![]() More pipes lead to spigots outside the building, where a truck pulls up once or twice a week to load up with liquefied CO2. ![]() That process takes energy, and capturing carbon dioxide does increase the building's electricity use, but overall the system is still reducing the building's emissions. Then it’s compressed and cooled to minus-10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus-23 Celsius), turning it into liquid that's then stored in tanks. The gases flow over a special material that separates out the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide and other gases are diverted from the chimney and piped into a room where a few parking spaces have been repurposed to house the carbon capture system. ![]() “It's a really big challenge that buildings are facing in order to reduce emissions.” “Boilers like this are installed everywhere, in schools and hospitals around the world,” Asparro said. All told then, including the electricity to power the system, it's reducing the building's emissions by roughly 23%. The carbon capture system, Asparro said, is trapping about 60% of the boilers' emissions. The other half of the emissions that, in the city's view, the building is responsible for, are those generated at the power plants where the building gets its electricity. The boilers, which are expected to last another 10 or 20 years, produce roughly half the building's emissions, Asparro said. In the basement of the Upper West Side apartment building, two hulking 500-horsepower boilers rumble, burning natural gas and releasing carbon dioxide. Asparro and others are trying to persuade city officials to accept it. It’s still unclear whether carbon capture technology will even be recognized by New York City as a qualifying emissions reduction the city has yet to decide. And we should be clear that the only way to reduce emissions. “Carbon capture doesn’t actually reduce emissions it seeks to put them somewhere else,” said Anthony Rogers-Wright, director of environmental justice at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. They also express concerns about the safety of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide, an asphyxiant, in a densely populated community. Yet critics, many of them representing environmental groups, say building managers should be going much further: They argue that to achieve meaningful reductions in emissions, buildings should be significantly upgraded and switched to renewable-powered electricity instead of continuing to burn fossil fuels. “Time is not on our side, and this type of solution can be installed quickly, cost-effectively and without a major disruption.” “We think the problem is reducing emissions as quickly as possible," said Brian Asparro, chief operating officer of CarbonQuest, which built the system. In this case, the carbon dioxide is sold to a concrete manufacturer in Brooklyn, where it's turned into a mineral and permanently embedded in concrete. They see it as a way to meet emissions goals without having to relocate residents for extensive renovations. Some are installing carbon capture systems, which strip out carbon dioxide, direct it into tanks and prepare it for sale to other companies to make carbonated beverages, soap or concrete. Other cities such as Boston and Denver followed suit with similar rules.Īs a result, property managers are scrambling to change how their buildings operate. About 50,000 structures - more than half the buildings in the city, are subject to Local Law 97. So building owners must make dramatic cuts starting next year or face escalating fines under a new city law. New York state’s buildings also emit more air pollution than any other state's.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |