Syngas and Char

I found a paper by The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering on Biofuels in Australia. In it they classify biofuels into generation 1 and Gen 2 fuels. They are more categorisd by the processes used to make the Fuels and their source materials. Basicly if you using the sugars or the oil produced by food crops to produce fuel these are the Gen 1 Biofuels. Gen 2 Biofuels come from low value, Plentiful and currently mostly unutilised sources like Cellulose.

Generation Resources Status
1 Sugarcane and cereal crops Mature worldwide
2 Bioethanol – lignocellulosic wastes; Early stage worldwide
Biodiesel – algaes, FT
Synthetic diesel, methanol and DME
3 Biorefineries Still in conceptual stages


They also talk about, what in Australia is called Biochar.

Pyrolysis has been used for centuries. Wood and other carbon products, including sewage, are heated in the absence of oxygen to 475°C to 500°C. Applying ‘slow pyrolysis’ about one third of the feedstock weight is released as water (or steam), one third converts to char and one third to a fuel gas which can be further processed to a liquid fuel using, for example, the Fischer-Tropsch process, or burned to generate electricity.

Lehmann, Gaunt & Rondon (2006) report that minor process modifications can alter product compositions and can convert between 40 and 50 per cent of feedstock carbon conversion to char. Although char can itself then be burned for heating, as outlined by Marris (2006), Amazonian Indians for thousands of years have known that char burial leads to substantial crop improvement. Recent testing by the NSW Department of Primary Industries shows that as well as improving yields up to 200 per cent, char also reduces agricultural nitrous oxide emissions, possibly more so than achieved by replacing mineral oils with biofuels. This benefit adds to more obvious GHG reduction by carbon sequestration, e.g. burying carbon. Amazonian soil tests show that carbon remains in the soil for centuries, making it more effective than tree sequestration and competitive with geosequestration on a long time scale.

Over 1100°C gasification occurs. In combination with the Fischer-Tropsch process it is thus possible to produce diesel fuel from coal (Worldwatch Institute 2007). Currently this combination at large scale is uneconomic for biomass. Gas cleaning of tars and fine particles is problematic. Stucley et al. (2004) illustrates differing sized gasification plants costs. He notes that if sited close to gas use, and with carbon tax and dry land salinity reduction payments introduced, the process may be economic depending on the size of the subsidies. Small biomass plants, suitable for large towns, are also economic without subsidy whereas scale economies require coal-fired power stations to be far larger. At still higher temperatures (5500°C or more) plasma is formed56 and virtually the entire resource transformed into fuel gas. An advantage is that any bacteria or viral contamination (e.g. sewage or hospital waste) is rendered inactive. Small scale prototypes have proven cost-competitive with conventional fuels operating at this temperature.

‘Fast’ or ‘flash’ pyrolysis has been under active development for the past 25 years. In this process up to 75 per cent of the biomass may be transformed into a liquid, having approximately 60 per cent the energy content of petroleum diesel on a volume-for-volume basis. This bio-oil can be used in various applications, such as for food flavouring but needs to be upgraded for use as a transport biofuel because of its high phenol content. It has been trialled for stationary energy applications and is being researched internationally as a transportation fuel. The Canadian company Dynamotive has built commercial plants up to 200 tonnes per day of biomass and has successfully run a 2.5 MW combustion turbine on this fuel.

They then go on to talk about Syngas. Saying that it is more energy efficient to use the gas in a similar way to LPG.

Biomass (trees, weeds, shrubs, or almost any other carbon source including sewage) can be converted efficiently into fuel gas (syngas) comprising hydrogen, methane (natural gas) and carbon monoxide using elevated temperature (>700°C) chemical processes. This distinguishes it from biological processes such as anaerobic digestion which produces biogas. Syngas can be used in standard internal combustion engines with only minor modifications and much more efficiently than direct combustion of the original fuel. Although syngas can be further converted into a liquid fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process, it is more energy efficient to compress it for vehicle use, as with LPG and CNG. Technology already exists for operating large trucks on a combination of gas and liquid fuels or even entirely on LPG. Gas fuels have less adverse effect on air quality because they burn more cleanly than liquid fuels with lower toxic emissions (Beer et al. 2001) and less impact on human health.

Check it out is a good report.

Cheers L.

Solar Air-Conditioning

"During the day, we use the heat from the sun to drive a chemical reaction which separates a chemical refrigerant from a chemical absorbent. And then at night, the reaction runs in reverse," said Jinny Rhee, the engineering professor in charge of the project. "When the refrigerant gets reabsorbed, it gets very, very cold."
From Wired Science.

I see a different application for this though. Solar Air-conditioning. Cheep or free cooling from the sun. This would be a boon for the tropical areas such as Townsville.

Generate refrigerant during the day, Cool Water at Night, Use the water the next day to cool the home.

Interesting Idea, and could save a lot of energy.

Cheers L.

Boyer Lecturer

This series of lectures has been going for 50 years. This year the speaker is Rupert Murdoch. It is definitely interesting.

Quick Update

I know I haven't posted in a while. It's been a Little Hectic here. But there is some definite Good news. Bear our poor little puppy has been all fixed up His little back leg has healed and he's running around the back yard bringing destruction to all potplants. He does still have one problem though. His ankle joint seems to have sustained some damage in the fall as well. He can now over rotate his ankle joint, which he should not be able to do. The vets think that he has damaged a tendon in there and it might need another round of surgery. The bonus is that the vets cannot do this surgery we would need to book Bear in with a specialist when he is in Town. This surgery would make the repair of the broken leg look like a nice cheep surgery due to the involvement of the specialist. Oh well, we will have to see how this develops.

Paddling has been going well. We have finished our regatta season and have started Training Corporate crews for our Corporate regatta that is on the 19th of October. Not to far away now.

Min is getting right into training for nationals states and other races for her rowing. Now is the time when the Seniors start training for regattas. Seniors is actually the younger crowd. Masters is anyone over 25 and seniors is between schools rowing and masters. Min went away with Masters earlier in the year and is now training to go away with the seniors team.

My plants aare going well. I will post a photo of my Wollami pine soon I also have some tree removal to do. Bernie has seen this and even Helped out ALOT while he was here. The wattle trees that I planted when I first bought the house are dying and it's time they came out. I have bought a number of trees to replace them but it will bring a definate change to the look and feel of the yard. Oh well now I just need to hire a mulcher and start chopping.

Min and I will be in Sdney for this comming weekend for a 30th birthday party. Unfortunately it's a bit of a flying visit and I will not have time to visit family much. It's really a bugger as i will be so close but I will talk to people tonight and see who I can see.

Love to all and I will write again soon.

L.

Marine Parks

There was recently a call made for a large Marine Park to be established in the coral sea. For Most people this will change nothing to very little. It just allows there to be a structure around the use of the area and some rules so you do not end up with a 'Tragedy of the Commons' situation. The problem is that there is always some one who will be disadvantaged, or at least think that they will be, by a situation where there are to be rules on the use of an area. Mostly these are the people who are abusing the situation as it stands but not always. This call for a Marine Park in no way demonised fishing or the fishing industry. It is just a call for some management of the area. Even if the fisheries in the coral sea are currently sustainable reason and logic dictate that without management they will become unsustainable in the future.

The thing I find interesting is that the Media gives the voice of Scientists who have spent years studying the ecology of Coral reefs and are world experts in the field is given equal weight to a Fisherman who spends some of his time out in the coral sea and is an expert on how to catch fish.

If you want to catch fish don't talk to a scientist ask a fisherman. In fact that is just what scientist have done in the past. When studying the Effects of Commercial Fishing scientist asked fishermen how best to catch fish. Scientists realise that there field of expertise is in the ecology of the reef not the best way to catch fish.

Unfortunately media in particular don't seem to realise that fishermen are not experts in the field of coral reef ecology. Coral Reef scientists such as the ones calling for the marine Park, are however experts in coral reef ecology. They are seeking to give the reefs enough protection so that the reefs can continue to be used into the future. They are not seeking to end all use of the Coral Sea. They are calling for a marine park much like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, with protected areas and multi-use zones. To often people think that management means that the entire area will be cut off, No access allowed. This hasn't been the case for a long time. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was brought in in the 1970's and even back then it was a multi zonal system that allowed for the current and future uses.

The Amount of fishing pressure may have to be reduced. As with any unmanaged commons the amount of use tends to increase due to the logical choice of the individuals that use the commons (I will be posting soon about the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and how it works). So without management the area will be under too much pressure and the common resource, in this case the Coral Sea Fisheries, will collapse. This will adversely affect some individuals and they should be compensated. The fact that some people will be adversely affected shouldn't mean that the area should not receive protection or management though, unless that is you would like to see the Coral Sea degraded and turned into a marine wasteland.

So I say to the media, lets let people talk on what they know. If your article is about catching fish and how to do it your expert should be a Fisherman. If your article is about Marine Protected Areas and Reef Ecology then you should be talking to Scientists and Marine Park Managers. The reaction of fishermen is a valid part of your article but the fishermen should not be used as an expert in reef ecology and marine parks.

Walk the Walk

I have posted numerous time on this blog about biofuels and the need for us to start using them. I have also stated that it is possible for biofuels especially Biodiesel to be produced from Agricultural wastes. When I have made these statements I have usually linked to the company that is developing the technology, not a company that is actually doing it.

Well I thought it was about time to highlight an actually working example of what I've been talking about. Please read the article below.

Paired processes aim to fuel biodiesel buildup

ChemicalProcessing.com

The first plant to go from biomass to syngas to biodiesel is slated for 2007 startup. Once started up early next year, the unit will feed in 75,000 mt/yr of wood chips and straw to make so-called SunDiesel.

A 15,000-metric-ton/yr demonstration plant now being built by Choren Industries, Freiberg, Germany, will be the first plant to convert biomass into syngas that then will be turned into high-quality diesel fuel. Once started up early next year, the unit will feed in 75,000 mt/yr of wood chips and straw to make so-called SunDiesel.

The fuel can be used without modification in any diesel engine without compromising performance, claims the company. Moreover, says Choren, it is virtually free of sulfur and aromatics, so it burns cleaner without particulate emissions. It can be used on its own or blended with conventional diesel fuel.
Choren has operated a 2,000-mt/yr pilot plant for SunDiesel since October 2003; Shell now holds a greater-than-25% stake in the firm; automakers Volkswagen and DaimlerChrysler also are cooperating in the development.

Choren is teaming its Carbo-V biomass gasification process to convert biomass into synthesis gas with Shell’s latest-generation Fisher-Tropsch gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology, called the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis (SMDS) process, to turn the syngas into biodiesel. Shell now is operating the first commercial plant using the SMDS technology in Bintulu, Malaysia; output is used in the production of V-Power Diesel, which is already available in Europe and is proving itself in auto racing.

Biomass gasification

Unlike conventional processes for biofuels, which use grain and other food crops as feedstocks, the Carbo-V process starts with agricultural wastes, such as wood chips, rice husks and straw, or trees specifically grown for energy production.

Traditional gasification systems aren’t suitable for making syngas from biomass, says Choren, because their physical design limits operation to around atmospheric pressure and 1,000°C. This leads to significant tar and methane in raw gas, which can pose difficulties in subsequent Fisher-Tropsch processing. Also, the systems cannot cope with varying feedstock sizes and quality, the company contends, and so only can handle restricted ranges of biomass sources.

The Carbo-V process gets around these drawbacks by processing the biomass in three stages: pre-conditioning, partial oxidation and chemical quenching.

First, the biomass feeds are blended and then dried to a water content of 15% by weight. This feedstock goes to a low-temperature gasifier, in which it smolders in a mix of O2, CO2 and steam at 400°C to 500°C and 5 bar. The biomass is broken down into volatile gases and char. The gases pass to a combustion chamber in which tars and long-chain hydrocarbon molecules are decomposed at temperatures above 1,400°C. Meanwhile, the char is ground and milled into a powder that is blown into the hot gases exiting the combustion chamber. This chemical quenching reduces gas temperature to about 900°C and contributes to the process’s high cold gas efficiency of over 80%, says Choren.

The Carbo-V gasifier yields syngas as well as significant amounts of steam and heat, some of which is used to dry the incoming feed. Choren says that overall thermal efficiency exceeds 90%.

Because the syngas may contain traces of sulfur and other contaminants that could poison Fisher-Tropsch catalysts, it is sent through scrubbers before going to the GTL unit.

If all goes well with the demonstration plant, Choren plans to build a full-scale (200,00 mt of SunDiesel per year) plant at Lubmin, Germany, for 2009 start up, followed by similar-sized plants elsewhere in Germany.

The company also is interested in installing plants in China and the U.S.

Dr David Karoly

Below is an Article by David Karoly an Australian professor in Meteorology. It doesn't present any citation like George Monbiot but It is rather convincing.

David Karoly
David Karoly is an ARC Federation Fellow and Professor of Meteorology in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He was heavily involved in the preparation of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007. He is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Climate change science misinformation

Science is about developing an understanding of natural and physical systems and testing that understanding using observations and modelling. Questioning and scepticism are fundamental aspects of science. Scientific theories are accepted understandings that have stood the test of time after extensive critical analysis.

The arena for proposing new scientific ideas and their subsequent testing is through peer-reviewed scientific journals. New science is not based on a single scientific publication, but on the accumulation of evidence from many published studies.

Over the last two decades, there have been thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies of climate variability and change, leading to understanding of the causes of recent global warming. This understanding is reported in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as by other scientific bodies including the US National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, the US Climate Change Science Program, and the Australian Academy of Science.

Over the last decade, they have all reached the same conclusion - the observed increase in global-average surface temperature since the mid-20th century is mainly due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity.

Recently, there has been an increase in opinion pieces in the media questioning the scientific understanding of global warming. This is not reflected in a surge of scientific publications suggesting that increasing greenhouse gases are not the cause of recent global warming. Instead, the vast majority of scientific studies support and strengthen this conclusion.

I do not know the reason for this increase in media coverage of so-called "global warming sceptics", where a common trend is to select a small amount of information to give credit to a misleading conclusion. Whatever the agenda, they have a number of common statements.

The IPCC is a political body and does not provide balanced assessments. This is untrue. While the members of the IPCC are government representatives, its assessment reports are written by hundreds of scientific experts from many fields. These reports are required to be policy-neutral and contain no recommendations. Each report takes more than three years to prepare and goes through multiple stages of independent expert and government review. This is the most thorough review process undertaken for any scientific assessment.

Carbon dioxide is such a minor atmospheric constituent that it can't affect global climate. This is untrue. While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth's surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder.

The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, but its concentration is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere and not emissions from human activity. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere vary due to natural and human sources.

Temperature increases from ice ages to interglacial periods occur before increases in carbon dioxide, so carbon dioxide increases don't cause warming. This is another false conclusion. Temperature increases from ice ages to interglacial warm periods over the last half million years are initiated by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, leading to changes in the amount of sunlight in summer at high latitudes.

These temperature increases are followed by increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, as the warmer ocean waters lose some dissolved carbon dioxide. However, the warmth of interglacial periods is only possible with the warming influence of the carbon dioxide increases, which amplifies the initial warming.

Increases in carbon dioxide over the last hundred years are due to natural sources This is another untruth. The observed increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to burning fossil fuels, industrial activity and land clearing.

Observed changes in the relative abundance of different isotopes of carbon in carbon dioxide and small reductions in the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere are not consistent with natural sources, such as volcanoes or losses from the ocean. Observed carbon dioxide concentrations are now 30% higher than any time over the last half million years.

Global average temperatures have dropped from 2002 to 2008, while carbon dioxide has increased, so carbon dioxide can't cause long-term warming. This is another false conclusion. There are large natural year-to-year variations in climate. The warming influence due to increasing greenhouse gases is at global scales and cumulative over many years.

At short time scales, natural variability can offset that warming influence and cause short-term cooling. Global average temperatures have fallen over the last six years, due to natural variations, with the warmth in 2002 and in 1998 due to El Niño events and the recent La Niña causing colder temperatures in 2007 and 2008. The long-term warming trend is unequivocal.

Climate models are untested and unreliable. This is untrue. Global climate models are important physically-based tools for studying climate variability and change, with more than twenty different models developed independently around the world. They simulate well the magnitude of observed global-scale temperature variations. The long-term warming trend over the 20th century simulated by climate models agrees with that observed only when increasing greenhouse gases are included in the models.

The observed spatial pattern of warming does not show the fingerprint of increasing greenhouse gases. This is not true. The spatial fingerprint of the response to increasing greenhouse gases includes warming at the surface and in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere, with larger warming at the surface in high latitudes and in the tropics at heights around 10km.

This spatial fingerprint agrees well with the observed pattern of surface temperature changes over the last hundred years and with temperature changes up to heights of 30km over the last four decades, when observational data are available. Any differences between the observed pattern and the greenhouse fingerprint are consistent with natural climate variability.

The best explanation for recent global warming is variations of the sun or cosmic rays. This is untrue. The spatial pattern of responses to increasing solar intensity is warming at the surface and warming in the upper atmosphere, which is not consistent with the observed cooling in the upper atmosphere.

Increasing solar intensity is also not consistent with the observed greater warming in winter and at night, when sunlight is less important. There are no observed increases in solar intensity or in cosmic rays over the last three decades, a period of pronounced global warming. The largest variations of solar intensity and in cosmic rays are associated with the eleven-year solar sunspot cycle. However, global-average temperature shows a long-term trend and no pronounced eleven–year cycle linked to the sunspot cycle.

In summary, let me emphasise that the pattern and magnitude of observed global-scale temperature changes since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural climate variability, are consistent with the response to increasing greenhouse gases, and are not consistent with the responses to other factors. Hence, it is very likely that increasing greenhouse gases are the main cause of the recent observed global-scale warming.

Evidence

If you want to see evidence for global warming you need to see this 4 Corners Program on the Arctic.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20080804/arctic/default.htm

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday to Dad. Sorry I haven't called I'm a bit slack at the moment

Monbiot Again

I have to say that George Monbiot is one of my favourite column writers. The wit and dry humour in his columns are truly fantastic. Also I often agree with the message of his articles. His recent article for the Guardian on the 8th of July really was excellent. I have reproduced it below for my small readership.

A small note though. I am not against fishing or fishers. I have a great respect for both I do think that we need less fishers and more sustainable catches though (in Most fisheries). I eat fish not on a regular basis but more as a treat, so I would not be against higher fish prices if this meant less fishers and more sustainable practices. I think that our worlds fish stocks need to be conserved and that currently most of them are not. This is a failure of both Governments and fishing industries worldwide, not individual fishers.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 8th July 2008.

All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with reality. They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn over cars in an effort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and governments, they insist, must do something about it. When they’ve sorted it out, what about the fact that the days are getting shorter? What do we pay our taxes for?

The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world’s fishermen. They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan and demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month in Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been conspiring with the world’s sedimentary basins to keep the price of oil high. The fishermen warn that if something isn’t done to help them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their nets. It’s an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt indifference.

Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to the world’s marine ecosystems. No East Asian government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in dock for the next few months because they can’t afford to sail(1). The unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won’t be met this year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of fish(2). The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best news European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen – who trash the seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that their industry could collapse within a year(3). Hurray to that too.

It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can bear. The European Union has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service – the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999(4) - but the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in stocks. Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.

The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry E3.8bn(5). Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find other jobs for fishermen, but the rest is used to equip boats with new engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports and landing sites and to promote and market the catch. Except for the funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement, there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can argue – often falsely – that they are the “stewards of the countryside”. But what possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?

The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as possible. If the member states want to protect the ecosystem, it’s a good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations, are a perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an industry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.

But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week’s Fishing News is “Thanks for Nothing!”, bemoaning the British government’s refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies(6). But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard Lochhead, demands that the government in Westminster “open the purse strings”. He also insists that new money is “not tied to decommissioning”: in other words no more boats should be taken off the water(7). Is this really a service to the industry, or only to its most short-sighted members?

I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will discuss on Thursday(8). It’s a disaster. Some of the boats which, under existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs, permanently reducing the size of the fleet, can now be replaced with smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can start fishing again when the price falls. Member states will be able to shell out more money (E100,000 per boat instead of E30,000) without breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather than lack of fuel. The fishermen won’t go down without taking the ecosystem with them.

What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions, especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn. While French, Spanish and Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption of bluefin tuna fishing(9), knowing that if they are allowed to fish now, this will be the last season ever, around the UK it has begun to dawn on some fishermen that there might be an association between the survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing. Prompted by Young’s seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn have been harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries have applied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standards for how fish are caught(10). Fishermen around the UK also seem to be taking the law more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest in obscure issues such as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn out to have a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too many boats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and that the remaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reverse the greening of the industry.

Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a fishing region believe he must defend his constituents’ right to ensure that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the fishermen’s associations feel the need always to denounce the scientists who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Tom Seaman, July 2008. Global supply of sushi tuna to plummet on soaring fuel prices. Intrafish, Vol 6, Issue 7.

2. Steve Quinn, 29th June 2008. Time to jump ship? Almost, say commercial fishermen. The Associated Press.

3. James Meikle, 23rd May 2008. Fish prices may rise by up to 50%. The Guardian.

4. European Union, 2008. Evolution of the fleet’s number of vessels, tonnage and engine power. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en

5. European Commission, 2006. The European Fisheries Fund 2007-2013. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/FEP_EN.pdf

6. Fishing News, 4th July 2008.

7. No author given, 4th July 2008. ‘Open the Purse Strings’ – Lochhead. Fishing News.

8. The Council of the European Union, 2008. Proposal for a Council Regulation instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European fisheries fleets affected by the economic crisis.

9. Agence France Press, 17th June 2008. EU rejects calls to drop planned tuna fishing ban.

10. Severin Carrell, 26th March 2008. British seas turning green, says watchdog. The Guardian.