Injecting CO2 into concrete as it hardens is helping slash its towering toll on the climate
Concrete is a conundrum. It’s the world’s most heavily consumed manmade material, with nearly three tonnes used per person, every year. Yet for the climate, baking limestone into cement does more harm than practically any other industrial process.
To help cut cement’s supersized carbon footprint, Halifax, Nova Scotia-based startup CarbonCure Technologies is tinkering with the age-old recipe for how cement cures into concrete, its final rock-like form. The company’s answer: carbonated cement.
“Every day millions of tonnes of concrete is produced globally,” says Robert Niven, chief executive and founder. “Every tonne is a lost opportunity to sequester carbon dioxide.”
Devising greener concrete is no easy task, in part because the recipe is deceptively simple and has proven to be such a remarkably good building material for so long.
It is, quite literally, the stuff from which civilization has been built. Today’s cement traces back to formulations first used 7,000 years ago. Some Roman-era structures, such as the domed Pantheon, are as sturdy today as when they were erected two millennia ago.
Today’s megastructures are likewise possible only because of concrete’s peculiar mix of performance and affordability, from the biggest dams to our tallest towers.
The problem? The manufacturing of cement emits 5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, on par with about half of all emissions from car, truck and other road transport. Among industrial sources of CO2, the industry trails only the much larger petrochemicals sector.
Making cement emits roughly equal shares of CO2 at two stages: first, from the fuel used to heat a mix of limestone and traces of other minerals to 1,450 degrees Celsius; and second, from the resulting chemical reaction, where limestone breaks down into lime, giving up nearly half its mass as CO2.
Unless better recipes are devised, emissions will keep growing. A building binge across the developing world is expected to more than double global cement production this decade, according to the Carbon War Room, a London-based think tank.
CarbonCure is tackling that problem by focusing on how cement cures into concrete. The company’s proprietary process injects anthropogenic CO2 – captured from big industrial sources such as natural gas reformers – into the mix as concrete is being formed into an array of masonry products, including blocks and pavers.
As the CO2 percolates through the mix, it triggers a chemical reaction, remaking microscopic bits of limestone in the concrete matrix, permanently locking the gas into a rock-like structure. The resulting concrete block is not only greener; it turns out stronger than the standard stuff.
The carbon savings can stack up quickly. As a rule of thumb, every standard concrete block made using CarbonCure’s recipe sequesters around 30 grams of CO2. Thus, some 3,000 of them can lock up as much CO2 as a mature tree does in a single year.
The first U.S. structure to be built with CarbonCure’s green blocks was completed at the University of California, Davis in the spring. Exterior walls of the Jess S. Jackson Sustainable Winery Building, a one-storey, 8,500-square-foot research facility, were built with more than 2,500 specially manufactured blocks made by Basalite Concrete Products, based in Dixon, California. The result, says Niven, is the lowest-carbon concrete-block wall ever built in the U.S.
CarbonCure is currently working with four partners in North America that are producing its low-carbon blocks, pavers and other masonry products. Atlas Block, a major Canadian concrete manufacturer, is in negotiation to supply the low-carbon blocks for several sports complexes being built for the 2015 Pan Am Games in Toronto. “This is easily the most exciting technological improvement I’ve seen in years,” says Atlas chief executive Don Gordon.
Another dozen partners are in the pipeline, says Niven. In time, he hopes to expand the company’s reach to China – where more than half of the world’s concrete is currently being produced – and other global markets.
He also hopes to see CarbonCure move beyond masonry to apply its process to larger precast structures and ready-mix, the wet slurry of concrete and aggregate delivered in big mixing trucks.
Given that roughly 12 billion tonnes of concrete is produced every year around the world, if CarbonCure can adapt its technology to all concrete types, “the potential to reduce carbon is huge,” Niven says.
Indeed, green efforts are advancing in other aspects of concrete production. Industrial waste, such as fly ash or slag, offers a low-carbon alternative to cement. And major manufacturers such as Lafarge and Holcim are using more low-carbon or carbon-neutral fuels, such as biomass, to replace fossil fuels used in cement kilns.
Taken together, these green steps suggest that concrete could someday be “carbon neutral, or even carbon negative,” says Niven.
Can a company making sugary drinks and salty snacks for more than a century modernize for an era when health and sustainability matter? Image by Tom Kelley
Bringing sustainability to the soda and snack food aisles
Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of OnEarth Q&As with business leaders who are transforming their industries.
Since the days when Pepsi challenged Coke to a long-running public taste-off, the cola wars have receded to a quaint memory. PepsiCo has since grown to nearly twice the size of Coke, selling a more diverse line of products. The company based in Purchase, New York, posted sales of $57.8 billion in 2010, but just half of its revenue comes from beverages: Pepsi Cola, Mountain Dew, and Gatorade are its top-sellers. The rest? Those salty snack foods common at picnics and lunch tables, including Lay’s potato chips, Doritos tortilla chips, and Fritos corn chips.
In recent years, PepsiCo has also worked to distinguish itself from its archrival with a more prominent focus on corporate sustainability. Under CEO Indra K. Nooyi, the company has defined its five-year mission, dubbed Performance with Purpose, as “delivering sustainable growth by investing in a healthier future for people and our planet.” On the ground, this has translated into investments in renewable energy, packaging reductions, and company-wide efforts to cut the use of energy, food commodities, and water. Those initiatives have already saved nearly 20 billion liters of water since 2006, according to PepsiCo’s most recent assessment. Pumping and treating less water has helped trim energy use substantially, too, because moving less water means using less electricity and fuel to power factories. While PepsiCo won’t reveal a dollar value on these savings, they run into the hundreds of millions.
The successes haven’t insulated PepsiCo from environmental controversy, however. The trash flow from billions of plastic bottles and the private sale of public water resources ignited public ire a few years ago and continues today. In March, PepsiCo unveiled the first fully recyclable disposable beverage bottle made from plant-based materials that don’t compete with food crops. The news won praise from green groups, including NRDC. It came just a few months after the company’s Aquafina brand was given a “D” for transparency by the Environmental Working Group in its Bottled Water Scorecard.
OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently spoke to Dan Bena, senior director of sustainable development at PepsiCo. A 27-year veteran of the company, he is active in international water issues, having worked with the United Nations CEO Water Mandate and the World Economic Forum, among others, to chart a course toward worldwide water sustainability and security. He opened up about the environmental challenges the snack food giant faces.
Daniel Bena
You’re trying to curb water use across the company. How is PepsiCo changing the way it operates to meet that goal?
In 2009 PepsiCo became one of the first large companies to publish public guidelines recognizing water as a human right. This was just before the United Nations General Assembly did likewise. We’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback, even from non-governmental organizations that wouldn’t have had much time for PepsiCo before then, praising that step as an important line in the sand to draw.
The challenge we face now is to embed those values in our day-to-day operations, and to push them out to our suppliers and customers. To do so, we set out a few specific goals focused on water. Within our own beverage and food factories, we aim to improve our water-use efficiency by 20 percent by 2015, from a 2006 baseline. In fact, we’re already at 19 percent, so we hope to hit that goal very soon, four years early.
Second, we’re aiming to have positive water balance in water-distressed areas. Last month during World Water Week, an annual global summit of water experts in Stockholm, we published a joint report with The Nature Conservancy assessing the benefits of watershed preservation and restoration in five global communities, to help us and others learn better practices for protecting watersheds.
Lastly, we set a goal to provide three million peoplein water-distressed areas with access to safe water, also by 2015.
How do you define and improve “water-use efficiency?”
It’s a measure of the total water used to make a single unit of our product. For example, as a rough global average, it takes PepsiCo about 2.5 liters of water to produce a liter of beverage. It’s really variable though. At our best plants, it’s probably half that, and a few facilities use twice that amount. That’s the opportunity we face: to lower water use at our least efficient plants.
We track our internal water use for drinks by liters per liter of beverage, or for snacks as liters per kilogram of food. Using an analytical method we developed in house, called Resource Conservation, or ReCon for short, our plants around the world have gone through and meticulously mapped streams of water use.
When you do this, you see how water costs add up. Incoming fresh water is expensive to bring into a factory. On top of that, every liter that enters a factory must be treated, processed, and discharged. Each of these steps carries costs. So by reducing the amount of water entering a plant, you reduce those extra steps, too, and the savings compound. Factory managers used to the idea that “water is cheap” suddenly start paying attention. There’s no better way to get their attention than saying: “This can save you money.”
Since its launch in 2009, ReCon water has prevented the use of 2.2 billion liters of water, with a corresponding cost savings of nearly $2.7 million. We’ve also begun extending ReCon water-saving practices to our key suppliers. So far, those partners have scored a collective 22 percent improvement in water-use efficiency, compared with a 2007 baseline.
What else is water used for in the factories other than the actual beverages and food?
Believe it or not, in a beverage plant, one of the largest users of water is the room where the water is filtered. There, frequent backwashing of filters and advanced membranes consume really high volumes of water. Another of the biggest users is what we call “clean in place” or “sanitize in place,” where water is used to douse conveyers, equipment, floors, and rooms, ensuring they’re sanitary before producing beverage. Sometimes, it’s even used as a lubricant to keep conveyor belts flowing.
Are similar water-saving steps underway at PepsiCo’s food plants?
Yes. Few people realize this but producing food is also highly water-intensive. Making potato chips uses as much water as making beverages. There’s a lot of rinsing as potatoes are processed: to remove dirt when they’re peeled; to take off an outer layer of starch so they fry better. Companies talk about taking factories or buildings off the electric grid, but no one talks about taking plants off the water grid. That’s something we’re exploring at our Walkers potato chip plants in the United Kingdom.
As they arrive from the farm, potatoes are 80 percent water. Frying drives out most of that moisture as steam. The Walkers team is developing a process to capture that steam before it goes out a stack and bring it back into the process. It’s enough water, we think, that the plant could operate without taking fresh water from public supplies.
These efficiencies improve PepsiCo’s internal water usage. But what steps are you taking to help the communities you operate in where water is scarce?
I mentioned before that we’re aiming to achieve a “positive water balance” in water-stressed regions. An example can help explain our approach. One of the easiest areas in which to achieve big water savings is agriculture. Globally, farming accounts for about three-quarters of water use. In India, it’s more — about 85 percent. We make a variety of beverages there, and water supplies are widely at risk. To help lower farms’ water use, PepsiCo developed and patented a relatively simple piece of equipment that automates the direct seeding of rice.
Conventionally, rice is planted in a flooded field, where young shoots sit in three or four inches of water for up to six months. Direct seeding shortens this period and cuts water use by about one-third. We estimate that developing and promoting direct seeding lets us give back 5.5 billion liters of fresh water each year that would have otherwise been drawn from wells or surface streams and lakes.
Critics have cried foul over the idea of selling bottled water in low-income countries. You’ve argued that they’re missing the point — that water is sold anyhow, often at unfair rates in those markets.
There’s a misconception that poor people cannot and should not pay for water. The reality is that in many cases they do pay for water: the trouble is they often pay high prices for poor-quality water. Delivering safe, clean water at a fair price is something that can help close the health and poverty gap between consumers at the “base of the pyramid” — the poorest half of the world’s population — and the developed world.
This relates to PepsiCo’s third goal I mentioned: improving access to fresh water for three millionpeople by 2015. To hit this goal, we’re working with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and Water.org — which is the merger of Water Partners International and Matt Damon’s H2OAfrica.
The PepsiCo Foundation provides funding to assist a variety of Water.org projects. Under the WaterCredit Program, the money is distributed in microloans, on the order of $120 per loan, and used to build household sanitary facilities or to improve access to fresh water. The loans go almost entirely to women, and repayment has been close to 100 percent. Any global bank would be envious of those kinds of returns.
Earlier this year, we became the first private sector donor to the Inter-American Development Bank’s Aquafund. With our $5 million donation, the plan is to “lift and shift” the WaterCredit model from India to Latin America, and to deliver safe water to 500,000 people there by 2015.
Our third partner is the Safe Water Network, a not-for-profit that PepsiCo founded with Paul Newman’s charity and others who saw the need to bring people safe water. This work is focused on Ghana, India, and Kenya.
Some argue that the nature of the water crisis — its very scale and stubbornness — make it a poor match for corporate efforts. How do you reconcile PepsiCo’s reach with the scope of the challenge?
It’s true that water crises are enormous — so much so that no single entity can solve them alone. That’s why all the key players — governments, NGOs, academia, individuals and, yes, industry — must collaborate on the solutions. Recognition is the start of a long journey to help improve the situation. Commitments are the next step.
At PepsiCo our challenge now is to formalize those efforts, test their success and nurture the best of those practices across our business units around the world. It is a daunting process. But our efforts together with those of others — I think of it as a divide-and-conquer approach — can help achieve steady, small steps.
So, do companies have a role in protecting water? Not just a role, but an absolute obligation.
Sidebar: TRUTH SQUAD
Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts
PepsiCo has been in the middle of more environmental and health controversies over the past decade than at any time in the century since it patented the recipe for Pepsi-Cola. In recent years, its Aquafina brand of bottled water came under fire. Today, the waste caused by the beverage industry, as well as questions about the commoditization of a public resource, persist as lighting-rod issues. Health is another knotty challenge. Concerns continue to mount over the role of sugary drinks as childhood obesity and diabetes rates skyrocket.
While some companies have shied away from acknowledging such problems, PepsiCo has responded with a range of industry-leading efforts. “Does one praise a company making an unsustainable product such as bottled water? I don’t know,” says Jonathan Kaplan, an NRDC senior policy specialist in San Francisco. “But there’s no question that they’re forward thinking on these issues relative to their competitors.”
For example, in 2009, the company conducted a life-cycle assessment to gauge the environmental impact of its Tropicana orange juice line and published the results in the New York Times. “Many companies spend time doing LCAs, but they rarely make the findings public,” says Kaplan. Likewise, its public focus on developing plant-based plastic bottles, recycling, and greener operations boost the pressure on its competitors to follow suit, Kaplan adds.
Water use is another area where PepsiCo is leading its peers, Kaplan says. “Food manufacturers, in general, are closer to recognizing that we’re headed toward a future with finite resources, where water, grain, and other inputs are less available and more expensive.” By this measure, the company’s efforts to curb water use at its plants gives it an edge — and just might drive competitors to do likewise. “Companies that figure out how to become part of the solution will have an advantage.” — Adam Aston
CO2 Solution, in Quebec City, Canada is continuing its work to develop biology-based carbon capture technologies with Codexis, based in Redwood City, Calif.
The renewed partnership between CO2 Solution and Codexis, helped pave the way for the duo to establish a collaboration agreement with an unnamed global leader in energy and infrastructure projects. The collaboration agreement covers the development and testing of a pilot scale system for coal-fired power plants.
The process being developed by CO2 Solution and Codexis is adapted from a naturally occurring enzyme, carbonic anhydrase, which occurs in humans and other mammals and plays a crucial role in the transfer of carbon dioxide from out blood streams into the lungs to be released during process.
By adapting the enzyme to work within a heavy-duty reactor that can soak up carbon dioxide from industrial and power plant exhaust, the company has created a sort of “industrial lung”. Once the carbon dioxide is captured, the enzyme also assists in concentrating the gas into a pure stream, so it can be stored underground or used in oil recovery.
According to Codexis, its enzymes are functional and stable in relatively inexpensive and energy-efficient solvents for 24 hours at temperatures up to 75 degrees Celsius. In its natural state, the enzyme doesn’t function at these sorts of temperatures; it must do so to be able to process hot exhaust gases from power plants or factories.
The company anticipates that once its enzymes are fully developed, the solvents can cut the energy needed to capture CO2 within a plant by 30%. This improvement, says Codexis, can help lower the cost burden posed by carbon capture to 35% more than conventional power, a significant improvement over than the 80% premium current processes add.
The newly-extended joint development agreement between CO2 Solution and Codexis now lasts until June 30, 2012, or six months after the expiry of any third-party collaborations, whichever is later.
Though natural gas extracted from shale is the fastest growing energy source for power plants in the U.S., shale gas is now facing fresh challenges, with the release of a new study suggesting the fuel’s carbon intensity is as high as or higher than coal’s.
Given the rapid growth of natural gas, the findings could upend a consensus view that it’s a greener alternative to coal. The natural gas industry maintains that the fuel emits only about half the CO2 of coal, and therefore has promise as a “bridge” from today’s carbon-intensive fuel mix to future low-carbon options. The new findings suggest that, if natural gas emissions are undercounted, there’s greater urgency to develop CCS for natural gas plants, alongside coal.
Already, the low cost of natural gas—along with its low emissions of conventional air pollutants—has led many utilities to shutter older, dirtier coal plants and replace them with gas turbines. Earlier this week, for instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) agreed to a landmark deal with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to shutter 11 of its most polluting coal plants, replacing some with natural gas.
Yet if shale gas is as carbon intensive as coal, the results of swapouts like these could cause greenhouse gas emissions to actually rise.
“Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years,” Robert Howarth, a Cornell ecologist writes in a pre-publication version of the paper, originally obtained by The Hill newspaper, and which can be viewed here.
The gist of Howarth’s findings has been made public in the past and are already being fiercely debated. The issue has been re-energized since the study is being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, Climate Science, boosting their credibility.
It’s important to emphasize Howarth’s findings are based on natural gas extracted from shale reserves, rather than natural gas from conventional reserves.
That said, prior analysis, including one by the EPA, have put to the test claims that natural gas emits 50% less green house gases than coal, as is often claimed. Earlier this year, as detailed by ProPublica, the EPA issued analysis (see the report here) that methane leakage during transmission and processing may cut in half the advantage that is frequently attributed to natural gas.
Howarth and his colleagues—Anthony Ingraffea and Renee Santoro, also at Cornell—contend the process of hydraulic fracturing releases far more methane than conventional drilling. When fluids, which are pumped into the well to crack open shale and release the gas, resurface to be reused, they release large volumes of methane, according to the study. Howarth is quoted by the New York Times, saying:
“…we came up with two things that surprised me. First, I expected the indirect CO2 emissions from trucks moving frac water, the compressors, the drills, etc., to be greater than we found. They are actually pretty small, when you add up all the numbers. And second, the influence of methane is greater than I expected…”
Howarth’s finding could fuel critics of shale gas, especially in Northeast US states, where public anxiety is rising that fracking threatens underground sources of fresh water.
All but lost in the din in the effort to pass a federal budget, a bi-partisan senate bill has re-surfaced that breathes fresh hope for U.S. federal support for carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS.
Introduced on March 31, and authored by Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the bill addresses the central question of liability facing new CCS projects.
While carbon dioxide has been used for decades for enhanced recovery in oil bearing rock formations, less is known about how the gas will behave in salt and other geological formations being considered for CCS.
“The liability question is one of the main impediments for the technology to penetrate more widely,” said Salo Zalemyer, an attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani Environmental Strategies Group in Washington who I spoke with about the bill’s prospects.
“And ultimately that technology hasn’t been adequately tested out yet.” Without some liability shield in place, at least for early movers, progress will be slowed, he said.
Senate bill S.699 authorizes the Energy Dept to set up agreements, providing technical and financial support, for up to ten large-scale CCS projects. Qualified projects would inject at least 1 million tons of carbon dioxide from industrial sources.
David Wagner, a lawyer at Environmental Law Review points out, that besides laying out liability terms, the bill also outlines procedures for long-term management of CCS sites:
To pave the way, proposed bill offers liability protection and federal indemnification for the CCS demonstration projects. Under the bill, DOE is authorized to indemnify projects up to $10 billion for personal, property and environmental damages that might be above what is covered by insurance or other financial assurance measures. Upon receiving the closure certificate for the injection site, the site may be turned over to the federal government for long-term site management and ownership. The proposed bill also outlines criteria for site closure certification and includes provisions for siting the demonstration projects on public land. In addition, it would establish and fund a CCS training program for state regulators.
Prospects for passage are typically murky at this early stage.
This is Bingaman’s second try with CCS: The proposed law is similar to a bill he sponsored in 2009. With bipartisan co-sponsors S. 1013 made it out of committee to the Senate floor, but didn’t make the cut with a broader energy legislative package later that year.
Bingaman’s 2011 do-over version has been referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and if it proceeds would next face a public hearing at an uncertain date in the future.
Officially, S.699 is titled: “A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to demonstrate the commercial application of integrated systems for long-term geological storage of carbon dioxide, and for other purposes.”
Dead plants may work as well as living plants in mopping up carbon dioxide from admissions, a duo of Spanish scientists has found.
Reporting for the Royal Society of Chemistry on Mar 18, Yaundi Li writes that sawdust is showing promise as a porous solid, able to absorb carbon dioxide in its pores. Other solids, such as zeolites, are already used in this way, but most are hard to fabricate and can absorb only about 3 mmol of carbon dioxide per gram (3mmol CO2/g).
A research group at Spain’s National Institute of Carbon in Oviedo have been able to convert sawdust into a lower cost material that absorbs up to 50% more of the greenhouse gas per volume—potentially the largest ever carbon uptake at room temperature, in fact.
I’ll leave it to Yi to describes the process:
The two step synthesis involves hydrothermal carbonisation of the sawdust, creating a hydrochar, which is then activated using potassium hydroxide. The KOH treatment creates pores in the sawdust structure by oxidation of carbon and carbon gasification from K2CO3 decomposition. These pores are responsible for the material’s uptake capabilities, bestowing it with a capacity as high as 4.8mmol CO2/g. In addition, [the] material has good selectivity for CO2 over N2, fast adsorption rates and can be easily regenerated.
More work must be done in advance of commercialization. But the find is promising given that raw material is plentiful and the fabrication process is “not complex” according to Antonio Fuertes, the lead researcher, as quoted in the article.
Caption: Magnified image of sawdust before (left) and after (right) being heated and activated showing the pores, via RSC.org.
Sustainable porous carbons have been prepared by chemical activation of hydrothermally carbonized polysaccharides (starch and cellulose) and biomass (sawdust). These materials were investigated as sorbents for CO2 capture. The activation process was carried out under severe (KOH/precursor = 4) or mild (KOH/precursor = 2) activation conditions at different temperatures in the 600–800 °C range. Textural characterization of the porous carbons showed that the samples obtained under mild activating conditions exhibit smaller surface areas and pore sizes than those prepared by employing a greater amount of KOH. However, the mildly activated carbons exhibit a good capacity to store CO2, which is mainly due to the presence of a large number of narrow micropores (<1 nm). A very high CO2 uptake of 4.8 mmol·g-1 (212 mg CO2·g-1) was registered at room temperature (25 °C) for a carbon activated at 600 °C using KOH/precursor = 2. To the best of our knowledge, this result constitutes the largest-ever recorded CO2 uptake at room temperature for any activated carbon. Furthermore, we observedthat these porous carbons have fast CO2 adsorption rates, a good selectivity for CO2–N2 separation and they can be easily regenerated.
Amidst increasingly acrimonious political fighting in Washington over the fate of U.S. environmental programs in general, and about climate policy in particular, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants have resumed their upward climb after a recession-related retreat. News of rising emissions is likely to intensify the tug-of-war over federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
While official data for overall US emissions has not yet been released for 2010* by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), data from power plant emissions—which account for about 40% of total U.S. emissions—point to a return to upward growth in overall emissions as the economy heats up. With demand for electricity falling, overall emissions contracted by 6% during the recession of 2008 and 2009, bucking a trend of steady 0.4% annual growth since 1990. The retreat temporarily deflated the national debate on climate policy.
Now it looks like emissions are climbing again, in sync with the economic recovery. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from power plants surged by 5.6%, after declining sharply in 2009. The rise last year is largest in a single year since the EPA began tracking the data 15 years ago, according to a study by the Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for more effective enforcement of environmental laws.
Reflecting the recovery the economy, growth in emissions mirrors increased demand for power. “Last year’s rise was driven in part by a 3.0% net increase in overall generation for the 12 months ending in November of 2010,” the report noted.
In 2010 carbon dioxide emissions from power plants grew to 2.42 billion metric tons, or gigatonnes, up from 2.30 gigatonnes in 2009, based on data from the EPA’s Clean Air Markets website. Total carbon emissions from power plants were still below the record of 2.57 gigatonnes set in 2007.
Across the U.S., 50 coal-fired power plants accounted for 750 million tons, or megatonnes, of carbon dioxide releases in 2010, nearly one-third of the nation’s total. Four power plants emitted over 20 megatonnes apiece in 2010, two in Georgia, one in Alabama, and one in Texas.
The heaviest emitting states were Texas with 257 million tons, nearly twice the volume of the number two state, Florida, where power plants released 130 million tons of carbon emissions. Rounding out the top-10 states were: Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri.
The resurgence in emissions come amidst sustained opposition to new coal burning facilities, and a shift by utilities to replace older coal plants with natural gas.
Nearly 4.5 gigawatts of new coal-fired electric generation came on line in 2010, the study notes, about half of that in Texas.
But power companies have also announced plans to retire almost 12 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in coming years, including the January announcement last month that Xcel would close nearly 900 megawatts of coal-fired capacity at four different power stations in Colorado.
This August, U.S. airlines face their first big deadline to meet European Union rules on emissions linked to global warming. That’s when carriers landing in Europe will have to submit proposals to the EU on how they plan to track such emissions. This is a first step toward tough European “cap-and-trade” laws requiring airlines to either slash greenhouse gases or pay for permits to emit, starting in 2012. U.S. airlines are watching these developments anxiously, in part because they are already struggling with weak travel demand and yo-yo’ing fuel prices.
The Air Transport Assn. (ATA), which represents U.S. carriers, says the plan violates international law, and that the U.S. government is obliged to object. If the EU proceeds on its course, it faces a thicket of lawsuits, predicts Nancy Young, ATA’s vice-president for environmental affairs. “We adamantly oppose their scheme,” she says—adding that having to purchase credits will stifle funding for the very innovations airlines must develop to cut emissions.
Just how much new carbon costs might increase airfares is unclear. One aviation industry study estimates the annual operating costs of airlines landing planes in Europe will rise by billions of dollars if the EU enacts its plan. But green groups tell a different story. They point to an EU analysis that puts the average price increase for a cross-Atlantic round-trip ticket at just $6 to $56 by 2020, depending on the cost of carbon permits. The effect on prices is “within the range of fluctuations travelers are used to,” says Mark Kenber, policy director at the Climate Group in London.
Environmentalists argue that, compared with the auto and electric power sectors, airlines have had it easy when it comes to efficiency targets and carbon policies. Their special status dates back to 1997, when many countries enacted the Kyoto Accord, a global pact to cut greenhouse gas output. Kyoto didn’t set specific reduction targets for airlines or marine shippers, though both groups were asked to come up with their own plans. That’s because plane flights accounted for just 2% of total industrial emissions at the time, and because of murky jurisdiction issues when planes or ships cross national borders.
U.S. carriers have boosted their fuel efficiency by 31% since 1990 and have promised an equal gain by 2035. Airplane and engine builders, from Boeing (BA) and Airbus to General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce (RYCEY), are researching lightweight materials and plant-based jet fuel. Airlines are seeking streamlined flight paths to avoid wasting fuel. Still, because air traffic is growing so fast globally, the sector’s emissions are on track to more than double by 2035.
Outside the U.S., key carriers such as Air France-KLM (AFLYY), British Airways (BAIRY), Cathay Pacific (CPCAY), and Virgin Atlantic are supporting just the sort of carbon caps the ATA opposes. They’re making the case in the runup to the Copenhagen Accord, a process to replace Kyoto that will move into high gear in December. On May 24 the International Aviation Transportation Assn.—a global trade group—for the first time agreed to reduce emissions.
U.S. carriers, which consume 35% of the world’s jet fuel, may not be able to opt out of carbon limits much longer. The Waxman-Markey climate bill moving through Congress includes aviation in its gas reduction goals. “The writing’s on the wall,” says Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Aston is Energy & Environment editor for BusinessWeek in New York.
Writer, editor, content advisor, creative leader – energy, climate | Chief storyteller at RMI | Co-founder of T Brand at The New York Times
