Farm Market Update

We will unfortunately miss the last two weekends of the West Bend Farm Market due to other commitments. But fret not, our hungry friends: we will still have on-farm hours each Tuesday! And as always, give us a holler if youd like to stop out another day of the week.

And dont forget, we continue to grow all 12 months of the year so you dont need to go back to the tasteless greens at the grocery store just because the farm market ends.

Hope to see you soon!

Read more

CO2 Capture and Storage CCS

  

 

Everything you wanted to know about
CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS), but had no one to ask .

 

 

1. What is CCS?

CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) describes a technological process by which the carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by large stationary sources - such as coal- fired power plants, steel plants and oil refineries - is prevented from entering the atmosphere.

That’s because it enables at least 90% of these CO2 emissions to be captured, then stored in geological formations – safely and permanently – deep underground (at least 800m). In fact, it uses the same natural trapping mechanisms which have already kept huge volumes of oil, gas and CO2 underground for millions of years.

Currently, all of the CO2 produced by these large stationary sources is released into the atmosphere – directly contributing to global warming.

2. Why is it a critical technology for combating climate change?

CCS is the single biggest lever to combat climate change (compared to, for example, energy efficiency which requires many different actions). In fact, CCS has the potential to address almost half of the world’s current CO2 emissions.

Experts estimate that by 2050, CCS could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 0.6 to 1.7 billion tonnes in the EU and by 9 to 16 billion tonnes worldwide. The upper end of this range would require its application to all fossil fuel power plants and to almost all other large industrial emitters – with the large volumes of hydrogen produced used for transport fuel.

3. What other benefits will CCS provide?

In addition to its potential to reduce CO2 emissions on a massive scale, CCS will also provide greater energy security – by making the burning of Europe’s abundant coal reserves more environmentally acceptable and reducing its dependency on imported natural gas. CCS could also facilitate the transition to a hydrogen economy through the production of large volumes of clean hydrogen which that could be used for electricity or transport fuel.

EU demonstration efforts on CCS will not only demonstrate the EU’s commitment to delivering on its own CO2 reduction targets, but spur other countries to do the same – especially large CO2 emitters, such as China, India and the US. As a global solution to combating climate change, CCS could therefore also give a major boost to the European economy – promoting technology leadership, European competitiveness and creating jobs.

4. How does CCS work?

CCS consists of three stages:
i. Capture: CO2 is captured and compressed at the emissions site.
ii. Transport: The CO2 is then transported to a storage location.
iii. Storage: The CO2 is permanently stored in geological formations, deep underground.

Each of these stages – capture, transport and storage – can be accomplished in different ways.

i. Capture processes:

    Post-combustion: CO2 is removed from the exhaust gas through absorption by selective solvents.
    Pre-combustion: The fuel is pre- treated and converted into a mix of CO2 and hydrogen, from which the CO2 is separated. The hydrogen is then used as fuel, or burnt to produce electricity.
    Oxy-fuel combustion: The fuel is burned with oxygen instead of air, producing a flue stream of CO2 and water vapour without nitrogen; the CO2 is relatively easily removed from this stream.

ii. Transport options:
Pipelines are the main option for large-scale CO2 transportation, but shipping and road transport are also possibilities.

iii. Storage options:

    Deep saline aquifers (saltwater-bearing rocks unsuitable for human consumption)
    Depleted oil and gas fields (with the potential for Enhanced Oil Recovery)

5. How long has CCS been in existence?

Although there are currently no fully integrated, commercial-scale CCS projects for power plants in operation, many of the technologies that make up CCS have been around for decades:

    CO2 capture is already practised on a small scale, based on technology that has been used in the chemical and refining industries for decades.
    Transportation is also well understood: it has been shipped regionally for over 17 years, while a 5,000km network has been operating in the USA for over 30 years for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
    Small-scale CO2 storage projects have been operating successfully for over a decade, e.g. at Sleipner (Norway), Weyburn (Canada) and In Salah (Algeria). The industry can also build on knowledge obtained through the geological storage of natural gas, which has also been practised for decades.

6. What’s the next step?

CCS technology now needs to be scaled up – including full process integration and optimisation – with demonstration projects of a size large enough to allow subsequent projects to be at commercial scale. This will also build public confidence in CCS as more and more people see that CO2 storage is safe and reliable.

7. Why should we use CCS, given its link to fossil fuels?

Scientists have confirmed that unless we stabilise CO2- equivalent concentrations at their current level of 450 parts per million (ppm), average global temperature is likely to rise by 2.4ºC to 6.4ºC by 2100. If we fail to keep below 2ºC, devastating – and irreversible – climate changes will occur.

This means reducing CO2-equivalent emissions by 50% by 2030. But with world energy demand expected to double by 2030 and renewable energies to make up ~30% of the energy mix by this date, only a portfolio of solutions will achieve this goal. This includes energy efficiency, a vast increase in renewable energy – and CCS.

Around 750 new coal power plants are already planned for the period 2005–2018, totaling more than 350 Gigawatt (GW), of which 50 will be in Europe, almost 300 in China, 200 in India and 50 in the US.

8. Why is it so important to deploy CCS as soon as possible?

Time is of the essence. Any delay in the roll-out of CCS could not only lead to unnecessary CO2 emissions but additional costs, as instead of being able to apply it to the current pipeline of coal plants, a retrofit would be required, increasing the cost of achieving the same emissions reduction. With decisions on the building of new power plants being made now in Europe, it is vital that we are not locked into an infrastructure that is not optimised for CCS.

Indeed, every year that CCS is delayed is a missed opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions. Today, we have ~450 parts per million (ppm) CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere, with concentration rising at over 2 ppm per annum. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that if we are to avoid major climate change effects, we must not exceed this 450 ppm. Delaying the implementation of CCS by just 6 years would mean CO2 concentrations increasing by around 10 ppm by 2020.

9. If we are at such a critical phase, why isn’t it already being deployed?

The incremental costs of the first large-scale CCS demonstration projects will be exceptionally high – too high to be fully justifiable to company shareholders.

That’s because all ‘First Movers’ will incur:

    Unrecoverable costs from making accelerated investments in scaling up the technology.
    Market risk due to uncertainty over:
    a) which CCS technologies will prove the most successful
    b) the future CO2 price and
    c) construction and operational costs.

Based on an independent study recently undertaken by McKinsey and Company, it is estimated that the total incremental costs of 10-12 CCS demonstration projects would be €7 billion - €12 billion.

Industry has already declared its willingness to cover both the base costs of the power plant (without CCS) and a major portion of the risks of implementing these CCS demonstration activities. Given that it will bring incalculable benefits to both the public and European industry and that these projects are inherently loss-making, public funding has therefore been provided to support 12 industrial-scale CCS projects. Without this, commercialisation will be severely delayed – until at least 2030 in Europe.

10. Why are public funds needed for CCS demonstration projects?

Currently, a CCS demonstration project would be a loss-making enterprise for industry, given the current price of implementing and using the technology; the current price of carbon; and uncertainty surrounding long-term viability and profitability. No shareholder can therefore be expected to fund it fully at this stage.

The typical cost of a demonstration project is likely to be in the range €60-90 per tonne of CO2 abated. Recent analyst estimates for Phase II of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) range from €30 to €48 per tonne of CO2 and, at this stage, similar levels are assumed beyond Phase II (up to 2030). In this range, the carbon price is insufficient for demonstration projects to be “stand-alone”, commercially viable.

Assuming that CCS demonstration projects would cost between €60 and €90 per tonne of CO2, and projecting a median carbon price of €35 per tonne of CO2, there is an “economic gap” of €25-€55 per tonne of CO2 per project. This corresponds to around €500 million - €1.1 billion, expressed as a Net Present Value (NPV) over the lifespan of a 300MW size power plant. The range depends on variations in specific project variables, such as capture technology and capex, transport distance and storage solutions.

11. The UK and the Netherlands are well on their way to implementing CCS demonstration projects – won’t these be enough to make the technology commercially viable?

As it is not yet known which CCS technologies will prove the most successful, it is vital that the full range is tested – including higher-risk technologies – optimised across projects and locations. As each region has its own challenges, local demonstration is also important in order to maximise public and political support.

As importantly, EU CCS demonstration efforts will ensure that cross-border projects – where CO2 is stored in a different country or region to where it is captured – are not excluded. As capture and storage locations are unevenly distributed throughout Europe, cross-border pipelines will play a crucial role in the wide-scale deployment of CCS and the development of clusters in major industrial areas as the next key step.

12. How much will it cost to retrofit CCS technology to existing power plants?

In general, retrofitting an existing power plant would lead to a higher cost for CCS, but these are highly dependent on specific site characteristics, including plant specifications, remaining economic life and overall site layout. For this reason, no generalisation or “reference case” would be meaningful.

There are four main factors likely to drive the cost increase for retrofits:

    The higher capex (capital costs) of the capture facility: the existing plant configuration and space constraints could make adaption to CCS more difficult than for a new build.
    The installation’s shorter lifespan: the power plant is already operating so where (for example) a new plant with CCS may run for 40 years, the capture facility of a 20 year-old plant is likely to have only a 20 year life, reducing the “efficiency” of the initial capex.
    There is a higher efficiency penalty, leading to a higher fuel cost when compared to a fully integrated, newly-built CCS plant.
    There is the “opportunity cost” of lost generating time, because the plant would be taken out of operation for a period to install the capture facility.

13. How can we accelerate the building of CCS projects?

Building a CCS project is a lengthy process: a fully integrated project can take 6.5-10 years before it becomes operational. However, Final Investment Decision can only be made once permits have been awarded across the entire value chain. In the case of CO2 storage, this can take as long as 6.5 years. In such a scenario, even a commercial project started as early as 2016 would not itself become operational until 2024.

Ideally, 10-12 CCS demonstration projects should be operational by 2015. The first early commercial projects should be operational by 2020, with the remaining demonstration projects sufficiently advanced for early commercial projects to be ordered from 2020 onwards. Some 80-120 large- scale CCS projects could therefore be operational in Europe by 2030.

There are several ways we can fast-track the building of CCS projects:

    Starting a commercial project as early as possible during the building of the demonstration project so that – for example – build can start after just one year of the demo being in operation.
    Accelerating feasibility studies etc.
    Making faster investment decisions
    Shortening the tender process
    Introducing special measures to shorten the permitting process.

Some projects, by their very nature, will of course be quicker to build than others, e.g. retrofitting existing power plants with CCS; using well-known oil and gas fields with infrastructure and seismic data already available; those with only a short distance from the power plant to the storage site, etc.

14. How much CO2 can be captured using CCS?

One 900 MW CCS coal-fired power plant can abate around 5 million tonnes of CO2 a year. If, as projected, 80-120 commercial CCS projects are operating in Europe by 2030, they would abate some 400 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

By 2050, CCS could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 0.6 to 1.7 billion tonnes in the EU and by 9 to 16 billion tonnes worldwide. The upper end of this range would require its application to all fossil fuel power plants and to almost all other large industrial emitters – with the large volumes of hydrogen produced used for transport fuel.

15. Isn’t more energy utilised where CCS is implemented?

The absolute efficiency penalty, estimated at around 10% for the reference case (meaning plant efficiency drops from 50% to around 40%), drives an increase in fuel consumption and does require an over- sizing of the plant to ensure the same net electricity output.

However, next-generation technology - such as ultra-supercritical 700°C technology for boilers, coupled with drying in the case of lignite - will achieve a 50% level of overall plant efficiency. While this technology is not currently available, it is expected to be when early commercial CCS projects are built around 2020.

16. Where will CO2 be stored?

The regional distribution and cost of storage in Europe will play an important role in any roll-out of CCS. Most experts agree that depleted oil and gas fields and deep saline aquifers have the largest storage potential.

Depleted oil and gas fields
Depleted oil and gas fields are well understood and around a third of total oil and gas field capacity in Europe is estimated to be economically useable for CO2 storage. With an estimated capacity for 10 to 15 billion tonnes of CO2, this is sufficient for the lifetime of around 50 to 60 CCS projects. However, most of these fields are located offshore in northern Europe and the transportation to and storage of CO2 in these fields (excluding capture) is around twice as costly as onshore fields.

Deep saline aquifers
While much less work has been done to map and define deep saline aquifers, most sources indicate that their capacity should be sufficient for European needs overall. Preliminary conservative estimates by EU GeoCapacity indicate that Europe can store some 136 billion tonnes of CO2 - equivalent to around 70 years of current CO2 emissions from the EU’s power plants and heavy industry. At the higher end of these estimations, EU GeoCapacity estimates some 380 billion tonnes of CO2 could be stored in Europe alone.

17. Storing enormous quantities of CO2 underground must present some risk?

The geological formations that would be used to store CO2 diffuse it, making massive releases extremely unlikely. Indeed, because the CO2 becomes trapped in the tiny pores of rocks, any leakage through the geological layers would be extremely slow, allowing plenty of time for it to be detected and dealt with. In fact, it would not raise local CO2 concentrations much above normal atmospheric levels.

Higher concentration leaks could come from man-made wells, but the oil and gas industry already has decades of experience in monitoring wells and keeping them secure. Storage sites will not, of course, be located in volcanic areas.

18. But won’t CO2 storage increase the likelihood of seismic activity?

A detailed survey takes place to identify any potential leakage pathways before a CO2 storage site is selected. If these are discovered, then the site will not be selected. In areas where some natural seismic activity is already taking place, we can ensure that the pressure on the CO2 does not exceed the strength of the rock by making the volume of CO2 stored relative to that of the storage site. CO2 storage has even proved to be robust in volcanic areas: in 2004, a storage site in Japan endured a 6.8 magnitude earthquake with no damage to its boreholes and no CO2 leakage. But then CO2 has remained undisturbed underground for millions of years – despite thousands of earthquakes.

19. How will we know if the CO2 is leaking?

Before a CO2 storage site is chosen, a detailed survey takes place to identify any potential leakage pathways. If these are found to exist then the site will not be selected. In Europe, underground gas storage (natural gas and hydrogen) has an excellent safety record, with sophisticated monitoring techniques that are easily adaptable to CCS. On the surface, air and soil sampling can be used to detect potential CO2 leakage, whilst changes underground can be monitored by detecting sound (seismic), electromagnetic, gravity or density changes within the geological formations.

The risk of leakage through man-made wells is expected to be minimal because they can easily be monitored and fixed, while CO2 leaking through faults or fractures would be localised and simply withdrawn; and, if necessary, the well closed.

20. Who will be liable for CO2 storage sites over the long-term?

As the CO2 will remain stored underground indefinitely, long-term liability will follow the example set by the petroleum industry, whereby the state assumes liability after a regulated abandonment process. Indeed, EU law governing the safe and permanent storage of CO2 has already been approved and is currently being implemented at national level.

21. Large stationary emitters of CO2 also include refineries, steel and cement plants - how are they linked into what the EC is doing?

The EC encourages the deployment of CCS in other sectors, as 25% of all European CO2 emissions addressable by CCS come from refineries and the cement, iron and steel industries.

 

The European CCS Demonstration Project Network

The EC has established a Network of CCS demonstration projects to generate early benefits from a coordinated European action.
CCS demonstration projects fulfilling minimum qualification criteria are invited to join the Network and benefit from its operations.
The Network allows early-movers to exchange information and experience from large-size industrial demonstration of the use of CCS technologies, to maximise their impact on further R&D and policy making, and optimise costs through shared collective actions.
It is envisaged that, as the Network evolves, its EU-wide, integrating and binding role may be reinforced and complemented by other measures in support of further development of CCS technologies, building towards the establishment of a European Industrial Initiative.

To help fulfil the potential of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS), the European Commission is sponsoring and coordinating the world’s first network of demonstration projects, all of which are aiming to be operational by 2015. The goal is to create a prominent community of projects united in the goal of achieving commercially viable CCS by 2020.
The CCS Project Network fosters knowledge sharing amongst the demonstration projects and leverage this new body of knowledge to raise public understanding of the potential of CCS. This accelerates learning and ensures that we can assist CCS to safely fulfil its potential, both in the EU and in cooperation with global partners.

CCS Project Network Advisory Forum

To guarantee that the Network is valuable to the wider energy community in Europe, an annual Advisory Forum has been established to review progress and specify the knowledge that can most usefully be generated by the CCS Project Network.

• The first Advisory Forum meeting was held in Brussels on 17 September 2010.
  Read more..
• The second Advisory Forum Meeting was held on 16 June 2011 in Brussels. Read more..

CCS World News

• 2012-07-18 - Carbon capture would create substantial challenges, witnesses say at energy ...
• 2012-07-18 - Opinions Divided on Climate Change and CCS in Saskatchewan
• 2012-07-18 - Planned Tees CCS project could be in line for EU cash
• 2012-07-13 - Yorkshire leads race for €1.5bn EU carbon capture funding
• 2012-07-16 - Codexis releases enzyme CO2 capture results
• 2012-07-16 - U.S. DOE advancing Hydrogen Energy plant in California
• 2012-07-16 - Yorkshire leads race for €1.5bn EU carbon capture funding ...
• 2012-07-15 - UK Don Valley project leads EU funding bid
• 2012-07-15 - Alberta projects get funding boost
• 2012-07-13 - Don Valley leads UK CCS charge for €1.5bn EU funds
• 2012-07-13 - EU says up to 1.5 billion euros ready for low-carbon investment
• 2012-07-12 - Anglo mines to become carbon neutral, CCS-aware by 2030
• 2012-07-12 - Clean coal tech is ready, but theres a catch

Membership of the CCS Project Network is open to all European projects that are at a sufficient scale and level of maturity that will generate valuable output and knowledge about industrial-scale CCS demonstration.
The application process for membership of the Network is designed to be as simple and transparent as practicable, but sufficiently robust to ensure that all members are large-scale demonstration projects at a similar level of maturity.
Project developers may submit applications at any time to demonstrate that they fulfil the eligibility criteria, can provide evidence of the maturity of the project, commit to knowledge sharing and agree to the Network organisation and procedures. The qualification criteria and application process are described in the Qualification Criteria document. The Network is open to all qualifying projects and will not distinguish between EU-funded and non-EU funded projects.

Eligibility Criteria

Projects in the Network shall have sound plans to demonstrate the full CCS value chain by 2015 and shall fulfil the following technical criteria:

• The CCS project shall for a fossil fuel-fired power plant have a minimum gross production of 250MWe before CO2 capture and compression
• The CCS project shall for an industrial plant realise a minimum of 500kt per year of stored CO2
• The CO2 capture rate shall not be less than 85% of the treated flue gas stream
• The project, i.e. the plant to which CCS is applied, shall be located within the European Economic Area (EEA)

Knowledge Sharing

Projects in the Network are committed to knowledge sharing with similar projects and other stakeholders in order to help accelerate CCS deployment and raise public engagement, as described in the Knowledge Sharing Protocol document.

Key documents

European CCS Demonstration Project Network Qualification Criteria
European CCS Demonstration Project Network Knowledge Sharing Protocol

Learn more about CCS

To learn more about CCS, please have a look at the following videos, kindly provided by ZEP:

http://www.ccsnetwork.eu/index.php?p=videos

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)
special tanks to

Daniel Rennie
Global CCS Institute
Actualis, Level 2
21 & 23 Boulevard Haussmann
PARIS 75009 France

---

Jose Manuel Hernandez
Programme Manager - EU Policies
European Commission

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

Read more

Environment

Quality of life for the planet

Need for high quality water and other resources

Clean water is the primary pre-requisite to successful aquaculture. A clean environment is therefore critical for its commercial success. Any environmental impact that would compromise the quality of the water used on fish farms must be monitored and minimised through appropriate siting (choice of locations) of farms and production processes.

 In recent years, the development of aquaculture has raised some associated environmental concerns. Like any farming operation on land, fish farm cages produce waste materials. These fall into three categories - uneaten feed, fish faeces and dead fish. Most of the environmental impacts of aquaculture can be managed and minimised through understanding of the processes involved, responsible management and the effective siting of farms.

 Uneaten feed - Should uneaten feed reach the bottom of a cage, processes that break it down can reduce the amount of oxygen in the sediment. In severe cases, oxygen levels in the water above may also decrease, creating "anoxic" conditions in which only a few animal species can survive. Should the feed contain antibiotics used to treat the farmed fish above, bacteria in the sediment and the natural breakdown of waste material might be affected.

In practice, fish farmers do everything they can to prevent such a situation, since the cost of fish feed amounts up to 40 percent of the total production cost. Feed reaching the sediment is lost, and it is in the farmers interest to minimise such waste. On well-managed farms, feeding is carefully regulated to ensure that the maximum amount of food is taken up directly by the fish and farmers aim to ensure that less than 5 percent of the feed is wasted. To improve uptake by fish, feed pellets are manufactured to either float or to sink slowly through the water.

Fish faeces - Unlike land animals, fish do not generally produce compact solid faecal material and more often excrete a loose cloud of faecal material that is easily dispersed by water currents. In still conditions, however, faecal material can build up beneath fish cages. It is, however, not in the farmers interest to let this happen, since the buildup of faecal material can lead to anoxic conditions which affect the fish above. Fish farmers wanting to ensure the health of their fish will frequently check the bottom below their fish cages to ensure that faecal material is not building up. In addition, in many EU Member States, the government employs diving teams to carry out inspections.
If faecal build-up is observed, farmers will be advised to move their cages, allowing the bottom to recuperate for a short period, however full recovery typically takes between three to ten years. In recent years, improved feed formulations have also been introduced that fish digest more efficiently, producing less waste.

Fish farmers generally avoid overly sheltered and stagnant sites, preferring areas that contain a healthy flow of water through the cages. Such flows disperse fish faeces so it can enter the natural food chain.

Dead fish - Dead fish are a loss to the farmer and a potential health hazard to the stock as well as a source of pollution. Fish farmers will, at all times, endeavour to minimise the number of dead fish on their farms and to remove such mortalities where they occur.

Fish farms are required to report significant fish deaths when they occur and are inspected by state agencies at least twice a year.

Shellfish cultivation

Shellfish such as oysters, mussels and clams are filter feeders and take their food directly from the water in which they live. This means that they do not require supplementary food and, if anything, actually improve the quality and clarity of the water. Shellfish farming can only provide the best quality products if practiced in pristine environments with the highest water quality.

Environmental problems can arise on shellfish farms where the animals are held at overly high densities, leading to depletion of food in the water and build-up of faeces below the holding areas. Both effects will harm the outcome for the farmer and hence shellfish farms are generally sited where water exchange is high and the stock is kept at densities that are compatible with the level of water exchange. In many cases, stocking densities on farms are lower than those of clusters of shellfish (e.g. mussels) that occur on natural beds.

Shellfish farms have been thought to disturb wildlife habitats by taking up space on a beach where wading birds feed. It has been shown, however, that wading birds and oyster farms can exist side by side. The fallen oyster or mussel can have a positive impact on a birds feeding pattern.

Other potential impacts include the importation of parasites, pests and diseases onto the shellfish farm which would then spread to other areas. The microscopic oyster parasite Bonamia ostrea, for example, gradually spread through Europe with the spread of oyster farming. Oyster farmers have responded by significantly reducing the density at which their shellfish are farmed.

Some people complain of "visual pollution" caused by large numbers of floating barrels or shellfish trestles in otherwise unspoilt areas. Low-profile and dark-coloured floats have recently been developed to minimise the visual impact.

Pond fish farming

Fish pond systems represent the oldest fish farming activity in Europe, at least dating back to medieval times. Ponds were built in areas where water supply was available and the soil was not suitable for agriculture. The wetlands of Central and Eastern Europe are good examples of this. The total European production from pond farming is approximately 475,000 tonnes. About half of this production is cyprinid fish, such as common carp, silver carp and bighead carp. The main producer countries are the Russian Federation, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, Ukraine and Hungary.

Typical fish ponds are earthen enclosures in which the fish live in a natural-like environment, feeding on the natural food growing in the pond itself from sunlight and nutrients available in the pond water.

In order to reach higher yields, farmers today introduce nutrients into the pond such as organic manure. This is accompanied by stocking of fingerlings and by water being flushed through the pond. Fish pond production, however, remains ‘extensive or ‘semi-intensive (with supplementary feeding) in most countries, where semi-static freshwater systems play an important role in aquaculture. Chemicals and therapeutics are not usually used in such ponds. Hence the main environmental issue is the use of organic fertilisers, which may cause eutrophication in the surrounding natural waters. The use of organic fertilisers is regulated at national levels.

Extensive fish ponds are usually surrounded by reed belts and natural vegetation, thus providing important habitats for flora and fauna. They play a growing role in rural tourism. Many pond fish farms have been turned into multifunctional fish farms, where various other services are provided for recreation, maintenance of biodiversity and improvement of water management.

In areas where water is scarce, some farm systems recirculate, treat and re-use their water. Such systems are generally self-contained and therefore pose little threat to the environment. Solid waste material produced in such systems is rich in organic compounds and often used as a fertilizer elsewhere. Alternatively, new hydroponic systems have been developed to grow vegetables and other food crops in the nutrient-enriched water. There is much interest in these systems, but their economic viability remains challenging.

Trout farming in flow-through systems

 The most widely-practiced form of inland aquaculture in Europe is trout farming. Water is taken from the river, circulated through the farm and treated before being released downstream. All water in the farm is renewed at least once per day. Where more than one farm exists on the same river, it is in everyones interests that the quality of the outflowing water from one farm is good, as this then becomes the inflowing water for the next farm. Other water sources include spring water or drilled and pumped ground water. In some countries, heated industrial water sources (such as electricity generating plants) are used to increase the water temperature (by heat exchange)
used in the farm, thereby saving energy costs to heat the water. Geothermal water also provides naturally warmed water, thus allowing the farming of new fresh water species (especially eel, sturgeon, perch and tilapia) with low environmental impact.

Recirculation Aquaculture Systems

Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS) are land-based systems in which water is re-used after mechanical and biological treatment so as to reduce the needs for water and energy and the emission of nutrients to the environment. These systems present several advantages such as: water and energy saving, a rigorous control of water quality, low environmental impacts, high biosecurity levels and an easier control of waste production as compared to other production systems. The main disadvantages are high capital costs, high operational costs, requirements for very careful management (and thus highly skilled labour forces) and difficulties in treating disease. RAS is still a
small fraction of Europes aquaculture production and has its main relevance in The Netherlands and Denmark. The main species produced in RAS are catfish and eel but other species are already being produced using this type of technology such as turbot, sea bass, pikeperch, tilapia and sole.

Other environmental impacts of fish farming - the case of escaped fish

It is inevitable that fish farmed in net pens in either fresh or salt water will sometimes escape into the wild. In some cases, there will be a small but steady release of fish. Sometimes, large numbers will escape due to severe damage to the net pen by way of storms, predator attacks or vandalism.

 There has been vigorous debate on the potential impact of escaped farmed fish, in particular salmon, on wild populations. On the one hand, it has been suggested that escaped farmed salmon could compete for living space, breeding partners and food resources, spread disease, or interbreed with wild fish, causing "genetic pollution" and thereby weakening the wild strain and reducing its ability to survive . On the other hand, scientists have argued that farmed salmon, which are bred for fast growth in perfect conditions, are less able to compete for food, territory and mate in the wild than their wild colleagues. Therefore, a limited escape of farmed fish would be unlikely to have a serious effect on wild fish populations. Only if very large numbers of fish escape into a small area, would interbreeding occur and the fitness of the local population potentially be reduced.

 In its Aquaculture Europe 2005 conference, the European Aquaculture Society invited the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) to hold a special workshop on the interactions between wild and farmed salmon. The summary report of this event "Wild and Farmed Salmon - Working Together" drew the following main conclusions:

Through the use of single bay management, single generation sites and synchronised fallowing, real progress is being made in relation to minimising impacts of diseases and parasites, which are key issues for wild fish interests. The development of third-party audited containment management systems may represent a significant step forward. The liaison group should look more at the possibilities of rearing all-female triploid salmon, which could eliminate genetic interaction with the wild stocks, but which need to be balanced by the production cost of these fish, as well as consumer resistance to what could be seen as genetic manipulation.

Restoration programmes can benefit from fish farmers expertise, but habitat protection and restoration have equal or greater importance in species restoration than stocking programmes alone.

CCRES AQUAPONICS

part of NGO

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

Read more

Algae separation technology 3

GFE Global 

offers a customized Oil Extraction Press. 

This unique easy to use Screw Press is designed for extracting oil from any oil seed.
Jatropha
Algae
Rape Seed
Lin Seed
Sesame Seed
Peanut
Ground Nuts
Mustard Seed
Cotton Seed
Jojoba
These presses extract up to 94% oil from feedstock and the extruded meal is perfect for fuel or feed.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

Read more

CCRES Low Carbon Fuels in Aviation

 photo by CCRES  

Flasks of Algae at the CCRES Lab in Zagreb,Croatia

Biofuels are key to industry’s future

 In a bid to reduce its dependency on imported oil and tackle global warming, the EU has committed to raising the share of fuels from renewable sources in transport to 10% by 2020 – including biofuels, hydrogen and green electricity.

For the growing aviation industry, the switch to plant-based fuel is seen as not only environmentally smart, but a sensible financial move in an era or rising conventional fuel prices and worries about supply security.

Biofuel use in passenger aircraft is still a novelty, and industry officials are urging governments to help lift supplies, much as policies in the EU and United States have created a flourishing market in plant-based oils for motor vehicles.

The industry contends that sustainable fuels will reduce emissions even as passenger traffic grows. The airline sector has committed to meet 10% of its overall fuel consumption with biofuels by 2017 – though the goal is ambitious given that it is to account for just 1% by 2015...

Meanwhile, more doubts are being raised about the environmental benefits of biofuels.

The United Nations Environment Programme has warned that even though burning plant-based fuels can produce significantly lower levels of carbon emissions, production and land clearing to make way for new crops “may reduce carbon-savings or even lead to an increase.”

European conservation groups say the EU and European governments should wait to embrace aviation biofuels until there is proof of their environmental benefits.

 ”Given the right conditions, algae can double its volume overnight. Microalgae are the earth’s most productive plants –– 10 to 15 times more prolific in biomass than the fastest growing land plant exploited for biofuel production. While soy produces some 50 gallons of oil per acre per year; canola, 150 gallons; and palm, 650 gallons, algae can produce up to 15,000 gallons per acre per year. In addition, up to 50 percent (or more) of algae biomass (dry weight) is comprised of oil, whereas oil-palm trees—currently the most efficient large-scale source of feedstock oil to make biofuels—yield approximately 20 percent of their weight in oil,” says Zeljko Serdar, President of CCRES

 Airlines have committed to ramping up their use of biofuels in the belief that they can contribute to achieving the sectors pledges on carbon-neutral growth. For 2050, the EU foresees 40% use of "sustainable low carbon fuels" in aviation.

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

Read more

Carbon capture and consumption

 

Could it Eliminate the Need for Wastewater Aeration?

Algal blooms have always proved a challenge for the water industry. Yet could this organic matter,with the help of wastewater nutrients, be turned into a biofuel and help alleviate fossil fuel shortages? Tom Freyberg investigates the European funded All-Gas project.

First generation biofuels from crops never really bloomed into a fruitful harvest. Opponents criticized using up valuable land to grow crops and fuel the cars of the rich, instead of filling the stomachs of the poor. Second generation biofuels – made from biomass - have proved a lot harder to extract the required fuel and fully crack.

And then along came algae. Unlike first generation biofuels, algae can be grown using land and water not suitable for plant and food production.

Consuming solar energy and reproducing itself, algae generates a type of oil that has a similar molecular structure to petroleum products produced today. As if this wasnt enough – algae growth also consumes carbon dioxide, a known major greenhouse gas (GHG).

As a result of the apparent benefits the race is on to commercialize second and now third generation biofuels, in the case of algae. Continents and companies are putting money where their mouths are to find out how what we thought was simply a green weed growing in the sea could be the answer to inevitable fossil fuel shortages.

Algal culture ponds are used to grow and harvest micro-algae using nutrients contained in wastewater

Earlier this year US President Barack Obama announced that the Department of Energy would make $14 million available to support research and development into biofuels from algae. The Department has suggested that up to 17% of the US imported oil for transportation could be replaced with biofuels derived from the substance.

Meanwhile Europe is going even further and mandating the gradual replacement of fossil fuels to biofuels. An EU Directive stipulates that by 2020 a total of 20% of energy needs should be produced by renewable fuels. A further requirement is that 10% of biofuels need to be met through transport related activities.

Even UK government backed agency the Carbon Trust has forecast that by 2030, algae-based biofuels could replace more than 70 billion litres of fossil fuels used every year around the world in road transportation and aviation.

Nutrients: burden or blessing?

So far, so good. Yet while algae derived biofuels sound like an answer to inevitable fossil fuel shortages, two challenges remain: space and nutrients. The first challenge will be addressed later but on the topic of nutrients, phosphorous and ammonia are required alongside sun light and carbon dioxide to "feed" the algae. And with up to 30% of operating costs at algae farms attributed to buying and adding in such nutrients, its a notable expense.

It is in response to this particular challenge where the wastewater sector could play its part, with untreated effluent being a known source of phosphorous and other nutrients. An EU funded project aims to bring together the challenge and solution and link the water and biofuel industries together.

The €12 million, five-year project is starting at water management company aqualias wastewater treatment plant in Chiclana, Southern Spain and is backed by the European Union as part of its FP7 program – supporting energy-related projects - with six partners.

Called All-Gas, which translates into algae in Spanish, the project will see "algal culture ponds" being used to grow micro-algae using nutrients contained in wastewater, such as phosphorous. A 10-hectare site will eventually be needed for the project. Frank Rogalla, head of R&D at aqualia, says nutrients are abundant in wastewater, so it makes sense to incorporate the two industries.

Traditionally aeration processes at wastewater treatment plants are heavy energy users, accounting for up to 30% of a facilitys operating costs. In the US, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, drinking water and wastewater systems account for between 3% and 4% of national energy consumption alone.

However, Rogalla later told Water & Wastewater International magazine (WWi) that growing algae with wastewater can eliminate the need for aeration, thus reducing energy use.

He said: "We have converted our treatment to anaeraobic pre-treatment, meaning we will generate biogas from the start instead of destroying organic matter, so no aeration will be needed. From the 0.5 kWh [kilowatt-hour] per m³ which you generally spend for aeration, that will be completely gone. We will have a net output of energy from algae conversion either to oils or to gas. So thats why you get this positive output of 0.4 kWh per m³ of wastewater treated."

Rogalla added: "It will not cost more than traditional wastewater treatment, which costs about 0.2 Euros per cubic metre. We think we will use the same operational costs but instead of consuming energy we will produce additional benefit, meaning we generate about 0.2 Euros per cubic metre in additional profit from the fuel. Our aim is to be cost neutral."

So the question has to be asked of how, technically, can the proposed treatment eliminate the need for wastewater aeration? The answer, as Rogalla later tells WWi, is through the initial conversion to biogas.

Compared to nitrification and dentrification to eliminate nutrients in conventional wastewater treatment, a process Rogalla says consumes about 5 kWh/kg Nitrogen during aeration, All-Gas will use an alternative conversion. Firstly anaerobic pre-treatment will convert most organic matter into biogas (CH4 and CO₂). Algae will then take up the nitrogen and phosphorous.

Productive: instead of using traditional nitrification and dentrification processes, organic matter will instead be converted into biogas

As the algae will transform most nutrients into biomass, they will also produce O2 in the process, as CO₂ is taken up and oxygen released in their metabolic process. As a result, according to Rogalla, aeration is not necessary. Most organic carbon is transformed into energy (via biogas), nutrients are incorporated into algae, which produce oxygen for any polishing action necessary.

An overview of aqualias wastewater treatment plant in Chiclana, Southern Spain

"It only seems logical to use the wastewater nutrients to grow algae biomass; on the one hand saving the aeration energy, on the other hand the algae fertilizer and cleaning wastewater without the occurrence of useless sludge, but producing biofuels and added value instead," Rogalla adds.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (CCRES)

  special thanks to U.S. Department of Energy | USA.gov

  and WaterWorld, Industrial WaterWorld

Space challenges

Addressing the second challenge of space requirements to harness algae ponds, for a commercial scale operation its estimated that a 10 hectare site is required (roughly 10 football pitches). Yet when compared to the oil yields of other crops, algae still proves favourable.

Data from US-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) show that oil yields from soybeans work out at 400 litres/hectare/year, which compares to 6,000 for palm oil and theoretically, a potential 60,000 for microalgae. For barrels/hectare/year, the same comparison yields 2.5 for soybeans, 36 for palm oil and a minimum of 360 for microalgae.

As predictions go, the production of 60,000 litres of biofuel from only one hectare of algae is optimistic compared aqualias aims for the Europe project. If a target set by the EU is reached, then each hectare should produce 20,000 litres of biodiesel. This, the firm says, compares to 5000 litres of biofuel per hectare per year for biofuels such as alcohol from sugar cane or biodiesel from palm oil.

The Spanish project also hopes to use produced biogas from the anaerobic pre-treatment and raw wastewater organic matter as car fuel, with each hectare touted to treat about 400 m³ per day.

Statistics to one side, the challenge of space remains. Booming urban populations are expanding closer to rural wastewater treatment plants but at the same communities insist on an out of sight, out of mind rule when it comes to infrastructure that treats their waste. Rogalla does not think the land issue could impede the development of algae ponds to the majority of wastewater treatment plants. "Algae ponds of course can be put on marginal lands, or even on rooftops," he adds. "In rural areas extensive oxidation ponds for wastewater treatment are not uncommon, not to mention the often unused land areas as buffer zones around wastewater treatment plants.

Biogas generated from wastewater could mean the 0.5 kWh per m3 usually spent on aeration wont be required

"As we do not claim that all fuel can be made from biofuel on land, but only where possible wastewater should be turned into biofuel (excluding mostly big cities), the land issue seems secondary."

Carbon capture and consumption

One further benefit that has made algae growth attractive compared to other fuels is its consumption of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), namely CO₂, in order to grow. While captured carbon consumed by algae will inevitably be released later when used as a fuel in cars, it could still be a step in the right direction in reducing the impact of a world still firmly grasping CO₂ emitting fuel sources.

An article entitled Algal Biofuels: The Process from NREL in a Society for Biological Engineering journal suggests that over two billion tons of CO₂ could be captured by growing algae on the space equivalent to the entire U.S. soybean crop of 63.3 million acres.

Power plants and cement kilns appear to be an ideal match for algae growth, then. Yet, in order for All-Gas to attract seven million Euros worth of funding for its project, the CO₂ had to come from renewable sources. Any fossil fuel burning plants were not permitted, as Denise Green, manager of biofuels across Europe and Africa from Hart Energy Consulting tells WWi.

"This particular call was restricted to projects in which the carbon dioxide supply for the algae cultivation was provided by renewable applications, excluding carbon dioxide from fossil fuel installations," she says.

"However I see no reason why future funding for algae projects could not be provided for research into algae as part of the solution for CO₂ capture for zero emission power generation. If there are objections to using algae from fossil fuel installations for transportation fuels, there are other industries for which algae can be used where this may not be an issue."

Project roll out and commercialisation

The project will be implemented in two stages, with a prototype facility being used to confirm the scale of the full-size plant during the first two years. Once the concept has been proven in full-scale ponds, a 10 hectare site will be developed and operated at commercial scale during the next three years.

Rogalla suggests the project could be rolled out among aqualias existing facilities along the Mediterranean belt, including Italy, Portugal, Egypt and even South America, all of which have "favourable conditions, meaning the climate is advantageous and the land is available".

Clearly, the conversion of algae to fuel is possible and has been demonstrated on a laboratory scale. It could hold the potential to turn a new leaf for biofuels haunted by their unsuccessful and much criticized first generation brothers. The real interest for the water sector should be the pipe dream of the project to eliminate aeration and turn existing wastewater treatment facilities into biofuel production centres.

The pivotal outcome of the project will be cost. This was proved in the well documented closure of the US Department of Energys algae research programme in 1996 after nearly 20 years of work. At the time it was estimated that the $40-60/bbl cost of producing algal oil just couldnt compete with petroleum for the foreseeable future.

However, it is the additional methane extracted from raw wastewater and algae residue that differentiates this project. Its not just reliant upon biodiesel produced from the algae. All-Gas has the chance to spearhead Europe into proving that algae biofuel, through the help of wastewater, could eventually be more competitive on a per barrel price with traditional oil.

CCRES ALGA PROJECT 

part of 

Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

Read more

A Very Victorian Fantasy in Bournemouth

The dark side of Bournemouth Borough Councils planting scheme

Before you ridicule me for adoring this garden, stick with me and I will explain why. Although firstly, having spent some time talking with the ladies on the stand on Monday, who seemed genuinely amazed and entralled that the garden looked so great, I need to explain a little about the garden.

Bournemouth, the land of holidays at the beach, donkey rides and ice cream, has a darker literary side which I for one knew little about. Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein" there  and is buried in a graveyard there, where the sculpture in the centre, by Bournemouth artist Andy Kirkby, will end up after the show is dismantled. Robert Louis Stevenson also wrote "Jekyll and Hyde" there and the two planting schemes are mirrored by those characters in ways which will become apparent.

The garden is split into two halves. In the half shown in the photo above there is very typical Victorian seaside parks and gardens planting, with Coleus, Ricinus, Cannas and countless more annual bedding varieties that the Victorians loved. The colour is deep and rich and screams of bedding schemes in the days where parks and gardens departments trained the horticulturalists of the future(its where Alan Titchmarsh amongst others began his career), and draws the eye into it. It has a tropical feel that today can be seen in places such as The Exotic Garden at Great Dixter, but has been refined for todays taste, whereas this is true Victorian bedding at its best.

Both sides of the planting scheme

The opposite side of the bedding, or the opposite bed, is entirely white in its flower colour, calling in the lighter side of the Victorian arts such as Aubrey Beardsleys Art Nouveau works. It is gentle and innocent, with huge drifts of Cosmos, Orlaya grandiflora and Antirhinums amongst other species. The quantity of plants used gives the illusion of a huge billowing drift of white cloud atop a green background and is almost heavenly in appearance.

In both beds are willow sculptures by Stephan Jennings. In the sub-tropical, dark bed these are in dark willow figures, demonic in their appearance, whereas in the white bed they are of pale willow and are fairy like and innocent.

Victorian style bedding at its best

So why then, do I think this garden worthy of a blog post? Well its really simple. I stood in front of it saying"Oh look, seaside bedding" long before I knew that the garden had anything to do with Bournemouth Borough Council. It dragged me back to childhood holidays and days out at the seaside. The planting was stunning and all of the plants were produced in Dorset, continuing the tradition of producing your own plants for display. In essence, it was honest. And very beautiful.

These peacocks were planted with amazing succulents

My feeling with this garden was also that the gardener could get planting ideas from this garden that are actually steeped in the horticultural history of this country. Unfortunately due to budget cuts the vast majority of Parks and Gardens departments no longer exist in the way that they used to, meaning that our industry now really struggles to find young people good training schemes and has lead to a real lack of skills in horticulture in the UK. So this garden not only talks of the Victorian history of Bournemouth, but also of the horticultural history of the UK both in the history of gardeners and gardens. And when you look at this garden it is truly apparent that the loss of the Parks and Gardens departments throughout the country has lead to our outside town and city spaces being  poorer and sadder places. It was amazing to see this piece of horticultural history displayed in such a fantastic garden. Thanks Bournemouth.

Drifts of white

Read more

Wild Foods Garden Things and Music at the Gandhi Garden

Recently I took a bike ride to collect some wild yarrow and blackberries.  Yarrow is an herb with lots of uses and benefits. The blackberries were about 20-30% ripe, so I was able to collect about a cup. Theyre really tart, but also really tasty!

I also recently got an email from a Wild Foodies group in Philadelphia about the plant of the week, Rose of Sharon.  I hadnt heard of it, and when I saw a picture, I recognized it as a plant that my landlord has growing up and down the edges of his property.  I found a recipe to stuff the violet, pink, and white flowers in goat cheese and bread and fry them.  That seems tasty, but I also want to find a recipe that doesnt completely hide the taste of the flower.  I believe the leaves are edible as well.  Theres food all around us!

I found this praying mantis hanging out in my Kale a couple days in a row.  Good luck or something, right?

Then I found these melting, drippy mushrooms growing on my straw bale garden next to some watermelon and pumpkin seedlings.  It was a hot day, but Ive never seen that before.  Trippy!

At work the other day, I was playing with a little butterfly or moth.  It looked a bit like a monarch on the top of its wings, but with the wings up, it looks more moth-like.  What do you think?  He wanted to eat my finger.  Silly guy!

A few nights ago, some friends of mine with the SAGE Coallition threw a cookout/concert in downtown Trenton at the Gandhi Garden (219 East Hanover St Trenton, NJ).  Vita and the Woolf played an awesome set, and Ruff House brought the funk!  It was a great time!

Vita and the Woolf

Ruff House

I also recently harvested a bunch of Queen Annes Lace (wild carrot) flowers to make a jam.  I need to collect a bit more, but Ill post pictures when thats finished.  Its suppossed to be very tasty, so Im excited to see how it turns out.

Read more

Difference between Compost and Mulch

In the past we have discussed about Compost and Mulch separately. But sometimes people get confused over the two. So in this article we are trying to give you some comparison so that the concepts never get mixed.

Compost:

Compost is called gardeners gold. For preparing you need to mix different ingredientstogether in proper ratio. Which are then left for decomposition.

Many plants have particular requirement of nutrients. You should keep this in mind while preparing your compost. They are mixed in particular ratio to get the ultimate nutrient mixture for the plant.

The main function of compost is to fertilize the soil. You can use the compost by mixing with the garden soil or with the potting mix (in case of container gardening).

For a good compost it is essential that the ingredients are decomposed properly and should not be smelly like manure. Some people add water with the compost to make compost tea which is then added to the soil for enrichment.

Mulch:

Mulch on the other hand is used to create a barrier between the soil and the environment. It works as a protective cover for the soil. It increases the soil temperature during those cold winter seasons and helps to prevent excess heat to reach the soil during hot summers.

Mulch helps in keeping the moisture level of the soil intact. You would have less wastage of water and certainly less frequent watering schedule.

It works as some kind of a blanket and thus used to keep weeds away.

It differs from compost over the fact that it doesnt require any particular ratio and combinations of ingredients to work. It doesnt need to get those ingredients composted before using.

Though it is better to use organic matters as mulch it is not compulsory and sometimes other materials like plastic etc are also used.

Mulch can increase the nutrients of the soil in the longer run if prepared from organic materials but that is not its fundamental feature. It is more concerned with preserving water and working as an insulator.

All compost can be used as mulch but not the other way around. Both serve particular functions in gardening and they both can be used as soil conditioner. Though it would be foolish to use a nutrient-dense material like compost as a protective coating and not enriching the soil.

Compost and mulch are two age-old concept of gardening that improves the soil quality tremendously. If used properly, these two concept can change your garden soil from unproductive sterile one to a growing heaven.

Have any questions? Why not post it in the comment box:

Read more

Home and Garden Projects update 6 22

I recently fenced in my garden area to keep the neighborhood cats out. I ran out of straw, but luckily a local tree removal device is going to drop off 2 cubic yards of wood chips this week for free. I have some Stropharia (aka Wine Cap, aka Garden Giant, aka Portabello) mushroom spawn to mix into the wood chips. Im also getting 2 bales of straw next weekend for a couple straw bale gardens I want to play with.

Hey, put me down, Im not done eating!

Exploding with life!

So far Ive harvested:

Swiss Chard, Lettuce, Lambs Quarter, Radishes, and Beets

Some yard mushrooms.

Burdock in the yard.

Orange spots on the backyard apple tree. My landlord hasnt taken good care of it, so Im hoping to do some trimming and try to bring it back to health. Branches crossing, its a mess. Already, there are lots of apples forming, though!

Heres a short video showing the IBC Tote Aquaponic System that Im contructing at my parents house in Delaware.  Its finally just about ready for fish and plants.

While at work, I realized that the trees outside the cafeteria are Juneberries! They were ripe and delicious.

I got about 3.5 cups of Juneberries (aka Service berry, aka Shadbush, aka Shadberry.

My girlfriend baked them into a Juneberry crisp dessert for my family reunion.

Read more

What is Perlite A Brief Idea About Perlite Uses in Gardening and Horticulture

What is Perlite?

Perlite is a generic term for naturally occurring siliceous amorphic volcanic rock. But unlike other volcanic glasses it expands from 4 to 20 times of its original volume when heated above a point(800-900 deg C). Perlite is mostly made of silica or SiO2(about 70-75%). The rest is the mixture of Aluminum Oxide or Al2O3, and Oxides of Sodium, Potassium, Iron, Magnesium and Calcium. 3-5& moisture are also present in Perlite.

Perlite is mined through out the world. Countries like Greece, USA, China and Turkey are the fore runners in this.

When perlite is heated above 900 deg C the moisture trapped inside the rock vaporized and escapes and causes the huge expansion of the material. After the expansion the bulk density of the perlite reduces significantly(0.03-0.15gm/cm3). The expansion also creates the most distinguishing feature of perlite its white color. While the unexpanded perlite rock may range from transparent light grey to glossy black, the expanded perlite ranges from snow white to greyish white.

Perlite Uses:

Because of its low density and low price, perlite has many commercial applications. Among which main uses are building and constructions uses, horticultural uses, fillers and filter aids. 

In gardening and horticulture, perlite is used for number of reasons. 

Advantages of Perlite soil in gardening and horticulture:

Perlite encourages quicker germination than any other growing media with quick seedling growth. It can be used by mixing with peat moss or coconut coir and used as a potting mix or it can be used solely provided it kept wet all the time.

Perlite is inorganic, inert and sterile and naturally contains the different minerals which are essential for the growth of the plant. Being inorganic it is free from weeds, diseases and pests.

Perlite is non-toxic and there are very few fire hazards. 

Unlike peat moss, perlite does not decompose very easily(if at all) so you can store and use perlite for many years.

It improves aeration and drainage of the soil mix if mixed with other growth media, or soil.

Perlite are almost pH neutral. So it can also help to reduce acidity of the soil.

Disadvantages of perlite soil:

There are couple of disadvantages also of using perlite as growth media.

Perlite holds water by having a large surface area and within the nooks and cervices of vast pores. But being porous and made of volcanic glass it allows the excess water to drain away much quickly than any other media. So in case you have really thirsty plants, investing in perlite might not be a good choice. 

Perlite is a non-renewable resource. Which means you can not increase its availability as per your likings as in case with coconut coir. 

Other Perlite Uses:

Perlite as an excellent filtering agent. Beside horticulture, Perlite filters are used in many places to filter beer before getting bottled. 

Buy Organic Perlite | Best Deals On Perlite

Read more