Currently viewing the tag: "energy"
In the quest for inexpensive biofuels, cellulose proved no match for a bioprocessing strategy and genetically engineered microbe developed by researchers at the US Department of Energy’s BioEnergy Science Centre. Using consolidated bioprocessing, a team led by James Liao of the University of California at Los Angeles for the first time has produced isobutanol directly from cellulose. The team’s work, published online in Applied and Environmental Microbiology , represents across-the-board savings in processing costs and time. Furthermore, isobutanol is a higher grade of alcohol than ethanol. “Unlike ethanol, isobutanol can be blended at any ratio with gasoline and should eliminate the need for dedicated infrastructure in tanks or vehicles,” said Liao, chancellor’s professor and vice chair of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science.
How successful has the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) been in stimulating the growth of renewable energy across the UK? What impact, if any, might be felt from the government’s recent announcement it would review part of the FIT earlier than expected? And where do the greatest opportunities lie for solar-, wind- and other clean-energy firms? Those and other questions will be the focus of a Greenbang Research webinar, “Analysis of the Feed-in Tariff,” scheduled for 2 to 3 pm GMT on Wednesday, March 23. Research analyst Raphael Raggatt, lead author of Greenbang’s latest research report on the FIT , will give the presentation. Attendance is free but limited to the first 100 attendees, so early registration is recommended. Online registration is available here .
See the original post here:
Webinar: What’s status of UK feed-in tariff?
So I got an email invitation to this American Enterprise Institute event tomorrow: Energy Policy: Above All, Do No Harm An Address by John Rowe, Chairman and CEO, Exelon Corporation Rowe is quite a reasonable guy (see Rowe: Low gas prices and no carbon price push back nuclear renaissance a “decade, maybe two” ). AEI, not so much (see “ AEI: Still crazy with denial and delay after all these years “). The title of the talk is absurd. The primary goal of energy policy right now should not be “Do No Harm.” It should be to “Stop doing harm — immediately!” (see Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated” and The Lancet ’s landmark Health Commission: “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century” ). The latest climate science makes clear that simply continuing our current energy policy risks multiple, simultaneous catastrophes, any one of which would be reason to dramatically change our energy policy, but combined they represent an existential threat to modern human civilization that creates a moral imperative for abrupt policy change (see “ A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice “). The talk title plays off what many people think is a quote from the famous Hippocratic oath many doctors take. But it struck me that “Above all, do no harm,” doesn’t actually reflect modern medical practice — which is constantly doing harm to people, through the side-effects of drugs, surgery, and the like, in an effort to save people from far greater harm. So I looked it up, and, indeed, that isn’t what the Hippocratic oath says. The “original, translated into English” (via Wikipedia ), contains this line: I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. That is quite different. Our energy policy certainly fails that version.
Last month, CP covered the first bombshell NY Times piece on natural gas fracking (see NYT: “The dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood” ). CAP’s Tom Kenworthy has the followup and the fallout.
Continued here:
Frack this: More dangers to public health from natural gas hydraulic fracturing emerge