Project will need new technology and unusual utilization of outputs

From an Essay by Betsy Lawson to Morgantown Dominion Post, August 25, 2023

As reported in The Dominion Post on Aug. 17, the governor announced a big state investment in a hydrogen plant to be built in Mason County by Fidelis New Energy of Houston. The plant, to be called Mountaineer Gigasystem, is designed to generate hydrogen to be used for energy while capturing carbon dioxide to be buried below wildlife management areas.

The impetus behind this project is the money made available by the Inflation Reduction Act, passed last year, which provides tax credits for so-called clean energy. The intention is to reduce greenhouse gases, which trap heat in our atmosphere. Sounds good, but is it really?

Hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive, is made by separating the atoms of water (H2O), which requires a lot of energy. If renewable energy is used to separate the atoms, the hydrogen is “clean.” But the Fidelis project will mostly use fracked gas, whose drilling process and pipelines to transport the gas leak a lot of methane, an 80-times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Pumping CO2 underground, the second facet of this project, only works in very specific types of porous rock sandwiched between layers of solid rock, preventing its escape. But once the CO2 reaches the cap rock, the captured CO2 can migrate horizontally for a substantial distance. What could go wrong?

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has identified 6,500 known orphaned oil and gas wells but potentially thousands more exist that have yet to be found.  If these unplugged wells should reach into the potential carbon storage field formation, the potential for leakage into the atmosphere is enormous, defeating the purpose of carbon capture. For carbon capture and storage to make any sense in West Virginia, orphaned oil and gas wells must be properly plugged.

So far, carbon capture and storage is a new and commercially unproven technology. Chevron’s CCS project in western Australia, to date the largest in the world, is only operating at one-third capacity after six years of operation. Unexpected high pressures occurred, slowing the process.

It is known with certainty that injecting fracking waste water into porous geological formations increases pore pressure in ways that can trigger stressed fault lines to slip. This also applies to buried CO2. The result can be earthquakes. Further, when CO2 meets water, it becomes carbonic acid, a corrosive liquid. What effect will this have on underground water supplies?

Bottom line: hydrogen gas is expensive to produce, so will there even be a market for it? And, if it relies on natural gas for its creation, methane will be leaked into the atmosphere. Tying it to unproven carbon capture risks leaking more CO2 into the atmosphere via the many abandoned wells in this area.

With the state’s  $62.5 million in forgivable loans and anticipated funding from the federal government, the public investment for this project could already be at $112.5 million before ground has even been broken. Do we taxpayers want to further subsidize a project that has such an unproven and potentially risky technology and continues to add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? This project defeats the purpose of the Inflation Reduction Act, which is meant to reduce the greenhouse gases that are warming our planet.

>>> Betsy Lawson is the Secretary of the Monongahela Group of the W.Va. Chapter of the Sierra Club.

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

Mountaineer GigaSystem Project ~ Memorandum of Understanding with West Virginia Economic Development Authority. Some call this a massive giveaway to an out of state company having no established record of technological quality or concern for our communities!

Shell cracker on Ohio River will produce substantial air pollution

From the Eyes On Shell Watchdog Team, Beaver County, PA, June 8, 2022

It was great to have many of you on the June 1st “Eyes On Shell Watchdog Team” Zoom meeting! Thanks for participating because watching Shell closely is especially important now.

As discussed at the meeting, we expect Shell’s cracker to be starting up in phases over the next few months and as early as July. During startup, before the plant comes fully online (by late 2022 or early 2023, according to Clean Air Council), we can expect significant emissions.

We can’t predict exactly the amount or timing of startup emissions. Emissions during Startup, Shutdown and Maintenance may be slightly greater than when they are running in a Steady State, but they still cannot exceed their Total Permitted Amount without incurring an infraction. We have examined the list of chemicals permitted as emissions and how much of each Shell can release during the year.

For the June 1st meeting, many thanks go to Rachel Meyer for her “Health Impacts of Oil and Gas Infrastructure” presentation. Rachel posted the following related links:

>>> The Fractracker Threat Map allows you to see how close you live to oil and gas facilities, and at Fractracker.org you can find out more about the organization that creates so many good maps.

>>> The National Energy and Petrochemical Map shows just how many pipelines there are across the whole country.

Rachel Meyer closed with this comment: Thank you for listening to my presentation! I would love to hear from you. Rachel Meyer ~ rmeyer@momscleanairforce.org

Terrie Baumgardner, who works with Clean Air Council (CAC) as Outreach Coordinator for Beaver County, closed the meeting with a preview of CAC’s Good Neighbor Wishlist. As we approach the point when the cracker will start turning fracked gas into 1.6 million metric tons of plastic pellets per year, Clean Air Council is asking residents to urge Shell to justify its claim of being a “good neighbor” by doing more to protect the community than what is legally required. The specific steps that residents, starting with EOS participants, can ask Shell to take are summed up in the Wishlist–a scaffolding for actions to discuss in future meetings.

Terrie also asks this of EOS participants: Please contact me if you live within a few miles of the plant and would like to find out more about hosting a PID (Photoionization Detector) for air sampling during a malodor event like the September 2021 maple-syrup smell one in Beaver. Her email is ~ tbaumgardner@cleanair.org.

A really good, wide-ranging discussion facilitated by Dr. Cliff Lau included information about Beaver County’s Local Emergency Preparedness Committee (LEPC) and an appeal to participants to attend the quarterly LEPC meetings.

We are also looking for someone to host a Breathe Cam, which will help us watch for emissions from different parts of the Shell petrochemical facility so we can better understand what is in our air.

Aerial photographer and blogger Bob Donnan was a great contributor to the June 1st meeting. For Bob’s remarkable weekly selection of petrochemical alerts and images, please see here.

Before our next EOS meeting on Wednesday, July 6, we need to begin to pull together your journaling observations. We’re also getting ready to train participants for and to place both monitors and bucket air samplers. If you’re a Watchdog Team member who has completed our surveys and indicated your interest in hosting, you will be contacted about next steps.

Our next Eyes On Shell Watchdog Team meeting will be in early July.

>>> Nora Johnson, Secretary, Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community (BCMAC)

Environment — Social — Governance — Opportunities

From an Article by the National Law Review (Volume XI, Number 275), Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1, 2021

While ESG is perceived by some to be — and can be — difficult to implement, and it may seem like a profit-killer, the irony is that, for most companies that implement ESG programs, including those within the oil and gas industry, it has the opposite effect.

The institution of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) values and metrics represents a true revolution in how corporations are managed, measured, and operated. This sea change will continue to drive companies away from the familiar framework of short-term profits toward success that is defined not only by profitability but also by a sustainable and measurable contribution to the betterment of society at large.

This new paradigm brakes a long-established mold. While ESG is perceived by some to be—and can be—difficult to implement, and it may seem like a profit-killer, the irony is that, for most companies that implement ESG programs, including those within the oil and gas industry, it has the opposite effect.

According to the International Energy Association’s (IEA) 2021 Global Energy Review, renewable energy grew 3% in 2020, inclusive of a 7% increase in electricity generation from renewable sources. Logic would imply that, all things being constant, fossil fuel demand would decline. But all things are not constant, and because of an estimated 4.6% increase in global energy demand this year, a year when the world continues to feel the effects of COVID-19, the demand for fossil fuels has not diminished and will not any time soon.

Coal, driven largely by Asia, is a significant part of that demand, but natural gas is a driver across nearly all geographies. Even as we seek to supply more of our growing energy needs from renewable sources, the demise of fossil fuels — for good or for bad — is greatly exaggerated. While the industry itself is not going away, the way in which it operates and its contribution to the economy and society most certainly will be transformed.

Why is that? Certainly the societal implications of a focus on ESG represents an ethical imperative. But the truth is that money talks. BlackRock is the world’s largest investment manager, with $10 trillion of assets under management. According to S&P Global, as of February 2021, oil and gas represented 2.55% of its total investments and coal and consumable fuels accounted for 0.36%. Despite these small percentages, the investments are material and represent close to $255 billion and $36 billion, respectively, in the energy sector.

As such, when BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink speaks, people listen, including those in the energy sector. To that end, in a 2020 letter to investors, Larry Fink warned that “Given the groundwork we have already laid engaging on disclosure, and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them.”

While BlackRock has been and is instrumental in creating the ESG imperative, it is just one of the many stakeholders pushing companies in all sectors to embrace ESG and to develop metrics to measure progress toward identified goals.

Despite all the talk about the energy transition, net-zero economy goals, and the importance of ESG overall, energy companies should not lose site of the fact that (1) it is unlikely there will be a decline in global energy demand — populations are continuing to grow — and (2) broad index funds, as opposed to actively managed funds, simply cannot abandon the sector or create stranded assets. But, a lack of an ESG strategy will ultimately affect a company’s access to public, and increasingly private, capital. And that will happen to all companies, whether publicly funded or not.

A lack of an ESG strategy will ultimately affect a company’s access to public, and increasingly private, capital.

Be sure to read the full story here.

Startup of Ethane Cracker Complex at Baytown three years ago

From an Article by Kristen Hays & Astrid Torres, S&P Global Platts, August 26, 2021

ExxonMobil and Sabic’s joint-venture petrochemical complex near Corpus Christi, Texas, is undergoing commissioning ahead of its fourth-quarter startup, the plant’s manager said August 26th. “We’ll be up with everything by the end of the year,” the plant manager, Paul Fritsch, said during a tour of the facility.

Built on a former cotton field, and surrounded by cotton fields and sunflowers, the new complex features a 1.8 million mt/year ethane-fed cracker, the world’s second-largest, and the world’s largest monoethylene glycol unit at 1.1 million mt/year. The complex also has two linear low density polyethylene units, each with capacity of 650,000 mt/year.

The companies announced in October that the joint venture would come online in Q4 2021, earlier than 2022 as originally planned. The JV brought on-site utilities online first, to ensure adequate flows of water, steam, nitrogen and other inputs to the downstream products. “We’ve been working on that for most of the year,” Fritsch said. “As we start up in the fourth quarter we’ll have more hustle and bustle.”

The complex has all laboratory facilities on site to test raw materials and PE and MEG produced to ensure output meets necessary specifications, which was finishing its commissioning process. Huge screens with intricate data glowed in the dimly lit control room, and a simulation laboratory takes engineers through scenario after scenario of what would happen to the production units or utilities in potential events, from heavy rain to minor pressure changes in valves to sudden power outages.

The complex was built with modules, which were transported to the site from September 2019 through June 2020, the companies said. The module plan allowed the companies to continue the work with fewer contractors on site than projects that build units on site from the ground up, so construction was not suspended or slowed at the height of COVID-19 restrictions in 2020. Fritsch said the project had 4,000 contractors on site at its height, and maintained COVID-19 safety protocols. A similar project without modules could have twice that number of contractors or more.

Fritsch also said the project has provided medical oversight, including administration of 2,800 vaccinations so far to workers and contractors who want them. Other major petrochemical projects temporarily slowed or suspended work to implement COVID-19 safety protocols, such as Shell’s new petrochemical complex under construction in Pennsylvania and LyondellBasell’s new propylene oxide/tertiary butyl alcohol unit in Texas.

The ExxonMobil-Sabic project is part of 9.77 million mt/year of new US PE capacity under construction or planned to start up in 2021 and beyond. As of 2020, the US had 23.4 million mt/year of PE capacity, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics.

The new cracker is among more than 10 million mt/year of ethylene capacity under construction or planned in the US to come online in 2021 and beyond, which includes Total’s new 1 million mt/year joint-venture cracker in Port Arthur, Texas, which began starting up in June. US ethylene capacity in 2020 was 40.56 million mt/year, according to Platts Analytics.

The MEG unit will increase US MEG capacity by 23.6% to 5.75 million mt/year. US MEG capacity has more than doubled to 4.65 million mt/year since late 2018 as Lotte Chemical, MEGlobal, Sasol and Nan Ya Plastics brought a cumulative 2.5 million mt/year in new production online.

The joint venture also includes a marine terminal to export liquids, including MEG, propane and butane streams.

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

See also: Shell cracker plant 80% complete; first electricity exported to grid, Chrissy Suttles, Beaver County Times, July 9, 2021

BEAVER COUNTY, PA — Shell Chemicals’ ethane cracker plant is now 80% complete, as workers continue to commission the site’s 250-megawatt natural gas and steam cogeneration facility.

Employees at the Beaver County petrochemical complex have now exported power to the PJM electricity grid from each of the power plant’s three units – a major milestone on the project’s path to startup.

Once operational, the cogeneration plant will provide electricity to the complex while exporting approximately one-third of its power, or 80 megawatts, to the wholesale grid in an average day. “We are proud to have successfully tied our cogeneration facility to the grid and exported power from our site,” said Shell Senior Vice President Hilary Mercer.

Workers will soon begin commissioning the complex’s ethane cracking unit and three polyethylene production units, using power from the cogeneration facility to do so. The company began “first fire” activities in early June to prepare the power plant’s piping.

The multi-billion dollar project is expected to be completed and operational by next year. It will convert fracked gas ethane into ethylene, used in plastics manufacturing to make a range of products from automotive parts to food packaging.

President Biden explains the clean energy plans

From an Article by Lisa Friedman, New York Times, May 22, 2021

WASHINGTON — The linchpin of President Biden’s climate plan faces a perilous path through the Congress, as scientists say nations must move now to aggressively reduce the pollution that is heating the planet and the United States is trying to reassert a leadership role in that global effort.

The central tool of Mr. Biden’s plan, known as a clean electricity standard, would require power companies to gradually ratchet up the amount of electricity they generate from wind, solar and other sources until they’re no longer emitting carbon dioxide.

On paper, it seems a no-brainer. Some version of it has been approved by 29 states from Washington to Virginia. The idea is popular among Democratic and Republican voters. And experts say it is one of the most effective ways to cut the pollution from burning oil, gas and coal that is driving climate change.

But in trying to push a nationwide standard through a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats are considering a politically risky move: attaching it to a fast-track maneuver known as budget reconciliation, which allows some bills to pass with a simple majority. That would require the support of all 50 Democrats, including Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the state second only to Wyoming in coal production.

Mr. Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, has been noncommittal when it comes to a clean electricity standard. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill say forcing utilities to turn away from coal, oil and gas will mean higher electric bills. The fossil fuel industry says it will harm reliability of the power grid. Even supporters of the idea are at odds over how to design a national standard. And some Democrats question whether it’s aggressive enough.

Much is at stake. Without meaningful climate legislation this year, Mr. Biden will be left with executive action, some of it sure to be challenged in court, to meet his ambitious goals to pivot the country away from fossil fuels and prove to the world the United States is serious about global warming.

This year is “the last best chance for the world to get on a legitimate track,” said former Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Biden’s global climate envoy, during a recent interview in Rome, where he was meeting with European counterparts. A clean electricity standard is the best way at the moment to “make up for lost time” under former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Kerry said.

The last time Congress tried to enact major climate change legislation was 2009 when it failed to pass a complex market-based system to cut emissions. Democrats were trounced in the following midterm elections and lost the House, in part because of Republican claims that they were intent on driving up electricity costs.

But the political landscape has shifted. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and natural gas. Americans also are witnessing the real-time consequences of climate-fueled disasters like wildfires in California and stronger hurricanes battering their communities. Democrats are more unified around tackling climate change than a decade ago, and Mr. Biden won the White House based in part on a promise to enact the most aggressive climate agenda in history.

Perhaps most significantly, some major utilities are for the first time rallying around the idea of a clean electricity standard. In recent weeks, 13 publicly owned utilities announced support for an aggressive measure that would eliminate 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions from the sector by 2030. The American Public Power Association, which represents about 2,000 other public utilities, hasn’t taken a stand. But the Edison Electric Institute, which represents privately owned utilities and whose former president opposed a renewable energy standard in 2007, said it now supports a “well-designed” policy.

“That is different than it has ever been before,” said Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat who has been pushing for a national clean energy standard for more than a decade and is drafting a new version. Edison Electric Institute has opted to support a clean electricity standard, in part because its members so quickly met an objective set by the Obama administration to cut power plant emissions, said Emily Fisher, general counsel for the group. That goal, of cutting the sector’s emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels, was accomplished by 2020 — a decade ahead of schedule.

“I often wish that I could get in a time machine and talk to myself in 2010,” Ms. Fisher said. “I think I would have told her to be more excited about the future. Sometimes in those early conversations it seemed like the future was going to be really hard to accomplish. We don’t feel that way anymore.”

Republican leaders, however, shrugged off signs of growing industry support and indicated they intend to fight Mr. Biden’s plan. “We all want to make energy as clean as we can as fast as we can, and do it in ways that don’t raise costs for American families,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, adding that he is focused on energy prices and jobs in energy industries for his constituents. “But what the president is proposing is raising energy costs significantly.”

Studies on the effects that clean electricity standards have had on consumer prices are mixed. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory evaluated several programs and concluded that they raised electricity bills by an average of 2 percent in 2017. But more recent research from the University of Chicago of various clean electricity standards in 29 states and the District of Columbia found that, seven years after imposing a standard, prices rose by about 11 percent. That study was also criticized by many energy experts who argued costs may increased because of other policies approved at the same time as a clean electricity standard.

After he returned the United States to the 2015 Paris climate accord, President Biden committed to cut carbon emissions roughly in half by 2030 and also eliminate fossil fuel emissions from the power sector by 2035. The White House has called for a clean electricity standard as part of its $2.3 trillion infrastructure package. It has preferred that approach over a tax on carbon emissions, a method that many economists say would be the most efficient way reduce emissions but is unpopular among many Republicans and some progressive Democrats.

Negotiations between the White House and Republican congressional leaders over the infrastructure package are continuing. Meanwhile, Democrats are debating the best strategy to pass a clean electricity standard, several House and Senate aides said.
The administration has offered few details about such a standard, other than it should include nuclear energy and should also incorporate technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions, which could allow some fossil fuel plants to continue operating. Energy experts said both nuclear energy and carbon capture will be required to reduce emissions. They also will be critical to gaining Republican support, if there is any to be had.

One of the most consequential questions to be decided by lawmakers is whether to characterize natural gas as a “clean energy,” something the gas industry wants. When burned, natural gas produces half the carbon dioxide of coal. But it releases methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide (though it has shorter staying power in the atmosphere). Much of that gas has been extracted through the controversial method known as fracking. Progressives have indicated they will fight any measure that includes anything other than renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal power.

“You can’t have a truly clean energy system that includes fracked gas,” said Mitchell Jones, policy director at Food and Water Watch, one of more than 600 environmental group that signed a May 12 letter to House and Senate leaders. The group rejected gas “with or without carbon capture sequestration” and what it called other “false solutions” like nuclear.

Other supporters of climate legislation like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, said they worry the administration’s plan is too narrowly focused on the power sector. While electricity generation was responsible for 25 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by the United States in 2019, the transportation sector produced about 29 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Manufacturing and industry produced another 23 percent. Commercial and residential buildings were responsible for 13 percent, and agriculture contributed 10 percent, the agency said.

Mr. Whitehouse wants a package of solutions, including a tax on carbon emissions. But he said Democrats understand they have a short window during which to act and it is closing fast. “The danger to us, primarily, is that we get into our traditional Democratic circular firing squad and quarrel with each other rather than taking on the common enemy of carbon emissions and a very malign fossil fuel industry apparatus,” Mr. Whitehouse said. “This is a really important moment and perhaps our last chance.”

While some Republicans have supported clean electricity standards in the past, environmental activists said they don’t believe Democrats can win over 10 GOP senators, the number needed to break a filibuster. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah in a recent interview said he is “looking at” a clean electricity standard but believes a tax on carbon pollution is a better approach. Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was willing to “review” a federal standard but also made no commitment. Without Republican help, Democrats would have to try to pass a clean electricity standard through budget reconciliation. That approach requires only a simple Senate majority, but the legislation must be crafted in a way that changes federal spending or revenue. And they would have to win over Mr. Manchin, who has expressed concern both about using the reconciliation process as well as a clean energy standard.

Scott Segal, a senior partner at Bracewell LLP, which represents utilities and other energy industry clients, said Democrats could undermine their efforts on climate change by pushing legislation through without bipartisan support. “If they try to jam a clean electricity standard through on reconciliation, I think they would likely lose a strong handful of moderate Democrats, and they’d have no chance to pick up moderate Republicans,” he said.

########……….########……….########

FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies, The White House, April 22, 2021

Green methanol is produced from biomass not natural gas

From the Methanol Institute, World Wide Web, 2020 – 2021

The “Renewable Methanol: A Carbon-Neutral Fuel” webinar organized by the Methanol Institute took place on August 5, 2020. The webinar is organized with the support of presenting companies Clariant, Haldor Topsoe, bseEngineering, and Ørsted. The global transition towards climate mitigation and greater sustainability has inspired a concerted effort from government, business, and society to find viable solutions to lower greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Paris Climate Agreement.

This transition has led to renewable methanol gaining traction as a carbon-neutral solution for multiple industries. The benefits of renewable methanol are manifold. The production of renewable methanol relies on off-taking CO2 from industrial emitters which allows them to reduce their emissions while moving towards carbon-neutrality. Renewable methanol can then be utilized as a carbon-neutral fuel for multiple applications such as land and marine transport vessels to help them reach their own emission reduction goals.

The webinar shares the experiences of companies that are part of the renewable methanol value chain in various regulatory and commercial landscapes. The companies will also shed light on what they believe is the future of this sustainable solution as global industries move towards limiting their impact on their operating environments and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

>>>>>>>………………>>>>>>>>………………>>>>>>>>

See also: Technical Knowledge Webinar on Green Hydrogen and Green Methanol, April 6, 2021

Organized by MI, NSEFI and IWPA, this webinar includes plenary sessions on the different facets of producing green hydrogen through green methanol, methanol as a hydrogen carrier and other applications of green methanol followed by Q&A session with industry experts from around the world. The webinar​ gives a platform to gain insights, learn about solutions and explore potential opportunities for collaboration on clean energy projects in India.

Sabine presents a comprehensive introduction

From the Video Presentation by Sabine Hossenfelder, BackReAction Blog, April 21, 2021

Elon Musk has announced he is sponsoring a competition for the best carbon removal ideas with a fifty million dollar prize for the winner. The competition will open on April twenty-second, twenty-twenty-one. In this video, I will tell you all you need to know about carbon capture to get your brain going, and put you on the way for the fifty million dollar prize.

During the formation of our planet, large amounts of carbon dioxide were stored in the ground, and ended up in coal and oil. By burning these fossil fuels, we have released a lot of that old carbon dioxide really suddenly. It accumulates in the atmosphere and prevents our planet from giving off heat the way it used to. As a consequence, the climate changes, and it changes rapidly.

The best course of action would have been to not pump that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to begin with, but at this point reducing future emissions alone might no longer be the best way to proceed. We might have to find ways to actually get carbon dioxide back out of the air. Getting this done is what Elon Musk’s competition is all about.

The problem is, once carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere it stays there for a long time. By natural processes alone, it would take several thousand years for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to return to pre-industrial. And the climate reacts slowly to the sudden increase in carbon dioxide, so we haven’t yet seen the full impact of what we have done already. So, even if we were to entirely stop carbon dioxide emissions today, the climate would continue to change for at least several more decades, if not centuries.

Globally, we are presently emitting about forty billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’d have to get down to twenty billion tons per year to limit warming to one point five degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels. These one point five degrees are what’s called the “Paris target.” This means, if we continue emitting at the same level as today, we’ll have to remove twenty billion tons carbon dioxide per year.

But to score in Musk’s competition, you don’t need a plan to remove the full twenty billion tons per year. You merely need “A working carbon removal prototype that can be rigorously validated” that is “capable of removing at least 1 ton per day” and the carbon “should stay locked up for at least one hundred years.” But other than that, pretty much everything goes. According to the website, the “main metric for the competition is cost per ton”.

So, which options do we have to remove carbon dioxide and how much do they cost?

The obvious thing to try is enhancing natural processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You can do that for example by planting trees because trees take up carbon dioxide as they grow. They are what’s called a natural “carbon sink”. This carbon is released again if the trees die and rot, or are burned, so planting trees alone isn’t enough, we’d have to permanently increase their numbers.

By how much? Depends somewhat on the type of forest, but to get rid of the twenty billion tons per year, we’d have to plant about ten million square kilometers of new forests. That’s about the area of the United States and more than the entire remaining Amazon rainforest.

Planting so many trees seems a bit impractical. And it isn’t cheap either. The cost is about 100 US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide. So, to get rid of the 20 billion tons excess carbon dioxide, that would be a few trillion dollars per year. Trees are clearly part of the solution, but we need to do more than that. And stop burning the rain forest wouldn’t hurt either.

But there’s a more efficient way that oceans could help removing carbon. If one stimulates the growth of algae, these will take up carbon. When the algae die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, where the carbon could remain, in principle, for millions of years. This is called “ocean fertilization”.

It’s a good idea in theory, but in practice it’s presently unclear how efficient it is. There’s no good data for how many of the algae sink and how many of them get eaten, in which case the carbon might be released, and no one knows what else such fertilization might do to the oceans. So, a lot of research remains to be done here. It’s also unclear how much it would cost. Estimates range from two to four hundred fifty US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide.

Besides enhancing natural carbon sinks, there are a variety of technologies for removing carbon permanently. For example, if one burns agricultural waste or wood in the absence of oxygen, this will not release all the carbon dioxide but produce a substance called biochar. The biochar keeps about half of the carbon, and not only is it stable for thousands of years, it can also improve the quality of soil.

The major problem with this idea is that there’s only so much agricultural waste to burn. Still, by some optimistic estimates one could remove up to one point eight billion tons carbon dioxide per year this way. Cost estimates are between thirty and one hundred twenty US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide.

A more popular idea is enhanced weathering. For this, one artificially creates certain minerals that, when they come in contact with water, can bind carbon dioxide to them, thereby removing it from the air. The idea is to produce large amounts of these minerals, crush them, and distribute them over large areas of land.

The challenges for this method are: how do you produce large amounts of these minerals, and where do you find enough land to put it on. The supporters of the American weathering project Vesta claim that the cost would be about ten US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide. So that’s a factor ten less than planting trees.

Then there is direct air capture. The most common method for this is pushing air through absorbing filters. Several petrol companies like Chevron, BHP, and Occidental currently explore this technology. The company Carbon Engineering, which is backed by Bill Gates, has a pilot plant in British Columbia that they want to scale up to commercial plants. They claim every such plant will be equivalent in carbon removal to 40 million trees, removing 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.

They estimate the cost between ninety-four and 232 US dollar per ton. That would mean between two to four trillion US dollars per year to eliminate the entire twenty billion tons carbon dioxide which we need to get rid of. That’s between two point five and five percent of the world’s GDP.

But, since carbon dioxide is taken up by the oceans, one can also try to get rid of it by extracting it from seawater. And once you’ve removed it, the water will take up new carbon dioxide from the air, so you can basically use the oceans to suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. That sounds really neat.

The current cost estimate for carbon extraction from seawater is about 50 dollars per ton, so that’s about half as much as carbon extraction from air. The major challenge for this idea is that the currently known methods for extracting carbon dioxide from water require heating the water to about seventy degrees Celsius which takes up a lot of energy. But maybe there are other, more energy efficient ways, to get carbon dioxide out of water? You might be the person to solve this problem.

Finally, there is carbon capture and storage, which means capturing carbon dioxide right where it’s produced and store it away before it’s released into the atmosphere.

About twenty-six commercial facilities already use this method, and a few dozen more are planned. In twenty-twenty, about forty million tons of carbon dioxide were captured by this method. The typical cost is between 50 and 100 US$ per ton of carbon dioxide, though in particularly lucky cases the cost may go down to about 15 dollars per ton. The major challenge here is that present technologies for carbon capture and storage require huge amounts of water.

As you can see an overall problem for these ideas is that they’re expensive. You can therefore score on Musk’s competition by making one of the existing technologies cheaper, or more efficient, or both, or maybe you have an entirely new idea to put forward. I wish you good luck.

>>>>>>………………>>>>>>………………>>>>>>

See also: Elon Musk, X Prize launch $100 million carbon-removal competition | Mike Wall, Space, April 22, 2021

“It should be clear to everyone in 2021 that climate change poses an existential threat, and that our CO2 emissions are a leading cause,” Marcius Extavour, X Prize vice president of climate and environment, said in a statement.

One year into the competition, judges will award up to 15 “milestone prizes” worth $1 million apiece. Student teams will also be awarded up to $5 million this fall to aid their efforts, said officials at X Prize, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping solve big problems via contests with big purses.

The really serious money will be doled out in 2025, provided at least one team has developed a workable, scaleable carbon-removal solution by then. The grand-prize winner will get $50 million, and $30 million will be divided among up to three runner-up teams, bringing the total potential purse to $100 million.

Planting trees near Wheeling’s Heritage Trail, learn about tree identification & management

Article by Maureen Zambito, West Liberty University, April 21, 2021

WEST LIBERTY, WV — Just in time for Earth Day, West Liberty University (WLU) students in Professor James Wood’s biology and ecology classes are planting trees in Wheeling’s public spaces and on campus.

Last Saturday students planted two types of native flowering trees along a portion of the Heritage Trail along the Ohio River, near WesBanco Arena. The purchase of the trees was made possible thanks to a grant obtained by West Virginia University Agricultural Extension Agent and Wheeling resident Karen Cox.

“These trees will add beauty to this public green space in the city, supporting birds and other pollinators while also providing shade for trail users in the height of summer heat,” said Wood. “Adding trees along the trail make it better for everyone.”

New signs here

But the students’ work wasn’t done just yet. On Sunday these students partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in addition to WVU Extension, to work on the National Wildlife Refuge at the northern tip of Wheeling Island.

PHOTO — New signage at the northern tip of Wheeling Island identifies the space as a National Wildlife Refuge, perfect for bird watchers.

“The Wildlife Refuge is a such a great resource for the public and for wildlife. It offers beautiful views of the river and is a great place to go bird watching close to downtown,” said Wood. “We are pleased to be a part of improving Wheeling’s public spaces.”

The outreach and service projects also provide WLU students with a hands-on look at careers in natural resources. Extension Agent Karen Cox and U.S. Fish and Wildlife representative Elian Barr spoke with students about working to protect and restore natural areas and educating the public about managing for endangered species and invasive exotic plants.

The students took time to clean up trash found in Wheeling Island’s Wildlife Refuge. “Our next project is closer to home, we’ll plant trees on campus near Campbell Hall,” said Wood.

“The goal is to increase educational opportunities on the WLU campus, while making the campus more visually attractive and promoting conservation. This round of tree planting will support the planting event last fall when over 40 native trees were planted by students during a service project.”

Dr. Wood is a faculty member in the biology department in the College of Sciences. Biology majors include Environmental Stewardship and Education; Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology and Zoo Science. Students also have the opportunity to pursue a Bachelor of Science in Human Biology + Master of Science Physician Assistant Studies degree through the 3+2 program.

>>>>>>>>……………………>>>>>>>>……………………>>>>>>>>

See also: The Trillion Trees bill was reintroduced in this Congress

House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Bruce Westerman reintroduced his Trillion Trees legislation in the House yesterday afternoon with over 60 co-sponsors. The bill has provisions related to increasing carbon sequestration through reforestation, improved forest management and market incentives. Among other provisions, the bill removes the cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund to $180 million to help address the reforestation backlog on the NFS. It also has language standing up urban wood and biochar grant programs, as well as integrating carbon storage into FIA and encouraging the Forest Service to utilize advanced geospatial technologies in FIA. The section-by-section summary below is useful.

(a) Westerman Leads Bipartisan Introduction of The Trillion Trees Act | Congressman Bruce Westerman (house.gov)

(b) trillion_trees_act_-_one_pager.pdf (house.gov)

(c) trillion_trees_act_-_section-by-section.pdf (house.gov)

(d) Full Bill Text in US Congress

President Biden invited 40 world leaders to live-streamed summit on Earth Day

From an Article in the Independent News of Great Britain, April 16, 2021

President Joe Biden has asked 40 world leaders to a virtual two-day summit to ramp up efforts in tackling the climate emergency, beginning on Earth Day.

Invitations have gone out to leaders of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, which total about 80 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Nations on the frontlines of the climate crisis, already facing more extreme weather and rising sea levels, have also been invited along with a number of nations championing climate action.

The list includes Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a signal that the US is willing to put the climate crisis above even its most strained international relations. President Xi is expected to attend, according to a report, while Mr Putin remains a question mark.

For its part, the US is expected to announce a tougher 2030 emissions-reduction target ahead of the summit. The “nationally determined contribution” (NDC), as it’s known, is each nation’s short-term pledge on emissions and a required part of the Paris Agreement.

The New York Times reported this week that ahead of the summit, the Biden administration was close to clinching tougher emissions reduction promises from Japan, South Korea and Canada. But deals had not yet been reached with China, India and Brazil who, along with the US, account for more than half of global emissions.

Some global leaders have publicly confirmed they will attend Mr Biden’s summit, seen as a key milestone ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, in Glasgow this November.

Among those who have confirmed their attendance: Prime Minister Gaston Browne, Antigua and Barbuda; President Alberto Fernandez, Argentina; Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh; President Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil; President Sebastián Piñera, Chile; President Xi Jinping, China; President Iván Duque Márquez, Colombia; President Félix Tshisekedi, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Denmark; President Ali Bongo Ondimba, Gabon; Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India; President David Kabua, Republic of the Marshall Islands; President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico; Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Norway; President Andrzej Duda, Poland; President Moon Jae-in, Republic of Korea; Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore; Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of Spain; Prime Minister Boris Johnson, United Kingdom.

Also on the list but yet to publicly confirm are: Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Australia; Prime Minister Lotay Tshering, Bhutan; Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada; President Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission; President Charles Michel, European Council; President Emmanuel Macron, France; Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany; President Joko Widodo, Indonesia; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel; Prime Minister Mario Draghi, Italy; Prime Minister Andrew Holness, Jamaica; Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Japan; President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya; Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand; President Muhammadu Buhari, Nigeria; President Vladimir Putin, Russia; King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa; President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey; President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, United Arab Emirates; President Nguyễn Phú Trọng, Vietnam

>>>>>>>>……………………>>>>>>>>……………………>>>>>>>>

See also: Biden’s Earth Day Summit Is a Crucial Opportunity for Climate Action, Rachel Cleetus & Erika Spanger-Siegfried, Scientific American, April 14, 2021

The president should commit to cutting U.S. emissions at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

EARTH DAY is April 22nd this month in 2021

From Bill McKibben, 350.ORG, Reply-To: 350@350.org

Dear Friends and Concerned Citizens,

I’ve stepped back to emeritus status at 350.org as I start on other projects, but I still follow my old colleagues’ work intently — and the next big thing is coming up very soon. And you can be a part of it.

The Global Just Recovery Gathering — three days of free, online, brass tacks education — starts this Friday, and it has one focus: building energy for real action as we come out of the pandemic. Given the speed with which scientists say we must work, this may be the last high-leverage moment for huge change. We’ve seen some promising initial signs with things like the Biden plan for green infrastructure — but we need more, we need it everywhere, and we need it fast.

The movement was on the cusp when the pandemic hit — remember those truly giant student-led climate strikes in the fall of 2019? Now, we need to regain momentum.

So this Gathering is all about training everyone up. Whether you’re new to activism or a veteran of many year’s work, there will be useful sessions for you — and the special focus on the Just in Just Recovery will add to the power of this event.

Over 17,000 people from every corner of the world have signed up already — you’ll get a first-hand sense of what I mean when I say this is the largest, most diverse movement for change the world has ever seen. And you’ll come out equipped to be a better part of that movement, making change with even more power than you do now.

Can I count on seeing you at the Global Just Recovery Gathering starting this Friday, April 9? Register now to join me and thousands of climate activists from around the globe.

Register » “Global Just Recovery Gathering”

I’m on the “End Fossil Fuel Finance” plenary session, but mostly I’m looking forward to watching. And to seeing you there.

Let’s go onward together!

Bill McKibben, 350.ORG,
PO Box 843004, Boston, MA 02284-3004

>>>>>>>……………>>>>>>>……………>>>>>>

See also: Despite Pandemic Shutdowns, CO2 Now at Levels Unseen in 3.6 Million Years, Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams News, April 8, 2021

NOAA warned that carbon dioxide and methane “continued their unrelenting rise in 2020.” Carbon dioxide has now exceeded 412 ppm and continues to rise more rapidly year by year.