Showing posts with label Air. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Air. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2012

As Price of Oil Soars, Users Shiver and Cross Their Fingers

http://is.gd/HQT2lh
When David Harris built his 2,000-square-foot hilltop home nine years ago, he wanted to put in natural gas, but the utility wouldn’t run a line to his house. Like many people here, he was stuck using heating oil.

Mr. Harris added a wood stove to help cut costs and now uses only about one-third of the oil the house would otherwise need. But that did not stop a deliveryman for Crowley Fuel from handing him a $471.21 bill earlier this month for a refill that should get him to April.
...
While natural gas prices have plummeted to 10-year lows, heating oil prices have been steadily rising for years and are expected to reach record levels this winter, precipitated by higher costs for crude oil and the shutdown of several crucial refineries in the Northeast and in Europe. The Energy Department projects a price of $3.79 a gallon over the next few months, more than a dollar above the winter average for the last five years. Analysts do not expect much relief in the longer term, either, because global oil prices are expected to stay high amid political instability in the Middle East and rising demand from developing countries.

With electricity prices also down, utilities are trumpeting that bills will drop this season for customers using gas and electric heat. Con Edison announced this week that residential gas heating bills in New York were expected to drop 11.5 percent this winter, and in New Jersey, PSE&G said that it would cut February bills for residential gas customers by an average of $30.

“The people who have been unable to switch off of heating oil will be increasingly penalized in the coming years,” said Jay Hakes, a former administrator of the Energy Information Administration and now the director of the Jimmy Carter Library and Museum....

Nationwide, the average household using oil spent $2,298 on heat last year, compared with $724 spent by gas users and $957 spent by electricity users, according to the Energy Department.

This year, heating oil users are expected to spend 3.7 percent more than last year, while natural gas customers are expected to spend 7.3 percent less and electricity users will spend 2.4 percent less, according to the department.

Cheap natural gas was part of the appeal for Gus Kontoudakis, who spent about $3,000 to switch from oil at the home he rents out in Plainfield, Conn. The boiler was due for replacement anyway, he said.
...
But many oil users — living in places like Alaska, Maine and even affluent parts of Manhattan — do not have that option. Some are simply too far from a pipeline. For others, converting to natural gas is unaffordable, with costs that can run to tens of thousands of dollars for each home. As a result, they are trapped in a cycle of spending more and more for heat while those who use natural gas and electricity are generally spending less and less.

That dynamic is at work in households across the economic spectrum, but the cost gap looms as a crisis for the poor, experts warn, since the federal government has cut financing for energy assistance programs.
...
The use of heating oil, which rose after World War II as a replacement for coal, has been on a long decline. As the use of virtually every other fuel has increased, the number of households that use heating oil has dropped from about 20 percent in 1975 to roughly 7 percent today, spurred by new home construction and population shifts to the West and South, closer to natural gas fields and pipelines. Government incentives for installing insulation also cut consumption of heating oil.

For decades, the prices of oil and gas moved virtually in tandem, but in recent years, vast increases in American gas supplies have made gas decisively cheaper.

Meanwhile, heating oil could grow more scarce in the Northeast this winter, the Energy Department warned last month. Companies have been closing refineries that produce heating oil because of declining profit margins. Sunoco and ConocoPhillips recently announced the idling of two major refineries in Pennsylvania, and a third refinery owned by Sunoco may close next summer.

Encouraged by the low prices for natural gas and government and utility incentives, more oil customers have been looking to make the switch.

Thomas Dziki of Richmond Hill, Queens, said it was a $750 bill to fill up his 150-gallon oil tank last winter that prompted him to call National Grid to convert. He spent about $8,500 to switch his three-story home to gas. Now, his monthly bills are in the $30 to $50 range ...

For larger buildings in New York City, there is increased pressure to switch because of a new pollution regulation that will phase out the use of the heavier heating oils.

But conversion costs can be prohibitive, in part because Con Edison, the local utility, has to rip up the street to run pipes larger than those used for cooking gas.

Nancy T. Schmitt, an energy-sector investment adviser whose Upper East Side co-op burns the densest form of oil.... But by one estimate, she said, it would cost $2 million to connect her complex to the existing lines. Con Ed has been working to help organize buildings into clusters for conversion, to lower costs and diminish the inconvenience.
...
By Diane Cardwell and Clifford Krauss
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://is.gd/HQT2lh
The New York Times
January 21, 2012

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Regulating Greenhouse Gases from Coal Power Plants under the Clean Air Act

http://is.gd/lzeYJh
Under authority granted by the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is developing performance standards for existing stationary sources, such as power plants and industrial facilities. Coal-fired electricity generators represent an important part of this regulatory effort as they account for about one-third of annual U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. New research from RFF’s Josh Linn, Erin Mastrangelo, and Dallas Burtraw confirms that there are important, low-cost opportunities to reduce emissions at existing coal-fired facilities in the short run.

The novelty and potential of the electricity sector standards raise three questions:
  1. What are the available abatement opportunities from existing coal-fired power plants?
  2. What are the costs of reducing emissions?
  3. What is the increase in utilization at plants after they become more efficient?
The authors analyze the actual operating efficiency of the entire fleet of coal units in the United States, finding that fleetwide, emissions rate reductions of up to 5 percent may be technically feasible without changing the amount of electricity generated with coal.

Using the response of units to previous changes in fuel prices for the years 1985–2009, they estimate the costs of efficiency improvements to be as low as or perhaps somewhat lower than the engineering estimates currently used by EPA. They also find that efficiency improvements would lead to increased utilization of plants, which would erode up to 15 percent of the emissions reductions achievable by efficiency improvements.

The research provides the first empirical information about the actual magnitude and cost of these potential efficiency improvements across the fleet of existing generating units. Substantial long-term reductions in GHG emissions from the power sector will require greater use of nonemitting sources (renewables, nuclear), lower-emitting sources (natural gas), or postcombustion control of carbon. However, this analysis provides evidence that there exist important opportunities to reduce emissions in the short run.

Abstract: The Clean Air Act has assumed the central role in U.S. climate policy, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to develop regulations governing the emissions of greenhouse gases from existing coal-fired power plants. The cost and environmental effectiveness of policy options depend on abatement costs, the magnitude of emissions reduction opportunities, and the sensitivity of plant utilization. This paper examines the operation of electricity-generating units over 25 years to estimate the marginal costs and potential magnitude of emissions reductions that could result from improvements in their operating efficiency. We find that a 10 percent increase in coal prices causes a 0.3 to 0.9 percent heat rate reduction, broadly consistent with engineering assessments of abatement costs and opportunities. We also find that coal prices have a significant effect on utilization, but that will vary depending on the policy design. The results are used to compare cost-effectiveness of alternative policies.

Resources For the Future (RFF) www.RFF.org
January 10, 2012

Friday, January 20, 2012

Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112193442.htm
A new study led by [Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City], highlights 14 key air pollution control measures that, if implemented, could slow the pace of global warming, improve health and boost agricultural production.

The research ... finds that focusing on these measures could slow mean global warming 0.9 ºF (0.5ºC) by 2050, increase global crop yields by up to 135 million metric tons per season and prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year. While all regions of the world would benefit, countries in Asia and the Middle East would see the biggest health and agricultural gains from emissions reductions.
...
Shindell and an international team considered about 400 control measures based on technologies evaluated by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria. The new study focused on 14 measures with the greatest climate benefit. All 14 would curb the release of either black carbon or methane, pollutants that exacerbate climate change and damage human or plant health either directly or by leading to ozone formation.


Shindell and his team concluded that these control measures would provide the greatest protection against global warming to Russia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, countries with large areas of snow or ice cover. Iran, Pakistan and Jordan would experience the most improvement in agricultural production. Southern Asia and the Sahel region of Africa would see the most beneficial changes to precipitation patterns.

The south Asian countries of India, Bangladesh and Nepal would see the biggest reductions in premature deaths. The study estimates that globally between 700,000 and 4.7 million premature deaths could be prevented each year.

Black carbon and methane have many sources. Reducing emissions would require that societies make multiple infrastructure upgrades. For methane, the key strategies the scientists considered were capturing gas escaping from coal mines and oil and natural gas facilities, as well as reducing leakage from long-distance pipelines, preventing emissions from city landfills, updating wastewater treatment plants, aerating rice paddies more, and limiting emissions from manure on farms.

For black carbon, the strategies analyzed include installing filters in diesel vehicles, keeping high-emitting vehicles off the road, upgrading cooking stoves and boilers to cleaner burning types, installing more efficient kilns for brick production, upgrading coke ovens and banning agricultural burning.

The scientists used computer models developed at GISS and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, to model the impact of emissions reductions. The models showed widespread benefits from the methane reduction because it is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. Black carbon falls out of the atmosphere after a few days so the benefits are stronger in certain regions, especially ones with large amounts of snow and ice.

... The new study builds on a United Nations Environment Program/World Meteorological Organization report, also led by Shindell, published last year.
...
Abstract: Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC) contribute to both degraded air quality and global warming. We considered ~400 emission control measures to reduce these pollutants by using current technology and experience. We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050. This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. Benefits of methane emissions reductions are valued at $700 to $5,000 per metric ton, which is well above typical marginal abatement costs (less than $250). The selected controls target different sources and influence climate on shorter time scales than those of carbon dioxide–reduction measures. Implementing both substantially reduces the risks of crossing the 2°C threshold.
...
A 2007 Stanford University study calculated that carbon dioxide was the No. 1 cause of man-made global warming, accounting for 48 percent of the problem. Soot was second with 16 percent of the warming and methane was right behind at 14 percent.  But over a 20-year period, a molecule of methane or soot causes substantially more warming then a carbon dioxide molecule.

The new research won wide praise from outside scientists, including a conservative researcher who held a top post in the George W. Bush administration.

"So rather than focusing only on carbon dioxide emissions, where we have to make a tradeoff with energy prices, this strategy focuses on 'win-win-win' pathways that have benefits to human health, agriculture and stabilizing the Earth's climate," said University of Minnesota ecology professor Jonathan Foley, who wasn't part of the study. "That's brilliant."

John D. Graham, who oversaw regulations at the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration and is now dean of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University, said: "This is an important study that deserves serious consideration by policy makers as well as scientists."

The study even does a cost-benefit analysis to see if these pollution control methods are too expensive to be anything but fantasy. They actually pay off with benefits that are as much as ten times the value of the costs, Shindell said. The paper calculates that as of 2030, the pollution reduction methods would bring about $6.5 trillion in annual benefits from fewer people dying from air pollution, less global warming and increased crop production.

In the United States, Shindell calculates the measures would prevent about 14,000 air pollution deaths in people older than 30 by the year 2030. About 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit of projected warming in the U.S. would be prevented by 2050.

But health benefits would be far bigger in China and India where soot is more of a problem.

The study comes a day after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the most detailed data yet on American greenhouse gas emissions. Of the emissions reported to the government, nearly three-quarters came from power plants. But with methane, it's different. Nineteen of the top 20 methane emitters were landfills.

Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field, who is a leader in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change but wasn't part of this study, praised the study but said he worried that officials would delay cutting back on the more prevalent carbon dioxide. Focusing solely on methane and soot and ignoring carbon dioxide "tends to exacerbate climate change," he said.

Also see:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/interactive-charts.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/dshindell/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cleanair-warming.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/scientists-cut-soot-methane-curb-warming-15348267#

by Drew Shindell 1,*, Johan C. I. Kuylenstierna 2, Elisabetta Vignati 3, Rita van Dingenen 3, Markus Amann 4, Zbigniew Klimont 4, Susan C. Anenberg 5, Nicholas Muller 6, Greet Janssens-Maenhout 3,  Frank Raes 3, Joel Schwartz 7, Greg Faluvegi 1, Luca Pozzoli 3,†, Kaarle Kupiainen 4, Lena Höglund-Isaksson 4, Lisa Emberson 2, David Streets 8, V. Ramanathan 9, Kevin Hicks 2, N. T. Kim Oanh 10, George Milly 1, Martin Williams 11, Volodymyr Demkine 12 and David Fowler 13
1. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA.
2. Stockholm Environment Institute, Environment Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
3. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra 21027, Italy.
4. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg A-2361, Austria.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
6. Department of Economics, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA.
7. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
8. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA.
9. Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.
10. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
11. Environmental Research Group, King’s College London, London SE1 9NH, UK.
12. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
13. Center for Ecology and Hydrology, Midlothian EH26 0QB, UK.
† Present address: Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Turkey.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: drew.t.shindell@nasa.gov
...
Science www.sciencemag.org
Volume 335, Number 6065; January 13, 2012: pages 183-189