Brave New Leaf

Carbon Footprint Check-In

It's time to see how I'm doing with my carbon footprint for the year 2008. As a reminder, I've set a 2008 New Year's Resolution to cut my carbon footprint in half: from 22 tons to 11 tons.

On initial inspection, things are going incredibly well. The year to date total is just under 3 tons. Highlights:

• Our electricity bill has remained low and steady since implementing our energy-saving projects last year.
• Our hot water projects have helped immensely.
• Recycling is going very well. We are producing 75% less garbage every week!
• We have been making a conscious effort to walk more and drive less. This has significantly reduced our gas miles, which should be some of our biggest savings this year.
• We took one trip to Cleveland earlier this year to visit my in-laws, but other than that our travel has been kept in check. We did take one vacation so far this year, but just stayed at home and enjoyed the local area. It was great.

Before I can claim victory, I have some very bad news. You may remember that 2008 is also the year that my husband and I decided to take a three month sabbatical from work to travel the world.  For us this is a one-time, chance of a lifetime opportunity.  We'll be going all over: Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Spain, England, and elsewhere in Western Europe.

Our itinerary is vetted now, and I ran it through the carbon calculator. The results are not good.

The flights we'll be taking will more than double our remaining carbon footprint. On the plus side, we won't be driving for three months, but this barely makes a dent in the result. With the flights factored in, we will only improve our carbon footprint about 33% this year.

Of course, there are lots of ways to play with the numbers to make these figures stab my conscience less. I am offsetting our travel, of course, with a company that will plant extra trees to soak up this carbon. In theory, since this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip, I could amortize the carbon cost out over the next few years.

There are also justifications such as the fact that travel better connects me to the world, and inspires me to work harder towards its preservation, which is true. But the stark reality is that despite our commitment to shrinking our footprint, when our goal came into direct conflict with one of our passions, we couldn't make the sacrifice.

I have mixed feelings about this. Of course, I look at all I have accomplished so far and am enormously pleased with it. But I am also disappointed in my ability to be hardcore.

So what will I do? My current plan requires me to look beyond just myself and my measly little footprint. In order to balance the scales and achieve some semblance of my goal, I will need to find other places I can make an impact. Convince my apartment complex to switch to CFL lighting, perhaps. Maybe work with friends and family to shift their habits. Enact an energy-savings plan at my place of work.

In the end, finding other ways to prevent greenhouse emissions beyond my personal lifestyle may balance the equation on paper. But it still feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

What worldwide industries use the most power?

Cnn.com reports on which industries are contributing the most greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

As far as I can tell, they report on the emissions at the source of their generation. The energy industry appears to be the largest ghg emitter, but it's obviously generating power on behalf of the residential and commercial buildings. As far as buildings go, they still have a small share because of natural gas burned on site for heating, cooking, etc.

Still, it's useful to wrap one's head around the core sources of where emissions are coming from.

Algae 101

Algae has been making the news a lot lately, and is a fairly new topic in environmental circles. Let's take a step back for a moment and talk about why algae is interesting and important.

What is algae?
It's a big, giant, diverse set of plants. You probably know them best as seaweed. They have no leaves or roots like plants you find on land, but they perform photosynthesis all the same. Generally, algae grows in water.

What makes algae a good candidate for biofuel production?
Several things. For starters, it is the fastest growing plant in the world. That's right, bamboo has nothing on algae when conditions are right. Algae has been known to double its volume overnight.

Next, it has a significantly higher oil content than any other plant in the world. 50% of the plant is oil, vs. the next best plant, palm trees, which contain 20% oil.

If you combine both of these facts, algae has amazing potential to produce vegetable oils that can be converted into fuel. Take a look at this comparison of gallons of fuel produced per acre per year for each of these plant sources:

• Algae: 5000-20000 gpa/year
• Palm oil: 650 gpa/year
• Coconut: 230 gpa/yeer
• Rapeseed: 102 gpa/year
• Soy: 98.6 gpa/year (Soy is used in 80% of USA biodiesel)
• Peanut: 90 gpa/year
• Sunflower: 82 gpa/year
• Corn: 77 gpa/year

Yeah, that's right. Corn can only produce 77 gallons of fuel from an entire acre every year. Pathetic. That would barely run my car for a month. Algae has the potential to produce 250x that amount.

Another great thing about algae is that you can grow it anywhere. All you need is salt water, light and carbon dioxide. This eliminates the need to commandeer precious farmland to produce our fuel needs, unlike corn and soybeans.

Cool! So, why aren't we making a bunch of fuel already?
Growing algae is a bit tricky. The conditions have to be exactly right for it to grow quickly and to have the right amount of oil.

People started out trying to grow it in big ponds out under the open sky. This hasn't worked very well because the weather continually alters humidity and PH conditions.

Lately, companies have started growing algae in closed conditions, like in big tubes. But, algae needs an enormous surface area on which to grow. The light algae needs for growth only penetrates the water 3-4 inches deep, so the layer of algae harvested is usually relatively thin. Keeping an enormous shallow pool in a controlled environment is a bit tricky.

Many have pointed out that there's plenty of algae already in the oceans that we could start using. In fact, during the winter months, harmful algae blooms emerge that are so thick they strangle other sea life out of the area. In Seattle, some guys have retrofitted a boat that they think will zoom around to these algae blooms and harvest the existing algae out of the water.

Others suggest we just use the ocean to grow algae for us. Proposals range from giant tube-based algae farms floating in the seas around the equator to companies that want to throw huge quantities of iron in the ocean to force algae to spread, then harvest it.

Progress is slowly being made. In fact, the first commercial facility in the US just opened last month. But a few technical problems need to be solved before we can make full use of algae as a resource.

What's the relationship between algae and CO2?
Algae, like all plants, uses CO2 in its photosynthesis process to grow. And remember, it grows fast.

A few carbon offset companies have expressed a desire to capitalize on this fact by using iron to seed the oceans and force algae to bloom. They don't care about harvesting the algae, but would only do it to capture CO2 in the air. They theorize that once the CO2 is captured, it would then sink to the ocean's bottom, and over time we could cleanse our air this way.

Their proposals are extremely controversial. Most worry about the ecosystem impact of such a plan as large amounts of algae are dangerous to sealife. Others doubt that a carbon capture scheme ignoring natural processes will work as designed.

Another more helpful solution to capture CO2 has been proposed by Dr. Berzin at MIT, who suggests a system where each coal-fired plant feeds its CO2 to accompanying algae pools to be sucked up. In fact, these facilities can be installed directly on top of smokestacks.

What else is algae good for?
Lots of stuff:

• Once algae has been pressed for oil, the remaining algae can be fed to livestock for a nutritious, natural meal.
• Algae is a fantastic soil fertilizer
• Algae is the leading source in the hunt to produce hydrogen on the cheap. When algae is deprived of sulfur, it switches from a mode of producing oxygen to producing hydrogen. This could be the answer to cheap, clean hydrogen power!
• Algae are used in wastewater treatment facilities as a natural solution to clean up the water.

Emissions targets may not be enough. We need technology to bridge the gap.

Hello, my lovely readers! Sorry Brave New Leaf hasn't been updated in a few days. Life got a bit busy. And then I was trapped in the Washington State Legislative Caucus for nine hours yesterday. But I'm back, and am positively brimming over with green updates for us to discuss.

The first update comes to us from the New York Times.

They report that much of the efforts around global warming in recent years have focused on energy conservation and energy efficiency. Yet, despite great strides in these areas, energy consumption has still continued to increase worldwide.

Because of this, renowned world economist Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute, has stated in a recent article that the cap and trade program, once imposed, may be too little, too late. He suggests that to ratchet back our emissions at the rate required is going to kill the economy, and will also be of little use: since the rise of China and India as powers in the East will negate Western efficiency gains.

Australia launches experiment to bury carbon dioxide underground

Australia's Energy Minister will open up a demonstration injection plant today that is capable of storing up to 100,000 tonnes of CO2 underground. The facility, the largest of its kind in the world, is designed to show that greenhouse gases can be captured, transported, and stored without leaking.

Representatives from all of the major greenhouse-gas-contributing nations will be present for the opening, with the exception of China. It is not immediately clear why China will not be attending.

It's a small, but important step for Australia, a strong leader on environmental issues. Australian coal plants emit 176 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, so installations like this one would only be capable of storing .05% of Australia's CO2. But should it succeed, larger scale installations will certainly be on the horizon.

The frontline battle of coal vs. climate in Kansas

Something remarkable is happening in the heartland of America. One might even consider it a tipping point for the battle of coal vs. climate. The story goes like this:

Last year, Sunflower Electric proposed the development of three new coal-fired power plants in Kansas. While building these plants would significantly increase power production by Sunflower, only 8% of the power would go to Kansas residents, with the rest being exported to Colorado.

Worse still, the plants were forecasted to dump 13 million tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere, making them the single biggest polluter in the United States.

In Kansas, the Health and Environment secretary makes the approval decisions on permits for new power plants. Typically, the review cycle for these permits looks at traditional air pollutant concerns like ozone, and doesn't consider the climate change implications. But this time, the Secretary felt that these considerations could not be ignored. He rejected the permit.

Sunflower responded by launching a negative ad campaign at the governor. They also lobbied the Republican-heavy state congress, resulting in a bill that overturned the permit rejection and would allow the power plants to be built. The bill passed easily.

Then last week, Kansas Governor Sebelius vetoed the bill. She stated she would consider approving a plan for coal only if Sunflower would develop a plan that was heavy on renewable sources.

Sunflower believes this is too expensive. They claim to serve a lot of low-income residents and senior citizens, and coal is the only low-cost power option available to them. They are mulling a lawsuit against the governor in the State Supreme Court. It seems the battle will continue to rage for some time. And while it does so, hundreds of governments and power companies in the U.S. will be watching it closely.

Celebrating the 50-year-old Keeling Curve

If you've spent any time reading about greenhouse gases and climate change, or if you've watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, this is a graph you should be extremely familiar with.

This week marks 50 years ago that Charles David “Dave” Keeling of the Univ. of California, San Diego began taking precise, live measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii, forming the now infamous Keeling Curve.

The resulting data serves as the primary touchstone for climate change scientists. Dave has since passed away, but his son Ralph has taken up the torch.

More CO2 by the numbers:

• Volcanos, oft maligned for CO2 production, are only responsible for 145-255 million tons of CO2 per year.
• Human respiration contributes to 1.3 billion tons of CO2 per year.
• Both of these figures pale in comparison to the 26 billion tons (and rising) of CO2 generated from worldwide human activity each year.

According to the US Department of Energy:

• A billion Indians would have produced 1.04 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2004.
• A billion Chinese would have produced 3.62 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2004.
• A billion Germans would have produced 10.46 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2004.
• A billion Americans would have produced 20.18 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2004.

Where are the dirtiest power plants?

All morning, I've been playing with a site called http://www.carma.org. CARMA stands for Carma Monitoring for Action which is an organization financed by a couple of thinktanks in Washington DC.

What they've done is compiled a comprehensive database of power plants across the world including the megawatts of power that they product, and the carbon emissions of that plant. Then they mashed up the data with Google Maps.

The result is something that's endlessly interesting to play with to get a better feeling for how and where power is generated across the world. For example, to start with I typed in my zip code in their search box. Puget Sound Energy immediately came up, and I was able to get a complete picture of their power mix. My power mix.

Generally, green dots mean that the installation is a hydroelectric plant, but every so often it's a wind farm. Red dots are usually big, bad coal plants.

The data can be sliced any number of ways. You can look up the most polluting plants in the US or admire how many clean plants there are in Europe. Or get data on how the carbon for a power plant has gone up or down over time. In some cases, you can even get a look into power companies' future power goals.

It's a very rich resource. I strongly recommend you spend a little time with it to better understand your power mix.

The Green Economics of Tankless Water Heaters

In theory, a tankless water heater seems like a no-brainer. Why heat your water all day when you're not using it? Providing on-demand hot water is much more energy-efficient. It's the dominant water heating technology in Europe and Asia. Plus it saves tons of space in your home previously occupied by an enormous water holding tank.

With all of this in mind, I started to look into tankless hot water heaters as a possibility in my home. Unfortunately, the economics are incredibly unfavorable.

The total cost of a tankless hot water heater is about $1521. Here's how it breaks down:

• Bosch Aquastar unit: $671. Cheaper and more expensive models exist, but this is one of the most widely-used models.
• Installation: $1000. Installation estimates online varied wildly, but seemed to range from about $500-$2000. I picked a median estimate.
• Energy Company Rebate: $150. To offset the cost some, PSE offers a $150 rebate for tankless water heaters.

I use about $7 of natural gas on water heating per month. The EPA estimates that the tankless water heater will increase my water heating efficiency by about 40%. That's $2.80 saved on my monthly water heating bill.

If you calculate that out, it would take 45 years for the tankless water heater to pay back that money. The projected life of the unit is only 20 years. I'm out about $849 by the time it stops working.

It's simply not worth it. Not when I can buy a 30% more efficient tank heater for a fourth of the cost. This is one green project that sadly, I will not be implementing.

Slowly, we are making a difference...

The EPA has just released their US emissions and energy report for 2006, soliciting public commentary on it. The good news? The overall emissions for our nation was down 1.5% year over year. The bad news? We're still up 14.1% on emissions since 1990.

Let's take a look at where the reductions came from:

Two big areas immediately jump out at me, and I've highlighted them in yellow. First, emissions from transportation are down significantly. It's likely that high oil prices are forcing this down, but it's good to see the data trending in the right direction.

Second, and I believe most significantly, look at the data for residential emissions. Carbon emissions from residents have fallen below 1990 levels. That is stunning information. To me, this is demonstrable evidence that the conservation efforts are making a dent, and starting to make a difference.

Unfortunately, residential emissions are just a small piece of the emissions picture. We need more fuel efficient cars and we need to conserve power in industry and commercial sectors.

You can browse the overall EPA report here. It's a pretty good read.