Summary
In the article "Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility", the hypothesis of mankind's influence on the climate is dismissed, to put the attention of the reader to other important issues like food, energy and health.
Here is given a proposal to put more harmony between developing and developed countries, between the need for fuel and food, between the need for climate protection and economic growth.
Analysis
In the mentioned article, the hypothesis of mankind's influence on the climate is dismissed, to put the attention of the reader to other important issues like food, energy and health.
This influence is, however, confirmed by much more important sources that those, which the author mentions and tries to dismiss. Let's try not to start every time from the beginning, when an urgency is at hand.
Developing countries, which according to the author should and will focus on other problems than climate (that is, food, energy, health), are feeling the effects of climate on exactly those needs.
The "academic" interest of the developed countries for the climate is put in contrast with these urgent needs of the developing countries. Instead, they are closely linked and the solution must be found in co-operation, avoiding errors like the food/fuel conflict.
The CDM mechanism can be a useful instrument for technology transfer that serves the needs of all parties, especially if it is further developed, eliminating problems, adding possibilities (especially for the smaller projects).
One technological principle, useful to harmonise the 3 needs, is the transformation of the agricultural and forest residues into a modern fuel. There are now many examples where these residues are very significant in quantity and currently of no use for local recycling. Exactly because its quantity is directly linked to the numbers of mouths to feed, we can be sure that it will always exist. So it is an infinite resource and should be used much better than now. This would solve the food/fuel conflict. Many attempts were made to use these biomass resources, but they had the problem that each situation had its own solution and none of them would get the attention and resources to make them competitive. To come out from this impasse, the residues should be standardised in a single format, which is easy to store, to transport and to use, and will not decay. A good format is the pellet. Though the composition will be different for each kind of residue, it is possible to mix them (before or after pelletising) and define a small number of classes (just like petrochemical fuels), which will make this biomass compatible with different applications:
- Coal power plants (several plants already mix high quality wood pellets with coal);
- Industry (there are already burner technologies that can handle low quality pellets);
- Stoves for food preparation in poor countries (better than "found" biomass, cheaper than ethanol gel furnaces, because pellets can be made locally with small machines from local residues);
- Many others.
Pelletising is more expensive than chipping wood but it has the advantage that many kinds of biomass will get into the same format, which has still the half of oil's energy density (per kg). It is less expensive than oil refining and it makes use of residues that have often negative cost (burning in the field is not a good solution). If large pelletisers are constructed, the cost will get down and even then the residues will have to travel a short distance (some km), after which they will be transformed into a standard fuel, so from the pelletiser, the biomass is easy to store and to transport.
This concept could create an economy that is much like the fossil fuel economy and can coexist: pellet burners are pretty compatible with fossil fuel burners, at least more than special strawbale furnaces or wood chip burners. This concept links the agriculture with the rest of the economy, giving it not only the potential to feed people, but also our machines. Not food or fuel, but both.
This influence is, however, confirmed by much more important sources that those, which the author mentions and tries to dismiss. Let's try not to start every time from the beginning, when an urgency is at hand.
Developing countries, which according to the author should and will focus on other problems than climate (that is, food, energy, health), are feeling the effects of climate on exactly those needs.
The "academic" interest of the developed countries for the climate is put in contrast with these urgent needs of the developing countries. Instead, they are closely linked and the solution must be found in co-operation, avoiding errors like the food/fuel conflict.
The CDM mechanism can be a useful instrument for technology transfer that serves the needs of all parties, especially if it is further developed, eliminating problems, adding possibilities (especially for the smaller projects).
One technological principle, useful to harmonise the 3 needs, is the transformation of the agricultural and forest residues into a modern fuel. There are now many examples where these residues are very significant in quantity and currently of no use for local recycling. Exactly because its quantity is directly linked to the numbers of mouths to feed, we can be sure that it will always exist. So it is an infinite resource and should be used much better than now. This would solve the food/fuel conflict. Many attempts were made to use these biomass resources, but they had the problem that each situation had its own solution and none of them would get the attention and resources to make them competitive. To come out from this impasse, the residues should be standardised in a single format, which is easy to store, to transport and to use, and will not decay. A good format is the pellet. Though the composition will be different for each kind of residue, it is possible to mix them (before or after pelletising) and define a small number of classes (just like petrochemical fuels), which will make this biomass compatible with different applications:
- Coal power plants (several plants already mix high quality wood pellets with coal);
- Industry (there are already burner technologies that can handle low quality pellets);
- Stoves for food preparation in poor countries (better than "found" biomass, cheaper than ethanol gel furnaces, because pellets can be made locally with small machines from local residues);
- Many others.
Pelletising is more expensive than chipping wood but it has the advantage that many kinds of biomass will get into the same format, which has still the half of oil's energy density (per kg). It is less expensive than oil refining and it makes use of residues that have often negative cost (burning in the field is not a good solution). If large pelletisers are constructed, the cost will get down and even then the residues will have to travel a short distance (some km), after which they will be transformed into a standard fuel, so from the pelletiser, the biomass is easy to store and to transport.
This concept could create an economy that is much like the fossil fuel economy and can coexist: pellet burners are pretty compatible with fossil fuel burners, at least more than special strawbale furnaces or wood chip burners. This concept links the agriculture with the rest of the economy, giving it not only the potential to feed people, but also our machines. Not food or fuel, but both.
This author consults with leading institutions through GLG
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
