Highly useful eyesores

According to an article on the Environmental News Network's website, the ugly sound barriers between highways and neighborhoods have many positive effects, including keeping pollution on the roadways and reducing cancer in the neighborhoods.

And communities can always plant vines, giving the walls a more natural look while helping to absorb CO2.

5 ways to stash carbon

A sidebar to #9 in Discover's Top 100 of 2009.

1. Capture it at the source.

A coal-fired plant in Spremberg, Germany, is using the same carbon capture and storage method planned for FutureGen. Engineers are having no trouble capturing the carbon dioxide, but efforts to store it in underground rock formations in eastern Germany have run into local opposition.

2. Grab it with artificial trees.
To corral widely dispersed CO2 emission from cars, "artificial trees" - towers filled with carbon-absorbing materials - could line roadways, pulling the gas from the air and compressing it into a storable form. Several companies, including Global Research Technologies in Tucson, are testing prototypes.

3. Bury it under the sea.
Some research groups have tried fertilizing the ocean with iron to encourage massive plankton blooms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. When the plankton dies and sinks to the seafloor, it should buty the carbon, but early results have not been impressive. Proposals to pump CO2 dirctly to the ocean bottom also seem unlikely to move forward, as the piped-in carbon could have nasty environmental consequences.

4. Turn it into charcoal.
Wood or other biomass heated slowly in a chamber without oxygen will transform into that does not decompose for thousands of years. In addition to locking away carbon, this "biochar" makes a good fertilizer. Carbonscape in New Zealand and a few other companies are now working on economical biochar-producing ovens.

5. Turn it into rock.
Certain types of minerals naturally combine with carbon dioxide. In the right locations, CO2 injected into the ground at high pressure would react with those minerals to form stable carbonate rock. This approach is currently being tested in Oman and at other sites around the world.

WCI #14: Experimental power plant takes the CO2 out

Number 9 on Discover's Top 100 science stories of 2009:

"Coal is a dirty business, one of the leading sources of carbon emissions in the US. But coal is also a big business, generating 51 percent of the nation's electricity. With that in mind, in June the Obama administration revived FutureGen, an advanced-technology coal-fired pwoer plant axed by the previous administration in 2008. By burying 60 percent of it carbon dioxide emissions deep underground, the 275-megawatt FutureGen plant, to be built in Mattoon, Illinois, seeks to show that coal can be, if not exactly clean, then at least cleaner.

Once FutureGen is up and running - now scheduled to happen in 2014 - the carbon dioxide gas it produces will be siphoned off, compressed into a near-liquid state, and piped at least a mile sown into porous sandstone capped by a layer of impermeable shale. Engineers will essentially be trying duplicate the geologic circumstances that trapped natural gas deposits underground fro millions of years.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has called FutureGen "a flagship facility" that will demonstrate how to capture and store carbon on a commercial scale; that technology would allow us to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions while still burning coal. The project could also help spur other proposals for sequestering human-generated carbon.

But FutureGen ha drawn criticism from left and right. Some environmentalists say America should shift from coal-generated electricity entirely; others believe the goal of capturing 60 percent of emissions is too modest. Meanwhile, some fiscal conservatives disapprove of spending so much money (the Department of Energy has committed $1 billion) on an unproven technology for an established industry. Their nickname for the behind-schedule and over-budget project: NeverGen."

- Eliza Strickland

WCI #7: Delivering the US from oil

According to December's Scientific American "Plug-in Hybrid Trucks are improving the long view of the short haul."

The ubiquitous cargo trucks that haul everything from mail to produce use about 40 percent of the fuel consumed in the US every year. Many are looking to use vehicles with better fuel efficiency, but a major technological opportunity is being overlooked by most.

"The fuel use of even a small truck is equal to many, many car," says Bill Van (heh) Amberg, senior VP of Calstart, a clean transportation technology nonprofit and director of the Hybrid Truck Users Forum. "A utility truck as a hybrid would reduce more petroleum than nine Priuses."

The article states: "Some 1,300 commercial hybrids on the toad today get up to twice the fuel efficiency of their conventional counterparts. But these traditional hybrids are inherently limited. They make more efficient use of petroleum-based fuel by capturing some of the energy lost during braking.

"Plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, draw energy from the grid. They can drive for miles - in many cases, an entire day's route - without using any fossil fuel at all. This shifts energy demand away from petroleum and toward grid-based sources."

This still leads to carbon usage, as many electrical plants are still coal burners, but last year 30 percent of electric power was supplied by nuclear and other zero-carbon renewables and with more and more responsible companies shifting their paradigm, this number is sure to grow.

Using plug-in hybrid technology for such vehicles just makes common sense in many ways.

"A cargo truck runs a short daily route that includes many stops to aid in regenerative braking. Most of the US Postal Service's 200,000-plus mail trucks, for example, travel fewer than 20 miles a day. In addition, fleet vehicles return nightly to storage lots that have ready access to the 120- or 240-volt outlets required to charge them."

The Department of Energy has recently launched a massive, $45.4 million project to put near ly 400 medium-duty plug-in hybrid trucks on the road in 50 municipalities and utilities. They are working with Ford using the auto-makers F-550 chassis. They will be running in 2011.

Start-up Bright Automotive is going even further, planning to replace 50,000 conventional trucks by 2014. Their prototype, called IDEA, travels 40 miles on battery power, then switches to a four-cylinder engine that manages an eco-friendly 40 mpg. The truck is streamlined and more aerodynamic than most on the road today and only weighs as much as a mid-sized sedan.

Even with the appeal of carbon savings, the vehicles offer a far more practical benefit. Once battery technology improves the price will make it almost idiotic to not have one.

It won't take long for the vehicles to become the economic choice.

As David Lauzman, Brights VP of product development projects, people will soon be saying, "I have to have them because it saves me money."

WCI #6: Cement as a carbon sponge

From SciAm:

"Traditional cement production creates at least five percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, but new materials could create carbon-neutral cement. Start-up Novacem, supported by Imperial College London, uses magnesium oxide to make cement that naturally absorbs CO2 as it hardens. California-based Calera uses seawater to sequester carbon emissions from a nearby power plant in cement."

WCI #3: Hot Nukes

According to SciAm:

"Uranium and Plutonium ar not the only fuels that can power a nuclear reactor. With an initial kick from more traditional fissile materials, thorium can set up a self-sustaining "breeder" reaction that produces uranium 233, which is well suited to nuclear power generation. The process has the added benefit of being resistant to nuclear proliferation, because its end products emit enough gamma rays to make the fuel dangerous to handle and easy to track."

With Copenhagen and the EPA announcing the danger of CO2 and governments taking steps to reduce dirty power plants, nuclear power is the most tested and efficient way to produce energy without sending electric bills through the roof.

Until we perfect solar and all the other natural energy producing methods, that is. As safe as nuclear power has become, there's still room for mistakes. With more natural methods, the biggest disaster would be lack of power.

Power brokers, pt. 6: Brooke Coleman, executive director, New Fuels Alliance

From Discover, if you haven't figured that out by now.

Brooke Coleman's "bright idea": let biofuels compete freely with petroleum on the open market.

Verbatim (again):

"Sometime people compare using advanced biofuels to the Internet boom. But no one had control of the Internet market before the Internet existed. The oil companies do have control of the liquid fuels market, however - so at the end of the day, what the biofuel folds are looking to do is to take market shate away from probably the most powerful industry in American, and arguably in the world. It's not an easy thing to do, and it's policy driven.

"So what do you need to do to solve the problem? You have to cut the knot by allowing these fuels to compete in the marketplace on a level playing field. Get flex-fuel vehicles on the roads that can run on any combination of biofuels. In the United States, people pretend it's really difficult. It's not. It's less expensive than putting a seat belt in a car, certainly less expensive than air bags, definitely less expensive than stereos and a leather interior. Comapnies have to attract investment, build plants, and produce gallons ahead of the market, in time for these mandates to kick in.

"Anybody who has lived in this country for the last 18 months knows that when petroleum prices go up and down, you have a variety of indirect carbon effects in the market. If we place controls on carbon in the future, we will have to score each fuel based on specific variables and assumptions that might make or break entire industries. We need to let renewable fuels out of the box so they can compete on a level carbon playing field. If you're going to carbon-score them and compare them on a relative basis, threat petroleum and biofuels alike."

That would show 'em.

Power brokers, pt. 3: George Huber, chemical engineer at UMass Amherst

From the December issue of Discover magazine.

Huber's "bright idea": Produce ethanol or other renewable fuels from biomass we do not use for food.

This has been addressed in A Cooler world previously. Grassoline is one such fuel, onion skins another. Non-edible plants are known as cellulosic biomass and include wood chips and agricultural waste, all of which can be converted to fuel.

First you break it down to liquid or gas form. Then add catalysts to convert it into a compound. From this basic compound of biomass one can produce gasoline, diesel, even jet fuel.

People could be at the pump and not even know that they are pumping a plant product in their tank; it can be used interchangeably meaning that radical engineering changes in automobile manufacturing won't be necessary.

And it can happen in five to 15 years.

Another bonus: lower to zero admissions when compared to fossil fuels.

Woo hoo!

Valero, whoa-oh-oh-oh! (an open letter)

The Valero oil company is actively campaigning against the cap-and-trade bill, threatening customers with rising prices using signs at their gas stations.

Dearest sweetiekins Valero,

Yes, it is true that gas prices are most likely going to rise slightly due to the bill, but come on Valero, the scare tactics are simply your way of avoiding responsibility.

I love you, but why not encourage your customers to drive more fuel efficient, less carbon emitting vehicles?

I don't want to ruffle your feathers, but why not make your own plants less polluting and more efficient so your own emissions won't cost you the projected $6 billion a year your current output indicates?

The money you'll spend on overhauling your own plants will cut back on the money you spend for carbon allowances and pay for itself in less than a decade, dear.

Ok, now I'm angry and please excuse me, but NOOOOOOO, you'd rather plaster signs (which are probably not made of recyclable cardboard and will probably end up in a landfill) all over your gas stations, filling consumers with misinformed hate.

Do you think they've read the bill? Have you?

When you break something as badly as you've broken the atmosphere, it ain't cheap to fix, honey.

Do your part, Valero instead of just complaining.

With all love and respect,

Mother Nature