Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Bioenergy in Ontario, Canada

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Mitigating Curtailment and Carbon Emissions through Load Migration between Data Centers

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction in the electricity sector: Implications of increasing renewable energy penetration in Ghana's electricity generation mix

Energy-related activities are a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A growing body of knowledge clearly depicts the links between human activities and climate change. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other human activities has released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other heat-trapping GHG emissions into the atmosphere and thus increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 emissions. The main human activities that emit CO2 emissions are (1) the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, (2) the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, and (3) industrial processes such as the production and consumption of minerals and chemicals, accounting for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total ...

Harmonizing the quantification of CCS GHG emission reductions through oil and natural gas industry project guidelines

Exergetic life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from renewables

As part of the Net Zero Carbon Water Cycle Program (NZCWCP) for Victoria state in Australia, we have sought to understand the potential to reduce household energy consumption and related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by influencing water use. Digital metering data disaggregated into 57 million discrete water usage events across 105 households at a resolution of 10 millilitres at 10 second intervals from June 2017 to March 2020, from a previous Yarra Valley Water (Melbourne, Australia) study, was analysed, together with the dynamic relationship between the multiple energy sources (natural gas, grid electricity, solar) used to heat water for showers in each hour of the day. Water-related energy (WRE) use, including water desalination and treatment, pumping, heating, wastewater collection and treatment, comprised 12.6% of Australia’s primary energy use in 2019. Water heating (by natural gas and electricity) comprised the largest component of WRE use for across residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Furthermore, 69% of Victoria’s total water usage was by residential customers in 2020-2021. WRE GHG emissions were around 3.8% of Victoria’s total GHG emissions in 2018. Showers (~50% of residential WRE), system losses (~27% of residential WRE), and clothes washers (~9% of residential WRE) are the three largest components of WRE consumption. The main objective of this work is the creation of industry-accessible tools to improve knowledge and management options from the understanding of reductions in cost and GHG emissions from household showering WRE use. Potential options considered, to reduce water and energy use, as well as associated GHG emissions and customer utility bills, include (a) behaviour management such as water and energy pricing to change time of use behaviours, and (b) the adoption of efficient shower head improvements. Shower WRE and GHG emissions were found able to be strongly impacted by small changes in daily routines. GHG emissions reduction from showering could be reduced up to 20 (in summer) - 22% (in winter) by shifting demand time of showering or replacing residential showerheads. Extrapolated to state and Australian scales, reductions in water usage could be up to 14 GL (Victoria) and 144 GL (Australia), and reductions in GHG emissions 1,600 ktCO2eq (Victoria) and 17,300 ktCO2eq (Australia). It provides fundamental new information which could inform a suite of new management options to impact water-related energy from showers, and related GHG emissions and customer water and energy cost.

Simple SummaryLivestock accounts for an estimated 80% of total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, making abatement of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock a high-priority challenge facing animal nutritionists. Mitigating greenhouse gases in ruminants without reducing animal production is desirable both as a strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and as a way of improving dietary feed efficiency. The inclusion of feed additives in the diets of ruminants can reduce energy losses as methane, which typically reduces animal performance and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. The present study evaluated the abatement potential of nine essential oil blends to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The inclusion of the blends resulted in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and in vitro apparent dry matter digestibility with higher values noted for the control treatment. A similar trend was noted for in vitro truly dry matter digestibility with higher values noted in the control treatment. The efficiency of microbial production was greater for the blends. The inclusion of the blends affected the total and molar proportion of volatile fatty acid concentrations. Overall, inclusion of the blends modified the rumen function resulting in improved efficiency of microbial production.The current study evaluated nine essential oil blends (EOBs) for their effects on ruminal in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), efficiency of microbial production, total short-chain fatty acid concentration (SCFA), total gas, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions using two dietary substrates (high forage and high concentrate). The study was arranged as a 2 × 2 × 9 + 1 factorial design to evaluate the effects of the nine EOBs on the two dietary substrates at two time points (6 and 24 h). The inclusion levels of the EOBs were 0 µL (control) and 100 µL with three laboratory replicates. Substrate × EOBs × time interactions were not significant (p > 0.05) for total gas and greenhouse gas emissions. The inclusion of EOBs in the diets resulted in a reduction (p < 0.001) in GHG emissions, except for EOB1 and EOB8 in the high concentrate diet at 6 h and for EOB8 in the high forage diet at 24 h of incubation. Diet type had no effect on apparent IVDMD (IVADMD) whereas the inclusion of EOBs reduced (p < 0.05) IVADMD with higher values noted for the control treatment. The efficiency of microbial production was greater (p < 0.001) for EOB treatments except for EOB1 inclusion in the high forage diet. The inclusion of EOBs affected (p < 0.001) the total and molar proportion of volatile fatty acid concentrations. Overall, the inclusion of the EOBs modified the rumen function resulting in improved efficiency of microbial production. Both the apparent and truly degraded DM was reduced in the EOB treatments. The inclusion of EOBs also resulted in reduced GHG emissions in both diets, except for EOB8 in the high forage diet which was slightly higher than the control treatment.

For all its cachet, you might think that hybrid drivetrain technology is inherently green. But only 13 of 34 hybrid vehicles assessed achieve better than a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and just 3 exceed a 40% reduction, according to an evaluation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).1 Moreover, reductions in GHG emissions do not necessarily correlate with reductions in other toxic emissions. Like any engine output–improving technology, hybrid technology can boost both fuel efficiency and power—but the more you boost one, the less you can boost the other. That dichotomy spurred the UCS to develop its “hybrid scorecard,” which rates each hybrid according to how well it lives up to its promise of reducing air pollution.2 All the vehicles were from model year 2011 except for one, the 2012 Infiniti M Hybrid. First the UCS scored each hybrid on how much it reduced its GHG emissions relative to its conventional counterpart, on a scale of zero (least reduction) to 10 (greatest reduction). These scores reflect the percentage in fuel efficiency gain. For example, the Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg3 compared with 28 mpg for the comparable Toyota Matrix. This represents a 44.0% reduction in GHG emissions, earning the Prius a GHG score of 9.4. At the bottom of the scale, the 21-mpg hybrid VW Touareg reduces GHG emissions only 10% over the 19-mpg conventional Toureg, for a score of 0.0. With a 46% improvement, the luxury Lincoln MKZ Hybrid had the greatest reduction over its conventional counterpart. The UCS also scored hybrids for absolute emissions (rather than relative to the conventional model) of air pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. These scores, on a scale of zero (dirtiest) to 10 (cleanest), are based on California certifications for tailpipe emissions. As the scorecard showed, a vehicle that emits less heat-trapping gases may not necessarily emit less of other air pollutants. For example, the Mercedes Benz S400 Hybrid scored 9 on air pollution reduction, alongside the Prius and the Lincoln MKZ, but only 1.3 on GHG emissions. HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Nonluxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score “Hybrid technology doesn’t add additional challenges [to reducing exhaust pollutants] that can’t be addressed through design of the vehicle’s emission controls,” says Don Anair, senior vehicles analyst at the UCS. “Numerous manufacturers of hybrids are meeting the lowest emissions levels. Hybrid manufacturers who aren’t delivering the lowest smog-forming emissions have chosen not to do so.” Each vehicle’s air pollution and GHG scores were averaged into a total “environmental improvement score,” again with the MKZ and the Prius leading the pack, and the Touareg scraping bottom. The UCS also scored “hybrid value” (the cost of reducing GHG emissions in dollars per percent reduction) and “forced features” (options you must buy with the hybrid whether you want them or not). HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Luxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, compliments the scorecard for illustrating that hybrid technology is not automatically green. He says, “We should improve the efficiency of all vehicles, and [hybrid technology] is just one technology that can get us there if applied with that goal in mind.” Nonetheless, Jamie Kitman, the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine, questions the wisdom of emphasizing percentage improvement in gas mileage rather than absolute miles per gallon. At 21 mpg, the hybrid Cadillac Escalade 4WD represents a 29% improvement over the 15-mpg conventional model, saving nearly 2 gallons per 100 miles. But the hybrid Escalade is still a gas guzzler, and Kitman says he wishes people would see through the marketing that encourages them to buy SUVs and “crossovers” rather than ordinary cars, which are more efficient than either. Says Anair, “The scorecard shows that automakers can pair hybrid technology with advanced emission controls to help tackle climate change while reducing the health impacts from breathing polluted air.” However, he adds, alluding to the stark variation in how much hybrid technology boosted fuel efficiency, “Not all automakers are delivering on the full promise of this technology.”

Alternative methodologies for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from crude palm oil (CPO) production by a wet extraction mill in Thailand were developed. The production of 1 t of CPO from mills with biogas capture (four mills) and without biogas capture (two mills) in 2010 produced GHG emissions of 935 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq), on average. Wastewater treatment plants with and without biogas capture produced GHG emissions of 64 and 47% of total GHG emission, respectively. The rest of the emissions mostly originated from the acquisition of fresh fruit bunches. The establishment of a biogas recovery system must be the first step in the reduction of GHG emissions. It could reduce GHG emissions by 373 kgCO2eq/t of CPO. The main source of GHG emission of 163 kgCO2eq/t of CPO from the mills with biogas capture was the open pond used for cooling of wastewater before it enters the biogas recovery system. The reduction of GHG emissions could be accomplished by (i) using a wastewater-dispersed unit for cooling, (ii) using a covered pond, (iii) enhancing the performance of the biogas recovery system, and (iv) changing the stabilization pond to an aerated lagoon. By using options i-iv, reductions of GHG emissions of 216, 208, 92.2, and 87.6 kgCO2eq/t of CPO, respectively, can be achieved.

Greenhouse gas contribution and emission reduction potential prediction of China's aluminum industry

The dairy Carbon Offset Scenario Tool (COST) was developed to explore the influence of various abatement strategies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Australian dairy farms. COST is a static spreadsheet-based tool that uses Australian GHG inventory methodologies, algorithms and emission factors to estimate carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions of a dairy farm system. One of the key differences between COST and other inventory-based dairy GHG emissions calculators is the ability to explore the effect of reducing total farm emissions on farm income, assuming the strategy was compliant with Kyoto rules for carbon offsets. COST provides ten abatement strategies across the four broad theme areas of diet manipulation, herd and breeding management, feedbase management and waste management. Each abatement strategy contains four sections; two sections for data entry (baseline farm data specific to the strategy explored and strategy-specific variables) and two sections for results (milk production results and GHG/economic-related results). Key sensitive variables for each strategy, identified from prior research, and prices for milk production and carbon offsets are adjusted through up/down buttons, which allows users to quickly explore the impact of these variables on farm emissions and profitability. For example, if the cost to implement an abatement strategy is doubled, what carbon offset income would be required to negate this additional cost? Results are presented as changes in carbon offset income, strategy implementation cost, additional milk production income and net farm income on a per annum and on a per GHG emissions intensity of milk production basis. COST currently contains a comprehensive range of strategies for GHG abatement, although some strategies are still in development. As new technologies or farm management practices leading to a reduction in GHG emission become available, these too will be incorporated into COST. To date, two dairy-specific abatement methodologies have been legislated as part of Australia’s commitment to reducing on-farm GHG emissions through it’s the carbon offset scheme, the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and are incorporated into COST. These are the ‘Destruction of methane generated from dairy manure in covered anaerobic ponds’ and the ‘Methodology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in milking cows through feeding dietary additives’. As an example, we explored the mitigation option Replace supplements with a source of dietary fats (reflecting the second above-mentioned CFI legislated abatement strategy) as feeding a diet higher in dietary fats has been shown to reduce enteric methane emissions per unit of feed intake. A 400 milking herd was fed a baseline diet of 2.6% dietary fat. By replacing grain with hominy meal, at a rate of 5.0 kg dry matter/ cow per day for 90 days during the 3 summer months, the summer diet fat concentration was increased to 6.4%. Enteric methane emissions were reduced by 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (t CO 2 e) per annum for the farm. Waste methane and nitrous oxide emissions were also reduced by 0.5 and 1.6 t CO 2 e/annum, respectively. However, as reductions from these two sources of GHG emissions do not qualify for payment with this CFI methodology, their reduction could not be included as an offset income. At a carbon price of $20/ t CO 2 e, the reduction in enteric methane emissions was valued at $800/farm. The implementation cost of replacing grain with hominy was valued at $18,000/farm due to the hominy meal costing an additional $100/t dry matter compared to the grain. However, the additional milk production achieved due to the higher energy concentration of the diet resulted in an additional 70,200 litres and based on a summer milk price of $0.38/ litre, this equated to an additional income from milk valued at $26,676/farm. The overall result was a net increase in farm profit of $9,476/farm when paid on a reduction in total GHG emissions. COST can quickly allow users to ascertain the level of GHG emission reduction possible with various mitigation options and explore the sensitivity of key variables on GHG emissions and farm profitability.

The purpose of this research is to empirically reveal the effect of external technology R&amp;D cooperation network diversity (ETRDCND) on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and energy saving of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Besides this, this study aims at analyzing the roles of production time reduction and absorptive capacity in the relationship between SMEs’ ETRDCND and their GHG emission reduction and energy saving. GHG emission and energy usage have been playing a crucial role in aggravating global warming. Global warming results in big problems such as worldwide unusual weather and health disorders. SMEs play a substantial role in the industrial growth of the global economy, which increases GHG emission and energy consumption. By performing the ordinary least squares regression with the data of 3300 South Korean SMEs, this research reveals four points. First, ETRDCND positively influences SMEs’ GHG emission reduction and energy saving. Second, production time reduction perfectly mediates the relationship between SMEs’ ETRDCND and their GHG emission reduction and energy saving. Third, the mediating role of production time reduction in this relationship is moderated by SMEs’ absorptive capacity. Fourth, ETRDCND significantly influences SMEs’ GHG emission reduction and their energy saving only if SMEs possess their own absorptive capacity.

Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory expanded the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model and incorporated the fuel economy and electricity use of alternative fuel/vehicle systems simulated by the Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT) to conduct a well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The WTW results were separately calculated for the blended charge-depleting (CD) and charge-sustaining (CS) modes of PHEV operation and then combined by using a weighting factor that represented the CD vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) share. As indicated by PSAT simulations of the CD operation, grid electricity accounted for a share of the vehicle's total energy use, ranging from 6% for a PHEV 10 to 24% for a PHEV 40, based on CD VMT shares of 23% and 63%, respectively. In addition to the PHEV's fuel economy and type of on-board fuel, the marginal electricity generation mix used to charge the vehicle impacted the WTW results, especially GHG emissions. Three North American Electric Reliability Corporation regions (4, 6, and 13) were selected for this analysis, because they encompassed large metropolitan areas (Illinois, New York, and California, respectively) and provided a significant variation of marginal generation mixes. The WTW results were also reported for the U.S. generation mix and renewable electricity to examine cases of average and clean mixes, respectively. For an all-electric range (AER) between 10 mi and 40 mi, PHEVs that employed petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel), a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85), and hydrogen were shown to offer a 40-60%, 70-90%, and more than 90% reduction in petroleum energy use and a 30-60%, 40-80%, and 10-100% reduction in GHG emissions, respectively, relative to an internal combustion engine vehicle that used gasoline. The spread of WTW GHG emissions among the different fuel production technologies and grid generation mixes was wider than the spread of petroleum energy use, mainly due to the diverse fuel production technologies and feedstock sources for the fuels considered in this analysis. The PHEVs offered reductions in petroleum energy use as compared with regular hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). More petroleum energy savings were realized as the AER increased, except when the marginal grid mix was dominated by oil-fired power generation. Similarly, more GHG emissions reductions were realized at higher AERs, except when the marginal grid generation mix was dominated by oil or coal. Electricity from renewable sources realized the largest reductions in petroleum energy use and GHG emissions for all PHEVs as the AER increased. The PHEVs that employ biomass-based fuels (e.g., biomass-E85 and -hydrogen) may not realize GHG emissions benefits over regular HEVs if the marginal generation mix is dominated by fossil sources. Uncertainties are associated with the adopted PHEV fuel consumption and marginal generation mix simulation results, which impact the WTW results and require further research. More disaggregate marginal generation data within control areas (where the actual dispatching occurs) and an improved dispatch modeling are needed to accurately assess the impact of PHEV electrification. The market penetration of the PHEVs, their total electric load, and their role as complements rather than replacements of regular HEVs are also uncertain. The effects of the number of daily charges, the time of charging, and the charging capacity have not been evaluated in this study. A more robust analysis of the VMT share of the CD operation is also needed.

A framework for assessing the effects of shock events on livestock and environment in sub-Saharan Africa: The COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Kenya