1-Sep-11 2:00 PM CST

Climate Change 101: Impact on Refiners

Introduction

This present article intends to open the debate on the phenomenon of global climate change, which reportedly has been closed by its proponents, and a compliant media. The goal is to present a commonsense viewpoint based on practical scientific observations and how the evidence is treated. What mankind is striving to control through manipulation energy consumption, falls short of the natural balance established in play since earth’s creation.

Most published articles on climate change are based on drama and hype, with a hint of scientific assertion to appear plausible. Often there is some connection suggested to a recent catastrophic weather event. Fig. 1 is an article published in 1922 that was emblematic of the news about this topic. Most climate change articles are full of clear inferences to glaring problems which have been caused by humans, which can supposedly be corrected with some collective action.

Fig. 1. "The Changing Arctic" by George Nicolas

During the 1970s there was a fear that the world was headed toward a period of global cooling and that there needed to be drastic action to avert this impending disaster. Scenes of frigid conditions and cold-inspired deaths were portrayed, even though the year-round cooling was expected to be only 1°C–2°C below the prevailing norm (Fig.2). The technical explanation offered for the cooling effect was radiation back into the solar energy space due to soot particles in earth’s upper atmosphere.

Fig. 2. December 1979 - Public concern
that the earth was cooling and lifestyle
changes needed to be made.

In the 1980s, the concern shifted toward global warming due to the postulated greenhouse effect from certain atmospheric gases (Fig. 3). Data were gathered and models constructed to prove that this period in time was different than previous history, because mankind was consuming much higher quantities of fossil fuels, and the resultant CO₂ release from this combustion was the culprit behind pervasively rising global temperatures.

Fig. 3. The sentiment changed, and
concern swung toward the need to
combat warming.

Coincident with this viewpoint was a series of ulterior motives from an odd mix of compatriots, designed to promote one agenda or another, usually for social adjustment or personal profit. These included those who truly believed we were headed toward a manmade disaster because of an uncontrollable increase in temperatures; those who resented the Western world’s dependence on imported energy from politically unstable regions of the world; those who object to the byproducts of oil consumption and environmental pollution; and those who want to reallocate some of the resources away from the industrialized world toward developing countries. The common element linking these agendas was CO₂.

During the 2000s, evidence of global warming failed to match the predictions, so a new phraseology, Global Climate Change was introduced. This term was deliberately broad so that one could be correct when predicting temperature increases or temperature decreases; or climate shifts from one region to another. Most recently, in 2010, a new term was introduced – “Global Climate Disruption” (Fig. 4). This latest designation lends itself to a negative connotation about any changes in weather patterns, to more conveniently promote reductions in energy consumption and to justify governmental intervention into this policy.

Fig. 4. Current phrasing for all actual or potential
climate issues: warmer, wetter, drier, more eventful,
less eventful.

In exchange for favorable coverage, media outlets have conveyed specific choreographed messages reporting all the extremes in nature as if these had not been happening all throughout earth’s history. Regional droughts in Africa, flooding in Southeast Asia, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and the polar bears stranded on a broken iceberg have all been blamed on global climate change (Fig. 5). In addition, well-known politicians and celebrities have taken sides to pronounce global climate change upon us. Al Gore for example, has effectively secured the media’s attention, persuaded some in the public and even won the Academy Award and other recognitions for his support of global warming (Fig. 6)..

Fig. 5. Is this polar bear in peril or simply searching
for food from an advantaged viewpoint?

Fig. 6. Global warming proponents include
former Vice President Al Gore.

Author - "An Inconvenient Truth"

Celebrity - Winner of Academy Award in 2007 for documentary

Investments - Multiple "Green" companies/industries

Scientific Contribution - "Inventor of the Internet"

Some scientists have been claimed to universally accept the fact of global warming, further eroding the opportunity for debate. Is global climate change the most pressing problem facing mankind, which requires intergovernmental cooperation to avoid disaster?

To understand the problem, let’s look at the primary issues:

Does the phenomenon of global warming exist? Is there global climate change?
If so, is industrial activity the primary factor? Is CO₂ the main proxy for changing global temperatures?
Is it reasonable or even possible, to shift global climate patterns by changing human activity?
Does it make any difference in any case?

In general, the public has been misled. The public is accepting things “green”, but the transforming policy discussions center on CO₂. Even the word green is confusing. Today’s “green” is anything one purports to be natural or environmentally benign. The definition is set by the marketer or promoter of a particular good, practice, or political agenda. Often, what is designated “green” is not helpful to society or the environment.

Biofuels are reported to be “green,”(Fig. 7) but the raw material for ethanol or biodiesel is a food source for man or animals. Furthermore, the life cycle on the carbon emissions is only marginally lower than traditional fossil fuels. Biofuels require large areas of land, water, and fertilizers that compete for these alternative resources. Except in very few cases, biofuels are never economical to use for mass consumption in transportation or power generation compared to traditional fuels.

Fig. 7. Are biofuels "green"?

Energy saving light bulbs are an icon of “greenness”(Fig. 8). The present bulb prices are 20 times higher than conventional bulbs. The economic payback on replacing light bulbs is much longer than other actions we could take for saving energy. The light bulbs also contain mercury. Will mercury leakage from bulb disposal become the next environmental disaster? Is the energy savings by using the light bulbs, more valuable than the capital which could be deployed toward economically prosperous enterprises or social benefits?

Fig. 8. Make more prudent than
other uses of resources.

Chemical production plants and oil refineriesare not generally considered “green.” But even in this sector, the manufacturers have set up a system to make comparisons and denote a particular practice or site to be “green,” usually for the purpose of obtaining operating permits.

What is “green”?

There are many shades of green, without a universal standard. In truth, “green” should relate to the practice of photosynthesis, which produces the characteristic color during the conversion of CO₂and light into plant growth with oxygen (O₂) as a byproduct. This symbiosis of O₂ generation by plant life and CO₂ by animal life is the fundamental core of our physical existence. What has happened in the last three decades is that CO₂ has been demonized as the culprit for all disagreeable climate patterns within the world. Terms such as carbon footprint, cap and trade and greenhouse effect conjure images of worldwide disaster, with CO₂as the root cause.

What is CO₂?

By definition, CO₂ (Fig. 9) is a heavy colorless gas that does not support combustion; is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay of combustion of animal and vegetable matter; is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis; and is used as a food additive in the carbonation of beverages. CO₂ is a non-toxic trace component in the atmosphere, and a natural part of the biosphere.

Fig. 9. CO₂ - Focus of debate

Let’s open up the real debate to untangle the various motives and agendas from the scientific substance at hand. There is consensus based on evidence that the earth’s temperature has increased approximately 1°C over the last 100 years; and that CO₂ levels in the atmosphere have increased from approximately 280 ppm in the middle of the last century to 390 ppm today. The temperature measurements on land vs. water, upper atmosphere vs. lower atmosphere, polar vs. tropical, etc., have a natural variation and range of accuracy. Beyond this, there is great divergence of opinion about the causes of these deviations and resultant effect on mankind.

Regarding temperature, there has been at least three (100+ year) periods in history where global temperatures were higher than they are today (Fig. 10). This includes the 13th century, when the Vikings colonized Greenland. Woodlands once covered the tundra region in Northern Canada; and animal life patterns were different than today. During this time, man-made CO₂ was largely absent from the equation. The historical temperature record can also be questioned, since modern instruments for measuring temperature on a consistent, global scale did not exist prior to the past 100 years. Today, many of the official measurement sites are compromised by the heat island effect, located in urban areas with street paving or other artificial heat sources.

Fig. 10. European climate change over the last 1,000 years.

Global temperature correlations of have been made with CO₂ and other parameters (Fig 11). Sometimes the CO₂ shows a direct correlation, and other times not. Certainly, there are many different factors that influence global temperature. The most direct correlation seems to be solar activity. The sun is overwhelmingly the largest energy and heat source to our environment.

World Temperature and CO₂ Concentration 1998-2008

Fig. 11. Earth's temperature does not correlate with CO₂ concentration.

Evidence also shows on a macro scale that CO₂ rises after global temperature increases, because of the lower solubility of CO₂ in the ocean storehouse at elevated temperatures (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. Temperature correlates with the Sun, not hydrocarbon usage.

Concerning the greenhouse phenomenon, water vapor is actually the dominant component, comprising 95% of greenhouse gases (Fig. 13). CO₂ is a small portion of the greenhouse gas mixture; anthropogenic-derived CO₂ is an even smaller portion. The mere validity of the greenhouse effect as a significant factor in explaining incremental global temperature increases is questionable. Considering the multiple contributing factors that affect global temperature, CO₂ levels in the atmosphere have virtually no influence. The blame is simply on the wrong target.

Fig. 13. CO₂ is the trace component in the atmosphere.

Kyoto, Bali, Copenhagen and Cancun have been sites of international meetings designed to promote the premise of CO₂-based global warming and to compel global nations to make commitments to reduce the greenhouse gases. The pathways to this opinion seem logical enough, including:

Observation that the earth is getting warmer
Scientists gathering and studying data
Consequences of the global warming progression being presented
Attempt to garner and capture public support for changes that need to be made.

However, there are fundamental flaws in each of these points. Before making a rational decision about man-made global warming, one must use common sense and understand all the facts:

1. Modern meteorological science has only existed for the last 100 years (Fig. 14). Therefore, historical data on global temperatures are largely based on indirect evidence and adjusting the various input sources to a common basis. Using these data, the variance in global temperatures is 1°C – 2°C over extended time periods. The global average today is approximately 1°C above the 1,000-year normal average.

Fig. 14. Problem - co-mingling of political objectives with scientific method.

2. Scientists have made a tremendous effort to gather data related to global temperature changes and develop climate models which encompass the data and indicate cause and effect. The models include the famous hockey stick prediction of a sharp, uncontrollable increase in global temperature. All the models are wrong, at least in their predictions on account of CO₂(Fig. 15). In 2010, the Earth’s global temperature was 0.62°C lower than in 1998; and CO₂ increased 20 wppm in the same period. No models predicted the 2000 - 2010 downward trend in temperatures. In contrast, long-term temperature trends closely follow solar activity. Climate scientists do not know the full extent of all the contributing factors to global climate.

21st Century Temperature Prediction and Actual Measurement

Fig. 15. Climate models are inadequate.

3. The consequences of global warming are presented to be polar caps melting, with a rising sea level; regional droughts in Africa, causing wars and mass dislocations of the population; increased hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico and typhoons in Southeast Asia; polluted air over cities; and polar bears driven out of their natural existence. Does CO₂ cause smog, or is this rather caused by soot, particles, and nitrogen oxides (NO_x)? Are hurricanes predictable? Is the Darfur conflict in Sudan a result of higher temperatures across the African plains? Are polar bears not able to adapt to a changing environment; are they even in decline at all?

4. All marketing campaigns focus on changing the perception about a product or an issue to gain favorable support. The campaign in favor of man-made global warming is no different. We are presented with images of starving children; hurricane damage; and polluted cities (Fig 16). Supporting data are selectively shown, or even manipulated to better fit the models. The promoters claim that the debate is over – an overwhelming majority supports the assertion of man-made global warming. Absent political motives and given an unbiased view of all the relevant data, scientists do not share this view but have the opposite conclusion.

Fig. 16. Di-hydromonoxide emissions from cooling towers at a
petrochemical plant. The public is misled to believe that simple
water vapor from factories is a pollutant.

The real questions we should pursue are:

As a global community, are we far better off in all categories of quality of life based on economic progress, than we would have been under a regime of limited CO₂ emissions? Would the people in Central Africa choose to build a single CO₂ capture plant in their country, or rather spend this capital and incremental energy costs to drill 100,000 new water wells, add thousands of school buildings, modernize the public infrastructure, and have virtually unlimited medicines?
Has any artificial shifting of resources toward non-economic areas ever yielded overall positive results?
Has human nature changed in its desire for power and control, to the point that we are willing to entrust ourselves to the pure motives of some governmental or regulatory entity to control our environment and economic destiny?

The wonder to behold is that the sun can maintain a controlled nuclear reaction at 5,500°C such that the temperature deviation at any one location on our planet 150 million km away, will only range within extremes of 50°C during the course of a year!

Before rushing to impose draconian measures to reduce the CO₂ level in the atmosphere, the costs and expected benefits to the global community must be documented. Prudent decision making for investments requires:

Certainty on return (outcome)
Return commensurate with the risk
Results which are measurable
Investors of the capital and resources who are rewarded.

Proponents of CO₂ restrictions would violate every tenet of business and economic well-being by having:

Uncertain outcome
Infinitely high risk
No measurable impact on global temperature
No one is rewarded; everyone is penalized.

The constraints on capital are particularly limiting. In a petrochemical plant or refinery, the approval criteria for projects are usually a time period for payback of less than one year. Many households use (or should use) similar criteria. Compelling the industry to implement projects with poor or less favorable economic return is an unwise use of resources. Ultimately the increased cost in energy and raw materials will be borne by global consumers.

The debate in support of anthropogenic cause of global warming is highly illogical:

Postulation: Economies will grow with the plethora of new “green” jobs. The reality is that we will have a net loss of jobs due to drain and redirection of resources toward non-economic producing activity.

Postulation: The poorest in the world will benefit the most by stopping global climate change. The reality is that the poor will be disproportionately hurt by legislation that makes the cost of fuel and general living expenses increase.

Limiting CO₂ will be absolutely harmful to our existence. CO₂ reduction is completely unnecessary and would result in higher costs due to a misallocation of our resources. There are no environmental benefits from reducing CO₂ emissions, only very high costs. One could make a reasonable counter-argument that increased CO₂ in the atmosphere allows plant life to grow faster to help alleviate a global food shortage; or that higher year-long temperatures have lead to more prosperity and better quality of life across the globe.

The other reasons for reducing fossil fuel consumption – such as national energy security, supporting of the farming community, or managing finite resources – should be debated on their own merits. There are very different public policies to appropriately address these separate concerns.

If refiners and petrochemical operators are nonetheless compelled to reduce energy consumption or otherwise limit CO₂ emissions, then the choices are:

Substitute non-traditional energy sources such as wind, solar or biomass. These are already tapped out with present technology and capital costs, and logistical limitations. More can be done, but at significantly higher incremental cost.
Switch from among traditional fossil fuel sources such as coal to natural gas,which has a lower carbon intensity. This can be done to some extent, but no where near the requirement to have any meaningful impact on atmospheric CO₂ levels. This also penalizes the coal industry, which produces the most abundant and accessible energy sources on Earth.
Capture and sequester CO₂.Carbon capture will directly reduce CO₂ emissions, but at a high cost. The cost is estimated at approximately 30% of the power output from a coal-fired electrical generating plant, notwithstanding the very high capital cost.

All of these solutions have economic costs; therefore, they haven’t been implemented. The best approach is to focus on sustainable processes and practices that:

Preserve or replenish natural resources
Reduce cost of operation
Are economically viable with capital constraints
Are inherently safer with respect to human life

Some reasonable examples of sustainable processes and practices that should be supported include:

Reducing energy consumption by:

Using high performance mass transfer devices in distillation and adsorption operations
Eliminating obsolete technology such as glycol solvents for aromatics extraction
Performing regular online heater cleaning instead of shutting down after a period of declining operation.
Adopting modern operational practices related to startup/shutdown, flaring and process control.

Making higher-value products, including:

Steam cracker by-product upgrades
Fluid catalytic cracking gasoline to aromatics
Recycle wastes to fuel

Reducing noxious compounds to the environment such as:

H₂S and SO₂
Benzene in gasoline

In conclusion, there is no scientific basis that warrants reductions in CO₂ to mitigate global climate change. Even if there were a tendency toward global warming, man-made contributions are negligible compared to solar activity and other natural contributors. Government policies which distort energy consumption patterns to lower CO₂emissions, are a tax on society and hurt the lowest income population the most. We must be realistic in our view about comprehensive laws aimed at protecting the environment. Any decisions in this area should be based on sound science and absent political motives. Real world problems such as global hunger, disease, and clean water can be better addressed if we are not stifled with unnecessary and counterproductive costs of trying to solve the wrong problem.

Author

Joseph C. Gentry is the Director of Global Licensing for GTC Technology US, LLC, headquartered in Houston, Texas. He previously worked for ARCO Chemical Company, and Lyondell Petrochemical Company as a process engineer in the olefins and aromatics areas.

Joe earned a BS degree in chemical engineering from Auburn University and an MBA from the University of Houston. He is the inventor of several patented separations technologies and has specialized in the application of these for the petrochemical industry.

Joe is a registered engineer in the state of Texas, and has authored several papers on licensing process technologies in refining and petrochemical applications. One of the original employees of the former Glitsch Technology Corporation, he is a specialist in GT-BTX and GT-Styrene, working in all area of Technology, Licensing and Business Development.