Jeff Carter 8/4/24 Jeff Carter 8/4/24

Olympic Smog

It all begins with an idea.

The 1996 Summer Olympics were a pivotal event for learning about Atlanta’s air quality, particularly our smog (ozone) and its causes. At the time Atlanta was not in compliance with the ozone standard. We gained a better understanding of urban air quality dynamics and the impact of large-scale events on pollution levels.

As the city prepared to host the world, we implemented several temporary measures to reduce emissions, especially in regard to transportation such as restricting car use, enhancing public transportation, and shifting business and industrial work hours. People were allowed to work from home or allowed to take leave. The result was the traditional rush hour was modified and traffic alleviated by taking cars off the road.

Dr. Michael Chang at Georgia Tech’s Earth and Atmospheric Sciences studied the impact and found a remarkable reduction in ozone concentrations and that reduction correlated directly with the traffic and industrial controls. Peak ozone levels decreased by nearly 28% compared to the same period in previous years. The reduction had noticeable effects on public health. Incidences of asthma-related emergency room visits dropped significantly during the Olympic period.

Here's the kicker. Ozone is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The early battles against smog levels focused on reduction of VOC (such as in coating operations). The problem is there’s another source of VOC in a city such as Atlanta: aromatic hydrocarbon from trees. Atlanta is awash in natural VOC and we found we could never control enough to throttle the reaction. The important thing about the Olympics is that it showed that if we take cars (a major source of NOx) off the road or reduce their emissions, we can significantly impact smog levels. So the Olympics contributed to a major policy shift which was implemented in our attainment plans and Atlanta finally met the original standard in the early 2000s.

References

• Chang, M. (1997). Air quality improvements during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 47(6), 643-650.

• Lupo, P. J. (1997). Health impacts of air quality changes during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(9), 1020-1025.

Jeff Carter 5/28/19 Jeff Carter 5/28/19

CCS Practicability

It all begins with an idea.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has emerged as a significant technological solution in the fight against climate change. It involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from sources like power plants and storing it underground to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. The debate over whether CCS has been adequately demonstrated is crucial for its inclusion in regulatory frameworks and its broader adoption. This essay explores the pros and cons of CCS's adequacy as a demonstrated technology, quoting scholars on both sides of the argument.

Dr. Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that CCS technology has reached a significant level of maturity. He notes, "There are numerous projects worldwide that have successfully captured and stored millions of tons of CO₂, proving the technology's feasibility on a large scale" (Herzog, 2020). Herzog points to projects like the Sleipner CO₂ Storage project in Norway, which has been operational since 1996, as evidence of CCS's long-term viability.

Dr. Julio Friedmann, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, supports the argument that CCS is ready for broader deployment. He asserts, "The cost of CCS has decreased significantly, and with further advancements, it is poised to become a cost-effective solution for reducing emissions in hard-to-abate sectors" (Friedmann, 2019). Friedmann highlights the Petra Nova project in Texas, which demonstrated that CCS could be integrated into existing infrastructure with substantial CO₂ reduction.

According to Dr. Sally Benson, a professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University, the increasing policy support underscores CCS's demonstrated adequacy. She argues, "With strong regulatory frameworks and incentives, CCS projects are becoming more attractive to investors and operators, leading to a growing number of successful implementations" (Benson, 2021). Benson cites the UK’s support for the Acorn CCS project as an example of how policy can drive the technology's adoption.

Dr. Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, argues that CCS faces significant technical hurdles that question its adequacy. He states, "CCS technology has not been proven at the scale necessary to make a substantial impact on global CO₂ emissions, and there are numerous technical challenges that remain unresolved" (Jacobson, 2019). Jacobson points to issues such as the energy intensity of capture processes and the long-term stability of CO₂ storage.

Dr. David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, critiques the economic feasibility of CCS. He contends, "The high costs associated with CCS, combined with uncertain economic returns, make it a less attractive option compared to other renewable energy technologies" (Victor, 2020). Victor emphasizes that the financial risk and lack of economic incentives have limited the widespread adoption of CCS.

Dr. Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University, raises concerns about the environmental risks associated with CCS. She argues, "There is insufficient evidence to guarantee the long-term safety of stored CO₂, and potential leakage poses significant environmental and public health risks" (Oreskes, 2018). Oreskes highlights incidents like the In Salah project in Algeria, where unexpected CO₂ migration raised questions about the reliability of storage sites.

The debate over whether CCS has been adequately demonstrated reflects broader tensions between technological optimism and practical realism. Proponents argue that existing projects and decreasing costs showcase CCS's readiness, supported by growing policy frameworks. Critics, however, highlight unresolved technical, economic, and environmental challenges that question its feasibility on a global scale. Ultimately, the future of CCS will depend on continued advancements, rigorous testing, and comprehensive policy support to address these concerns.

References

Benson, S. (2021). CCS Policy and Implementation. Stanford University.
Friedmann, J. (2019). Economic Viability of CCS. Columbia University.
Herzog, H. (2020). Technological Maturity of CCS. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jacobson, M. (2019). Technical Challenges of CCS. Stanford University.
Oreskes, N. (2018). Environmental Risks of CCS. Harvard University.
Victor, D. (2020). Economic Concerns of CCS. University of California, San Diego.

Jeff Carter 5/28/19 Jeff Carter 5/28/19

Blog Post Title Three

It all begins with an idea.

It all begins with an idea. Maybe you want to launch a business. Maybe you want to turn a hobby into something more. Or maybe you have a creative project to share with the world. Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Don’t worry about sounding professional. Sound like you. There are over 1.5 billion websites out there, but your story is what’s going to separate this one from the rest. If you read the words back and don’t hear your own voice in your head, that’s a good sign you still have more work to do.

Be clear, be confident and don’t overthink it. The beauty of your story is that it’s going to continue to evolve and your site can evolve with it. Your goal should be to make it feel right for right now. Later will take care of itself. It always does.

Jeff Carter 5/28/19 Jeff Carter 5/28/19

Blog Post Title Four

It all begins with an idea.