Showing posts with label Carbon emission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carbon emission. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

CO2: They Should Bottle That Stuff

There's no word for the sound you hear upon opening a can of soda. But the tchk-ptoop-fshchss! of a top being popped is distinctive, immediately recognizable. It is the sound of carbonation — or CO2 — rushing from the can. And it's a sound that brings to mind a technology, much overlooked in the popular press, that could safely recapture and store much of that emitted carbon, and has the potential to prevent an impending climate catastrophe.

The CO2 in carbonated drinks is the same CO2 that is spewed from tailpipes and power plants and causes global warming. In fact, the CO2 that makes the bubbles in your soda comes from those same power plants. Instead of being released into the atmosphere as a global-warming gas, the CO2 is captured from power plant exhaust, purified and sold to the nation's bottlers and soft drink fountain suppliers. When you pop the tab, however, the CO2 escapes into the atmosphere anyway.

But there's a silver lining. The same process that captures CO2 from power plants to make drinks fizzy is the one half of a process that has the potential to capture and stash as much as 90% of all CO2 from coal-burning power plants. Engineers and scientists are working on several ways to catch the carbon, either before or after coal burns. One technology known as integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, would turn the coal into gas before it's burned for energy; gasifying it releases the carbon for capture, transportation, and sequestration deep underground. Another process, called "oxy-coal" combustion, removes nitrogen from air before combustion; when coal is burned, the waste gas is close to pure CO2, which can be easily captured.

Scientists and engineers hope to pump this captured carbonation through mile-long straws that reach deep into the Earth's crust, into salt mines, aquifers and oil fields. Underground, the pressure will liquefy it and perhaps eventually turn it to rock. Think of it as "geo-bottling" — except we never want to pop the cap. From Houston to Huainan, scientists are already digging holes and pumping down CO2 by the ton. "The carbon belongs underground," Susan Hovorka, a geologist at the University of Texas, Austin, told one of us in 2005. "I say, put it back."

Today, the CO2 captured for producing soda is only a very small percentage of the total CO2 from power plants, but the technology for large-scale carbon capture and storage looks to be just around the corner. Spurring action from industry and governments has proved difficult, however, because the long-term economic, social and environmental costs of CO2 pollution are not included in the price we pay for energy. That makes CO2-intensive sources of energy like coal-fired power plants look like a better deal than cleaner technologies. But the truth is, it's a "pay me now, or pay me later" situation. In the context of climate change, it's more like, "pay me now, or your kids will pay me even more later."

Fortunately, a combination of efficient markets and smart policy could level the playing field. A carbon-storage industry will be virtually impossible without a national policy that puts a price on CO2 pollution. One such policy involves the creation of a national cap for greenhouse gas emissions and an accompanying market for tradable carbon emission credits. This summer, the U.S. Senate will likely consider legislation that would set up such a market. By making carbon a pollutant and unleashing market forces to find a price for it, the nation will essentially be revealing fossil fuels' true social cost — and giving cleaner technologies, including carbon capture and storage, a fair shot.

Even before the federal government creates a national cap — which is generally considered inevitable — the economy will need a bridge, economic nudges, so that the private sector can test carbon capture and storage before scaling it up. More than 30 states are looking at legislation that would give carbon storage technology a boost. Some call for comprehensive studies of the technology, while in Wyoming — one of several states identified as having underground carbon storage potential — laws are already being written to address questions about ownership of and liability for the underground CO2 vaults. These laws will help U.S. "geo-bottling" incubate while the federal government catches up to state and private efforts. At Duke University's Climate Change Policy Partnership, for example, researchers are modeling optimal routes for gas pipelines, based on engineering, social and environmental factors, to move the CO2 from plant to storage site.

There is little doubt that we'll need help from many new technologies to fight the inexorable rise in greenhouse gas emissions. And indeed, reversing emission trends is truly an all-hands-on-deck affair. But to achieve the targets talked about in current legislation — and notably by each of the presidential candidates — reducing carbon from our power production has to be disproportionately responsible for overall progress. If thorny questions surrounding carbon capture and storage are not answered, and if the technology is not implemented soon, we will have lost precious time in the quest to ward off irreparable consequences of climate change.

Today we bottle CO2 to make soda. Tomorrow we need to be bottling industrial carbon on a grand scale. It's something to think about when you take a soda break on this Earth Day. Pop the tab — tchk-ptoop-fshchss! — drink, think, and, of course, don't forget to recycle.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Economic slowdown won't ease carbon emissions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7811710

By Gerard Wynn
LONDON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Tumbling factory output following an economic slowdown will not be enough to curb rising industrial carbon emissions in Europe, analysts said on Friday.
That means no bright lining to a credit crisis which at the same time has pressured political commitment to fighting climate change.

And in the medium term, a combination of higher-priced debt plus investor nervousness could cut the supply of renewable energy projects in both developed and developing countries, potentially denting the response to global warming.

Carbon dioxide, the commonest greenhouse gas, is produced from burning fossil fuels to run industry. But power plants also are a big source of emissions and European demand is up this year largely because of a very mild winter in 2007.

"Electricity demand is up and I think that will outweigh the lower industrial production," UBS analyst Per Lekander said.

Carbon emissions from large installations would be 1 or 2 percent lower than expected as a result of the slowdown, but still higher than last year because of higher power demand, Lekander added.

"You'd expect a stabilisation, rather than rises, in industrial sector output and emissions over the next few years. The broader economic picture is still quite gloomy," said Merrill Lynch's global head of carbon emissions Abyd Karmali.

Industrial output in the Euro zone fell in July. Cement is a major source of carbon emissions, and the Spanish construction boom stalled earlier this year.

Pockets of strength remain -- European Union crude steel production rose 1.8 percent last month, year on year, the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) said.

COMMITTED?

Rising carbon emissions imply continuing demand for permits in the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS). The scheme distributes carbon allowances among industry and power generators, and accounts for about half the EU's emissions.

A surplus of such allowances would trigger a carbon price collapse, but there was no prospect of that.

"I would still expect a deficit of at least 100 million tonnes of EU allowances this year," Deutsche Bank carbon analyst Mark Lewis said.

The scheme is an example of climate policies which set legally binding targets, to underpin the climate fight and give comfort to investors.

But the credit crisis could weaken that commitment. For example, horsetrading among EU lawmakers, industry and governments over agreement on the EU's 2020 climate targets has coincided with the flaring up of financial turmoil.

An influential EU committee of lawmakers wants to ease carbon caps in the 27-nation bloc by allowing nations to pay developing countries to make emissions cuts, through carbon offsetting, a document seen by Reuters showed on Thursday.

But the credit crisis could undermine that offset market by drying up debt finance for smaller developers of projects including renewable energy, causing a "significant slowdown" in deal flow in the medium term, UBS's Lekander said.

"The credit crunch will exacerbate a slowdown already happening because of increased... policy uncertainty," Karmali said, referring to a slowdown in project development.

But Guy Turner at New Carbon Finance said debt finance was not such a major constraint.
"All project finance comes under scrutiny at these times because of cash constraints, but a lot of carbon projects are hosted on industrial sites ... and (their costs) come out of corporate budgets," Turner said.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

U.S. says states can lift emission monitoring bar


http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/37991


(Reuters) - A U.S. federal court on Tuesday overturned a rule that prevented state and local authorities from raising emissions monitoring requirements for polluting units such as chemical plants and oil refineries.

Regulatory body Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had added a rule to the existing Clean Air Act in 1990 that prevented authorities from adding to monitoring requirements.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted that sometimes existing monitoring requirements do not assure compliance.

"We vacate this rule because it is contrary to the statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements," the court said in the ruling.

Industry body American Petroleum Institute, which is represented by companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and Chevron Corp, was a party to the case supporting the EPA.

The EPA was not immediately available for comment.

This is the second setback for the Bush administration's centralized control over polluting emissions reduction in just over a month.

In July, the same court had rejected the EPA's plan on reducing polluting emissions from power plants and help states meet federal clear air standards.

The court had ruled that the EPA went beyond its authority to create the Clean Air Interstate Rule, known as CAIR, which used a trading scheme among utilities to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at power plants in 28 located in the East and Midwest.

(Reporting by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty in Bangalore; Editing by Louise Ireland)