Sustainable Economy: 2009

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Refrigerants from air conditioners and refrigerators can harm the environment. The refrigerants in older systems can damage the ozone layer, reason why they were later often substituted by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). However, HFCs are harmful greenhouse gases - their global warming impact is many times that of carbon dioxide (see table below). Between 2001-2003, the rise in atmospheric concentrations of HFCs was 13-17% per year, according to the IPCC.

General Electric (GE) has just asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval to - for the first time in the U.S. - use a hydrocarbon refrigerant in household refrigerators. Hydrocarbons do little or no damage to the environment. If GE gains EPA approval, it plans to introduce HFC-free household refridgerators in 2010.

	Global Warming Potential (100 year basis, relative to CO2=1)	Ozone Depletion Potential (relative to R11=1)
R12 CFC (Chlorofluorocarbon)	8500	1
R134a HFC (Hydrofluorocarbon)	1300	0
R22 HCFC (Hydrochlorofluorocarbon)	1700	0.05
R404a HFC (Hydrofluorocarbon)	3800	0
R290 HC (Hydrocarbon)	<3	0
source: Foster Refrigerator

So, while this GE-announcement is good news, it's sad that it has taken this long. Hydrocarbon refrigerants are already in widespread use in the rest of the world. Greenpeace helped develop the technology that uses hydrocarbon refrigerants back in the 1990s. The world's major manufacturers -- Whirlpool, Bosch, Haier, Panasonic, LG, Miele, Electrolux, Siemens -- have now produced some 300 million refrigerators that use hydrocarbon refrigerants.

It's time that we have effective legislation to facilitate the shift towards clean and safe products. I have often advocated feebates as a superior policy, compared to standards, carbon taxes or emission cap-and-trade schemes. Many support the introduction of feebates for appliances (see California's Climate Change Proposals). However, others suggest that outright prohibition of HFCs in refrigerators and air conditioners is more appropriate.

Links:
After 15 year Delay, Green Refrigerator to Arrive in U.S., sort of - Solveclimate Blog
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20081031/after-15-year-delay-green-refrigerator-arrive-u-s-sort

GE Opening a Door to a Future of Cleaner Home Refrigeration - GE News Release
http://www.genewscenter.com/content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=4303&NewsAreaID=2

Greenfreeze - Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/greenfreeze

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons, Summary for Policymakers - IPCC/TEAP (2005)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_ts.pdf (2.01 MB)

Hydrocarbons in refrigeration - Foster Refrigerator
http://www.fosterrefrigerator.co.uk/uploadeddocuments/Green%20Papers/NJB0236_Hydrocarbon_Green_Paper.pdf

Cool approach to driving - Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/12/16/1229189623054.html

California's Climate Change Proposals - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977517006

The GE Press Release says that GE plans to include isobutane in a new GE Monogram® brand refrigerator. This refrigerator will also use cyclopentane, another hydrocarbon, as the insulation foam-blowing agent to replace commonly used HFC foam blowing agents. The Press Release concludes that the climate change benefits could be significant.

The IPCC report says: "Ammonia and those hydrocarbons (HCs) used as halocarbon substitutes have atmospheric lifetimes ranging from days to months, and the direct and indirect radiative forcings associated with their use as substitutes are very likely to have a negligible effect on global climate".

Apart from the HFCs that are used as coolants and as foam-blowing agents, we should also look at the various cleaning agents that are used by manufacturers. Some background is given in the IPCC paper mentioned in the article. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Halons and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are covered under the Montreal Protocol. This protocol was originally signed in 1987 to phase out such ozone depleting substances. Manufacturers turned to substitutes such as Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

The problem is that these substitutes contribute to climate change. When the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1997, it did cover HFCs, but the US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol. PFCs are also covered in the Kyoto protocol, but Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) was used in such small quantities that it was not deemed necessary to include it. Semiconductor manufacturers turned to NF3 as a substitute for PFCs and it is widely used as a cleaning agent during manufacture of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and thin-film solar panels.

There are alternatives to using NF3, such as using fluorine gas, as I mentioned in an earlier comment. I've often advocated feebates to facilitate shifting to better alternatives, but given that NF3 is some 17,000 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, it makes sense to ban NF3 altogether.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted rules forcing semiconductor makers to cut fluorinated gases such as sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride by more than half by 2012. These gases are among the most potent contributors to global warming, trapping heat in the atmosphere at 6,500 to 23,900 times the rate of carbon dioxide.

Regulators say other, less harmful gases can be used instead, at a small cost to semiconductor firms. CARB estimates the annual cost of compliance with the new rules at $37 million over 10 years; the brunt of that total would fall on 13 semiconductor companies that operate 16 plants currently not in compliance with the new emissions target. [Mercury News, 02/26/2009]

The EPA recently named the six greenhouse gases targeted under the Kyoto Protocol -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) -- and concluded that they do endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.

CFCs like Freon-12 (R-12 or CFC-12) are not mentioned, even though the IPCC as far back as 2001 said that CFC-12 had an even stronger radiative forcing effect than N2O. As discussed, CFCs are not targeted under the Kyoto Protocol since they were already banned under the Montreal Protocol, but this ban made manufacturers turn to instead use HFCs and PFCs as substitutes.

Meanwhile, Micronesia and Mauritius have initiated a proposal to expand the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs. Backed by the EPA finding, the Obama administration is seen as likely to support such moves.

A Sustainable Economy

Cycle A: Inorganic Waste

We're all familiar with the idea that we're running out of scarce resources. We just cannot continue to keep drilling and mining for more fossil fuel, metals and other resources. One way to deal with scarcity is to recycle resources, i.e. separating waste to extract metals, glass, plastic, concrete, bricks, etc. This type of recycling is possible for much of our inorganic waste. In the light of global warming and health concerns, however, a shift to organic resources and renewable energy seems a better approach⁽¹⁾.

Cycle B: Organic Waste

Recycling organic waste constitutes another cycle in a sustainable economy. Many people now compost kitchen and garden waste, thus returning many nutrients to the soil. However, such composting does release a lot of greenhouse gases. A cleaner alternative is to pyrolyze organic household waste, farm waste and forest waste. Pyrolysis is an oxygen-starved method of heating waste at relatively low temperatures that will result in the release of little or no greenhouse gases. With pyrolysis, organic waste can be turned into hydrogen and agrichar⁽²⁾.

Estimates are that some 363 tonnes of CO2 per hectare can be locked up in the soil in the form of agrichar⁽³⁾. Since the U.S. has some 475 million hectares of agricultural land⁽⁴⁾, huge amounts of carbon could be stored in this way.

NASA-scientist Jim Hansen calculates that reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide by as much as 50 ppm⁽⁵⁾.

Cycle C: Clean Energy

We should also replace fossil fuel by clean and safe energy, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obvious ways to do this are to install more solar and wind facilities. Pyrolysis can also produce fuel to power transport. Hansen calculates that this and using carbon-negative biofuels could bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm well before the end of the century⁽⁵⁾.

Surplus energy can close this cycle, leading to a range of new and clean industries, such as water desalination⁽⁶⁾ which could in turn result in the production of lithium for car batteries and magnesium for clean concrete⁽⁷⁾.

Electrolyzers can now be made without a need for platinum⁽⁸⁾⁽⁹⁾ and there's also interesting research into using electricity to turn seawater into hydrogen by means of electrolysis⁽¹⁰⁾. When vehicles run on hydrogen, their output is clean water, rather than emissions.

Surplus Energy

As the number of wind turbines grows, there will increasingly be periods of time when turbines produce more energy than the grid needs. Especially at night, when demand on the grid is at its lowest, there can be a lot of wind. Unless this energy can somehow be stored or used otherwise, it will go to waste.

Similarly, surplus energy can be produced by solar power facilities. Especially in the early hours of the morning, just after sunrise, the sun can shine brightly, yet there's little or no need for electricity on the grid. It makes sense to store surplus energy at wind farms in molten salt facilities.

Surplus energy from wind turbines can be used for purposes such as:

water desalination

storage (i.e. for later use)

- car batteries
- pumped-up water

- flywheels⁽¹¹⁾
- compressed air
- hydrogen^(12)(13)

carbon air capture^(14)(15)

spraying seawater into the sky, to change albedo above oceans⁽¹⁶⁾

Cycle D: Air Capture

Surplus energy can also power air capture devices. With air capture devices, carbon dioxide can be captured from ambient air. By carrying air capture devices, vehicles can contribute to removal of carbon dioxide from the air. Alternatively, a fee could be imposed on vehicles, with the proceeds used to fund air capture elsewhere⁽¹⁷⁾.

Captured carbon dioxide can be used for purposes such as fueling greenhouses, fueling transport, producing agrichar and supplying carbon to industry, for manufacture of building material, plastic, carbon fiber and other products.

Towards a sustainable economy

Towards a more sustainable economy

In conclusion, there are sustainable ways to do things and to a large extent they do complement each other. Moreover, they are environmentally and economically sustainable, with good job opportunities and investment potential.

However, since they do complement each other, each of these industries is now waiting for the other industries to mature first. To break this chicken-and-egg situation, government should develop an industry policy that uses the bigger picture of these four cycles of a more sustainable economy.

Feebates⁽¹⁷⁾ can achieve the shift we need most effectively, and they only need to insist that such new industries are safe and clean; market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where.

Links

1. The Next Industrial Revolution - Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart
http://thenextindustrialrevolution.org

2. Agrichar / Biochar / Terra Preta - Wikipedia and Sam Carana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977139103

3. Burying biomass to fight climate change - NewScientist, 03 May 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826542.400-burying-biomass-to-fight-climate-change.html?full=true
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/108ns_006.htm
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/ns_diagrams/108ns_006image2.jpg

4. An Overview of U.S. Farm Real Estate Markets
http://aede.osu.edu/resources/docs/pdf/VLD5TV2A-AFSH-OONX-SM8D0QN04YGKJRS8.pdf

5. Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim? - J. Hansen, et al.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20081208/

6. Desalination with zero sea discharge - CSIRO Australia
http://www.csiro.au/science/ZeroBrineDischarge.html

7. Carbon-negative building - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977316789

8. ITM Power update
http://www.itm-power.com/press/1.pdf

9. Breakthroughs open door to Hydrogen Economy - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977411652

10. Team wins $4m grant for breakthrough technology in seawater desalination
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20080623-72473.html

11. PowerStore
http://www.pcorp.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=132

12. Iceland launches energy revolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1727312.stm

13. Norway has long produced ammonia by electrolytic hydrogen using hydroelectricity, in:
A Great Potential: The Great Lakes as a Regional Renewable Energy Source
http://greengold.org/wind/documents/107.pdf - Bradley, David (2004)

14. Removing carbon from air - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977486271

15. Can Technology Clear the Air - NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.200-can-technology-clear-the-air.html

16. Combat Global Warming with Evaporative Cooling - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977158130

17. Feebates
Feebate.net
http://feebates.uservoice.com

Recycling

To establish a more sustainable economy, two things need to be worked on: standards and recycling. Standards can be set to limit or prohibit the use of substances that are hazardous to our health or to the environment. Furthermore, it's important to think about what happens to products after their useful lifetime. Too much waste is dumped in oceans, or ends up in landfalls or in the atmosphere.

Recycling should be encouraged as the best approach, followed by safe storage as the second-best alternative.

Much of our waste is already recycled in one way or another.

Households commonly sort their waste in different waste bins, typically using one bin for the disposal of general waste and another bin for recyclables such as bottles, jars, cans, paper & packaging. The glass, metal, plastic and paper is then reused by industry to manufacture recycled products, but the general waste is typically buried at landfalls.

While it's good that an increasing number of items are recycled, the aim should be to recycle all waste. To achieve this, it makes sense to distinguish between organic and inorganic waste.

Inorganic recyclables have been collected separately from general household waste for ages. Examples are trucks collecting building material after demolitions and service stations keeping people's old batteries and used motor oil, for safe disposal. Such recycling can be encouraged by adding fees to the sale price of items such as bottles and jars. After accounting for the cost of disposal, the fees will then be refunded at collection points where the items are returned after usage. It's time to consider collection of inorganic household waste as well, in a dedicated waste bin, so that all such waste can be processed and reused by industry.

Furthermore, recycling of organic waste can also be encouraged by using a dedicated waste bin.

types of waste Most households only use one or two different waste bins, one bin for general waste and another bin for recyclables such as glass, cans, paper & packaging.

Instead, it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between organic and inorganic waste. Consequently, households could have two types of waste bins, one for inorganic waste and one for organic waste such as paper, cartons, kitchen waste and garden waste.

Many people already compost such biowaste in the garden, but all too often such biowaste disappears along with the general waste in the general waste bin. As displayed on the picture on the left, analysis in Waikato, New Zealand, shows that about half of household waste can consist of kitchen waste, soil and garden waste. Such waste now ends up on rubbish tips, where the decomposing process leads to greenhouse gases such as methane. And all too often, farmers also burn crop residues on the land, resulting in emissions of greenhouse gases.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Biochar

Most households only use one or at most two different rubbish bins, one for recyclables (paper & packaging) and one for general waste. It makes a lot of sense to add a third type of rubbish bin, for biowaste, i.e. kitchen waste, soil and garden waste.

Many people already compost such biowaste in the garden, but all too often such biowaste disappears along with the general waste in the rubbish bin. As displayed on the picture below, analysis in Waikato, New Zealand, shows that about half of household waste can consist of kitchen waste, soil and garden waste. Such waste ends up on rubbish tips, where the decomposing process leads to greenhouse gases, such as methane. And all too often, farmers burn crop residues on the land, resulting in huge emissions of greenhouse gases.

types of waste All such biowaste could deliver affordable energy by using the slow burning process of pyrolysis to produce agrichar or bio-char, a form of charcoal that is totally black. Organic material, when burnt with air, will normally turn into white ash, while the carbon contained in the biowaste goes up into the air as carbon dioxide (CO2). In case of pyrolysis, by contrast, biowaste is heated up while starved of oxygen, resulting in this black form of charcoal.

This agrichar was at first glance regarded as a useless byproduct when producing hydrogen from biowaste, but it is increasingly recognized for its qualities as a soil supplement. Agrichar makes the soil better retain water and nutrients for plants, thus reducing losses of nutrients and reducing the CO2 that goes out of the soil, while enhancing soil productivity and making it store more carbon.

When biowaste is normally added to soil, the carbon contained in crop residue, mulch and compost is likely to stay there for only two or three years. By contrast, the more stable carbon in agrichar can stay in the soil for hundreds of years. Adding agrichar just once could be equivalent to composting the same weight every year for decades.

biochar Biochar appears to be the best way to bury carbon in topsoil, resulting in soil restoration and improved agriculture. Agrichar has the potential to remove substantial amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, as it both buries carbon in the soil and gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere through better growth of vegetation. Agrichar restores soils and increases fertility. It results in plants taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere, which ends up in the soil and in the vegetation. Agrichar feeds new life in the soil and increases respiration, leading to improvements in soil structure, specifically its capacity to retain water and nutrients. Agrichar makes the soil structure more porous, with lots of surface area for water and nutrients to hold onto, so that both water and nutrients are better retained in the soil.

In conclusion, recycling biowaste in the above way is an excellent method to produce hydrogen (e.g. for cars) and to bury carbon in the soil and improve production of food. Agrichar is now produced for soil enrichment at a growing number of places. The top photo shows agrichar in pellet form from Eprida. Australian-based BEST Energies has built a demonstration pyrolysis plant with a capacity to process 300 kilograms of biowaste per hour. It accepts biowaste such as dry green waste, wood waste, rice hulls, cow and poultry manure or paper mill waste. The plant cooks the biomass without oxygen, producing syngas, a flammable mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The agrichar thus produced retains about half the carbon of the original biowaste (the other half was burned in the process of producing the syngas).

Also important is to compare different farming practices. Carbon is important for holding the soil together. Farmers now typically plough the soil to plant the seeds and add fertilizers. This ploughing causes oxygen to mix with the carbon in the soil, resulting in oxidation, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Ploughing leads to a looser soil structure, prone to erosion under the destructive impact of heavy rains, flooding, thunderstorms, wind and animal traffic. Given the more extreme weather that can be expected due to global warming, we should reconsider practices such as ploughing.

Furthermore, the huge monocultures of modern farming have become dependent on fertilizers and pesticides. The separation of farming and urban areas has in part become necessary due to the practice of spraying chemicals and pesticides. Instead, we should consider growing more food on smaller-scale farms, in gardens and greenhouses within areas currently designated for urban usage. Vegan-organic farming can increase bio-diversity; by carefully selecting complementary vegetation to grow close together, diseases and pests can be minimized while the nutritial value, taste and other qualities of the food can be increased.

An issue of growing concern is nitrous oxide (N2O), which is 310 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas when released in the atmosphere. Much release of N2O is related to the practices of ploughing and adding fertilizers to the soil. Microbes subsequently convert the nitrogen in these fertilisers into N2O. A recent study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen indicates that the current ways of growing and burning biofuel actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions. The study concludes that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops (rapeseed biodiesel and corn bioethanol) releases twice the amount of nitrous oxide, compared to what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates for farming. The findings follow a recent OECD report that concluded that growing biofuel crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage biodiversity, with only limted benefits in terms of global warming.

All this is no trivial matter. Soils contain more carbon than all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Therefore, soil is the obvious place to look at when trying to solve problems associated with global warming. By changing agricultural practices, we can add carbon to the soil and can minimize release of greenhouse gases.

References:
- Soils offer new hope as carbon sink
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope/

- Surprise: less oxygen could be just the trick
http://tinyurl.com/ywalt4

- What we throw away
http://www.waikato.govt.nz/enviroinfo/waste/whatwethrowaway.htm

- The Carbon Farmers
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/soilcarbon/

- Living Soil
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/

- BEST Pyrolysis, Inc.
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html

- Eprida, Inc.
http://eprida.com/hydro/

- Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp

- Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?
http://tinyurl.com/yq9t8o

- Communities without Roads
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488

CETO Wave Power combined with Desalination

In Greek mythology, Ceto was a sea goddess. Ceto was a daughter of Gaia and Pontus, and she personified the power of the sea.

In a current incarnation, CETO is the name of a wave power technology that uses air-filled buoys that float in the sea. As the waves go up and down, the buoys pull pistons up and down inside underwater pipes, pushing the seawater onshore. The buoys are fully submerged and permanently anchored to the sea floor, so they don't spoil the seascape.

CETO units are manufactured from steel and rubber. The buoys are like bladders, they are made from Hypalon. CETO components have a known subsea life of over 30 years. No new technology needs to be developed and all such components are relatively cheap and simple to manufacture, without making countries dependent on imports of scarce resources.

Another advantage of this technology is that it can deliver a relatively steady supply of electricity at times when there is little or no wind or sunshine.

CETO!

The electricity thus generated can be sent either to the grid, or used for other purposes such as desalination. Up to 100% of the electricity can go into the grid during periods of peak demand on the grid, while desalination can take place during periods when there's little or no demand for more electricity on the grid.

Australian company Carnegie Corporation plans to build a CETO wave farm on Garden Island, off the coast of Perth, Australia. Managing Director Mike Ottaviano says: "We'll generate electricity at around about the cost of a wind farm." The plans include installation of a Pelton Turbine, supplied by Swiss company Calder AG, and a Desalination Plant, supplied by Australian company Citor Pty Ltd.

Since 60% of the world's population lives within 40 miles (about 60 km) of the sea, the electricity and water can thus be produced where they are consumed. There no need to first build pipelines from dams to cities. Nor is there a need to first build high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines. Electricity from wind farms and solar concentrators often needs to be brought to cities over HVDC lines. There's little or no need to expand the electric grid or to upgrade the water distribution network. This technology can replace coal-fired power plants and secure water supply relatively swiftly, easily and without much extra cost.

While wave power levels may differ from place to place (see image left), the potential for wave power clearly is huge, especially when combined with applications such as water desalination. CETO can operate efficiently in swell in the 1 to 2 meter wave height range, greatly increasing the number of potential base-load sites globally. For example, much of Southern Australia always has significant waves more than 1 meter high.

The article Desalination with zero sea discharge, by CSIRO Australia, describes how the residue of desalination can be used as industrial input. Of particular interest is recovery of lithium and magnesium from brine. The lithium could be used to manufacture batteries, while magnesium could be added to concrete to offset emissions of carbon dioxide.

For years, CETO has claimed it can generate zero emission base load electricity at a cost comparable to existing wind power. For years, GE has also claimed for years that, with a cost of approximately 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour and declining, wind is a low-cost renewable energy source that is less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation.

When looked at in isolation, wind power, hydrogen, desalination and wave power may each not seem commercially attractive at the moment. Combined, however, they can be more viable. Surplus power from wind turbines can be used to produce hydrogen, which could be assisted by the availability of clean water. Hydrogen produced offshore could power ships. In combination, such new industries can become successful as they complement each other. Turning trash into treasure, what was previously regarded as waste can become the input of entire new industries.

In July 2007, the Singapore Government offered S$4 million worth of research funds to a desalination proposal that consumed 1.5 kilowatt-hour (kWh) energy or less per cubic meter of potable water produced from seawater. Almost one year later, a team of Siemens researchers won the challenge with a proposal to remove salt from seawater by using a novel electricity-based method that includes electrodialysis and ion exchange.

Only if we allow such new industries to develop will they reveal their full potential. Moreover, when the pollution and environmental harm of fossil fuel is taken into account, there should be even less doubt that such renewable energy and production methods can be more than price-competitive, even before economies of scale and innovation will bring costs down further.

Funding of air capture

AIR CAPTURE of CO2 (carbon dioxide) is an essential part of the blueprint to reduce carbon dioxide to acceptable levels. Fees on Air Capture Funding conventional jet fuel seem the most appropriate way to raise funding to help with the development of air capture technology.

Why target jet fuel? In most other industries, there are ready alternatives to the use of fossil fuel. Electricity can be produced by wind turbines or by solar or geothermal facilities with little or no emissions of greenhouse gases. In the case of aviation, though, the best we can aim for, in the near future at least, is biofuel.

Technically, there seems to be no problem in powering aircraft with biofuel. Back in Jan 7, 2009, a Continental Airlines commercial aircraft (a Boeing 737-800) was powered in part by algae oil, supplied by Sapphire Energy. The main hurdle appears to be that algae oil is not perceived as price-competitive with fossil fuel-based jet fuel.

Additionally, the aviation industry can offset emissions, e.g. by funding air capture of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide thus captured could be partly used to produce fuel, which could in turn be used by the aviation industry, as pictured on the top right image. The carbon dioxide could also be used to assist growth of biofuel, e.g. in greenhouses.

Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops. As the CNN video on the right mentions, Vertigro claims to be able to grow 100,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year by growing algae in clear plastic bags suspended vertically in a greenhouse. Given the right temperature and sufficient supply of light, water and nutrients, algae seem able to supply an almost limitless amount of biofuel.

The potential of algae has been known for decades. As another CNN report describes, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) had a program for nearly two decades, to study the potential of algae as a renewable fuel. The program was run by the DoE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and was terminated by 1996. At that time, a NREL report concluded that an area around the size of the U.S. state of Maryland could cultivate algae to produce enough biofuel to satisfy the entire transportation needs of the U.S.

In conclusion, it would make sense to impose fees on conventional jet fuel and use the proceeds of those fees to fund air capture of carbon dioxide.

Apart from growing algae in greenhouses, we should also consider growing them in bags. NASA scientists are proposing algae bags as a way to produce renewable energy that does not compete with agriculture for land or fresh water. It uses algae to produce biofuel from sewage, using nutrients from waste water that would otherwise be dumped and contribute to pollution and dead zones in the sea.

algae yield The NASA article conservatively mentions that some types of algae can produce over 2,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. In fact, most of the oil we are now getting out of the ground comes from algae that lived millions of years ago. Algae still are the best source of oil we know.

In the NASA proposal, there's no need for land, water, fertilizers and other nutrients. As the NASA article describes, the bags are made of inexpensive plastic. The infrastructure to pump sewage to the sea is already in place. Economically, the proposal looks sound, even before taking into account environmental benefits.

Jonathan Trent, lead research scientist on the Spaceship Earth project at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, envisages large plastic bags floating on the ocean. The bags are filled with sewage on which the algae feed. The transparent bags collect sunlight that is used by the algae to produce oxygen by means of photosynthesis. The ocean water helps maintain the temperature inside the bags at acceptable levels, while the ocean's waves also keep the system mixed and active.

The bags will be made of “forward-osmosis membranes”, i.e. semi-permeable membranes that allow fresh water to flow out into the ocean, while preventing salt from entering and diluting the fresh water inside the bag. Making the water run one way will retain the algae and nutrients inside the bags. Through osmosis, the bags will also absorb carbon dioxide from the air, while releasing oxygen. NASA is testing these membranes for recycling dirty water on future long-duration space missions.

As the sewage is processed, the algae grow rich, fatty cells that are loaded with oil. The oil can be harvested and used, e.g., to power airplanes.

In case a bag breaks, it won’t contaminate the local environment, i.e. leakage won't cause any worse pollution than when sewage is directly dumped into the ocean, as happens now. Exposed to salt, the fresh water algae will quickly die in the ocean.

The bags are expected to last two years, and will be recycled afterwards. The plastic material may be used as plastic mulch, or possibly as a solid amendment in fields to retain moisture.

A 2007 Bloomberg report estimated that the Gulf of Mexico's Dead Zone would reach more than half the size of Maryland that year and stretch into waters off Texas. The Dead Zone endangers a $2.6 billion-a-year fishing industry. The number of shrimp fishermen licensed in Louisiana has declined 40% since 2001. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers in the 2007 spring planted the most acreage with corn since 1944, due to demand for ethanol. As the report further describes, the Dead Zone is fueled by nitrogen and other nutrients pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, and corn in particular contributes to this as it uses more nitrogen-based fertilizer than crops such as soybeans.

The Louisiana coast seems like a good place to start growing algae in bags floating in the sea, filled with sewage that would otherwise be dumped there. It does seem a much better way to produce biofuel than by subsidizing corn ethanol.

According to zFacts.com, corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (or $2.21 per gallon of gas replaced). As zFacts.com explains, besides failing to help with greenhouse gases and having serious environmental problems, corn ethanol subsidies are very expensive, and the political backlash in the next few years, as production and subsidies double, will damage the effort to curb global warming.

At UN climate talks in Bonn, the world's poorest nations proposed a levy of about $6 on every flight to help them adapt to climate change. Benito Müller, environment director of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and author of the proposal, said that air freight was deliberately not included. The levy could raise up to $10 billion per year and would increase the average price of an international long-haul fare by less than 1% for standard class passengers, but up to $62 for people traveling first class.

In the light of those amounts, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that fees imposed on conventional jet fuel could raise billions per year. Proceeds could then be used to fund rebates on air capture of carbon dioxide, which could be pumped into the bags on location to enhance algae growth. Air capture devices could be powered by surplus energy from offshore wind turbines. With the help of such funding, the entire infrastructure could be set up quickly, helping the environment, creating job opportunities, making the US less dependent on oil imports, while leaving us with more land and water to grow food, resulting in lower food prices.

As to the cost of carbon air capture, GRT puts the current cost to harvest one ton of CO2 at $200 and estimates that, 2-3 years from now, it will cost about $150, while the price will come down to $30 to $20 as the technology is fully mature.

David Keith and his team are working to capture CO2 from ambient air Professor David Keith (left) of the University of Calgary is working on a tower, 4 feet wide and 20 feet tall, with a fan at the bottom that sucks air in. The tower looks like it's made mainly of plastic, which could be made with carbon produced by such a tower. Inside the tower, limestone or a similar agent is used to bind the CO2 and to split CO2 off by heating it up. The limestone is recycled within the tower, although it does need to be resupplied at some stage. Anyway, the main cost appears to be the electricity to run it. Keith and his team showed they could capture CO2 directly from the air with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per ton of CO2. At $0.10/kWh, that would put the electricity cost at $10 per ton.

In the U.S., each person emits about 20 tons of CO2 annually. In other words, each person in the U.S. could remove as much CO2 from the air with such a device, with an annual 2 Megawatt-hours of electricity to operate it. By comparison, a refrigerator consumes about 1.2 Megawatt-hours annually [2001 figures].

Towards a Sustainable Economy