subsidies of 45 cents per barrel, that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans today in a sector of industry with a $10T market capitalization. Case 2: Depending upon a fuel that is 80% dependent upon the same energy source above for its energy; is also dependent upon the weather and subject to drought, freeze, and flood; has zero proved reserves but must be made season-by-season; is produced in boutique quantities with highly variable specifications; that would have to be shipped to the front lines all the way from the US rather than purchased locally during war-time; that does not benefit from global energy market price advantages, but has the added volatility in price of being subject to agricultural market forces; that goes away if fossil fuels go away because there is no longer a source of cheap carbon and hydrogen energy for its fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, farm equipment fuel, processing plant energy, enzymes, and hydrotreatment hydrogen; That has huge negative energy balance/poor EROI; that is a huge sinkhole for billions of dollars of subsidy money and tax credits; and that study after study are now showing actually increases net GHG emissions and increases environmental and ecosystem damage due to agrichemical runoff and irreversible land use change, and that is causing widespread injury to human rights and political stability because of 'green grabbing' of land and water rights in poorer countries, and the doubling of food prices around the world.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 21, 2012
GeraldR Ethyl is not diesel, but ethl is useful. I can make it in my back yard without trying by leaving a tarp under the fig tree I didn't harvest, in a lean-squirrel year anyway. In the SW, mesquite has been considered a trash-tree, although its popularity as medicine and barbeque wood is rising, but there might still be enough for a few islandable micro-grids, using the pods. Corn is a dumb thing to make ethyl out of, which from my jaundiced point of view, which is why the government babies it and has set it up to fail as a fuel source. Kudzu in the south is another possible substrate. Observing what gets subsidized in the U.S. leads me to think anyone serious should run from subsidies as fast as they can and tinker in garages, discreetly. In fact, so much of that is happening near high-tech employment in Oregon that neighbors are starting to turn diesel-cooks in and to complain that they don't pay road taxes. I have no doubt we have some science experiments going on, out in the hinterlands, and not just in the U.S.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 21, 2012
@ mary: my only point was that ethanol is not biodiesel. As far as ethanol goes there appears to be the smart way and the American way. The production EROI for corn ethanol is ~1.3, the EROI for sugar cane ethanol with US agricultural practice is ~5, the Brazilian model is ~7. Tight oil and gas is ~7-9.

One problem with North American extended EROIs is that so much fuel production uses energy produced from fuels. That is yet another reason to develop massive amounts of clean non-fuel energy sources.

A chronic problem is that most people ignore experience curves and the relative maturity of a technology. But then most will buy something because it's on sale and put it on their credit card. One way to look at it is that new technologies are always 'too expensive'. If nothing else, you can't anticipate economy of scale without scale. When I was a lad, my friend's dad was a traveling salesman with a $3500 mobile phone - anyone could argue that no teenager could ever afford a mobile phone, let alone a new one every 18 months. Stop trying to optimize cost first - meet the requirements first. Or stick with what we know: two cans and a piece of string.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 21, 2012
GeraldR----I largely agree with you, especially the part about the delayed and hidden costs of imported oil.

We do not have to fight wars to make and use biofuels.

THAT is the true cost.

The last three wars the US has fought in(along with numerous side incursions) have oil as a root cause.

There is no amount of oil in the world that is worth the loss of even one of our servicemen or women.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 21, 2012
The first two words of the article are Military Biofuels. I hear your personal attack, GeraldR, and I am endeavoring to understand why that tactic came about. What particular words caused you to characterize this discussion as "ranting?"

I see the various alcohols as bio-fuels. I do not understand why they would be characterized as other than that. Mixing various forms of bio-fuels is an option some choose. If the objective is cleaner air, less cost, and more on-shoring, why would that kind of discussion be unwelcome?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 21, 2012
Ethanol is off topic for a discussion about biodiesel---yes, we've departed from the original discuss, but just FYI, ethanol can be used in diesel engines with the addition of a small amount of ignition enhancer(ED95). Scania, the Swedish manufacturer of diesel engines has been running a fleet of over 1,000 city buses in Sweden and UK.
The primary focus of the original ethanol/diesel work was clean air.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 21, 2012
First, the object of the original discussion was bio-diesel so all the ranting about ethanol is really off-topic.

One of the subtexts is that it is better to purchase imported fuels if they are cheaper than home grown fuels. Apparently, quite a few politicians are willing to sign up to that opinion. On the one hand, go for the cheap imports and on the other whine about lack of employment ... go figure.

A basic fact is that the real costs of imports is higher than the transaction value. Trade is a kind of tick where you export cash to day and then earn it back over time. Of course there are inefficiencies and service charges that gnaw away at the value. Imports are really credit purchases and anything purchased with credit ends up costing more than the purchase price. Any simple comparison between purchase prices of domestic and imported goods is fundamentally flawed but politicians get elected based on their ability to inflame an audience not their math skills. One researcher even went so far as to determine how much oil needs to be consumed by the domestic economy in order to produce the exports needed to offset the imports of oil - not a pretty picture: when looked at this way the EROI is atrocious.
Russell Judge
Russell Judge
November 21, 2012
Cliff Claven, Fossil fuels are finite ie. They will run out. When they run out, society will collapse. Who is the fool for not developing clean, renewable alternate fuels?
ANONYMOUS
November 21, 2012
The discussion about corn-based ethanol is interesting, and worth having, but the source article is not about the US military trying to purchase ethanol made from corn.

The article says that the US Navy purchased biofuel made from algae-based and cooking oil-based sources.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 21, 2012
Cliff Claven's refusal to think outside the oil box is interesting to find in this venue.

My guess is the Germans will get better and better at getting from A to B with P (pee). Permies.com had some funny discussion of this on a list-serve note I received today, including a link to a vehicle a geek made in the 80's that ran on hydrogen that a guy made from cheap ammonia from the store. He hadn't used it in years, but got it out for a reporter, and it fired right up. We waste so much that we could use in better ways than polluting our rivers. Perhaps challenging times will produce more MacGyvers. I hear a MacGyver movie is coming.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 21, 2012
When the conversation shifts from power density and EROI to Yogi and Boo Boo, it's time to move on. Cheers.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 20, 2012
Petroleum use destroys the quality of the air we need to breathe, pollutes the waters we need to live, and destroys the land. The National Emergency Response Hotline in the US alone gets over 30,000 calls per year reporting chemical spills----well over 90% of those calls are for crude oil or petroleum product spills. Include the costs of public health, environmental damage, and clean up costs in your EROI.

Petroleum use is not cheap. We are spending upwards of $500 billion per year to support wars in the Middle East in an effort to keep the oil flowing. Include those costs in your EROI. Be sure to include the cost in lives of our servicemen and women. We don't have to fight wars to make and use biofuels.

You are completely wrong about petroleum being cheap and plentiful. 50 years ago, it was. Not now. 50 years ago, men in crisp clean uniforms pumped your gas, checked your engine oil, and the air pressure in your tires---and the gas cost $.19/gal. And you got a Quick Draw MacGraw or Yogi and Boo Boo glass with every fill up.

It's a different world out there since the last time you peeked out the window.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 20, 2012
@Fred: Yes I know about the Air Force tests. They paid Honeywell UOP $32.40 a gallon for that hydrotreated tallow fuel. You could probably make jets fly mach two by burning $100 bills, but it is not the wisest thing to do is it? The reason the tallow fuel is so expensive is because of all the fossil fuel energy that had to be invested to make it. Most of the examples you gave above are after the advent of coal, which I specified in my question was a cutoff, because it is a critical inflection point that defines when civilization suddenly fell into a huge new high-EROI source of energy that let it do energy-wasteful things like convert wood to methanol or grains to ethanol in high volume. Once you have tons of extra cheap and easy energy available, you have the luxury of performing all kinds of energy-wasteful transformations. Your best argument for biofuels before coal are olive oil and tallow. Whale oil can be added. But here is the question. How were these fuels most commonly used? For work, for heat, or for light. The answer is light and the reason is simple: power density. It is not possible to harvest enough of these resources to provide the energy to perform work for everyone or to heat everyone's homes; that was the job of wood. Liquid biofuels like olive oil and tallow and whale oil only provided enough power density to light the homes of the wealthy. Most poor people in the world then, and even now in places like Afghanistan and Africa, don't see each other at night. They live in darkness because there is not even enough precious bio-oil or animal fat to waste using for light; it must all be used for food. The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has a good discussion of how power surpluses, first enabled by draft animals and later by fossil fuels, enabled those cultures so blessed to accelerate and dominate other cultures that lacked such surpluses. All your hand-waving arguments are destroyed by math. EROI and capacity are brick walls.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 20, 2012
------" The issue at hand is liquid biofuels. Ethanol was made as a beverage, not as a fuel."------------

Either way, it is still ethanol, the same stuff.

-----" It is far more energy efficient to use wood for fuel than to make it into methanol or ethanol and then burn it."---------

That may be true....................unless you are trying to get it to go through a fuel injector, wood does not go through fuel injectors very well. Neither does coal. Liquids or gasses work much better.

-----" Where in history do you see centuries of creating liquid biofuels from wood or aother biomass before civilization had the luxury of coal and petroleum energy to waste?"----------

Before electrification became widely available ethanol was a very common fuel to run home appliances. The common fuel was either denatured alcohol(ethanol with the addition of a small amount of methanol to make it undrinkable)----or camphene(ethanol with the addition of a small amount of turpentine to give it a yellow flame that produced more light). The first internal combustion engine built by Nicholas Otto in 1880 ran on camphene. The first engine Henry Ford built in 1892 ran on ethanol. The first engine Rudolf Diesel built in 1893 ran on peanut oil.(he had tried coal dust---guess what, coal dust didn't work.)

Oil lamps have been used since dawn of civilization to provide light and heat. Olive and other natural oils are biofuels. So is tallow, used to make candles from the Middle Ages onward. Guess what, plant and animal lipids can even be used to fly supersonic jet fighters to Mach 2---the US Navy and US Air Force are doing it right now.

You don't like ethanol and biodiesel? Fine, then use methane. Methane is a biofuel. And it can be made from sewage and landfills---it is being done now, and we've been able to do it longer than oil has been around. Vehicles can run just fine on compressed methane.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 19, 2012
@Fred: "We have been making biofuels for centuries before petroleum was even thought of." The issue at hand is liquid biofuels. Ethanol was made as a beverage, not as a fuel. It is far more energy efficient to use wood for fuel than to make it into methanol or ethanol and then burn it. Where in history do you see centuries of creating liquid biofuels from wood or aother biomass before civilization had the luxury of coal and petroleum energy to waste? Making liquid biofuels is a profligate waste of energy. Period. And making more of it just means there is that much more foreign oil we need to import to waste on it. Every argument you make against oil is 6 times as true of liquid biofuels because that is how much extra fossil fuel it takes to make them.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 19, 2012
One other thing Cliff----we don't have to fight anybody to make and use biofuels.

Unlike petroleum. We are paying an enormous price in blood and money in the Middle East just to keep using petroleum.

You haven't figured the cost of 6,000 American lives in your EROI on petroleum.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 19, 2012
Brazil is running their distilleries on waste biomass---and producing more electricity than they use.

Germany is producing CH4 from sewage and agricultural waste---and providing enough CH4 for their rapidly expanding CNG vehicle market---and enough to power their ALL their power needs in one city---and still have CH4 left to pump into the national grid.

----" they are repacked fossil fuel produced at great loss. It's a big scam."----------

You are right----it is a scam alright, by the oil companies. And you've bought into it lock stock and barrel. How much stock did you buy?

We have no need for oil at all. With biofuels, we can use some oil, or we can use no oil at all. We'd be a lot better off using no oil at all. There was another explosion, deaths and spill in the GOM this week.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 19, 2012
Cliff-----" @Fred: If you believe oil is running out, then why would you want to use it up faster making biofuels? "-----------

We have been making biofuels for centuries before petroleum was even thought of.

It is not necessary to use oil to make biofuels. Most farm machinery is diesel---it will run just fine on either biodiesel or ethanol.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 19, 2012
@Fred: If you believe oil is running out, then why would you want to use it up faster making biofuels? That is the whole point of all my posts above, if you bothered to read them. You've been sold a load of goods. Liquid biofuels are not free energy from the sun, they are repacked fossil fuel produced at great loss. It's a big scam.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 18, 2012
---------' If you use up something, and never put anything back---you run out eventually. It is a fairly simple concept---even you should be able to understand it Cliff.'--------- It is already happening. This is why we drilled for oil in our backyards 100 years ago----and now we have to go half way around the world to the Middle East, or the artic, or 5 miles into the earth under over a mile of seawater to get oil. Oil is running out. That is why the first oil well was 100 ft. deep----now they are 4 to 6 miles deep. 100 years ago, one barrel of oil equivalent produced 28 barrels of oil, today, one barrel equivalent produces 8 barrels of oil. And that is before it has to be transported half way around the world, and THEN refined. After WW2, gasoline cost $.10 to $.15/gallon---today gasoline costs $3.50 to $4.00 per gallon. And the ONLY way that the price of oil is going to go is up, up and up in the long run. Nobody worries about running out of tomatoes. If we need more tomatoes---we plant more tomatoes. We can do the same with biofuels.
Rick Engebretson
Rick Engebretson
November 18, 2012
Protein sources were once dominated by clover, with the nitrogen fixing root system. Then alfalfa, then soybeans. Then synthetic amino acids like lysine were added to feeds. Then scarce amino acid containing proteins were sought by plant genetics.

7 billion people have more protein in their diet now that food grade protein, nucleic acids, etc. are made by yeast in a tank grown on sugar and synthetic nitrogen sources. If anybody, including Cliff Claven, can figure how else to do it, wonderful. Ethanol is yeast waste, and has some fuels value, but is not a savior as some misinformants have said.

Solar thermal bioprocessing of wastes is a different "biofuel."
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 18, 2012
RickE-----" If Cliff Claven or most discussion intended honesty, they would refer to corn produced ethanol as waste from protein manufacture."-----------

The end product of producing ethanol from corn is DDG(dried distillers grain) DDG has been used for centuries as a high protein, nutrient dense animal feed. Which is what the corn was grown for in the first place. 98% of the corn grown in the US is dent corn, humans can not eat dent corn.

DDG replaces soy meal for protein supplement uses and costs about 1/2 as much. Corn is about 3X as productive per acre as soya. If you wish to replace the protein entering the food chain from DDG with soya---you would have to triple the land under cultivation, and the cost of many foods would as much as double---eggs and dairy products for instance.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 18, 2012
Cliff----------" Artificial ammonia-based fertilizer is the chief reason why Iowa farmers can grow 180 bu/acre with the same sunlight that their ancestors could only grow 30 bu/acre"------


Corn yields are governed by genetics. You need to optimize environmental conditions to allow the full potential of genetics to be expressed.(create favorable conditions) But it is not the fertilizer that makes the yields---it is the genetics of the corn plants.

You can't turn a mule into a thuroughbred by giving it vitamins.

NH3 is NH3----it does not matter where it comes from. NH3 from natural sources is better. Compost is a solid---it stays where you put it. Artificial ammonia is a gas---it does not stay where it is put. It washes down the watersheds and ends up causing weed and algae blooms that choke the waterways and eventually cause eutraphication---"dead zones".

Here is the biggest difference in biofuels and petroleum----we can always make more biofuels. In over 150 years of "producing" oil---no one, anywhere, has ever produced even one single drop of oil. All that has ever been done is use up what was already there faster and faster.

If you use up something, and never put anything back---you run out eventually.

It is a fairly simple concept---even you should be able to understand it Cliff.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 18, 2012
@RickE: "corn produced ethanol as waste from protein manufacture." When farmers want to grow protein animal feed, they grow soy because it has 49% protein content compared to 27% for DDGS corn ethanol byproduct, and because it fixes its own soil nitrogen. When people need liquid fuel energy, they should start with petroleum with an EROI of 8:1 and get 8 barrels of fuel for every 1 barrel they invest. Corn ethanol is not an energy source but an energy sink. When energy is supplied by fossil fuels, it has an EROI of 1.25:1, which means that, to get the 8 barrels of energy that one barrel of petroleum gets you above, you need to use 32 barrels of petroleum. To get the real EROI of ethanol, you would have to use ethanol as the only fuel source throughout the entire farming and distilling process. Nobody does that because there is not enough ethanol in the end product to make the product. In fact, there is less than 1/6th of the energy required. Ethanol is just a way to convert high EROI petroleum into low EROI ethanol, which also happens to be an inferior fuel to gasoline and diesel. Corn ethanol and all other biofuels are actually accelerating our use of fossil fuel, not slowing it. Economists would call the above an analysis of opportunity cost. We are paying a huge opportunity cost in pursuing this epic scam of biofuels, and part of that price is using more fossil fuel than we have to.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 18, 2012
@Fred: Sugarcane is no more magical than corn. Plants are physically made out of atoms from the soil and water; photons from the sun provide energy at the slow rate mentioned above, but the sun provides none of the atoms. What you take from the soil you have to put back. For every 100 atoms in a typical green plant, 46 are hydrogen, 32 are carbon, 21 are oxygen, and less than 1 in 100 are nitrogen and the various micronutrients. It's all about the hydrogen and carbon, baby. The are the most important atoms because in the right compounds, they also contain energy that boosts plant growth beyond what the sun provides. Artificial ammonia-based fertilizer is the chief reason why Iowa farmers can grow 180 bu/acre with the same sunlight that their ancestors could only grow 30 bu/acre. Some breeding and genetic engineering has also been done to teach the crops to rely on the soil more and the sun less. The building blocks of photosynthesis, CO2 and H2O, do not contain energy, they are the products of combustion and all the energy is already spent. NH3 (ammonia) contains a great deal of energy, and that is why the secret to accelerating the growth of crops is replenishing the soil by "nitrogen fixing" (putting ammonia in the soil). If you harvest but don't replenish energetic ammonia into the soil, you are farming unsustainably and depleting the soil. That is what the Brasilenos have been doing, and that is why their 2011-2012 crop yields are down 18% per acre and why they had to lower their ethanol blending rate last october from 25% to 20% and why they imported 1.2B liters of ethanol this year. They are no longer building ethanol refineries of their own, only JVs with companies in the US and elsewhere who haven't yet done their math. Advocating unsustainable, soil-raping farming is a snake oil pitch. BTW, Brazil is on its way out of ethanol and into petroleum. Search "Campos Basin" and "Lula" and "Pre-salt."
Rick Engebretson
Rick Engebretson
November 18, 2012
If we intend to breathe and eat we will have plants and carbon containing biomass. And unless we have enzymes specific to organic reactions we need high temperatures to make fuels for us. Gasoline is a product of high temperature refining chemistry, not drilling.

An important feature of solar optics is how easily high temperatures can be created. And how cheaply. High temperature organic fuels production from organic wastes deserves some consideration. Call it "solar biofuels" perhaps.

If Cliff Claven or most discussion intended honesty, they would refer to corn produced ethanol as waste from protein manufacture.

I do agree that getting government and politics out of the energy invention business is the only way serious solutions will be found. There is no way to untangle the misinformation machine that is usually used to target good science. The system is broken, maybe beyond repair.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 18, 2012
In Brazil, ethanol is made from sugarcane. Sugarcane is a perrenial grass---harvesting sugar cane is just like mowing your yard except that the grass is about 8 ft. tall.

The cane juice is pressed from the stalks and fermented to make ethanol. The left over pressed cane(called bagasse) is dried and burned to produce electricity that is used to run the mills. Excess electricity is fed into the electrical grid(about 30-50% more power is produced than is needed). The ash from burning the bagasse is mixed with water to create a slurry----and the mixture is sprayed on the harvested cane fields as fertilizer. Basically the same thing that nature has been doing to renew and enrich prarie land for millions of years. In fact, there are many plants that have evolved only to germinate and bloom after a fire---lupine, a common prarie flower is an example.

Sugarcane grows well in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, California, Arizona, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. Where we can't grow sugarcane, sugar beets offer similar yields, and can be grown anywhere in the US there is adequate moisture and soil, including Alaska.

We have many other choices of plants we can produce ethanol from. One species that does not require any fertilizer or water is Agave. It is a native North American species that provides food and habitat for fauna, thrives in desert climate and can be grown on land too steep and rocky for any other type of agricultural use. It's called tequila.

We can even make ethanol from wood using a couple of processes. We've been able to do it(and have been doing it) for over 120 years.

Natural gas is methane, CH4. Methane is both a fossil fuel AND a biofuel. It can be made low tech, easily and inexpensively from type of organic biomass at all, including sewage and landfills. We can also drive our vehicles on methane.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 17, 2012
Okay, Fred. No gas or diesel or grid electricity for you. Grow your corn without the 150-200 lb/acre of ammonia fertilizer made from natural gas and the additional pesticides and herbicides made from petroleum feedstock that Iowa farmers use today and you will get the same 30 bu/acre they got in 1906 instead of the 180 bu/acre they get today by adding artificial fossil fuel energy. Then from that 30 bu/acre try to make enough ethanol to fuel your farm equipment, and run your dry mill, and to run the fermentation process, and to supply the massive amounts of heat needed to distill the alcohol beer into 99% pure alcohol. You ran out of ethanol near the beginning fueling the farm equipment, but you're not done yet. You still have to further treat the hydrous alcohol to make it into anhydrous alcohol to be of sufficient quality to add to use in engines, and then you have to supply the energy to deliver it to points of sale. Corn ethanol is not a fuel source, it is a parasite of fossil fuel energy. It takes 8:1 EROI petroleum and makes it into 1.25:1 EROI ethanol. That means ethanol's contribution is 1:6 -- a negative energy balance that delivers as output 1/6 of the energy that was input. That's the best case using the lowest reasonable EROI for fossil fuel. The sun provides 300 W/m2 irradiance in the cloudless deserts Arizona of which 0.1% is converted into biomass through photosynthesis, and of which only a fraction of that biomass ends up as liquid fuel energy. Biofuels start with a maximum power density potential of only 0.3 W/m2 in solar energy. Getting anything more than that requires humans to add energy artificially at various stages along the way. Physics and biology provide hard boundaries and those who make promises to violate them are quickly revealed to be snake oil salesman or fools.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 17, 2012
Cliff Claven--------" Only about 20% of the energy in corn ethanol is from the sun;............"------------

100% of the energy in every single drop of ethanol is from the sun.
ANONYMOUS
November 17, 2012
I have been using B99 biodiesel for over 6 years at prices competitive with petrodiesel. The product I buy is made from recycled cooking oil. One of the suppliers is in the process of converting to a new process developed by Piedmont Biofuels which will improve yield, reduce water usage, operate at lower temperatures and produce a marketable glycerin by-product.

To read more about that process go to http://www.biofuels.coop/enzymatic-biodiesel

Although restaurant fryer oil and trap grease is limited in volume as a feed stock it certainly has no negative effect on food supply. Because competing uses of these restaurant wastes include animal feed the estimated upper limit of biodiesel production from these sources in the US is approximately 100 million gallons per year.

Although some biofuels promoted in the US are not beneficial in terms of cost or carbon dioxide reduction, many biofuels deliver outstanding results. Biodiesel blends also improve petrodiesel performance due to its excellent lubricity, improved seal swell properties and higher cetane ratings.

In order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate change gasses we need to pursue research, development and commercial application of a wide variety of fuel sources including electricity. Over reliance on a shrinking petroleum supply is a dangerous and short sighted approach. Taking a "head in the sand" approach of not accounting for the cost of burning petroleum and coal into account essentially subsidizes these fossil fuel sources. Figuring these costs in, as they should be, for any economic analysis makes other energy sources more economically viable and results in a more balanced energy portfolio.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 17, 2012
The National Academies of Sciences of both the United States and Germany have figured out that biofuels are a dead end. They are actually huge parasites of fossil fuel energy, which provides their fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, farm machinery fuel, processing plant energy, enzyme feedstock, and hydrotreatment hydrogen. Only about 20% of the energy in corn ethanol is from the sun; the rest is stolen from conventional energy sources. It is worse for more exotic biofuels. The Germans and the WHO and the UNFAO have recommended that all G20 nations abandon all biofuel mandates because of competition with food. The US National Research Council just this month released a report highlighting the unsustainability of algae as biofuel. This whole house of cards is coming down eventually, but meanwhile the US military is being used as a political pawn in a game of graft rewarding campaign bundlers and corporate welfare for Archer Daniels Midland and others in the corn belt. The ultimate irony is that all this wasteful conversion of fossil fuel energy into biofuels actually accelerates the use of fossil fuels, increases the release of CO2 and N2O greenhouse gases, irreversibly damages ecosystems through land use change, competes with food production, increases eutrophication of our water supply and other environmental damage from agrichemical and nitrate runoff, and harms the US economy by reducing the EROI of our fuels and increasing our national debt. Remember the names of the people from Al Gore to Steven Chu to Ray Mabus to Tom Vilsack to Dennis McGinn who are pushing this agenda so they can get the credit for the damages when the final verdict comes in.
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
November 17, 2012
Very good article. Yes. Biofuel is future energy alternative supplement. Biofuel from Agave which is a care-free growth plant is the best option . Mexico is pioneer in thius. Also Biogas from Opuntia and subsequent power generation.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Meg Cichon

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets
  • 1
    Goldman Sachs to Invest $486 Million in Japan Renewable Energy
  • 1
    Outlook for US Energy Independence Gaining Confidence

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Green Power Conferences
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Rotork plc
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information