We provide a number of resources such as photos, articles, videos and links that may be of interest if you want more detailed information on biofuel.

Developing biofuel from native perennials instead of corn in the Midwest’s rolling grasslands would better protect threatened bird populations, Michigan State University research suggests.

Federal mandates and market forces both are expected to promote rising biofuel production, MSU biologist Bruce Robertson says, but the environmental consequences of turning more acreage over to row crops for fuel are a serious concern.

Ethanol in America is chiefly made from corn, but research is focusing on how to cost-effectively process cellulosic sources such as wood, corn stalks and grasses. Perennial grasses promise low cost and energy inputs — planting, fertilizing, watering — and the new study quantifies substantial environmental benefits.

MSU biologist Bruce Robertson collects insect samples in a southern Michigan prairie. (Credit: Image courtesy of Michigan State University)

With its rich variety of ecosystems, including historic prairie, southern Michigan provided a convenient place to compare bird populations in 20 sites of varying size for each of the three fuel feedstocks. Grassland birds are of special concern, Robertson said, having suffered more dramatic population losses than any other group of North American birds.

In the first such empirical comparison and the first to simultaneously study grassland bird communities across habitat scales, Robertson and colleagues found that bugs and the birds that feed on them thrive more in mixed prairie grasses than in corn. Almost twice as many species made their homes in grasses, while plots of switchgrass, a federally designated model fuel crop, fell between the two in their ability to sustain biodiversity.

The larger the plot of any type, researchers found, the greater the concentration of birds supported. But if grasslands offer conservation and biofuel opportunities, Robertson said, the biodiversity benefits could decrease as biofuel grass feedstocks are bred and cultivated for commercial uniformity.

Robertson was a research associate at MSU’s W.K. Kellogg Biological Station in Kalamazoo County during the two-year research project. Today he is an MSU adjunct entomology professor and a postdoctoral fellow at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Migratory Bird Center in Washington, D.C. His research colleagues included John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor of plant biology Douglas Schemske and research associate Liz Loomis, both at the Kellogg Biological Station; Patrick Doran of The Nature Conservancy in Lansing; and statistician J. Roy Robertson of Battle Creek.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center with support from The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Fund for Partnership in Conservation Science and Economics. Results were recently published in the scientific journal GCB (Global Change Biology) Bioenergy.

Michigan State University (2011, January 10). Biofuel grasslands better for birds than ethanol staple corn, researchers find. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2011/01/110106164623.htm

While information on biofuel is available all over the Internet, this article is one of the better articles available on biofuel. Feel free to look around and explore our site for more information on biofuel.

The Original Post is Located Here: Biofuel Grasslands Better for Birds Than Ethanol Staple Corn, Researchers Find

Algae is the fastest growing plant life, and as an organism it converts sunlight into oil, scientists theorize that Algal biofuel can produce a whopping 30 times more energy per acre than any other biofuel option. The US Department of Energy has estimated that if Algal Biofuel replaced all conventional fuel in the country, it would require 15000 square miles of land to harvest the algae… which is roughly one seventh of the area that is used to harvest corn in the US every year. And a diverse group of byproducts, such as neutraceuticals and feedstocks for producing plastics, can be created in algal biofuel operations, making the production more cost effective.

But before we start celebrating the great biofuel solution we’ve been looking for, there are a few problems… the biomass for producing a significant amount of algal biofuel just doesn’t exist yet. The algae has to be grown from scratch and harvesting it is very expensive at this point in time. The potential of Algal Biofuel is staggering… but the problem is that, as of now, it’s all just potential. It might be years before the technology catches up to make producing algal biofuel on a large scale possible… but when that time comes, we might be able to finally celebrate a more efficient, renewable, and environmentally friendly energy source. For more information on this exciting and developing technology, check out AlgalBioMass.Org. I’m Elizabeth Chambers. Check back here for more eco friendly news and tips …

The Original Post is Located Here: Alternative Energy – Biofuel from Algae

Biogas typically refers to a gas produced by the biological breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Comprised primarily of methane and carbon dioxide, biogas originates from biogenic material and is a type of biofuel. It’s a product of the anaerobic digestion or fermentation of biodegradable materials such as manure or sewage, and can be used in CHP plants
Video Rating: 4 / 5

The Original Post is Located Here: Biogas: How it Works

All three options can be used with vegetable oils, animal fat or both (it doesn’t matter if you use fresh or used oils):

• You can use the oil as it is
• You can mix the oil with another chemical supplement like kerosene, or gasoline or petroleum etc.
• You can convert the oil to biodiesel

Using the oil as it is can be clean and effective. Not to mention cheap also. But you have to make modifications to the diesel engine so that it is optimized for vegetable oil. You can find pre-modified diesel engines where you can use petro diesel, biodiesel and pure vegetable oil in any combination. There are engines with separate fuel tanks and a switch, you fill one tank with vegetable oil and the other tank with original petroleum diesel. Then you just turn on the engine using the tank with the original petroleum diesel and after a while you switch to the tank with the vegetable oil.

Mixing the oil with other supplements is your second option. Because vegetable oil is thick you mix it with a different type of fuel to make it thinner so that it flows easily into the combustion chamber of your diesel engine. Remember that using petroleum or kerosene to mix the vegetable oil, is not a clean option though. You can make various mixes (for example 20% vegetable oil and 80% of another diesel fuel). Some claim that if you use such a mix you have to preheat the engine, others just start the engine and go without preheating.

Your final option (and by far the best, in my opinion) is to convert the vegetable oil into biodiesel. Because biodiesel works in any diesel engine without the need to make any conversion or modifications to the fuel system or the engine itself. Just fill and go. Biodiesel is a much safer, clean, ready to use fuel that’s well tested. This option unlike the other two is backed by thousands of short-term and long-term research and tests by scientists around the world.

The Original Post is Located Here: How to Make Biodiesel: the Three Choices of Using Biofuel

One country that seems to be leading the way in the renewable energy revolution is the small island of Iceland. They have fully embraced geothermal energy and hydropower, and 82% of their primary energy consumption comes from renewable sources. The country has managed within one generation to ween itself from dependence on coal and oil to a system almost completely based on sustainable resources.

Another country leading the way to a greener planet is Sweden. Approximately 25% of Sweden’s energy consumption comes from biogas. Biogas is power that is created from sewage. In the Swedish city of Linkoping, all of the garbage trucks and buses run on biogas, and there’s even a biogas-powered train line! The government in Sweden has even converted confiscated alcohol into biofuel for green applications.

In 1973, the country of Denmark became independent of fossil fuel imports. Since that time, the country has continued to embrace green technologies, and now boasts the world’s first profitable offshore wind park. Over 20% of Denmark’s power consumption is derived from wind power, and that’s after exporting 90% of their wind production outside of the country. Denmark is also using solar power to run heating plants as well as other applications, and they are also working on using rapeseed oil as a new type of biofuel.

Costa Rica is one of many countries that is working to become the world’s first carbon-neutral country. They incorporate several green energies including geothermal, solar, wind and the burning of sugarcane waste. Their biggest source of clean energy is hydroelectricity, and more than 82% of Costa Rica’s energy is provided by its hydroelectric dams. A quarter of the nation of Costa Rica is also devoted to park preservation.

In the United States, the green revolution has faced opposition most notably from the giant oil companies. Americans are just now beginning to realize the very real threat that global warming poses, and many are now willing to look at alternative energy sources. In recent years, the U.S. has become the world’s fastest growing wind power market, and several major turbine manufacturing plants have either been opened or announced their intentions. Recently, the government has instituted tax credits, rebates and other programs to encourage Americans to purchase energy saving appliances, vehicles, etc. New homes and businesses are being built with environmentally friendly products and energy sources, and owners are receiving significant tax breaks for using green technologies.

There are many other countries implementing green technologies with the hope of saving the planet and making the world a better place – let’s hope they succeed.

The Original Post is Located Here: Most Green Countries

He also added that in Sweden for instance new and refurbished filling stations were only granted with planning permission if they stocked E85 which is produced using 85 percent ethanol. The result of such move was outstanding since motorists could now purchase the fuel at more than 800 locations. Comparing this to UK wherein bioethanol is only available at 15 Morrisons filling stations.

Mr. Nash has further stated that cars designed to function on E85 gains 20 percent increase in power and a 30 percent increase in torque compared to those running on traditional fuel. Vehicles running on biofuels may still use petrol when needed. Another advantage in using biofuels is that people may be able to use it in cars with smaller engines.

Mr. Nash was also very happy to announce that the sales of Saab models with the biofuel technology has jumped to 85 percent of total output starting from the day that it was launched in Ireland and Sweden in less than 12 months period. He said, “Consumers are prepared to make the “right” choices when offered the right tools, but the government has to offer a sustainable, long-term framework. LPG (liquid petroleum gas) was killed by government policy, it is now dead technology. There are no new cars built with original equipment for LPG.”

What’s new at Saab?

Saab the producer of highly renowned Saab clutch has been running its “Saab Summer Challenge” test-drive promotional sales campaign where it features some of the automaker’s popular models such as the 2007 9-5 sedan, 9-3 Sport sedan, and the 2007 9-7x SUV.

The 2007 9-5 sedan is said to have more standard horsepower than the BMW 525i and the Audi A6 V6 while the 9-3 Sport sedan is claimed to possess an overall higher safety rating as compared to the Volvo S60.

In addition, according to Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, the 2007 9-7x as compared to any SUV of which includes the Toyota’s Lexus GX 470, is said to post the best resale value.

Saab’s vehicles have undergone various testing on quality, safety, and durability and they have came through with flying colors.

The Original Post is Located Here: Britain Lagging in the Use of Biofuel Technology

Proponents of E85 state that it’s an excellent performing fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline and supports our very own domestic economy. In addition it’s a completely renewable source of energy for your vehicle, all things this country needs at this time. Sounds pretty good, but let us not forget that there are two sides to every story. Opponents would argue that the amount of land needed to produce more sugar/starch/cellulose would be much greater than we use for those products today hence causing many other environmental problems such as soil erosion and water pollution. Also, since crops are being used for fuel it may drive prices up for our food. Some interesting arguments here but are they correct?

The Pros

We are looking at lessening our dependence on foreign oil by using ethanol. There are base sources all over the world that could be made available for the production of E85. At this time in the U.S., we use more than half the oil we import for our cars. There would be CO2 emissions (amounts still up for debate) during producing and consuming ethanol. During production those emitted gases could be reused in the growing of more crops as a nutrient. The amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere while using biofuel would be equal to the amount that plants consume to grow and produce ethanol. When introduced into water ethanol degrades at a quick pace, which in the event of an accident, such as a spill, would eliminate the hazard to the environment much faster than a similar spill with gasoline or oil. The amount of damage and cost of cleanup from a catastrophic spill of Valdez caliber would be far less than we have grown accustomed to in the past. You might read that due to production equipment to harvest and create ethanol that the emissions from that equipment outweigh the “green” effect of ethanol. A study by UC Berkeley states that even after all involved with production ethanol nets a “positive net energy balance”. We can also consider the option of biofuels going full circle. With the implementation of E85, the equipment used to harvest and produce biofuels could themselves be powered by biofuels. After an adjustment period the whole process from harvesting to burning ethanol would become much greener than what is in place now for the production of gasoline, from welling to processing. This source of energy for automobiles would be renewable, meaning after you harvest a field of corn to prepare and produce ethanol you could replant the same field to create more ethanol, the polar opposite to drying out an existing oil field.

The Cons

We must remember supply and demand. If we can use our farm land to create fuel for our cars, available farm land would disappear quickly and we would experience environmental issues such as erosion from growing crops. Currently we have regulations on what fertilizers and hormones can be used to grow the crops we eat, but will the same regulations be in place if they aren’t being ingested by the consumer? The problem is that great amounts these chemicals would be harmful to our environment by polluting our air and water. I’m sure we all remember some of the pesticide/herbicide scares we have had in previous years. Now let’s consider what your average farmer would think, what will make more money for him/her? What would be in higher demand, crops for food or crops for fuel? If it’s fuel then what would happen to our food prices? Would they go through the roof if a farmer could make more money producing fuel? The possibility is that food prices for farm grown products could raise drastically. Now we are faced with looking at being able to efficiently use ethanol. Ethanol can’t be stored or pumped the same way gasoline is. So in order to make it available to the general public your local service stations would have to install new tanks and pumps. The cost of this would be astronomical, and likely take many years to fully integrate. Remember what happened to electric vehicle charging stations? I rarely saw them even at the height of the craze when the technology was making a big push, and before you know it, hybrids took over.

In conclusion it really doesn’t matter how you slice it there are some good arguments on both sides concerning the production and use of ethanol/E85/biofuel to power the vehicles we drive every day. As far as I’m concerned people are dedicating themselves one way or the other to quickly to the implementation and use of biofuel. The idea is still up to much study, debate, and research to be able to decide whether E85 will prove advantageous or not. The future holds the answer, but the correct answer is still undetermined.

The Original Post is Located Here: E85 Biofuel Myth Or Magic

Biofuels. What a great name! It just sounds green. Looking around I see a proliferation of Biodiesel bumper stickers everywhere I look. In my home state of Oregon all filling stations will be required to add at least 10 % ethanol to all gasoline by next year. Environmentalists are cheering as politicians and the media are jumping onto the Biofuel bandwagon. Sounds like a big win for the environment and society – think again, in reality Biofuels are much more brown than they are green.

Here are five reasons why Biofuels may actually be harmful for the environment:

1. Biofuels are so profitable that rain forest, the most efficient absorber of greenhouse gases, is being cut or burned to grow grains and sugarcane to make ethanol or Biodiesel.
2. Farmers growing highly profitable Biofuel crops are looking for the fastest growth and biggest yields and use heavy amounts of chemical fertilizer; which strips key micronutrients out of our increasingly scarce topsoil, and the nitrogen-rich runoff causes massive algae growth that destroys our streams, rivers and lakes.
3. Because Biofuels are more profitable than food crops large amounts of prime farmland is being devoted to Biofuel production creating grain shortages and increasing the price of grain products, especially in third world countries.
4. Although Biofuels emit less greenhouse gases per gallon than petroleum fuels they still emit significant amounts. Biofuels are also less fuel-efficient. In my vehicle mileage drops substantially when I use a fuel containing ethanol. So, overall Biofuels do not reduce greenhouse emissions nearly as much as claim.
5. This is perhaps the most important reason. To permanently solve both the energy crisis and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions we will have to move away from consumable fuels to toward energy sources that do not consume fuel, emit heat or produce pollutants. At the moment electricity is the cleanest energy source available and companies are beginning to develop and produce powerful electric cars that can go a few hundred miles on a charge. For these vehicles to be practical we will need to establish charging stations in every town and alongside every highway. This requires a massive transition from filling stations to charging stations. The use of Biofuels will perpetuate the existing infrastructure of filling stations and delay the transition to charging stations. The longer we delay this transition the more greenhouse gases will be released into our atmosphere.

At this point some of you might be wondering why our political leadership and big business is so supportive of Biofuels – yet they never even mention electric vehicles. It might be worth your time to see the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”, which is available on DVD. Click Here to go to their website.

To begin with most big grain producers are large corporate farms with a strong lobbying presence in Washington and a history of making campaign contributions to politicians that support their agendas. Biofuels are big business for these companies.

The auto industry also is heavily involved in politics, lobbying efforts, and campaign contributions. These companies have a big investment in continuing to make internal combustion engines that burn fuels. Moving to electric motors will require major retrofitting for these companies. Biofuels allow them to avoid making this investment.

The petroleum industry has perhaps the most to gain from the implementation of Biofuels. They know that the public will eventually demand a move away from petroleum. All the other solutions will take business away from them. However, they will be refining and distributing Biofuels just like they do with petroleum – and crude Biofuels are cheaper too. So, the petroleum industry stands to make a great deal of money from the distribution of Biofuels.

The petroleum industry makes huge campaign contributions to certain politicians. They have been successful at having many of their supporters and former executives elected and appointed to the highest levels of power in our current administration. It is not surprising that our political leaders are embracing Biofuels.

The solution to both the energy crisis and pollution is to transition to non-consumable fuels. This means solar, geothermal, wind and tidal energy production of electricity. Even nuclear energy could be a viable alternative if spent fuel can be safely transported out of the Earth’s atmosphere using the low-cost rocket technologies recently developed. All of these kinds of energy production are already in use and are becoming cheaper and more efficient every day. We have not yet begun to see the economies of scale and innovation that will make this kind of energy production much cheaper the more that it is developed and used.

At this very moment several companies are planning massive solar energy installations in Arizona, which is beginning to be called the Silicon Valley or Middle East of Solar energy production. Huge wind farms are being planned for the Plains states. We could be only years away from a massive transition to electric vehicles. For this to be successful we need to get big business and our political leadership to focus on this transition. This will take a lot longer if we allow them to remain focused on Biofuels instead.

When comparing non-consumable energy sources to fuel based energy production remember that all fuels must be transported to where they are sold. The transportation of fuels burns more fuel – so these transportation costs must be figured into the numbers used for greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. Distribution of electricity does involve some energy loss, but it is fractional compared to how much energy is used to transport fuel and does not emit greenhouse gases.

Some of you might be wondering why I have not mentioned hydrogen fuel cells. There are three reasons why: 1. Hydrogen combustion still produces heat, 2. Our engineers still have not figured out how to produce hydrogen without using large amounts of energy to do it, and 3. The other renewal energy sources mentioned earlier have already moved beyond the experimental stage and are in real-world use.

On the Bright Future website we offer a comprehensive discussion about energy and climate. Check out our radio show: Click Understanding Climate Change on the Listen page. On our panel for this discussion is Greg Jones, a distinguished climate scientist from Southern Oregon University. This discussion reveals some of the complexities of properly addressing Climate Change.

The Original Post is Located Here: The Great Biofuel Hoax of 2008 – Energy Policy and Climate Change

Biogas is a mixture of about 60-70% methane (natural gas), 30-40% carbon dioxide and other trace gases, such as hydrogen sulfide. The heat content of this gas is based on the amount of methane it contains and is about 600 BTUs per cubic foot.

Anaerobic digesters produce biomethane along with electricity generation and saleable end product biosolids which allows animal production enterprises to become neighborhood and environment friendly, as well as producing another revenue flow for themselves.

Running a biogas plant on a dairy farm works best for farms which hold at least 800 cows. Economically viable ystems for dairies under 800 cow level are possible, but need evaluation on a farm by farm basis to decide whther there will be adequate cost effectiveness. No farm or combinations of farms is ever likely to be too large for such a system.

Whether a particular farm, your farm perhaps, would be suitable for a biogas plant depends on assessing the budget costs of the investment, against the potential earnings from generated electricity sales and from end product bio-solid sales. The economic return period for any farm can be estimated this way. If the return period is short enough and an investor can be found there is a lot to be said for going ahead.

Many people will ask you to demonstrate that the new plant does not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. Let us assure you that a well designed and run biogas plant improves the environment significantly and is neither odorous nor dangerous. Such plants can be placed near production facilities which will often be the best customers for the power and heat produced.

Equipment is fitted to the digester plants to suit climate conditions. The bioreactors have thermal insulation and are heated by heating and also have a cooling system for summer use. In cold winters a biogas plant can consume up to 50% of its produced heat power.

The liquid that results from the anaerobic digestion process has solids which are separated out, composted, and sold to local gardeners, landscapers and farmers. Some farmers use the solids as bedding for their cows and sell it as bedding to neighbors. The liquids are returned to the farmer as nutrient rich natural fertilizer, which replaces imported nutrients and thereby cuts costs.

There is an issue, and it is a fallacy, going around that Anaerobic Diesters always smell. We would contest this. Anaerobic digesters actually tend to alleviate odor problems when on a well run, especially as suburban growth surrounds farms and introduces neighbors who complain about manure smells most often due to nearby farming activities and not the AD plant at all.

By installing an anaerobic digester, the conscientious farmer can actually solve odor issues to everyone’s satisfaction. Since the digesters are airtight, the smell stays within, and the liquids and solids coming out of the digester have only a very slight odor compared to the raw slurry.

The Original Post is Located Here: Biogas And Issues Which Arise In Its Production

The Difference Between Biofuel and Fossil Fuel
The critical difference between biofuel and traditional fossil fuel is the number of years it takes to form. Biofuel is derived from recently dead biological or organic material. Traditional fossil fuel comes from long dead (read: millions of years old) biological organisms. For this reason, biofuel is considered a renewable resource because it can be replenished in a short period of time. Fossil fuel is classified as a non-renewable resource because its reserves are being depleted much faster than it takes to form new reserves.

While biofuel and fossil fuel are carbon-based properties (they both derive from biological matter) biofuel is considered carbon neutral because the energy is derived from plants, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Whereas, fossil fuels released carbon dioxide, which has been stored beneath the earth surface for millions of years, into the air. Carbon dioxide emissions are the number one pollutant.

Biofuel comes from a variety of feedstock sources, of which the more common ones are corn, sugar cane, palm, wheat, algae, and jatropha. From these feedstock sources, two popular fuels are produced for transportation and machineries. They are biodiesel and bioethanol. Broken down further, biodiesel is derived from plant oils; bioethanol is derived from fermented starch or sugar crops.

How Are Biofulels Used?
Biofuels can be used in a pure (denoted as B100) or a blended form (denoted as a percentage). Biofuel is the most common fuel used in Europe because European car manufacturers outfit their cars with diesel engines. For most unmodified diesel engines, advocates say blends of up to 20% (B20) are deemed safe. Higher concentrations require modifications to the diesel engine.

Bioethanol is suggested as a substitute for gasoline in vehicles. However, users have to be careful in choosing the proper blend of ethanol. Generally, a 10% blend of ethanol (E10) may be safe to be used in newer cars. Lower concentrations have been used in some older engines without having adverse effects on vehicle fuel lines, but users should consult their car manufacturers to find out if bioethanol is safe for their engines. In some cases, conversions can void the manufacturer warranty.

Proponents Say
Advocates suggest businesses, especially those in the transportation industry will benefit from using biofuels on two fronts: (1) When biofuel prices are more stable than oil prices, companies are in a better position to plan and budget fuel expenditures for the year. (2) Cleaner vehicular emissions may save transportation companies maintenance costs, while helping them meet new government mandated environmental standards.

Opponents Say
Opponents question how governments establish standards, regulations, and mandates and suggest that the underlying motivation for setting certain standards and enforcing mandates is political.

In other words, opponents contend that politicians are showing preferential treatment to their constituents and lobbyists. The end result is that governments, not the economy, are creating winners and losers. If your company or industry falls on the out of political favor side, you may wind up paying higher taxes or incurring higher costs to meet those politically inspired mandates

Car Manufacturer Status
Car manufactures today are being forced to produce more vehicles that are biofuel ready. In addition to using cheaper fuel, both manufacturers and buyers will be given government incentives (in the form of tax credits) to embrace renewable and alternative energy. Studies also suggest that certain types of biofuel (e.g., biodiesel) can make engines last longer when users maintain their cars by using the right biofuel blend.

The Food vs. Fuel Debate
Biofuel does have an underside and has been the subject of a current debate on food vs. fuel. Since biofuel uses plants that are also used in food supply (corn, maize, wheat, sugar cane, and coconut), this raises the question of whether it is appropriate to use food crops to create alternative fuel instead of filling world food demand. The debate has been further intensified as the world experienced what was deemed as a food crisis in 2007. Critics contend that using agricultural land to produce crops to be used in biofuel production led to this crisis.

These issues must be ironed out by policymakers and regulatory bodies to ensure a workable balance between access to energy and all other necessities.

Proponents and opponents come together around environmental and health benefits of going green. Thus the conversion to more biofuels is probably inevitable. Some are very concerned with how that is executed, since the timing of the changes is not clear. Also total direct and indirect costs and what groups benefit and which groups suffer are major concerns. With Congressional leadership dedicated to accelerating greener energy in a way that benefits their constituents and lobbyists (For example, why do tax deductions for trial attorneys help the general public?), there will definitely be winners and losers.

What the biofuels discussion is pointing to is the urgency to begin planning NOW for this inevitability to help protect industries and consumers from rising costs from energy, regulations and taxes.

The Original Post is Located Here: Biofuel for Everyone: Will It Solve the Energy Crisis?