Ear To The Ground

U.S. Chamber & National Association of Auto Dealers file petition with D.C. Circuit to overturn Calilfornia vehicle GHG waiver; major companies withdraw from Chamber in protect over opposition to climate change legislation

As noted in prior posts, in May the Obama Administration overturned the Bush Administration denial of California’s request to implement its own GHG standards for automobiles.  As part of the arrangement, EPA agreed to issue its own regulations modeled after California’s, and California agreed to take steps to ensure that compliance with the EPA standards constituted compliance with California’s standards.  Thus, the Balkanization of GHG regulations for cars (a major argument of opponents) would be avoided.

 

Because the auto companies had been involved in structuring the arrangement, it had been assumed that the issue was resolved.  Silly goose.  The U.S. Chamber and the National Association of Automobile Dealers have filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit to overturn the waiver.  The petition is a one-page filing that sets forth no reason for the reversal; no reason needs to be given in the petition.  Chamber et al v. E.P.A. et al, D.C. Circuit, Docket 09-1237 (9/09).

 

According to various media reports, a number of companies have resigned from the U.S. Chamber in protest over its opposition to climate change legislation.  Being ever diplomatic, the Chamber has made rather unkind comments about these entities.  What the split shows is that major business companies will be supporting legislative initiatives on the issue.  Among those leaving are P.G.&E. (the largest utility in Northern California), Exelon (one of the largest utilities in the U.S.), Apple, and PNM Resources (the holding company that includes the largest utility in New Mexico).  A number of firms have also expressed their concern about the Chamber’s position, including Nike, Johnson & Johnson, Duke Energy (which did withdraw from NAM over its climate position), and Alcoa (which also quit the coal coalition).  Some commentators have noted that a natural division would arise between utilities that are coal dependent, and those that rely more on nuclear power.  See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/business/energy-environment/29chamber.html, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/apple-resignes-from-chamber-over-climate/, and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/06/climate-bill-backers-quit-chamber-of-commerce//print/

California outlines program for responding to climate change; the underlying assumptions about climate change paint a bleak picture

Much of California’s response to climate change has focused on what the State can do to lessen its contribution to global warming.  However, as noted in prior posts, many experts predict that no matter what California or anyone else does greater warming is all but inevitable; the only question is how much impact there will be and over what time period.

 

Thus, last year Governor Schwarzengger issued an Executive Order outlining a plan for adapting to this change (Executive Order S-13-08).  One of the provisions in that order requires the state Department of Natural Resources (formerly the Resources Agency) to develop a state Climate Adaptation Strategy.  What is interesting is not so much the strategy, but the scenarios used as part of the assessment.

 

The report based its predictions and conclusions on two separate scenarios.  One of these scenarios (the A2 scenario) assumes a more competitive world that lacks cooperation in development and portrays a future in which economic growth is uneven, leading to a growing income gap between developed and developing parts of the world. The second scenario (B1) assumes a future that reflects a high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with global cooperation for sustainable development.

 

For California, these two scenarios result in a range of possibilities that are laid out in the report:

 

• A projected increase of 1.8 to 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050; this would amount to an increase of one to three times that which occurred over the entire 20th Century.  Much of this increase, says the report, is already predetermined due to the existing amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  By 2100 temperatures could increase from 3.6 to 9 degrees depending on what actions are taken currently.

 

• By mid-century, models suggest a decrease in statewide precipitation of 12 to 35%.  The impact of this change is heightened by the likelihood that less of what does fall will be in the form of snow resulting in less runoff that can be stored for use in dry months.

 

• By the end of the century sea level could rise by up to 55 inches, and possibly even higher if there is substantial melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets.

 

• What have been extreme temperatures events occurring once every 100 years may start to occur annually.

 

The report can be found at http://www.resources.ca.gov/docs/2009_California_Climate_Adaptation_Strategy_Discussion_Draft_Final_Release_8-3-09.pdf.

California enacts legislation regarding sales of alternative energy by homeowners to utilities, access to clean water, use of GHG offsets, liability defenses for contamination, and lead wheel weights

Despite the budget crisis and much partisan hostility, California has enrolled this year some major environmental legislation which has not been reviewed previously.

Net Metering.  AB 920 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0901-0950/ab_920_bill_20090921_enrolled.html) allows residential customers generating power through wind and solar installations to sell any excess to the local utility subject to an overall cap of 2.5% of the utility's total power.  The bill awaits the Governor's signature or veto. 

Clean Water.  AB 1242 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1201-1250/ab_1242_bill_20090917_enrolled.html) has the effect of setting forth the preferences in the water code for domestic uses over irrigation and other uses.  It is however merely a policy statement that requires no action to expand infrastructure beyond programs already being implemented by various state agencies.  Agencies are to take steps to implement the policy as long as the steps taken do not adversely effect access to federal funds.  The bill awaits the Governor's signature or veto.

GHG Offsets.  AB 1404 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1404_bill_20090921_enrolled.html) limits the use of offsets to 10% of a source's obligations under a cap-and-trade or other market mechanisms to comply with the State's AB 32 program (which has been reviewed in detail in prior postings).  The bill awaits the Governor's signature or veto.

Liability Defenses for Contamination.  SB 143 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_143_bill_20090904_enrolled.html) extends to 1/1/17 existing law which provides a defense against liability for contamination to bona fide purchasers, innocent landowners, and contiguous property owners.  Individuals with such a defense on 12/31/16 shall continue to have the defense after that date if they otherwise comply with applicable law.  The bill awaits the Governor's signature or veto.

Lead Wheel Weights.  Prior posts have noted State and Federal activities to address lead wheel weights.  SB 757 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_757_bill_20090910_enrolled.html) prohibits the manufacture, sale, or installation of lead wheel weights in California that contain more than 0.1% lead by weight.  The law also notes that the Department of Toxic Substances Control will continue to maintain jurisdiction over any substance used in lieu of lead in such weights under the current "Green Chemistry" law (Sections 25251 et seq. Health & Safety Code).  The bill awaits the Governor's signature or veto.

Researchers identify new pathway for the formation of light-scattering haze from plant emissions

Prior posts have noted the volatiles from trees and plants are in fact a not insignificant contributor to smog formation.  A new study now shows natural hydrocarbon emissions contribute to light-scattering aerosols [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosols]that contribute to haze and influence climate; aerosols influence how much sunlight reaches the Earth’s surface and how much is scattered back into space.  Climate simulations will benefit from an understanding of these processes.

 

Sources of aerosols include volcanoes, byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, and sea spray.  Worldwide, plants release more than 550 million metric tons of the hydrocarbon isoprene [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoprene] into the atmosphere each year.  But scientists have disagreed about the particular chain of chemical reactions that transform isoprene into haze-forming aerosols.  A new study now demonstrates a potential mechanism.

 

Researchers created dihydroxyepoxides by placing isoprene and hydrogen peroxide in an 800-liter bag of unpolluted air and then illuminating the mix with ultraviolet light.  The UV light stimulated chemical reactions, just as sunlight would, and the hydrogen peroxide served as a source of hydroxyl radicals (highly reactive compounds sometimes referred to as “the detergent of the atmosphere”).  Isoprene and hydroxyl radicals reacted to form dihydroxyepoxides by two separate chemical processes.  Because the resulting epoxides [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoxides] are highly soluble, they readily dissolve into droplets of moisture in the air to form organic-rich aerosols.  The researchers note that this process could be a major source of atmospheric aerosols.  The work also helps to explain the high level of aerosols found in the tropics.

 

The study can be found at http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5941/730.  

EU Takes Aim At Carbon Credit "Carousel Fraud"

Prior posts have noted that any carbon credit trading scheme is likely to be subject to various attempts to commit fraud.  In the U.S., the carbon trading plan is intended to generate significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury, at least once the program expires which offers a huge percentage of the credits for free.  Merely as an example of fraud schemes, here is an article about an EU fraud scheme that was recently uncovered.  See http://nbsrocks.com/seven-arrests-in-suspected-38m-carbon-credit-fraud.

A highly effective strategy to reduce carbon emissions may be to pay people to not cut down forests

Economics can have a significant role in ecological preservation.  For example, countries that sell the right to take a certain number of fish to fisherman have found that the fishermen have a strong financial incentive to preserve the stock.  Combined with the demonstrated benefits to oceanic biota of establishing no-fish zones to allow for successful reproduction, such strategies have demonstrated that it is possible to not only preserve, but allow for the successful recovery, of plant and animal life in the oceans.  Similar lessons have been learned in terms of preserving land animals and ecosystems.

 

The latest application of this approach?  Well consider the fundamentals.  Not cutting down trees in forested areas prevents emissions that would otherwise have occurred, which gives untouched forest huge financial value, and if compensated would provide people who live in the forest with an incentive to preserve it.

 

What is the value of such a strategy in terms of minimizing the impacts of GHG emissions?  Preventing deforestation is potentially one of the simplest ways to reduce global emissions.  At the moment, carbon emissions from deforestation account for some 18% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, more than all the world’s trains, cars, trucks, aircraft, and ships combined. Further, reducing deforestation and land-degradation will be vital if temperature increases are to be kept to within “safe levels” (generally assumed to mean no more than about a 2ºC [~3.6ºF] increase).  It has been argued that such a strategy would be a quicker and cheaper way of reducing emissions than many alternatives, such as weaning the world’s vehicle fleet off fossil fuels, forcing people to cut back on energy use, or switching to low-carbon forms of power generation, such as wind farms and nuclear power.  All those alternatives will be necessary too, but they will take a long time, will require new technologies and infrastructure, and cause controversies of their own.

 

This idea is known as “avoided deforestation” or “reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation” (REDD).  At the moment REDD is not so much a plan as a collection of proposals and some working schemes, like that being tried in Novo Aripuanã, Brazil.  The fate of the forests in Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, and elsewhere around the world could hang on the success of this approach.  But there will need to be substantial international commitments to reduce global emissions to create demand for the carbon offsets that REDD schemes can provide.  This means that a lot hangs on a GHG deal being struck in December in Copenhagen, where countries will meet to negotiate a new climate treaty.

 

When one contemplates an effective, but low-cost strategy for reducing GHG emissions, two policies leap to mind:  REDD and improved energy efficiency (aka conservation), which has been discussed in detail in several prior posts.  As noted in prior posts also, any carbon credits scheme is subject to being gamed, and one would be a fool not to expect fraud to be rampant.  As such, regulation, oversight, and effective management will be a necessity.  But, the bottom line is that REDD could be an awful lot cheaper than many of the alternatives advocated today, such as those that involve construction of nuclear powerplants.  [Comments on the danger inherent in nuclear powerplants will be undertaken in the near future.]

 

For oversight on the REDD issue, see the excellent article in this week’s The Economist at http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14492973.

California's Governor threatens to veto alternative energy legislation; alleges he can enact via executive order

Both the California Assembly and the Senate have passed AB 64 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_64_bill_20090921_enrolled.html] and SB 14 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_14_bill_20090915_enrolled.html].  Both bills increase the percentage of California’s electricity that must be generated by renewable sources.  The Governor threatens the veto the bills despite sharing the basic goal of the legislation to raise the so-called Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from 20% to 33%.  Instead of signing the bills, the Governor vows to implement the 33% goal by issuing an Executive Order that would order the higher RPS, but without burdening the state's utilities with what he considers unreasonable restrictions on their ability to meet the standard through importing power from other states.  As has been noted in the media, a number of large-scale solar projects are under consideration for development in the deserts of Nevada and Arizona.

 

The two bills would raise the RPS so that by 2020 the state's retail electric sellers would have to obtain 33% of their supply of power from renewable sources.  The bills would also extend the RPS to cover publicly owned utilities; currently, the RPS applies only to investor owned utilities (IOUs), and requires them to meet a 20% RPS by 2010.  In addition to establishing the 33% ultimate RPS goal by 2020, the two bills acknowledge the difficulty that the State's IOUs are having in meeting the current 20% standard by moving the date for all retail sellers to meet that goal to 2013.

 

Ironically, the Governor, the utilities, the state's major businesses, and environmental groups all agree with these RPS deadlines.  The disagreement is over importation of power from outside the State.  The bills limit the percentage of such out-of-state renewable power to 20% of each provider's RPS obligation.  The legislators and environmental groups claim that without such a limit the bills would fail to encourage the development of solar, wind, and other renewable power in California and therefore fail to create new green investment and jobs in the state.  The business community complains that this limit on out-of-state generation threatens to make it much more difficult and expensive for the utilities to fulfill their RPS obligation.  These opponents also argue that the restrictions in the two bills could violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and may actually harm California's environment due to the need to site new transmission lines to transport new California-generated power.

 

There is not insignificant legal question whether by executive order the Governor can implement all of the complex changes necessary to effect the RPS changes needed.

 

Stay tuned.  

A number of alternative and energy efficient technologies are on the horizon

As noted in numerous prior posts, energy efficiency is a very cost efficient strategy for addressing reducing carbon footprints.  Also, there are a variety of "alternative" technologies being developed to both improve efficiency and to provide power from less polluting means.  Note the reference to less polluting.  No technology is pollution free.  If one does a life cycle analysis, from removal of the minerals to make the metals or the oil or gas to make the plastics to manufacture and installation, all technologies have some environmental impact.  The objective is to reduce this impact as much as possible.

 

So, what is on the horizon?

 

Floating Wind Turbines

 

Far out at sea the wind blows faster than it does near the coast. A turbine placed there would thus generate more power than its inshore or onshore cousins. But attempts to build power plants in such places have foundered because the water is generally too deep to attach a traditional turbine’s tower to the seabed. One option would be to put the turbine on a floating platform, tethered with cables to the seabed. And that is what StatoilHydro, a Norwegian energy company, and Siemens, a German engineering firm, have done. The first of their floating offshore turbines has just started a two-year test period generating about 1 megawatt of electricity.  The Hywind is the first large turbine to be deployed in water more than 30 meters deep. The depth at the prototype’s location, 10 kilometers (six miles) south-west of Karmoy, is 220 meters. But the turbine is designed to operate in water up to 700 meters deep, meaning it could be put anywhere in the North Sea. Three cables running to the seabed prevent it from floating away.

 

For more on this technology, see http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14299644.

 

High Tech Tires

 

A new tire could detect when a car is about to skid and switch on safety systems in time to prevent it. It could also improve the fuel-efficiency of cars to which it is fitted.  The Cyber Tyre, developed by Pirelli, an Italian tire-maker, contains a small device called an accelerometer which uses tiny sensors to measure the acceleration and deceleration along three axes at the point of contact with the road. A transmitter in the device sends those readings to a unit that is linked to the braking and other control systems.  Powered by energy scavengers that exploit the vibration of the tire, the device encapsulating the accelerometers and the transmitter is about 2.5 centimeters in diameter and about the thickness of a coin.

 

Constantly monitoring the forces that tires are subjected to as they grip the road could help reduce fuel consumption by optimizing braking and suspension. Moreover, it could promote the greater use of tires with a low rolling-resistance, which are often fitted to hybrid vehicles. These save fuel by reducing the resistance between the tire and the road but, to do so, they have a reduced grip, especially in the wet.  The Cyber Tyre offers a solution to the tradeoff between efficiency and safety.

 

For more information on this technology, see http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14299674.

 

Air Powered Battery

 

Lithium-ion batteries have two electrodes immersed in an electrically conductive solution, called an electrolyte. One of the electrodes, the cathode, is made of lithium cobalt oxide; the other, the anode, is composed of carbon. When the battery is being charged, positively charged lithium ions break away from the cathode and travel in the electrolyte to the anode, where they meet electrons brought there by a charging device. When electricity is needed, the anode releases the lithium ions, which rapidly move back to the cathode. As they do so, the electrons that were paired with them in the anode during the charging process are released. These electrons power an external circuit.  Researchers at the University of St Andrews in Scotland came up with the idea of replacing the lithium cobalt oxide electrode with a cheaper and lighter alternative. They designed an electrode made from porous carbon and lithium oxide. They knew that lithium oxide forms naturally from lithium ions, electrons and oxygen, but, to their surprise, they found that it could also be made to separate easily when an electric current passed through it. They exposed one side of their porous carbon electrode to an electrolyte rich in lithium ions and put a mesh window on the other side of the electrode through which air could be drawn. Oxygen from the air took the place of the cobalt oxide.

 

Because the oxygen being used by the battery comes from the surrounding air, the device can be a mere one-eighth to one-tenth the size and weight of modern batteries, while still carrying the same charge. Making such a battery is also expected to be cheaper. Lithium cobalt oxide accounts for 30% of the cost of a lithium-ion battery. Air, however, is free.

 

For more information on this technology, see http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14299690.

 

Washing Clothes Without Water (okay, with very little water)

 

Nylon may make poor quality fabric, but one of its properties is useful because of its ability to attract and retain dirt and stains.  An experimental washing machine uses no more than a cup of water to wash each load of fabrics and uses much less energy than conventional devices.  The system developed by Xeros, a spin-off from the University of Leeds, in England, uses thousands of tiny nylon beads each measuring a few millimetres across. These are placed inside the smaller of two concentric drums along with the dirty laundry, a squirt of detergent and a little water. As the drums rotate, the water wets the clothes and the detergent gets to work loosening the dirt. Then the nylon beads mop it up.  The crystalline structure of the beads endows the surface of each with an electrical charge that attracts dirt. When the beads are heated in humid conditions to the temperature at which they switch from a crystalline to an amorphous structure, the dirt is drawn into the core of the bead, where it remains locked in place.

 

The inner drum, containing the clothes and the beads, has a small slot in it. At the end of the washing cycle, the outer drum is halted and the beads fall through the slot; some 99.95% of them are collected.  Because so little water is used and the warm beads help dry the laundry, less tumble drying is needed. An environmental consultancy commissioned by Xeros to test its system estimated that its carbon footprint was 40% smaller than the most efficient existing systems for washing and drying laundry.

 

For more information on this technology, see http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14299614.

 

Making Softwoods Hard To Reduce Demand For Tropical Hardwoods

 

One of the reasons tropical forests are being cut down so rapidly is demand for the hardwoods, such as teak, that grow there. Hardwoods tend to be denser and more durable than softwoods. But unsustainable logging of hardwoods destroys not only forests, but also local creatures and the future prospects of the people who lived there, not to mention the use of such forests as carbon sinks.  It would be better to use softwood, which grows in cooler climates in sustainably managed forests. Softwoods are fast-growing coniferous species that account for 80% of the world’s timber. But the stuff is not durable enough to be used outdoors without being treated with toxic preservatives to protect it against fungi and insect pests. These chemicals eventually wash out into streams and rivers, and the wood must be retreated. Moreover, at the end of its life, wood that has been treated with preservatives in this way needs to be disposed of carefully.

 

One strategy for addressing this problem would be an “environmentally friendly” approach to making softwood harder and more durable.  Two companies in Europe are undertaking this task.  The Norwegian company Kebony stops wood from rotting by placing it in a vat containing a substance called furfuryl alcohol, which is made from the waste left over when sugarcane is processed. The vat is then pressurized, forcing the liquid into the wood. Next the wood is dried and heated to 110ºC. The heat transforms the liquid into a resin, which makes the cell walls of the wood thicker and stronger.  The approach is similar to that of a firm based in the Netherlands called Titan Wood. Timber swells when it is damp and shrinks when it is dry because it contains groups of atoms called hydroxyl groups, which absorb and release water. Titan Wood has developed a technique for converting hydroxyl groups into acetyl groups (a different combination of atoms) by first drying the wood in a kiln and then treating it with a chemical called acetic anhydride. The result is a wood that retains its shape in the presence of water, and is no longer recognized as wood by grubs that would otherwise attack it. It is thus extremely durable.

 

The products made by both companies are alleged to be completely recyclable, environmentally friendly, and create woods that are actually harder than most tropical hardwoods. The strengthened softwoods can be used in everything from window frames to spas to garden furniture. Treated maple is also being adopted for decking on yachts (which is defined as a black hole in the ocean into which one shovels money). The cost is similar to that of teak, but the maple is more durable and easier to keep clean.

 

Obviously treating wood makes it more expensive. But because it does not need to receive further treatments it should prove more economical over its lifetime.

 

For further information on this technology, see http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14299540.

BBC develops interactive web site showing the fundamentals of climate change and its effects

The BBC has developed a “Guide to Climate Change”  [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm].

 

The site consists of five interactive slide shows that demonstrate the following key issues:  climate forecasts, the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle, feedback effects, and impacts on the gulf stream.   

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced plans for a new carbon tax

Prior posts have noted the pro’s and con’s of emissions trading programs and carbon taxes.

 

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced plans for a new carbon tax aimed at combating global warming.  The tax will be introduced next year and will cover the use of oil, gas and coal.  The new tax will be 17 euros (£15) per ton of emitted CO2, will be phased in gradually, and will apply to households as well as enterprises, but not to the heavy industries and power firms included in the EU's emissions trading scheme.

 

Most electricity in France (excluded from the new carbon tax) is nuclear generated.  In line with several carbon tax programs proposed here in the U.S., as noted in prior posts, President Sarkozy said revenues from the new tax would be returned to taxpayers through cuts in other taxes and ‘green checks".

 

For more information on the proposal by President Sarkozy, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8248392.stm, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1921981,00.html, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090911/full/news.2009.905.html, and http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2009/09/individual_carb.html.