Carluccio's restaurant chain to recycle waste oil

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Italian restaurant chain Carluccio's has announced plans to convert its waste cooking oil into bio-diesel and thereby slashing the organisation's annual carbon emissions by up to 90%.

Carluccio's made the statement last week after finalising an agreement with leading bio-fuel producer Convert2Green to manage the conversion process.

Although no details were given as to when the partnership would commence, it is understood that Cheshire-based Convert2Green will collect waste oil from the eatery's 54 UK outlets and recycle it into high quality bio-fuel. That in turn will be used to fuel delivery trucks, which is where the emissions savings are made.

Steve Kaddish, Carluccio's development manager, said the move was just a part of the business' overall sustainability strategy, stating that the chain "takes our recycling, waste management and carbon savings very seriously."

Mr Kaddish explained: “Waste oil collection is a way for us to take positive steps and by making changes to the way we behave as a business; we are aiming to improve both the social and environmental impact of our operations.

“Our aim in the first twelve months is to save 92.7 tonnes of carbon through recycling our waste oil - a big step in our overall aim to recycle in the region of 78 per cent of all our waste.”

Andy Webb, director of Convert2Green added that restaurants in the UK are increasingly looking toward more sustainable practices. He said: “Restaurants produce thousands of litres of waste cooking oil per annum which might otherwise go to landfill or be exported, and may even cause environmental problems.

“By recycling with Convert2Green, the used cooking oil will be refined into bio-fuel here in the UK for use in road transport and for the generation of renewable and sustainable energy, thereby saving even more carbon emissions.”

While it must be said that converting waste cooking oil into bio-diesel is a great idea and much, much better than using virgin oils, be this palm oil, or whatever, to produce that fuel, we are still trying to keep the status quo as to the infernal combustion engine. We must get away from that thing though.

The other problem with bio-diesel is that the particle emission are at least the same if not worse. On the other hand, conversion also should not be needed if the vehicles would have their engines adjusted properly. Most diesel engines could, really, burn a multitude of oils.

Our love affair with the infernal combustion engine, whether it burns gasoline, diesel or even “natural” gas, is something that we must reconsider and we must do this rather pronto.

There is simply no way that we can produce all the crops for bio-fuels, as that would either mean fuel or food, in the end, and neither can we get enough waste cooking oil from which to make bio-diesel.

A serious rethink is required and the bicycle – in it various forms – and other human-powered vehicles – must be brought back into the equation.

Using waste cooking oil for bio-fuels is a great idea and a way of disposing safely of the oils it is NOT the answer.

© 2011

Post Title

→

Carluccio's restaurant chain to recycle waste oil

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2011/08/carluccio-restaurant-chain-to-recycle.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

European Union backs slowly away from crop-based biofuels

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

EU ministers for energy and the environment have revised their targets for renewable energy in the face of abundant new evidence that increased production of agrofuels is partly responsible for the worldwide increase of food prices.

The EU has had a declared objective of increasing the share of crop derived biofuels used in transport by 10 percent by 2010. This objective was announced during the spring of 2007, as part of the European Commission (EC) plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The European Commission is the executive arm of the EU.

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are thought to be the main cause of global warming, and thus of climate change.

Please note that it says “are thought to be”, which means, as I keep saying, that this is not a proven fact, though we are, more often than not, presented with it as a fact. The story most of us hear again and again is that “greenhouse cases cause climate change”. Still no acceptance of the possibility, even of the possibility, that the climate change, which is a fact, is a cyclic phenomenon of the Earth and that we can do nothing to stop it. This “are thought to be” is not just my words; in fact the writers for the Eu seem to be using the same words.

German deputy minister for technology and energy Jochen Homann said after a EU ministers meeting earlier this month that the EU had "discovered" that the EC directives speak of "renewable sources", not just agrofuels.

Oh, the EU has “discovered”, much like the British government that “discovered” that one can use canals for freight transport – what the hell did they think they were designed and built for – and that one can burn wood (for energy) – something even the Neanderthals could have told them, that the directives of the European Commission, the governing body of the EU, speaks of “renewable sources” and not just (food) crop based biofuels.

Agrofuels are distilled from maize, sugarcane, soy and other crops, and were until recently considered a carbon-free combustible that could be used in automobiles without producing greenhouse gas emissions.

Recent studies and findings though seem to suggest that biofuels from such crops as mentioned above may cause more harmful emissions in fact than oil based fuels in the current ICE vehicles.

In a declaration to the press after the meeting in St. Cloud on the outskirts of Paris, French minister for the environment and energy Jean-Louis Borloo said agrofuels "are only one alternative, among others."

Numerous EU documents speak of increasing the share of agrofuels in transport.

Article 3 of an EC directive of 2003 (also known as the biofuels directive) asks member states to ensure "5.75 percent agrofuels" in fuel used for transport. The same year the French government – of which Borloo was deputy minister for urban development first, and minister for labour and social affairs later – approved a plan to increase the share of agrofuels to seven percent by 2010.

Another European directive, approved by the Council of the European Union in March 2007 establishes "a 10 percent binding minimum target to be achieved by all member states for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020, to be introduced in a cost-efficient way."

Now, after the correction in St. Cloud, the EU might change its official views on agrofuels, once considered the ideal solution to feed the growing demand for transport fuel while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU about-face on this comes, as I indicated above already, after new scientific suggests that the ecological footprint of biofuels from crops is not as green as once thought. New evidence has also underlined the responsibility of agrofuels for the food scarcity crisis.

As I have said in a previous article, it would have hardly needed a study of any kind to realize that the use of food crops for the production of biofuels would push up the demand and with it the prices, leading to a scarcity, especially as commodity brokers play with the grains.

A World Bank paper says production of agrofuels is responsible for 75 percent of the increase in the price of food. The confidential report leaked to the media says higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for only 15 percent of the increase.

The figure contradicts claims by the U.S. government that agrofuels have contributed less than three percent to food price increases.

The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 produced jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 30 wealthy nations, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says "the pressure (on food prices) can be either direct, through growing demand and changes in consumption patterns as incomes rise, or indirect as alternative uses of food crops, such as inputs for fuels, have led to higher domestic prices."

For the EU, the OECD-FAO report says that "this growth in biofuel markets translates into strongly increased demand for feedstock products." The document says the "use of wheat (for agrofuel production) in particular is set to increase twelve-fold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016.

"Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2 million tonnes by 2016 respectively," the paper adds.

Yet another study, by the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA, based in Hamburg, Germany), says agrofuels "create much more (ecological) problems than they will solve, including deforestation, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, requirements for land that does not exist to achieve positive environmental effects, enhanced food insecurity, creation of more poverty, increased soil degradation, decreased biodiversity, (and) accelerated depletion of natural resources."

Borloo says "over the years, agrofuels were the one and only (ecological) truth; now, we are about to change our minds at the highest speed. What we considered the solution a couple of months ago is now in disgrace."

With all this evidence before us why are the governments, whether the British, or the EU as a whole, still advocating the stupid notion of fuels from crops? If we are really serious about reducing emission – I will not call them “greenhouse gases” - then we must get away from the vehicles with internal combustion engines that burn fuels, whether oil-based or whatever-based.

© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>

Post Title

→

European Union backs slowly away from crop-based biofuels

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/08/european-union-backs-slowly-away-from.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

No link between biofuels and food prices, leading biofuel industry figure claims

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Biofuel production has almost no impact on food supplies and Government must stop hiding behind the tabloid "food or fuel" debate, says Graham Hilton, leading figure in the biofuels industry.

Graham Hilton, chair of the Renewable Transport Fuels Working Group and managing director of The Energy Crops Company, accused the Government of panicking in the face of public criticism of biofuels.

It is obvious, surely, that Mr, Hilton has absolutely no vested interests here in stating such clap-trap.

Reacting to the publication of the Gallagher Review, he said the report contradicted Defra's own conclusions about the impact on the food production industry.

"Defra have confirmed that biofuels have virtually no impact on the cost of food," he said.

"The real reasons behind the rise in the cost of food are lack of investment, an increase in the fuel costs of agriculture and severe weather impacts such as drought and floods."

He said the biofuels industry is working hard to ensure it is responsible and sustainable - claiming other industries are lagging far behind their efforts.

"Government should stop hiding behind tabloids and have the courage to encourage an industry that has done more than anybody to put the safeguards in place and to make a real contribution," Mr Hilton added.

Mr Hilton has an axe to grind for sure and he would claim that the biofuels industry has no impact on food prices seeing as he is – one – the very chairperson of the Renewable Transport Fuels Working Group and – two – and this is much more important probably – the managing director of The Energy Crops Company. Therefore, I am sure that no one could accuse him of having a vested interest now and being biased towards the biofuels industry, could they. Hell, they could.

The problem appears to be that the biofuels industry is going to be the next oil industry with the same kind of attitudes. It is they – like Mr. Hilton, who hide behind “green” credentials while all they are really interested in is in the bottom line and how much profit they can make out of it, regardless whether it drives the cost of food through the roof and whether people suffer. Not their concern. The environment is, so they say.

But studies have also now found that the use of most biofuels, if not indeed all, rather than reducing any harmful emissions, including the CO2 so tauted as being the responsible agent for Climate Change – remember not so long ago freons were held responsible for the hole in the Ozone layer – will even increase them, and still they all want to go “full steam ahead” with biofuels. Whoa! Someone pull in the reins and stop this runaway ream of horses.

We now have another industry with vested interest that claims to be green and all that even but will be as damaging, if not controlled, as the oil and petroleum industry was and still is, as far as the environment and people are concerned. Let's not even talk about extracting oil from tar sands of Canada, for instance, or coal by removing mountaintops in the Appalachians.

Time for a change... a real change...

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
<>

Post Title

→

No link between biofuels and food prices, leading biofuel industry figure claims

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-link-between-biofuels-and-food.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

OECD report finds that lowering energy consumption is better than biofuels for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Well, now that was obvious, was it not... How much did this study cost?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), entitled "Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies", not only is public support of biofuels costly, it also has very little impact on reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.

All the tax incentives, blending targets and other public support policies in the European Union, the US, and Canada total $25 billion per year but will ultimately result in less than a 1% reduction in emissions from transport by 2015, according to the OECD report.

The benefits of biofuels are very often more than overstated

The OECD said that if Brazil’s ethanol produced from sugar cane cuts greenhouse gas emissions by around 80%, biofuels from feedstocks in the United States, the EU or Canada tend to have a far lower environmental benefit. Biodiesel from vegetable oil cuts greenhouse emissions by around 40-55% and ethanol from corn…generally cuts them by less than 30%.”

The worst offender in this list, biodiesel from palm oil, according to some estimates actually increases greenhouse gas emissions compared to ordinary diesel by 800%, and in addition possibly contributes to Orangutan extinction in the wild.

Lowering energy consumption is by far a better solution than biofuels

In its recommendations, the OECD says that governments should offer more support for second generation biofuel feedstocks that don’t use food crops, but more importantly, policies designed to reduce overall energy consumption should receive more funding.

A study recently has also shown that instead of lowering and reducing CO2 and other emissions biofuels can actually make matters worse. Therefore, we need to look at new sources and also at old ways of transport. Yes, I did say, OLD ways, and this includes especially the bicycle and the horse and mule.

From the report’s policy recommendations,

A priority focus, said the mentioned report, needs to be given to reducing energy consumption. This is especially important in the transport sector where the growth in energy use and related environmental problems is most pronounced. In particular, this includes the gradual move from highly energy intensive modes of transport to less intensive ones, and improvement in fuel efficiency in all transport sectors. Generally the costs of reducing GHG emissions by saving energy are lower than by switching to alternative energy sources, in particular biofuels.

While this is being said by the OECD the UK government still supports the 10 percent target by 2020 but wants the indirect effects of biofuels to be part of the sustainability criteria, and the UK wants a rigorous review of the target in 2013-2014.

Why this continuing support of the 10 percent target? One can only assume that jobs and money is at stake here, and votes and promises of investment here and there.

Essentially, in the report, the OECD is recommending that government embrace the factor that energy efficiency is crucial for combating climate change and for making renewable energy technologies most effective.

A recent World Bank report estimated that, alongside drought and speculation, biofuels derived from crops such as grains, oil seeds and sugar were responsible for up to three quarters of recent hikes in food prices which have hurt the world's poorest.

Global demand for agricultural land would soar by 2020 meaning in future all biofuel demand must come from marginal land, including use of hi-tech fuels derived from waste like straw and wood chips instead of food. Other sources could be, as apparently the Brazilians have pioneered, ethanol from grass clippings. Then there also is good old methane, as a gas, which could be cerated in methane digesters.

We also, as I have already stated, must get away form the overuse, and overuse it indeed is, of the motor car for transportation.

Why does anyone have to use the car to pop round to the corner shop for the newspaper or that packet of cigarettes? Why do the children have to be taken to school by car, seeing the school is only a block away?

Yes, I am a cyclist and do not even own a motorcar. I do not even have a driver's license. So, I know that people might think me biased as regards to the car but that is not the case. It is the needless use that I am against.

I am also against the needless use of other motorized operations when human-powered would do nicely. We must liberate ourselves from the over-reliance on gasoline or diesel powered appliances and vehicles. While there is a case for such appliances and vehicles, etc. at times, there are more often than not occasions where starting up the lawnmower or the car would take longer than doing it in a more old-fashioned way.

We must reduce our energy consumption, and that on a number of levels. The survival of mankind, to a great degree, depends on this. Do we want food or fuel? We must decide.

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
<>

Post Title

→

OECD report finds that lowering energy consumption is better than biofuels for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/07/oecd-report-finds-that-lowering-energy.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Review finds that biofuels could CAUSE greenhouse gases

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Biofuels will harm biodiversity and may even cause greenhouse gas emissions, an independent review has concluded, though the review ruled out a moratorium on the use of biofuels in petrol. Why not?

Gallagher review, by the Renewable Fuels Agency's (RFA), into the indirect effects of biofuels, said that the increasing demand is also contributing to rising food prices, which in the short term could have a severe impact on the poor.

As it would appear, this review and study found that biofuels, aside from the environmental impact they will have, and the impact as to food shortages and hunger, could have an impact as regards to greenhouse gases that could be as bad – if not even worse – than gasoline and diesel.

The RFA, however, ruled out a moratorium on biofuels. Instead it called on government to reduce the rate of increase of the UK's biofuels target to just half a percent a year, bringing the target to five percent in 2013 to 2014.

The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), which came into force in April 2008, does require, however, that 2.5% of fuel on forecourts in 2008/2009 have to be biofuels, increasing by 1.25% a year to 5% in 2010/2011.

The review also said that the European Union's target of 10 percent biofuels by 2020 is not justified by scientific evidence but could be possible if conditions are put in place to ensure sustainability.

Presently anyone who does not wear blinkers should realize that this is not sustainable and it is rather questionable as to whether any conditions can be put into place to ensure sustainability. Food crops are being turned into fuel, such as maize (corn) for ethanol, or palm oil for bio-diesel, the latter, while not being a food crop does cause, for lack of a better word, the clearing of forests and also the planting of those palms in favor of food crops. Neither of it is sustainable. So, I do not think that we need a sustainability study on this. It is glaringly obvious.

Why on earth do we want to created fuel for ICE vehicles from food crops or such. We must get away for the overuse of the ICE vehicles and go over to something more sensible.

On the other hand, and it has been tried, diesel engines, especially those so-called multi-fuel diesels can automatically use waste cooking oil without any problems whatsoever. So, why are we playing around with growing foods for bio-diesel when waste cooking oils can be used for this. Maybe, instead of “safely” disposing of cooking oil as, so I understand, is the present practice, we should use all of those oils to turn into fuel and it would not even need much work bar, theoretically, filtering out the bits of food debris in the oil.

I would love to know the amount, daily, of cooking oils that are “disposed” off in this country's McD's and other such outlets and that could be made use of to fuel vehicles.

Professor Gallagher said: "Our review makes clear that the risks of negative impacts from biofuels are real and significant, but it also lays out a path for a truly sustainable biofuels industry in the future."

Does it? It would be nice if Professor Gallagher would point out where the sustainability lies with bio-fuels. Somewhere along the line I seem to be missing it.

Responding to the review, government announced it will consult on slowing down the rate of increase in the RTFO and will press for the EU's 10% target to be kept under regular review.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "We need to proceed more cautiously than previously thought, but we should not give up on the potential for some biofuels to help us tackle climate change now and in the future."

Greenpeace chief scientist Dr. Doug Parr said: "This review sends a stark message - using food crops to fuel our cars risks making climate change worse and increasing food prices for the world's poorest people."

He called on Gordon Brown to promote other green motoring alternatives, such as making our cars more fuel efficient and boosting the number of vehicles powered by clean, renewable electricity.

Like Greenpeace we at the Green (Living) Review also would urge the British government and the European Union as a whole to seriously look at alternatives to the ICE in cars and trucks and to promote alternative transport ways and means.

For local transportation, as the Danes and the Dutch keeping showing us, the bicycle is a great alternative to the motorcar, especially also with regards to the fact that one does not have to find parking spaces and even if one can find them one has to pay for parking in most places.

In the countryside the horse and buggy might even be something to be considered (again), as well as the use of horses in agriculture and in forestry.

Yes, we may need some more people to actually do some physically work again in those and other industries but I doubt that it will kill any of us. In fact it may just about save the health of many of us.

Fuel efficient designs for cars have been around for years and decades only the companies were not permitted to put them into mass production. Why not? Because of vested interest of industry and government.

The chief executive of Ensus, the company which is building Europe's largest biorefinery in North East England, said: "We are very concerned at the suggestion of backtracking on existing commitments under the RTFO.

"We think this is unnecessary when sustainable production can already be achieved."

Well, he would say that, would he not for he has a vested interest in the production of biofuels. What we have to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink what we are doing.

While it might have looked at the beginning as if we had an answer to something there with biofuels it would seem now that we rather do not and therefore we should put on the brakes here for the present and look at more sustainable transport, whether electric vehicles or human-powered vehicles or animal power.

Do we really have to use the motorcar in the way that we do? No, we do not.

Food for thought... so long as we still have food...

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008

Post Title

→

Review finds that biofuels could CAUSE greenhouse gases

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/07/review-finds-that-biofuels-could-cause.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection