Any liquid that stores energy, which is typically utilized by an engine or generator, can be called a “fuel.” The term “biofuels” encompasses a wide range of fuels, including vegetable oils, animal fats, ethanol, biodiesel (any oil or fat that undergoes transesterification to more closely resemble mineral-based fuel), and synfuel (fuel made from gasified organic matter, then liquefied to form fuel). The main common trait of all these fuels is that they are derived from organic biomass, rather than minerals.

Biofuels are made using a fairly simple process that typically involves harvesting feedstock, or the raw materials (e.g., soybeans, sugarcane), crushing the feedstock, separating the dry matter from the oil, then re-crushing and/or further processing to extract as much oil as possible. The resulting oil can then either be directly consumed (e.g., by vehicles with specially designed engines), further processed (e.g., into biodiesel), or blended with mineral-based fuel before being delivered to the end user at gas stations and depots around the world (the most common blends in the U.S. are E10 (10% percent ethanol blend) and E85 (85% ethanol blend). Only some biofuels, most notably biodiesel, can be used in traditional internal combustion engines. Other biofuels, such as ethanol, must be blended with mineral-based fuel in order to be used in existing engines.

The most common inputs into biofuels vary by country. In the U.S., corn and soybeans are most prevalent, while Europe tends to use flaxseed and rapeseed, Brazil sugarcane, and Asia palm oil. Brazil is in many ways the pioneer of the biofuels industry, having introduced ethanol from sugarcane (and flexfuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol) over 25 years ago as method to reduce dependence on oil imports.

In 2008, biofuels were worth $34.8 billion on the global market.^[1]

Trends and Forces

Break-even oil prices for various alternative fuel sources, courtesy of the White House Report of the President

New Research Shows that Bioelectricity is More Efficient than Biofuels

New research done at UC Merced and published in the journal Science in May 2009 presents evidence that crops yield 81% more energy per unit area of land when it is burned to make electricity to power cars than when it is refined into ethanol.^[2] Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions from this “bioelectricity” are 100% lower per unit area of land than cellulosic ethanol.^[3] Though this is one of the first studies supporting this idea, if future research continues to present such results, there is the potential for the validity of the entire biofuels industry to come into question.

Governments Support Biofuels, but Production May Not Meet Mandates

Governments around the world, for reasons that combine environmental friendliness, concerns over energy security, and a desire to support local farmers, have offered a wide variety of subsidies to biofuels. Typical subsidies include forgiveness of the consumption tax typically placed on fuel for vehicles, a tax credit for blenders who blend in biofuels with mineral-based fuels, and research subsidies and programs to develop new technologies for biofuels production. Beyond these subsidies, governments around the world have virtually guaranteed a market for biofuels by mandating biofuels usage to be blended with renewable fuels (e.g., the 2005 Energy Policy Act in the U.S. requires 4 billion gallons of biofuels consumption in 2006 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012). Congress later passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandates that renewable fuels production in the U.S. had to increase from 2007 levels of around 4.7 billion gallons per year to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 – 21 billion gallons per year of which need to come from cellulosic ethanol and other “advanced biofuels”^[4]In part thanks to mandates like these, demand for biofuels were expected to grow by 20% annually, to 92 million metric tons per year in 2011.^[5] A report released by the Energy Information Administration in December 2008, however, stated that the industry will not be able to meet these levels of production in time, given the price of oil and declining demand caused by the 2008 Financial Crisis.^[6] To counter these fears of low production, the U.S. Department of Energy announced in May 2009 that it would make available $800 million in funding for new biofuels research projects – right about the same time as the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would support higher biofuels production levels under the condition that producers cut greenhouse gas emissions of their refineries – including the emissions that are created during farming, transportation, blending, and consumption.^[7] All of this despite the hard facts that biofuel production removes food stock from the food chain for human and animal consumption requirements, increases demands upon soil, atmosphere and water and has a higher incidence of cost that any petroleum based fuel source. Food availability and farming directives worldwide have seen significant change in the past decade as a result of these diversions to biofuels. As a result, it is estimated that 100 million more people around the world have been forced into starvation status. The removal of food stock from their pantry has had an enormous impact upon the poorest of the poor, all of whom live in the third world. From a fuel productivity viewpoint, biofuels are far less efficient than any petroleum based fuel source: compute the toal cost of seed supply, irrigation requirements (water, pesticide, waste and runoff), manufacturing processes and distributon and consumption effects and one realizes how incredibly inefficient the concept of producing fuel from food truly is. It takes 34% mor energy to produce a comparable BTU from foodstock than from petroleum and 61% more than from natural gas. Only because of tax rents, political gains and legislative fiat can these devices creak along in some seblance of replacement technology. As an investor, how would one judge these choices? Is the cost inefficiency of biofuels, as previously stated, worth the supposed social and political result? Or, does it make more sense as an investor to own stocks and bonds in companies that make best use of modern technology, exploit market variances and provide a product or service in response to real – rather than perceived – need? Do you want to own a company that earns a dividend from the tariff on pipeline transportation of natural gas, or do you want to own a tax subsidized firm with no actual profits, entirely dependent upon the future largess of a polity with enormous vested interests, none of which generate a profit, much less a dividend? To add insult to injury see the following: ===== The European Union is imposing protectionist measures against U.S. biofuels ===== From 2006 to 2008, biodiesel imports to the European Union from the U.S. increased from 60,000 tonnes to 1.5 million tonnes; to support regional biofuels producers, of which 15 have gone bankrupt in the last two years, the European Union is adding tariffs on imported biofuels worth €29-41 per 100 kgs.^[8] This is meant to raise the price of imported biofuels in Europe, encouraging the use of fuels from local companies and reducing the use of American biofuels.

Price of Oil is Directly Correlated with Demand for Biofuels

Biofuels still represent a tiny fraction of total fuel consumption (to put it in perspective, total gasoline and diesel consumption in the U.S. is roughly 180 billion gallons, versus 4 billion gallons of biofuels consumption in 2006), and as a result, the price of biofuel is driven by the price of it’s nearest substitute, oil. As oil prices rise, it becomes increasingly attractive to produce biofuels, and more feedstocks for biofuels become economically viable.

The Drop in Oil Prices and Contraction of Credit Markets Resulting from the 2008 Financial Crisis and Ensuing Recession Mean Reducing Demand for and Investment in Biofuels

From 2007 through June of 2008, oil prices experienced a strong increase, surging up past $145 on July 3rd^[9] before plummeting to below $50 in December^[10] – right after the NBER announced an economic recession. The decline in oil prices has done tremendous damage to the biofuels industry by making gasoline much more economically friendly. Furthermore, the credit crunch that preceded and, indeed, strengthened during the Financial Crisis means that biofuels companies are going to find it harder to raise capital, as investors no longer want to take risks, which is exactly what biofuels companies are doing in trying to supplant gasoline.

Price/availability of feedstock

The majority of the production cost of biofuels comes from the cost of the raw materials, or feedstock, used to produce them. Therefore, as feedstock prices increase, producing biofuels becomes less profitable. As a result, biofuels producers are constantly considering alternative feedstocks— for example, the recent run-up in corn prices and wheat prices (see chart below), both of which can be used for biofuels, has led several major biofuels players to diversify into other biofuels technologies. Utlimately, biofuels may even drive up the prices of other fruits and vegetables, as farmers convert more land to biofuels feedstock.

Algal biofuels are changing the biofuel space in respect to the fact that the “feedstock” for an algal biofuel is primarily carbon dioxide gas. Large quantities of carbon dioxide will be necessary to scale up algal biofuels production and will necessitate the placement of algal biofuels plants in close proximity to sources of carbon dioxide, such as coal burning and natural gas burning power plants where the effluent can be tapped as the feedstock for the algae. However, the potential of algal biofuels is enormous; existing strains of algae can produce 2000 gallons of fuel per acre, compared to 250 gallons per acre for corn. However, the cost of producing algal biofuels stands at $33/gallon, versus $2/barrel for Saudi crude, necessitating further development before it is fully competitive.^[11]

Many ethanol companies, ironically, are also exposed to falling corn prices, because of hedging against price cuts. VeraSun Energy went bankrupt in October 2008 because the company placed bets on rising corn prices once they hit $8 in June 2008. During the financial crisis of 2008, however, when commodities prices fell and the value of corn dropped by half, the company was left illiquid, unable to pay off its derivatives.^[12]

Second-generation biofuels use non-food feedstocks like grass and reeds to make biofuels, which would make the cost of the fuel independent of food prices. These feedstocks are lauded for growing well on land that wouldn’t support food, freeing up land capacity, but environmentalists are skeptical because many of the plants that are expected to be used are categorized as “invasive species”. The have a high likelihood of spreading outside of the growing land and using resources, thereby killing native plants as well as food crops on adjoining lands.^[13] Because of this, environmentalists have appealed to the United Nations to ban or limit using such feedstocks to refine biofuels.

Companies who stand to benefit

Monthly corn prices from United States Department of Agriculture, in $ per bushel

Companies with control of feedstocks and vertically integrated biofuels refiners (i.e., refiners with exclusive control over supply of feedstocks) will benefit from the rise in biofuels, as they can offer commercial-scale supply of an increasingly scare commodity. Archer Daniels Midland, with its dominance of the corn-based ethanol market in the U.S. and an increasingly diversified portfolio of biofuels feedstocks overseas, should continue to benefit. Cargill, another large feedstock player, is privately held. It is expected, however, that despite these companies’ market strengths, they will only exert control over around 30% of the market for biofuels thanks to the rapid expansion of the market.^[14]

Suppliers to the biofuels sector, especially construction companies with refinery expertise and equipment suppliers, should benefit from a biofuels boom, regardless of which feedstocks or refiners end up on top. These would include Lurgi, the market leader in providing turnkey biofuels refineries, and Titan International, which manufactures wheels and tires for makers of farm machinery. Both will benefit from increased investment in biofuels. In addition, Caterpillar (CAT)’s role in agricultural equipment supply will also make them benefit from any drive towards increased farming activity.

Along the same lines, chemical companies and seed suppliers should benefit from a biofuels boom. Monsanto, in particular, would likely benefit, as concerns regarding the safety of its genetically modified (GM) seeds for human consumption would be nullified if they were used to produce biofuels. Dow Chemical has also been developing a robust chemicals program for use with biofuels. Diversa (DVSA) is another major producer of enzymes used to make biofuels from biomass and cellulosic feedstocks.

A number of oil refining companies, including every one of the majors, are investing in biofuels production. Even Exxon, who had previously stayed out of the renewable energy industry, is entering the market. In July, 2009, the company entered a five-year, $600 million partnership with Synthetic Genomics Incorporated, to develop algae-based biofuels.^[15]

Companies who stand to lose

Contrary to popular belief, pure-play biofuels refineries may not necessarily benefit from a biofuels boom, as biofuels refining is not technically complicated, with relatively low capital expenditures. Capital, and new competitors, are flooding the market for biofuels refining, fueled at least in part by the current low interest environment. Rising feedstock costs, for those who are not vertically integrated, could ultimately eat into profit margins. Pure-play refiners such as Pacific Ethanol or Aventine would fall into this camp.

Companies who rely on biofuels feedstocks for alternate uses are also at risk, should a biofuels boom drive up the price of feedstocks. Tyson Foods, which is a major consumer of corn for its chicken feed, would be particularly negatively impacted— Credit Suisse First Boston estimates that every 10-cent increase in the price of a bushel of corn cuts 5 cents per share of profit from Tyson. This negative impact will ultimately depend on which feedstock for biofuels “wins”— corn and soybeans have benefited greatly in the short-term, but over the long-term, cellulosic ethanol or sugarcane could end up salvaging Tyson’s profitability. The rise in corn prices has already reportedly caused riots in Mexico over excessive tortilla prices.

Companies competing for acreage with biofuels companies may find themselves out of luck as a result of the biofuels boom. For example, breweries such as SAB Miller or Heineken will face the double challenge of struggling to find acreage for growing barley and rising cost of other commodity inputs into the brewing process. Either way, biofuels may be on the rise and a good thing to keep an eye out for.

References

1. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “Solar, Wind and Biofuels’ Impressive Growth Surge in ‘08″
2. ↑ CNET: “Study: Bioelectricity bests biofuels on miles per acre”
3. ↑ CNET: “Study: Bioelectricity bests biofuels on miles per acre”
4. ↑ HR 6 Energy Bill Summary
5. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “World Market for Biofuels Expected to Double”
6. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “Biofuel Industry Won’t Meet Government Production Targets After All”
7. ↑ SeekingAlpha: Feds Propose Controversial Biofuel Mandate, Offer $800M to Boost Production
8. ↑ FT: “EU slaps tariffs on US biodiesel”
9. ↑ The Industry Standard: “Oil prices spike to $150 a barrel by July 4″
10. ↑ Financial Times: “Crude oil prices tumble $100 in five months”
11. ↑ Hard Assets Investor: Exxon: A Biofuel Bet?
12. ↑ Financial Times: Lex: “Ethanol producers”
13. ↑ The New York Times: “New Trend in Biofuels Has New Risks”
14. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “World Market for Biofuels Expected to Double”
15. ↑ Hard Assets Investor: Exxon: A Biofuel Bet?

Related posts :

• Clean coal (1)
• Green energy (4)

From aluminum soda cans and glass jars to old newspapers and rolled-up magazines, the most commonly recycled materials are household products and everyday items no longer of any use. Recycling not only transforms waste into valuable resources, but also benefits the environment on both a local and global level.

The effort saves energy, prevents pollution, decreases greenhouse gases and conserves natural resources.

1. Aluminum Cans

In the United States, used aluminum beverage cans are the most recycled item, but other types of aluminum are just as worthy. Siding, gutters, car components, storm window frames and lawn furniture are often overlooked recyclable items. Recycling one aluminum can saves the equivalent of a ½ gallon of gasoline or enough energy to watch television for 3 hours. Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours! 350,000 aluminum cans are produced every minute! More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product. Once an aluminum can is recycled, it can be part of a new can within six weeks. During the time it takes you to read this sentence, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum cans can be recycled. We use over 80,000,000,000 aluminum pop cans every year. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold !

2. Paper

According to the EPA, recycle 1 ton of paper and save 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 17 full-grown trees. Overall, recycling paper instead of using new materials produces 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water. During World War II when raw materials were scarce, 33% of all paper was recycled. After the war, this number decreased sharply. Americans use 85,000,000 tons of paper a year: about 680 pounds per person. In 1993, U.S. paper recovery saved more than 90,000,000 cubic yards of landfill space. In 1993, nearly 36,000,000 tons of paper in the U.S.-twice as much in 1980. 27% of the newspapers produced in America are recycled.

3. Newspapers

Recycling a single run of the Sunday newspaper in a major metropolitan city saves an average of 75,000 trees. If every city in the United States recycled newspapers, the country saves about 250,000,000 trees on a yearly basis.

4. Glass Bottles

Americans toss out enough glass bottles and jars each month to fill up a towering skyscraper. Recycling one glass bottle not only saves the same amount of energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for 4 hours, but also creates 20 percent less air pollution and 50 percent less water pollution compared to producing a new bottle comprised of raw materials.

5. Trash

The United States generates the most trash in the world with an estimated 1,609 pounds per person every year. Each American is responsible for throwing out around 1,200 pounds of compostable organic garbage on a yearly basis.

6. Packaging

For every $10 spent on purchased goods, packaging makes up 10 percent (or $1). Representing around 65 percent of household trash, packaging racks up heavy disposal costs. For every ton of trash, it costs $30 to recycle, $50 to transport it to a landfill and around $70 to incinerate.

7. Hershey’s Kisses

The amount of aluminum foil (all of which is completely recyclable) used to wrap the estimated 80,000,000 Hershey’s Kisses produced each day is enough to blanket more than 50 acres of space–the equivalent of nearly 40 football fields.

8. Motor Oil

Despite getting dirty, motor oil never loses its purpose or wears out. Americans can reduce their dependence on imported oil by reusing old motor oil after it undergoes a recycling and re-refining process.

9. Typical Families

The average American family consumes 182 gallons of soda, 29 gallons of juice, 104 gallons of milk and 26 gallons of bottled water per year. All of these items are recyclable.

10. Styrofoam Cups

A common misconception of Polystyrene (#6) Styrofoam cups is that it is recyclable. Every year, Americans toss out 25,000,000,000 Styrofoam cups–enough to circle the Earth a total of 436 times.

Related posts :

• Green energy (4)

Related posts :

• Mine: Story of a sacred mountain (0)
• Meditation, a path to liberation (1)
• I didn’t know Doubt was so ugly (1)
• India : some portraits from French photographer Céline Roux (0)
• Insane practices for more farms profit : this is the Meatrix ! (8)
• A way to fix catastrophes ? High level pranks by the Yes men (0)

1. Turn off the lights

The most obvious thing to do. If you want to see your partner, or what you are doing, you can either have sex during the day or use candles to create a romantic atmosphere.

2. Share a shower

Saving natural resources such as water for the good of the planet can also be a way to get everything started. Shutting down the heating system and getting close under the blanket to feel warmer is very efficient as well.

3. Eat organic aphrodisiacs

Choose organic ginger, cacao, chili and oysters… Make sure you only buy GE-Free products and don’t forget to avoid endangered species, if you want to eat meat or fish. You can also drink biodynamic wine, eat real chocolate and fair-trade products to go on the green path.

4. Use natural lubricants

Get rid of your fossil fuel based lubricants and try natural ones or your own saliva to get everything slippery.

5. Employ green sex toys

Sex shops and online erotic stores now sell a wide array of battery-free dildos, solar powered vibrator, recycled rubber whips and so on.

For instance, you can find vibrators made from recycled materials that can work without batteries, using devices such as a crank you jerk for a few minutes before enjoying half an hour of orgasmic vibrating pleasure.

Still, remember sex toys may be harmful. A research ordered by Greenpeace Netherlands reveals that “the plastics used to construct a wide range of sex toys contain very high concentrations of hazardous phtalates, toxic chemical softeners used in PVC to make it soft and flexible”.

Warning that “exposure to these substances can upset the body’s ability to regulate hormone production, damage reproduction, and cause liver and kidney defects. They can also possibly cause cancer”. Some websites advise you to use a condom on it to prevent such risks.

This flogger is made entirely from upcycled and repurposed bicycle tubes that have been discarded. They’ve found a new and improbable life in these creations.

6. Recycle your sex toy afterwards

Do not throw away your old little friends, they can be recycled. There’s even a website that gives you money for it. Adult Toy Recycling takes care of your toys –even the broken ones- and “for every package of sex toys you send in to be recycled, you’ll receive a coupon for $10 to use at one of [its] affiliate partners as well as some other goodies (when applicable) on your next order”.

Other informations sex toys recycling :

• http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/
• http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/s.cfm?term=recycle&x=0&y=0

7. Find a green lover

The best way to respect nature even during sex is to share you passion for sustainable development with your partner. A great deal of match-making sites, organic food stores, conferences on sustainable development and events gathering activists or eco-friendly people will provide you with many opportunities to find a lover to share your concern and make green sex with.

By the way, you can meet such people in humanityy’s various communities…

For more tips :

• http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/sex/sex-top-tips.html
• http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/sex/green-sex-basics.html
• http://news.softpedia.com/news/10-Rules-for-Ecological-Sex-66246.shtml
• http://www.efmgzn.com/?p=183

Pictures taken from

• http://www.efmgzn.com/?p=183
• http://greencoloredglasses.ca/
• http://www.thedailygreen.com/
• http://www.ptitchef.com/recettes/menu-bio-%232-poulet-saute-au-chou-chinois-fid-341606?in=FBOOK

Related posts :

• Nestle : Indonesia is fighting back ! (1)

Uranium, oil, water, natural gas – as power sources, all have the potential to run out during the course of human development, perhaps in the next couple of hundred years. Renewable sources can fudge this problem by using energy sources that either will last longer than the human race or can be regenerated through agriculture. Most renewable energy sources are also environmentally friendly, fight global warming by reducing carbon emissions, and enable economies to reduce their dependencies on politically turbulent nations. From 2007 to 2008, the market for the top three renewables – wind, solar, and biofuels – grew from $75.8 billion to $115.9 billion, or about 53%, indicating that these energy sources are getting more and more popular.

Wind energy is best established of the renewables, representing 1% of global energy production, or about $51.4 billion in 2008. It can also be the most cost-efficient, especially when large installations using large turbines can capitalize on economies of scale. On the other side of the fence, solar power is the most expensive, least efficient form of renewable energy – for now. Increased spending in the sector has caused huge improvements both in cost and efficiency, and this has caused companies from China, Europe, and the U.S. to flood the sector, increasing competitiveness and driving even greater improvements; in 2008, $29.6 billion of the renewables market was made from solar. Geothermal energy gets relatively little attention, but with states along the fault lines and geysers of the Western United States increasingly passing renewable energy mandates, its potential is maturing. Biofuels, however, have been all the rage, and with Congress’s 2007 passage of an energy bill mandating enhanced production of ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, the stage is set for their use to greatly increase – in spite of protests from social activists who are worried about rising food prices. In 2008, biofuels were worth $34.8 billion on the global market.

Since the middle of 2007, oil prices have been trending upwards, to record highs; on the 21st of May, 2008, for example, oil traded at $134.10 per barrel, after averaging around $20 during the 1990s. Still, most renewable technologies are still less cost-efficient than fossil fuels – though government support has led to heavy spending in search of ways to close this gap. Renewables are quickly catching on in progressive regions like Europe, and with over 750,000 deaths in China caused by air contamination and other environmental damages each year, the market for clean energy is expected to grow in there as well.

Geothermal

Geothermal energy uses hot water deep within the earth’s crust to spin turbines and produce power 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It produces few carbon emissions and can re-inject used water back into the earth to be used again, making it fully sustainable. Not every part of the planet has geothermal resources; usually, they can be found in regions where there is volcanic activity, or where two tectonic plates meet. This is why places like Indonesia and the Philippines, which are situated on the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, or California, with its myriad fault lines and hot springs, are such strong markets for geothermal technology.

-> The only pure-play geothermal company is Ormat Technologies, though Calpine Corporation operates a number of plants. Amazingly, with an installed geothermal capacity of 1,273 MW in Indonesia and the Philippines, oil giant Chevron supplies 13% of the world’s current geothermal energy supply – and is the largest private geothermal energy company in the world.
-> Major electric utilities that purchase geothermal power include Southern California Edison, Hawaiian Electric Industries, and Sierra Pacific Resources.

Solar

The appeal of solar power is obvious. It is a virtually limitless resource. It’s free of greenhouse gas emissions, widely thought to contribute to global climate change. In developed countries using lots of air conditioners, it generates more electricity exactly when you need it– at times of peak electricity usage (e.g, you run your air conditioners more during the hottest, sunniest days of the summer time). Once installed, solar systems can function for 25 or more years with little maintenance or oversight.

Solar comes with limitations, however, with poor cost-efficiency being the most notable. Solar is weather dependent and intermittent, requiring storage or back-up systems to supplement during times of weak generation. More importantly, thanks to fast-rising silicon prices, solar systems average $8,000 per kilowatt installed – extremely costly even in comparison to other renewables. Still, the solar market has exploded over the past year, with electricity generated from solar systems increasing from 2.5 GW in 2006 to 3.8 GW in 2007.

-> SunPower, First Solar, and Suntech Power Holdings are three emerging solar societies that have received a lot of attention in the past six months. Other major solar manufacturers, both emerging and established, include Evergreen Solar, JA Solar Holdings, Solarfun Power Holdings, Kyocera, Sharp, BP, Q-Cell, Mitsubishi, Sanyo, EMCORE, Uni-Solar and Daystar Technologies.
->Major polysilicon suppliers to the solar industry include MEMC Electronic Materials, LDK Solar, and Renewable Energy Corporation.

Wind

Wind is caused by different parts of the earth heating at different rates to different temperatures, producing pressure gradients and leading air molecules to move from areas of higher pressure (density) to areas of lower pressure (density). As long as the sun shines, the wind will blow. It would appear that wind is the best source of energy, but, like all other renewables, it faces some issues. Not every region has winds that are the right speed year-round; furthermore, turbines are very dangerous for birds, particularly during migrations. Wind parks can also “overproduce” on windy days, creating more electricity than needed by the utilities grid, though there are massive batteries being developed to store some of this excess energy for periods when the wind is weaker than needed.

Wind turbines have the lowest installation costs of any of the renewables, and with large wind installations taking advantage of economies of scale to reach lows of $800 per kilowatt installed, today it rivals natural gas as a form of cheap, base-load energy.

-> Danish wind giant Vestas Wind Systems is the world’s leading producer of wind turbines, with the Spanish Gamesa and American General Electric following. Indian market entrant Suzlon Energy Limited has grown very promptly, out-pacing competitors like Nordex and Siemens.
-> Xcel Energy is an American electric utilities company that has made wind energy one of its main sources of grid-based electricity.

Wave Power

Wave power uses the kinetic energy from sea waves to generate electricity. Most wave energy producers are private labs and emerging companies, but Ocean Power Technologies has come out as the first publicly-traded wave power producer in the U.S.

Biofuels

Biofuels are sources of energy that are renewable in the truest sense of the word. They are made from plant matter; since plants can be regrown, the energy source can be renewed. Major biofuels include biodiesel, ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol, though there are currently private companies working on refining biogasoline. In the U.S., major companies that play around in the three main forms of biofuels include:

• Pacific Ethanol
• ConAgra
• Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
• Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings.

Ethanol

Ethanol is a biofuel that can be mixed with gasoline; it is made by fermenting sugar, and corn is its primary input. Currently, American cars can run on a mix of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol, though there isn’t nearly enough corn-based ethanol being produced at the moment to meet this capacity. There are also cars that can run on 85% ethanol and even pure ethanol , though these vehicles are few and far between in the U.S. VeraSun Energy primarily produces corn-based ethanol.
Cellulosic Ethanol

Energy legislation passed in 2007 mandated an increase in the amount of ethanol used in the U.S. to far levels greater than the nation’s corn-production capacity. Another form of ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, utilizes industrial or biological processes to refine ethanol from cellulosic matter, like paper, wheat husks, and dead plants. Companies like Bluefire Ethanol refine ethanol from trash, while others like Verenium Corporation use lab-developed enzymes to break down cellulose from plant matter like leaves and grass.

Biomass and Energy-From-Waste

Companies like Covanta use trash instead of gas to generate the heat needed to twist steam turbines. These companies burn waste from farms and landfills, converting leavings that would otherwise not me monetized into valuable electricity.

Not-Quite-Renewables

Notably excluded from this list is nuclear energy,is neither a fossil fuel, nor a form of renewable energy. The fuel source, uranium, is estimated to outlast mankind, i.e.100,000 years or more. Nuclear power produces radioactive waste. Nuclear power plants are not all the same quality, are highly technical, and involve risk of atmospheric and other environmental contamination. For this reason, nuclear power in the US carries a dual reputation and generally is unpopular for good reason. Large companies that are part of the nuclear industry include Exelon, Entergy, American Electric Power, and Duke Energy.

Hydropower is a special case of renewables, because the technology has been in use since the 19th century and, more importantly for those looking to expand renewable sources of energy, the majority of good sites for hydropower, at least in the developed world, have already been developed as power sources. Combustible renewables and renewable waste would include biofuels, but the historical driver of this 10.6% of our energy supply requires the burning of wood, plants, and organic waste in developing countries. Still employed around the world, this method of energy generation is, in the truest sense, renewable, though it is highly wasteful in terms of energy conversion and may take several hundred years to replenish itself (e.g., in the case of burned-down forests).

Energy Conservation

Building new generating capacity is expensive; many electric utilities would much rather deal with growing electricity demand by getting customers to use electricity more efficiently. Companies like EnerNOC (ENOC) contract with large industrial electricity users and electric grid operators; when energy use peaks, the company gets factories and other large consumers to cut down usage (by turning off unnecessary lighting, systems, etc.) so that grid operators can direct the extra electricity to where it is necessary. That way, they don’t have to install extra generators to meet peak demand.

Private company EnerPath has developed technology to deliver cost effective energy efficiency upgrades to the mass markets and highly complex applications that have typically been difficult to penetrate with energy efficiency. EnerPath implements energy efficiency programs and delivers software for utilities throughout North America.
Renewable Energy Funds

Powershares Wilderhill Clean Energy ETF – stock symbol “PBW”, along with a slew of other renewable funds, offers broad exposure to the sector. Given the plethora of IPO’s in renewable energy and clean technology that occurred in 2006, 2007, and 2008, a broad exposure to the clean energy market through an ETF is a right bet for beginning green investors — like the Internet boom, some of these companies will split and others will survive, but it will be hard to predict early in the development curve which is which.

One item investors might want to consider with PBW the Powershares Wilderhill Clean Energy ETF, is that index is based on mostly US companies working on solar panels. An alternative one might consider is Market Vectors Global Alternative Energy ETF – stock symbol “GEX” which has a has invested more than half its assets outside the U.S. and includes a Danish company, Vestas Wind Systems which is the fund’s top holding at nearly 11%. Rounding out the top three holdings are a Spanish company — Gamesa, a specialist in wind turbine and wind farms — at roughly 8% of holdings, and Norwegian solar energy company Renewable Energy, which accounts for roughly 7% of assets.

Drivers of renewable energy

The 2008 Financial Crisis Will Likely Slow Renewable Expansion

Companies in every industry are feeling the effects of the 2008 Financial Crisis as budgets shrink and it becomes more difficult to obtain loans and investments. These conditions are especially dangerous to industries, like solar, that are expanding rapidly (as with solar, which flourished at a rate of 41% per year from 2001-2008) and require large sums of money to do so – a description that fits the renewable sector exactly. Tighter lending practices will not only make it harder for renewable companies to expand at such high rates but also threaten to decrease demand, as their customers struggle to obtain funding for the expensive projects. Centrica has estimated that it costs million per megawatt to build a wind farm – less than nuclear energy – and most lending institutions simply don’t want to loan to projects that are so large and risky – at least until credit markets calm down.

Declines in the Price of Carbon Emissions Trading on European Markets Reduces Incentives for Renewable Investment :

From the summer of 2008 to February 2009, the right to emit one ton of carbon fell from €30 on the EU carbon market to €11.80. Research has suggested that carbon needs to trade at around €25 in order to have a significant effect on green investment. With the price of carbon allowances so low, incentives for clean energy production in Europe have dramatically decreased.

Legislative Support

Legislative support for clean energy investment in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and energy mandates has driven growth in the sector over the past few years. Because most renewables aren’t as cost-efficient as traditional fossil fuels, such government support is necessary to make clean energy appealing. In April, 2008, the US Senate approved the passage of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, in response to high oil prices and climate change fears. This act continues the previous subsidies, increasing the amount of spending to $19 billion. In addition to national legislation, states have also passed their own mandates on clean energy adoption. California has notably strict policies, including the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires utilities to provide 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

In March 2009, Senator Harry Reid drafted legislation that would make it easier for the government to approve the installation of transmissions lines from remote renewable energy generators to major population centers; the legislation would also set aside enough government land for 4-25 GW of solar energy generators. Whether the bill passes remains to be seen.

In July 2009, the government of the UK released a white paper documenting a plan to reduce carbon emissions to 22% below 1990 levels by 2012, 34% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. These goals are expected to be pursued through the use of wind power and nuclear energy, though many are skeptical about the government’s ability to meet the 2020 goal.

Obama Supports a Renewable Future

Where does electricity come from? (USA, 2008)

In January 2009, President Barack Obama called for the U.S. to double its use of renewable energy by 2012, as part of his plan to stimulate the economy and pull the country out of recession. His plan, which is expected to include up to $800 billion over two years in subsidies and tax cuts for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electric grid modernization plans, has the potential to pull the industry out of the depression caused by the 2008 Financial Crisis.

In response to the Financial Crisis, Obama pushed through a stimulus plan that earmarks $80 billion for green projects, including $7.6 bn in renewable energy loan guarantees and bonds, as well as grants of up to 30% for business/homeowner investments in renewables. A further $10 bn has been earmarked for energy efficiency, $11 bn for efficient power grid expansion, $6 bn for clean energy research, and $2 bn for hybrid cars.

China is Investing in Renewables

China announced in March of 2009 that it would subsidise solar energy installations at a rate of $3 per watt – about 60% of the cost – as part of its economic stimulus package.
Cost of substitutes

Demand for renewable energy is driven largely by the price of the alternatives, namely coal and natural gas (for electricity generation) and oil (for liquid fuel). All the factors that drive rising oil prices or fears of peak oil, therefore also drive demand for renewable energy. On the demand side of the equation, clearly rising worldwide energy demand also plays a large role.
Fears of greenhouse gas emissions

As the evidence in favor of climate change has mounted and governments and citizens have begun to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions, demand for biofuels has ramped up significantly. It’s expected that this demand will only continue to grow, as the consensus behind reducing greenhouse gas emissions grows. Heavy investments in renewable energy by such petroleum firms as BP, Shell, Chevron, Total, as well as companies as diverse as HP, Intel, and Google, suggest that businesses are already acknowledging this future demand.

On February 4th, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley said that they would put into effect a set of “Carbon Principles” by which they would give investment priority to clean energy groups, and compel any company planning to build coal-powered plants to show how they would deal with the carbon dioxide pollution in order to get investment money. With investment priority at these major banks now going to renewables, clean energy start-ups should have less trouble getting financing.

Cost of inputs

Though its energy inputs are typically renewable, generating renewable energy is not costless, and like all booming industries, renewable energy confronts bottlenecks and supply shortages for its key inputs. In the case of wind energy, the cost of turbines has climbed, as manufacturers typically put customers on 18-month waiting lists and even then struggle to source gearboxes and other key parts for the finished products. Solar cell manufacturers face shortages in polysilicon, while biofuels producers face rising costs for their feedstocks, especially corn and sugarcane.

Here is a nice podcast from Max Lindberg I found about nuclear energy supposed cleanness :
nuclear

Related posts :

• Biofuels production and companies (11)
• 10 facts on recycling (9)
• Save water : use it twice ! (1)
• Water sustainability : “Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink” (2)

All these have been chosen by men, but we would love to know what you women / girls think about it

1. People Tree Fair Trade & Organic Cotton Night Dress – in magenta

2. Demi-thong

3. Pin-up bra

4. Tie bikini

5. Winky pop bikini

6. Classic bra

7. Oceana Thong

8. Red luna bamboo bikini

9. Mya underwear

10. Charme no wire bra

11. Bonus : Eternelle Underwire Bra

So, girls and women, what do you think about this selection ? Which ones do you prefer ?

(And men of course you can give your point of view too !)

Related posts :

• Free Tibet t shirt (3)