Tag: capture

Deer Birth Control

  • Gardiner Joe Williamson says sterilization does nothing to solve the immediate problem of too many deer. (Photo courtesy of Adam Allington)

Whitetail deer have adapted pretty well to the suburbs. But… it means a lot of car-deer accidents. It also means deer munching on tulips and shrubs. Some people consider them pests and want to get rid of the deer. But instead of simply killing them, one city has decided to capture and sterilize a number of does.
Adam Allington reports, the results might point toward the future of urban wildlife management.

Transcript

Whitetail deer have adapted pretty well to the suburbs.

But… it means a lot of car-deer accidents. It also means deer munching on tulips and shrubs. Some people consider them pests and want to get rid of the deer.

But instead of simply killing them, one city has decided to capture and sterilize a number of does.

Adam Allington reports, the results might point toward the future of urban wildlife management.

It’s a crisp night in Town and Country, Missouri…home to some 10,000 souls…and about 800 deer.

“There goes a deer over there, it’s just to the left of the tree, you can barely see it.”

Joel Porath is a wildlife regional supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Just like humans, whitetails he says, are right at home in the quiet cul du sacs of suburbia.

“They have all the food resources, they don’t have hunting and they don’t really have predators, so mainly vehicles are what kill them in communities like this.”

Lynn Wright sits on Town and Country’s board of aldermen. Despite the accidents she says most folks like seeing the deer around…kind of reminding them that they don’t live in the city.

“But when you start going from 2 or 3 and seeing 10 or 12 in the backyard you do start getting concerned about that.”

The car accidents were a problem, but Wright says people also complained about damaged trees and landscaping. Still, the town resisted the easiest solution—to just hire sharpshooters to come in and kill all the deer.

Instead, they explored alternative methods…this is sound from a department of conservation video…it shows four deer eating corn in a back yard…just then, a large dropnet is released…sending them into a flailing frenzy until technicians rush in with tranquilizer shots.

The deer are then brought to Steve Timm. Timm is a veterinarian with White Buffalo Incorporated. Its a company that specializes in sterilizing deer.

“We’ve got two does coming in. We’re going to sterilize them by removing ovaries.”

Timm operates out of a small eight by sixteen foot trailer… When the does arrive they’re hoisted on to an operating table and prepped for surgery.

“I’ve located the left ovary here, and so I’ll clamp it, bring it to the surface, use cautery to prevent any bleeding.”

The whole process takes about 20 minutes. The deer are then stapled up, fitted with reflective collars and released.

Timm says the theory is simple—fewer fauns mean less deer eating shrubs and running into cars.

“The early information suggests, that if there are some deer in the environment, especially our sterile does, the other deer have less tendency to move in.”

But not everyone backs the sterilization approach.

Joe Williamson is a retiree who loves to garden. Walking around his yard he points out flowering magnolias, yews, Japanese maples…basically, a kind of all-night deer buffet.

“This is a good example of antler rubs, this is called Staghorn Sumac. The bucks rub their antlers on here and they break them off, you see all these…its just wrecked.”

Williamson says sterilization does nothing to solve the immediate problem of too many deer. It’s also much more expensive. Town and Country paid White Buffalo 150-thousand dollars to sterilize 112 does, and kill another 100.

But, Joel Porath of the Department of Conservation says in the end, the best solution may involve sterilizing some deer…and killing others.

“Could you imagine if we stopped allowing deer hunting in the state? You know we kill around 300,000 dear each year and it doesn’t take very long for the population to jump back up. So, they do need to continue to do something in Town and Country down the road.”

By the end of spring Porath says the department should have enough information to see if sterilization makes sense for other suburban areas.

For The Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links

From Health Care to Climate

  • Congressional leaders are beginning to start thinking about a climate bill again.

Health care legislation has finally started
moving forward in Congress. Shawn Allee reports
the US Senate can now devote some attention to
its unfinished work on climate change:

Transcript

Health care legislation has finally started moving forward in Congress.

Shawn Allee reports the US Senate can now devote some attention to its unfinished work on climate change:

The climate-change bill got a cold reception last year, but Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman say they’re making headway lately.

Margaret Kriz Hobson tracks climate legislation for the National Journal.
She says the Senate got stuck negotiating a complex carbon trading scheme.
That would have required most industries to trade carbon pollution credits.

Kriz Hobson says the three senators are now focusing mostly on power companies.

“A lot more people are letting them in the door because the proposal that they’re bringing forward would include some benefits for nuclear power, oil drilling in the United States and for more modern technologies for capture and sequestration.”

That last technology would basically bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

That could save money and jobs in states that burn or mine coal.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Storing Carbon Underground

Burning fossil fuels such as
oil and coal creates carbon
dioxide. CO2 contributes
to climate change. Samara Freemark reports
some scientists say we could
capture the emissions from
smokestacks and put in in the
ground – and they think they’ve
found a good place:

Transcript

Burning fossil fuels such as
oil and coal creates carbon
dioxide. CO2 contributes
to climate change. Samara Freemark reports
some scientists say we could
capture the emissions from
smokestacks and put in in the
ground – and they think they’ve
found a good place:

It’s called carbon capture: collecting CO2 from smokestacks, liquefying it, and piping it underground for permanent storage.

A big question is exactly where to bury the carbon dioxide so it doesn’t escape.

A new study from Rutgers University says one good place might be the underwater lava formations that run all along the eastern seaboard.

Dennis Kent is one of the study’s authors. He says the formations are full of basins that could double as CO2 reservoirs. And they’re conveniently close to population centers.

“You have to get it from the power plant to wherever the reservoir is. So having it closer would be an advantage. Take the Co2 down the road somewhere and lock it away.”

The study measured the capacity of one basin off the coast of New Jersey. It found the basin could hold a gigaton of carbon dioxide- or, the amount of gas a coal-burning power plant produces in four decades.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Power Plant Tests Carbon Capture

When it comes to global warming,
America’s in a bind. Almost half
of our electricity comes from coal.
But, compared to other power sources,
coal produces the most carbon dioxide,
a greenhouse gas. Industry’s testing
so-called ‘clean coal’ technology to
deal with the problem. Shawn Allee has this update on a test
project that has some hard work
left to do:

Transcript

When it comes to global warming,
America’s in a bind. Almost half
of our electricity comes from coal.
But, compared to other power sources,
coal produces the most carbon dioxide,
a greenhouse gas. Industry’s testing
so-called ‘clean coal’ technology to
deal with the problem. Shawn Allee has this update on a test
project that has some hard work
left to do:

If you live outside coal-mining country, you may have missed this news about a clean-coal project in West Virginia.

“A big announcement has the state and members of the coal industry very excited about the future of the state’s most valuable resource. Good Evening, I’m April Hall…“

The fanfare’s about a company called American Electric Power. Last fall, AEP started a test that could begin a clean-coal revolution.

“The Mountaineer power plant in Mason County is going to be the first facility in the world to use carbon capture and sequestration technology to cut down on the carbon dioxide that that plant emits. AEP is hoping the implementation …“

The Mountaineer test project made headlines because there’s talk of clamping down on America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Coal produces nearly twice its own weight in carbon dioxide. So, if we could bury or sequester the stuff that would help solve the coal industry’s carbon dioxide problem. Expectations are high, but the company is keeping its cool.

“The tension we’re fighting against is the fact that you can’t go from concepts on paper to commercial scale in one step.“

Gary Spitznogle runs an engineering division for AEP, and if you think he sounds cautious, it’s because he is. Spitznogle says AEP needs to validate carbon capture and sequestration.

“Validation is kind of that intermediate step between what is truly research work and full commercial scale.“

Validation is another way of saying this technology mostly works but let’s take it for a spin. Let’s run bigger and bigger tests, so we learn more and more.

“The test is treating the amount of gas that would be coming from a 20MW generating unit, so that’s very small.“

From 20 megawatts now to two hundred fifty megawatts in a few years – that’s still less than a quarter of the power generation at the Mountaineer plant.

But what’s the point of tests like this? Well, there’s a problem with carbon capture and sequestration: it wastes coal. This waste is called parasitic load. Parasitic – as in parasite.

Spitznogle: “And because it’s taking the power it’s consuming from the generating plant that you’re controlling, it’s in a sense a parasite of that power plant.“

Allee: “Sounds kind of nefarious.“

Spitznogle: “The reason is that it’s such a focus is that, no matter what technology you look at, the number is large.“

Carbon capture and sequestration equipment need power. That adds a parasitic load of thirty percent onto a coal plant. That means it takes thirty percent more coal to generate the same amount of electricity for customers. Spitznogle needs to find out if his technology cuts that parasitic load figure. Other people hope he finds out, too.

“The overarching concern I would have today is urgency.“

Ernest Moniz runs MIT’s Energy Institute. He says if power companies don’t get a handle on parasitic load we’re in for higher utility bills. One estimate puts the cost of clean-coal power at seventy percent above today’s prices. Moniz says we need bigger tests and more of them.

“We’re pushing up against the envelope and we have to do it. If we’re going to be serious about using our extensive coal reserves in a time of carbon constraints, well, then we have to just demonstrate this technology.“

If we fail to demonstrate clean coal technology, the choices aren’t good. We’d have to abandon our cheap coal supplies or we’d burn dirty coal, then deal with the costs of climate change.

Talk about parasitic load.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: Concentrating Solar Thermal

  • (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Whenever solar power is mentioned,
critics are quick to note – when there’s
no sun, there’s no power. Lester Graham
talked with the author of a report who
says one type of solar power can store
energy:

Transcript

Whenever solar power is mentioned,
critics are quick to note – when there’s
no sun, there’s no power. Lester Graham
talked with the author of a report who
says one type of solar power can store
energy:

Lester Graham: Concentrating solar thermal, or CST, can store power. Basically, mirrors are used to concentrate solar rays, heat up water, generate power. The heated water can be stored as heat in tanks – like coffee in a thermos – and produce electricity when needed. Britt Staley is with the World Resources Institute. She’s the lead author of a new report on concentrating solar thermal. So, you found, if it’s done right, CST could be built instead of coal-burning power plants. How practical is that?

Britt Childs Staley: We think that concentrating solar thermal is a very exciting renewable energy technology precisely because of this potential for storage. If you incorporate thermal energy storage, or fossil fuel backup, with your concentrating solar thermal, you can actually use the power of the sun around the clock.

Graham: Now, the CST plants are expensive – they’re more expensive than building a coal-burning power plant. So, why build them if that’s the case?

Staley: With climate change as a major concern in the US and around the world, we are going to need to reduce our dependency on coal in the power sector. And currently, as you said, concentrating solar thermal power is more expensive than coal, but in this report we’ve identified several policy interventions that could help reduce costs. For example, a price on carbon such as the cap-and-trade mechanism in the current Waxman-Markey Bill, and then some solar-specific policy interventions would help as well.

Graham: Now, when you say ‘policy interventions’, really you’re talking about government subsidies, right?

Staley: Yes. Support for R-and-D, for deployment such as the investment tax credit that’s currently in place.

Graham: Obviously, the most sunny places would be the best location for a concentrating solar thermal plant.

Staley: Mm-hmm.

Graham: And the most sunny places are often in arid places, such as the US Southwest. So, they’re the driest places, and CST relies heavily on water. So, in the long term, what’s the solution?

Staley: There are several alternative cooling technologies that are available and that can cut water by up to 95% to 98% in places where that is a concern.

Graham: Is this completely experimental, or have we seen this done anywhere in the world successfully?

Staley: It’s absolutely been done successfully. Here in the US, we have some of the longest operating CST plants. And Spain is another good example of where CST deployment has been particularly successful to date.

Graham: How long would it take to build one of these, and how soon could they contribute, and how likely is it to happen, given the cost?

Staley: A lot of the plants that we see on the drawing board right now are expected to be in operation in the next 2 to 5 years. With climate change concerns, with climate change legislation working its way through the House and Senate, coal plant investments are not particularly attractive right now. And investors are very wary of putting their money into something that’s going to be significantly more expensive in the coming years. Concentrating solar thermal, on the other hand, is a zero-emissions power resource. Also, it has zero fuel costs.

Graham: Britt Staley is the lead author of a report on concentrating solar thermal power plants. She’s an associate researcher with the World Resources Institute’s Climate Policy Team. Thanks very much for talking with us.

Staley: Thank you.

Graham: I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Coal: Dirty Past, Hazy Future (Part 3)

  • Engineering Professor Rich Axelbaum studies his "oxy-coal combustor," a device he hopes could someday trap CO2 in coal-fired power plants. (Photo by Matt Sepic)

Coal has a reputation as a sooty, dirty fuel. More recently, environmentalists and the coal industry alike have become just as worried about the carbon dioxide released when coal is burned. In the third part of our series on the future of coal, Matt Sepic has this look at the science behind so-called “clean coal”:

Transcript

Coal has a reputation as a sooty, dirty fuel. More recently, environmentalists and the coal industry alike have become just as worried about the carbon dioxide released when coal is burned. In the third part of our series on the future of coal, Matt Sepic has this look at the science behind so-called “clean coal”:

As far as most leaders of the coal industry are concerned, the debate about global warming is over. It exists, carbon dioxide contributes to it, and it’s a crisis. But as they’re quick to point out, nearly half the nation’s electricity comes from coal. It’s domestic. It’s relatively cheap. And there’s a lot of it.

Steve Leer is the CEO of Arch Coal. Leer says unless Americans want that power to get really expensive, coal will have to remain part of the equation. But he says something has to be done about all that carbon dioxide.

If we don’t solve that CO2 question, the backlash of high cost electricity becomes an issue for all of us.

Arch Coal is the nation’s second largest coal producer. It’s paying for research into carbon capture and storage. The idea is to divert CO2 from smokestacks, compress it, and then pump it underground.

Engineering professor Rich Axelbaum is studying this with money from Steve Leer’s company. In his lab at Washington University in St. Louis, Axelbaum and two students are tweaking a device they call an oxy-coal combustor.

RA: “It’s a relatively small scale, quite a small scale for industrial, but it’s a relatively large scale for a university.”

MS: “It looks like a few beer kegs stacked end to end and welded together.”

RA: “Right, right.”

Axelbaum can burn coal inside this furnace along with a variety of combustion gases. He’s trying to figure out exactly how much oxygen to inject to yield pure carbon dioxide.

“We can capture the CO2 from a combustion process, by instead of the burning the coal in air, you’re burning it in oxygen, so the stream coming out of the exhaust is CO2.

Axelbaum says there’s no sense in filling valuable underground storage space with CO2 mixed with other gases if a power plant is built that can grab nearly pure carbon dioxide and store it.

He says energy companies already pump CO2 underground to extract crude oil, so some of the technology already exists. But environmentalists say the next step – which is crucial for any so-called clean coal power plant to work– is far from proven.

“No one knows in the industry whether in fact they can sequester carbon permanently.”

David Orr teaches Environmental Science at Oberlin College in Ohio. He says storing CO2 underground is easier said than done. And nobody knows if rock formations in different parts of the country can hold the huge amounts of carbon dioxide America’s power plants produce without it eventually leaking out.

Orr says because the goal is to reduce global warming, politicians would be better off funding research into other energy alternatives.

The metric here is how much carbon do we eliminate per dollar spent on research and deployment of technology?

Orr says the 3.4 billion dollars set aside for clean coal research in the federal stimulus bill would be better spent studying wind and solar power, modernizing the nation’s electrical grid, and finding ways to improve energy efficiency.

But the United States still has more than a century’s worth of coal reserves. And with plenty of money going into both research and advertising, talk of carbon capture and storage is certain to continue, even if it remains just that.

For The Environment Report, I’m Matt Sepic.

Related Links

CAPTURING CARBON DIOXIDE FROM COAL PLANTS (Short Version)

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.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Report: Big Mercury Reductions Are Affordable

  • The National Wildlife Federation says that "for the price of one cup of coffee per household per month," mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants could be dramatically reduced. (photo by Kenn Kiser)

According to a report by the National Wildlife Federation, steep reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes region can be achieved without sharp increases on household utility bills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has more:

Transcript

According to a report by the National Wildlife Federation, steep reductions in mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest/Great Lakes region can be achieved
without sharp increases on household utility bills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett has more:


The report looked at coal-fired plants in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
It says 90 percent of mercury could be stripped from power plant emissions using available
technology, at a minimal cost. Zoe Lipman is with the National Wildlife Federation. She says
the benefits to public health would be quickly realized.


“When you cut mercury emissions, you see reductions in mercury in water and fish in a matter
of years, not decades.”


The National Wildlife Federation report looked at the cost of outfitting power plants with
a technology that uses carbon powder to capture mercury, and catch it in a fabric filter.
Utility companies say there’s no proven technology that strips mercury completely. They say
the technologies they’ve reviewed are more costly than what’s laid out in the report.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Capturing Waste-Heat in Smokestacks

Engineers say they have a new system that will extract more energy out of coal-fired power plants. And, they say, it has the added benefit of reducing pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:

Transcript

Engineers say they have a new system that will extract more energy out
of coal-fired power plants. And, they say, it has the added benefit of
reducing pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush
reports:


Coal-fired power plants convert only one-third of the fuel’s energy
potential into electricity. The rest of that energy is heat that’s
lost out the smokestack. Engineers say they’ve now found a way to
capture that heat, transferring its energy into electricity.


Dan Stinger is president of Wow Energies. He says reducing heat in
smokestacks has an added benefit:


“Not only are we able to generate power from waste heat without
consuming fuel, which is an immediate reduction in pollution. But
we’re also able to knock the temperature out of an exhaust stack or
flue gas, and by doing that we condense out a lot of the pollutants
that normally would be exhausted into the environment up a huge exhaust
stack.”


Stinger says a cooler smokestack means fewer pollutants, such as
mercury and chemicals that cause acid rain and ozone, will be sent up
into the atmosphere. Instead, much of that pollution will be condensed
out and trapped. Stinger says the company plans to install its first
small-scale system by the middle of next year.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links