Coal-burning power plants are under pressure to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. One type of carbon removal technology is about to get a multi-million dollar test. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Coal burning power plants are under pressure to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. One type of carbon removal technology is about to get a multi-million dollar test. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Government regulators are looking into potential controls or taxes on carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. The electric utility industry says it’s trying various ways to reduce CO2 emissions on its own.
A $10 million project at a power plant in Wisconsin will use chilled ammonia on the gas coming from the plant’s boiler. Barry McNulty is a spokesperson for WE Energies. He says the hope is to make the CO2 more dense:
“What we’re trying to do is use ammonia, much like you do in the scrubbers and whatnot of some of the other air emission equipment and separate that carbon.”
If the experiment works, utilities may be able to capture the C02 and sell it or store it deep underground. The Electric Power Research Institute and a French company that developed the chilled ammonia technology are part of the project.
With skyrocketing crude oil prices much of the nation’s attention has turned toward alternative fuels. While many people are focused on ethanol production, one small town is looking at turning waste from humans and hogs into electricity. In a few months, the town will break ground on a 10-million dollar processing plant. It hopes to become the first town in the nation to run completely off renewable resources. The GLRC’s LaToya Dennis reports:
Transcript
With skyrocketing crude oil prices much of the nation’s attention has turned toward
alternative fuels. While many people are focused on ethanol production, one small town
is looking at turning waste from humans and hogs into electricity. In a few months, the
town will break ground on a 10 million dollar processing plant. It hopes to become the
first town in the nation to run completely off renewable resources. The GLRC’s LaToya
Dennis reports:
To get where we’re going, you have to pass through small town after small town and
acres and acres of cornfields. Reynolds, Indiana is a farm town of about 500 people. It’s
hard to find on most maps. And it’s pretty easy to overlook. After all, there’s only one gas
station and three restaurants. But what Reynolds is doing is hard to overlook. Charlie
Van Voorst has lived there for a long time and is now the town president. He says the town is
going to provide its own electricity and it’s not going to burn fossil fuels like coal or
natural gas.
“Town board meetings went from talking about the neighbor’s dog in your yard to now
talking about million dollar decisions about what we’re building.”
What the town of Reynolds is building is a new power plant powered by the by-products
of the surrounding farms, chiefly, pig poop. The plant will use technology to pull
methane and other gases from animal and human waste. The gases will then power
engines and steam turbines. Coming out on the other end is electricity, and leftover solids,
which can be used for fertilizer.
(Sound of pigs)
Within just a few miles there are around 150 thousand pigs. That makes for a lot of
waste:
“Well, this is the bacon.”
Bill Schroeder is a local pig farmer. He’s standing in the middle of a thousand hogs.
They’re about knee high and weigh around 300 pounds each. They’re constantly eating
and pooping.
“It don’t smell to me, does it smell to you. When you walked in here, did you smell?”
Actually, it did smell, but Schroeder thinks it smells like money. He says he’s willing to
give the waste his pigs produce to the town to turn into electricity. After the waste is
processed, farmers will get a higher quality fertilizer back for their fields. But Schroeder
says some farmers still might hesitate because they’re not being paid for their pig waste.
“There should be return. Anytime you invest money, you expect a return. I mean if
you’ve got a CD in the bank you expect a return on that CD. It’s no different from
investment in machinery, hog buildings or anything else.”
Obviously, some of the financial incentives still have to be worked out, but Reynolds
town officials say there are good reasons besides money to take the town off the existing
power grid. Right now, Reynolds gets its energy from coal. That puts a lot of carbon into
the air. Methane processing produces less carbon dioxide than coal.
Jody Snodgrass is managing director for Rose Energy. That’s the company building the
processing plant. He says the project has another environmental benefit. It reduces the
amount methane from pig manure that’s released into the atmosphere because it’s
captured and used to make electricity.
“The increase of methane causes increased cloud formation. Also causes decreased ozone
layer and basically contributes to global warming as does carbon dioxide and several
other compounds. And if you can reduce those or eliminate those, that obviously is a plus
for the environment.”
That’s the reason the town of Reynolds is getting the support of the state in its effort to
become energy independent. Although everyone’s not on board yet, town president Charlie Van
Voorst is excited about what’s to come. He says small town farming communities haven’t
seen a development this big in more than 100 years:
“Oh, my goodness. Since I’ve grown up, golly. I suppose you could talk about the –
something to this magnitude would be when electricity came into our community.”
Town officials hope Reynolds is powered by pig poop and other alternative fuels by
2008. They say if things go well, their town could become the model for other small farm
towns across the country.
For the GLRC, I’m LaToya Dennis.
HOST TAG: This piece was originally produced for NPR’s Next Generation
Radio.
The circle of trees, as seen from the outside. The white pipe seen near the top delivers either normal air, one, or both of the experimental gasses to the trees. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Inside one of the circle of trees. Each flag marks the site of another experiment under way. More than 100 researchers take part in various experiments among the trees. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Two researchers on the Aspen Face project: Dave Karnosky, left and Neil Nelson, right. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
In northern Wisconsin, they’re finding that gasses such as carbon dioxide and ozone will change the makeup of what survives in a future forest. An open air experiment called the Aspen FACE project has been testing trees in elevated levels of ozone and carbon dioxide for ten years. But they don’t know whether the forest can change as quickly as the climate does. The GLRC’s Bob Kelleher has more:
Transcript
In northern Wisconsin, they’re finding that gasses such as carbon dioxide and ozone will
change the makeup of what survives in a future forest. An open air experiment called the
Aspen FACE project has been testing trees in elevated levels of ozone and carbon dioxide
for ten years. But they don’t know whether the forest can change as quickly as the
climate does. The GLRC’s Bob Kelleher reports:
We’re standing inside a circle of trees: paper birch, aspen, and sugar maples, maybe 15
feet high. And they’re surrounded by a ring of large white pipes spraying the trees with
gasses – that’s the high pitched noise.
Among 12 different circles of trees, some get carbon dioxide, or ozone, or a
combination. These are the very gasses believed responsible for changing the climate –
they hold in the earth’s warmth, forcing surface temperatures higher.
Dave Karnosky, with Michigan Technological University, heads the Aspen FACE project,
near Rhinelander, Wisconsin. Karnosky’s trying to predict how these gasses will affect
the northern forest:
“Those species, with aspen and aspen mixed with birch and maple make up a huge
portion of our northern forests, and there was a lot of interest by industry as well as to
what’s going to happen in the future as these greenhouse gasses continue to build up in
the atmosphere.”
Even ten years ago, when this project started, it was clear that carbon dioxide and ozone
levels were on the increase.
Ozone is destructive. It’s bad for people and for plants. Carbon dioxide, on the other
hand, is what we exhale, and what green plants need to grow. Both gasses have been on
the increase, largely due to burning fossil fuels such as in coal-fired power plants and in
cars and trucks. Karnosky says he knew aspen were quite responsive to both CO2 and
ozone:
“We weren’t sure much about the interaction, but we were sure interested in what would
happen with that, because those two pollutants are both increasing at about the same rate
in the atmosphere.”
The Aspen FACE project has shown that most trees grow well when exposed to carbon
dioxide, and most do poorly in ozone. With the gasses combined, bad effects tend to
offset the good ones, but results vary greatly between the different kinds of trees, and
even within a single species of trees, like aspen.
Karnosky has found there’s a tremendous range of genetic variation even among the
relatively few trees they’ve tested. That variation makes clear predictions difficult:
“It’s very tough to make a single prediction for species or individuals within species,
there’s so much genetic variation. So that’s been one of the, I think, kind of the highlights
from what I see in terms of a bit of a surprise for us.”
That genetic variation could be the forest’s salvation. Karnosky thinks that if some
aspens, for example, die off from ozone, maybe others will do okay, and fill the forest
back in. Sugar maples, which seem more tolerant of ozone, could replace some aspen
and birch. Then, the mix of trees in the forest would change, but the forest would
survive.
But, there could be problems if the air changes the forest too quickly. Neil Nelson is a
plant physiologist with the US Forest Service. Nelson says the region’s paper and pulp
industries rely heavily on aspen trees. He’s uncertain how quickly the forest, and forest
industry, can respond if aspen begins to die off – and how long it might take for other
trees to grow in.
“One of my colleagues has said, you know, the key issue may be whether things change
too fast for our society and economy to adjust to, and I think that’s an open question.
There seems to be great plasticity, and we aren’t quite there in terms of predicting from a
forest management standpoint what these results mean.”
It takes time to grow trees, maybe too much time if the climate suddenly shifts. The
Aspen FACE project has already provided regulators preliminary data on ozone. It could
become the basis for future pollution law. But, even ten years into the Aspen Face
project, there’s still a lot more data to harvest among the aspen and hardwoods.
Most scientists believe the earth is warming, partly because of carbon dioxide from sources such as coal-fired
power plants and automobiles. A new study shows the heat-trapping gas could be pumped into deep-sea sediment. The
GLRC’s Christina Shockley reports:
Transcript
Most scientists belive the earth is warming, partly because of carbon dioxide from sources such as coal-fired
power plants and automobiles. A new study shows the heat-trapping gas could be
pumped into deep-sea sediment. The GLRC’s Christina Shockley reports:
Right now, carbon dioxide is usually just released into the atmosphere. One solution
could be pumping it into the ground, but it might leak back out.
Dan Schrag is a professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He co-
authored a study that shows carbon dioxide pumped into sediment in the sea floor
wouldn’t come back up:
“It’s a very high pressure because of the weight of the overlying water, but very low
temperature. And as a result, the carbon dioxide sits not as a gas, but as a dense liquid.
It’s in fact denser than the sea water and so it wants to sink, not rise.”
Schrag says the carbon dioxide would be stable under the water for millions of years. He
says this is one option of many that need to be considered.
Schrag says the technology exists to get the gas underground, but cost could be a major
hurdle.
This is an artist's concept of how the FutureGen coal-burning power plant would look. The FutureGen power plant would confine the carbon dioxide that it generates and store it deep underground. (Photo courtesy of the Department of Energy)
We’re hearing more and more these days about global warming and how human activity is believed to be changing the climate. A lot of the blame has gone to pollution from coal-burning plants that produce electricity. Now, the U-S wants to build a plant that would capture and store the pollution… if it can find the right site. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
We’re hearing more and more these days about global warming and how
human activity is believed to be changing the climate. A lot of the blame
has gone to pollution from coal-burning plants that produce electricity.
Now, the U.S wants to build a plant that would capture and store the
pollution…if it can find the right site. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:
The U.S Department of Energy is chipping in 750-million dollars to the
build what’s called the FutureGen coal-burning power plant, and a
consortium of power companies is contributing an additional 250-
million. That’s a billion dollars of investment.
It’s exciting to Craig Stevens. He’s a spokesman with the Department of
Energy.
“FutureGen could revolutionize the way we use coal in this country and
around the world.”
We get most of our electricity from power plants that burn coal and belch
out greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. But Stevens says
FutureGen would be a cleaner coal-plant…
“And that’s important because today, we in the U.S have a 250 year
supply of coal reserves. It is our most abundant fossil fuel. These
electric plants actually burn coal to produce electricity for millions of
Americans. One of the things we want to do is to use this coal in an
environmentally sensitive manner.”
The hope is that FutureGen will capture the carbon dioxide it generates
to store it deep underground. Scientists plan to purify and liquefy the
CO2, so it’s a water-like substance. Then they want to inject it into the
earth. They plan to dig wells 9000 feet deep for CO2 storage. They also
want to use the space left behind from old coal mines, oil and gas wells.
Geologist Neeraj Gupta is with Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus.
He’s been researching what’s known as carbon sequestration since
1996…
“And that time this was just the beginning of an idea that you can take
carbon dioxide emissions from large industrial sources, you know, such
as power plants, and you can purify that, to make like a pure CO2s
stream. And, just like you produce oil and gas from the deep geologic
formations, you can take that CO2 and inject it back into the ground into
those same or similar deep geologic formations.”
Gupta says in the same way fossil fuels are trapped deep in the earth,
carbon dioxide could be trapped underground for millions of years, but
there are a lot of uncertainties.
Dr. Rattan Lal is director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration
Center at Ohio State University.
“Uncertainties are… is there going to be leakage? Either at the place
where it’s being injected or several miles away where there might be a
geological fracture in the rock strata.”
Lal says areas that have the right kind of rock layers and are not prone to
earthquakes, would be the best places to experiment with a project like
FutureGen.
Mark Shanahan is director of Ohio’s Air Quality Development
Authority. He thinks his state might be the perfect place because it has
the right kind of geology. At the deepest levels, the rocks aren’t entirely
solid. They’re porous, like a sponge, but with microscopic holes.
Scientists expect those tiny holes to absorb the CO2…
“The second thing is that that porous geology has to be beneath another
formation that is not porous, so the non-porous formation serves as a cap
on top of your CO2. So, once you put it into the porous formation, it
can’t go up.”
So the CO2 is trapped underground… hopefully permanently. Other
states, besides Ohio, think they also have good places for the plant.
The Department of Energy is currently reviewing proposals and plans to
pick a site by late next year. The agency wants to have FutureGen up
and running by 2012.
With concerns about global warming, the government wants to build a power plant that would capture emissions – if it can find the right site. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
With concerns about global warming, the Government wants to build a
power plant that would capture emissions – if it can find the right site.
The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:
The U.S Department of Energy is chipping in 750-million dollars to the
build what’s called the FutureGen coal-burning power plant, and a
consortium of power companies is contributing an additional 250-
million. That’s a billion dollars of investment.
Craig Stevens is a spokesman with the Department of Energy. He says
there are 250 years worth of coal reserves and this project would burn
that coal without polluting the air…
“If we can find a way to use coal that has zero emissions into the
atmosphere through geologic storage – actually pumping the carbon
dioxide into geologic formations – we can go a long way toward using
this coal but also saving our environment.
Stevens says the DOE is looking for a site that is safe to store carbon
dioxide deep underground.
The agency is currently reviewing proposals and plans to choose a spot
by late next year.
Ten states are suing the U.S EPA over emission standards for power plants. Part of the lawsuit is aimed at air pollution that might lead to global warming. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Ten states are suing the U.S EPA over emission standards for power
plants. Part of the lawsuit is aimed at air pollution that might lead to
global warming. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The Clean Air Act tells the EPA to revise emission standards for new
pollutants every eight years. The federal agency put out updated
regulations earlier this year, but some states argue the EPA failed to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
CO2 is believed to contribute to global warming. Wisconsin Attorney
General Peg Lautenschlager says there’s a scientific consensus that
increasing global temperatures will cause many problems with storms,
pollution and agriculture.
“So from that standpoint we think that the CO2 emissions issue particularly is
one where we need to get up to speed in the United States.”
The EPA defends its climate protection programs and says it’s following
President Bush’s plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
The Environmental Protection Agency has a number of tools
to get industries to clean up pollution. Market-based incentives have become more popular over the last decade… but a new study warns that officials should be careful how they use this approach. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency has a number of tools to get industries
to clean up pollution. Market-based incentives have become more popular
over the last decade, but a new study warns that officials should be careful
how they use this approach. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca
Williams reports:
Market-based incentives include pollution permits that companies can buy and
sell. Businesses like these approaches because they’re more flexible than
strict caps on emissions, and they cost less.
A recent study in the Natural Resources Journal reviewed the market-based
incentives that have been used to date.
Researcher Gloria Helfand says these approaches work best with global or
regional pollutants.
“If it goes up into the atmosphere, it will affect everywhere pretty much
the same. The classic example of this is climate change carbon dioxide
emissions. It doesn’t matter who produces carbon dioxide, everywhere in the
planet we’re going to feel the effects of it.”
Helfand says market-based incentives don’t work with pollutants that
concentrate around local communities, where it matters – which company
cleans up.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has joined up with Natural Resources Canada. The two agencies are forming an initiative to help truckers save fuel. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has
more:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has joined up with Natural
Resources Canada. The two agencies are forming an initiative to help truckers save fuel.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has more:
Officials from both sides of the border gathered near the Ambassador
Bridge in Detroit to sign a memorandum of understanding.
The new partnership brings together fuel-saving technologies developed in the EPA’s Smart Way Transport Program with driver education and training programs from Natural Resources Canada.
EPA officials say the voluntary program could save up to 440 million gallons of fuel each year in addition to eliminating 5 million tons of carbon dioxide. Suzanne Rudzinski is with the EPA.
“What we’re really trying to do is something that I think is a
win-win for both business and the environment. By adopting the
programs, we’re trying to reduce fuel usage. Idling alone can
save a billion gallons a year in diesel, just from idling trucks.”
The EPA estimates there are thirteen million truck border crossings between
the U.S. and Canada each year.
Canada's action to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Agreement is being slowed as groups are threatening to vote against a budget bill that includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. (Photo by Kenn Kiser)
Canadian environmental groups fear political opposition may kill the Liberal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
Canadian environmental groups fear political opposition may kill the Liberal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Canada’s opposition parties have created an uproar over an amendment to the government’s latest budget bill. The amendment would change Canada’s environmental protection act. It would allow nontoxic gases which heat up the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, to be regulated.
It’s the first step in Canada’s plan to comply with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. But it’s hit a major roadblock. The Conservatives say they’ll vote against the bill unless that proposal is removed. And if they vote against the budget, the Liberal government may fall.
The Sierra Club’s John Bennett says their aggressive tactics may make it difficult for Canada to make any changes to environmental laws.
“I’m very concerned that because of this, we may actually lose the ability to regulate greenhouse gases in Canada for a long time to come. And that’s the real danger here.”
Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next seven years. But Bennett says it won’t happen without new regulations.
