http://farmersjoint.com/ Sat, 18 Apr 2026 10:56:43 +0000 MyBB http://farmersjoint.com/thread-31422.html Fri, 16 Jan 2026 23:26:14 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-31422.html
In 2015, a PhD student at UC Irvine, Mya Le Thai, got tired of batteries dying. Not just phone batteries, but the fact that all batteries slowly break down and become toxic waste.

  long-lasting-battery.jpg (Size: 43.59 KB / Downloads: 2)

While researching capacitors, she tried something outside her plan. She took ultra-thin gold nanowires, coated them with manganese dioxide, then wrapped them in a flexible gel similar to Plexiglas. She was just experimenting.

Then she started testing.
Normal lithium batteries degrade after 300–500 charge cycles. Good ones last maybe 5,000.

Thai’s battery kept going.

10,000 cycles.
50,000 cycles.
100,000 cycles.
200,000 cycles.

It still worked like new.
Her supervisor didn’t believe it at first. Batteries are supposed to fail. The materials crack as they expand and shrink during charging. That is why batteries die.
The gel coating solved that. It let the nanowires flex without breaking. No cracks. No degradation.

If this were a phone battery, you could charge it every day for over 500 years before it weakened.

The implications are huge:
-Massive reduction in toxic battery waste
-Batteries that outlast phones, laptops, cars, and even medical implants
-Long-life energy storage for solar and power grids

So why isn’t this in your phone yet?

Because lab breakthroughs are not products. Gold nanowires are expensive. Manufacturing at scale is hard. Energy density is lower than lithium-ion. Existing factories are built for old battery tech. These are engineering and cost problems, not failures of the idea.

The research was published in 2016 and is still influencing battery science today, especially for grid storage and long-life systems where durability matters more than size.

The key point is this: Mya Le Thai proved battery degradation is not inevitable. A problem accepted for over a century was shown to be solvable.

Her battery isn’t on the market yet.
But the door is open.

We now know batteries don’t have to die in a few years. They can last decades… even centuries.

And that changes everything.]]>
In 2015, a PhD student at UC Irvine, Mya Le Thai, got tired of batteries dying. Not just phone batteries, but the fact that all batteries slowly break down and become toxic waste.

  long-lasting-battery.jpg (Size: 43.59 KB / Downloads: 2)

While researching capacitors, she tried something outside her plan. She took ultra-thin gold nanowires, coated them with manganese dioxide, then wrapped them in a flexible gel similar to Plexiglas. She was just experimenting.

Then she started testing.
Normal lithium batteries degrade after 300–500 charge cycles. Good ones last maybe 5,000.

Thai’s battery kept going.

10,000 cycles.
50,000 cycles.
100,000 cycles.
200,000 cycles.

It still worked like new.
Her supervisor didn’t believe it at first. Batteries are supposed to fail. The materials crack as they expand and shrink during charging. That is why batteries die.
The gel coating solved that. It let the nanowires flex without breaking. No cracks. No degradation.

If this were a phone battery, you could charge it every day for over 500 years before it weakened.

The implications are huge:
-Massive reduction in toxic battery waste
-Batteries that outlast phones, laptops, cars, and even medical implants
-Long-life energy storage for solar and power grids

So why isn’t this in your phone yet?

Because lab breakthroughs are not products. Gold nanowires are expensive. Manufacturing at scale is hard. Energy density is lower than lithium-ion. Existing factories are built for old battery tech. These are engineering and cost problems, not failures of the idea.

The research was published in 2016 and is still influencing battery science today, especially for grid storage and long-life systems where durability matters more than size.

The key point is this: Mya Le Thai proved battery degradation is not inevitable. A problem accepted for over a century was shown to be solvable.

Her battery isn’t on the market yet.
But the door is open.

We now know batteries don’t have to die in a few years. They can last decades… even centuries.

And that changes everything.]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-31221.html Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:41:35 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-31221.html
During World War II, one Hungarian-American woman quietly saved lives with nothing but sunlight. Her name? Mária Telkes.

She invented a simple, inflatable device that could turn salty seawater into fresh drinking water. Imagine being a soldier shot down at sea, no hope, no water… then this small solar distiller keeps you alive. That’s why it was packed into U.S. military survival kits.

But that was just her beginning. Because of this, people started calling her “The Sun Queen.”
In 1948, she went further. Telkes designed the first solar-heated home in Dover, Massachusetts. Not a dream, not a prototype — a real house. She used special chemicals to store the sun’s heat in the day and release it at night. Basically, what we call renewable energy today, she was already doing 75 years ago.

The lesson?
While most of the world was still chasing coal and oil, one woman proved that sunlight could save lives, warm homes, and power the future.
So next time you see solar panels, remember: this game started long ago with a woman they called The Sun Queen.

  1757594337009.jpg (Size: 291.03 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]>
During World War II, one Hungarian-American woman quietly saved lives with nothing but sunlight. Her name? Mária Telkes.

She invented a simple, inflatable device that could turn salty seawater into fresh drinking water. Imagine being a soldier shot down at sea, no hope, no water… then this small solar distiller keeps you alive. That’s why it was packed into U.S. military survival kits.

But that was just her beginning. Because of this, people started calling her “The Sun Queen.”
In 1948, she went further. Telkes designed the first solar-heated home in Dover, Massachusetts. Not a dream, not a prototype — a real house. She used special chemicals to store the sun’s heat in the day and release it at night. Basically, what we call renewable energy today, she was already doing 75 years ago.

The lesson?
While most of the world was still chasing coal and oil, one woman proved that sunlight could save lives, warm homes, and power the future.
So next time you see solar panels, remember: this game started long ago with a woman they called The Sun Queen.

  1757594337009.jpg (Size: 291.03 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-31164.html Sat, 16 Aug 2025 21:37:15 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-31164.html
  1755298626849.jpg (Size: 374.38 KB / Downloads: 2)

1. The system uses giant insulated silos filled with desert sand, heated to over 600°C with surplus solar power.

2. When the sun sets or during cloudy weeks, the stored heat powers steam turbines or district heating systems.

3. A Finnish startup proved the concept in 2022 — now a Europe–North Africa team is scaling it up.

4. Sand is cheap, abundant, and stable at high temperatures, lasting for decades with almost no maintenance.

5. Unlike lithium batteries, there’s no fire risk, no toxic chemicals, and less than 10% energy loss over months.

6. Each chamber can power 20,000 homes for a week. Dozens of them could make the Sahara a permanent energy reservoir.

7. Clean electricity could flow across Africa and even to Europe through cross-Mediterranean cables.

8. Local communities would gain stronger grids for hospitals, refrigeration, and water desalination.

If successful, the Sahara could supply year-round clean energy — even during Europe’s coldest winters.
This might be the technology the world has been waiting for to finally move beyond fossil fuels.

 Do you think “bottling sunlight” in sand could be the future of global energy?]]>
  1755298626849.jpg (Size: 374.38 KB / Downloads: 2)

1. The system uses giant insulated silos filled with desert sand, heated to over 600°C with surplus solar power.

2. When the sun sets or during cloudy weeks, the stored heat powers steam turbines or district heating systems.

3. A Finnish startup proved the concept in 2022 — now a Europe–North Africa team is scaling it up.

4. Sand is cheap, abundant, and stable at high temperatures, lasting for decades with almost no maintenance.

5. Unlike lithium batteries, there’s no fire risk, no toxic chemicals, and less than 10% energy loss over months.

6. Each chamber can power 20,000 homes for a week. Dozens of them could make the Sahara a permanent energy reservoir.

7. Clean electricity could flow across Africa and even to Europe through cross-Mediterranean cables.

8. Local communities would gain stronger grids for hospitals, refrigeration, and water desalination.

If successful, the Sahara could supply year-round clean energy — even during Europe’s coldest winters.
This might be the technology the world has been waiting for to finally move beyond fossil fuels.

 Do you think “bottling sunlight” in sand could be the future of global energy?]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-30539.html Sun, 19 Feb 2023 19:20:28 +0000 FarmTech]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-30539.html Do you know that any dirty water (waste water)  containing micro organisms can be used to generate electricity? The dirty water can be manure slurry, waste water from agro processing, urine, brewery wastewater, kitchen wastewater etc. This can be achieved using a microbial fuel cell (MFC). So how did scientists achieve this feat?

One of the simplest setup consist of a 2 chamber container. The chambers are separated by a membrane which can be a costly material like Nafion or a cheap one like earthenware. Two electrodes are placed in the chambers and connected to a load (such as LED lights, sensors etc) using copper wires. One of the electrodes is called the anode (negative) and the other a cathode (positive). The anode chamber is filled with wastewater and sealed to prevent oxygen from entering while the cathode chamber is open to air.



The anode can be made from graphite, carbon brush (best), carbon cloth, carbon veil, stainless steel mesh etc. The cathode can be made from activated carbon (AC), modified activated carbon, AC mixed with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and pasted on a stainless steel mesh, carbon black, carbon black modified with aerogel, carbon nanotubes (CNT), carbon nanofibers (CNF) graphene etc.

Don't let these names scare you though. Some of them are quite simple to obtain. For example, you can use the lead in pencil as graphite. You can make activated carbon by treating charcoal with chemicals like lemon juice, bleach, potassium hydroxide, calcium chloride, phosphoric acid etc.

What happens in a MFC is that microbes attached to the anode surface will eat organic matters and produce:

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
2. hydrogen ions H+ and
3. electrons.

The electrons will flow externally from anode to the cathode as follows: from the microbes to the anode; anode to copper wire; copper wire to the load and load to the cathode. This electron flow generate electricity that powers the load.

Internally, the hydrogen ions will flow to the cathode chamber through the separating membrane where it will combine with electrons and oxygen to form water.

One disadvantage of microbial fuel cell (MFC) is their low power output. A MFC with a 1 square meter anode surface area will produce only about 0.4 miliwatt depending on the type and components used. You need about 1 watt (1000 miliwatt) to light up a high power LED light. So a MFC needed to light up this LED will need to have an anode surface area of about 2500 square meter (Roughly one-third of a football field!). But there is hope due to new scientific advances that have been made after years of research. By using specially made electrodes and more effective configurations, power output have been  boosted (up to 2 watts per square meter!). By connecting the output of many MFC in series or parallel, MFCs have been successfully used to power LED lights and even charge mobile phones.

Pic of 1w Led
Pic of series parallel

Soil-based microbial fuel cells
In this type of MFC, the anode is buried few centimeters in the soil while the cathode rest on top of the soil (or it is slightly buried), and is exposed to air. The soil must be wet and rich in organic matters like dead leaves, manure etc.


A Soil Microbial Fuel Cell

Plant microbial fuel cells
This one is similar to soil-based microbial fuel cells. Just that plants are grown in the soil. The plant roots will secrete nutrients that will feed soil microbes. These microbes will release electrons that will produce electricity. As a result of this feeding of microbes, plant MFC will generate more electricity than soil-based MFC.


A Plant Microbial Fuel Cell

Apart from generating electricity, MFC can be used to remove excess nutrients from wastewater and reduced its biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) before releasing it into rivers and streams. Excess nutrient can cause algae bloom in rivers, streams and oceans. This is a situation where algae, a type of water plant, will grow fast and cover the water surface. Then they will die and decay. As they decay, they use up water oxygen and cause fish and other water creatures to die in masses.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is the amount of oxygen required by microorganism to breakdown organic matters. If you release wastewater into water bodies without first treating them, microorganisms will use more oxygen to breakdown the organic matters. This will kill or stress water creatures.

MFCs have also been used to remove pollutants like antibiotics, metal ions etc from wastewaters.

There are 3 other variants of MFC, namely microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), microbial desalination cell (MDC) and microbial electrosynthesis.

1. Microbial Electrolysis Cell (MEC): In this cell, microorganisms and an external power supply are used to produce hydrogen gas. Part of the electricity comes from microbes and the rest comes from an external power supply like battery. Thus less energy input is required.


Microbial Electrolysis Cell

2. Microbial Desalination Cell (MDC): Here, microbes are used to turn salty water into fresh, drinkable water. According to wikipedia, only 0.3% of the earth's water supply is usable for human consumption, while over 99% is sequestered by oceans, glaciers, brackish waters, and biomass. With MDC, these unusable water can be made fit for human use. 


A Microbial Desalination Cell

There are other ways to desalinate salty water such as reverse osmosis, nanofiltration etc. But MDC is preferable because of its lower costs, energy and environmental impacts.

3. Microbial Electrosynthesis: This is where microbes are feed carbon dioxide (CO2) and electricity to produce chemical products like acetic acid, ethanol, butanol, butyric acid, hexanoic acid and hexanol. This can be achieved while treating wastewater. This is important because CO2 is the major cause of global warming.  Unfortunately, this technology is still at an infancy stage.


Image Source: Researchgate.net

A typical MES setup consists of two chambers, namely anodic chamber and cathodic chamber; separated by a proton exchange membrane (PEM) that allows the protons to migrate from the anodic to the cathodic chamber. At the anode, water molecules split into protons, electrons, and gaseous oxygen. The oxygen escapes the anodic chamber, protons are transferred to the cathodic chamber through the PEM, and the electrons are drawn to the cathode through an external circuit. In the cathodic chamber, the electrons and protons or energy carriers such as such as hydrogen and CO2 are combined by biocatalysts (eg acetogen microbes) to produce primarily volatile fatty acids (VFAs) like formate, acetate, butyrate, etc. An external power supply is needed to achieve this.

The world have gone a long way technologically. But it seems like Africa is left behind mainly due to lack of research fundings.]]> Do you know that any dirty water (waste water)  containing micro organisms can be used to generate electricity? The dirty water can be manure slurry, waste water from agro processing, urine, brewery wastewater, kitchen wastewater etc. This can be achieved using a microbial fuel cell (MFC). So how did scientists achieve this feat?

One of the simplest setup consist of a 2 chamber container. The chambers are separated by a membrane which can be a costly material like Nafion or a cheap one like earthenware. Two electrodes are placed in the chambers and connected to a load (such as LED lights, sensors etc) using copper wires. One of the electrodes is called the anode (negative) and the other a cathode (positive). The anode chamber is filled with wastewater and sealed to prevent oxygen from entering while the cathode chamber is open to air.



The anode can be made from graphite, carbon brush (best), carbon cloth, carbon veil, stainless steel mesh etc. The cathode can be made from activated carbon (AC), modified activated carbon, AC mixed with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and pasted on a stainless steel mesh, carbon black, carbon black modified with aerogel, carbon nanotubes (CNT), carbon nanofibers (CNF) graphene etc.

Don't let these names scare you though. Some of them are quite simple to obtain. For example, you can use the lead in pencil as graphite. You can make activated carbon by treating charcoal with chemicals like lemon juice, bleach, potassium hydroxide, calcium chloride, phosphoric acid etc.

What happens in a MFC is that microbes attached to the anode surface will eat organic matters and produce:

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
2. hydrogen ions H+ and
3. electrons.

The electrons will flow externally from anode to the cathode as follows: from the microbes to the anode; anode to copper wire; copper wire to the load and load to the cathode. This electron flow generate electricity that powers the load.

Internally, the hydrogen ions will flow to the cathode chamber through the separating membrane where it will combine with electrons and oxygen to form water.

One disadvantage of microbial fuel cell (MFC) is their low power output. A MFC with a 1 square meter anode surface area will produce only about 0.4 miliwatt depending on the type and components used. You need about 1 watt (1000 miliwatt) to light up a high power LED light. So a MFC needed to light up this LED will need to have an anode surface area of about 2500 square meter (Roughly one-third of a football field!). But there is hope due to new scientific advances that have been made after years of research. By using specially made electrodes and more effective configurations, power output have been  boosted (up to 2 watts per square meter!). By connecting the output of many MFC in series or parallel, MFCs have been successfully used to power LED lights and even charge mobile phones.

Pic of 1w Led
Pic of series parallel

Soil-based microbial fuel cells
In this type of MFC, the anode is buried few centimeters in the soil while the cathode rest on top of the soil (or it is slightly buried), and is exposed to air. The soil must be wet and rich in organic matters like dead leaves, manure etc.


A Soil Microbial Fuel Cell

Plant microbial fuel cells
This one is similar to soil-based microbial fuel cells. Just that plants are grown in the soil. The plant roots will secrete nutrients that will feed soil microbes. These microbes will release electrons that will produce electricity. As a result of this feeding of microbes, plant MFC will generate more electricity than soil-based MFC.


A Plant Microbial Fuel Cell

Apart from generating electricity, MFC can be used to remove excess nutrients from wastewater and reduced its biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) before releasing it into rivers and streams. Excess nutrient can cause algae bloom in rivers, streams and oceans. This is a situation where algae, a type of water plant, will grow fast and cover the water surface. Then they will die and decay. As they decay, they use up water oxygen and cause fish and other water creatures to die in masses.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is the amount of oxygen required by microorganism to breakdown organic matters. If you release wastewater into water bodies without first treating them, microorganisms will use more oxygen to breakdown the organic matters. This will kill or stress water creatures.

MFCs have also been used to remove pollutants like antibiotics, metal ions etc from wastewaters.

There are 3 other variants of MFC, namely microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), microbial desalination cell (MDC) and microbial electrosynthesis.

1. Microbial Electrolysis Cell (MEC): In this cell, microorganisms and an external power supply are used to produce hydrogen gas. Part of the electricity comes from microbes and the rest comes from an external power supply like battery. Thus less energy input is required.


Microbial Electrolysis Cell

2. Microbial Desalination Cell (MDC): Here, microbes are used to turn salty water into fresh, drinkable water. According to wikipedia, only 0.3% of the earth's water supply is usable for human consumption, while over 99% is sequestered by oceans, glaciers, brackish waters, and biomass. With MDC, these unusable water can be made fit for human use. 


A Microbial Desalination Cell

There are other ways to desalinate salty water such as reverse osmosis, nanofiltration etc. But MDC is preferable because of its lower costs, energy and environmental impacts.

3. Microbial Electrosynthesis: This is where microbes are feed carbon dioxide (CO2) and electricity to produce chemical products like acetic acid, ethanol, butanol, butyric acid, hexanoic acid and hexanol. This can be achieved while treating wastewater. This is important because CO2 is the major cause of global warming.  Unfortunately, this technology is still at an infancy stage.


Image Source: Researchgate.net

A typical MES setup consists of two chambers, namely anodic chamber and cathodic chamber; separated by a proton exchange membrane (PEM) that allows the protons to migrate from the anodic to the cathodic chamber. At the anode, water molecules split into protons, electrons, and gaseous oxygen. The oxygen escapes the anodic chamber, protons are transferred to the cathodic chamber through the PEM, and the electrons are drawn to the cathode through an external circuit. In the cathodic chamber, the electrons and protons or energy carriers such as such as hydrogen and CO2 are combined by biocatalysts (eg acetogen microbes) to produce primarily volatile fatty acids (VFAs) like formate, acetate, butyrate, etc. An external power supply is needed to achieve this.

The world have gone a long way technologically. But it seems like Africa is left behind mainly due to lack of research fundings.]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29656.html Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:09:15 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29656.html
Algae, along with other early organisms like cyaonobacteria, is photosynthetic. This means that it’s able to capture carbon and breath out oxygen in return. And we need oxygen to breathe. During the following billions of years, more photosynthetic organisms developed: plants.

The interesting thing about plants is that they convert CO2 into chemical energy - glucose - and produce water and oxygen. So basically plants do what we’re struggling to achieve, in a world threatened by climate change: they capture CO2, produce energy and keep our air clean and breathable. So why can’t we do the same thing? Well, we can’t “do” photosynthesis, but we can use it.

How it all started
At Wageningen University in the Netherlands, a crazy assistant professor, Bert Hamelers, thought that it should be possible to produce electricity from living plants, without harvesting them. He hired a Postdoc to do an experiment and he succeeded. They wrote a research proposal and hired a PhD-student to do more work on it: me.

I didn’t want to be in academia (who wants to be in a lab all day?) but not knowing what to do otherwise I ended up doing a PhD. Basically, my professor lured me into it by telling me that a spin-off company should be created from the research project, and he thought I would be fit to lead it. After just one month, I knew that I’d made the best decision of my life.

How it works

So how do you produce electricity with living plants? Simply by using the natural processes that already occur. In short: the plant produces organic matter via photosynthesis. Only part of this organic matter is then used for its own growth. The rest is excreted via the roots. Around the roots, bacteria feed on the organic matter and they release electrons. If you’re able to harvest the electrons into an electrode, you can couple the first electrode to a counter-electrode and build an electrical circuit, like in a battery. The electrons flow back into the natural system via the counter-electrode, so it’s completely circular.

Because we use the natural processes around the plant, nature is not harmed. It works day and night, summer and winter. It only stops when the plant and its surroundings completely dry up or freeze over. So wetlands would be the ultimate source of electricity. Probably the best thing about this technology is that it can be combined with existing applications for the same land. No more competing claims for food versus fuel: put both rice production and power on the same paddy
.
How we can use it
During my PhD, I worked on improving the power output from plants in the lab. At the same time I started a spin-off company, Plant-e, together with my colleague David Strik, to find applications for the technology. When I graduated in 2012 we launched the first product: a turning globe fuelled by the electricity from a plant. Unfortunately, at that time we couldn’t get the product produced so our first market entry failed. But we were able to attract some financing, so we hired some smart young people and worked on the next product.

In 2014 the first product was launched successfully: a modular system. Basically we sell planters with plants and wires that can be connected to LED lights, for example. This is not going to replace coal-fired power plants, but it’s a start. This is the first step towards using what nature has developed over billions of years, without interfering with nature.

The modular system can be used to set up small, self-powered sites in cities, but it is not scalable. So a new system is under development. This new system is a tube, which contains both electrodes and can be drilled horizontally in the root-zone of the plants. This way existing plants can be used to produce electricity and any wetland would ultimately be able to produce electricity.
The next energy revolution?

After wind, solar and hydropower, the full range of biomass sources are now ready for energy production. Our energy revolution has already started. We go from large scale to decentralized energy production, and we start to realize that no one individual source is going to save us.

It’s going to be the full range of alternative, renewable and sustainable technologies that are slowly replacing fossil fuels. I don’t think that one small company of five people in Wageningen, the Netherlands, is going to revolutionize our energy production. But I do want to be part of it.

Author: Marjolein Helder is the CEO of Plant-e, a World Economic Forum Technology Pioneer. She is participating in the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/r...ng-plants/]]>
Algae, along with other early organisms like cyaonobacteria, is photosynthetic. This means that it’s able to capture carbon and breath out oxygen in return. And we need oxygen to breathe. During the following billions of years, more photosynthetic organisms developed: plants.

The interesting thing about plants is that they convert CO2 into chemical energy - glucose - and produce water and oxygen. So basically plants do what we’re struggling to achieve, in a world threatened by climate change: they capture CO2, produce energy and keep our air clean and breathable. So why can’t we do the same thing? Well, we can’t “do” photosynthesis, but we can use it.

How it all started
At Wageningen University in the Netherlands, a crazy assistant professor, Bert Hamelers, thought that it should be possible to produce electricity from living plants, without harvesting them. He hired a Postdoc to do an experiment and he succeeded. They wrote a research proposal and hired a PhD-student to do more work on it: me.

I didn’t want to be in academia (who wants to be in a lab all day?) but not knowing what to do otherwise I ended up doing a PhD. Basically, my professor lured me into it by telling me that a spin-off company should be created from the research project, and he thought I would be fit to lead it. After just one month, I knew that I’d made the best decision of my life.

How it works

So how do you produce electricity with living plants? Simply by using the natural processes that already occur. In short: the plant produces organic matter via photosynthesis. Only part of this organic matter is then used for its own growth. The rest is excreted via the roots. Around the roots, bacteria feed on the organic matter and they release electrons. If you’re able to harvest the electrons into an electrode, you can couple the first electrode to a counter-electrode and build an electrical circuit, like in a battery. The electrons flow back into the natural system via the counter-electrode, so it’s completely circular.

Because we use the natural processes around the plant, nature is not harmed. It works day and night, summer and winter. It only stops when the plant and its surroundings completely dry up or freeze over. So wetlands would be the ultimate source of electricity. Probably the best thing about this technology is that it can be combined with existing applications for the same land. No more competing claims for food versus fuel: put both rice production and power on the same paddy
.
How we can use it
During my PhD, I worked on improving the power output from plants in the lab. At the same time I started a spin-off company, Plant-e, together with my colleague David Strik, to find applications for the technology. When I graduated in 2012 we launched the first product: a turning globe fuelled by the electricity from a plant. Unfortunately, at that time we couldn’t get the product produced so our first market entry failed. But we were able to attract some financing, so we hired some smart young people and worked on the next product.

In 2014 the first product was launched successfully: a modular system. Basically we sell planters with plants and wires that can be connected to LED lights, for example. This is not going to replace coal-fired power plants, but it’s a start. This is the first step towards using what nature has developed over billions of years, without interfering with nature.

The modular system can be used to set up small, self-powered sites in cities, but it is not scalable. So a new system is under development. This new system is a tube, which contains both electrodes and can be drilled horizontally in the root-zone of the plants. This way existing plants can be used to produce electricity and any wetland would ultimately be able to produce electricity.
The next energy revolution?

After wind, solar and hydropower, the full range of biomass sources are now ready for energy production. Our energy revolution has already started. We go from large scale to decentralized energy production, and we start to realize that no one individual source is going to save us.

It’s going to be the full range of alternative, renewable and sustainable technologies that are slowly replacing fossil fuels. I don’t think that one small company of five people in Wageningen, the Netherlands, is going to revolutionize our energy production. But I do want to be part of it.

Author: Marjolein Helder is the CEO of Plant-e, a World Economic Forum Technology Pioneer. She is participating in the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/r...ng-plants/]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29588.html Sun, 25 Jul 2021 22:26:28 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29588.html South Korean students are being paid to use eco-friendly toilet that takes methane from poop to power building.

Using the bathroom could pay for your coffee at a university in South Korea, where human waste is being used to help power a science building.

Cho Jae-weon, an urban and environmental engineering professor at Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) in southeast Korea, has designed an eco-friendly toilet connected to a laboratory that uses excrement to produce biogas and manure.

The BeeVi toilet — a portmanteau of the words 'bee' and 'vision' — uses a vacuum pump to send feces into an underground tank, reducing water use.
Once there, microorganisms break down the waste into methane, which becomes a source of energy for the building.
The gas powers a stove, hot-water boiler and solid oxide fuel cell.

'If we think out of the box, feces has precious value to make energy and manure,' said Cho. 'I have put this value into ecological circulation.'

The average adult defecates about 17 ounces a day, which can be converted to 13 gallons of methane, according to Cho.
That's enough energy to generate 0.5kWh of electricity, enough to charge your phone for an hour every day for a month or drive a car for about three-quarters of a mile.

Cho isn't just relying on altruism or environmental conscientiousness to get people to use his eco-toilet, either: He's devised a virtual currency, Ggool, ('honey' in Korean) and pays users, mostly students, 10 Ggool a day to hit the can.
The currency can be used to buy goods on campus—like freshly brewed coffee, instant noodles, fruit and even books.
The students can pick up the products they want at a special Ggool market and scan a QR code to pay for their goods.
'I had only ever thought that feces is dirty, but now it is a treasure of great value to me,' Heo Hui-jin, a postgraduate student at the university, said in the Ggool market. 'I even talk about feces during mealtimes, to think about buying any book I want.'
Not all efforts at creating environmentally friendly toilets have proven successful in the long run: in September, UK conservation group the Waterwise Project says dual-flush toilets, intended to save water is actually wasting billions of gallons every year, far more than they save.

Dual-flush toilets are prone to leaks, the group says, and are the leading culprit in the 88 million gallons of water wasted a day.

'Because so many dual-flush toilets flow continuously, that water loss is now exceeding the amount of water they should be saving nationally,' Andrew Tucker, water efficiency manager at Thames Water, told the BBC.

Popularized in the West in the 1980s, the two-button toilets were seen as environmentally friendly because they give patrons a choice of how much water to use: one button releases a full 1.6-gallons for solid waste, while the other just half of that for urine.

But Thames Water found as many of half of its customers used the wrong button—or pressed both simultaneously.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...rency.html]]> South Korean students are being paid to use eco-friendly toilet that takes methane from poop to power building.

Using the bathroom could pay for your coffee at a university in South Korea, where human waste is being used to help power a science building.

Cho Jae-weon, an urban and environmental engineering professor at Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) in southeast Korea, has designed an eco-friendly toilet connected to a laboratory that uses excrement to produce biogas and manure.

The BeeVi toilet — a portmanteau of the words 'bee' and 'vision' — uses a vacuum pump to send feces into an underground tank, reducing water use.
Once there, microorganisms break down the waste into methane, which becomes a source of energy for the building.
The gas powers a stove, hot-water boiler and solid oxide fuel cell.

'If we think out of the box, feces has precious value to make energy and manure,' said Cho. 'I have put this value into ecological circulation.'

The average adult defecates about 17 ounces a day, which can be converted to 13 gallons of methane, according to Cho.
That's enough energy to generate 0.5kWh of electricity, enough to charge your phone for an hour every day for a month or drive a car for about three-quarters of a mile.

Cho isn't just relying on altruism or environmental conscientiousness to get people to use his eco-toilet, either: He's devised a virtual currency, Ggool, ('honey' in Korean) and pays users, mostly students, 10 Ggool a day to hit the can.
The currency can be used to buy goods on campus—like freshly brewed coffee, instant noodles, fruit and even books.
The students can pick up the products they want at a special Ggool market and scan a QR code to pay for their goods.
'I had only ever thought that feces is dirty, but now it is a treasure of great value to me,' Heo Hui-jin, a postgraduate student at the university, said in the Ggool market. 'I even talk about feces during mealtimes, to think about buying any book I want.'
Not all efforts at creating environmentally friendly toilets have proven successful in the long run: in September, UK conservation group the Waterwise Project says dual-flush toilets, intended to save water is actually wasting billions of gallons every year, far more than they save.

Dual-flush toilets are prone to leaks, the group says, and are the leading culprit in the 88 million gallons of water wasted a day.

'Because so many dual-flush toilets flow continuously, that water loss is now exceeding the amount of water they should be saving nationally,' Andrew Tucker, water efficiency manager at Thames Water, told the BBC.

Popularized in the West in the 1980s, the two-button toilets were seen as environmentally friendly because they give patrons a choice of how much water to use: one button releases a full 1.6-gallons for solid waste, while the other just half of that for urine.

But Thames Water found as many of half of its customers used the wrong button—or pressed both simultaneously.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...rency.html]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29585.html Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:55:12 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29585.html The Department of Petroleum Resources says the pump price of petrol in Nigeria may rise up to as much as N1000 per litre when the petrol subsidy regime comes to an end without an alternative energy source.
DPR Director, Sarki Auwalu, stated this while responding to questions and comments generated by a paper he delivered in Lagos, recently, at the Second Quarter, 2021 Business Dinner of Petroleum Club Lagos.
Responding to the subsidy concerns and the disparity in the petrol consumption figures given by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and the DPR, Auwalu acknowledged that Nigeria was spending so much on petrol subsidy.

He said eliminating it would require making alternative fuel available to Nigerians and that failure to do that could plunge Nigerians into paying higher petrol prices when subsidy is removed.

According to a statement on the DPR website on Monday titled, ‘DPR: Without Alternative Energy, Petrol Price Will Rise On Subsidy Removal’, Auwalu stated that Nigerians may pay as high as N1, 000 to buy one litre of petrol in the country when subsidy on petrol is removed and when the alternative energy or autogas gas policy becomes fully operational.

He, however, said the alternative fuel regime comes with initial cost as it will lead to spending $400 to convert one vehicles from running on petrol or diesel to running on either Liquefied Natural Gas or Compressed Natural Gas.

Auwalu maintained that converting eight million public vehicles currently present in Nigeria to gas-powered will cumulatively cost $3.2 billion to achieve.

He said, “So, to eliminate subsidy, they don’t call it subsidy anymore now, it’s under-recovery of purchase. So, to eliminate under-recovery, what you need is alternative fuel. Without an alternative, you will subject people to higher prices and that is why we go for price freedom.

“As at today, there are 22 million cars in Nigeria. Eight million are for public use. Imagine if you want to convert every car into gas, the average cost of conversion is $400. Converting eight million cars requires $3.2 billion. To do that, there are a lot of environmental investors which can invest and recover from the sale of gas and we are encouraging that.

“Once that is achieved, you will see that PMS can be sold at N1,000. After all, the average distance covered by one-gallon equivalent when you compare it with LNG or CNG with respect to energy for mobility is 2.7 against one. One for PMS, 2.7 for LNG or CNG.
”So, with that advantage, you will see that it creates an opportunity for this industry again. The issue of subsidy, the volume will all vanish and that is what we are working towards.”

https://punchng.com/petrol-pricell-rise-...re-if-dpr/]]> The Department of Petroleum Resources says the pump price of petrol in Nigeria may rise up to as much as N1000 per litre when the petrol subsidy regime comes to an end without an alternative energy source.
DPR Director, Sarki Auwalu, stated this while responding to questions and comments generated by a paper he delivered in Lagos, recently, at the Second Quarter, 2021 Business Dinner of Petroleum Club Lagos.
Responding to the subsidy concerns and the disparity in the petrol consumption figures given by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and the DPR, Auwalu acknowledged that Nigeria was spending so much on petrol subsidy.

He said eliminating it would require making alternative fuel available to Nigerians and that failure to do that could plunge Nigerians into paying higher petrol prices when subsidy is removed.

According to a statement on the DPR website on Monday titled, ‘DPR: Without Alternative Energy, Petrol Price Will Rise On Subsidy Removal’, Auwalu stated that Nigerians may pay as high as N1, 000 to buy one litre of petrol in the country when subsidy on petrol is removed and when the alternative energy or autogas gas policy becomes fully operational.

He, however, said the alternative fuel regime comes with initial cost as it will lead to spending $400 to convert one vehicles from running on petrol or diesel to running on either Liquefied Natural Gas or Compressed Natural Gas.

Auwalu maintained that converting eight million public vehicles currently present in Nigeria to gas-powered will cumulatively cost $3.2 billion to achieve.

He said, “So, to eliminate subsidy, they don’t call it subsidy anymore now, it’s under-recovery of purchase. So, to eliminate under-recovery, what you need is alternative fuel. Without an alternative, you will subject people to higher prices and that is why we go for price freedom.

“As at today, there are 22 million cars in Nigeria. Eight million are for public use. Imagine if you want to convert every car into gas, the average cost of conversion is $400. Converting eight million cars requires $3.2 billion. To do that, there are a lot of environmental investors which can invest and recover from the sale of gas and we are encouraging that.

“Once that is achieved, you will see that PMS can be sold at N1,000. After all, the average distance covered by one-gallon equivalent when you compare it with LNG or CNG with respect to energy for mobility is 2.7 against one. One for PMS, 2.7 for LNG or CNG.
”So, with that advantage, you will see that it creates an opportunity for this industry again. The issue of subsidy, the volume will all vanish and that is what we are working towards.”

https://punchng.com/petrol-pricell-rise-...re-if-dpr/]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29569.html Sun, 20 Jun 2021 09:47:40 +0000 AaronMwidu]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29569.html I would like to get some advice on how to get my biogas digester working. We installed it in a refugee camp and the feedstock is a blend of human waste and cow dung. Its been 2 weeks and there is still no gas. I have ensured there isn't any gas leakage by sealing all joints using araldite and silicon.]]> I would like to get some advice on how to get my biogas digester working. We installed it in a refugee camp and the feedstock is a blend of human waste and cow dung. Its been 2 weeks and there is still no gas. I have ensured there isn't any gas leakage by sealing all joints using araldite and silicon.]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29550.html Sat, 05 Jun 2021 22:18:21 +0000 FarmKing]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29550.html Through a simple reaction in alcohol using a catalyst, the researchers directly bonded sand particles. This might not only reduce carbon emissions but also enable the construction of buildings and structures in desert regions, and even on the Mars or Moon.

Concrete is formed of two parts: cement (accountable for 8% of total global CO emissions) and aggregate (essentially made of gravel and sand).
In spite of the abundance of sand across the globe, the availability of sand for the production of concrete is quite restricted since sand particles should have a particular size distribution to make concrete flowable.

"In concrete, cement is used to bond sand and gravel. Some researchers are investigating how more cement can be replaced with other materials, such as fly ash and blast furnace slag, to reduce CO emissions, but this approach is unsustainable because the supply of these materials is decreasing owing to reduced use of thermal power systems and increased use of electrical furnace steel.
Yuya Sakai, Study Lead Author and Associate Professor, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo"

Consequently, a new method is needed to synthesize concrete from inexhaustible materials with less impact on the environment.

Sakai added, “ Researchers can produce tetraalkoxysilane from sand through a reaction with alcohol and a catalyst by removing water, which is a byproduct of the reaction. Our idea was to leave the water to shift the reaction back and forth from sand to tetraalkoxysilane, to bond the sand particles with each other .”

A cup made of copper foil was placed in a reaction vessel with materials and sand, and the reaction conditions—like the amounts of alcohol, sand, dehydration agent and catalyst; the reaction time; and the heating temperature—were systematically altered.

Determining the correct proportion of chemicals and sand was crucial to achieving a product with adequate strength.

"We obtained sufficiently strong products with, for example, silica sand, glass beads, desert sand, and simulated moon sand. These findings can promote a move toward a greener and more economical construction industry everywhere on Earth. Our technique does not require specific sand particles used in conventional construction. This will also help address the issues of climate change and space development.
Ahmad Farahani, Study Second Author, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo"

The product will probably exhibit improved durability compared to traditional concrete since cement paste, which is comparatively weak against chemical attack and displays huge volume changes as a result of humidity and temperature, is not part of the product.
The study is slated for publishing in Seisan Kenkyu, Vol. 75, 2021, as a paper titled, “Production of Hardened Body by Direct Bonding of Sand Particles.”

Source: https://www.azobuild.com/news.aspx?newsID=23197]]> Through a simple reaction in alcohol using a catalyst, the researchers directly bonded sand particles. This might not only reduce carbon emissions but also enable the construction of buildings and structures in desert regions, and even on the Mars or Moon.

Concrete is formed of two parts: cement (accountable for 8% of total global CO emissions) and aggregate (essentially made of gravel and sand).
In spite of the abundance of sand across the globe, the availability of sand for the production of concrete is quite restricted since sand particles should have a particular size distribution to make concrete flowable.

"In concrete, cement is used to bond sand and gravel. Some researchers are investigating how more cement can be replaced with other materials, such as fly ash and blast furnace slag, to reduce CO emissions, but this approach is unsustainable because the supply of these materials is decreasing owing to reduced use of thermal power systems and increased use of electrical furnace steel.
Yuya Sakai, Study Lead Author and Associate Professor, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo"

Consequently, a new method is needed to synthesize concrete from inexhaustible materials with less impact on the environment.

Sakai added, “ Researchers can produce tetraalkoxysilane from sand through a reaction with alcohol and a catalyst by removing water, which is a byproduct of the reaction. Our idea was to leave the water to shift the reaction back and forth from sand to tetraalkoxysilane, to bond the sand particles with each other .”

A cup made of copper foil was placed in a reaction vessel with materials and sand, and the reaction conditions—like the amounts of alcohol, sand, dehydration agent and catalyst; the reaction time; and the heating temperature—were systematically altered.

Determining the correct proportion of chemicals and sand was crucial to achieving a product with adequate strength.

"We obtained sufficiently strong products with, for example, silica sand, glass beads, desert sand, and simulated moon sand. These findings can promote a move toward a greener and more economical construction industry everywhere on Earth. Our technique does not require specific sand particles used in conventional construction. This will also help address the issues of climate change and space development.
Ahmad Farahani, Study Second Author, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo"

The product will probably exhibit improved durability compared to traditional concrete since cement paste, which is comparatively weak against chemical attack and displays huge volume changes as a result of humidity and temperature, is not part of the product.
The study is slated for publishing in Seisan Kenkyu, Vol. 75, 2021, as a paper titled, “Production of Hardened Body by Direct Bonding of Sand Particles.”

Source: https://www.azobuild.com/news.aspx?newsID=23197]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29114.html Tue, 24 Dec 2019 22:13:34 +0000 Kiwi]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-29114.html http://farmersjoint.com/thread-28908.html Fri, 10 Nov 2017 01:21:27 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-28908.html
Yuanhui Zhang, an agricultural engineering professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, has succeeded in turning small batches of hog waste into oil.

The process, called thermochemical conversion, uses heat and pressure to break down carbohydrate materials and turn waste into liquid. The project is still in its infancy.

For now, each half-gallon (two-liter) batch of manure converts to only about 9 ounces (0.26 liter) of oil.

But Zhang believes the conversion process could eventually solve the problem of pollution and odor at modern hog farms, where farmers pay big money to get rid of the waste. And, he says, pig oil could also offer an alternative to petroleum oil.

"If 50 percent of U.S. swine farms adopted this technology, we could see a [U.S.] 1.5-billion-dollar reduction in crude oil imports every year," Zhang said. "And swine producers could see a 10 percent increase in their income—about $10 to $15 per hog."

Oil Crisis

During the oil crisis in the 1970s, U.S. researchers attempted to turn wood sludge and coal into oil. But it proved too costly. When oil prices later fell, the whole idea of turning waste into fuel became less attractive.

"The science is not new, but it has failed because of economics," Zhang said. "If you can buy crude oil at [U.S.] $20 a barrel, why bother with pig oil? It's too expensive."

But with crude oil prices now hovering around U.S. $40 a barrel, pig oil once again seems like an attractive fuel alternative.

Zhang's research team developed a small-scale thermochemical conversion reactor that applies heat and pressure to swine manure. The process breaks the manure's long hydrocarbon chains down into shorter ones. Methane, carbon dioxide, water, and oil are produced as by-products.

"The process we have developed is quite different from most conventional thermochemical conversion processes," said Zhang. "There is no need for the addition of a catalyst, and our process does not require predrying of the manure."

Each conversion takes about 15 minutes, and the process has a strong energy return. "For every one portion of energy in, you get three portions of energy out," Zhang said.

Negative Cost

The researchers converted as much as 70 percent of swine manure volatile solids into oil. About 20 percent of the manure is considered solid; the rest is largely water. Some 90 percent of that solid manure is volatile, or organic. Those volatile solids are the part of the manure that can be converted to oil.

The manure excreted by one pig during its life span on an average hog farm could produce up to 21 gallons (80 liters) of crude oil. A swine farm producing 10,000 market hogs per year could produce 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons (795,000 liters), of crude oil per year.

Simply getting rid of manure is a big business. "It's a negative-cost material to us," Zhang said. "People are willing to pay for you to use it."

Manure has advantages over raw materials, like wood sludge, because the pig has already done most of the work. "It's a very nice material that is easy to process, because it's already been biologically processed by the pigs," Zhang said.

The process could also work with manure from chickens or cows, though it would have to modified. Human waste, which is similar to that of pigs, would, in theory, work well in Zhang's system with little or no modification.

After the conversion, the researchers took the crude oil and further processed it, obtaining refined oil that Zhang says has a heating value similar to that of diesel fuel.

Environmental Benefits

As a renewable energy, pig oil has great environmental benefits. Minerals are preserved in the treatment system, odor is reduced, and the biological oxygen demand of manure is reduced by 70 percent.

"Biological oxygen demand" refers to the fact that, as manure breaks down, the process sucks oxygen from its environment. When manure leeches into a water supply, say due to runoff, it harms aquatic life by decreasing the oxygen available to fish, water plants, and other organisms.

Also, unlike petroleum oil, pig oil uses no additives.

"For me, it's primarily an environmental thing," Zhang said. "We have to look to renewable or alternative energy. We know that eventually we can't keep digging up petroleum oil."

The next step for Zhang's research team is to develop the batch process into what he calls a continuous-mode process at a pilot plant.

"Then, the heat generated from the process can be recycled more efficiently, reducing the operating costs," Zhang said. "Reactor volume can be reduced for the same capacity, which reduces the investment costs. And automated controls can be adapted more readily, which reduces the labor costs."

So should oil companies be worried about Zhang?

"Maybe," he said. "I have no support from the oil companies, that's for sure."

? https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...igoil.html]]>
Yuanhui Zhang, an agricultural engineering professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, has succeeded in turning small batches of hog waste into oil.

The process, called thermochemical conversion, uses heat and pressure to break down carbohydrate materials and turn waste into liquid. The project is still in its infancy.

For now, each half-gallon (two-liter) batch of manure converts to only about 9 ounces (0.26 liter) of oil.

But Zhang believes the conversion process could eventually solve the problem of pollution and odor at modern hog farms, where farmers pay big money to get rid of the waste. And, he says, pig oil could also offer an alternative to petroleum oil.

"If 50 percent of U.S. swine farms adopted this technology, we could see a [U.S.] 1.5-billion-dollar reduction in crude oil imports every year," Zhang said. "And swine producers could see a 10 percent increase in their income—about $10 to $15 per hog."

Oil Crisis

During the oil crisis in the 1970s, U.S. researchers attempted to turn wood sludge and coal into oil. But it proved too costly. When oil prices later fell, the whole idea of turning waste into fuel became less attractive.

"The science is not new, but it has failed because of economics," Zhang said. "If you can buy crude oil at [U.S.] $20 a barrel, why bother with pig oil? It's too expensive."

But with crude oil prices now hovering around U.S. $40 a barrel, pig oil once again seems like an attractive fuel alternative.

Zhang's research team developed a small-scale thermochemical conversion reactor that applies heat and pressure to swine manure. The process breaks the manure's long hydrocarbon chains down into shorter ones. Methane, carbon dioxide, water, and oil are produced as by-products.

"The process we have developed is quite different from most conventional thermochemical conversion processes," said Zhang. "There is no need for the addition of a catalyst, and our process does not require predrying of the manure."

Each conversion takes about 15 minutes, and the process has a strong energy return. "For every one portion of energy in, you get three portions of energy out," Zhang said.

Negative Cost

The researchers converted as much as 70 percent of swine manure volatile solids into oil. About 20 percent of the manure is considered solid; the rest is largely water. Some 90 percent of that solid manure is volatile, or organic. Those volatile solids are the part of the manure that can be converted to oil.

The manure excreted by one pig during its life span on an average hog farm could produce up to 21 gallons (80 liters) of crude oil. A swine farm producing 10,000 market hogs per year could produce 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons (795,000 liters), of crude oil per year.

Simply getting rid of manure is a big business. "It's a negative-cost material to us," Zhang said. "People are willing to pay for you to use it."

Manure has advantages over raw materials, like wood sludge, because the pig has already done most of the work. "It's a very nice material that is easy to process, because it's already been biologically processed by the pigs," Zhang said.

The process could also work with manure from chickens or cows, though it would have to modified. Human waste, which is similar to that of pigs, would, in theory, work well in Zhang's system with little or no modification.

After the conversion, the researchers took the crude oil and further processed it, obtaining refined oil that Zhang says has a heating value similar to that of diesel fuel.

Environmental Benefits

As a renewable energy, pig oil has great environmental benefits. Minerals are preserved in the treatment system, odor is reduced, and the biological oxygen demand of manure is reduced by 70 percent.

"Biological oxygen demand" refers to the fact that, as manure breaks down, the process sucks oxygen from its environment. When manure leeches into a water supply, say due to runoff, it harms aquatic life by decreasing the oxygen available to fish, water plants, and other organisms.

Also, unlike petroleum oil, pig oil uses no additives.

"For me, it's primarily an environmental thing," Zhang said. "We have to look to renewable or alternative energy. We know that eventually we can't keep digging up petroleum oil."

The next step for Zhang's research team is to develop the batch process into what he calls a continuous-mode process at a pilot plant.

"Then, the heat generated from the process can be recycled more efficiently, reducing the operating costs," Zhang said. "Reactor volume can be reduced for the same capacity, which reduces the investment costs. And automated controls can be adapted more readily, which reduces the labor costs."

So should oil companies be worried about Zhang?

"Maybe," he said. "I have no support from the oil companies, that's for sure."

? https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...igoil.html]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-305.html Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:59:08 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-305.html by DR YUSOF BASIRON on Apr 29, 2013

Palm oil together with corn, rapeseed, soybean and sugar cane are viable feedstocks for  use as first generation biofuel.

According to the Food and Agriculture Authority (FAO) from a sustainability perspective, biofuels offer both advantages (energy security, GHG reductions, reduced air pollution) and risks (intensive use of resources, monocultures, reduced biodiversity and even higher GHG through land use change). Therefore, to measure biofuel’s sustainability,  economic, environment and social sustainability factors must be considered.

In terms of yield productivity, sugar cane and palm oil rank the highest. Sugar cane yields 6,000 litres of biofuel per hectare (l/ha), followed by oil palm and sugar beet (5,000-6,000 l/ha) but palm oil is superior as it has 27% higher energy content (30.53 MJ/l) than ethanol from sugarcane (24MJ/l). Moderately efficient feedstock’s such as corn, cassava and sweet sorghum yield 1,500-4,000 litres of biofuel per hectare( l/ha). Rapeseed, wheat and soya are the least efficient, yielding less than 1,500 l/ha.  Interestingly, it is these moderate to low efficient feedstocks that are used in countries with mandated biofuel programmes; in the US biofuels from soya and corn are used while in EU rapeseed is the preferred choice. Although the use of these feedstocks may not be economical, they become viable due to subsidies and mandates set by the governments.

FAO’s search found  sweet sorghum as another  possible alternative biofuel feedstock. Although it can  rival sugar cane in terms of productivity, it requires quick processing after harvesting and poses challenges for transportation and storage given the bulkiness of the crop.

Jatropha was thought to be a plausible biofuel that would put to rest  the “food versus biofuel” debate. As the first generation biofuels are also food crops, there was a fear that using them  for biofuel would create a shortage in the food supply and drive up food prices.  According to FAO jatropha would require intensive crop management to be successful which, in turn, would result in competition for top farm land. In reality, any crop grown as a source for biofuel feedstock will still compete with food crops for land and water resources.  In the end, economics will trump agronomy in making the choice.

In countries where cassava is  grown widely, it is a staple food crop. In these countries, the potential to develop it into biofuel is impeded by limited processing technologies and underdeveloped marketing channels. It is unlikely that it will become a large scale biofuel source.

With regard to advanced biofuels (including cellulosic ethanol), it has not reached the stage to be viably produced commercially. Dedicated energy crops (e.g. alfalfa, swithgrass, miscanthus), fast-growing short rotation trees (e.g. poplar, willows, eucalyptus) and wood and agricultural residues offer great potential. Currently, economics and high capital investment for new supply chains remain serious obstacles for second generation biofuels. It is also cautioned that the advent of second generation biofuels would create pressure for land to produce such crops and worsen the competition with food crops.

Economic sustainability

Economic sustainability requires long-term profitability, minimal competition with food production and competitiveness with fossil fuels. As  biofuel programmes are supported by subsidies and mandates, these factors mask the true economic assessment. It is, thus,  difficult to assess the long run economic viability of biofuel systems. Nevertheless, FAO opines that despite the added certification cost, feedstock for biofuels  made from palm oil and sugar cane produced by developing countries are still able to compete in the European market. This is a clear indication of the  economic viability of these two prime biofuel feedstocks.

Environment sustainability

The issues tied up with environment sustainability  may be global (e.g. climate change, GHG mitigation, renewable energy, ) and local (e.g. water pollution, soil quality, erosion, air pollution). Life cycle assessment methods are often used to study these aspects but the methodologies are not standardized and cannot adequately quantify indirect land use changes.

Fossil energy balance, which is the ratio between renewable energy output and fossil energy input is a good factor to compare biofuel sources. Topping the list is palm oil biodiesel with a fossil energy balance of 9.0. This means that a litre of palm oil biofuel contains 9 times the amount of energy as was required for its production. Sugar cane  has values ranging from 2.0  to 8.0. Other feedstock’s;  rapeseed, soya and corn have values which fall within 1 to 4.

A major portion of the  high fossil fuel energy input to produce temperate biofuels is that they require large quantities of fertilizers; thus, the fear of endangering environment sustainability, e.g. water pollution, at the local level. In comparison with soya and rapeseed, oil palm requires lower inputs of fertilizers and agrochemicals.

Sugar cane has the lowest water footprint, with an average of 29 m3/GJ. while oil palm (75 m3/GJ), sunflower (72 m3/GJ) and soya (99 m3/GJ) have  medium water footprints. Rapeseed has  a very high water footprint ( average 131 m3/GJ).

Irrespective of which biofuel feedstock is grown, there is concern that biomass (for conversion into biofuels)  production under intensive agriculture can have negative impacts on biodiversity, including habitat loss, expansion of invasive species and contamination from fertilizers and herbicides, especially if they are monoculture systems. According to FAO, cultivation of biofuel production systems will destabilize the  original biodiversity composition.  For oil palm, there is the concern that  if large areas of  planting in the future are carried out on peat or tropical forest, the carbon debt will be high. (Note:The solution as practised in Malaysia is to commit a minimum of 50% of the total land area to be out of bounds for agriculture and maintained as permanent forest to sustain the mega-biodiversity status of the country.)

Social sustainability

The social dimension of biofuel sustainability relates to the potential for rural development, poverty  reduction and inclusive growth. The Social Impact Assessment should be used as a tool to measure social sustainability. The FAO report did not compare the various kinds of biofuels in this aspect. This lies in the difficulty of translating social sustainability standards and criteria into measurable indicators. As such, most present systems of measuring social sustainability only pay attention  to social aspects which have negative impacts; such as child labour, minimum wages or calling for adherence to national laws or international conventions.

FAO states that critical factors e.g. health implications, poverty eradication or smallholder inclusiveness are not included.  Social sustainability must move away from just focusing on a few negative impacts and include these factors and development goals where local communities share sustainably in the economic benefits derived from biofuels in comparison with other alternatives.

Note: A survey showed that small holder farmers in Malaysia who grew oil  palm and sold the fruits, obtained an  average income of RM 1,356 in 2006. This income was way above the national poverty line of RM 529 for the country.  The survey also showed that quality of life of the settlers (farmers) in Felda improved (Source: Ahmad Tarmizi  (2008): Felda: A success story, Global Oils & Fats,5,1,6-11).

Conclusion

The sustainability of biofuel feedstocks must be viewed holistically based on economic, environment and social aspects. Amongst them, there is a need to find better criteria to evaluate social sustainability.  A single biofuel which satisfies all the aspects completely does not exist.  Based on a synopsis of the FAO report, amongst the first generation biofuels which support present biofuel programmes, palm oil biodiesel is seen to be a highly sustainable feedstock, far superior than  corn, rapeseed and soya.

FROM: http://www.ceopalmoil.com/2013/04/palm-o...-feedstock]]> by DR YUSOF BASIRON on Apr 29, 2013

Palm oil together with corn, rapeseed, soybean and sugar cane are viable feedstocks for  use as first generation biofuel.

According to the Food and Agriculture Authority (FAO) from a sustainability perspective, biofuels offer both advantages (energy security, GHG reductions, reduced air pollution) and risks (intensive use of resources, monocultures, reduced biodiversity and even higher GHG through land use change). Therefore, to measure biofuel’s sustainability,  economic, environment and social sustainability factors must be considered.

In terms of yield productivity, sugar cane and palm oil rank the highest. Sugar cane yields 6,000 litres of biofuel per hectare (l/ha), followed by oil palm and sugar beet (5,000-6,000 l/ha) but palm oil is superior as it has 27% higher energy content (30.53 MJ/l) than ethanol from sugarcane (24MJ/l). Moderately efficient feedstock’s such as corn, cassava and sweet sorghum yield 1,500-4,000 litres of biofuel per hectare( l/ha). Rapeseed, wheat and soya are the least efficient, yielding less than 1,500 l/ha.  Interestingly, it is these moderate to low efficient feedstocks that are used in countries with mandated biofuel programmes; in the US biofuels from soya and corn are used while in EU rapeseed is the preferred choice. Although the use of these feedstocks may not be economical, they become viable due to subsidies and mandates set by the governments.

FAO’s search found  sweet sorghum as another  possible alternative biofuel feedstock. Although it can  rival sugar cane in terms of productivity, it requires quick processing after harvesting and poses challenges for transportation and storage given the bulkiness of the crop.

Jatropha was thought to be a plausible biofuel that would put to rest  the “food versus biofuel” debate. As the first generation biofuels are also food crops, there was a fear that using them  for biofuel would create a shortage in the food supply and drive up food prices.  According to FAO jatropha would require intensive crop management to be successful which, in turn, would result in competition for top farm land. In reality, any crop grown as a source for biofuel feedstock will still compete with food crops for land and water resources.  In the end, economics will trump agronomy in making the choice.

In countries where cassava is  grown widely, it is a staple food crop. In these countries, the potential to develop it into biofuel is impeded by limited processing technologies and underdeveloped marketing channels. It is unlikely that it will become a large scale biofuel source.

With regard to advanced biofuels (including cellulosic ethanol), it has not reached the stage to be viably produced commercially. Dedicated energy crops (e.g. alfalfa, swithgrass, miscanthus), fast-growing short rotation trees (e.g. poplar, willows, eucalyptus) and wood and agricultural residues offer great potential. Currently, economics and high capital investment for new supply chains remain serious obstacles for second generation biofuels. It is also cautioned that the advent of second generation biofuels would create pressure for land to produce such crops and worsen the competition with food crops.

Economic sustainability

Economic sustainability requires long-term profitability, minimal competition with food production and competitiveness with fossil fuels. As  biofuel programmes are supported by subsidies and mandates, these factors mask the true economic assessment. It is, thus,  difficult to assess the long run economic viability of biofuel systems. Nevertheless, FAO opines that despite the added certification cost, feedstock for biofuels  made from palm oil and sugar cane produced by developing countries are still able to compete in the European market. This is a clear indication of the  economic viability of these two prime biofuel feedstocks.

Environment sustainability

The issues tied up with environment sustainability  may be global (e.g. climate change, GHG mitigation, renewable energy, ) and local (e.g. water pollution, soil quality, erosion, air pollution). Life cycle assessment methods are often used to study these aspects but the methodologies are not standardized and cannot adequately quantify indirect land use changes.

Fossil energy balance, which is the ratio between renewable energy output and fossil energy input is a good factor to compare biofuel sources. Topping the list is palm oil biodiesel with a fossil energy balance of 9.0. This means that a litre of palm oil biofuel contains 9 times the amount of energy as was required for its production. Sugar cane  has values ranging from 2.0  to 8.0. Other feedstock’s;  rapeseed, soya and corn have values which fall within 1 to 4.

A major portion of the  high fossil fuel energy input to produce temperate biofuels is that they require large quantities of fertilizers; thus, the fear of endangering environment sustainability, e.g. water pollution, at the local level. In comparison with soya and rapeseed, oil palm requires lower inputs of fertilizers and agrochemicals.

Sugar cane has the lowest water footprint, with an average of 29 m3/GJ. while oil palm (75 m3/GJ), sunflower (72 m3/GJ) and soya (99 m3/GJ) have  medium water footprints. Rapeseed has  a very high water footprint ( average 131 m3/GJ).

Irrespective of which biofuel feedstock is grown, there is concern that biomass (for conversion into biofuels)  production under intensive agriculture can have negative impacts on biodiversity, including habitat loss, expansion of invasive species and contamination from fertilizers and herbicides, especially if they are monoculture systems. According to FAO, cultivation of biofuel production systems will destabilize the  original biodiversity composition.  For oil palm, there is the concern that  if large areas of  planting in the future are carried out on peat or tropical forest, the carbon debt will be high. (Note:The solution as practised in Malaysia is to commit a minimum of 50% of the total land area to be out of bounds for agriculture and maintained as permanent forest to sustain the mega-biodiversity status of the country.)

Social sustainability

The social dimension of biofuel sustainability relates to the potential for rural development, poverty  reduction and inclusive growth. The Social Impact Assessment should be used as a tool to measure social sustainability. The FAO report did not compare the various kinds of biofuels in this aspect. This lies in the difficulty of translating social sustainability standards and criteria into measurable indicators. As such, most present systems of measuring social sustainability only pay attention  to social aspects which have negative impacts; such as child labour, minimum wages or calling for adherence to national laws or international conventions.

FAO states that critical factors e.g. health implications, poverty eradication or smallholder inclusiveness are not included.  Social sustainability must move away from just focusing on a few negative impacts and include these factors and development goals where local communities share sustainably in the economic benefits derived from biofuels in comparison with other alternatives.

Note: A survey showed that small holder farmers in Malaysia who grew oil  palm and sold the fruits, obtained an  average income of RM 1,356 in 2006. This income was way above the national poverty line of RM 529 for the country.  The survey also showed that quality of life of the settlers (farmers) in Felda improved (Source: Ahmad Tarmizi  (2008): Felda: A success story, Global Oils & Fats,5,1,6-11).

Conclusion

The sustainability of biofuel feedstocks must be viewed holistically based on economic, environment and social aspects. Amongst them, there is a need to find better criteria to evaluate social sustainability.  A single biofuel which satisfies all the aspects completely does not exist.  Based on a synopsis of the FAO report, amongst the first generation biofuels which support present biofuel programmes, palm oil biodiesel is seen to be a highly sustainable feedstock, far superior than  corn, rapeseed and soya.

FROM: http://www.ceopalmoil.com/2013/04/palm-o...-feedstock]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-298.html Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:53:26 +0000 Henlus]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-298.html Biogas Production: Avoid Failure by Using the Correct Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio


  carbon-nitrogen-ration.gif (Size: 15.97 KB / Downloads: 4)

]]> Biogas Production: Avoid Failure by Using the Correct Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio


  carbon-nitrogen-ration.gif (Size: 15.97 KB / Downloads: 4)

]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-253.html Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:58:34 +0000 Charly]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-253.html http://farmersjoint.com/thread-272.html Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:47:30 +0000 Sendrix]]> http://farmersjoint.com/thread-272.html