33
Battling Georgia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions How can we achieve a 20% reduction by 2030? Kaitlin Allen, Nicholas Wilson 5/6/2013
| Date post: | 21-Jul-2016 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | nicholas-d-wilson |
| View: | 223 times |
| Download: | 4 times |
Battling Georgia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions How can we achieve a 20% reduction by 2030?
Kaitlin Allen, Nicholas Wilson
5/6/2013
1
Introduction
In the interest of combatting rising global temperatures, many countries (often by
way of treaties such as the Montreal and Kyoto Protocol) have looked to reducing their
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (European Environment Agency, 2013). GHGs are
necessary for life on Earth, but an excess (greater than 280 ppmv ofCO2, 700 ppmv of CH4,
or 275 ppmv N2O) of GHGs is problematic; if too much heat is retained by the planet, then
it can have drastic effects on the global climate (Rubin 471, 532-533). The rise in
anthropogenic global GHG emissions since the Industrial Revolution in correlation with rising
global temperatures has led many to believe humanity is responsible for global warming.
Though much disagreement exists on whether or not this is true, the science behind the
greenhouse effect cannot be denied. If GHG emissions continue to rise, then global
temperatures will follow suit. However, reducing GHG emissions in the world’s current
political and economic climate is difficult due to the controversy surrounding the matter.
Based on various data regarding emissions, energy production and consumption, and
economic growth within the United States, this report provides reasonable solutions in order
to reduce GHG emissions by 20% by the year 2030 in the state of Georgia.
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
Ozone in the stratosphere is responsible for keeping harmful solar radiation out, and
the greenhouse gases in the troposphere keep a portion of the thermal radiation leaving the
Earth from escaping to space. The solar radiation passing through the ozone layer hits the
planet’s surface and is reflected because of the albedo effect, but some of the reflected
radiation is trapped by the gases in the troposphere (Rubin 477). This phenomenon is
known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is essential for life on Earth; without
it, the planet would be too cold for hospitable living conditions.
Any change in incoming or outgoing energy to or from the Earth can result in global
temperature change, a phenomenon known as radiative forcing (Miller, 2012). Radiative
forcing is the increase or decrease in energy on Earth and in the Earth’s atmosphere. An
increase in radiative forcing would result from an increase in energy absorbed by the Earth
or a decrease in energy escaping the Earth (Miller, 2012). With respect to the greenhouse
effect, the energy on the Earth would increase due to an increase of GHGs because the
gases would trap more energy in the Earth’s atmosphere (Miller, 2012). This would result in
positive radiative forcing, thereby warming the planet.
Adverse Effects of Human Activity on the Global Climate
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have risen from 280 ppmv to almost
400 ppmv since the Industrial Revolution; consequently, global temperatures have
2
increased (Rubin 471). While it is debated whether or not human activity alone is
responsible for global warming, increased anthropogenic GHG emissions have aggravated
global warming, and this aggravation can only worsen if the emissions continue to rise at
the same rate. Gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)
are released during fossil fuel combustion during electricity generation or vehicle
movement. Increased output of these main GHGs from human activity has become a major
concern for global warming advocates.
Moreover, formation of ozone (O3) in the troposphere contributes to global warming
as well (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). O3 is important for blocking much of the
incoming solar radiation before it can ever permeate the stratosphere; however, if O3 is
somehow trapped in the troposphere, it can keep thermal radiation from leaving the planet,
causing a rise in temperature.
O2 + hv O + O (eq 1)
O2 + O + M O3 + M (eq 2)
Equations 1 and 2, known as the Chapman Mechanism, demonstrate how O3 is formed in
the atmosphere. Bimolecular oxygen is split via photolysis into two oxygen atoms
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). One of those atoms reacts quickly with another
O2 molecule and some third body (typically N2 or O2) to produce O3 and the third body again
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). This mechanism can be problematic, especially if
N2O emissions increase (about 90% of the N2O in the troposphere is split by photolysis into
N2 and O), because it would create more tropospheric O3 which would aggravate global
warming (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).
Current Energy, Electricity, and Emission Outputs
If increased GHG emissions and global warming are such an alarming cause for
concern, then why are countries such as the United States continuing to pump out GHGs?
Mainly, the energy gained from fossil fuel combustion is cheap and easily accessible, and
increased population and economic growth has also increased the energy demand. The
increased energy demand in all sectors of the economy has resulted in increased emissions;
in order to combat this emission output, this report will evaluate and consolidate the various
sources of energy input and output as well as emissions and finally recommend how to
reduce GHG emissions in the state of Georgia by twenty percent by 2030. The data will
include both Georgia and Texas as a comparison, and the two states will be put into the
context of their percentage contribution to the entire country.
3
Energy Consumption per Sector
Figure 1: Residential energy consumption for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Residential energy consumption over the past two decades has increased (Figure 1). This
increase is likely due to the population increase in both states, so decreasing the population
is probably the only solution to the residential energy increase. However, decreasing the
population is not humanely possible; slowing in the increase is a potential alternative.
Figure 2: Commercial energy consumption for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy
Information Administration, 2012).
Commercial energy consumption has also increased (Figure 2) likely because of the
population increase; a higher population results in a higher demand for goods and services.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
me
d (
Trill
ion
BTU
)
Year
Residential Energy Consumption for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
me
d (
Trill
ion
BTU
)
Year
Commercial Energy Consumption for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
4
The energy stores consume can be reduced by incentivizing them to not leave their lights on
when not in use (as many stores do).
Figure 3: Industrial energy consumption for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
As shown in Figure 3, industrial energy consumption increased in the mid-90s but gradually
decreased at the turn of the millennium. Historically, this is likely attributed to the
recession; as such, it is possible industrial energy consumption will increase if the economy
improves.
Figure 4: Transportation energy consumption for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy
Information Administration, 2012).
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
me
d (
Trill
ion
BTU
)
Year
Industrial Energy Consumption for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
me
d (
Trill
ion
BTU
)
Year
Transportation Energy Consumption for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
5
Both transportation energy consumption (figure 4) and emissions from transportation
(figure 24) have increased over the past two decades; consequently, tackling the
transportation sector is important in order to reduce GHG emissions, especially considering
how much CO2 is emitted from car engines.
Figure 5: Overall energy consumption for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
In general, the overall energy consumption for both Georgia and Texas has gradually gone
up over the past two decades, though its ascent has slowed over the recent decade due to
the recession. Reducing the amount of energy the country consumes will also reduce
emissions, so looking for ways to reduce the energy demand is a potential solution to
decreasing GHG emissions.
Table 1: Average percentage of U.S. energy consumption consumed by Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 2.94% 12.3%
Table 1 presents the average percentage of the country’s energy consumption Georgia and
Texas consume. These numbers were calculated by taking the percent of U.S. energy
consumption from each year for each state and averaging those percentages. Except for in
extreme cases, there was little variation between years.
0.00
2,000.00
4,000.00
6,000.00
8,000.00
10,000.00
12,000.00
14,000.00
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
me
d (
Trill
ion
BTU
)
Year
Overall Energy Consumption for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
6
Energy Production per Energy Source
Figure 6: Energy produced from combustion of fossil fuels in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Figure 6 depicts the energy production from fossil fuel combustion in both Georgia and
Texas. Georgia’s energy production from fossil fuel combustion is so low it is not visible on
this graph, but Texas’s is high despite its decrease. Continuing to decrease this form of
energy production will lead to less GHG emissions because fossil fuel combustion releases
large amounts of CO2.
Figure 7: Energy produced from nuclear power generation in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000En
erg
y P
rod
uce
(Tr
illio
n B
TU)
Year
Energy Produced from Combustion of Fossil Fuels for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Ene
rgy
Pro
du
ced
(Tr
illio
n B
TU)
Year
Energy Produced from Nuclear Power Generation for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
7
Nuclear power energy generation has increased in both Georgia and Texas over the past
two decades (Figure 7). Nuclear power is an important alternative to fossil fuel combustion
because of its lack of GHG emissions. However, the radioactive waste from nuclear power
generation is often difficult to dispose of, so investing in this type of power generation would
require improved ways to dispose of nuclear wastes.
Figure 8: Energy produced from renewable energy for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Fortunately, renewable energy production has increased in Texas (Figure 8). This is mostly
attributed to the uprising of wind turbines in Texas due to the governmental tax incentive in
place for states using wind energy (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013). However, Georgia
is lacking in its renewable energy production because of the inaccessibility of many
renewable energy sources in Georgia with the exception of biofuel and hydroelectricity.
Investing in ways to harvest more renewable energy will be important in reducing Georgia’s
GHG emissions.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Ene
rgy
Pro
du
ced
(Tr
illio
n B
TU)
Year
Energy Produced from Renewable Energy for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
8
Figure 9: Total energy production for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Based on Figure 9, Georgia’s overall energy production seems to have remained constant
while Texas’s has decreased and then increased again. As aforementioned, decreasing the
energy demand from fossil fuels while increasing the energy demand from renewables,
nuclear power, or other alternatives will result in reduced GHG emissions.
Table 2: Average percentage of United States energy production produced by Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 0.770% 14.9%
Table 2 shows the average percentage of the total energy production in the United States in
Georgia and Texas. Georgia produces about 0.77% of the country’s energy while Texas
produces 14.9%, a much higher percentage. This presents the disparity in energy activity
between the two states, suggesting other states may present the same type of disparity.
Reducing the entire country’s GHG emissions by a large percentage will require a diversified
and reasonable effort.
0.0
2,000.0
4,000.0
6,000.0
8,000.0
10,000.0
12,000.0
14,000.0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Ene
rgy
Pro
du
ced
(Tr
illio
n B
TU)
Year
Total Energy Production for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
9
Electricity Generation per Fuel Source
Figure 10: Electricity generated from coal combustion in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Both states demonstrate an increased usage of coal combustion in electricity generation,
likely due to the increased energy demand as well as the low cost of coal (Figure 10).
Increased coal combustion will lead to increased GHG emissions, so searching for
alternatives to coal is important in order to reduce GHG emissions.
Figure 11: Electricity generated from petroleum in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy
Information Administration, 2012).
Much like coal, petroleum produces CO2 when it is combusted; fortunately, petroleum-based
electricity generation has gone down since 1990 (Figure 11). Eventually decreasing the
020,000,00040,000,00060,000,00080,000,000
100,000,000120,000,000140,000,000160,000,000
Ele
ctri
city
Ge
ne
rate
d (
MW
h)
Year
Electricity Generated from Coal in Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Ele
ctri
city
Ge
ne
rate
d (
MW
h)
Year
Electricity Generated from Petroleum for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
10
amount of electricity generation by petroleum combustion to zero MWh will result in no
additional CO2 emissions from that particular fuel source. Petroleum is used in the
combustion of car engines, so it is necessary to improve the technologies of cars running off
of alternative fuels in order to reduce petroleum combustion.
Figure 12: Electricity generated from natural gas in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
With the increase in coal prices and the simultaneous decrease in natural gas prices, states
like Georgia and Texas have increased their electricity generation from natural gas (Figure
12). Natural gas emissions are cleaner than coal; however, leaked methane is dangerous
due to its higher global warming potential. Investing in natural gas would require a tighter
control on methane transportation as well as better management of the fracking industry
(an industry notable for polluting groundwater with its practices).
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
Ele
ctri
city
Ge
ne
rate
d (
MW
h)
Year
Electricity Generated from Natural Gas in Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
11
Figure 13: Electricity generated from renewable resources in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Figure 13 shows the MWh of electricity generated from renewable resources for Georgia and
Texas. The implementation of a production tax credit (PTC) for renewable energy had a
large impact on the renewable energy for Texas; the tax credit incentivized the state to
implement a large number of wind turbines (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013). The PTC
was extended in 2005, causing a large increase in wind power for the state of Texas (Union
of Concerned Scientists, 2013). The graph shows a steady amount of electricity being
produced through renewables, but for Texas a large increase occurred around 2005.
Figure 14: Electricity generated from nuclear power, in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy Information Administration, 2012).
05,000,000
10,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,000
Ele
ctri
city
Ge
ne
rate
d (
MW
h)
Year
Electricity Generated from Renewable Resources for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
Ele
ctri
city
Ge
ne
rate
d (
MW
h)
Year
Electricity Generated from Nuclear Power for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
12
Figure 14 shows the MWh of electricity generated from nuclear power for Georgia and
Texas. The graph shows a slight increase of nuclear power generation for Georgia; however,
for Texas there is a drop in 1993 followed by a sharp increase tapering off, hovering around
37,000,000 MWh with very slight average increase over the remaining period.
Figure 15: Total electricity generation in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (Energy
Information Administration, 2012).
Increased total electricity generation (Figure 15) is inevitable as the population grows due
to the increased energy demand. Thus, in order to reduce emissions, seeking electricity
generation from sources not associated with GHGs is a possible solution as it will not
compromise the population’s energy demand.
Table 3: Average percentage of United States electricity generation generated by Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 3.23% 9.70%
Table 3 shows the average percentage of the total United States electricity generation in
Georgia and Texas from 1990-2010. Georgia is almost 3.25% while Texas is about 9.7%.
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
400,000,000
450,000,000
Ele
ctri
city
Ge
ne
rate
d (
MW
h)
Year
Total Electricity Generation for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
13
GHG Emissions from Energy Generation per Type
Figure 16: CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 16 shows the CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Georgia and Texas from
1990-2010. The CO₂ emissions for Georgia stay consistent starting around 150 million
metric tons and ending around 180 million metric tons. Texas CO₂ emissions start off around
600 million metric tons and end around 650 million metric tons. The increase in emissions
for both states is cause for concern (CO2 is a GHG).
Figure 17: CH4 emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
CO
₂ Em
issi
on
s (M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
CO₂ Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion in Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
CH
₄ Em
issi
on
s (M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
CH₄ Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
14
Figure 17 shows CH₄ emissions for Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia maintains a
consistent, slow increase which starts at about 6 million metric tons and ends around 8
million metric tons. Texas, however, starts around 53 million metric tons, increases to
around 60 million metric tons around 1995, and ends up at about 69 million metric tons in
2009. The increase in natural gas electricity generation in both states is likely the cause of
the increase in CH4 emissions due to leakage, suggesting tighter controls on natural gas
storage and transportation to avoid leakage will be important if the fuel source is to replace
coal.
Figure 18: N2O emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute,
Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 18 shows N₂O emissions for Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia starts and
ends around 5 million metric tons of N₂O emissions but reaches a peak of about 8 million
metric tons in 1996. Texas, however, starts around 23 million metric tons of N₂O emissions
and ends around 18 million metric tons.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09N
₂O E
mis
sio
ns
(Mill
ion
s o
f M
etr
ic T
on
s)
Year
N₂O Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
15
Figure 19: Fluorinated gas emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 19 shows the fluorinated gas (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride) emissions for Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Both states have an
upward trend beginning in around 1994. Georgia starts at around 1 million metric tons of
fluorinated gas emissions and ends up at about 4.25 million metric tons. Texas starts at
about 3.5 million metric tons of fluorinated gas emissions and ends up at about 12 million
metric tons. F-gases are man-made alternatives to their ozone-depleting counterparts; they
do not affect the ozone layer, but their global warming potential is 23000 times greater than
CO2. Therefore, the rise of both states’ F-gas emissions is precarious for global climate
change.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Gas
Em
issi
on
s (M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
Fluorinated Gas Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
16
Figure 20: Total emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 20 shows the total emissions for GHGs for Georgia and Texas in millions of metric
tons. There is a slight increase in both total emissions. Georgia starts at 1990 around 150
million metric tons and ends at 2009 around 175 million metric tons. Texas starts at 1990
around 680 million metric tons and finishes at 2009 around 730 million metric tons. There is
a little more variability in the Texas graph, however, which would be expected from a larger
state with more emissions.
Table 4: Average percentage of U.S. total emissions emitted by Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 2.66% 11.4%
Table 4 shows the average percentage of the total United States emissions in terms of
Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia is about 2.66% and Texas is about 11.4%.
Because Texas is responsible for such a large portion of the country’s GHG emissions,
reducing the state’s GHG output would require some latitude.
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Tota
l Em
issi
on
s (M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
Total Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
17
GHG Emissions from Energy Generation per Sector
Figure 21: Residential emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 21 shows the residential emissions for Georgia and Texas. Georgia’s graph shows an
increase of about 1 million metric tons over the 20 year period. Texas, however, shows a
decrease of about 1 million metric tons over the 20 year period.
Table 5: Average percentage of U.S. residential emissions emitted by Georgia and Texas,
1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 1.98% 3.49%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Re
isd
en
tial
Em
issi
on
s (I
n M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
Residential Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
18
Table 5 shows the average percentage of total United States residential emissions in terms
of Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia is about 2 percent, whereas Texas is about
3.5 percent. This is an interesting statistic because Texas has about 2.5 times the
population that Georgia does. This means Georgia’s citizens use more energy than the
citizens of Texas, suggesting education of the public is vital in reducing GHG emissions
overall.
Figure 22: Commercial emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 22 shows the commercial emissions for Georgia and Texas. As seen in the Texas
graph there is an increase or decrease of approximately two points every other year,
finishing about a point lower than where it started. The Georgia graph shows fairly stable
commercial emissions finishing a little under the starting point of the 20 year period, which
are about 3.9 millions of metric tons of GHGs emitted.
Table 6: Average percentage of U.S. commercial emissions emitted by Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 1.62% 5.14%
Table 6 shows the average percentage of total United States commercial emissions in terms
of Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia is about 1.62% and Texas is about 5.14%.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Co
mm
erc
ial E
mis
sio
ns
(Mill
ion
s o
f M
etr
ic
Ton
s)
Year
Commercial Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
19
Figure 23: Industrial emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 23 shows the industrial emissions for Georgia and Texas. Texas is about 250 million
metric tons of GHG emissions higher than Georgia. Georgia is consistently around 25 million
metric tons, whereas, Texas is more variable but averages around 275 million metric tons of
GHG emissions. The decreasing trend observed in both states is likely due to the recession.
Table 7: Average percentage of U.S. industrial emissions emitted by Georgia and Texas,
1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 1.80% 22.1%
Table 7 shows the average percentage of the total United States industrial emissions in
terms of Georgia and Texas from 1990-2010. Georgia is about 1.8% whereas Texas is about
22.1%. This shows the magnitude of Texas’s industry being almost 25% of the total United
States industrial emissions alone. Targeting high-priority states such as Texas and California
will be difficult (but not impossible) in reducing the entire country’s GHG emissions.
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Ind
ust
rial
Em
issi
on
s (M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
Industrial Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
20
Figure 24: Transportation emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 24 shows the transportation emissions for Georgia and Texas. This graph is the only
sector of emissions showing an increase in emissions over time without any drastic
variation. For this reason, this sector is a good target for decreasing overall GHG emissions
for Georgia. Texas starts out around 160 million metric tons of emissions and finishes
around 190 million metric tons of emissions. Georgia starts right at 50 million metric tons a
finishes around 70 million metric tons of emissions.
Table 8: Average percentage of U.S. transportation emissions emitted by Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 3.30% 9.79%
Table 8 shows the average percentage of the total United States transportation emissions in
terms of Georgia and Texas. Georgia is about 3.3% and Texas is about 9.79%. This
difference would is likely due to the difference in population of Texas and Georgia.
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09Tr
ansp
ort
atio
n E
mis
sio
ns
(Mill
ion
s o
f M
etr
ic
Ton
s)
Year
Transportation Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
21
Figure 25: GHG emissions from electricity generation in Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 25 shows the GHG emissions due to electricity generation in Georgia and Texas from
1990-2009. Georgia starts around 60 million metric tons and ends around 75 million metric
tons. Texas starts around at around 180 million metric tons and ends around 220 million
metric tons. Both, however, end with decreasing patterns over the last 3 years, a trend
perhaps due to the recent increase of natural gas electricity generation (Figure 12).
Table 9: Percentage of GHG emissions from electricity generation in the U.S. from Georgia
and Texas.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 3.30% 10.1%
Table 9 shows the average percentage of the total United States GHG emissions from
electricity generation in terms of Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia is about
3.3% of the total and Texas is about 10.1%.
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09El
ect
rici
ty G
en
era
tio
n E
mis
sio
ns
(Mill
ion
s o
f M
etr
ic T
on
s)
Year
Electricity Generation Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
22
Figure 26: Total energy GHG emissions for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009 (World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012).
Figure 26 shows the total energy GHG emissions for Georgia and Texas from 1990-2009.
Georgia starts around 150 million metric tons of total energy GHG emissions and ends
around 170 million metric tons. Texas starts at about 620 million metric tons of emissions
and ends around 650 million metric tons. While there appears to be a recent decrease
starting in 2006, the overall trend shows an increase; moreover, the recent decrease is
because of the economic recession which results in less energy demand and, consequently,
lower GHG emissions.
Table 10: Percentage of total energy GHG emissions in the U.S. for Georgia and Texas, 1990-2009.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 2.78% 11.8%
Table 10 shows the average percentage of total United States energy in terms of Georgia
and Texas from 1990-2009. Georgia is about 2.78% of the total and Texas is about 11.8%.
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Tota
l Em
issi
on
s (M
illio
ns
of
Me
tric
To
ns)
Year
Total Energy GHG Emissions for Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
23
Renewable Energy Outputs
Figure 27: Solar power energy production in Georgia and Texas, 2012 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012).
Figure 27 shows the solar power energy production Georgia and Texas in 2012. Georgia
does not produce any concentrated solar power and there are less than 1 million GWh
produced by urban utility-scale photovoltaic solar power and rooftop photovoltaic
technology for Georgia. However, Georgia produces roughly 5.5 million GWh of rural utility-
scale photovoltaic solar power. Texas is a considered a major producer of solar power. It
creates less than 1 million GWh of urban utility scale-photovoltaic solar power and rooftop
photovoltaic solar power. However, Texas produces almost 40 million GWh of rural utility-
scale photovoltaic solar power and about 23 million GWh of concentrated solar power. Texas
is a leader in all four of these categories despite the small amounts in urban utility scale-
photovoltaic solar power and rooftop photovoltaic solar power. Georgia, however, is lacking
in all forms of solar power. Investing in solar power in Texas is a formidable option for using
renewable energy to combat fossil fuels, but doing so in Georgia is not as viable.
Table 11: Percentage of U.S. solar power energy production produced in Georgia and Texas, 2012.
Georgia Texas
Urban Utility-Scale Photovoltaic 1.93% 13.2%
Rural Utility-Scale Photovoltaic 1.96% 13.9%
Rooftop Photovoltaic 3.80% 9.61%
Concentrated Solar Power 0% 19.6%
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
Georgia Texas
Ene
rgy
Pro
du
ced
(G
Wh
)
Solar Power Energy Production for Georgia and Texas in 2012
Urban-Utility Scale PV
Rural Utility-Scale PV
Rooftop PV
CSP
24
Table 11 shows the percentage of total United States solar power energy production in
terms of Georgia and Texas. As previously stated Texas is a major producer of solar power
while Georgia is not. Georgia produces about 1.93% of urban utility-scale photovoltaic solar
power, about 1.96% of rural utility-scale photovoltaic solar power, about 3.8% rooftop
photovoltaic solar power, and no concentrated solar power. Texas, however, produces about
13.2% of urban utility-scale photovoltaic solar power, about 13.9% of rural utility-scale
photovoltaic solar power, about 9.61% of rooftop photovoltaic solar power, and 19.6% of
concentrated solar power.
Figure 28: Wind power energy production for Georgia and Texas, 2012 (National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 2012).
Figure 28 shows the wind power production of Georgia and Texas in 2012. Georgia has less
than 1 million GWh of power produced by onshore wind turbines. However, it has about 2.8
million GWh of power produced by offshore wind turbines, which is even more than Texas’
11 million GWh. Texas, however, is a major producer of onshore wind power at about 5.5
million GWh. Based on these data, it is recommended to invest in increasing offshore wind
power in Georgia and onshore wind power in Texas.
Table 12: Percentage of U.S. wind power energy production produced in Georgia and Texas,
2012.
Georgia Texas
Onshore Wind Energy 0.000984% 16.9%
Offshore Wind Energy 16.7% 6.49%
Table 12 shows the percentage of total United States wind power energy production in
terms of Georgia and Texas. Georgia produces a very small amount of onshore wind energy
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
Georgia Texas
Ene
rgy
Po
du
cte
d (
GW
h)
Wind Power Energy Production for Georgia and Texas in 2012
Onshore
Offshore
25
at about 0.000984% of the total United States, but the state also produces 16.7% of the
United States total offshore wind energy. Texas produces about 16.9% of onshore wind
energy and only 6.49% of offshore wind energy.
Figure 29: Hydroelectric and geothermal energy production for Georgia and Texas, 2012 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012).
Figure 29 shows hydroelectric and geothermal energy production for Georgia and Texas in
2012. Georgia and Texas both do not produce any geothermal hydrothermal power. Georgia
and Texas both produce less than 100,000 GWh of hydropower. Georgia produces about
400,000 GWh of enhanced geothermal system geothermal power while Texas produces
about 3 million GWh. Continuing to harvest EGS geothermal power in Texas is a viable
alternative to fossil fuels.
Table 13: Percentage of U.S. geothermal energy production produced in Georgia and Texas, 2012.
Georgia Texas
Hydropower 0.768% 1.16%
Geothermal Hydrothermal 0% 0%
Enhanced Geothermal System Geothermal 1.13% 9.67%
Table 13 shows the percentage of total United States geothermal energy production in
terms of Georgia and Texas for 2012. Georgia and Texas both produced no geothermal
hydrothermal power. Georgia produced about 0.786%of the total hydropower and Texas
produced about 1.16% of the total hydropower. Georgia produced about 1.13% of enhanced
geothermal system geothermal and Texas produced about 9.67% of the total.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Georgia Texas
Ene
rgy
Pro
du
ced
(G
Wh
) Hydroelectric and Geothermal Energy Production for Georgia and Texas in
2012
Hydropower
GeothermalHydrothermal
EGS Geothermal
26
Figure 30: Biofuel energy production for Georgia and Texas, 2012 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012).
Figure 30 shows biofuel energy production for Georgia and Texas in 2012. Georgia produced
about 15,000 GWh of solid biofuel power and Texas produces about 16,000 GWh of solid
biofuel power. Georgia produces about 2,000 GWh of gaseous biofuel power and Texas
produces about 6,000 GWh of gaseous biofuel power. Solid biofuel energy production
appears to be the only type of energy production in which Georgia can compete with Texas.
Noting the disparity in the energy demand and population of both states, it is highly
recommended to improve biofuel technologies in Georgia.
Table 14: Percentage of U.S. biofuel energy production produced in Georgia and Texas, 2012.
Georgia Texas
Solid 3.68% 4.02%
Gaseous 2.51% 6.66%
Table 14 show the percentage of the total United States biofuel energy production in terms
of Georgia and Texas for 2012. Georgia produces about 3.68 percent and Texas produces
about 4.02% of the total solid biofuel energy. Georgia produces about 2.51% and Texas
produces about 6.66% of the gaseous biofuel energy.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Georgia Texas
Ene
rgy
Pro
du
ced
(G
Wh
)
Biofuel Energy Production for Georgia and Texas in 2012
Solid
Gaseous
27
Gross Domestic Product, Population, and Economic Base
Figure 31: Gross domestic product of Georgia and Texas, 1997-2011 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2012).
Figure 31 shows the gross domestic product of both Georgia and Texas from 1997-2011.
Both states show an increasing trend. Georgia starts out at about $220 billion and ends
around $410 billion. Texas starts at about $600 billion and ends around $1.3 trillion.
Table 15: Percentage of U.S. gross domestic product produced by Georgia and Texas.
Georgia Texas
Average Percentage of United States 2.90% 7.90%
Table 15 shows the percentage of the total U.S. gross domestic product for Georgia and
Texas. Georgia is at about 2.9% of the total U.S. GDP and Texas is around 7.9% of the total
U.S. GDP.
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
GD
P (
Mill
ion
s o
f U
S D
olla
rs)
Year
Gross Domestic Product of Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
28
Figure 32: United States gross domestic product in chained 2005 dollars, 1990-2010 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2012).
Figure 32 depicts the growth of the U.S. GDP over the past two decades with respect to the
value of the dollar in 2005. The increase is more constant and almost linear in comparison
with its non-adjusted counterpart.
Figure 33: Population of Georgia and Texas, 1990-2010 (United States Census Bureau, 2010).
0.0
2,000.0
4,000.0
6,000.0
8,000.0
10,000.0
12,000.0
14,000.0
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
GD
P (
Bill
ion
s o
f C
hai
ne
d 2
00
5 D
olla
rs)
Year
United States Gross Domestic Product Adjusted for Inflation
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
Po
pu
lati
on
Year
Population of Georgia and Texas
Georgia
Texas
29
Figure 33 shows the population of Georgia and Texas from 1990-2010. Both states show
steady increases. Georgia’s population starts at about 6 million people in 1990 and ends at
about 10 million in 2010. Texas starts at about 17 million people and ends at about 26
million people.
Bern Carbon Model
Figure 34: Bern fourth assessment standard report projecting remaining percentage of atmospheric CO2 by 2030.
Figure 34 shows an impulse response function projecting the remaining fraction of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere by 2030. The Bern AR4 model projects the fraction of CO2
remaining as it is removed by natural causes while not aggravated by human activity. Based
on the model, CO2 will be reduced by approximately forty percent by the year 2030 if such
is done by natural causes; however, with the rise in anthropogenic GHG emissions, this
reduction is not likely. It is recommended to introduce innovative solutions to combat
increased GHG emissions to achieve the twenty percent reduction by 2030.
Recommendations
Based on all of the data collected and presented in the sections above, tables 16 and 17
below calculate the required level of atmospheric GHGs in order to have successfully
reached a 20% reduction since 2009. Furthermore, percentages within each sector or GHG
type were also recommended in light of their respective prevalence.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
Pe
rce
nta
ge R
ed
uct
ion
of
GH
G E
mis
sio
ns
Year
Bern AR4 Standard Model
30
Table 16: Reduction of GHG emissions (in millions of metric tons) by 20% by 2030 per
sector.
2009 Percent Reduction 2030 Difference
Transportation 67.24 6.5 62.8694 4.3706
Industrial 14.7 3.5 14.1855 0.5145
Commercial 3.56 1 3.5244 0.0356
Residential 7.15 2 7.007 0.143
Electricity Generation 72.46 7 67.3878 5.0722
Total 165.11 20 132.088 33.022
As shown in table 16, the two largest sources of GHG emissions within sectors are
transportation and electricity generation. Consequently, tackling these two sectors first will
result in the most significant decrease in GHG emissions. Within the transportation sector, it
is recommended to begin seriously looking into cars running off of alternative fuels such as
electricity or hydrogen. Incentivizing individuals to purchase a ‘green’ car is something the
government already does, but improving this incentive would encourage people to buy more
‘green’ cars. Expanding public transportation and pedestrian walking and bicycling networks
to encourage people individually to drive less is another alternative. Improving land use
policies and urban planning could reduce the need for vehicle travel in general. Many of
these suggestions (such as building new ‘green’ cars or improving infrastructure to
encourage walking/bicycling) would also require labor, providing jobs and stimulating the
economy.
With respect to the amount of GHG emissions from electricity generation, replacing
coal as the primary fuel source for most power plants is the most important obstacle to
overcome. It is recommended to gradually transition from coal to natural gas which should
eventually be replaced by renewable energy. Moreover, a diversity of energy sources is
essential in maintaining the energy grid as it is known. Improving the way natural gas is
harvested, transported, and maintained is necessary to avoid pollution of groundwater from
fracking or methane leakage which would aggravate GHG emissions further.
Those within the industrial sector will likely only be influenced by money to reduce
their emissions. Imposing a carbon tax would incentivize industries to maintain their carbon
emissions better; furthermore, improving carbon capture and sequestration technologies
would aid in finding solutions to keep carbon from entering the atmosphere. The commercial
and residential sectors are highly influenced by the public, so providing ways for individuals
to want to reduce the GHG emissions and carbon footprints is critical.
31
Because population increase results in an increased energy demand, slowing the
increase of that demand rather than decreasing it would alleviate the problem. Within
poorer communities, many individuals often lack access to proper birth control;
implementing governmental programs which provide education of and access to birth
control for poor communities would slow the population and energy demand increase.
Table 17: Reduction of GHG emissions (in millions of metric tons) by 20% by 2030 per type.
2009 Percent Reduction 2030 Difference
CO2 164.79 14 140.0715 24.7185
CH4 7.2 3 6.984 0.216
N2O 5.19 2 5.0862 0.1038
Gas 4.31 1 4.2669 0.0431
Total 181.49 20 145.192 36.298
Of the varying types of GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the prime culprit. Reducing
emissions of this gas in all sectors (but namely transportation, electricity generation, and
industrial) is the most important goal. The aforementioned recommendations for reducing
the transportation and electricity generation CO2 emissions would not only stem the output
of GHG emissions but also stimulate both the economy (providing jobs) and American
lifestyle (improving infrastructure and encouraging less individual transportation by car,
alleviating traffic problems).
Finally, continuing to look for more alternatives to fossil fuels in all sectors of the
state is an important solution because of the finite amounts of fossil fuels within the planet.
Compared with Texas, Georgia has little access to renewable energy sources with the
exception of offshore wind power and solid biofuel. Harvesting these technologies would
provide alternatives to fossil fuel combustion; moreover, Georgia has a vast array of natural
water resources along the fault line with which hydroelectricity could be created. It is
recommended to invest in taking advantage of these natural resources in not only Georgia
but all states. Diversifying the country’s energy grid in a way such that states are actively
taking advantage of their natural options to renewable energy rather than struggling to
acquire an unavailable energy source (for example, photovoltaic solar power is hardly viable
in Georgia but exceptional in Texas, as is onshore wind power) will be important in the push
towards renewable energy.
References
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2012. “National Economic Accounts.”
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp. Accessed 5 May 2013.
32
Energy Information Administration, 2012. “Electricity.”
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm. Accessed 20 April 2013.
Energy Information Administration, 2012. “State Energy Data Systems: Complete.”
http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-complete.cfm. Accessed 22 April 2013.
Energy Information Administration, 2012. “Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by
Energy Source.” http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm. Accessed 28 April 2013.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. “Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout.”
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html. Accessed 5 May 2013.
European Environment Agency, 2013. "EU greenhouse gases in 2011: more countries on
track to meet Kyoto targets, emissions fall 2.5 %."
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/eu-greenhouse-gases-in-
2011.5. Accessed 5 May 2013.
Miller, R. L, 2012. "Adjustment To Radiative Forcing In A Simple Coupled Ocean-
Atmosphere Model." Journal Of Climate 25.22: 7802-7821.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012. “Resource Assessment.”
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/key_activities_potential.html. Accessed 20 April 2013.
Rubin, Edward. “Introduction to Engineering and the Environment”. 1st ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2001. 532-533. Print.
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013. “Production Tax Credit for Renewable Energy.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-
renewables/production-tax-credit-for.html. Accessed 2 May 2013.
United States Census Bureau, 2010. “Population Estimates.”
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/state/state2010.html. Accessed 25
April 2013.
World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2012. CAIT-US version 5.0.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. http://cait.wri.org. Accessed 28 April
2013.
