Black Carbon

Executive Summary

Aerosols are minute particles that are suspended in the atmosphere. Aerosols generated through human activity are mostly comprised of sulphates, carbonaceous particles which can be grouped into black carbon (BC) and organic carbon (OC), nitrates, ammonium, and mineral dust from industrial activ­ity.

Significant sources of BC include diesel engines, burning of biomass, and combustion of coal for domestic and industrial purposes. Studies show that developed countries are the most common emitters of BC. Today per capita, China and the US generate about the same levels of BC.

Aerosols are responsible for absorbing and scat­tering solar and terrestrial radiation. BC absorbs light strongly over the entire visible spectrum and is believed to be a major contributor to global warming. Unfortunately, the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of aero­sols and their effects on climate change is harder to predict than with greenhouse gases. This is due to the fact that the scattering and absorption of aero­sols depends on the physical form of the particles.

Unbiased estimates of the uncertainty associated with aerosol indirect climate change are needed. Without them, it will be difficult for policy makers to determine the most critical aspects of climate change that require refinement.

Industrialized countries have already enacted many of the least-expensive aerosol reductions, and the remaining black carbon will be expensive to mitigate. If black carbon legislation is passed in the United States, the most likely areas for regulatory control will be vehicular soot emissions. This may take the form of particle traps for diesel engines or modified fuels. Alternatively, a more concerted push towards converting vehicles from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources may be initiated.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Carbon Capture Sequestration

Executive Summary

Coal contributes more to CO2 emissions than any other fuel source, making up more than 40% of all carbon emissions. With coal-fired power plants providing half of US electricity, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is seen as a potential bridge technology between coal-based power and newer technologies that do not rely on fossil fuel consump­tion. In CCS technology, CO2 is separated from the flue gas emitted by power plants, compressed into a near-liquid form, transported through pipelines and injected into underground geologic formations. The components of CCS – carbon capture, transporta­tion and underground injection – have already been successfully demonstrated. The challenge is applying these technologies to coal-fired power plants.

Three technologies are being pursued for carbon capture and removal, two of which can be retrofitted to existing pulverized coal power plants – post-com­bustion and oxyfuel. Pre-combustion technologies are being developed for a new kind of coal power plant, an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant. An IGCC plant gasifies coal rather than burn­ing it, turning it into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The hydrogen can be used to power the combined cycle plant, as in a natural gas plant, and the carbon monoxide, because it is so concentrated, can be more effectively and less expensively captured and stored. Once carbon is captured, it can be stored perma­nently in a geologic formation or injected into oil or gas reservoirs to boost production. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is a technology that has been performed for decades and has the potential to allow an additional 30-60% of the reservoir’s original oil to be extracted. If CO2 is not used in EOR, it can be injected into underground geologic formations and sequestered underground. The DOE has created seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to research and develop carbon sequestration technolo­gies, with the goal of creating a commercially viable model for long-term underground CO2 storage.

In addition to its investments in carbon sequestra­tion, the US government has funded more than $2.5 billion in clean coal technology projects since 2001. The concept of “clean coal” has evolved over the years and has now come to be synonymous with CCS tech­nology. The DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), a ten-year, $2 billion program, is focused on acceler­ating commercial development of advanced clean coal technologies. The future of the FutureGen Clean Coal Project, a $1billion public-private partnership to create the first IGCC power plant with CCS technology, is unclear after incorrectly calculated cost overruns put the project on hold.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Green Shipping

Executive Summary

Shipping and transportation make up a large and complex part of most supply chains, and as issues of global climate change become ever more prevalent, transportation holds the dubious honor of being the fastest-growing source of US GHG emissions. Carbon dioxide (C02) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted through the burning of fossil fuels and are responsible for a host of global environmental concerns. Since the issue of climate change became prominent in the 1990s, international governments and nonprofit organizations have been working to address the impact of human activity on climate. It is expected that regulation will increase in an effort to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions put into the air.

Up to 75% of a company’s carbon footprint can come from transport and logistics activity. The bulk of US transport moves by truck, and, by extension, by diesel fuel. International marine vessels, while far more efficient at moving goods than trucks, also run on diesel fuel and have annual GHG emis­sions on par with those of the country of Germany. While diesel fuel has historically been regulated by the EPA, these regulations have referred only to fine particulate matter and other pollutants that impact human health and add to smog and acid rain. There has not, to date, been regulation on GHG emissions.

Luckily, in transportation, lean and green can go together, as was seen when oil topped record-break­ing prices in 2008. Even without the onus of reducing their emissions, businesses have spent time working on reducing fuel consumption through more efficient routing, better placement of distribution centers, and new technologies that help trucks run more aerody­namically. All of these solutions reduce costs while also reducing carbon emissions. But sustainable, green shipping (transportation and logistics activi­ties that strive to limit GHGs), must go beyond the low-hanging fruit of fuel efficiency. While a majority of logistics managers state that environmental con­cerns are important to them, a significantly smaller number said they would be willing to pay more for such innovations.

Going forward, however, it is likely that businesses will not have the luxury of choosing whether or not to manage the environmental implications of their supply chain and shipping. Carbon output regulation is currently pending on the local, regional, federal, and international levels. Most regulation will be in the form of a cap-and-trade policy, wherein different industries would be given a certain cap on allowable emissions and would need to purchase additional allowances as needed. Given the likeli­hood of regulation, proactive businesses will want to be ready. Businesses should take the initial step of understanding their greenhouse gas emissions, and, once they have measured this amount (referred to as a carbon footprint), they will be better prepared to reduce it.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Leachate Management

Executive Summary

Landfills have been used throughout history as the most common method of waste disposal. In the US and other modernized nations, municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) have evolved beyond the open pits of past generations, to take into account health, environmental and safety considerations. One area of concern is landfill leachate, which is generated as precipitation enters a landfill site and accumulates chemical contaminants and biological impurities. In older systems, this leachate could seep out of the landfill and pollute ground and/or surface water. Modern landfills are equipped with landfill liners and leachate collection systems to help mini­mize leakage and seepage. Leachate must continue to be treated and managed even after the landfill is closed, until it reaches stabilization, which may take up to 30-50 years.

There are a variety of technologies available for leach­ate treatment and management. In a conventional landfill, leachate is collected, treated and then sent to a municipal water treatment plant for disposal. While some smaller landfill operations send their leachate offsite for treatment, most landfills perform at least partial treatment onsite, due to cost consid­erations. No one technology has emerged as the preeminent leachate treatment strategy. Because the components of leachate are varied, depending on age and landfill contents, the best results are often achieved with a combination of chemical, physical and biological treatment processes. Phy­toremediation – using leachate as irrigation and fertilizer for onsite plant life – and LFG evaporation – using methane generated by the landfill to burn off the water in leachate – are new leachate treatment technologies that show promise.

More recently, landfills have begun adopting leach­ate recirculation and landfill bioreactor technologies, which cycle the leachate back through the landfill. These strategies run counter to the “dry tomb” philosophy of conventional landfills, which attempt to limit leachate generation by keeping as much water out of the landfill as possible. Leach­ate recirculation keeps the landfill waste moist, accelerating degradation of waste and reducing the contaminants in the leachate, making it easier and more cost-effective to treat. Bioreactor land­fills, which add excess moisture in addition to leachate, also show an increase in LFG production. These technologies have been encouraged by the EPA’s adoption of RD&D permits, which allow land­fills to pilot bioreactor technology. The industry is awaiting a final ruling from the EPA on bioreactor technologies, including a variance for post-closure care, which will help to propel the industry forward.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Nuclear Power

Executive Summary

Nuclear power is the extraction of usable energy from atomic nuclei through the use of nuclear technol­ogy and controlled nuclear reactions. Today, nuclear power is produced through nuclear fission. However, future methods of producing nuclear power may include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. Accord­ing to the Energy Information Administration of the US federal government, nuclear power currently pro­vides 12 percent of the country’s generating capacity and 20 percent of its electricity. Although new tech­nologies for producing nuclear power are continually under development, nuclear power has been used as a productive energy source in the United States for at least 25 years.

There are, of course, both proponents and oppo­nents of nuclear power (Natural Edge Project, 2008). Proponents of nuclear power believe that nuclear energy is both clean and safe. Many experts believe that nuclear energy is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels and that increasing its use will help to reduce the negative impact of modern civilization on the environment. Further, proponents of nuclear energy assert that as opposed to renewable energy sources (e.g., wind power, water power, solar energy, biofuels, geothermal energy), nuclear energy pro­vides reliable base load power (i.e., the minimum amount of electric power delivered or required at a steady rate over a given period of time). Further, many experts believe that nuclear power is less expensive than renewable energy. In fact, propo­nents point out that nuclear programs in countries such as Sweden and France have proven to be very safe. Similarly, nuclear power has proven itself to be a “green” solution to the energy crisis, with a much smaller carbon footprint than traditional fossil fuels. Although opponents of nuclear power point to such historical situations as the problems with the Cher­nobyl plant, proponents of nuclear power counter that nuclear technology has advanced greatly since that time, significantly reducing the possibility of such events happening in the future.

Statistics and research can be used to support both sides of the debate. Opponents of nuclear power argue that nuclear power is not the sole answer to the energy crisis and that other alternatives need to continue to be investigated. Opponents of nuclear power also believe that alternative energy sources can provide the base load electricity needed and that, in addition, current incentives for alternative power sources will enable energy demands to go down rather than up. Further, although most opponents of nuclear power also concede that nuclear technology has advanced, they also assert that terrorism pres­ents a new source of concern over nuclear plants. Opponents are also concerned with the disposal of nuclear waste and the fact that nuclear materials are non-renewable resources.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Plastics Recycling

Executive Summary

Plastics are an integral part of most businesses, whether it is their shipping material, their pack­aging, or their product. From cell phones to high performance clothing to water bottles, plastic is everywhere. Use of plastic has steadily increased over the past decades, and recycling rates have grown in tandem. In 1988, the Society for Plastic Recycling created Resin Identification Codes, or RICs, which are the numbers surrounded by chas­ing arrows that let consumers know how to sort their recycling. Many communities that pick up all plastics only recycle one or two types, sorting and disposing of the rest. The plastics that are most commonly recycled are PET (RIC #1) and HDPE (RIC #2).

Even with an increasing percentage of plastic being recycled, however, there are still significant health and environmental concerns. Furthermore, conven­tional plastics are petroleum-based, and the rising cost of oil, as well as its volatility, is a risk. Many envi­ronmental and health advocates look at the effects of plastic through a full lifecycle analysis, which takes into account the impact of the plastic through the full cycle of its existence, from its manufacture, through its consumer interaction, to its disposal. One important finding from such studies is that for many types of plastic, the end-of-use stage is not the most relevant in terms of environmental and health impact. The best way to reduce the ecological footprint is not necessarily to focus on the recyclability of the plastic at the end of its life, but rather on its production and usage. It is in the usage stage that controversy exists as to how dangerous the toxins in plastic are to humans. Recently, bisphenol-A (BPA) has undergone scrutiny and the National Toxicology Program has testified that it has “some concern” as to its effects on infants and children. While the FDA has not ruled against it, many companies are creating BPA-free products, and retail­ers are voluntarily removing products with BPA from their shelves.

Some companies are looking at biodegradable plas­tics as a way to solve some of the negative aspects of plastic use. Biodegradable plastics are plant-based rather than petroleum-based. They are made from crops such as sugarcane, corn, and maize. While there had long been resistance to these types of plastics due to limited availability and high prices, the increased consumer demand for environmentally friendlier products and rising oil costs have made this a more attractive option. Currently in the US, PLA is the most common of these plastics. PLA producers claim that their product biodegrades in 30-90 days, and can be recycled as well. However, opponents claim that the product only composts in highly specific commercial compost facilities, which are rare, and cannot be recy­cled with other traditional plastics. In addition, some studies have shown that, due to the thickness required for PLA packaging, as well as the manufacture process itself, the product uses more energy to produce than some traditional plastics like HDPE.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Renewable Energy Certificates

Executive Summary

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a priority for those concerned about sustainability, and the nation’s electric grid is an obvious place to start making changes: If more people and businesses get their elec­tricity from renewable sources, there will be less need for electricity generated by dirty fossil fuel plants. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are one way to buy in to the burgeoning green energy industry, though they don’t necessarily mean making a change in actual electricity usage. That’s because RECs are an electronic instrument created in direct proportion to the megawatts generated by renewable energy plants; the RECs and the electricity itself can be sold as separate commodities in different markets. Proceeds from REC sales are intended to finance green energy project development, so consumers can help build a domestic renewables industry even if they don’t live near a solar or wind plant.

Many businesses and consumers participate in the voluntary REC market, joining the large corporations and government agencies buying RECs in an effort to green their energy consumption. There is also a mandatory REC market, consisting of utilities that are required by state law to maintain a minimum percentage of renewable energy in their portfolios. Some states allow these companies to purchase RECs to satisfy regulatory minimums. Both markets are served by independent green energy producers, dedicated REC brokers and utility companies that have built renewable projects to generate both elec­tricity and RECs.

The connection between RECs and new green energy projects can be tenuous, however. Some experts fear that too much REC revenue goes to existing renew­ables plants, instead of funding projects that would not otherwise exist. And while utilities can sell RECs to finance green development or expansion, no law requires them to use the proceeds for this purpose. Finally, differing state laws and an absence of federal oversight leaves room for concern.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.

Wind Power

Executive Summary

Rising energy prices, worry about national depen­dence on foreign oil and concern about global warming have led many in the energy sector to investigate renewable, non-GHG emitting sources of energy. Among the top contenders is wind power. Energy generated by wind can be captured on small and large scales: Either through individual wind turbines or through wind farms.

The generation of electricity through wind power offers enormous benefits. Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy that decreases the reli­ance on other sources of energy, including foreign oil. Specifically, if the United States were to gener­ate 20% of its electricity from wind power by 2030, as proposed in a recent Department of Energy study, annual CO2 emissions could be reduced by 825 mil­lion metric tons by 2030, cumulative water use could be reduced by 4 trillion gallons and by diversifying our energy portfolio, energy rates could experience greater stability (DOE, 2008, p. 13). Additionally, the same report notes economic benefits - from new tax revenues to 500,000 new jobs (DOE, 2008, p. 13).

From an investment perspective, evidence on return on investment is inconsistent at best, primarily because here are so many variables (wind, topography, sur­rounding structures and vegetation), that determine the energy generated. AWEA estimates 6-30 years for “small wind” turbines (AWEA, 1996-2009a), but other sources more optimistically estimate 8-12 years on average. The industry, however, boasts that the “energy payback” period (the amount of time it takes for a wind turbine to generate the energy used to manufacture it) is much shorter for wind power than it is for other sources of electrical generation. In sum, as one study noted: “[w]ind-generated power is frequently con­sidered to be the ‘best’ renewable option because its costs are lower than those of other sources of novel renewable energy” (Prescott, van Kooten & Zhu, 2007, p. 724).

For all of the enthusiasm evidenced by the industry, it is important to consider the drawbacks and chal­lenges of wind power, including: Variability and market penetration, storage, maintenance, not in my backyard (NIMBY) mentality, bird and wildlife endan­germent and energy transmission.

To read the entire report, contact EBSCO for more information on subscribing to Sustainability Watch.