Tag Archives: article
Biochar: Black Gold or Just Another Snake Oil Scheme?
BY RACHEL SMOLKER – SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 There’s little basis for claims that biochar could solve our energy, food, and climate woes In an interview with Naomi Klein , published in the Autumn 2013 issue of Earth Island Journal , she referred to the American fondness for “win-win solutions.” I had to giggle, having on many occasions sat in on industry-led events, where the speakers, wildly animated, blather on about their latest “win-win-win” technofix, certain to resolve everything that ails humanity, from climate change to poverty, to deforestation to toxic pollution to nuclear waste. Who could be against such hopeful, all-in-one miracle cures? Perhaps only the skeptics who know the smell of snake oil. Which, I guess, includes me. Photo by potaufeu/flickr Field trail results fly in the face of repeated claims that biochar will sequester carbon in soils for tens, hundreds or even thousands of years. I came to such deep skepticism not by nature but from years of experience. One formative experience has been following the hype around biochar. Biochar enthusiasts are a hopeful bunch. They claim that charred biomass will be a win for climate, a win for soils and crop yields, hence a win against hunger and poverty, and a win for renewable energy generation. They are convinced that burning “biomass,” that is, trees, crop residues, animal manure or what have you, (some even advocate burning garbage or tires ), could solve our energy, food, and climate woes. Right away, there is good reason to be skeptical. Burning anything at all seems an unlikely cure for an overheating planet. No matter how it is done, or what is burned, combustion creates pollution — air pollution, particulates, ashes, various toxins and soot, the second largest warming agent after C02. Nonetheless, there are many who embrace biochar and specifically advocate burning things under oxygen starved conditions, via process called pyrolysis, to maximize the production of charred residues. Biochar, they claim, is “black gold.” *** The first key “win” of biochar, proponents say, is that if buried in the ground, the char, which consists largely of carbon, will more or less permanently “sequester” that carbon and therefore help to cleanse the atmosphere. In an article published in the journal, Nature, some of the leading biochar enthusiasts claimed that it could offset global greenhouse gas emissions by a whopping 12 percent annually. All that would be required is collecting most forest and agriculture residues and animal manures from across the globe, as well as converting over half a billion hectares (an area larger than India) of land to producing dedicated burnable crops. After collecting it, the biomass would be transported to pyrolysis facilities, burned, then the char would be collected and transported back around the globe where it would be tilled and buried into soils over millions of acres. Year after year. The problem with this idea isn’t just the massive scale of the project, for which there seems little social or political will. It is even more fundamental: There is really little basis for assuming that biochar carbon really will store carbon reliably in soils. A Biofuelwatch review of peer-reviewed field trials as of 2011 showed some remarkably unimpressive results. We only looked at peer-reviewed field trials in order to distinguish clearly between hype and actual results, and to discern how biochar acts in the real world, with living biodiverse soils, rather than sterile, laboratory conditions. Field trails proved rare; only five such studies were found, which between them tested biochar on 11 different combinations of soil and vegetation. In only three cases did biochar result in any additional carbon sequestration. In most cases, there was either no measurable difference in soil carbon, or even a reduction in soil carbon. These results from short-term studies —none spanned more than four years — fly in the face of repeated claims that biochar will sequester carbon in soils for tens, hundreds or even thousands of years. Photo by crustmania/flickr Biochar enthusiasts claim it can improve the quality of the soil and hence improve crop yields and thereby help reduce desertification and deforestation. More recently, two important reviews (you can read them here and here ) of soil carbon showed that the stability of soil carbon is not so much determined by the molecular structure of the carbon itself, but rather by surrounding soil ecosystem properties. That makes reliable carbon storage very difficult to predict or assume. Win number two, biochar enthusiasts claim, is that biochar will also improve the quality of the soil and hence improve crop yields, thereby help reduce desertification, deforestation, hunger, and poverty. Again, Biofuelwatch’s review of peer reviewed field trials showed unimpressive and erratic results. Since then, a recent synthesis review of impact on crop yields found that in half of published studies, there was either no effect whatsoever on crop yields, or biochar actually reduced yields. The third win, according to advocates, is generating renewable electricity and heat during pyrolysis. But so far, virtually all biochar has been produced without doing so. That’s because pyrolysis is difficult to control and remains largely unproven for commercial application. Another reason is the inherent trade off: If you want more biochar less biomass will be converted to heat and power, and vice versa. None of these trial results have dampened the hopes of biochar enthusiasts, who still see wins everywhere they look. They continue to promote biochar as a means to reduce fertilizer demand, agricultural runoff, clean up waste water, reclaim mine sites, and offset fossil fuel pollution. Some have even advocated feeding it to cows to make them emit less gas, and one company even claims that biochar will make it possible for consumers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even while driving big gas-guzzling cars. (see below). In her Journal interview Klien also spoke about climate geoengineering, which she referred to as a proverbial “escape hatch” providing a way to avoid the consequences of our failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is indeed one of the most perilous hazards of the geoengineering mindset. Widespread doubts about geoengineering have resulted in a push to accept “more benign” technologies, including large-scale biochar and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Both biochar and BECCS require burning lots of biomass — trees and crops, as well as municipal solid waste. Staggering quantities would have to be harvested and burned to have any measureable impact on the global atmosphere. Studies have shown that capturing just one billion tonnes of carbon per year would require conversion of up to 990 million hectares of land to plantations. The consequences for land, water, soils, biodiversity, would very likely render the treatment worse than the disease. What is already painfully evident is that demand for biomass, even at the current smaller scale is already stripping Earth of her remaining biodiverse ecosystems, and replacing them with industrial, chemically-dependent monoculture deserts. Another article in the Journal’s recent issue, “ Modified Stands ,” talks about the push for genetically engineered trees. The impetus behind GE trees is a projected dramatic increase in demand for wood, in large part for bioenergy. This demand is a result of subsidies and supports for renewable energy that fail to distinguish between the kind of renewable energy that requires constant inputs of fuel (wood etc) and combustion, and the kind that does not. The l ion’s share of subsidies and supports has gone to bioenergy, including biofuels and biomass burning for electricity, which can conveniently be done 24/7 in coal plants, or stand alone facilities. Windmills and solar panels are more fussy , expensive, and their production cycles are intermittent. To get a sense of the scale and impact of using bioenergy, consider that in the United Kingdom alone, current and proposed biomass burning for energy would require over 80 million tons of wood, more than eight times the amount of wood produced for all purposes domestically. There is now an expanding international trade in wood chips and pellets to satisfy this voracious demand from the UK and other European countries. Tree plantations and native forests in the southeastern United States and Canada are being cut, pelletized and shipped to Europe to be burned as “renewable energy.” The wood pellet industry is booming, and fast growing monoculture plantations — which could soon include GE trees, are in great demand. Biochar enthusiasts usually insist they won’t cut forests or convert ecosystems to provide burnable biomass. Just like the biomass electricity industry, they prefer to talk about burning “wastes and residues.” But there is no such thing as “waste” in a forest ecosystem — all is recycled, via decay, to support regeneration and regrowth. In many places, definitions of waste have been expanded to include virtually any wood that is not valued as sawlogs, so timber harvests are more intense and destructive. In agriculture, there are often better options for residues, such as compost, mulch, animal fodder, and bedding. In any case, industrial forestry and agriculture practices have already wreaked havoc on ecosystems. Creating a market for the waste products of unsustainable practices hardly seems a step in the right direction. *** Photo by Engineering for Change A biomass briquette. There is an inherent trade off between using biomass to produce biochar vs using it to produce energy: If you want more biochar less biomass will be converted to heat and power, and vice versa. So far, biochar has not gained the subsidies and investments needed to scale it up commercially. Biochar advocates initially worked to gain funding from carbon markets, arguing that biochar could “offset” fossil fuel pollution, but with the recent decline of global carbon markets they have largely retreated seeking carbon financing. Instead, they are now pushing biochar as a niche product for small-scale and organic farmers. The good news is that most small-scale farmers are closely attuned to what works on their farms and will judge for themselves. The bad news is that they are largely unaware that they are to some extent being used to promote an eventual massive scale-up of the biochar industry. In 2008-09, for example, a high-profile biochar project in Cameroon run by Biochar Fund, a Belgian nonprofit, promised to alleviate poverty and improve nutritional status of poor farmers by improving crop yields. The farmers donated land and labor, and were told they would be compensated with finance from carbon markets. The first set of trials were proclaimed wildly successful without any independent verification. Then the trials were abandoned without even informing the farmers. Biochar Fund moved on and was granted funds for yet another set of trials in Congo. This time the claim was that biochar would enable slash and burn agriculturalists to do less slashing and burning because the soils would be enriched with biochar. So far, there are no reports of the status of those trials. (Read Biofuelwatch’s investigative report about the Cameroon project here. ) Just as with biomass electricity, biochar enthusiasts claim that burning biomass is “carbon neutral” – that the carbon released during combustion will be reabsorbed by new trees or crops. This claim has been soundly and repeatedly refuted . Trees take years to regrow, assuming that they even do so. Cutting natural forests for biomass electricity, or biochar, or any other use results in a massive “ carbon debt ” that can take decades or even centuries to repay (i.e. for an equivalent amount of carbon to be reabsorbed in new tree growth). Biochar advocates continue to cling to the carbon neutral myth nonetheless. In fact, they take it a step further. Burying the carbon char in soils, they say, will permanently store some of the carbon, so regrowth will absorb additional (not just replacement) carbon. This, they say, makes it carbon negative. This misguided logic is what lies behind claims by companies like Cool Planet that consumers can clean the atmosphere by driving more. The California-based biofuel and biochar company seeks to make transportation fuels from wood, which they say is “carbon neutral,” and then bury the char residue from their production process, thus renderning the entire process “carbon negative.” By Cool Planet’s logic, driving more could actually reduce carbon emissions. That kind of “win” has an especially outstanding appeal. Cool Planet has won significant corporate backing from BP, ConocoPhillips, General Electric, and Google among others, and is now looking at opening two new facilities in Louisiana. The logical conclusion for biomass electricity or biochar, from a purely carbon accounting perspective is that we should burn things that grow faster and therefore incur a shorter “carbon debt.” GE eucalyptus perhaps? Clearly it is not very helpful to reduce the whole affair of climate change to counting carbon molecules. Forests, soils, ecosystems all are far more than agglomerations of carbon. They are intricate, multidimensional, interconnected, and complex beyond our imaginings and hence beyond our ability to measure, manipulate, and control. The reductionist mindset that carbon accountants engage with is a dead end that only serves to blind us to the full scope and range of Earth as a whole. It fails to see that this planet is more than the sum of its parts. If we are really serious about preserving life on Earth, we will have to relearn how to envision the whole, embrace humility in the face of our ignorance about how life-supporting earth systems work. No amount of biochar, no climate geoengineering tricks, no technofixes or markets or “private sector engagement” or fancy carbon accounting will be a “win win win” for us. By far the winning strategy would be to allow Earth to restore, regenerate and recover, on her own terms. Continue reading
KiOR Illustrates The Futility Of Cellulosic Biofuels
Sep 5 2013, 15:13 | about: KIOR Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) KiOR is the latest object lesson in how energy investors ignore science at their own peril. As of 30 June 2013 this start-up was down to $11.5M in cash and $20M in untapped credit, with long-term debt of $150M and a quarterly burn rate well over $30M. Since commissioning its 10 MGY commercial-scale facility last October, it has produced no more than 73,000 actual gallons of RIN-eligible cellulosic blendstock with total revenues of $310,000 (~$4/gal). Cost of product revenue totals $20.5M (~$280/gal) and shows how far it is from break-even, let alone profitability. With about 60 days of liquidity left, bankruptcy looms before the end of September without an infusion of new investor cash. Recently a class action shareholder lawsuit was announced claiming that CEO Fred Cannon’s forecasts of production and revenues were unreasonably optimistic. The Company’s widely-circulated expectations to produce 3 million to 5 million gallons in 2013 contrasts with a production rate less than 1/10th the necessary annual pace. It is not just shareholders, but Wall Street analysts and government agencies that seem to have been caught by surprise. The EPA’s original 2013 renewable volume obligation counted on KiOR for over 5 million of the 14 million gallons of cellulosic gasoline and diesel required. Cannon’s most recent prediction for 2013 has been revised downward to 1 million to 2 million gallons . Why is producing competitively priced liquid fuel from cellulosic feedstock such a challenge? The answer is in fundamental chemistry and biology and physics that stubbornly limit what even the cleverest geneticist and richest venture capitalist can do. A comprehensive and mutli-disciplinary look at the full spectrum of biofuels is available via the Waterloo University Institute for Complexity and Innovation . Hopefully a brief discussion below can outline the basic case and help more investors from being separated from their money chasing this white rabbit. To illustrate the ultimate futility of cellulosic ethanol, it is instructive to compare it with corn ethanol. US corn farmers, benefiting from generations of technical and genetic improvements, have increased yields six-fold since 1940 and today can produce from a single acre as much as 500 gallons of ethanol from 5 tons of corn kernels. However, growing and processing the corn at such scale consumes huge amounts of energy. Rigorous lifecycle analyses have revealed that the energy return on investment (EROI) of corn ethanol is only 1.25:1; only 1.25 units of energy are output for every unit of energy input into farming and processing. And the energy portion delivered as ethanol is just equal to the energy input from natural gas and petroleum fossil fuel. Only the creative bookkeeping practice of counting the distillers dry grains and solubles byproduct (DDGS) as energy instead of animal feed gives the overall process that tenuous 25% energy profit. The massive US corn ethanol program than consumes more than 40% of the corn crop is essentially a way to convert non-renewable fossil fuel into non-renewable ethanol with a bit of renewable animal feed protein supplement as a kicker. When compared to the EROIs of gasoline and diesel fuel and coal electricity, which range from 10:1 to 30:1, it is clear that corn ethanol represents a huge opportunity cost in terms of using that same fossil fuel energy more directly to serve society. The facts are even less kind to cellulosic ethanol. The input energy required to make alcohol or other fuel blendstocks from cellulosic biomass is about three times higher than from corn kernels, which means cellulosic biorefineries at scales similar to today’s corn ethanol refineries deliver a product that has a negative energy balance and EROI far less than 1:1. Scaling up the operation just digs a bigger hole faster. The reasons for this disparity in EROI are basic chemistry and basic farming. The basic chemistry of crop-based biofuels is growing plants to harvest their sugar and convert it into fuel. The snowflake-shaped sugar molecule is the building block of all green plants and can be assembled into many forms, all of which are collectively known as “carbohydrates.” But not all carbs are created equal, as any dietician knows. Some sugar molecules remain loners or bound in pairs and comprise the simple sugars and starches found in the easily digestible, high-calorie, food portion of crops such as fruits and sugarcane sap and corn kernels. These are also the portions most easily converted into alcohol. But carbohydrates also come in the form of million-molecule polymers of sugar molecules that are chained together to form cellulose fibers. These massive molecules are incredibly tough and resistant to being broken down. Compounding the problem is that cellulose fibers are trapped in a matrix of lignin, another massive polymer molecule even tougher to break down, and the two must first be separated at the cost of huge additional amounts of energy. Even after separation, cellulose is indigestible to humans and can only be broken down in nature by specialized ruminant animals like cattle that spend their entire waking hours grazing and chewing and fermenting it in their four stomachs because it is a low-density, low-power, low-EROI energy source. A field of grass can provide energy at a pace to sustain walking cows, but not speeding cars, so we must multiply the energy by harvesting more acreage. However, both corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol fail to benefit much from scaling up. This is because farming is an industry that is more responsive to economies of density than economies of scale . The major costs of farming (fertilizer and chemicals and farm equipment fuel) are proportional to the acreage of land that must be sown and harvested. When yield per acre is low, the cost of harvesting and collection and transportation rival the per-acre value of the crop. All the revolutions in agriculture over the past century have been targeted to squeeze more yield out of fewer acres. To illustrate how scaling up actually hurts, consider that a biorefinery surrounded by crop fields must send its trucks further outward from the plant with longer round trips to collect each additional increment of biomass – feedstock unit costs go up rather than down with increased plant demand and production. The tyranny of geography is one of the reasons why start-ups moving from pilot to commercial-scale biorefineries have not seen their feedstock prices coming down as they anticipated. Sustainably growing enough cellulosic biomass to replace US petroleum fuels without boosting crop density with fertilizers and other EROI-decreasing practices of modern intensive farming would require multiple billions of acres of crop land. Even intensive farming of cellulosic biomass crops with the same energy-intensity as corn will only reduce the farm land necessary to about half a billion acres — more than twice the nation’s currently harvested crop land — and the energy return would be hugely negative. The sobering truth of all the above is reflected in the price of bioethanol. US corn ethanol continues to be more expensive than gasoline when compared on an equal-energy, equal-octane basis, which is much more meaningful than the volumetric basis (gallon-to-gallon) favored by the EPA and refineries because it hides the wholesale cheating of consumers that is being done via the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Energy in the gas tank, not gallons, is directly proportional to the distance a vehicle will travel. As of January 2013, the US Department of Energy reported that, on an equivalent energy content basis, E85 ethanol was $1.19 more a gallon than gasoline . American Automobile Association surveys of pump prices also reflect that E85 is consistently more expensive on an MPG-corrected basis than premium octane gasoline. If the price of bioethanol is plotted out against gasoline over the past 8 years, it is not only consistently much higher, but shows the same degree of volatility. The higher price per joule or BTU of ethanol translates into an additional $8.1 billion that Americans paid in 2012 at the gas station for miles not put into their gas tanks because they got ethanol instead of gasoline. When added to the $6.1 billion in federal expenditures for corn crop program subsidies and ethanol blending tax credits, the total cost was $14.2 billion to displace 9.5% of US motor gasoline volume (6.4% of its energy content) with corn ethanol — and the cheaper petroleum gasoline being displaced was ironically being exported to Venezuela and Europe and other countries while we increasingly import Brazilian sugarcane ethanol . Such is the perverse effect on our national energy security of ill-conceived policies uninformed by science. If generations of hybrid breeding and decades of direct genetic engineering performed on corn and the enzymes and bacteria and yeasts that process it cannot deliver ethanol with competitive EROI and price from the inherently more favorable chemistry of starch feedstock, then what scientific basis is there to expect inferior cellulosic feedstock to deliver more? Cello , Range Fuels , KL Energy ( KLEG.PK ), Iogen, ZeaChem, Virdia, Virent, Gevo ( GEVO ), Coskata, Primus Green Energy , Chevron , Shell, and Codexis have all beat their heads and fistfuls of cash against this wall and failed to make a breakthrough in commercially viable bulk fuel from cellulosic feedstock. Geneticists and venture capital cannot bypass the laws of physics and chemistry. BP ( BP ) apparently saw the writing on the wall last October when it suspended plans to build a commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel plant in Florida . KiOR and INEOS Bio are having their turn at figuring it out the hard way right now. Next up with planned commercial-scale plants are Abengoa ( ABGOY.PK ) and DuPont ( DD ). A recent trend in cellulosic ethanol plants, as evidenced by INEOS and Abengoa, is to build natural gas co-generation facilities instead of pure cellulosic biorefineries. This author suspects the plants are being built this way because these companies are coming to grips with the truth of cellulosic ethanol above and are positioning themselves to convert to compete in the natural-gas-to-liquid (NGTL) fuel race as Coskata and Primus have already done. NGTL is another topic for another article, but suffice it to say that it is a far more viable pathway to commercially competitive liquid fuel than cellulosic ethanol. Investors would do well to make their plays anticipating that no company relying exclusively on bulk liquid fuel sales from cellulosic biomass feedstock will ever see profitability. KiOR, like Cello and Range Fuels, has nothing to fall back on and is irretrievable. INEOS Bio may find a way to eke out a living as a landfill methane-powered electricity and heat plant, but not as a bulk liquid biofuel vendor. Abengoa and DuPont’s biorefinery efforts are ill-advised and will never make any honest profit for their parent companies. The only scheme for survival of such plants is with taxpayer help in the form of direct federal subsidies for their product in combination with selective additional taxes on their competitors. So far EPA RINs and blending mandates have proven inadequate to compensate for the inherent energy deficit of cellulosic ethanol. Even a steep carbon tax is unlikely to shift the scales enough to make cellulosic ethanol competitive, and it will certainly never be able to compete with corn ethanol or sugarcane ethanol if all are getting the same federal financial and regulatory assistance. In Europe, the standards for claiming “renewability” for liquid fuels are getting tighter . If that trend crosses the Atlantic, it will further hinder liquid biofuels by exposing their true lifecycle GHG emissions and large fossil fuel energy content. The liquid biofuels sector is living on taxpayer-funded life support and cannot survive without it. KiOR is proving once again that cellulosic ethanol cannot survive, even with it.[/color][/color] Continue reading
Economic Feasibility of Sustainable Non-Food Biodiesel: Castor
Economic Feasibility of Sustainable Non-Food Biodiesel: Castor Economic Feasibility of Sustainable Non-Food Feedstock Based Biodiesel Production: Castor Bean Biodiesel Business Academy Global Knowledge Platform for a Sustainable Future CENTER FOR JATROPHA PROMOTION & BIODIESEL Building a sustainable biodiesel industry TELE: +91 141 2335839 FAX: + 91 141 2335968 CELL: +91 9413343550 E-Mail jatrophacurcas@gmail.com URL http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org In a previous articles titled Economic Feasibility of Sustainable Non-Food Feedstock Based Biodiesel Production: Part 1 Part 2 and Part 3, we covered how Pongamia Pinnata, Moringa and Simarouba glauca are going to be sustainable low cost feed stock to build a profitable biodiesel industry. In this article we are going to discuss the potentiality of Castor Bean: cut carbon and fuel the future Biofuels are becoming big policy and big business as countries around the world look to decrease petroleum dependence, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector, and support agricultural interests. After more than a decade of healthy growth for conventional biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel, the next wave of advanced biofuels is currently on the cusp of commercial scale-up. Biofuels have already helped the world achieve a tangible reduction in emissions as global CO2 emissions are forecast to rise by as much as 50 per cent over the next 25 years. Nevertheless, the world has come a long way, especially since the original Kyoto Protocol . Numerous countries have adopted mandated bio-content requirements for traffic fuels, for example. Considerable technological progress has also been made, in terms of new refining processes, new types of feedstock, and completely new energy sources. While some of these developments will be important for society two or three decades from now, the ones that call for the most attention are those that can help us start making a difference today. Making more of a difference today Biofuels offer the most direct route available today for reducing traffic-related emissions of CO2 and are already widely available. The future success of the biofuels industry will depend on a number of factors and learning experiences. No easy challenge, it must be admitted, but a necessary one all the same. The number one priority is that the raw materials required to produce biofuels are likely to remain more expensive than crude oil for the foreseeable future. Without this, industry will be unable – and ultimately unwilling – to make the type of investments needed, not only in capacity based on the best existing technology but also in new conversion technologies that can make use of a broad range of globally available feedstock..The degree to which the promotion of biofuels enters into competition with food production, raising questions of food security, depends on a variety of factors: Choice of feedstock; Natural resources involved (especially land and water); Relative efficiencies (yields, costs, GHG emissions) of different feedstocks; Processing technologies adopted. Concern over competition between biofuels and food production has been particularly acute given the overwhelming use of food and feed crops for both ethanol and biodiesel. Several measures are suggested for mitigating this problem. Among them, recommending a low cost input technology for cultivating hardy perennial crops that can grow well even with erratic and low rainfall, still giving assured returns is of great significance. In this context, cultivation of Castor Bean that can grow well under a wide range of hostile ecological conditions, offers a great hope. Castor bean, an annual oil crop, produces a seed that contains approximately 50 percent oil. The oil is of a high quality and there is a growing market for it among biodiesel manufacturers. The oil also has wide ranging applications in the industrial bio-chemical sector. As part of our quest to develop and market sustainable biofuels that have a minimal impact on food supplies and can help us make tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we’re investing in a number of promising research projects. Research and development programme at Center for Jatropha Promotion & Biodiesel (CJP) focuses on the 17 primary non-food sources of biodiesels —out of which seven namely Jatropha, Jojoba, Castor, Pongamia, Moringa, Castor Bean and Microalgae have been tried, tested that adequate amount of each type of feedstock that could be sustainably produced and utilized across the globe without compromising the fertility of agricultural soils, displacing land needed to grow our food, or threatening the health of our farms and forests. Future biodiesel production should be sourced from crop feedstock’s such as moringa, pongamia and castor that can be grown on marginal land. This will ensure establishment of a sustainable biodiesel industry that will not compete for land and other resources with the rest of the agricultural sector that produces food and fibre. In addition, sustainable biodiesel production will rely significantly on the capacity to run economically viable and profitable operations that will be resilient to fluctuations in fossil and non-fossil fuel prices, and government policies in relation to renewable energy and carbon emission reductions.Biofuel policies have been successful in developing an economic sector and a market. There are now more than 60 countries that have developed biofuel policies. Given the increasing price of fossil fuels and more efficient production, biofuels, or at least some of them, will be competitive even without public support. Increasingly it will be the market rather than policies that will drive the development of the sector. About the Plant Castor (Ricinus communis L.) is cultivated around the world because of the commercial importance of its oil. India is the world’s largest producer of castor seed and meets most of the global demand for castor oil. India produces around 1 million tonnes of castor seed annually, and accounting for more than 60% of the entire global production. Because of its unlimited industrial applications, castor oil enjoys tremendous demand world‐wide. The current consumption of Castor Oil and its derivatives in the domestic market is estimated at about 300,000 tonnes. India is also the biggest exporter of castor oil and its derivatives at 87% share of the international trade in this commodity. Castor is an important non‐edible oilseed crop and is grown especially in arid and semi arid region. It is originated in the tropical belt of both India and Africa. It is cultivated in different countries on commercial scale, of which India, China and Brazil is major castor growing countries accounting for 90 per cent of the worldʹs production. Historically, Brazil, China and India have been the key producing countries meeting global requirements. However, in early 90’s, Brazilian farmers moved away to more lucrative cash crops, and surge in domestic demand in China made them net importers, leaving India to meet the global demand. Cultivation Pattern Castor crop needs a tropical type of climate to develop. That’s why the castor is largely found in the countries lying in the tropical belt of the world. BENEFITS Castor Oil’s application range is very wide ‐ the uses range from cosmetics, paints, synthetic resins & varnishes, to the areas of national security involving engineering plastics, jet engine lubricants and polymers for electronics and telecommunications. Castor is a versatile, renewable resource having vast and varied applications such as lubricating grease, surfactants, surface coatings, telecom, engineering plastics, pharma, rubber chemicals, nylons, etc. Castor oil and its derivatives find major application in soaps, lubricants, grease, hydraulic brake fluids and polymers and perfumery products. The primary use of castor oil is as a basic ingredient in the production of nylon 11, jet engine lubricants, nylon 6‐10, heavy duty automotive greases, coatings and inks, surfactants, polyurethanes, soaps, polishes, flypapers, lubricants, and many other chemical derivatives and medicinal, pharmaceutical and cosmetic derivatives. The seeds and residual cake are highly poisonous and unless processed to remove the poisons cannot be fed to livestock. In some countries the cake is used as a fertilizer. Poisons contained in the cake include ricin. Castor is a plant that is commercially very important to the world. Castor seed oil cake is very useful manure to crops. Castor Cake is an excellent fertilizer because of high content of N (6.4%), Phosphoric Acid (2.55%) and Potash (1%) and moisture retention.which is suitable for cultivation of Paddy, Wheat, Maize and Sugarcane. Castor Oil Castor oil is obtained by pressing the seeds, followed by solvent extraction of the pressed cake. Castor Oil is one of the world’s most useful and economically important natural plant oils. India supplies 70% of the world’s requirements of castor oil. This oil is unique among vegetable oils and uniqueness is derives from the presence of a hydroxyl fatty acid known as ricinoleic acid (12‐ hydroxyl‐cis‐9‐octadecenoic acid) which constitute around 90% of the total fatty acids of the oil. Castor Oil is also distinguished from other vegetable oils by its high specific gravity, thickness and hydroxyl value.Castor oil is used either in its crude form, or in the refined hydrogenated form. Typically, 65% of it is processed. About 28% is refined, 12% is hydrogenated, 20% is dehydrated, and the balance 5% is processed to manufacture other derivatives. The major derivatives of Castor oil used in the industry– hydrogenated castor oil (HCO), Dehydrated castor oil (DCO), Sebacic acid etc. Carbon Credit The castor Plants act as sinks for carbon dioxide as Castor bean plants capture around 10 tons of carbon dioxide for every hectare (2.471 acres) planted and, hence, the Ricinus communis plantation will reduce the amount of this greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. Given the widespread presence and ease of cultivation of the Castor Bean oil plant it could be cultivated in conjunction with subsistence agriculture programs as a potential oilseed feedstock for biodiesel. Food v Fuel & Castor Bean As per a recent report of World Bank, the rising crude oil prices are the biggest contributor to rising food prices. In the production and distribution of food, oil is used in everything from fertilizer production to powering farm equipment and transporting the food to consumers. In such context the World Bank report suggests that to stem rising food prices, the widespread famine inflicted on the world’s poorest countries, and the economic hardship exacted on the poor and working-class within the developed world, we must control oil prices. Further, the study carried out at CJP reveals that Castor Bean seed oil has good nutritional profile and other physico-chemical properties which got improved after the process of refining; therefore it can be used as a potential oil seed resource for edible purpose and bio-fuel production. Castor Bean as a source of biodiesel The Ricinus communis biodiesel meets all the three criteria any environmentally sustainable fuel must meet. These are social, technical and commercial. The seeds from the Ricinus communis Plant contain in excess of 45% oil. Castor seed oil is being used widely for various purposes. It is used as a lubricant in high-speed engines and aero planes, in the manufacture of soaps, transparent paper, printing-inks, varnishes, linoleum and plasticizers. It is also used for medicinal and lighting purposes. The cake is used as manure and plant stalks as fuel or as thatching material or for preparing paper-pulp. In the silk-producing areas, leaves are fed to the silkworms. Now the main use of the oil will be as bio fuel and for the production of biodiesel. This oil has an ash content of about 0.02% and the percentage of sulfur is less than 0.04%.The higher the cetane number (CN), the better the fuel will be when used as a diesel. The CN of the majority of biodiesel fuels is actually higher than petrol or diesel, and the cetane number of castor oil biodiesel is in a good range for diesel engines. The castor biodiesel has very interesting properties (very low cloud and pour points) that show that this fuel is very suitable for using in extreme winter temperatures. The project has many other positive economic, social and environmental impacts: There are income generation opportunities that result from the project like the provision of goods and services to the cultivation and its workers Yield Estimates: Castor Bean Yield is a function of light, water, nutrients and the age of the Plant. Good planning, quality planting material, standardized agronomy practices and good crop management may handsomely increase the yields. Ricinus communis will yield at Maturity as high as +1000 kl oil with proper nutrition, and irrigation. This is truly an exceptional amount of oil from an agricultural crop. ILUC discussion and Castor Bean The ILUC effect has become a controversial issue in international debates but also in some national debates. Many studies have shown there is enough land available to produce more food, more feed and more biofuels. According to FAO using the GAEZ classification of land types, there is a gross balance of 3.2 billion ha of prime and good land not used for growing crops, leaving a net balance of 1.4 billion ha, after subtracting built-up areas, forests and protected areas. Though the discussion of indirect land use change (ILUC) caused by biofuels is not scientifically supported, the Castor Bean does not cause land use change. It is an annual crop and grown in arid and semi arid regions. Biodiesel can make a large contribution to the world’s future energy requirements; this is a resource we cannot ignore. The challenge is to harness it on an environmentally and economically sustainable manner and without compromising food security. Economics: Cost & benefit ratio Castor farming is being developed by CJP in conjunction with Pongamia Pinnata and Indian mustard, and has shown to be a heartier and higher yielding variety as companion crop. Being a companion crop, castor bean can give the grower the ability to double crop and earn more — it’s like adding a second shift to the factory of agriculture. The double oil crop adds to the farmer’s income, creates jobs in the crushing operations, and the oil derived from the seed will help decrease foreign oil dependency. It’s a very attractive proposition for all stakeholders involved. Vast scope exists for exploitation of castor as a bioenergy crop although there are still some technological challenges to overcome. A combination of conventional breeding methods with biotechnological techniques provides newer routes for designing oils for biofuel purpose.Non-food castor will produce enough oil in the double-crop environment with Pongamia, simarouba or Indian mustard. The Castor Bean Biodiesel can be produced less than US$ 39 per barrel, detailed economics are here . Estimates of yields, prices and cost vary greatly, making it difficult for potential growers to make informed investment decisions about growing the crop. We identify the key elements in growing castor and examine their effects. We also provide accurate information about the crop for potential castor investors and growers after performing feasibility studies. BBA’S Next 6th 5 day Global Jatropha Hi-tech Integrated Nonfood Biodiesel Farming & Technology Training Programme in India from September 23-27, 2013 is all set to introduce you to the real world of nonfood biodiesel crops and business. Attendees shall also have the opportunity to explore castor crop science, agronomy and its cultivation technology etc. as these have also been included in the course. To find out more about JATROPHAWORLD 2013 please visit w ww.jatrophabiodiesel.org . As seats are limited in 6th Global Jatropha World 2013, register now. One can contact Coordinator Programme on M +91 9829423333 or mail to sign up for the event early and secure your place without delay. The next issue Part 5 shall be focused on “ Jojoba: Diesel from Desert Shrub” Director (Training) Biodiesel Business Academy T +91 141 2335839 F: +91 141 2335968 M- +91 982943333, www.jatrophabiodiesel.org Continue reading
