Group items tagged

Early comprehensive life cycle assessments (LCA's) that compared biofuels with fossil fuels already appeared in the beginning of the eighties. Since then the public, scientific and political interest in biofuels has continuously grown and the number of biofuels and assessed parameters has increased.At the same time, the methodology for this type of assessment has improved with certain aspects of the approach having come up by and by a process which still continues today. Several issues related to the land use currently stand in the centre of expert discussions. Keywords: Environmental assessment; Biofuels; Transport; Land use assessment; Fossil fuels Article Outline 1. Objective, scope and background 2. Procedure 3. Results: comparison of biofuels and fossil fuels 3.1. Biofuels from agriculture compared to fossil fuels and against each other 3.2. Biofuels from residues compared to fossil fuels and against each other 4. Results: land use aspects 5. Conclusions and outlook 5.1. Competing land use 5.2. Competing biomass usages

As this post will show the likelihood that the EU's fossil fuel consumption has peaked, back in 1979, is now very real. It will also compare the degree of net fossil fuel self-sufficiency between the EU and the USA as of 2007.

The eternal debate n subsidies. This is a report on subsidies part of the government budget (though there are quite a few off-budget subsidies in energy as well). As usual, the report triggered a good old discussion on subsidizing renewables versus fossil, and on level playing fields.

Morocco, being the largest energy importer in North Africa, is making concerted efforts to reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels. Renewable energy is an attractive proposition as Morocco has almost complete dependence on imported energy ca...

Batteries have to contain all of the chemicals on both sides of their energy releasing equation. The very best batteries available today can store about 0.4 MJ/kg (0.05 kw-hr/lb) including the cases and safety systems. In contrast, gasoline carries about 46 MJ/kg (5.7 kw-hrs/lb).\n\nEven with a 20% efficient IC engine, a gasoline tank stores 20 times as much energy as a battery of equal weight. As the vehicle is moving it gets rid of some of that weight. Battery powered vehicles must carry the full weight of their energy source.\n\nThe energy density difference also plays a key role in the time that it takes to put more energy back on the vehicle once a fuel load is consumed. A two minute fill-up of a 12 gallon tank puts the equivalent of 87 kilowatt-hours into the vehicle, again, taking into account the 20% thermal efficiency.\n\n87 kilowatt-hours in 2 minutes works out to 2.6 MegaWatts. Even with a 220 volt connection, that would require about 11,800 amperes of current. Just imagine the size of the electric cables for that current.\n\nThere are certainly places and applications where electric vehicles have a role, but it is worth remembering that at least five or six generations of engineers have looked very hard at trying to meet transportation needs and they keep coming back to the same fact - when you want to move a vehicle, you need power, (energy per unit time).

What if cutting greenhouse emissions could also save the lives of soldiers in Iraq, where fuel-laden convoys make them targets? The U.S. Army says it is happening now in a push to reduce its carbon "bootprint." From forward areas like Iraq and Afghanistan to training ranges in the United States, the Army has been working to limit its use of fossil fuels and make its operations more environmentally sustainable.

Great point, and one I've not heard before. Yet another benefit of going low-carbon. I suspect that there must be many linkages between sustainable energy and the military. Energy efficiency could be another one. It extends the range of equipment, It reduces demands on upstream logistics and so on.

They put a positive spin on this finding, suggesting that there's more thermal energy for home and residential heat-pump systems to tap, and that this energy will displace the use of fossil fuels. Hardly something to cheer about, however, given the initial causes of the warming.

Many see nuclear power as an optimal fossil to renewable transition energy.

A full 43 percent said nuclear energy provides a way to achieve a low-carbon future. The same percentage said they believed other renewable energy sources alone cannot fully replace fossil fuels. While 29 percent of those responding to the survey said they were more supportive of nuclear energy today than they were three years ago, 19 percent said they were less so.

If you're worried about dependence on fossil fuels, the RuralZed timber-frame kit house can make you self-sufficient.

Talking of "Strong measures" towards clean power...