Chemical Engineers and Global Climate Change Bruce R

Chemical Engineers and Global Climate Change Bruce R. Peachey, P. Eng. , MCIC President, New Paradigm Engineering Ltd. April, 2000

Global Climate Change - a Fuzzy Ball u u u What are the viewpoints on the issue? Which viewpoints meet “the balance of evidence”? Do we have to choose one view? Picking “robust solutions” Chemical Engineering finding solutions

Six Climate Change Views u u u Warming Not Happening Real Problem is Waste of Fossil Fuels GHGs Trapping Solar Heat Energy Use Warming Atmosphere Human Impact Minor or Beneficial Can’t Afford the Solutions

Warming Not Happening u u Various reports and data adjustments both ways Historical record is not long • What should we expect coming out of a little ice age? u Motivation and accuracy of measurement not constant • Are we comparing apples and oranges

Global Temperature Increases u u Changes in measurement, motivation & technology, might have caused two step changes upwards in temperatures 1800 - 1920 best global readings would be near water - No demand for accuracy, just how does it feel (how hot and how cold) Three temperature scales in use Reaumer close to Centigrade • (0 o. R= 0 o. C; 80 o. R= 100 o. C so Reaumer gives lower readings)

Global Temperature Increases u u u Step 1 - 1917 recognized that tropical and arctic air masses exist and mapping movement of the fronts allows better weather forecasts. Focus on humidity and accurate temperatures Awareness of wet-bulb/dry-bulb grows. Link to airports inland instead of seaports on the coast. Standardization of procedures and higher frequency of readings.

Global Temperature Increases u Step 2 - 1980 -90 Transition to digital temperature measurement. Truncated readings? • “Global cooling” in N. A. when Canada went metric?

Real Problem is Waste of Fossil Fuels u u Sources of easy to access fuels running out At some point we will reach energy breakeven • i. e. energy required to recover = energy recovered • Some major deposits (e. g. natural gas hydrates or coal bed methane) may not breakeven. u Future supply is a big unkown • Anywhere from 30 -100+ years • What will be the next energy source?

Alberta on the Balance Air Emissions Only u Alberta 1994 CO 2 emissions = 145 Mt/yr • Carbon = 39 Mt/yr • 27% of Canada’s emissions (<10% of pop)

Alberta Overall Carbon Balance Alberta Carbon Inventory All Sources = 300, 000+ Mt (? ) Natural Gas Exports = 62 Mt/yr Agri & Wood Exports = 6 Mt/yr Petroleum Exports = 79 Mt/yr Coal Exports = 11 Mt/yr Net to Atmosphere Petro-Chemicals Exports = 31 Mt/yr = 7 Mt/yr

Top 16 Carbon “Emitters” tonnes/Capita u u u u U. S. Virgin Islands (21. 6); Qatar (16. 9); United Arab Emirates (11. 5); Luxembourg (7. 6) Aruba (6. 9); Brunei Darussalem (6. 8) Bahrain (6. 5); Netherlands Antilles (6. 3) Wake Island (5. 2); United States (5. 2); Falkland Islands (5. 1); Singapore (4. 9) Trinidad & Tobago (4. 5); St. Pierre & Michelon (4. 3) Australia (4. 2); Canada (4. 1)

GHGs Trapping Solar Heat u u Theory has some holes Warming leads GHG increase • I. e. effect leads cause? • Most assume this is a Data error!? u Current CO 2 levels unprecedented? • Yet it has been over 16 -18 times higher in the past. • Was in the air long before there was free O 2 u Shouldn’t GHG effect cause relatively uniform heating?

The Case of the “Missing Carbon” The Facts u Global Carbon Emissions: • Emissions fossil fuel and cement = 5. 4 Gt/yr • Deforestation & land-use = 0. 5 -2. 5 Gt/yr u Carbon Accumulation in Atmosphere: • u Calculated increase = 3. 4 Gt/yr Remainder (2 -4 Gt/yr) is Missing! • Unexplained sink of CO 2 in the northern hemisphere • Carbon only varied within 5% in past 9, 000 years now rising at a rate of 4%/decade

The Carbon Cycle Atmosphere 700 Gt 100 Gt Oceans 39, 100 Gt Combustion 5 Gt 113 Gt Combustion. 5 to 2 Gt Fossil Fuels & Shale 19, 300 Gt Vegetation & Humus 1, 760 Gt Source: “Introduction to Environmental Science”

The Sink and the Sewer Atmosphere 700 Gt +/-? 100 Gt Oceans 39, 100 Gt Other Storage 113 Gt (-. 4 Gt? ) Combustion 5 Gt Combustion. 5 to 2 Gt 1 -1. 5 Gt Fossil Fuels & Shale 19, 300 Gt +/-? 0. 6 Gt Vegetation & Humus 1, 760 Gt Source: “Introduction to Environmental Science”

Energy Use Warming Atmosphere u Current energy use enough to warm atmosphere 1 degree C per year. • 450 EJ to warm atmosphere 1 degree C • Estimate 1996 energy use was 550 EJ. • Most use ---> Warming of Air u This was pointed out by a British chemist • Does not seem to be included in climate models? u Water vapour from combustion also not included?

Climate Indicator = Energy Use u “Measured” Global Energy Output= 550 EJ (‘ 96) • Energy to heat atmosphere 1 degree C = 450 EJ u u Adding energy makes things more energetic! Water vapour impacts vs. “Measurable GHG’s” • “Weather” driven by humidity more than temperature » Rainfall on U. S. Eastern Seaboard has a 7 day cycle » Humidity measurement key to weather prediction (1917) » Need predict humidity changes to predict weather (future) • “Heat Pipe Effect” moves energy to Arctic air masses » Temperature increase greater at higher latitudes » Rapid increase in glacier melting

Human Impact Minor or Beneficial u u Main impact on global temperature is solar energy output CO 2 is necessary for life. • The more CO 2 the more energy there is for life. • The more energy the more diversity in living things. u Organisms transfer CO 2 from air and oceans into long term storage in sediments. • Less than 0. 1 to 1 billion years of supply left. • Versus 5 -10 billion years before the sun expands!

Can’t Afford the Solutions u u u Costly and no other benefit to collect most CO 2 from fossil fuel sources. Wind, “Biomass”, Solar, Nuclear, Hydroelectric and other Energy supplies have their own problems. Conserving energy is usually cost effective. • Side benefit is less energy produced and less GHG, water vapour produced, but more wealth generated.

Social Indicator = Conspicuous Consumption u Easiest way to achieve “Environmental Protection at an Affordable Cost” is to Reduce Conspicuous Consumption • “Perrier Water” at $3/l (mostly cost to transport glass and water) vs. >$0. 03/l from the tap • Only eating “perfect tomatoes” • New vs. Used (Social life vs. Design Life) • Buy vs. Rent or Lease (Status symbol vs. utility) u Social Issues require education and new role models.

Toxicity Indicator = Cost u Why High Tech materials are expensive: • Large resource input (energy, people) • High purity requires high processing cost » “Pure water” vs. “Clean Water” • Scarce components = large volumes of reject • Specialized processing (acids, heavy metals, solvents) • All lead to more emissions of toxic or potentially toxic materials u High cost means high emissions somewhere

Economic Indicator = Positive Economics u Economics are a reality • Environmentalists and engineers need to get paid • “Ethical funds” and stocks have to show a return • Financial results are society’s “scorecard” u u Best “environmental” projects make $ for someone Best “economic”projects minimize environmental impacts “Affordable” = “Profitable” More profitable = Quicker and more widespread implementation

The Balance of Evidence - Says. . . u u u Warming IS Happening Waste of Fossil Fuels IS a Real Problem GHGs Trapping SOME Solar Heat Energy Use IS Warming Atmosphere Human Impact COULD BE Harmful or Beneficial Can’t Afford SOME Solutions

Does It Matter Which View is Right? u u u Likely no one view is entirely right. By the time we are sure which is most right it may be too late. Best strategy is to find “Robust Solutions” which: • • Reduce Energy Waste Reduce rate of Fossil Fuel Consumption Reduce GHG emissions (CO 2, CH 4 & H 2 O) Create Wealth (improve average standard of living)

Picking “Robust Solutions” Best projects for Environmental Protection: u u u Don’t stimulate more conspicuous consumption Net energy demand reductions on Life Cycle Basis Don’t create other problems (toxics) Positive economics to motivate use Go in the right order: » First Reduce » Second Reuse » Third Recycle

Reduce u Co-Generation in Plants • Should take-off with deregulation --> Push it! • Make better use of energy generated u Simplicity of Design • Less hardware--> Less cost--> Less energy to make u Biochemical to Replace “Pots & Kettles” • Low energy routes to the same products u Influence Public • Help them select the lowest energy life cycle products?

Reuse u Close materials loops • Find uses for all concentrated streams • Switch to a process which generates “useful” waste u Design Products for Reuse • Standardize materials & packaging to allow refill • Design for secondary uses u Stop calling things “waste” streams • By-products looking for a use.

Recycle u Don’t use non-recyclable materials • Avoid vinyl-chlorides • Avoid composite materials u Develop small scale, local recycling processes to reduce transportation energy • Community level composting & fibre recycling u Plan Landfill Sites to Allow for Mining • Segregate metals, asphalt, biomass, other hydrocarbons

New Paradigms for Robust Projects Mostly from Energy and Petrochemicals Industries: u u u Hydrocarbon Vent Remediation Oilfield Water Management Cogeneration Use of Pure Byproduct Streams Energy Recovery

CH 4 Emissions by Industry Sector Total 1995 = 1594 kt Ref: CAPP Pub #1999 -0009

Hydrocarbon Vents – Heavy Oil Venting Well Test Case - High Volume Tank at 65 - 85 deg C Casing Vent - #1 Catalytic Heater Tank Vent - #2

Hydrocarbon Vents – Conventional Oil Or

Hydrocarbon Vents – Natural Gas Control Valves Power Destroy VOC’s Metering Pumps Fuel

Water and Oil Production in Western Canada Water Production Oil Production

Oilfield Water Management DHOWS Minimizes Energy Use u. Reduces Brine Flow by Aquifers u. Prolongs Well Life u. Reduces Surface Facilities u. Reduces Operating Costs u. Reduces Surface Spills u C-FER/NPEL

Oilfield Water Management – Same Well Source/Injector/Recycle Lake or River Source Move toward “Ideal” Cap rock Oil Leg Water Leg Underlying Aquifer DHOWS Pump

Cogeneration – Compressor Sites Canadian Sales Pipeline Fuel Use* = 0. 24 tcf/yr (4. 4% of sales) Similar Volume for U. S. Portions of Pipelines #2 • #1 Only Requires Power Deregulation • #2 Adapt Geothermal Technology • Distributed generation – “free” fuel • Trans. Canada Power – 40 MW plants * Source NRCan Energy Outlook #1

Gas Transportation Energy Distribution Ref: CAPP Pub #1999 -0009

Cogeneration – Gas Plants Gas Production Fuel Use* = 0. 43 tcf/yr (7. 8% of sales) H 2 S Converted to Sulphur* = 0. 19 tcf/yr (exothermic) Compression, Dehydration, Liquids and Sulphur Removal • #1 Potential of over 1, 000 MW from major sour gas plants. (RTM/CAPP ‘ 91) • #2 Potential of 80 MW from fractionation plants. (RTM/CAPP ’ 91) • #3 Adapt Geothermal Technology #2 Fractionation * Source CAPP 1996 Statistics #3 #1 Sweetening

Cogeneration – Major Sites Total Planned in Alta/Sask Alone > 1, 000 MW Petrochemical Add Cogen Refinery Oil Sands Heavy Oil Petrochemical Refinery Oil Sands Heavy Oil • Initially only requires deregulation • Secondary opportunities for other sources. • E. g. Steam vents in Cold Lake, • E. g. Thermomechanical Pulp Mills

Use of By-Product Streams – CO/CO 2 e. g. Syncrude/Suncor 1996 = 12 Mt/yr CO/CO 2 Biomass & Bugs Bioreactors CO/CO 2 CH 4 Fischer-Tropsch • Potential Products • Ethanol (on-site fuel) • On-site Fuels • Acetone • Diluent for Blending CO 2 Compression & Pipelines • Potential Uses • Oil Recovery • Other Users

Use of By-Product Streams - Shingles Estimated Size of Stream in Alberta = 120 t/d Re-roofing Asphalt Remove Nails & Wood Landfills Roads/Highways Shingle Manufacture • Value of asphalt in landfill streams = $40/t • Cost to dump in landfill = $40 -$100/t • Replace buying raw asphalt & gravel • Needs standards for use in Roads • Better filler for Potholes?

Energy Recovery – Water Users Hydraulic Power Recovery Power or heat generation Municipal Pump Stations End-user Pressure Reduction • Large users might be economic • High volume water users • Also require heat or power

Energy Recovery – Gas Users Pneumatic Power Recovery Power or cooling Compressor Stations End-user Pressure Reduction • Large users might be economic • High volume gas users • Also require power or cooling • Utility Pressure Letdown Stations

Summary u Environmental Protection Can meet objectives of Environment, Economics and Security of Supply u Solutions possible with focused changes: Social Education & Motivation Technical Economics & Regulation Potential Opportunity with R&D u Key to Affordable Solutions: What if……. Why not………. .

Contact Information Advanced Technology Centre 9650 -20 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta Canada T 6 N 1 G 1 tel: 780. 450. 3613 fax: 780. 462. 7297 email: info@newparadigm. ab. ca web: www. newparadigm. ab. ca