Tag Archives: epa

Turns out there are a few Republicans who want to do something about climate change

Turns out there are a few Republicans who want to do something about climate change

Shutterstock

Here’s a helpful reminder that not all Republicans oppose climate action. Former EPA administrators who served under Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush I and II spoke out on Wednesday in support of federal efforts to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants. They appeared at a Senate hearing organized by Democrats to discuss EPA’s recently proposed power-plant rules. From USA Today:

“We have a scientific consensus around this issue. We also need a political consensus,” said Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey Governor and first EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, who resigned her post after disagreeing with the White House’s direction on pollution rules.

Whitman was joined by William Ruckelshaus, the nation’s first EPA administrator under President Richard Nixon, William Reilly, who led the EPA under President George H.W. Bush, and Lee Thomas, who was administrator under Reagan. …

[T]he four EPA administrators … said the Obama administration had worked hard to make the proposal flexible and workable, using authority provided by Congress.

More from McClatchy:

Whitman … said she was frustrated by the debate over whether the EPA had the authority to take the action it did on carbon pollution.

“The issue has been settled,” she said in her prepared testimony. “EPA does have the authority. The law says so and the Supreme Court has said so twice. The matter should be put to rest.”

While she questioned whether the EPA may be “stretching its legal authority a bit too far in some parts of the proposed rule,” she said those concerns can and should be worked out in the rule-making process. The focus should be on those details, not on whether the EPA has the authority to act, she said.

Senate Republicans responded with non-scientific gibberish, of course.

“I wasn’t surprised by their positions,” Reilly told The Huffington Post after the hearing. “I am surprised at the continued refusal to believe that the science is as it is claimed to be by 11 national academies of science. If you don’t like the IPCC, there are many other choices for authoritative science. … When I was in office I made it a rule to follow the science. Well, the science is pretty clear.”

This isn’t the first time the four ex-EPA chiefs have teamed up to push a climate message. Last summer, Reilly, Whitman, Ruckelshaus, and Thomas cowrote an op-ed in The New York Times supporting Obama’s climate plan and arguing that “the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change.”

Most rank-and-file Republicans agree. A recent poll found that 63 percent of Republican voters believe the federal government should limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants.

So, to repeat: Not all Republicans oppose efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. Just all of those in Congress.


Source
Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate, USA Today
Republican ex-EPA chiefs say it’s time to act on climate change, McClatchy
Republican Former EPA Chiefs Try To Convince Senate GOP That Climate Change Is Real, The Huffington Post

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Source article:  

Turns out there are a few Republicans who want to do something about climate change

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Turns out there are a few Republicans who want to do something about climate change

How Much Cleaner Will Obama’s Climate Rules Make Your State?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency rolled out the centerpiece of President Obama’s climate strategy—a plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s power plants. The main takeaway was that by 2030 the regulations will cut these emissions, the biggest single driver of global warming, by 30 percent compared to 2005 levels. But under the hood, things get a little more complex.

Rather than a consistent national standard, the proposed rule sets a different standard for every state, based on the EPA’s assessment of what each state can realistically achieve using existing technology at a reasonable cost. The goal applies to a state’s carbon intensity, the measure of how much carbon pollution comes from each unit of electricity produced in that state, rather than total carbon emissions. States like Kentucky and West Virginia, for example, rely heavily on coal power and have a higher carbon intensity than states like California that are more energy-efficient and have more renewable energy. By 2030, each state will be required to meet a carbon intensity target lower than where it is today; how much lower, exactly, depends on what the EPA thinks the state can pull off.

States will have broad leeway to devise individual plans to meet their targets, which could include installing air-scrubbing technology on plants themselves, adopting more robust energy efficiency standards, or switching from coal to cleaner sources like natural gas or renewables.

Here’s a ranking of which states will have to shrink their carbon footprint the most:

Tim McDonnell

Continue Reading »

View this article:  

How Much Cleaner Will Obama’s Climate Rules Make Your State?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Much Cleaner Will Obama’s Climate Rules Make Your State?

This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight

Why Obama’s new climate rules aren’t as tough as they seem. The White House/Youtube Just like that, we’re already halfway to our new goal of reducing global warming pollution from power plants. On Monday morning, President Obama announced a new target for carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants: a 30 percent reduction by 2030. The action isas significant as (and possibly greater than) Obama’s previous steps to significantly upgrade fuel efficiency from cars and trucks, and may help deliver a fatal blow to the coal industry. But by choosing a baseline year of 2005 for the target 30 percent reduction, the administration lets industry off relatively easy. As of 2011, the United States had already achieved a 9 percent reduction in economy-wide CO2 emissions since 2005, thanks in large part to the boom in natural gas. Carbon from power plants is down 16 percent, according to the draft EPA rule text. States will get to factor in those gains to their 2030 targets. What’s more, much of the coal that would have been burned domestically since then is just getting shipped overseas. U.S. coal exports have nearly tripled since 2006, adding to the heat-trapping pollution that accelerates global warming, even though domestic numbers show a decline. Read the rest at Slate. Continued: This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight Related ArticlesLive Coverage: Obama Takes His Boldest Step Ever To Fight Climate ChangeHere’s Why an Obama Plan to Regulate Carbon Could WorkDot Earth Blog: Tracking Obama’s Climate Rules for Power Plants

See original article:

This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This One Weird Trick Will Help You Cut Carbon Emissions Overnight

Republicans Are Claiming the New Climate Rules Will Wreck the Economy. They’re Wrong.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today the Environmental Protection Agency announced its much anticipated plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, the source of about a third of US emissions. It turns out the regulations will be pretty ambitious: a 30 percent decrease in emissions in this sector from 2005 levels by the year 2030 (though some say that is still not enough).

Critics are out in force, of course, and their chief tactic seems to be economic alarmism. Earlier this morning, the front page of Drudge Report displayed this image (bizarrely, as the new rules have nothing to do with oil and wouldn’t drive up gas prices):

Screenshot/Drudge Report

Indeed, the economic doomsaying arguments are everywhere in relation to the new EPA rules. Even before the rules were announced, the National Mining Association was running ads claiming that “an 80 percent cost hike in electricity bills is something we better get used to if extreme new Obama administration power plant regulations take effect.” Also prior to the rules’ actual release, the US Chamber of Commerce put out a study asserting that the consequence of the regulations would be 224,000 lost jobs per year and a $50 billion annual economic hit (up through the year 2030).

And then, there were the elected Republicans: James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator, claimed the regulations would “cost Americans a fortune.” John Boehner, meanwhile, called them a “sucker punch for families everywhere.” And don’t miss tweets like these from members of Congress:

The EPA, of course, radically disagrees with all of this, and thinks the economic benefits of the new rules should greatly exceed their costs. So who should you trust?

Well, how about history: There is a long tradition of cost overestimates for new environmental regulations. At the Huffington Post, Pacific Institute president Peter Gleick provides an extensive documentation, going back to the 1970s, arguing that such claims of huge costs not only have a long history, but that they are “always wrong.”

Among other things, Gleick links to a 2011 EPA study finding that the benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments (which, of course, were attacked on grounds of supposed cost) “exceeded costs by a factor of more than 30 to one.” That’s not the only such study. In fact, as the World Resources Institute’s Ruth Greenspan Bell has noted, from 1999 to 2009, EPA water and clean-air regulations overall were clear cost-benefit winners. The total costs, according to a 2010 Office of Management and Budget report, were some $26-$29 billion, while the benefits were far greater: $82-$533 billion.

Dubiousness aside, the striking thing about all of these attacks is that they’re depressingly presentist, missing the big picture about the transformative effect that climate change is having on our world as it unleashes stunning impacts whose ultimate costs are sure to be mindboggling (like, say, 10 feet of sea level rise affecting every coastal city on the planet).

Fortunately, we turned to Bill Nye the Science Guy for some bigger picture perspective. He gave us this statement today: “We have a long way to go in addressing climate change,” he said. “Coal will be controversial for a long time yet. But the longest journey starts with a single step. This is a good one. Let’s get started.”

Continue reading:

Republicans Are Claiming the New Climate Rules Will Wreck the Economy. They’re Wrong.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Are Claiming the New Climate Rules Will Wreck the Economy. They’re Wrong.

EPA to clamp down on deadly oil refinery pollution

You can almost smell the changes

EPA to clamp down on deadly oil refinery pollution

Wyatt Wellman

The millions of Americans who risk cancer every day by breathing in toxic pollution belched out by oil refineries could soon be breathing a little bit easier.

The EPA proposed overdue new rules on Thursday that would force about 150 refineries in 30 states to rein in their air pollution, and to do a better job of monitoring it. Here’s the Natural Resources Defense Council’s John Walke with an overview of the proposal:

EPA has proposed for the first time to require fenceline monitoring for carcinogenic benzene emissions around each refinery. Because much of the air pollution from refineries does not come directly from the emission stacks, a great deal of this air pollution escapes detection—and control—through leaks, flares and other emission sources. …

Along with landmark fenceline monitoring provisions, EPA has also proposed to require increased flare management at facilities. Refineries often flare off excess waste gases, leading to huge emissions of toxic air pollutants. The new standards proposed by EPA will require refineries to manage their flares at a much higher level of burn-off efficiency than they do currently, which will mean that much less toxic pollution makes it into the air. …

Finally, EPA is also proposing new emission standards for cokers located at refineries. Cokers are part of the refining process, but they involve heating up the petroleum and hydrocarbons to high temperatures, producing large amounts of toxic air pollution. The proposed coker standards will reduce toxic air pollution by 1,800 tons per year alone.

The EPA estimates that its proposed changes would reduce toxic air pollution, including emissions of benzene, toluene, and xylene, by 5,600 tons per year. Volatile organic compound emissions would be cut by more than 50,000 tons per year, and greenhouse gas pollution levels would also fall.

Which is great. It’s just a shame that Earthjustice and other environmentalists had to sue the agency two years ago to force it to produce its first proposed update to refinery rules in well over a decade.


Source
EPA Proposes to Limit Cancer-Causing Toxic Air Pollution From Petroleum Refineries, Natural Resources Defense Council
EPA Proposes Updates to Emissions Standards for Refineries to Protect Nearby Neighborhoods/Proposed steps will protect public health and improve air quality, EPA
EPA proposes stricter emission standards for oil refineries following lawsuit, The Associated Press

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Grist is turning 15! No need to get us a gift. Just make a donation to support our work.

Donate Now

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Jump to original: 

EPA to clamp down on deadly oil refinery pollution

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, organic, Paradise, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA to clamp down on deadly oil refinery pollution

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

back

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Posted 8 May 2014 in

National

Note: A PDF of the letter is available here.

Letter to President Obama: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

EPA Proposal to Reduce Renewable Fuels at Odds With National Climate Assessment

In a letter to President Obama today, leaders of America’s renewable fuel industry urge the Administration to rethink its proposal to weaken the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard – a proposal that is at odds with the National Climate Assessment the White House released earlier this week.

The letter is signed by Abengoa Bioenergy, the Advanced Ethanol Council, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, DuPont, DSM, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, Novozymes, the Renewable Fuels Association, and POET.

The companies and organizations write that the Administration’s proposal to reduce the amount of renewable fuel in gasoline and diesel would “make us more oil dependent, effectively gut the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, strand billions of dollars in private investment, and send emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants sharply higher.”

The letter notes that the impact of the Administration’s proposal would increase carbon pollution by an estimated 28.2 million metric tons in 2014 alone – which is equivalent to building 7 new coal fired power plants or cancelling every wind farm project currently under construction in the United States.

“The question comes down to whether we want to rely more on foreign oil, or more on clean, renewable American made biofuels,” said the authors of the letter. “We urge you to reconsider the EPA proposal and the methodology for reducing the volumes — and allow the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard to continue working as intended to create American jobs, promote American innovation, cut our reliance on foreign oil, and reduce harmful carbon pollution.”

Text of the letter is below:

May 8, 2014

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

This week’s National Climate Assessment report is a wakeup call about the serious economic, environmental and public health threats to the American people caused by climate change.

The good news is that our nation has reduced energy related emissions of carbon pollution in recent years and we can achieve further reductions as we move to clean energy sources like wind, solar and renewable biofuels. The bad news is that the Administration, under heavy pressure from the global oil industry, has proposed to significantly reduce the renewable fuel content of gasoline and diesel this year. This would make us more oil dependent, effectively gut the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, strand billions of dollars in private investment, and send emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants sharply higher. It represents a significant step backward in your effort to confront climate change.

Given that the United States already consumes far more oil than we produce – and the U.S. Energy Information Agency projects that will continue to be true for decades[1] — lowering the amount of renewable fuel we use will likely increase the amount of foreign oil we import and burn.

Argonne National Laboratory, in a 2012 study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, showed that the lifecycle CO2 emissions from traditional corn ethanol are 34% lower than gasoline. Advanced biofuels from switchgrass, corn stover or miscanthus represent reductions in lifecycle CO2 emissions of 88%, 96%, and 108% respectively. By cutting our use of these low-carbon fuels and reducing investments into innovative second generation biofuels, the EPA proposal to weaken the Renewable Fuel Standard would trigger a substantial increase in carbon emissions.

In fact, a recent analysis by the Biotechnology Industry Organization shows that this action would increase carbon pollution emissions by 28.2 million metric tons in 2014 alone. To put this in perspective, the impact would be equivalent to adding 7 new coal fired power plants or cancelling every wind farm project currently under construction in the United States.[2] Carrying the EPA’s proposed approach forward in future years would trigger even larger increases in climate-altering emissions; by 2022, the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases would be nearly 1 billion metric tons higher than would occur if EPA continued to set the Renewable Fuel Standard at statutory levels.

The EPA’s proposal will not only undermine your Administration’s efforts to address climate change, it will also undercut the Administration’s efforts to support commercial scale production of cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels – precisely at the time this new industry is taking root. Four new commercial scale cellulosic ethanol production facilities are coming online this year.

The policy stability offered by the Renewable Fuel Standard – with a gradual ramping up of renewable fuel targets year by year – created the market certainty needed to foster the private sector investment in these innovative new fuels. With the proposed rule, the EPA is changing the rules in midstream, replacing market certainty with uncertainty, and making it very difficult for additional U.S. cellulosic ethanol facilities to secure financing and investor support. If the United States continues on this course, future investments in advanced biofuels will increasingly shift to Asia, South America and Europe.

This is precisely what the oil companies want. In fact, after the EPA proposal was announced, the Big Five oil companies reaped a $23 billion windfall in a single day. The companies’ stock prices soared four times faster than the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 during that same period. Just this week, the Center for American Progress reported that the big five oil companies have $68 billion in cash reserves and have been the largest recipient of federal tax breaks, subsidies, and other government supports over the past century.

The question comes down to whether we want to rely more on foreign oil, or more on clean, renewable American made biofuels. Do we want more U.S. jobs – or more jobs overseas? Indeed, a recent economic analysis performed by John Dunham & Associates makes clear the benefits that renewable fuels have for our country’s economy — driving $184.5 billion of economic output, supporting 852,000 jobs and $46.2 billion in wages, while generating $14.5 billion in tax revenue each year. The report also details these sizable economic benefits for every U.S. state and congressional district.

Finally, an accurate assessment of the climate impacts of transportation fuels requires rigorous analysis of the lifecycle carbon impacts of biofuels. Unfortunately, EPA continues to rely on outdated analysis from 2007 and an archaic view of some commercial biofuels. The 2007 analysis does not take into account the significant improvements that have been made in recent years to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from feedstocks and from renewable fuel production. For example, the land use changes predicted by EPA’s modeling simply have not materialized. We encourage your Administration to revisit its lifecycle analysis of these biofuels and ensure EPA is using the best available data and information.

We urge you to reconsider the EPA proposal and the methodology for reducing the volumes — and allow the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard to continue working as intended to create American jobs, promote American innovation, cut our reliance on foreign oil, and reduce harmful carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Abengoa Bioenergy / Advanced Ethanol Council / Biotechnology Industry Organization / DuPont / DSM / Growth Energy / National Corn Growers Association / Novozymes / Renewable Fuels Association / POET

 

[1] EIA’s 2014 Annual Energy Outlook reference case projects that imports will continue to decline into 2015 and then steadily rise through at least 2040. Reducing U.S. biofuel production below current levels – and those outlined in the Renewable Fuel Standard – would require additional imports.

[2] According to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator, the 28.2 million metric tons of CO2 added by this rule change is equivalent to the CO2 emissions from 7.4 new coal plants or the CO2 avoided from 15 gigawatts of wind power. The American Wind Energy Association reports that 12 gigawatts of wind power are currently under construction – more than any time in history.

Contact: Aaron Wells
aaron@smoottewes.com
320-247-7616

###

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
View post: 

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, solar, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Supreme Court’s Pollution Ruling “a Victory for Obama Administration’

Top court’s decision on EPA’s powers means about 1,000 power plants will have to adopt new pollution controls. michal kodym/Thinkstock The US Supreme Court endorsed the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to deal with air pollution blowing across state lines on Tuesday, in an important victory for the Obama administration as well as downwind states. The court’s 6-2 decision unblocks a 2011 rule requiring 28 eastern states to reduce power-plant emissions that carry smog and soot particles across state lines, hurting the air quality in downwind states. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the court’s majority opinion, said the EPA’s formula for dealing with cross-state air pollution was “permissable, workable and equitable.” Read the rest at the Guardian. Continued: Supreme Court’s Pollution Ruling “a Victory for Obama Administration’ Related ArticlesIs Oil Money Turning the NRA Against Hunters?No, New York Times, Keystone XL Is Not A “Rounding Error”Germany’s Key to Clean Energy Is…This Coal Mine?

Original source – 

Supreme Court’s Pollution Ruling “a Victory for Obama Administration’

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court’s Pollution Ruling “a Victory for Obama Administration’

Four Commercial Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Biorefineries to Enter Production This Year

back

Four Commercial Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Biorefineries to Enter Production This Year

Posted 29 April 2014 in

National

During an event at the National Press Club today, representatives of DuPont, POET-DSM, Abengoa Bioenergy and Quad County Corn detailed their progress toward launching commercial scale production of cellulosic ethanol this year, but also warned that the continued growth of this industry is at significant risk because of the U.S. EPA’s proposal to gut the renewable fuel standard and increase the amount of oil in gasoline.

“Cellulosic ethanol is no longer the fuel of the future, it’s a fuel that will be produced at commercial scale this year – a fuel that will be increasingly important to meeting our transportation needs unless the EPA or Congress gives in to the demands of the oil industry,” said Aaron J. Whitesel, Senior Manager for Government Affairs at DuPont.

Listen to Audio of the National Press Club Event:

“Producing biofuels from crop residue is an enormous opportunity for U.S. consumers to have access to even more clean, renewable ethanol,” said POET Vice President of Corporate Affairs Doug Berven. “In addition, this process provides farmers with a new revenue crop from land that is already in production. If the EPA allows this industry access to the fuel market, there will be enormous benefits for America’s economy, environment and national security.”

“The innovative process we are pioneering in Galva, Iowa can be a model for the rest of the country as we build a whole new cellulosic ethanol industry in America,” said DelayneJohnson, CEO of Quad County Corn Processors. “Gutting the Renewable Fuel Standard, however, could derail the momentum we have achieved and create uncertainty that will dramatically slow the adoption of this important technology.”

View the Presentation Shown at the National Press Club Event:

Nat’l Press Club | Cellulosic Ethanol | 2014.04.29

from

FuelsAmerica

“Producing fuel from corn stalks or agricultural waste means a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants in traditional gasoline, and it opens up an almost limitless source of potential feedstock for clean, renewable fuel,” said Chris Standlee, Executive Vice President for Global Affairs of Abengoa Bioenergy. “The EPA’s proposal to lower the amount of renewable fuel in gasoline, however, will make it far harder for companies to invest in the next phases of cellulosic ethanol production and leave us more dependent on imported oil.”

DuPont — Nevada Site Cellulosic Ethanol Facility

Location: Nevada, Iowa
Operational Date: Q4 2014
Total investment: Over $200 million
Feedstock: Corn Stover
Capacity: 30 million gallons /year

DuPont is investing over $200 million to construct a commercial scale cellulosic biorefineryin Nevada, Iowa, that will be fueled by agricultural residue harvested from a 30 mile radius around the facility. It will be one of the first and largest advancedbiorefineries in the world, helping to secure U.S. leadership in this innovative new technology while spurring additional private investment in the industry.

To supply this 30 million gallon per year facility, DuPont is also building an entirely new, fully sustainable supply chain for corn stover, the stalks and leaves left over after corn harvest. DuPont’s stover harvest program is a highly collaborative endeavor, involving experts in the field of agronomy from DuPont’s Pioneer division, Iowa State University and the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) working in conjunction with custom harvest equipment manufacturers and hundreds of local farmers.

DuPont remains committed to the sector, but has indicated that the uncertainty created by the EPA’s proposed changes in the Renewable Fuel Standard – or any future Congressional action to undermine the RFS – has already slowed investor interest here in the US and worries that regulatory uncertainty will push future investment overseas.

Abengoa — Bioenergy Hugoton Cellulosic Ethanol Facility

Location: Hugoton, Kansas
Operational Date: Q2 2014
Total investment: $500 million
Feedstock: Corn stover, wheat straw, milo stubble and prairie grasses
Capacity: 25 million gallons/year plus 21 Megawatts of renewable electricity

Abengoa’s Hugoton plant has the capacity to convert 300,000 dry tons of agricultural residues such as corn stover and wheat straw into 25 million gallons of ethanol and 21 Megawatts of renewable electricity. The biomass boiler and electric generation system successfully commenced operation and transferred power to the grid in December of 2013, and the ethanol portion of the facility is beginning the commissioning process now, with first production expected in May or June 2014. Abengoa’s same proprietary technology is also being used to produce cellulosic ethanol from municipal solid waste at a pilot plant in Spain which started operations in July 2013.

Abengoa intends to offer licenses and contracts to interested parties covering the full range of construction and operation of cellulosic ethanol facilities, utilizing Abengoa’s unique capabilities and expertise in all aspects of this new industry. Abengoa can provide every aspect from process design and engineering to EPC construction, and from supply of proprietary enzymes and specialized harvest techniques to operations and marketing of the completed products from the facility.

The market certainty originally provided by the RFS has resulted in commercial scale deployment of the cellulosic ethanol industry that will be experienced this year. Abengoa is hopeful that the EPA avoids any regulatory actions that will unnecessarily dampen the market enthusiasm and job creation that should follow this pivotal year of commercialization.

POET-DSM Project Liberty

Location: Emmetsburg, Iowa
Operational Date: June 2014
Total investment: $250 million
Feedstock: Corn cobs, leaves, husk and stalks
Capacity: 25 million gallons/year

POET-DSM’s Advanced Biofuels’ Project LIBERTY is a $250 million cellulosic bioethanol plant that will use corn cobs, leaves, husk and some stalk to produce 25 million gallons of ethanol per year at full operation. The plant, which is scheduled to be completed in the second quarter of 2014, is sited next to a grain ethanol plant – POET Biorefining – Emmetsburg – in order to take advantage of synergies in staff, infrastructure and experience. It will draw its feedstock from a 30-40-mile radius and use approximately 25% of the available crop residue.

At the event, Berven announced that POET-DSM has begun aggressively marketing their process and technology package for licensing by other ethanol producers in the U.S. and around the world.

Quad County Corn Adding Cellulosic Ethanol, or ACE

Location: Galva, Iowa
Operational Date: June 2014
Total investment: $9 Million
Feedstock: Corn Kernel Fiber
Phase I Capacity: 2 million gallons/year (Cellulose)
Phase II Capacity: 1.75 million gallons/year (Hemi-Cellulose)
Total Capacity: 3.75 million gallons/year

Quad County Corn Processors (QCCP) is in the final stages of construction of its Adding Cellulosic Ethanol (ACE) bolt on facility in Galva, Iowa. Construction is anticipated to be complete in May 2014 with production beginning in June 2014.

ACE is a bolt on technology that converts corn kernel fiber into cellulosic ethanol. The process also increases an ethanol processing facilities distillers oil yield by 250% and creates a higher protein feed product for the livestock industry.

QCCP recently announced that Syngenta has an exclusive license to market the ACE technology to ethanol plants in the United States and Canada. The existing dry grind ethanol facilities in the United States have the potential to create over 1.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol and 2 billion gallons of biodiesel from corn by adopting the ACE technology.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Jump to original: 

Four Commercial Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Biorefineries to Enter Production This Year

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Four Commercial Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Biorefineries to Enter Production This Year

Map: Is There a Risky Chemical Plant Near You?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last April 17, an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, killed 15 people, injured at least 200, and destroyed dozens of homes, schools, and a nursing home. In the wake of the disaster, we wondered: Can we locate the industrial sites in your community where similar incidents might occur?

The answer to that question, it turns out, is not so simple. Even basic information about sites where hazardous chemicals are kept and what kinds of accidents can be anticipated is tucked away in official documents. Much of that data is not easily accessible due to post-9/11 security measures, making it nearly impossible to get a clear sense of whether you live, work, or go to school near the next potential West, Texas.

Here’s what we do know: Millions of Americans live near a site that could put them in harm’s way if hazardous chemicals leak or catch fire. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors roughly 12,000 facilities that store one or more of 140 toxic or flammable chemicals that are potentially hazardous to nearby communities. In late 2012, a Congressional Research Service report found that more than 2,500 of these sites estimate that their worst-case scenarios could affect between 10,000 and 1 million people; more than 4,400 estimated that their worst-case scenarios could affect between 1,000 and 9,999 people.

The interactive map below, based on data from the EPA’s Risk Management Program, shows at least 9,000 facilities where a “catastrophic chemical release” or what the EPA calls a “worst-case scenario” could harm nearby residents. Hover over any site to see its exact location, the chemicals it stores, and how many accidents it documented in its most recent 5-year reporting period.

According to chemical safety experts, this is the most comprehensive national-level chemical safety data out there. But there’s a lot it doesn’t tell us.

First, don’t let the facilities with no accidents fool you. Before its explosion last year, West Fertilizer’s EPA records showed that it had no mishaps. “A lot of facilities, even though they haven’t had any accidents, it doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of one, and that the damage can’t be similar to what we’ve seen in West, Texas,” explains Sofia Plagakis, a policy analyst with the Center for Effective Government‘s environmental right-to-know program. “It only takes one accident,” says John Deans, a former toxics campaigner at Greenpeace.

And if you click on the West Fertilizer Co. plant in West, Texas, you won’t see any record of ammonium nitrate, the prime suspect in last year’s explosion. (The other suspect was anhydrous ammonia, which the EPA does monitor.) That’s because the chemical is not monitored under the EPA’s Risk Management Program. Basically, the data used to make this map can’t be used to predict the next West, Texas-style accident; it couldn’t even predict the first West, Texas, accident.

More data is out there, however. To find out more about where ammonium nitrate is stored, try the Department of Homeland Security, which monitors facilities that keep the chemical under its Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program. Yet DHS never knew about West Fertilizer, even though the plant told state agencies in 2012 that it stored 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, about 1,350 times the amount that triggers the reporting requirement. While West Fertilizer didn’t report to DHS, it did disclose its ammonium nitrate storage to Texas’ emergency planning committee in a federally required report that’s meant to help firefighters, hospitals, and other first responders prepare for an accident. Almost every facility on the map above also stores a chemical whose name has been redacted. That information is only accessible if you visit one of 15 EPA Federal Reading Rooms scattered across the country.

If you’re confused, you’re not alone. Disparate government data sets and patchy oversight have raised more questions about chemical risks than regulators or citizens can answer. In the wake of the West, Texas, tragedy, the Obama administration promised to address these knowledge gaps and issued an executive order, calling for agencies such as DHS and the EPA to improve their info sharing with state agencies and local responders.

Other organizations have tried to determine which chemical plants pose the greatest risks to nearby residents. In 2011, Greenpeace’s Deans and his team set out to find some answers in the EPA data. But publicly accessible risk data doesn’t say exactly how close facilities are located to communities, how many people live in those communities, or what kinds of damage an accident might cause. The West Fertilizer explosion destroyed or irreparably damaged three of the town’s four schools. Had the accident happened during the day, Plagakis asks, “Did the school know how to get the students out of harm’s way?”

Facilities are supposed to report this information to the EPA, but these Offsite Consequence Analyses are not included in the agency’s response to public records requests for risk management data. You can access this information at an EPA Federal Reading Room. But you’re allowed one visit per month and can only bring a pen and paper. Greenpeace dispatched about a dozen researchers to the reading rooms for this project, Deans says.

When it was done, Deans’s team had identified 473 chemical facilities that could put 100,000 people or more at risk. “Of those,” they found, “89 put one million or more people at risk up to 25 miles downwind from a plant.” In all, Greenpeace concluded, one out of every three Americans was at some risk of being affected by a toxic chemical release from a nearby facility.

Chemical Sites That Put 100,000 or More People at Risk

Source: Greenpeace

Still, the West Fertilizer plant, which is in a town of 2,800 people, does not show up on this map. As mounting evidence pointed to ammonium nitrate as the likely culprit in the West Fertilizer explosion, a team of Reuters reporters started looking for other ammonium nitrate facilities across the country to see if they could pinpoint other potentially risky locations. It found hundreds of thousands of homes, hundreds of schools, and 20 hospitals within a mile of sites that store or use the chemical.

Ammonium Nitrate Sites

Source: Reuters

According to news reports, there are roughly 6,000 facilities that store ammonium nitrate at levels that should report to Homeland Security. DHS never returned calls to verify this number, and it does not publicize the ammonium nitrate facilities it tracks under its Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program. Federal law mandates that any facility storing at least 10,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate disclose it to local emergency planning authorities. To track down these reports, you have to ask your state for it. Some states, like Illinois, make the information easily accessible online. Others, like Arizona, have denied public requests to see the the documents. Reuters requested these Tier II reports from environmental, public safety, and emergency response agencies in all 50 states: 29 states released the information, 10 states did not respond or did not have electronic data, and 11 refused altogether.

“The states that declined often wanted us to request information about a specific site,” says Ryan McNeill, one of the Reuters reporters who worked on mapping the ammonium nitrate facilities. “They claim that’s what the law intended. Our counter was that this is a silly position because it requires a citizen to know about the existence of a site with dangerous chemicals before they can request information. How is the public supposed to know whether a warehouse houses dangerous chemicals?”

Read article here: 

Map: Is There a Risky Chemical Plant Near You?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Map: Is There a Risky Chemical Plant Near You?

Will the White House Crack Down on Gas Emissions?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The White House on Friday opened the way to cutting emissions of methane from the oil and gas industry, saying it would study the magnitude of leaks of the powerful greenhouse gas.

The announcement seemed designed to please the international community—which is meeting in Yokohama to finalize a blockbuster climate report—as well as environmental groups suing to force the Obama administration to regulate the oil and gas industry.

The new strategy announced by the White House on Friday did not immediately direct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin drafting new climate regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Instead, the White House said the EPA would undertake a series of studies to determine the magnitude and prevalence of methane leaks from fracking sites, compressors, and gas pipelines.

The agency would decide by the autumn of 2014 whether to propose new controls on the industry. “In the fall, we will determine the best path forward to get reductions,” a White House official told a conference call with reporters.

If the EPA does go ahead and propose new rules, the White House official said the agency would aim to complete the process by the time Obama leaves office.

Methane—the primary component of natural gas—is more than 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. Oil and gas sites are the biggest industrial source of methane.

The gas accounted for about 14 percent of US climate pollution in 2013, according to the EPA’s greenhouse gas inventory, and that share is expected to grow.

Environmental groups have been pressing Barack Obama for months to come up with a plan to cut methane.

Without those controls, Obama cannot meet his commitment to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels.

There are big political risks in taking on America’s powerful oil and natural gas interests.

Obama has embraced “natural gas” as part of his all-of-the-above energy strategy, arguing that the shale revolution would help move the US away from more heavily polluting coal. But there is growing evidence methane leaks are far more pervasive than originally thought.

Methane is escaping into the atmosphere from all along the supply chain—from flaring gas wells that light up the night sky in North Dakota to aging pipes in the Northeast.

A study published by the National Academy of Sciences last November found that the EPA had grossly underestimated methane releases from gas drilling.

Ninety environmental groups wrote to the EPA last December demanding the agency introduce new regulations on the oil and gas industry.

Methane pollution is projected to increase to a level equivalent to over 620 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030 without additional action to reduce emissions.

The White House said the EPA would propose new rules for future landfills in the summer of 2014, and was considering new regulations on existing landfills.

The Department of Energy will meanwhile begin exploring the potential of capturing and storing methane in underground waste dumps.

Original article – 

Will the White House Crack Down on Gas Emissions?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will the White House Crack Down on Gas Emissions?