Fossil Fuels: Let’s Not Lose Sight of Dangers

Readers here know that I generally refrain from taking cheap shots at the oil and gas industry. I try to keep in mind that, whether we like it or not, fossil fuels make up the vast majority of the world’s energy supply, and that until we can come together as a civilization and make them obsolete, we rely on them every days of our lives.

Having said that, I think it’s imperative to ensure we never lose sight of the dangers. To that end, I call attention to the fact that the federal government is warning residents in a small Wyoming town with extensive natural gas development not to drink their water, and to use fans and ventilation when showering or washing clothes in order to avoid the risk of an explosion. It seems that EPA researchers found benzene, metals, naphthalene, phenols and methane in wells and in groundwater.

Replacing Fossil Fuels — by Guest Blogger Frank Eggers

Photobucket

Introduction

Although this paper has been written primarily to deal with energy concerns in the United States of America, much of the information will be useful for other countries also.

Regardless of whether we are concerned about global warming, we know that burning  fossil fuels damages the environment and causes health problems.  Therefore, we should be working diligently to develop alternative energy sources to end our dependence on fossil fuels.  Moreover, we should be sure that those alternative energy sources are capable of ending our dependence on fossil fuels and not simply reducing the amount of fossil fuels which we use.  To do so, they must be capable of providing continuous power 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

The proposed alternatives to fossil fuels include wind energy, solar energy, and nuclear energy.  Hydroelectric power is also useful, but I am excluding that because we have already developed practically all of our available hydroelectric sites here in the United States.  When considering alterative sources of energy, we should also consider what would be practical in countries outside of the United States since sources of power which would be practical in the United States may not be practical elsewhere.

To be able to understand adequately the challenges of developing alternative sources of energy, we must have an adequate understanding of how our current sources of energy operate.  Accordingly, I shall begin by explaining some of the operational details of coal, gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants.  After that, I will explain the advantages and disadvantages of wind and solar power.  That will facilitate a better understanding of the challenges of integrating wind and solar power with the existing sources of power.  Then, I will explain why nuclear power is probably the only source of energy that can economically and reliably provide the large amounts of power required by an industrialized world.  Last, I shall address the problems of eliminating the use of petroleum to power our transportation system.

Current  Sources  of  Electricity

Read More »

Tough Realities – An Apt Description of the Migration to Renewable Energy

PhotobucketI friend of mine noticed that the concept of “Tough Realities” (as in the title of my report: Tough Realities for Renewable Energy Businesses) resonates with people. I agree. That’s the reason that I’ve subtitled my book (“Renewable Energy — Facts and Fastasies”) as follows: “The Tough Realities as Revealed in Interviews with 25 Subject Matter Experts.”

For pretty-much everyone associated with this industry — and certainly for me — it’s clear that there are indeed Tough Realities faced by those working to drive the migration to clean energy. Nobody who studies this with any level of depth could possibly see this as a walk in the park, where the key players in energy are saying to one another, “May the best man win.” This is a complex story of big money, back-room politics, secrecy, and betrayal. You don’t find multi-trillion dollar industries unfolding without a heavy dose of the worst of cheesey human misbehavior. Now add in the disruptive element, i.e., the fact that “new energy” is a direct threat to “old energy.” For every kiloWatt-hour of solar, we need one fewer kiloWatt-hour from oil and coal.

Hold on to your hats. Sorry to say it, but we haven’t even begun to see the tough realities hit those battling it out in the energy industry.

Fossil Fuels – “Internalizing the Externalities”

Here’s the first in a series of interview snipets that I conducted with Paul Scott, vice president and co-founder of Plug-In America. Here, we discuss the concept of “internalizing the externalities” associated with fossil fuels, i.e., requiring producers and consumers of oil, coal, etc. to pay the true and comprehensive costs associated with these ecologically harmful forms of energy.

Shale Natural Gas vs. Renewable Energy — Continued — Guest Blogger Anil

PhotobucketHere’s more about shale natural gas:

Pundits in the US natural gas industry have revised supply estimates in last few years. In effect, some companies claim to be able to increase sustainable production over the long term.

Exxon is a big player in energy by any standards and the company’s halo effect is likely to bring about the positive change for the market participants including natural gas explorers, producers and transporters. The deal has overnight changed the sentiments for shale natural gas. In a recent deal, Carrizo Oil & Gas sold some of its stake in a Texas shale project to Sumitomo Corporation for US$15.7 million.
Onshore produced shale gas with lower transportation costs is likely to be used in electricity generating plants (replacing coal), heating and cooling our homes and power automobiles. However, it would be wrong to conclude that natural gas is the sure shot remedy to all our energy issues. ExxonMobil has some synergies to justify a 25 percent premium on XTO Energy. Besides being an oil giant, ExxonMobil has a chemical business and thus can use the feedstock in any of its chemical facilities.

In the US, shale gas resources are very large and relatively evenly distributed over several states unlike oil. Some analysts claim that the shale gas could contribute up to half of the US total gas production by 2020. Such a scenario would be highly satisfying for US with reduced dependence on not just foreign oil, but also from greener sources which are highly dependent on specific countries for key components (Read rare earth metals in China and lithium supplies in Bolivia).

A recent run-up in the stock prices of shale gas companies warrants for a caution. Like other times, it appears that Wall Street has underestimated the real cost of shale gas, and overestimated how fast its production can be expanded. Some studies point towards the overestimation of shale gas supplies by some companies. Also, there are some concerns regarding the long term viability of shale gas extraction in a lucrative manner.

Empirical data tells us that the production in shale formations drops off rapidly after two to three years of high production. However, it will be too early to write off this option only on the basis of high price, that also when a lot of other energy sources are getting federal grants for relatively expensive technologies. The competitive landscape is expected to become clear in next two to five years after the production of shale gas starts on a mass scale. In due course of time, we’ll come to know if all this hype is real or just fizz.

Shale Natural Gas vs. Renewable Energy — Guest Blogger Anil

PhotobucketWhether it is head scratching politicians in Copenhagen or industry analysts predicting that peak oil has already happened in one of the past decades, the pointers aim towards a fundamental shift – the process of doing away with carbon-based fuels and looking for renewable sources of energy. The changes are partly triggered by environment concerns and largely by fear of all industrial progress achieved so far coming to a grinding halt.

Needless to say, renewables aren’t trouble-free. Two of the major renewable sources, wind and solar both cost more than gas or coal. Prices are coming down with advances in technology, but intermittent nature of the energy production from renewable sources adds another dimension to the problem and puts the total cost of generating one unit of energy way compared with the fossil fuels. Wind speed becomes optimum for operating turbines at the height of around 800 meters, but creating a tower that high isn’t feasible. Furthermore, current wind turbine installations require around ten times concrete and steel that is required for generating the same amount of nuclear power.

Similarly, solar energy isn’t always available and the solar energy to electricity conversion ratio is just around 25 percent in most efficient crystalline silicon technology. Thus, instead of just focusing on renewables, options including a blend of fossil fuels with renewable sources or less polluting fossil fuels are being considered.

And good-old fossils aren’t letting us down. Although considered most benign of the pack, natural gas only emits around half as much as coal. On a grid level, probably it makes more sense to promote natural gas instead of counting on renewable as instruments to knock coal. Natural gas turbines can accommodate round the clock electricity generation unlike renewable thus helping in bridging the supply and demand gaps.
Last year witnessed a rare confluence of triggers resulting in a year with one of the lowest economic activity since Second World War. Quite predictably (in the hindsight), manufacturers ran high inventory levels with significantly less demand. As it turned out, Solar panel prices nosedived and so did the prices of natural gas. Natural gas prices are still depressed with futures currently trading at around 60 percent below last year’s high in US.

However, looks like the sector is in for a makeover. Apparently, ExxonMobil is betting big on natural gas. The oil giant has made a US$31 billion bid to acquire US natural gas player XTO Energy in an all stock deal. In addition, the company will assume debts amounting to US$10 billion. XTO Energy is an unconventional natural gas play. XTO has rights to large reserves of natural gas in shale, coal bed methane and tightly compressed sands. Shale gas is natural gas contained in shales, a type of sedimentary rock with low porosities and permeability.
But the extraction of gas is both difficult and costly. The extraction process includes drilling of several thousand feet and horizontally drilling through the shale. The process also involves large quantities of water up to 2 -4 million gallon along with sand and chemicals to break open the rock and release the gas.

However, technological advancements such as formation fracturing and horizontal drilling have made it possible to extract gas in an economic manner. The market’s first brush with new technology came in 2004 when natural gas giant Range Resources drilled the first modern well in the Marcellus Shale, spread across Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.

More on this soon.

Say Adios to Campaign Finance Reform

PhotobucketI have to laugh. Yesterday I happened to mention campaign finance reform, hoping, in my boyish naivete, for a miracle that would somehow enable our leaders to push for legislature that favors people, rather than corporate interests. But what happened today? We received news of the precise opposite.

The US Supreme Court announced this morning that it has found major provisions of campaign finance reform to be unconstitutional, paving the way for corporate and union money to mute the voices of individual citizens like you and me.

Corporations, defined under law as “fictitious persons,” are given enormous power to achieve their only goal: making profit. Human beings on the other hand, i.e., voters, are given no special powers outside of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and have a multitude of interests and duties. We’ve now granted corporations, on which the law has conferred these unnatural profit-making powers, the right to exert extreme pressure on the political process — at the expense of human voters.

ExxonMobil made $85 billion last year. I wonder if they’ll be able to use some of that money to influence legislation in a way that further tilts the playing field in the direction of fossil fuels. Hmmm. Let me think about that one….