Recently in Breakthroughs Category

by Dennis Posadas Coal is cheap and plentiful. Unlike oil, majority of which is controlled by OPEC states, coal can be found in many areas of the world, including the Philippines. As such, it has formed a significant portion of electric power generated worldwide, despite recent inroads by nuclear and renewable energy. Majority of those coal plants belch CO2 into the atmosphere, which is why NASA chief climate scientist Jim Hansen and many other experts say publicly that there should be a moratorium on the building of coal plants worldwide. Last April, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that six greenhouse gases were a threat to human health and welfare. Chief among the six greenhouse gases was carbon dioxide (CO2). One of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world is the electric power industry, particularly those that operate coal plants. The US alone emits around a billion-and-a-half tons of CO2 annually from electric power generation through coal. Try telling that to fast growing China and India, or the US. Or even to developing economies around the world like the Philippines. This needs to be discussed widely, because frankly, while clean energy is a great topic for discussion, there are still technical and economic issues in getting from where we are now to the point where we can replace coal totally. Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, one of the largest electric utilities in the US, said in an interview in an episode of 60 Minutes (a popular U.S. television show) earlier this year, that Hansen’s proposal to stop the building of new coal plants cannot be done. While Rogers was one of the first electric utility CEOs who used coal plants to acknowledge the problem of global warming from coal, he says that the industry will arrive at a solution, but not at the pace that Hansen is recommending. When asked if his company had already made the investments towards so called clean coal technology, he said that they are in the process of studying the alternatives. In reality, clean coal technology is really a way to capture the CO2 and store it underground. The technical term for the technology is called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). One way to implement CCS is to pass the CO2 emission through a group of compounds called amines. This mixture is then pumped about one kilometer deep underground, into rock formations which have a lot of cracks that can absorb the mixture. The intense pressure underground causes the CO2 to liquefy, where it is hoped that the CO2 will stay underground forever. The solid form of CO2 is dry ice, which most of us have seen. But the long-term effectiveness of CCS is still unknown. If despite the expense to implement, it will still leak CO2 into the atmosphere, then the exercise will be a gargantuan waste of resources. There are a limited number of sites around the world that have built CCS facilities but a study on the long term effectiveness of CCS has yet to be conducted. A coal expert who I spoke to, but declined to be identified surmised that one possible scenario is a leak caused by an earthquake in the vicinity, although he said that it was a hypothesis. Aside from this, the scale of CCS is mindboggling. Unlike the nuclear power industry which can take nuclear wastes and store it in distant centralized repositories like Yucca Mountain in the US, each coal plant will need to have access to a CCS facility nearby. The US alone emits more than a billion- and-a-half tons of CO2 a year, not counting China and India, which gives an idea of the undertaking. In the end, it could all boil down to costs. In 2004, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released a study called "The Future of Coal" which discussed the outlook for CCS technology. It estimated that to make CCS competitive, carbon emissions will have to be charged at around $30/ton. Recently, the US House of Representatives, through the Democrat sponsored Waxman-Markey bill, looks like it has arrived at a compromise, but will this be enough to justify CCS in new coal plants? Even if the US signs a treaty in Copenhagen later this year, it will be very hard to get private industry to support CCS if the economics doesn’t make sense. At this point theoretically CCS looks like a way to make coal a potentially non-environmentally threatening energy source. However, unless the technology and economics is brought up to speed and more research is done, it will remain simply a public relations tool brought up by the coal industry to fend off attacks against it for the moment.  _____ Dennis Posadas is the Editor of Cleantech Asia Online, a newly launched site devoted to opinions and insights about the Asia cleantech economy. He is also the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

By Anna Valmero Inquirer.net History saw the waning and waxing of the campaign for environmentalism. Today more than ever, green consciousness has grabbed the attention of different industries worldwide. Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is one of the agents that called the attention of every citizen about the human impact on the environment. The film presented the doom that might happen to the Earth and those that live in it if global warming continues at an unabated rate. According to the film’s website, at least 279 species of plants and animals are already affected by global warming that has started moving closer to the poles. Moreover, the flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. Both scenarios can impact the environment in terms of displacing other populations of plants and animals in their natural home or habitats, which might cause extinction and break nature’s balance. This can be related to the so-called butterfly effect: “A butterfly flapping its wings in one place can, in principle, alter the subsequent weather pattern in a distant place.” Today, big industry players in every industry wants to take part in the issue and announced plans to lower carbon footprints and help curb the inconvenient effects of global warming. However, this fight to reduce carbon dioxide is a fight everyone is part of. To begin, knowing the essential about the issue is key. A feverish planet Carbon footprint measures the impact of human activities on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, specifically the units of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is found in the air humans and other animals exhale, which is then used by plants in the process of manufacturing food. Carbon dioxide is one of the gases in the air that traps helpful sun radiation to help maintain the earth’s temperature and make it viable to life in the process called greenhouse effect. Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis At present, however, the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions exceed the normal rates, according to the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus, the earth now traps more heat because the greenhouses become so thick that the sun’s radiation cannot escape the atmosphere. Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis:”

While many factors continue to influence climate, scientists have determined that human activities have become a dominant force, and are responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years. Human-caused climate change has resulted primarily from changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also from changes in small particles (aerosols), as well as from changes in land use, for example. As climate changes, the probabilities of certain types of weather events are affected. For example, as Earth’s average temperature has increased, some weather phenomena have become more frequent and intense (e.g., heat waves and heavy downpours), while others have become less frequent and intense (e.g., extreme cold events).

Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis Green war Think about this. You can contribute to increasing the planet’s carbon footprint when you go to work and ride your car, when you buy new clothes, or when you leave the TV on even if someone is not watching it. Power consumption can directly affect global warming. Take the whole process involved to produce food -- from planting, harvesting, packaging and delivery, until the time you purchase it and throw the leftover. This involves carbon. Each process uses power, which primarily is derived from coal that emits huge chunks of greenhouse gases. As of now, there has been initiatives to use renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal) to replace the use of fossil fuels. Industries form groups that will enable them to help address Today, the earth’s temperature is increasing beyond normal levels as shown by Figure 3 from IPCC’s report. That shouldn’t make you wonder why we are having hotter temperatures and erratic weather, more so in the metro, where heavy smog usually floats above the commercials buildings. As an appointed steward of this planet, what can you do to help reduce your carbon footprint? Let’s voice our thoughts for a greener Earth! SOURCES: An Inconvenient Truth Web site. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ Le Treut, et al. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis” Retrieved: September 25, 2008. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf Bindoff, Nathaniel, et al. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis” Retrieved: September 25, 2008. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf