P. 1
CTL Aff - Scholars

CTL Aff - Scholars

5.0

|Views: 178|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/29/2012

CTL solves CO2 emissions from planes

Dr. Freerks 7 (Rentech, Inc., 9-5, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Richard)

F-T fuels offer numerous benefits for aviation users. The first is an immediate reduction in particulate
emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown in laboratory combustors and engines to reduce PM emissions by
96% at idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other turbine engine emissions is
still under way. Concurrent to the PM reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel.
F-T fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy content per carbon content of
the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load
of fuel.

This is critical to warming

Stoller 6 (Gary, Staff Writer of USA Today, December 19, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm)

What is known, he says, is that it's "much harder" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Jet
engines are already energy efficient, and technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide from them isn't as
far along as it is for land-based pollution sources. Besides carbon dioxide, jet engines emit many pollutants
into the atmosphere, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, soot and even water vapor. Carbon dioxide and
water vapor are called greenhouse gases, because they trap heat and contribute to global warming. Though
planes contribute to air pollution while on the ground, scientists studying global warming are most concerned
about pollutants emitted when a plane is airborne. Jets are the major source of emissions deposited into the
upper atmosphere, where some pollutants have a greater warming effect than when they are released in the
same amount from the ground
, according to a 1999 scientific report sponsored by the United Nations. Some
pollutants emitted from engines during flight warm the Earth by adding to the heat-trapping gases, both
natural and man-made, already in the atmosphere. Also, jet contrails — the vapor trails they leave in the sky
— add to cloud cover and may contribute to the warming of the planet. A contrail forms when water vapor
from the engine cools and mixes with air and the humidity becomes high enough for condensation.
NASA
scientist Patrick Minnis has studied contrails and believes they may have a prominent role in global warming. A
2002 report by the British scientific commission agrees, concluding that "aviation-induced cirrus clouds will be a
significant contributor to warming."
But Minnis says another NASA study concludes that the contrails have little
effect on global warming. Further research is being done. Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas that can remain
in the atmosphere about 100 years. Scientists say planes' engines emit up to 3% of all carbon dioxide that
contributes to global warming, but the figure appears to be on the rise.

Science Daily 99 (June 24, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990624080829.htm)
A research team of American and German scientists, headed by Patrick Minnis of the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton,
Virginia, reports that contrails cause a warming of the Earth's atmosphere, although their impact is
currently small as compared to other greenhouse effects. They predict, however, that it may grow by a
factor of six over the next 50 years
. In 1992, for example, contrails added an estimated 0.02 watts of warming per square
meter globally, about one percent of all manmade greenhouse effects.

Air traffic and, therefore, contrails, are not evenly distributed around the globe. They are concentrated
over parts of the United States and Europe
, where local warming reaches up to 0.7 watts per square meter, or 35 times the
global average. The resulting temperature increase is not computed in this study, but is estimated to reach between 0.01 and 0.1 degrees
Celsius (0.02 and 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) over the northern temperate zones for current air traffic. In the future, increased air
traffic will raise these values
.

Large, linear contrails can be observed in satellite imagery. Although their total global coverage has not yet been determined, it is
computed from traffic and weather data to amount to 0.1 percent. In the parts of Europe and eastern North America with the heaviest air
traffic, however, contrails currently cover up to 3.8 percent and 5.5 percent of the sky, respectively.

Minnis and his colleagues report that global air traffic rose by over seven percent per year from 1994
to 1997, in terms of passenger miles flown. Growth is likely to continue, meaning contrails will play a
larger role in future climates than they do today
. Taking into account such factors as number of flights per day, fuel
consumption, and altitudes flown, they conclude that by 2050, average contrail coverage over Europe will be four
times higher than at present, or about 4.6 percent. In the United States, the increase will be 2.6 times
current levels, or 3.7 percent coverage; and in Asia, the increase will be ten times current levels, or 1.2
percent

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

244

Scholars Lab

Green Military Aff

CTL Good – A2: Warming DA – Turn: Plan Solves Bad Coal

Only the plan creates the incentives to solve SQ coal’s carbon footprint

Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)

In particular, coal use and climate protection do not need to be irreconcilable activities. While energy
efficiency and greater use of renewable resources must remain core components of a comprehensive strategy
to address global warming, development and use of technologies such as coal gasification in combination
with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and permanent disposal in geologic repositories under certain
circumstances could enhance our ability to avoid a dangerous build-up of this heat-trapping gas in the
atmosphere while creating a future for continued coal use. However, because of the long lifetime of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere and the slow turnover of large energy systems we must act without delay to start
deploying these technologies as appropriate. Current government policies are inadequate to drive the private
sector to invest in carbon capture and disposal systems in the timeframe we need them. To accelerate the
development of these systems and to create the market conditions for their use, we need to focus government
funding more sharply on the most promising technologies. More importantly, we need to adopt binding
measures and standards that limit global warming emissions so that the private sector has a business rationale
for prioritizing investment in this area.

More evidence…

Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)

But we can do better with both production and use of coal. And because the world is likely to continue to use
significant amounts of coal for some time to come, we must do better. Energy efficiency remains the
cheapest, cleanest, and fastest way to meet our energy and environmental challenges, while renewable energy
is the fastest growing supply option. Increasing energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy supplies
must continue to be the top priority, but we have the tools to make coal more compatible with protecting
public health and the environment. With the right standards and incentives we can fundamentally transform
the way coal is produced and used in the United States and around the world.

More ev…

Herzog 7 (Antonia, Sci-NRDC, FDCH Congressional Test, 5-24)

Some call coal ``clean.`` It is not and likely never will be compared to other energy options. Nonetheless, it
appears inevitable that the U.S. and other countries will continue to rely heavily on coal for many years. The
good news is that with the right standards and incentives it is possible to chart a future for coal that is
compatible with protecting public health, preserving special places, and avoiding dangerous global warming.
It may not be possible to make coal clean, but by transforming the way coal is produced and used, it is
possible to make coal significantly cleaner - and safer - than it is today.

Coal gasification has two advantages over current power plants: Syngas and high pressure.

US Department of Energy 2 (“Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies,
http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf)

If an even lower CO2 release rate is required in the future, IGCC technology has two major
zadvantages that can be exploited to capture CO2 more efficiently than is possible with combustion-
based technology. First, syngas has a high CO2 concentration, which can be further increased by
converting CO to CO2 prior to combustion
(while simultaneously producing more hydrogen), and second, IGCC
gasifiers typically operate under relatively high pressure
(~400 psig in the Wabash plant), making recovery of
the CO2 from the syngas much easier than capture from flue gas
. Several recent design studies, one performed for
DOE and another for ChevronTexaco in cooperation with General Electric (GE), bracket plant output loss at between 3 to 6% of original
net plant electricity generation if CO2 is captured. The DOE study indicates that comparable CO2 capture (on a percentage basis) for a
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant and a PC plant would yield an output loss of 21% and 28%, respectively. Lower energy
consumption for CO2 capture means that less additional generation capacity is needed to make up for this parasitic loss. Since additional
CO2 will likely be generated by any added fossilbased capacity, IGCC minimizes this effect. Including CO2 capture, the overall cost of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

245

Scholars Lab

Green Military Aff

electricity (COE) of the IGCC plant is shown to be about 6.3 ¢/kWh versus 7.9 ¢/kWh for the PC plant, while the NGCC plant’s COE is
also 6.3 ¢/kWh at a natural gas price of approximately $4 /106Btu.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->