Category: Next Generation
Energy efficiency... good topic. How do we conserve what we have? Well there are several layers to this question, but let me begin with the most obvious. YOU.
Because the truth is that personal decisions matter. Really. And like all those bumper stickers read, 'Think Globally, Act Locally.'
Step 1: Consider riding a bicycle or walking when possible...You'll save money on gas and get some exercise. And when you buy your next car, think about hybrid and other emerging alternatives--which may be easier on your wallet during the current financial crisis. Keep an energy efficient home and make sure it's well insulated and features efficient utilities. And that also means being a good consumer. Look for smart power strips and yes, those often referenced light bulbs. Remember to unplug your phone charger during the day and turn off your television, lights, and stereos when you leave. Make sure to close the door, both to your home and refrigerator too. And if you can bear it, keep the thermostat below 68 in the winter... another tip which will save some benjamins.
Step 2: Share what you know with friends, family, students, teachers, and community. Encourage others to think about their actions too because the thing about living here on planet earth is that yes, we're all really in this together.
Step 3: Make sure you VOTE. Let your decisions this election cycle be your voice on energy. Both candidates have answered ScienceDebate2008 and laid out what our energy forecast would look like in their administration. Now it's up to us to determine who would best lead the way in policy.
Sure, all of these alone, seem small. But a lot of people, doing a lot of small things, adds up to real change. Remember Earth Hour? It was the biggest voluntary power down in history and inspired many individuals and businesses to change their energy habits--even influencing government policy in some countries. Fifty million people around the world switched off their lights for one hour in more than 35 countries across seven continents and over 18 time zones... and will again for Earth Hour 2009.
As Doc told Marty, our future hasn't been written yet. No one's has. Our future is whatever we make it. So let's make it a good one. Together. In my last post here at NexGen, I encourage readers to think about the possible energy alternatives explored here and keep your eyes and ears tuned into new and developing technologies beyond the blog. And remember one thing... Real change begins with YOU.
Posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum at 10:52 AM • 24 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Next Generation
We all agree that conservation is the most common-sense, obvious, affordable and essential element of any energy-use strategy aimed at reducing fossil-fuel emissions in favor of clean power sources. But I fear that conservation also faces some of the biggest hurdles to aggressive implementation. The main problem, in the United States and to a lesser degree most other developed nations, is the inherent conflict between reducing consumption and supply-side economics.
Read on »
Posted by James Hrynyshyn at 12:01 PM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category:
As with any industry, energy use is a big part of the bottom line for farmers. Practices aimed at reducing on farm energy cost also provide the obvious benefit of reducing green house gas (GHG) emission as well. Another key contributor to global warming from farms is N2O, a particularly noxious GHG with climate change effects many times greater than CO2. According to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, agriculture is responsible for the most GHGs second only to the power sector, see the Annex sections for data.
The USDA Natural Resource Energy Conservation Service has created the Energy Consumption Awareness Tools. The end point is meant to elucidate areas a farmer can focus to reduce energy consumption. In principal, several of these areas are not much different from those of non-farmers. Many of them boil down to driving less. Land management, planting, application of fertilizer and pesticides, and harvesting all requires driving farm machinery in the field. I am not aware of efforts to increase farm vehicle efficiency, so please share if you do. On the other hand, reducing driving is a very active area of research, outreach and practice. Other arenas are the simple practice of increasing efficiency of on farm facilities and their utilities.
As highlighted by the USDA, key conservation practices include:
Crop Residue Management--According to the Conservation Technology Information Center, a farmer can save at least 3.5 gallons of fuel per acre by going from conventional tillage methods to no-till, a conservation practice that leaves the soil undisturbed from harvest through planting except for narrow strips that cause minimal soil disturbance. At November 2005 diesel prices, this amounts to $7.70 per acre in production cost savings. On a farm with 1,000 acres of cropland, these savings add up to 3,500 gallons of diesel fuel per year valued at $7,700.
Nutrient Management--The proper collection, handling, storage and application of manure help to protect our nation's waters and provide a significant nutrient source for crop production. Currently, about 2.7 million tons of manure-based nitrogen are applied on agricultural land. It takes approximately 40,000 cubic feet of natural gas to produce a ton of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. Doubling the application of manure-based nitrogen could save agriculture approximately $1.2 billion worth of natural gas each year. Substituting manure for commercial fertilizer can reduce fertilizer costs as much as $85 per acre for a 1,000-acre farm.
Read on »
Posted by Sam Hazen at 10:20 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category:
I am glad that we saved the first fuel, energy efficiency, for last. Here are the central points:
- Energy efficiency is the biggest low-carbon resource by far. Of the 12 to 14 stabilization wedges of clean energy technology we need to deploy globally by 2050 to avert climate catastrophe, about two are electricity efficiency, one is recycled Energyy (cogeneration), and one is vehicle fuel efficiency (cars globally averaging 60 mpg). The International Energy Agency comes to a similar conclusion in a recent report.
- Efficiency is rhe limitless resource. It never gets exhausted because technology keeps improving and knowledge spreads to more and more people. Indeed, the few companies that have ever pursued efficiency in a truly systematic fashion, like the Louisiana division of Dow Chemical, found ever-rising savings with ever faster paybacks from efficiency and waste minimization.
- Efficiency is the only cheap power left. In the best document case, California has cut annual peak demand by 12 GW -- and total demand by about 40,000 GWh -- over the past three decades. The cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2-3¢ per kW -- which is about one fifth the cost of electricity generated from new nuclear, coal and natural gas-fired plants. And, of course, energy efficiency does not require new power lines and does not generate greenhouse gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste.
- Efficiency can be done consistently and cost-effectively for decades with relatively simple government policies. Perhaps the most important policies are strong building standards and smarter utility regulations that decouple electric utility sales from profits.
- Efficiency has the highest documented rate of return of any federal program. As the National Academy of Sciences verified in a major report on "Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It?" a handful of energy technologies developed through funding by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy have returned about $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million.
- Efficiency efforts have largely been neglected and/or scaled-back by Bush and Cheney. In particular, they have cut most federal programs aimed at deploying energy efficiency and gutted the industrial energy efficiency program.
- Efficiency has always been a low priority of John McCain, who seems to be angling for Cheney's third term. His energy and climate plans ignore efficiency almost entirely.
- Efficiency is a central component of Barack Obama's energy plan. He has offered what I believe is the most detailed and comprehensive set of policies to tap the first fuel ever offered by a presidential candidate.
I don't think we have any realistic chance of solving the climate problem in a practical and affordable fashion if the federal government fails to take a leading role in promoting energy efficiency. This election remains among the most consequential United States has ever had.
Posted by Joe Romm at 11:28 AM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Next Generation
One thing seems certain in every scenario of our energy future: our demand for energy is growing, and if we continue to fuel that demand with coal and oil, the effect on the planet will be disastrous and irreversible. Every day there is new evidence that greenhouse gases are wreaking havoc on our ecosystems, destroying the delicate balance of elements that has allowed Earth to sustain life for billions of years.
Clean and renewable energy could, as we've seen, eventually meet worldwide demand with minimal environmental impact, but as we've also seen, we're not there yet. Though some technologies have widespread political support, and some may even be far enough along in development to compete with fossil fuels in the energy market, it will take a massive rearrangement of our infrastructure to make a transition on even a national level.
In the meantime, we must fight the energy problem on its other front: by tackling our overwhelming consumption. Conservation of energy—and other resources—was one of the first movements put forward in the "green" revolution, but the message seems to be lost on most individuals, let alone businesses and other large organizations whose practices would have a greater impact.
So, how do we encourage widespread energy conservation? What are the most effective ways to save energy, and are they easy to implement? What technologies should we adopt, and which should we give up? Is reducing our demand for energy more critical, at this point, than trying to fill it with alternative sources?
Posted by Erin Johnson at 1:45 PM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Next Generation
Over in the United Kingdom, the Government's business and technology department (BERR) has a new enthusiasm for new coal-burning power stations which is based on the notion of retrofitting CCS (carbon capture and storage) in the future once the technology is developed. But all the independent advice is going against this policy.
Another thumbs down
Three new reports cast doubt on this. The first is a response to the Government's consultations on the topic published yesterday by the Environment Agency.
It says "The concept of carbon capture readiness (CCR) is insufficient for the climate change challenge that we face." This is categorial and agrees with most other independent studies.
A second report is an in-depth integrated assessment of CCS that analyses the overall effects of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in electricity and hydrogen generation and compares them to renewable energies. It casts many great doubts upon the possibility of CCS ever being viable.
It looks at the life-cycle assessment of CCS power plants for the first time. The study was jointly conducted by the Wuppertal Institute, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), Zentrum fur Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Wrttemberg (ZSW) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
Even more damning is one last July from the UK Government itself, saying that it is not feasible.
"Even the most optimistic proponent of CCS would not envisage any demonstration plant to be operational much before 2015, which would put wide-scale deployment as far away as 2020 or later after lessons from the pilot have been learned and digested," says a submission from The Royal Academy of Engineering to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC). This is a cross-party committee headed by a Conservative.
It estimates that the cost of building the first CCS plant could be anything up to £500m, on top of the £1bn cost of a new coal-fired power station. Retrofitting CCS at a station like the new one being planned at Kingsnorth in Kent, scene of recent protests, is likely to cost over £1.1bn. This is a huge figure by any standard, and would have a massive impact on energy prices.
The EAC urges: "We cannot emphasise strongly enough that the possibility of CCS should not be used as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability." Furthermore, "Replacing old coal-fired power stations with new ones, rather than using alternative energy sources, locks Britain in to a high level of emissions for many years to come."
The Business Minster, Hutton, has said that a high carbon price under the EU-ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) will mean that CCS-retrofitting so-called 'CCS-ready' new power stations becomes economical. The EAC slams this notion on three counts:
1. Lack of knowledge of the technology: since the eventual nature of CCS technology is currently unknown, how can a plant built now be designed to have the technology retro-fitted on?
2. Carbon emissions: "The EU ETS is a mechanism designed to reduce emissions; using it as a cover for choosing high emissions technology goes against the purpose of the scheme."
3. The price per tonne of CO2 for retrofitting CCS required to make it commercially viable is unfeasibly high: estimates of this vary from the rather optimistic €40 (E.ON UK) to Euros 90-155 per tonne (Climate Change Capital) and €70-100 per tonne (UK Energy Research Centre). How much it will really be is anybody's guess, but the Government cites an EU estimate of a forward price of carbon of €39 for 2013-2020 (EU-ETS Phase 3). The UK Energy Research Centre predicts around €30. The EAC concludes from this: "the gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS is enormous".
The EAC concludes: "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS."
The UK still has faith
But here in the UK coal is not being seen as a last resort. Governments are concerned that the lights shouldn't go out, and for them the easiest option is to accede to pressure from high-powered lobbyists from the existing large energy companies.
These companies already have access to the very centre of government, and in fact there is evidence that they have had a hand in writing the very contracts which government gives them for new coal burning power stations in order to reduce the level of commitments to installing carbon capture and storage capability. (See this item by George Monbiot.)
This is in direct contradiction to the Environment Agency's advice. But the government is more interested in repaying the attentions of powerful lobbyists than our long-term future.
Coal is the new battleground
In fact in the UK, 24 years after the miners strike, coal is at the centre of a new battle. On August 9 activists attempted to close down Kingsnorth powerstation, protesting against government plans to build a new coal-fired power station at the site in Kent. This is just one of many anti-coal protests around the country, as public feeling against coalmining and coal burning is mounting. Simultaneously, the industry has plans to open many new mines, and the government is deciding whether to give the go ahead to seven new coal-fired power stations, the first for 30 years.
Yet concerned climate scientists argue that leaving coal in the ground is the best form of carbon capture and storage - the planet just cannot survive that much more CO2 put into the atmosphere. The burning of coal, the logic goes, is far easier to halt and to replace as a source of electricity and heating, than is oil used for transportation.
Coal is primarily used for electricity generation, which is the largest source of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of all power stations, coal-fired ones are most CO2 intensive.
Today, globally, burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. But around half of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now due to human activity is from burning coal. The majority of this came from Western developed nations who industrialised before China and other emerging indistrialised powers.
This is why developing economies like China and India argue, in the current round of climate control talks, that as today's climate change is due to our historical emissions, developed countries should curb their emissions before they do. Climate campaigners argue that if we want these countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations (China is opening two a week), we must set a good example.
After all, in the UK the coal industry estimates there are 45 billion tonnes of recoverable UK coal reserves, which at current rates would last us 300 years. This represents around 150 billion tonnes of CO2. There is no way that the planet can survive as we know it with this level of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. There are 17 opencast mines in the UK now, with at least a staggering 25 in planning or proposed.
James Hansen
James Hansen is described by many as the world's leading climate scientist. He first alerted Washington politicians to the dangers of climate change in June 1988 and has been an outspoken advocate of action to stop it ever since. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA and adjunct professor at earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. He has called for a moratorium on building coal-fired power plants and for a 350ppm target for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Currently it is 385ppm.)
Please note, that this is 350ppm, not 450ppm which has previously been the level adopted by the international climate community and quoted elsewhere on this website.
"It's very difficult to see how we can prevent the oil from being used and the carbon getting in to the atmosphere because it comes from vehicles, but in the case of coal if we're going to use that, we could restrict it to power-plants and we should say it can only be used there if you capture the CO2," he says. He argues that it's easier to make electricity and heat buildings with other sources of energy than coal, than it is to find alternatives to the fossil fuels which power our vehicles. Therefore we should do this first. "I think it's a better way than saying let's reduce CO2 80% or 90% or 60% or any particular number because we really can't let 40% or 20% of the coal to continue to be used; that's the one source that we really need to cut off."
Hansen has written to Gordon Brown requesting that the Government doesn't build any new coal fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. "Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air," he wrote. "Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use." See here. We don't know if Brown replied.
In June Hansen told listeners on Capitol Hill, Washington, that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. "These CEO's, these captains of industry," he said in the briefing, "if they don't change their tactics they're guilty of crimes against humanity and nature." He compared cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).
Hansen said in an interview in March "I would say within a decade or so, that these coal plants are simply not compatible with keeping a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed. And I think there is going to be eventually pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants, so economically they just don't make sense. You are not going to be able to leave them there 50 years."
Hanen argues that we will have to "restore the point of energy balance because as it stands now we will lose the Arctic sea ice without any more greenhouse gases, as there is additional warming in the pipeline. That means we would have to reduce the amount of CO2 at least to the 350ppm level, and we are already at 385. So, we've actually got to go backwards and it's really too bad that we didn't realise this earlier."
Does Hansen believe it's possible to reverse the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? "Yes, yes, it's still possible. If we get on the stick very promptly, it's still practical to do that in ways that are quite natural. The most important thing is to have a moratorium on new coal fired power plants that don't capture CO2 and then to phase out the dirty coal use over the next 2-3 decades.
"If we do that, you know that the system does still take up CO2, the ocean and the soils and things, so that other things being equal, CO2 would only go up to a bit more than 400 if we phase out coal use. But then we have got to take at least 50ppm out of the atmosphere, and that is possible with improved agricultural and forestry practices, things that we have not being paying much attention to."
Posted by David Thorpe at 10:35 AM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Next Generation
Most everyone, even those who don't want us to waste precious research dollars that are needed on more promising clean-energy alternatives, agrees that carbon capture and sequestration is, in theory at least, worth considering. But few have actually taken a close look at the concept and asked how well it will work, even if we could get enough CCS plants operational in time to make a difference (which, as Joe Romm points out, we almost certainly can't). First though, the optimistic side.
Read on »
Posted by James Hrynyshyn at 12:01 PM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Cellulosic Ethanol
In a previous post I discussed real carbon negative energy, biofuels produced from plant biomass. Under certain practices, the very roots of the plants are the below ground carbon sink, while the above ground biomass is a potential fuel feedstock. This approach is also restorative as degraded farmlands can be 'recovered' or habitat for native species reestablished. Like all other forms of next generation energy it will not satisfy all of our energy needs, but it can provide a substantial amount of transportation fuel. At the moment, several companies are scaling up facilities to process plant waste products, which will likely be followed by the use of dedicated energy crops.
Plant cultivation also serves solely as a carbon offset. Trees have excellent capacity for this for obvious reasons. A tree trunk, relative to more herbaceous plants, is a long lasting reservoir of carbon. The Conservation Fund provides a tool to calculate your carbon footprint and then offers to plant trees for a fee to offset your emmissions. This from the calculation of a roundtrip flight from NYC to LA,
"The average American's annual carbon footprint is just over 20 tons. Make a donation to The Conservation Fund and we'll plant 1 tree in protected parks and wildlife refuges across the United States. Over the next century, these trees will sequester approximately 1.19 tons of carbon dioxide -- a potent greenhouse gas."
To offset the average annual carbon footprint (20 tons) requires about 16 trees annually, which will be planted by the Fund for about $175. Portals to purchase offsets are also readily available when purchasing airline tickets. A word of caution, do take the time to evaluate the outlet. TerraPass, Carbon Neutral, and Clean Are Pass are for-profit entities that can direct less than half of the funds to clean projects while non-profits Carbon Fund and the Conservation Fund direct over 90%. Funds are also directed towards various green projects that ultimately may have questionable impact on footprint mitigation. As far as I can tell, these industries are in need of regulation that would inform and guarantee to a point the actual benefit of an offset purchase.
So, does it work? What is the potential of these offsets if the money actually goes towards planting trees, for example. Americans consume at least 150 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Each gallon amounts to 20 lbs of CO2; thus 3 trillion lbs per year. The average estimate for a 100-year-old tree is 2000 lbs of sequestered carbon. Can we plant 1.5 billion trees annually to offset American transportation impact alone? I'm guessing here, but I say no way. Is there enough land to do so and if yes, what would be the impact of food production? Finally, what sort of guarantees are there to maintain the carbon sink? Plant roots and tree trunk are after all not permanent. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that all footprints are not offset. Ten or twenty millions trees have been planted, not one billion. If we can't plant that many trees, the funds can be directed towards other projects capable of mitigation. Are we selling indulgences to offset sins? I think it best not to be too cynical. There are countless lifestyle choices that impact ones footprint. Sometimes you need to fly and the thoughtful thing to do is offset and continue to work towards sustainable solutions.
Posted by Sam Hazen at 12:30 PM • 16 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Next Generation
Thursday, my coblogger Joe Romm did a fantastic job highlighting the problems of carbon capture and storage:
The bottom line is that we should continue to pursue CCS research, development, and demonstration in a serious effort to turn this long-term strategy into a medium-term one. But efficiency, wind, solar PV, and baseload solar are where we should be placing the big deployment dollars right now (see "Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal's out, can't wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?")
See? I told you. Comments that follow are interesting as well. So instead of going on at tedium with a repetitious perspective, why not shake things up given it's election season and there's related energy news...
On September 25th, Nature magazine published 'Choosing A Future,' telling us more about where each presidential candidate stands on science related topics. And despite the humorous and uncanny similarities of the front and back covers, this is a very serious issue because it outlines some differences in the candidates' strategies. Not surprisingly, of particular interest to me are their positions on oil drilling*:
Does your stance on tapping domestic oil reserves stand at odds with your goals for reducing national emissions and combating climate change? How will you balance the two?
Obama: With 3% of the world's oil reserves, the United States cannot drill its way to energy security. But US oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased US production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas.
Increasing domestic oil and gas production in the ways I propose in no way lessens my commitment to combating climate change, one of the great challenges of our time. I am committed to implementing a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and I will start reducing emissions immediately by establishing strong annual reduction targets with an intermediate goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
McCain currently favours a more aggressive offshore-drilling policy than Obama; both candidates, like the Democratic-led Congress, have changed their earlier stances opposing such drilling in the face of rising oil prices and public pressure to do something about it. However, McCain sees climate change as a national security issue, and maintains that it is a major priority for him. He emphasizes developing new emissions-reducing technologies with minimum costs in order to soften any blow to the national economy. McCain's intermediate goal for emission reductions is also 1990 levels by 2020.
* John McCain declined to participate in Nature's questions so they summarized his positions.
The gist:
Obama: Don't expand domestic drilling and reduce dependence on oil altogether.
McCain: Drill Baby Drill! and expand offshore-drilling.
The full rundown from both candidates on America's energy future is available here from the team at ScienceDebate2008.
Posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum at 11:00 AM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them 
