VW’s Jetta BlueTDI: 60 MPG, 90% Emissions Reduction for NOx

VW’s ultra-low emission Jetta BlueTDI will be coming to the US mid-summer, according to an announcement made late last month at the Vienna Motor Symposium.

This newer version of the Jetta will meet the strictest emissions standards in the world—BIN5/LEV2—which are enforced by 5 US states: California, Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and Vermont. BIN5/LEV2 standards severely cap nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions (0.05 g/mile), one of the two tailpipe pollutants that have given diesels a bad rap (that and particulate matter).

As it happens, Bin5/LEV2 standards are tougher than their European counterpart, the Euro-5, and VW had to custom modify the Jetta BlueTDI for the North American market. NOx reductions were met with internal engine modifications—some of which are “unique worldwide”—and a maintenance-free NOx exhaust trap. Altogether, this system reduces NOx emissions by 90%.

Combining clean emissions with a road-tested 60 MPG highway fuel economy could make this a winner in the US. Dr. Ing. Jens Hadler, Director of Volkswagen Powertrain Development commented:

[H]igh fuel prices and a dramatic change in environmental consciousness means that diesel is becoming more and more attractive for American drivers every day. This is why many customers, especially in California, have been waiting for a super-clean diesel like our BlueTDI. I think this motor will help the diesel get its big break in America because it consumes so little and yet can go such long distances on a single fill-up. And in a country as big as the United States, this is a priceless advantage. On the highway, for example, this engine can reach up to 60 miles per gallon. This is an improvement of 12 percent over its predecessor, which had a lower capacity and higher emissions.

Posts Related to VW Jetta TDI and other Diesels:

• A Biodiesel Prius? VW To Release 69.9 MPG Diesel Hybrid
• VW Confirms 1L Concept Will Become Reality in 2010
• Mercedes 40-MPG Diesel Hybrid: Cleanest SUV on the Planet
• Germans Release 117 MPG Diesel Sportscar: Biodiesel, Anyone?

[Via]

Photo Credit: VW

Clean Burning Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) are hot commodities in some parts of the country, where fuel can sell for as low as $0.63 per gallon.

Unlike the world’s most fuel efficient car (VW’s 285 MPG bullet), the Honda Civic GX looks like a standard passenger vehicle. What makes it special is what you don’t see: tailpipe emissions that are often cleaner than ambient air.

The Civic GX is powered by compressed natural gas—methane—the simplest and cleanest-burning hydrocarbon available. With an economical 113-hp, 1.8-Liter engine, the EPA has called the Civic the “world’s cleanest internal-combustion vehicle” with 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasoline-powered car on the road in 2004.

And get this: in Utah, natural gas can be purchased for $0.63 per gallon.

At $24,590, buying a new Civic GX won’t exactly break your bank account, especially since up to $7,000 will come back to you in the form of state and federal tax credits. But don’t expect to find one easily. The car is only sold in two states, New York and California, and Honda can’t build them fast enough. One dealership said they have over 80 people waiting to buy.

It’s fairly obvious why densely populated states would be interested, especially since natural gas is a readily available source of heating fuel for many parts of the country. Most importantly, the Civic is the Eagle Scout of emissions certifications: it qualified for the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) status, which means that it’s a Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) with zero-evaporative emissions. To qualify for AT-PZEV, the Civic must also carry a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty on emissions equipment. It also meets EPA’s strict Tier-2, Bin-2 and ILEV certification.

Despite getting the equivalent of a good but not quite amazing 36 MPG highway/24 MPG city, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) awarded the Civic the green ribbon as the greenest vehicle of 2008. That’s the fifth consecutive year it’s taken the top prize.

So what’s the downside?

Drawbacks to the Civic GX and other Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

Earlier this week I was clued-in to the explosion in popularity of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in Southern Utah, and their potential to overwhelm the 91 refueling stations already in place there.

That’s the biggest drawback to NGVs:

• There are only about 1,600 CNG stations nationwide (compared to 200,000 gas stations), though some areas (like Utah and California) are better served than others. To see where these stations are, see the alternative fuel locater from Mapquest (under #2 on that post).

One way to get around this is to buy your own natural gas refueling station. Since a large number of us burn natural gas for heat, this doesn’t require much more than setting up a pump. The refueling kits, made by FuelMaker, will set you back about $3,500, but that can be offset by substantial tax credits.

• Second drawback: since natural gas is a compressed fuel, the tank takes up some trunk space, and only holds the equivalent of 8 gallons of gasoline. Honda estimates the vehicle’s range to be 220 to 250 miles, although Consumer Reports claimed it was closer to 180 miles.

NGV enthusiasts are getting around range limitations (and vehicle scarcity) by converting their own vehicles to run on natural gas and adding spare tank capacity. Throwing extra tanks in the bed of a truck, for example, can boost driving range to around 600 miles. The best part about converting a vehicle (as opposed to the Civic GX) is that if you run out of CNG, the system automatically switches back to gasoline.

• Third drawback: NGVs don’t provide that great of a reduction in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions when compared to their gasoline counterparts.

According to the industry group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA), the reduction is only 20%, which is about the same GHG reduction you get from corn-based ethanol. That doesn’t sound too impressive, but it’s still a reduction, and clean air could be worth it.

The big question mark is natural gas supply. If large amounts of biomethane can be produced from biomass (which is probably already done at your local landfill), the emissions reductions would be much greater.

But What About Natural Gas Supply?

Natural gas supplies 20% of all energy use in the US. According to NGVA: “Even if the number of NGVs were to increase 100-fold in the next ten years to 11,000,000 or roughly 5% of the entire vehicle market (a formidable goal), the impact on natural gas supplies and the natural gas delivery infrastructure would be small — equating to about 4 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption.”

At first glance, that sounds pretty good, but any increase in natural gas usage means importing more fuel.

Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing oil from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia

Like petroleum, two-thirds of world natural gas supply exists in just a few countries. If we’re at all worried about having domestic (let alone renewable) energy sources, basing the future of US transportation on natural gas puts us right back in the same position we’re in now.

Also like petroleum, there is an “infinite supply” argument: “Don’t worry, we won’t run out… promise.” NGVA says that if we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations that exist under 1000 feet of water at the bottom of the arctic oceans, we’ll be just fine. Right now, this is about as plausible as time travel, and methane hydrates serve a very important function—they’re a crucial sink for carbon dioxide in the global carbon cycle.

Conclusions

Whether or not we’ve learned our lesson about importing foreign energy, natural gas could still provide a functional infrastructure and technology for transition to hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas is currently the number one feedstock for producing hydrogen, and refueling stations along California’s hydrogen highway may produce the fuel by reforming natural gas on-site. Basically, this gives us a transition fuel until we figure out how to make hydrogen sustainably.

As for the Honda Civic GX, it may be the cleanest-burning vehicle on the market, but the drawbacks listed above are likely to keep NGVs out of mainstream production for the forseeable future. It seems unlikely that natural gas will stay as cheap as it currently is in Utah, but relatively low pricing could keep the car’s popularity high in some areas. It will be interesting to see how things resolve there.

For more on the Honda Civic GX, see Honda’s Website and Consumer Reports. See more pictures below.

For more on Natural Gas, see Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country.

Posts Related to Alternative Fuels and Green Car Technology:

• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
• How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
• Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)

Photo Credit: Honda

I call this story “How to Successfully Undermine Good Ideas” thanks to a recent article written over at LiveScience.com entitled “Top 10 Craziest Environmental Ideas.” And, in short, several of their “zany ideas” are possible chances for survival.

I normally don’t like to just ridicule other websites or authors; it’s not sporting, but Andrea Thompson has got me all riled up. And while in amidst her Top 10 there are some insanely zany ideas, I think she has relatively effectively attempted to screw with a few really good ideas.

The list is as follows;

10. Ban Plastic Bags and Light Bulbs

9. Cut and Cap Emissions

8. Live in Trash

7. Bury the Carbon

6. Change Your Diet

5. Keep Worms in the Kitchen

4. Fill the Air With Sulfur

3. Get the Ocean Moving and Mixing

2. Give the Ocean a Dose of Iron

1. Build Earth Some Sunglasses

Now, let’s be honest; numbers 5, 4 and 1 are just insane, if for no other reason than the last place I want worms trundling around is my kitchen. And numbers 10, 8, 6 and 2 are all just a bit too tough to pull off; seriously, how many of the men do you know are going to reduce their intake of red meat (but that doesn’t mean that they are zany ideas).

My issues were with numbers 9, 7 and 3; each idea is scientifically valid, and could help significantly. To add them to a “Craziest Ideas” list is not only insulting, it’s damaging.

I’m not going to go in to the reasons why these ideas are good, because at GO we’ve already done this for you. Hence the massive list of stories below here that you should check out! But the point of the matter is, Andrea Thompson has done a major disservice to environmental science.

More from the GO Network

10. - San Francisco Votes To Ban The Plastic Bag, Red, Green & Blue: Is It Time for a Plastic Bag R.I.P.?, California to ban the lightbulb?

9. Is Cap-and-Trade the Best CO2 Policy?, Bush’s Legacy Definitely not Climate Change

7. Lots of Room to Sequester CO2, Stop Coal, Stop Global Warming, Untapped Coal Reserves: A Bridge to Cleaner Energy Solutions?

6. Consider Cutting the Meat Out

3. Millions of Pipes to Solve Global Warming

2. Fertilizing The Ocean – Great Idea or Eco Disaster?, India to Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink in 2009

Over the past week rumors and rumblings about a climate plan underway in the current and fading Whitehouse have emerged. Thankfully, it all seems a bit “disappointing.”

Seventeen nations have come together in Paris for two days in the latest round of climate warming talks, under the heading of the Major Emitters Meeting. The South African delegation was the one to label Bush’s proposals – to halt a rise in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 – as disappointing. “There is no way whatever that we can agree to what the U.S. is proposing,” South African Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said in a statement.

According to Bush’s plan, “the growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.” This is just fantastic, considering that according to the U.N. Climate Panel, emissions will have to peak – worldwide – within 10 to 15 years – and then fall sharply if we are to avoid floods, droughts and rising seas.

Greenpeace also took a swing at Bush, though with their well-known for inaccuracy and fervent ignorance. In response to Bush’s plan, Greenpeace said that “Yes, for another 15 years the country that has spewed more emissions into the atmosphere than any other country on Earth will continue to emit more and more.”

It seems an innocuous statement, but you have to wonder at the timing just days after China was named the world’s biggest emitter. There’s some math to be done there, for sure, but who has released more emissions? Either way, they know how to make a splash.

That being said, when targeting George W. Bush, no one really seems to mind except for the Bush fans (and those on Digg.com).

I’ll finish this article with what the brilliant Noble Peace Prize Laureate, Desmond Tutu, has to say about the rich west and their point of view on climate change.

“Many rich world leaders have not, so far, responded to the climate crisis with the urgency required. Cushioned and cosseted, they have had the luxury of closing their minds to the real impact of what is happening in the fragile and precious atmosphere that surrounds the planet we live on.

“I wonder how much more anxious they might be, if they depended on the cycle of mother nature to feed their families. How much greater would their concerns be if they lived in slums and townships, in mud houses, or shelters made of plastic bags? In large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, this is a reality. The poor, the vulnerable and the hungry are exposed to the harsh edge of climate change every day of their lives. …

“At the Major Economies Meeting in Paris, developed countries must commit to immediate action against climate change. The United Nations need to deliver an action plan to save the planet at the climate change conference in 2009. There is no time to be distracted from the urgent task to deliver this global rescue plan. The world is watching, and those who are feeling the impacts of climate change today, are expecting decisive action - now.”

More from the GO Network

Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?

To be published online in the open access journal Carbon Balance and Management, new research shows that, while planting trees alone may not be the only solution to solving our climate problems, planting new forests or managing existing forests or agricultural land could help us in the long term.

How? By encouraging the land to work as the natural carbon sink it has been for so long. \

Rik Leemans and colleagues from Wageningen University, the Netherlands and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency created computer models to check the future effects of carbon plantations. They estimated their long term physical and sequestration potential up to the end of this century, as well as their effectiveness in slowing down the increase of atmospheric C02.

The two baseline outcomes differed massively, with a difference of nearly 100% in the sequestration potential up to 2100.

From the press release; ‘This highlights the effect of future land use uncertainties. Social, economic and institutional barriers preventing carbon plantations in natural vegetation areas decrease the plantation’s sink potential by 75% or more. Nevertheless, the forest’s potential should not to be underestimated: Even the most conservative assumptions suggest that the cumulative sequestration potential up to 2100 can compensate for 5-7% of energy and industry related CO2 emissions.’

However, trees aren’t a quick fix, Leemans cautions. “The potential for the coming decades is limited due to the limited amount of available land and the long period needed to compensate for emissions related to the establishment of the plantations. ”The net sequestration up to 2020 is limited, given the short-term increased need for agricultural land and the long period needed to compensate for emissions through plantation establishment.”

Water saving innovators Kohler and TOTO made green the focus of their booths, proudly displaying the Watersense stickers on their high efficiency toilets. TOTO, who recycles 100% of their china, has developed a universal toilet bowl whose tank can be interchanged from a 1.6 gallon per flush to a 1.28 gpf e-tank.

Countertop manufacturers like Silestone and Cambria showed off their Greenguard certification while new, funky recycled material countertops like Alkemi, with its aluminum shavings in a clear resin, or Vetrazzo, with its large chunks of recycled glass in concrete, caught my attention.

The appliance section featured the best in ENERGY STAR appliance manufacturers like ASKO, LG, and Bosch, to name a few.

The area that I was most interested in was cabinets. There were a couple of small bamboo cabinet makers (though one I discovered was simply a laminate product) as well as several major cabinet makers showing off their KCMA-ESP certification of green manufacturing practices. I spoke to many cabinet companies who continue to struggle to adapt to low formaldehyde level requirements like California’s upcoming CARB requirements, which are pushing manufacturers to lower emissions. The company that caught my eye was Executive Kitchens, who use a water-based, non-VOC stain and/or paint on all of their cabinets, and offer anything from their catalog in a formaldehyde-free plywood.

What this influx of green into KBIS means for those products that are clearly not green remains to be seen, but I couldn’t help but notice the juxtaposition of the low flow toilets only a couple of booths away from bathtubs that would require three water heaters to fill with warm water - or the showers with six showerheads sharing a booth with efficient bathroom fixtures. This only highlights that it is consumer demand that determines product offerings, so if you want green products, demand them!

Most of us are at least vaguely familiar with biodiesel, but how much do we really know? While biodiesel is easily the most popular alternative fuel available, it’s commonly misunderstood or misrepresented by inaccurate information. Since the most frequent question I get is, “So what exactly is biodiesel, anyway?“, I decided to write a tome covering all the basics—a one stop shop for all your biodiesel- related questions.

It’s been exactly one year since I published the first Biodiesel Mythbuster on GreenOptions.com, and its popularity made a sequel inevitable. By way of a short introduction, here’s what I wrote last year:

In case you’re new to the topic, biodiesel is a renewable fuel made from plant oils and occasionally animal fat. It can be made from both used and unused sources of oil, such as freshly-pressed soybean oil, or oil left-over from the deep fryer at your local burger joint. Biodiesel can only be used in diesel engines - no gasoline engines allowed. Biodiesel can be blended into regular diesel in any amount, such as 20% biodiesel/80% diesel (B20), or used pure 100% (B100, aka ‘neat’). As a disclaimer, this post does not address homemade biodiesel (aka homebrew), which usually does not meet the quality standards of ASTM-certified biodiesel.

Here is the new and improved Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0—yours for only $29.99 (just kidding):

MYTH #1: Biodiesel and ethanol are the same thing.

FACT: This is the most commonly held misconception about these two fuels, but ethanol and biodiesel are, in fact, completely different. Ethanol is the product of fermentation (think: SUGAR), and biodiesel is chemically-converted fat or oil (think: PLANT OIL).

• Ethanol is made from a sugar source like sugarcane in Brazil, or corn-grain in the US. In the second example, corn is ground and mixed with water to form a slurry, and treated with enzymes to break down complex sugars (dextrose) into simple sugars (sucrose). The slurry-mash is then transferred to a fermentation vat where yeast are added. The yeast turns the simple sugars (sucrose) into carbon dioxide and ethanol. You may recognize this process, because it’s the same way moonshine is made.
• Ethanol can also be made from more complex plant material containing cellulose—aka cellulosic ethanol—a process that is still being developed. The first major commercial cellulosic ethanol facility will go online in 2009. Some studies have shown that cellulosic ethanol has the potential to displace around 30% of US gasoline usage with major reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.
• Ethanol is blended into gasoline. Half the gasoline in the United States is already blended with 10% ethanol. It was commonly thought that higher blends would damage standard gas engines, but a recent study discovered that most cars can run on 20% ethanol with no problems. Ethanol is usually sold in as E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) or E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). Only Flex-Fuel vehicles can run on E85.

• Biodiesel can be made from any plant oil or animal fat. Some examples include soybean, rapeseed, and palm kernel oils, and also animal fat left over from meat processing (disgusting I know). Biodiesel can also be made from recycled restaurant cooking-oil, often called waste-vegetable-oil (WVO), and is a major feedstock for some biodiesel producers.
• Biodiesel is most commonly made by mixing plant oils with lye (sodium hydroxide, or NaOH) and methanol (CH3COH). This splits up the fat molecules in the oil leaving a less-viscous biodiesel and one waste product: glycerol.
• The dream feedstock for large-scale biodiesel production has been biodiesel from algae, a nonfood source of oil with incredible yields. The first algae-to-biofuels plant went online April 1st, 2008.
• Biodiesel can be blended into diesel fuel in any amount, but the most common blends are B5 (5% biodiesel, 95% diesel), B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% diesel), and B100 (100% biodiesel).

So, just to recap, biodiesel is chemically processed fat or oil for use in diesel engines, and ethanol is basically moonshine that can be added to gasoline.

MYTH #2: Ethanol is better than biodiesel (or vice versa).

FACT: If you read the news, you probably think biofuels are generally bad, with corn-grain ethanol being the worst of the bunch. But as usual, generalizations fail here, since every biofuel is unique in terms of manufacturing process and environmental impacts.

Corn-grain ethanol and Malaysian palm biodiesel have substantive negative impacts (like deforestation, waterway pollution) and questionable benefits. But they are completely different than US-grown soybean biodiesel or second-generation biofuels that aren’t based on food-sources—like cellulosic ethanol or algae biodiesel. Take each one for what it’s worth, and keep in mind that no reasonable person is claiming biofuels are a silver bullet. They are simply a part of the larger solution.

Here are some of the latest headlines on non-food based fuel:

• First Algae Biodiesel Plant Goes Online: April 1, 2008
• World’s First Commercially Viable Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Online 2009
• Switchgrass Could Displace 30% of US Petroleum Usage With 94% GHG Reduction
• First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Goes Online, Makes Fuel From Wood Waste
• First Cars Run on Algae Biodiesel; Breakthrough Production Possible
• GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Cheap, Green Ethanol?

MYTH #3: Biodiesel (and other biofuels) are a total waste of time; they’ll never solve anything.

Fact: This is a totally bogus argument. Here’s why: there isn’t a solution for our petroleum addiction. If you dismiss biofuels as a fantasy-land panacea, you’re right, because it’s going to take a combination of improved fuel economy, massive reinvestment in public transportation, new technology, new fuel sources like non-food based biofuels and electricity, and other factors to move us into transportation 2.0.

As they say, don’t make perfect the enemy of the good.

Biodiesel has already had major impacts in offsetting diesel fuel usage and reducing pollution, impacts that could not be realized if we just gave up on it because it will never meet our total fuel demand.

For example, biodiesel made from waste cooking oil that would otherwise be discarded or shipped to China for processing is displacing 1 million gallons of diesel fuel in Oregon each year. In total, 450 million gallons of biodiesel was produced in the United States in 2007, amounting to an emissions reduction of approximately 1,102,399,500 lbs. of carbon dioxide*.

(*My estimation assuming all soybean biodiesel, based on 40% lifecycle GHG reduction and 6 lbs of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel).

MYTH #4: You must convert your vehicle to run biodiesel.

FACT: Let me describe the conversion process (which is also outlined under 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere): Drive to the nearest biodiesel pump, put the spout in the side of the car, and pump the biodiesel into your fuel tank (provided it’s a diesel). That’s it. You can use biodiesel in almost any diesel engine without modification. In fact, if you own a diesel vehicle you can probably fill it up today with 100% biodiesel (B100) and should experience no problems whatsoever.

That being said, there are two major exceptions for newer vehicles: if you’re worried about voiding your warranty, or if your car’s operating manual specifically prohibits using biodiesel. I’ll deal with warranty issues further down the page, but let me say here that I’ve only heard of one manufacturer explicitly prohibiting biodiesel use in a new diesel, and that’s Audi’s A3. Personally, I think it’s bogus, but then again I’ve never paid $25-30,000 or more for a new car.

But for users where those two exceptions don’t apply, let me repeat this: you can use ANY amount of biodiesel (see cold weather considerations below), from B2 to B100, in a diesel engine with NO immediate or necessary modification to the engine.

Reasoning for this myth is based biodiesel’s solvent properties: over time it can degrade natural rubber, and it will clean out diesel sludge that has accumulated in older fuel lines. The second one is actually a good thing, but if you drive an old diesel vehicle, it’s a good idea to change your fuel filter after a tank or two of biodiesel, or your fuel filter could subsequently clog. I’ve only heard of this happening a few times, and it can be easily avoided by switching out the fuel filter yourself (get the filter at Napa or Autozone) or take it to Jiffy Lube.

As for natural rubber, it’s uncommon in post-1990 vehicles. Depending on the age of your car, you may need to swap out the rubber fuel lines and replace them with synthetic Viton hosing. But don’t lose any sleep over this. It only takes a few minutes, and if you can’t figure it out a mechanic should be able to do it in 15 minutes. You may not even need to change them out. The rubber fuel lines in my 25-year-old Datsun pickup truck did just fine when I switched to B100, and didn’t need replacement during the two years I owned it. For an excellent (if slightly technical) example of what the swap looks like, check out this post from the NissanDiesel Forums.

MYTH #5: You have to be a diesel mechanic to use biodiesel.

FACT: No, all you have to do fill up with a different fuel, just like switching between regular and premium. The ‘conversions’ mentioned above are easy, take minimal mechanical skill (being able to use a screwdriver), and shouldn’t take more than an hour. When I bought my first diesel, I’d never even changed the oil in a car, and I haven’t used petro-diesel since.

MYTH #6: Biodiesel will wreck your engine.

FACT: Nope. This is completely false. There have been reports of biodiesel damaging gasoline engines (just like diesel would), and I’ve heard that’s why some mechanics rail against using the fuel—they’ve had to deal with these hapless folks. While original engine manufacturers (OEMs) are especially cautious about new fuels, some of biggest names in the diesel world (like Cummins, Caterpillar, John Deere, and others) have cleared B20 or higher from doing any harm.

Biodiesel and diesel fuel are similar in chemical structure and have similar properties, so they burn similarly in diesel engines. But biodiesel has some specific advantages. Biodiesel adds significant lubricity to the fuel (something that sulfur formally did in diesel fuel, but has since been reduced, hence ultra-low-sulfur-diesel or ULSD), reducing engine and fuel pump wear and reportedly extending engine life. Adding just 1% biodiesel to ULSD will restore lubricity to the fuel.

Biodiesel has a higher cetane number (higher ignitability) and combusts more completely due to higher oxygen content. Biodiesel is also a good solvent and will clean out diesel fuel residue left in the fuel tank and lines. Over time, because it’s such a good solvent, biodiesel can degrade rubber fuel lines and gaskets. Most post-1990 vehicles don’t have rubber lines and gaskets, but some older vehicles do.

MYTH #7: Biodiesel will cause a noticeable power decrease.

FACT: Biodiesel contains about 8.5% less energy per gallon than petroleum diesel. For someone using B20, this means about a 1-2% loss in power, torque, and fuel efficiency. To put things into perspective, that’s about a 2 mph difference on the freeway if you were trying to go 55 mph. Millions of miles of onroad tests (aka trucking) have shown that B20 and diesel are practically indistinguishable. Biodiesel has also been used extensively in heavy-machinery, like tractors, loaders, and agricultural equipment, with no noticeable difference.

B100 users may notice a slight drop in fuel mileage based on the small difference in energy content, but torque and power are usually comparable. I’ve seen a 1-3 mpg drop in fuel efficiency running B100. As an FYI, biodiesel has the highest BTU (energy) content of any alternative fuel (falling somewhere between diesel #1 and #2). Energy content of various fuels (per gallon, low value of range):

• Regular Diesel Fuel = 128,500 BTUs
• Gasoline = 125,071 BTUs
• Biodiesel = 118,296 BTUs
• Ethanol = 76,000 BTUs

MYTH #8: Biodiesel use will void your warranty.

FACT: This myth is a little more problematic because it’s partially true. While all manufacturers have approached biodiesel cautiously, many now recognize and warranty B20 for use in new vehicles. See the table listing biodiesel manufacturer warranty information.

However, things get a little more complicated when you start to argue that the use of a fuel cannot void non-fuel system warranties. According to the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), “The use of biodiesel in existing diesel engines does not void parts and materials workmanship warranties of any major US engine manufacturer.”

Apparently, Federal law prohibits the voiding of a warranty just because biodiesel was used—it must be the cause of the damage, though some manufacturers will assume biodiesel caused the problem. Warranties generally don’t cover problems caused by external sources, i.e. bad fuel, but can’t be voided if the problem was unrelated (see NREL’s Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines, p. 47). Most manufacturers do support B5 or B20, but that doesn’t mean they necessarily prohibit higher blends.

The best thing you can do: double-check with your manufacturer!

Of course, for those of us who have never had a car warranty, no sweat! Don’t lose any sleep over this!

MYTH #9: Biodiesel doesn’t work in cold weather.

FACT: Alright, this is another potential stumbling-block, but a manageable one. Perhaps you’ve read my personal experience with biodiesel in cold weather—let me reiterate that operator error led to the breakdown. It’s true that biodiesel clouds up (starts to freeze) at higher temperatures when compared to regular diesel, and therefore it’s important to blend biodiesel with diesel fuel in the winter (depending on your climate). Here are the biodiesel cold-weather guidelines:

• B100 can be used down to about 40 degrees F
• B50 between 20-40 degrees F
• B20 below 20 degrees F

Remember that the cold-flow properties (as they’re called) vary depending on what the biodiesel is made from (feedstocks with more saturated fat, like coconut oil or animal parts tend to freeze earlier). Local producers should be able to give you more information about this, though most biodiesel you will find is going to be soy biodiesel.

In the Pacific Northwest’s rather mild (in terms of temp) climate, I typically use B100 between March and November, then switch to B50 for the winter, unless I plan on hitting much colder temperatures (I mean anything approaching 0 F). I’m aware of people using B100 all year round in Corvallis, Oregon, with no problems.

By the way, if you end up using the wrong blend, or get caught in a cold snap, it isn’t the end of the world. Your engine will shut off when the fuel filter clogs from partially-gelled biodiesel. This doesn’t cause any permanent damage, but you will have to wait for a sunny day or apply some serious heat to get things running again. (After stalling out on the freeway once in 13 degrees F and being towed to a gas station, I had to fill the empty space in the fuel tank with diesel, add an anti-gelling additive (available at any gas station), replace the fuel filter, and wait for a sunny day).

The cold-weather problem is not insurmountable, made clear by biodiesel use in snow-cats at some ski areas. All you have to do is heat the fuel system, from fuel tank to injection pump, which is precisely the same thing you do to convert a diesel to run on straight-vegetable-oil. For more information and some ideas, check out the cold-weather fuel products from Arctic Fox.

MYTH #10: Biodiesel has no quality control; you could be buying anything.

FACT: While there’s definitely room to question the consistency of biodiesel quality control (see earlier post), the industry has strict guidelines in place. Biodiesel has it’s own fuel standard, ASTM 6751, which determines whether or not a substance is actually biodiesel. The National Biodiesel Board also set up the BQ-9000 quality certification program to create a nationally-recognized list of approved distributors.

I personally wouldn’t worry about the quality of biodiesel at the pump, considering the scant attention regular petro-diesel quality receives.

Quality control can be a major issue, however, if you’re using homebrew biodiesel or biodiesel purchased from a biodiesel coop. If you choose the latter, make sure they test their fuel periodically to see how close they get to ASTM 6751.

MYTH #11: Biodiesel is impossible to find.

FACT: Many people assume this without actually looking, but biodiesel could be readily available in your area. That’s why I wrote 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere. Check it out. It will tell you how to find retail biodiesel stations, how to map them on mapquest, and how to get emergency biodiesel locations on your cell phone. Biodiesel is the most widely available renewable fuel and can be found in many major metropolitan areas.

MYTH #12: Biodiesel use requires a new fuel infrastructure.

FACT: One of the key benefits to using biodiesel is its seamless integration into existing infrastructure (unlike ethanol, which has water-collection issues). Biodiesel can be transported and stored anywhere that petroleum diesel can, and can be dispensed from the same refueling equipment.

MYTH #13: Biodiesel is too expensive.

FACT: Last time I checked, biodiesel was $3.30 per gallon. With a tax credit offered in Oregon, the final price was $2.80 per gallon. Not bad considering diesel has soared to $4.00 per gallon.

Unfortunately, biodiesel is tied to petroleum prices because of diesel use on the farm (you’d think the first thing farmers would do would be to switch to biodiesel). But in areas where biodiesel is made from non-food sources, and looking to the future when we hope all of it is made from non-food sources, biodiesel can be cheaper. Sequential Biofuels of Oregon makes biodiesel out of 1 million gallons of recycled vegetable oil each year. In any case, biodiesel is nearly price competitive with premium gasoline, and probably won’t seem that expensive in the middle of summer.

That being said, we could probably argue about the real price of petroleum for hours. Americans don’t see the real price of petro-diesel at the pump, which should probably include the cost of climate change (in the form of a carbon tax) and some of the most expensive aspects of US foreign policy (I’ll let you fill in the blank). It also doesn’t include the health care and societal cost of the estimated 15,000 premature deaths attributed to diesel exhaust each year.

The US will export an estimated $440 billion dollars in 2008 to satiate its oil demand, which represents something like half of the nation’s trade deficit. Supporting US biodiesel injects some of that money back into local economies, as opposed to say, the economy of Saudi Arabia.

So which is really more expensive? I’ll let you decide for yourself.

MYTH #14: Biodiesel requires more energy to produce than is provided by the fuel.

FACT: The vast majority of literature on the subject shows a positive energy balance, meaning that more energy is available in the fuel than is used to grow the crop, press the seeds, process the oil into biodiesel, and distribute the product. The most common numbers I’ve seen say about 2-3 times more energy is produced, or 1 unit of energy in equals 2-3 units of energy out. [don’t leave it to me, see for yourself: (1), (2)]. Compare this to corn-grain ethanol, which optimistically produces 25% more energy than is put into it (1 unit in equals 1.25 units out).

MYTH #15: Biodiesel increases net green-house gas (GHG) emissions when the entire production process is taken into account (farming, distribution, etc).

FACT: According to the University of Minnesota in 2006 (1), the production and use of soybean biodiesel decreases life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 41% over regular diesel (NREL says 78%, page 4), and also decreases other pollutants like Carbon monoxide, PM10, and SOx. In fact, pure biodiesel reduces air toxics by 90% when compared to diesel fuel.

As an aside, according to the same Minnesota study, the life-cycle of corn-grain ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 12% and actually increases emissions of five major pollutants.

MYTH #16: Biodiesel causes deforestation.

FACT: You’ve almost certainly read accounts of biodiesel production destroying the Brazilian and Malaysian rain forests, or the problems with European biodiesel mandates. What’s true there is not true in the United States.

The US already produces a great deal of biodiesel from domestically-grown soybeans. But don’t forget that biodiesel can be made from many other feedstocks, like rapeseed (Canola), algae, and waste-vegetable oil (WVO). In some areas, WVO can be a major feedstock for making biodiesel (but this might not last for long!). Like any other crops, soy and rapeseed can be grown sustainably or unsustainably.

The National Biodiesel Board has set up a Sustainability Task Force to quantify the impacts of biodiesel production and use, and to develop sustainable industry practices. Most people really aren’t interested in importing biodiesel from parts of the world where it’s questionably produced.

Want to know where your biodiesel is coming from? Ask your distributor (or the manager of the filling station)! Since biodiesel is somewhat novel and people are usually interested, they can probably tell you where it’s coming from.

MYTH #17: No way can we grow enough biodiesel to make a difference.

FACT: Some advocates, like Josh Tickell, claim there’s an additional 60 million acres of fallow US farmland available for growing soybeans. If a large portion, like 40 million acres, was put into use, it could produce 2 billion more gallons of vegetable oil (Tickell’s Biodiesel America, p. 151).

While this is theoretically possible, would inject lots of money into the US economy, and would further revitalize the agricultural sector in this country, I don’t know if it’s possible. Most people don’t like making fuel out of a food crop (even if almost all soybeans are fed to cattle).

Ultimately, if there’s any hope of biodiesel making a huge difference, like more than 10% of petro-diesel usage, it’s going to have to come from the commercial production of algae.

MYTH #18: Biodiesel exhaust smells bad.

FACT: Well, this one is personal preference. I have had people tell me that they think the smell is disgusting (as if they would prefer diesel exhaust). I think B100 exhaust smells great. Sort of like French fries but somehow…cleaner, and not as potentially nauseating. But biodiesel blends sort of smell like burnt, dirty oil (thanks to the diesel exhaust). In any case, it’s hard not to smile when you recognize the smell.

MYTH #19: Biodiesel exhaust produces more harmful emissions than diesel.

FACT: Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that has completed all the testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. Biodiesel contains oxygen and it burns more completely than diesel fuel, resulting in reduced emissions. All major pollutants are reduced dramatically in biodiesel exhaust (most of them at least 50% for B100), except one—nitrogen oxides (NOx)—and that’s only for blends over B20 (see my post on the subject).

The most common report when users switch to biodiesel is the noticeable decrease in diesel smoke (the black, sooty clouds). B20 reduces air toxics (the most damaging pollutants for human health) by 20-40%, while B100 reduces them by as much as 90%. Sulfur oxides and sulfates (major contributors to acid rain) are almost completely eliminated. The only caveat is that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions can increase up to 10% with B100. If you would like to evaluate this for yourself, see the National Biodiesel Board’s emissions fact sheet.

New diesel technology like the Mercedes BlueTec eliminates this problem by reducing NOx emissions by 80%.

All-in-all, biodiesel offers such a substantial reduction in emissions that it’s frequently used in sensitive areas like national parks and marine habitats. School districts all over the country have also turned to biodiesel as a way to reduce children’s’ exposure to toxic diesel exhaust.

MYTH #20: Diesel engines are more polluting than gasoline engines, so selling my car and buying a diesel is a bad idea.

FACT: It’s true that traditional diesel engines are 10-100x more polluting, in terms of soot/particulate matter, than their gasoline counterparts. But using biodiesel decreases both Carbon monoxide (CO) and CO2 emissions to levels below gasoline. Additionally, new model diesel engines are more efficient and have advanced catalytic converters that make them as clean as comparable gasoline models. When combined with biodiesel, new and old engines alike should offer significant emissions reductions.

For a really sweet combination, check out the Mercedes 40 MPG diesel hybrid or VW’s 69.9 MPG diesel hybrid Golf.

While I’ve never actually seen a side-by-side comparison of B100 vs gasoline emissions in a comparable vehicles, I think it’s a safe bet that using biodiesel is better on some counts and worse on others.

No matter what, older diesels are currently in use and will continue to be used for the foreseeable future (due to long engine life). They’re also often the worst offenders in terms of air pollution. Switching these vehicles to biodiesel blends still provides tangible benefits.

MYTH #21: If I wanted to use biodiesel, there’s no way can I find a diesel to drive.

FACT: Yes, you can. I’ve written a guide to address this question. See Biodiesel Guide: 7 Steps to Buying a Diesel.

MYTH #22: Biodiesel is only used by crazy hippies and Willie Nelson.

FACT: Tell that to the US military, especially the US Navy (which is the largest single user of biodiesel), the National Parks Service, Postal Service, NASA, municipalities across the country, and more than 130 school districts and universities.

Addendum: MYTH (Or Fact?) #23: Biodiesel is Raising Food Prices

Ok, you got me. This list was only supposed to have 22 Myths, but I thought of one more that’s relatively important. Hit the link above for more…

That’s it!

Want to learn more? Biodiesel resources available at Gas 2.0:

Biodiesel Guide: 7 Steps to Buying a Diesel
6 Ways to Find and Use Biodiesel Part I
6 Ways to Find and Use Biodiesel Part II
Learn How to Make Biodiesel On YouTube
How Biodiesel Fuel Cells Could Power the Future (And Your Car)
Top 15 Unexpected Uses For Biodiesel
Fields of Fuel: Josh Tickell’s New Biodiesel Documentary

If you choose to use biodiesel, this should be enough to get you started. Clearly, I can’t cover every issue in this post, but don’t stop here. Take a look at the following resources for more information:

Journey To Forever’s Biodiesel resources page (most comprehensive)
National Biodiesel Board (The main industry group)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - Non-petroleum Based Fuels
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service - Biodiesel Primer

Studies cited in the post:

(1) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels
Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany. PNAS published July 12, 2006, 10.1073/pnas.0604600103

(2) A Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. Sheehan et al. May 1998. NREL/SR-580-24089.

Did I forget something? Feel free to add your comments below.

Photo Credit

A report published in Nature by authors Roger Pielke Jr., Tom Wigley and Christopher Green, has described the IPCC’s assumptions that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies as “…optimistic at best and unachievable at worst…”

The authors believe that, led by India and China, the world is only going to see a rise in energy use. As countries like India and China begin to develop further, seeing rural populations move in to high-rises where the energy costs grow exponentially, emissions will rise.

These changes will force a transformation of global energy systems, but such a change will take decades. And that is even if they were started today.

The question remains, and the authors conclude, that it is a “risky game” to hope that those changes will happen in the future. The IPCC should focus on how to bring about those changes now, rather than put the burden on the shoulders of a future generation.

Check out the full report here at Nature.

The 2008 Olympic torch relay will cover more than 85,000 miles and visit 23 cities before reaching Beijing. Covering that kind of ground (and ocean) will require the help of Air China, burning an estimated 464,400 gallons of fuel and emitting 5,500 tons of carbon dioxide in the process.

See the story from Wired’s Autopia.

British Columbia will be the first in North America to institute a comprehensive carbon tax on nearly all fossil fuels. It’s a groundbreaking move that could prove the feasibility of taxing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Beginning July 1st, 2008, businesses and residents of British Columbia will be taxed $10 per metric ton of carbon emitted by fuels such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel. The tax will increase yearly by $5 per ton to $30 per ton in 2012, at which point the government will reevaluate the tax rate.

Nicholas Rivers, an economist at Simon Fraser University, commented that “The tax comes in slowly, ramps up over time, and uses the revenue in a neutral way to reduce other distortionary taxes in the economy, which is just what economists have been recommending for more than a decade.”

While pundits have argued that this would never happen in the US, the tax was received with little opposition by residents of British Columbia. Designed to be revenue-neutral, the tax will return all of the income generated ($1.85 billion over 4 years) in the form of tax cuts and environmental rebates, and it should have little impact on the economy or competitiveness.

Even with this new tax, BC’s finance minister Carole Taylor says that by 2010 British Columbia will have the lowest total combined corporate tax rate (25%) among the world’s economies.

Which just happens to be one of the criticisms of the tax—that it will hit residents harder than major industry (isn’t that usually what happens?).

While the increasing price of polluting won’t dramatically effect emissions immediately (only 5-10% decline), the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) forecast that if the price of CO2 rose to $200 per ton by 2050, Canada’s emissions would drop 60% below current levels over the next 40 years.

I’ve always thought this was a great idea because it’s a relatively quick way to generate a huge revenue stream for alternative energy while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Even if it bumped up the price of gas a few cents, I’m not sure anyone would notice at this point.

What do you think about carbon taxes? Vote in the poll I started on the GreenOptions Discussion forums: Are carbon taxes a good or a bad idea?

Related Posts:
How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
Switchgrass Could Displace 30% of US Petroleum Usage With 94% GHG Reduction

Source: ES&T (Mar. 17 08): First comprehensive carbon tax in North America

Nanoparticles can travel to the brain via the olfactory nerve, where they could cause an oxidative stress response in the region of the brain critical to information processing.

Researchers placed subjects in a room with either clean air or diesel fumes (similar to a busy street), and used a electro- encephalograph (EEG) to measure brain response. Subjects breathing the sooty air showed a stress response in the brain’s cortex within 30 minutes, which continued even after they left the room.

The researchers hypothesize that the effects of diesel exhaust could be caused by nanoparticles slowly penetrating the brain or affecting brain signaling. Oxidative stress has also been linked to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, and long-term exposure to these fumes conceivably could decrease cognitive function, they write.

This is bad news for an especially susceptible population—children—who spend significant amounts of time in diesel buses. According to the EPA, twenty-four million children ride in diesel school buses each day, amounting to about one half-hour per child. Research has also shown that the level of diesel exhaust inside school buses is substantially higher than outside. School districts and municipalities can mitigate this issue by retrofitting buses with newer emissions control devices, avoiding unnecessary idling, replacing the oldest buses, and using biodiesel to reduce particulate emissions.

Luckily for the rest of us, the US has the highest emissions standards in the world for passenger cars, and a comparatively low use of diesel vehicles. The new clean diesels on the market now do not produce the same dirty exhaust as older models.

But until our nation’s fleets get upgraded, it’s going to irritate me even more when a garbage truck rolls by.

Related Posts:
How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
A Biodiesel Prius? VW To Release 69.9 MPG Diesel Hybrid
6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere

Source: ES&T (Mar. 26, 2008): Your brain on diesel fumes

Photo Credit

A theoretical US policy to cut carbon emissions by up to 40% over a 20 year period could still result in increased economic growth; this, according to an interactive website created by the Yale School of Foresty and Environmental Studies.

The website reviews 25 of the leading economic models used to predict economic impacts of reducing emissions, and identifies the seven key assumptions account for most of the major differences in the model predictions.

“As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong — and you can find out for yourself,” said Robert Repetto, professor in the practice of economics and sustainable development at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

The interactive website allows visitors to define the truth of one of the seven statements, and then view the prediction of the models.

“The website shows that even under the most unfavorable assumptions regarding costs, the U.S. economy is predicted to continue growing robustly as carbon emissions are reduced,” said Repetto. “Under favorable assumptions, the economy would grow more rapidly if emissions are reduced through national policy measures than if they are allowed to increase as in the past.”

To check out the website click here, and proceed to the calculator via the link at the bottom.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was set up by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to address environmental concerns raised over NAFTA. A representative of the CEC told Reuters:

The investments made for climate change benefit in buildings have direct payback, generally from the point of view of reduced energy costs and water costs as well the indoor health environment and increased productivity of the inhabitants of those buildings.

Buildings in North America emit about 2,200 megatons or 35 percent of the total global warming emissions on the continent. If building construction adopted the CEC’s recommendations quickly, that amount could be cut down to 1,700 megatons by 2030 compared to the business-as-usual approach.

So what’s stopping the change? The report found that capital and operating budgets are often kept separate, instead of a government or other institution taking into account the lifetime budget of a construction project. This separation creates a disincentive to build green.

The CEC recommended setting up task forces in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to set targets that will incentivize more green building. According to Science Daily, green building only accounts for 2 percent of the new non-residential building market and less than half of one percent of the residential market in the Canada and U.S., and even less than that in Mexico.

Reuters UK
Science Daily

Researchers at the University of California worked with the data and calculated that China’s emissions by 2010 will equate to at least 600 million metric tons greater than the countries was in 2000. Note the ‘at least’ in there, because according to the majority of the computer models, their emissions will actually be twice that figure.

Even hoping for the best possible scenario, the smallest figure calculated is five times as large as the 115.90 million metric tons in reductions that the US Energy Information Agency estimates will have been achieved by the Kyoto protocol members.

“The emissions growth rate is surpassing our worst expectations, and that means the goal of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 is going to be much, much harder to achieve,” says Maximillian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley.

Prior to now, estimates have been focusing only on national data of pollution. However Auffhammer, and Richard Carson from the University of California, San Diego, used national data on pollution produced by Chinese provinces. The increased detail in the data has allowed them to make a more precise and horrifying calculation.

China, a country that is deemed a developing country under the United Nations, is thus not required to reduce its emissions under the Kyoto protocol. Of course it can agree too, and in the wake of the upcoming Olympic Games there has been some move to do so, but as of yet they have set no firm targets. As such, the UoC pair estimate that CO₂ emissions will rise by 11% per year over the next two years. Previous estimates ranged between 2.5% and 5%.

This most recent finding concerning China’s emissions comes only days after the world’s marathon record holder, Haile Gebrselassie of Ethiopia, declared he was an unlikely entrant in the 2008 Olympic marathon. “The pollution in China is a threat to my health and it would be difficult for me to run 42 kilometres in my current condition,” says Gebrselassie.

And while this only forced the Chinese government to reiterate that they pledge to have clean air for the summer games, it brings to mind a question: what are the Chinese sacrificing so that Games’ venues are clean?

New Scientist - China emissions to swamp Kyoto reductions by 2010

Photo Courtesy of fortes via Flickr

In a head-spinning move, the EPA complied, citing that the reports are not used by local emergency workers and are thus, unnecessary. Unnecessary to whom? It seems valid that the acknowledged threat to residents living and working nearby would be important information.

Unless, of course, they could be used in a lawsuit against you, which has happened with several industrial farms since 1980 when the EPA was first required to document the emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These reports are one of the few tools rural communities have for holding large livestock operations accountable for the pollution they produce.

Thus, it’s not a big surprise that the livestock industry has lobbied for years for the rule change. To add insult to iniquity, the EPA posted the proposal in the Federal Register while Congress was on its December holiday recess. The change would take effect in October.

Comment period on this issue ends soon, March 28, make sure to let your representatives know you think this stinks. You can also submit a comment directly to the Federal Register.

That isn’t to say that scientific debate is not necessary or needed; only, that it seems that the obvious seems to bypass people as simply another annoying fact against their chosen belief.

In addition, there are those who feel that they have an ace up their sleeves when they talk to me. They feel that knowledge of increasingly colder temperatures and unexpected snow storms is evidence not of global warming, but of global cooling. They put the card down on the table with a grin. They seem to exude complete confidence in me not having a full house of cards that were actually dealt to me.

In other words, how come people look at the recent weird weather anomalies which most climate change advocates will themselves use as proof of a changing planet, but fail to look at years of steadily climbing temperatures?

All of that is simply by way of pointing to new research showing that greenhouse gas emissions will have to be entirely eliminated in order for our climate to stabilize and to prevent our temperatures from rising.

In response to that I say two things; a) well duh and b) why, for the love of Pete, did it take a scientific study to bring this to peoples attention?

Damon Matthews from Concordia University in Canada and Ken Caldeira from Carnegie Institute for Science, Stanford, in the US, are the men behind this research. They show that our current efforts to simply stabilize our emissions – rather than eradicating our emissions – are simply not enough.

“Even if we eliminated carbon dioxide today we are still committed to a global temperature rise of around 0.8 ºC lasting at least 500 years,” says Caldeira. As to why carbon dioxide persists so long, Caldeira points to the slow response time of our many oceans. “It takes a lot of energy to heat them up and then a long time for them to cool back down,” he adds.

Their study used a global climate model that, instead of only looking at what happens when the emissions have stabilized, looked at how greenhouse emissions need to change in order to stabilize the global temperature.

Matthews and Caldeira created four models, each of which began with a single pulse of carbon dioxide in to a pre-industrial atmosphere (to mimic but simplify the steady increase of carbon dioxide emissions over the past hundred years or so). Pulse sizes of 50, 200, 500 and 2000 billion tons of carbon made up the four models.

At the end of a 500 year period in which the model calculated global temperatures and atmospheric and ocean carbon dioxide levels, the pair found that between 20% and 35% of the initial pulse had remained in the simulated atmosphere. This was true for even the smallest emission pulse. The remainder of the carbon had been absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks.

The existence of original carbon dioxide at the end of the 500 year period signifies that global warming took place over the entire period of time. For the four simulations, respectively, global temperatures stabilized at 0.09, 0.34, 0.88 and 3.6 ºC above pre-industrial levels.

This research has received academic support from those such as Roger Pielke, a climate policy expert at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “This research makes the case that simply stabilising concentrations is insufficient to stabilise temperatures. Their argument, if widely accepted, raises the bar on what it means to mitigate climate change,” he says.

Matthews and Caldeira warned in their report, though unrealistically (and probably knowingly so), that the current emission targets for 2050 were simply insufficient. “It is technologically challenging, but not impossible. The biggest challenge will be to get political consensus,” says Caldeira.

Now, to be fair, a zero emissions future is not out of the realm of scientific possibility. In my opinion, it’s out of the realm of political possibility, but let’s all just revolt and do away with that issue. Costa Rica is already aiming towards zero emissions, and with new tools such as renewable energy, electric cars and carbon capture there are experts who believe this is a feasible goal.

Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, is one who believes this, “If used on a large enough scale then new technologies like carbon capture could get us to zero emissions.”

Either way, it is good to at least see the evidence in the scientific world for those who hadn’t been in a position to see the obvious. As the photo suggests, the future is in our own hands!

Check out Shirley Siluk Gregory’s previous brief on this issue here.