"glycerine is... possibly the best fuel in the world. It isn’t toxic; it is water soluble; and it’s nearly impossible to ignite glycerine under normal conditions."
This is the claim made by Paul Day founder and Chief Executive of UK company Aquafuel. His company has succeeded in making a diesel engine run on glycerine (a bi product of biodiesel production) with much lower toxic emissions than an engine running on standard diesel fuel. On the face of it this is a useful process to utilise a product for which is there is little current demand. According to The Chemical Engineer magazine for every tonne of biodiesel produced, 100-110 kg of glycerine is obtained as a side product. The world supply of glycerine in 2008 was 3.2m t and the demand just 0.9m t.
It seems odd that anyone would try and run an engine on glycerine but this mad punt seems to have hit the jackpot. Where this story gets really interesting is if you decide that glycerine is better than bio diesel and, rather than try to produce biodiesel, focus on production of glycerine. It turns out that there is a strain of algae called dunaliella salina which grows in salt water and fills its body with glycerine to counteract the osmotic pressure of the salt. At high salt concentrations the amount of glycerine in the algae can be as high as 80%. Harvest the algae, extract the glycerine and there is the fuel of the future.
The algae can grow in the evaporation ponds used by the salt-making industry and there is no conflict with food production or land use. Aquafuel believes that places like Namibia could support a large industry with all the production powered by CHP units running on the glycerine and taken to market on ships powered by glycerine. This would appear to be a clean and sustainable fuel source.
I will be watching Aquafuel with interest over the years ahead and hope that governments drive up the taxes on fossil fuels to ensure that businesses such as Aquafuel are commercially viable.
Monday, 29 August 2011
Sunday, 21 August 2011
The Politics of Denial
According to a US report from the Obama Administration:
‘A family that purchases a new vehicle in 2025 will save $8,200 in fuel costs compared with a similar vehicle in 2010.’
The report titled, White House Driving Efficiency: Cutting Costs for Families at the Pump and Slashing Dependence on Oil outlines the Administration’s national vehicle program, increasing fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. For the United States this is a big improvement, but it should be seen in context. These are figures that can be achieved now in 2011 with current technology, if there is a will. The challenge is two-fold; persuading the car makers to adjust the range of the models they offer and the willingness of drivers to sign up for the more efficient models.
The report is attempting to sell the changes using the argument that it will cost less. For an immediate change in standards, effective this year, that might be so, but not in the timescale of 2025. Oil prices are set to climb; families should be buying more efficient cars to avoid the big price rises to come. It is disingenuous to spin these improved standards as savings when in reality fuel bills will be considerable higher in 2025. Is it the American drivers who are so dumb that they cannot be trusted with the facts? Or, is it that US politicians have a very low opinion of their electorate? Either way it is a sign that US political wrangling is divorced from reality.
The Whitehouse statement is an attempt at spinning necessary change as a denial that fundamental change is needed, implying that US drivers can carry on as before ― and will actually save money. In such a political climate, progress is made at a snail’s pace.
I recently sold my 12-year old Audi estate which would consistently deliver 55 miles to each gallon. Admittedly this refers to UK galloon so does not meet the US standards for 2025 but as an old European banger it gets close.
There is much to admire about the United States but it seems at the moment to be stuck on a political rut of denial, believing that the US high consumption can go on indefinitely with only marginal changes.
The 2025 vehicle efficiency standards are to be welcomed but are too little, too late.
‘A family that purchases a new vehicle in 2025 will save $8,200 in fuel costs compared with a similar vehicle in 2010.’
The report titled, White House Driving Efficiency: Cutting Costs for Families at the Pump and Slashing Dependence on Oil outlines the Administration’s national vehicle program, increasing fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. For the United States this is a big improvement, but it should be seen in context. These are figures that can be achieved now in 2011 with current technology, if there is a will. The challenge is two-fold; persuading the car makers to adjust the range of the models they offer and the willingness of drivers to sign up for the more efficient models.
The report is attempting to sell the changes using the argument that it will cost less. For an immediate change in standards, effective this year, that might be so, but not in the timescale of 2025. Oil prices are set to climb; families should be buying more efficient cars to avoid the big price rises to come. It is disingenuous to spin these improved standards as savings when in reality fuel bills will be considerable higher in 2025. Is it the American drivers who are so dumb that they cannot be trusted with the facts? Or, is it that US politicians have a very low opinion of their electorate? Either way it is a sign that US political wrangling is divorced from reality.
The Whitehouse statement is an attempt at spinning necessary change as a denial that fundamental change is needed, implying that US drivers can carry on as before ― and will actually save money. In such a political climate, progress is made at a snail’s pace.
I recently sold my 12-year old Audi estate which would consistently deliver 55 miles to each gallon. Admittedly this refers to UK galloon so does not meet the US standards for 2025 but as an old European banger it gets close.
There is much to admire about the United States but it seems at the moment to be stuck on a political rut of denial, believing that the US high consumption can go on indefinitely with only marginal changes.
The 2025 vehicle efficiency standards are to be welcomed but are too little, too late.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
My Nissan Leaf
My electric car is a Nissan Leaf, one of about 400 sold in Britain since its launch earlier this year. I put my name down when Nissan first started to register expressions of interest and mine was one of the first to be delivered. We have driven about 2,500 trouble-free miles so far. It is a reliable, very quiet and I have to say rather dull family car. It is perfect for most of regular transport; my wife uses it for her commute (about 17 miles each way); I use it for my journey when I teach at Henley Business School (round trip of 32 miles). I take my children to their various activities, if we need to shop outside the village or off to see grandma in Oxford (55 mile round trip). These are all well within the range even with a very heavy right foot – the car has a respectable turn of speed and good acceleration, but if you use it do not expect to get anywhere near the claimed range of 100 miles. Flat out it will pull 90 mph and manage one motorway junction and back before the battery gives out. It is madness to compare an electric car with a conventional car (listen up Jeremy Clarkson). An electric car fits the niche of local transportation rather well; it is not designed for, and is not suitable for, long journeys.
We plan to keep the battery in tiptop shape so we seldom charge it beyond 80% using cheap night-time electricity ―unless we know we have a long journey coming up ― and do not use rapid charge. It is simpler and takes less time to plug it in each night than filling with petrol once a week. Our credit card bills are noticeable less.
Top Gear gave the car the sort of treatment you would expect; they ensured that the story had all the interesting angles, silent running of course and cheap to operate but also stranded after running out of charge. You have to be quite an idiot to get caught like this but then the presenters on the programme like to fit this description. It makes an entertaining story and good TV but does not provide a useful analysis – Top Gear is high octane entertainment not a consumer affairs programme.
My electric car fits my need perfectly. Whether the car is green or not is a different question. Using the current electricity grid, it is not a very green option but it is worth introducing the technology concurrently with driving forward decarbonising the electric supply. The greenest solution is of course to alter city infrastructure and support lifestyles that do not need the car. I suspect that by the time the government grant programme (£43 million at £5,000 a time to the first 8,600 electric cars bought) runs out in March next year the government will be able to pocket a healthy surplus. The government should thank Top Gear for obscuring the benefits of electric cars and ensuring that the grants are not taken up in full.
We plan to keep the battery in tiptop shape so we seldom charge it beyond 80% using cheap night-time electricity ―unless we know we have a long journey coming up ― and do not use rapid charge. It is simpler and takes less time to plug it in each night than filling with petrol once a week. Our credit card bills are noticeable less.
Top Gear gave the car the sort of treatment you would expect; they ensured that the story had all the interesting angles, silent running of course and cheap to operate but also stranded after running out of charge. You have to be quite an idiot to get caught like this but then the presenters on the programme like to fit this description. It makes an entertaining story and good TV but does not provide a useful analysis – Top Gear is high octane entertainment not a consumer affairs programme.
My electric car fits my need perfectly. Whether the car is green or not is a different question. Using the current electricity grid, it is not a very green option but it is worth introducing the technology concurrently with driving forward decarbonising the electric supply. The greenest solution is of course to alter city infrastructure and support lifestyles that do not need the car. I suspect that by the time the government grant programme (£43 million at £5,000 a time to the first 8,600 electric cars bought) runs out in March next year the government will be able to pocket a healthy surplus. The government should thank Top Gear for obscuring the benefits of electric cars and ensuring that the grants are not taken up in full.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Bristol Green Capital
More than 50% of the world’s population live in cities; making cities sustainable is therefore an imperative in building a sustainable society. Cities are complex in terms of both infrastructure and the range of social interactions that makes the city operate. It is possible to make cities work like living organisms; capturing renewal energy, fully recycling waste and providing a vibrant, clean and enjoyable place to live. They can also appear like cancerous growth growing into mega metropolises from which the natural world is excluded.
I have just spent a very pleasant weekend in Bristol at the Bristol Harbour Festival, a celebration of culture and leisure. Throughout the city there were outdoor events ranging from concerts and circus performances to street buskers and market stalls. The theme was fun, enjoyment and entertainment; the sun shone and everybody seemed to have a good time. The hustle and bustle of people in close proximity brings joy and fulfilment but if resources are insufficient this can switch to conflict and strive. It is vital that we make our cities sustainable to reap the pleasures of communal living on show at the festival.
The City Council’s intention is to become a green city was evidenced by numerous recycling containers and policemen on bicycles. Bristol came top of the Forum for the Future’s index of UK Sustainable Cities in 2008 but has since slipped to 4th behind Newcastle, Leicester and Brighton. This competition between city leaders, to be the greenest city, should engage a virtuous cycle as each city tries hard to outdo the other.
Green aspirations are not the same as delivering green solutions. Our hotel was a prime example of how to use excess energy to little good effect; we slept very badly until we opened the window, turned off the air conditioning and let the night air waft through the room. The recycling in evidence was collecting and sorting piles of trash with little evidence of true recycling. Bristol is doing well on the relative scale presented in the Sustainable Cities Index but if there was an absolute scale from 1 to 10 ― with 1 being unsustainable and 10 being fully sustainable― Bristol would score a 1.1.
To make our cities free from fossil-fuel dependency and resources delivered through long supply chains will be a tough challenge. Bristol should be praised for taking the first step but it must be seen as a small first step on a long journey.
Note:
The Sustainable Cities Index tracks progress on sustainability in Britain’s 20 largest cities, ranking them across three broad baskets: environmental performance; quality of life; and future-proofing – how well they are addressing issues such as climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
I have just spent a very pleasant weekend in Bristol at the Bristol Harbour Festival, a celebration of culture and leisure. Throughout the city there were outdoor events ranging from concerts and circus performances to street buskers and market stalls. The theme was fun, enjoyment and entertainment; the sun shone and everybody seemed to have a good time. The hustle and bustle of people in close proximity brings joy and fulfilment but if resources are insufficient this can switch to conflict and strive. It is vital that we make our cities sustainable to reap the pleasures of communal living on show at the festival.
The City Council’s intention is to become a green city was evidenced by numerous recycling containers and policemen on bicycles. Bristol came top of the Forum for the Future’s index of UK Sustainable Cities in 2008 but has since slipped to 4th behind Newcastle, Leicester and Brighton. This competition between city leaders, to be the greenest city, should engage a virtuous cycle as each city tries hard to outdo the other.
Green aspirations are not the same as delivering green solutions. Our hotel was a prime example of how to use excess energy to little good effect; we slept very badly until we opened the window, turned off the air conditioning and let the night air waft through the room. The recycling in evidence was collecting and sorting piles of trash with little evidence of true recycling. Bristol is doing well on the relative scale presented in the Sustainable Cities Index but if there was an absolute scale from 1 to 10 ― with 1 being unsustainable and 10 being fully sustainable― Bristol would score a 1.1.
To make our cities free from fossil-fuel dependency and resources delivered through long supply chains will be a tough challenge. Bristol should be praised for taking the first step but it must be seen as a small first step on a long journey.
Note:
The Sustainable Cities Index tracks progress on sustainability in Britain’s 20 largest cities, ranking them across three broad baskets: environmental performance; quality of life; and future-proofing – how well they are addressing issues such as climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Monday, 25 July 2011
De-risking the corporation
It is appropriate to write about risks to the world economy and the problems of the Euro zone in a blog about sustainability, not only because these are important issues but because there are close parallels between the Euro crisis and the challenge of sustainability. European politicians are taking decisions that will take them through the next three months or the next year. There is little time for the deep thinking required when the focus is on the immediate containment of the crisis. Business leaders are subject to the same pressure to deliver this quarter’s, or this year’s results. Deep thinking over the longer term has to wait until the company is doing well and short-term profitability is secured.
The operations of many businesses are unsustainable, dependent on long supply chains and relying on fossil fuels, directly and indirectly through the electricity supply. The action of many executives is to focus on the medium-term, hedging fuel costs and seeking insurance for supply chain disruption. The real solution is to think longer term, remove fossil fuel from operations and shorten supply chains to bring them under closer control. This is not primarily a CSR activity, or action designed in response to climate change – although such reasons can be cited to burnish the reputation of the corporation – these are strategic choices to de-risk operations and lay the foundations for long-term profitability.
The operations of many businesses are unsustainable, dependent on long supply chains and relying on fossil fuels, directly and indirectly through the electricity supply. The action of many executives is to focus on the medium-term, hedging fuel costs and seeking insurance for supply chain disruption. The real solution is to think longer term, remove fossil fuel from operations and shorten supply chains to bring them under closer control. This is not primarily a CSR activity, or action designed in response to climate change – although such reasons can be cited to burnish the reputation of the corporation – these are strategic choices to de-risk operations and lay the foundations for long-term profitability.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Into Africa
David Cameron arrived into Africa today on the 93rd birthday of Nelson Mandela, that giant amongst world leaders.
The message being preached by David Cameron is that trade is the way for Africa to fix its problems. He brings with him a 25-strong delegation that includes business leaders and the trade minister lord Green. Perhaps David Cameron is right; perhaps trade is the solution to the deeply entrenched difficulties that the continent faces. However, there is a higher-level policy under which Africa will find its salvation, ‘sustainability.’ Trade can play its part, of course, but only within the context of sustainability. I enjoyed greatly my time working in Africa and wrote in the book Green Outcomes in the Real World:
‘In discussion with a colleague, the topic of Africa arose. We had both spent time on the continent and shared a high regard for the people of Africa and would like to support measures that addressed some of the problems. I attempted to steer the dialogue towards my ideas about sustainability as the way to support improvement in people’s lives. I quickly ran into a problem. My colleague was an advocate of neo-liberalism and working on deep-rooted assumptions about the benefits of globalization. His concept of equity was based on the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to live a lifestyle that matched his own, on the implicit assumption that every society should be helped to follow the development path of the West, and that free trade, open markets and free flows of capital were the way to achieve this.’
In the next paragraph, I went on to write, in the context of sustainability:
‘The world needs other concepts to replace the old concept of globalization but, until we accept that economic globalization is no longer the appropriate basis for human development, it is hard to build new structures of thought. We are forever trying to add refinements to an edifice that is starting to show cracks, when the action required is to underpin our thinking with new foundations.’
Africa is at a crucial stage in its development, with a number of countries, particularly China, looking at this resource-rich continent with a glint in their eye. Today, David Cameron should be careful to ensure that the needs of Africa are uppermost in his mind in respect for the legacy of Nelson Mandela who remains an icon of unselfish principled leadership.
The message being preached by David Cameron is that trade is the way for Africa to fix its problems. He brings with him a 25-strong delegation that includes business leaders and the trade minister lord Green. Perhaps David Cameron is right; perhaps trade is the solution to the deeply entrenched difficulties that the continent faces. However, there is a higher-level policy under which Africa will find its salvation, ‘sustainability.’ Trade can play its part, of course, but only within the context of sustainability. I enjoyed greatly my time working in Africa and wrote in the book Green Outcomes in the Real World:
‘In discussion with a colleague, the topic of Africa arose. We had both spent time on the continent and shared a high regard for the people of Africa and would like to support measures that addressed some of the problems. I attempted to steer the dialogue towards my ideas about sustainability as the way to support improvement in people’s lives. I quickly ran into a problem. My colleague was an advocate of neo-liberalism and working on deep-rooted assumptions about the benefits of globalization. His concept of equity was based on the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to live a lifestyle that matched his own, on the implicit assumption that every society should be helped to follow the development path of the West, and that free trade, open markets and free flows of capital were the way to achieve this.’
In the next paragraph, I went on to write, in the context of sustainability:
‘The world needs other concepts to replace the old concept of globalization but, until we accept that economic globalization is no longer the appropriate basis for human development, it is hard to build new structures of thought. We are forever trying to add refinements to an edifice that is starting to show cracks, when the action required is to underpin our thinking with new foundations.’
Africa is at a crucial stage in its development, with a number of countries, particularly China, looking at this resource-rich continent with a glint in their eye. Today, David Cameron should be careful to ensure that the needs of Africa are uppermost in his mind in respect for the legacy of Nelson Mandela who remains an icon of unselfish principled leadership.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Energy prices set to soar
The UK government is championing policy that means – according to the Sunday Times – that household energy bills are ‘set to double’. This makes a good headline, but relies on the assumption that household consumption remains steady as the price of energy doubles. The intention of course is to cut consumption; more expensive energy makes people careful with what they use. As the cost of energy rises, we should be looking for solutions that hold household bills in check through greater efficiency and frugal behaviour recognising that energy is a valuable and limited resource.
All professionals involved with buildings, infrastructure and industrial processes need a compelling reason to be frugal with energy. Future energy bills will be affordable, not through holding prices down but through using less energy. The logic is inescapable but politics is not a rational process. When the energy market pushes prices higher, it is accepted as beyond the politician’s control. When politicians set policy that will drive energy prices higher, politicians get the blame.
The announcement of an overhaul of energy policy expected this week comes hard on the heels of energy price rises. The rational reaction is to support tough policy because the recent increase in the cost of energy is an indicator of massive price hikes to come as energy supplies are stretched. Of course we need to move quickly to reduce consumption; that means policy to support investment; first, in energy efficiency (the biggest win), second, in generating low-carbon energy. The policy has to be to push energy prices higher; it is disingenuous for observers to argue otherwise.
Opposing tough energy policy is like lemmings opposing calls to slow down as the mass migration flocks towards the cliff edge. We are enjoying cheap energy; it makes no sense to keep it cheap and ignore the fact that the balance of supply and demand will drop off a cliff unless we take action soon.
The government should give people credit for having more intelligence than a pack of lemmings and ignore reports in the press to hold back on high energy prices. The rational silent majority expect higher energy prices; there will be complaints but people know this is the future. Let us have clarity; high energy prices are just around the corner; all decisions must be based on this unambiguous foundation to policy.
All professionals involved with buildings, infrastructure and industrial processes need a compelling reason to be frugal with energy. Future energy bills will be affordable, not through holding prices down but through using less energy. The logic is inescapable but politics is not a rational process. When the energy market pushes prices higher, it is accepted as beyond the politician’s control. When politicians set policy that will drive energy prices higher, politicians get the blame.
The announcement of an overhaul of energy policy expected this week comes hard on the heels of energy price rises. The rational reaction is to support tough policy because the recent increase in the cost of energy is an indicator of massive price hikes to come as energy supplies are stretched. Of course we need to move quickly to reduce consumption; that means policy to support investment; first, in energy efficiency (the biggest win), second, in generating low-carbon energy. The policy has to be to push energy prices higher; it is disingenuous for observers to argue otherwise.
Opposing tough energy policy is like lemmings opposing calls to slow down as the mass migration flocks towards the cliff edge. We are enjoying cheap energy; it makes no sense to keep it cheap and ignore the fact that the balance of supply and demand will drop off a cliff unless we take action soon.
The government should give people credit for having more intelligence than a pack of lemmings and ignore reports in the press to hold back on high energy prices. The rational silent majority expect higher energy prices; there will be complaints but people know this is the future. Let us have clarity; high energy prices are just around the corner; all decisions must be based on this unambiguous foundation to policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)