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 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

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

Various reports and data adjustments both ways Historical record is not long

• What should we expect coming out of a little ice age?

Motivation and accuracy of measurement not constant• Are we comparing apples and oranges

Global Temperature Increases

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

• (0oR= 0oC; 80oR= 100oC so Reaumer gives lower readings)

Global Temperature Increases

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

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

Deg C AverageActual 15.57 30.25 40.75 -10.18 35.85 28.06Digital 15.5 30.2 40.7 -10.1 35.8 28.025

Thermometer 15 30 40 -10 35 27.5Offset (C) -0.56

Deg FActual 60.026 86.45 105.35 13.676 96.53 90.508Digital 60 86.4 105.3 13.6 96.5 90.45

Thermometer 60 86 105 13 96 90Offset (C) -0.2822

Real Problem is Waste of Fossil Fuels 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.

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

Alberta 1994 CO2 emissions = 145 Mt/yr• Carbon = 39 Mt/yr• 27% of Canada’s emissions (<10% of pop)

Fossil Fuel Production

32%Utility Electrical

Generation31%

Heating10%

Petroleum Product Use

27%

Petroleum Exports = 79 Mt/yr

Natural Gas Exports = 62 Mt/yr

Alberta Overall Carbon Balance

Alberta Carbon Inventory All Sources = 300,000+ Mt (?)

Agri & Wood Exports = 6 Mt/yr

Petro-ChemicalsExports = 7 Mt/yr

Net to Atmosphere = 31 Mt/yr

Coal Exports = 11 Mt/yr

Top 16 Carbon “Emitters” tonnes/Capita

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

Theory has some holes Warming leads GHG increase

• I.e. effect leads cause?• Most assume this is a Data error!?

Current CO2 levels unprecedented? • Yet it has been over 16-18 times higher in the past.• Was in the air long before there was free O2

Shouldn’t GHG effect cause relatively uniform heating?

The Case of the “Missing Carbon”The Facts

Global Carbon Emissions:• Emissions fossil fuel and cement = 5.4 Gt/yr• Deforestation & land-use = 0.5-2.5 Gt/yr

Carbon Accumulation in Atmosphere: • Calculated increase = 3.4 Gt/yr

Remainder (2-4 Gt/yr) is Missing!• Unexplained sink of CO2 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

Oceans39,100 Gt

Fossil Fuels& Shale

19,300 Gt Vegetation &Humus

1,760 Gt

Atmosphere700 Gt

100 GtCombustion

.5 to 2 Gt

Combustion5 Gt

113 Gt

Source: “Introduction to Environmental Science”

The Sink and the Sewer

Oceans39,100 Gt

Fossil Fuels& Shale

19,300 Gt Vegetation &Humus

1,760 Gt

Atmosphere700 Gt

100 GtCombustion

.5 to 2 Gt

Combustion5 Gt

113 Gt

Source: “Introduction to Environmental Science”

Other Storage

1-1.5 Gt

0.6 Gt

(-.4 Gt?)

+/-?

+/-?

Energy Use Warming Atmosphere

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

This was pointed out by a British chemist• Does not seem to be included in climate models?

Water vapour from combustion also not included?

Climate Indicator = Energy Use

“Measured” Global Energy Output= 550 EJ (‘96)• Energy to heat atmosphere 1 degree C = 450 EJ

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

Main impact on global temperature is solar energy output

CO2 is necessary for life.• The more CO2 the more energy there is for life.• The more energy the more diversity in living things.

Organisms transfer CO2 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

Costly and no other benefit to collect most CO2 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

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)

Social Issues require education and new role models.

Toxicity Indicator = Cost

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

High cost means high emissions somewhere

Economic Indicator = Positive Economics

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”

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...

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?

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 (CO2, CH4 & H2O)• Create Wealth (improve average standard of

living)

Picking “Robust Solutions”

Best projects for Environmental Protection:

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

Co-Generation in Plants• Should take-off with deregulation --> Push it!• Make better use of energy generated

Simplicity of Design• Less hardware--> Less cost--> Less energy to make

Biochemical to Replace “Pots & Kettles”• Low energy routes to the same products

Influence Public• Help them select the lowest energy life cycle products?

Reuse

Close materials loops• Find uses for all concentrated streams• Switch to a process which generates “useful” waste

Design Products for Reuse• Standardize materials & packaging to allow refill• Design for secondary uses

Stop calling things “waste” streams• By-products looking for a use.

Recycle

Don’t use non-recyclable materials• Avoid vinyl-chlorides• Avoid composite materials

Develop small scale, local recycling processes to reduce transportation energy• Community level composting & fibre recycling

Plan Landfill Sites to Allow for Mining• Segregate metals, asphalt, biomass, other hydrocarbons

New Paradigms for Robust Projects

Mostly from Energy and Petrochemicals Industries:

Hydrocarbon Vent Remediation Oilfield Water Management Cogeneration Use of Pure Byproduct Streams Energy Recovery

CH4 Emissions by Industry Sector

Gas Production35%

Heavy Oil Production

29%

Accidents and Equipment Failures

5%

Product Transmission

16%

Conventional Oil Production

8%

Other1% Gas Processing

6%

Total 1995 = 1594 kt

Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009

Hydrocarbon Vents – Heavy Oil

Heavy Oil Venting WellTest Case - High Volume

Casing Vent - #1

Catalytic Heater

Tank Vent - #2

Tank at 65 - 85 deg C

Hydrocarbon Vents – Conventional Oil

Or

Hydrocarbon Vents – Natural Gas

Control Valves

Metering Pumps

Fuel

Destroy

VOC’s

Power

Water and Oil Production in Western Canada

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

An

nu

al P

rod

uct

ion

- M

illio

ns

of

bb

ls

Water Production

Oil Production

Oilfield Water Management DHOWS

Hydrocyclone(s)

Concentrate Pump (P2)

Emulsion Pump (P1)

Back Pressure Valve

Producing Zone(s)

Disposal Zone(s)

C-FER/NPEL

Minimizes Energy UseReduces Brine Flow by AquifersProlongs Well LifeReduces Surface FacilitiesReduces Operating CostsReduces Surface Spills

Oilfield Water Management – Same Well Source/Injector/Recycle

Lake orRiver Source

Cap rockOil Leg

Water LegCap rock

Underlying Aquifer

DHOWS

Move toward“Ideal”

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

•#1 Only Requires Power Deregulation•#2 Adapt Geothermal Technology•Distributed generation – “free” fuel•TransCanada Power – 40 MW plants

#1#2

* Source NRCan Energy Outlook

Gas Transportation Energy Distribution

Ont32%

Man15%

Sask7%

Que10%

B.C.14%

Alberta22%

Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009

Cogeneration – Gas Plants

Gas Production Fuel Use* = 0.43 tcf/yr (7.8% of sales)H2S 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

* Source CAPP 1996 Statistics

#1#2

SweeteningFractionation

#3

Cogeneration – Major Sites

•Initially only requires deregulation•Secondary opportunities for other sources.

•E.g. Steam vents in Cold Lake,•E.g. Thermomechanical Pulp Mills

PetrochemicalRefinery

Oil SandsHeavy Oil

PetrochemicalRefinery

Oil SandsHeavy Oil

Add Cogen

Total Planned in Alta/Sask Alone > 1,000 MW

Use of By-Product Streams – CO/CO2

e.g. Syncrude/Suncor 1996 = 12 Mt/yr

CO/CO2

• Potential Products• Ethanol (on-site fuel)• Acetone

Bioreactors Compression& Pipelines

Fischer-Tropsch

CH4

• Potential Uses• Oil Recovery• Other Users

• Potential Products• On-site Fuels• Diluent for Blending

CO2CO/CO2Biomass& Bugs

Use of By-Product Streams - Shingles

•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?

Estimated Size of Stream in Alberta = 120 t/d

Shingle Manufacture

Re-roofing

Landfills Roads/Highways

Remove Nails& Wood

Asphalt

Energy Recovery – Water Users

•Large users might be economic•High volume water users•Also require heat or power

Hydraulic Power Recovery

Municipal Pump Stations End-user Pressure Reduction

Power or heat generation

Energy Recovery – Gas Users

•Large users might be economic•High volume gas users•Also require power or cooling

•Utility Pressure Letdown Stations

Pneumatic Power Recovery

Compressor Stations End-user Pressure Reduction

Power or cooling

Environmental ProtectionCan meet objectives of Environment, Economics and Security of

Supply

Solutions possible with focused changes:Social Education & Motivation

Technical Economics & Regulation

Potential Opportunity with R&D

Key to Affordable Solutions:What if…….Why not………..

Summary

Contact Information

Advanced Technology Centre

9650-20 Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta

Canada T6N 1G1

tel: 780.450.3613

fax: 780.462.7297

email: info@newparadigm.ab.ca

web: www.newparadigm.ab.ca