Researchers Looking into Exactly How Much Cow Flatulence Contributes to Global Warming
I'd hate to be the researcher opening that bag. (image: physorg.com)
With all the eating grain and standing around cows do, their digestive systems produce a lot of gas. A main component of all that cow flatulence (a.k.a. farts) is methane gas, a greenhouse gas that is 26 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere.
Flatulence from cows and other livestock have been considered significant sources of greenhouse gases for years, but a new study in Argentina is the first to look at exactly how much the gases expelled by cows contribute to global warming.
According to a report at physorg.com, ten cows were fitted with plastic backpacks and hoses leading to their stomachs. The gases from their digestive systems were collected in the backpacks and later analyzed. The researchers found that the sheer volume of emissions produced by a single cow was much larger than previously believed—one 550-kg cow produces between 800 and 1,000 liters of emissions per day.
Researchers also found that changing the cows’ diet away from grain to clover and alfalfa could reduce their methane emissions by 25 percent.
So how long until those science geniuses engineer some low-emissions cows?
Solution to Carbon Emissions May Be in Household Products
Hair conditioners contain an ingredient that could absorb carbon dioxide emissions. (image: ehow.com)
Sure, it keeps hair looking great, but now scientists think hair conditioners might contain the key to saving the world. Hair conditioners, fabric softeners, and other household items have aminosilicones, which could be used to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants, reported Inhabitat.com. Scientists have been working with aminosilicones and think the materials could be part of a carbon dioxide absorber system that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power plants most responsible for carbon emissions.
The technology, developed by GE Global Research, is in its very early stages, but lab tests have shown that aminosilicones could absorb up to 90 percent of the carbon dioxide in the flue gases emitted by coal-fired power plants. In addition, using aminosilicones could be less expensive than competing methods of reducing carbon emissions like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
Heating Oil Weekly Roundup: Energy Roofs, Micronesia’s Lawsuit, and Burping Sheep
The "energy roof" spans two buildings at the University of Perugia. (image: coop-himmelblau.at)
The “energy roof” at the University of Perugia wasn’t just designed to look cool (although that doesn’t hurt)—it’s also designed to maximize wind and solar power. As designboom explains, the roof marks the entry point of an underground archeological passageway, and provides all the energy that the passageway needs. The multilayered roof is the creation of Coop Himmelb(l)au, and has solar cells on top (which also provide shade for pedestrians below) and five wind turbines in the middle to provide more energy.
As Mark Scott of BusinessWeek says, many people probably couldn’t find the Federated States of Micronesia on a map. Many might not even know that Micronesia is a nation. But as a small island nation in the Pacific, Micronesia feels especially threatened by global warming, which could raise ocean levels and take Micronesia right off the map. So it’s threatened to sue the Czech Republic over the renovation of a coal-fired power plant. The move is probably more of a public relations move than anything, but any success on Micronesia’s part could make utilities companies around the world a little nervous.
Many people have tried to understand how nations rich in oil, one of the world’s most valued commodities, can still end up poor. In an attempt to understand the “resource curse,” the Economist’s Free Exchange blog discusses a study of Brazil that tracked where oil revenues did wind up if they weren’t creating general prosperity. The conclusion: money was siphoned off by municipal workers, whose houses, on average, increased in size as oil revenues increased.
There are many plans to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases: cap and trade, clean coal, algal biofuel, and now, breeding sheep that don’t burp. Every burp from a sheep adds methane to the atmosphere, so Australian scientists have set out to breed a special non-burping sheep, reports Stephen Messenger at TreeHugger. If it works for sheep, cows might be next.
Crude Oil’s Next Move: $80, $90, or $100 a Barrel?
Global economic recovery in 2010 will boost oil prices—moderately or majorly is the question. (image: scientificamerican.com)
Financial heavy hitters Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and Round Earth Capital all recently weighed in with crude oil price predictions for the current year.
At Citigroup, the prediction is that oil prices will rise to $90 a barrel initially, but then settle down closer to $80 as the year progresses, reports the Financial Post.
“We project a tightening in capacity usage and an increase in the call on OPEC crude of some 3.8-million barrels a day by 2013,” analyst Faisel Khan wrote in a note to clients. He added that after 2014, the increase in Iraqi oil production within OPEC will complicate the global crude market.
States Form Cap and Trade Markets While Senate Bill Flounders
The RGGI, a regional cap and trade market in the Northeast, could soon be joined by carbon markets in the West and Midwest. (image: dec.ny.gov)
Greenhouse gas reduction initiatives on the regional and local levels are a growing trend in the U.S. As Bloomberg reported on Thursday, state governments are taking the lead in establishing cap and trade markets in 2010, even as climate legislation continues to languish in the Senate.
According to Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, regional-level carbon trading is “where the action is going to be” this year. Becker told Bloomberg that “the states are juiced to expand their programs. They don’t like the slow pace that we’re seeing in the federal government, and they’re not confident that anything meaningful is going to necessarily pass.”
In a cap and trade market, the government issues a limited number of permits, each carrying the right to emit a set amount (typically one ton) of carbon dioxide. Companies can then buy and sell these permits.
Ex-Secretary of California EPA Argues for Poop Power
According to Tamminen, this is a valuable energy source. (image: personal.psu.edu)
One man’s trash is another’s treasure, so the saying goes. According to Terry Tamminen, former secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, one man’s poop may be another’s power supply. In an op-ed for CNBC this week, Tamminen argues for a sustainable energy policy that includes making use of waste products of many kinds—including human and animal ones. At issue is the question of renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which set legal thresholds for how much alternative energy—wind, solar, geothermal—must be included in the power supply. RPS systems are currently in place in 27 states and D.C, and California’s are the most comprehensive, calling for 33 percent of the state’s total energy consumption to be sustainably generated by 2020. To avoid creating a competitive market based in practices that should really be eliminated, as in energy derived from burning trash or even co-generation using heat from traditional power plants, RPS legislation does not currently allow for waste products of any kind to be included as “renewable” resources. Elimination isn’t going to be eliminated anytime soon, though, which leaves agricultural areas and municipalities overburdened with sewage and manure that currently isn’t worth….well, you know.
The average cow generates 18 gallons of waste per day—that’s just one cow, now think of all the hundreds of thousands of cows (and pigs, and sheep, and chickens) in farms and feedlots all across this country. Many such operations are so oversupplied with manure that they wind up funneling it into fetid ponds that stink up the surrounding countryside, contaminate groundwater, and release pounds of greenhouse gases. So, not only would repurposing all that poop create a steady stream of available energy, but it would also remove a fairly major contributor to climate change. Converting human sewage systems to a no-waste model would also save countless gallons of water every year, as well as the energy required to transport, treat and dispose of it.
Of course, entrepreneurs all over have already realized the potential of this unlikely market. There are scores of projects already underway across the country, many of which we’ve covered here on HeatingOil.com: Some of the most promising technologies include methane capture, fuel made from manure, and sewage used as a growth medium for algae that can be converted into biofuel. There is also the looming possibility of federal EPA regulation of methane from farming, under the EPA’s new endangerment finding that allows for greater policing of gases that contribute to global warming. Tamminen’s argument is that reclassifying human and animal waste as renewable would open up the possibility of tax credits to help develop existing programs, and to generate hundreds of others. Think of it as the fertilizer that will grow our new, greener, energy grid.
Energy CFOs Say Legislation is More Important Than Demand
Energy business leaders await the coming blow to their industry that will follow from the now-officially noxious status of greenhouse gas emissions. (image: seanmcgrath via flickr.com)
In a telling statement about what’s to come politically this year, U.S. Energy CFOs have predicted that legislation, and not demand for their products, will have the most impact on their industry in 2010. Kirsten Korosec of BNet.com reported Wednesday that about 45 percent of CFOS surveyed for consultant firm BDO Seidman’s 2010 Energy Outlook Survey chose legislation as the top issue in the coming year. Just 28 percent of those surveyed pointed to demand as the most important factor, which topped out last year’s survey results.
Indeed, 2010 is a bit of a gauntlet year for big oil and impending legislation. First off, the EPA made a big move in early December, declaring greenhouse gases a public health hazard, and therefore opening them up to regulation by the agency. In the Senate, climate change legislation is currently in the works that would place a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. There is also legislation on the table attempting to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a controversial technique currently being debated in Upstate New York as a way to access natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.
Whatever the outcome, it’s pretty clear that the industry is in flux, and may have some adapting to do in the coming years. For heating oil and other energy consumers, this could mean higher prices in the short term as energy companies adjust, but would likely lead to lower long term prices.
Low-Carbon Fuel Standard May Affect Heating Oil
Drivers on the Massachusetts Turnpike will likely be affected by the new fuel standard, but will it cover home heating oil? (image: historygradguy via flickr.com)
The Environmental Leader reported on Monday that 11 states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic plan to adopt a low carbon fuel standard. The standard will be modeled after California’s fuel standard that requires a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from California’s transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020.
The states signed a memorandum of understanding, which follows up on letters of intent to develop such a standard that the eleven states signed almost exactly a year ago.
Under the terms of the agreement, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland agree to develop a low carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels, and possibly heating fuels.
EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Challenged by Beef Industry
Cattle, a significant source of methane, could be affected by EPA regulation. (image: BugMan50 via flickr.com)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) December announcement that it intends to regulate emissions greenhouse gases has received its first official challenge from special interests. Perhaps surprising to some, the challenge has not come from the usual or more predicable suspects such as big oil, gas, or refining industries. Rather, the first salvo in what could prove to be numerous battles was launched by the beef industry. On Friday, Edmunds.com reported that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association became the first industry to legally challenge the EPA’s authority in regulating greenhouse gases. Filing their suit on December 24, the Beef Association claims that the science of global warming is weak and therefore the federal government has no right to regulate emissions based on such supposedly fragile claims.
The Beef Association’s concern with EPA regulation of greenhouse gases stems from the fact that cattle produce immense amounts of methane, one of the most dangerous of greenhouse gases and one that the EPA will likely attempt to regulate. Some scientists have asserted that, while carbon dioxide emissions have received the most attention by policymakers attempting to mitigate climate change, methane should be given even more attention. Evidently the Beef Association believes that any attempt to regulate methane emissions will seriously damage the beef industry.
Latest Way to Heat Your Home: Battery Power
Panasonic’s home-use battery. (image: physorg.com)
Panasonic is working on a lithium-ion storage cell that could power a home for a week, and it could be available as early as April 2010, reports Tim Hornyak at CNET. The move is made possible by Panasonic’s recent merger with Sanyo, which has developed cutting-edge battery technology.
Sanyo and Panasonic have already manufactured test versions of the battery. The president of Panasonic, Fumio Otsubo, told the Japanese newspaper the Yomiuri Shimbun that this advance put Panasonic at the head of companies working “to realizing CO2 emission-free daily life.”
Energy storage is one of the obstacles to wide-scale use of renewable energy sources. In the right area wind and solar power can produce a great deal of energy, but when the sun sets, or the wind stops, that energy is gone. Batteries provide one form of energy storage, and a battery capable of storing enough energy for one week of home use would not just take advantage of a turn to renewable energy sources, it would promote the use of renewable energy.
Are Cuts in Methane (Not Carbon) Emissions the Solution to Global Warming?
Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, but is itself a greenhouse gas. (image: knowledge.allianz.com)
In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, two scientists say that even the most ambitious proposals made at Copenhagen to reduce carbon emissions won’t reverse global warming. So what would they have us do? According to Robert Watson, former chair of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and Mohamed El-Ashry, senior fellow at the United Nations Foundation, “the most obvious strategy is to make an all-out effort to reduce emissions of methane.”
Methane accounts for 75 percent as much warming as carbon dioxide, say Watson and El-Ashry, but has not received nearly as much attention in any climate protection measures. That’s because methane has a shorter lifespan than carbon dioxide—when released into the atmosphere it lasts decades, while carbon dioxide can persist for hundreds of years. The Kyoto Protocol made methane one of the six gases it targeted, but calculated its effect over the same period of time as carbon dioxide. That distorts methane’s relatively brief but nonetheless powerful impact.
Businesses Volunteer Data on Carbon Emissions, Even Without Legislation
(image: cnsx.ca and cleancarboneconomy.com)
Copenhagen didn’t result in any binding agreement, and a Senate climate bill still looks a long way off, but some businesses are reporting their carbon emissions anyway.
The Carbon Disclosure Project, a London-based nonprofit, collects the emissions reports and shows businesses how they stack up to other firms in their industry. This information can help businesses reduce emissions, and by making it publicly available (see their website) to any potential investor the Carbon Disclosure Project hopes to create a market incentive to cut energy consumption and emissions. Boeing’s vice president for environment, Mary Armstrong, said the project encouraged Boeing to set environmental performance targets.
While the Carbon Disclosure Project’s founder and chief executive, Paul Dickinson, says the voluntary program could help cut emissions in China and India, where businesses are face fewer regulations than in Europe and North America, critics contend that no voluntary program could do enough. The project’s reports don’t undergo any external verification, and companies that pollute cannot be obligated to take part.
Though energy companies are targeted by legislation and international agreements to mitigate climate change, many have been willing participants in the project—giants like Chevron and Russia’s Gazprom filled out disclosure reports, to name two. With the EPA contemplating regulation, and the possibility of legislation still looming, they may have decided that disclosing their carbon emissions now will give them an edge on their competitors if such disclosures become mandatory. Disclosing emissions may cost them money—in the labor spent filing reports, if nothing else—but doing it now may position them to adapt more quickly to a new legislative or regulatory environment.
Senate to Vote on EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
A Senate vote in January could determine whether or not the EPA will regulate carbon emissions. (image: msnbcmedia.msn.com)
With Copenhagen’s lackluster result and the Senate climate bill in limbo, EPA regulations seem more likely than ever to be the tool used to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. However, Senate opponents of EPA regulation, led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), have a chance to block the EPA from working further on any new regulations, says The Hill.
On December 7, the EPA announced its finding that greenhouse gases were a threat to public health and that the Clean Air Act authorized the agency to regulate greenhouse emissions. An amendment proposed by Murkowski—which she initially tried to attach to an EPA spending bill—would prevent the EPA from regulating emissions for one year. The amendment will now be voted on during debates over a measure on increasing the US debt ceiling. While the White House and Congressional Democrats would prefer that carbon emissions be regulated by new legislation, not by the EPA, it’s uncertain that Murkowski’s amendment will garner the 60 votes necessary to pass.
The oil and gas industry has criticized the EPA’s plan to regulate emissions, saying it would increase their costs—costs that would have to be passed on to consumers. Some business leaders prefer congressional regulation as, if nothing else, the least bad option for regulation emissions. Legislation would offer more clarity and certainty than EPA rules, they say, and that would help minimize the additional costs of reducing emissions.
Thomas Friedman Weighs in on Copenhagen, Wants to See Green Revolution in US
NYT writer Thomas Friedman. (image: treehugger.com)
New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman said on Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show that the UN’s climate change conference in Copenhagen was an “unprecedented breakdown” as opposed to an “unprecedented breakthrough” (video below). After all, the end result of the much discussed summit was a non-binding resolution that may not have any impact on carbon emissions, as HeatingOil.com reported on Monday.
But all is not lost, he says; if the United States creates its own climate change policy, and one that successfully launches a “green economy,” the rest of the world will follow suit and will look towards America for leadership. But it will be tough, as nations like China, India and Brazil are gaining in worldwide influence and becoming stronger competitors with the US by the day.
Scotland Turns to Wave Energy to Cut Emissions
Scotland plans to convert its waves into a renewable source of energy. (image: woodruffshelties.com)
Scottish energy developer Pelamis has signed a joint venture agreement with Swedish energy company Vattenfall for an energy project worth about $100 million off Scotland’s Shetland Islands, CleanTechnica reported on Monday. The project has been dubbed Aegir, after the mythical Norse sea god, and will be Scotland’s largest wave power scheme.
The project is expected to feature 26 wave power machines, each at a length of 180 meters; these machines will generate a total of up to 200 megawatts of power, which can power about 13,000 households for one year. Aegir will begin producing power in 2014.
Scotland hopes that this project and others like it will help the country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 42 percent by 2020, as delineated under the Scottish Climate Change Act. However, organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund think Scotland can do even more, and that renewable energy could fulfill 60–143 percent of Scotland’s energy requirements by 2030.
Scotland seems to be keen on using wave energy to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Many other countries and universities are also interested in harnessing the power of the sea to meet their renewable energy needs. For their part, England, Norway, and Australia have reported success with oscillating water columns. In addition, the Scottish government and its partners recently launched Oyster, the largest working hydroelectric wave energy device in the world.
Forward to the Past: Online Contest Participants Brave Cold to Conserve Heat
(image: imagecache2.allposters.com)
Conservation is good. That’s why we provide helpful tips on how to insulate your home; how to maintain your heating system for maximum efficiency; energy audits and how they can help you save; even how roof color can reduce your carbon footprint and energy consumption.
However, there may be taking a good thing too far. As USA Today reported Tuesday, across the nation, many people are challenging themselves and others to see how long they can go without heat this winter. There’re going back to the pre-central heat past and living—at least temperature-wise—like our ancestors did. (Obviously, northern and western residents only need apply—no boasting about not needing heat in the winter, Floridians!)
Overall, the goal is two-fold: save money and help the environment by reducing fuel usage and carbon emissions. Of course, for any one person or family, one or the other goal may predominate. For example, Laura Nichol of Maplewood, New Jersey, who won a trophy last year for going without heat, is focused on saving money, which she certainly did—she received a $1,000 credit on her utility bill. On the other hand, Deanna Duke, creator of the environmentally focused blog Crunchy Chicken, gladly takes any monetary savings, but puts helping the environment first.
Heating Oil Industry Prepares for the Future
The use of biofuel heating oil is growing rapidly within the industry—state and federal laws need to catch up. (image: heatusa.com)
The future of heating oil is becoming more and more intertwined with biodiesel, as detailed in an article published in the January 2010 issue of Biodiesel Magazine.
As we reported in September, leaders of the industry plan on having all heating oil comprised of at least two percent biofuel by July of 2010. The two percent share is expected to grow over time, making it likely that most heating oil could contain 20% biodiesel within the next two decades.
But first, many hurdles must be overcome. No one’s quite sure yet what, if any, problems will occur when the industry starts to incorporate 2% blends, also known as B2 heating oil. Questions about infrastructure, delivery and financing must first be answered before the amount of biofuel in heating oil can increase to the next level.
Final Product of Copenhagen Conference is Informal, Non-Binding Agreement
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the Copenhagen conference. (image: deccanherald.com)
After a long two weeks in Copenhagen, an uneasy accord was reached early Saturday morning, after the official end of the conference. According to the New York Times, the final agreement came in the way of a 12-paragraph statement of intent, not the legally binding pledge many hoped to walk away with. Almost every country was said to have approved the final agreement, even though it was largely seen as a flawed compromise that left many bitterly disappointed.
Among the details missing from the accord were firm targets for emissions reductions and any kind of deadline for enacting a binding treaty. President Obama himself said the accord was only a “modest step” towards real progress. The deal does call for major emitters to curb greenhouse gases and help developing nations with much-needed aid. However, since it is non-binding, there is no telling how effective the pledge will be.
The process of tackling global warming using the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently seen to be the best way of handling the problem, seems to be falling apart. As seen in Copenhagen, it is increasingly difficult to reach a global consensus when so much bad blood and hostility exists between rich and poor nations. As the world moves forward, it may be time to try a new tactic.
For much of the world, the outcome of the Copenhagen talks was disappointing. However, if and when a deal is reached in the future, it will largely be due to the hard work that was done in Denmark. Here’s hoping next time is more fruitful.
Turning Carbon Dioxide into a Resource
At the University of Minnesota’s Center for Biorefining, algae is grown in waste water to reduce carbon emissions. (image: biorefining.cfans.umn.edu)
Many people have carbon dioxide on the mind, and not just political leaders meeting in Copenhagen. Tom Levitt, in a post on the Ecologist, noted that any long-term plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions has to take into account the fact that, in the short term, carbon emissions will continue to rise. Skeptical of carbon capture and storage—which he equates to burying garbage in landfills—Levitt examines other possible means of turning this waste into a form of energy.
Carbon capture and storage—a process through which carbon polluted into the air from fossil-fuel burning power plants and the like is compressed and then buried deep within the Earth—is hailed as a potential breakthrough for reducing carbon emissions, but is worrisome to some scientists. Levitt points to an alarming statistic provided by authors Robert Kunzig and Wallace Broecker in Fixing Climate. The pair, who say carbon capture and storage will lead to landfills of a much more caustic and damaging nature than the garbage dumps we currently have, put the scenario in these sobering terms: “If the twenty-nine gigatons produced by the world’s fossil-fuel burning in a single year were liquefied and spread over Manhattan, they would bury the island to about the eighty-fifth floor of the Empire State Building.” Levitt also quotes Columbia University’s Frank Zeman, who works for the school’s Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, saying that using carbon capture and storage will create significant friction over the challenges surrounding its disposal.
One Year Later, NJ Company Calls Biodiesel “a Success”
(image: woolleyfuel.com)
The first commercial service station in New Jersey to offer a biodiesel blend is celebrating its first anniversary, reports the Maplewood Patch.
“Running my car on Woolley’s fuel is no different than when I put regular diesel in it, except I get to feel good about filling up!” says Bear Schmidt, a longtime customer.
And Norm Woolley, Jr. is feeling pretty darned good as well. It’s been one year since the owner of Woolley’s Fuel made history as the first service station to sell biodiesel to the public in the state of New Jersey. He started with B5 biodiesel, a 5 percent blend of soy-based biodiesel with 95 percent conventional diesel fuel. To his surprise, however, customers kept requesting blends with a higher percentage of biodiesel. Right now, B30 (30 percent biodiesel, 70 percent conventional fuel) is the highest ratio blend the blending system can dispense.
