A new scientific analysis published today in Science, urges a focus on methane and soot (black carbon) emission reduction to deliver the quickest and greatest range of benefits – ranging from improved human health to increased crop yields.

The major reason for focusing on reduction of these particular greenhouse gases (GHGs) is that methane and soot have a significantly stronger greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide (CO2), but remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time period. Therefore a reduction today means a rapid effect in “….weeks or months, not decades or centuries,” according to atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego.

Even better news: out of about 400 emission control measures studied, the team of researchers noted that just 14 of those steps generated 90% of the benefits. Third on the list is capturing methane — also known as biogas, from landfills in the U.S. and China. Other steps on the “top 14″ list involve capture of methane from other sources, such as coal mines or petroleum exploration. In addition, the study found that many of these measures provide more economic value in benefits than their cost.

The study doesn’t go into how much more GHG reduction and economic benefit could result from use of captured and cleaned methane to displace the use of dirtier fuels such as coal and diesel. That’s an obvious next step, and one that FirmGreen has been pursuing since 2002, with its strategy of displacing dirtier transportation fuels with cleaned methane (known as biomethane) from wasted resources such as landfills, waste water treatment plants, and livestock operations.

Find out more about how FirmGreen is using wasted biogas resources to generate economic value and benefit the environment: www.firmgreen.com

“Reliance on oil is the greatest immediate threat to U.S. economic and national security, and also contributes to the long-term threat of climate change,’’ the report states. (page IX of the Executive Summary) Fine so far: we agree!

In the transportation sector, the DOE intends to focus on technologies that “significantly reduce oil consumption and diversify fuel sources for on-road transportation.” Step one (see the chart above) involves continued increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Beyond improving fuel efficiency, the DOE seems to have concluded that electrification of fleets represents the next best step. What?

Considering that almost 20% of our electricity generation is still powered by coal, electrification of vehicles will do little to reduce carbon emissions. So a push toward EV’s prior to cleaning up our electrical generation seems odd. However, recent government efforts to support primarily one biofuel – ethanol – have come under heavy criticism and may partially explain the lack of enthusiasm for biofuels. It’s no secret that ethanol production from corn puts it in competition with food supplies, and may require more energy to produce than can be obtained from using the fuel. Current research in this area is focusing on use of waste crop products, such as corn stalks and husks, but researchers admit that such fuels are multiple generations away from market viability. Hydrogen and fuel cells aren’t anywhere near ready for prime time either. Hence, the DOE concludes a shift to EV’s is the best near-term opportunity to reduce reliance on petroleum for transportation.

The report mentions another hurdle for biofuels besides ethanol: alternative transportation technologies must compete with the established fueling infrastructure. That hurdle is real, but it is unlikely to be overcome if there is little will to do so. We think another fact stated in this same report (p.17) provides ample reason for a will to surmount this hurdle: oil imports at current prices contribute 70% of the United States’ trade deficit. Budgets are tight these days, but some funding of new fueling infrastructure would also create some jobs, ultimately increasing tax revenues.

The DOE mentions natural gas as a transportation fuel, and then seems to dismiss it as a solution: the report states that “recent expansion of domestic gas reserves has…raised the possibility of exports.” In other words, not only do we have enough for domestic use, but we could actually export to other nations. Strangely, the report then concludes that such a linkage to global markets could make the US economy vulnerable to price swings in that market. This is amazing: it’s a little like concluding that Saudi Arabia’s economy is vulnerable to swings in the global price of oil. Technically true of course, but historically economic vulnerability from oil price swings has been much greater for nations that import than for those that are net exporters.

Some disclosure is appropriate here: FirmGreen is in the business of recovering and cleaning wasted methane (natural gas) from sources such as landfills and waste water treatment plants to produce natural gas fuel equivalent to pipeline quality. Obviously, policies that support adoption of natural gas as a transportation fuel could benefit our company. However, we fail to see how transitioning from a fuel for which we must import almost 50% of what we use, to a fuel that we have in sufficient enough quantity to export makes the US more economically vulnerable.

In fairness to the report, another stated goal is to derive 80% of America’s electricity from clean-energy sources by 2035. A great idea, and one that will require continued innovation, especially in the area of energy storage (i.e., battery technology) and improving the grid to reliably deal with fluctuations in production inherent in renewables such as solar and wind. Domestic natural gas, including biomethane would have a supporting role to play here as well – that of clean backup power when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. However, greater adoption of renewables for power generation could still be expected to free up domestic natural gas supplies for transportation use. That this is the essence of the Pickens Plan doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. Until we shift to cleaner power generation, a shift to EV’s will do little to clear the air, though it may slightly reduce demand for imported petroleum.

In our view, improving fuel efficiency is good policy. But we believe a rapid shift toward alternatives such as domestically produced natural gas for transportation is more likely to deliver near-term as well as long-term benefits, both environmentally and economically, over a strategy of electrifying our fleets.

Read or download the full DOE report (PDF)

Having safely avoided last week’s tropical storm system, shipment two of FirmGreen’s green technology cargo continues toward its next port call in Parmaribo, Suriname. A rough day or so at sea has slowed progress just a bit, and arrival at Paramaribo seems likely to be pushed back to August 11th.

This shipment is part of FirmGreen’s export of green technology that will clean landfill gas to power an industrial facility in Brazil. Find out more about the project at: firmgreen.com.

Find out more about green technology for renewable energy at firmgreen.com

It’s tropical storm season in the Caribbean as FirmGreen’s green cargo shipments to Brazil continue to roll out. Shipment two is now navigating toward its next port call in Parmaribo, Suriname where arrival is expected on August 10th. As you can see in the satellite image, “Emily” has been downgraded from its previous tropical storm status and currently poses no complication for this shipment other than a possible rough day or so at sea.

This shipment is part of FirmGreen’s export of green technology that will clean landfill gas to power an industrial facility in Brazil. The project is creating more than 200 jobs in the US and in Brazil; many will be long term skilled jobs to operate the biogas production facility.

Find out more about green technology for renewable energy at firmgreen.com

S.734 was introduced 4/6/2011 and has a related House Bill: H.R.1367. Senators Carl, Levin, D-MI and Ron Wyden, D-OR are Co-sponsors, with Sen. Wyden also being the Sponsor of S.1001. The bill —currently entitled “Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2011″—seeks to accelerate development and commercial deployment of advanced vehicle technologies. Intended to improve fuel efficiency and utilize alternative fuels, S.734 has bipartisan support. In the 111th Congress, a similar bill passed the House but did not get through the Senate before adjournment December 2010.

The objectives of S.734 are to improve fuel efficiency and reduce dependence on petroleum imports, while supporting domestic research and manufacturing.

Read full text of S.734 at gpo.gov (pdf opens in new tab or window)

S.1001 was introduced 5/16/2011 and does not have a related House Bill; Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-MI – the Sponsor of S.734, is Co-sponsor of S.1001. This bill, currently entitled “Alternative Fuel Vehicles Competitiveness and Energy Security Act of 2011″ has a broader objective: to reduce oil consumption and improve energy security. The bill defines alternative vehicles broadly (electric vehicles, fuel-cell, biofuels, etc.), provided that the vehicles “reduce consumption of conventional motor fuel by 25% or more”.

It would authorize millions in funding annually from 2012-2016 to state and local governments and public-private partnerships. The funding will support activities ranging from loan guarantees for alternative fuel infrastructure to workforce training for jobs related to AFVs and fueling infrastructure.

Supporters point to the fact that this legislation avoids “picking winners and losers” prematurely, and directs the DOE to develop methodology that will calculate the actual “well-to-wheels” oil displacement of the various AFVs, and the maximum feasible deployment for each type of AFV by 2020.

Read full text of S.1001 at gpo.gov (pdf opens in new tab or window)

In the areas of renewable energy and biofuels, the legislation:

• Extends the production tax credit (PTC) for qualified biomass and municipal solid waste facilities through 2013.
• Permits tax payers to elect to claim an investment tax credit (ITC) in place of the PTC for certain projects, including closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal, landfill gas and trash renewable energy facilities placed in service from 2009 through 2013. The amount of the ITC would generally be 30 percent of the qualifying costs.
• Modifies the ITC by eliminating the reduction of the ITC for property financed by subsidized energy financing or tax-exempt private activity bonds.
• Would permit a taxpayer to receive a grant from the U.S. Treasury Department in place of claiming tax credits for certain properties placed in service in 2009 and 2010 that would otherwise qualify for the PTC or ITC. Federal, state and local governments and tax-exempt entities would not be eligible for the grants. Property placed in service after 2010, but on or before the applicable credit termination date, could qualify for the grants as long as construction began in 2009 or 2010. The amount of a grant would generally be equal to the amount of the ITC for which the project would have otherwise been eligible.
• Extends first-year bonus depreciation to property placed in service in 2009. This means an owner of qualifying property placed in service in 2009 could deduct 50 percent of the adjusted basis of the property in 2009. The remaining 50 percent would be depreciated over the regular tax depreciation schedule.
• Authorizes an additional $1.6 billion of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) to finance facilities that generate electricity from certain renewable resources.
• Authorizes an additional $2.4 billion of qualified energy conservation bonds and clarifies that the proceeds of qualified energy conservation bonds could be used for loans, grants, and other repayment mechanisms that implement green community programs.
• Modifies the carbon dioxide capture and sequestration credit to require that carbon dioxide used as a tertiary injectant be disposed of in secure geologic storage.
• Temporarily increases the business credit for alternative refueling property from 30 percent to 50 percent of the cost of qualifying property and increases the cap on the credit for depreciable property from $30,000 to $50,000. It also increases the cap on the credit for non-depreciable property from $1,000 to $2000, and applies to property placed in service during tax years 2009 and 2010.
• Creates a new 30 percent credit for investment in certain property used in a “qualifying advanced energy manufacturing project.” Qualifying projects include those that re-equip, expand or establish a manufacturing facility for the production of property designed to produce energy from certain renewable resources, certain energy storage systems, electric grids to support the transmission of intermittent sources of renewable energy, property for carbon capture or sequestration, property designed to refine or blend fuels or produce energy conservation technologies or other advanced energy property designed to reduce greenhouse gases. To qualify, a project must be certified by the U.S. Treasury, which will consult with the U.S. DOE and consider a variety of factors including commercial viability, job creation, net impact on greenhouse gas emissions, newness of technology and project time completion.
• Provides $16.8 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, including $2.5 billion for applied research, development, demonstration and deployment activities to include $800 million for projects related to biomass. This particular area of funding also includes $300 million for the Alternative Fueled Vehicles Pilot Grant Program, which will be established under the U.S. DOE Clean Cities Program and will provide grants certain public or nonprofit entities for the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles, fuel cell vehicles or hybrid vehicles and the installation or acquisition of infrastructure necessary to support the vehicles.
• Provides a total of $300 million to the Department of Defense for research, development, testing and evaluation, including pilot projects, demonstrations and energy efficient manufacturing enhancements. Funds are for improvements in energy generation and efficiency, transmission, regulation and storage and for use on military installations and within operational forces, to include research and development of energy for fuel cells, wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources to include biofuels and bioenergy.
• Provides $4.5 billion for the Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability program.
• Provides $150 million in budget authority for rural business loans and grants, which will support $3.01 billion in rural business loans and grants. Of this amount, $2.99 million is for guaranteed business and industry loans and $20 million is for rural business enterprise grants.
• Provides $6 billion for the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program for the cost of guaranteed loans authorize by section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The loan program would provide loan guarantees for renewable technologies and transmission technologies. The $6 billion in appropriated funds is expected to support more than $60 billion in loans for these projects.
• Provides $15 million to the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management for wildland fire management. The funds should be used for high priority hazardous fuels reduction projects on federal lands.
• $500 million to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service for Wildland Fire Management, including $250 million for hazardous fuels reduction, forest health protection, rehabilitation and hazard mitigation activities on federal lands. The bill allows the Forest Service to use up to $50 million to make competitive grants for the purpose of creating incentives for increased use of biomass from federal and non-federal forested lands.

A copy of the conference report Click here to read the PDF and the joint explanantory statement of the conference committee are available at the U.S. House of Representatives website.

Full text of bill is available on the Library of Congress website. Click here to read