A Multi Scale Optimization Framework

In the same study, 3.3 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions will be lessened by 2020 through sustainable soybean production. These methods allow for a reduction in overall costs due to decreased overhead in both machinery and herbicide applications (Green, 2010).

In today’s world, the topic of energy is dominated by one thing: ancient organic matter. Carbon and oxygen that existed in this matter when it was alive is still present and is released in the form of carbon dioxide when the coal and oil it was compressed into is burned. The problem is that the carbon that was buried over millions of years was never naturally supposed to be released back into the atmosphere it used to exist in at such an alarming rate. The amount of carbon dioxide flooding into our atmosphere needs to be limited or there will be severe consequences in our future.

The book is also helpful because it assists with spreading awareness that we are unlikely to solve global warming using todays methods thus preventing us from wasting more time on it. Renewable energy sources, and Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are common propositions as solutions. However, they have their own problems. Renewable energy sources’ have problems that revolve around how they are not cheap or reliable.

The production of coal energy produces the most amount of carbon dioxide than any other method. It is a non-renewable energy source, and coal mines destroy most of the surrounding areas around it. With the recession going on, no one is buying into coal power plants at the moment which is an economy issue. (Center for Energy)

At last, the author raises awareness with the support of specific statistics related to the topic. He claims that ‘507 billion dollar’ worth land will sink if the emission of Co2 remains constant at same pace until 2100. Moreover, Crop yields will decrease dramatically , North Dakota will have problems with ‘declining productivity’, and Arizona will face a ‘one-in –20 odds ‘ that each individual will have to pay 800 more dollars.

Tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere every day and the consequence is the destabilization of Earth’s climate and damage to existing and endangered ecosystems. In order to avoid these ramifications, carbon emissions must be reduced. Industrial nations like the United States rely heavily on the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, as their primary source of energy generation. Unfortunately, this has led to the United States being one of the top leaders in carbon emissions in the world along with India and China (Woodard, 2007, pg. 27). A proposed solution that has already been implemented in several nations is the carbon tax (CO2 tax), which puts a price on and taxes the carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and makes polluters pay the price for the emission of their negative externalities into the environment. As fuel follows through with the combustion process, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere where it remains. The carbon dioxide traps the heat in the Earth’s atmosphere leading to a rise in global warming and climate change (Carbon Tax Center, 2016a, What’s a Carbon Tax section, para. 2). A carbon tax can quickly and easily be implemented by the United States federal government and has the potential to conserve the environment by reducing carbon emissions,

A shift towards wholesale AES usage would entail a significant reduction of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, our use of fossil fuels and consequent greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, destroying natural habitats, and causing ill effects in terms of our population’s health, through pollution-related illness (Atabani et al., 2012). While AES is proposed to be the most viable solution to decreasing the ill effects of fossil fuels, some propose there are ways that California can and should utilize our current fuels in more environmentally safer ways for before shifting directly towards alternative fuel. With regards to CO2 emissions from coal, some propose that so-called “Clean Coal,” or “Carbon Capture and Storage” (CCS) represents an environmentally-viable energy production strategy whereby the United States and California can use their abundant coal reserves, and trap the CO2 emissions, thus burning the product without damaging the environment (Noorden,

Several experimenters have found the CO2 from a smokestack works well for growing algae. To be economical, some experts think that algae farming for biofuels will have to be done as part of cogeneration, where it can make use of waste heat, and help soak up pollution.

In an attempt to meet climate emissions goals, scientists are obtaining and using carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other sources. In theory, carbon dioxide is easy to capture. This is because it is acidic, and it reacts effortlessly with simple bases like amines. In practice, however, amine scrubbing, the method used by some power plants to capture carbon dioxide for cleaning flue gases, is defeated because it encloses the greenhouse gas in water-based solutions. An abundance of energy is required to heat these great amounts of water in order to release the carbon dioxide that was captured and to renew the amines.

The Azolla Foundation has pioneered research on azolla’s carbon dioxide capture abilities and has found that Azolla can capture and store a maximum of 70 tons/hectare/year of carbon dioxide. This amount is 30 times faster than northern grasslands and 8 times faster than northern forests (The Azolla Foundation, 2015). Azolla is potentially vastly more efficient than any other plant life in the northern hemisphere at capturing carbon dioxide. The reason azolla is such a good option for carbon dioxide sequestration is that people have incentive to grow it for its other uses unlike grasslands or forest. Other methods proposed to sequester carbon are not nearly as feasible for the amount of carbon that needs to be removed from our atmosphere. The main method proposed is a mechanical chemical process that draws in air with large chimneys but this method has the draw back of high cost. This approach requires large areas for underground storage of carbon dioxide in its gaseous state and large buildings to handle the air which are expensive. Unlike azolla this method does not convert the carbon dioxide into a solid and therefore the captured carbon has to be stored deep underground. Azolla captures carbon within itself and when the azolla dies the plant rots away what’s left is biochar. Biochar is a synthetically maid type of coal that could be burned like any other coal. Burning it would release the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere however which would defeat purpose of storing it in the first place. Instead of letting the azolla turn to biochar however most of it would be used as a fertilizer or as animal feed which provides an economic incentive. Azolla will be an important part of building a world that has a sustainable way of producing

The aim of this section is to discuss the potential environmental impacts of CO2-EOR (as well as CO2 sequestration) which may cause additional significant issues not encountered in normal oil and gas operations. There are number of variables that should be considered when planning for CO2 flooding as well as CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) in order to reduce potential adverse impacts on the humans as well as the environment. When it comes to CO2 EOR, or CO2 flooding, the main concerns are how to prevent it from leaking to the nearby formations, such as potable water sources and such as well as how to make sure the CO2 is retained in the repository of interest in case of CO2 sequestration.

One of the most compelling and difficult environmental problems society is facing today is climate change. People do not realize how much the environment has changed for the worse in the last ten years, until they are told that the last two decades of the 20th century have been the hottest in the last 400 years, according to climate studies (Conserve Energy Future). Today the carbon dioxide levels have reached 396.81 parts per million (ppm). “Carbon dioxide (CO2) has also increased over the last 100 years-- from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest” (geocraft). There are no known solutions yet to reverse these effects in the

The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) currently uses a cogeneration facility that uses methane gas to supply electricity and heat to the campus. Although the cogeneration facility saves eight million dollars a year, the use of methane gas does not follow the goals of carbon neutrality within the UC campuses (“Energy Management”). A non-carbon producing, alternative source of energy is needed to help reach this goal. By following the first solution from Bending the Curve, the use of electric producing algae can replace the consumption of methane gas. Using electric producing algae not only creates a carbon neutral way to produce energy, but it also removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and purifies waste water (Gajda et al.).

CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas, which mainly comes from the use of fossil fuels. Many people feel that content of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main reason for manmade global warming. The main sources of CO2 emissions involve electricity generation, industrial processes, fumes from transportation and commercial buildings and use. Emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, to the atmosphere are expected to cause even more of a significant change in global climate (Davison, 2007). The main focus to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to reduce the amount that is released from coal-fired power plants. Greenhouse gas emissions that involve the productions of electricity come from natural gas production and coal-fired power plant operations. Natural gas production accounts for twenty-four percent and coal-fired power plant operations accounts for seventy-five percent, while the other one percent is caused by other electricity generation operations. The main reason why coal-fired power plants have a higher percentage of emissions is because the sulfur content of coal is much higher than that of other fossil fuels (Jarmaillo et al., 2007). This proves that there is a great need to find an alternative fossil fuel to use instead of coal. Although coal is easy to mine, transport and process for the electricity generation process, it is also the

The world has seen a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, the benefits of the transition from burning coals to using natural gases. The consequences however, are seemingly becoming more damaging than experts thought. Natural gases are primarily composed of methane gas (CH4), gases which are 35 times the potency of carbon dioxide and traps much more heat radiation. The United States alone is responsible for 30% to 60% of global growth in human-caused methane emissions in the past 14 years (Magill 2016). During the process of extraction and transportation of natural gases, is where the problem resides. Methane leakage occurs from processing plants and storage facilities becoming a major concern for the environment. The big question is, how much methane actually escapes into the atmosphere and what are the challenges humans face trying to prevent further leakages.