greenhouse gas emissions

What is "Sustainable Urban Living?"

To provide an answer to what is Sustainable Urban Living, first requires that we understand the definition of what is the meaning of the word "sustainable" and what is the meaning of "sustainable development."

To be "sustainable" means that we provide for today's societal needs and requirements without taking away resources from future generations. Much like the national debt of several trillion dollars - that keeps growing every year - that is never repaid, and that we are leaving behind for our children, and grandchildren - we need to be mindful of the resources we are consuming today, and do so in a way that does not take away from our children and grandchildren.

"Sustainable Development" seeks to integrate two important themes: that environmental protection does not preclude economic development and that economic development must be ecologically viable now and in the long run. Common use of the term "sustainability" began with the 1987 publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development report, Our Common Future. Also known as the Brundtland Report, this document defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This concept of sustainability encompasses ideas, aspirations and values that continue to inspire public and private organizations to become better stewards of the environment and that promote positive economic growth and social objectives. The principles of sustainability can stimulate technological innovation, advance competitiveness, and improve our quality of life.

Sustainable Urban Living creates communities that are in balance and in harmony with the environment that have - as an objective - adhering to the goals and definition of sustainability.

Sustainable Urban Living integrates Mixed use Developments as a part of a community's Real Estate Master Plan, with an integrated transport system which uses buses, light rail, and with biking & hiking trails. · Sustainable urban Living plans for schools, parks and gardens, as well as alleviates problems associated with buildings that are not sustainable and prone to; fires, flooding earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, termites and high energy costs. Sustainable Urban Living communities are power and energy independent by utilzing Renewable Energy Technologies such as anaerobic digesters, biomethane, biomass gasification plants, solar, wind and recycling operations. A Sustainable Urban Living also seeks to integrate multi-generations that keep families intact by employing the use of "back-homes," granny-flats, casitas, and ohanas, as a small home in the back yard of the main home, where the grandfather and grandmother might someday retire to, and be near their children and grandchildren. Finally, Sustainable Urban Living communities seek to maximize both economic and environmental benefits that flow from these initiatives.

The Goals of our "Sustainable Urban Living" or "Sustainable Urbanization" business models and real estate developments include:

Cities have moved to the forefront of global socio-economic change, with half of the world’s population now living in urban areas and the other half increasingly dependent upon cities for their economic, social and political progress. Factors such as globalization and democratization have increased the importance of cities for sustainable development.

Accordingly it is generally accepted that cities not only pose potential threats to sustainable development but also hold promising opportunities for social and economic advancement and for environmental improvements at local, national, and global levels.

The Following Article, "The Six C's of Sustainable Urbanization" is by Gary Pivo,
who is the Chair of the Department of Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington.

The Six C’s of Sustainable Urbanization

Cascadia's bustling Mainstreet; New approaches to urbanization can save region's high quality of life

There are 7 million residents stretched along 'Mainstreet Cascadia,' the I-5 corridor between Eugene, Ore., and Vancouver, B. C. Millions more are coming — the Puget Sound alone area will absorb 1.2 million more people in the next 20 years. Those who live in this vital region are beginning to wonder what it will take to sustain our quality of life. Is there such a thing as sustainable urbanization, and, if so, what are its principles?

The latest Puget Sound growth boom requires us to examine what's happening with growth in our region.

Before the next governor is seated four years from now, our region will experience some of the fastest growth since World War II. Unless the growth is carefully managed using principals of sustainable urbanization, it will be impossible to maintain our region's high qualtiy of life.

By our region, I mean the corridor along Interstate 5 from Eugene, Ore., into Vancouver, British Columbia — a route named by some planners and researchers "Mainstreet Cascadia."

While some politicians and lobbyists work to weaken our state's Growth Management Act, we would be wise to remember what it takes to sustain our region's high quality of life and what occurs when communities succumb to unplanned development.

In the cities and counties stretched along Mainstreet Cascadia live over seven million people. Three-quarters of them live in the urban areas that center on Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, B.C. All three of these centers have experienced tremendous population growth over the past few decades.

The numbers show that the population of both greater Vancouver and Metropolitan Portland doubled between 1960 and 1990. Population in the Puget Sound region grew by over 80 percent. These are some of the highest metropolitan growth rates in North America.

The next four years should bring Washington's fastest growth rate in 50 years and planners expect population growth to remain heavy for the foreseeable future. They project that by 2020, the Puget Sound area will absorb 1.2 million more people. The same numbers are projected to be added in Greater Vancouver. Metropolitan Portland is expected to add 700,000 newcomers. Growth is being generated by births exceeding deaths in the region, by domestic (U.S.) migration, and by migration from overseas - with migration playing a somewhat larger role than local births.

As populations grow, indications are that people all along Mainstreet Cascadia are deeply concerned about the direction of greater urbanization. A survey done in 1992 by the Oregon Business Council found that the biggest fears of Oregon's citizens were overpopulation, environmental destruction, the loss of forests, and uncontrolled growth. At that point in time, growth was a bigger worry than either crime or the economy. A survey in British Columbia (Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 1994) found that more than half the people questioned felt that growth was negatively affecting their quality of life. In 1993, a survey of citizens in the four-county area around Seattle showed growth and traffic as among top citizen worries.

People are reacting to situations like these:

• In the relatively small university town of Eugene, at least half the local residents find that roads are congested at various times during the day, and the vast majority of residents find them congested during rush hours.

• In the Greater Vancouver area, with its superior transit service, there was a 1985-1992 aggregate decline of about 12 percent in the share of all trips made by transit, and an increase of about 5 percent in the share of drivers driving alone (despite the fact that in certain Sky Train-served areas of Vancouver, transit managed to hold its own).

• In agricultural areas around Greater Vancouver that are part of an official agricultural preservation program, 8.5 percent of the farmland was still lost to urban uses between 1973 and 1990. This was over 20 times the rate of transformation in more remote areas of British Columbia.

• Urban growth has outpaced infrastructure capacity. Water facilities in the Portland area, for example, will need to be greatly expanded to accommodate the growth anticipated there.

These examples of urban growth trends - more auto congestion, a decline in transit and carpooling, the consumption of land for building more subdivisions at the expense of preserving agricultural and forest lands — and many others, such as loss of wetlands and water pollution from urban runoff and construction activities, have planners increasingly concerned with the issue of sustainability. Is there such a thing as sustainable urbanization, and, if so, what are its principles?

Sustainable development has been defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Only in recent years has the concept of sustainable development begun to be applied to the field of urban planning. Government agencies at all levels are adopting plans to make urban growth more sustainable. A close examination of such plans shows six basic principles derived from research -we might call them the six C's — being applied.

1. Compactness. The first principle is that more compact, densely developed cities are less auto dependent, less expensive to serve with infrastructure, and put less pressure on nearby farm, forest, and environmentally sensitive areas. One of my own studies has shown that the percentage of people who bus to work increases as the population density rises in the city where they live. A1994 report on growth options for King County concluded that an urban containment strategy would save taxpayers money over the long run. In Oregon, research has shown that farms and forests are more effectively sustained when urban growth is more compact.

2. Completeness. A second principle of sustainable urbanization is that communities should be made more complete. A complete community is one in which the segregation of urban activities has been reduced. The residents of a complete community have the opportunity to work and shop in close proximity to their homes. The elimination of long commutes reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, energy use, and water pollution — to say nothing of psychic stress.

3. Conservation. A third principle of sustainable urbanization — conservation — involves the use of a number of tools (in addition to development regulations) to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Such tools may include tax incentives, fee-simple and less-than-fee-simple land acquisition, cluster development, and the use of transferable development rights, to name just a few. In the category of development regulations, we know that the elimination of free or abundant parking promotes alternatives to single-occupancy driving, thereby saving energy, reducing air pollution, and helping to control the buildup of greenhouse gases.

4-6. Comfort, coordination and collaboration. Comfort takes note of the fact that it is important to create public spaces and routes that are pleasant for pedestrians and for non-auto users, such as bicyclists. A study in Portland found that more people walk when there are continuous sidewalks, streets are easy to cross and not confusing, and the topography is conducive to walking.

Coordination involves joint planning by numerous jurisdictions. One example is creating a land use and transportation plan for Oregon's Willamette Valley from Portland to Eugene. The same project — Partnership for the Willamette Valley's Future - illustrates the principle of collaboration. Funded by the state of Oregon, federal agencies and private foundations, this effort is bringing together Oregon community leaders from many interest sectors in order to establish ongoing dialogue about issues of common concern in the Willamette Valley.

If we view the principles above in the light of trends, we see that, over the past few decades, Mainstreet Cascadia's "average citizen" has experienced less compactness (and slightly more completeness). The development of many new low-density settlements on the urban fringe has offset increasing density in some older communities and has consumed amounts of land at rates two to three times the rate of population growth.

Not only are many people living in non-compact communities, but the density at which they are living is generally too low to be effectively served by public transportation.

My own studies have shown that, in 1970, about one in three people in Washington was living at densities high enough to support public transit. By 1990, only one person in five was living in such places. In addition, job growth in suburbs and along freeway corridors has reduced the relevance of commuting into the central city. In Greater Vancouver, for example, downtown Vancouver's share of its region's jobs fell from 51 percent in 1971 to only 39 percent in 1991.

Despite these trends, some towns and cities can be studied as models for other communities to follow in seeking to achieve greater sustainability.

Seattle, already Washington's most compact and complete community along Mainstreet Cascadia, has adopted a policy of putting people in compact villages served by public transit. Across Lake Washington, the city of Kirkland is unusual for the number of residents who also work in Kirkland (about 23 percent) and use bus transit to get to work (about 12 percent). It's the most compact and complete suburb in Washington.

In order to assist political and other leaders in developing policy directions, work has been done to locate other "low-impact cities" in the region under discussion. Communities were rated for housing density, job density, jobs and housing in proximity, and housing and shopping/service opportunities in proximity.

The "winners" turned out to represent a variety of community types, from a large city like Seattle or Vancouver, B.C., to a small town like Bothell or a rural center like St. Helens, Ore., (population 7,500). Research showed that for the most compact and complete communities, a median of nearly 30 percent of workers work near where they live, compared to under 10 percent in other communities. Other studies have shown that there is an unmet demand for housing close to where people work. Public policies are needed that enable potential housing sites that are close to jobs to compete for development with sites in more remote locations.

While increasing housing density has been controversial policy, various demographic trends and new research suggest that there is room for progress toward more compact communities. We know that shifts are occurring in the average age of populations and in household structures. People are getting older and households are getting smaller. This is causing an increase in demand for smaller housing units and for attached types of housing.

In addition, design studies have reached two conclusions:

• One is that traditional, single-family housing can be built at densities much higher than those currently being achieved that still provide the privacy, open space, and other features associated with single-family living. For instance, Kirkland has used half as much land as other King County cities for each new single-family lot it created between the mid-'80s and '90s.

• The other design conclusion is that the perception of density and actual density are two very different things. People perceive a place to be lower in density if there is greater building articulation, less "facade" area, and smaller, "house-like" dwellings.

Of this we can be certain: Unless we work to incorporate principles of sustainability into our planning, we face a future of more traffic, more environmental loss and pollution, and increasingly deficient infrastructures. Past and current patterns of urban growth cannot sustain the high quality of life that we associate with Mainstreet Cascadia.

According to the United Nations: "It is estimated that Greenhouse Gas Emissions trading markets could be worth $2 Trillion by 2012."

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=433&ArticleID=4792&l=en

Figure 3. U.S. Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas, 2001
(Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent)

Energy Production and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

For over one hundred years, energy and power production have been generated around the world through the burning of fossil fuels, including; fuel oil, coal, diesel, and natural gas. Over the past decade, environmental science and research has discovered and linked global warming, and global climate change to the carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. This has placed an increased need to reduce energy consumption and discover more environmentally friendly fuel sources.

Trigeneration slashes carbon dioxide emissions by as much 80% and more.

In 1992, managers of the 2.8-million-square-foot McCormick Place Exhibition and Convention Center in Chicago were planning an addition that would double the size of their convention center. To avoid $27 million in capital costs for a new heating and cooling system, the McCormick Place managers selected a new trigeneration system under an energy outsource or energy services agreement. The new trigeneration system simultaneously provides the McCormick Place Convention Center with heating, cooling, and electricity and achieves an overall efficiency rating of 93%. Besides the initial savings of not having to spend $27 million for the new system, McCormick Place also saves >$1 million annually in energy and operating expenses. The system produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions of a traditional system, as well as 24,000 tons of carbon dioxide and 59 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) each year when compared to a traditional system.

Coors Brewing Company has a 90 percent efficient trigeneration system at its Golden, Colorado plant, the largest single brewing site in the world. The trigeneration system saves 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually, along with 125 tons of NOx and 900 tons of SO2.

Integrated systems for cooling, heating and power (CHP) for buildings incorporate multiple technologies for providing energy services to a single building or to a campus of buildings. Electricity to such buildings is provided by on-site or near-site power generators using one or more of the many options: internal combustion (IC) engines, combustion turbines, miniturbines or microturbines, and fuel cells. In CHP systems, waste heat from power generation equipment is recovered for operating equipment for cooling, heating, or controlling humidity in buildings, by using absorption chillers, desiccant dehumidifiers, or heat recovery equipment for producing steam or hot water. These integrated systems are known by a variety of acronyms: CHP, Trigeneration and IES (Integrated Energy System).

CHP systems provide many benefits, including:

reduced energy costs,
improved power reliability,
increased energy efficiency, and
improved environmental quality.

What is a CHP System?

A CHP System is an efficient, environmentally-friendly "cogeneration" system that provides power (electricity) and energy (hot water and/or steam) at the location the power and energy are needed also known as "distributed generation." Cogeneration systems are at least two times more efficient than typical power plants which average about 27% - 35% efficiency - meaning 65% to 73% of the energy is wasted.

Even more efficient than a standard CHP system is a CHP system that incorporates absorption chillers, which is then a "trigeneration" system, also referred to as an "Integrated Energy System" or "Cooling, Heating and Power." Trigeneration systems can be up to 50% more efficient than cogeneration systems and many average about 90% or more efficiency. Absorption chillers recover the additional waste heat from CHP Systems to make chilled water for air-conditioning, thereby providing the building or facility's electricity, hot water/steam and air conditioning.

Some of the above information courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy with our thanks.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and its Territories were 6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 2005, 19.9 MMT (0.3 percent) more than in 2004 (Table 5). The slow growth in emissions from 2004 to 2005 can be attributed mainly to higher energy prices that suppressed demand, low or negative growth in several energy-intensive industries, and weather-related disruptions in the energy infrastructure along the Gulf Coast. As a result, while the economy grew by 3.2 percent, energy consumption fell by 0.3 percent. The 0.3-percent growth in total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from 2004 to 2005 followed an increase of 1.9 percent, or 113.4 MMT, from 2003 to 2004 (Figure 1). Since 1990, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have increased by an average of about 1.2 percent per year.

Carbon dioxide emissions represent about 84 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, most carbon dioxide (98 percent) is emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels; consequently, carbon dioxide emissions and energy use are highly correlated. (The remaining 2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions comes from a variety of other industrial sources.) Historically, economic growth, the weather, the carbon and energy intensity of the economy, and movements in energy prices have caused year-to-year fluctuations in energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions.

In both the residential and commercial sectors, 2005 energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were higher than 2004 levels (Table 6). In the residential sector, emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 3.3 percent, from 1,213.9 MMT in 2004 to 1,253.8 MMT in 2005. In the commercial sector, carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.6 percent, from 1,034.1 MMT in 2004 to 1,050.6 MMT in 2005. There was little change in heating degree-days from 2004 to 2005, but cooling degree-days increased by 13.5 percent. Thus, higher demand for electricity—especially for air conditioning—was largely responsible for the increase in emissions from both sectors.

Industrial production rose by 3.2 percent in 2005, but industrial emissions of carbon dioxide declined by 3.1 percent, from 1,736.0 MMT in 2004 to 1,682.3 MMT in 2005 (Table 6). Trends in industrial emissions are driven in part by growth patterns in the six most energy-intensive manufacturing industries, which account for about two-thirds of total industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Paper manufacturing, at 5.6 percent, was the only one of the six that grew at a rate greater than the overall gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate of 3.2 percent. (The paper industry is energy-intensive but uses a high proportion of biogenic material and, therefore, has the lowest carbon intensity among the six energy-intensive industries.) Two others grew by less than overall GDP (food by 2.3 percent and nonmetallic minerals by 1.6 percent), and for three output fell (primary metals by 2.7 percent, chemicals by 6.9 percent, and petroleum by 7.5 percent).

Estimates for 2005 indicate that carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector increased by 1.0 percent, from 1,939.2 MMT in 2004 to 1,958.6 MMT in 2005 (Table 6)—less than the 1.5-percent average annual growth in transportation emissions since 1990.

While net generation of electricity increased by 2.4 percent from 2004 to 2005, carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector increased by 2.8 percent, from 2,309.4 MMT in 2004 to 2,375.0 MMT in 2005 (Table 6). Accordingly, the overall carbon intensity of U.S. electricity production increased by about 0.4 percent. The higher carbon intensity resulted from an increase in the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. In addition, generation from “non-carbon” nuclear and renewable fuels fell by 1.1 billion kilowatthours (0.1 percent).³⁶

In this report, the electric power sector is defined as all utilities, nonutilities, and combined heat and power (CHP) facilities whose primary business is the production of electric power. Carbon dioxide emissions from generators that produce electric power as part of an industrial or commercial operation—that is, businesses that produce electricity primarily for their own use—are not included in the electric power sector total but are assigned to the industrial or commercial sector according to the classification of the business. In addition, the emissions totals reported above for the energy end-use sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation) include their shares of total electric power sector emissions.

Nonfuel uses of fossil fuels, principally petroleum, both emit and sequester carbon dioxide over their life cycles. In 2005, carbon dioxide emissions from nonfuel uses of fossil fuels totaled 106.4 MMT, a 4.7-percent decrease from the 2004 total of 111.7 MMT (Table 5). Nonfuel uses of fossil fuels also resulted in carbon sequestration equal to 300.9 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO₂e) in 2005, a 3.3-percent decrease from the 2004 level of 311.1 MMTCO₂e.³⁷ The major fossil fuel products that emit and sequester carbon include liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and feedstocks for plastics and other petrochemicals. Asphalt and road oils are a major source of sequestration, but they do not emit carbon dioxide. It is estimated that, of the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered in the form of plastic, about 11.1 MMT was emitted as carbon dioxide from the burning of the plastic components of municipal solid waste to produce electricity in 2005.

Emissions of carbon dioxide from other sources— including cement production, industrial processes, waste combustion, carbon dioxide in natural gas, and gas flaring—decreased by 0.2 percent, from 105.7 MMT in 2004 to 105.4 MMT in 2005 (Table 5).

The consumption of energy in the form of fossil fuel combustion is the largest single contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and the world. Of total 2005 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (adjusting for U.S. Territories and bunker fuels), about 98 percent, or 5,903.2 MMT carbon dioxide, resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels. This figure represents an increase of 20.2 MMT from 2004 levels.

In the short term, year-to-year changes in energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions tend to be dominated by weather, economic fluctuations, and movements in energy prices. Over longer time spans, changes in energy consumption and emissions are also influenced by other factors, such as population shifts and energy consumers’ choice of fuels, appliances, and capital equipment (e.g., vehicles, aircraft, and industrial plant and equipment). The energy-consuming capital stock of the United States—cars and trucks, airplanes, heating and cooling plants in homes and businesses, steel mills, aluminum smelters, cement plants, and petroleum refineries—changes slowly from one year to the next, because capital stock usually is retired only when it begins to break down or becomes obsolete.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) divides energy consumption into four general end-use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation. Emissions from electricity generators, which provide electricity to the end-use sectors, are allocated in proportion to the electricity consumed in, and losses allocated to, each sector (Table 6).

At 1,253.8 MMT, residential carbon dioxide emissions represented 21 percent of U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2005. The residential sector’s pro-rated share of electric power sector emissions, 885.7 MMT, accounts for 71 percent of all emissions in the residential sector (Table 7).³⁸ Natural gas accounted for 21 percent (261.7 MMT), and petroleum (mainly distillate fuel oil) represented 8.4 percent (105.3 MMT). Since 1990, residential electricity-related emissions have grown by 2.5 percent annually. Emissions from the direct combustion of fuels, primarily natural gas, in the residential sector have grown by 0.5 percent annually since 1990.

Total carbon dioxide emissions from the residential sector increased by 3.3 percent in 2005. Year-to-year, residential sector emissions are strongly influenced by weather. While heating degree-days were about the same in 2004 and 2005, a warmer summer in 2005 meant that cooling degree-days were up by 13.5 percent,³⁹ and the resulting increase in demand for air conditioning contributed to the growth in residential carbon dioxide emissions.

Since 1990, the growth in carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the residential sector has averaged 1.8 percent per year. Residential sector emissions in 2005 were 300.1 MMT higher than in 1990, representing 31 percent of the total increase in unadjusted U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. Long-term trends in residential carbon dioxide emissions are strongly influenced by demographic factors, living space attributes, and building shell and appliance efficiency choices. For example, the movement of population into warmer climates tends to increase summer air conditioning consumption and promote the use of electric heat pumps, which increases emissions from electricity use (although the increase could be offset by a reduction in emissions from heating fuel combustion). Growth in the number of households, resulting from increasing population and immigration, also contributes to more residential energy consumption.

Commercial sector carbon dioxide emissions, at 1,050.6 MMT, accounted for about 18 percent of total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, of which 78 percent (821.1 MMT) is the sector’s pro-rated share of electricity-related emissions (Table 8). Natural gas contributes 16 percent and petroleum 5 percent of the sector’s emissions.

Commercial sector emissions largely have their origin in the lighting, space heating, and space cooling requirements of commercial structures, such as office buildings, shopping malls, schools, hospitals, and restaurants. Lighting is a significantly more important component of energy demand in the commercial sector (approximately 20 percent of total demand in 2004) than it is in the residential sector (approximately 12 percent of total demand in 2004). Heating and cooling demand accounted for approximately 40 percent of energy demand in the residential sector in 2004, and about 18 percent in the commercial sector.⁴⁰ Thus, commercial sector emissions are affected less by the weather than are residential sector emissions. In the longer run, because commercial activity is a factor of the larger economy, emissions from the commercial sector are more affected by economic trends and less affected by population growth than are emissions from the residential sector.

Emissions attributable to the commercial sector’s pro-rated share of electricity consumption increased by 2.6 percent in 2005, and emissions from the direct combustion of fuels (dominated by natural gas, as in the residential sector) decreased by 2.0 percent. Overall, carbon dioxide emissions related to commercial sector activity increased by 1.6 percent—from 1,034.1 to 1,050.6 MMT—between 2004 and 2005 (Table 8). Since 1990, commercial emissions growth has averaged 2.0 percent per year, the largest growth of any end-use sector. Commercial sector carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 269.9 MMT since 1990, accounting for 28 percent of the total increase in U.S. unadjusted energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.

Industrial sector emissions, at 1,682.3 MMT carbon dioxide, accounted for 28 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2005. In terms of fuel shares, electricity consumption was responsible for 39 percent of total industrial sector emissions (662.8 MMT), natural gas for 24 percent (399.7 MMT), petroleum for 26 percent (431.2 MMT), and coal for 11 percent (184.5 MMT).

Estimated 2005 energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the industrial sector, at 1,682.3 MMT (Table 9), were 3.1 percent lower than the 2004 emissions level of 1,736.0 MMT. Carbon dioxide emissions attributable to industrial sector energy consumption, while fluctuating from year to year, have decreased slightly since 1990. Total energy-related industrial emissions in 2005 were 0.1 percent (1.3 MMT) lower than in 1990, despite a much larger economy.

A contributing factor to the negative growth in industrial sector carbon dioxide emissions is the erosion of the older energy-intensive (and specifically coal-intensive) industrial base. For example, coke plants consumed 38.9 million short tons of coal in 1990, as compared with 23.4 million short tons in 2005. Other industrial coal consumption declined from 76.3 million short tons in 1990 to 60.8 million short tons in 2005. Also, the share of manufacturing activity represented by less energy-intensive industries, such as computer chip and electronic component manufacturing, has increased while the share represented by energy-intensive industries has fallen.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector, at 1,958.6 MMT, accounted for 33 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2005. Almost all (98 percent) of transportation sector emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products: motor gasoline, at 60 percent of total transportation sector emissions; middle distillates (diesel fuel) at 22 percent; jet fuel at 12 percent of the total; and residual oil (i.e., heavy fuel oil, largely for maritime use) at 3.3 percent of the sector’s total emissions. Motor gasoline is used primarily in automobiles and light trucks, and middle distillates are used in heavy trucks, locomotives, and ships.

Emissions attributable to the transportation sector increased by 1.0 percent in 2005, from 1,939.2 MMT carbon dioxide in 2004 to 1,958.6 MMT in 2005 (Table 10). The fuel-use patterns and related emissions sources in the transportation sector are different from those in the other end-use sectors. By far the largest single source of emissions, motor gasoline, at 1,170.5 MMT carbon dioxide, increased by 0.1 percent. Emissions from motor gasoline were partially offset by a 13.7-percent increase in the consumption of ethanol (about 2 percent of the market). Carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol consumption are considered to be zero, because the carbon in the fuel is derived primarily from corn, and it is assumed that an equivalent amount of carbon will be sequestered during the corn-growing season. (See "Ethanol and Greenhouse Gas Emissions" for a discussion of the net emissions benefits of ethanol consumption.)

Since 1990, carbon dioxide emissions related to the transportation sector have increased at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent. The growth since 1990 has meant that transportation emissions have increased by 391.8 MMT, representing 41 percent of the growth in unadjusted energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from all sectors. Transportation is the largest contributing end-use sector to total emissions.

The data in Table 11 represent estimates of carbon dioxide emissions for the electric power sector. These emissions when taken as a whole account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions; in calculating sector-specific emissions, electric power sector emissions are distributed to the end-use sectors. The electric power sector includes traditional regulated utilities, as well as independent power producers whose primary business is the generation and sale of electricity. The industrial sector and, to a much lesser extent, the commercial sector also include establishments that generate electricity; however, their primary business is not electricity generation, and so their electricity-related emissions are included in the totals for those sectors, not in the electric power sector.

Preliminary estimates indicate that carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector increased by 2.8 percent (65.6 MMT), from 2,309.4 MMT in 2004 to 2,375.0 MMT in 2005 (Table 11). Emissions from natural-gas-fired generation increased by 7.7 percent, from coal-fired generation by 2.1 percent, and from petroleum-fired generation by 2.3 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector have grown by 32 percent since 1990, while total unadjusted energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have grown by 19 percent. Of the total growth in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 2005, 60 percent can be attributed to growth in electric power sector emissions.

Nonfuel uses of energy fuels, principally petroleum products, both emit and sequester carbon dioxide over their life cycles. In 2005, nonfuel uses of fossil fuels resulted in emissions of 106.4 MMT carbon dioxide, a decrease of 5.2 MMT (4.7 percent) from the 2004 level of 111.7 MMT (Table 12). Carbon dioxide emissions from nonfuel uses, which represent about 2 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, have grown by an average of 0.5 percent annually from their 1990 level of 98.1 MMT. Emissions from nonfuel uses of petroleum products in 2005 were 82.4 MMT in the industrial sector and 5.6 MMT in the transportation sector. Within the industrial petroleum products category, the leading carbon dioxide emission sources were petrochemical feedstocks at 38.0 MMT and LPG at 18.3 MMT. Nonfuel uses of natural gas resulted in emissions of 18.0 MMT carbon dioxide in 2005.

In 2005, carbon sequestration through nonfuel uses of fossil fuels totaled 300.9 MMTCO₂e (Table 13). The vast majority was sequestered in petroleum-based products, including 276.1 MMTCO₂e in the industrial sector and 5.6 MMTCO₂e in the transportation sector sequestered through the use of petroleum-based lubricants. Smaller amounts of carbon were sequestered in natural-gas-based products (17.7 MMTCO₂e) and coal-based products (1.5 MMTCO₂e). The main products that sequester carbon include asphalt and road oil (100.0 MMTCO₂e), LPG (73.4 MMTCO₂e), and feedstocks for plastics and other petrochemicals (64.2 MMTCO₂e). The amount sequestered in 2005 was 3.3 percent less than in 2004, when 311.1 MMTCO₂e was sequestered. Since 1990, the annual sequestration of carbon in this manner has increased by 49.7 MMTCO₂e or 20 percent. This translates to an average annual growth rate of 1.2 percent.

Total energy consumption and the carbon dioxide emissions upon which they are based correspond to EIA’s coverage of energy consumption, which includes the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), however, the United States is also responsible for counting emissions emanating from its Territories, and their emissions are added to the U.S. total. Conversely, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of energy consumption excludes international bunker fuels from the statistics of all countries, emissions from international bunker fuels are subtracted from the U.S. total. Additionally, military bunker fuels are subtracted because they are also excluded by the IPCC from the national total. These sources and subtractions are enumerated and described as “adjustments to energy.”

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions for the U.S. Territories are added as an adjustment in keeping with IPCC guidelines for national emissions inventories. The Territories included are Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Pacific Islands, and Wake Island. Most of these emissions are from petroleum products; however, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands consume coal in addition to petroleum products. For 2005, total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. Territories are estimated at 58.6 MMT (Table 5).

In keeping with the IPCC guidelines for estimating national greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from international bunker fuels are subtracted from the estimate of total U.S. energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide. Purchases of distillate and residual fuels by foreign-bound ships at U.S. seaports, as well as jet fuel purchases by international air carriers at U.S. airports, form the basis of the estimate for bunker fuels. Additionally, U.S. military operations for which fuel was originally purchased in the United States but consumed in international waters or airspace are subtracted from the total, because they are also considered international bunker fuels under this definition.

For 2004, the carbon dioxide emissions estimate for military bunker fuels was 10.1 MMT.⁴¹ In 2005, approximately 100.7 MMT carbon dioxide was emitted in total from international bunker fuels, including 90.6 MMT attributed to civilian consumption of bunker fuels. The total amount is subtracted from the U.S. total in Table 5. Just over one-half of the carbon dioxide emissions associated with international bunker fuels comes from the combustion of jet fuels; residual and distillate fuels account for the other half, with most coming from residual fuel.

In addition to emissions resulting from fossil energy consumed, oil and gas production leads to emissions of carbon dioxide from sources other than the combustion of those marketed fossil fuels. The two energy production sources estimated for this report are:

Because many States require flaring of natural gas, EIA assumes that all gas reported under the category “Vented and Flared” is actually flared and therefore should be counted as carbon dioxide emissions rather than methane emissions. In 2005, about 5.9 MMT carbon dioxide was emitted in this way (Table 5).

By computing the difference between the estimated carbon dioxide content of raw gas and the carbon dioxide content of pipeline gas, the amount of carbon dioxide that has been removed (scrubbed) in order to improve the heat content and quality of natural gas can be calculated. This amount was about 17.3 MMT in 2005 (Table 5).

Information on energy production sources that are excluded from this report because of insufficient data is available in Energy Information Administration, Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.⁴²

Industrial emissions of carbon dioxide not caused by the combustion of fossil fuels accounted for 1.2 percent (74.0 MMT) of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 (Table 14). Process-related emissions from industrial sources depend largely on the level of activity in the construction industries and on production at oil and gas wells. These sources include limestone and dolomite calcination, soda ash manufacture and consumption, carbon dioxide manufacture, cement manufacture, and aluminum production.

Estimated industrial process emissions of carbon dioxide in 2005 totaled 74.0 MMT, 13.9 MMT (23 percent) higher than in 1990 and 0.3 MMT (0.3 percent) lower than in 2004 (Table 14). Of the total estimate for carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes in 2005, 62 percent is attributed to cement manufacture. When calcium carbonate is heated (calcined) in a kiln, it is converted to lime and carbon dioxide. The lime is combined with other materials to produce clinker (an intermediate product from which cement is made), and the carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. In 2005, the United States produced an estimated 97.4 million metric tons of cement,⁴³ resulting in the direct release of 45.9 MMT into the atmosphere. This calculation is independent of the carbon dioxide released by the combustion of energy fuels consumed in making cement. The estimate for 2005 represents an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 12.5 MMT (38 percent) compared with 1990 and an increase of about 0.2 MMT (0.4 percent) compared with 2004.

Collectively, in 2005, industrial processes other than cement manufacture emitted 28.1 MMT carbon dioxide. Limestone manufacture and consumption emitted 18.3 MMT, soda ash manufacture 3.9 MMT, aluminum manufacture 3.7 MMT, carbon dioxide manufacture 1.6 MMT, and soda ash consumption 0.6 MMT.

Waste that is combusted contains, on average, a portion that is composed of plastics, synthetic rubber, synthetic fibers, and carbon black. The carbon in these plastics has normally been accounted for as sequestered carbon, as reported in Table 13; however, according to the IPCC, emissions from the plastics contained in municipal solid waste must be counted in total national emissions inventories. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that plastics and other non-biogenic materials in combusted waste produced emissions of about 19.4 MMT carbon dioxide in 2004 (about 11.1 MMT from grid-connected power generation).⁴⁴ The EPA’s 2004 value is used in this report as an estimate for 2005. The difference between the estimated total and EIA’s estimate for the electric power sector is reported in Table 5. For 2005, the difference is 8.3 MMT carbon dioxide.

The above information courtesy of the Department of Energy and published with our thanks and permission.

What is an "anaerobic lagoon?"

An Anaerobic Lagoon is an impoundment or tank that is designed to store and treat animal manure diluted with water.

An anaerobic lagoon acts as a biological tank, in which the manure is partially decomposed before it is used on land as a fertilizer in the form of irrigation liquid.

To this day, anaerobic lagoons in many states are still legally permitted to seep, and some have been associated with problems such as air and water pollution. Anaerobic lagoons generate massive amounts of Biomethane that is hat is 21 times more harmful to our climate than Carbon Dioxide Emissions and could be captured ans used as a renewable natural gas.

The Renewable Energy Institute is leading the engineering and design to develop the world's best Anaerobic Digesters.

The Renewable Energy Institute has assembled a leading team of scientists, professors, and experts from multiple renewable energy disciplines.

The purposes of this Press Conference are:

1. Present the Vision, Goals and Mission Statement of the Renewable Energy Institute.

2. Introduce members of the Renewable Energy Institute's Scientific Advisory Board. Each will make a brief presentation about why the Renewable Energy Institute is needed and describe the enormous opportunities for developing renewable energy and "pollution free power" in Texas.

3. Validate the viability of alternative, sustainable and renewable energy technologies today and into the future.

The Renewable Energy Institute intends to expand this team worldwide, beginning here in Texas.

LOCATION: The Robert E. Johnson Conference Center is located directly behind the REJ Building at 1501 N. Congress Avenue. The Conference Center is a silver, half-domed building.

PARKING: Parking available at the Capitol Visitor Garage at 13th and San Jacinto. Parking in the Capitol Visitor Garage is free for the first two hours and $.75 for each half-hour thereafter (maximum daily charge: $6.00)

"Changing The Way The
World Does Energy"

Including the transformation of a very inefficient, "centralized," highly-polluting, costly and "dumb" Electric Grid of today which now resembles:

To the "Smart Grid" of tomorrow - which resembles the slide below - will be very efficient, decentralized or "distributed," non-polluting, low-cost and "smart."

In response to plans by TXU and Reliant Energy (and their provider of electricity - NRG Energy) to build nineteen (19) unnecessary and dangerous coal plants in Texas, Monty Goodell, Founder and Executive Director of the Renewable Energy Institute ("REI") is choosing today to announce the official location of the Renewable Energy Institute - which will be located in Austin, Texas - which has been recognized by many as the "Clean Energy Capital" of the world.

After years of preparation and selection of a preeminent and leading Scientific Advisory Board for the Renewable Energy Institute, Mr. Goodell is pleased to announce that the initial members of REI's Scientific Advisory Board are recognized scientists, professors and leaders in the field of renewable energy and renewable energy technologies.

Renewable energy includes; Biomass and Biomass Gasification, Biofuels (Biomethane, B100 Biodiesel and E100 Ethanol), Demand Side Management, Energy Conservation Measures, Energy Efficiency Measures, Fuel Cells, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Ocean Power/Tidal Power, Solar Power and Energy (Concentrating Solar Power, Concentrating Photovoltaics, Solar Thermal) Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Power Generation.

Mr. Goodell adds, "several of the initial members of our Scientific Advisory Board are also professors in several of our universities here in Texas."

Additionally, the Renewable Energy Institute has received the support from environmental groups and organizations as well as individuals within various agencies with the State of Texas and also manufacturers and developers of alternative and renewable energy products.

"Now is the time for the Renewable Energy Institute to be birthed," says Goodell, adding, "with the rising concerns for clean, pollution free power, and carbon free energy, global warming, and the pollution associated with power generated from pulverized coal power plants, which harms unborn babies, and kills our fish, and causes acid rain, combined with the fact that concentrating solar power plants can now be built at costs far less than building coal-fired power plants. And when you consider that electric rates - which were some of the lowest in the country at 8 cents/kWh before energy deregulation in Texas in 2002, have now doubled since deregulation went into effect, and are now running around 15 cents/kWh..... the logical conclusion for most people is that renewable energy has always been far superior for our environment, but now, renewable energy is also affordable. So far, the electric companies haven't been able to place a meter on the sun!"

Continuing, Mr. Goodell adds, "Texas is now at a crossroads, we can continue doing what we've been doing, building more fossil fuel power plants, and coal fired power plants, that come at a severe cost to our environment and the lives and health of our children and unborn children, as well as our planet, or we can do the right thing, and start building 'pollution free power' and power plants that produce 'carbon free energy.' It's now time to begin the transition of our society and economy from one that was based on dirty, inefficient, uneconomic, and non-sustainable 'brown' fossil-fuels based power plants to a society and economy that is based on safe, clean, green, sustainable and renewable energy that is affordable, carbon-free energy, pollution free power. The future is now, not years in the future. Texas, in just a few shot years has become the leader in wind power generation. We need to build more wind power generation farms and start building concentrating solar power plants. We need to recover and harness the 'free' power of Biomethane that is 21 times more harmful to our planet and environment than carbon dioxide emissions. And since deregulation of the electric industry in Texas, the electric companies have abandoned 'demand side management' and 'energy conservation measures' programs for their customers.... and you can't blame them, because they only make money by selling MORE kWh's, not less, which is what demand side management programs do, save their customers money by conserving electricity, which means the electric companies make less money as they are not selling as many kWh's as before. It has been estimated that Demand Side Management and Energy Conservation Measure can save customers at least 25% to 30% on their electric bills, and delay the need for building ANY new power plants in Texas until at least 2015.

We have the technologies readily available and off the shelf today, we only need a little more foresight and planning on the part of our leaders in Texas' government, as well as the shareholders and investors of the two electric companies wanting to build 19 new, unsustainable pulverized coal power plants. These two companies are already the two largest polluters in the State of Texas. The evidence is clear, we can, and we must EXCEED the 20 x 20 Renewable Portfolio Standard initiative which Congress is suggesting. Texas has been abundantly blessed with "natural" renewable energy resources that don't harm our health, and our children's health or our environment. We need to re-direct our legislators and politicians to the clean, clear and bright vision of renewable energy which is more profitable, and more sustainable, and we will all breathe easier, sleep better, and know that our children - and our children's children, and their children, will inherit a planet that is cooler, cleaner, greener, for generations to come.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.renewableenergyinstitute.org

The specific mission, objectives and purposes of the Renewable Energy Institute, a 501 (c) 3 corporation shall be:

1. To expand the use of renewable energy technologies in the United States and around the world.

2. To end America's dependence on unstable, unsustainable foreign sources of energy, and make the United States energy independent.

3. To lead and formulate public policy that promotes greater use of renewable energy.

4. To lead the research and development of new renewable energy technologies that lead to patents and the ability to license the renewable energy technologies we develop and invest.

5. To coordinate the research and development of renewable energy between universities so as to minimize redundancy and maximize results.

6. To facilitate and promote dialog between universities and professors in the free flow of research to enhance results and breakthroughs in renewable energy research and development.

7. To educate and inform the public, including stakeholders that include residential, commercial, industrial and governmental organizations who are consumers of power and energy, the many benefits and uses of renewable energy.

8. The Renewable Energy Institute will promote higher energy and electric power efficiencies and renewable energy technologies including; Anaerobic Digesters, Automated Demand Response, Biodiesel, Biomass Gasification, BioMethane and BioMethane Recovery, Cogeneration, Concentrating Solar Power, Demand Side Management, Dispersed Generation, Distributed Generation (onsite power generation), Fuel Cells, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Landfill Gas to Energy, Ocean and Tidal energy, Supply Side Management, Thermal Gasification, Trigeneration, Waste to Energy, Waste To Watts and to promote the use of energy crops and oilseed crops for producing biofuels and related technologies whenever a renewable fuel may be used in an internal combustion engine or gas turbine to produce clean power and energy. The Renewable Energy Institute will promote Carbon Dioxide Sequestration technologies, also called Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

9. To help farmers and growers in determining the optimum energy crops and oilseed crops they should consider for their specific locations, soils, climate and energy markets.

10. To adopt a goal of providing the U.S. with 50% of its' power and energy requirements from renewable energy sources by 2025, and 75% by 2050. Texas will lead the way with a goal of 50% of its' power and energy requirements from renewable energy sources by 2020, and 75% by 2040.

11. To seek funding, investments and donations for the REI from concerned citizens, organizations and companies that will fund the REI's grants, research and development.

12. To seek and develop strategic partners/partnerships that share and advance our common goals.

13. To seek out qualified companies and people that want to utilize our products and services under our license.

14. To provide Engineering Feasibility and Economic Analysis studies for customers - through a separate entity affiliated with the Renewable Energy Institute.

15. To develop renewable energy projects on behalf of customers - through a separate entity affiliated with the Renewable Energy Institute.

16. To remain committed as a trusted supplier of research, development and technologies and be committed as a "vendor-neutral" resource of information - until such time we identify "optimum" companies, products and/or technologies.

17. To promote and integrate the use of renewable energy technologies in creating "sustainable communities," "renewable energy districts," and "green buildings."

18. To be committed to ending global warming, eliminating carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and advance technologies such as carbon dioxide sequestration to end global climate change.

The Renewable Energy Institute will fund research and development of all renewable energy technologies, as well as provide leadership in the areas of "Pollution Free Power," "Carbon Free Energy," and "green tags" also known as a Renewable Energy Credit.

The Renewable Energy Institute will also conduct testing of renewable energy technologies, that compare various manufacturers products' and determines which products have the highest efficiencies, and fastest returns on investment (ROI). And, the Renewable Energy Institute will conduct "vendor-neutral" Engineering Feasibility and Economic Analysis, for specific renewable energy projects, for our customers, to determine the best technologies, and best equipment, for each new renewable energy project.

Please contact M o n t y G o o d e l l, Executive Director and Founder of the Renewable Energy Institute by email or phone to learn more about upcoming meeting that will be open to the public. Tel. (512) 220 - 1498