Clean Energy Virginia

Last week Governor Ralph Northam officially launched Clean Energy Virginia,  to direct investment to renewable energy and energy efficiency and help meet the Commonwealth’s goals for clean energy production, which include powering "100 % of Virginia’s electricity from carbon-free sources" by 2045.

“Virginia has a unique opportunity to fundamentally transform the state’s electric grid in ... our COVID-19 economic recovery and drive down harmful carbon pollution,” said Governor Northam. This initiative follows on the recent enactment of the Virginia Clean Economy Act and related solar, wind, and energy efficiency legislation passed in the last legislative session. These clean energy policies require most carbon emitting sources of electricity to be discontinued by 2045, and replacing them with new investments in solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, energy efficiency to reduce overall demand, and battery storage to smooth out energy production by solar and wind versus need timing mismatch.

The Virginia Clean Economy Act accomplishes the following broad goals:

• Establishes renewable portfolio standards.
• Establishes energy efficiency standards. The Act sets an energy efficiency resource standard, requiring third party review of whether energy companies meet savings goals; and creates a new program to reduce the energy burden for low-income customers.
• Advances offshore wind. The Act requires Dominion Energy Virginia to generate 5,200 megawatts of offshore wind generation and prioritize hiring local workers from historically disadvantaged communities.
• Advances solar and distributed generation. The Act targets generating 16,100 megawatts of solar and onshore wind power. The Act requires Virginia’s two largest energy companies to construct or acquire more than 3,100 megawatts of energy storage capacity.

According to U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) Natural gas fueled more than half of Virginia's electricity net generation in 2018. The state's two nuclear power plants supplied about 30% of Virginia's generation. Coal provided most of the rest, but biomass, hydropower, petroleum, solar photovoltaic (PV), and other energy sources also generate some electricity.

The EIA reports that renewable resources generated less than 7% of Virginia's electricity in 2018. Unfortunately, not all renewable energy is carbon free. Biomass fuels generated the largest share of renewable electricity, followed by hydroelectric power. In 2018, biomass fueled more than 4% of the state's total electricity net generation and hydropower supplied under 2%. Municipal solid waste and landfill gas are common forms of biomass used for electricity generation in Virginia, but the largest share of generating capacity is at facilities that use wood and wood waste (paper plant and forestry product waste). All these renewable biomass sources emit carbon, though the Act does not eliminate them. It appears that the language of what qualifies as renewable energy under the Act includes solar, wind hydropower, landfill gas-fired generation and a limited amount of biomass.

The largest share of solar PV generation in Virginia is provided by utility-scale facilities built in the last several years. Although solar PV to Virginia's net generation is very small (less than 1%), it doubled in 2018. Virginia does not have any wind-powered utility-scale electricity generation, yet . A test project, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, is to come on line this year in federal waters 27 miles off Virginia Beach.

As the Washington Post pointed out the Act defines “ total electric energy to mean the electric energy sold by Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power in the previous calendar year, excluding nuclear power generated by plants in service in 2020, and excluding carbon-free (but not renewable) electrical power sources established after July 1, 2030.” This definition allows Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power the flexibility to ensure that they can provide reliable power 24/7 to a future that includes the needs of data centers, and envisioned to have increased demand from the electrification of cars and other portions of the transportation sector as well as electrification of space heating. The nuclear power that provides over 30% of Virginia’s needs will stay in the mix and provide the base power.

Under Virginia’s electricity regulations, utilities are allowed to recover the costs they invest in the grid as well as a “fair rate of return” on equity to customer bills to pay for particular projects. Dominion and Appalachian Power will be permitted to pass along the costs of their new solar, wind and storage projects to the customer base; and sunk costs of any abandoned infrastructure or closed plants can continued to be recovered in full. The State Corporation Commission has estimated ratepayers could see at least a $23 per month increase on their bills by 2027-2030 this includes cost savings from energy efficiency.

Electricity consumption in Virginia is greater than electricity generation within Virginia. The additional power we need is purchased from the regional grid managed by the PJM Interconnection. All but four counties in southwest Virginia are within the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of electricity in all or parts of 13 Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states plus the District of Columbia. The four counties in southwestern Virginia that are not served by PJM are supplied by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Under the Act at least 75% of all of the energy that counts towards the renewable goal have to come from facilities in Virginia. There did not appear to be hard limits on power supplied from outside the Commonwealth to ensure uninterrupted supply of electricity.

Virginia is offering a Clean Energy Virginia Five-Part Webinar Series hosted by Governor Ralph Northam’s Office and the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). The focus of the webinar series is on the recent legislation. You can sign up for at this link and see what it's about.  The snap shot of Virginia electricity generation by fuel type for March 2020 from the EIA shows the basic challenge ahead. 

Methane Regulation Coming Our Way

from EPA

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially announced the next set of regulations for the United States to address climate change; EPA will set standards for methane and VOC emissions from new and modified oil and gas wells, and natural gas processing and transmission plants. By summer of 2015 EPA will issue a proposed rule and a final rule will follow in 2016. As with the power sector, EPA plans to first regulate new methane emissions, then circle back and regulate the existing sources of methane emissions.

Regulation of existing oil and gas wells will begin ahead of EPA regulations for the oil and gas industry. Using the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Administration will begin tightening the regulations on existing oil and gas wells by toughening the standards for operating gas and oil wells on federal land. The new standards will be designed to reduce venting, flaring, and leaks of natural gas, which is primarily methane, from these oil and gas wells. These standards, to be proposed this spring, will address both new and existing oil and gas wells on public lands and will serve as a test run on regulating existing oil and gas wells.

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will propose natural gas pipeline safety standards in 2015 aimed at reducing leaks and releases from pipelines. The Department of Energy (DOE) will develop and demonstrate more cost-effective technologies to detect and reduce losses from natural gas transmission and distribution systems that is believed to represent over 22% of methane gas losses in the sector. The DOE effort will include efforts to repair leaks and develop the next generation of compressors. According to the EPA the President’s budget will propose $10 million to launch a program at DOE to examine the scope of leaks from gas distribution systems, pipelines and compressor plants to examine their contribution to global warming.

Two years ago Robert B. Jackson, Professor of Global Environmental Change at Duke University and Nathan Phillips, associate professor at Boston University Department of Earth and Environment collaborated with Robert Ackley of Gas Safety Inc., and Eric Crosson of Picarro Inc., to perform a study of gas leaks in Boston. They mapped the gas leaks under the city using a new, high-precision methane analyzer. The researchers discovered 3,356 leaks. The leaks were found to be associated with old cast-iron underground pipes, infrastructure that had not been maintained. The team went on to document leaks in Washington DC, but EPA wants to quantify the emissions of the entire wholesale and retail distribution system. In addition to the explosion hazard, methane, the primary ingredient of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas that degrades air quality. Leaks in the United States are reported to contribute to $3 billion of lost and unaccounted for natural gas each year.

The White House set a new target for the U.S. to cut methane emissions in the energy sector by 40% to 45% by 2025, compared with 2012 levels. Methane emissions in the energy sector represent only about 30% of the total. Methane emissions come from diverse sources and sectors of the economy, unevenly dispersed across the nation and not well tracked. That is why the EPA wants to begin to better quantify the emissions. There is little hard data on methane emissions; nonetheless, the estimates below are the best available and the Administration has used them to develop the current methane mitigation plan for the energy sector. You’ll note that the methane emissions from natural gas systems has decreased by about 15% from 2005 to 2012 despite the production of natural gas increasing by about 50% during that time period.

Over the last two hundred and fifty years, the concentration of methane in our atmosphere has increased by 151% to 1.8 parts per million. Methane is the primary component in natural gas, methane is emitted to the atmosphere during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas and because gas is often found alongside petroleum which is often much more valuable, methane is sometimes vented to the atmosphere rather than captured during oil production. Methane is also produced from the decomposition of human and animal waste as well as garbage and is the major component of landfill gas. Methane is also released from the natural biological process of enteric fermentation which is fermentation that takes place in the digestive systems of animals. In particular, ruminant animals that have two stomachs and eat grasses (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce and release methane by “passing gas” from the microbial fermentation that breaks down the grass and hay into soluble products that can be utilized by the animal. To significantly reduce the methane released from enertic fermentation it might be necessary to reduce the cattle and sheep population and the share of the American diet that is beef, lamb and dairy products. Finally, when natural gas and other petroleum products are used as a fuel incomplete combustion releases traces of methane.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), methane is more than 20-25 times more effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. So eventhough it is a much smaller component of the atmosphere, controlling methane emissions is essential to the Administrations plans to address climate change, though unfortunately “addressing” will not stop climate change. If you recall it is the greenhouse effect that is expected to increase the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, methane and the other greenhouse gases. According to climate scientists we have passed the tipping point and there is no stopping the climate trajectory predicted by the models that have been developed to understand and predict the climate of earth. However, detecting and reducing gas leaks are critical not only for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also for improving air quality and consumer safety, and saving consumers money.

from EPA

World Carbon Emissions

Recently, President Obama has been focusing on climate change. So, I decided to take a look at the “Trends in Global Emissions 2013 Report” the latest report from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Using data collected from various sources and the computer model called EDGAR (Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research) they compile the world estimates of CO2 emissions data.

In 2012, total world emissions of CO2 increased by 1.4% (corrected for leap year it was 1.1%) over 2011, to reach a total of 34.5 billion tonnes of CO2. In 2012 the top five world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were (once again) in descending order China, the United States, the European Union, India and the Russian Federation.

The rate of increase in CO2 emissions has slowed. The average annual increase in world CO2 emissions was 2.9% per year since 2000. This growth was driven primarily by the growth in China, India and other developing countries as those economies emerged. India’s GDP growth at around 4% in 2012 was the lowest in a decade. India’s CO2 emissions in 2012 continued to increase by 6.8% to about 2.0 billion tonnes. China with the largest population is the largest CO2 emitter on earth. They increased CO2 emissions by 3% in 2012, compared to an average rate of increase in CO2 emissions of around 10% per year during the last decade.

In the United States CO2 emissions decreased by 4% in 2012. The United States which represents 16% of total world emissions has decreased total CO2 emissions each year since 2005. In 2012, with GDP (gross domestic product) growth of 2%, their CO2 emissions decreased by 4%, mainly because of a fuel shift from coal to gas in the power generation. Natural gas produces about half the CO2 as coal for the same amount of electricity. In recent years, the United States expanded shale gas fracturing and has now become the largest natural gas producer in the world.

In the European Union CO2 emissions decreased 1.6% in 2012. The European Union, as a whole, was in a recession in 2012. The European Union’s GDP declined by 0.3%, compared to 2011, and CO2 emissions declined by 1.3%. The European Union reported a decrease in consumption of oil and gas, by 4% and 2% respectively, a decrease in freight transported of 4%, and a decrease of 2% in total emissions from power generation and manufacturing installations. However, the use of coal for power generation increased in the European Union in 2012. Relative pricing for coal and gas and a decrease in the use of nuclear energy to generate power in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident are responsible for the increase in coal use in other parts of the world.

Renewable energy power generation has increased worldwide. The use of hydropower has accelerated and its output increased by 4.3%, between 2011 and 2012. The share of the ‘new’ renewable energy from solar, wind and biofuel also increased to 2.4% in 2012. In 2012 there appeared to be a ‘decoupling’ of the increase in CO2 emissions from global GDP growth. This may be an anomaly or indicate a shift towards less fossil-fuel intensive activities or fuel switch to less CO2 intense fuels, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving.

Nonetheless, the worldwide level of CO2 emissions is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just six years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models. The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one previously assumed as research continues and time lags and other factors are studied and climate prediction models are modified to reflect ongoing research. The developed world no longer drives or controls CO2 emissions, and there is little we can do to change the future. What is going to happen will happen. Though we should still strive to reduce our personal energy use and efficiency.

President Obama to Reduce Methane Emissions

On Friday the Whitehouse announced that the President, will continue to fight against climate change using executive fiat. The next step for the White House climate plan, originally introduced in a speech at Georgetown University in June 2013, is an “interagency methane strategy.” Towards this goal, the Whitehouse is directing federal agencies to clamp down on emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas, though U.S. methane emissions have fallen 11% since 1990.

data from US EPA

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. If you recall it is the greenhouse effect that is expected to increase the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, methane and the other greenhouse gases. Though in its September 2013 report the IPCC eliminated attempts to estimate the “most likely” sensitivity of the climate to the expected manmade doubling of the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere because according to British climate scientist Nic Lewis “the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate scientists had previously thought.” All the climate models had failed to predict that for the last 15 years there has been essentially no net warming. Global Warming has been having what the IPCC calls a hiatus.

Over the last two hundred and fifty years, the concentration of methane in our atmosphere has increased by 151% to 1.8 parts per million. Methane is the primary component in natural gas, methane is emitted to the atmosphere during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas and because gas is often found alongside petroleum which is much more valuable, methane is sometimes vented to the atmosphere rather than captured during oil production. Methane is also produced from the decomposition of human and animal waste as well as garbage and is the major component of landfill gas. Methane is also released from the natural biological process of enteric fermentation which is fermentation that takes place in the digestive systems of animals. In particular, ruminant animals that have two stomachs and eat grasses (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce and release methane from the microbial fermentation that breaks down the grass and hay into soluble products that can be utilized by the animal. Also, when natural gas and other petroleum products are used as a fuel incomplete combustion releases traces of methane.

Methane emissions come from diverse sources and sectors of the economy, unevenly dispersed across the landscape and not well tracked. These uncertainties have resulted in estimates of current and projected methane emissions by simplified models and rules of thumb for the source of methane emissions. Nonetheless, the estimates below are the best available and the Administration has launched a methane mitigation plan.

The President’s Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions targets reductions in methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, and agriculture, and oil and gas systems that include action on four fronts:

1. Landfills: This summer, the EPA will propose regulation to reduce methane from new landfills and begin the process to tighten the methane standards for existing landfills.
2. Coal Mines: In April 2014, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management will begin the process of developing a program for the capture and disposal of waste mine methane on lands leased by the Federal government. 
3. Agriculture: In June 2014, in partnership with the dairy industry, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the EPA and U.S. Department of Energy will jointly release a “Biogas Roadmap” outlining voluntary strategies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 % by 2020. Maybe the administration will reduce the U.S. consumption of dairy products, beef, buffalo, sheep and goats and thus reduce the herds of rumens. 
4. Oil and Gas: This spring EPA will assess potential sources of methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry and in the fall of 2014, EPA will determine how best to pursue further methane reductions from these sources. EPA is expected to develop additional regulations if necessary by the end of 2016. Later this year, the Bureau of Land Management will update the rules to reduce venting and flaring from oil and gas production on public lands. In addition the Administration will identify “downstream” methane reduction opportunities. Through the Natural Gas STAR program, EPA will work with the industry to expand voluntary efforts to reduce methane emissions.

One downstream area for reduction of methane is our natural gas distribution systems. In 2012 and 2013 two scientists mapped the gas leaks under Boston and Washington DC using a new, high-precision methane analyzer provided by Picarro installed in a GPS-equipped car. They found that there were approximately 4.3 leaks per mile of street in both cities. Levels of methane in the surface air on some streets exceeded 15 times the normal atmospheric background value.

For some time we have failed to maintain our unseen infrastructure systems as a way to cut costs. We have failed to maintain and upgrade the oil and gas distribution system. Gas distribution companies are well aware of the leaks in the system. The companies calculate the difference between the gas pumped into the distribution system and what is metered at the end user. This is referred to as "lost and unaccounted-for" gas is often a surcharge on customer bills. These leaks are wasteful, dangerous and a significant source of greenhouse gas released into the environment.

Distribution companies try to prioritize finding and fixing leaks likely to be explosion hazards, where gas is collecting and concentrating and ignore the small losses from deteriorating iron pipe and the deteriorating distribution system in our cities. Natural gas distribution leaks and explosions cause an average of 17 fatalities, 68 injuries, and $133 million in property damage each year, according to the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In 2010 a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, CA, just south of San Francisco. There was no warning and eight people were killed, 58 were injured and 38 homes, the entire section of a neighborhood, destroyed. In 2011, a leak from an 83-year-old cast-iron main in Allentown, Pa., caused an explosion that killed five people. And just last month a gas explosion killed eight people in East Harlem.

Detecting and reducing gas leaks are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality in cities and consumer safety, and ultimately saving future generations of consumers from loss of life, property and wasted money. Right now, repairing our infrastructure will be very expensive, but as the pipes that distribute gas (and the other essential utilities of water, sewer, and electricity) continue to age failure will become more frequent. Infrastructure is the foundation of our economy, connecting businesses, communities, and people, making us a first world country-we need to repair and maintain it.

Global CO2 Soars Past 400 ppm

Data from IEA

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2012 edition of the CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Statistics Highlights. World CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have climbed past 396 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere and will hit 400 ppm in early spring before retreating slightly over the summer. Global CO2 emissions have grown by 47% since 1990 (based on IEA estimates for 2011). The CO2 levels on earth had averaged 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, but in the past century they began rising. 

As the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere increase the warming produced by the greenhouse gas effect is strengthened. Computer modeling of the climate predicts that there will be feedbacks that significantly increase the impact from the increasing CO2. This is a feedback control loop on a global scale. Mankind produces carbon dioxide from power plants, transportation (cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships), heating, cement manufacture, deforestation, and breathing. Methane is produced from agriculture, livestock, mining, gas pipeline leaks and well heads, landfills, and sewage plants. Nitrous oxide is produced by fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, animal waste, polluted waters, and chemical processes. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor are the major greenhouse gases. The IEA tells us that 65% of the global greenhouse gas emissions by mankind are from the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and in industrialized nations 83% of all greenhouse gas emissions are from power generation, heating and cooling and transportation, but it is clear that both population and industrialization drive CO2 production.  

Data from IEA

The climate models show that there is nothing that we can do to stop global warming and climate change. Even if the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere were to stabilize at this level, global warming and sea level rising would continue for hundreds of years because of the time scales associated with climate and planetary feedback loops. In reality, the global emissions of CO2 will continue to rise for at least a generation. What is going to happen will happen. I will leave it to others to argue the case for the accuracy of climate models; however, both mankind and the earth itself will respond to changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature, but not before it becomes the pressing concern of the currently emerging nations. Though we constantly argue, discuss and meet, there is virtually nothing we can do to change what is going to happen in the next dozen generations. We can hope that mankind will move to a more sustainable course without the need for catastrophe to motivate us, but that will not change what is going to happen. 

Sorry, the scale is off.  I could not get 2011 to slide over. 

We need to face some tough realities. We cannot even stabilize the world CO2 emissions. As each region or county industrializes the world CO2 emissions have grown. World CO2 emissions are 146% of 1990 levels. Europe has stabilized their emissions and with effort under the Kyoto Treaty has decreased them 2.8% from 1990 levels. The U.S. seems to have finally begun its stabilization and reduction process in the past few years, but since 1990 has increased emissions by 9.5%. The far more populous emerging nations have blown past us in CO2 emissions. Asia (including India) has increased their CO2 emissions by 270% since 1990, and China has increased their CO2 emissions by 352% since 1990. Once the phenomenal growth in their economies that has driven the growth in CO2 emissions, slows down, the C02 emissions will stabilize at a higher level. As a county industrializes its emissions rise as Industrialization typically begins with coal fired power generation. Though coal fired power plants produce twice the CO2 as gas fired power plants they are the source of most power in China and India and still provide over 42% of power generation in the U.S. Nonetheless, except for the fall the Russian Federation, the CO2 emissions of a region or nation do not fall significantly. When populations get cars, homes with heating, air conditioning, on-demand water and power- become first world nations, they like to stay that way.

2012 the Warmest Year for U.S., but not for the Earth

NOAA 2012 Temperature Map

On Tuesday the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center announced that 2012 had been the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States  with average temperatures 3.2°F above the 20th century average. While global temperatures are unlikely to reach a record for 2012 (only data through November 2012 is available) still, according to the latest data from the National Climatic Data Center, the high average global temperatures for November 2012 combined with record to near-record warmth over land from April to September and warmer-than-average global ocean temperatures contributed to the first 11 months of 2012 ranking as the eighth warmest 11 month period on record with 1998 remaining the warmest year on record for the earth.

According to the weather scientists at NOAA the average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2012 was 55.3°F, which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average and 1.0°F above the previous record from 1998. Every state in the contiguous United States had an above-average annual temperature for 2012. On the national scale, 2012 started off much warmer than average, with the fourth-warmest winter (December 2011–February 2012) on record, but the real and immediate problem is water.  The winter snow cover for the contiguous United States last winter was the third smallest on record, and snowpack totals across the Central and Southern Rockies were less than half of normal. The warm spring resulted in an early start to the 2012 growing season in many places, which increased water demand on the soil earlier than what is typical. In combination with the lack of winter snow and lingering dryness from 2011, the record-warm spring laid the foundation for the great drought of 2012. The average precipitation total for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, and the 15th driest year on record for the nation.  

Regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency remain focused on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but if CO2 is the main driver of climate change and these new temperature highs in the United States are evidence of climate change and not just extreme weather, then it is too late and the United States at about 16% of global carbon emissions and falling cannot stop the growth in CO2 emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, IEA, 2011 estimates of world CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, World CO2 emissions rose by 1 billion metric tons in 2011, a 3.2 % increase  to reach 31.6 billion metric tons. In 2011 the top four world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were in descending order China, the United States, the European Union and India who edged out Russia to take the number four slot. China, the largest emitter of CO2 increased their emissions the most. China contributed almost three quarters of the global increase, with its emissions rising by 720 million metric tons, or 9.3% to 8.46 billion metric tons of CO2, and are now driving global CO2 emissions. It is estimate that China will emit around 10 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2013. CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 million metric tons of CO2 or 1.7% to an estimated 5.32 billion metric tons.  U.S. emissions have now fallen by 430 million metric tons or 7.7% since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions and no real growth is forecast. There is no interest in reducing CO2 emissions or even stopping emissions growth in China. They are not yet a rich nation and are currently experiencing the coldest winter in 28 years. China remains focused on food and growth. 

In the U.S. the EPA has used regulation to ensure that total CO2 emissions are reduced over time. In 2012 EPA proposed the first Clean Air Act standard for carbon dioxide. Under the new rule, new power plants will have to emit no more than 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of energy produced. That standard effectively changes the fuel of choice for all future power capacity additions to natural gas, nuclear, or the renewable category (with government subsidies).  In addition the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) new millage and emission standards for automobiles and light trucks for model year 2012 through 2025 requiring continued improvement of about a 5% per year in average fuel economy from 2016 when they are required to have at least a 35.5 mpg fleet average for vehicles sold in the U.S. and will have to boost car and light truck fuel economy to an average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 significantly reducing the use of fuel.   The major users 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%). Passenger cars, light trucks and motorcycles represent 17% of the national greenhouse gas emissions. With the CO2 standard and fuel economy standards the U.S is on track to reduce their CO2 emission in the coming decades.

The climate of the earth is constantly changing on a geological time scale, but the geological record hints that sudden shifts can happen. The controversy over both the science and policy relating to climate change is far from over, but policy mandates to have the United States adopt constraints on fossil fuel energy consumption will have little impact on the global level of CO2. The earth’s atmosphere is interconnected and worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to grow powered by China and India in the short run. We need now to appropriately respond to the continuing drought.

Drought conditions November 2012 NOAA

The Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, creates a regulatory mandated demand for corn in the United States. In 2012 the RFS mandated ethanol consumed 5.05 billion bushels of corn almost 50% of the corn crop. The USDA has forecast total corn production for 2012 at 10.7 billion bushels, down 13% from 2011. The lowest U.S. production of corn since 1995. Much of the Midwest remains in drought conditions, and according to the most recent USDA and NOAA reports drought could impact the corn crop next year, too. To fulfill the RFS mandate we are using up our water resources (using the Ogallala Aquifer) and we might be forced to buy corn, taking food from the mouths of poorer nations. Yes, we can buy more corn if need be. The United States is still a rich enough country and we will eat meat and the long list of food made from corn products and make lots of ethanol to dilute gasoline, but the cost is the United States is exporting hunger to fulfill the RFS.

Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in the United States

Last Wednesday, the U.S. EPA released the list of facilities that emitted the most carbon dioxide in 2010. This is in preparation for later this year when the U.S. EPA is expected to promulgate new carbon dioxide standards for power plants. Power plants accounted for more than half of the greenhouse-gas emissions by the major emitters on the list, with refineries and chemical facilities also contributing large shares. Of the 100 largest emitters—defined by the EPA as facilities emitting more than 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent—96 of them are power plants. Two are refineries and two are iron and steel mills. (Using government respiration data for mine collapse survival, the population of the United States emitted 170 million metric tons of CO2 by breathing last year.)

According to the United States the US Energy Information Administration that collects and reports the energy statistics, U.S. energy related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States totaled 5,426 million metric tons in 2009 (the most recent year available) down from a peak of 6,022 million metric tons in 2007. For the past ten years electrical generation accounted for approximately 40% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, up from 36% in 1990 when industrial sources accounted for a larger share of the economy and significantly higher share of CO2 emissions.

EPA launched the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program in October 2009, requiring the reporting of carbon dioxide data from large stationary emission sources, as well as suppliers of fuel that would emit GHGs if used. This is the first year that data was reported. Though EPA uses the term greenhouse gasses in their press release and program title they are only talking about carbon dioxide, though the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide represents less than 0.04% (386 parts per million) of the atmosphere and its significant increase over the past hundred years or so is attributed to man’s impact on earth. The other greenhouse gasses are methane (1.8 parts per million), nitrous oxide (0.3 parts per million), hydrofluocarbons (0.00025 parts per million), Perfluorocarbons (0.00086 parts per million), and sulfur hexafloride (0.000006 parts per million). The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) does not represent total U.S. emissions, only the major point sources, what EPA calls stationary sources.

The largest carbon dioxide generators on the U.S. EPA list are generally speaking the largest stationary combustion sources, the largest electrical generation plants followed by large industrial furnaces (iron and steel making and refineries that flair excess gas) that were built during the era of massive size plants and do not necessarily reflect how efficient, clean or dirty a plant is. The amount of carbon dioxide released is a function of the size of facility and the type of fuel used. According to a combined report from the U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy, coal generates 2.1 pounds of CO2 per kWh while natural gas generates 1.3 pounds of CO2 per kWh. The major users of fuel 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%).

The largest stationary sources of CO2 are large power plants. Coal fired power plants are with the exception of nuclear power the largest electrical generation plants, and coal which generates 38% more carbon dioxide when burned than natural gas. Ninety-two and a half percent of the coal mined in the United States is used to generate 45% of the electricity produced in the United States. To protect the environment and meet the President Obama’s pledge to reduce U.S greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below the 2005 levels by 2020 the U.S. EPA wants to eliminate coal as a fuel source for electrical power plant generation through increasing regulation of coal fired electrical generation plants and new millage and emission standards mandated for the automobile industry.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulates mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. MATS was finalized on December 21. 2011. This regulation will slash emissions of these pollutants primarily from coal fired electrical generation plants. According to the EPA it will cost $9.6 billion annually to comply with the MATS regulations and Industry analysts believe that 10% to 20% of U.S. coal-fired generating capacity will be shut down by 2016. The combined benefit of MATS and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule was estimated by the U.S. EPA to total over decades up to $380 billion in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR, which requires reductions of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions in coal fired plants and is estimated to cost $2.4 billion in annual costs. CSAPR was made final in July but at the end of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit granted a stay to the implementation of the CSAPR pending resolution of the legal challenges. CSAPR, if eventually implemented will reduce SO2 emissions by 73% from 2005 levels and NOx emissions by 54% at the approximately 1,000 coal fired electrical generation plants in the eastern half of the country.

Now the U.S. EPA is preparing for the release later this year of CO2 regulations for power plants by releasing the list of industrial CO2 emitters. Electrical generation and automobiles and trucks account for 74% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Last summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized the new millage and emission standards for automobiles and light trucks for model year 2012 through 2016. The EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg).

Since 1990 global CO2 emissions have gone from 21 billion tons of CO2 to 29 billion tons of CO2 in 2009 according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). Global emissions of CO2 increased 38% despite a 14.7% decrease below their 1990 level for the Kyoto Participants and the United States increased of about 7% above 1990 levels. The bulk of the increase has come from China, Africa, Middle East, India and the rest of Asia. The United States and 35 Kyoto participants represent less than half the world CO2 emissions and that is shrinking every year. Now the United States appears on track to reduce their CO2 emissions over 1% below their 1990 levels and fulfill the promise that President Obama made at the Copenhagen meeting in 2010 when the President pledged to reduce U.S greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below the 2005 levels by 2020.

California Implements Cap and Trade Program

On Thursday, October 20, 2011 after a long public hearing and meeting the California Air Resources Board unanimously voted to adopt the nation's first state-administered cap-and-trade regulations for greenhouse gases. Cap-and-trade is the centerpiece of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 a California law that establishes a wide reaching program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable, reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are intended to be cost effective. This law establishes a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions. Though Cap and Trade was not part of the actual law, it was added by the California Air Resource Board in their Regulations. California sees itself as leading the way in cap and trade legislation and an example to the nation of the potential benefits and concerns and problems with this particular approach to attempt to prevent climate change by controlling CO2 emissions. A second phase of compliance begins in 2015 and is expected to include 85% of California's emissions sources.

Thought there were many other voices the prevailing view at the meeting was California is leading the way to the future. California intends to show by example to other states and the federal government that it is possible to regulate greenhouse gas emissions while protecting its economy and fostering a new green economy and industry. According to others, California is taking a very big risk with their economy for uncertain results. There is the strong feeling amongst journalists, regulators and NGOs that the vote was closely watched by other states and, if the program is deemed successful, it will serve as a model for future markets. If you recall the "American Clean Energy and Security Act” is HR 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markley energy bill, or simply as "ACES" was passed by the US House of Representatives in 2009 and died in the senate. The bill included a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S and also required “polluters” to buy permits to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.

Within California there is the strong belief that people watch what California does and emulate it. The California regulators believe that cap-and-trade programs are going to spread to other states and regions and the design features developed for the California program will be adopted in other states and regions with the federal government finally adopting the program. The California Air Resource Board sees their work in creating 262 pages of regulation as ground breaking and likely to change the country. These regulations imply a shift away from carbon based fuels. It is envisioned that this will support the creation of new green-tech jobs and financial certainty for the renewable energy industry even as there is a strong national push to further develop shale source natural gas to move power generation away from the coal fired utilities built in the mid 1900’s and for a reduction in the size of government. At least 15 states now produce shale gas and others may join them. The largest shale area, the still-emerging Marcellus, covers much of the Northeast and already supports 140,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone. Many of the jobs created recently in Texas are related to the expansion of shale gas exploration and development.

United Nations Climate summit will be held November 28-December 9th 2011 in Durban South Africa. The Kyoto Protocol, which commits developed countries to cut their emissions, is set to expire in 2012. After both the Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) Climate summits failed to produce a legally binding climate treaty, delegates to the Durban talks are under immense pressure to produce some kind of deal that will be acceptable to both rich and developing nations. However, it is reported that cap-and-trade concept is losing support among the pervious signers of the Kyoto treaty and China and India who are now major producers of greenhouse gas because of concern about jobs, costs and bureaucratic complexity.

The “emerging nations,” including China and India want an extension of Kyoto, which required the industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% below 1990 levels from 2008-12. The world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters are China and the United States. The U.S. never ratified Kyoto, arguing it should contain 2012 goals for emerging economies and would cost U.S. jobs. China was exempted as an emerging economy, and though it is now the largest greenhouse gas emitter on earth, it wants to remain exempted from reducing or even stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions under any new agreement. In September India announced that it would not accept any legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emission, and Japan announced that they are reconsidering plans to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 due to closing of a significant portion of its nuclear power generation, and the costs of the carbon-credit programs that required the spending of almost $11 billion on carbon abatement programs in other countries. Overall, expectations for the future of the Kyoto Protocol are low and some doubt whether if a second commitment period is feasible with only support from EU which accounts only around 11% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and is itself reconsidering its nuclear power generation after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors were damaged after the quake. If nuclear reactors are going to be phased out as low greenhouse gas emission power generation there is no way to achieve carbon reductions without reducing the size of the economy, the standard of living or the size of the population.

The California Cap and Trade program requirements will help the current crop of California solar projects. If you will recall, the Department of Energy recently issued its final round of loan guarantees before the program ended and these final four loans included three generation project in California.
California Valley Solar Ranch Project a $1.237 billion loan guarantee to allow SunPower Corp to borrow the money to build a 250-megawatt photovoltaic electricity generating array in San Luis Obispo County, California using sun tracking technology to increase electricity output. The power will be sold to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and will generate enough (very expensive) electricity to power 64,000 homes and will allow SunPower to increase demand for their panels and maintain or increase production. Construction employment will be significant, but permanent jobs will be few. The panels do not need much operation.

Fracking, Burning Shale Gas and the Environment

Our modern society requires power and that is not going to change. The cost of power is a key factor in determining the cost of production, and the cost of living. In the 1990’s natural gas, sold for $2 per million BTUs after peaking in 2005 natural gas is now about $3.50-$4 per million BTUs, with this price and the advances in drilling the extraction of shale gas is viable and profitable. The techniques for fracking first developed in the Barnett shale in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas have been applied to a series of major shale gas deposits that could not have been viable without these advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shales in Canada are now accessible at current market costs. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply of proven, producible reserves and even with expanded use of natural gas, there is more than a generation of currently accessible reserves.at that price we appear to have vast amounts of available natural gas.

Shale sourced natural gas could provide a reliable source of natural gas for our nation in this century. However we need to remember that the gas still is a limited resource and be cautious about what other impacts fracking might have on our other resources. Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. Burning natural gas in the place of coal emits fewer harmful pollutants. Methane, the principle component of natural gas, is itself a potent greenhouse gas. Methane has an ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. Concern for the potential impact of the release of greenhouse gases and other impacts from shale gas extraction have been raised by various groups. This year researchers at Carnegie Mellon University compared greenhouse gas emissions from the Marcellus Shale region with emissions from coal used for electricity generation. This study estimates the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of Marcellus shale natural gas . The authors found that natural gas from the Marcellus shale had lower life cycle GHG emissions than coal for production of electricity by 20–50% depending upon plant efficiencies and natural gas emissions variability. The significant range in estimates is due to the variations in the ultimate production from a well (more lifetime production reduces GHG emissions) and differences in flaring, construction and transportation how carefully these steps are carried out.

At least in the medium term the environmental impact from power generation will be determined by the efficiency and care of how fuel is obtained, transported, generated and used. Improving efficiency is the low lying fruit that can have an immense impact and should not be ignored while we are busy dreaming of the someday world of renewable energy. Natural gas from shale rock is plentiful in North America. Despite billions of dollars in DOE solar generation loan guarantees the generating capacity of solar power in the nation will continue to be under 5% of power generation. Recent ambitious plans to convert the nation to renewable energy: build nuclear plants and solar and wind farms, were made under the assumption that natural gas prices would average $9 per million BTUs. At that level, electricity prices would have increased to costs of production and living significantly, but wind and nuclear power generation would have been competitive. Now, with natural gas at under $4 per million BTUs and more gas reserves announced each year, many of these projects suddenly look much too expensive and would never happen without mandated renewable portfolio standards and government incentives. The projects that get done will increase the cost of power when those costs are incorporated into the electric rate base.

Power plants can use several methods to convert gas to electricity. One method is to burn the gas in a boiler to produce steam, which is then used by a steam turbine to generate electricity. A more common approach is to burn the gas in a combustion turbine to generate electricity. Another technology that is growing in popularity is to burn the natural gas in a combustion turbine and use the hot combustion turbine exhaust to make steam to drive a steam turbine. This technology is called "combined cycle" or “natural gas combined turbine plants” and achieves a higher efficiency by using the same fuel source twice.

The CO2 emissions from all natural gas plants are less than to those produced by burning coal given the same power output because of the higher heat content of natural gas, and the higher overall efficiency of the gas generation plant relative to a coal-fired plant. Natural gas also allows for smaller ‘distributed generation’ plants, providing flexibility and local autonomy for generation. However, the gas well lifetime, care in obtaining and transporting the gas and the efficiency of the generation plant will determine overall environmental impact of gas power generation on our earth. Although power plants are regulated by federal and state laws to protect human health and the environment, there is a wide variation of environmental impacts associated with power generation technologies and as the Carnegie Mellon researchers found that natural gas from the Marcellus shale and probably all shale gas has lower life cycle GHG emissions than coal for production of electricity significantly better than the current standard.

Though there has been tremendous concern for the potential direct adverse impact that fracking may have on drinking water, geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking “water,” a mix chemicals and water, will somehow infiltrate groundwater reserves though a fissure created by the fracking. It is believed though not documented and tested that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table. Data should be collected to test this belief as part of a careful monitoring and study of fracking and shale gas extraction. There are other risks in how we build wells and fracture the shale. Documented contamination to drinking water wells due to seepage of fracking water into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells must be addressed.

The current regulatory framework concerning hydraulic fracturing, which is the core element in shale gas and tight oil extraction, has a number of gaps that need to be addressed before unlimited fracking takes place. There were several recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed. That is not being done. The data needs to be collected on a state and provided to the US Geological Survey and US EPA to consolidate on a national level.

Though the energy companies are beginning to gather baseline data for drinking water wells in the areas being fracked, the data collection is neither ongoing nor broad enough. Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydraulic fracking, using up to 3 million gallons of water. Data needs to be gathered on the impact to water resources of supplying water for the construction of thousands of wells per year. For gas to flow out of the shale, nearly all of the water injected into the well during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. At under 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals used in fracking total 15,000 gallons in the waste from the typical 3 million gallon hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants and monitoring the impact from this disposal must also be done. The deep well injection of the waste in Texas was associated with earthquakes and is believed by scientists to have triggered the earthquakes. The impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be measured and monitored. Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads. The watersheds must be monitored.

Other impacts from shale gas fracking and extraction is watershed impact and surface land damage due to construction of drilling pads, the transport and use of trucks, equipment, gas processing equipment and the creation of access roads in often remote areas. Other possible impacts are air emissions of pollutants and methane, groundwater contamination due to uncontrolled gas or fluid flows due to blowouts or spills, leaking fracturing fluid, and uncontrolled waste water discharge. Fracturing fluids contain hazardous substances, and flow-back in addition contains heavy metals and radioactive materials from the deposit. Experience shows that many accidents happen, which can be harmful to the environment and to human health. Many of these accidents are due to improper sealing of casings or leaking equipment. Furthermore, groundwater contamination by methane, in extreme cases leading to significant methane levels or even explosions from residential drinking water wells and potassium chloride leading to salinization of drinking water aquifer has been reported in the vicinity of some gas wells. The impacts can add up and make as shale formations are developed with a high well density of up to six well pads per square mile. Hydraulic fracturing means jobs and wealth, but the industry needs to develop adequate procedures, techniques and standards to minimize environmental impact and maximize gas recovery. Slow is fast.

Global Warming, Fuel Economy, and Uncertainty

According to the data in Steven F. Hayward’s 2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends which is the latest adaption of the former Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, global temperatures were flat or slightly declining between 2002-2008 before ticking up slightly in 2009. When data from 2010, an El Nino year, becomes available it is expected to challenge 1998 (also an El Nino year) for the warmest year on record. Without the El Nino years in the data; the long term upward trend of temperatures is more visible in the data, but more than two decades of data is necessary to see, let along understand global trends.

Global CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as measured from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii where the level of ambient greenhouse gases are measured show an increase of 1.78 parts per million in 2009. The United States CO2 emission growth has been flattening out after the steep growth in the 1990’s and fell slightly during the recession. The CO2 emissions intensity in the United States has declined 28.8% since 1991. Emissions intensity is the measure of the amount of CO2 emitted per dollar of economic output. The key factors in CO2 intensity is the method and efficiency of electricity generation and automobile and truck mileage and emissions.

The climate of the earth is constantly changing on a geological time scale, but the geological record hints that sudden shifts can happen. The controversy over both the science and policy relating to climate change is far from over. Policy mandates to have the United States adopt constraints on fossil fuel energy consumption have changed forms. We now speak of energy independence and fuel efficiency to achieve these goals. According to the US EPA, transportation represents 27% of greenhouse gas emissions. Passenger cars, light trucks and motorcycles represent 62% of the transportation greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are currently finalizing the new millage and emission standards for automobiles and light trucks for model year 2012 through 2016. The EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10014.htm
However, the potential need to utilize coal fired electric plants to meet this requirement may negate the GHG benefits.

Now the administration is looking to continue this trend until 2025 requiring continued improvement of about a 5% per year in average fuel economy from 2016 when they are required to have at least a 35.5 mpg fleet average for vehicles sold in the U.S. Under the new proposals automakers that sell vehicles in the U.S. will have to boost car and light truck fuel economy to an average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 using regulation rather than a direct tax on gasoline to reduce the use of fuel.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4917/12-24-03_CAFE.pdf

Increasing fuel economy by the amount proposed could cost at least $2,100 per vehicle, according to a document prepared last year by the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Representatives of the auto industry claim that the additional costs will be closer to $6,000 per car. The differences are how that cost is estimated and the assumptions made and whether additional safety technology are included in the costs. It is assumed by all sides that this goal can be achieved which is quite frankly amazing. The questions is how much of the automobile fleet will depend on plug-in electric vehicles, the cost of charging equipment, how long we will own our cars in the future, what cost of gasoline will be in the future, how much will the average American drive, and what is the appropriate discount rate. All these factors are incorporated into the projections of the costs to achieve this millage goal. For a good discussion of the calculation see the Consumer Federation of America discussion. http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA-56MPG-by-2025-June-28-2011.pdf

I’m impressed that neither side thinks the task is impossible. That is fairly impressive, the question is how much will it cost and what impact will that cost have on our economy. There seems to be no appreciation by either the EPA or other regulators of the law of dimishing returns and the tendency of ever smaller improvements in gas mileage to cost more and more. Many of the materials needed for fleets of ultra-high mileage vehicles are not produced in enough volume. I think it is fair to say that cars will cost more and we will be poorer, but our gasoline used per mile will decrease and maybe our total gasoline use will decrease while our CO2 intensity is also reduced.

Methane and Global Warming

During the Copenhagen meeting almost unnoticed Robert Watson, the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Mohamed El-Ashry, a senior fellow at the United Nations Foundation along with a group from the scientific and financial communities proposed the creation of a Global Methane Fund. According to this group, targeting methane reduction would be a cost effective and results oriented way to prevent global warming. Methane, one of the "other greenhouse gases," is reportedly responsible for 75% as much warming as carbon dioxide measured over any given 20 years. Unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, methane lasts only a decade so reductions in methane release will see climate results within a decade as the total methane in the atmosphere is reduced. According to NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations, CH4 which absorbs 25 times the heat of CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 1/50 the level of CO2 at 1.8 ppm. Methane levels in the atmosphere have risen for the first time since 1998. This increase was attributed to changes in the permafrost stores of methane.

According to this group if we need to suppress temperature quickly in order to preserve glaciers, reducing methane can make an immediate impact. Compared to the massive requirements necessary to reduce CO2, cutting methane requires only modest investment. This group argues that where they stop methane emissions, cooling follows within a decade, not centuries. Methane amelioration would require non-point source regulation and activity. Methane (CH4) is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Methane comes from a variety of sources: landfills, sewage streams, coal mines, oil and gas drilling operations, agricultural wastes, and cattle farms. In the United States, the largest methane emissions come from the decomposition of wastes in landfills, enteric fermentation in ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock, natural gas and oil systems, and coal mining. Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen as microbial fermentation takes place. Most of the CH4 byproduct is belched by the animal; however, a small percentage of CH4 is also produced in the large intestine and passed out as gas.

According to the US EPA the largest emitters of Methane in the United States in 2007 was enteric fermentation. I kid you not, belching and (please excuse me) farting animals.

U.S. Methane Emissions by Source (TgCO2 Equivalents)

Source Category 2007
Enteric Fermentation 139.0
Landfills 132.9
Natural Gas Systems 104.7
Coal Mining 57.6
Manure Management 44.0

The Global Methane Fund, does not address the release of methane from the permafrost. In an Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal Mr. Watson and Mr. Mohamed El-Ashry state “experience has shown that even with modest incentives, methane projects, which are typically small scale, can move fast.” These two gentlemen suggest the creation of a global fund. It won’t work. Methane results from human, animal and plant waste. Landfills are prodigious methane generators and because they are a point source can easily be harvested to produce biogas electricity. The release of methane from the permafrost is not even considered. Though the model for causation is not worked out nor proven, it is argued that un-combusted methane released into the atmosphere is a powerful greenhouse gas and 10% of our nation's impact on the climate comes from the food refuse that ends up decomposing under landfill, and another 10% comes from the gaseous releases of enteric fermentation.

In a New York Times article by Leslie Kaufman, “Greening the Herds: A New Diet to Cap Gas.” Cow that had their grain feed adjusted to include more plants like alfalfa and flaxseed and less corn produce less methane. This feed is more like the natural grasses that the cows evolved eating. The methane output dropped 18-30% depending on the original feed mix while milk production remained stable. In addition to producing less methane, the cows were observed to be healthier. This study evolved out of research performed by the makers of Danon yogurt in France. Scientists working with Groupe Danone had been studying why their cows were healthier and produced more milk in the spring. The answer, the scientists determined, was that spring grasses are high in Omega-3 fatty acids, which may help the cow’s digestive tract operate smoothly.
.
Corn and soy, the feed that became dominant feed in the agro-industrial dairy industry, has a completely different type of fatty acid structure. As was carefully chronicled in Michael Pollan’s book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” during the past 40 years, our agricultural economy as orchestrated by the Department of Agriculture has created a system of fattening cows using an unnatural feed, corn and soy. Cows are healthier and belch less methane if they are feed a diet similar to one they evolved to eat. This should not be surprising and is a small example of unintended consequences of man trying to bend the earth to our will. Our tools to impact and change remain far more powerful than our wisdom to know the right course of action to take with them. We would be far better off if we could restrain ourselves from wide sweeping actions and $100 billion global investment funds and dip our toes in first to see the results. Try to develop wisdom before we try to manage the natural cycles of the earth, and instead follow the earth’s lead. Concentrate our global funds on teaching sustainable farming, sanitation, and providing fresh water .

Copenhagen Final

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen closed on Friday December 18th 2009 without an agreement. The conference in Copenhagen, the 15th conference of parties (COP15) failed. The parties of the UNFCCC met for the last time before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and failed to hammer out a new agreement to prevent or stop climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto Protocol requires emissions cuts from developed countries that ratified it. The new accord does nothing and the Kyoto Protocol was made irrelevant by not including the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China, India and the US.

Now, China has proven that we of the United States are becoming increasingly irrelevant. We are only useful for the money we should be paying as retribution for having once been the major industrial power. We are a far less rich nation than we used to be and are rapidly spending our way to insolvency. The Copenhagen conference ended Saturday saying "the majority of countries" showed support for a U.S. negotiated political agreement without clout or consequences. China was clearly in control of the process. U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders of major emerging economies including China, India, Brazil and South Africa met late Friday to hammer out some sort of agreement. Apparently, the President and Secretary Clinton thought they were meeting with China alone and found themselves faced with representatives of all the emerging economies.

Only with Chinas approval was an accord hammered out. The Copenhagen accord set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times and reiterated a goal of rich nations to jointly mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. However, no details were provided as to exactly how such a target would be achieved or where that money would come from. A proposed 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 that had been in earlier drafts was removed. There are no consequences to failure to meet the goals. The U.N. climate conference agreed to "take note" of the Copenhagen accord, as the agreement is known. The accord was not formally approved so that no one is required to comply with the agreement.

With the accord in place emissions of carbon dioxide will continue rising rapidly beyond current level. Total atmospheric CO2 is currently 386 part per million. China, which emits 30% MORE CO2 per year than the US will continue to grow their economy unhindered by any aspects of the Copenhagen accord. China and the other developing nations have promised nothing. At the heart of the disputes in Copenhagen was money and economic strength. The poorest nations wanted a large pot of money (with no strings attached) to compensate them and pay for whatever programs they saw fit to support. China and India agreed to allow their emissions to continue to grow with no target to cut greenhouse gases. Our wants and desires for capping or reducing carbon emissions are irrelevant.

Copenhagen

The United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7th and 18th 2009. The conference in Copenhagen is the 15th conference of parties (COP15) in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the conference in Copenhagen the parties of the UNFCCC meet for the last time before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and intend to hammer out a new agreement to prevent or stop climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto Protocol requires emissions cuts from developed countries that ratified it. The US did not ratify Kyoto. China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, is exempt from the Kyoto because it is classified as a developing nation. India is also exempt.

Even if the stated goals of the conference are all met, emissions of carbon dioxide will continue rising rapidly beyond current level. Total atmospheric CO2 is currently 386 part per million. Most future carbon emissions will not come from the currently industrialized world, but from the emerging economies, especially China, which emits 30% MORE CO2 per year than the US. China, has not promised to cut actual emissions. China and the other developing nations have promised only to cut their carbon "intensity," meaning emissions per unit of GDP.

True, China's CO2 per capita is only a quarter of the U.S. emissions rate. But warming (if caused by CO2 emissions) doesn't come from emissions per capita, it comes from total emissions. With 10% annual growth in China's economy, a 4% cut in intensity is actually a 6% annual increase in emissions. China is framing the negotiations in Copenhagen as a referendum on the developed nation’s responsibility for past emissions.
At the heart of the disputes in Copenhagen is money and economic growth and strength. The poorest nations want a large pot of money to compensate them and pay for adaption to climate change. China and India want to agree to allow their emissions to continue to grow at 6% per year and have the developed nations cut emission by significant amounts while paying retribution. This will result in crippling of the western economies as demonstrated by the experience of California, a leader in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

California which represents 20% of the US economy has demonstrated the costs to an economy of cutting emissions with their passage of AB 32 which established a comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that were intended to be cost effective. This law established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions. California has lead the way in cap and trade legislation and serves as an example to the nation of the concerns and problems with this particular approach to attempt to prevent climate change by controlling CO2 emissions.

In a recent report by Sanjay Varshney, of California State University, Sacramento and Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D., Director, Center for Small Business, California State University, Sacramento, titled “Cost of AB 32 on California Small Business-Summary Report of Findings,” the financial impacts to the economy and people of California to implement California’s greenhouse gas program was outlined.

The report concluded that result would be approximately a 10% loss in total gross state output. This will translate into nearly 1.1 million lost jobs in California which represents about 6% of the state labor force. The study also found that in order to cope with the increased costs generated by the AB 32 program, consumers will be forced to cut their discretionary spending by 26.2%, to cover the increased costs of necessary goods and services. The study’s cost analysis was based on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) findings, which revealed significant cost increases. The study’s findings are consistent with the Peer Review analysis that CARB commissioned, which also concluded that the cost of the AB 32 Scoping Plan would be significant, and that the California Resource Board had significantly underestimated these costs.

In a global economy having the developed nations agree to cut greenhouse gases while the developing nations are allowed to continue to grow their emission will not result in any amelioration of the increase in greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, the production of CO2 will just moves out of the country along with the economic activity that is producing the emissions making the developed nations poorer. The wealth will be transferred to the developing world. We as a nation are currently spending much more money than we have; there is not enough money to pay for our current programs let alone any future programs. Strangling our economy to drastically cut emissions of CO2 will not save the earth and will become increasingly irrelevant as the Chinese and other developing economies ellipse the US.