Comparing scales of environmental effects from gasoline and ethanol production.

Understanding the environmental effects of alternative fuel production is critical to characterizing the sustainability of energy resources to inform policy and regulatory decisions. The magnitudes of these environmental effects vary according to the intensity and scale of fuel production along each step of the supply chain. We compare the spatial extent and temporal duration of ethanol and gasoline production processes and environmental effects based on a literature review and then synthesize the scale differences on space-time diagrams. Comprehensive assessment of any fuel-production system is a moving target, and our analysis shows that decisions regarding the selection of spatial and temporal boundaries of analysis have tremendous influences on the comparisons. Effects that strongly differentiate gasoline and ethanol-supply chains in terms of scale are associated with when and where energy resources are formed and how they are extracted. Although both gasoline and ethanol production may result in negative environmental effects, this study indicates that ethanol production traced through a supply chain may impact less area and result in more easily reversed effects of a shorter duration than gasoline production.

Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Direct Power Consumption of Linear Accelerator-Based External Beam Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: Climate change is one of the direst health threats that humanity faces. We aim to estimate the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with the energy usage from linear accelerator (LINAC)-based external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the most common cancer diagnoses. Methods and Materials: We identified patients with the 4 most common cancer types treated with curative-intent EBRT. Beam-on time for each fraction was extracted from the treatment planning system and averaged over each site and treatment modality. The power was multiplied by the beam-on time in hours to yield kilowatt hours (kWh). Using the US Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies calculator, we converted the kWh into estimates of CO2-equivalent emissions for the average US power grid. Idle time of the LINAC was estimated via Varian Medical Systems. Results: A total of 10 patients were included for each of the following modalities: conventionally fractionated for prostate cancer (28 fractions [fx]), prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) (5 fx), 15- and 5-fx regimens for early-stage breast cancer, 3- and 5-fx SBRT regimens for early-stage lung cancer, conventional EBRT (30 fx) for locally advanced lung cancer, and short- (5 fx) and long-course (25-28 fx) for rectal cancer. The modality with the lowest and highest carbon emissions per course, on average, was prostate SBRT (2.18 kg CO2; interquartile range, 1.92-2.30) and conventional treatment for prostate cancer (17.34 kg CO2; interquartile range, 10.26-23.79), respectively. This corresponds to CO2-equivalent emissions of driving an average of 5.4 miles and 41.2 miles in a standard vehicle, respectively. "Standby" mode for a LINAC TrueBeam and Clinac IX uses 112 kWh and 64.8 kWh per day, respectively. Conclusions: We have estimated CO2 emissions arising from direct energy usage of a LINAC for 4 common cancers treated with EBRT. "Standby" mode of a LINAC uses the most energy per day. Comprehensive studies are warranted to minimize the environmental effects of health and cancer care.

Regulating the ultimate sink: managing the risks of geologic CO2 storage.

The geologic storage (GS) of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emerging as an important tool for managing carbon. While this Journal recently published an excellent review of GS technology (Bruant, R. G.; Guswa, A. J.; Celia, M. A.; Peters, C. A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 240A-245A), few studies have explored the regulatory environment for GS or have compared it with current underground injection experience. We review the risks and regulatory history of deep underground injection on the U.S. mainland and surrounding continental shelf. Our treatment is selective, focusing on the technical and regulatory aspects that are most likely to be important in assessing and managing the risks of GS. We also describe current underground injection activities and explore how these are now regulated.