The price Australia pays for its reliance on coal-fired electricity is highlighted by the release of the National Pollutants Inventory. Coalmines and coal-fired power stations again featured among the big polluters, emitting millions of kilograms of pollutants into the atmosphere, with the potential to be a hazard to both health and the environment. Nationally, Mt Isa Mines in Queensland, which mines copper, zinc and lead, is right up there among the biggest polluters.

Jennie Curtin in Sydney Morning Herald (3 April 2010):

THE price Australia pays for its reliance on coal-fired electricity is highlighted by the release of the National Pollutants Inventory.

Coalmines and coal-fired power stations again featured among the big polluters, emitting millions of kilograms of pollutants into the atmosphere, with the potential to be a hazard to both health and the environment.

In NSW, the Hunter Valley and the Lithgow regions rated as the state’s most polluted areas because of the number of coal-based activities there. Singleton is one of the worst towns, surrounded by at least seven mines which together produced more than 18 million kilograms of dust, 7.4 million kilograms of nitrogen oxides and 4.9 million kilograms of carbon monoxide in the 2008-09 year.

Inhalation of low levels of carbon monoxide can cause headache, dizziness, light-headedness and fatigue. Nitrogen oxides, which can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, may irritate eyes, nose, throat and lungs. And inhaled dust is also an irritant to the eyes, throat and lungs.

The figures also reveal the state’s six largest power stations – Bayswater, Liddell, Mt Piper, Eraring, Wallerawang and Vales Point – produced more than 160 million kilograms of nitrogen oxides, 5 million kilograms of carbon monoxide and a massive 235 million kilograms of sulphur dioxide, which also irritates eyes and throat and can cause headaches and anxiety.

In contrast, renewable energy produced only a fraction of those emissions. The Eastern Creek renewable energy facility, for example, reported 100,000 kilograms of carbon monoxide, 32,000 kilograms of nitrogen oxides and 10,000 kilograms of sulphur dioxide.

Apart from coal, the other major emitters in NSW were the BlueScope Steel plant at Port Kembla, which produced 300 million kilograms of carbon monoxide, as well as lesser amounts of other pollutants, and the Tomago aluminium smelter north of Newcastle, with 44 million kilograms of carbon monoxide.

In Sydney, the OneSteel steel mill at Rooty Hill was one of the big polluters, as were the Caltex Kurnell refinery and Shell Clyde refinery which also produce hundreds of thousands of kilograms of volatile organic compounds. A build-up of these compounds in indoor environments has been associated with the so-called ”sick building syndrome”.

The water suffered, too. Sydney’s three main sewage treatment plants – at Malabar, North Head and Bondi – produced more than 15 million kilograms of nitrogen, 12 million of ammonia and 2.5 million of phosphorus.

Nationally, Mt Isa Mines in Queensland, which mines copper, zinc and lead, was possibly the biggest polluter, emitting 260 million kilograms of sulphur dioxide, 16 million kilograms of carbon monoxide and 2.9 million kilograms of dust.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Seeing What’s Best For the Soil, Energy & the Environment

Whereas crop residue removal reduces carbon concentration, dedicated energy crops can increase soil organic carbon concentration while providing biofuel feedstock. Growing dedicated energy crops in marginal and abandoned lands instead of prime agricultural fields will further benefit the soil and environment. Developing the next generation of biofuels will not only require new technologies to transform it into fuel, but new agricultural methods for growing it. This from the American Society of Agronomy
Released by the American Society of Agronomy (4 April 2010):

Energy crops impact environmental quality:

What happens to the soil when you remove the plants?

MADISON, WI, — Crop residues, perennial warm season grasses, and short-rotation woody crops are potential biomass sources for cellulosic ethanol production.

While most research is focused on the conversion of cellulosic feeedstocks into ethanol and increasing production of biomass, the impacts of growing energy crops and the removal of crop residue on soil and environmental quality have received less attention. Moreover, effects of crop residue removal on soil and environmental quality have not been compared against those of dedicated energy crops.

In the March-April 2010 issue of Agronomy Journal, published by the American Society of Agronomy, Dr. Humberto Blanco reviewed the impacts of crop residue removal, warm season grasses, and short-rotation woody crops on critical soil properties, carbon sequestration, and water quality as well as the performance of energy crops in marginal lands.

The review found that crop residue removal from corn, wheat, and grain sorghum can adversely impact soil and environmental quality. Removal of more than 50% of crop residue can have negative consequences for soil structure, reduce soil organic carbon sequestration, increase water erosion, and reduce nutrient cycling and crop production, particularly in erodible and sloping soils.

“Crop residue removal can make no-till soils a source rather than a sink of atmospheric carbon,” says Blanco, even at rates lower than 50%. Residue removal at rates of less than 25% can cause loss of sediment in runoff relative to soils without residue removal.

To avoid the negative impacts on soil, perhaps only a small fraction of residue might be available for removal. This small amount of crop residues is not economically feasible nor logistically possible. Blanco recomends developing other alternative biomass feedstock sources for cellulosic ethanol production.

An alternative to crop residue removal is growing warm season grasses and short-rotation woody crops as dedicated energy crops. These crops can provide a wide of range of ecosystems services over crop residue removal. Available data indicate that herbaceous and woody plants can improve soil characteristics, reduce soil water and wind erosion, filter pollutants in runoff, sequester soil organic carbon, reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases, and improve wildlife habitat and diversity.

Whereas crop residue removal reduces carbon concentration, dedicated energy crops can increase soil organic carbon concentration while providing biofuel feedstock. Because of their deep root systems, warm season grasses also promote long-term carbon sequestration in deeper soil profile unlike row crops.

Growing dedicated energy crops in marginal and abandoned lands instead of prime agricultural fields will further benefit the soil and environment. Warm season grasses can grow in nutrient-depleted, compacted, poorly drained, acid, and eroded soils. Herbaceous and woody energy crops cannot replace natural forest and native prairie lands, but well-managed dedicated energy crops may provide a myriad of benefits to soil and environment while supplying much needed feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production.

Developing the next generation of biofuels will not only require new technologies to transform it into fuel, but new agricultural methods for growing it.

The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/2/403.

A peer-reviewed international journal of agriculture and natural resource sciences, Agronomy Journal is published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy, with articles relating to original research in soil science, crop science, agroclimatology and agronomic modeling, production agriculture, and software. For more information visit:http://agron.scijournals.org.

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) www.agronomy.org, is a scientific society helping its 8,000+ members advance the disciplines and practices of agronomy by supporting professional growth and science policy initiatives, and by providing quality, research-based publications and a variety of member services.

Source: www.eurekalert.org

Lucky Last – Meat emissions from NZ. What’s there to beef about?

Down on the farm in New Zealand – where your intrepid roving reporter has been perilously close to over the past few days – they are seeing some consolation from the research into emissions from meat production and export. There’s apparently more release of greenhouse gases – predominantly methane – from the meat sold for the local dinner table than from that transported long distance. Over a delicious lamb roast – and an occasional barbecue beef – I contemplated all of this. I also read the report in the New Zealand Herald by Eloise Gibson on the subject.

By Eloise Gibson in New Zealand Herald (7 April 20101):

AgResearch scientists tracked lamb from paddock to plate.

The carbon footprint of a lamb chop has been revealed by a study which found that every 100g of New Zealand lamb exported to Europe creates 1.9kg of greenhouse gas emissions.

The study is relevant to New Zealand shoppers because most of the emissions – 80 per cent – are generated on the farm and just 5 per cent by shipping lamb to Europe.

Shoppers’ behaviour accounted for 12 per cent of emissions but if transport to and from the supermarket was counted, that would have risen to 19 per cent – nearly four times the emissions taken to get the lamb to Europe, said researchers.

AgResearch scientists tracked lamb from paddock to plate, measuring the gases produced by the sheep, cooking, refrigeration and transport.

They found shoppers could cut their impact by choosing chilled meat rather than frozen and avoiding microwave defrosting of meat.

Lamb’s greenhouse gas footprint was measured in CO2 equivalents, although only a small proportion of the emissions were actually CO2 – the majority was methane from cow burps and nitrous oxide from sheep excrement on the soil: short-lived but potent greenhouse gases which are multiplied several times over to get the equivalent in CO2.

Meat Industry Association, Ballance Agri-Nutrients, Landcorp, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paid for the study because they wanted to find out where in the lamb’s supply chain they could most easily cut greenhouse gases.

Report lead author Dr Stewart Ledgard said it was the first detailed study of the carbon footprint of a New Zealand meat product to cover the whole lifecycle.

The study was done in accordance with UK carbon labelling standards, so the information can be used on carbon footprint labels that are being rolled out by British food chains.

Lamb producers will welcome the finding that so little of lamb’s carbon footprint is from shipping, something that may be used to fight allegations that “food miles” drive up the environmental cost of New Zealand exports.

Unfortunately for farmers, the biggest portion of gases were also some of the most difficult to cut: livestock emissions, which the Government is heading a major international research mission to reduce.

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz