It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
A study published today in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainabilityhas found that green ammonia could be used to fulfil the fuel demands of over 60% of global shipping by targeting just the top 10 regional fuel ports. Researchers at the University of Oxford looked at the production costs of ammonia which are similar to very low sulphur fuels, and concluded that the fuel could be a viable option to help decarbonise international shipping by 2050.
Around USD 2 trillion will be needed to transition to a green ammonia fuel supply chain by 2050, primarily to finance supply infrastructure. The study shows that the greatest investment need is in Australia, to supply the Asian markets, with large production clusters also predicted in Chile (to supply South America), California (to supply Western U.S.A.), North-West Africa (to meet European demand), and the southern Arabian Peninsula (to meet local demand and parts of south Asia).
90% of world’s physical goods trade is transported by ships which burn heavy fuel oil and emit toxic pollutants. This accounts for nearly 3% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result of this, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) committed to decarbonising international shipping in 2018, aiming to halve GHG emissions by 2050. These targets have been recently revised to net zero emissions by 2050.
After investigating the viability of diesel vessel exhaust scrubbers, green ammonia, made by electrolysing water with renewable electricity, was proposed as an alternative fuel source to quickly decarbonise the shipping industry. However, historically there has been great uncertainty as to how and where to invest to create the necessary infrastructure to deliver an efficient, viable fuel supply chain.
René Bañares-Alcántara, Professor of Chemical Engineering in the Department of Engineering Science at the University of Oxford, says: “Shipping is one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonize because of the need for fuel with high energy density and the difficulty of coordinating different groups to produce, utilize and finance alternative (green) fuel supplies.”
To guide investors, the team at the University of Oxford developed a modelling framework to create viable scenarios for how to establish a global green ammonia fuel supply chain. The framework combines a fuel demand model, future trade scenarios and a spatial optimisation model for green ammonia production, storage, and transport, to find the best locations to meet future demand for shipping fuel.
Professor Bañares-Alcántara continues: “The implications of this work are striking. Under the proposed model, current dependence upon oil-producing nations would be replaced by a more regionalised industry; green ammonia will be produced near the equator in countries with abundant land and high solar potential then transported to regional centres of shipping fuel demand.”
ARTICLE TITLE
Optimal fuel supply of green ammonia to decarbonise global shipping
Facts are important. Even if the facts are uncomfortable or inconvenient. The industry is starting to understand that methanol is no silver bullet solution for shipping’s decarbonisation challenge contrary to the claims of certain operators.
When you burn methanol (CH3OH) in a marine engine, you emit CO2. The chemical composition of methanol is a fact. And this alleged ‘silver bullet’ is, in fact, a fossil fuel. Methanol adopters talk about green methanol, but grey methanol is all that is available on the market today. Its lifecycle or Well-to-Wake emissions are estimated at around 14% higher than VLSFO due to the energy needed to produce methanol.
The small amount of “green” methanol recently bunkered by an early mover was made from biomethane – not renewable hydrogen – using a valuable green fuel, biomethane, as a feedstock. This green methanol production process is wasteful, consuming a scarce green resource to make a more expensive marine fuel.
It takes six to seven times more renewable energy to turn biomethane into biomethanol compared with simply liquefying the same bio-methane to make bio-LNG (or liquefied biomethane). This green energy could be put to better use.
In the next 10 – 20 years before green hydrogen production really scales, green fuels and their associated feedstocks will be scarce. Taking biomethane, an existing green fuel, and using it as a feedstock in an inefficient process which loses 35 percent of the green energy to create bio-methanol makes no sense.
Further, if we look at the properties of fuels themselves, to carry the energy equivalent of one tonne of bio-LNG onboard, ship operators will need to bunker almost three tonnes of bio-methanol. In short, more space required for fuel means less capacity for cargo. The rationale of these demonstration projects escapes logic.
The industry needs to act now with solutions that make a difference today. The declaration by the CEOs of Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, MSC, and Wallenius Wilhelmsen at COP28 emphasises the urgency of accelerating the transition to greener fuels and creating the regulatory conditions to achieve this. While regulation is vital, LNG coupled with other proven technologies can start shipping’s decarbonization journey now and continue to its zero emissions destination as greener forms of LNG such as bio-LNG and e-LNG become available at scale.
We cannot hope that there will be better answers decades down the road. University College London (UCL) estimates that every year of inaction this decade will add an extra $100 billion to the cost of shipping’s decarbonisation. This sum is dwarfed by the potential cost of climate-related damages to the wider society if shipping fails to cut emissions. GHG emissions are cumulative, and the longer we wait to reduce them the tougher, and more expensive, the decarbonization challenge will be.
When we discuss fuel choice today we must consider the full gamut of investments in vessels, engine technology, fuel production and availability, distribution, storage and supply. Other factors - such as safety for crew and port communities; energy density and onboard space requirements; and pilot fuel demands - are daunting and wide-ranging questions that need to be considered in an absence of reliable information. Clearly when there is so much uncertainly, the industry needs to create options but it should be wary of placing bets. LNG is a known quantity with a clear and proven pathway forward.
In terms of what we can and should be doing right now, improving energy utilization coupled with realistic and practical solutions must be considered first. The LNG Pathway, when used together with other proven technologies which exist today, adds to the benefits gained and results in real carbon savings, not theoretical future benefits that are dependent upon unproven technologies and significant future investments.
Peter Keller is the chairman of Sea-LNG.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
Hydrogen-Powered CTV Deploys in Germany as CMB.TECH Enhances Power System
Hydrocat 55 deploys as Germany's first hydrogen-powered CTV and looks to enhance the power technology (FRS Windcat)
Belgium’s Saverys family continues its efforts to lead the shipping industry into the future announcing that the technology from its company CMB.TECH was used to deploy Germany’s first hydrogen-powered dual-fuel crew transfer vessel. The ship expands on their first hydrogen application for a crew transfer vessel in Belgium in 2022 and will be the first of a fleet of six vessels under construction.
The new Hydrocat 55 was initially delivered in the spring of 2023 outfitted with a dual-fuel engine manufactured by MAN. It has been retrofitted by CMB.TECH with a hydrogen injection system. The company points out that no fundamental changes were required to the vessel’s main engine. The CTV can continue to use traditional fuel when hydrogen is not available or as a backup system.
The hydrogen system is supplied with 27 cylinders. The vessel has a total capacity of 207 kg of hydrogen. CMB.TECH previously explained the way its injection system works is mixing hydrogen and air which is then ignited in a mix with a small amount of diesel fuel in the combustion chamber of the cylinders. Depending on the engine's operating point, the company says only a very small amount of diesel fuel is needed.
Testing begins this month in a year-long trial that continues to improve the hydrogen-power technology (50Hertz/M. Vogel photo)
The new vessel uses the same design as the earlier Hydrocat 48 introduced in 2022 as the world’s first hydrogen dual-fuel CTV. The new vessel is 82 feet (25 meters) in length with a capacity to transport 24 passengers while operating with a crew of two to three.
The vessel was built for FRS Windcat Offshore Logistics, a partnership between FRS a Germany shipping company that operates high-speed catamarans and Windcat which is a leader in crew transfer services. CMB.TECH is an investor in FRS Windcat. The new vessel is part of a fleet of six ships currently operating in the German and Danish North Sea and Baltic under the German flag to support the offshore operations. The vessel will be operated for 50Hertz, a transmission system operator responsible for connecting the grid to the wind farms in the German sector of the Baltic.
The companies report that five more CTVs of this type are under construction. At the same time work is proceeding to further optimize the ship’s technology and further reduce CO2 emissions. Trials for the Hydrocat 55 are beginning this month and it will operate for a year with regular use of green hydrogen.
Tuesday, October 03, 2023
Green Fuels in Shipping Face Major Challenges for 2050 Net Zero Target
World's first and only liquid hydrogen carrier, Suiso Frontier (HYSTRA / Kawasaki)
Ships carry around 90% of traded goods and emit about 3% of global CO?. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN agency responsible for regulating shipping, recently set out plans for this industry to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Like their ancient forebears, modern vessels can be partially propelled by wind. Indeed, a British cargo ship recently took its maiden voyage using sails made from the same material as wind turbines.
This can reduce a ship’s lifetime emissions, but wind’s ability to power the global shipping fleet is limited by propeller systems, which only provide up to 30% of the energy vessels need to navigate – and even less in poor weather. Wind propellers might assist cargo ships but are unlikely to fully replace fuel engines. What the shipping industry needs is to swap oil for alternative green fuels.
The shipping industry faces great challenges in making this shift to fuels such as ammonia, hydrogen and methanol. While a few companies like Maersk have begun to test them, converting the entire industry will require ramping up renewable energy, creating new globe-spanning fuel distribution networks, overhauling regulatory frameworks and building ship engines that can burn green fuels.
Some of these steps are underway, yet much more remains to be done.
What makes shipping fuel green?
Green hydrogen is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity generated by wind, solar or other renewable sources. Green ammonia is formed by combining nitrogen from the air and green hydrogen through a process called Haber-Bosch.
Green methanol is either generated by heating plant or other organic waste to create a gas that can then be converted into bio-methanol, or by combining green hydrogen and captured CO? to make e-methanol.
When assessing how green a fuel really is, not only are the emissions created by burning it in the ship’s engine important, but also, the emissions from extracting, producing, transporting and storing it.
This lifecycle assessment of emissions is called “well-to-wake”. In the same way an electric car is not zero-carbon if its power is generated using fossil fuels, nor is a ship using ammonia or methanol produced by burning natural gas.
This assessment demands that the three fuels be generated using only renewable energy. That alone will require enormous investment. According to a study undertaken by the International Chamber of Shipping in 2022, the shipping industry will require up to 3,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of renewable electricity a year, which almost equals the current global total of wind and solar electricity output (about 3,444 TWh).
This output must be ramped up as other industries, such as steel and cement, will also need zero-emission energy by 2050. In fact, up to US$1.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) must be invested to fully decarbonise shipping, with over half of that needed to make green hydrogen, which is also essential for producing green methanol and ammonia.
Ships with compatible engines needed…
Vessels that run on oil and diesel cannot simply switch to burning green fuels. The world’s fleet of around 61,000 ships will need to be upgraded or replaced before 2050.
Retrofitting can allow existing vessels to run on methanol and ammonia, but it costs between US$5 million and US$15 million a ship depending on the fuel. Older vessels are likely to reach the end of their service before this investment is paid off and the onerous cost is the same even for smaller ships.
Ships capable of burning both methanol and methane are already being ordered by container shipping lines such as Maersk, Evergreen, CMA CGM and COSCO. Maersk has received its first dual-fuel vessel which burns green methanol and fuel oil, and sailed from South Korea to Denmark with cargo in August 2023.
The first ammonia-ready vessel, Kriti Future, is already sailing the ocean, though it isn’t burning ammonia yet. Vessels powered by hydrogen fuel cells lag behind the other two fuels, yet MSC cruises have ordered two hydrogen-ready vessels for 2028.
While these vessel orders inspire a sense of optimism about decarbonisation, they only account for a very small percentage of the global fleet.
…and so are safety regulations
A lack of safety regulations is partly responsible for the slow uptake of alternative fuels.
Although the International Energy Agency predicts green ammonia will be the most widely used fuel in 2050, shipping companies have placed more orders for vessels powered by methanol and methane. This is partly because the IMO has issued safety regulations for methanol as fuel, but not ammonia and hydrogen, which has cast doubt on their future among shipowners.
For green fuels to be widely adopted they must be at ports worldwide, but none are widely available. There are about 120 ports capable of storing and delivering methanol, but not enough green methanol. Where this fuel is available it’s often secured by private arrangements between a few large shipowners and methanol producers.
According to the Green Methanol Institute, about 0.7 million tonnes of green methanol could be produced globally by the end of 2023. Production capacity is projected to reach 8 million tonnes a year by 2027. But the global shipping industry requires 550 million tonnes by 2050 to replace oil.
There may not be enough farm and food waste to decarbonise all sectors of the global economy. And so the production of fuels from renewable electricity must increase.
Lots to build
Rolling out green fuels will also require building pipelines, storage tanks and port refuelling stations. Green hydrogen in particular, the key ingredient for other fuels, will need a large investment as it must be stored in special containers at around −253°C.
The shipping industry has not decided on its fuel of the future. But more than one is necessary considering the limited supply of renewable energy.
The good news is that decarbonising international shipping will benefit more than this vital industry by expediting renewable energy investments and helping sun-rich emerging economies flourish with the chance to make lots of cost-effective green hydrogen.
Gokcay Balci is Assistant Professor in Logistics and Supply Chain at University of Bradford.
Ebru Surucu-Balci is Assistant Professor in Circular Supply Chains at University of Bradford.
This article appears courtesy of The Conversation and may be found in its original form here.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Hapag-Lloyd Carries Out Largest Bio-LNG Bunkering Yet
Hapag-Lloyd has become the latest liner to try bio-LNG as a marine fuel. In the largest ship-to-ship bio-LNG bunkering operation yet, STX Group and Titan Clean Fuels supplied 2,200 tonnes of the alternative fuel for Hapag-Lloyd’s Brussels Express at Port of Rotterdam.
Bio-LNG used in the maritime industry is produced from biomass feedstocks like human or agricultural waste, which means it does not compete with the production of food, fiber, or fodder (like many traditional biofuels do). Bio-LNG can have net-zero or even net-negative GHG emissions on a lifecycle basis depending on the method of production, according to Titan.
Built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2014, the Brussels Express became the first large container ship in the world to be converted to LNG propulsion in September 2020. The retrofit, carried out at the Huarun Dadong Dockyard in Shanghai, cost $35 million.
Bunkering of bio-LNG on Brussels Express is part of Hapag-Lloyd’s plan to offer climate-friendly transport services. The line plans to go fully carbon neutral by 2045, and it says that it is on its way. The company reduced the GHG emissions of its fleet by 0.8 million tons in 2023 compared to the previous year, thanks in part to a significant increase in the amount of bunkered biofuel blend (over 200,000 tons).
Jan Christensen, Hapag-Lloyd Senior Director Fuel Purchasing, said that although bunkering large quantities of bio-LNG is possible and scalable, there is still more progress required regarding the necessary infrastructure and the regulations.
Titan is currently building the world’s largest bio-LNG plant at the port of Amsterdam, which will have a capacity to produce 200,000 tons annually when completed. The independent supplier recently chartered Alice Cosulich, increasing its bunkering fleet to three.
Is there a connection between the Harper announcement promoting bio-fuels and the push to kill the Wheat Board. Why of course there is. Its called Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) who is a shareholder in Agricore the Alberta based Wheat and Barley exchange, and they are the largest processor of bio fuels. They also have Brian Mulroney as a board member. This article is from the U.S. but note the conclusion
Grist features the origins of U.S. government subsidies for ethanol fuels and their benefits to Acher Daniels Midland (ADM) and its former CEO Dwayne Andreas (the man who provided the $25,000 for the Watergate 'plumbers'). Includes links to the 1995 Cato Institute study of Carter administration support to ADM, as well as this year's study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Biofuels - At What Cost? (Oct. 25, 2006).
The latter estimates federal support for ethanol to total between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion each year, and the benefits to ADM which (according to the article) contols about 1/3 of the ethanol market.
The article suggests that the federal government could do more to fight greenhouse gases (GHG) if it used the money to buy carbon offsets. Of course, that's not the administration's goal in supporting ADM and ethanol, is it?
Plastics are an integral part of our lives, but they also pose some big environmental problems.
They generate a lot of waste, most of which isn't recycled. A recent study from Environment and Climate Change Canada found that even in our country, only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — the rest is either incinerated, landfilled or ends up in the environment, where it can harm wildlife such as whales, turtles or seabirds. Those are some of the reasons the federal government plans to ban many single-use plastics by 2021.
But the plastic problem is global. As of 2015, humankind had produced 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic, one study estimated, of which 70 per cent had already become waste.
Plastic production and its disposal by incineration also generates greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. A 2019 study from the Center for International Environmental Law estimates that if plastics production grows at its current rate, emissions from plastics could reach 1.2 gigatonnes per year by 2030, equivalent to the emissions of 295 new 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants.
"Bioplastics" aim to curb both those environmental impacts.
They're one of the solutions touted by Canadian supermarkets who say they've taken steps to reduce the massive amounts of plastic waste they generate, after a CBC Marketplace report found they've been slow to act. Marketplace will share their update on plastic waste in supermarkets Friday.
In the meantime, here's what you need to know about bioplastics.
'Bioplastic' can mean 3 different things.
Plastics are moldable materials that are typically made from long chains of smaller molecules joined together, which is why their names often start with the prefix "poly" — for example polystyrene or polyethylene.
Traditionally, they've been made from fossil fuels and take a very long time to break down in the environment — sometimes hundreds of years.
Bioplastics are plastics that can be:
Biodegradable, meaning they can be broken down by microbes into natural substances such as water, carbon dioxide and compost under certain conditions.
Both biobased and biodegradable (some examples in the first bullet point fall into this category). Craig Chivers/CBC
Many bioplastics aren't biodegradable. And some are chemically identical to regular plastics.
The only difference between biopolyethylene or bio-PET (used in Coke's "PlantBottle") and regular polyethylene or PET is they use a raw ingredient from plants (ethanol) instead of fossil fuels to make the same material.
Those kinds of plastics are known as "drop-in" plastics because they can be dropped in as direct replacements for traditional plastics and mixed with them in any quantity (the PlantBottle originally included 30 per cent plant-based ingredients and 70 per cent regular PET that still represents 7 per cent of the company's bottles sold around the world. Coca-Cola has since also made a 100 per cent bio-PET version).
Because they're identical, they take just as long as traditional plastics to break down.
Plastics made mostly or entirely from fossil fuels can be called 'biobased' and 'bioplastics', respectively.
To be labelled a "biobased" product in the U.S. under Department of Agriculture rules (Canada has no equivalent rules), it only need contain a minimum of 25 per cent carbon from biological as opposed to fossil sources — that is, up to 75 per cent of the carbon can come from fossil fuel sources.
In fact, a plastic that is made 100 per cent from fossil fuels can still be considered a bioplastic if it's biodegradable.
For example, a plastic called PBAT (polybutylene adipate terephthalate), sold by chemical company BASF under the name "ecoflex," is a completely fossil fuel-derived plastic that's certified compostable and biodegradable — and is therefore considered a bioplastic. The Coca-Cola Company
Bioplastics can help reduce carbon emissions. But not always a lot.
Bio-based bioplastics typically generate fewer carbon emissions over their life cycle compared to traditional plastics. That's because growing plants suck in and store carbon, which is released later if the bioplastics are burned or decomposed.
"You're not adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere," said Amar Mohanty, distinguished research chair in sustainable biomaterials at the University of Guelph, who has been developing and researching bioplastic and biobased materials for more than 30 years.
In practice, things are more complicated than that because energy is used to grow crops and for transportation, manufacturing, processing and distribution — and that may generate emissions.
How big the difference in emissions is between the two can vary a lot depending on the types of biobased ingredients used, how they were grown, how locally the bioplastic was manufactured, what happened to it at the end of its useful life and exactly what plastics are being compared.
For example, one study found the bioplastic PHA, made from corn leaves, stalks and husks, generates 80 per cent fewer emissions per kilogram over its lifetime, compared to fossil-derived PET or polystyrene. John Schultz/Quad-City Times/Associated Press
But a 2018 study by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre found that in Europe there would be no real difference in lifetime emissions between traditional PET bottles and those made from bioplastics. That's largely because regular PET is manufactured in Europe, while bio-PET is mostly manufactured in the U.S. and lots of emissions would be generated during transport.
As mentioned, some bio-based plastics are not biodegradable and can remain for hundreds of years. Some researchers have argued burying such plastics at their end of life is one way to store carbon captured by plants and keep it from getting into the atmosphere.
Compostable plastics often end their life in places where they don't break down.
A benefit of degradable or compostable plastics is that they can theoretically reduce harm to wildlife and ecosystems caused by traditional plastics and reduce the need for landfill space, which is a problem in some countries. That's because they can be broken down completely into carbon dioxide, water and compost under certain conditions without leaving behind microplastics. Mohanty describes it as "natural recycling."
That said, even popular compostable plastics such as PLA (polylactic acid), which is used to make drinking cups, clamshell containers and plastic cutlery, are not accepted by most municipal and commercial composting programs in Canada and are typically sent to landfill, where one study estimated they would take more than a century to break down and another found they would release the potent greenhouse gas methane during decomposition.
Nor do they necessarily break down in a timely fashion in places like the ocean (where they pose the biggest threat to wildlife) or the soil. Ecoflex, PLA, and two other kinds of biodegradable plastics all survived a year in either seawater or freshwater without breaking down, a 2017 University of Bayreuth study showed. A 2019 University of Plymouth study found that "compostable" bags buried in soil were still there after 27 months, and "biodegradable" bags could still hold groceries after three months in the ocean. David Donnelly/CBC
Bioplastics are often recyclable, but often aren't recycled.
As might be expected, bio-based versions of recyclable plastics such as bio-PET are recyclable with the regular, fossil-fuel based versions of the same plastic.
PLA is also theoretically recyclable. It's not currently accepted by most recycling programs, but that may change in the future.
Bioplastics could potentially have environmental drawbacks.
A number of studies have calculated that huge net emissions are generated if rainforests, peatlands, savannahs or grasslands are converted to agriculture in order to grow crops to produce bioplastics.
But bioplastics are only a tiny fraction of plastic in the world today.
In 2019, land used to grow crops for bioplastics represented just 0.016 per cent of farmland, according to an estimate by European Bioplastics, which represents the bioplastics industry in Europe.
They're just one per cent of the 359 million tonnes of plastic produced around the world each year, estimates European Bioplastics.
View photos
CBC
Tuesday, August 24, 2021
Turning hazelnut shells into potential renewable energy source
Wood vinegar and tar fraction in bio-oil produced from hazelnut shells pyrolysis at 400 C to 1,000 C
CREDIT: AIHUI CHEN, XIFENG LIU, HAIBIN ZHANG, HAO WU, DONG XU, BO LI AND CHENXI ZHAO
WASHINGTON, August 24, 2021 -- Biomass is attracting growing interest from researchers as a source of renewable, sustainable, and clean energy. It can be converted into bio-oil by thermochemical methods, such as gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis, and used to produce fuels, chemicals, and biomaterials.
In Journal for Renewable and Sustainable Energy, researchers from Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Machinery Sciences in China share their work on the physicochemical properties and antioxidant activity of wood vinegar and tar fraction in bio-oil produced from hazelnut shells pyrolysis at 400 degrees Celsius to 1,000 C.
Wood vinegar is often used in agricultural fields as insect repellent, fertilizer, and plant growth promoter or inhibitor, and can be applied as an odor remover, wood preservative, and animal feed additive.
"After these results, wood vinegar and tar obtained from residual hazelnut shells could be considered as potential source of renewable energy dependent on their own characteristics," said author Liu Xifeng.
The researchers found the wood vinegar and tar left over after burning the shells contained the most phenolic substances, which laid a foundation for the subsequent research on antioxidant properties.
The experiments were conducted in a tube furnace pyrolysis reactor, and hazelnut shells samples weighing 20 grams were placed in the waiting area of a quartz tube in advance. When the target temperature was reached and stable, the raw materials were pushed to the reaction region and heated for 20 minutes.
The biochar was determined as the ratio of pyrolytic char and biomass weight, and the bio-oil yield was calculated by the increased weight of the condenser.
To separate two fractions of bio-oil sufficiently, the liquid product was centrifuged at 3,200 revolutions per minute for eight minutes, and the aqueous fraction was called wood vinegar. The separated tar fraction remained stationary for 24 hours without the appearance of the aqueous phase.
The wood vinegar and tar were respectively stored in a sealed tube and preserved in a refrigerator at 4 C for experimental analysis, and the gas yield was calculated by considering their combined volume.
The researchers found the pyrolysis temperature had a significant effect on the yield and properties of wood vinegar and tar fraction in bio-oil obtained from hazelnut shells. Wood vinegar was the dominant liquid fraction with maximal yield of 31.23 weight percent obtained at 700 C, attributable to the high concentration of water.
This research sets the groundwork for further applications of bio-oil from waste hazelnut shell pyrolysis, and its application in antioxidant activity has been extended.
###
The article "Influence of pyrolysis temperature on bio-oil produced from hazelnut shells: Physico-chemical properties and antioxidant activity of wood vinegar and tar fraction" is authored by Xifeng Liu, Aihui Chen, Haibin Zhang, Hao Wu, Dong Xu, Bo Li, and Chenxi Zhao. The article will appear in Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy on Aug. 24, 2021 (DOI: 10.1063/5.0051944). After that date, it can be accessed at https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0051944.
ABOUT THE JOURNAL
Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes across all areas of renewable and sustainable energy relevant to the physical science and engineering communities. Topics covered include solar, wind, biofuels and more, as well as renewable energy integration, energy meteorology and climatology, and renewable resourcing and forecasting. See https://aip.scitation.org/journal/rse.
Influence of pyrolysis temperature on bio-oil produced from hazelnut shells: Physico-chemical properties and antioxidant activity of wood vinegar and tar fraction
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
24-Aug-2021
Disclaimer: AAAS and
Saturday, April 02, 2022
Costa Rica election: Will a newcomer beat an ex-president
IMAGE SOURCE,EPA
Image caption,
Ex-President Jose María Figueres (left) is being challenged by Rodrigo Chaves
Costa Ricans are heading to the polls on Sunday to choose who will lead the Central American nation for the next four years. And as BBC Monitoring's Blaire Toedte reports, there are signs that voters may be a looking for a change from familiar politicians.
Following a first round in February in which none of the 25 candidates managed to gain the 40% of votes necessary to win outright, two men are left in the running.
Jose María Figueres, a 67-year-old centre-right former president from the country's best-known political family, was the winner of the first round.
But his rival, 60-year-old career economist and political outsider, Rodrigo Chaves, has overtaken him in recent polls.
Polls published on 29 March suggested between 41% to 45% of voters preferred Mr Chaves over ex-President Figueres, who was the first choice of 33% of those polled.
But with 15% of voters reportedly still undecided, the race could turn out to be tight.
Scandal-tainted campaign
Mr Chaves is a long-time World Bank official who served as Costa Rica's finance minister but who stepped down from the government post after only six months.
His second-place finish in the first round came as a surprise to many.
IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS
Image caption,
Rodrigo Chaves is seen as a political newcomer
But with concerns about the economy and political corruption high on voters' minds, many Costa Ricans seem to be leaning in favour of the economist, whose short time in government is seen as a plus by those fed up with traditional politics.
Standing for the Social Democratic Progress Party, Mr Chaves has been banking on his economic know-how, which he acquired during his nearly 27-year career as a professional economist for the World Bank.
However, his time at the World Bank ended under a cloud. He resigned in 2019 following complaints of sexual harassment which he has denied.
Mr Figueres on the other hand is an establishment politician. The son of a three-time former president José "Pepe" Figueres Ferrer, he is running for the mainstream National Liberation Party (PLN), which was founded by his father.
IMAGE SOURCE,EPA
Image caption,
Mr Figueres was president once before and is a veteran politician
Mr Figueres has served as president once before, from 1994 to 1998, and has also been minister of foreign trade and agriculture.
But like his rival, a resignation from a previous job has also come back to haunt him in this campaign.
In 2004, he stepped down as CEO of the World Economic Forum following allegations in Costa Rica that he had influenced state contracts made with telecommunications multinational Alcatel.
Mr Figueres denied any wrongdoing, and in 2007 the investigation was closed.
Economic stability with a green agenda
Costa Rica, which has a reputation for political stability, is fighting hard to shake off the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Not surprisingly therefore, both candidates have put economic policies at the centre of their campaigns, promising to increase economic growth, create jobs and reduce the fiscal deficit.
Calling himself a "pragmatist", Mr Chaves has emphasised the importance of "efficient, transparent public spending".
He favours a "hands-off" policy, arguing that the state has previously acted as an "obstacle" to economic growth. He also sees no need to raise taxes to solve Costa Rica's fiscal crisis.
Mr Figueres' main proposals are the elimination of extreme poverty, cutting the fiscal deficit and reducing unemployment.
Both candidates have also pledged to foster Costa Rica's world-renowned ecotourism industry and to pursue policies of adaptation to climate change.
Mr Figueres has said he considers the fight against climate change to be an "opportunity" for growth, through creating new business and employment models, a lower emission economy and resilient infrastructure.
He proposes a move towards bio-fuels for local consumption.
Mr Chaves has also advocated reducing carbon emissions, and replacing use of fossil fuels with bio-fuels, "if costs allow".
Strong ties
Costa Rica's biggest trade and tourism partner by far is the United States. And with both candidates having personal ties to the US - they both studied there - these strong links are likely to continue whoever wins on 3 April.
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Costa Rica is keen to retains its credentials as a ecotourism haven
But with China's role as an important supplier to the Costa Rican economy growing, both Mr Chaves and Mr Figueres have said that they see opportunities for strengthening these economic links.
Mr Chaves has said that if he wins, he will emphasise the promotion of tourism coming from China while Mr Figueres said he would "recognise the importance of having a deeper relationship with China, without neglecting [Costa Rica's] friendship with the United States and Europe".
The outgoing Costa Rican government has strongly condemned the Russian attack on Ukraine and both candidates are expected to maintain this stance.
Threats from drugs trade
The US and other allies have expressed concern about the threats posed to small states like Costa Rica by international drug trafficking and related money laundering and corruption.
Costa Rica is a transit country for the illegal narcotics trade and has suffered its corrupting effects on business and political life.
To tackle crime and transhipments of drugs through Costa Rica, Mr Figueres proposes improving security coordination with foreign governments by sharing information with them.
Mr Chaves also promises tougher anti-drugs and security measures. "If you do not allow cocaine to leave Costa Rica, [the traffickers] will not bring cocaine" into the country, he argues.
