Going carbon neutral

Are you carbon neutral?

In this country, if you ask the question chances are you would be met with blank stares, as if saying, what are you talking about? Or shall we change the topic? Try it.

It shows that we are still along way towards a culture of clean energy and energy efficiency.

Going carbon neutral as an individual is all about the good old, energy conservation and being energy efficient. Aside from the updated semantics, becoming carbon neutral takes on a new advocacy-- that of helping to mitigate global warming in your own small way by deliberately changing your lifestyle towards that goal.

The jury is still out whether global warming is caused more by human activities or natural events—one can argue from both ends of the political spectrum. Or whether global warming is intrinsically bad or there might even be hidden benefits to it, according to the devil advocates (For example, global warming could free up vast tracts of tundra for agriculture).

Whatever. But the incontrovertible scientific evidence does indeed point to measurable average global rise in temperatures at least since the rise of civilizations. The body of evidence ranges from paleotemperature measurements of ice cores in Antarctica to ocean currents and to migratory behavior of birds.

Let’s go back to becoming carbon neutral.

Carbon neutrality refers to energy policies and practices that effectively result in zero net emissions of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are alleged to contribute significantly to global warming. Any effort to help reduce these gases will offset the effects of global warming.

Carbon neutrality works through a combination of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, researching and utilizing renewable energy resources and offsetting whatever emissions one cannot avoid producing.

There are two groups of ways to become carbon neutral. One, by reducing your own carbon emission by deliberately avoiding activities that emit carbon gases and by becoming energy efficient. And two, by offsetting what you produce by some carbon-reducing activities somewhere around the globe.

Offsetting could also mean you pay companies to maintain carbon reduction projects worldwide like tree-planting program or the use of renewable energy sources which would nullify your carbon emissions.

Large-scale offsetting is probably familiar here in the form of tradable carbon credits granted to renewable energy projects such as the Bangui Bay wind project and the methane gas electricity generation project in San Mateo. These projects have been implemented through the so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. The mechanism is essentially trading an institution's excess carbon emissions with another’s surplus to lead to a net zero sums.

Offset projects can be classified into two types: avoided emissions and sequestration. The first category seeks to avoid emitting greenhouse gases by using less fossil fuel and switching to renewable sources for power generation.

The second category, sequestration offsets, involves removing an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it for a given time. Carbon sequestration proposals range from capturing the carbon dioxide emissions of coal power plants to research on how forests and grasslands management could be improved to increase soil uptake of these gases.

The voluntary offset market has developed into a major market which is triggered by increasing carbon compliance demands especially in more developed societies. Europe and Japan have been the largest buyers and China the largest seller. In 2006, the estimate of the regulated market is placed at $US21.5 billion and voluntary markets at about $US100 million for the first three quarters of 2006. The bulk of the purchases come from corporations with substantial carbon footprints that are looking to minimize their financial risks ahead of tightening regulation.

Examples of carbon offsetting projects are the following: solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, fuel efficiency, fuel substitution (switching to a fuel which emits less carbon). Co-generation (generate electricity and heat from one source), efficient lighting (replacing incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lamps), materials switch (replace input materials of industrial processes to one with less carbon emission), construction of green buildings (which are energy and materials efficient), green transport (use of LPG and hybrid cars), utilization of industrial waste (e.g., co-generation), biomass power generation (use of farm residue to generate power), reforestation and efficient pasture management.

Becoming carbon neutral requires a complete change in outlook aside from having the right information.

In the meantime, one can readily take the path to becoming carbon neutral by making improvements right within your home. Some of the things you could do at home include:

* Choose white goods such as freezers, washing machines and air conditioners with high efficiency ratings.

* Replace incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and other low energy light bulbs. Try to give up your halogen lamps.

* Switch to a power supplier which uses renewable energy if possible. At the moment this is not feasible, but this might be coming your way soon.

* Improve the insulation of your room if you have an air conditioner. Switch off air conditioner earlier; with proper insulation, coolness of the room will persist longer.

* Observe proper recycling of materials

* Don’t leave appliances and lights turned on when nobody is using

* Don't waste water.

* If appropriate, install your own renewable energy systems, such as solar panels in your home.

One could add to the list.

Becoming carbon neutral is not that difficult. Aside from having that feel-good feeling of somehow helping the environment, one can save or make money on the side.

Clean coal?

By J R Ruaya

Last weekend in Iloilo City, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes declared that he is in favor of building new coal-fired power plants in the Visayas as long as they use the so-called “clean coal technology”. He made his position on the issue amid his advocacy in the promotion of renewable energy sources.

It was a brave pronouncement, a calculated one, amidst active protests against coal in particular and environmental degradation in general. At the same he was making the statement a group of environmentalists have scaled nearby Mt. Kanlaon to protest the granting of permit to geothermal developer PNOC-EDC to enter Mt. Kanlaon National Park. A few days earlier, Greenpeace environmental activists vandalized a ship loading coal to Pagbilao power plant in Luzon.

For sure he will get rotten tomatoes plastered on his face, but at least Reyes is showing pragmatism in the face of mounting power crisis especially in the Visayas on one hand, and a noisy environmental movement on the other.

According to Reyes, the country could veer away from coal power plants, but not now.

“We still have coal-fired power plants firing up Luzon grid,” Reyes said. Coal accounts for 30 and 25 percent of Luzon and the Philippine generation mix, respectively.

He said the government has to balance the need of the country in terms of power.

“Coal will continue to be the bridge fuel,” he said.

Clean coal?

Clean coal will continue to be an oxymoron for many years to come. What is touted as clean coal technology is broadly understood to be any technology that has the capability to substantially reduce the "dirty" side associated with coal burning; noxious sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide which is accused to be the main culprit of man-made global warming, lead, mercury, arsenic and other poisonous heavy metals, fly-ash or particulates and residues consisting of inorganic materials. Also to be included is the attendant environmental degradation during coal mining.

The term's origin could be traced back to the U.S Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program which was launched in 1986 and continued for more than twenty years with not much to show off. Recently, this has been replaced with the FutureGen project which is an ambitious undertaking to finally make coal "squeaky clean" to the satisfaction of environmental standards, and also to appease the green activists.

That the U.S. leads in research and development to make coal palatable is hardly surprising. Despite being a first world country with high standard of environmental protection, 52 % of its electricity needs comes from burning coal. The percentage is not expected to come down even 20 or 30 years from now. Coal is still cheap compared to alternatives, and the U.S. has plenty of it, producing about 27% of the world output yearly.

A significant improvement to the conventional pulverized coal burning is the use of fluidized bed technology wherein coal powder is suspended in fluid form while burning. This significantly brings down airborne particulates but not carbon dioxide and the noxious oxides. One still has residue to dispose of.

Of the 31 or so projects funded by US DOE at a cost of some $2.75-B, perhaps the project that came close to "clean coal technology" is the integrated cycle coal gasification (ICCG) plant wherein coal is turned to gas before being burned to generate electricity. So far, no significant commercial taker has come forward.

A demonstration ICCG plant has been recently built at a cost of $600-M with some $140-M grant coming from the DOE, by Tampa Electric Co., in Polk, Florida which is 10% more efficient than most coal-fired plants. But still, it is far from clean. While the plant captures all of its fly ash, removes 98% of sulfur and nearly all of its nitrogen oxides, the operator admits that it is not designed to remove mercury, one of the most toxic substances known to man, or carbon dioxide.

A more ambitious undertaking is a small project at the Los Alamos Research Laboratory which is dubbed "zero emission coal alliance" (ZECA) which aims to trap all pollutants. The ZECA plant combines coal gasification with a process that absorbs coal in magnesium silicates, which is quite common and inexpensive. The rock dust with CO₂ will then be buried underground. A researcher involved in the project thinks that it could take 20 years for the project to completion and could double the price of electricity compared to a conventional coal-fired plant.

Carbon dioxide sequestration, as the technology is also known for, if successful, is a geological and technological marvel, simply because of its scope. It is estimated that 2.5 billion tons of CO₂ is emitted by U.S. coal plants yearly; at least 1/3 of that should be removed for the technology to have an impact on CO₂ reduction efforts.

Another innovative idea is the use of algae for carbon capture using a process that has been with us for millions of years:photosynthesis. Algae, in batch reactors, capture the CO₂ emission of a coal plant, while the grown algae themselves, once dewatered, may be converted into vehicle-quality biofuel. NRG Energy is pilot testing the process in one of its plants at Loiusiana, while another outfit, Sapphire Energy, believes the idea is feasible and is putting some efforts to realize it.

Other ideas being tried out include conversion of coal to fuel gas or liquid, which is then burned to produce electricity or used in vehicles. This and other propositions require that oil prices remain high to become viable. There are also technical hurdles to overcome in the laboratory and demonstration trials.

Much of these efforts has been stymied by high costs and the advent of cleaner and cheaper natural gas plants in the 80s and 90s. However, with oil prices breaching $130 to a barrel, "clean coal technology" is getting a second look.

Pragmatism required

To immediately address the looming power crisis in the Visayas, pragmatism should prevail over wishful thinking by considering any proposed coal plant on a case to case basis while "clean coal technology" is still a mirage on the horizon. The alternative is a debilitating power crisis that is to occur sooner than later.

So, Secretary Reyes is unlikely to have his wish granted. The best he could get is an improved coal plant over the existing ones.

But it would be far from clean.