Tag Archives: carbon dioxide

[NEWS] Ethanol From Carbon Dioxide Is Still A Losing Proposition

– by Robert Rapier, October 27, 2016, Energy Trends Insider

ethanol_co2_mashable

(Photo: Mashable)

Earlier this month a research paper was published by the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) called “High-Selectivity Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 to Ethanol using a Copper Nanoparticle/N-Doped Graphene Electrode.” The paper reports on some truly interesting science, and the researchers were measured and cautious in their conclusions.

But something got lost in translation as media outlets sought to portray this as a “holy grail,” “game changer,” “major breakthrough” or “solution to climate change.” The benefits, one story said, were unimaginable. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the press release from the Department of Energy was titled Scientists Accidentally Turned CO2 Into Ethanol.

Read more

[NEWS] Study: Biofuels Increase Net Carbon Emissions

– by John Raphael, August 26, 2016, Nature World News

biofuels_green_cab

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A new study revealed that that the increasing biofuel use in the U.S. has led to the net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, despite previous studies suggesting that biofuel is carbon neutral.

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, debunked all previous carbon footprint models based on lifecycle analysis that were used to develop the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which resulted to the expansion of biofuel use over the past decade. These carbon footprint models showed that crop-based biofuels offer at least modest net greenhouse gas reductions relative to petroleum fuels.

Read more

Washington Trash Incinerator May Have to Cut Carbon Emissions

– by Arlene Karidis, January 27, 2016, Waste Dive

7044bda3db780140c321a5110a087ff5

Photo: Waste Dive

The city of Spokane, WA will need to cut carbon emissions from its waste-to-energy (WTE) plant by 5% every three years beginning in 2017 if new state rules pass — unless the city offsets its emissions through other practices such as stepping up recycling or buying credits from other polluters with carbon emissions that are below state requirements.

The state rules — developed under Washington’s Clean Air Act under the direction of Gov. Jay Inslee — would apply to facilities that release more than 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually. In 2020, the compliance threshold would drop by 5,000 metric tons every three years until it reaches 70,000 metric tons in 2035. The city has asked the Department of Ecology for flexibility in meeting the proposed rule’s expectations.

The $110 million plant was launched in 1991 to replace a leaking landfill and help protect the area’s sole source of drinking water for more than 500,000 residents. But it has become one of Washington’s top sources of greenhouse gases, releasing more than 105,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2014.

Read more

Burlington, Vermont Ignores Biomass Emissions

– by Josh Schlossberg, March 29, 2013

It’s good news that IBM is helping Burlington, Vermont lower its impact on the climate. [“IBM Wants to Help Burlington Reduce Its Carbon Footprint,” Seven Days, March 27]. Unfortunately, the city’s refusal to fix glaring errors in its Climate Action Plan prevents an honest look at Burlington’s actual contributions to runaway global climate change.

The Burlington Climate Action Plan reports the entire city’s carbon dioxide emissions for 2007—from all sources—at 397,272.4 tons. Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculates the CO2 emissions of McNeil’s Generating Station alone—the 50 megawatt biomass incinerator supplying roughly one-third of the city’s electricity—at 444,646 tons per year. A closer look reveals that the city only counted 2% of McNeil’s emissions from the 30 cords of wood it burns per hour from New York and Vermont forests along with a varying percentage of natural gas (including fracked gas).

In a May 2012 email to the city, William Keeton, Professor of Forest Ecology and Forestry Chair at UVM’s Rubenstein School, wrote that “we cannot assume biomass energy to be emissions neutral,” recommending that Burlington acknowledge “the high likelihood of net positive emissions during the near term so critical for avoiding irreversible high magnitude climate change.”

In a September 2012 blog post350 Vermont urged Burlington to account for the “actual carbon dioxide smokestack emissions from the McNeil Station for the wood and gas burned, as calculated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

It’s very possible for Burlington to emerge as a leader in the fight against climate change. But how can we reduce our future carbon footprint if we won’t even acknowledge our current one?