The Energy Information Administration projects that in 2009 we'll cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 5%. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The recession doesn’t have a lot of upsides,
but there is an environmental silver lining.
Carbon dioxide emissions are down. But,
as Tamara Keith reports,
greenhouse gas emissions are expected to
rise as the economy improves:
Transcript
The recession doesn’t have a lot of upsides,
but there is an environmental silver lining.
Carbon dioxide emissions are down. But,
as Tamara Keith reports,
greenhouse gas emissions are expected to
rise as the economy improves:
The Energy Information Administration projects that in 2009 we’ll cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 5%. Emissions were down in 2008 too.
Elias Johnson is an energy analyst. He says the economy is expected to pick up next year. That means coal, natural gas and petroleum use will pick up too.
“It’s not all going to happen at one time, so that will be gradual. And then visvis the emissions from that energy consumption will probably increase gradually.”
In 2010, Johnson says emissions are projected to rise 0.7%. Not much, really. And emissions will still be lower than they were when the economy was booming.
“For one thing, the economic activity is not going to be getting back to those levels.”
John Vrieze has a machine called a digester on his dairy farm that's used to turn manure into energy (Photo by Todd Melby)
Big dairy farms produce more than just milk. They also generate manure. Lots and lots
of it. That can be a problem for farmers and the environment. Todd Melby reports on a
technology that reduces manure and generates electricity:
Transcript
Big dairy farms produce more than just milk. They also generate manure. Lots and lots
of it. That can be a problem for farmers and the environment. Todd Melby reports on a
technology that reduces manure and generates electricity:
(sound of suckling cows)
I’m on a dairy farm with John Vrieze and his daughter Brittany.
Oh, and some cows too.
Vrieze is a frugal man. A couple of winters ago, he had a contest with his son to see who
could use the least electricity. Vrieze was willing to go to extreme measures.
His daughter Brittany tells the story this way:
Brittany Vrieze: “He’d shut his fridge off in the winter time. Just use the outdoors for his
fridge. He was definitely trying to keep the kilowatts down.”
Todd Melby: “So what did he do? He just kept his milk in the porch?”
Brittany Vrieze: “Yup.”
Todd Melby: “And kept his frozen stuff outside?”
Brittany Vrieze: “Yup. Yup.”
Today, Vrieze isn’t just trying to save energy. He’s trying to create it.
(sound of cow moos)
From cow dung.
He’s got 1,600 head of cattle at his place here in western Wisconsin. Those cows produce
milk that gets made into cheese. But they also produce about 50,000 gallons of manure
— every day.
Farmers are required to store that manure in a big pool-like structure called a lagoon.
John Vrieze covers his up with a giant tarp.
“It would blow up from the biogas. It would look like a great big balloon or like the
Metrodome, for folks in the Cities. It’s from the nature decomposition of the manure. It
creates biogas. We would have to take that gas out from underneath the cover and flare it
off, which got us to thinking that there has to be a better way to use that energy than just
to flare it off.”
So Vrieze bought a $1 million machine called a digester. And he had help from the
federal government. They paid for a quarter of it. The government is interested in these
things because they can turn manure into energy.
And it turns out — the reason it’s called a digester — is a farm thing.
“A cow has four stomachs. We call the digester really the fifth stomach. All the stuff that
comes out of the back of the cow we then put in that digester.”
So this “fifth stomach” produces energy. However, it’s not ready-to-use energy. To sell it
as natural gas, it has to be about 95% methane. The gas from the digester is only about
60% methane.
(sound of pipeline burn off)
Another option is to convert it to electricity. But in the U.S., electricity is cheap.
Todd Melby: “You tried to sell it to the electric company, but they didn’t want it.”
Brittany Vrieze: “They’re not offering us enough money. So …”
After all this investment by Vrieze and the federal government, some of the gas he
collects is just being burned off into the air.
But maybe not for long.
Vrieze wants to build a greenhouse right on his Wisconsin farm so he can grow
vegetables and herbs in the winter. He says he’ll power it with energy from the digester.
“So, instead of your produce coming from 2,000 miles away – from the central valley of
California – wouldn’t it be neat if it came from 45 miles away?”
Vrieze is planning to use the water from the cow manure for his vegetables and herbs in
his greenhouse. And he’s got a machine similar to ones used at wastewater treatment
plants to clean the manure water.
But even with the digester, there’s still leftover manure he has to deal with. But Vrieze
says the digester makes it more manageable.
(blowing sound)
Some of the dry manure is blown into a pile where it’s gathered up and used as bedding
for the cows. In the summer, it’s also used for another purpose.
“It’s just a clean version of manure. It stinks a little bit. Most of the stink has been taken
out of it. And we mix this with potting soil and it works great for the plants. So …”
That manure/potting soil mix is sold to gardeners in the city. It’s another way for Vrieze
to be frugal and environmental at the same time.
Sysco - a major food distributor - is part of a year-long government funded
project. They're running seventeen of their forklifts using hydrogen powered fuel cells. (Photo by Mark Brush)
This is how the hydrogen arrives at the Sysco warehouse in Michigan. The hydrogen is made in Megog, Quebec. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Six years ago, President Bush proposed to end our addiction to oil by building a hydrogen
economy. At the time, driving a hydrogen powered car didn’t seem that far off. But today, the
reality of mass produced hydrogen powered cars has hit some bumps in the road. Mark Brush
looks at the challenges ahead:
Transcript
Six years ago, President Bush proposed to end our addiction to oil by building a hydrogen
economy. At the time, driving a hydrogen powered car didn’t seem that far off. But today, the
reality of mass produced hydrogen powered cars has hit some bumps in the road. Mark Brush
looks at the challenges ahead:
It’s all about the fuel cell. The cell converts hydrogen gas into electricity that can power up a
motor. And when that’s done – the only thing that comes out of the tail pipe is crystal, clean
water.
So there’s a lot of enthusiasm to build hydrogen powered cars. If you live in Southern California,
you can drive a hydrogen powered car right now.
(sound of a hydrogen car commercial)
But you can’t buy this car. You can only lease it. And you have to have a pretty good map.
There are only 2 places where you can fill the car up with hydrogen.
And that highlights just one of the challenges facing the hydrogen car right now. There’s no
infrastructure – no network of gas stations – to support it.
Steven Chu heads up the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy.
“It’s an infrastructure that is as extensive as the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel. And that
doesn’t come overnight.”
Chu wants to eliminate all the research money for hydrogen powered cars and trucks. He says
there are too many big problems to solve. There’s the infrastructure problem. Fuel cells are
expensive. The cheapest way to make hydrogen right now releases pollution. And there are
problems with storing the gas.
In an interview with MIT’s Technology Review, Energy Secretary Chu referred to these problems
as the four miracles. And that didn’t go over too well with some people.
“A miracle? Really? How many miracles have you seen? I’m not sure I’ve seen a real miracle in
my life.”
Levi Thompson directs the Hydrogen Energy Technology Laboratory at the University of
Michigan.
He says talking about these problems as miracles sends the wrong message. He admits, there
are some big puzzles to solve. But he’s convinced scientists can solve them.
“If you believe this is the savior, that this is going to transform the way we do things, I think you
have a responsibility to invest – even though that you see that it’s far behind.”
Thompson says the ultimate goal for a hydrogen economy is to get the hydrogen from water
using electricity from renewable resources like wind, solar, and hydro-power. So you get the
clean burning gas you’re looking for.
It can be done today, but it’s expensive. Thompson thinks it’ll get cheaper as alternative sources
of electricity become more widespread.
The Energy Department doesn’t want to give up on hydrogen research altogether. Secretary Chu
says fuel cells do make sense on a small scale – like to power fork lifts in a warehouse.
(sound of a warehouse and forklift)
Here at this Sysco warehouse in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a mini hydrogen experiment is
underway.
Sysco is a major food distributor. This warehouse is part of a year-long government funded
project. They’re running seventeen of their forklifts using hydrogen powered fuel cells made by a
company called Plug Power.
Darin VanDuyn is with Sysco. He says, mostly, they’ve had a good experience with these fuel
cells.
“We’ve had about 80 hours of lost time due to repair – minor failures, things like that – but nothing
major has disrupted their operation.”
VanDuyn says the company hasn’t decided yet whether they’ll move forward with the fuel cell
program. But policy makers say real-world experiments like these move us closer to mass
produced hydrogen vehicles.
Even though the Obama Administration wants to cut funding for hydrogen powered cars and
trucks, Congress holds the purse – and has the final say. So far, it looks like Congress will
continue to fully fund the research.
Automakers say the ups and downs of federal funding don’t affect their plans. Several
companies say they’ll start selling hydrogen powered cars in 6 to 8 years – and they’ll let the
market decide the fate of the hydrogen economy.
One source of nitrogen dioxide is the tailpipe of your car (Source: Jensbn at Wikimedia Commons)
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to make
the limit on nitrogen dioxide tighter. It’s a
pollutant that’s emitted by power plants, and we
all spew it from our cars’ tailpipes. Rebecca Williams
has more:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to make
the limit on nitrogen dioxide tighter. It’s a
pollutant that’s emitted by power plants, and we
all spew it from our cars’ tailpipes. Rebecca Williams
has more:
Nitrogen dioxide is bad stuff. It’s part of smog and it can trigger asthma attacks and other serious lung problems.
Bonnie Holmes-Gen is with the American Lung Association.
“People can have effects from exposure to nitrogen dioxide for even 30 minutes to an hour. This exposure is particularly harmful to anyone with asthma or other lung illnesses.”
There’s already a national standard for long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide.
EPA wants to set a national standard for short-term exposure. And the American Lung Association thinks that’s great, but they want the long-term standard to be even tighter.
A tighter standard will mean cutting back on smokestack emissions and tailpipe pollution… and that’s always a tough sell.
Neal Fisher only uses charcoal for his summer grilling (Photo by Jennifer Guerra)
Summertime and the grilling is easy… but how environmentally friendly is it? We sent reporter Jennifer Guerra to find out which type of grill is greener: gas or charcoal:
Transcript
Summertime and the grilling is easy… but how environmentally friendly is it? We sent reporter Jennifer Guerra to find out which type of grill is greener: gas or charcoal:
Neal Fisher thinks he’s an environmentally friendly kind of guy. He and his wife recycle, they use compact fluorescent light bulbs in the house, they walk most places and hardly ever use their car.
But when it comes to outdoor grilling… it’s charcoal all the way.
“It may be a little decadent when you’re taking the environment into consideration, but I do it.”
(sound of grilling)
On tonight’s menu, it’s burgers, Jamaican jerk chicken, onions, and asparagus. Everything is grilled on basic, 22 ½ inch Weber kettle.
“Nothing fancy, no frills.”
To get the fire started, Fisher throws about 7 or 8 pounds of hardwood lump charcoal into a chimney starter.
“I don’t use the lighter fluid, I just use the charcoal chimney. I figure if I’m going to be cooking wood, I don’t want to cook a lot of chemicals too. So that’s something. I don’t kid myself that this is at all healthy for the world. I sometimes joke about it, too, well there goes my carbon footprint. Suddenly I’m carbon Sasquatch.”
To find out if Fisher really is a carbon Sasquatch, I called up Eric Johnson in Switzerland.
“Basically the footprint of using charcoal is about 3 times higher than the footprint of gas.”
Johnson just published a study in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review. In it, he compared the carbon dioxide emissions – or carbon footprint – of the two most popular types of grills: charcoal and propane gas.
When it comes to straight up carbon emissions – gas grills win hands down. Run your gas grill for an hour; emit 5.6 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air. Use charcoal briquettes for an hour of grilling; emit a whopping 11 pounds of CO2.
Fair enough.
But what if we look at the total carbon cycle of propane gas, a fossil fuel and charcoal, which is a bio fuel?
For that answer, we’ll turn to Bill Currie. He’s a professor in the School of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan.
“You have to think about, can we replace the carbon back in the pool that charcoal came from? Can we replace it biologically over a reasonable period of time? And with charcoal, the answer is yes, we can re-grow those trees.”
That’s because charcoal is made out of wood, which is a renewable energy source. So if charcoal is harvested locally in a sustainable way, the re-grown trees can absorb the CO2 – which makes charcoal essentially carbon neutral. So charcoal made out of wood which is renewable. Propane gas on the other hand is made from oil. Not renewable.
“Fuels that are based on coal, oil, petroleum based fuel, it’s not possible to put that CO2 back where it was biologically in a reasonable amount of time. And that’s the big difference.”
But does any of this really matter? I mean, how important is grilling in the overall environmental scheme of things. Well Currie says it’s definitely not a big-ticket item like, say, the size of your house or the number of cars you have.
“It’s probably a small factor in the whole analysis. But at the same time, we make dozens or hundreds of these choices a day. And if we know that one alternative is better than another, these little things do matter because they add up.”
Especially when you consider that Americans are expected to use more than 60 million grills – both charcoal and gas – on July 4th. That’s the carbon equivalent of 900,000 trees. Now that’s a Carbon Sasquatch.
Stonyfield says their new diet has cut cow burps by 12%.
(Photo by Peggy Greb, courtesy of the USDA)
Cows burp methane gas. It’s a potent greenhouse gas. The Environmental Protection Agency says cow burps alone make up 20% of the methane emissions in the US. Rebecca Williams reports some people worry the government might step in:
Transcript
Cows burp methane gas. It’s a potent greenhouse gas. The Environmental Protection Agency says cow burps alone make up 20% of the methane emissions in the US. Rebecca Williams reports some people worry the government might step in:
The farm lobby’s worried Congress will try to regulate gassy cows.
But if you thumb through the giant climate change bill before Congress, you’ll find Section 811. That section says the government can’t regulate cow burps.
In the meantime, some farmers are trying to make their cows less gassy.
The company Stonyfield Farm is getting its dairy farmers to change their cows’ diets.
Nancy Hirschberg is with the company. She says the new diet has cut cow burps by 12%.
“It’s very much like people. When you are feeling good, you’re not having a lot of gas – you’re more efficient, more of your energy is available for living life. The same with the cows, you want as much energy as possible to go into producing milk, not into burps which are in fact, waste.”
The report summarizes what the scientists have been finding (Image courtesy of the US Global Change Research Program)
Scientists say the effects of human-caused climate change can no longer be ignored. Their findings are part of a national report just released. Sadie Babits reports it outlines the current and future impacts of climate change in the US:
Transcript
Scientists say the effects of human-caused climate change can no longer be ignored. Their findings are part of a national report just released. Sadie Babits reports it outlines the current and future impacts of climate change in the US:
The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s report summarizes what scientists have been finding.
As temperatures warm, sea levels are rising, crop production is changing and hurricanes are getting worse.
Katherine Hayhoe is one of the report’s authors. She says we all need to curb greenhouse gas emissions and learn to adapt.
“So we need to figure out how to best prepare for the change that is coming.”
The report comes out while Congress is considering a major bill that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them over time.
But Hayhoe says the timing is just a coincidence.
Hayhoe says she does hope the report helps inform the debate in Washington.
Drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratories)
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
Transcript
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
For decades, drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas.
Environmental groups believe the chemicals are contaminating wells and aquifers here in the western U.S. Now gas drilling is moving east to places closer to cities such as Philadelphia and New York.
Several Democratic Members of Congress have introduced legislation to repeal the exemption in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Randy Udall is a co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA, an environmental group. He says as more gas is found, people in the East can expect more drilling.
“For better or worse, whether you like it or not, as time goes on, were going to be drilling in places where people are living.”
The oil and natural gas industry says the chemicals they force into the ground are “trade secrets.” They say the process is safe.
University of Florida biologist Ted Schuur does field work in the Alaska tundra every summer (Photo courtesy of Ted Schuur)
To protect the tundra, scientists at Eight Mile Lake put down boardwalks in the places they most frequently walk (Photo by Amy Mayer)
Graduate student Hanna Lee balances on the boardwalk as she moves equipment at the research site (Photo by Amy Mayer)
A report in this week’s journal Nature looks at how thawing ground up North might
impact global warming. Amy Mayer spent some time in Interior Alaska with
scientists at Eight Mile Lake:
Transcript
A report in this week’s journal Nature looks at how thawing ground up North might
impact global warming. Amy Mayer spent some time in Interior Alaska with
scientists at Eight Mile Lake:
Permafrost is ground that’s supposed to be frozen all the time. But for decades it’s been
thawing in places.
When that happens, carbon gets released—potentially contributing to the greenhouse
effect.
Ted Schuur’s a biologist at the University of Florida but he spends his summers doing
experiments near Healy, Alaska.
I tagged along during some field visits.
I met Schuur when we were both living in Fairbanks. He lives far away now, but loves
Alaska. You only work here year after year if you do. Summer field work is brutal – tons
of mosquitoes and you work all the time because the sun doesn’t set.
Pretty soon, we’re there.
“This has to be one of my more photogenic field sites that I ever worked at.”
Tundra surrounds us. We’re just north of the Alaska Range. I can see the snow-capped
peaks. We change into rubber boots, pick up our packs, and, after a few steps, we’re on
the tussocks.
Alaskans often say walking on tussocks is like balancing on basketballs. It’s not easy. If
your feet slip off, they get wet. Schuur’s tall and used to this, so he goes faster than me,
and with less bumbling.
Soon, we’re balancing on lumber instead. Schuur and his group try to protect the areas
where they work with narrow boardwalks.
“When we first came out here, we put these boardwalks that we’re walking on now, big
10 feet pieces of lumber – they’re like 2x6s or 2x8s. But we don’t really want to walk on
the tundra because we come here a lot and you’d end up with a trail in no time and
destroy vegetation.”
Schuur knows trudging across the tundra damages it and he tries to minimize that harm.
But in order to answer his questions about the potential greenhouse effect from thawing
permafrost, he has to dig in.
Schuur saws into the tundra with a bread knife.
“It’s very satisfying. It’s like cutting a big cake – though this is a cake with lots of roots in it.”
He cuts up the plants and packs the roots and the tops into jars.
“We’re going to measure respiration of plants.”
Schuur uses a machine to scrub out the carbon from the air that’s in the jars. The plant
tops and roots will continue to respire carbon dioxide until they die. Later, he’ll use fancy
equipment to “date” the carbon that’s left.
He needs the age of the carbon because when he finds older carbon he knows it’s only
recently escaped the frozen ground. That makes it extra in the system.
At first, Schuur learned, new carbon coincides with more plant growth that uses up the
addition. That means no greenhouse effect.
But, later, the permafrost keeps thawing, more old carbon becomes available, and plant
growth just can’t keep up. That means, carbon dioxide ends up in the atmosphere from
the thawing permafrost – just like it does from burning coal or gasoline.
The thawing may ultimately be a bad thing, but to understand and explain it further,
Schuur wants to document it – or even cause some. Next, he says…
“As strange as it seems, I would love to thaw permafrost on a large scale,
experimentally.”
The dilemma, of course, is that causing a thaw means contributing to – in a small way –
a process that might damage or destroy the ecosystem. But we all emit carbon dioxide,
just by driving.
“Even as I do that and I do an experiment where I melt out a little bit of the permafrost, I
think we’re generating this information that’s helping society answer these huge
questions.”
Schuur says the amount of tundra he’d sacrifice is tiny relative to the whole circumpolar
region, where tons of carbon waits in ground that is frozen now but could eventually
thaw.
Under cap-and-trade, if a business can cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits - for a price - to a business that can’t. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
A poll by Rasmussen found 76% of Americans don’t know what cap-and-trade is.
Person 1: “Putting a price cap on something?”
Person 2: “Cap and trade? I have no idea.”
Person 3: “Captain Trade? I never heard of him.”
Here’s the simple version: cap greenhouse gases. The government will lower that cap over time.
Cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits – for a price – to a business that can’t.
Overall, it’ll make fossil fuels more expensive, clean energy cheaper.
Democratic leaders in the House have agreed on a cap-and-trade plan. Republicans – and some Democrats – hate the plan. They think it’ll cost the economy too much.
The House will likely pass it. But Darren Samuelsohn with GreenWire says President Obama will have to push for it in the Senate.
“He could probably twist some arms and make some votes go his way if he really wanted it.”
And, even then, CAP and TRADE will likely only squeak through.
The Energy Information Administration projects that in 2009 we'll cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 5%. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
