10 March 2016, Science Daily, Cutting cattle carbon: Bad breath and flatulence. Cattle have bad breath and commonly suffer from severe, chronic flatus generating large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas and a driver of anthropogenic global warming. There is an obvious answer to this problem, stop breeding cattle. Unfortunately a large proportion of us enjoy our bovine dairy products and meat too much. Until synthetic products that are indistinguishable from the real thing become available and accepted by milk drinkers and steak fans, we will have to look into alternative approaches to reducing the carbon emissions from these creatures. Writing in International Journal of Global Warming, Abdelmajid Moumen, Ghizlane Azizi, Kaoutar Ben Chekroun and Mourad Baghour of the Université Mohamed 1er, in Nador, Morocco, have reviewed the various approaches to reducing methane emissions from cattle and other livestock. These approaches involve improved genetic selection through breeding, modification of dietary composition, or through rumen microbial manipulation, vaccines against the methanogenic bacteria that generate the methane in these animals and various other techniques. It is possible that among the approaches or with a combination of approaches there might be a way to reduce the global burden of methane emissions from livestock. Read More here
Tag Archives: Emissions
8 March 2016, Energy Post, New data debunks clean energy claims Apple, Amazon, Google. Recent claims by owners of large data centers that a large part of their operations are powered by renewable energy have skeptics coming out of from under their solar panels. Now, there is hard data proving that skepticism is valid, writes energy consultant and author Jim Pierobon. He applauds the efforts of companies like Amazon, Apple and Google to strive for clean energy, but calls for more transparency on their actual practices. A recent report by Lux Research casts a large shadow on some data centers’ clean-energy claims. Scientists at Lux Research found the data centers frequently draw on far more coal-fired power with its much higher emissions than renewables. Companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple should be careful about the claims they make, lest they come across partly as PR stunts. Amazon’s claims are off-base in 23 of its data centers in Virginia. It is less than transparent about how it calculates its emissions “They aren’t doing as much as they claim about sourcing their electricity,” said Ory Zik, Lux Vice President of Analytics. Full-time Data centers need a lot of power to run 24/7. They cannot rely on the intermittent supplies that come from solar and wind energy systems. As a result, they must draw electricity from the regional power grid. Solar and wind systems they have deployed or are developing can help supply renewable power to their centers and to power grids. But they supply nowhere near enough electricity on their own to run operate data centers reliably full-time. Read More here
4 March 2016, Energy Post, BP says not to worry, good times will return. Aside from minor adjustments, BP’s latest Energy Outlook is mostly business-as-usual, writes Fereidoon Sionshansi, president of Menlo Energy Economics and publisher of the newsletter EEnergy Informer.BP seems to have missed out entirely on the agreement reached in Paris in December 2015, as if it did not happen, notes Sionshansi: “The Outlook seems more of a wish list than a forecast.” BP‘s annual Energy Outlook is always worth a read even if you do not agree with BP’s oil-centric outlook. The 2016 edition, which looks out to 2030, is no exception. To its credit, BP is slowly and grudgingly acknowledging that the future may evolve rather differently than the past – e.g., lower global demand growth rates, changes in the mix of fuels that supply the demand, growth of renewables especially in the power generation sector – yet it seems reluctant or unable to abandon the status quo, the history with which it is familiar and comfortable. Call it organizational inertia, or bias, common among all oil majors. Few would fundamentally disagree that at $30 a barrel, oil is too cheap – certainly compared to highs of 100+ in 2014. But given the supply glut and fierce competition among many producers it is less clear how soon the rebalancing will take place, to what extent prices will rebound and for how long. US shale producers, for example, are likely to be back in business once prices rise above $50, dampening the price recovery. Read More here
3 March 2016, Energy Post, Exxon’s never-ending big dig. ExxonMobil not only appears to have ignored its own scientists when they warned about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions in the 1980s, the company even took advantage of its inside knowledge by leasing large tracts for Arctic oil exploration, writes famous author and activist Bill McKibben in a revealing essay. What is worse, says McKibben, is that even today Exxon continues to spend billions finding and producing ever more fossil fuels. But he notes that “revulsion is growing”: Big Oil may yet suffer the same fate as Big Tobacco. Courtesy of TomDispatch.com. Here’s the story so far. We have the chief legal representatives of the eighth and 16th largest economies on Earth (California and New York) probing the biggest fossil fuel company on Earth (ExxonMobil), while both Democratic presidential candidates are demanding that the federal Department of Justice join the investigation of what may prove to be one of the biggest corporate scandals in American history. And that’s just the beginning. As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing now – entirely legally – is helping push the planet over the edge and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human story. “We will adapt to this … It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions” Back in the fall, you might have heard something about how Exxon had covered up what it knew early on about climate change. Maybe you even thought to yourself: that doesn’t surprise me. But it should have. Even as someone who has spent his life engaged in the bottomless pit of greed that is global warming, the news and its meaning came as a shock: we could have avoided, it turns out, the last quarter century of pointless climate debate. Read More here