Posts Tagged ‘energy policy’

EPA submits Greenhouse Gas rules to White House

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

It will be interesting to watch how the recently submitted EPA rules to the White House drive new dialogue among business leaders on how reporting requirements will affect bottom lines.  How will the new “tailoring rules” ultimately apply?

The Wall Street Journal reports: “EPA officials say the agency wants to finalize the rule by the end of April, but that timetable may slip into May. The EPA said earlier this year that the first phase would likely target facilities that emit more than 75,000 to 100,000 tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year starting in 2011. The agency hasn’t yet made clear the exact first-phase threshold.”

Landfills may be particularly impacted and would present a valuable opportunity  for municipal leaders to explore how the SWAP could be implemented to safely and cheaply process landfill gas (LFG) for power.  A recent article from the New York Times delves into the broad potential impact of these rules.

In the United States alone, there were more than 3,500 landfills in operation as documented by the EPA in 1995.  In 2003, we generated 236.2 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW), an increase of 15 percent above 1990 levels and 168 percent above 1980 levels.  The number of landfill gas projects that generate electricity on-site, supply industrial gas-fired boilers, or produce substitute natural gas rules, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) jumped from approximately 400 in 2005 to 519 in 2009.

Many landfills are now accepting large quantities of construction and demolition debris in addition to MSW, which in sufficient quantities results in landfill gases with relatively high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (H2S).  H2S is generally the byproduct of bacterial decomposition of construction wastes, particularly drywall containing calcium sulfate.   There is an interesting article from Environmental Leader on H2S and potential reporting requirements this month.

Landfill gas cleanup is likely to experience significant growth in the future as a renewable energy option.  Each landfill is normally a stand-alone operation close to an urban location.  Integrating SWAP technology at these locations, it is believed, would require minimal interface activities with existing processes.

www.swapsol.com

Beyond Copenhagen: What is a Carbon Offset?

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

Copenhagen is coming to a close with reports that a deal may not be reached.  Aside from geopolitical arguments on who should shoulder more burden, there is the added confusion of what’s being done thus far.  Carbon offsets is one method, though not widely understood.  If you want to understand carbon offsets, talk to someone who’s used up their cell phone minutes and is now paying overage charges.

Copenhagen Dec. 2009

Copenhagen Dec. 2009

In response to growing governmental calls to reduce carbon emissions or face penalties, industry has had to come up with a variety of strategies to comply.  In Europe, they use “cap & trade.”  In the U.S. there is similar legislation being proposed on top of new calls for a carbon tax.  Similar to a cap & trade, the carbon offset has become a way to get credit for the job, but give breathing room to improve compliance with new CO2 emission regulations.

What is a carbon offset?  To quote Carbonfund.org, “a carbon offset represents a reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) somewhere else…. to balance out the emissions you cannot reduce”.

A carbon offset is a financial tool a company or organization uses to comply with greenhouse gas reduction rules.   For example, a governmental body decides that a Company should annually emit less than X-tons of CO2 into the air yearly. But that company produces greater than that amount.  By itself, that company would have a very difficult time meeting that requirement.

So in order to meet these new regulations, industry has developed the carbon offset.  The carbon offset allows CO2 emitters (companies, governments, citizens, organizations) to invest directly into projects which either are carbon-negative or create carbon-neutral or renewable energy, e.g. carbon reforestation, wind farms and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects.

By purchasing credits and giving money to organizations like the Carbon Fund and Terrapass, you can, in essence, reduce or eliminate your own carbon footprint.

The growing green shift has been a boon for carbon offset providers. According to the UN, 147m tons of the credits have been sold worldwide under the Kyoto Protocol. But this market could become very big business following the passage of any US climate bill. Climate legislation is currently stalled in the Senate, with Democratic leaders not expecting a vote on the bill until early spring

Given the multitude of CO2 mitigation proposals being debated, Swapsol looks forward to playing a fundamental role in helping companies benefit by converting CO2 and earning valuable carbon credits. Every possible action must be taken to reduce anthropogenic CO2 and avoid climate disaster.

Swapsol supports Worldwatch natural gas play at Copenhagen

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Could natural gas be a player in the new world climate order?  It looks like three organizations will be pushing for just that in Copenhagen next week.   The American Clean Skies Foundation (ACSF), the UN Foundation and the Worldwatch Institute say they will jointly “explore the potential for natural gas to accelerate the world’s transition to a low-carbon economy,” according to Worldwatch.

Sour gas pipeline, courtesy CBC.CA

Sour gas pipeline, courtesy CBC.CA

They will announce that new sources of unconventional gas could (and would) more quickly help the world turn away from oil and coal as a primary source of energy and spur new energy policy.  That’s correct if certain truths are taken into account.  There are considerable reserves of natural gas that remain capped due to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) that make them “sour.”  Many of these reserves are in remote areas where the cost of production makes it economically unattractive.  In fact, nearly 40 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves is sour, according to French oil and gas giant Total, s.a.

Many experts say more attention needs to be paid to renewable sources like wind and solar.  That’s true, but where are we now?  Wind and solar are growing sources of energy, but they currently aren’t developed enough to make an overnight change.  Will natural gas be the answer?

H2S, sometimes known as “sewer gas,” is the oil and gas industry’s enemy No. 1.  A chief part of the refining process is removing sulfur and H2S from raw streams to be able to bring refined natural gas to market. So yes, natural gas should play a fundamental role in any low-carbon policy proposed.  But this is possible only if more attention is paid to technological advances in refining it.

As we look toward Copenhagen, SWAPSOL agrees with the Worldwatch Institute that greater investment is needed in natural gas to play a pivotal role in a low-carbon environment.  Wind and solar technologies are exciting and are quickly gaining ground in the fight against climate change, but today we have an opportunity to both lower carbon emissions using natural gas, as well. Incorporating natural gas into the mix of solutions will also create needed jobs through additional investment in refining technologies. These technologies hold the key to preventing H2S from holding a tremendous volume of natural gas hostage.

With the SWAP, we can eliminate two “bad actors” in a single chemical process, protect the environment and improve bottom lines by reducing costs and creating jobs simultaneously.  We can look at CO2 not as an enemy, but as a friend and use it to profit in a new energy economy.

Oil, Natural Gas, the Supply Debate: Where Do We Stand?

Friday, November 20th, 2009

How can the energy future be mapped without data?

Following its annual outlook released the week of Nov. 9,  the IEA repeated its prediction in a CNN report that oil supplies would rise to 105 million barrels by 2030 under current government policy.  Totally false, according to two IEA employees who recently discussed their views in an interview (prompting the IEA to repeat their predictions).  They contend the IEA is feeling pressure from the United States to inflate predictions so the markets don’t fly into a tizzy.  One of them said, “there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further.”

But there is obviously another force at work that will likely impact the world markets outside he supply question – Congress is considering legislation to mandate lower emissions from industry either through European “cap and trade” schemes or an outright tax.  Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech at an APEC summit in Singapore that he advocates for a carbon tax rather than carbon trading.

In a recent Reuters article , Tillerson said that carbon emissions were expected to rise by 1 percent each year for the next two decades.  He said investing in natural gas was one way to slow it down, easing the financial burden on producers.

“Stemming the rise in greenhouse gases is a challenge. One way of expanding supply and reducing emissions is to invest in technologies to bring more natural gas to the Asia Pacific region,” he said.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson

In addition, Tillerson said natural gas usage will likely spike more than 50 percent globally by 2030 and that Asia-Pacific region use alone will rise by 130 percent.

At this year’s Global Refining Strategies Summit in Houston, talk of CO2 legislation and the need for more investment in green technology dominated discussions over the two-day conference.  It wasn’t a question of “if” the U.S. government would make a decision on emissions, but when, as well as what steps industry should take today to prepare.   It is also why presenters from SWAPSOL Corp. earned so much attention with their discovery of converting CO2 into harmless compounds.

SWAPSOL scientists continue their work.  It will be interesting to see how the public dialogue shifts with new attention directed to what actually is possible.

Will EPA move hurt business in effort to stop global warming?

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April quietly dropped a bombshell on business  – carbon dioxide will soon be declared a dangerous pollutant.

In a move that could have momentous implications for environmental and energy policy, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently told reporters that a formal “endangerment finding,” triggering federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, would probably “happen in the next months.” (SF Chronicle 9/1)

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

According to EPA scientists, greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. By declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant, the EPA would have the ability to weigh heavily on Congress to move ahead with climate legislation.

A formal endangerment finding would enable the agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act – even if Congress doesn’t pass a final climate change bill.

Energy industry leaders have acknowledged the need for CO2 regulation, but decried the current U.S. Climate Bill as a dramatic blow to the petroleum industry itself.  Even so, they have largely favored Congressional action over EPA-imposed limits.

Valero Energy Corp. has said that the U.S. Climate Bill in its current form would cost the company $7 billion annually. The House of Representatives narrowly passed the bill in June.

“How would we be able to operate?” asked Jim Greenwood, vice president for governmental affairs at Valero, quoted in a recent news article. “I don’t know. If they can make some breakthroughs, especially with carbon capture and sequestration, you can halve carbon emissions.” (Reuters 8/28)

So, what’s the bottom line? Carbon legislation is coming, and it is, once again, imperative that American enterprise rise to meet the challenge of finding ways to maintain productivity and profitability while adapting to imminent energy policy.

www.swapsol.com

Evolving energy policy ignoring Hydrogen Sulfide in global warming causes

Monday, August 17th, 2009

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) isn’t the first thing you think about when you try and identify environmental enemies.  That is, of course, if you don’t live next to a landfill.  But it is attracting more and more attention in local communities, following reports of children feeling sick, public water being contaminated, and of course, the foul stench it creates when its gas emissions are released into the air.

Hydrogen Sulfide has been around for a long time.   In fact, some scholars theorize it was partly responsible for the “first mass extinction” millions of years before the dinosaurs met their demise.  They hypothesize this occurred during the Permian period, between 299 to 252.6 million years ago.  They think the Hydrogen Sulfide emitted from the oceans and elsewhere, such as “flood basalts,” turned the sky green, chocked off oxygen for plants, animals and marine life and killed 90 percent of species in the oceans and 70 percent of life on land.  That was a natural phenomenon.  But one expert thinks we’re on track for opening that door again.

Permian Period 291 - 251 million years ago (courtesty University of Michigan)

Permian Period 291 - 251 million years ago (courtesy University of Michigan)

“We’ve had these mass extinctions [from hydrogen sulfide] when carbon dioxide has hit 1,000 ppm. We have not hit that [level] for 100 million years,” said Peter Ward, professor of paleontology at University of Washington.  “But we are currently at 380 ppm — and climbing rapidly at 2 ppm a year and accelerating — and this is the highest CO2 I think in the last 40 million years. The only time [these extinctions] ever happened in the past is when these big flood basalts happened. But now we’re making it happen far faster than the flood basalts ever did. This is a unique event in the history of the planet.” (Wired Magazine 3/2008)

H2S should certainly be part of the discussion over global warming causes, but there of course remains the question of what to do with CO2.  Emit it or bury it (energy policy is driving carbon capture technologies still in the emerging stages of course.)  Like energy, you can’t destroy it. But what if you could turn it into something else?

But finally, what if you could turn H2S into something else as well?  www.swapsol.com