Developing Oil Fright

The past few weeks have made the developing supply crisis in oil crystal clear to everyone. The fact that I was able to predict this scenario a few months past did not require any prescience on my part. I only had to overcome everyone else’s state of denial. And now, the consumers are beginning to change their consumption habits.

The $130 price for a barrel of oil is quite sufficient to encourage a maximum effort to expand production and to expand replacement sources. A jump to $300 per barrel is unnecessary or that but will likely happen briefly if we have a surprise. By that I mean an unexpected drop of two million barrels per day. Such an event may not happen this year or even next year, and if we can get past that, other patches can kick in.

Right now a lot of folks are actually sitting down and doing the supply analysis and all you see are glum faces. The fact is that this crisis will not be magically fixed by turning on a well somewhere. That option has evaporated and with pending declines everywhere, supply has to be found by emergency replacement from non oil sources.

Even with the advent of THAI oil production and a number of important new fields, the industry can only hope to keep pace with the developing decline. To put it more succinctly, we are on the verge of losing roughly around 10,000,000 barrels per day of production over the next several years and I am likely still sugar coating the story. I think that we can bring on around this much new production with the aforementioned resources, after which the THAI technology could well be able to keep pace with further declines for some time.

The good news for us is that most of this will be focused in North America, permitting us the luxury of sort of controlling our destiny. So although we are going through an uncomfortable readjustment, the transition will be long and drawn out

The new emergency reserve supply is coming from the conversion of the transportation fleet over to LNG engines. This will easily release 15,000,000 barrels of oil per day globally and can be done almost overnight. In fact California is well on way to doing this and has begun to force the infrastructure. It is good to see that at least one group of politicians are not in denial. The point that I am making is that the USA can release millions of barrels of daily oil back into the market in probably less than two years by the simple expedient of a slight engine modification and a few tanks and tankers. The recent rise of diesel prices will force the truckers to make the switch as fast as they can.

I should mention that globally there are massive supplies of LNG for the asking. This is a direct result of a market that has been limited to pipeline distribution to meet the low end market of home heating. Transportation fuel readily can justify the economics of hauling it around in cryogenic tanks. I observe that LNG produces a steady supply of boil-off gas that needs to be shoved into a local pipeline if it is not immediately burned. We can live with all that with a lot of common sense applied.

The other big fix that is been suggested is the simple expedient of making all new automobile engines able to switch on demand to ethanol. That industry is still shy of a few solutions, but establishing capability is the first step to driving demand and supply. I have little doubt that ethanol supplies will begin to climb. I will be posting tomorrow on a discovery that I have recently made for a huge new ethanol feedstock that is likely capable of replacing all our gasoline.

Biochar in the Garden

Phillip small is developing this FAQ on the application of biochar to the home garden. Although a work in progress, as it must be with the current state of knowledge, It covers enough to give a new user a running start.

The evidence to date supports spending a fair amount of effort to produce a finely powdered product. In fact I would get the appropriate screen and simply use only the fines in the garden. This of course will prove a little difficulty with commercial wood charcoal were the fines have already been cleaned out.

Everyone is discovering that crushing wood charcoal is not easy or convenient.

If one actually has an efficient retort working on a pyrolysis gas fuel system, then we have the option of using non wood plant material as a feed stock which immediately solves the problem. The pollen evidence and the additional likelihood that the original terra preta was cooked up in earthen kilns formed out of corn stalks and their root pads informs us that the original biochar protocol did exactly this.

In the meantime, crushing wood charcoal is the available option. Laying down a ground sheet to capture the charcoal powder on a concrete slab, then a layer of charcoal and then a plywood sheet, creates a crush zone. Driving your car back and forth over the sheet may do some good. Making use of a drop weight while standing on the panel is the next option we may want to try.

What you will learn is that as fineness goes up, so does energy expenditure at a much faster rate. Welcome to the world of mining and milling.

The reason this all works is because the surface of elemental carbon grabs and holds nutrients until a root cell arrives with its biological entourage and extracts the nutrient away from the carbon. The nutrient so bound can not escape into the mobile drainage system. Obviously a root will have difficulty penetrating a large chunk of charcoal.

As yet no one is marketing powdered charcoal as such, although that can not be far off. That will be followed very quickly with fertilizer blending. In the meantime it is pure do-it-yourself.

In terms of application, I would blend five pounds of powder in ten to twenty pounds of soil with fertilizer and use that to set seeds in mini hills of the blend. That way you are not treating the huge amount of area that lies in between the seed beds.

This should maximize immediate results for the home gardener.

I would particularly like to see this tested in this manner on the clearly poorer soils. Fine loamy soils barely need the assistance. Former desert soils most certainly do. And there are plenty of urban lots in which removed topsoil was never properly restored. At least with this protocol, the home owner has a method for soil restoration that compliments and supports any thing else he may try.

A really interesting experiment would be to plant alfalfa in a very thin top dressing that included fifteen percent biochar on a subsoil base. It is the nature of alfalfa to run a root system both deep and broad while also fixing nitrogen. This penetrates the sub soil with organic material on an ongoing basis. The top dressing holds the soluble nutrients also needed. The question that we are really asking here is whether this protocol is able to produce a viable top soil quickly. While this is going on, it may be possible to harvest the alfalfa and perhaps aerate the top three inches. Obviously any now barren non productive field could be used for this experiment and I expect the carbon to counter even salinity by sequestering the salts into the carbon.

The important point is that the initial top dressing does not need to be very thick, although more will be clearly better. But if you have an impossible soil, getting anything to set up and establish itself is a blessing. The established root material will then start the process of rehabilitating the soil. After that it is a matter of how much of a hurry you are in. An established alfalfa field providing a steady and improving supply of fodder is at least nicely carrying itself.

Welcome to a Gardening with Biochar FAQ!

... a work in progress...

When gardeners add biochar to garden soil, we are, in effect attempting to follow in the footsteps of the originators of Terra Preta. Because we don't know exactly how that process worked, nor how we can best adapt it outside its area of origin, we are left to discover much of this by experimenting with our own gardens and comparing observations within our own communities.

1.0 What is Biochar?

Biochar is charcoal formed by low temperature pyrolysis. Medium temperature pyrolysis produces a more traditional charcoal, high temperature pyrolysis produces activated charcoal. Ideally biochar is made in a way that achieves maximal woodgas condensate retention.

1.01 How does biochar relate to agrichar and to Terra Preta?

Agrichar is a synonym for biochar. This material was fundamental to the creation of Terra Preta de Indio, as it is to creating its modern equivalent, Terra Preta Nova. Terra Preta "Classic" was made by adding charcoal, broken pottery shards along with the organic fertilizer amendments. This, in conjunction with the microbial ecology occurring in these soils, resulted in an incredibly fertile soil, and a reputation for self-regeneration.

1.02 What is pyrolysis?

Pyrolysis is a chemical decomposition of organic materials by heating in the absence of oxygen. This releases heat energy and yields combustable gases (aka syngas, wood gas, and producer gas) and charcoal. The charcoal produced is a combination of black carbon, along with small amounts of woodgas condensate and ash.

1.03 What temperature range is considered "low temperature" in the context of biochar?

The theoretical low end of the range approaches 120 deg C, the lowest temperature at which wood will char, (Reference) thus the temperature at the pyrolysis front. A more practical low end is to use the piloted ignition temperature of wood, typically 350 deg C. (Reference) The theoretical high end, between biochar and more traditional charcoal, depends on the process and feedstock used, but is seldom indicated in excess of 600 deg C.

1.04 Can I substitute other forms of charcoal for biochar?

Yes, up to a point. The woodgas condensates in biochar give it considerable value, but that is not to imply that using simple charcoal, or charcoal made from other than plant materials, won't produce some, and even most, of the same benefits. It is normally adviseable to avoid charcoal briquetttes because the binders used during manufacture can add undesireable constituents.

1.05 Why are the condensates valuable?

We believe this to be the case because higher temperature charcoal does not produce as much of an observed beneficial effect.

1.06 Is biochar made from hardwood best?

Biochar made from hardwood is richer in condensates when compared to biochar made from softer wood, from bamboo and from less woody vegetation. The fact that hardwoods were readily available to the originators of Terra Preta de Indio has not escaped the attention of Terra Preta enthusiasts.

1.07 Where can I join in with this community of Terra Preta enthusiasts?

1. Bioenergy lists: Terra Preta: the intentional use of charcoal in soils.
2. Bioenergy lists: Terrapreta -- Discussion of terra preta, the intentional placement of charcoal in soil.
3. Hypography Science Forums: Terra Preta

2.0 How do I Get Biochar?

You can purchase biochar, purchase a charcoal substitute, or you can make it yourself.

2.01 Where can I purchase biochar?

Currently manufactured biochar is in short supply and is needed for research projects. The alternative is to purchase charcoal and use it as a biochar substitute. Cowboy brand hardwood charcoal is available in the United States in 20 pound bags by the pallet, about 600 pounds, for less than US $ 0.7/lb. For larger amounts, as in a shipping container, consider coconut shell charcoal, available for less than US $ 300/mt. Worth repeating: It is normally advisable to avoid charcoal briquettes because the binders used during manufacture can add undesirable constituents.

2.02 How do I make biochar?

While colliers the world over normally use either a covered pit or a covered mound (earth kiln) to make charcoal, most gardeners will want to start with an easier method that works at a smaller scale. Home pyrolysis is pretty easy to accomplish and a bottom lit burn barrel is the common starting point. Make sure the openings at the base of the barrel are large enough. Light it off, give it an occasional shake to settle the fuel, and, when done, pop a cover on it or douse it with water. The burn in all of these approaches can produce a fair amount of smoke and partially combusted gases. Out of concern for air quality, many gardeners may prefer not to use these approaches.

2.03 What are some less smokey approaches to making biochar for the gardener?

Choose your feedstock wisely. No matter what technique you use to make charcoal, choosing uniformly sized, dry woody material produces the highest yields. Uniformity is one reason that colliers will routinely use coppiced hardwoods.

Inverted Downdraft Gassification. For a cleaner burning configuration, consider a Top Lit Updraft (TLUD) technique, also referred to as an inverted downdraft gassification. The technique looks simple but in reality it involves some fairly sophisticated physics (PDF). That doesn't prevent success using common materials and dead simple design. Take that same open barrel configuration, tweak the design per the afformentioned physics involved, and now light it from the top instead of the bottom. This takes a different skill set than lighting from the bottom but its also not that difficult to master. A little vaseline or ethanol on a cotton ball can work wonders for starting up. Once the fire gets going, the top layer of wood burns, creating charcoal, naturally. The heat from the charcoal layer burning heats the wood below it, and ignites it, but at a lower temperature sufficient for pyrolysis. The gases released by pyrolysis (carbon dioxide and water) flow through the charcoal layer. Glowingly hot charcoal has a wonderous ability to strip oxygen molecules from of anything that passes over it, so it converts the water into hydrogen, and the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide. These two gases are flammable and they are ignited once mixed with air coming into the top of the open barrel above the charcoal layer. The result is a scrubbed gas-fed flame that is much more controlled, and which burns substantially cleaner and hotter than can be achieved with the bottom lit burn barrel. (Source). The lack of oxygen below the combustion zone is impedes loss of the charcoal despite the high temperature flame immediately above it. This alows biochar to build up faster than it is consumed, at least until the pyrolysis zone reaches the bottom of the fuel column.

A handy TLUD fired Retort. The retort process works by restricting the air supply to the target feed stock for the duration of the burn. An outside heat source pyrolizes the retort contents, small openings in the retort allow wood gas to escape, but restrict the flow of oxygen in. While capable of very high yield efficiency, the open flame used to fire the retort is not as clean as can be achieved with an inverted downdraft gassifier. A common further inefficiency with smaller retorts is that much of the wood gas generated from the retort can end up not being burned. Folk Gunther's hybrid TLUD/retort demonstrates a simple configuration that neatly addresses these concerns.

2.04 What are some higher volume but less smokey approaches to making biochar for the garden?

While TLUD's can get fairly large [Link needed], a large TLUD/Retort is less practical, than a large drum retort.

A Large Drum Retort. [Expand]

The Wood Vinegar Kiln. [Expand]

2.05 How much charcoal yield can I expect?

On a dry matter weight basis, as well as an energy basis, between 20 percent, for the top lit open barrel approach, and 60 percent, for a retort under ideal conditions. 50 percent is a reasonable goal. [Sources needed]

2.06 What can I burn to make biochar?

Any reasonably dry and clean burnable feedstock will work. Woody plant material is the primary candidate. Bones are also a traditional component in Terra Preta, but one we don't know as much about. Other materials can be used conditionally.

2.07 What do I need to consider in making biochar from other than woody plant materials?

The two considerations are, what additional contaminants are being carried off as pyrolysis gas during the burn, and what contaminants are present in the ash component of the charcoal produced.

2.08 What refractory materials can I use to make a kiln? a retort?

2.09 What gases does pyrolysis produce?

2.10 How much heat does pyrolysis produce?

2.11 Is biochar worth more as a fuel than as a soil amendment?

2.12 Is biochar worth more as a fuel than its value for offsetting greenhouse gases?

2.13 What do I do if I make more biochar than I can use?

Craigslist.

3.0 How do I prepare the biochar once I've made it?

You can use it as is, especially if it is a small amount. For larger amounts, the choices are to crush, screen, add liquids, add dry materials, and to compost it.

3.01 Why would I need to prepare the biochar, as opposed to applying it as is?

There are several reasons that might apply to your situation. [Expand, obviously]

3.02 What size should the biochar be?

3.03 What are some ways to crush and screen biochar?

[For crushing, I am leaning to a mortor and pestle approach: a 5 cm dia hardwood trunk 2 m long and a 20 liter bucket with a plywood insert in the bottom.

For screening, I think a sloped screen works better than a horizontal screen for higher volumes.]

3.04 What can I do to make the biochar easier to crush?

Wetting and drying it seems to help. Crushing it with a little moisture in it helps to control dust.

3.05 Besides water, what else can I soak the biochar in?

Yes. Compost tea, MiracleGro (TM), fish emulsion, urine, ....

3.06 Can I add biochar to compost?

Yes. This will help temper the biochar. For the added benefit of odor control, consider topping off each addition to the household kitchen scrap collector with a healthy layer of biochar.

3.07 Will biochar affect the compost process?

Casual observation indicates that adding fine, untempered biochar may accelerate the composting process.

3.05 Will biochar harm the worms in my compost?

Anecdotal accounts indicate that worms tolerate up to xx% charcoal, above which reduced worm activity can occur.

3.08 Can I use biochar in my composting toilet?

Yes. Again, the added benefit of odor control is compelling.

3.09

4.0 How do I apply Biochar?

4.01 What materials combine well with biochar for application?

4.02 How is biochar generally used

4.03 What is the normal application rate for biochar?

4.04 Are there benefits to deeper placement?

4.05 Are there benefits to using biochar as a mulch?

4.06

5.0 What happens after biochar is in the soil?

5.01 Does biochar affect soil pH?

5.02 Does biochar increase soil CEC and Base Saturation?

5.03 Does biochar improve soil moisture characteristics?

5.04 Can biochar have a harmfull effect on my soil or on my garden?

5.05 Does biochar affect soil ecology?

5.06 Does biochar improve plant growth?

5.07 How much improved plant growth can I expect?

5.08 How much carbon dioxide does sequestered biochar offset?

5.09 How much nitrous oxide formation does biochar prevent?

Soil scientist Lucas Van Zweiten has observed a 5 to 10 fold reduction in nitrous oxide emmissions with some of the biochars he is working with in an agricultural setting. Generally, soil with elevated soil nitrate levels in the presence of sufficient moisture and robust soil organic matter will have higher nitrous oxide production, and thus will be more likely to benefit at the levels observed by Van Zweiten.

5.10

Andrew Freedman and Sea Ice

Those tracking this summer’s sea ice melt can see that it is the retreat on the eastern edge is well ahead of past seasons, while the western edge is showing little change as yet. This is hardly surprising considering the massive retreat of last year.

This past winter created a thicker than expected first year ice, but the melting taking place appears to also have been faster this April. In short, I see nothing stopping the removal of most of last years sea ice this summer. Then if the winds rise, we will catch another sharp reduction in the remaining sea ice this August. The scientists are quite right to quote short odds on this event.

I observe also that there will be a number of cruise ships standing by to run the Northwest Passage. That will still need a cooperative wind at the best, but we certainly could have done it last year. I wonder if there will be any brave merchant ships making the attempt? I suspect it will not be permitted yet.

We continue to get froth over the polar bears, primarily driven by the need of environmentalists for a salable cause. The bears can essentially hibernate a full five months as they must do in southern Hudson’s Bay. At this moment, even that is still covered with ice, although I am pretty sure it is pretty rotten now. Anywhere further north they are still feeding and will be largely retreating to land now as the ice continues to fail. Their hibernation period is more like three months. Also the observation that the bears are getting slightly smaller is a strong indicator of overpopulation problems, since the population has sharply expanded over the past forty years.

We need to actually declare the Blue fin Tuna as endangered since it is in decline thanks to aggressive over fishing. Oh well!

Andrew Freedman: Arctic Sea Ice May Set Record Low

The Interior Department's decision last week to list the polar bear as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may soon be seen as either a prescient move, or possibly even as too little too late, if scientists' ominous predictions for this summer's Arctic sea ice melt and for future seasons prove correct. A number of predictions have been issued in the past several months, all indicating that 2008 has at least a decent chance of beating out 2007 for the title of the greatest summer sea ice loss on record.

In fact, some experts have concluded that the North Pole itself may be covered by water, rather than ice, during the peak of the annual melt season at the end of the summer, and that the Northwest Passage could be ice-free for a time as well.

The recent predictions offer an unsettling picture of the astonishing rate of environmental changes that have been taking place in the far north. Sea ice loss also puts the pace of climate change policymaking into perspective, since there is a stark disparity between the rapidly melting Arctic and the slow pace of Washington policymakers.

An examination of new information about Arctic sea ice dynamics illustrates this point. According to recent analyses of Arctic sea ice, the ice that is entering the 2008 summer melt season is thinner and younger than the ice that melted like butter on a frying pan last summer. With sea ice, the opposite of the Hollywood ideal of young and thin is desirable, since new and thin ice melts more rapidly than thicker, older ice.

Late last month, University of Colorado at Boulder researchers found that only two percent of Arctic sea ice was older than normal (defined in that study as the period between 1982 to 2007), while 63 percent was younger than average. Consistent with this assessment, National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) researchers reported in April that first-year ice covered a whopping 72 percent of the Arctic Basin, including the area around the North Pole. The NSIDC noted that Arctic sea ice had recovered in terms of geographic extent from last summer's record melt, but that last summer's decline was so large that there was precious little older ice left over to build up during the winter.

Recent atmospheric conditions have also contributed to the Arctic sea ice's young and thin problem, including a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation in which pressure patterns steer storms farther north, bringing stronger surface westerly winds in the North Atlantic and warmer and wetter than normal conditions to the Arctic and northern Europe. Such winds helped to flush older ice out of the region this winter, leaving a large expanse of younger and thinner ice to enter the 2008 melt season. Last summer, unusually sunny weather during portions of the summer season contributed to the record melt.

Although it remains to be seen whether atmospheric and ocean conditions will combine to create another record sea ice melt this year, most predictions indicate that there is a high likelihood that this year's melt season will at least result in well below average Arctic sea ice extent (average here refers to the 1979-2000 period).

"Even if more first-year ice survives than normal, the September minimum extent this year will likely be extremely low," the NSIDC stated on April 7.

The University of Colorado's sea ice forecast indicated that there is a three-in-five chance that the 2007 record low for Arctic sea ice extent will be exceeded this year due to the combination of warming temperatures and the preponderance of younger, thinner ice. And the NSIDC has declared that it is "quite possible" that the North Pole will be ice free during this melt season.

According to a study published in February in Geophysical Research Letters, computer model predictions show a 50 percent chance that the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage will be "nearly ice free" in September of 2008. The study indicated that sea ice loss this year is likely to progress more slowly than last year, and reach a low but not necessarily record-breaking minimum.

The NSIDC's May 5 sea ice news and analysis stated that only 30 percent of first-year ice typically survives the summer melt season, compared to a 75 percent survival rate for older ice. NSIDC scientists compared survival rates from past years with the 2008 April sea ice coverage and determined that in order to avoid breaking last year's record, more than 50 percent of this year's first-year ice would need to make it through the melt season. To put this into further perspective, only 13 percent of first-year ice survived last year's record melt.

Last year, sea ice melted to a record low that far exceeded 2005's record melt. In September of 2007 (September marks the end of the summer melt season), the sea ice cover was 23 percent below the 2005 level and 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000.

The melt was so rapid last year that, according to Sheldon Drobot of the University of Colorado, during a two-week period the area of sea ice lost was equivalent to losing the area of Kansas every day.
Scientists blame human emissions of greenhouse gases for much of the Arctic sea ice decline, but natural factors are also at work in the region, such as variations in ocean currents and atmospheric cycles including the Arctic Oscillation. The interactions between natural cycles and human influences is a key research area during the current International Polar Year.

Whether or not sea ice cover hits a new record low this year, however, it's likely that the overall decline in sea ice will have negative repercussions on polar bears and other ice-dependent species. This is, of course, the reason for the Interior Department's begrudging polar bear listing last week. The Interior Department's press release stated as much when it said, "loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species."

However, assuming a strong relationship exists between sea ice loss and species decline, after looking at the latest predictions and the recent Arctic sea ice data, I wonder how soon it will be before polar bears are pushed into the endangered category. Hopefully policymakers will catch up to the scientists, who are themselves struggling to stay abreast of the rapidly changing environment. According to NSIDC, one sea ice expert, Ron Lindsay of the University of Washington, has cautioned that "sea ice conditions are now changing so rapidly that predictions based on relationships developed from the past 50 years of data may no longer apply." In other words, we're now in uncharted territory.

Krassen Dimitrov on Algae Economics

This is a posting by Krassen Dimitrov, Ph.D. who has also published a very detailed case study on the economics of algae biodiesel production. This however carries the gist of his arguments and perhaps a bit more entertaining. I found the case study very welcome.

Much as one would like to see algae converting smoke stack CO2 into biodiesel, this work by Dimitrov makes short work of the economics and pretty well sets impossible goal posts for a real commercial algae industry. He also supplies the missing analysis in the work of the algae proponents that I was looking for. As usual, financial enthusiasm is forcing the pace rather than meaningful field results.

So what can be physically salvaged from this technology? The reason for asking this is that cleaning up the stack gas and then directly consuming the CO2 is by itself a laudable objective in its own right. As I posted earlier, scrubbing out the particulates, capturing the waste heat and also reducing the SOx and NOx into acids are all possible, leaving us only with CO2 to deal with. It is just not been done that way and likely will not be done until we can also deal with the CO2.

My hope listening to the algae proponents was that it might even be easy. This makes it looks like mission impossible.

That really leaves us with one remaining strategy. It is to compress the cleaned up CO2, also releasing most of the heat for which we hopefully have some use and then piping it rather than dumping it. Once in a pipe, geological sequestration is at least possible at a location independent of the power plant. This also permits transport to bioreactors and greenhouses that can use some CO2.

We are adding a cost to all thermal plants that is actually acceptable and also sound management. If we implement such a protocol nationally, then no advantage is given and the producers can simply get down to the business of doing it all as cheaply as possible.

It would still have been neat to use this primary source of CO2 as a feedstock for the production of biodiesel and that may yet somehow come to pass. It is just that the obvious ideas and their obvious improvements are not nearly good enough.

Krassen Dimitrov posted:

Our friends at GreenFuel have updated their website with a new FAQ, so it is time for an update.How much FUEL from GreenFuel?

In the news: Even old pal Saudi Arabia is giving the finger to America’s first MBA president and won’t pump more oil out. Let’s hurry with this algae greenfuel; when will GreenFuel turn the spigot on?
There is no spigot! In a refreshing change from before, GreenFuel is starting to present a more realistic picture of its potential to address the fuel crisis.

For starters, we have now a public and very clear estimate of the oil yields that they think can be achieved: ~5,500 gal/acre/yr, which comes to ~1.36 gal /sq.m/yr. As you remember we estimated 1.26 gal/ sq.m./yr The company was started on assumptions of 11 gal/sq.m., which as we know is thermodynamically impossible. So it’s good to have this one settled.

OK, so 1.26-1.36 gal/sq.m/yr. How much in total? GreenFuel says that they plan on having a commercial scale “farm” - which is defined as 100 hectares or more - in the next few years. 100 ha is a very nice number, it comes to 1 sq.km and could produce:1,000,000 sq.m. x 1.36 gal/sq.m. / (42 gal/bbl x 365days) = 88 bbl/day (bpd)

Incidentally, the world consumes 88 MILLION bbl/day! So not much fuel relief from GreenFUEL and to their credit the new FAQ does not make any bombastic claims to the contrary.How much GREEN from GreenFuel?

While we have converged on the oil estimates, we are still apart on the CO2 mitigation potential. Oddly, in their FAQ GreenFuel switched to a ‘per hectare’ estimate of 500 tCO2 (as opposed to the oil, which was ‘per acre’). This comes to 50kgCO2/sq.m./yr. We had estimated ~30kgCO2/sq.m/yr. The difference has come down substantially, however it is still significant.

For a place like Arizona, assuming 1.36 gal/sq.m./yr oil and the rest of the biomass in carbohydrates, fixing 50kgCO2/sq.m. would require energy efficiency on PAR-basis of 16.5%, or 61% of the theoretical. Pie-in-the-sky, in my view … BUT at least we are talking about things that are thermodynamically possible, even if difficult. Big difference from before!

Moving on, the company gives an example of a theoretical “average” coal plant with 655MW of nameplate capacity. Here’s what we learn:

“For this 'average' plant, when both the power plant and algae farm are in fulloperation, approximately 3400 hectares of algae growing area isrequired to consume 40% of CO2 emissions.”

Hmm, let’s see. Depending on the source, coal-fired plants emit anywhere from 900 to 1,200 kgCO2/MWh. So, for a example of 920kgCO2/MWh, based on a report from EIA

(see figure) we get:


655MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 100% (full operation) x 920 kg CO2/MWh = 5,278,776 tCO2/yron the other hand, for the algae farm:

3400 ha x 500tCO2/ha/yr x 100% (full operation) = 1,700,000 tCO2/yr

Now if we perform a division: an operation that my third-grade son is currently learning:1,700,000 / 5,278,776 = 0.32 = 32%

Well, that’s not 40%!

So we continue to see chicanery and spin-ola here… I guess they need to do it. The CO2-mitigation potential of the technology is a needed “green lipstick” for their friends in the coal sector (see the last sentence in the link)…

Now how about the other GREEN ($$$)?

From the FAQ:

GreenFuel’s extensive economic analyses and cost estimates show that algae canbe grown economically as a commercial product. Many estimates claiming thatalgae are not commercially viable use outdated economics for product values thatare no longer valid, or assume use of initial generations of experimentaltechnology that have since been upgraded.

We scroll down, however, and see that they continue with this absurdity:

GreenFuel algae farms are enclosed systems resembling greenhouses. They areoften called algae-solar bioreactors.

Huh? It is true that both fuel prices and animal feed prices have gone through the roof, however, so have the prices of steel, plastics and many other materials needed to build greenhouses. We have shown that one needs to get about $30/sq.m. profit to justify a greenhouse, and this was in 2000! How do you get $30 profit from 1.36 gallons of vegetable oil plus some kilos of animal feed? This continues to make zero sense.Speaking of which, the comparisons with other crops become really meaningless if they keep on using the closed systems (greenhouses). Of course everything grows better in a greenhouse! We won’t know how well maize, soy, or sugarcane will grow in a greenhouse, because no-one is dumb enough to grow energy crops and animal feed in hothouses. That’s just weird!

Is there something that I like?

Yes, I like this part:

GreenFuel is actively pursuing several opportunities where nutrient-rich waterfeed streams will be used to provide some or all of the nutrients needs of the algae farm. Streams which have a potential to be used in this way include runofffrom animal facilities and treated wastewater.

Algae’s potential has always been in water treatment, so that’s probably a very good direction for the company. I hope that they put their new money in this direction…Finally, they have announced an ‘unannounced’ large-scale project in Europe, which we will learn about in the near future. I believe that it is likely in Pottsdam, where IGV is building out a hectare. Most of the numbers above, as well, as GFT’s FAQ are for Arizona; the numbers for Germany will be worse. Something to keep in mind.www

James Galloway on Nitrogen

This article has just been published by James Galloway and rings a loud alarm over the unheralded failure of the agricultural environment to sponge up all the soluble nitrogen that is been dumped on the land every year to maximize crop yield. This is not a new problem, but it is certainly an ignored problem.

I will make a brave conjecture however and that is that the application of biochar will halt this ongoing nitrogen leachate problem. The evidence available as well as prior work on zeolites conforms to this conjecture. The mere fact that terra preta retains fertility in a rainforest environment additionally supports this conjecture. What we lack is a good scientific work up that can be used by all proponents.

The reason that this mechanism works is the existence of solid crystalline acids throughout the biochar matrix caused by the heating process. These immobile acids grab mobile free ions such as nitrogen ions and other fertilizer ions and holds them until a living organism plucks them free.

That is why I am quite happy to have the commercial fertilizer industry produce powdered coked coal as a fertilizer media to deliver the nutrients to the soil. If every free fertilizer ion arrived in the soil bound to charcoal, then there would be little escapement of the fertilizer into the ground water.

I suspect that if we had a true understanding of soil nutrient dynamics, a carbon protocol would have been mandated decades ago.

The corollary of this conjecture is that the amount of applied fertilizer can be cut dramatically. Again we simply do not have the science worked up as yet. Perhaps we need to convince the fertilizer industry that they can make as much money shipping carbon as shipping fertilizer.

To be fair, the industry surely works to a price point based on a dollar price per treated acre. That will not change at all. The question is then about the costs of additives and fillers. Displacing ten percent of the filler with powdered coked coal is no trick at all. If that then leads to a fifty percent drop in the actual chemical percentage with the same agricultural result, we may even have a net drop in costs.

It would be a sweet irony if the advent of a proper carbon buffered fertilizer protocol succeeded in been more profitable than all previous protocols.


Public release date: 15-May-2008

Contact: James Galloway

jng@virginia.edu434-924-1303University of Virginia

Addressing the 'nitrogen cascade'

Papers in Science discuss incessant cycling of reactive nitrogen in environment

While human-caused global climate change has long been a concern for environmental scientists and is a well-known public policy issue, the problem of excessive reactive nitrogen in the environment is little-known beyond a growing circle of environmental scientists who study how the element cycles through the environment and negatively alters local and global ecosystems and potentially harms human health.

Two new papers by leading environmental scientists bring the problem to the forefront in the May 16 issue of the journal Science. The researchers discuss how food and energy production are causing reactive nitrogen to accumulate in soil, water, the atmosphere and coastal oceanic waters, contributing to the greenhouse effect, smog, haze, acid rain, coastal "dead zones" and stratospheric ozone depletion.

"The public does not yet know much about nitrogen, but in many ways it is as big an issue as carbon, and due to the interactions of nitrogen and carbon, makes the challenge of providing food and energy to the world's peoples without harming the global environment a tremendous challenge," said University of Virginia environmental sciences professor James Galloway, the lead author of one of the Science papers and a co-author on the other. "We are accumulating reactive nitrogen in the environment at alarming rates, and this may prove to be as serious as putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Galloway, the founding chair of the International Nitrogen Initiative, and a co-winner of the 2008 Tyler Prize for environmental science, is a longtime contributor to the growing understanding of how nitrogen cycles endlessly through the environment. In numerous studies over the years he has come to the realization of the "nitrogen cascade," and has created with his colleagues a flow chart demonstrating the pervasive and persistent effects of reactive nitrogen on Earth's environment (www.initrogen.org).

In its inert form, nitrogen is harmless and abundant, making up 78 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. But in the past century, with the mass production of nitrogen-based fertilizers and the large-scale burning of fossil fuels, massive amounts of reactive nitrogen compounds, such as ammonia, have entered the environment.

"A unique and troublesome aspect of nitrogen is that a single atom released to the environment can cause a cascading sequence of events, resulting ultimately in harm to the natural balance of our ecosystems and to our very health," Galloway said.

A nitrogen atom that starts out as part of a smog-forming compound may be deposited in lakes and forests as nitric acid, which can kill fish and insects. Carried out to the coast, the same nitrogen atom may contribute to red tides and dead zones. Finally, the nitrogen will be put back into the atmosphere as part of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, which destroys atmospheric ozone.

Galloway and his colleagues suggest possible approaches to minimizing nitrogen use, such as optimizing its uptake by plants and animals, recovering and reusing nitrogen from manure and sewage, and decreasing nitrogen emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

"Nitrogen is needed to grow food," Galloway says, "but because of the inefficiencies of nitrogen uptake by plants and animals, only about 10 to 15 percent of reactive nitrogen ever enters a human mouth as food. The rest is lost to the environment and injected into the atmosphere by combustion.

"We must soon begin to manage nitrogen use in an integrated manner by decreasing our rate of creation of reactive nitrogen while continuing to produce enough food and energy to sustain a growing world population.”

Galloway's next effort is to create a "nitrogen footprint" calculator that people can access on the Internet, very similar to current "carbon footprint" calculators.

He says people can reduce their nitrogen footprints by reducing energy consumption at home, traveling less, and changing diet to locally grown vegetables (preferably organic) and fish and consuming less meat.

Galloway is quick to point out that along with the problems of excess reactive nitrogen in many areas of the world, there also are large regions, such as Africa, with too little nitrogen to grow enough food for rapidly growing populations. In those regions, the challenge is find ways to increase the availability of nitrogen while minimizing the negative environmental effects of too much nitrogen.

I copied this out of a post by Ron Larson. An industrial fertilizer should thus easily avoid almost any nitrogen losses.

“My knowledge on the relationship between nitrogen and biochar mostly comes from a visit to one nitrogen researcher in Australia last year (Dr. Lukas van Zweiten at IAI conference) who claims 80% reduction in nitrous oxide release in field trials with biochar (see towards end of

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/aug/tech/rr_biochar.html?sa_campaign=rss/cen_mag/estnews/2007-08-01/rr_biochar ).

Note that most nitrous oxide comes from agriculture, so 80% is potentially a big deal - and N2O is much worse than CO2 for climate impacts.”

Thermal Power and Algae

The one power source that is both comparatively cheap and able to be placed anywhere is the coal fired thermal plant. There also remains a huge global inventory of coal that is easily transportable. This is why China and India have been building them to provide almost all their power needs.

It requires no imagination to realize that coal plants will continue to be the power source of convenience for a very long time everywhere. And right now the sum of the technology is to take pure carbon and to convert it into CO2 and power and left over heat. The CO2 and excess heat has been released into the environment.

It is now possible to do much better. The total CO2 and the surplus heat can be fed into a battery of algae production greenhouses that then convert the CO2 into a viable biodiesel and a possibly viable meal for animal consumption. The current indications and optimism suggests that it will really be that easy.

This product stream does not sequester the carbon but it displaces fossil carbon going into the transportation industry. The other huge impact is to force an end to any stack gas releases into the open air. If one is to capture the CO2 and heat, one is left with a soup of every thing else in a form that allows it to be worked with. It starts of been a much smaller problem. Of course none of this is easy, but we have just spent the last thirty years figuring out how to deal with these problems.

Just as the acid rain problem can be converted into an acid in a pipe problem and handled with a small acid plant, the CO2 problem can be neatly turned over to an algae plant.

We can now envisage a global industry in which power production from coal and eventually all smokestacks will become non polluting using these strategies.

It does not end our reliance on fossil fuels but it certainly lessens it and smartly converts solar energy into a useable form of transportation energy. With the solar input, our thermal efficiency will likely exceed 100% of the input coal.

What I find most promising about this strategy is the simple fact that it is all able to operate at the scale of industry. The coal plants already exist. Shoving the CO2 into an algae plant is not a big step for anyone in that position. Selling the byproducts to Exxon and Cargill for further refining and sell through is trivial. It almost needs no political work to bring into effect.

The place this will happen fastest will be China. They are choking on their smoke stacks and the need to create new sources of transportation fuel is immediate.

Geothermal Power Progress

These extracts from today’s news release and its corporate site from the public company Nevada Geothermal power Inc. give us a good overview of a specialist sector of the energy production industry. Obviously high quality hot rocks are not a common place occurrence. Their exploitation, however, has clearly been mastered both in Iceland and the USA. This means that with the 2005 advent of a competitive regulatory scheme, we can expect this sector to steadily expand to full build out.

Current estimates suggest that this type of power can supply at least twenty percent of American energy needs. I also suspect that those estimates will turn out to be hopelessly conservative. The reason for that is that once a field is fully developed, it should be simple to drill a second set of production wells simply to a deeper level. As technology improves, several such additional sets of wells might be drilled with very little loss in thermal efficiency. There is a huge amount of heat within the hot rock formation and it travels slowly with plenty more heat trying to move in.

Obviously a modest reduction in formation temperature will open a heat gradient that will accelerate the replacement of any heat removed. This is just another way of saying that at the early stage of exploitation, the system is hugely under engineered for obvious economic reasons and it is not possible to take full advantage of the depth dimension as related costs are climbing rapidly in that direction.

What is quite clear is that the technology and related infrastructure is now straight of the shelf for this industry, and that with incentive driven financing clearly available, we can expect all prime quality geothermal sites to experience a steady build out, not unlike the oil and gas industry. Perhaps we need to describe this type of installation as primary geothermal. The second stage geothermal development will focus on accepting a smaller heat gradient in the production fluid and using the Reverse Rankin Cycle to produce power. As one would expect, the capital cost will also be much higher, and again the place to do this would be at the plant producing primary power. A little bit of giving it one last squeeze.

This means that the next twenty years will see a huge build out of this particular power protocol, since the technical issues are behind us. Or at least decision makers think so.


Thu May 8, 2008
Nevada Geothermal's Blue Mountain Well 58-15 Update

VANCOUVER, B.C., May 8, 2008, Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. (NGP)

(TSX-V: NGP, OTC-BB: NGLPF) announced today the completion of Well 58-15 to a depth of 5706 feet (1740 metres) at a step-out location 0.8 miles (1.2 kilometres) from production Well 26A-14. Upon completion, the well has been confirmed as a producer with geothermal fluid production between 4675 and 5603 feet (1425 and 1708 metres).

Preliminary flow tests indicate that Well 58-15 will be a high-temperature producer. The well flows unassisted at flow rates higher than previous wells and at temperatures greater than 400ºF (200ºC).

Fierce geothermal fluid flow and debris exiting from the well precluded Welaco Well Analysis Group (Welaco) from completing temperature/pressure/spinner (TPS) surveys in the open hole. The deepest Welaco data was at 1820 feet which confirmed a temperature of 404ºF (207ºC) - the highest measured temperature in any well to date at Blue Mountain.

Indications are that Well 58-15 will be as good a producer as other wells reported to date. Currently, a liner is being installed to stabilize the well and the test separator is being modified to accommodate higher flow rates. Subsequently, production testing, including flowing TPS surveys as well as injection testing, will be conducted under the supervision of GeothermEx Inc. to fully determine the production and injection capacity characteristics of Well 58-15.

Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. ( OTCBB: NGLPF, TSX.V: NGP) an emerging renewable energy producer focusing on the development of CLEAN electrical power from high temperature geothermal resources. NGP currently has four geothermal projects which, once developed, could have a cumulative generation capacity of over ~200 MW or enough green energy to meet the annual electrical demand of ~200,000 homes. The four properties: Blue Mountain, Pumpernickel, Black Warrior, all of which are ideally situated in Nevada and Crump Geyser, Oregon.

Blue Mountain Faulkner I (phase 1) geothermal project is on the road to revenue. Some of the highlights are:

20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Nevada Power Company

Large generation interconnection (LGIA) for up to 75 MW approved

Environmental assessment approved (FONSI)

US$140 million construction financing expected to close on or before May 31, 2008

Well field development ongoing

Ormat Technologies, EPC contract: fixed price, guaranteed completion of power plant

TURN ON THE POWER: 4th quarter 2009

Geothermal power benefits:

Geothermal is an economically-viable source of energy

Geothermal is readily available

Geothermal power plants provide reliable base load electricity

Geothermal energy use relies on proven technology with a long operating life

Geothermal benefits from incentives such as tax legislation and regional renewable energy targets.

Rocked by sky-high energy prices and alarmed by the specter of global warming governments around the globe are promoting the development of clean renewable energy such as geothermal. The State of Nevada legislated in 2003 a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which has rejuvenated Nevada's established geothermal power industry. Oregon and California too have implemented progressive RPS's.

Today, Nevada is one of the top producers of geothermal power, with 308 MW installed capacity. Geothermal energy provides about 9% of northern Nevada's electrical. Nevada has some of the largest untapped geothermal resources in the US with a potential for 2,500 to 3,700 MW of electricity. Wells and springs exist or the entire state, offering extensive opportunity for development of moderate and high-temperature resources for power generation

Biodiesel Processing

This report was extracted from a commercial site and nicely makes the case for the ongoing rapid expansion of processing capacity for the delivery of biodiesel. This is extremely important, because without this capability already in place, no one can build out production capacity.

Most of this is oriented toward various plant oils, but can be processing algae oil just as easily. A bit of their perspective is also very clear. They know that they need a secure feedstock for oil production. This is not provided by oil seeds simply because of direct competition from the food industry on a priority basis.

This also suggests that the processors can readily use algae as a feedstock as one would expect and that they are encouraging its rapid development.

Other recent reports are also appearing to confirm that the by product meal is truly suitable for cattle feed. I do not think that there has been nearly enough time to generate the supporting studies and research. Quite likely the industry is picking up on the buzz and tucking it into news releases.

The business model is currently supporting a distributed processing industry, able to use locally available feed stocks with a great deal of flexibility. It also appears that more and more participants are entering the algae business.

There is already more than enough capacity out there to swiftly shake out this industry.

Within two years, we can expect large scale operations been planned to take full advantage of the steadily improving utility of algae as an oil feed stock. This report suggests that fairly modest production levels are sustainable during the early stages. In any case, this promotes plenty of growers into the business.

MARKET GROWTH

More than 40 additional plants have been proposed, over half of which have obtained funding and are in the design/construction phase. The unprecedented growth and significantly elevated interest in the biodiesel market across the entire US is being fueled by three principal drivers:

Economic & National Security

The drivers pushing the growing interest in biodiesel are the rising cost of petroleum diesel, the desire to stimulate rural economic development through value-added agricultural applications, and the desire to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for reasons of trade balance and national security. Other economic drivers that are increasing the cost of petroleum diesel fuel are the mandates from the government that require cleaner fuels that are less pollutant to the atmosphere and produce lower levels of greenhouse gasses.

Environmental & Regulatory

The benefits of biodiesel for pollution reduction and as an oxygenate are significant and well-documented. Biodiesel contains 11% oxygen by weight and reduces the emission of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and soot through improved ignition characteristics. In addition, biodiesel is a value-added ag-based product that is easily produced and fully capable of meeting any low-sulfur diesel requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Legislative

The measures driving the biodiesel industry consist of usage mandates and incentive programs. The federal government and certain state governments have passed legislative mandates requiring compliance with renewable energy standards and alternative fuel requirements; these mandates, such as the landmark federal EP Act bill passed in 1992, have encouraged public and private sector fleet operators to utilize biodiesel blends and flex-fueled vehicles.

INDUSTRY SUPPORT FOR BIODIESEL

Biodiesel use has now been recognized, and in some cases endorsed, by engine manufactures. John Deere and Daimler Chrysler are now filling their diesel tanks with Biodiesel on their new vehicle production lines. Toyota has announced that it will support initiatives for the use of alternatives fuels in their automobiles. Nationwide, more than 500 operators of major vehicle fleets now use Biodiesel, including the Department of Defense and the National Park Service. Thousands of educational events have increased the public awareness of Biodiesel.

While Biodiesel use has received support from many different quarters, its chief supporter is agriculture. Through its considerable efforts the agricultural industry has been the leading force behind the development of the modern biodiesel industry. Members of this industry have had the strongest collective voice in advocating for biodiesel-related laws, have been involved with the founding and governance of the National Biodiesel Board, and have built more plants with more biodiesel producing capacity than any group of individuals or organizations from any other industry.

Biodiesel fuels, in combination with the introduction of clean, quiet, efficient and powerful modern diesels, is changing consumer attitudes toward diesel powered autos. This essentially opens a new market for diesel engines, which were at one time broadly viewed by the general buying public as far more dirty, noisy and pollution-causing than a similar gasoline engine powered vehicle. With the use of Biodiesel, diesel automakers can now market their vehicles as a "green" alternative to gasoline engines.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR BIODIESEL

The Federal blender´s excise tax credit is the largest program subsidizing the Biodiesel industry. It was created in the 2004 Jobs Bill. It offers a $1.00 per gallon credit for "Agri-Biodiesel" (that derived solely from virgin oils, such as Algae Oil) and $0.50 per gallon for other Biodiesel (that derived from re-cycled oils). Algae Oil qualifies for the highest tax credit rate.

The Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was passed in the 2005 Energy Bill. This established a consumption target for renewable fuels of 4 Billion gallons in 2006, rising to 7.5 Billion gallons by 2012. Ethanol is the primary focus of this bill, but Biodiesel also qualifies.

In addition to federal legislation, 36 state legislatures passed 170 pieces of Biodiesel-specific legislation in 2005. Thirty of these were signed into law in 2006 covering such issues as state agency usage, retail mandates, economic incentives, and consumer protection.

U.S. BIODIESEL FUEL MARKET

As of January 3, 2007 there were 88 operating biodiesel facilities in the US with a combined capacity of 800 million gallons per year. These facilities are widely distributed across the US with a higher concentration in the Midwest. The vast majority of all of the facilities shown in the above figure produce less than 15 million gallons per year.

Although the production capacity in 2007 was over 800 million gallons per year, many of the operational plants this went online in 2007 did not produce at full capacity due to lack of sufficient quantities of feedstock at a cost low enough to produce biodiesel profitably.

GROWTH POTENTIAL

The domestic market for biodiesel has barely begun to be tapped. The United States consumed almost 70 billion gallons of distillate fuels in 2006; over 42 billion gallons of petroleum diesel were used in the on-highway sector alone (60%). The commercial and residential heating oil sector accounted for another 10 billion gallons per year.

The US biodiesel industry produced nearly 400 million gallons of biodiesel fuel in 2006. This is slightly over 0.006% of the total US distillate market. Today´s biodiesel industry would have to grow over 175 times its current size to capture the petroleum diesel market or over 100 times to capture only the on-highway portion.

Industry trends reflect a 35% increase in the production of feedstock such as Soy, Canola, Palm, Camelina in 2007. Analyst forecast continued crop increases going forward. The benefit of producing biodiesel fuel from these sources is greatly diminished. Algae oil production is 75% - 250% greater than Soy Beans, Camelina, Rape Seed, Jetropha, or Palm oils for the same lot of land.

Holocene Climate Shift

As my readers know, I have given a lot of thought to the historical temperature record of the post Pleistocene Nonconformity era we call the Holocene. This era began with the mopping up of the vestiges of the preceding million year Ice Age that began with the closure of the Panama Isthmus. The almost total removal of the Polar ice cap produced a northern temperate climate regime that has typically varied about a half degree per century at most. We are rarely been forced to abandon huge tracts of farm land. The Holocene has been the true cradle of human emergence from its barbaric past.

This makes the understanding of temperature anomalies in the record very important. They push us to understand the more general nature of our climate engine. The recent era has seen a rough half degree increase in the northern Hemisphere over the past century. We have every reason to think that this is actually true. The fact that this is a continuing rebound from the chilling event of the little Ice age does enough to explain the shift. Other causes are so far an unnecessary conjecture.

There is exactly one major anomaly in the record that needs to be addressed. Why did the Bronze Age temperature regime abruptly end? We have been living in a post Bronze Age climate regime that is clearly a couple of degrees colder in the Northern Hemisphere that was true during the two thousand year Bronze Age.

Since it ended, we have a constant cycle of failed recoveries, punctuated by sharp reversals that create so called little ice ages. Somehow these reversals lower the temperature a degree or so and we then spend decades if not a century or two recovering. The chilling mechanism is not yet well understood but after watching the macroclimatic behavior of this past year, I would place my bets on the wind circulation system as more than capable of transporting enough heat around to mess up the system. It is just that it is unusual.

This is clearly not enough to explain the climate regime of the Bronze Age. We simply had more heat in the Northern Hemisphere for two thousand years.

I will make the following conjecture. During the Bronze Age, the Sahara Desert was created by mankind. The creation of the Sahara, released a huge amount of solar energy back into space. There was nothing on the ground capable of absorbing all that energy and turning it into atmospheric heat and plant material unable to escape easily to space. That is why the desert becomes so cold at night and so frightfully hot in the daytime. This meant that the Northern Hemisphere has had measurably less available heat for the past four thousand years or so.

An immediate corollary of this conjecture is that the full restoration of the Sahara and all Asian deserts generally will warm and moderate the climate of the Northern Hemisphere and hugely expand the agricultural potential of Eurasia.

This agricultural terrain was systematically destroyed be the advent of goats during the Bronze Age throughout this region. It is their nature to eat a plant to destruction and must be carefully controlled, an option never available in primitive agriculture.
I had previously speculated that perhaps the little Ice Age temperature declines were driven by volume changes in the ocean current systems. This may still have merit but I am much less inclined to support that conjecture now that the strength of the atmospheric circulatory system is much more apparent in northern latitudes.

Also we have had an apparent shift in the volume of the Gulf Stream without any visible effect on its climatic effect over the past fifty years. This means that the principal current is dragging a surface layer of warm water containing most of the heat into the Arctic and affecting climate that way while the varying driver current is doing its thing primarily out of harms way a little deeper.

I think that we have laid the last brick in fully understanding the modest climate variation experienced during the Holocene era. That is good news, because if we cannot reasonably understand our climatic baseline and run experiments against it, we end up talking rubbish.

That is what predictions of a new ice age are and even to a large degree anthropogenic warming when you understand that right now all variation is well within the anticipated variation from the well established baseline.

None of this excuses us from the proper use of good practice to sequester waste CO2. After all, I am predicting that the reforestation of the Eurasian Desert and much of the remaining Northern Hemisphere will raise the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere significantly and powerfully enhance agriculture. In other words, proper sequestration of CO2 will actually warm the planet, but that is a good thing.

Salmon Failure

On the West coast, the bad news just keeps coming on the decline of the salmon fishery. Of course the blame game is in full swing. It was not too long ago that the natives were blamed for the losses. Today, the first choice is good old global warming, taking the place of any actual analysis.

To demonstrate how utterly silly that is, merely recall that huge salmon runs existed all the way south into northern California. Now try to convince me or anyone else that the water temperature of the Sacramento River was ever seriously cold like most of the rivers north of Oregon. In short, salmon survive well enough over a reasonable range of temperatures and most likely simply prefer cooler waters in the mountains. They certainly spawn in local creeks in the GVRD that are merely spring fed.

Once that is eliminated, we must return to the persistent habitat damage induced by human riverine development. This obviously and clearly is a huge factor. And not just through the building of dams, which are all built now. Dams chop huge sectors of the overall water shed out of the available usable salmon habitat. Bypass systems do work but are still a bit unconvincing. It also represents a large direct cost on stock management that is not linked directly to the consumer cost of product anywhere.

Without question our riverine damage abatement practices of the past were woefully inadequate. A lot of this has now been reversed and to be fair, there is persistent pressure to now recover river and creek ecologies that over time will hugely restore this resource. We are talking about a lot of time though. Single successes restoring single spring-fed urban creeks are educational encouraging the next generation to do more.

We can envisage a day in which all the river systems are reoptimized in terms of their fecundity. It cannot be a wild restoration, but a human dominated managed wilderness which is a theme that I have promoted for some time. The true wild is not an option.

Again we have a problem. Riverine impact is now largely contained and been reversed in some locales. Yet the wild salmon stocks continue to dwindle. The current status of the stocks is desperate and has now led to an end of the fishery along the entire West coast up to Alaska. If it has not yet been formally closed it is clear that it is about to be. It is also very likely that for reasons we fail to understand, that spawn releases are not surviving to make it back. Today, the only remaining proper management response is the entire closure of the wild fishery along the entire coast. Sorry, Alaska! When you categorically prove that you are an idiot, it is not wisdom to keep up the same behavior.

From the perspective of selfish human needs, the farmed salmon industry has long since developed the capacity to satisfy the whole market. Various environmental concerns that have been thrown its way are all surmountable and should be resolved by the simple expedient of global regulation. Of course, we will have to bicker about that for a few years.

Once you eliminate all the excuses, you are left with only one reality. It is called over fishing. And as my readers know, that means something a lot different than what has been practiced.

A population must recover from predation each and every year for a catch level to be sustainable. Seems obvious, doesn’t it? Optimal predation should preserve the female part of the population in order to maximize recovery efficiency. That means that if you wish to have a maximized fishery, it is necessary to allow the stock to reach the best carrying capacity of the environment and to then harvest the proper amount each year.

To date all our global stocks have been demolished by the insanity of catering to the fishers. It is asking a weasel to manage the henhouse. It is already over virtually everywhere.

Right now, we have the recent practice of grazing the ocean in bands taking a hundred percent of what comes on board. This process is obviously putting continued predation on the young salmon that makes any management efforts of the onshore harvest a disaster.

As Arthur C. Clark observed decades ago, the global wild fishery will be reduced through this process to collecting jelly fish. I personally see absolutely no initiative anywhere to at even this last terminal phase, to bring the industry under global management. The US Navy may have the assets able to enforce a regulatory regime for fishing on the high seas. It does not have the authority to impose a regulatory regime on all users of the high seas. That truly must come from the UN as well as a revenue system to pay for enforcement.

To me, it is a miracle that any whales survived extinction. Yet some idiot wants to still hunt whales. An animal with a niche providing a two hundred year lifespan can absorb losses of about one a year for every couple hundred live animals. It is really that sensitive. A global regulatory regime that recognized that as an economic factor would swiftly cure this nonsense through ensuring every kill tag reflected the loss of the remaining life of the animal.