Chocolate or BS, Boeing-China, SPecial-K and ethanol, Goodman, Cody and Rose a Winner
Stafford Williamson
June 24, 2010
Count a WIN for the Environment and Environmentalists
Nestlé, the world´s largest food company by most tallies, has broken off contracts with a firm that Greenpeace has accused of rainforest deforestation to expand their palm oil plantations.
Malaysia and Indonesia are the two largest exporters of palm oil in the world and a lot of pressure is being put upon them in recent months to crack down on what is already an illegal practice of cutting down and clearing rainforest in order to establish new mono-culture plantations of palm oil trees.
Nestlé, the Swiss-based company, dropped Indonesia´s largest palm oil supplier, Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology (SMART), shortly after one of the other largest food organizations, Anglo-Dutch firm, Unilever, also severed ties with Sinar Mas. Nestlé has entered into a partnership with The Forest Trusts (TFT) (although they also have engaged others as well) to monitor the rainforest situation for them.
Reports are that a Sinar Mas spokesperson was rather calm in saying that they can "appreciate" the situation with both companies, but requested that judgment and final decisions be held until the reports are finalized. American agricultural giant, Cargill, has also demanded answers on these issues as well.
SOMEDAY …
Someday I would like to see an explanation of why it was so easy to "sell" the concept that "converting" to energy crops was going to "cost" massive amounts of fossil carbon and therefore had to be offset or otherwise accounted for in calculations about the value of doing so. Obviously (from the above story for example) not everyone cares as much about "the environment" or the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as much as they do about being able to feed their family, but it seems like some statistically obsessed environmentalists had no trouble selling their vision of seven million crazed Malaysians with chain saws laughing maniacally as they roared their way through millions of square miles of jungle, chopping down everything in sight. (If you can´t picture it yet, think "Night of the Living Dead" meets "Texas Chainsaw Massacre #9").
Here´s an example from the current issue of Global Change Biology Bioenergy:
"Using a simulation tool that models the future global climate, researchers predict that the carbon that is released into the atmosphere from the loss of natural vegetation will be paid back by Miscanthus within 30 years. Previous estimates for other liquid biofuels, such as corn ethanol, were estimated to take 167-420 years to pay back their carbon debt." Now, even though ultimately the comparison is favorable, the 30 year carbon debt is a scary number. And WHAT loss of natural vegetation? Where are they going to plant this stuff that is land that is sufficiently amenable to harvesting (especially mechanical harvesting) that is currenly covered in "natural vegetation". Do these people imagine that they are going to cut down every living tree in England (as, unfortunately, did the residents of Faire Isle, in Scotland, where my ancestors called home).
Even assuming that some currently productive land might be "converted" to energy crops (once we get past the "food shortage" myths and mendacious "examples" thereof) why is plowing a field to plant Miscanthus giganteus instead of another year´s crop of corn (maize) going to "cost" additional fossil carbon that worldwide organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations seem to have been convinced that penalties must apply to "level the playing field" in colloquial terms. Despite a slight urge to attribute some kind of conspiracy theory to how this calculation came into being, I can accept that the "inventors" of this proposition were well intentioned, but what would they have us do? Continue to add fossil carbon and only fossil carbon to the atmosphere, or convert to energy crops that might have a "payback" of 3 or 5 or even 30 years. Somehow this small "imperfection" (if it really is a valid premise in the first place, given that most of the world, including the Malaysians, won´t be off on the imaginary rampage suggested in the prior paragraph) has turned into an Archimedean lever blocking progress toward the massive and urgent effort that really is needed to get us on the path to a greener future.
Admittedly it may take a few years to transition sufficiently that all the trucks, tractors and cargo ships bringing seeds from other continents will be primarily powered by biofuels, and thus not contributing to the carbon footprint of the transitional steps themselves, but all delays only accumulate more carbon debt. It is a lot like a family holding money in a convenient savings account that pays 1% interest because they fear they MIGHT need emergency cash, while they fail to pay off their credit card debt that is costing them 23% interest. The numbers may not be as attractive as that, but they are not that far off either.
MORE ABOUT: Boeing – China Fuel Deal
It seems that although I may have mentioned a biofuels deal between Boeing and the China National Energy Administration, it appears now that this may be followed by a similar agreement involving the US Trade and Development Agency, and that it specifically involves UOP´s "direct" to Special-K catalytic process, because UOP is one of the participants in the deal. It is information I would rather that I kept to myself, because I am writing a report on SPecial-K and other lesser known biofuels that are likely winners in the "long run", and more particularly, how that "long run" could easily be a short run if we can develop the political will and the industrial and entrepreneurial momentum to make it happen. But I am basically a "blabbermouth" and I feel that at minimum my loyal readers deserve to have a "heads up" clue about what is going on here. I won´t draw a picture of my conclusions or how I think it will affect the world, but I do expect this to be a ripple that stirs the pot more than a little.
Thermophilic
I have not recently been accused of being a thermophiliac, but recent news of a cyanobacteria (that the class of bacteria which previously was lumped in with algae as oil producing microbes) that it "thermophilic" (fond of high temperatures) could prove interesting for the biofuels industry. Specifically the Thermosynechococcus elongatus, which typically lives on the edges of hot springs and geysers, loves temperatures up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
And it is easier to get along with (especially when you want to fiddle with its DNA) than another "promising" bacteria that the Department of Energy has been trying to coax into a more compliant state. The T. elongatus seem to provide very easy to manipulate segments between genes. These "joiner" segments are called "introns" and can help as both scissors and glue in gene manipulation. The uncooperative bacteria has a very attractive feature, however, it is good at turning cellulose into ethanol.
The future role of the simple alcohols, methanol and ethanol will be another short chapter in my SPecial-K report.
Entertainment
There is little more that needs to be said about this just released (I think) DVD of the Walt Disney Animation Studio´s The Princess and the Frog . It is pure entertainment, up, down, left, right, top, bottom, front and back. Of course, Disney is proud of their "twist" on the old tale, making it an alternative version of Cinderella´s story, and making the princess a poor black girl who just wants to open her own restaurant in fulfillment of her, and her daddy´s dream. Singing is excellent, which is no wonder since the adult version of the "princess" Tiana is voiced by Dreamgirls alumnus, Anika Noni Rose. Also a notable performance as the villain of the piece, and voodoo practitioner, Dr. Facilier, is veteran actor Keith David, though not especially impressive in this case was performance by (the voice of) John Goodman. Back in the "plus" column, we find Jennifer Cody as the prince obsessed life-long friend of Tiana. And a fairly impressive turn from Jim Cummings as the firefly, "Ray".
I serve notice here and now that if anyone is brave enough to want to turn this into a Broadway-style production, I want to do the adaptation. It might be "tricky", but it still seems, somehow, just made for it.
Happy Thoughts
I am not ready for a set of "Depends" … YET!!
Love and warm wishes,
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Nestlé, the world´s largest food company by most tallies, has broken off contracts with a firm that Greenpeace has accused of rainforest deforestation to expand their palm oil plantations.
Malaysia and Indonesia are the two largest exporters of palm oil in the world and a lot of pressure is being put upon them in recent months to crack down on what is already an illegal practice of cutting down and clearing rainforest in order to establish new mono-culture plantations of palm oil trees.
Nestlé, the Swiss-based company, dropped Indonesia´s largest palm oil supplier, Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology (SMART), shortly after one of the other largest food organizations, Anglo-Dutch firm, Unilever, also severed ties with Sinar Mas. Nestlé has entered into a partnership with The Forest Trusts (TFT) (although they also have engaged others as well) to monitor the rainforest situation for them.
Reports are that a Sinar Mas spokesperson was rather calm in saying that they can "appreciate" the situation with both companies, but requested that judgment and final decisions be held until the reports are finalized. American agricultural giant, Cargill, has also demanded answers on these issues as well.
SOMEDAY …
Someday I would like to see an explanation of why it was so easy to "sell" the concept that "converting" to energy crops was going to "cost" massive amounts of fossil carbon and therefore had to be offset or otherwise accounted for in calculations about the value of doing so. Obviously (from the above story for example) not everyone cares as much about "the environment" or the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as much as they do about being able to feed their family, but it seems like some statistically obsessed environmentalists had no trouble selling their vision of seven million crazed Malaysians with chain saws laughing maniacally as they roared their way through millions of square miles of jungle, chopping down everything in sight. (If you can´t picture it yet, think "Night of the Living Dead" meets "Texas Chainsaw Massacre #9").
Here´s an example from the current issue of Global Change Biology Bioenergy:
"Using a simulation tool that models the future global climate, researchers predict that the carbon that is released into the atmosphere from the loss of natural vegetation will be paid back by Miscanthus within 30 years. Previous estimates for other liquid biofuels, such as corn ethanol, were estimated to take 167-420 years to pay back their carbon debt." Now, even though ultimately the comparison is favorable, the 30 year carbon debt is a scary number. And WHAT loss of natural vegetation? Where are they going to plant this stuff that is land that is sufficiently amenable to harvesting (especially mechanical harvesting) that is currenly covered in "natural vegetation". Do these people imagine that they are going to cut down every living tree in England (as, unfortunately, did the residents of Faire Isle, in Scotland, where my ancestors called home).
Even assuming that some currently productive land might be "converted" to energy crops (once we get past the "food shortage" myths and mendacious "examples" thereof) why is plowing a field to plant Miscanthus giganteus instead of another year´s crop of corn (maize) going to "cost" additional fossil carbon that worldwide organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations seem to have been convinced that penalties must apply to "level the playing field" in colloquial terms. Despite a slight urge to attribute some kind of conspiracy theory to how this calculation came into being, I can accept that the "inventors" of this proposition were well intentioned, but what would they have us do? Continue to add fossil carbon and only fossil carbon to the atmosphere, or convert to energy crops that might have a "payback" of 3 or 5 or even 30 years. Somehow this small "imperfection" (if it really is a valid premise in the first place, given that most of the world, including the Malaysians, won´t be off on the imaginary rampage suggested in the prior paragraph) has turned into an Archimedean lever blocking progress toward the massive and urgent effort that really is needed to get us on the path to a greener future.
Admittedly it may take a few years to transition sufficiently that all the trucks, tractors and cargo ships bringing seeds from other continents will be primarily powered by biofuels, and thus not contributing to the carbon footprint of the transitional steps themselves, but all delays only accumulate more carbon debt. It is a lot like a family holding money in a convenient savings account that pays 1% interest because they fear they MIGHT need emergency cash, while they fail to pay off their credit card debt that is costing them 23% interest. The numbers may not be as attractive as that, but they are not that far off either.
MORE ABOUT: Boeing – China Fuel Deal
It seems that although I may have mentioned a biofuels deal between Boeing and the China National Energy Administration, it appears now that this may be followed by a similar agreement involving the US Trade and Development Agency, and that it specifically involves UOP´s "direct" to Special-K catalytic process, because UOP is one of the participants in the deal. It is information I would rather that I kept to myself, because I am writing a report on SPecial-K and other lesser known biofuels that are likely winners in the "long run", and more particularly, how that "long run" could easily be a short run if we can develop the political will and the industrial and entrepreneurial momentum to make it happen. But I am basically a "blabbermouth" and I feel that at minimum my loyal readers deserve to have a "heads up" clue about what is going on here. I won´t draw a picture of my conclusions or how I think it will affect the world, but I do expect this to be a ripple that stirs the pot more than a little.
Thermophilic
I have not recently been accused of being a thermophiliac, but recent news of a cyanobacteria (that the class of bacteria which previously was lumped in with algae as oil producing microbes) that it "thermophilic" (fond of high temperatures) could prove interesting for the biofuels industry. Specifically the Thermosynechococcus elongatus, which typically lives on the edges of hot springs and geysers, loves temperatures up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
And it is easier to get along with (especially when you want to fiddle with its DNA) than another "promising" bacteria that the Department of Energy has been trying to coax into a more compliant state. The T. elongatus seem to provide very easy to manipulate segments between genes. These "joiner" segments are called "introns" and can help as both scissors and glue in gene manipulation. The uncooperative bacteria has a very attractive feature, however, it is good at turning cellulose into ethanol.
The future role of the simple alcohols, methanol and ethanol will be another short chapter in my SPecial-K report.
Entertainment
There is little more that needs to be said about this just released (I think) DVD of the Walt Disney Animation Studio´s The Princess and the Frog . It is pure entertainment, up, down, left, right, top, bottom, front and back. Of course, Disney is proud of their "twist" on the old tale, making it an alternative version of Cinderella´s story, and making the princess a poor black girl who just wants to open her own restaurant in fulfillment of her, and her daddy´s dream. Singing is excellent, which is no wonder since the adult version of the "princess" Tiana is voiced by Dreamgirls alumnus, Anika Noni Rose. Also a notable performance as the villain of the piece, and voodoo practitioner, Dr. Facilier, is veteran actor Keith David, though not especially impressive in this case was performance by (the voice of) John Goodman. Back in the "plus" column, we find Jennifer Cody as the prince obsessed life-long friend of Tiana. And a fairly impressive turn from Jim Cummings as the firefly, "Ray".
I serve notice here and now that if anyone is brave enough to want to turn this into a Broadway-style production, I want to do the adaptation. It might be "tricky", but it still seems, somehow, just made for it.
Happy Thoughts
I am not ready for a set of "Depends" … YET!!
Love and warm wishes,
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Print
Email
