Alternatives losing the battle?

The frequently asked question in the US these days is whether energy alternatives will falter in the face of a new abundance of fossil fuels. The alternative energy landscape is in tumult, judging by the recent fourth annual summit of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA–E. A glut of cheap natural gas threatens to sweep all other energy sources before it. Funding for alternative energy has dried up, says a report by Scientific American.

To cite an example, the ‘artificial leaf’ promised to revolutionize the world by bringing reliable modern energy to those mired in poverty. But the company founded to commercialize the research found that it needs to concentrate its efforts on something likely to make money in the nearer term, for instance flow batteries that might provide large amounts of energy storage on the electric grid.

ARPA–E efforts range from power-flow controllers for electricity transmission lines to modified microbe that builds liquid fuels from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. But even ARPA-E has begun to shift its limited funding into projects to enhance the use of natural gas, such as the Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, or the MOVE program.
While shale is the new hot source, there are other gas discoveries too.The Nikkei news service reports the gJapanese overnment research team drilled 330m into the seafloor at an ocean depth of about 1000m, then decompressed and gasified deposits of methane hydrate trapped in the sediment. Methane hydrate deposits off Aichi and Mie are said to be equal to 10 years' worth of domestic natural gas consumption. There are massive deposits of methane hydrate in other parts of the world too. It seems an easier option to continue doing what we are familar with rather than start anew!
The Breakthrough Institute estimates that US energy firms reinvest less than one percent of total revenues into research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects, compared to 15-20% in the IT, semiconductor, and pharmaceutical industries. Is this the reason for ‘disadvantage alternatives’, or simply a refusal to see long-term? Eternal optimism that when one source dries up, the planet will throw up another may be a feel-good factor but are we fooling ourselves that from coal to natural gas to shale and on and on is a natural jump? Are we simply pressing on for luck? What do you think?

Methane leaks from gas fields

Recent studies show unexpectedly high methane leakage from some oil and gas fields in the U.S., findings that underscore concerns that the climate benefits of the natural gas boom may be overstated. Researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder say new data indicates that as much as 4 percent of methane from a production area in Denver is leaking into the atmosphere, echoing findings first reported in a much-disputed study published last year in the Journal of Geophysical Research. A separate field study in Utah suggested even higher methane leakage rates of 9 percent.

The calculations were made based on aerial and ground-based measurements and atmospheric models that estimated the level of emissions required to produce the recorded concentrations. “We were expecting to see high methane levels, but I don’t think anybody really comprehended the true magnitude of what we would see,” said Colm Sweeney, lead scientist for the federal Earth System Research Lab Aircraft Program.

Burning natural gas produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal, but scientists are concerned that those benefits could be partially offset by methane leaks from the controversial gas-drilling practice known as hydrofracturing, or fracking.

The methane issue

A new study says that methane leaks from natural gas drilling, particularly hydraulic fracturing, are likely higher than previously estimated and concludes that converting vehicles from gasoline to compressed natural gas will actually produce more greenhouse gas emissions unless methane leaks are significantly reduced. The study, authored by scientists from the Environmental Defense Fund and several universities, says that replacing coal-fired power plants with natural gas-fired power plants does lead to a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, though not as steep a drop as gas industry advocates contend. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examines the “technology warming potentials” of different fossil fuels and concludes that better research needs to be undertaken to determine exactly how much methane — a far more potent but shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide — leaks during the cycle of natural gas drilling and transport. The U.S. government has estimated the leakage rate at 2.4 percent, but some studies suggest it is higher. Will this mean the US will go back on its new found gas reserves? Your guess!

Shale gas - a winner?

Shale gas is one of the lowest carbon sources of natural gas. Shale gas produced using fracking may have lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gas. If that sounds controversial, check out a report in recent Environmental Science and Technology, that “shale gas life-cycle [greenhouse gas] emissions are 6% lower than conventional natural gas”.

It goes on to substantiate the claim by saying the lower emissions are due to the fact that multiple horizontal wells (used when tapping shale gas) can be drilled from a single well pad. In conventional vertical drilling, there is one pad per well. In horizontal drilling, there are typically six to eight wells drilled from one pad. This means less equipment, less surface disruption, and fewer opportunities for leaks on the surface. Fewer leaks mean lesser methane escaping!

The report further notes that all types of natural gas represent a huge opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agreeing that Methane leaks and water management are two of the biggest issues, and must be addressed, it says that natural gas, with fracking, (which it claims is not the cause of water pollution) is still a clear winner. Especially when compared to coal!!

If China builds one new coal plant per week, that translates to about 450 million tons of added carbon emissions each year. If China just built natural gas plants instead of coal plants, it would reduce added emissions by between 150 and 270 million tons per year (depending on the type of coal and power plant, natural gas typically has between 30% and 60% less GHG emissions than coal). That reduction in emissions would be like taking roughly 40 million cars off the road.

Any thoughts?

Positives of burning coal!

Natural gas has been recommended as the best transition fuel as the world moves into clean energy in a phased manner. But natural gas has not been without its own share of woes.

Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal, a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change. While coal use causes warming through emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, it also releases comparatively large amounts of sulfates and other particles that, although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight.

The situation is further complicated by uncertainty over the amount of methane that leaks from natural gas operations. Methane is an especially potent greenhouse gas.

A worldwide, partial shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change through at least 2050, even if no methane leaked from natural gas operations, and through as late as 2140 if there were substantial leaks. After that, the greater reliance on natural gas would begin to slow down the increase in global average temperature, but only by a few tenths of a degree.

The burning of coal releases more carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, as well as comparatively high levels of other pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particles such as ash. Since natural gas emits lower levels of these pollutants, some energy experts have proposed greater reliance on that fuel source as a way to slow down global warming and reduce the impacts of energy use on the environment.

But the effects of natural gas on climate change have been difficult to calculate. Recent studies have come to conflicting conclusions about whether a shift to natural gas would significantly slow the rate of climate change, in part because of uncertainty about the extent of methane leaks.

The study which used computer simulations that an increase advantage in shift to natural gas is offset by the loss of cooling due to particulates! Remember these particulates are bad for health, but have this effect on climate. Just goes to show we are far away from mastering our environment!

Friend or foe?

Can natural gas be the best transition fuel for an economy going green? Yes and no, say sources. The latest report from Canada says that natural gas could delay action on climate change.

Taking the case of Canada, it notes how switching from coal to natural gas could help meet Canada's short-term goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. But if that's the only change Canada makes, the 2050 targets — an 80 per cent greenhouse gas reduction — would be almost impossible to achieve.

The David Suzuki Foundation recommends the government bring in an emissions-reduction plan that emphasizes energy-efficiency measures and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro.

The report also found other problems with the increased development and production of natural gas. Among them are environmental impacts unrelated to climate change. Like fracking!

Shale gas, it points, requires a tremendous number of wells to be drilled. A typical shale gas region could be drilling in the thousands of new wells every year. You're looking at a well-site every square mile. Game?

Glitter of gas

The International Energy Agency (IEA) on Monday released a special report exploring the potential for a “golden age” of gas. The new report, part of the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2011 series, examines the key factors that could result in a more prominent role for natural gas in the global energy mix, and the implications for other fuels, energy security and climate change.

The report, titled, “Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas?” presents a scenario in which global use of gas rises by more than 50% from 2010 levels and accounts for more than a quarter of global energy demand by 2035. However, the report also strikes a cautious note on the climate benefits of such an expansion, noting that an increased share of gas in the global energy mix is far from enough on its own to put the world on a carbon emissions path consistent with a global temperature rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Global natural gas resources are vast, widely dispersed geographically and can help improve energy security. All major geographical regions have recoverable natural gas resources equal to at least 75 years of current consumption. However, timely and successful development of these resources depends on a complex set of factors, including government policy choices, technological capability and market conditions.

Natural gas is a particularly attractive fuel for countries and regions that are urbanising and seeking to satisfy rapid growth in energy demand, such as China, India and the Middle East. These countries and regions will largely determine the extent to which natural gas use expands over the next 25 years.

When replacing other fossil fuels, natural gas can lead to lower emissions of greenhouse gases and local pollutants. However, the high gas scenario shows carbon emissions consistent with a long-term temperature rise of over 3.5°C. A path towards 2°C would still require a greater shift to low-carbon energy sources. Ultimately, in a finite planet we must learn to restrain our wants, and that goes for energy too!

Shale concerns

Some more news on shale gas and fracking! After deciding to ban shale gas exploration, the French government seems to have second thoughts. Perhaps inspired by the UK climate panel report.

Meanwhile, a new study on emissions on natural gas throws up a different picture from that painted by Cornell University last month. The Cornell study had found that GHG footprint of shale gas was more than natural gas, and even coal. But now, National Energy Technology Laboratory in the US has recently released its own study showing a different result.

NETL looked at both a 100-year timeframe and a 20-year time frame, and in both cases found that life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas were substantially lower than coal. According to the findings, natural gas emitted 50% fewer emissions than coal over a 20-year GWP and emitted 55% fewer emissions over a 100-year GWP.

These studies do not, however, factor in the concerns about methane release into water or whether fracturing fluids will cause environmental and health problems. As NETL concludes in the study: “All opportunities need to be evaluated on a sustainable energy basis: Environmental performance, economic performance and social performance.” How pertinent, but how often neglected.

UK Panel sees no danger in fracking

Talk of techno-fix and here is more on shale gas and fracking!

A UK parliamentary committee has ruled that shale gas drilling poses no risks to the country’s water supplies and should be given the go ahead for development. According to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which published its report a day ago, a moratorium on shale gas drilling in the UK is neither justified nor necessary.

“There appears to be nothing inherently dangerous about the process of ‘fracking’ itself and as long as the integrity of the well is maintained shale gas extraction should be safe,” says committee chair Tim Yeo MP. “There has been a lot of hot air recently about the dangers of shale gas drilling, but our inquiry found no evidence to support the main concern – that UK water supplies would be put at risk.”

The UK has considerable shale gas reserves, according the British Geological Survey data cited by the report. While onshore shale gas resources could total 150 billion cubic metres – equivalent to around 18 months of UK gas consumption, offshore resources could “dwarf” these.

As well as concerns about contamination of aquifers, environmentalists have also raised concerns about emissions from shale gas, which is primarily methane – a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But the Committee’s report argues that UK regulations are much tougher than those in the US and will be more effective in minimising leaks from wells or pipelines.

A witches brew

Natural gas from shale formations is the new kid on the block. But it is not without its share of dangers, as media attention in the US shows.

The gas, which is trapped in tiny bubble-like pockets in the rock, is procured by forcefully injecting chemicals diluted with millions of gallons of water into the rock. This fracking ruptures the earth, creating fissures through which the gas passes -- along with a brew of carcinogens, acutely poisonous heavy metals, and radioactive elements.

Uranium, radium, and radon make the shale so radioactive that companies sometimes drop Geiger counters into wells to determine whether they have reached the gas-rich deposits. But those compounds are almost benign compared to the fracking fluids that drillers inject into the wells. Some of these are very dangerous to human health.

Among other pollutants which fracking produces is ozone in large quantities and the damage to crops from ozone is well known.

Before more nations join the US and others in the rush to exploit this source, it may be wise to look into these aspects and put in place safety measures before drilling. Short-term benefits have to be balanced with long-term damage.

Blacker than coal!

In the desperate search for new sources of energy, natural gas from shale has sent many enterprises drilling away new areas, and not only in the US. But is this any cleaner source than coal?

Researchers at Cornell University are raising alarms over the expected increase in use of natural gas from shale deposits. They argue that replacing coal and gasoline with natural-gas alternatives could worsen, rather than improve, the impact of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse-gas footprint of shale gas over a 20-year period is at least 20 percent higher than that of coal and "perhaps more than twice as great," they say in a study published online in the journal Climatic Change.

To extract natural gas from shale, drillers hydraulically fracture the rock by injecting a cocktail of water and chemicals into a horizontally drilled well at high pressures. A significant amount of gas also mixes with the water-chemical mix and escapes into the atmosphere when the fluid returns to the surface. The drilling out of well plugs that separate fracking stages also results in temporary emission releases, giving shale gas a "significantly larger" greenhouse-gas footprint than conventional natural gas.

When burned to generate electricity, natural gas emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour as coal. But over its life cycle, natural gas could result in far more greenhouse-gas emissions, whether through intentional venting, equipment leaks, or fracking. And the leaks would consist of methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Of course, as the Cornell study points out, thera are ways that drillers and pipeline operations could reduce methane emissions by up to 90 percent. But, these technologies are currently not in wide use.

Well, the hunt goes on as an energy hungry civilisation keeps at it.

Natural gas: the next choice to coal?

Well, if solar and wind come with their set of problems, is natural gas a better option? Should we opt for more pipes rather than wires overhead?

Natural gas advocates argue that it generates 50 percent fewer greenhouse gases than coal when burned. And since natural gas is more widely available than ever, thanks to newer more efficient—though in some cases environmentally damaging—extraction techniques, some think it should be playing a larger role in a transition away from coal.

But although natural gas generates less greenhouse gas than coal when burned, when its total life-cycle emissions associated with extraction and distribution are factored in, it does not seem much cleaner than coal. A 2007 lifecycle analysis of natural gas production, distribution and consumption found that when one factors in the total emissions associated with not only the end use of natural gas but also its extraction and distribution—much of it can leak when it is pulled out of the ground and then piped to power plants and other customers—it doesn’t seem so much cleaner than coal after all. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that loose pipe fittings and intentional venting for safety purposes on natural gas lines cause annual greenhouse gas emissions rivaling that produced by 35 million cars each year.

The World Bank estimates that emissions from natural gas extraction operations alone account for over a fifth of the atmosphere’s total load of climate-changing methane.

“When scientists evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources over their full lifecycle and incorporate the methane emitted during production, the advantage of natural gas holds true only when it is burned in more modern and efficient plants,” reports Abrahm Lustgarten on the investigative news website, ProPublica. “But roughly half of the 1,600 gas-fired power plants in the United States operate at the lowest end of the efficiency spectrum.”

Definitely, solar and wind seem more benign!