For the first time, an inventory of the largest stationary greenhouse gas emitters in the United States has made been made publicly available. On Wednesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the first-ever inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from large polluters. The inventory, which catalogs the 2010 direct emissions of the 6,700 largest stationary emitters across nine industrial sectors, shows that nearly three-quarters of industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted by power plants. When the emissions generated by the second-largest stationary source, oil and gas refineries, are added to that figure, 78% of GHGs can be contributed to those two segments of the fossil fuel sector.

Related posts:

• Biofuels from Algae Generate High Levels of Greenhouse Gases
• CO2 Pact in Eastern U.S. Has Funded Large Investments in Efficiency
• Greenhouse Gas Permitting System Powers Forward
• EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements
• Can Farming Be Carbon Friendly?

The increased use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the production of refrigerators, air conditioners, and other products could play a significant role in accelerating global warming, a new UN report warns.

Without stricter regulations, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report says, the projected emissions of HFCs by 2050 could equal pouring nearly 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — or about one-third of current CO2 emissions.

While introduced in the 1990s to replace ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HFCs are also potent greenhouse gases — about 1,600 times more powerful in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

And with the increase in world population and the continued growth of emerging economies, annual consumption of HFCs has doubled over the last decade to about 400,000 tons, according to the UNEP report.

The most common type of HFC increased 10 percent annually from 2006 to 2010. “Without intervention, the increase in HFC emissions is projected to offset much of the climate benefit achieved by the earlier reduction in [ozone-depleting substances],” the report says.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Rising Use of Refrigerants Poses Severe Global Warming Threat
• China, India and Brazil Block Effort to Use Ozone Treaty for Climate Protection
• Stratospheric Pollution Is Slowing Global Warming, Study Says
• Concern About Global Warming Continues to Drop, Poll Shows
• Climate Change Skeptic Changes Stance and Calls for Action

Yesterday, a ceremony was held in Lubmin, Germany to inaugurate the Nord Stream gas pipeline, connecting natural gas in Russia to Western Europe. The new pipeline is unique in that it goes directly to Germany from Russia without passing through any other country. The pipeline runs along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, past the coasts of Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. The inauguration event is being highly touted by the respective governments. In attendance are Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, and EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger.

The Nord Stream pipeline is 1,220 kilometers (760 miles), linking the city of Vyborg, Russia which is 130 km northwest of St. Petersburg, to Greifswald, Germany, directly north of Berlin. It cost about 7.4 billion Euros ($10.2 billion) and is capable of delivering 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year. The project was championed by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, who is now the chairman of the Nord Stream shareholders’ committee.

Nord Stream will connect with the German grid through the OPAL pipeline which covers Eastern Germany, and the still-under-construction NEL pipeline which services Western Germany. The Nord Stream actually has two parallel lines which can each deliver 27.5 billion cubic meters annually. The second line is set to be completed in 2012. The possibility still exists for constructing a third parallel line, but only if it is commercially viable.

At the present, the new pipeline has received orders to deliver about 22 billion cubic meters per year, less than half its capacity. While this may concern some investors who would like to see a quicker return on their investment, it is not uncommon for such huge projects. According to Vladimir Feygin, president of the Russian Institute for Energy and Finance, pipelines like the Nord Stream are built for their long term contracts. The pipeline will be able to increase output if and when it is necessary.

According to Matthias Warnig, managing director of the German-Russian gas pipeline consortium, it would take between 14 and 15 years to recoup the expense if the pipeline operates at full capacity. At less than half capacity, it may take much longer.

Environmentalists are on the fence in approving/disapproving the project. Gas is a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases when burned, but in far less quantity than other fossil fuels like coal. For this reasons, groups like Greenpeace are in favor of it. The greater concern is the ecological impact the pipeline may have in the Baltic Sea. Environmental planning and monitoring were done by Nord Stream to the tune of over 100 million Euro ($138 million). Nonetheless, the pipeline will have an impact on the fragile benthic ecosystem of the Baltic.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• North Korean Leader Supports Russian Natgas Pipeline to South Korea
• China Winning the Race for Central Asia’s Energy Riches
• Russia Builds Floating Nuclear Plant – Is This Safe?
• Colombian Farmers Sue BP Over Long-Term Effects of Oil Pipeline
• Tar Sands Pipeline Passes Key Hurdle as Protests Continue

Most of the country and many around the world are focused on the debate on the debt ceiling and various budget cuts that will be enacted. However, lying just beneath the surface, are a labyrinth of Congressional bills that attack the environment and America’s push for renewable energy.

There is a tremendous need for comprehensive energy and environmental policy in the U.S. We need to have an open and honest debate, but in the current political environment, such debate is impossible. It is clear that Republicans, especially those on the far right, turn a blind eye when it comes to energy and the environment. Ideology and politics have supplanted doing what is right for the American public of this generation and future generations to come.

Take for example, HR 2584, sponsored by Representative Michael Simpson (R – Idaho). This is an appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and the EPA for fiscal year 2012. According to Congressman Dicks (D – Washington), between the cuts enacted for FY 2011 and the proposed cuts for FY 2012, the EPA’s budget would be cut by approximately 34%. That amount of cuts is enough to turn some heads. Republicans argue that it is to “rein in unparalleled, out-of-control spending and job-killing overregulation by the EPA.”

HR 2584 severely limits the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases for a one year period; blocks Clean Air Act regulations of the cement industry; prohibits funding for the EPA to develop or finalize a new greenhouse gas standard for automobiles after the 2016 model year; prohibits funding for the EPA to regulate certain levels of particulate matter in the air under the Clean Air Act; directs an additional $55 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies; opens up uranium mining in lands next to the Grand Canyon; and prohibits the EPA from changing or supplementing guidance or rules related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

The above is just a sample of the ridiculous nature of this bill and how senseless Republicans have become. I am not sure about you, but I like clean water, clean air, and the beautiful Grand Canyon. Regardless of party affiliation, I think we can all agree on that. Reducing government interference is great in concept, but sometimes, the free market will not act in the best interest of the people. Preserving and enhancing our environment so that we and future generations can enjoy is, I think, something we can all believe in and strive for.

While not as egregious as HR 2584, HR 2354, sponsored by Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R – New Jersey) makes cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy. More importantly, is the stark difference between the budget for fossil energy research and development (476,993,000) and the budget for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) (100,000,000). Although ARPA-E’s budget was increased, efforts to shift funds from fossil energy research to ARPA-E were blocked. It seems clear that Republicans have no concept of where our energy priorities should be.

Republicans have become, thanks to the far right, too ideological, too far out of the mainstream, and unwilling to enter into a common sense debate on energy and the environment. The party has made it clear that cooperation or compromise is not in their blood.

Related posts:

• Jon Stewart and Steven Chu tell the woeful tale of Cap’n Trade
• Two Worthwhile Pieces on Sustainability to Make You Think
• Solar Panels Get a Touch of Color
• Video: Too Dirty For College
• House Republicans And The Never-Ending Stream Of Climate Nonsense

Fast action on certain pollutants such as black carbon, ground-level ozone and methane may help limit near term global temperature rise and significantly increase the chances of keeping temperature rise below 3.6 degrees F. Protecting the near-term climate is central to significantly cutting the risk of amplified global climate change linked with rapid and extensive loss of Arctic ice on both the land and at sea, said assessment authors including Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate and atmospheric scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

The findings, released on June 15 in Bonn, Germany, during a meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have been compiled by an international team of more than 50 researchers chaired by Drew Shindell of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Ramanathan is organizing a related briefing today in Washington, D.C., for several federal agencies on how to reduce emissions of global warming pollutants such as carbon dioxide, black carbon and ozone and prevent human deaths from traditional biomass burning cook stoves in developing nations.

Big cuts in emissions of black carbon will improve respiratory health. Close to 2.5 million premature deaths from outdoor air pollution could on average be avoided annually worldwide by 2030 with many of those lives saved being in Asia, it is estimated.

Big cuts in ground level ozone could also contribute to reduced crop damage equal to between 1 to 4 percent of the annual global maize, rice, soybean and wheat production.

Cutting these so-called short-lived climate forcers can have immediate climate, health and agricultural benefits, the report concludes. This is because, unlike carbon dioxide (CO2) which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, black carbon for example persists only for days or weeks.

The researchers, however, also underline the fact that while fast action on black carbon and ground-level ozone could play a key role in limiting near-term climate, immediate and sustained action to cut back CO2 is crucial if temperature rises are to be limited over the long-term.

It is the combination of action on short-lived climate forcers and long-lived greenhouse gases which improves the chances of keeping below the 2-degree target throughout the 21st century.

Black carbon is a major component of soot and is formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, wood and biomass. Key sources include emissions from cars and trucks, cookstoves, forest fires and some industrial facilities. It affects the climate by intercepting and absorbing sunlight and darkens snow and ice when deposited, while also influencing cloud formation.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography have previously stated that soot and other forms of black carbon could cause as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2.

The troposphere extends from the surface of the Earth to between 10 and 18 kilometers above the surface of the Earth and consists of many layers. Ozone is more concentrated above the mixing layer, or ground layer. Ground-level ozone, though less concentrated than ozone aloft, is more of a problem because of its health effects.

Tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas and initiates the chemical removal of methane and other hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. Thus, its concentration affects how long these compounds remain in the air.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Deforestation in Boreal Region Has Net Cooling Effect, Study Says
• Stratospheric Pollution Is Slowing Global Warming, Study Says
• Climate Change: A ‘Fair and Balanced’ Look
• Recession Puts U.S. Halfway to Emissions Goal
• Coal or Natural Gas, Climate Effects

James Bond would probably prefer that they were mounted in the grill but how about laser spark plugs under the hood? The Optical Society (OSA) has announced that researchers from Japan’s National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS) will present their research on the development of laser spark plugs for internal combustion engines at the 2011 Conference on Lasers and Electro Optics (CLEO) May 1 – 6 in Baltimore, Maryland. By igniting the fuel-air mixture of internal combustion engines more efficiently, laser spark plugs will reduce the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency explains: “Nitrogen oxides contribute to acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer and have detrimental effects on health. They are also greenhouse gases. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the eight substances for which the government has established an air quality standard as part of its national Air Quality Strategy.”

Nitrogen oxides are formed from the combustion of carbon fuels, primarily from the creation of energy at electric plants and in transportation. Nitrogen oxides contribute to a bevy of problems including acid rain, smog, climate change, global warming, and health concerns. Increasing the level of fine particulate matter in the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides add to the level of respiratory disease in all ages but particularly impact children and the elderly. Additionally, nitrogen oxides are cited as a cause of the deterioration of the quality of scenic vistas at National Parks in the United States and other views around the world.

Not only do nitrogen oxides impact human and animal health but also plant life. Numerous species including quaking aspen, eastern white pine, and flowering dogwood are sensitive to the pollution. By changing water and soil chemistry, nitrogen oxide emissions lead to fish kills and reduce tree growth. (EDF)

The invention of the spark plug dates back over 150 years. Names on early patents include Nikola Tesla and Robert Bosch. The essential design ignites the fuel mixture at one end of an engine cylinder and the efficiency of the reaction reduces as it travels the length of the cylinder. Traditional spark plugs become less efficient over time. Laser spark plugs should be able to spark more rapidly, thereby increasing fuel efficiency.

The NINS researchers consider their laser technology to be highly promising. Thus far no production vehicles are being equipped with laser spark plugs. The NINS researchers are said to be “working with a large spark-plug company and with DENSO Corporation, a member of the Toyota Group.” (OSA)

Related posts:

• Thorium Lasers: The Thoroughly Plausible Idea for Nuclear Cars
• Lab Uses Laser to Create Clouds
• San Francisco Plugs-In at City Hall
• Imagine If All Cars Were Electric Cars
• NASA Map Illustrates Height of Global Forest Canopies

As we look for ways to reduce our dependence on finite oil reserves that emit greenhouse gases and cause climate change, the solutions will come in varied forms.

One company that is researching a novel way to turn waste into electricity is Plasma2Energy, a Texas-based technology company whose patented process can convert one ton of waste into 2200kWh of electricity, nearly three times the standard conversion rate of 815 kWh. That would be enough to power 1,400 homes in Texas, the company claims.

Plasma2Energy says its patented technology can also turn one ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) an hour to 3.14 barrels of crude oil. Considering the U.S. generates 251 million tons of trash per year and half of it ends up in landfills, then we can see we’re wasting a huge untapped source of energy.

Energy Refuge caught up with Teo Tijerina, Plasma2Energy’s vice president, and Rodolfo Sanchez, the company’s CEO, to find out more about the company’s technology whereby waste can become energy.

ER: You call your process ‘plasma gasification’ – what is it exactly?
P2E: Plasma gasification is a waste to energy process that converts organic (carbon-based) waste into a syngas that can be used to make electricity or other products. Plasma gasification is different than combustion or incineration. Combustion (burning) uses oxygen to release energy from matter, while plasma gasification does not.

Traditional plasma gasification technology uses an electric arc or electric torch as the main component. A gas is passed through the high voltage arc, creating a plasma which is an ionized gas at very high temperatures. At these very high temperatures, the waste breaks up into its basic elemental components and is thus “gassified.” The free carbons react with oxygen to form Carbon Monoxide (CO) and free Hydrogens react with each other to form a Hydrogen molecule (H2). These two molecules become the main components of syngas.

Traditional plasma gasification technologies do not work well when water is present, so waste has to be dried before entering the reactor. Second, generating a high voltage to create a plasma field requires a lot of electricity; hence, the net electric gain is compromised. While plasma gasification technology has been around for decades, the economics do not yield positive ROI. Thus, it has been limited to specific industrial applications. As a solution to municipal waste, communities with a high cost of land or those that wish to subsidize the capital and operational requirements can justify investing into traditional plasma gasification technology.

Plasma2Energy utilizes a proprietary and patented technology that generates plasma using an entirely different approach. We use microwave radiation to form plasma from waste. The water contained in the waste, or injected water if necessary, is superheated and reacts with ionized carbon and hydrogen to create CO and H2 (syngas).

The use of microwave radiation to generate plasma and the subsequent reaction with water are the key differentiators in how Plasma2Energy is able to deliver a process that consumes very little electricity to operate and converts more of the waste into syngas than the traditional electric arc or electric torch technology.

ER: What is the economic impact of building plasma gasification plants at landfills?
P2E: The economic impact is across several areas. First, our process creates value out of waste. A municipality that consumes the electricity produced will see many savings on their utility bill, and the total annual operating cost of generating those savings is low enough to justify a payback over time. With our technology, a municipality does not have to worry about “subsidizing” the plant. Second, a community saves tipping fees, and these can vary between $20 / ton – $80 / ton depending on the location. These tipping fees are charged by operators of landfills to pay for land, labor, and operations expenses. In the case where municipality owns the landfill, a waste to energy plant also extends the life of the landfill because it reduces or can eliminate the amount of annual waste into the landfill. Building new landfills are very expensive. In addition, even after landfills are closed, there are ongoing maintenance expenses and environmental liability concerns.

Another benefit is the inorganic (non-carbon based) waste, such as glass, dirt, metals, is a byproduct of the Plasma2Energy process which is inert, and can be used in construction materials. In addition, there are also job creation benefits. Daily operations of a waste to energy plant requires operators, technicians, engineers, and managers. Job creation has a trickle down effect on the community because of the local suppliers who will engage in business with the waste to energy plant.

Finally, the environmental benefits of plasma gasification over combustion is that CO2 is not created in the case of the former, so there are no harmful contaminants to the atmosphere. Improved environmental conditions also affect the long term health and costs of a municipality.

As a solution to waste, plasma gasification is a winning proposition for municipalities. The barrier to plasma gasification in the past was a high “parasitic” electrical consumption, which resulted in a low net electricity production, and investment dollars that could not be recuperated. Plasma2Energy has solved this problem.

ER: Do these plants have any harmful impact on people and wildlife nearby?
P2E: No, not at all. There are no emissions from the ABA process. If any, all pollutants and toxic elements are recovered in a liquid or solid form.

ER: You say China and Europe are leading the way in this sector. Why is that?
P2E: Europe and Japan have embraced traditional plasma gasification to some extent. This makes sense given their limited land availability and high population density. In terms of China’s recent emergence, China is investing into many different sectors of renewable energy and fuel. This can best be explained by a Government that understands the importance of having multiple sources of energy, and a government that has accumulated many U.S. dollars and is now looking to make investments and to become a technological leader. China appears to have a willingness to take risks on those dollars whereas the U.S. capital markets have moved away from early stage investing.

ER: What contribution can they make to wean us off oil?
P2E: Waste is a form of energy. If the United States can exploit this energy without losing money on it, we now have electricity from a renewable source. This impacts the demand for electricity from oil, which gets us one step closer to oil independence. A recent presentation by Dr. Louis J. Circeo, the Director of Plasma Applications Program at Georgia Tech University, indicated that approximately 5% of the United States’ electricity needs could be supplied by Municipal Solid Waste.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Virgin Plans Flights Using Fuel from Industrial Waste
• Loowatt Toilet Turns Human Poop Into Affordable Power
• Study Finds Efficient Method to Produce Electricity from Waste Heat
• Florida Biorefinery Targets First Waste-to-Fuel Process on Commercial Scale
• LanzaTech Produces Important Chemical Component from Industrial Waste Gases

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee held hearings on climate change yesterday. Ostensibly the hearing was a chance to showcase the state of the science. In reality, it showcased a Republican anti-science ignorance and a complete lack of innovation.

The hearing was convened at the request of Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL). The subcommittee is currently considering a bill that would kill the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

To have a “rounded” view of the science, Republicans invited three skeptics while Democrats invited four scientists who accept manmade climate change.

There was a glimmer of hope in Chairman Ed Whitfield’s (R-KY) opening statement. He talked about how US carbon emissions are lower than China’s. In his mind, this means we have no obligation to act to reduce them since it wouldn’t make a difference globally.

Forget the policy implications of the second part for a minute. Read between the lines of the first and it seems Whitfield tacitly acknowledged that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are causing climate change.

Could we possibly be heading down a road to consensus on the science at least? If only.

Despite Whitman’s implication and similar statements by other Republicans, when presented with the facts about climate change, they consistently flipped to the tired “science isn’t settled enough” argument. Take this quote from Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), referring to dissenting opinions on science: “Just because you might be in the minority doesn’t mean you’re wrong.”

Republicans consistently cited Galileo and Kepler to show that dissent is good for science. And it is. But as Richard Somerville, one of the Democrat’s witnesses, said: “We’ve heard about the Einsteins, Gallileos, and Keplers. They’re extremely rare.”

So let’s break down Republican justification of inaction. First, question how actions by the US could possibly make a difference. Then lash out and ask why act at all since climate change is just a hoax a bunch of scientists have perpetrated. Finally, imply that those that deny climate change are in the rarified air of Galileo.

About That Science…
Earlier this week Waxman said this was the most anti-science Congress ever. Of course Republicans blasted him. Yet when it came time to talk science, Republicans seemed more interested in focusing on policy and “gotcha” questions. So did their two of their witnesses, who included discredited Alabama climatologist John Christy, professor of public health Donald Robertson, and professor Roger Pielke Sr.

Of the three, only Pielke Sr. recused himself from answering policy questions. The other two were more than happy to opine that the IPCC was a scam and that the EPA regulations would hurt the economy. Last I checked that wasn’t part of the job description for state climatologist nor the reason this hearing was convened.

In contrast, none of the four witnesses Democrats invited talked policy. They repeatedly said they were only there to talk about the science.

And on that front, they consistently put forward facts about what the causes and effects of climate change are. More importantly, they used hard data and sound research to back them up.

For example, Chris Fields of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution gave specific information on how a changing climate will decrease crop yields once a temperature threshold is crossed. He likened climate change to “an anchor” on agricultural production. In contrast, Christy could only muster anecdotal evidence that he knows farmers in Alabama “who are getting over 240 bushels of corn per acre.”

That was the story all morning. Yet not a single Republican budged. Instead, at the end of the hearing, Whitfield announced they would move forward on a mark up of the bill to kill the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Rep. Jay Insley (D-WA) lamented that it’s “embarrassing” that the country that put the first man on the moon and mapped the human genome can’t agree on climate change. “One of these parties would not accept science [of climate change] until the Arctic ice sheet melts or hell freezes over,” he said during the hearing.

And it’s sad that that’s where Republicans stand. Republicans are the quickest to crow about American exceptionalism yet the last to exemplify it. During the questioning, some Republicans claimed that limiting emissions would relegate us to a “second tier nation.”

Tell that to European Union countries participating in the carbon market. Tell that to the leaders of China who are investing huge amounts of money in bringing clean energy manufacturers to their country. Tell that to Shi Zhengrong, the first person to make a billion dollars in clean energy or the other two solar billionaires in the world. Where did they do it? In China and Germany of course.

The reality is that to live up to the American exceptionalism Republicans invoke so often, this country needs to lead the world on climate change. If yesterday’s hearing was any sign, though, it’s a steep road to climb. Republican ignorance is only making it steeper.

Article by Brian Kahn, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• House Republicans And The Never-Ending Stream Of Climate Nonsense
• Where is Cap & Trade Legislation Now?
• More Americans Believe Climate is Warming, Poll Finds
• US Chamber of Commerce Wants A Global Warming Trial
• Copenhagen and Health Care Dim Chances for Passage of U.S. Climate Bill

The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.

Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future. But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don’t account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.

The EPA’s new analysis doubles its previous estimates for the amount of methane gas that leaks from loose pipe fittings and is vented from gas wells, drastically changing the picture of the nation’s emissions that the agency painted as recently as April. Calculations for some gas-field emissions jumped by several hundred percent. Methane levels from the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9,000 times higher than previously reported.

When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less.

Even accounting for the new analysis, natural gas—which also emits less toxic and particulate pollution—offers a significant environmental advantage. But the narrower the margins get, the weaker the political arguments become and the more power utilities flinch at investing billions to switch to a fuel that may someday lose the government’s long-term support.

Understanding exactly how much greenhouse gas pollution comes from drilling is especially important, because the Obama administration has signaled that gas production may be an island of common political ground in its never-ending march toward an energy bill. The administration and Congress are seeking not just a steady, independent supply of energy, but a fast and drastic reduction in the greenhouse gases associated with climate change.

Billions of cubic feet of climate-changing greenhouse gases—roughly the equivalent of the annual emissions from 35 million automobiles—seep from loose pipe valves or are vented intentionally from gas production facilities into the atmosphere each year, according to the EPA. Gas drilling emissions alone account for at least one-fifth of human-caused methane in the world’s atmosphere, the World Bank estimates, and as more natural gas is drilled, the EPA expects these emissions to increase dramatically.

When scientists evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources over their full lifecycle and incorporate the methane emitted during production, the advantage of natural gas holds true only when it is burned in more modern and efficient plants.

But roughly half of the 1,600 gas-fired power plants in the United States operate at the lowest end of the efficiency spectrum. And even before the EPA sharply revised its data, these plants were only 32 percent cleaner than coal, according to a lifecycle analysis by Paulina Jaramillo, an energy expert and associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

Now that the EPA has doubled its emissions estimates, the advantages are slimmer still. Based on the new numbers, the median gas-powered plant in the United States is just 40 percent cleaner than coal, according to calculations ProPublica made based on Jaramillo’s formulas. Those 800 inefficient plants offer only a 25 percent improvement.

Other scientists say the pollution gap between gas and coal could shrink even more. That’s in part because the primary pollutant from natural gas, methane, is far more potent than other greenhouse gases, and scientists are still trying to understand its effect on the climate—and because it continues to be difficult to measure exactly how much methane is being emitted.

In November the EPA announced new greenhouse gas reporting rules for the oil and gas industry. For the first time under the Clean Air Act, the nation’s guiding air quality law, thousands of small facilities will have to be counted in the pollution reporting inventory, a change that might also lead to higher measurements.

The natural gas industry, in the meantime, has pressed hard for subsidies and guarantees that would establish gas as an indispensible source of American energy and create a market for the vast new gas reserves discovered in recent years. The industry would like to see new power plants built to run on gas, automobile infrastructure developed to support gas vehicles and a slew of other ambitious plans that would commit the United States to a reliance on gas for decades to come.

But if it turns out that natural gas offers a more modest improvement over coal and oil, as the new EPA data begin to suggest, then billions of dollars of taxpayer and industry investment in new infrastructure, drilling and planning could be spent for limited gain.

“The problem is you build a gas plant for 40 years. That’s a long bridge,” said James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest power companies. Duke generates more than half of its electricity from coal, but Rogers has also been a vocal proponent of cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Rogers worries that a blind jump to gas could leave the country dependent on yet another fossil resource, without stemming the rate of climate change.

“What if, with revelations around methane emissions, it turns out to be only a 10 or 20 percent reduction of carbon from coal? If that’s true,” he said, “gas is not the panacea.”

The American Petroleum Institute said in an e-mailed response that federal offshore drilling rules are already cutting down on the emissions tallied by the government. Spokesmen for the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the natural gas lobbying groups Energy in Depth, American Clean Skies Foundation and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, which have all been pushing to expand the use of gas, declined to comment on the EPA’s new figures and what they mean for the comparison between gas and coal.

But industry groups point out that gas looks attractive compared to the alternatives.

Nuclear energy is less polluting than gas from a climate-changing perspective, but it is costly and viewed skeptically in the United States because of the dangers of disposing of radioactive waste. So-called “clean coal”—including underground carbon sequestration—could work, but the technology has repeatedly stalled, remains unproven, and is at least 15 years away. Renewable sources like wind and solar are being developed rapidly, but the energy is expensive and won’t provide a commanding supply of electricity for decades.

Gas, on the other hand, is plentiful, accessible and local.

Methane Is a Potent Climate Gas

Measuring the amount of natural gas that is leaking during drilling is one challenge. Getting a grip on how that gas—which is mostly methane—affects the environment, and what effect it will have on global warming, is another. And on that, some scientists still disagree.

Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, as well as methane, propane and lesser-known gases that also affect climate change. For the purposes of standardization, all these gases are described together using the unit Co2e, or carbon dioxide “equivalent.” But because each gas has a different potency, or “warming” effect on the atmosphere, a factor is applied to convert it to an equivalent of carbon dioxide.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas and among the more potent greenhouse gases, has far more of an effect on climate change than carbon dioxide. But determining the factor that should be applied to measure its relative warming affect is still being debated.

To crunch its numbers, the EPA calculated the average concentration of methane in the atmosphere over a 100-year period and determined that over that period methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Using that equation, a ton of methane emissions is the equivalent of 21 tons of carbon dioxide.

But some scientists argue that the impact of methane gas should be calculated over a shorter time period, because methane degrades quickly, and because gas drilling releases large quantities of methane into the atmosphere all at once, likely concentrating and amplifying the effect.

Robert Howarth, an environmental biology professor at Cornell University, used research from the United Nations to calculate that if methane’s potency were considered over 20 years rather than 100 years, it would be 72 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in terms of its warming potential.

Figured that way, the climate effect of methane from natural gas would quickly outpace the climate effect of carbon dioxide from burning coal. Howarth’s research is incomplete and has been criticized because at first he failed to figure in methane emissions from coal mining. But he said that after correcting his error, the emissions from coal barely changed, and the data still showed that the intensity of methane could erase the advantages of using natural gas.

“Even small leakages of natural gas to the atmosphere have very large consequences,” Howarth wrote in a March memorandum [2], which he says is a precursor to a more thorough study that could begin to scientifically answer these questions. “When the total emissions of greenhouse gases are considered … natural gas and coal from mountaintop removal probably have similar releases, and in fact natural gas may be worse in terms of consequences on global warming.”

Howarth says his latest calculations show that the type of shale gas drilling taking place in parts of Texas, New York and Pennsylvania leads to particularly high emissions and would likely be just as dirty as coal.

Environmental groups say factual data on how much methane is emitted from gas fields—and what the warming affect of that methane is—should be locked down before major policy decisions are made to shift the nation toward more reliance on gas.

“You can’t just assume away some of these sources as de minimus,” said Tom Singer, a senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council who focuses on emissions reporting in New Mexico. “You need to get a handle on them before you can make a determination.”

Less Pollution Means More Profit

The EPA tracks fugitive and vented methane emissions through a program called Natural Gas STAR and then works to get drilling companies to save money by stanching their leaks and selling the gas they capture for profit. It was a discrepancy in the Gas STAR data that prompted the EPA to sharply revise the government’s greenhouse gas statistics late last year.

According to Gas STAR’s most recent figures, at least 1.6 percent of all the natural gas produced in the United States each year, about 475 billion cubic feet, is assumed to be leaked or vented during production. But those numbers were reported before the EPA adjusted its greenhouse gas estimates, and they are expected to rise when the new estimates are plugged into the calculation. If companies could capture even the gas leaked in Gas STAR’s current estimates, it would be worth $2.1 billion a year at today’s prices and would cut the nation’s emissions by more than 2 percent right off the bat. Several studies show that maintaining and installing equipment to capture the emissions pays for itself within 24 months.

Gas STAR has seen some success in pushing companies to use these capture tools. The EPA’s 2010 greenhouse gas inventory, using 2008 data, shows that even though more gas is being produced from more wells, total emissions from that production have decreased by more than 26 percent since 1990, mostly due to the progress of Gas STAR. But while these figures demonstrate that Gas STAR is effective in lowering the annual rate of emissions, the EPA’s new figures essentially move the starting point, and, when recalculated, 2008 emissions are now understood to have been 53 percent higher than emissions in 1990.

That doesn’t mean the program isn’t working—it is. It simply means that the road to making reductions significant enough to affect the rate of climate change is much longer than expected.

The EPA now reports that emissions from conventional hydraulic fracturing are 35 times higher than the agency had previously estimated. It also reports that emissions from the type of hydraulic fracturing being used in the nation’s bountiful new shale gas reserves, like the Marcellus, are almost 9,000 times higher than it had previously calculated, a figure that begins to correspond with Robert Howarth’s research at Cornell.

Clean Enough to Count On?

Getting a solid estimate of the total lifecycle emissions from natural gas is critical not only to President Obama’s­­—and Congress’–decisions about the nation’s energy and climate strategy, but also to future planning for the nation’s utilities.

Even small changes in the lifecycle emissions figures for gas would eventually affect policy and incentives for the utility industry, and ultimately make a big difference in how gas stacks up against its alternatives.

Rogers, the Duke executive, says the country’s large promised reserves of natural gas must also hold up for gas to prove beneficial, in terms of both cost and climate. If domestic reserves turn out to be smaller than predicted, or the nation runs out of gas and turns to liquefied gas imported from overseas, then the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas would be almost equal to coal, Jaramillo pointed out in her 2007 lifecycle analysis, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology [3]. That’s because the additional processing and shipping of liquefied gas would put even more greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere.

“In the 60’s we put a needle in one arm—it was called oil,” Rogers said. “If the shale gas doesn’t play out as predicted, and we build a lot of gas plants in this country, and we don’t drill offshore, we’re going to be putting the needle in the other arm and it’s going to be called gas.”

The utilities are in a bind because they have to build new power plants to meet the nation’s demand for energy, while anticipating an as-yet-undefined set of federal climate and emissions regulations that they believe are inevitable. Do they build new gas-fired plants, which can cost $2 billion and take three years to bring online? Or do they wait for proven systems that can capture carbon from coal-fired plants and sequester it underground?

If carbon sequestration works, coal-based power emissions could drop by 90 percent, said Nick Akins, president of American Electric Power, the nation’s largest electric utility and the number-one emitter of greenhouse gas pollution. That suggests to Akins that natural gas may not be the solution to the nation’s energy needs, but rather the transitional fuel that bridges the gap to cleaner technologies.

“Going from a 100 percent CO2 emitter to a 50 percent solution when you could go beyond that is something we need to turn our attention to,” said Akins. “If there is a 90 percent solution for coal, and other forms like nuclear, and renewables, then obviously you want to push in that direction as well.”

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten, appearing courtesy ProPublica.

Related posts:

• New EPA Report: US Emissions Down, Still a Need to Act on Climate Change
• Coal or Natural Gas, Climate Effects
• SEC Loosening of Rule Let Natural Gas Firms Recalculate Reserves, Potential Profits
• Natural Gas Boom to Slow Growth of U.S. Renewables, Report Says
• Can Insurers Help Climate Change Adaptation?

Texans are proud of a lot of things, but the state’s air quality isn’t one of them. That makes it doubly bizarre that Governor Rick Perry is so determined to stop the EPA from requiring big polluters to conform to the Clean Air Act.

Texas industries produce more toxic mercury pollution, more smog, and more greenhouse gases than any other state. And although Texas is a very big state, it’s not so big that its air pollution doesn’t affect its neighbors. Just ask the folks across the Red River in Oklahoma how they feel about Texas coal plants.

Last week, Rick Perry’s administration lost in court for a third time as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected its request to stop the EPA from issuing Clean Air Act permits for CO2 emissions.

The Supreme Court had already ruled that carbon pollution is covered under Clean Air Act. And, as of this month, big greenhouse gas-emitting sites like coal plants and cement kilns must start accounting for CO2 when they apply for a Clean Air Act permit for new facilities or major renovations.

Contrary to what Governor Perry and others are saying, that doesn’t mean the federal government wants to run roughshod over state governments. The EPA would actually prefer that the individual states handle the permitting programs. But in those few cases where the states aren’t ready to do that, the EPA is obliged to step in. Of all the states, only Texas has both refused to take responsibility and also demanded that no one else take responsibility either.

You’d think Lisa Jackson was demanding to install solar panels on the Alamo. You know, almost eight percent of the energy generated in Texas comes from wind power — a figure that’s expected to almost double by 2015. If all this hot air about the “overreaching” EPA keeps blowing, that figure could triple!

Fortunately, now that the way is clear for the EPA to assume responsibility for protecting the air in Texas, businesses can start planning how they will comply with the Clean Air Act rather than being stuck in a legal limbo. And, with luck, millions of Texans (and their neighbors) will be able to breathe a little easier as the worst polluters in the state either clean up or shut down.

Article by Michael Brune, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Duke Energy Announces Wind Farm for Willacy County in Texas
• Wind Power in Texas Begins to Reduce Electricity Costs
• Here’s A Reason to Care About Climate Change: It Could Ruin Texas Football
• Record Wind Generation Tests Texas’s Transmission System
• Start Saving Money by Leasing Solar Energy