m&%:·;.!
environment
Industry Considers C0 2 Reduction Methods
M
any extreme claims have been made about the effects on the U.S. economy of reducing greenhouse gases. Some say that cutting carbon dioxide emissions would put millions of people out of work, some say it would produce only positive benefits. But a recent conference in Baltimore and a new study have taken a more middle-of-theroad approach to the issue. The meeting was organized by the International Climate Change Partnership, an industry and trade association coalition. Industry analysts described various ways by which energy-intensive industries can reduce their carbon dioxide emissions while remaining competitive in the global marketplace. And the study, "Energy Innovations," analyzes national energy policies and technologies that can curb global warming emissions and at the same time lower energy costs. The report was prepared by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a number of think tanks that deal with energy issues. W. Ross Stevens HI, head of consulting firm Stevens Associates, Wilmington, Del., told meeting participants that "the threats from global climate change are large and real." Since the chemical industry consumes a substantial part of the energy used in the U.S.—22% of the industry total—it must reduce its emissions, he said. But to do this, the development of "fundamentally different product separation tecliniques is critical," he said. Other avenues to reduced emissions include using biological processes for materials production and developing chemical processes that rim at lower temperatures. Developing and using these technologies will require substantial investments in R&D and in equipment, he explained. Consequently, "saying that we have to reduce emissions tomorrow or the next day will hurt the industry," he said. The cement industry is also recognized as a major carbon dioxide source. Michael A. Nisbet of JAN Consultants, Montreal, said that producing 1 ton of cement today produces 1 ton of carbon dioxide. Half of the carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuel, the other half is from calcination of the limestone. There is no way to reduce the carbon 30 JUNE 30, 1997 C&EN
dioxide from calcination, he said, but the cement industry can reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by replacing older, less energy-efficient kilns with precalciner units and with some product changes, such as intergrinding fly ash and blastfurnace slag into cement, Nisbet said. In the world's petroleum refining industry, new catalysts will be required to make a major dent in the 5 million barrels of oil per day that is currently used worldwide to provide energy for refineries, said Martin R. Tallett, president of EnSys Energy & Systems, Flemington, N.J. Carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced as well if cars were built that ran on lower octane gasoline, he said. Low-octane fuel requires less refining than high-octane. Kenneth F. Kraly, director of engineering at Cosmair Clark, Clark, N.J., a producer of L'Oreal hair care products, pointed out that there is much that almost any individual company can do to reduce emissions. "To have a successful environmental program, you have to get people involved." he said. Cosmair has reduced its energy use through daily energy audits, a computerized preventive maintenance system, the use of outside air for interior cooling, high-efficiency motors, and waste reduction—which also cuts the cost of waste removal—Kraly said. Cosmair also joined
Kraly: individual savings add up
EPA's Green Lights program. That required a $180,000 investment in more efficient light bulbs and other equipment but produces annual savings of $158,000. Upgrades of a boiler-burner system cost the company $100,000 and saves an equal amount each year. "What we did at our company spearheaded L'Oreal worldwide to imitate us," Kraly said. "The concepts are the same wherever you work. Most companies can find many ways to save energy if they make the needed investments, involve all the workers," and realize that small individual savings add up, he explained. A broad-based carbon tax is recurrently suggested as a way to force carbon dioxide emissions down, but several analysts at the meeting said a carbon tax could have a veiy negative effect on the competitiveness of energy-intensive U.S. industries. For example, if energy prices rose 11% as a result of a U.S. carbon tax, U.S. cement production would fall from 74 million metric tons annually to about 54 million metric tons, as imports became more competitive, Nisbet warned. "Energy Innovations" describes government policies and technologies the authors believe would result in lower carbon dioxide emissions without relying on an economywide carbon tax. One such policy is an investment tax credit. This would speed up the modernization of industrial equipment by providing a 10% tax credit for investment in new, more efficient manufacturing equipment, according to the report. The report advocates several steps that could be taken to lower emissions from the utility sector. One would require that an increasing percentage of energy come from renewable resources such as wind, biomass, and the sun. A credit-trading market mechanism would give each utility the flexibility to meet the standard or buy credits from a utility that has a higher renewables content than required. A similar trading system would be set up for carbon dioxide emissions. Other technologies described in the NRDC report that could help lower emissions are fuel cells for electricity generation in industry and vehicles, and membrane technologies, which can purify chemicals and treat waste with much less energy than traditional methods. By 2010, said Daniel A. Lashof, senior scientist at NRDC, such policies and technologies "would lower annual fuel costs in the U.S. by $131 billion, a net savings of $530 per household." Bette Hileman
