Embedded Files
Climate change is expected to have various effects, including:
Climate change is expected to have various effects, including:
- Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas;
- Higher minimum temperatures, and fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas;
- Reduced day temperature range over most land areas;
- Increase in heat index over land areas; and
- More intense precipitation events
The proposed project intends to provide continuous energy from a renewable and fossil-free source to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) production, which has been identified as a key element in climate change.
The proposed project intends to provide continuous energy from a renewable and fossil-free source to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) production, which has been identified as a key element in climate change.
The project is thus in line with multiple bills and orders at both the federal and state levels calling to reduce GHG levels.
The project is thus in line with multiple bills and orders at both the federal and state levels calling to reduce GHG levels.
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Federal: US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Clean Air Act.
State: Under the CEQA, an analysis and mitigation plan is necessary for significant project in terms of GHG emissions. Along with multiple bills and executive orders.
Local: No policies were found to be relevant to the project.
Environmental consequences
Environmental consequences
The project will reduce net GHG emissions by over 88,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year, as compared to the same amount of energy produced by fossil fuels. CO2e is used to convert any GHG to an equivalence in CO2 to facilitate calculations (see table 3 below).
Cumulative effects
None mentioned.
Mitigation
No mitigation is needed, as the benefit of this renewable energy will exceed its emissions.
Effort will be made to obtain hermetically-sealed equipment containing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas, a GHG, to prevent leaks.
Residual impacts
None mentioned.
Critique
Critique
There is a lack of transparency about how GHG emissions from fossil fuels is calculated with regards to GHG savings, even after a review of the EIA's appendices. Details about the kind of fossil fuel used for comparison is lacking, thus, it is possible that the most emission intensive, but not necessarily most commonly used fossil fuel, was utilized to inflate CO2e savings.
It was reported that geothermal sites normally emit CO2, which makes anthropogenic emission calculations difficult. This was not addressed in the EIA.
On the good side, a binary plant is the most carbon efficient type of geothermal power plant.
Image from: svcleanenergy.org
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse