Climate 411 on Yahoo! Green

Algae biofuels 101

Miriam Horn — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:16:41 PDT

This post is by Miriam Horn, a writer at Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the New York Times bestseller, Earth: The Sequel.

Who would have thought that algae (a.k.a. pond scum) -- the microscopic plants whose "blooms" choke off life in lakes and estuaries -- would emerge as the hottest new energy crop?

But sure enough, dozens of start-ups, backed by millions of dollars in venture capital, are racing to find the best way to turn algae into fuel, with exciting results.

This isn’t a new idea. The Department of Energy (DOE) began exploring algal biodiesel in 1978 during the Carter Administration (see history [PDF]). But that effort was abandoned a decade ago. Government researchers concluded that algal biodiesel could never be produced cheaply enough to compete with petroleum.

Now the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Lab has resurrected its algal fuel program, alongside a rush in the private sector.

What changed in the last ten years?

The price of oil more than tripled.
Wars and hostile regimes in oil-producing nations raised energy-independence as a national security concern.
Europe and the other Kyoto signatories capped carbon.
California set a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, accelerating demand for low-carbon fuels.
Advances in bioengineering enabled much higher algae yields.

Algae-based biofuels are not yet being made at scale. Researchers are still working out engineering and process challenges, and algae-based fuels still cost more than petroleum-based fuels. But that may soon change.

A uniquely well-suited fuel source

Algae are extraordinarily adaptable creatures. They can grow almost anywhere, including land utterly unsuited for agriculture.

Since they don’t have to compete against food crops for land, they avoid the problems this can cause: spiraling grain prices, food shortages, and conversion of tropical forests and wildlife habitat to plantations and cropland.

These single-celled wonders also have other notable virtues:

Algae are stunningly productive - the fastest growing plants on Earth. They can double in mass in just a few hours, allowing daily harvest.
Algae are oily and compact, producing 30 times more oil per acre than sunflowers or rapeseed.
Algae don’t need fresh water and can thrive in water that’s boiling, salty, frozen, or contaminated -- even in sewage.
Algae can eat pollution. They neutralize acids, split the nitrogen oxides that cause smog into harmless nitrogen and oxygen, and convert carbon dioxide (global warming pollution) into oxygen and biomass.

When algae are harvested, their lipids can be turned into biodiesel (main product), starches into ethanol, and proteins into animal feed.

Ray Hobbs, who runs the Future Fuels program for Arizona Public Service, describes algae this way (quoted in Earth: The Sequel, page 112):

You are looking at the origins of life, an organism that has survived for three and a half billion years and created the conditions for other life to emerge. They are the root of the food chain. And so elegant. Single-celled algae can crack water with a photon into hydrogen and oxygen, then metabolize that hydrogen with carbon dioxide to sugar. We can’t do that. We can’t even fully understand it.

Three ways to grow algae for biofuel

Innovators are exploring three main ways to produce biofuels from algae:

Growing algae photosynthetically in open ponds (lowest cost, lowest control)

This is the line of experimentation started by DOE. Open ponds are cheap, but must contend with invasive species. Also, water demands are high due to evaporation.
Growing algae photosynthetically in closed bioreactors (higher cost, more control)

Algae "bioreactors" are enclosed containers exposed to sunlight. Closed bioreactors prevent contamination by unwanted species and reduce water use. But they cost more than open ponds because of the need for "photomodulation" -- exposing the algae to just the right amount of light.

Bioreactor systems have another important advantage: they can capture and reuse waste CO₂ from coal plants and other industrial processes. Skeptics note that when the algae are burned, they release the captured carbon into the atmosphere. But because algal fuel displaces petroleum fuel, net carbon emissions are significantly reduced.
Growing algae in the dark through fermentation (highest cost, highest control)

This is the approach of Solazyme in San Franciso. When algae are grown photosynthetically, they manufacture their own sugar from water, air, and light. Solazyme turns off photosynthesis by growing them in complete darkness and feeding them sugar.

Feeding sugar makes the algae produce more oil. Plus the energy-dense food allows the algae to be grown in much higher concentrations, reducing costs and easing harvest. On the downside, it puts the process back in competition with food crops, undercutting one of algal fuel’s unique strengths.

You can read a detailed profile of one company exploring the algae frontier, and interviews with the founders, in our new book, Earth: The Sequel.

The asthma and car connection

Mel Peffers — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:23:22 PDT

This post is by Mel Peffers, a project manager in the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense Fund.

May 6th was World Asthma Day. Since car exhaust can lead to asthma as well as global warming, we thought it would be a good time to highlight the importance of not idling your car or truck engine.

What makes idling especially bad for health is that drivers tend to idle in gathering places -- by sidewalks, schools, playgrounds, homes, and offices. Breathing in pollution close to the source is more dangerous than farther away.

Take a look at the evidence.

Tailpipe exhaust may cause asthma

Tailpipe exhaust from both gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles contains the pollutants that produce ozone when combined with sunlight and heat. Ozone occurs mostly during the summer months. A warming planet means more hot days and thus more ozone.

Breathing in ozone irritates and inflames your lungs, and repeated exposure can reduce lung function. There’s a lot of evidence that ozone makes asthma worse.

But the Children’s Health Study in California found evidence that ozone causes asthma. The study also found that children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing smog.

On top of that, diesel exhaust contains particulate matter (soot). This has long been known to cause a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma (see CARB report on health effects [PDF]).

As with ozone, there is evidence that diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma and not just worsen it.

California kids aren’t the only ones to suffer from tailpipe-induced asthma. A 2005 NYU Medical Center study showed that asthma symptoms among children in the South Bronx doubled on high-traffic days.

Conversely, reducing ozone can improve asthma rates. During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the city closed downtown to private cars for 17 days. During this time, daily peak ozone levels dropped more than a quarter and hospitalizations for asthma fell by almost one-fifth.

Fight global warming, save money

There’s no reason to idle your vehicle engine. As I explained in a previous post:

Today’s engines don’t need a warm-up period.
If you’re stopped for more than 10 seconds, your car uses more gasoline to idle than to restart.

Many cities, including New York, have laws against idling, but they’re rarely enforced. We need better enforcement, but we can make a difference with our own actions and behavior.

So in honor of World Asthma Day, switch off that idling engine. You’ll curb global warming pollution, save money on gasoline, and help everyone to breathe better.

Ethanol and land use

Robert Bonnie — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:07:48 PDT

This post is by Robert Bonnie, Co-director of the Land, Water, and Wildlife Program at Environmental Defense Fund.

The New York Times recently reported that thousands of farmers are dropping out of the federal government’s Conservation Reserve Program.

The prices for corn and other crops are so high that conservation subsidies can’t compete with what farmers can make by planting the land.

One reason for the high prices is the ethanol mandate in the energy bill Congress passed last year.

Shifts in land use from diverting food-producing land to grow crops for energy -- called "indirect land-use change" -- can potentially negate the environmental benefits of corn ethanol.

There is still much debate on how to measure it, but no question it’s important to consider. One recent study published in Science (Searchinger, et. al.) found that using croplands for biofuels causes a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline when indirect land use change is taken into account.

Unintended consequences such as these highlight the danger of mandating a specific clean energy technology, and the importance of relying on performance standards instead.

What is "indirect land-use change"?

When food-producing land is diverted for energy production, the food that would have been grown on that land must be grown elsewhere. This prompts farmers to convert land not currently in production into cropland.

When grassland or forestland is cleared to grow crops, the carbon sequestered in the soil and trees is released into the atmosphere.

If a lot of new land is cultivated, the resulting carbon release can completely negate the benefits of using biofuels. The New York Times said as many acres as in Rhode Island and Delaware combined were removed from the Conservation Reserve Program, and that’s just one corner of the country.

Not all the land was removed due to U.S. biofuel policy, but it plays a part. Some research has found that U.S. policies can contribute to deforestation in southeast Asia and the Amazon.

Assessing the impact of indirect land-use change is tricky, and experts disagree on how to quantify it. According to the Searchinger study, when indirect land-use change is factored in:

Corn ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline when considered over a period of 30 years, and emissions remain elevated for 167 years.
Even biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions relative to gasoline by 50 percent.

We can’t say whether these numbers are exactly correct, but we can say that indirect land use effects -- particularly tropical deforestation -- are important to consider.

Shaping policy to reduce emissions

Government mandates for a specific technology to lower greenhouse gas emissions risk unintended consequences -- even higher net emissions.

An effective policy that ensures lower emissions has two key components:

A market-based system that rewards less carbon-intensive technologies and land-use practices, whatever they may be.

The Searchinger study suggests that a possible solution to the corn ethanol problem is to use waste products as a "feedstock" (raw material to produce biofuels). Unlike cultivated crops, waste products don’t compete for agricultural land and drive up commodity prices. Sustainably produced cellulosic ethanol made from grasses and wood also may be a viable alternative. Another possibility we’ll discuss in an upcoming post is using algae to make ethanol.

But a policy that specifically mandates corn ethanol doesn’t encourage exploration of these other options.
Performance standards based on full lifecycle analysis, including emissions from tropical deforestation and other indirect land use changes.

There is some recognition of this in current policy, but also an important gap. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low-Carbon Fuel Standard and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) both require consideration of indirect land use in assessing emissions.

But the EPA’s RFS exempts corn ethanol from existing facilities from having to meet lifecycle emissions standards.

Biofuels may have a role in our energy future, but only if they’re produced in ways that lower emissions. Performance-based standards and market incentives can prevent the unintended consequences of mandating the wrong technology.

Are we ready for climate change's health impacts?

Catherine Malina — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:51:33 PDT

This post is by Catherine Malina, an associate in the Health Sciences Program at Environmental Defense Fund and a survey interviewer for the "Are We Ready?" report.

Environmental Defense Fund released a new report [PDF] today on the U.S. public health system’s state of preparedness for global climate change. It’s based on a survey of local health department directors from across the country. I was one of the survey interviewers.

Is our nation ready to address the public health challenges of a warming planet? Our survey found there’s much work still to be done.

Climate change already contributes to disease and premature deaths worldwide, as populations experience greater health risks from more frequent and intense heat waves, extreme weather events, reduced air quality and infectious disease. The new EDF report, written in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and George Mason University, evaluates our public health infrastructure based on a survey of 133 local health departments in 39 states.

Public health officials concerned
The survey, conducted over the course of two months, included health officials in all parts of the country - from Utah, Kentucky and Florida, to Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maine.

In each interview I asked public health directors about their perception of climate-related health risks, and the status and adequacy of their departments' programs in response to these dangers. Directors also described their current or planned activities to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the additional resources they would need to more effectively deal with climate change as a public health issue.

I learned that there is widespread concern about climate change and the public health challenges it presents. This was true from small, rural counties to large, urban centers, and the suburbs in between.

Most of the directors were both personally and professionally interested in the issue, and believed climate change had already taken place in their jurisdiction. Even more believed they would see the local climate change over the next 20 years. I was struck to learn that a large majority thought their area would experience one or more serious public health problems as a result of climate change.

Lack of funding for long-range planning
Tellingly, most of the directors I interviewed saw the public health effects of climate change as an important priority for their department, but relatively few identified it as a top priority. Many admitted they lacked the resources and expertise to fully respond to the challenge. One director said:

We have limited staff and budget, so time is spent on routine issues. We don't have the ability to focus on long-range planning.

Another - one of many - echoed this response:

It would be a priority, but I don't have the funding for it.

Though we're not where we need to be, hearing this made me feel optimistic. Public health directors recognize the challenge ahead and are eager to find solutions.

Where we go from here
Our survey shows that local health directors across the U.S. are looking to state and national leadership for guidance and support. Improving public health's capacity to respond to climate change impacts will require closing a gap in resources and funding, but there are many opportunities to reduce health risks through smart policies that serve both climate and health goals.

For a detailed set of recommendations on how the U.S. can prepare for these health impacts, and to learn more about the survey, check out the full report [PDF].

Climate change's cost to U.S. transit

Sheryl Canter — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:59:40 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

A new fact sheet on costs to U.S. transportation and infrastructure surveys the many ways that global warming will cause disruption and damage if we don’t act to stop it.

Published by the Democratic Policy Committee, the fact sheet gives examples of known costs in different areas to give a sense of what the total might be -- and it’s big. Here are just a few examples from the transportation sector:

Flooding, droughts, and shipping on rivers.
In 1998, severe droughts stranded more than 4,000 barges, each capable of carrying 52,000 bushels of grain. Climate change increases the risk of similar droughts. At today’s prices, the cost to the agriculture sector would be more than $1.2 billion.

Rail transportation.
Climate change increases the intensity of hurricanes, so we can expect more storms like Hurricane Katrina or worse. Reconstruction costs for the damage caused to rail transportation by Hurricane Katrina totaled about $300 million.

Muddy dirt roads and logging.
The frozen dirt roads that logging companies use will be muddy and difficult to traverse for more of the time. In Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, almost 100,000 people are employed in forest-based manufacturing jobs that generate annual payrolls of $3 billion.

These are just a few examples from the transportation section. The infrastructure section examines potential damage to pipelines and costs of highway deterioration. All the numbers are documented with reference links.

CDC says climate change threatens health

Sheryl Canter — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:44:24 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

At a congressional hearing last Wednesday, Howard Frumkin, a senior official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said there was strong scientific evidence of major health problems due to climate change in the next few decades, including:

Heat waves that put children and the elderly at risk
Danger of droughts and floods from extreme weather
Increased food-borne and water-borne infectious diseases
Worsened air pollution due to higher temperatures
Migration into new areas of vector-borne diseases like malaria

At least he got to say it. Last October, CDC testimony on the health risks from global warming was censored by the White House.

Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif), who chaired the hearing, said she suspected that "a layer of screening" continues to limit what CDC officials are allowed to say.

While insisting that CDC had no position on EPA’s pending regulatory decisions, Frumpkin said, "…there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas … and there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health in many ways."

News from the Antarctic

James Wang — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:08:25 PDT

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense Fund.

This month, while Arctic sea ice hits its annual wintertime high (such as it is; see previous post), Antarctic sea ice reaches its summertime low.

We’ve written before about the British Antarctic Survey’s report of a vast ice berg on the verge of breaking off the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Here’s more on what’s happening at the South Pole from NASA’s recent briefing on polar sea ice.

Although the Arctic and Antarctic are both at the Earth’s poles, they’re not mirror images of each other. There are some fundamental differences between them. Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by an ocean, while the Arctic is basically an ocean surrounded by land.

Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic typically has little perennial sea ice. There are two main reasons:

Because there are no surrounding continents, Antarctic sea ice can float northward into warmer waters where it melts.
Because it’s at a lower latitude, Antarctic sea ice receives more direct sunlight and heat in summer.

Almost all the sea ice that forms during the winter melts during the summer.

Click to view Windows Media Viewer streaming video.

Also unlike the Arctic, which is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth, surface measurements and satellite data in Antarctica haven’t revealed overall trends in temperature or sea ice area.

Warming and sea ice loss in some areas -- notably the Antarctic Peninsula, where the iceberg is breaking from Wilkins Ice Shelf -- have been balanced by little temperature change or even cooling and sea ice gain in other areas.

Still, that doesn’t prove there’s no warming trend in Antarctica. Satellite data has only been available since the 1970s. Earlier observations from whaling ships suggest that there was a greater sea ice area before satellite observations were available.

If Antarctica isn’t warming -- or if it’s warming at a slower rate -- it may be due to the atmospheric vortex circulation that surrounds it (from being a land mass centered at a pole and surrounded by ocean). This tends to hold in cold air. But that’s just one hypothesis that scientists are exploring.

Bottles, bottles, everywhere

Ramon Cruz — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:38:01 PDT

This post is by Ramon Cruz, Senior Policy Analyst for Living Cities at Environmental Defense Fund.

It's ironic. In many parts of the world, there is no clean drinking water. Here in the U.S., pure, drinkable water flows out of every tap, and yet Americans buy a staggering amount of bottled water. We pay big bucks for it, too — more than $15 billion a year.

Worse of all, the bottles are overflowing our landfills and contributing to global warming. Take a look at this video from Doug James:

Also illustrating the case against bottled water:

More than a quarter of bottled water is just processed tap water, including Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola's Dasani. Despite this, bottled water consumption is growing at 10 percent a year, faster than any other beverage. We drink 15 times more bottled water today than we did in 1976.

This doesn't mean we're healthier, despite the ads. Federal regulations for municipal water are far more stringent. Bottled water rules allow higher levels of many contaminants, with more lenient requirements for filtration, testing, and reporting. See NRDC’s bottled water report for details of contaminants by brand.

The earth isn’t healthier for it, either. According to the Pacific Institute’s fact sheet (PDF), manufacturing the 30+ billion plastic water bottles we bought in 2006 required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and used three times the amount of water in the bottle.

And these numbers don't include transporting the bottles. Nearly 25 percent of bottled water crosses national borders before reaching consumers.

Adding in transportation, the energy used comes to more 50 million barrels of oil equivalent -- enough to run 3 million cars for a year.

Case study: Fiji water
Fiji Water produces more than a million bottles of water a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water (see this Fast Company article). Adding to the irony, Fiji itself uses almost no bottled water, according to a Pacific Institute report (PDF). They export it.

Shipping Fiji Water around the world increases its environmental footprint. Manufacturing and shipping a one-liter bottle produces over half a pound of greenhouse gas emissions and uses nearly 7 times the amount of water in the bottle, according to calculations by Pablo Päster on TriplePundit.

The heavy use of water is as serious as the greenhouse gas emissions. Water is fast becoming a scarce resource.

What about recycling?
Recycling would help, but we don’t usually do it. Less than 20 percent of the 28 billion single-serving water bottles that Americans buy each year are recycled. Some estimates are as low as 12 percent.

According to a Container Recycling Institute report (PDF), the national recycling rate for all beverage containers is 33 percent. In states with deposit systems, the rate jumps to 65-95 percent. But of the 11 states with deposit laws, only three include containers for non-carbonated beverages (like water), though non-carbonated beverages now comprise 27 percent of the market.

Last November, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a national bottle bill to address global warming that includes water bottles and other non-carbonated beverage containers.

The beverage industry, which long resisted deposit laws, has started to cooperate — mainly because it sees bottled water as the answer to the soda sales slump. Following months of bad publicity, manufacturers like Coke, Pepsi, and Nestlé have begun making lighter-weight plastic bottles and are encouraging consumers to recycle.

Better yet, carry tap water
If you buy bottled water, recycle the bottle. But the better solution — for you and the environment — is to drink tap water, both at home and at restaurants:

Tap water is cleaner than most bottled water.
Tap water is delivered to homes and offices for $0.002 a gallon. Bottled water, which can cost as much per gallon as gasoline, is a thousand times more expensive.

The quality of municipal water in the U.S. is generally excellent. Don’t let the recent reports about pharmaceuticals in tap water deter you — see this TreeHugger post for why.

But if you don’t trust tap water or you have old plumbing or you think tap water tastes funny, then try a water filter like those from PUR or Brita. To learn more about water filters, check out the rated list of water filter review sites at Consumer Search.

To carry water with you, use a reusable container filled with tap water. But don’t reuse single-use water bottles. This can expose you to bacterial build-up and carcinogens leached from the plastic.

Quite a few companies make reusable water bottles. There’s an ongoing debate about the safety of the polycarbonate plastic some use, but there are many safe reusable bottles made from other materials.

Use it or lose it
National Geographic’s Green Guide notes, "the federal share of funding for water systems has declined from 78 percent in 1973 to 3 percent today." This places the financial burden almost entirely on local governments.

Food and Water Watch also talks about how important it is to stop this trend and maintain the quality of municipal water. Its Take Back the Tap (PDF) report gives a detailed overview of the issues surrounding tap water versus bottled water.

6 numbers that show we could try harder

Sheryl Canter — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:28:08 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Oil is over $100 a barrel now -- an all-time high. Even if burning gasoline weren't a major cause of global warming, a price that high is motivation to conserve.

But we don't seem to be trying very hard.

Here are some numbers that make the point from Earth: The Sequel, the new book by EDF President Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn. (All profits from book sales support our global warming work.)

Efficiency
Last December, Congress passed an Energy Bill that raised CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for the first time in 32 years. It took significant negotiation to push this through, and yet we are still far behind Europe and Asia.

44.2 miles per gallon - Average fuel economy of the European vehicle fleet, page 226.
45 miles per gallon - Average fuel economy of the Japanese vehicle fleet, page 226.
35 miles per gallon - Average fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet when the newly passed CAFE standards are fully implemented in 2020 (up from less than 30 mpg currently), page 226.

Gasoline burned
It's hard to wrap your mind around how much oil we actually burn. A post from earlier this year might help: Picturing 21 Million Barrels of Oil (the amount we burned last August).

$820 million - Amount the U.S. exports every day to pay for the oil needed to supply our vehicle fleet, page 73.
180 billion gallons - Amount of gasoline and diesel fuel Americans consume every year in their vehicles, page 76.
2 billion gallons - Amount of gasoline that could be saved in the U.S. with a 10% reduction in the rolling resistance of tires (with no compromise on safety), page 224.

Clearly we need to do more to reduce our use of gasoline. Better fuel standards are important, but there are many things we can do on our own. Check out some of our previous posts for tips:

Interviews with Environmental Defense's Fred Krupp

Sheryl Canter — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:49:15 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

I recently wrote about the TreeHugger interview with Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn about their new book. Earth: The Sequel is an engaging look at emerging technology in the fight to stop global warming.

Fred has been getting around quite a bit lately. This week he also was interviewed by Forbes, Newsweek, and Mercury News. Each had a slightly different focus. Here are some excerpts:

On why a carbon tax won’t work, from the Forbes interview:

There’s no example of an air pollution problem anywhere in the world that has been solved without a cap or legal limit on how much of that pollution can be dumped into the sky. A cap gives you that legal limit, where a tax allows people to potentially keep on paying a modest amount and keep on polluting.

On biofuels, from the Newsweek interview:

I think we’ve come to understand that the current generation of biofuels has problems and that we need a whole new generation. In the short-term, turning sugar into fuels other than ethanol would have many advantages, given the infrastructure problems ethanol creates. In the long-term, we are much better off when entrepreneurs develop ways to turn wood and fiber, not food, into energy.

On the power of markets, from the Mercury News interview:

Last night, we were up on Sand Hill Road. Somebody told me he had been walking around in a kind of funk, a depression. But, he said, now that he’s seen this future, he’s already starting to feel better. It’s not a message that we can disengage. It’s not a message that technology can solve it. It is a message that if government does the right thing, and if we put that entrepreneurism to work in service of a new profit motive that’s been designed to create the very things we need to have a future, wow, watch what happens, such as a $1.9 billion order for Applied Materials to make solar cells.