Sunday, December 29, 2013

What is the Muslim Brotherhood?
On July 4, 2013, the day after the Egyptian military liberated the country from the Muslim Brotherhood; Christian Copts were targeted by them as being instrumental in ousting the Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi.  Even so, religious violence against Christians remains largely unreported in the US main-stream  media.  Actually, persecution of Christians by Muslims appears to be reaching pandemic proportions.
Who was it that gave support to the Muslim Brotherhood in the elections that put Morsi in office?  Did it rest on the shoulders of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?   I wonder who will be singled out to take the blame for this major foreign policy blunder.  Rather than pursue this direction, let’s see what the Muslim Brotherhood really stands for.
First, Islamists contrast with Muslim traditionalist in many areas,  especially in their ideological emphasis on the state.  Islamists view the state as the main instrument for implementing their vision of a God-pleasing society under Sharia laws.    They concentrate on capturing the state and its centers of power.  The first step is to try to take over legally within the democratic framework.  If this fails, then violent revolution is necessary.  Islamists  are in the minority in most Muslim societies and states.  However, their fiery rhetoric has caused much of the violence in the Muslim world.  They have filled the vacuum created by failed secular regimes. Their rabid discourse has resonated in the hearts of the impoverished masses.  Surprisingly, it has appealed to the new strata of literate people with modern technical educations.
 Islamists visualize a struggle between good and evil – good being Islam and evil Western secularism, Judaism, Christianity, etc.  The true believers do not always win, and often suffer defeat and martyrdom.  However, if they fail, there is no cause for despair because God comforts them, and assures them that there will be a final victory.  Yes, Westerners find this completely contrary to their cultural values.  
What is the stated doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood?   In the 1940s,  Hasan al-Banna, an Islamic activist wrote the doctrine.   It is far too lengthy to include in this article, but a summary of the main features follows:
1.      It states that Islam is applicable to not only spiritual matters and religious worship, but is all inclusive.  It includes religion and the state, spirit and work, holy book and sword, etc …...    
2.     The Brotherhood believes the basis and source of Islam are the Koran and Sunna[1] of the prophet.  If a nation holds to these, it will never lose its way. 

[1] The path of virtue - normal way of life based on the teachings and practices of Muhummad.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Biofuels – Truth or Consequences

Proper evaluation of biofuels is long overdue.     Many politicians are infatuated with ethanol and bio-diesel.  They give little thought to the consequences.  For the past 15 years or more, environmentalists have mesmerized these politicians with plaudits about secure, clean and cheap biofuels.  It turns out most are unreliable, expensive and environmentally destructive. Moreover, even with the government’s outlandish subsidies and tax credits they are not cheap.

Environmental junkies shout out about the merits of ethanol usage. They seem to be unable to cope with the truth - biomass fuel sources produce large amounts of CO2.  Let’s find out why.  It takes 1.635 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline.  One gallon of gasoline emits 19.56 pounds of CO2, while the equivalent amount of energy from ethanol emits 20.55 pounds.  This being so, then, which pollutes the most and delivers less energy.

It is possible that some forms of biofuel will supplement our energy mix as petroleum resources deplete. Nevertheless, it is even more important to understand that larger and larger quantities biomass fuels processed from agricultural crops dramatically lower food crop production, thereby increasing food prices, and at the same time causing destruction of forests. As forests disappear and crop lands swell, land erosion will wrack havoc with the remaining crop lands as well as the land surface in general. Wouldn’t these agricultural crops help feed the populations of underdeveloped countries? Are the consequences apparent?
How about corn as a source for ethanol? Let’s not forget that it swallows huge government tax subsidies, raises food prices, and fails to decrease atmospheric CO2. 

ExxonMobil Research labs report that an acre of corn yields 250 gallons of ethanol per annum.   Dr. David Pimental, professor emeritus at Cornell University, a highly qualified agricultural expert, estimates 328 gallons per acre for corn ethanol yields. America’s annual average gasoline consumption is around 140 billion gallons, or 382 million gallons per day. How many square miles of agricultural lands must be planted in corn to satisfy domestic gasoline consumption for a year? Answer: 1.2 million square miles based on Dr. Pimental’s 328 gallons of ethanol per acre per annum. This happens to be about 30% of the total land and water area of the U.S. Problem - there are only 900,000 square miles of arable land. Using the ExxonMobil yields the land requirements would be even greater. By the way, how many corn crops can a farmer raise in one year? Commonsense tells you that corn can best be used as a food source.

Corn farmers argue their crops are ready to meet government fuel regulations - NOW. They claim their biofuel plants can also produce corn oil and animal feed while sorghum plants cannot. Sorghum biofuel plants burn the plant stalks for boiler fuel, generate heat for distillation, steam for electricity. All this said, producing biofuel is easier said than done. Plant equipment is very expensive and remains idle much of the year; and in the case of sorghum, the juice spoils quickly.  It must be processed almost immediately. In spite of these obvious drawbacks, huge subsidies and large tax credits are still pumped into so-called “green energy” projects. Oh, let’s not forget the cost of diesel fuel used to harvest and haul any crop to the processing plant. How about the transportation to refineries for blending with gasoline? Interest in the use of sorghum as a biofuel source crop remains in university laboratories. So far, farmers have not been persuaded.

Agriculturally produced biofuels are a complete economic FLOP. They are big environmental negatives. The EROI for ethanol from corn is about 1.1:1, while to be economically viable the ratio should be a minimum of 5:1.

In the author’s opinion, likely the only method of eventually obtaining economically feasible biofuels will come from biomass, i.e., algae. Three thousand species of algae have been identified.  However, only 300 appear to be suitable for cultivation to produce ethanol, biodiesel, and jet fuel. Microalgal technologies have shown that algae hold far more potential than corn, soybeans, rapeseed, palm, and sugar cane.  Why?  Algals have the highest oil content of any other biological form. Their rapid growth makes harvesting cycles of one to ten days a reality (from 40 to as many as 300 harvests per annum), plus their cultivation does not require arable lands.

Large-scale  cultivation of algae in salt water may also become practical.  In fact, it might even be more effective in their growth.  For example, while most terrestrial crops yield from 60 to a high of 700 gallons of ethanol per acre per year.  On the other hand,  algal forms may yield around 4,000 gallons (100 barrels) per acre per year of algal oil under full-scale  commercial production. Some researchers believe that within the several decades, algal biofuel production might be capable of replacing a portion of American imported oil volumes.  However, it will not replace will not replace oil.

Unlike the first-generation feedstocks such as corn, soybean, palm, sugarcane, and others, the price and supply of algae will be stable. Once a location for cultivation and processing has been selected, production and product quality can be controlled much like any chemical plant. Importantly, algal biofuels have molecular structures that are very similar to the petroleum and refined products in use today.  Environmentally, they will have an insignificant CO2 footprint. 
NASA scientists are proposing an ingenious and remarkably resourceful process that could produce large quantities of biofuels.  The process would also clean waste water, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and at the same time retain nutrients.  Additionally, it does not require the use of agricultural land or fresh water resources.  The similarity of the chemical components in algae to petroleum is understandable, since originally a large part of the formation of petroleum came from algal material.

NASA plans to grow and harvest algae in an ocean environment.  Huge semi-permeable plastic bags filled with sewage will be deployed offshore.  These enclosures will not only grow the algae, but clean up the sewage.  The semi-permeable bags will allow the fresh water to flow out into the sea, while retaining the algae and nutrients.   The membrane prevents the salt water from entering the enclosure, but allows the fresh water to flow out into the sea. 

These inexpensive bags will collect solar energy as the algae inside the bag produces oxygen by photosynthesis.  Algae feeds on nutrients in the sewage, growing rich, fatty cells.  Through osmosis, the bag absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, releases oxygen and fresh water.  The temperature will be controlled by the heat capacity of the ocean, while the ocean’s waves will keep the system mixed and active.  The whole process is environmentally beautifully simple.  Biofuel stocks can grow and  process sewage.  No longer will harmful sewage be dumped into the ocean.  Processing the algal feedstock can add large amounts of petroleum type products, as well as other commercial products from the residue.  

So far, it appears that a wet extraction process on low-nitrogen grown algae may give the best positive energy balance. Ninety percent of the energy consumed in the dry extraction process comes during lipid extraction. This compares to just 70% using a wet extraction process – a 20% decrease in energy. After extraction of the lipids is completed only about one-third of the biomass raw material can be used for production of petroleum type products.

In the production of biodiesel, the oil (lipid) part of the algae biomass amounts to only about 25-30% of the product potential. The remaining 70% includes nutrients, pharmaceuticals, animal feed, and other biomass products. We must accept the fact; algal applications are still in a fundamental research stage. Don’t be too quick to accept the notion that algal biofuels are just over the horizon – they are not. However, their potential is better than the failed attempts to replace fossil fuel with agriculturally produced fuels. Just be aware of the fact that there are no quick solutions, petroleum is going to remain the main transportation fuel for decades in the future.

There are dozens of algal research and development projects underway, but so far few are close to commercial production.  The production of biofuel from algae is still very expensive, about $30 per gallon.  However, the author believes it may have the greatest potential as a supplemental fuel for transportation.  Shell Oil, BP Oil, Exxon, and other oil companies seem to agree that algae may offer the best economic outcome of any other source for the development of large scale biomass production facilities.

While the use of algae for biofuel production appears to have the best possibility for manufacturing commercial quantities of biodiesel fuel, the author remains skeptical.   Dr. John Benemann[1], speaking at an Algal Biomass Organization conference recently said, “Don’t count your algae until you actually have them.  It may take longer than you expect.  Everything takes longer than we expect.”  While he is a believer in the development of biofuel from algae, he is a realist.  Answering a question about algal biofuel production, he said, “First of all, I think that one of the real fundamental problems here is that the algae is not the Great Green Hope, to put it politically correctly. It is one of the many things that we have to do, and one of the many things that requires continuous research and development.  At this point, I believe it requires more research than development, but these things are overlapping of course.” 

[1] Dr. John Benemann – PhD Biochemistry  (Georgia Tech).  Recognized as one of the foremost researches on algae development for fuel and wastewater applications. 

Thursday, November 7, 2013

I Keep On Saying This …… Ethanol is a Bad JOKE!
Ethanol is a bi-partisan political gimmick.  You’ve been told by many politicians that ethanol is the answer to all our transportation problems.  Further, if your state grows corn, then politicians assure you that ethanol is good, good for everyone.   It is only a good, good way to get a government subsidy.
Let’s take a serious science-based look at what ethanol is really all about.   First, the advocates claim that ethanol is cheaper and cleaner than gasoline.   They also claim it will lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Let’s Examine Cleaner & Cheaper
The public is likely unaware that refiners must pay for a waiver on every gallon of ethanol, which is not produced below the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).  Who do you think ends up paying for the waiver?  Right - the consumer.  Waivers are responsible for billions of dollars in cost each year.
The 2013 RFS demands that 16.55 billion barrels of ethanol be blended with gasoline at the pump.  However, only 12.94 billion gallons are projected to be produced this year.   The shortfall is 3.61 billion gallons.  At a cost of $1 per waiver[1], gasoline prices might well increase by $3.6 billion.
Another great disadvantage of ethanol has to do with mileage.  A gallon of ethanol has 48,262 less BTUs of energy than gasoline.  Last year, ethanol production amounted to 13.3 billion gallons.  Multiply these 13.3 billion gallons times 48,262 BTUs gives 641,885 billion BTUs less than gasoline.  Putting this on the level of one vehicle, we estimate the vehicle requires 6,821 BTUs per mile.  Dividing the 641,885 billion BTUs by 6,821 BTUs per mile give a shocking answer - ethanol causes consumers to lose 94 billion miles of free travel annually due to poor mileage.
Ethanol emits more CO2 per gallon into the atmosphere than gasoline.  Ethanol has only about 60% of the energy of gasoline.  It takes 1.635 gallons of gasoline to do the same work as one gallon of gasoline.  Moreover, 1.635 gallons of ethanol emit 20.55 pounds of CO2.  Gasoline emits 19.56 pound of CO2.

How About Taking Care of Dependence on Foreign Oil

Americans have been sold a bill of goods.  Politicians preach that the sole purpose of ethanol is to replace foreign oil.  Well, if ethanol cannot replace oil imports, then why do we have it?  In 2012, we imported 3.1 billion barrels of oil, or 8.5 million barrels per day.    Ethanol production amounted to 314 million barrels out of a total of 3.1 billion barrels  – 10% of the oil imports.  Are you getting the picture?
Further, ethanol production peaked in 2011 and is now declining.  The table below shows the ethanol production per annum for the past five years in millions of barrels:
I estimate ethanol production for 2013, based on 8 months, to be 309 million barrels.  It is obvious; ethanol cannot ever replace foreign oil.

CREDIT:  I wish to recognize my friend Graham Selman, a longtime petroleum engineer and attorney, for the use of his data in preparation of this article.

[1] The exact cost of the waivers is a closely-held secret of the transparent Obama administration.