When it became evident that climate change may be occurring, there was the beginning of the movement (a series of meetings called the Conference of Parties —COP) that was responsible for the Kyoto meeting in December of 1997: a section of the United Nations was formed: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (you might see UNFCCC in some of the linked text). The first meeting was the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, subsequent meetings set up the reduction strategies for climate change. The two most important meetings were held in Kyoto, Japan (the Kyoto Protocol) and in Paris, France (the Paris Agreement).
Reduction of six greenhouse gasses by some countries, to varied levels below their emissions of greenhouse gasses in 1990.
The treaty was to become legally binding when it was ratified by 55 Countries (they use the term "States") including the Developed Nations responsible for 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the Developed Nations group in 1990. This treaty was ratified in 2005 (Russia was the last necessary country to adopt it.) The United States has not ratified it yet (but we are bound by the agreement).
Just to confuse everyone (and so as not to embarrass developing countries) they use the terms Annex 1 parties (mostly developed nations) and Annex 2 Parties (mostly the developing nations).
An emission trading methodology was adopted to reduce the cost of compliance (but details on how this will work are not yet in place). A major victory for the US as we utilize this approach for SO2 and NOx emissions via the Clean Air Act of 1990 and its amendments.
Developing countries have a “right to develop” and so will not have to reduce or curtail their emissions of greenhouse gases at all.
Changing land use issues and natural carbon sinks (such as planting a forest) also impact the reduction levels assigned (and agreed to).
Sharing of technology (sounds a tad socialist to me and will be difficult to employ).
There is a great deal of uncertainty in how everything will work out.
The European Union is allowed to act as a “bubble” and redistribute the reductions to meet the overall reduction level required. Australia joined but then after a government change, left the agreement. The United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
More information is available (if you are interested) from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [1].
Recall that this was discussed when we covered acid deposition. Internationally, this will work well, as it will be cheaper to reduce emissions in other countries that are operating old, inefficient equipment than it will to reduce emissions from plants that are efficiently run. As CO2, unlike a lot of emissions, is global in nature, it does not matter that we are reducing emissions in India or China, we will still reap the benefit of slowing the pace of climate change. Many of the pollutants we discuss may be international in natures, such as acid deposition from Germany crossing into France or vice versa, they will not travel the globe and influence Australia for example. The long lifetimes of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere allows them to travel extensively so their increase can be measured at the poles far from the point source of origin (your car, power plant, natural source, etc.) Ozone-depleting CFCs also are long-lived and tend to congregate above the South Pole.
As long as there is a reduction, the requirement is met, it's source is not important. However, there is a financial cost assigned with these reductions. The developing countries need health care, education, and clean water as a priority well above reduction in climate change. They can sell off emission reductions to the highest bidder (at a profit). Industry will be happy to buy these permits as long as they are priced below the cost of achieving the same reduction in their industry. More on this in the next part of the lesson.
We agreed to a reduction to 7% below 1990 levels. That does not seem to be too high, but there is a problem: emissions have been growing (as has the economy, followed by a downturn...).
The 7% reduction below 1990 levels looked like it may have ended up being a very significant 30% reduction from 2010 levels. There is a lot of speculation on how much greenhouse gases we emit because it depends on many factors, such as the economy, severity of the winter or summer, changes in the fuel mix. While the 7% reduction is high, a 30% reduction is staggering (7% from going to below 1990 levels and 23% estimated from the growth of the emissions). Actual numbers ended up being much smaller but we will not meet the goals, like many, many nations.
There is a significant change in policy when the Obama administration was replaced by the Trump administration.
Obama Administration
The U.S. managed to have very significant reduction but much was due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas for economic reasons rather than policy (although that did contribute).
Here is a good link to see what the US had agreed to [2] (take a quick look).
We have the ability to store CO2 in certain geological formations but there is a lot of uncertainty as to the viability and the cost. If we can prevent the emissions to begin with, we are going to be able to be in better shape. We discussed conservation earlier, but there is another option: going abroad to help out other countries to raise their efficiencies or even close down some of the older plants. But how does that help the US with her emissions?
Emission trading [4] (also known as cap and trade) was one of the key successes in the negotiations for the US. By going to other countries where the technologies are not already running at high efficiencies (for the application) then with new sensors, replacement parts, or enhanced monitoring and technology the efficiencies can be raised cheaply (at least in comparison to doing the same thing in the U.S. where the efficiencies and the monitoring is already in place).
To make sure that the U.S. gets the credit, the international trading system of emission permits for CO2 needs to be established. The U.S. hopes it will be a model similar to the SO2 emission trading model established in the Clean Air Act (1990). Bottom line: it will be cheaper to go abroad to developing countries and countries of the former Soviet Union and lower their emissions, pay for, and claim the credit for the emission reduction.
However, some early attempts at this have failed. The devil is in the details, such as the cap and incentives to get the system operational. The advantage is that there is a well-defined limit.
If the loss of carbon sinks is the issue, then why not replant the forests? This is actually a great idea (providing you have the land, not likely to work in New York, New York). The Australians were very keen on having carbon sink count as a means of offsetting CO2 emissions and it was included in Kyoto protocol.
After all, the fossil fuels were at one point in time locked away in biomass. By returning them to that state we take the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere where it might be contributing to the warming of the planet. If we really want to extend our energy use then we can cut the trees down, burn the biomass and as long as the trees are replanted it is a carbon dioxide neutral system. But wait, it gets even better:
We can use other plants too such as Corn or Sugarcane (warmer locations such as the Caribbean). Then instead of burning the fuel, we make booze! Well, perhaps not the booze we would want to make. We can make ethanol (or methanol—but you cannot drink methanol) and instead of it being in the rum (Bacardi and Don Q—made in Puerto Rico) we can make pure ethanol and use it as a transport fuel. Does this ring a bell? Remember Brazil: 3% gasoline in the ethanol to prevent the ultimate drink driving problem: One for you (car) & one for me! Sugarcane is already biomass in the sense that the cane is crushed to squeeze the sugar water out, the stalks are dried and then used to fuel the fire for the rum making process.
Recall that biomass has multiple advantages:
There are many concerns, however, the food vs. fuel issue and the energy intensity of growing certain biomass (use of natural gas, derived fertilizer for example, as there is not enough manure).
The CO2 is not the only gas that is contributing to the increased concentration in the atmosphere. Methane (CH4) is also being released into the atmosphere and as it is a more efficient greenhouse gas (one CH4 molecule is roughly equivalent to twenty-one CO2 molecules). So if we can plug the leaks that would help mitigate climate change (possibly).
Recall that coal mines can be a source of methane leaks. Two gigantic coal mines in Russia, for example, are responsible for much of that country's methane release. Capturing the methane and using it also helps lower greenhouse gas emissions (if it is replacing coal) because it has a higher efficiency (combusts at a higher temperature).
Animals, particularly cows, are another source of methane! I forget how many stomachs a cow has, my nephew (8-year-old) says 4! While processing the food they eat, the average cow will emit 280 liters of methane gas a day or about 119 pounds CH4/head/year (Johnson and. Ward, 1996). There is not much we can do to capture this short of a rather vulgar bovine attachment. However, if we were to be vegetarians, you can feel better about your personal contribution to the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses. But if you also eat a lot of rice (I love rice, being English it is our national food—with a good curry of course) then you help to produce a significant amount of methane. The rice paddies require fertilization, and being a stagnant water supply is low in oxygen, and so methane is produced.
Bottom line: Teriyaki Beef with rice (the special at Spats last week — Splendid) is not the most environmentally friendly dish you can have! I should feel more guilty about driving the car to the office, that trip had the greater contribution to my greenhouse gas emissions!
Sequestration is locking something away. With CO2 we wish to lock it away so it does not enter the atmosphere and contribute to climate change (possibly). So all we need is a location where high volumes of CO2 can be stored–trivial, right?
There are not too many locations where there are massive holes in the ground, but there are other options:
Most will be used in the US where appropriate. However, there is a significant and costly catch: we do not get pure carbon dioxide out of the stack of power plants! What goes in: fuel and air. What comes out: products of combustion and air. The products of combustion are mostly carbon dioxide and water with lesser quantities of NOx and sulfur dioxide, etc. The air that we used is where the problem is. Air is mostly nitrogen. We want the oxygen but have to let the nitrogen tag along unless we can afford to separate them (\$\$\$\$\$\$). For every 1 mole of oxygen, we get about 6 moles of nitrogen. We also add more air than is necessary to help the mixing process, necessary for combustion to take place. So the nitrogen that goes into the system comes out again and we will have to separate the carbon dioxide from the other gases, oxygen (from the excess air), water (product of combustion), and nitrogen (\$\$\$\$\$\$). In the flue gas image shown to the right, the molecules are shown very close together in an unrealistic representation (too high a density) for viewability.
We have the technology, but part of the cost of sequestration will be this separation process. If we did not separate the gases, we will have to pay more for the compression, transportation, and pumping (\$\$\$\$\$\$).
Watch the (4:46) video below. It is a good simulation overview of the carbon capture and storage approach.
Recall the carbon cycle: The key to this issue is waiting long enough for the CO2 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium with the CO2 in the ocean, at which point a significant quantity of CO2 will have been "removed" from the atmosphere - the problem is time. As my daughter likes to say on our road trips "it is taking too long!" That is the case here. We can not afford to wait. However, the good news is that the ocean offers significant CO2 storage capabilities (for long-term timelines).
There are 3 approaches to this process:
Remember how crude oil is formed? If there were more "bugs" in the ocean (phytoplankton) then as they grow and reproduce they will absorb CO2 (remember this is photosynthesis)! They will die and decay but providing there are more of them and they are self-replicating (whatever the outcome of plankton sex is) then there will be more carbon in the ocean and less CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a carbon sink (more on this later). The ocean "bugs" can also grow shells, which they obtain from the dissolved minerals in the ocean and dissolved carbon dioxide. "She sells sea shells on the sea shore!" Try saying that 4 times as quickly as you can. So the shells can also capture CO2 for long periods of time.
Check out the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute [5]) for more information about this topic.
If you are a visual learner and would like to see liquid CO2 fill a beaker underwater (considerable depth): click on the image below to download and watch a short video.
But there is a lot of concern about perturbing the ocean so this is not a very likely solution.
While oil fields are not exactly a great big hole in the ground (remember it is a porous rock that contains the oil), there are lots of small holes and they can be filled with CO2. If the field is still producing it has the added effect of enhancing the oil extraction process (enhanced oil recovery). Remember that associated natural gas helps to provide the pressure so that the oil will freely flow out of the ground (so you do not have to pump). This is very similar and is a technology that is being used.
If the oil field is not producing then you will not obtain any extra oil or gas but you might benefit from capping the abandoned natural gas wells that are leaking methane into the atmosphere.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy:
Saline Formations. Sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations does not produce value-added by-products, but it has other advantages. First, the estimated carbon storage capacity of saline formations in the United States is large, making them a viable long-term solution. It has been estimated that deep saline formations in the United States could potentially store up to 500 billion tons of CO2.Second, most existing large CO2 point sources are within easy access to a saline formation injection point, and therefore sequestration in saline formations is compatible with a strategy of transforming large portions of the existing U.S. energy and industrial assets to near-zero carbon emissions via low-cost carbon sequestration retrofits.
Assuring the environmental acceptability and safety of CO2 storage in saline formations is a key component of this program element. Determining that CO2 will not escape from formations and either migrate up to the earth’s surface or contaminate drinking water supplies is a key aspect of sequestration research. Although much work is needed to better understand and characterize sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations, a significant baseline of information and experience exists. For example, as part of enhanced oil recovery operations, the oil industry routinely injects brines from the recovered oil into saline reservoirs, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has permitted some hazardous waste disposal sites that inject liquid wastes into deep saline formations.
The Norwegian oil company, Statoil [7], is injecting approximately one million tons per year of recovered CO2 into the Utsira Sand, a saline formation under the sea associated with the Sleipner West Heimdal gas reservoir. The amount being sequestered is equivalent to the output of a 150-megawatt coal-fired power plant. This is the first commercial CO2 geological sequestration facility in the world.
Text is from the fossil energy sequestration page of U.S. Department of Energy.
I get to do some of this in my research with colleagues here at Penn State and elsewhere. Coal is a wonderful material! While it looks solid, if you select the appropriate rank of coal, the structure is full of very tiny holes, so small they are too small to be holes–so we call them pores. The very small pores are known as micropores and "here is where the magic happens" (for you celebrity crib fans). There are larger pores, and also very large pores or cracks in the coal, which are very useful for increasing the permeability (speed of access of the gasses into the coal).
In the gas phase (there are three phases: solid, liquid, and gas for most things) the molecules or CO2 are bouncing around. We can increase the pressure (more gas molecules in the same volume as before) but that takes work. The molecules like their space and anyway we are decreasing their entropy. But if we put a molecule of CO2 into a coal micropore there is an attraction between the matrix and the CO2 molecule. Now the CO2 does not need as much space, it wants to associate with the coal and thus we can put in more CO2 into coal than we could into the same volume of empty space (bloody marvelous!).
There are a couple of other advantages too. Remember that methane is often in these pores too (if we are at the bituminous rank range), well, CO2 acts like an invading army and kicks out the methane (it competitively replaces the methane molecules). Thus, you could sequester CO2 into a deep coal seam, collect the methane that is released from the coal (coal bed methane), combust that and put the CO2 formed back into the coal seam. Thus forming a closed loop of emission free (CO2 anyway) electricity for as long as the methane lasts. As we have lots of coal, much of it is close to large point sources of CO2 (such as a power plant), then this all makes sense.
There are only a couple of minor details, the main one being cost. If the pumping and separation of the CO2 costs $ then the price of the electricity generated will increase. We are not yet in a competitive region for any of the sequestration technologies (maybe enhanced oil recovery). Selling methane certainly helps to lower the cost of sequestering CO2 into coal but the cost is still too high. There are a couple of locations where we are currently pumping CO2 into coal.
Details here if you would like to know more.
If you live on campus you would have seen OPP (Office of Physical Plant) driving about with the slogan "bright students dim the lights" on the side of the trucks. If we conserve, we use less energy, if we use less energy we use less fuel, if we use less fuel then there is less pollution (particulates, NOx, mercury, SO2, CO) and if we consider CO2 a pollutant (many do not) then we can have a slower pace of climate change. As we are using more and more energy each year, conservation tends not to be a reduction in the quantity of energy we used but rather a reduction in the growth of energy that we use each year. We can achieve a reduction of energy if we enter a significant depression, (look at the dates) and we can use less energy if the weather is kind (warmer winters and cooler summers).
Bottom line: we can conserve but we cannot conserve our way out of the problem unless we do far more, and change our behavior radically. Not very likely to happen.
Technology can also help us conserve energy. Sensors can detect if there is anyone in the room. Computers “spin down their disks” or dim the monitor to save energy. The image below is the Energy Conservation screen from my laptop computer (where I am writing this). For a laptop, the issue of conservation is very important (as it directly relates to battery life). Some of the new generation of computer chips for laptops will actually slow their clock speed when not connected to the mains to prolong mobility from the cord.
Here are some conservation tips that you can do:
That SUV is not very efficient. The model T ford managed 12 mpg, and a SUV might make 24 mpg, not a major improvement in over 100 years. Especially when other countries are driving vehicles which obtain 60 mpg. We are not going to stay home to drive less, (the average American car will drive 12,000 miles each year), so an efficient vehicle will result in a lot less CO2. The age of the vehicle has an impact as we are tending to get better (but slowly) at efficiencies. Fortunately, we have much greater success with the other pollutants through technologies such as the catalytic converter. For carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced from personal vehicles, efficiencies need to be improved.
This is all discussed in Unit I (appliances, lighting, etc.) and II (vehicles). If you do not recall the material, go and take a look at it again.
NOx consists of the following three gasses: NO, N2O, and NO2
Which one is also a greenhouse gas?
N2O is also known as laughing gas (used at the dentist during tooth pulling). But due to the very long lifetime in the atmosphere, where it is a greenhouse gas, we should limit how much we let into the atmosphere. Thus all the solutions to NOx removal (acid deposition), or mitigation, or prevention, are applicable to N2O reductions.
If having children is the problem then population growth restrictions might be the answer. Every child born in the US is going to want to have the same things:
All require energy! Some countries are currently promoting population growth restrictions, some are decreasing in size due to other reasons (AIDS being one of them). This will impact how easy or hard it is to reach the greenhouse gas reductions required.
The U.S. is growing. Every man, woman, and child will use energy, which produces carbon dioxide.
China and India are the countries to watch. While China is the most populous nation, India will overtake China in about 2015. Think about the impact on energy use when the Indians discover (can afford) air conditioning! Should we discourage their advances while maintaining our relatively lavish existence? The Kyoto Protocol uses the language "Every Country has the right to develop." Unfortunately, we can not afford to have these countries follow the same pathway with the same errors and the same environmental impact.
Technology transfer is a great idea but who should pay. Why should AB&B give away low NOx burners when they have investors expecting a return on investment? The emissions from the developing countries are what have kept the US out of active participation in Kyoto Protocol developments. Economic implications for the US without worldwide greenhouse gas reductions!
If we need a technology that provides electricity without greenhouse gas emissions, we already have one: Nuclear.
Recall the discussion on the nuclear future for the US? We have an aging nuclear reactor "fleet" and the predictions are that the percent of power generated from nuclear is going to decrease (for 2 reasons: as the economy and energy production grows the output of nuclear will remain about the same but the percent contribution will be less AND decommissioning of nuclear plants will result in a loss of capacity). The likely contender for filling the gaps in our energy supply: natural gas! Perhaps fear of climate change will overcome the fear of nuclear power? We have no significant plans to build new reactors currently so if this is going to play a role in CO2 emission growth reduction NOW is the time to act! The decommissioning of nuclear plants is increasing (Three Mile Island will close) as it is cheaper to use natural gas but that will increase CO2 emissions! There are some policy changes pending that may slow this down by valuing the electricity produced without CO2 emissions more.
If we don't expect nuclear to be an option (at least in the near future, for the US) then renewable energy may offer part of the solution. Recall that we only have significant electricity production from hydroelectric at this time but wind power is increasing its output at a rapid pace with perhaps a greater contribution for biomass (liquid fuels).
The cost of electricity is a key issue here. The renewable energies are more expensive! While wind has managed to reduce its cost dramatically, we are still waiting for solar cells and the other renewable technologies to become competitive. Of course, renewable energy enhances our national security, reduces air pollution (depending on what it is replacing as the energy generation source) and, of importance in this lesson, they produce no CO2!
These are some sites to gather additional information. A student who would like a better grade will go and spend some time thinking about what they have already learned and try to build on that foundation of knowledge. You do not need to all have exactly the same learning experience; spend some time on what interests you! It will help your grade and your ability to produce quality material. Information is power!
Hover over the text below for more details. After this complete the Lesson 12 quiz.
Accessible Version (word document) [11]
After looking at this map, please take the L12 quiz.
Links
[1] http://unfccc.int/2860.php
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/what-did-us-agree-to-paris-climate-deal-2017-5
[3] https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
[4] https://www.epa.gov/emissions-trading-resources/how-do-emissions-trading-programs-work
[5] http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/deep/release.htm#frame
[6] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee101/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.egee101/files/Lesson10/L10_CO2_sequest1_MBARI.mpg
[7] http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/carbon-capture-and-storage
[8] https://www.census.gov/popclock/
[9] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
[10] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/index.html
[11] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee101/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.egee101/files/Lesson12/Lesson%2012%20Coverage%20Map.docx