Oops Natural Gas's CO2 footprint could be higher than Coal

Forbes has an article that accounts for Natural Gas through its life cycle, not just in consumption.

Traditionally, we use emission numbers just for the power plant itself, that is, how much CO2 does a coal plant emit in producing a kWhr of electricity versus a gas plant versus a wind turbine, etc. These numbers have some emissions from other parts of the plant life-cycle such as construction and mining, as these dominate the emissions for energy sources like nuclear, hydro and wind which emit no GHG during operation.

Until now, the average equivalent grams of CO2emitted per kWhr produced has been calculated as 975 gCO2/kWhr from coal; 600 gCO2/kWhr from natural gas; 90 gCO2/kWhr from hydro; 55 gCO2/kWhr from solar; 15 gCO2/kWhr from wind, and 15 gCO2/kWhr from nuclear (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; GHG from Power Plants).

One calculation that has stirred debate is that the natural gas number is as high as 1200 gCO2/kWhr.

However, new studies by Robert Howarth and associates at Cornell University (GHG Footprint of Natural Gas; National Climate Assessment; thanks to atomikrabbit for pointing me in this direction) provide emissions data from the entire natural gas life-cycle. Their results bump this number for gas from 600 gCO2/kWhr to over 1,200 gCO2/kWhr, making natural gas the largest emitter of GHGs in electricity generation. On the other hand, Howarth and company have been challenged by others that say their numbers are too high (BusinessWeek), particularly Lawrence M. Cathles, also of Cornell. Cathles contends that gas is still better than coal with respect to global warming. Even if Cathles is correct and 600 gCO2/kWhr is still the number for gas, it’s not that much better than coal compared to ther energy sources like hydro and nuclear.

For those of you have just switched to a power generation mix that has more natural gas than coal, you may be stuck again.  And, your carbon footprint may be much bigger than you thought.

TSA Pre is great, my experience through SEA and PDX

I fly much more than I would like to.  And, many of you fly even more.  As we all experience Security can be the biggest pain.

TSA Pre is a new program to help the frequent travelers like us.

TSA Pre✓™ is a pre-screening initiative that makes risk assessments on passengers who voluntarily participate prior to their arrival at the airport checkpoint.

TSA Pre✓™ includes U.S. citizens who are members of existing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Trusted Traveler programs including Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI programs as well as eligible airline frequent flyers.

If TSA determines a passenger is eligible for expedited screening, information is embedded in the barcode of the passenger’s boarding pass. TSA reads the barcode at designated checkpoints and the passenger may be referred to a lane where they will undergo expedited screening, which could include no longer removing the following items:

  • Shoes
  • 3-1-1 compliant bag from carry-on
  • Laptop from bag
  • Light outerwear/jacket
  • Belt

Pre TSA works for me in SEA and just yesterday I went through PDX.

Q. Where is TSA Pre✓™ available?
A. Certain frequent flyers from Delta and American Airlines and certain members of CBP's Trusted Traveler programs, including Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS, who are U.S. citizens, are eligible to participate in this program, which could qualify them for expedited screening at select checkpoints with the following airlines:

Alaska Airlines – Portland International Airport and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

I went through Security this week in under five minutes at both SEA and PDX.  Woot!

I have one more trip to PDX in two weeks and then no more travel until Sept.  Time to take a break from all this data center travel.

Apple goes back on EPEAT position, sends a wake-up call to IEEE 1680.1

Apple has gone back on its EPEAT position and admits it made a mistake.

A letter from Bob Mansfield, Senior Vice President of Hardware Engineering

We’ve recently heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed to learn that we had removed our products from the EPEAT rating system. I recognize that this was a mistake. Starting today, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT.

There are over 200 articles on this topic.

Apple returns to EPEAT environmental ratings list

Fox News-1 hour ago
Apple said Friday that it is putting its products back on an environmental ratings registry, saying it made a mistake in removing them from the ...
Blog: Apple back on EPEAT ZDNet (blog)

With the vast majority missing the point.  Apple wants IEEE 1680.1 to be upgraded.

We think the IEEE 1680.1 standard could be a much stronger force for protecting the environment if it were upgraded to include advancements like these. This standard, on which the EPEAT rating system is based, is an important measuring stick for our industry and its products.

Our relationship with EPEAT has become stronger as a result of this experience, and we look forward to working with EPEAT as their rating system and the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard evolve. Our team at Apple is dedicated to designing products that everyone can be proud to own and use.

The threat of Apple walking from EPEAT will most likely wake-up a bunch of people.  This whole thing was good PR for EPEAT and Apple.  I think this was a win for Apple.

Macfanatics and Greenpeace collide on Apple's Maiden Data Center

MacRumors has a post on Greenpeace's position on Apple's Maiden Data Center.  Much of what is referenced comes from Data Center Knowledge.

Greenpeace announced yesterday that it has prepared an updated report on Apple's energy usage based on the new information, but as noted by Data Center Knowledge's Rich Miller, the group still seems to be being overly critical in its grading of Apple, even continuing to make up its own estimates of the North Carolina data center's energy usage rather than believing Apple's public statements.

In its initial report in April, Greenpeace estimated Apple’s power use in North Carolina at a whopping 100 megawatts. The group has reduced that slightly to 81 megawatts, dismissing the company’s disclosure that it expects draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity.

You can read the post to get a pro-Apple position vs. Greenpeace.

Another post by GigaOm's Katie Fehrenbacher goes into more detail on the Greenpeace position.

 

On the face of it, Apple’s steps are huge news in the world of data center operators, which for a long time have not been willing to pay a premium for clean power. Instead, most data center builders seek out locations that have cheap (and often times coal-based) power — like North Carolina, which has a grid that runs largely off of coal and nuclear. North Carolina has been able to attract a cluster of some of the largest data centers in the world whose owners want to buy its cheap and reliable power.

But Greenpeace still says that Apple isn’t being transparent about how it will reach those clean power goals. Greenpeace didn’t raise Apple’s score on “transparency” at all, and it kept its “D” grade in the update to the report. Greenpeace did raise Apple’s score for “infrastructure siting” to a D (from an F), “energy efficiency and green house gas mitigation” to a C (from a D) and “renewable energy investment and advocacy” to a C (from a D). Apple has now basically “passed,” but still trails behind companies like Google and Facebook in the ranking system.

But, then I read the comments on the MacRumors site.  I think it is pretty clear these people love their Apple products more than Greenpeace.  I don't think Greenpeace has ever attacked a company with a customer loyalty so high to criticize Greenpeace itself.  This is going to be interesting to see played out over the years.

Avatar
Skika
4 hours ago at 09:51 am
Greenpiss just wants attention and publicity.
Rating: 34 Positives
Avatar
marc7654
4 hours ago at 09:53 am
Greenpeace won't be happy until people stop using electricity. They are just a bunch of luddites.
Rating: 29 Positives
Avatar
bocomo
4 hours ago at 09:54 am
Those nutjobs lose credibility with junk like this
Rating: 23 Positives
Avatar
Kabeyun
4 hours ago at 09:54 am
Greenpeace has been working hard for years to make themselves irrelevant.
Rating: 22 Positives
Avatar
Dainin
4 hours ago at 09:54 am
Greenpeace again proves that it is completely worthless. Nothing but attention whores.
Rating: 22 Positives
Avatar
peb123
4 hours ago at 10:07 am
I'd love to see a green report done on Greenpeace. I'm willing to bet they are hypocrites.
Rating: 15 Positives
Avatar
Peace
4 hours ago at 09:55 am

Greenpiss just wants attention and publicity.


I agree. I used to like greenpeace but they've become nothing but publicity hounds while disregarding the truth.
Rating: 14 Positives
Avatar
crees!
4 hours ago at 09:57 am
They, among countless others, have made Green the new Red.
Rating: 13 Positives
Avatar
Foxer
4 hours ago at 10:05 am
Greenpeace, masters of PR, have learned what so many other media whores have learned: Criticize Apple and you will get headlines.
Rating: 13 Positives
Avatar
blumpkin
3 hours ago at 10:16 am
Greenpeace will be pleased to learn that my V-16 Maybach runs on liquified poor people.
Rating: 12 Positives
 

 

Final part of GigaOm's NC data center features behind the scenes story of Apple's iCloud Data Center

GigaOm's Katie Fehrenbacher finishes her 4 part series with a behind the scenes story on Apple's iCloud data center.

The story behind how Apple’s iCloud data center got built

By  Jul. 12, 2012, 12:00am PT No Comments

This article is the fourth in a four-part series that we’re publishing this week.

Apple’s new $1 billion data center — one of the highest-profile new data centers in the world — has put the town of Maiden, North Carolina (population: just over 3,000) on the tech map. But it almost didn’t get built.