Posts Tagged by natural gas
How Clean Is Nuclear Power?
| April 10, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Nuclear |
True to form, Glenn Doty writes a thorough and quite helpful comment on my piece about measuring the increase in the use of renewable energy. He closes with two ideas on which I would like to comment in return:
1) Of course, natural gas is far better than coal, and slightly worse than nuclear.
Personally, I think it’s impossible to put nuclear on a scale of “goodness” or “badness,” because we are incapable of knowing its implications to our health and safety. I’ll go out on a limb here and guess you haven’t polled the people living around Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. And what might the future bring? More operational disasters? Catastrophes with handling nuclear waste? Rogue states with small dirty nuclear weapons? It’s impossible to predict, but it can’t be good.
2) At least coal power is plummeting. That’s good any way you wish to calculate anything.
Amen, my friend.
Is Renewable Energy Growing Stronger? It Depends on How You Look At It
| April 9, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
EVWorld has a wonderfully encouraging article on renewables that begins:
Pop quiz time. The fastest growing energy sector in terms of percentage of growth in the United States between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011 was: A) natural gas, B) nuclear power, C) renewable energy?
The answer is C, renewable energy (RE) by a huge margin. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), RE grew by 27.12%. That includes biofuels, biomass, geothermal, solar, water, and wind. By comparison, natural gas production increased 13.66%, while crude oil grew 14.27%. Nuclear power, in contrast, shrunk 1.99% and coal dropped 7.16%.
All true, but one can find different facts that would support a different conclusion. E.g., under 5% of the U.S. grid mix is renewable energy (if you don’t count hydroelectric dams), so talking about percent growth of this small number may not be the most relevant stat.
Energy Videos for Newcomers
| October 13, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
I’ve been preparing to make a few videos for newcomers to the subject of clean energy that answer basic questions on renewable energy, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and the energy-related challenges we face. I’ll be recording a series of short talks, aided by graphics, that point out that all our energy sources go back to the Big Bang, and come forward through time to us as follows:
Solar power is nuclear, of course, as all that hydrogen that became our sun billions of years ago undergoes fusion and emits enormous amounts of energy. That which we accumulated over hundreds of millions of years as fossil fuels (ancient biomass) we extract and burn as oil, coal, and natural gas. That which we receive right now, or in the very recent past, we have the potential to harvest as renewables: photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, new biomass, run-of-river hydro, ocean current, and wave. Read More
A Few Sobering Truths About Energy Consumption in the US
| June 28, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
Here’s a piece from Kentucky-based consulting engineer and frequent commenter John Robbins, who provides some sobering remarks on the truth behind our current push for renewables.
Last week, I was one of 3 teaching a professional seminar about Passivhaus. In case you don’t know, that program (from Germany) actually sets serious (aka “difficult to achieve”) limits on heating, cooling and overall annual energy, also on how much HVAC heating and cooling capacity which can be installed. All that WITHOUT offsets from RE grid-tied storage-free energy. Only main negative about Passivhaus is that it gives certification based on design and construction, like LEED and EnergyStar. None of these popular programs actually require post-occupancy data to verify that designs work as estimated.
The best part of Passivhaus is it separates “reducing demand and use” from achieving net-zero by offsets like grid-tied storage-free RE as is permitted in LEED. I’ve seen new LEED homes in Cincinnati which are merely minimum-code designs with PV on the roof for offsets. With Cincinnati now offering a 15-yr property tax abatement for LEED structures and the local electric utility paying sRECs for grid-tied RE, homebuyers, their designers and builders are pretty much avoiding energy reductions and heading straight to RE offsets. There’s even new “creative” marketing lingo to describe the economics, “net-zero energy cost” – net-zero cost achieved by offsetting actual energy costs with sRECs and tax abatements. None of this would fly in Passivhaus. More importantly, these situations do not represent much reduction in demand for conventional energy, since Cincinnati is a 50% cloudy location, with windy winters but stagnant-air summers. Solar and wind can work here, but certainly not full-time, so structures with grid-tied RE have their un-reduced energy loads carried by conventional energy much of the time, maybe as much as 80% of the time.
We are seeing so much morphing of RE advocacy into marketing. I guess the 1st wave was for/by us who were educated and motivated prior to or away from the current subsidy hoopla. The massive current subsidies seem to attract folks who aren’t really much interested in the traditional movement (aka “less coal, oil and nuke”) but instead need heavy financial incentives to act. Regardless of why or what, as a very aware member of Assn of Energy Engineers where real energy matters are known and discussed regularly, I worry we are seeing so much money, marketing and reporting about nonrealities in our energy world. Even tracking %RE is the wrong thing to track.
As I wrote in an op-ed in SOLAR TODAY a half-dozen years ago, implementers should be tracking how much less conventional energy they demand and use, not how much of what solutions we buy or apply. I wish we tracked how much energy use and when it is used, separately from how much and when we have RE. The net-energy approach has simplified the process for consumers but made the education process more complicated. A utility company rep whose company was co-sponsoring a workshop I taught last year in south-central KY took offense when I told my students about this. All my students rated my class very good to excellent, but the utility rated it poor to very poor, adding that it would never sponsor any of my events in the future. Similarly, a solar installer I know in central KY told me last year that when he mentions efficiency to his callers interested in a solar bid, the most common result is a lost sale or lost opportunity to bid. So while my message is correct, very similar indeed to what we’ve heard for decades from Amory Lovins, it is a message very unpopular with many consumers and utilities, also many of our governments.
I include governments because of an experience I had in Ohio where I proposed how to cut residential energy use by a whopping %, but got no positive responses from the panel representing Ohio government. A professor of economics from Miami University of Ohio pulled me aside after my presentation and told me that Ohio historically forms energy policies not as much based on consumers or energy as how much potential for tax collection. Like most states, Ohio collects a lot of taxes on conventional energy. Also like most states, Ohio’s income tax rates are progressive, going up as incomes rise. The professor said insulators’, caulkers’ and window installers’ wages are tiny compared to union coal miners, utility workers, geothermal and solar installers. He said this is why Ohio incentive plans subsidize the most expensive (higher sales taxes) and most high-wage energy systems. He said this is also why we never see energy-use reduction targets and timelines.
So we cannot be naive and think we are currently implementing or describing THE ENERGY SOLUTIONS which will substantially cut coal and nuke reliance. The current round of RE seems most abt promoting and expanding the RE retail and manufacturing sectors, which is certainly needed. But that is not the same as solving our reliance on conventional energies, especially coal, oil and nuke. As said before, I and my most committed 1st-wave customers and contacts are focused mostly on reducing reliance on coal, oil and nuke. The failure of RE’s “new wave” to understand and address this, especially to accomplish any real conventional reductions, will one day come back to haunt, maybe to backlash.
I asked a colleague attending the midwest USGBC conference last week in Cincinnati how many coal and nuke powerplants will be running if all homes and buildings are net-zero by 2030? He did not respond quickly. So I said, maybe most that are running right now, maybe even more. Nobody really knows, but what we know for sure is that net-zero is a merely a marketing term applied usually to part-time intermittent mostly-daytime RE surpluses applied as offsets against full-time 24-hr-per-day power use. Baseload powerplants like nukes and large coal-fired generators cannot be turned on and off quickly. Even coal-fired needs 10 hrs or more to shutdown and restart. Nukes need days. That’s why they are used for baseloads. To reduce baseload generation, we need aggressive full-time load reduction.
The positive thing is this is possible, already demonstrated, even well written about. We just need leadership and education to keep the information in front of governments, consumers and businesses as they consider the issues and options. As a once-home-designer who now has very little design work in this continuing recession, I’m developing new workshops and writings to educate consumers, designers, contractors, teachers and anybody else who is interested. However, I must report that I do not get or hear much interest from younger people and companies in the RE sector. I suspect that’s because they are busy. After all, there are huge amounts of subsidies in my region going to RE retailers and contractors. That sector is certainly not in recession.
[The Vector] Natural Gas Transition to Renewables – Another Corporate View
| June 22, 2011 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Fossil Fuels |
John Rowe, CEO at the Exelon Corporation, gave a presentation this spring at the American Enterprise Institute called “Energy Policy: Above All, Do No Harm”. Exelon is one of the largest electric and gas utility companies in the U.S, and they are one of the largest nuclear power plant operators (with 17 reactors) but also a large generator of hydropower, wind and some solar. Rowe said that Exelon has committed to reducing, offsetting or displacing their carbon footprint by 2020 and they are halfway there.
Obviously, every company has their own slant on issues and their own business to protect. Read More
Chrysler’s Alternative Fuel Vehicle
| April 15, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
I just came across this article on Chrysler’s plan to offer a natural gas-based car in 2017.
I know this sounds like a strange reaction, but personally, this cheeses me off. I see it is an attempt to confuse and distract the consumer from alternate fuel vehicles, so Big Auto can sell more internal combusion engines and Big Oil can pump more gasoline for a few more years while the market scratches its head and tries to sort this out.
Of course, Chrysler is free to choose whatever product marketing strategy it cares to. But the net of this decision will be only two things:
a) An ultimate failure for Chrysler (and the tax-payers who bailed them out after their last many decades of failure). There is no way in the universe that CNG (even though it’s cheap now) will become a viable fuel for the US long-term. How much more will they need from us to cover this fiasco?
and
b) A short-term confusion and turn-off for the consumer, as it will serve to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the evolution to EVs.
As always, not everyone sees it the way I do. I just spoke with Plug-in America co-founder and heavy-duty EV advocate Paul Scott. Paul welcomes Chrysler’s idea, and (though he didn’t say it) clearly thought I was half crazy for my reaction to the news.
But hey — it’s a difference of opinion that makes horseraces.
New York Times: Let’s Pretend Renewable Energy Doesn’t Even Exist
| March 26, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Nuclear |
I just learned something quite valuable. To my astonishment, it’s possible for credible journalists to discuss the dangers of nuclear power and the relative safety of natural gas, going on at length about the world energy situation, without once mentioning solar, wind, and biomass. Until I read the above-linked article in the New York Times, I would have said that simply couldn’t happen in the year 2011.
Of course, one question is how safe natural gas actually is, given that its extraction relies on hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock in the Earth’s crust. As journalist Marie Baca notes in her response to the Times article: “What about the concerns that hydraulic fracturing can mobilize radioactive material in bedrock? Or the documented cases of methane migration? Or the San Bruno disaster, anyone? Any of these worth mentioning, maybe?”
But again, the most shocking thing about the piece is its blatent ignoring of the alternatives that truly are safe. Most of the rest of the world is moving quickly toward clean energy. Not only are we refusing to play a leadership (or even an effective followership) role here, some of us, apparently, would like to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Fossil Fuels: Let's Not Lose Sight of Dangers
| September 2, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
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.
US Policy on Clean Energy – The Road Not Taken?
| June 29, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
A friend from the UK asked for my take on a new Swiss movie on Jimmy Carter’s efforts to reduce the United States’ dependence on oil at the end of the 1970s. He points out, “I am sure it will not be well known in the States. Perhaps it should be.”
The movie in question, “The Road Not Taken,” is a documentary centering around President Jimmy Carter’s having a series of solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. At the time, he told the crowd gathered to mark the installation of the new units:
“A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people – harnessing the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”
A few years later, President Ronald Reagan famously had the solar panels removed.
I wrote back:
In my mind, there is no doubt that the conversation, mute as it is in the US, has already added luster to Carter’s star and, I suppose, some tarnish to Reagan’s. But I’m more interested to know what this means in terms of the future. We’re still subsidizing fossil fuels. There are still 7000 lobbyists cruising around the Beltway influencing lawmakers to ensure that that oil, coal, and gas remain at the core of our energy future until the last drop of crude is sucked out of the Earth, we’ve ripped the top off the last mountain, and fracked the planet’s crust to smithereens.
Having said that, there are hundreds of lively discussions in the blogosphere every day about the R&D for clean energy. Bill Gates’ 2010 TED talk is getting some very good distribution. Perhaps this stark dichotomy between these two US presidents and the concept of the “road not taken” will be viewed as an iconic piece of US history — and perhaps it can be spun into the idea that “it’s not too late to get back on the right road.”
We can hope.
NOW on PBS – Fracking, Natural Gas, and Renewable Energy
| March 28, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
If you happen to be home on a Friday night, you’ll find it a great time to watch PBS, with its weekly programs: Washington Week, NOW, and Bill Moyers Journal. Generally, I think these programs depict the world fairly, and make an honest attempt to inform viewers in an objective and unbiased manner.
Yet I took exception to David Brancaccio’s NOW this week, in its gross oversimplication of the migration to renewables. In an attempt to inflame the viewer about the dangers of fracking (hydraulic fracturing, injecting water and chemicals deep underground to pry out gas locked away in tight spaces), the show told its views flatly, “We have renewable energy technology right now.”
At a certain level, this, of course, is true; there are a dozen or so clean energy technologies that are quite functional. But without context, this statement is horribly misleading. Sure we have the technology now, but there are hundreds of issues that many thousands of people are diligently working on — that will ultimately enable renewables to be deployed in an economically, legally, and ecologically sound way. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “There’s plenty of clean energy if you don’t care how much you pay for it.”
If you want to stir up viewers, David, I would urge you to find a way to do so without feeding them a load of half-truths. I would say that to anyone — but especially to a man with a well-educated audience that can deal quite ably with the complete set of facts.
