Home > Articles > Energy Expert

Voices: Energy Expert

Stashing carbon dioxide

Energy Expert Peter Garforth makes sense of carbon sequestration and offsets.

PlantServices.com
By Peter Garforth, contributing editor

This column has repeatedly stressed the potential to drastically improve industrial energy efficiency. When combined with measures specifically aimed at further reducing greenhouse gases, such as adding renewable energy and cogeneration, most greenhouse reduction targets can be met or exceeded.

Beyond that, companies are increasingly looking at so-called carbon offsets, including sequestration, to meet future reduction obligations, whether regulatory or voluntary.

Carbon sequestration is a fancy word for different ways of storing manmade greenhouse gases to prevent their release into the atmosphere. These days we’re hearing a lot about sequestration from the electrical generation industry, more in the context of future possibilities than current realties. Around the world, there are a few scale projects to develop power plants that capture and compress the vast amount of carbon dioxide produced when electricity is generated, and store it for eternity in underground geological formations.

It’s a long way from being ready for prime time, but carbon capture and storage probably will be a part of the planet’s carbon-management strategy. If successfully deployed, it will inevitably increase the cost of electricity derived from higher-carbon fuels. This underscores the need to have a deep understanding of the direct and indirect sources of greenhouse gases from your energy uses, and to be ready to manage the effects on cost.

Geological sequestration won’t be an option for most companies, but nature gives us another way of storing carbon that is proven, immediately available and measurable. Large-scale reforestation with suitable trees is a proven and effective way to store large amounts of carbon dioxide. The value of forests goes far beyond absorbing greenhouse gases. They stabilize land and prevent erosion, reduce flood risks, produce local microclimates and ecosystems and, in time, provide valuable raw materials. Supporting forest-based sequestration will become a popular way to contribute to companies’ carbon-reduction obligations.

Most current and planned climate laws recognize that it might be more cost-effective for a company to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets by supporting carbon-reduction projects elsewhere than on its regulated sites. As an example, the new Lieberman-Warner Act working its way through Congress allows emitters to meet a significant part through balancing reductions, or offsets, in other U.S. domestic or international projects. From a climatic point of view, the logic is clear. A reduction is a reduction, whether it’s achieved at Site A or Site B. To meet the environmental objectives, the only condition is that the offset project actually delivers the carbon reduction.

From a business point of view, the choice of offsets can be another source of competitive advantage. The first obvious place to look is in a company’s operations, nationally or internationally, for qualifying cost-effective projects that meet the required emissions reductions. This brings us back to the need for effective global understanding and management of a company’s own carbon footprint. The next place to look will be in the facilities of key suppliers and customers. What better way to meet emissions targets than by making your suppliers or customers more competitive? This highlights the importance of understanding the entire energy value chain of the business, from raw material to final consumption.

Yet another area to seek out offsets will be in projects such a large-scale forestation in places associated with the company’s facilities. This won’t only be a clear demonstration of being a good neighbor; it will be easier to control the quality and effectiveness of the project. It also will be an attractive source of volunteer opportunities for employees.

If none of these choices offers suitable offset opportunities, there’s a growing pool of brokers who are consolidating emissions reductions projects and selling qualified offsets. The buyer would be well advised to research these carefully, as many might not be as rigorous as they should be when it comes to selecting and auditing projects. Make sure the brokers are following the rules that will be acceptable under current and future laws.

Offsets are a valuable way to contribute to global climate mitigation. Offset projects can directly enhance the overall business without going to the brokered offset marketplace. However, a disciplined focus on site productivity is likely to yield years of compliant reductions, allowing you time to develop a structured long-term offset strategy that delivers maximum business and environmental gains.

Peter Garforth is principal of Garforth International LLC, Toledo, Ohio. He can be reached at garforthp@cs.com.

More Voices

Stashing carbon dioxide
05/08/2008
Energy Expert Peter Garforth makes sense of carbon sequestration and offsets.

Blessing or curse?
04/03/2008
Energy Expert Peter Garforth says there’s no question that U.S. climate regulation legislation could cause you pain if you're not adequately prepared.

Energy versus sustainability
03/07/2008
Sustainability is the new, hot career path with high levels of organizational visibility, a situation that doesn’t always bring out the best in people.

Energy, climate and food
02/08/2008
Energy Expert Peter Garforth says food processing plants have extra reasons to strategize energy.

2008: The year of energy integration?
01/11/2008
Energy expert Peter Garforth illustrates how combining forces leads to breakthroughs in energy productivity.

Energy’s “perfect storm”
12/17/2007
Energy Expert Peter Garforth questions why so many companies still refuse shelter in the midst of a brewing energy storm.

Why is best practice transfer so hard?
11/19/2007
We naturally assume our industrial and political leaders are scouring the planet for proven best practices, technologies and policies that could be implemented to reduce energy risks and capture benefits. In reality, this is rare. Why, and what can we do about it?

Here’s what energy management leadership looks like
10/12/2007
Take a look at one company's commitment to energy productivity and find out how visible senior leadership can affect the climate of energy management.

Recognition, rewards and consequences give an energy program credence
08/07/2007
The importance of effective rewards and recognition in a good energy management program can’t be overstated, but they’ll only be effective when they’re supported by the basics.

How one of the world’s most energy-intensive industries plans to survive
07/16/2007
As a CEO in an industry that contributes about 5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, you might view the future with trepidation. Cement manufacturers are increasingly under scrutiny. To make matters worse, the chemistry of cement-making results in as much carbon-dioxide as the energy used to make it.

Getting the most out of energy benchmarking
06/13/2007
Defining and capturing data for energy indices is only the beginning of the process. Next, says Energy Expert Peter Garforth in his latest column, is identifying your motivation and establishing tracking. How does your company compare with competitors and industry averages?

How to look at energy use as a productivity index
05/10/2007
Seek a fine compromise between precision and usefulness when creating your corporate energy plan, says Peter Garforth in this month's Energy Expert column.

Germany, Denmark and China offer lessons on managing energy
04/11/2007
With the increasing concerns about climate change and the globalization of the energy market, management needs to be more aware of the interacting drivers of energy availability, cost and environmental regulation. Peter Garforth, P. Eng., shares his experiences traveling across the globe in his Energy Expert column.

Area-wide energy productivity
03/12/2007
Locating generation much closer to the likely demand reduces lines losses dramatically, and finding meaningful uses for heat improves fuel productivity, says Peter Garforth, in his Energy Expert column.

Should utilities bother about energy productivity?
02/14/2007
Managing energy productivity and greenhouse gas emissions is a common thread running through the habits of leading companies embracing eco-friendly approaches. It's proving to be a profitable venture too, says Peter Garforth in his latest Energy Expert column.

Negotiating for energy incentives
01/17/2007
Companies face three main dimensions of energy risk - unpredictable and probably rising prices, availability and reliability, and environmental impacts and costs. Energy Expert Peter Garforth examines how the surrounding community can help you manage these risks.

Prepare your company for climate change
12/13/2006
Energy programs must clearly encompass rising perceptions of risk, says Energy Expert Peter Garforth in his latest column.

Energy strategy triage
10/31/2006
Measuring energy performance in terms of cost per unit of saleable product or service highlights the facilities and businesses that are vulnerable to fluctuation in energy-related factors. Do you have a game plan for radically improving the energy productivity at these key sites?

Reflections from WEEC 2006
10/10/2006
The strategic importance of managing energy as both good business and the basis of a sustainable future seems to have made its way to many boardrooms, says Peter Garforth in his latest Energy Expert column. CEOs and energy managers are getting better at talking the talk.

Ensure breakthrough improvements in your energy management program
09/11/2006
Don't be lulled into the status quo when building your energy management program. Instead, invest in consultants that bring a new way of thinking to the same old problems, says Peter Garforth in his latest Energy Expert column.

Implementation fatigue
08/07/2006
The new market realities of higher and rising energy costs as well as global pressures to reduce fossil fuel intensity have made energy management tracking much more valuable. Learn how to keep energy productivity programs from running out of gas in Peter Garforth's latest Energy Expert column.

Per-gallon productivity
07/10/2006
It isn't unusual for plant managers to concentrate their energy savings plans on production processes and major commercial real estate, but it's the transportation energy costs that are probably higher than you think. Peter Garforth, in his monthly Energy Expert column, identifies the energy savings possible from better management of your fleet.

Should you relax as energy prices dip?
06/12/2006
It's not unusual for plant managers to suffer from a severe case of amnesia as soon as energy prices begin to fall. In his monthly Energy Expert column, Peter Garforth explains why it's so important to remain diligent in cutting energy costs even as prices dip.

Embedded energy
05/05/2006
Calculating the costs of your energy management plan is not as simple as adding up your natural gas, electricity and fuel invoices. You can involve suppliers to minimize total cost.

A sound energy business plan
04/10/2006
The goals is a sustained energy plan that can produce cost-effective energy productivity gains. Use a familiar structure, draw on common resources and pick appropriate pilot projects when building an energy plan.

Energy and climate change: The executive’s quandary
02/14/2006
A good energy strategy can simultaneously support risk management, regulatory compliance and the bottom line.

Energy costs include more than the totals of utility bills
01/09/2006
Plant Services' Energy Expert Peter Garforth explains how different companies view what is included in their energy expenses and how that affects company policy.

Create and deploy an effective energy team
12/13/2005
How to overcome “Our people have higher priorities…” syndrome.

Energy projects are different
11/08/2005
How to overcome “We have more important places to invest” syndrome.

Integrating effective energy productivity solutions

Is your plant satisfied with the status quo? Significant challenges to an integrated energy policy come from within.