washington — americans are increasingly concerned that climate change is both real and manmade, and major fossil fuel industries are heeding the change in public sentiment by investing in green energy.

in 2019 alone, bp and glencore agreed to investor demands to set business policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the 2016 paris accords and disclose the results to their stakeholders.

according to yale’s climate change communication december survey, 73% of americans think global warming is happening, while 62% think it is caused by humans. this concern stems from an increase in intensity and frequency of natural disasters as well as increased discussion among politicians, especially president donald trump, according to yale research affiliate john kotcher.

“over the last five years, we’ve seen a pretty substantial upward trend about people’s concern with climate change,” kotcher said.

trump pulled out of the paris climate accord and eliminated many obama-era environmental policies and regulations, even as his administration released the 2018 national climate assessment, a 13-agency report calling for swift action on human-induced climate change. he plans to appoint a new climate change commission headed by william happer, a climate change denier who argues that more carbon dioxide emissions are positive for the earth.

meanwhile, progressive democrats decided it was time to harness the public concern and proposed the green new deal, a sweeping resolution to reduce carbon emissions by 2030.

and some of the leading companies in the energy industry, except for coal, also heeded the public concern by changing their practices.

following the 2015 paris agreement, oil, natural gas and coal industry investors urged companies to reform their practices. in late 2017, industry investors created the climate action 100+ as an initiative to ensure the largest greenhouse gas emitters act on climate change, according to its website.

with over 300 investors totaling $33 trillion in assets, the group has persuaded over 100 companies to set policies that comply with the paris agreement.

in february, british petroleum announced that it would heed its investors’ calls for wider reporting on its climate change initiatives and join the initiative. “bp is committed to helping solve the dual challenge of providing more energy with fewer emissions,” said bp chairman helge lund in a statement.

(see a full-screen version of this timeline.)

about 20 years ago, bp invested nearly $10 billion in clean energy sources, though it faced criticism at the time that it was a public relations stunt. just 10 years later, the 2010 gulf of mexico oil spill cost the company any credibility of environmental stewardship it had gained. the latest move to join this organization is in part driven by competition from the industry’s major players, according to axios.

but bp’s commitment to the initiative goes beyond lip service. to join climate action 100+, energy companies must commit to help limit the increase of global temperatures to well below 2 degrees celsius, while also disclosing corporate information on what they are doing to achieve that goal.

“going forward, investors will expect full and transparent disclosure, and will hold the board and company executives accountable for bp’s progress against this critical commitment,” said mindy lubber, climate action 100+ global steering committee vice chair, and ceres ceo and president.

glencore joined signed on to the initiative in late february and committed to its investors to limit emissions and increase disclosures. in addition to helping limit global temperatures from increasing above 2 degrees celsius, glencore is also examining its relationship with trade associations that could undermine its goals, including those that lobby for deregulation, according to a glencore statement.

shell has also led the industry’s gradual shift toward clean energy, albeit with its bottom line in mind, a practice common in the industry. ceo ben van beurden predicts that u.s. policy in line with paris will be enacted, and that it “has to be delivered through business,” he said. “and i intend to fully benefit from that.”

the energy giant has already moved much of its business into natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, and plans to make coal and oil a smaller part of its budget, according to an investor earnings call at the end of january.

van beurden also said shell has set short-term targets to help the company fulfill its long-term goals of limiting the increase of global temperatures and aims to invest $1 billion to $2 billion in clean energy this year.

there are still many in the energy industry opposing the realities of climate change.

the american coal council does not support any regulation to force companies to reduce carbon emissions nor is it interested in joining in voluntary efforts like those of bp and shell.

“we want to utilize the rich energy reserves that we have in coal,” american coal council chief executive officer betsy monseu said. “we think that there is a better path to doing that through the use of advanced coal technology rather than not using coal or using less of it.”

in a section of the coal council’s website that characterizes the reporting of climate change as part of “the era of misinformation,” the company touts the increase of carbon dioxide as a positive because plants need it to survive.

although some notable republicans have acknowledged that climate change is happening, especially after the trump administration released the national climate assessment, many argue that the market should solve the issue.

for anne simpson, chair of the climate action 100+ steering committee, there is no time to wait for government action.

“keeping global warming to well below two degrees demands bold and urgent action from the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters,” she said. “our collaborative engagements with the largest emitters will spur actions across all sectors as companies work to avoid being vulnerable to climate risk and left behind.”

— video by emily priborkin and samantha sorbaro

our house was an “all electric home,” powered by connecticut light and power. cl&p supplies their customers with energy through oil and nuclear technology. at the time of our renovation we looked into installing solar panels on our roof, but our state didn’t offer an incentive and we wouldn’t see the return on investment as immediately as we did with propane. after making the switch, our monthly energy bill is one fifth of what is was before, our home heats and cools more efficiently, and sometimes the butter on the stove melts too fast.

less carbon, less harm

the word “carbon dioxide” is tossed around by scientists, journalists and citizens a lot; it comes with a negative association — at least for many. carbon dioxide is the world’s most prevalent greenhouse gas. many don’t know that it is a necessary component of the earth’s atmosphere and that it has only become threatening over the past few decades. the concentration of co2 in our atmosphere has risen exponentially due to human activities like the burning of coal for electricity and fossil fuels in our cars; the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to anthropogenic climate change. atmospheric carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million (ppm), and over the past 50 years the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has gone from 320ppm to almost 400ppm.

the burning of coal produces two times more carbon dioxide than the burning of natural gas. we are approaching a tipping point of 450ppm, where the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be too great for mitigation efforts to actually reverse the effects of climate change. so with our planet’s future weighing in the balance, is natural gas the bridge to renewable energy?

by 2040, natural gas will make up 38 percent of u.s. energy production. coal production in the us is slowing, and while the development and use of domestic natural gas resources is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas production and distribution does come with its own environmental concerns.

a temporary solution

the process of getting natural gas, trapped in between the layers of rock, can be harmful to the environment if not done carefully. hydraulic fracturing “produces fractures in the rock formation that stimulate the flow of natural gas or oil, increasing the volumes that can be recovered. wells may be drilled vertically hundreds to thousands of feet below the land surface and may include horizontal or directional sections extending thousands of feet.” methane flaring and water contamination are two environmental concerns related to hydrofracking; this reality cannot be ignored, even though natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel.

so while my family didn’t go the extra step and invest in renewable energy technology, that’s where the united state’s energy future needs to head. we need to move in the direction of renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal. these technologies produce energy without emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and can help reduce and eliminate the threat human activities pose to our planet.

the raw facts are always the most astounding to me; like that 82.8 million barrels of oil are consumed each day, or that one wind turbine can produce enough energy to power 300 homes, and that each day the sun creates enough energy to power the world for an entire year.

that last fact really stuck with me. if the sun creates that much energy, why aren’t we investing in ways to harness more of it? while researching solar energy, i consistently was surprised by the power and apparent affordability.

in order to harness the energy from the sun and turn it into electricity, it is necessary to have solar cells to collect and transform solar energy into useable electricity. to power the entire world for a year, we would need to fill just 25,000 square miles of our planet with solar panels. this area is only slightly larger than the state of west virginia, and can power the entire planet.

just to put the sun power into perspective, the amount of power that reaches the earth in one day is valued at $625 trillion dollars! that’s enough money to buy google, microsoft, apple and facebook 686 times over. meanwhile the amount of energy that reaches the earth in one year is valued at $228 quadrillion dollars – enough money to pay the u.s. national debt 16,294 times. yet putting a solar panel on your home isn’t nearly as expensive as i expected it to be.

solar panels are expensive initially, but your return on investment is quick. hybrid cars start at around $25,000 and the return on investment is 6.5 years. those high efficiency washing machines that you probably already have in your home will take 5 years to return your investment and home solar panels are right there with them. the return on home solar electricity is only six years, and is even shorter in places with government incentives. states like new jersey, massachusetts, and pennsylvania have incentive programs (srec) that make the payback rate drop to 4 years.

this left me wondering why more people don’t have solar panels on their home, immediately thinking of my parents who live in pennsylvania i realized that it is something they have never actually looked into or heard about doing. solar panels don’t really “sound” affordable and large start up costs without federal incentives would be hard for most people to justify, yet 92 percent of people in the u.s. feel the government should implement solar power programs.

a one kilowatt home solar panel could prevent 170 pounds of coal from being burned and 300 pounds of co2 from being released into the atmosphere. most home solar systems are between 3 and 7 kilowatts. solar energy isn’t affordable and effective for every house but everyone should be learning about the options that solar energy has to offer on both large and small scale projects. whether it’s to save the environment, or just save money, we should be looking into solar resources as we move toward the future. 

•  panasonic aiming for battery-powered homes by 2011
•  battery breakthrough technology could power homes for pennies per kilowatt hour

we talk about battery-powered cars. why not battery-powered homes? these super batteries could even be fuel cells. it’s time to take innovation from the car to the home. it’s time. but, utility companies and government seem to conspire on discouraging homes to be off the grid.

but, as the u.s. power grid is already challenged, why not encourage houses to have the option to go off the grid during certain times of overload, when the house can subsist off the batter or fuel cell instead?

and as appliances get smarter, use less power, this surely seems possible today or in the next few years. the fuel cell or super battery that powers the home could get charged from the grid initially and/or through a combination of solar, wind, water, geothermal, natural gas and/or more.

the time is now, as millions every year go through more and more power outages due to severe weather. and, power outages can be quite harsh and even deadly in extreme heat or cold. as we become a wireless communication society with fewer and fewer landlines, why not evolve homes to have wireless electricity?

today, hefner is founder and ceo of the ghk companies, an oklahoma-based natural gas and oil firm. he has pioneered ultradeep natural gas exploration and led the development of innovative technology necessary to successfully drill and produce the world’s deepest and highest pressure natural gas wells.

hefner caught up with planet forward backstage at the gw moving the planet forward innovation summit on april 17, 2012. he believes that the greatest innovation has been in the natural gas industry. he says, “it’s allowed this country to become super abundant, actually drowning, in natural gas.”

but utensils made from bioplastic – a new kind of plastic made from corn, rice, or other organic material, can compost back to nature in just 180 days and could grow into a $5 billion dollar worldwide market by 2016.

“the products we are making are american products, made with american workers, with feedstock coming from our country,” said frederic scheer, owner of cereplast, a bioplastic manufacturer located in indiana. “we have created about 70 green jobs, and we anticipate to create even more.”

however bioplastics may have a downside that reduces their green allure. a recent study found quick decomposition of bioplastics could lead to methane emissions – a powerful greenhouse gas. “if it decomposes in less than two years, then that methane all goes to the environment, and probably does more harm than good,” said morton barlaz, of north carolina state university.

api envisions numerous areas of opportunity leveraging our expertise. we propose a new paradigm for research that holds promise to fundamentally energize collaboration and economic development for api and the other locales where we anticipate operations. it is based on a foundation of plasma r&d and is centered on hydrogen, clean coal, lithium, and rare earth element production.

this technology can use solar/wind energy to power the hydrogen production for combustion engines, fuel cells and electric power plants. it is the first technology that is 100% efficient and creates no pollution whatsoever.

plasma-based hydrogen generation is a proprietary plasma-based system to be developed which will generate hydrogen from sea water using less energy than electrolysis with no catalyst, exotic metals and not create any harmful waste materials.

the process and science involved is still too new to have received a patent, though a patent application is in train, hence the details provided by the api are general in nature, so as not to jeopardize api’s intellectual property.

general information about the process is as follows:

• the process has been named “ecp-amf”
• the technology is scalable from micro to macro size, so could be sized to suit a pilot project.
• it will not require a large energy input to trigger the process.
• the source seawater/brine/fresh water will not need to be supplied to the process at an elevated temperature nor in a vapor state unlike present technologies.
• the process will operate at temperatures around 6k°c but will be designed to handle much higher temperatures.
• with appropriate hydrogen storage and trained operators the system could be operated safely in a built-up area.
• initial calculations indicate that ≈10kwhr of energy input to the system would be required to manufacture 1kg of hydrogen. [note that the theoretical minimum demand for electrolysis is ≈38kwhrs/kg h2 but the actual demand from commercial electrolysers is ≈54kwh to 80kwh, depending on their size and efficiency] • if the system were manufacturing ≈5kg hydrogen per hour, the instantaneous power demand might be ≈40kw.
• unique plasma physics path never not taken by any company or university in the world.
• the technology will also produce hydrogen and oxygen cheaply, quickly, and in high volumes from sea water, fresh water or brine.
• the energy content of hydrogen is nearly three times that of gasoline.
• energy content of 1 kg hydrogen 141.9 mj (hhv) = 39.4 kwh 20kwh electrical input to produce 100 kwh hydrogen output an hour 2.67 kg hydrogen produced an hour 23, 402 kg’s a year = 922 mwh’s a year.
• this portable technology can use solar / wind energy to power the hydrogen production for combustion engines, fuel cells and electric power plants.
• it is the first technology that is 100% efficient and creates no pollution or toxic waste whatsoever. hundreds to thousands of gallons of fresh drinkable clean water every hour.
• we already have interest from new zealand, taiwan, japan, puerto rico, europe and others.
• 2 universities have signed on to do collaboration research with api inc.
http://colossalstorage.net/api

these wells greatly lower the cost of bringing steam turbines on line for geothermal energy. however west texas also has the advantage of great wind resources in the same regions as wells that have depth temperatures ranging in the 375 to near 500 deg f temperatures. by pumping water down these wells and producing steam turbine produced electricity can be economically has. now imagine that the water is pumped by high pressure wind pumps and as the “wet” steam at lower pressures is returned. this resource is augmented to higher pressure /higher heat stream through concentrated solar on it’s way to the turbines. since this is a recirculating system the water is then taken from it’s lower temperature/pressure state after the turbine in the collection vessels and pumped right back down the hot wells. in open bottom systems the oil and gas brought back to the surface through the return wells carrying steam may also be worth filtering out and collecting.