Mean Green

Due to the economic downslide of recent years, finding funding for renewable energy projects is harder than ever. The current trend in the sustainable energy sector involves companies virtually waiting for the right kind of financing to come through for their projects. Whether they end up being funded by the federal government, state grants or bank-financed loans, a lot of environmental-development projects are being put on the back burner until the economy bounces back. For small businesses to get the right financing from banks, the banks also want to see evidence that these bioenergy companies will be successful. But it is hard to prove something like that when the bioenergy revolution is fairly new and hasn’t gained much exposure. In addition, these small businesses don’t have the funds to advertise or really make themselves known. While banks are interested in advanced environmental technologies to some degree, they are also hesitant to invest in a startup venture involving bioenergy-these projects are viewed as being a high risk in the eyes of most banks.

While awaiting funds, these companies often change their development plans. In order to remedy this situation that arises for bioenergy start-ups in need of funding for newly developing projects, companies have tried obtaining loans from banks for a portion of the overall project cost. For example, the U.S. based company, Seneca BioEnergy, was in need of an estimated $40 million to construct an Agbio facility along with equipment. This company decided to pursue a loan of just $5 to $10 million to fund a portion of the project. This ensured that the company was not just simply waiting without moving forward on their bioenergy plans, they could at least get started on a portion of the project.

For businesses in the United States, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Agriculture and federal lawmakers are all legitimate sources for locating the appropriate funding for bioenergy start-up projects. Grant funding is another source of capital for bioenergy businesses.

A company like Bluefire Ethanol, which was listed as one of the “50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy,” has been awarded a series of grants from the U.S. Department of Energy. The company was selected as one of four to construct a cellulosic ethanol production facility on a commercial scale-to be completely funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The Environmental Protection Agency has also recently awarded $2.83 million to 34 different endeavors within the Small Business Innovative Research program, four of which fall under the biofuels and vehicle emissions category for research and development firms working on technology related to biofuels.

In Europe, small businesses looking to develop in the bioenergy industry might be able to secure funding through their national government. However, many still face the same problem as do companies within the U.S.-with an uncertain economy, investments in unfamiliar business ventures are few and far between. One way for businesses to get in front of major decision-makers is to attend some of the world bioenergy conferences or expos that offer businesses the opportunity to demonstrate and speak about their bioenergy technologies and capabilities. In such a setting, businesses have an open forum and the ear of potential investors. In addition, financers have the opportunity to learn about bioenergy and the huge promise this field holds for the future. For example, the European Bioenergy Conference held in Brussels, Belgium from 30 June to 1 July 2010 offers a platform for this type of interaction between innovative bioenergy business prospects and investors.

In Canada, a major source of funding for small businesses in need of support for bio energy enterprises is Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC). According to a press release issued in February 2010, “Since its creation in 2001, SDTC has allocated $464 million to 183 clean technology projects.” Start-up bioenergy businesses can send the SDTC a ‘statement of interest’ outlining what funding is required. The SDTC is a non-profit organization that was initiated by the Canadian government to provide grants for Canada groups at the pre-commercial phase.

One exciting promise for the future of bioenergy companies is included in President Obama’s commitment to making bio-fuels a primary component of the future energy enterprises of America. He has pledged to follow through on the plan laid out by the Renewable Fuels Standard, which calls for U.S. production of biofuels to triple by 2022. Obama has stated, “There shouldn’t be any doubt that renewable, home-grown fuels are a key part of our strategy for a clean energy future.” Hopefully, this type of thinking will continue to spread around the world.

Incoming search terms for the article:

What is Biomass?

To better understand the advantages and disadvantages of biomass, one must first know what the term means. When an alternative fuel is created, there must be a beginning source for the alcohol. Currently, the most common sources are corn and soybeans, but algae are gaining quickly. Corn and soybeans have much the same set of pros and cons. Algae, on the other hand, is a star player that may be the best of all.

Corn and Soybeans – Good or Bad?

While fossil fuels are the worst source of energy, corn and soybeans would have to fall in close behind. This is not because they are not beneficial to the environment, but rather because of the net energy gain these sources create. A good biomass will result in the production of energy that outweighs the energy needed to produce the fuel in the first place. This cannot be said for corn and soybeans.

Algae – The New Guy

Using algae as biomass is a relatively new concept, but one that people are quickly learning to love. Algae have the ability to produce 100 times more fuel per acre than any other biomass currently being used. This certainly pushes algae into the upper echelon of competition.

Without the positive benefit of net energy gain, manufacturing biofuels is all for the crowd. The Earth and human race need a source of fuel that will cost less, environmentally, than the energy it gives and currently biomass sources do not fulfill that need.

Incoming search terms for the article:

A debate has erupted over the movement toward-and heavy subsidization of-biofuels in general, and ethanol in particular. Key issues include the diverting of food crops to produce ethanol rather than food, the economics of production of ethanol as a fuel, the net energy gained, and the greenhouse gas emissions caused. Let’s look at some of these pros and cons in more detail.

Here is The Good. Ethanol is a fuel we can produce now with existing technology, and there are some valid reasons to produce it. One cited benefit is that ethanol is a domestically produced fuel, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. This is indisputable. Every gallon of fuel ethanol replaces a something less than a gallon of gasoline that otherwise would come from Middle Eastern oil. Irrespective of net energy arguments, importing less oil is a good thing for the USA. A second touted benefit is economic. While ethanol is not competitive with oil at under $40 per barrel, it does put a cap on the price of oil as long as we have a sufficient supply of ethanol to use. This would support an argument for some subsidies so that ethanol is maintained as a credible substitute for oil, thus representing a constant economic threat to the oil cartel.

But then there is The Bad. The main problem currently is that most ethanol used in the USA is derived from corn. Thus, there is upward pressure on food prices due to diverting corn to produce fuel ethanol rather than food and diverting land from any food production to cultivate more of that corn. This should only be a temporary condition, however. Virtually everyone realizes that producing ethanol from corn is not a tenable long-term strategy, but rather, is a stop-gap measure to be used to provide ethanol until the cellulose-based technology has been sufficiently developed. Within 2-5 years, the displacement of corn by cellulose-based technology should be taking place, and upward pressure on food prices due to fuel ethanol production will abate.

Economics are different matter. Ethanol has only about 60% the fuel value of gasoline; thus, based on energy content measurements, we need about 1.6 gallons of ethanol to equal one gallon of gasoline. Based on current production methods, the cost of glucose (derived from corn) to produce 1 gallon of ethanol is about 0.80-1.00. Adding costs to isolate and refine the ethanol, the overall cost rises to about $1.40/gallon, which after adjusting for the lower fuel value translates to about $2.24 per gallon equivalent of gasoline, and a bit higher cost once it gets to the pump. Improvements will be made, but ethanol is not yet on an economic par with petroleum-derived gasoline as a transportation fuel. Ethanol does, however, place an upward limit on what gasoline can cost as long as ethanol is readily available to substitute for gasoline. Regardless of what the ethanol producers claim, I would estimate that, realistically, ethanol can be competitive only when gasoline is at or above $2.50 per gallon at the gas station.

Finally, there is The Ugly. Ethanol is also not as easily transported as gasoline due to its tendency to absorb water from the atmosphere and to be corrosive. It is, in fact, illegal as well as unworkable to use ethanol as an aviation fuel for this reason, and car engines require modification to use ethanol in blends higher than about 15%. Existing pipeline infrastructure cannot be used. This increases the impracticality of ethanol as a transportation fuel, and argues for other fuel compounds that do not have these problems-higher alcohols or hydrocarbons, all of which can also be produced by the fermentation of sugars derived from cellulose (or corn). The significant drawbacks lead to the inescapable conclusion that that ethanol will be substantially replaced as a fuel as soon as efficient processes to produce alternative materials from cellulosics, such as butanol or hydrocarbons, have been developed.

Incoming search terms for the article:

With all this talk of the rising cost of energy and oil prices – as well as the never-ending debate of climate change – many are turning to alternative methods of generating power in order to save money on their utility bills.

There are a wide range of methods for harvesting natural energy – such as wind power, with some even converting their car engines to run off reprocessed vegetable oil, or biofuel.

Choosing to generate power from natural resources is by no means cheap, however the long term benefits still attract many to the idea in many ways – from setting up turbines at their homes to recycling materials.

There are many companies which specialize in products that capture and convert energy from natural resources, including solar power.

As technology advances, the methods of capturing natural energy have the potential to become smaller, lighter and more affordable to run.

Wind turbines have remained a much discussed alternative energy technique, with a mixed reaction from the public regarding the construction of turbines to help reduce levels of carbon emissions from power stations.

However, home turbines and solar panels are now becoming a popular addition to households who are looking to save money on their gas and electricity bills.

Indeed, many countries in the Mediterranean region make use of solar panels to help power houses and businesses.

You may think that in a country such as the UK, where the sun appears to elude us at times this could seem pretty useless. However, solar panels are not dependent on hot weather, for a small amount of energy can still be generated just from normal daylight alone.

And the equipment itself is getting lighter, meaning that installation can be simplified because of the reduction in weight. However it is still advisable to seek advice from a surveyor before deciding to install solar panels.

With the credit crunch causing increases in everything from credit cards to gas and electricity bills, people are looking for more affordable means of generating their own power in order to cut down on their utility bills.

Wind turbines store energy from a rotor, where power is generated as the blades are turned. Energy that is harvested through home turbine kits can be used as part of the energy used in your home.

Some energy companies will offer the opportunity to reduce the cost of your electricity bill by giving some of the energy back to the grid.

However it’s best to check with your neighbours before taking the decision to install a small unit on the side of your property – for what may be saving money for yourself may be considered an eyesore by others.

Incoming search terms for the article:

With all the current emphasis on going “green” and protecting the environment, it is no wonder that the electric car has come center focus. Especially now with soaring gas prices, consumers want to know their options. Traditional gas powered vehicles have long been the focus of those concerned with environmental issues, and so invariably inventors and car manufacturers look to improve the technologies available on the electric car.

If you are considering the purchase of an electric car, you need to be realistic about their benefits. They’ve come a long way recently but they still have some significant disadvantages, and there are still limitations to their use and wide spread availability. Here are some disadvantages you may want to consider when evaluating if an electric car is feasible for your transportation needs:

1. Electric cars are expensive to own. If you’ve checked into the price of an electric car, you know they are not “low end”. It’s not so much the price of the car as it is the price of the batteries which they run on. If you’ve purchased batteries you know how the costs can add up quickly, and the batteries used in electric cars are lithium-ion, which are expensive. Also keep in mind that eventually the battery packs will need to be replaced, as they have a life of approximately 3 to 4 years.

2. The batteries will need to be recharged. A second disadvantage to an electric car is that the batteries will need to be recharged. This will require advanced planning because you’ll have to allow adequate time for the batteries to be fully charged. Now this might not sound like that big of a problem but if you are thinking of purchasing an electric car then you will need to make an honest assessment of how much you will use your vehicle. An extended or unplanned trip could be problematic if you haven’t had time to fully recharge the batteries.

3. Limits on driving distance. If you drive long distances, an electric car might not suit your needs, so you will need to consider how far you plan on driving your car. Most of the electric cars have limits on how many miles they can go before needing a recharge. Electric car maker ZAP recently announced that their electric car could travel up to 100 miles per single charge, but many people drive more miles than that round trip on a daily commute to work. This is definitely a limitation for those who intend to use the vehicle for getting to and from their place of employment. You certainly would not want to run out of batteries if you got stuck in a rush hour traffic jam.

4. Lack of power. Another disadvantage to the electric car is the lack of power, specifically quick pickup. If you do a lot of interstate driving there are going to be times when you will need to accelerate quickly to merge into traffic.

Electric cars have come a long way in recent years but still have to overcome a few more obstacles before becoming widely embraced as a solution for many consumers.

Incoming search terms for the article:

Rising prices of energy fuels have prompted companies and individuals to search for low-cost sources of fuels for their machines and automobiles. One of the most popular alternative fuels is biodiesel, a fuel derived from vegetable and animal fats.

Biodiesel, in the strict chemistry sense, is made from alcohol esters that are processed from the oils of veggies such as soybeans, mustard seeds and rapeseeds. Tallow is also sometimes used.
Making biodiesel is actually quite simple when you think about it. You just mix the vegetable oil with the alcohol compound like methanol or ethanol along with a catalyst that is hydroxide-based such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.

Although there are many alternative sources of fuels that are emerging in the market, biodiesel is winning votes and creating quite a following. This is perhaps because of its versatility. So far, biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that can be used in engines without the need for any modification. The fuel has similar properties as that of the diesel, making it easy to use.

This is also the reason why the biofuel can be mixed with diesel for those who are reluctant to put their faith in the alternative. The most common mixture is called the b20, which is 20 percent biofuel and 80 percent diesel. And because it is more lubricating than petroleum diesel, it is gentler with engines, thus extending its life.

Biofuel is also winning votes among environmentalists. Having only natural ingredients, it has no emission that can potentially harm the environment. It complies with the Clean Air Act and is found to be safe to use. Countries who are producing their own biofuel are also able to cut their importation of fuels and at the same time increase their agricultural and industrial sectors.

Despite its wondrous properties, there are still few companies that directly sell biodiesel. This is perhaps because most are not yet convinced that biodiesel can have a market.

Still, there are websites that take advantage of the growing demand for biodiesel. Websites have begun to offer fuels at lower prices compared to those being offered in gas stations, catering to those who want to buy in bulk. Some are legitimate but others are not. Thus, buyers should be careful in buying biodiesel online as they can be scammed into buying something that does not actually exist. Below are some tips and advice that online buyers should adhere to.

Although some people in forums are also sellers of biofuel, the chances of being duped is bigger in forums than when you are ordering from a company with a legitimate business and a legitimate website. Buying from a person posts several disadvantages that can far outweigh the lower prices.

One thing is the quality of the product. How sure are you that the fuel is made from a factory and not at home? And if the person is indeed a legitimate employee of the company, it may be possible that the product may not have passed quality control.

At least by ordering from a company, you are assured somewhat of quality and legitimacy. Of course, you should also make sure that you have thoroughly researched the company and the products that it makes.

Buy from an established company

Despite the fact that biodiesel is new in the market, there are already companies that exclusively distribute the product. If you have to buy online, buy from these companies. This is especially true if you are buying in bulk and cannot afford to be involved in any scams.