5 Things You Need to Know About How Ethanol Is Made

by Bill Siuru
07/03/2008



A Very Old Technology
While the technology and equipment is much more sophisticated today, ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is produced basically as it has been done as long as man has been making beer and wine. As done for centuries, most ethanol today is produced by fermentation. When the feedstock is a grain like corn, the starch is first converted to sugars. Then, in the presence of the right type of yeast and in the absence of oxygen, the sugars are converted to ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. It is important that there is no oxygen during fermentation, otherwise you get water and carbon dioxide rather than ethanol. Ethanol can also be made from rice, wheat, sorghum, sunflower, and potatoes. In Brazil, where ethanol accounts for over 40 percent of the country's automotive fuel, sugar cane is used as the feedstock. Brazil is currently the world's biggest producer of ethanol.

Fuel or Food
Critics of using ethanol as a fuel say that the environmental benefits are nil and more important, the use of biofuels has to compete with the same feedstocks that are used for food. As we're seeing now, this means higher food prices and even food shortages. In the U.S., ethanol is mostly produced from corn that is both land and energy intensive. Experts say there is not enough agricultural land to grow enough corn for both fuel and food. The U.S. Department of Energy says corn-based ethanol provides only 26 percent more energy than required for its production, much of this being the fossil fuels used for fertilizer, diesel for tractors and trucks, and coal and natural gas for operating ethanol plants.

Government Mandate
The new Energy Independence and Security Act calls for a dramatic increase in biofuels - from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Corn- and other grain-based ethanols are expected to account for up to 15 billion gallons of these biofuels. The remaining 21 billion gallons will come from cellulosic and biomass sources.

Cellulosic Ethanol to the Rescue
Since cellulose is present in every plant, there is an abundance of low cost feedstock materials. Promising feedstock candidates include grasses and fast growing trees. The estimated 325 million tons of waste materials discarded every year - like urban wood waste, mill residues, corn stover and wheat straw - could provide as much as 30 percent of our fuel needs. Currently, switchgrass is of great interest because it contains much cellulose. An acre of grasses or other crops grown to make ethanol could produce more than twice the gallons of ethanol compared to corn, partly because the whole plant can be used. One gallon of fossil fuel can produce over five gallons of ethanol from prairie grasses.

Development Still Needed
While cellulosic biomass is cheaper to grow than corn because it requires less energy, fertilizer, herbicides, and other necessities make it substantially more expensive to process into ethanol than corn. Currently, it costs about $2.25 per gallon, about twice as much as from corn. This translates to the equivalent of $120 a barrel oil. The target is to half this by 2012. Incidentally, there is no difference between corn and cellulosic ethanol since both are ethyl alcohol. Also, ethanol cannot be transported readily through existing petroleum pipelines and must now be transported by barge, rail, or truck. This adds greatly to the cost of E85 (85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline) and means E85 is still only readily available in or near corn-growing states. Finally, the oil companies have shown little interest in selling this competitor to gasoline.

Current Status for Cellulosic Ethanol
Plants to produce cellulosic ethanol, at least in demonstration quantities, are coming on line in various locations in the U.S. as well as in China and Spain. Recently, General Motors announced its partnership with Coskata to use this company's breakthrough technology to make ethanol from many feedstocks including garbage, old tires, and plant waste. It uses microorganisms that eliminate the need for costly pretreatments with enzymes. The microorganisms also ferment the material at lower temperatures and pressures to further reduce costs. A cost of about $1 per gallon is projected. The process extracts about 7.7 units of energy for every unit spent in turning feedstock into ethanol. It also reduces CO2 emissions by up to 84 percent compared to gasoline. Coskata's process uses less than a gallon of water to make a gallon of ethanol compared to three gallons or more for other processes. Coskata will deliver the first ethanol from its pilot plant to GM in late 2008, The first commercial-scale plant making 50 to 100 million gallons of ethanol should be running in 2011.

Bill Siuru is a retired USAF colonel who has been writing about automotive technology for nearly 40 years. He has a bachelor's degree in automotive engineering, a PhD in mechanical engineering and has taught engineering at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy.

5 Things You Need to Know About Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)

by Jennifer Olvera
07/03/2008

What LPG Really Is
Liquid Petroleum Gas - also called LPG, autogas, or LP Gas - is more commonly known in the U.S. as propane. In reality, however, LPG is a blend of propane and other hydrocarbon gases, such as butane. LPG is a byproduct that occurs during crude oil extraction and refining or from gas streams. It has a very high octane rating and becomes liquid when compressed, but reverts to a gas at normal temperatures and atmospheric pressure. Transporting LPG in its liquid state is ideal since it's extremely dense.

Benefits and Drawbacks of LPG
When used to power internal combustion engines, LPG is non-toxic, non-corrosive, additive-free, and doesn't contain tetra-ethyl lead. It also burns cleaner than traditional liquid motor fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. However, its energy density is lower than these fuels, resulting in fewer miles per gallon. Because certain types of internal combustion engines need lubrication from diesel and gasoline, it's possible that the use of LPG, which is non-lubricating, can damage valves and reduce the life of engines.

There are Different Kinds of LPG
It's important to use the right grade of LPG in order to prevent engine damage. Of the three kinds that are commercially available - propane, engine fuel-grade propane (or HD5), and commercial-grade butane - HD5 is the only engine fuel-grade propane. Standard HD5 requires a minimum propane content of 90 percent and propylene content that's lower than 5 percent. However, it's important to note that despite attempts to provide a standard in the U.S., the standards for HD5 are not universal since the concentration of propane itself can range between 50 percent and 100 percent. Its composition therefore ranges from country to country and location to location.

LPG Results in Power Loss
The use of HD5 results in a power loss of about 4 percent and up to an additional 20 percent among engines that have been converted to burn LPG. One of the ways this can be overcome is by using a supercharger or turbocharger to increase the volume of air that's burned with fuel in the engine's combustion chambers. Ways to enrich the oxygen content of the intake air are being investigated, but the findings aren't currently being applied to commercially available vehicles.

LPG Can Reduce Maintenance
It is believed that using LPG reduces the wear and tear on spark-ignited engines. Oil does not need to be changed as frequently, plus spark plugs and engines have been found to last longer than cars powered by gasoline. Typically, LPG-fueled cars start easier in cold temperatures, too, but the opposite can be true when it's hot. Propane's properties are highly affected by the temperature at which it's stored. When it gets warm, propane's volume increases; a safety fill-stop device ensures room remains in the tank so it cannot be filled to capacity. Because propane is stored under pressure and has a low viscosity, it's more common for it to leak through cracks, gaskets, seals, and pumps.

Jennifer Olvera, a graduate of DePaul University in Chicago, has been writing professionally for over a decade. In addition to covering the "green scene" for publications such as Where Magazine and Crain's, she has become one of the preeminent dining, food, and entertainment writers in Chicago. She has regularly been published in Chicago Magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Zagat, Citysearch.com, and Gayot.com.

Top 2008 Fuel Economy Favorites

By: Todd Kaho
02/14/2008



Suddenly, it's cool to drive a more environmentally mindful vehicle. High fuel prices, an unstable oil market, and world political forces are changing attitudes and vehicle preferences as a matter of economic necessity for both consumers and the auto industry. Shopping for a new vehicle today means paying attention not only to purchase price, monthly payments, and insurance costs, but for the first time since the oil crisis of the 1970s, fuel economy as well.

Automakers now have a business case for building fuel efficient cars for the North American market. As demand grows, moving the large number of high mileage cars necessary to maintain profitability becomes easier to achieve. That's good news for all since greener cars are easier on the environment, conserve natural resources, and save drivers money through lower operating costs.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the savings achieved by a car that gets 30 mpg compared to one that gets 20 mpg amounts to $775 per year, assuming 15,000 miles of driving annually and a fuel cost of $3.10. Add this up over the years a vehicle is typically in your driveway and the potential dollar savings is eye-opening.

Selecting a more fuel efficient car, truck, or SUV is a matter of choice and not necessarily price. Here, we've singled out 10 mileage standouts at five different price points that start below $15,000 and rise to over $30,000. Other vehicles are offered for consideration at each price level. The top selections aren't always the two highest fuel economy choices in a price range, but rather the most significant when functionality and drivability are taken into account. Considered, too, are consumer needs ranging from family size to vehicle styling. Clearly, there are lots of choices out there that fit differing needs and "greenness" will always be subjective. Here are 10 of our favorites that won't steer you wrong.

UNDER $15,000



HONDA FIT, 28 CITY/34 HIGHWAY MPG, $13,950
EPA classifies the Honda Fit as a small station wagon, making it the fuel economy leader in that segment. But in reality, the Fit competes more closely with the Toyota Yaris and Nissan Versa subcompacts, cars that are small on the outside and big on the inside. Regardless, Honda's little five-door hatch is a very functional economy car/wagon that easily delivers fuel economy in the low to mid-30 mpg range. Power comes from a 109 horsepower, 1.5 liter VTEC four-cylinder and either a five-speed manual or five-speed automatic transmission.



FORD FOCUS, 24 CITY/35 HIGHWAY MPG, $14,300
Ford's new 2008 Focus is proof that domestic manufacturers can produce great small cars. The Focus is offered as either a sporty two door coupe or four door sedan in base S, mid-range SE, and higher-end SES trim levels. The new car has a stiffer body structure than before, allowing a greater level of suspension tuning that makes it fun to drive and pleasant to live with daily. It comes standard with Ford's Duratec 2.0-liter four cylinder engine that can be ordered as a PZEV (Partial Zero Emission Vehicle) variant in many states.

Others To Consider:
Toyota Yaris, 29 city/36 highway mpg, $11,350
Nissan Versa, 26 city/31 highway mpg, $12,710
Chevrolet Aveo, 24 city/34 highway mpg, $10,895
$15,000-$20,000

CHEVROLET MALIBU, 22 CITY/30 HIGHWAY MPG, $19,995
The completely redesigned 2008 Chevy Malibu may well restore your faith in domestic automakers. This fresh-from-the-tread-up design delivers considerable value in a good size family sedan. A base price under 20 grand represents considerable value when you consider it includes traction control, four wheel ABS, a year of OnStar, XM Satellite radio, and an automatic transmission. Bolstering its family appeal is a five star frontal and side impact crash rating. A 2.4-liter double overhead cam Ecotec engine is standard with a 3.6-liter V-6 optional. The Malibu is also offered in a mild hybrid version that delivers 24/32 mpg, but it doesn't make the under 20 grand cut.


NISSAN ROGUE, 22 CITY/27 HIGHWAY MPG, $19,250
Crossover vehicles try to be many things to many people, a feat the 2008 Nissan Rogue manages with surprising ease. The Rogue hits a sweet spot between true economy car thriftiness and SUV versatility. A smaller crossover package, the Rogue is easy to maneuver around town and parks more like a compact car than SUV. It is offered in both front wheel drive and all wheel drive powertrains, so if you live in snow country you may want to step up to all-weather capability with only a one mpg loss in both city and highway driving. This is made possible by Nissan's choice of a very willing 170 horsepower, 2.5-liter four-cylinder that delivers V-6 like power through a continuously variable transmission.

Others To Consider:
Toyota Corolla, 27 city/35 highway mpg, $15,250
Honda Civic, 26 city/34 highway mpg, $15,010
Subaru Impreza, 20 city/27 highway mpg, $16,995
$20,000-$25,000

HONDA CIVIC HYBRID, 40 CITY/45 HIGHWAY MPG, $22,600
In the U.S. market, the Honda Civic is the economy car by which all others are judged. Rightly so, since the Civic has set standards for space efficiency, fuel economy, and clean emissions from the start. Now, some 35 years after the first Civic was introduced, this basic economy car has morphed into a platform that satisfies buyers from the sport compact performance crowd to commuters seeking maximum economy. The Civic Hybrid is in many ways the ultimate incarnation of the Civic's low environmental impact, high fuel efficiency promise. Utilizing Honda's Integrated Motor Assist hybrid technology, the Civic Hybrid consistently delivers better than 40 mpg without sacrificing functionality.


TOYOTA PRIUS, 48 CITY/45 HIGHWAY MPG, $21,100
When you hear the word hybrid, this is the car most people envision. Pure and simple, the Toyota Prius is an icon of hybrid powertrain evolution. It has now been 10 years since the first Prius was sold in Japan, and that decade of refinement and technological advancement is evident in the current model. Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive incorporates a 1.5-liter, double overhead cam four-cylinder engine producing 76 horsepower. With the integration of a 67 horsepower electric motor this package provides 295 ft-lbs of torque from 0 rpm. The Prius is comfortable, stylish in its own quirky way, and provides drivers a high-profile statement for environmental performance.

Others To Consider:
Chevy Malibu Hybrid, 24 city/32 highway mpg, $22,790
Saturn Vue Green Line, 25 city/32 highway mpg, $24,795
Saturn Aura Green Line, 24 city/32 highway mpg, $22,790
$25,000-$30,000

TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID, 34 CITY/32 HIGHWAY MPG, $25,350
How do you make the best selling car in America even better? If you're Toyota, you add a hybrid version, of course. The Camry Hybrid debuted last year along with a complete redesign of the model. Utilizing Toyota's proven Hybrid Synergy Drive system, the Camry offers a combined gasoline-electric drive output of 187 horsepower. A true full hybrid like the Prius, the Camry Hybrid is capable of operating solely on electric power at slow speeds, on the gasoline engine alone, or via a combination of the two. The latest generation Camry is a solid mid-size sedan that suits a wide variety of missions well, particularly the roll of a comfortable family commuter car.


FORD ESCAPE HYBRID, 34 CITY/30 HIGHWAY MPG, $26,505
Ford continues to make strides with its hybrid program as evidenced by the 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid. The new model is not only quieter and more refined, but delivers better fuel economy than previous models as well. With 2008 EPA numbers of 34 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway for the front wheel drive model, the Escape Hybrid lays claim to being the most fuel efficient SUV available in America. The combination of a 2.3-liter Atkinson cycle four-cylinder gas engine and 94 horsepower electric motor allows the Escape Hybrid to deliver performance equivalent to a standard V-6 engine without sacrificing fuel economy. The Escape Hybrid is a great small SUV alternative for buyers who not willing to sacrifice utility for economy.

Others To Consider:
Nissan Altima Hybrid, 35 city/33 highway mpg, $25,710
Mercury Mariner 2WD Hybrid, 34 city/30 highway mpg, $27,195
Mazda Tribute 2WD Hybrid, 34 city/30 highway mpg, $25,310
OVER $30,000

TOYOTA HIGHLANDER HYBRID, 27 CITY/25 HIGHWAY MPG, $37,650
The family friendly Highlander Hybrid grew in size, weight, and utility for 2008, yet delivers equivalent mileage to its smaller predecessor. The roomier interior features three rows, with the center row offering a removable center section that stows in the bottom of the console for easy access to the rear. Toyota is calling the new Highlander a crossover vehicle rather than an SUV. A quieter and more refined ride clearly moves the Highlander apart from truck based SUVs. Power comes from a 3.3-liter double overhead cam V-6 that works in harmony with electric drive to produce a combined output of 270 horsepower. The new model also offers an "EV" button that provides the ability to drive more on electric power only at lower speeds and for limited distances.


MERCEDES-BENZ E320 BLUETEC, 23 CITY/32 HIGHWAY MPG, $53,025
With ultra low sulfur -- or "clean" -- diesel now the standard in the U.S., automakers are finally able offer the diesel engine's roughly 30 percent fuel economy advantage while meeting the same stringent clean air standards as gasoline cars. The luxurious Mercedes E320 Bluetec is among the first to market with clean diesel technology that meets 50 state emissions requirements. The 3.0-liter Bluetec V-6 features 210 horsepower and an impressive 400 lbs-ft of torque delivered through an electronically controlled 7-speed automatic transmission. With fuel economy on par with smaller hybrid sedans, this Mercedes can cover a lot of ground between fill ups ... nearly 700 miles in highway cruise mode.

Others To Consider:
Lexus GS 450h, 22 city/25 highway mpg, $54,900
Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, 20 city/22 highway mpg, $49,590
Lexus RX 400h, 27 city/24 highway mpg, $41,280
Want to know more about fuel efficiency and higher mpg vehicles? Be sure to check out these articles on GreenCar.com:

350 ppm CO2 The Target

ISIS Report 09/09/09

350 ppm CO2 The Target
#################

Reducing present atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm is needed to
avert irreversible climate catastrophe, top climate
scientists say Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Rajendra Pachauri, United Nation’s top climate scientist and
head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), took everyone by surprise when he said that the
target to aim for is 350 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the
atmosphere, bearing in mind that we now have 385 ppm.

The IPCC produces an authoritative assessment of climate
science every five years. Its last report in 2007 helped set
the target of 450 ppm that many environmental groups and
national governments have adopted as their goal for the
Copenhagen negotiation this December.

But 450 ppm is out of date. When Jim Hansen from NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, in the US and
other scientists looked at phenomena such as how rapidly
polar ice has been melting in summer [1], they produced a
convincing demonstrating that 350 ppm is the bottom line.
“But it's been hard to get that news out to the powers that
be. So today it comes as enormous and welcome news that
Pachauri, from his New Delhi office, said that 350 was the
number,” [2] wrote Bill McKibben, prominent author and
environmentalist.

350 ppm needed to avert “irreversible catastrophic effects”

Concern about global warming due to greenhouse gases (GHGs)
led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change [3] that has the objective of stabilizing GHGs in the
atmosphere at a level preventing “dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.”

In its 2007 report [4], the IPCC estimates that global
warming of more than 2-3 °C may be dangerous. The European
Union adopted 2 °C above pre-industrial global temperature
as a goal. This and other considerations led to the 450 ppm
CO2 maximum target.

But Hansen and colleagues [5] point out that IPCC climate
models are inadequate, as they include only fast feedback
processes, which gives ~ 3 °C warming for doubled CO2, a
figure referred to as ‘climate sensitivity’. Instead, the
more realistic climate sensitivity that includes also slow
feedback processes is ~6 °C for doubled CO2. The earth’s
history shows that this doubling of CO2 covers the range of
climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free
Antarctica.

The decrease from a high atmospheric CO2 was the main cause
of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, when the
planet remained nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100
ppm. Hansen’s team point out that unless we have prompt
policy changes, the critical level of atmospheric CO2 will
be passed in the opposite direction - glacial to ice free -
within decades. “Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate
change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its
current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than
that.” They wrote.

They suggest this target may be achievable by phasing out
coal use, except where CO2 is captured; and adopting
agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon.

If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief,
there is a possibility of seeding “irreversible catastrophic
effects”.

Read the rest of this report here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/350ppm_CO2_the_Target.php

Or read other articles about climate change here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/climateglobalwarming.php

Beware the Biochar Initiative

ISIS Report 07/09/09

Turning bioenergy crops into buried charcoal to sequester
carbon does not work, and could plunge the earth into an
oxygen crisis towards mass extinction Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

The story goes that charcoal buried in the soil is stable
for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years and
increases crop yields. The proposal to grow crops on
hundreds of millions of hectares to be turned into buried
‘biochar’ is therefore widely seen as a “carbon negative”
initiative that could save the climate and boost food
production.

That story is fast unravelling. Biochar is not what it is
hyped up to be, and implementing the biochar initiative
could be dangerous, basically because saving the climate
turns out to be not just about curbing the rise of CO2 in
the atmosphere that can be achieved by burying carbon in the
soil, it is also about keeping oxygen (O2) levels up.
Keeping O2 levels up is what only green plants on land and
phytoplankton at sea can do, by splitting water to
regenerate O2 while fixing CO2 to feed the rest of the
biosphere [1] (Living with Oxygen, SiS 43).

Climate scientists have only discovered within the past
decade that O2 is depleting faster than the rise in CO2,
both on land and in the sea [2, 3] (O2 Dropping Faster than
CO2 Rising, and Warming Oceans Starved of Oxygen, SiS 44).
Furthermore, the acceleration of deforestation spurred by
the biofuels boom since 2003 appears to coincide with a
substantial steepening of the O2 decline. Turning trees into
charcoal in a hurry could be the surest way to precipitate
an oxygen crisis from which we may never recover.

Burying charcoal to save the climate

The International Biochar Initiative (IBI), according to its
website [4], was formed in July 2006 at a side meeting of
the World Soil Science Congress at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in the United States, by people from academic
institutions, commercial ventures, investment banks, non-
government organizations and federal agencies around the
world, dedicated to research, development, demonstration,
deployment, and commercialisation of biochar on a global
scale.

IBI has introduced biochar into the 2008 US Farm Bill, so it
now counts among a handful of “new, high-priority research
and extension areas”. IBI is also working with the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification to promote
biochar in the post-Kyoto climate agreement. And the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has already
included biochar in a section entitled: “Enhanced Action on
Mitigation” to serve as basis for negotiations during pre-
Copenhagen meetings [5].

Biochar is just charcoal, produced by burning organic matter
such as wood, grasses, crop residues and manure, under
conditions of low oxygen (pyrolysis). A number of different
pyrolysis techniques exist depending on temperature, speed
of heating, and oxygen delivery [6, 7], resulting in
different yields of biochar and co-products, “bio-oil” (with
energy content value approx 55 percent that of diesel fuel
by volume) and “syn-gas” (a mixture of hydrogen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons), which can be
used to generate electricity, or as low-grade fuel for
ships, boilers, aluminium smelter and cooking stoves.

IBI has encountered strong criticism as a “new threat to
people, land and ecosystem” in a declaration signed by more
than 155 non-profit organisations worldwide [8]. But patent
applications have been made, and companies formed for
commercial exploitation of biochar production. Intense
lobbying is taking place for biochar to be included in the
Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism for mitigating
climate change [9, 10], so people implementing that
technology would be able to sell certified emission
reduction (CER) credits.

Things have moved forward so fast with so little public
awareness and debate that critics are alarmed, especially
over the proposal from some prominent advocates that 500
million hectares or more of ‘spare land’ could be used to
grow crops for producing biochar [11, 12], mostly to be
found in developing countries; the same as was proposed in
the biofuels initiative several years earlier.

Read the rest of this report here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bewareTheBiocharInitiative.php

========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bewareTheBiocharInitiative.php

Green fuels to make up 20%

Writer: YUTHANA PRAIWAN
Published: 7/09/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: Business


Nongbua Cogeneration pig farm installed a 70-million-baht facility to produce biogas from the excrement of 15,000 pigs. Over 5,000 cubic metres of biogas is piped daily to a 1.4-megawatt power plant supplying electricity to the farm. SAROT MEKSOPHAWANNAKUL

Under Thailand's 15-year alternative energy master plan, alternative sources will account for 20.4% of all energy consumed in 2023, compared with 6% this year, according to the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE).

The sources covered include ethanol, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, hydropower, biogas, biomass, wind power and solar cells.

"Some of those projects will apply to the UN carbon-trading scheme. We expect that greenhouse gas emissions will be cut to 42 million tonnes per year once the plan is fulfilled," said Krairit Nilkuha, the newly appointed director-general of the DEDE.

The DEDE expects that by 2023, solar cells will generate 650 megawatts of electricity, biogas 270 MW, biomass 9,720 MW, community waste 368 MW, hydropower 770 MW, and wind turbines 1,300 MW.

Mr Krairit said that because some alternative energy sources were more costly than traditional ones, the agency would offer attractive rates, known as adder tariffs, for power purchased from such projects.

The adder rates are 3.50 baht per unit (kilowatt.hour) for wind turbine power, 2.50 baht for community waste, 0.30 baht for biomass and biogas. The incentives would be offered for the first seven years of operation.

For solar power, an adder of eight baht a unit would be offered for 10 years, he added.

Rangsan Sarochawikasit, executive director of the Bureau of Energy Research, said the Energy Ministry would support the plan through Board of Investment privileges and soft loans to encourage energy services companies to apply to the United Nations for carbon credit trading.

At present, utilities are buying 4.1 MW of electricity from 47 solar cell operators, 20.5 MW from 25 biogas operators, 244 MW from 46 biomass operators, 2.4 MW from three power-from-waste projects, 0.06 MW from 2 mini-hydropower plants, and 0.08 MW from a wind turbine operator.

In the transport sector, the use of ethanol is expected to rise to 9 million litres per day from 1.3 million, methyl ester (B100) to 4.5 million litres from 1.4 million, and compressed natural gas to 690 million standard cubic feet (mmscfd) from 108 mmscfd.

NASA | A Tour of the Cryosphere 2009

It has been said that the frozen parts of our planet, also known as the cryosphere, may be the proverbial 'canary in the coal mine' when it comes to climate change. This video shows some of the most dramatic fluctuations to our cryosphere in recent years using visuals created with a variety of satellite-based data.