Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

Black & Veatch to Support Hong Kong’s Woody Waste to Energy Pilot Project

https://waste-management-world.com/a/black-veatch-to-support-hong-kong-s-woody-waste-to-energy-pilot-project

As Hong Kong increases the recycling rate of yard waste and wood waste to promote sustainability, it is embarking on a semi-research project to facilitate territory-wide recycling of woody waste material.

Employee-owned engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company, Black & Veatch, explained that as Hong Kong increases the recycling rate of yard waste and wood waste to promote sustainability, it is embarking on a semi-research project to facilitate territory-wide recycling of woody waste material.

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has appointed Black & Veatch to be the Owner’s Engineer of Hong Kong’s first pilot plant for woody waste recycling. The pilot plant will have a capacity of 24 tonnes-per-day and will be constructed in EcoPark, Tuen Mun.

Reducing waste is one of Hong Kong’s strategies to optimise resources and reduce landfill disposal, while supporting sustainability. Woody waste recycling is a core element of the city’s biowaste management strategy to divert valuable biomass resource from the landfills.

“Black & Veatch is ready to support Hong Kong’s sustainability visions. We have worked with a large number of utilities and government agencies on waste to energy projects throughout the world, and many of them involve the conversion of biomass by means of pyrolysis or gasification to energy products,” says Andy Kwok, Managing Director, Black & Veatch Asia North.

“The unique aspect of this pilot project is its focus on the production of biochar-type products, which are expected to find sustainable outlets in the Hong Kong market,” says James Chan, Project Director, Black & Veatch Hong Kong.

Biochar is similar to charcoal and made by burning biomass in a process called pyrolysis. Biochar improves soil fertility and captures and stores carbon dioxide safely. In addition, the pilot plant project will explore if biochar can be produced to meet higher quality standards for other beneficial uses. For Hong Kong’s woody waste recycling plant, the potential feedstock includes used pallets, yard wastes as well as spent bamboo scaffolds.

Black & Veatch Hong Kong is tasked with reviewing the technology, market, environmental and regulatory aspects of the project’s proposed biochar plant. It is responsible for preparing a reference design, assisting in procurement, supervising construction and commissioning, and overseeing the pilot testing.

Cement could be greener, but will it?

https://airclim.org/acidnews/cement-could-be-greener-will-it

Between 1,500 and 1,600 million tons of CO₂ was emitted from the cement process in 2018, equal to Russia’s total CO₂ emissions. Another 1,000 million tons may be emitted from fuels.

Concrete is a widely used construction material that consists of sand and pebbles glued together with cement.

That cement is made from limestone. The lime is heated to around 1450ºC, driving the CO₂ out of the stone and transforming carbonate into oxide. This cement is called Portland Cement, after the Portland quarry in Dorset on the Jurassic Coast in England from which it was first produced in 1824. Since then, the remains of ichthyosaurs have been used to build houses and roads. It is usually heated with coal, another fossil, derived mainly from plants that grew in the Devonian era.

Fossil, fossil.

Concrete is a versatile material, inexpensive and predictable. It does not catch fire or mould. If reinforced, it is very strong, and provides some insulation.

But there are alternatives.

The fuel used for heating can be switched from coal to gas, waste, biomass or to electric heating.

Whichever fuel is chosen, the roasting of lime still produces CO₂.

But concrete is not the only construction material. President Macron has ordered that new public buildings financed by the French state must contain 50 per cent wood or other organic material (such as hemp or straw) by 2022.

Wood can be used for load-bearing joists and for exterior walls, even on tall buildings. An 18-storey timber building was completed in 2019, north of Oslo.

When biomass is used for vehicle fuel or heating fuel, the carbon goes back into the air. When wood is used for construction, the carbon is stored for as long as the building stands.

The construction industry could in principle require other building materials or at least lower-carbon cement. But they usually don’t, as the CO₂ from cement is not included in the environmental reports of the construction companies. Skanska, the fifth biggest construction company in the world, does not even mention cement under https://group.skanska.com/ sustainability/green/priority-areas/carbon/.

Concrete is used in the foundations of buildings, where its function is to be heavy, to keep the building in place. Part of the foundation can be stone, such as granite. Wind power foundations can substitute concrete for rock, or be anchored directly to the rock.

Foam glass can provide insulation and is at least as moisture resistant as concrete.

Concrete reinforced with steel bars uses another property of Portland cement, its high alkalinity, which protects the iron from corrosion. If the iron is allowed to oxidise it will expand and create cracks in the concrete, and then widen those cracks.

If other materials are used as reinforcement, such as glass fibre, carbon fibre, plastic fibre, stainless steel or even cellulose, there is no need for an alkaline environment.

Bridges can be built of steel which – unlike concrete – is easily recyclable. They can sometimes be made of composites, i.e. plastics, which are much lighter than concrete.

Even if concrete is preferred, its carbon footprint can vary widely.

The Pantheon in Rome was constructed 1900 years ago using low-carbon concrete made from volcanic ash. (It was naturally not reinforced, so it did not rust and crack.)

Volcanic ash can be used as an additive to Portland cement, up to 50 per cent according to MIT¹. Slag from steel production and fly-ash from coal power have long been used as “supplementary cementitious materials” blended into Portland cement.

But there is much more slag and much more ash available. There are more sources: aluminium dross, waste incineration slag, rice hull ash, silica fume, all of which have high alkalinity and can be reinforced with steel.

Why is this largely unquantified source of low-carbon cement not used?

The construction industry is not very innovative by nature. It is much less dynamic than the engineering industry, where productivity and product development have been much faster. (Just look at cars.)

It is difficult to build a house; many things can go wrong, and every change means taking risks. The risk of delays, the risk of later collapse or slow deterioration, risks to health at work, as well as subsequent health risks for the users of the building.

Logistics is complicated, so it is easier to use few, well-defined and well-known materials. Ash from industrial by-products may contain hazardous metals.

Sweden used large quantities of “blue concrete” gypsum boards for several decades. They were effectively a by-product from uranium mining, and emit radon, which caused thousands of deaths due to lung cancer, and will cause many more. This was a risk that should have been foreseen.

But a building material that is unfit in one place may be perfectly acceptable somewhere else. Living-room walls, bridges, rail sleepers, parking lots, harbours, airstrips … they all have different requirements regarding toxicity, strength, resistance to rain and salty winds etc.

With more detailed specifications for each use, the CO₂ footprint can be reduced by using more substitutes for Portland cement, which often require less cement per ton of concrete.

Why has this not happened? The answer is simple: it is cheap because the price does not include its environmental costs.

In the EU, the cement industry is part of the °C trading system. Sort of. It gets free allocations, i.e. it is paid back for all its emissions. In 2018, the cement industry received 114 million tons of free allocations

and emitted 111 Mt. Some plants actually pay for some of their emissions, but over-allocation is normal. The allocation is (in theory) benchmarked in line with the 10 per cent best performers, but this obviously does not work in practice. It is justified on the grounds of carbon leakage, i.e. the threat that if Europe and cement producers had to pay for their emissions, they would be at a disadvantage to outside competition.

The evidence for such a threat is slim². Cement is a cheap, voluminous product which is normally not transported very far. A Sandbag report summed it up “For cement, free allocation is a solution to a problem that does not exist since the sector has experienced no carbon leakage.” ³

Sandbag has noted that the industry’s carbon intensity rose between 2005 and 2014 and that the present system “offers inadequate short- and long-term incentives to reduce carbon emissions. It … makes investment in low-carbon cement unattractive.”

The cement industry – Cembureau and individual companies – has lobbied hard in Brussels and elsewhere, with great success. They lobby hard because they need to. Cement factories are usually built close to quarries. They use big mining, big kilns, big harbours and big ships. They can’t move. They can’t do anything else. So they will use all their market power and political influence to keep things as they are as long as possible. As things stand, they will keep free allocations through 2030.

As the climate debate increasingly focuses on 1.5 degrees C, the cement industry has to find some context where Portland cement can appear Paris-compatible.

How could that be done?

The International Energy Agency relies on CCS for 83 per cent of cumulative emissions reductions in the cement sector in its Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.

CCS features high on Cembureau’s low carbon web page⁴. This is in fact the only way they address the core problem, i.e. the CO₂ from lime. The rest are either things that may happen in the future (improved energy efficiency, less carbon-intensive fuels) or are up to somebody else (product efficiency and “downstream”).

Cement plants can produce a large and relatively pure stream of CO₂, so there are few places better for CCS. But nobody believes CCS will pay for itself, at least not Heidelberg Cement, which lobbies for billions of euro in government support in Norway and Sweden. A typical estimate says CCS would increase costs by over 50 per cent⁵.

A Chatham House report⁶ enumerates six alternatives to Portland cement with a potential to mitigate CO₂ by 50–100%.

They are:

Low-clinker Portland (ash, slag etc.)
Geopolymers (clay)
Low-carbonate clinker with calcium silicates
Belite clinkers
Calcium silicate clinkers
Magnesium-based cements
Several are now produced on an industrial scale. Costs vary with location, but are thought to be about the same as now. That would mean that much of the problem could probably be solved surer, cheaper and faster than with CCS.

There are still more options.

Another way to cut the use of cement and its emissions is to use less of it in concrete, with more fine-tuned design of buildings and concrete mixes. Some of the clinker can also be replaced with lime powder, which is mined in the same way but does not go through the kiln.

Nature, and man, have developed many ways to glue sand and pebbles together to make a strong and durable mass. Even living bacteria can be used for this purpose. The cohesion of naturally occurring materials can be quite impressive; 1900 million-year-old Scandinavian granite is still in good shape.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/cities-future-built-locally-available-volcanic-ash-0206
Healy et al https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/5/1231
https://sandbag.org.uk/project/cement-industry-future/
https://lowcarboneconomy.cembureau.eu/
http://www.energy-transitions.org/better-energy-greater-prosperity
https://reader.chathamhouse.org/making-concrete-change-innovation-low-carbon-cement-and-concrete#

Transition to 100 percent renewable energy is cost efficient

https://airclim.org/acidnews/transition-100-percent-renewable-energy-cost-efficient

Global warming, air pollution and social instability are all challenges that the new roadmaps to a renewable energy system address. A new report from Stanford university1 presents different scenarios in which 143 countries transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

Such a transition would reduce energy demand by 57 percent and decrease social costs by 91 percent compared to a business-as-usual scenario (BAU). The 143 nations included represent more than 99.7 percent of the world’s fossil fuel emissions. This transition would make it possible to stay below 1.5 degree of global warming and reduce the air pollution that causes approximately 7 million premature deaths every year.

The calculations conclude that such a development would cost $6.8 trillion/year compared to $17.7 trillion/year for business-as-usual energy systems. These figures account for electricity, heating, cooling, hydrogen generation and storage, and transmission and distribution using annual private market costs. Thus, the transition costs 61 percent less than the BAU energy scenario.

However, the aggregate social cost (private together with health and climate expenses) of BAU energy is $76.1 trillion/year. The net present value of the capital costs of transitioning to renewable energy worldwide is $72.8 trillion for the entire transition period, from now until 2050.

These expenses will be covered by electricity sales and increased job opportunities. The presented Wind-Water-Solar scenario (WWS) creates 28.6 million more full-time jobs than the BAU scenario.

Besides the argument of expense, others argue that the material resources it will take to produce the WWS energy equipment could be a liability in their own right. However, the calculations show that the equipment will only consume 1 percent of the world’s annually produced steel and 0.4 percent of the concrete. The net carbon dioxide emissions from producing the materials needed would be approximately 0.014 percent of the annual current carbon dioxide emissions.

The technology that is needed for a 100 percent renewable energy transition already exist. According to the authors, the transition would be economically and technically feasible by 20302. However due to political, institutional and cultural obstacles 2050 is a more realistic target.

The calculations for how to reach 100 percent renewables by 2050 are made based on the US democratic party’s proposal, The Green New Deal. This plan calls for a launch of a “10-year mobilization” to reduce carbon emissions, by sourcing 100 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable and zero-emissions power, upgrading to more energy-efficient buildings, investing in electric vehicles and high-speed rails etc.

The first step in the study was to project 2016 end-use BAU energy in multiple energy sectors in 143 countries to 2050. The end-use energy of BAU 2050 was then electrified using renewable energy sources. When the 143 countries move from BAU to WWS energy, the 2050 annual average demand for end-use power decreases by 57.1 percent. This reduction is due to: efficiency gains from using WWS electricity over combustion (38.3 percent), eliminating energy in the mining, transporting and refining of fossil fuels (12.1 percent), and improvements in end-use energy efficiency and reduced energy use beyond those in the BAU case (6.6 percent).

Compared to previous studies on strategies and scenarios this study adds important factors and new perspectives. The main differences are the following:

First, socioeconomic costs include external costs not accounted for in market costs or prices. In this case the social costs can be air pollution mortality, morbidity and global warming damage. When it comes to political applicability a social cost analysis is of greater value than a private cost analysis alone as it presents a comprehensive view of the impacts of policies.

Second, other studies use the cost per unit energy rather than the aggregate energy cost per year. This has an important effect as a renewable energy system uses much less end-use energy than a business-as-usual system.

Two main issues that are often brought up in technical discussions on the transition to 100 percent renewable energy are storage and transmission. Regarding energy storage the report finds that the problems have already been solved. As a result of the decrease in energy demand by switching to renewable energy sources (see Figure 1) and developing the technologies already in play, storage will not be a limiting factor.

When it comes to grid congestion and new transmission, the study concludes that both the risk of congestion and the need for additional transmission are lower than previously thought. Even when the most conservative WWS scenario model is used together with the highest costs, the BAU scenario still has the highest expense. However, continent-scale grids will not be a solution for isolated nations such as Japan and South Korea. The study found that even when sticking to grid isolation, the costs of a renewable grid are lower than BAU.

Comprehensive road maps of this type naturally involve some uncertainties and sensitivities. Assuming perfect energy transmission, inconsistencies between load and resource datasets and projecting future energy use are some examples of the uncertainties. By modelling several scenarios with different levels of costs and climate damage several of the uncertainties are addressed. When it comes to accounting for extreme weather events the model includes these by measuring the variability of weather worldwide at a 30-second time resolution.

One of the authors explains3 that the aim of the study is to illustrate that there is no downside to making this transition, and to allay some of the fears that the transition would be too expensive. The evidence shows that the technology, resources and knowledge needed for the 100 percent renewable transition already exist.

Additionally, the study shows that the transition is by far the cheapest option. The risk is rather that these types of transitions will not be implemented quickly enough. They should inspire policymakers, according to the one of the authors, Marc Jacobson: “I hope people will take these plans to their policymakers in their country to help solve these problems.”

Emilia Samuelsson

Figure 1. Timeline for 143 countries, representing more than 99.7 percent of world fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions, to transition from conventional fuels (BAU) to 100 percent wind-water-solar (WWS) in all energy sectors. Also shown are the annually averaged end-use power demand reductions that occur along the way.

Air pollution from fossil fuels costs USD 8 billion a day

https://airclim.org/acidnews/air-pollution-fossil-fuels-costs-usd-8-billion-day

A new study by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air shows that air pollution emitted from burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil and gas, causes approximately 4.5 million premature deaths worldwide every year.

The study focusses on particulate matter (PM₂.₅), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and ozone (O₃), as elevated levels of these pollutants increase the incidence of chronic and acute illnesses and contribute to millions of hospital visits and billions of work days lost due to illness each year, resulting in high costs to our economies, as well as to environmental damage.

Exposure to PM₂.₅and ozone from fossil fuel emissions is responsible for about 7.7 million asthma-related trips to the emergency room each year, while exposure to fine PM₂.₅ alone from burning fossil fuels is estimated to cause 1.8 billion days of sick leave annually.

It is pointed out that air pollution is a major health threat to children, particularly in low-income countries. Globally, air pollution from fossil fuel-related PM₂.₅ is attributed to the death of about 40,000 children before their fifth birthday and to approximately 2 million preterm births each year.

The analysis incorporates recent research that quantifies the contribution of fossil fuel-related emissions to global air pollution levels, and it uses global datasets on levels of PM₂.₅, NO₂, and O₃ to perform health impact assessments and subsequent cost calculations for the year 2018.

Exposure to PM₂.₅ from fossil fuels was found to be responsible for the premature deaths of around 3 million people due to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and lung cancer. Moreover, approximately 1 million people die prematurely due to ozone pollution and 500,000 people due to NO₂.

The total economic costs of the health damage are estimated to amount to USD 2,900 billion in 2018, equivalent to USD 8 billion per day. The report has an appendix providing both cost and mortality data country-by-country. When looking at individual countries, China, the US and India bear the highest cost from fossil fuel pollution, at USD 900 bn, 600 bn and 150 bn respectively.

Across the EU, around 400,000 annual premature deaths are attributed to fossil-fuel-related air pollution. Of these, 295,000 are linked to PM₂.₅ exposure, 69,000 to NO₂ and 34,000 to ozone exposure. The overall economic costs for the EU are estimated at more than USD 500 billion. Country-by-country data for EU member states are shown in the table.

The authors of the study argue that the solution is to rapidly phase out the use of fossil fuels, which would simultaneously tackle both the air pollution crisis and the climate emergency, and the report lists some good examples of action taken in the transport and energy sectors.

“This is a problem that we know how to solve,” said Minwoo Son, clean air campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia. “By transitioning to renewable energy sources, phasing out diesel and petrol cars, and building public transport. We need to take into account the real cost of fossil fuels, not just for our rapidly heating planet, but also for our health.”

Christer Ågren

Bio-Nylon Is The New Green: How One Company Is Fermenting A $10 Billion Market

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2020/02/11/bio-nylon-is-the-new-green-how-one-company-is-fermenting-your-future-materials/#536dec54030d

In the inevitable shift away from fossil fuels, Genomatica announced the first commercial production of bio-based nylon. Companies that seize the economic and environmental benefits of biomanufacturing stand to lead the way, whether it’s fabrics or face creams.

When we think of biotechnology, it’s easy to think just about pharmaceuticals. Even the broader term ‘bioeconomy’ may only bring to mind things like agriculture, forestry, and food.

But the bioeconomy is best thought of as turning biomass into business, plants into products. What we call the bioeconomy today made up most of our economy before the 20th century, when petrochemistry and synthetic chemistry gave rise to a revolutionary material that became ubiquitous worldwide: plastics.

In the 21st century, consumers are increasingly demanding products that reflect their more sustainable values and lifestyles. Chemistry is giving way to synthetic biology, and engineered organisms—using the same kind of fermentation we use to make wine, bread, or kombucha—can now make the chemical building blocks for shoes, cars, and carpets.

There is just one question: Which producers will have the foresight to lead this biomanufacturing revolution?

Recently, a bioengineering company called Genomatica reached a milestone that epitomizes this shift from fossil fuels to biology. Genomatica announced it had made a ton of the chemical building block that industry relies on to make nylon-6—using a renewable fermentation approach.

Here’s why that matters.

Why does bio-nylon matter?

First, it’s an economic opportunity. The nylon industry is worth $10 billion globally. That’s a huge potential market to tap into. Nylon became famous in the 1940s as a textile fiber in stockings. Today, it is found in everything from clothes to packaging.

Second, it’s an environmental necessity. As with most plastic production today, nylon-6 usually starts with crude oil. In this case, the molecule caprolactam is refined from crude oil and made into nylon. Every year, the world makes five million tons of nylon-6, which results in an estimated 60 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Producing nylon creates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Manufacturing nylon also requires large amounts of water and energy, further contributing to environmental degradation and global warming.

Using a synthetic biology approach, Genomatica engineered microorganisms to ferment plant sugars to produce caprolactam, and therefore nylon, in a 100% renewable way. Christopher Schilling, CEO of Genomatica, thinks this is good for business and our planet.

“There’s this idea that in order to be sustainable, you’ve got to find some totally novel material,” said Schilling. But by producing the very same chemical precursor that industry would normally get from fossil fuels, he believes Genomatica can have a much bigger, more rapid impact on sustainability. “As this product continues to scale, and the economics become more obvious, companies will begin to ask themselves: why would we source it any other way?”

Name brands are going bio-based

Genomatica wants to deliver sustainable nylon to brands like H&M, Vaude, and Carvico via its partnership with Aquafil, one of the largest producers of nylon in the world. Aquafil’s ECONYL brand of nylon takes old fishing nets, textile scraps, and other forms of nylon waste and transforms them into new yarn that’s as good as virgin raw material. Aquafil sees this regeneration process as a new opportunity for the fashion and furniture industries, and a way to protect the environment.

“It was important to us to establish a real connection point with consumer brands,” said Schilling. As a technology innovator, Genomatica felt that the success of the product depended on being accepted at all points in the value chain. Aquafil was the best partner for that, “where we could share a great story that consumer brands could latch on to and ultimately champion.”

Schilling says that the initial one-ton production of the chemical precursor is a small but important step, and its next goal is to reach commercial-scale levels of 30,000-100,000 tons per year.

Bio-nylon’s sustainable forerunners

“One of the things that’s really differentiated Genomatica is our ability to scale, to know how to take something all the way from ideation to commercial realization,” says Schilling.

Nylon is Genomatica’s third big synthetic biology product to come to market, and its previous experience in this space is sure to help accelerate the transition from the lab bench to the marketplace.

Genomatica’s first big success was with 1,4-butanediol, known more colloquially as BDO. This chemical is used to make plastics, elastic fibers, and polyurethanes, and it’s found in everything from plastic bags to spandex. The world produces about 2.5 million metric tons of BDO every year, and at about US$2,000 per ton, the market is in the billions.

In 2012, Genomatica delivered a chemical engineering breakthrough by producing bio-based BDO with a cost-competitive fermentation process at a commercial scale. Bio-BDO is 100% bio-based and biodegradable, and can be found in athletic apparel, running shoes, electronics, and automotive applications.

A second big success came with a chemical named 1,3-butylene glycol. Few realize it, but many of our everyday personal care and beauty products are derived from crude oil. In early 2019, Genomatica announced the first commercial production of Brontide—its brand name of the chemical—made with natural plant-based sugars. As more and more of us strive to choose products that are in line with our personal values, those made with Brontide rather than fossil fuel derivatives offer consumers a choice that is kinder to the environment.

Taken together, there are now bio-based alternatives for the chemicals used to make everything from fuels to electronics, from shoes to cosmetics. It’s a reminder of just how dependent we are on petrochemicals in our everyday lives.

Are bio-based drop-in chemicals inevitable?

“On the performance side, our first goal is to make sure that the material delivers exactly the same performance features as you would get from conventionally or petroleum sourced nylon. That’s the same thing we did in BDO and butylene glycol,” explains Schilling. He adds, “When you have these large existing markets, you have to make sure you hit the spec to deliver the same quality.”

Bio-based alternatives can offer another advantage over their fossil-based cousins: in some cases, they perform better. With butylene glycol, for example, heavy metals are a catalyst used in processing the ingredient from crude oil. In the final product, trace amounts of heavy metals remain. But with biomanufacturing, no catalysts are needed and there’s no chemical processing, says Schilling. “There are also different purity levels that we’re able to hit very effectively,” he says.

The argument for sustainable, bio-based approaches to material precursors is a strong one. Through relatively simple fermentation processes, biology has shown time and again that it can make whatever we can pump out of the ground, offering precision, renewable production of key compounds. Bio-based caprolactam is another proof point.

The sticking point, as ever, is industry adoption. Industry leaders across the value chain need to seek out and support the scaling of sustainable and renewable bio-based components to speed their integration into a diverse array of end-products. Consumers want them, manufacturers can use them, and most importantly, the planet needs them.

Hong Kong green group blasted for ad on LED screen

Download (PDF, 594KB)

CTA at Quarry Bay School on Energy in HK

QBS Dec 2017 1

QBS Dec 2017 2

QBS Dec 2017 3

Hong Kong government investigated over planning for electric car roll-out

Download (PDF, 354KB)

Quitting coal: a health benefit equivalent to quitting tobacco, alcohol and fast-food

Download (PDF, 105KB)

Waste-to-Energy: A Climate Disaster