2011 U.S. Electrical Power Generation by Fuel

Last week when the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA released the second year of reported greenhouse gas emissions data from large sources they stated in their press release that “Power plants remain the largest stationary source of GHG emissions, with 2,221 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e), roughly one-third of total U.S. emissions. In 2011 emissions from this source were approximately 4.6 % below 2010 emissions, reflecting an ongoing increase in power generation from natural gas and renewable sources.”

 Many news sources published the press release verbatim. If the increase in renewables was due to the recent surge in construction of wind and solar power generation installations this could be just the beginning in the shrinking of the CO2e footprint of the U.S. electrical grid. A fuel change from coal to natural gas would also significantly reduce the CO2e footprint of electrical power.  I decide to take a hard look at the Electrical Generation Data available from theU.S. Energy Information Administration. The major uses of energy in the United States are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%). Clearly, changes in the makeup of the generating sectors would have a profound effect on the CO2e generation of the nation.

From the U.S. EIA Data

 Overall from 2010 to 2011 electrical power generated in the U.S. fell fractionally less than half a percentage point- 19.40 billion Kilowatt hours to 4,105.7 billion Kilowatt hours of power generated in 2011. Power generated from coal fell 113 billion Kilowatt hours to 1,743.3 billion Kilowatt hours. Power generated from natural gas rose 28.9 billion Kilowatt hours to 1016.6 billion Kilowatt hours. Nuclear power generation fell 16.8 billion Kilowatt hours to 790 billion Kilowatt hours. Hydroelectric power generation rose 64.9 billion Kilowatt hours. Wind generation rose 25 billion Kilowatt hours and solar generation rose 0.6 billion Kilowatt hours.

The big reduction in greenhouse gas emissions appears to be from the overall reduction in fossil fuel based power generation of 93.4 billion Kilowatt hours which also included a reduction in coal generation and an increase in natural gas generation that generates only 56% of the CO2e per Kilowatt hour of power as coal and the significant increase in hydroelectric power. Power generated from renewable sources increased 92.7 billion Kilowatt hours in 2011 over 2010 the largest portion of which is attributed to an increase in hydroelectric power generation.

Since it has been two generations since the U.S. has built large damns, it seems most likely that the increase in hydroelectric generation was due to the heavy rains in that year increasing hydroelectric generation. Unfortunately in the drought year of 2012 the amount of power generated by hydroelectric will fall and fossil fuel generation will have to make up the difference. There has been a permanent  increase in wind power generation capacity as newly built wind farms have been tied into the power grid. This is likely to continue to increase in the short run as long as building the wind farms are subsidized by the government and the expense of connecting the wind generation to the power grid is carried by the rate payers. 

  

The drop in fossil fuel generation from 2010 to 2011 is almost exactly equal to the increase in renewable power generation- primarily hydroelectric and wind. The U.S. use of electricity is fairly stable at this time. The overall reduction in fossil fuel generation accounts for half the reduction in CO2e the other half of the reduction of CO2e appears to be coming from the migration to natural gas.  A slight reduction in overall generation would account for the difference. While this is exciting news, I was surprised how big hydroelectric generation was overall. Also, we have not built any damns in over two generations so that the hydroelectric capacity is very dependent on how wet a year it is. In the past40 years hydroelectric power generation has fluctuated from a high of around 325-350 billion Kilowatt hours a year during the wet years of the mid 1980’s and 1990’s to the lows of 220-250 billion Kilowatt hours during the early 2000’s. Since, 2012 was a drought year, the CO2e of electrical generation in the U.S. will increase despite the growing importance of wind power generation from 1.34% of power generated in 2008 to 2.92% of power generated in 2011. 

Hydroelectric Generation vs total Electrical Generation 1949-2011

Carbon Footprint-Restaurants vs Home Cooking

Though last week I said that Greenhouse Gas Emissions no longer matter, I only meant that no action that we as a nation could take would stop the further increase in carbon dioxide, CO2, concentrations from the emergence of China from a developing nation to developed nation and the ecological consequences from the increasing CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. It’s done, whatever is going to happen will happen because the earth’s atmosphere is interconnected, and worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to grow. That fact does not absolve me from the responsibilities of sustainable living. Of the developed nations, the United States has the second highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 equivalent (CO2e) generation rate. (It’s nice not to be the worst of the developed world.)  Policy mandates to have the United States adopt constraints on fossil fuel energy consumption will have little impact on the global level of CO2e emissions because the United States CO2e emissions are 16% of world CO2e emissions and falling. Our nation’s CO2e emissions are fairly stable at this time while our per capita CO2e emissions appear to be slowly decreasing. Still, as a nation, we should be more sustainable. Making sustainable choices is a moral choice.

 In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources- money, manpower, water, fuel or land. The CO2e footprint has become shorthand for how sustainable you are. However, the method of calculating that footprint and assumptions made will determine if that measurement is an accurate reflection of how sustainable your life is. When seeking to determine the amount of CO2e emitted from an activity or a life choice, it is impossible to measure the emissions directly. Emissions are estimated from a known quantity such as fuel burned, or units of electricity consumed, but that can be misleading. While the combustion of fuel is a chemical reaction where the mass of CO2 emissions is directly related to the type and quantity of fuel burned, only heating your home is a simple calculation. For every kWh of energy supplied by gas the CO2 emissions are 0.206 kgCO2.

The energy consumed to create, manufacture, distribute and deliver any product is complicated and much of the work that has been done is based on averages, which can be misleading. Nonetheless, the information can be useful. I ran across a paper “The American Carbon Foodprint: Understanding

your food’s impact on climate change,” by Mathew Kling, and Ian Hough (2010). The paper was  sponsored by Brighter Planet, Inc., a company whose technology platform calculates the carbon, energy, and resource impact of a variety of real-life emission sources. Brighter Planet sells consulting, but gives away really interesting research including the Carbon Foodprint study.  According to the authors food represents 21% (5.46 metric tonnes CO2e emission) of the typical American’s 26 metric tonne total annual carbon footprint. The actual CO2e emissions associated with your food consumption is dependent on where, how much and what you eat, how the food is grown, transported, processed, prepared and what you do with the leftovers.

The transportation of the food from farm to store was a surprisingly small contributor to the total CO2e emissions embodied in the food. A larger source of CO2e emissions in food are from the delivery of inputs like, fertilizer, water, and animal feed. So that grass fed beef that is pasture raised would have a much smaller CO2e emissions than beef that is feed with remotely sourced grain. (In addition, pasture raised cows are less flatulent than grain fed cows.) Crops grown without irrigation, conservation agriculture and organic agriculture all have different ecological and CO2e emission footprints versus the “conventional agriculture” similar products. One farmer may be more sustainable than another for a variety of reasons. However, most of the food’s transportation related CO2e emissions are from travel to the grocery store and restaurants by the consumer. Personal food-related driving comprise 14% of the average family’s carbon footprint.

It is much more sustainable to eat at home.  The average American eats out at a fast food or full service restaurant about 4.5 times a week, or roughly 20% of the time. The Carbon Foodprint study tells us that restaurants and food service operations consume roughly the same amount of energy as home kitchens producing only 20% of the meals in America– and that's before you consider the carbon impact of traveling to the restaurant. A typical restaurant meal’s CO2e emissions if 3.67 times the CO2e emissions of a meal prepared and eaten at home. Cooking and eating at home is a simple way to reduce your carbon footprint. It is also healthier and saves money.

In addition with some planning and thoughtful actions you can significantly reduce the CO2 emissions associated with your kitchen. The authors tell us that kitchens consume 21% of total household energy and are one of the most energy-intensive rooms in the house. Over 35% of the kitchen energy use is for heating, cooling, and lighting the kitchen itself, with the remainder related to the cooking process and food storage. Refrigeration is the biggest energy hog in the kitchen. On average a refrigerator consumes 30% of all kitchen energy, and emits 650 Kg of CO2e. A modern Energy Star refrigerator performs considerably better than that. Cooking food consumes an average of 293 Kg of CO2e, 14% of the total energy used in a kitchen. Microwaves are the most energy-efficient followed by induction, and traditional burners. Ovens are the least efficient cooking method. Cleaning up and washing dishes uses 14% of kitchen energy. The most energy efficient method to wash dishes is to use a modern Energy Star dishwasher- running it when it is fully loaded.

Recycling, waste reduction and reuse all have an impact on CO2 emissions. Americans discard over 280 billion Kg of garbage each year (excluding recycling and composting) of that trash 29% is food related. The trash is collected and trucked to landfills and accounts for 143 Kg CO2e per person per year that is responsible for 28% of landfill gas emissions each year. In Prince William County about 36% of all trash is recycled and includes packaging and containers, but not food scraps. Knowing how to deliciously use up leftovers will also reduce your carbon footprint.  By simply cooking all your meals at home the average person can reduce their carbon footprint by 1.39 metric tonnes of CO2e a year. Other steps to reduce your carbon footprint further would be: eat more plants, buy unprocessed, whole foods, minimize car trips to the grocery store, use all your leftovers, recycle and compost, buy Energy Star appliances. All of these steps will reduce the per capita carbon emissions further, but will not stop the climate of the earth from changing.  Certainly, anthropogenic activity has been a significant contributor to the 150 parts per million (0.015%) increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past 113 years. The exact relationship of greenhouse gasses to climate is not fully understood, but if all of the United States (or even mankind) were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth climate change would not stop. Nonetheless, dine at home.

Kling, M.M. and I.J. Hough (2010). “The American Carbon Foodprint: Understanding your food’s impact on climate change,” Brighter Planet, Inc. 

http://brighterplanet.com/research

Keystone Pipeline the Never Ending Story

On February 27th 2012 TransCanada Corporation announced their intension to build the Cushing Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, the Keystone Phase III, a 435 mile extension of the existing Keystone pipeline to Port Arthur and Houston. The existing Keystone Pipeline Phase I runs from Hardesty, Canada to Steel City, Nebraska near the Kansas and Nebraska border. Keystone Phase II runs from Steel City to Cushing, Oklahoma where it terminates, leaving the Canadian crude oil stranded in Oklahoma along with U.S. domestic production from North Dakota that has been using the pipeline to reach the Oklahoma storage facilities. As oil prices have climbed recently the 55 million barrels of oil that can be stored in Cushing have produced a glut of oil waiting to be refined and the lowest gas prices in the nation for the mid-west.

In response to the glut of oil in Cushing, Enbridge Inc. and Enterprise Products Partners (who purchased a 50% interest in November) owners of the Seaway pipeline that runs from the gulf coast area to Cushing, Oklahoma, announced their intention to reverse the flow in their gas pipeline to move crude from Cushing to the gulf coast refineries. The reversal requires pump station additions and modifications, scheduled to be completed by June 2012, the capacity of the reversed Seaway Pipeline will be up to 150,000 barrels per day and further expansions could increase that volume. Now, TransCanada Corp. has announced that it will build a portion of the Keystone XL pipeline from the Cushing oil hub south to the Gulf Coast to compete with the Seaway pipeline while attempting to obtain approval of a revised route for the Keystone Phase IV leg to increase flow from Canada to Steel City, Nebraska.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been very controversial. Most of the environmental controversy has focused on the porous soils of the Sandhills and fears of a possible oil leak into one of the nation's most important agricultural aquifers, TransCanada is reapplying for State Department and Presidential approval of a revised rout for the northern portion that bypasses the Sandhills. However, many who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline want to prevent the development of the oil sands resources in Canada to prevent the acceleration of global warming. The Canadian oil sands have been known for decades. Until the recent protests against the Keystone XL pipeline that labeled these oil reserves “Canadian Oil Sands,” they had been variously known as unconventional oil or crude bitumen. These oil sands have been surfaced mined in Canada with drag lines and power shovels since the late 1960’s, but until oil prices rose and technology improved these oil deposits were too expensive to exploit beyond the limited scope of surface mining. Advances in technology in both oil sand extraction and refining techniques and rising oil prices altered the economics and have made the extraction of oil sand possible.

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is the current method of extraction. In SAGD, two horizontal wells are drilled in the oil sands, one at the bottom of the formation and another about 15-20 feet above it. In each well pair, steam is injected into the upper well melting the bitumen, which flows into the lower well and is pumped to the surface. SAGD was the breakthrough that has quadrupled recoverable oil reserves and moved Canada into second place in proved world oil reserves. SAGD is cheaper than previous methods, allows very high oil production rates, and recovers up to 60% of the oil in place. It is the SAGD method that has created the need for a pipeline to deliver the oil to the American markets and the controversy. SAGD requires more energy to produce the oil and increases the carbon footprint of the crude. Those who believe completely in the positive feedback global warming model where increased CO2 raises global temperature, increases evaporation of water vapor to the atmosphere, and in turn increases the functional impact of CO2 on global warming see any increase in carbon as quickening the destruction of the earth. The Canadian oil sands increase the CO2 released in every gallon of gas adding to man’s carbon footprint. In addition, older methods of mining the oil sands left open pits that still need to be reclaimed, thought today groups of wells are typically drilled off a central pad and like fracking wells and can extend for miles in all directions. This reduces surface disturbances of the land and the footprint of the area to be reclaimed..

In June 2010 TransCanada commenced commercial operation of the first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Keystone's Phase I was the conversion of natural gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline and construction of a bullet line that brings the crude oil non-stop from Canada to Steel City at 435,000 barrels a day. Phase II of Keystone was an extension of the pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma and began operations in February 2011. Keystone Phase II increased the volume per day of Keystone Phase I with the addition of pumping stations, the system now runs at 591,000 barrels a day. The Seaway pipeline will begin operations in June completing the ability to pipe crude from Canada to the Gulf Coast carrying 150,000 barrels a day. The Keystone Phase III when it is completed will simply increase volume. The Keystone Phase IV when and if approved will increase volume of the upper portion of the pipeline from the current 591,000 barrels a day to 1.3 million barrels a day.

Keystone XL, Fracking, and the Price of Natural Gas

Last year, New York placed a moratorium on hydro fracturing in the New York portion of the Marcellus Shale while it assessed the effects of fracking. New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling was released almost four months ago and recommended that drilling be permitted, but with conditions. The comment period was scheduled to end on December 12, 2011, but was extended to January 11, 2012 and closed after having received more than 20,000 comments. In their press release at the close of the comment period the New York Department of Environmental Conservation stated: “Public input is an important part of establishing responsible conditions for high-volume hydraulic fracturing as well as determining whether it can be done safely. Many significant improvements were made to the 2009 draft based on comments DEC received. We expect additional improvements will be made to the 2011 draft based on the comments submitted during this comment period." The pressure is off on immediately ending the ban on hydro fracking in New York because the price of natural gas has hit a two year low, but the ban will be lifted. There is really no way to permanently prevent drilling to access the shale gas. Sooner or later it will be done, hopefully in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.

The race to lock up leases on shale gas and a mild winter (so far) in significant parts of the United States has resulted in an oversupply of natural gas. Despite the fall in natural gas prices fracking will continue, not because it is profitable at this price, but because drilling leases and agreements made when gas prices were higher required drilling within a certain period of time. If a company fails to drill they will lose the lease and the money paid for those leases. So, for the next two years or so, no matter the price of natural gas, they will drill where permits are available. In addition, natural gas is often a by-product of much more profitable oil drilling. With oil prices topping $100 a barrel, oil companies in Texas continue to produce natural gas. In Texas where gas is often a by-product of oil production about 40 billion cubic feet of natural gas is flared off each year for the past several years as drilling has expanded. Texas requires oil wells to hook up to gas pipelines eventually which will increase the supply of available natural gas as the hookups catch up with production.

The high oil prices driving the Texas tight oil boom are also making the crude bitumen contained in the Canadian oil sands highly profitable. The current price of oil combined with threats from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz and block oil shipments from the Middle East have made the oil sands even more attractive. A provision that was attached to the recent payroll tax bill signed by President Obama requires a decision by February 21st 2012 on the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. The proposed Keystone XL, is an approximate 1,660 mile, 36 inch crude oil pipeline that would begin in Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska continuing through Oklahoma to an existing terminal not far from Port Arthur, Texas. The oil would arrive at the Texas refineries and ports for American market and export. The U.S. State Department is the lead handling the issue because the pipeline crosses national boundaries, but President Obama has made it clear would make the final decision on whether to approve the pipeline, and the recent tax bill has forced a decision the issue that had been delayed until 2013.

As expected the State Department declined the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have provided a guaranteed oil supply from Canada. The project's critics argue that the mining and refining of oil sands would increase greenhouse gas emissions, pollute water and destroy the Canadian forests. Many Nebraska residents also opposed the Keystone XL pipeline because it originally would have crossed the Ogallala aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the upper Midwest. The administration decided in November to require bypassing the aquifer, but the increased carbon dioxide load associated with tapping the oil sands is a problem to the administration. Proponents of the project worry about lost jobs and energy security and that rejecting the Keystone XL project will push the Canadians to build the 730 mile Enbridge pipeline to a new port in British Columbia and ship the oil to China. However, building a pipeline through British Columbia's northern wilderness faces British Columbia environmental regulations, the stronghold of Canadian environmental regulations, and that project is also experiencing resistance from an existing decades-old moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coastline. The rejection is about the carbon content of the fuel.

Like all petroleum production, oil sands operations can adversely impact the environment. In the past open pit mining of oil sands projects have impacted the land when trees, brush and overburden have been removed for the mining site. As a condition of licensing, projects are required to implement a reclamation plan, but reclamation is a slow process. In addition, large amounts of water are used for oil sands operations for the steam in the current method of extraction. Despite recycling, most of the water ends up in tailings ponds, but newer treatment methods have reduced the treatment and recovery time for tailing ponds as environmental regulations evolve with advances in technology in both oil sand extraction and refining techniques that have allowed the profitable extraction of this oil. These advances and rising oil prices have altered the economics and have made the extraction of oil sand possible and inevitable. Still the energy required to heat the oil sands so that they will flow results in increase the carbon footprint for each barrel of oil. The politics of energy security are not consistent with the overall goal of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since the extraction and refining of oil sands reportedly produce more greenhouse gases than the extraction and refining of Iranian oil. The President has pledged to reduce U.S greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below the 2005 levels by 2020 and all regulatory and policy decisions have been consistent with that goal. The United States thirst for oil is not going to abate and the Middle East is becoming increasingly unstable. Given his consistent record in reducing greenhouse gas, it is likely the administration will choose the geopolitical risk over the environmental risk of oil with a higher carbon footprint.

Conservation is Smarter than Carbon Offsets

Recently, as we headed towards the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, the Wall Street Journal reviewed carbon offsets in its Cranky Consumer Column. In an article called “Reducing Emissions, and a Guilty Conscience” they reviewed five different companies selling carbon offsets. They evaluated the companies for price and the bells and whistles of their carbon calculators, social media savvy and general feel good aspects of their offerings. I question the actual effectiveness of the programs (not Nancy Matsumoto’s fun article). Many of these so called projects would take place anyway.

The world's biggest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM), is run by the UN, administered by the World Bank, and is intended to reduce emissions by rewarding developing countries that invest in clean technologies. According to David Victor, of Stanford University, as many as two-thirds of the supposed "emission reduction" credits being produced by the CDM from projects in developing countries are not backed by real reductions in pollution. In fact, in the February 2010 Harpers’ Magazine spelled out inconsistencies, questionable practices, and potential fraud in the CDM market raising the possibility emission reductions credits are increasing CO2 emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. Even when a CDM credit does represent an "emission reduction", there is no global benefit because offsetting is a "zero sum" game. Voluntary Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve are two of the certifications utilized for carbon offsets. This verification utilizes the CDM standards as the underlying structure to certify that the carbon reductions are“additional and real.”

Buildings, both residential and commercial, account for about 40% of primary U.S. energy consumption, 72% of U.S. electricity consumption, 55% of U.S. natural gas consumption, and significant heating oil and propane consumption in the Northeast. According to the Department of Energy, while industrial use of electricity has been flat for about 15 years, electrical use to power commercial and residential building has grown by more than 50% since 1985. U.S. resources and investment have been deployed to build the infrastructure required to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to serve that growth. Reducing the peak electricity demands for air conditioning and heating could alleviate peak demand on the electrical grid, potentially without the need for a smarter grid. Buildings present one of the best opportunities to economically reduce energy consumption and reduce green house gas emissions. A recent study by McKinsey & Company study performed for the Department of Energy found that reducing the consumption of energy in buildings is the least costly way to achieve large reductions in carbon emissions.

What I think the United States needs is a new way to think of reducing our nation’s energy use. I propose forming a series of local not for profit corporations to educate and facilitate all homeowners achieving the easiest steps: Installing an energy saving thermostat, replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and the most effective improving the home insulation. This should be performed according to the guidance from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building Envelop Research performed for the US DOE Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This guidance recommends additional insulation in most the attics, crawl spaces, eves, and duct work. In addition, there are recommendations for insulation under floors, of pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and other areas. The insulation needs to be installed correctly, but is one of the most effective energy saving steps a homeowner can take. If every home and building in the United States were properly insulated and sealed we could significantly reduce the national energy use. These steps reduce energy consumption immediately and more or less permanently. The final steps in home conservation; the replacement of single pane windows or the addition of storm windows, and the replacement of inefficient furnaces and air conditioners and old refrigerators and other appliances with energy efficient models can be accomplished with incentive programs or loan programs. The cash for clunkers program attempted to remove from the roads the oldest and most inefficient cars, and now there is the energy star appliance program, but like many government programs they are blunt instrument and with unintended consequences. Mostly only people intending and able to afford these purchases are encouraged to move forward. Yet the cheapest of the strategies insulation, sealing a home, and installing an energy saving thermostat and compact fluorescent bulbs is the most underutilized.

As Ms. Matsumoto points out it is difficult to assess the quality of projects funded by these carbon offset firms as well as determine with any consistency the size of a personal carbon footprint which in the case of Ms Matsumoto ranged from 7 to 23 tons depending on whose tool she was using and what assumptions the models used. All the carbon offset retailers evaluated in the article were verified by a third-party either the Voluntary Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve. This verification helps ensure that the initiatives are "additional," meaning the carbon reduction would not have occurred without the project, and are "real," meaning the emissions reductions are properly quantified and audited, however, these certifying organizations suffer from the same problems as the CDM since they use the CDM as the underlying structure to determine the assumed carbon savings based on various models and assumptions. What you are doing with your carbon offset dollars is making these projects more profitable for the project owners, paying fees to brokers, project auditors and marketing people. Really, I would rather my money and efforts go to supplying education and low or no interest loans to homeowners to reduce their energy consumption. Insulation projects have a very short payback period and could be financed by a not for profit who takes half the energy savings until the project is paid for. The homeowner gets part of the savings, a more comfortable home and we all reduce our national energy consumption. Instead of paying for farm and landfill methane capture projects with our carbon offsets we would be better served to spend our dollars to reach down to make home insulation desirable and affordable to all homeowners. Let the large farm and landfill projects which would probably get done anyway, find other sources of financing and lets tackle educating and funding through loans and grants the insulation and sealing of all homes in the United States.

What Is the Product Carbon Content and is it Useful

The recent announcement of the partnership between the Environmental Defense Fund and Wal-Mart has once more raised the issue of product carbon content. Lately, it has been popular to measure sustainability by the individual and national carbon footprint. Carbon dioxide is a by product of combustion, all combustion. Human beings exhale it at over 3 pounds per day for the average sedentary adult. Carbon dioxide is also released when we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil to produce electricity, move vehicles, manufacture products etc. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is used by plants and trees. However, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising. Carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere has risen from approximately 250 parts per million (0.025%) to 386 part per million (0.039%) in the past 100 years. This increase has been attributed by many to human activity. The belief is that we are producing more carbon dioxide than can be absorbed by the plants and trees because we are burning too much fuel. The certainty of the direct relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations has been called into question in the most recent revelations of manipulated data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and the revelations of unsubstantiated claims from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The popular belief is that this increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperature since 1900. It was postulated that burning fossil fuels for industry and power was the direct cause of this increase, though other contributing causes might exist. The methods used to determine global average temperature has come into question with the data manipulation disclosures from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, so currently, there is no consensus on what the global average temperature actually is. Nonetheless, the popular climate change theory postulates that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing (global warming) at a faster rate now and causing the earth’s climate to change in unpredictable ways (from floods and hurricanes to heat waves and droughts). The strongest adherents to this belief hold that the burning of fossil fuels must be reduced immediately. The belief is that if we could reduce our carbon dioxide emissions enough we could stop the climate of the earth from changing.

At the height of the Global Warming movement regulators and universities began to calculate the carbon dioxide released when making, shipping and using various products. These were only estimates, depending on some of the assumptions; drastically different totals could be reached. This concept was jumped on by merchants and manufacturers, to advertise a scheme to save the planet thought guided acquisition-purchase enough of the right things and save the planet. The makers of everything from milk to jackets to cars were estimating the carbon dioxide released when making, shipping and using of their products and advertising the results. These were called carbon content labels. For companies looking to get their products carbon labeled, three carbon labeling services are currently in the market. The labels are available in the UK and US and require a processed-based life-cycle analysis (LCA) to be carried out, usually in the price range of $10,000-$20,000 depending on the product. The methods of estimating the carbon content contained a large number of estimates, guesses and assumptions making this calculation easily manipulated and practically worthless for true allocation of resources because it only estimated the generalized cost of a product in terms of energy used in its life cycle. These labels at best are only broad generalizations and may not be particularly useful in evaluating choices for a sustainable life because of the underlying use assumptions as well. While it is very important to reduce the burning or fossil fuels and increase the planting of trees; we should approach this goal as only one aspect of sustainable living.

The fashion for carbon labels may simply fade away and soon be forgotten. Questions remain about how carbon footprints should be measured and whether putting such figures on the label is practical or something shoppers will even care about. Carbon labels beg for a recommended (or mandated) daily allowance for carbon. Building a bureaucracy to ensure that carbon dioxide in each product is measured at a cost of $10,000-$20,000, and potentially develop a recommended daily carbon allowance without a well documented connection between carbon allowance level and sustainable living is simply wasteful. Given the nature of the carbon cycle; how does one create a sustainable and accurate carbon budget?

Another method suggested has been to purchase carbon offsets for all products. The world's biggest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM), is run by the UN, administered by the World Bank, and is intended to reduce emissions by rewarding developing countries that invest in clean technologies. According to David Victor, of Stanford University, as many as two-thirds of the supposed "emission reduction" credits being produced by the CDM from projects in developing countries are not backed by real reductions in pollution. In fact, in the February 2010 Harpers’ Magazine spelled out inconsistencies, questionable practices, and potential fraud in the CDM market raising the possibility emission reductions credits are increasing CO2 emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. Even when a CDM credit does represent an "emission reduction", there is no global benefit because offsetting is a "zero sum" game.

The approach currently underway at Wal-Mart may hold more promise. There is real benefit to increasing the efficiency in energy use by selecting efficient technologies in everyday life. There is tremendous benefit to improving insulation in buildings and homes, and passive use of solar and wind. Improving manufacturing practices and farming practice to reduce energy consumption and utilization of pesticides and protect water supplies will yield ecological benefits, but may or may not reduce CO2 emissions. Changes in how and where we live; urban dweller, rural dweller, suburban dweller; whether or not we commute or if we commute using public or private transportation, alone or in a groups, our purchasing and activity choices all will impact our carbon use. Carbon content labels do not give the individual tools to evaluate a purchase choice against not purchasing, which is an important aspect of any decision. However, carbon content only looks at one aspect of the carbon cycle and fails to consider the other resources of the earth. At this point it is unlikely that the labeling of carbon content in products will be mandated. Legislating the measurement of carbon dioxide release in all things will cost money and resources and of itself will not make our lives more sustainable, but will certainly add costs to all things.

Greening Wal-Mart’s Supply Chain

The Environmental Defense Fund is partnering with Wal-Mart to improve the environmental performance of its supply chain. Using Wal-Mart’s leverage to reduce carbon pollution throughout the life cycle of products and the supply chain for those products is a powerful way to change farm practices and other manufacturing behavior. Wal-Mart recently committed to reduce the carbon footprint from the life cycle of Wal-Mart’s products and supply chain by 20 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent from calendar year 2010 to 2015. In part this will be accomplished by having Wal-Mart use their leverage with their supply chain to influence the environmental practices, transportation, and storage of their supplying manufacturer. Part of this reduction will be accomplished by Wal-Mart’s customers who will be educated in more sustainable use of a product. A typical example of customer education is recommending that customers use cold water to wash laundry instead of hot. The Environmental Defense Fund team working on this project has developed a detailed guidance document about what can count towards Wal-Mart's goal, as well as how reductions should be quantified and confirmed if at all possible. That of course is the sticking point with CO2 reductions.

Part of all of this is bureaucracy and public image, but if somehow out of this study comes a set of tools to quickly help business people and consumers make good and informed decisions about their environmental behavior it would be great. The environmental Defense Fund is not just focusing on carbon contained in the supply chain and life cycle of the products. They say that they are looking to identify the most serious environmental and social "hot spots" in the life cycle of Wal-Mart’s private brand food and grocery categories and working with designers and suppliers to improve overall product sustainability including water and pesticide usage. Encouraging and educating farmers and even the industrial farm complex on farming “best practices” is a proven way to reduce pesticide runoff and environmental impact at very little dollar cost.

In a pilot study performed on dairy suppliers, the Environmental Defense Fund analyzed the costs and emissions associated with a gallon of milk, from dairy farm to distribution center. By gathering and looking at the data, the Environmental Defense Fund identified the easily achieved improvements that “best practices” farm management can have in energy used to produce milk. Simple changes in fertilizer and manure management, at dairy processing facilities can achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency and even in the product itself, such as making milk shelf-stable. Soil and Conservation Districts nationwide have been aware of the improvements in environmental stewardship that can be achieved though simple improvements in farm practices; however, these organizations have not had any leverage to encourage farmers and dairy operations to implement these practices or adequate budget to develop farm plans. Wal-Mart’s involvement in this area could really encourage the adoption of these programs. It is important that these efforts be couched in more than CO2 reduction, because carbon reduction is such a limited concept and this is truly environmental stewardship and sustainability improvement project.

Reducing My Energy Consumption

I have been systematically making small changes to my home to reduce my energy consumption. I started with the easiest steps; lowering the thermostat in the winter and raising the temperature in summer, purchasing energy star eligible appliances and choosing an LCD TV over a plasma (an LED TV is even more energy efficient, but was not available at the time). The next simple step was to change all the incandescent light bulbs for florescent bulbs and when I installed additional lighting it was florescent fixtures. (Though, I warn that the clothes in my closet look oddly colored in florescent light.) The next project was to install solar films on the windows and patio door and drapes and curtains on all the windows. These were small steps, but I learned over the years that small steps do add up.

The following year, after servicing the heat exchanger and furnace to ensure they were working properly, and appropriately sized for the house, and inspecting the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces for adequate insulation, I turned to the Building Envelop Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for guidance. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory performs their Building Envelop Research for the US Department of Energy, DOE. The DOE publishes their guidance in their “Insulation Fact Sheet,” which is available on the blog home page. Following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, wall end caps, knee walls, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage ceiling was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. I was actually surprised at the winter energy savings and pleased with the improved comfort in the master bedroom and bath.

My next project was to spend the winter saving money eating and entertaining at home, watching DVDs for “nights out” on my LCD, eliminating trips to the mall and saving up money for my next energy saving project. Back in October 2008 President Bush had signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). The Act extends the 30% investment tax credit for residential solar Photovoltaic or geothermal heat pump installation for eight years through December 31, 2016 and removed the cap on qualified solar photovoltaic projects and geothermal projects (from the previous $2,000). This allows taxpayers to use the credit to offset dollar for dollar their federal tax liability, and to carry unused credits forward to the next succeeding taxable year. Essentially Uncle Sam was now willing to pay 30% of the cost of my next energy savings project. I couldn’t believe it.
According to the DOE heating and cooling account for 56% of the energy use in a typical U.S. home, making it the largest energy expense for most homes. So that is where I looked for my next project. A wide variety of technologies are available for heating and cooling your home, and they achieve a wide range of efficiencies in converting their energy sources into useful heat or cool air for your home. Heat pump systems provide both heating and cooling and offer the benefit of delivering more useful energy than they consume. Unfortunately, on very hot days or very cold days they do not do as effective a job as an air conditioner and a furnace. For climates with moderate heating and cooling needs, heat pumps offer an energy-efficient alternative to furnaces and air conditioners.

Higher energy efficiencies are achieved with geothermal (ground-source or water-source) heat pumps, which transfer heat between your house and the ground or a nearby water source. Although they cost more to install, geothermal heat pumps have low operating costs because they take advantage of relatively constant ground or water temperatures. However, the installation is expensive because of the need to bury coils to deliver constant temperature fluid or install a groundwater pump and injection well to supply constant temperature water to the system. Ground-source or water-source heat pumps can be used in more extreme climatic conditions than air-source heat pumps, and are more effective at cooling and heating at the extremes.
According to the heating and cooling experts and the manufacturers of the various equipment that I have, my heating and cooling system, which is a split system with a gas furnace and air conditioner for the lower level and an air heat exchanger for the upper level, should last another 7-12 years. The most sustainable approach would be to use the current system for its entire expected life despite the fact that I could probably reduce my energy consumption somewhat by changing from my current equipment to two geothermal (ground source) heat exchangers. Though geothermal heat exchangers are more expensive to purchase and install than a traditional furnace and air conditioner, they are far more efficient, reportedly consuming 25-30% less energy to operate. The most reasonable thing to do was to wait and continue using my current system even with availability of the tax credit. Thought for the next several years I will continue to keep an eye on my equipment condition.

In October 2009 Virginia announced that a portion of the stimulus dollars for the state would be allotted to its Residential and Commercial Solar and Wind Incentive Program to provide rebates to partially reimburse the costs of renewable energy systems. For residential users on the first 10 kilowatts, the rebates will be $2.00 per watt for Photovoltaic Solar systems, $1.50 per watt for small wind turbines and $1.00 per watt for solar thermal units (solar hot water heaters). The rebate is less than you might think because system capacity is defined as the installed system’s predicted peak alternating current (AC) output which is around 75%-80% of the DC rating. Combining this incentive with the federal tax credit of 30% and the sale of the renewable energy credits, REC’s, which can be sold to utilities needing RECs and suddenly, there is a positive return on the investment. It was still a big decision because even with rebates and tax credits we have to come up with the cash to pay for the system and while current prices quoted for RECs are $220-$300 per kilowatt/year and are sold in 4 or 5 year contacts there is no guarantee that the REC’s will have any value in the future.

One of the selection criteria for my home was the large southern roof span, perfect for solar panels. I was able to reserve funds from the Virginia Renewable Energy Rebate Program for a 6 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system before all the money was gone and we put the deposit down for an American made solar photovoltaic system installed by a local company. We will be installing a 6 kilowatt system that we estimate will save us approximately $1,300 per year on our electric bill. That is about twice the savings we achieved by insulating the house; however, the cost (before rebates and incentives) is more than ten times the cost of the insulation project. Even after all the rebates and incentives (assuming I successfully navigate these) this energy savings was many more times more expensive than the insulation project.

Sustainable Living with a Lifecycle Approach

The carbon footprint and IPAT approach failed to encompass the balance with which we live with the earth. When I lived in the city I did not often think about all the resources of the earth pulled to support the city entity itself. I never considered if urban living was more or less sustainable than country or suburban living. Certainly, when we worked in the city, living within walking distance of work seemed more sustainable. The work I did in environmental evaluations and redevelopment of Brownfield properties was clearly improved use or re-use of the land and a sustainable form of land use. How does the work you do contribute to the sustainability of your life? What is the cost of supplying cities with power, water and food? Is the ecological impact of a city greater than the ecological impact of the individuals merely because of the concentration of population? These are truly tough questions, and I do not have the simplicity of an answer that measuring a carbon footprint would. Truly measuring your ecological footprint and choices accurately might require some of the computing power of NASA.

All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. Living within your personal means, financial means and your ecological means would be a sustainable life. The problem is how to determine what is or should be your ecological means, what is sustainable in a dynamic and interconnected environment. A useful model in sustainable living could be a great tool in decision making. In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources. Recently, I came across an article by Phillip E. Savage, PE of the University of Michigan, “What Does It Mean To Be Green.” In the literature cited was a book, “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living,” written/published in 1991 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Thanks to the internet excerpts from the book were available to read as well as a summary of the book. It appears to be a guide to the principles and actions of sustainable living on this earth. The first part of the book was even called “principals of sustainable living.”

There is a “popular adoption” of the book called “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Survival.” That is the book I ordered. The book summary reads in part, “The principles of sustainable living are respect and care for the community of life, improvement in the quality of human life, conservation of the earth's vitality and diversity, reduction of nonrenewable resource depletion, (and) maintenance of the earth's carrying capacity… Changes in community attitudes and practice in the care of their own environments, a national framework for integrating development and conservation.” Sounds like powerful and encompassing view that I hope has not been made obsolete with the passage of 18 years. Hopefully, I will find universal principles to evaluate choices.

Until I find a truly workable model of sustainable living I will try to stumble through life’s choices, balancing wants and desires with resources and trying to make good choices for us and the earth. Following a systematic plan to reduce the non-renewable the energy footprint of our home and lives. Living within the limits of the hydraulic system of the Culpeper Basin. Acting as responsible stewards of the watershed. Making responsible choices on how we spend the money we have available. For example, I will admit that for health and taste reasons (and because I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs in the northwest and Texas) I buy meat from what my husband refers to as the meat underground. Every six weeks or so, I drive my little hybrid on a 35 mile roundtrip to pick up my meat order from the appointed pickup location that the husband always describes this as “under a bridge by the river.” It is actually at the end of a cul-de-sac. My meat is more expensive than what could be bought in groceries (with the exception of the grass feed organic meat at Whole Foods that I buy when we are in California). My meat co-operative is a relatively local Shenandoah Valley Farmer, Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. Just recently, Mr. Salatin and Polyface Farms received a Heinz Family Foundation Award for helping to bring about a cleaner, greener and more sustainable plant. After reading that in the local “Co-op Currents” I feel really good about all the money I spend on meat. Since I calculated that I have about 28,000-30,000 more meals to cook for my husband, they might as well be tasty, healthy and sustainable.

By the way, just in case you care, Salatin rotates his livestock’s location on the farm, so that different species are helped by the proximity of the other animals. He uses portable infrastructure and equipment, and does not use chemicals or fertilizers, instead using composting and pigs as aerators. He is too ornery and libertarian to jump through hoops for organic certification, so you take it or leave it with his guarantee. For anyone who has not spent time at concentrated feed lots or by their official government name “concentrated animal feeding operations, CAFOs, I recommend Michael Pollen’s excellent book, “An Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Food.”

Sustainable Living and Your Carbon Footprint

All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. While there are some basic truths, the optimal allocation of your resources is based on your values and goals. Living within your means and your ecological means would be a sustainable life. The problem is how to determine what is or should be your ecological means. In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources.

A very popular viewpoint right now is sustainability is tied to the individual and national carbon footprint. Carbon dioxide is a by product of combustion, all combustion. Human beings exhale it at over 3 pounds per day for the average sedentary adult. Carbon dioxide is also released when we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is used by plants and trees. However, the belief is that we are producing more carbon dioxide than can be absorbed by the plants and trees currently available to use it because we are burning too much fuel. The fuel represents carbon dioxide that was trapped under the earth's surface for millions of years. It is believed that the human population by breathing and burning fuels has caused the increase in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere from approximately 250 parts per million (0.025%) to 386 part per million (0.039%) in the past 100 years.

The popular belief is that this increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the under 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperature since 1900. (It is to be noted that that increase was 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit when measured in 1998 and 2005, but the average temperature has fallen somewhat since then.) This theory further postulates that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing (global warming) at a faster rate now and causing the earth’s climate to change in unpredictable ways (from floods and hurricanes to heat waves and droughts). The strongest adherents to this belief, hold that the burning of fossil fuels must be reduced immediately. The goal of Cap and Trade legislation is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by capping the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by all industry, reducing that amount each year and allowing the industrial sector to reduce their releases off the base and sell each other release permits, thus reducing the burning of fuels. The belief is that if we could reduce our carbon dioxide emissions enough we could stop the climate of the earth from changing. The models predicting this are at the earliest stages of development because our knowledge of our environment is really limited, hard data points especially for the oceans has been limited in quantity and duration.

There is a price to reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and we need to the costs and benefits in terms of comforts, services, possessions and environmental balance before we act. It is likely very important to reduce the burning or fossil fuels and increase the planting of trees; however, we should approach this in the most cost effective manner. It is not clear how regulations to limit point source carbon dioxide release, to reduce our carbon footprint (reduce our burning of fuels) will of its self make living more sustainable. Certainly, the current fuel usage in the United States will decrease and may make the climate of the earth more stable if carbon dioxide emissions do not increase else where in the world. In addition, as the previous review of global warming research showed some research suggests that climate change may have components that are other than of anthropogenic (human) causes. Certainly, anthropogenic activity has been a contributor to the 136 parts per million (0.014%) increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past 109 years. The exact relationship of increases and decreases greenhouse gasses to climate change is unknown, if mankind were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth as in Alan Wisman’s February 2005 essay “Earth Without People”, climate change would not stop. The climate is neither static nor fixed, but without mankind it would certainly be different.

Building a bureaucracy to measure, control and tax carbon dioxide will have unintended consequences and consume resources and energy. There is real benefit to increasing the efficiency in energy use by selecting technologies, like hybrid or dimpled cars, ground source heat exchangers, solar panels or wind turbines. There is tremendous benefit to improving insulation in buildings and homes, passive use of solar and wind. Changes in how we live; urban dweller, rural dweller, suburban dweller; whether or not we commute or if we commute using public or private transportation, alone or in a groups, our purchasing and activity choices all will impact our “carbon footprint.” However, this approach only looks at one aspect of the carbon cycle and fails to identify what is a carbon budget if such a thing exists, it does not consider the other resources of the earth. Legislating the measurement of carbon dioxide release in all things will cost money and resources and of itself will not make our lives more sustainable. Limiting carbon dioxide emission by industry might reduce the use of energy in the United States by industry. Energy will become more expensive, a reduction in use will be achieved by a rationing of energy and products by price. A greater allocation of my resources to heating, electricity and food will make me poorer though not necessarily more sustainable in my living on this earth. Too many important aspects of sustainable life are missing from this viewpoint.

Sustainable Living Rethinking the Approach

When I moved from city living to the outer edge of the suburbs sustainable living became a much more complicated topic and approach to life. In the city, sustainable living had been straight forward low impact green living. Work as an environmental consultant, recycle, choose well in purchases (local food, wine and other products), conserve water, limit travel, limit car use, live without heat or air conditioning (which is not particularly difficult in San Francisco). My footprint on the earth felt small. However, here on the outer edge of the suburbs the topic becomes much more complicated and I no longer have a firm definition of what sustainable living is, and I need to rethink sustainability and expand my view. First the easy, we do not commute beyond the walls of our home, but sustainable living is a complicated topic that needs to be fully explored.

Over the next several days let’s look at the various definitions of sustainable living. Sustainability has its earliest roots in the tools developed to assess the environmental, social and economic activities of life. The first approach that I am aware of was IPAT.
Impact = Population × Affluence × Technology
Affluence and technology were believed to worsen the impact of humanity on the natural world. This theory is attributed to Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich and John Holdren in 1971. The equation was developed in the 1970s during the course of a debate between them. Commoner who argued that environmental impacts in the United States were caused primarily by changes in its production technology following World War II, while Ehrlich (Population Bomb, 1968) and Holdren while emphasizing the role of population growth, argued that all three factors were important. There was a strong movement in the 1970’s for zero population growth and John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich strongly supported population control.

The past 28 years have given us the opportunity to evaluate these point of views. Despite widespread fears amongst environmentalists that populations would continue to expand at an exponential rate until checked by plague and famine, in recent years world population growth has slowed as women are having fewer children. This phenomenon is believed to be a result of a variation in the demographic transition theory in developed nations, as people become richer, mortality rates drop and they have fewer children. As a result, the UN believes that human population might stabilize around 9 billion by 2100. Of course, the supporters of population control questions if the earth can support 9 billion people in a sustainable fashion. I do not know what life on earth a hundred years from now will be.

History shows that Barry Commoner was more right than wrong. As time goes on we see the power of technology of production and living to change our impact on the earth. Affluence and technology have worked together in the United States to promote pollution prevention, remediation and environmental awareness. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests and preserves more expansive. It appears that after industrial development the next stage of an industrialized society, is environmentalism. The environmental movement and technology join together to reduce and prevent pollution in a number of industries. Waste reduction and point source reduction are the great successes of the second stage of industrial revolution. Technology can potentially take the next step into product reduction, by delivering services electronically. Consider, information and music. Just as we moved from vinyl, to CD’s to electronic music files, I am afraid that IPAT approach is very vinyl in this analysis. It appears that technology will deliver new aspects of life that are more electronic than physical, efficiencies will improve.

Currently, sustainability is tied in the public consciousness with ecological or carbon footprint. Next we will look at the carbon footprint as a method of determining an maintaining a sustainable existence.

Carbon Footprint, Carbon Savings and Carbon Offsets

All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. While there are some basic truths, the optimal allocation of your resources is based on your values and goals. We all should be thoughtful in our living, smarter about the ways in which we use the earths and our personal resources.

According to McKinsey and Co. it cost an additional $30-$40 above normal energy production costs to eliminate one ton of CO2 emissions by replacing traditional energy production with solar or wind power (the presumed life of the equipment was unreported). However, when a ton of CO2 was saved using LED light bulbs or energy-efficient appliances money was also saved ($108-$159 less was spent on energy for every ton of CO2 saved). The costs associated with generating power without CO2 emissions are higher than current costs. If the money is spent to reduce CO2 by replacing generating capacity there will be less money to spend on other things that matter to you or are necessary for your life, but if you reduce the use of energy less money is spent on energy and more money is available for other goals.

When you use less energy, by insulating, changing to lower energy light bulbs, controlling passive solar heat, or using energy star appliance, less energy is used, less CO2 released and money is saved. Reducing your energy consumption is a far better utilization of resources. While solar panels and wind turbines are sexy, and renewable sources of energy sound wonderful, these technologies are still in their infancy. Geothermal generation of heating and cooling and nuclear generation of power have failed to catch on in the United States, but have advanced significantly in the past few decades in overseas locations. Conservation and energy efficiency are currently well developed technologies, effective and relatively cheaper. Use less so that we can all live within the productive capacity of the existing infrastructure. Then only expand the generating capacity in ways that do not release CO2, do not burden the earth.

Adding insulation and sealing existing homes and commercial buildings is by far the low hanging fruit and a good source of “green economy” jobs. The Wall Street Journal reports that heating and cooling buildings account for about half of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. My home was built in 2004 and is heated and cooled with a duel system; the upstairs with an air heat pump and the lower levels with a gas furnace and air conditioner. Replacing the heating and cooling systems with geothermal systems would only make sense when the existing systems reach the end of their functional life. After eliminating incandescent light bulbs, upgrading all appliances to energy star, installing reflective films on the window and installing drapery, I found that adding insulation was a good way to further reduce the energy consumption of the house. Following the recommendations of the Building Envelope Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, duct work, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. After six months electricity usage (as measured in kilowatts for the same six months the previous year) had been reduced by over 6% (despite relocating our workspace to the home with all its attendant equipment) and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised (and pleased) at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home.

Though I do not need to commute to a job, I still drive my (gas hybrid car) almost 4,000 miles a year. The hybrid does not make economic sense especially because I drive so little. However, it does make me happy to drive so to me it was worth the extra money I paid for it. In searching for the carbon emitted per vehicle mile I could only find the 1993 data from the Nowak study which lists 0.88-1.06 lbs CO2 per mile. This is probably high for my hybrid, which was not available at the time of the study. The same article states that each person in the US generates 2.3 tons of CO2 each year, which appears in conflict with the automobile numbers until you realize that babies and children do not have cars and city dwellers automobile ownership and use is also much less than suburban use. During the eight years I lived and owned a car in the city, I drove less than 1,000 miles a year. After reducing the energy use in my home, eliminating commuting from our lives, reducing frivolous travel I still wanted to do more.

I found the following fact: “A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs/ year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.” The Tree Folks are the source of the above information, and are willing to sell carbon off-sets in the form of trees. I tend to think of carbon off-sets for people who want to vacation in Bora Bora or have the wedding or Oscar party of the century, but in truth they are probably for people like me who use various technologies to make their lives richer and happier. My large house comes with a big piece of land. Admittedly, most of the land is wooded undisturbed land and part of the Chesapeake Bay water shed, but I do have about 3 acres of mostly open land around the house. We planted 43 trees of moderate maturity (over 6 foot each). Using the Tree Folk data, forty-two trees absorb a ton of carbon a year and the last tree replaces a diseased tree we cut down. Beyond watering the trees in the first three weeks they were planted, they have thrived on benign neglect. I am already drawing up plans, researching native trees, and saving my nickels for another 3.6 tons of annual carbon off-sets otherwise know as another 150 trees. I may have to make that 152 trees because there are two more existing trees that are not doing well.

Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil and other natural elements of the landscape filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow towards the water shed and use nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are contributing factors to the decay of the Chesapeake Bay water shed. Trees are pretty.

Reducing the Carbon Footprint with Cap and Trade Legislation

The "American Clean Energy and Security Act" is HR 2454, it is also known as the Waxman-Markley energy bill, or simply as "ACES." The Bill includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The current goal is a reduction of 17% by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable energy requirements for utilities, studies and incentives for carbon capture technologies, energy efficiency incentives for home and buildings, and grants for green jobs. The bill is expected to be on the House floor in June.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated that price increases associated with a 15% cut in carbon dioxide emissions would cost the average U.S. household $1,600.00 a year. This weekend the World Business Summit on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen. Bjorn Lomborg, in his opinion piece in the WSJ discusses the cost of green jobs in Spain as well as his opinion of the "Climate-Industrial Complex." (A lovely turn of phrase.) It is difficult to determine the cost benefit analysis of ACES since the exact relationship of man made greenhouse gas reduction and climate change is not known. It is evident, however; that reducing greenhouse gas emissions or any other custodial care of our planet takes resources: money, time, energy and passion. Spend to care for the earth and its atmosphere and there will be less for other things. We as a whole will be poorer, but hopefully with a more sustainable earth. We need to spend wisely to get the most effect from our resources and efforts.

A cap and trade system will cost the American consumer more for power, transportation and many goods. There will be profits to be made in a cap and trade system, who will hold the profits and who will bear the costs remains to be seen. Hopefully, the unintended consequences will not overwhelm the goals of the bill.

I do see the first glimmers of green jobs. This month in CEP (Chemical Engineering Progress) was a very helpful and inspiring article by Jeffrey H. Siegell titled "Improve Your Air Emissions Estimates." With the apparent goal to properly estimate the baseline, Mr. Siegell identified several problem areas in typical reporting estimates. I love system mass balance, waste stream sampling, release modeling-all of it. Though I have not modeled a processing plant since my US EPA and DuPont days, I think there will be great opportunities in systems emissions modeling.

Insulation and Home Energy Use - This Stuff Really Works!

My home is heated and cooled with a duel system; the upstairs with an air heat pump and the lower levels with a gas furnace and air conditioner. The master bedroom and bedroom over the garage were uncomfortably hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Our energy bills were large enough in the first year of ownership to merit review and we wanted to reduce our overall carbon footprint. The house was built in 2004 and was acquired in 2007. After servicing the heat exchanger and furnace to ensure they were working properly, and verifying that they were appropriately sized for the house, I turned to the Building Envelop Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for guidance. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory performs their Building Envelop Research for the US DOE Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I followed the guidance in their Insulation Fact Sheet. First the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces were inspected for adequate insulation. Then following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed.

After six months electricity usage (as measured in kilowatts for the same six months the previous year) had been reduced by 6% and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home.