White roofs do little to stop global warming, solar panels do more, says Stanford's Mark Jacobsen

A couple years ago an idea was circulating that just painting your roof white or even silver colored would stop the heat island effect.  The urban heat island is the observation that urban areas, with lots of parking lots and buildings and very few trees and green areas, have a build-up of heat.  Go a little way out of town and temperatures cool off because the vegetation and shade and whatnot naturally acts to keep temperatures cooler.  The thinking goes that many things in urban areas, like Asphalt, are dark colored and therefore high school physics says it'll absorb heat.  The solution seemed to be that simply painting things white would cut the temperature and resolve the heat island.

Cities release more heat to the atmosphere than the rural vegetated areas around them, but how much influence these urban "heat islands" have on global warming has been a matter of debate. Now a study by Stanford researchers has quantified the contribution of the heat islands for the first time, showing that it is modest compared with what greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.  The team included Mark Jacobsen who's quoted saying "Between 2 and 4 percent of the gross global warming since the Industrial Revolution may be due to urban heat islands."

Some global warming skeptics have claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has been skewing temperature measurements that show that global warming is happening.  "This study shows that the urban heat island effect is a relatively minor contributor to warming, contrary to what climate skeptics have claimed," Jacobson said. "Greenhouse gases and particulate black carbon cause far more warming."

Although his study showed that urban heat islands are not major contributors to global warming, Jacobson said reducing the effect of heat islands is still important for slowing the rise of global temperatures.

The "paint roofs white" idea was described as "geoengineering" and found that white roofs did indeed cool urban surfaces, but that they also caused a net global warming, largely because they reduced cloudiness slightly by increasing the stability of the air, thereby reducing the vertical transport of moisture and energy to clouds.

Another idea that has been circulating is that because solar panels are dark color that they'd contribute to the heat island, and that perhaps we shouldn't use solar panels.  Jacobsens study can be taken to refute this idea, and give us a green light to using solar panels.  First, solar panels generate electricity hence offsetting electricity generated from fossil fuel powered plants.  Second, they reduce sunlight absorbed by buildings (assuming the panels are installed on the building) by shielding the building while being installed on the building.  Third, solar panels do not reflect the sunlight back into the air, meaning that light won't be re-absorbed by the atmosphere pollutants.

Jacobson is the director of Stanford's Atmosphere/Energy Program and a senior fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy. Graduate student John Ten Hoeve contributed to the research and is coauthor of the paper. Funding for the research was contributed by NASA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/HeatIsland+WhiteRfs0911.pdf

Urban 'heat island' effect is only a small contributor to global warming, and white roofs don't help to solve the problem, say Stanford researchers

Does PG&E's Climate Smart program help you make it "Earth Day" for 365 days a year?

My electricity provider is PG&E and last week they sent me an email suggesting that I can make it Earth Day for 365 days a year just by joining their Climate Smart program. A quick look over their website and what I see is a modern form of the medieval indulgences where one can pay a fee to the priest to offset the evil of ones sins. In this case their Climate Smart program is all about donating money (tax write-off, cool!) that PG&E will funnel into programs that supposedly mitigate the effects of burning fossil fuels.

As they say: "The energy used to power our homes can also emit greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere," and participation in the program "helps to balance out your home’s GHG emissions through environmental conservation, restoration and protection projects right here in California."

Maybe if there's a real effect from "environmental conservation, restoration and protection projects" then funneling money to them is a good idea. To me the sort of projects they're funding are the equivalent of bolting the barn door after the horses have already escaped.

That is, "environmental conservation, restoration and protection projects" supposedly removes harmful chemicals emitted by burning natural gas. But, wouldn't it be better to not burn natural gas in the first place?

In California we used to be able to select our electricity provider rather than be forced to buy power from the monopoly utility. But somewhere in the middle of the brownout energy crisis nearly 10 years ago (the one which forced Gray Davis out of the Governorship) we lost that ability to choose our electricity provider. As a result we can no longer choose companies like Green Mountain whose business was to operate solar or wind power plants.

What counts here is the actual projects they're funding. (See ClimateSmart Projects) They're a bevy of planting-trees-in-forests that are meant to provide carbon capture and services. Two more programs are methane capture at landfills and dairy operations. The last is diversion of refrigerators (and other appliances) from landfills to recycling operations.

Each of them have good environmental utility that I support. I do not want to diss the projects themselves.

Instead what I see is that there is no attempt at real fundamental change. These programs paper over the core issue, that PG&E's core business emits greenhouse gases. That to properly change the situation requires changing that fact.

Is Natural Gas actually worse than we think?

Natural Gas is routinely thought to be better than Coal in terms of emissions footprint. Burning natural gas primarily creates carbon dioxide and water vapor (though the precise natural gas combustion products is more complex than that). Carbon dioxide and water vapor seems pretty safe because those are things our bodies exhale on every breath. The carbon dioxide is a concern, as that is carbon which did not formerly exist in the ecosphere but had been sequestered millions of years ago. However recent research points to an unacknowledged problem with natural gas - leakage.

An Energy Collective article by David Lewis quotes Dr. Robert Howarth claiming that "gas has a greater climate impact than coal."

Dr. Howarth is quoted saying "I believe they are severely underestimating the methane leakage".

The work of Dr. Drew Shindell, a senior climate scientist at NASA G.I.S.S. who published new data on methane in October 2009. Paper in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.full and press release: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091029/

The work of Dr. Shindell's group was unable to be included in the IPCC’s AR4 because the discoveries were made after the May 2006 cutoff date.

"What happens is that as you put more methane into the atmosphere, it competes for oxidants such as hydroxyl with sulphur dioxide… More methane means less sulphate, which is reflective and thus has a cooling effect. Calculations of GWP [a way to calculate climate impact] including these gas-aerosol linkages thus substantially increase the value for methane." wrote Shindell in his article. Shindell says “although our calculations are more complete than previous studies”, he knows he hasn’t accounted for everything. But the nature of what's not known is data that increases the measurements.

Howarth's second point was that most severely underestimate leakage of natural gas. Recall that natural gas is methane, and that methane is a nasty very potent greenhouse gas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW6Fw8bLIu0 - video showing methane leakage

Methane is easy to detect - get an IR camera.

It's said there is widespread ignoring of evidence of leakage. DOE ignores accidents, and that the DOE only studied plants the industry wanted them to study. Chemosphere 35: 1365-1390 "Direct Measurement of fugitive emissions of hydrocarbons from a refinery" Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 58: 1047-1056

Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. August 2009. Prepared by the URS Corp. for the American Petroleum Institute (API). API, Washington D.C.

"Substitution of natural gas for coal: Climatic effects of utility sector emissions." Climatic Change 54: 107-139

"The atmospheric cycling of radiomethane and the ‘fossil fraction’ of the methane source" Atmospheric Chem. & Physics 7: 2141-2149 (2007)

Article Reference: 

http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/47794/gas-bridge-nowhere

TechnoSanity #31: A look at Waste Management and landfill gas energy resources

The other day talking with a friend I noticed a Waste Management trash truck roll by and had this sudden reflection "I own a piece of that truck". I own a few shares of WM's stock, hence I "own" a tiny fraction of the truck that rolled by. She was surprised and asked "you don't do socially responsible investing, then?" While I try to select companies with socially responsible thinking my investments are not SRI pure. Take that for whatever it is worth, the stereotype attached to Waste Management is they're an evil corporation just doing the worst thing possible with the trash we throw away while painting their trucks green to pretend they are environmental stewards. Greenwashing, in other words. Turns out that stereotype isn't entirely accurate.

Turns out that Waste Management has a bunch of environmental information on their web site. While putting brochures on a web site doesn't fix the environment it shows they are at least thinking about it and recognizant of their role in environmental stewardship. I don't know how well they do as environmental stewards. However it's clear they have the potential to play a large role due to their position of receiving all the trash people throw out. That trash is potentially a resource stream which can be turned into products.

This text will be replaced

It's not just Waste Management but every "trash" company in the world, if there were technology whereby they could perform recycling on a huge scale of every item that comes into their hands it would perhaps erase the word "landfill" from our vocabulary. Unfortunately that potential isn't anywhere near being implementable. One small piece to the puzzle is the "landfill gas" that lots of waste companies, Waste Management included, is looking at tapping. This gas is a form of natural gas and can be burned just as natural gas, and being a biogas has some positive environmental benefit over fossil natural gas. It can also be liquified into a fuel to use in trucks.

On November 2, 2009, Waste Management and the Linde Group announced a project at the Altamont Landfill (near Livermore CA) which makes liquified natural gas from landfill gas, the LNG will be used to power Waste Management's trucks. They believe the plant has the capacity to produce 13,000 gallons of fuel per day, from that one plant. Given that it's from just one of Waste Management's landfills, it's mind boggling to think of the quantity of landfill gas emitted from all landfills around the country (or around the world), and how much fuel that represents.

Energy production from landfill gas turns out to be a big deal. Yahoogling for "landfill gas renewable energy" turns up lots of interesting articles and resources. The following is just a smattering of what I found.

 

Source: http://www.wm.com/wm/press/mediakit/LFGTE_Flyer.pdf

The landfill-to-energy process begins with garbage collected and brought to landfill operations. Much of it is organic and is broken down by bacteria in a natural process. Methane and other gasses known as landfill gas is produced. With special wells the gas is captured and piped to a processing facility.
After processing it is the same as natural gas and can be used the same way.

Each landfill gas "well" is just a couple pipes drilled into the ground.

Waste Management Partnering to Find Gas in the Trash: This project at the Altamont Landfill is only one of many which Waste Management plans to launch. They own 477 landfills and have announced intent to open 60 landfill gas projects by the end of 2012. Further there are 1,700 operating landfills in the U.S., and according to the the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, they contain enough natural gas to produce 2,643 megawatts of electricity.

CARB tables of landfill gas composition shows the percentages of different constituents to landfill gas. On average it's 44% methane and 35% CO2, both are recognized as the leading components to greenhouse gas.

Clearly averting the emission of those gasses into the atmosphere would abate some greenhouse gas issues. However burning the landfill gas doesn't destroy the carbon. Therefore burning landfill gas cannot avert emission of the landfill gas. What it can do is replace the use of some fossil natural gas or fossil liquid fuels.

Production of 25 MW of Electricity Using Landfill Gas: Describes a project in Montreal (Canada) to build an electricity plant that uses landfill gas as its fuel. The plant cost CAD $37 million to build and produces 25 megawatts of power.

Video: Powering Up with Landfill Gas: Discusses a similar project at the University of New Hampshire. In the video it's mentioned they've been "flaring" their landfill gas, and are now instead using it to generate power. Flaring gas just means they're burning it with no attempt to capture any energy. Turning it from a flaring to power production situation is an improvement by any measure.

Waste-based Renewable Energy: Landfill operators place collection wells that act like straws throughout a landfill to draw out the methane gas. The gas is then piped to a compression and filtering unit beside the landfill. Technicians make sure that the gas is filtered properly before it is piped to its end user. The entire process is carefully managed to prevent odors and leakage of waste material.

California Energy Commission, Renewable Energy Research, Biomass and Landfill is a resource center about landfill gas research in California. When a landfill is capped, landfill gas (LFG) is generated as organic portions of the municipal solid wastes (MSW) are decomposed. Traditionally, landfill is not controlled and the expected period over which landfill gas will be produced may range from 50 to 100 years. But a usable landfill gas production rate that can be utilized lasts for only 10 to 15 years. A bioreactor is a controlled landfill in which water and other nutrient sources are added into the MSW to increase the landfill gas production rate.

The four basic uses of landfill gas is:

1. medium-BTU gas production, 
2. electricity generation, 
3. injection into existing natural gas pipelines, 
4. conversion to other chemical forms. California leads the nation in both the solid waste generation and number of landfill gas to electricity (LFGTE) facilities. The Puente Hills landfill, operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, produces approximately 46.5 MW of power and is the largest LFGTE facility in the U.S.

US EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP): is a voluntary assistance and partnership program that promotes the use of landfill gas as a renewable, green energy source. Landfill gas is the natural by-product of the decomposition of solid waste in landfills and is comprised primarily of carbon dioxide and methane. By preventing emissions of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) through the development of landfill gas energy projects, LMOP helps businesses, states, energy providers, and communities protect the environment and build a sustainable future.

Instead of allowing LFG to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Using LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing to local smog and global climate change.

Is Landfill Gas Green Energy? Is a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council looking at just how "green" an energy can one get from landfill gas.

• Combustion of raw LFG in a flare, an engine, or a turbine dramatically reduces the overall toxicity.
• Collection and combustion dramatically reduces global warming impacts and toxicity.
• Using LFG to generate electricity further reduces the greenhouse gas impacts and also reduces emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. Burying garbage in landfills results in the release of more heat-trapping gases than any other waste-management option.
• Because LFG is a by-product of landfills, and landfills are such a poor way to manage our waste, LFG can not be considered renewable.

An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the United States: Methane as GHG is over 20x more potent by weight than CO2.

Linde and Waste Management commission world’s largest landfill to liquefied natural gas facility

Altamont Landfill's gas fuels garbage trucks

World’s Largest Landfill Gas to LNG Plant Opens in California:

Landfill waste to power Waste Management hauling fleet

Landfill Gas to Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas


Renewables and Alternate Fuels > Landfill Gas

Baltimore Landfill Gas Powers Up Coast Guard Yard

Production of Renewable Energy

Landfill Gas Resources and Technologies

Energy Companies To Harvest Durham Landfill Gas

Mexico’s President Applauds Monterrey’s Landfill Gas Plant as Model Renewable Energy Project for Latin America

Duke Energy Carolinas Signs Deal to Turn Landfill Gas into Energy

Waste Management to build 60 new landfill gas plants

LANDFILL GAS-TO-ENERGY PROJECT CASE STUDIES

Landfill gas–to–energy facility at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill

Landfill Gas Videos