Densified Biomass Can Cost-Effectively Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Address Energy Security in Thermal Applications

2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 1270-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas O. Wilson ◽  
Frederick M. McNeal ◽  
Sabrina Spatari ◽  
David G. Abler ◽  
Paul R. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Densified Biomass

Inequality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Stephan Klasen
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Emerging Countries ◽  
Poor People ◽  
Global Inequality ◽  
Gas Emissions

Global inequality has been falling in the last 20 or 30 years, mainly because of rising incomes in China, India, and, more recently, also in Africa. That has been good for global justice and poverty reduction, but not for greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the majority of growth in emissions since 1990 has taken place in emerging countries. As a result, if global inequality continues to fall, we have to confront the fact that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. There is no easy solution to this problem, since it is very difficult for emerging countries to drastically change their emission pathways. But there are some policies that might help, including, for example, the removal of energy subsidies and a greater focus on air pollution and energy security, both of which are co-benefits of moving away from fossil energy. The question also remains whether more unequal countries emit more or less greenhouse gases. Theoretical arguments in this regard are ambiguous. We find that in poorer countries, higher inequality actually reduces per capita emissions, mainly because it pushes poor people out of the carbon economy and forces them to lead carbon-neutral lives, relying entirely on biomass. However, in richer countries, inequality is associated with rising emissions. Therefore, if we reduce inequality in rich countries, we will also help reduce emissions. But how to think about climate policy? Economists have very much focused on the idea that there is a first best climate policy with a global carbon price, achieved either through an emission trading scheme or a carbon tax. But one should realize that climate policy in practice involves many different initiatives at many different levels. The driving forces of such policies are often the co-benefits such as cleaner air or greater energy security than emission reduction. If we recognize this, then our analysis should focus not on trying to design first best, but unrealistic policies, but rather on studying the interactions between existing policies and on trying to improve their functioning. This will be a much more promising way to tackle climate change than focusing on an unrealistic first best option.

Our Energy Inheritance: Nuclear Power

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hewitt Crane ◽  
Edwin Kinderman ◽  
Ripudaman Malhotra
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Nuclear Technology ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
The World

Of the various alternatives to fossil energy, nuclear power is the most advanced and the best positioned to become a major source of energy. It is also essentially free of CO2 emissions, and if reducing greenhouse gas emissions is truly the highest concern, then we will have to develop nuclear power. Yet developing nuclear power would also pose challenges in terms of waste disposal, and proliferation of nuclear weapons including the risk of a terrorist organization acquiring such weapons. To some environmentalists nuclear power presents a serious, dilemma. Support or opposition to nuclear power is strongly affected by value judgments as well as lack of disseminated information on questions: What happens if there is leakage of nuclear waste someday? To what extent would people and the world be affected? Would we be trading international security for energy security—does nuclear power increase our vulnerability to terrorist attacks? The mixture of clear benefits with outstanding questions currently allows some nations to embrace nuclear power, some to accept it grudgingly, and still others choose to ignore it. Given its availability and environmental benefits, nuclear is an option that cannot be ignored if we are to tackle the energy problem in a serious way. To assume that we can store and safeguard the waste for thousands of years may be hubris, but we come out in favor of developing nuclear technology in part because we already have to store the legacy nuclear waste that has been generated over the last 50 years. Another 60 or so years of waste will represent a marginal addition to that enormous task, but it would buy us badly needed time to carefully develop other energy sources that do not entail net greenhouse gas emissions. Also, we find that many of the concerns raised against the development of nuclear power are vastly exaggerated. For example, as we describe in this chapter, safe storage of the waste does not require 10,000 years: if we use reprocessing technologies, the remaining waste could be rendered benign in a couple of centuries.

Lignocellulosic bioethanol production employing newly isolated inhibitor and thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae DBTIOC S24 strain in SSF and SHF

RSC Advances ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (29) ◽  
pp. 24381-24390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhishek Mishra ◽  
Ajay K. Sharma ◽  
Sumit Sharma ◽  
A. S. Mathur ◽  
R. P. Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Bioethanol Production ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Lignocellulosic Bioethanol

Bioethanol is a renewable alternative to fossil fuels which facilitate energy security and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Societal Costs of Transportation Fuels: Enabling a True Comparison of Alternatives to Conventional Fuels

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen H. Law ◽  
Michael J. Chan ◽  
Michael D. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Alternative Fuels ◽  
Pollutant Emissions ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Societal Costs ◽  
Transportation Fuels ◽  
Economic Output ◽  
Transportation Sector

Petroleum-based conventional fuels dominate the transportation sector due to simple economics. Per unit of energy, few fuels can rival gasoline and diesel in terms of total cost of ownership to the consumer. While some fuels, such as natural gas and electricity, offer lower fuel costs and/or higher vehicle efficiencies than conventional fuels, the fuel price differentials may not be sufficient to offset the higher initial costs of the vehicles, especially if petroleum prices are low. Even when total costs of ownership are similar or slightly lower for alternative fuels than conventional fuels, differences in attributes, such as vehicle range, fueling time, cargo space, vehicle availability, and fuel availability, and consumer loss aversion suggest that more substantial differences in costs are required before consumers are willing to adopt the alternatives. In order for the transportation sector to achieve greater energy sustainability, the traditional economic paradigm for the vehicle purchase decision must expand to incorporate the true benefits of alternatives to conventional fuels, namely the societal benefits of increased energy security, lower criteria pollutant emissions, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. These benefits are not purely economic and yet are crucial to the future of transportation. To capture these benefits in the economic scheme, the societal costs of transportation fuels to the U.S. have been monetized according to measurable impacts. For energy security, the costs are tied to decreased economic output, loss of national gross product, economic strain and volatility, oil supply shocks and price spikes, supply disruption, and import costs. For criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, the costs are tied to human health impacts, property damage, loss of agricultural productivity, and destruction of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. These societal costs then applied to the use of specific fuels in two representative market segments, representing distinct applications, duty cycles, fuel consumption, and vehicle lifetime. Incorporating the monetized societal costs of transportation fuels in the total costs of ownership enables a fair comparison that reflects the benefits of alternatives to conventional fuels. As a result, these societal costs provide a justifiable framework for a real discussion on incentives and the direction of energy policy, beyond the mere objective of low fuel prices that has pervaded policy discussions to date.

scholarly journals An overview of the gasohol market in Vietnam, the next direction?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
Nghiem Thi Ngoan ◽  
Dao Minh Phuong ◽  
Pham Ba Nam
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollution ◽  
Food Security ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Natural Forest ◽  
Price Information ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Current State ◽  
Policy Supply

To ensure energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase agricultural output, the Vietnamese government has issued several policies to promote gasohol, resulting in remarkable achievements in gasohol development in recent years. However, unexpected limitations have been seen by other countries after a period of using this fuel such as air pollution, threats to food security, deterioration of natural forest area and severely depleted freshwater resources. This paper presents an overview of the current state of Vietnam's gasohol market and a brief analysis of policy, supply - demand - price information, from which some hindrances are identified and a few more optimistic directions to develop this type of fuel in the future are proposed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document