Mysteries of Methane Leak in Florida and Not-So-Clean Fossil Fuels

There’s a BIG NatGas leak (Methane) in Florida. The source of which is not being owned up to. There’s no oil/gas drilling in the area. And, until about a year ago, most such leaks might go totally unnoticed. Read the Bloomberg article No One is Owning Up to Releasing Cloud of Methane in Florida.

Oil Flaring at Night in North America (Bakken)

First Methane. The largest component of natural gas (NatGas) is methane (EIA). Various oil formations of fossil fuels are oil, mostly gas, or a combination. Even in coal formations there is methane, which has made coal mining especially dangerous for explosions and fires.

When you see the flame stacks burning above oil wells and refineries, this is natural gas being flared off. Flaring is far preferred then just releasing it, venting, because methane is a wicked greenhouse gas (GHG) at 82 times the global warming capacity as CO2 in the first 20 years (about 30 times as potent over 100 years).

Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times

Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times:

There's some good and some bad about this.

We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don't. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.

The video says saving on energy. That's not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.

"The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill."  via USA News.

Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.

The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?

Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That's more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.

NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.

It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.

Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.

Just saying...

'via Blog this'

Inside the war on coal

Inside the war on coal:

Wow, this is a very thoughtful and well presented article on Coal.

The real demise of coal is too fold: raising costs of trying to make coal a little cleaner (less dirty); and the increase of cheaper alternatives.

Number 1 in all of this is the dirty cheap costs of NatGas which is a by-product of much oil production. We in the US flair about half of the NatGas we produce because it gets in the way of the valuable oil production process.

NatGas is soooo much cleaner to burn and produces only half the CO2 emissions.

As people and communities realize the real costs of burning (dirty) coal, the political will to back coal simply because it is cheap is seriously waning. As the externality costs start to mount, people are less inclined to have the plants in their back yard.

But, the Sierra club can not take that much of the credit. Basic economics is ruling. The EPA wants cleaner coal, which makes it more expansive at the same time that NatGas, wind and solar are all getting better and cheaper.

'via Blog this'

Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times

Why I support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times:

This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.

"There is no such thing as clean coal."

The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.

Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.

But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).

Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.

No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.

Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.

The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.

'via Blog this'

Fuel cell cars from Toyota, Honda, Hyundai set to debut at auto shows - latimes.com

Fuel cell cars from Toyota, Honda, Hyundai set to debut at auto shows - latimes.com:

We've been waiting for decades (50 years?) for a fuel cell car.

It looks like Toyota will come out fist with a Fuel Cell car next year.

The fuel cell being announced this next week are coming from Honda and Hyundai.

Unfortunately, it seems, these will be hydrogen fuel based.

Other versions of Fuel Cell generators use liquid fuels, not straight hydrogen. Without fueling stations for hydrogen the technology is stuck where LP  and LNG was 10 years ago before Clean Energy (and others) started putting up liquid natgas stations along the trucking corridors.

Let's see what the announcement(s) bring.


'via Blog this'

Natural gas, the media’s failures, and you « The Cost of Energy

Natural gas, the media’s failures, and you « The Cost of Energy:

Ouch!

"The Cost of Energy" Lou Grinzo blogs (and reblogs) about how unclear NatGas really is. It all has to do with the Methane released from the fracking.

See the reprint of the blog at EthicsAndClimate.org from Dr. Brown.

Sadly NatGas may really not be cleaner than Coal. How dirty is that!

Here's my comments over to Lou's post.
Okay, as always, your blogs are extremely informative, with lots of facts that are well substantiated. The Dr. Brown article is a real eye opener on fracking.

Ouch! This is ugly. So we really don't gain anything from NatGas except maybe fuel independence -- and a wonderful improvement to our US trade (im)balance!:-(

The question I have for all of this NatGas is here and now. Half of the NatGas in the US is flared. So when we say that NatGas is 50% cleaner than coal, do we count the other 100% that is flared in the making? Oh, wait, we aren't saying that NatGas is actually cleaner than coal. It may not be!

Don't get me wrong, there's a safety and a transport issue here with flaring...

Good news is that much of the flaring is probably methane, right? So it could be worse, there might not be as much flaring. Simply releasing the methane would be a hefty magnitude worse?

And, of course, the point is that there should be no (short-term) plan to switch to NatGas without some follow-on plan to switch completely to sustainable fuel/power.

Much like our US energy policy, if there is one, the short-term plan is the only plan, even though it is based on exhaustible resources. That is, the plan is broken as designed.

Non-sustainability, over time, has a way of giving a wicked whiplash effect. And somehow, everyone with this broken short-term plan feel warm and cuddly about it.

Double ouch!

'via Blog this'

Study: Natural gas industry can cut fracking emissions

Study: Natural gas industry can cut fracking emissions:

This would be great to minimize the methane from the fracking of wells.

Since NatGas is soooo much cleaner than coal (and gasoline). It is a slam-dunk decision as a way to start moving away from coal.

Of course, it is not a sustainable solution for the looong term. NatGas could be a bridge fuel to a clean and renewable future.

'via Blog this'

Ceres Monthly Newsletter - Flaring of Gas/NatGas

Ceres Monthly Newsletter:
Ceres Monthly Newsletter - Flaring of Gas/NatGas
This report starts to document the amount of gas (nat gas) that is flared in the production of oil/gas.

In the US we can't get the nat gas to market, so it is imply flared in many cases. The oil (wet particulates) are much more valuable so that is shipped by pipe if possible, but by truck or train if not.

One statement from a CEO in the oil patch has commented that half of the nat gas produces in the US is being flared. Safety, of course is critical. But this is a humongous waste of energy and environmental waste as well.

Check out the article and then look at the report here: http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/flaring-up-north-dakota-natural-gas-flaring-more-than-doubles-in-two-years/view

Basic economics is one approach to this issue. If NatGas were more valuable, then there would be very little flaring. Right now it is about $3.50 (per ... unit) in the USA. So Nat gas is a byproduct of the production of oil unless it can be readily distributed to market (pipeline).  But for the world markets, NatGas is very valuable, let's say $10. If we can bridge the gap from domestic only to world, then the price would jump and the flaring would, well, burn out. :-)

The key is liquefied natural gas (LNG). Not coincidentally, LNG is the trading symbol of Chaniere Energy, one the the leading players in infrastructure for exporting LNG.

'via Blog this'

US energy use dropped in 2012 as renewables, natural gas rose | Ars Technica

US energy use dropped in 2012 as renewables, natural gas rose | Ars Technica:

Yes, the US has backed off a little with energy use during the recession, especially.

That would be a good thing if not for the emissions from China and India.

This is an AMAZING chart of the energy in and the energy out within the USofA. This has been an interesting chart to watch over the years.

~95.1 Quads

That is Quadrillion BTUs. (British Thermal Unit). If you think a Quadrillion is a LOT, you are right.

Double interesting in this picture is the the "rejected energy". That is 58.1, estimated to be the same as that used. Therefore the right side is about 116.2 (58.1 + 58.1). I guess the left side is the 95.1

It takes some time to fully understand this diag, over time it is very interesting.

Note the drop in Coal in the US. Nat gas is so clean and cheap it is likely to put coal out of business. In the USA anyway.

We'll send it to China? By now China must have exceeded half of the worlds coal consumption.

Want to look at forecasts of the future, go to US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2013.

'via Blog this'

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News:

CO2 from the US is down. WOW!. See the full EIA report on CO2 Emissions.

The last time we had that was in 2009, we all assumed that was mainly because of the economic slowdown. But apparently, even then, part of it was because of the switching to NatGas.

"[T]he U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total."

So the big reasons for the CO2 emissions reduction is primarily because of the switch to NatGas from coal in energy generation! ... The slowing of economic growth down to 1.8% is another reason. 

What's amazing about this is that the switch to natgas is primarily driven by market forces. The power industry has been wining endlessly about the big food of the EPA on the juggler veins of the power industry... and of course the US economy. Yet, the move happened way ahead of schedule. 

Low prices of nat gas make it, well, irresponsible, not to switch to clean gas away from dirty coal.

Health benefits (fewer deaths and injuries in mining). Massive improvement in air and water quality. No coal ash to deal with.

This would all be a good thing, if it weren't for the massive increase in coal consumption from China and India. Where, exactly, is the benefit of us cutting back on coal when we simply ship it to China and they burn it. And they don't worry about scrubbing it as much as we.

China now burns half the coal in the world, and rising quickly.

Sorry for looking good news in the eye and sounding skeptical. We sometimes simply need a little good news here and there and just to enjoy it.

Ahhhh, NatGas, A cleaner addiction to a unsustainable problem.

'via Blog this'

"Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause Of Climate Change" Richard Muller Former Climate Change Denier - YouTube

"Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause Of Climate Change" Richard Muller Former Climate Change Denier - YouTube:

This is a very interesting video/news from MoxNews.

The Exxon Valdez has an oil spill, has a name change, has a name change, has a shipwreck, has a name change, and is now being dismantled/retired. The wreck, by any other name, is still Valdez.

NatGas +/-  . . . Not so sure about the Frac'ng story... But hang in there til the end. It is well worth the wait. If it has equal likes and dislikes, then it is probably pretty good!

Richard A. Muller, the last hold out of global warming, has now come out with a book. Once you remove the noise, the level of CO2 matches perfectly with global warming. It is important to know that humans are the cause, probably the primary cause, of global warming. This is good, kind of. "If we cause it, then there's something we can do about it." He didn't think solar variations, volcanic eruptions, el nino, etc., had longer term impacts. "The carbon dioxide curve was right on."

Muller won the MacArthur Genius Grant 30 years ago. He was the last major skeptic on Global Warming. He just completed major research on global warming funded by the Koch Foundation, a ?conservative? group by the Charles G. Koch family, the oil billionair family. Anyone knowing about the funding source, would have been surprised about the results.

He found last year that Global Warming is real.

He now has determined that human activity seems to be the predominant cause. The rise in CO2 matches perfectly with the rise in temperatures. Correlation is not causation, but the correlation is very strong.


Global economic shock to cut back on CO2 emissions? Energy efficiency. And switch away from coal. He suggests NatGas as immediate switch away from coal. NatGas produces 1/3 the level of CO2 as coal. (I'm not so sure about 1/3, I think it is 33% less CO2 than coal per energy equivolent.)

The big thing is that the controversy of Global warming is dead. It's a fact. It appears to be perfectly correlated with human factors that generate greenhouse gases (eCO2). So the next debate (or controversy, maybe) is what are we gonna do about it.???


New version of his book:

Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines by Richard A. Muller(Aug 6, 2012)

'via Blog this'

A Year for the Record Books | Planet3.0

A Year for the Record Books | Planet3.0:

'via Blog this'

This to us from MacDonald from GreenDistrict...

It is one of several places to start rounding up the status of sustainability (gain &) loss for 2011 and start to plan for 2012.

As we start to organize the (un)balanced scorecard for an unsustainable year of horrific sustainability numbers...

?What would be a good summary for the year, even if the summary has a lot of bad news in it?

Non-Decisions might sum it up. Economically, you have the dysfunction of the US and EU. Efforts are on to eliminate the EPA from federal and state governments. Imagine a budget bill to keep the federal government running for the first two months of 2012 that contains efforts to stop energy efficient light bulbs.

(Light bulbs will have to be 25% more efficient is basically the law. The obvious replacement could be -- but doesn't have to be -- compact florescent lights that save about $20 to $35 over the life of each bulb, PLUS a huge savings in electric energy which is currently being produced 50% from ain't-no-such-thing-as-clean coal. Europe did it a couple years ago. The arguments against the new law use obsolete and unfounded facts.)

Globally, climate response talks have been pretty pathetic since Copenhagen (Dec 2010) and there's been a lot of talks on several continents since then. Without the biggest polluters in the world on board -- China, USA & India -- the whole thing disintegrates. Now with Canada jumping off the bandwagon that means about 50% of the world's pollution and emissions will go on with little or no impediments. Apparently, the idea now is to proceed with the old Kyoto protocol while a permanent agreement is being reached.

But, what's almost as scary as the global-warming/climate-change metrics that came in this year, is the development of yet another massive UN organization. But this one would, by its very nature, have to have a long reach into the countries who are members. Big bucks to help countries that will be most impacted by droughts, floods, etc. This would include island countries that are about to become much smaller as the sea levels rise. I wonder if Key West will qualify. (By century end, the Keys should be 25% to 50%+ under water.)

At this point, Nuclear (ouch!) and NatGas looking a whole lot better than they probably should. NatGas is sooo much cleaner than (dirty or relatively dirty) coal, and it's not destabilizing to the world economies (wars, trade balances and shifts of wealth to less-than stable countries).

For some reason, you would think that the "sustainability" measure would provide self-evident solutions. If fuel is not renewable... then it can't be used forever... then you should make plans now to replace it... and continue to do so... until that fuel is no longer needed and totally replaced by renewable sources.

Bloomberg puts it well for the whole of a business (or any organization): “If you don’t have a sustainability plan, you don’t have a business plan." See http://www.bloomberg.com/sustainability/ 

Now, if only there were good private sector solutions to some of these problems of sustainability!... Hmmm...