Submitted by Jeff Buster on June 28, 2006 - 11:21am.
Over the last few years I have been advocating that the Cleveland School District use its bonding power to install wind turbines throughout the urban school district in a net metering program under Ohio law. Many people would roll their eyes – Cleveland already has enough WIND in their schools and now Buster is promoting harvesting wind?! I don’t think so….
But it really wasn’t my idea, because in Hull, Massachusetts, a small town just south of Boston on Boston Harbor, there has been a wind turbine operating at Hull High School for apx. 10 years. That old machine produced enough electricity to offset all the electricity used in the town’s street lighting and traffic signals.
This month Hull upgraded to a 1.8 megawatt Vestas (similar to the turbines in Bowling Green, Ohio) . http://www.hullwind.org/ The new machine will produce enough electricity to offset all the electrical use for all of the Hull schools. And you can see from the aerial photo that the Hull High School (next to the turbine) is a large school structure by itself.
All this makes a mockery of the recent endorsement of a practically useless lawn ornament turbine in front of the Great Lakes Science Center. If the placement of the useless turbine in Cleveland is the best our philanthropic and environmental and government organizers can do, while the little pipsqueak town of Hull, Massachusetts is together enough to put in a functioning energy producing turbine, is there any hope for NEO?
Worse than bad wind - bad ecoleadership and media
Jeff, the problem is that the media, power and coal industries and other large polluters including all that involve heavy use of diesel and electricity in general, all have a lock on "sustainability" and environmentalism in Ohio, and all are focused on increasing consumption and their own revenues rather than Demand Side Management, regulation, enforcement, civic engagement and activism. To the extent industry, chambers of commerce, the mainstream media and local, regional and state government and other organizations that depend on any of them are viewed as drivers of any solutions, then wind and all socially conscious environmentalism will continue to fail here.
A small bit of clarity on the ecological disaster that is the Ohio environment and the harmful role of coal and diesel is found between the lines in a recent PD article that celebrates dirty coal's collaboration with supposedly environmentalist "Ohio Environmental Council", coverage of which so thoroughly perverts the actual substance of the report they reference, the "Ohio Climate Raod Map, Part 2", that it is fair to say the Plain Dealer must share responsibility for not well informing the public and so is preventing individuals from doing smart things to help the environment, like reducing their consumption of gas and electricity, improving vehicle, home and work energy efficiency (promoting Demand Side Management, in general), and becoming activist for a healthy environment. Read the article and report linked above and copied below.
This is very sad... to quote PD coverage of the OEC "Road Map", ""Today, it's a mess," said Jack Shaner, public affairs director at the Ohio Environmental Council. "Coal and electric production is responsible for a huge part of global warming."" "Ohio is the nation's third-biggest emitter of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, according to the report. In addition, Ohio ranks third in the nation - trailing only Texas and California - for total greenhouse gas emissions." The PD doesn't even mention Demand Side Management, yet the report has extensive recommendations on that.
The PD fails to mention a Wind Power component to the OEC recommendations:
What the PD also glosses over, from the OEC Road Map, is "Diesel engines contribute up to 30% of the fine particles (PM2.5) and 50% of the ozone-forming nitrogen oxide emissions in a Columbus-sized urban area. The OEC is working on programs and campaigns to reduce the deadly emissions from these two sources." So, we are starting to see what is causing the hot zones on the NOACA particulate maps - Diesel fumes.
What I find most disturbing is that, according to the Ohio Environmental Council website, "For over 30 years, citizens across the state have counted on the Ohio Environmental Council to be their voice in the Statehouse—fighting to protect Ohio’s environment and vanishing open space." Well, then it is time for the citizens to let the council know loud and clear that we are dissatisfied that in their 30 years Ohio became the 3rd most disgraceful state in America. That said, Jeff, take over - you're more environmentalist than me or anyone else I know around NEO, when you're in NEO - when are you going to step up and demand accountability and lead some good old fashioned activism about the environment? If now, here's a road map to follow and all the contact information you need to stir thing up with the establishment, as we work to create a culture activist for the environment outside the establishment...
Here's how to contact the OEC:
Contact Us
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact us.
Address: 1207 Grandview Ave., Ste. 201
Columbus, OH 43212-3449
Voice: (614) 487-7506
Fax: (614) 487-7510
General E-mail: oec@theOEC.org
For information or comments on:
Peter W. Johnsen, Director of Finance and Information
pete@theOEC.org
Vicki L. Deisner, Executive Director
vicki@theOEC.org
Jack Shaner, Director of Public Affairs
jack@theOEC.org
Susan Studer King, Development Director
susan@theOEC.org
Micah S. Vieux, Outreach Coordinator
micah@theOEC.org
Staci R. Putney McLennan,
Director of Clean Air Programs
staci@theOEC.org or
David R. Celebrezze, Outreach Coordinator
david@theOEC.org or
Kurt Waltzer, Clean Air Strategy Specialist
kurt@theOEC.org
Keith Dimoff, Deputy Director
keith@theOEC.org or
Daniel M. Binder, Director of Watershed Programs
daniel@theOEC.org or
Kristy Meyer, Outreach Coordinator
kristy@theOEC.org
Sarah Hovanec, Administrative Manager
sarah@theOEC.org
I also suggest contacting each of their member organizations to express dissatisfaction with the past 30 years leading to Ohio being at best the third worst polluter in America:
Member Links
Active Citizens of Twinsburg
http://www.twinsburg.com/act/index.html
American Lung Association of Ohio
http://www.ohiolung.org/
Audubon Society - Columbus
http://www.columbusaudubon.org/
Audubon Society - Ohio
http://www.audubon.org/chapter/oh/oh/
Audubon Society - Miami Valley
http://www.audubonmiamivalley.org/
Aullwood Audubon Center and Farm
http://www.audubon.org/local/sanctuary/aullwood/
Buckeye Forest Council
http://www.buckeyeforestcouncil.org/index.html
Chagrin River Land Conservancy
http://www.crlc.cc/
Clean Air Task Force
http://www.catf.us/
Crown Point Ecology Center
http://www.crownpt.org/
Delta Institute
http://www.delta-institute.org/
Denison University Environmental Studies Program
http://www.denison.edu/enviro/
EcoCity Cleveland
http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/
Federal Valley Watershed Association
http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~ag723/
Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries
http://www.friendsofalumcreek.org
Friends of the Earth
http://www.foe.org/
Friends of the Hocking River
http://www.lancaster-oh.com/hocking/
Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed
http://www.olentangywatershed.org/
Friends of Whiskey Island
http://www.citizensvision.org/friends-wi/index.htm
Greater Cleveland Ecology Association
http://www.cuyahogaswd.org/residential/gcea.shtml
Green Energy Ohio
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/default.cfm?Flash=true
Green Environmental Coaliton
http://www.greenlink.org/gec/
Greenacres Foundation
http://www.green-acres.org
Humane Society of the United States - Great Lakes Regional Office
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/regional_offices/central_states_regional_office/:
IMAGO
http://www.imagoearth.org/
Izaak Walton League of America - Cincinnati Chapter
http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/wellerville/702/
Izaak Walton League of America - Delta Chapter
http://www.deltaizaakwaltonleague.org/
Izaak Walton League of America - Fairfield Chapter
http://home.fuse.net/fairfieldiwla/
Izaak Walton league of America - Ohio Division
http://www.iwlaohiodivision.org/
Kelleys Island Audubon Club
http://www.kelleysislandnature.com
Kent Environmental Council
http://www.kentenvironment.org/
Lake Erie Nature and Science Center
http://www.lensc.org
League of Ohio Sportsmen
http://www.leagueofohiosportsmen.org/main.html
League of Women Voters of Ohio
http://www.lwvohio.org/
Little Miami, Inc.
http://www.littlemiami.com/
Marietta College - Environmental Science Program
http://www.marietta.edu/~envr/
Mill Creek Watershed Council
http://www.millcreekwatershed.org
Muskingum College Environmental Science
http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/external/academics/facultymain.html
Nature Center at Shaker Lakes
http://www.shakerlakes.org/
Nature Conservancy -Ohio Chapter
http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/
Ohio Archeological Council
http://www.ohioarchaeology.org
Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies
http://www.oacaa.org/
Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association
http://www.oeffa.org/
Ohio Family Farm Coalition
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2777/
Ohio Multi-Use Trails Association
http://www.ohiotrails.org/
Ohio Prairie Association
http://www.ohioprairie.org/
Ohio Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
http://www.railstrails.org
Ohio River Advocacy
http://www.ohioriveradvocacy.org/
Ohio Smallmouth Alliance
http://www.theohiosmallmouthalliance.org
Organize! Ohio
http://www.organizeohio.org/
Regional Coalition for Ohio Valley Environmental Restoration
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/2170/
Rural Action
http://www.ruralaction.org/
Scenic Ohio
http://www.scenicohio.org/
Scioto River Valley Federation
http://www.sciotoriver.org/
Stop the Ohio Pipeline S.T.O.P.
http://www.stoppipeline.org/
Tinkers Creek Land Conservancy
http://www.tinkerscreek.org
Wood County Citizens Opposed to Factory Farms
http://www.wccoff.org/
If your member organization is not listed or the link listed above is incorrect, please contact Pete Johnsen.
And OEC lists industry representatives ready to discuss the Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2, so contact them:
Individuals who have reviewed Ohio Roadmap, Part 2 and are prepared to discuss
the recommendations with reporters.
Dale Arnold
Ohio Farm Bureau
Director, Energy Programs
(614) 246-8294
darnold@ofbf.org
Michael Carey
Ohio Coal AssociationOhio Climate Road Map, Part 2
President
(614) 228-6336
(614) 264-1694
mcarey@ohiocoal.com
John Stowell
Duke Energy
Vice President
Environmental, Health & Safety Leadership
Duke Energy Corp.
Charlotte Phone: 704.382.7353
Cincinnati Phone: 513.287.3540
Cell: 513.659.8127
john.stowell@duke-energy.com
Jim Hiendlmayr
BioGas Technologies
(800) 854-1699
bgtjimh@aol.com
Dr. Larry Wickstrom
Division of Geologic Survey
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Energy Resources Group, Supervisor
(614) 265-6598
larry.wickstrom@dnr.state.oh.us
Professor Rattan Lal
Ohio Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, Director
Ohio Agricultural and Research Center
The Ohio State University
(614) 292-9069
lal.1@osu.edu
The Article in the PD follows, followed by the OEC Climate Road Map Report, Part 2:
Group: Cleaner Ohio is good business
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Jennifer Price
Plain Dealer Reporter
The Ohio Environmental Council believes the state can fight global warming - without damaging its agriculture, coal, and manufacturing industries - by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Most of the council's 65 recommendations in a report released Monday dealt with replacement of conventional coal-burning power plants - responsible for such high carbon dioxide emissions - with coal-gasification and sequestration power plants. These plants have new technology to capture and store carbon emissions underground.
The council, in its report, cited electric power production, transportation, and thermal heating to be the three largest causes of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, the gradual warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
Ohio is the nation's third-biggest emitter of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, according to the report. In addition, Ohio ranks third in the nation - trailing only Texas and California - for total greenhouse gas emissions. The total emissions account for not just carbon dioxide but also methane gas, black carbon soot (which comes from diesel engine exhaust), and several other harmful gases.
Based on these statistics, the council stressed the importance of Ohio's participation in combating the global problem by leading the way to more energy-efficient technology, especially when it comes to coal-burning power plants.
In 2000, Ohio's electric power production, which includes both coal and oil-fired power plants, accounted for 42 percent of Ohio's total greenhouse gases emissions.
The report estimates that by phasing in the new energy-efficient technology in coal power plants, 104 million tons of carbon dioxide would be reduced each year.
"Today, it's a mess," said Jack Shaner, public affairs director at the Ohio Environmental Council. "Coal and electric production is responsible for a huge part of global warming. But we see real opportunity through coal gasification and coal sequestration for the coal industry to be a part of the solution."
Michael Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association, said he was pleased the council has come to the conclusion that coal will continue to play a crucial role in Ohio's energy policy.
Cleaning up Ohio's dirty coal-burning power plants has been a goal of the council and other local and national environmental group for years. Besides global warming, the state's power-plant pollution helps create acid rain, adds to ground-level ozone and releases tons of mercury annually, the council said.
Plain Dealer reporter John Kuehner contributed to this story.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
jprice@plaind.com, 216-999-4382
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Bio products and bio sequestration of carbon dioxide
Ohio should promote a robust bio products industry as part of its effort to reduce
greenhouse gases. These efforts should focus on commercializing the proven technologies
of today, as well as promoting the development of new technologies that hold economic
development and environmental protection potential.
Bio technologies can take Ohio 28% of the way to where we need to be with respect to
annual CO2 emissions by mid century (see report, figure 1, page 7 for mid century target).
Policy recommendations for bio products and bio sequestration of carbon
Promoting biologic sequestration
• Establish a State Tax Credit for conservation tillage equipment.
• Encourage Conservation Equipment Purchase Cooperatives.
• Authorize Crop Insurance for conservation tillage equipment and carbon liability.
• Establish a Limited Property Tax Credit for crop land utilizing conservation tillage.
• Develop a Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Registry in Ohio with accounting standards for
biological sequestration.
• Increase carbon sequestration in Ohio forests.
Promoting bio product demand
• Establish a State Purchase Program that gives a preference to biofuels and biofuel-
ready vehicles for state government purchases.
• Establish a State Tax Credit to promote biofuels purchase by the private sector.
• Establish a Renewable Fuel Standard to require a minimum content of biodiesel,
ethanol, and other biofuels in motor vehicle fuels.
• Establish an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard to require electric suppliers to
generate a minimum percent of power from renewable fuels—including crops, switch
grass, biodiesel, ethanol, landfill methane gas and other biofuels—and also from coal
waste.
• Establish Best Environmental and Greenhouse Gas Practices for bio feedstock use.
• Adopt transparent, standardized Interconnection Standards to the electric grid to
promote the production of electricity from small-scale electric power customer-
generators that utilize biofuels.
Promoting new technology commercialization:
• Step up research and development for the commercialization of bio char, a biomass-
based alternative to commercial fertilizers.
• Establish financial incentives to facilitate the development of the next technology
generation of bio refineries.
Co-benefits from promoting bio products and bio sequestration of carbon
• Provides new markets for Ohio farmers
• Provides new and innovative directions for Ohio manufacturing
• Promotes domestic energy and energy security
1
• Conservation tillage can provide water quality benefits from reduced runoff
• Char may provide significant water quality benefits and some air quality benefits
• Char fertilizer has the potential to significantly reduce nitrogen fertilizer runoff and
nitrous/nitrogen oxide field emissions to the air – thus lessening over nitrification of
water and reducing precursors to ozone and fine particulate air pollution
Details on emissions reduction
Near-term carbon budget savings: bio fuels and conservation tillage are technologies
commercially used today and can provide immediate emissions reduction benefits.
Long-term carbon budget savings:
Transportation sector - bio fuels could provide up to 9% of the total budget cut needed for
the transportation sector.
Power production sector - bio products (in conjunction with geologic sequestration of carbon)
could provide up to 30% of total budget cuts needed for the electric power production
sector.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
• Applying conservation tillage practices and maintaining the current rate of forest carbon
sequestration would provide an annual estimated reduction of 39,687,278 tons of CO2
(9.84 MMTC) through 2030. For the purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that
agricultural soil carbon will be saturated after 2030. No assumptions are made about
estimated greenhouse gas emissions reduction from forest carbon sequestration.
• Replacing 10% of petroleum fuel for light duty vehicles with bio fuels such as cellulosic
ethanol, or conventional ethanol produced from low/no carbon electricity sources, would
reduce annual estimated tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions by 5,081,076 tons of CO2
(1.26 MMTC) in the year 2010.
• Using a 15% biomass mix in coal gasification plants that are sequestering carbon could
reduce annual estimated greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants by 23,634,903
tons CO2 (5.86 MMTC) in 2015 and up to 37186657 tons of CO2 (9.22 MMTC) by 2045.
2
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Advanced coal generation and carbon sequestration
Ohio should move aggressively to promote the development of coal gasification, also called
IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle), in conjunction with carbon sequestration.
IGCC power is an electric power generation system which produces a synthesis gas (mainly of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas) from coal or another fossil fuel that undergoes a
process involving intense heat and pressure. This coal gasification process converts more of
the available energy from a unit of fuel than does a conventional combustion process, as is
used by Ohio’s current fleet of coal-burning power plants. In addition, coal gasification
reduces emissions of some of the most harmful pollutants (including sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides) by over 98 percent.
IGCC power plants have the additional advantage of being converted to capture carbon
emissions by injecting them deep underground or through other sequestration measures.
Ohio should focus on promoting IGCC-type base-load power facilities as well as coal-to-fuels
and other processes. Steps also should be taken to develop the tools and experience
necessary to widely deploy carbon sequestration technology.
Policy recommendations for advanced coal generation and carbon
sequestration
Promoting coal gasification development
• Adopt a cost offset program to enable developers to recover Front End Engineering
Design (FEED) costs.
• Adopt a limited production tax credit for new coal gasification electric power facilities
under Ohio’s current deregulated electricity services marketplace.
• Should Ohio chose to re-regulate its electric services marketplace, it should adopt a
3rd party covenant program to help assure the development of coal-gasification
power plants.
Promoting carbon sequestration development
• Review existing and gather new geologic data to better assess Ohio’s potential for
terrestrial carbon sequestration and for joint carbon sequestration-enhanced oil and
gas recovery projects.
• Identify and develop solutions to any unique technical and market challenges to joint
carbon sequestration-enhanced oil/gas recovery projects.
• Adopt an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard for electric power production (similar to
Pennsylvania’s law) that encourages the development of coal-gasification.
• Develop the state regulatory apparatus and state permits necessary for terrestrial
carbon sequestration.
• Explore the development of tax credits and other incentives to foster enhanced oil
recovery that utilizes CO2 streams from power generation or gasification projects.
• Invest Ohio 3rd Frontier funds in the development of workforce infrastructure related
to the gasification industry and of compression technology.
3
Co-benefits from promoting advanced coal generation and carbon
sequestration:
• Coal gasification offers substantial environmental improvements over conventional
coal-fired power plant technology, including:
o Improvements in reducing air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides
and mercury. Nitrogen oxides can be reduced by 98%, sulfur dioxide by 99.9%,
and mercury by 99.9%. The emissions from a fully controlled coal gasification-
fired power plant look very similar to that of a natural gas-fired power plant. In
addition, the costs of pollution controls are substantially less expensive than that
of conventional coal-fired power plants.
o Waste from coal gasification facilities are about half the volume of a fully
controlled conventional coal plant.
o The water usage from coal gasification facilities is significantly less than that of
conventional coal facilities.
• In addition to electricity, coal gasification can produce vehicle fuels, chemical
feedstock for the polymer industry, and possibly in the future advanced materials
such as carbon nano fibers.
• CO2 can be used for enhanced oil and gas recovery from depleted primary oil wells
and from methane located in un-mine able coal seams.
• Coal to fuels can promote domestic energy/energy security.
Details on emission reductions
Near-term carbon budget savings:
Coal gasification and carbon sequestration are long-term capital and time intensive projects
that would not likely start to provide any significant reduction benefits for at least 10 to 15
years.
Long-term carbon budget savings:
Power production sector: Coal gasification and carbon sequestration could supply 115% of
the needed carbon budget cuts for the electric power sector, exceeding this sector’s target
reduction goal of 65% to 95%.
Thermal sector (heating and industrial processes): Coal gasification with carbon
sequestration applied to industrial heat generation would supply 21% of the budgets cuts
needed for the thermal sector.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction example:
Replacing Ohio’s current conventional coal power plants over a 30 year period (staring in
2015) with advanced coal generation and carbon sequestration would reduce annual
emissions of CO2 by an estimated 109,664,339 tons (29.19 MMTC) from year 2000
emission levels.
4
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Electric and heating efficiency
Promoting more efficient use of energy in Ohio is a clear win both economically and in terms
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency is as much an ongoing process as
a product. As long as new products and technology improvements are possible, the ability to
invest in efficiency will be available. The ideal outcome of any energy efficiency policy is to
incorporate the on-going process of using energy more efficiently in product design and
manufacturing, building design, and consumer choices.
Policy recommendations for electric and heating efficiency
• Develop a comprehensive strategy to promote combined heat and power (CHP),
including:
o Tap the Ohio Energy Loan Fund to step up industry investment in CHP by
promoting a streamlined, user friendly application process.
o Develop small- and mid-sized customer purchasing pools to help leverage
more commercial offerings by developers for smaller CHP projects.
o Adopt transparent, standardized interconnection standards to encourage
CHP customers to become customer-generators of electric power.
• Reduce the demand for new electric power and natural gas production through
demand side management programs, such as:
o Developing electricity and/or natural gas energy savings targets through an
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard.
o Developing an Independent Demand Side Management program to reduce
power demand through a public-private partnership.
• Promote energy-efficient building design standards for state-owned and state-funded
buildings and other facilities, including new school construction.
• Set state-based appliance standards for those appliances for which no federal
minimum energy efficiency standards have been established.
• Make permanent the small, temporary rider collected on customers of investor-
owned electric power company services, which funds the Ohio Energy Loan Fund.
Co-benefits promoting electric and heating efficiency
• Energy efficiency provides substantial savings for energy customers of all classes.
According to a recent study by the Energy Center of Wisconsin, a five year investment in
energy efficiency would produce up to 2,000 new jobs in that state, due to local
investment from customer savings.
• Greater management of electricity load growth helps reduce additional strains on the
electricity grid.
• By promoting the on-going process of efficiency, Ohio is promoting the development of
new technologies and products.
• Most of the growth in the natural gas supply is occurring through imported liquefied
natural gas. Promoting efficiency in natural gas use will help reduce the demand for non-
domestic fuel supplies.
5
Details on emission reductions
Near-term carbon budget savings:
Electric and heating efficiency can and does provide immediate reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions.
Long-term carbon budget savings:
Power production sector: Long-term application of electric efficiency would supply up to 63%
of the total carbon budget cut needed for the power production sector.
Thermal sector (heating and industrial processes): Long-term application of heating efficiency
would supply up to 11.5% of the total carbon budget cut needed for the thermal sector.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
• Based on the target of reducing electricity use by 1% per year from business as usual
(which currently is growing at about 2% per year), the total annual reduction potential
from demand reduction efforts provides a small estimated reduction initially of
8,469,846 tons of CO2 (2.1 MMTC) in 2010, but ramps up over time to an estimated
25,127,209 tons of CO2 by 2020 (6.23 MMTC) and continues to grow each year.
• If Ohio utilized its technical capacity potential of combined heat and power of 10,000
megawatts by 2020, that would yield an annual reduction of 25,006,212 tons of CO2
(6.2 MMTC).
• Ohio could reduce 2,371,566 tons of CO2 (0.588 MMTC) annually by adopting a
basket of state appliance standards not covered at the federal level.
6
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Methane
Ohio should focus on significantly reducing its methane emissions. Methane is a potent
greenhouse gas – 23 times stronger than CO2. In addition, reducing methane can be one of
the most inexpensive, and in some cases profitable, methods of cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.
Policy recommendations for methane emissions reduction
• Establish a waste methane products tax credit on methane captured from landfills,
coal mines, animal feedlots, and municipal waste treatment systems that is used for
electric power production or for heating, industrial, or vehicle fuel purposes.
• Adopt a state procurement policy that requires the state government to purchase at
least 10% of its energy needs from cleaner energy resources, including methane
waste-derived electricity and fuel from landfill, agricultural, coal, and municipal waste
sources.
• Reduce methane leakage from natural gas pipelines and pumping stations through
improved best management practices.
• Adopt an advanced energy portfolio standard that counts methane waste-derived
power as a renewable energy source.
• Improve cattle feed and livestock production efficiency.
• Adopt transparent, standardized interconnection standards to the electric grid to
encourage producers of methane waste to become customer-generators of electric
power.
Co-benefits from reducing methane emissions
• Some technologies can add economic value – both to the agriculture industry and to
the public, such as distributed generation of electricity that improves the reliability of
the electric grid.
• Businesses or facilities located near these sources could utilize their energy and
have a hedge against high or volatile natural gas prices.
• Methane emissions reduction from animal feedlots and landfills may help reduce
problems such as insect infestations and odors posed by feedlots for homes and
businesses located near the facilities.
• Manure lagoons from feedlots, a significant source of methane, also pose water
quality challenges. Technologies such as bio digesters eliminate the need for lagoons
and reduce emissions by more than 90%.
• Reducing methane globally will reduce ground level ozone – benefiting public health
and our climate.
Details on emission reductions
A key issue with respect to methane is that the reductions are relatively inexpensive, and the
cooling benefits occur within 10 years, rather than over a century or more. In order to
maximize the ability to stabilize climate emissions, nations with developed economies, and
7
states like Ohio should focus on reducing methane emissions from a year 2000 baseline by
at least 70%.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
For Ohio, a 70% reduction would be equivalent to reducing 14,439070 tons of CO2 (3.58
MMTCE) or 627,785 tons of methane. Specific paths to meet this reduction goal include:
• A combination of attrition for older landfills and maximizing methane capture ability
for newer landfills would result in Ohio reducing up to 90% of annual landfill methane
emissions by 2030 (from a year 2000 baseline) – this would mean an estimated
reduction of 385,866 tons of methane (2.21 MMTCE).
• Biodigesters can virtually eliminate methane emissions from feedlot operations.
Applying them to all of Ohio’s feedlots would result in an annual estimated reduction
of 22,698 tons of methane (0.13 MMTCE) – from year 2000 levels.
• Changes in cattle feed and processing could reduce methane emissions from cattle
in Ohio by 26% (no time estimate available) from year 2000 levels. This would
produce an estimated reduction of 19,206 tons of methane (0.11 MMTCE).
• A combination of coal mine degasification and ventilation air methane combustion
can reduce annual Ohio coal mine methane emissions by more than 90%– an
estimated reduction of 61,110 tons of methane (0.35 MMTCE) from year 2000
emissions on an annual basis.
• As with biodigesters for feedlots, wastewater methane emissions in Ohio can be
virtually eliminated from year 2000 levels – an estimated reduction of 24,444 tons
of methane (0.14 MMTCE).
• Proper maintenance and certain upgrades to natural gas production, transmission
and distribution infrastructure can reduce emissions up to 50% - an estimated
annual reduction in Ohio of (0.72 MMTCE).
8
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Vehicle efficiency
Vehicle efficiency is one of the most easily developed greenhouse gas reduction strategies
for the transportation sector. It is particularly helpful because it has the ability to help
leverage relatively large greenhouse gas reductions. Focusing on vehicle efficiency is
imperative because the transition to a low- or no-carbon fuel, such as hydrogen, appears to
be the most difficult for the transportation sector.
Policy recommendations for vehicle efficiency
• Adopt sales tax incentives for the most efficient vehicles of each vehicle class (i.e.,
passenger car, light-duty truck, heavy-duty truck, etc.)
• Adopt a state government procurement standard to require that when existing state
vehicles are retired, they are replaced by fuel-efficient vehicles.
• Link up with other state governments to create a multi-state purchasing pool to work with
vehicle designers and manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicle types that meet
government fleet needs. A cooperative arrangement between Fed-Ex and Ohio-based
Eaton Corporation resulted in the development of a diesel electric hybrid utility vehicle for
Fed-Ex that is 50% more fuel efficient than conventional Fed-Ex vehicles. This hybrid
model is slated to become the replacement vehicle for future Fed-Ex delivery vehicles.
• Encourage private fleet owners to voluntarily upgrade to fuel-efficient vehicles
• Develop a Plug in Hybrid Community Demonstration Program to encourage vehicle
manufacturers and electric power companies to work with a local community to “road
test” how plug-in electric hybrid vehicles can be integrated with local transportation
needs.
Co-benefits from promoting vehicle efficiency
• Reducing petroleum consumption will help improve Ohio’s energy security.
• Ohio historically is a major auto manufacturing state. Promoting innovative technology
advancements plays to one of Ohio’s strengths.
• Under the Ohio 3rd Frontier program, the state government is working to lay the
foundation for Ohio to be a major manufacturer in the emerging fuel cell industry.
Development of efficient electric hybrid vehicle drivetrains is an important step toward
developing fuel cell-powered vehicles.
Near-term carbon budget savings:
Utilizing more efficient vehicles provides immediate benefits for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions.
Long-term carbon budget management:
Vehicle sector: Development and deployment of more efficient vehicles could supply an
estimated 57.5% of the total budget cut needed from the transportation sector.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
Gradually improving vehicle efficiency in light- and heavy-duty vehicles could reduce
estimated annual tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases by as much as 43% by mid century
– an annual estimated reduction of 59,369,587 tons of CO2 (14.72 MMTC).
9
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Wind and solar energy
While the ultimate focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is on deep, long-term
greenhouse gas reductions, it is equally important to begin to reduce emissions in the near
term. Wind and solar energy can play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in Ohio because of the ability to deploy these technologies immediately. However,
they also may offer long-term benefits for deep, long-term reductions in Ohio, depending on
future technology development.
Policy recommendations for wind and solar energy
• Adopt an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard for electricity production (similar to
Pennsylvania’s law) to require electric power providers to generate a minimum percent of
electric power from renewable energy sources, including wind and solar.
• The Ohio 3rd Frontier Project should target demonstration projects to help enable the
development of new energy- and climate-friendly technologies.
• The Ohio Office of Energy Efficiency should develop a set of grant performance standards
for solar photovoltaic installations using the technology vision outlined by the U.S.
Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory as a frame of reference.
• Make permanent the small, temporary rider collected on customers of investor-owned
electric power company services, which funds the Ohio Energy Loan Fund, and use a
portion of the funds for a targeted grants program to help develop advanced wind, solar
and other advanced energy projects.
• Establish a power production tax credit modeled after the successful federal program
that has helped to develop many renewable energy projects.
• Establish a state government procurement standard to require the state government to
purchase at least 10% of its energy needs from cleaner energy resources, including wind
and solar.
• Adopt transparent, standardized interconnection standards to the electric grid to
encourage small-scale producers of wind and solar power to become customer-
generators of electric power.
Co-benefits of promoting wind and solar energy
• Ohio already enjoys a significant position in the development and manufacture of
renewable energy equipment and products. Encouraging additional development of this
industry, both in terms of stimulating demand and investing in innovation, will help this
industry grow even more.
• “Excess” wind and solar power can be distributed to the electric grid, helping promote
grid reliability and reducing brownouts and blackouts during unusually high demand
periods.
Near-term carbon budget savings:
Wind and solar provide immediate carbon dioxide reduction benefits. Both are commercially
available and easily deployable.
10
Long-term carbon budget management:
Power production sector: Current commercial wind and solar power would yield only an
estimated 2% of the electric power production sector’s carbon budget—not a significant
portion of the carbon cuts needed to meet this sector’s carbon budget. Potential technology
advancements that change the economics of these technologies could significantly improve
their long-term effectiveness.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
If wind power in Ohio grew from today’s inventory of 4 MW (megawatt) to 920 MW by the year
2020, it would result in an estimated annual reduction of 1,831,100 tons of CO2 (0.454
MMTC).
It is unlikely that the current generation of solar technology will be deployed at a level that
will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near-term. However, the next
generation solar technology, thin film (which is becoming available commercially), may have
a much greater potential to impact greenhouse gas emissions. Solar technology is much
more likely to function like energy efficiency than base-load power generation. Generation II
and III solar technologies may play an important role in meeting energy efficiency goals such
as reducing electricity demand of base-load power by 1% per year from current business-as-
usual power demand projections (demand currently is growing at about 2% per year). As
noted in the Electricity and Heating Efficiency section, the total annual reduction potential
from demand reduction efforts provides a small reduction initially of an estimated 8,469,846
tons of CO2 reductions (2.1 MMTC) in 2010, but ramps up over time to an estimated
25,127,209 tons of CO2 by 2020 (6.23 MMTC) and continues to grow each year.
11
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Greenhouse gas markets
Ohio producers of greenhouse gas emissions should reduce their emissions by participating
in a greenhouse gas market. A greenhouse gas market is the buying or selling of credits that
represent the reduction or offset of greenhouse gases. Emissions trading—such as for acid
rain credits—is a proven market-based system that provides companies with the flexibility to
meet their environmental goals at lowest cost while reducing overall emissions. The State of
Ohio should adopt programs and promote actions that will help establish a viable
greenhouse gas market. The private sector in Ohio should consider participating in a
voluntary market program.
Policy recommendations for greenhouse gas markets
• Encourage industry, government, and NGOs to participate in a voluntary greenhouse gas
credits trading program, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange.
• Develop a state greenhouse gas registry for Ohio to encourage emission reductions by
providing a mechanism to verify emissions reductions and carbon sequestered.
• Continue to participate and influence the five state (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) to develop a regional voluntary greenhouse gas registry.
• Develop a state greenhouse credit aggregation program to assist farmers, small
businesses, and others that are potential sellers of greenhouse gas emission reduction
credits.
• Develop a small-scale greenhouse gas emissions reduction credit purchase program to
purchase greenhouse gas credits through a public auction.
• Work with other states to develop a Midwest regional emissions reduction credit trading
program.
Co-benefits of promoting greenhouse gas markets
Greenhouse gas markets provide an opportunity to generate an income stream for
technologies and practices that reduce or offset emissions. Landfill operators that capture
additional methane or farmers that move from conventional tillage to no-till farming can
benefit economically by selling their emissions reductions and offsets as credits.
Additional benefits include:
• Providing an opportunity for parties to potentially receive credit for reductions or offsets
taken today against future regulatory regimes.
• Providing a cost efficient method for parties to develop a voluntary emissions reduction
program.
• Providing an opportunity to understand the costs and price structure associated with
various technology solutions.
• Helping generate utilization of the “low hanging fruit” opportunities for greenhouse gas
emission reductions or offsets.
As noted in the Methane and Bio Sequestration and Products sections of the report, many of
these projects can have additional benefits such as reduction of neighborhood nuisance
issues and water quality improvements.
12
Near-term carbon budget savings:
Markets, in general, are the most efficient way to allocate resources. Similarly, greenhouse
gas markets are one of the most efficient methods of reducing emissions. It would therefore
be an important tool for near-term, cost-effective emission reductions.
Long-term carbon budget management:
Presumably, greenhouse gas markets will play a major role in the long-term. However, it is
impossible to predict how they specifically will play a role in meeting carbon budgets. There
is some discussion that while they are efficient tools for reducing emissions with existing
technology, they need complimentary efforts to promote technology innovation and
development.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
A greenhouse gas market most likely would result in investing in the “low cost/low hanging
fruit” – such as waste methane to power projects and soil sequestration projects (which are
relatively low cost projects, and thus can provide a low price on credits). The total annual
estimated reduction potential from those two opportunities is 51,222,402 tons of CO2 (12.7
MMTCE).
While it is sometimes more complex to apply to a credit trading system, energy efficiency is
an investment which pays for itself over time and therefore could also be a “low hanging
fruit” as well. The total annual reduction potential from the demand reduction programs
recommended in the Electric and Heating Efficiency section of this report provides a small
estimated reduction initially of 8,469,846 tons of CO2 (2.1 MMTC) in 2010. These
reductions increase over time to an estimated 25,127,209 tons of CO2 by 2020 (6.23
MMTC) and continues to grow each year.
13
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Hydrogen and new energy systems
The Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 1 explained why carbon dioxide emissions will have to be
reduced between 65% and 95% by the end of this century—and continue to decline in the
next century—if we are to maintain atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level
that will limit global warming. For electricity generation, advanced fossil generation—in
combination with renewable energy and energy efficiency—can deliver such a result.
However, meeting such a deep reduction in emissions may not be physically possible through
improved vehicle and process heating efficiency, alone. Thus, no-carbon or low-carbon fuels
for these sectors will need to be widely available by mid-century and available in sufficient
amounts to begin this transition well before then.
Policy recommendations for hydrogen and new energy systems
• Encourage state agencies, trade associations, and NGOs to develop a working group to
consider how to initiate a small scale infrastructure revolving loan fund to help develop
hydrogen fuel and other new energy systems.
• Develop tax incentives and an Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Fund to encourage the
development commercial development of near-term fuel cell products.
• Implement State Procurement Guidelines for hydrogen fuel cell procurement, following
the guidelines of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005.
• Encourage bio char development to produce crop fertilizer and hydrogen-based farm
equipment.
• Develop a Plug in Hybrid Community Demonstration Program to encourage vehicle
manufacturers and electric power companies to work with a local community to “road
test” how plug-in electric hybrid vehicles can be integrated with local transportation
needs.
• Encourage the development of near-term low- and no-carbon synthetic fuels, such as
coal to diesel fuel, coal to methane fuel, and hydrogen-rich synthetic liquids (HRSLs).
Co-benefits from promoting hydrogen and new energy systems
• Virtually all of the potential low- and no-carbon energy systems promote energy security
by developing primarily domestic fuel sources.
• As with any technology shift, transitioning to a low/no carbon energy future will create
tremendous opportunities for innovation and economic development.
Near-term carbon budget savings:
Developing new energy systems will be a long-term process; there are unlikely to be any near-
term GHG emission reduction benefits.
Long-term carbon budget management:
A successful energy transition strategy will, by definition, meet or exceed the carbon budget
cuts that are needed for climate stabilization.
14
Specific GHG reduction examples:
One specific energy transition technology strategy, not covered in the other sections of this
report, is gradually infusing natural gas with hydrogen to reduce the carbon dioxide
emissions that result from natural gas combustion. The mix of hydrogen and natural gas is
called hythane. A strategy of replacing 50% of natural gas with hydrogen, in combination
with coal gasification and carbon sequestration for industrial heat would reduce annual
emissions from the thermal sector by an estimated 13,390,423 tons of CO2 (3.32 MMTC) in
2016 and by an estimated 82,802,827 tons of CO2 (20.53MMTC) by the end of the century.
15
Policy recommendations - Ohio Climate Road Map, Part 2
Clean diesel engines
Nearly a third of Ohio’s 88 counties are challenged with meeting new federal air quality
standards for ground-level ozone (33 counties) and fine particles (24 full counties and three
partial counties). In addition to serious health impacts, ground level ozone and certain types
of fine particles (black carbon) also have significant climate impacts. In its efforts to meet
federal air quality standards, Ohio should focus on strategies that maximize the climate
cooling benefits that come from reducing these particular pollutants.
Policy recommendations for clean diesel engines
• Encourage public and private fleets to adopt voluntary diesel vehicle fleet clean up
efforts that emphasize the “5 R’s”: Reduce idling; Refuel to bio diesel and other low-
sulfur diesel fuels; Retrofit engines with modern pollution controls; Repower old polluting
engines with new clean ones; Replace worn out fleets with new vehicles that include the
latest pollution controls. Congress (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, authored by
United States Senator George Voinovich of Ohio) and the General Assembly (Ohio House
Bill 245, authored by State Representative Steve Reinhard) have adopted legislation to
help fund these efforts.
• Require best available pollution control technology for all on- and off-road vehicles.
• Include emission performance guarantees in government contracts, especially when
diesel equipment may be used in areas that are in non-attainment for ozone and particle
pollution.
• Encourage truck stops, transit companies, and schools to adopt idling reduction
programs.
• Inventory diesel fleets to help track diesel clean up and emissions reductions efforts.
• Encourage the adoption of a strong federal rule to reduce diesel emissions from trains
and ships.
Co-benefits from promoting clean diesel engines
• According to USEPA estimates, emissions from diesel engines contribute to an estimated
769 early deaths each year in Ohio. The cancer risk from diesel soot pollution is nine
times greater than the combined cancer risk of all other air toxics combined. Diesel
engines are Ohio’s number 1 source of air toxics emissions.
• Clean air not only provides a better quality of life for Ohioans, it also avoids the economic
development challenges that come from failing to meet federal air quality standards,
including restrictions on new and expanding businesses, tightened transportation
planning options, and the potential loss of federal highway dollars.
Specific greenhouse gas reduction examples:
Black carbon emissions from diesel engines potentially can be reduced by 90% over the next
20 years. For Ohio, this level of reduction would be the equivalent of reducing an estimated
annual 36,299,340 tons of CO2 (9 MMTCE) from year 2000 levels.
“Quick and cheap cooling” from other emission reductions:
The “residence time” of pollutants such as black carbon or ozone in the atmosphere is
measured in days or, at most, weeks. Therefore, the cooling benefits from their reductions
16
can be felt virtually immediately by our climate. In addition, reducing these pollutants can be
achieved cost effectively by making strategic choices with regard to how to meet federal air
quality standards by, for instance, retrofitting diesel engines with particulate filters (which
achieve up to a 90% cut in fine particle emissions, including black carbon emissions) rather
than a diesel oxidation catalyst (which achieves only up to a 30% cut in fine particle
emissions, but not the black carbon portion) when possible.
17