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'

Rising levels of acids in seas may endanger marine life, says study | Environment | The Guardian

Rising levels of acids in seas may endanger marine life, says study | Environment | The Guardian

Ouch!

This has been a growing concern. The rapid increases in the CO2 levels -- blasting past 400ppm as we speak -- that has several scary consequences.

First, there's the greenhouse gas (GHG) thing and the rising temperatures of the air and land.

Second, the excess CO2, at least some of it, is absorbed into the oceans. This increases the acidity of the oceans. Higher acid levels could wipe out shell fish, coral reefs and other things/animals that are critical for the health of the oceans (and of the planet).

Here's what the article and the scientists said:

Hans Poertner, professor of marine biology at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, and co-author of a new study of the phenomenon, told the Guardian: "The current rate of change is likely to be more than 10 times faster than it has been in any of the evolutionary crises in the earth's history."
Seawater is naturally slightly alkaline, but as oceans absorb CO2 from the air, their pH level falls gradually. Under the rapid escalation of greenhouse gas emissions, ocean acidification is gathering pace and many forms of marine life – especially species that build calcium-based shells – are under threat.

Ouch!

It Keeps Getting Cheaper To Install Solar Panels In The U.S. | ThinkProgress

It Keeps Getting Cheaper To Install Solar Panels In The U.S. | ThinkProgress:

The cost of solar is dropping and the install capacity is quietly on the rise.

Prices are down to $.30 to $.90 per watt.

Plus the market is starting to be healthier. China is no longer allowed to dump their (artificially cheap) over capacity on the US and EU.

Even the White House is jumping onto sun power.

Very cool.

'via Blog this'

Why the World Bank Is Taking On Climate Change - NationalJournal.com

Why the World Bank Is Taking On Climate Change - NationalJournal.com: "w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m"

Caral Davenport of the National Journal spoke with Rachel Kyte, the World Bank's vice president of sustainable development, about the economic impact of climate change.

The world bank is taking some rather aggressive action. 
(Also watch the debate on global warming that follows. Hmmm?.)

Some of us would argue, that if you don't want governments to take more active roles in sustainability, then we all should start to be more sustainable ourselves. We have to eventually, right? 

Why not start now, and start with the "low lying fruit": energy efficiency, telecommuting, etc.  Those initiatives not only pay for themselves, but can be implemented immediately.

Or we can continue to debate if there really is global warming, is it primarily man-made, etc. 

For the latest info on the science and the concepts of sustainability visit: www.TinyURL.com/SharedStuffZ/
The intro document there provides the outline of the WikiBook with hyperlinks to the live pages in Wikipedia. If you think that Wikipedia is wrong, please offer corrections and provide sources and links to the proof. But, before you offer corrections, read some of the section, especially read the nexus of energy, water, and food.

Even if there were no global warming, we all should start to take aggressive action now, today, ahora. The global warming issue simply adds a level of urgency to our steps.

'via Blog this'

Holding back the oceans... The Cost of Energy... Compounding and getting worse.

Holding back the ocean (via The Cost of Energy)

The inevitability of sea level rise (emphasis added): Small numbers can imply big things. Global sea level rose by a little less than 0.2 metres during the 20th century – mainly in response to the 0.8 °C of warming humans have caused through greenhouse…

---

Chia... The super healthy alternative to ... The Costco Connection - July 2013 - Page 47

The Costco Connection - July 2013 - Page 47:

Really cool about Chia.

We knew about the tea and the drinks, but who knew about all the other uses of Chia.

Substitute for eggs.

Even tells a little history. Short article is jam-packed as is the little Chia seed.

'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'

The Keeling Curve | How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?

The Keeling Curve | How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?: "Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually."

So... of the 9.3 billion in CO2 emissions, the oceans have been absorbing about 26%. But, as in all things that reach saturation, this cannot be expected to continue.

We do know that CO2 will go into the air, since the atmosphere gets first go at fossil fuel emissions. So the Greenhouse gasses might start to rise much, much faster.

This certainly looks like a no-win.

'via Blog this'

Sea levels set for a 'continuing rise' for generations...The Daily Climate ... Like baking a cake.

Sea levels set for a 'continuing rise' for generations — The Daily Climate:

So here's the story. It's already baked into the cake.

The current setting has sea levels rising for decades. Even if we all went to carbon neutral tomorrow.

The basics are that greenhouse gasses will persist in the atmosphere for decades, even centuries. The most prevalent is Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which will stay in the atmosphere for 70 years, maybe 100.

So, we can expect temperatures to rise 2, 3, maybe 4 or 5 degrees C. And, as the ocean waters warm, the water expands (thermal expansion). If the oceans are about 2 miles deep, on average, the heat expansion really makes a difference. We're talking yards here, not feet.

Some estimates seem to show only the top, maybe the top 10% of the oceans heating and expanding. But that's because they are using a short planning horizon. If you wait another 50 to 100 years, you should expect far more of the oceans to warm, and expand.

That is, the heating is already "baked into the cake"... Or in our case, baked into the atmosphere, which will eventually bake into the oceans, which will eventually...

Well, you get the picture.

Make no doubt, I'm looking and hoping that this scenario is not the most likely to play forward.

We do have lower solar and volcanic activities which should serve as a cooling damper for the atmosphere.

But we appear to be overshadowing that offset. At least from all I can see.

As always, the best and first place to start is conservation and efficiency.

'via Blog this'

Companies Search For Ways To Mine Uranium Outside Grand Canyon National Park | KRWG

Companies Search For Ways To Mine Uranium Outside Grand Canyon National Park | KRWG:

Uranium and Nuclear power.

So very much cleaner than coal.

But, we have no plan, even to make a plan, to deal with the radioactive waste. Right now it is all being stored on site like the Fukushima reactor in Japan. They had an entire reactor devoted to waste storage.

The best plan that I have ever seen is to take the nuclear waste from traditional plants and feed it into advanced nuclear reactors. That means we gotta build one or more of these things and/or ship it to the plant (in France?).  We are not even able to agree that the stuff can be shipped around the USA (to Yucca Mountain), that alone around the world.

Note the half-life of some of the spent radioactive fuels is loooong. "Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds or thousands of years."  (Radioactive waste, 2013, para 1)

Environmentalists are starting to become a lot more happy with Nuclear as we all look at the alternatives.

From my point of view, nuclear is never an option until there is some plan for waste. Even a bad plan (like Yucca Mt) is better than no plan.!:-( 

Reference
Radioactive waste. (2013, July 8). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:32, July 10, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&oldid=563340315

'via Blog this'