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.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Offshore, CSP see progress
A widening range of low-carbon technologies, including offshore wind and concentrated solar power (CSP) are providing opportunities for global growth despite challenging market conditions, according financial consultants Ernst & Young.
China still leads the way in the company’s latest quarterly Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices, thanks in part to its development of shallow water offshore wind and a new five-year plan that targets over 11% of primary energy generation from renewable sources by 2015.
Meanwhile, utility-scale solar developments – both photovoltaic and CSP – have kept the US in second position, despite policy and market uncertainty blighting progress with wind power.
“The picture for renewable energy this quarter has undoubtedly been mixed,” says Ben Warren of Ernst & Young. “Global events have had a significant impact on attitudes to renewable energy, with increased impetus in favour of renewables in Japan, the Middle East and a number of developing economies.”
Most countries have retained their position in the ranking, but Brazil has moved up four places to 12th thanks to strong growth in the country’s wind market.
The UK has suffered in the Ernst & Young ranking because of its ‘fast-track’ review of feed-in tariffs for solar power developments.
China still leads the way in the company’s latest quarterly Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices, thanks in part to its development of shallow water offshore wind and a new five-year plan that targets over 11% of primary energy generation from renewable sources by 2015.
Meanwhile, utility-scale solar developments – both photovoltaic and CSP – have kept the US in second position, despite policy and market uncertainty blighting progress with wind power.
“The picture for renewable energy this quarter has undoubtedly been mixed,” says Ben Warren of Ernst & Young. “Global events have had a significant impact on attitudes to renewable energy, with increased impetus in favour of renewables in Japan, the Middle East and a number of developing economies.”
Most countries have retained their position in the ranking, but Brazil has moved up four places to 12th thanks to strong growth in the country’s wind market.
The UK has suffered in the Ernst & Young ranking because of its ‘fast-track’ review of feed-in tariffs for solar power developments.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Clean revolution and India
India is patting itself on the back courtesy a report by international NGO The Climate Group that lauds its progress in energy efficiency where it says India will fast be surpassing the US with the market expected to treble to INR 351,000 crore (USD 77 billion) in the next ten years. It praises India which it says has prioritised low carbon development now, and creating a better, more secure, and more prosperous future for its more than one billion people.
The report, India’s Clean Revolution highlights other success stories in India’s low carbon economy. High fuel prices set by the Indian government for industry have driven dramatic energy efficiency improvements, such that India is now one of the world’s lowest-cost producers of both aluminium and steel.
The report describes how a low carbon development path is the only one that will guarantee future prosperity for India. Bold low carbon policies will increase India’s energy independence and help provide access to energy to those who still lack it, it says.
India’s share of the USD 2.2 trillion market for low carbon goods and services in 2020 could be as much as USD 135 billion, creating 10.5 million green jobs, and is likely to grow faster than any other country. Low cost labor and a highly skilled manufacturing base will make India a major hub for clean technologies.
And finally, it cautions India to avoid the developed world model of high cost, high carbon development and instead chart a new low carbon pathway based on energy efficiency and energy security. This is something we have stressed - given the massive investments in infrastructure, both ongoing and to come, and a large section still largely not relying on commercial energy, this is time for a change in track on the energy front.
The report, India’s Clean Revolution highlights other success stories in India’s low carbon economy. High fuel prices set by the Indian government for industry have driven dramatic energy efficiency improvements, such that India is now one of the world’s lowest-cost producers of both aluminium and steel.
The report describes how a low carbon development path is the only one that will guarantee future prosperity for India. Bold low carbon policies will increase India’s energy independence and help provide access to energy to those who still lack it, it says.
India’s share of the USD 2.2 trillion market for low carbon goods and services in 2020 could be as much as USD 135 billion, creating 10.5 million green jobs, and is likely to grow faster than any other country. Low cost labor and a highly skilled manufacturing base will make India a major hub for clean technologies.
And finally, it cautions India to avoid the developed world model of high cost, high carbon development and instead chart a new low carbon pathway based on energy efficiency and energy security. This is something we have stressed - given the massive investments in infrastructure, both ongoing and to come, and a large section still largely not relying on commercial energy, this is time for a change in track on the energy front.
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 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.
Time to slow down
Fo regular readers of The Guardian, a recent long-drawn spar has been one taken up by columnist George Monbiot that began with being cautious about nuclear to openly batting for nuclear power. To his opponents, Monbiot has had many points to quote on why he considers nuclear to be a clean option, wastes and security issues notwithstanding.
But a much recent off-shoot of the discussion has been his rhetoric to environmentalists advocating renewables and how they expected to live with lesser energy which this would mean, at least initially. An interesting retort by a fellow columnist brings up a valid point - 'the most obvious way of cutting production is to make things to higher standards. If everything were made to last twice as long then we would only need to make half as much of it. This requires us to slow down the rate of technological progress so that goods (and humans) do not become functionally obsolescent so quickly'.
To Monbiot's query on how to find the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles … ceramics and soap, Simon replies: 'Take bricks: for several years I lived in a cob house – built in 1911 from rammed unbaked earth – which was warm and delightful. I have also made unfired bricks with a device called a block ram, and 30 years later they are weathering fine.'
He goes on to say very pertinently that reducing consumption of goods is not a recipe for abject poverty. Half the world still lives without superabundance, but where there is misery 'it is because of lack of food, water, simple medicines and adequate shelter – not because of a shortage of cheap T-shirts, factory-fired bricks, or 17 varieties of cleaning product.'!! How true.
A large populace the world over is led to believe taht techno-fixes that will allow us to go on extracting the world's resources at an ever accelerating rate. What a fallacy.
But a much recent off-shoot of the discussion has been his rhetoric to environmentalists advocating renewables and how they expected to live with lesser energy which this would mean, at least initially. An interesting retort by a fellow columnist brings up a valid point - 'the most obvious way of cutting production is to make things to higher standards. If everything were made to last twice as long then we would only need to make half as much of it. This requires us to slow down the rate of technological progress so that goods (and humans) do not become functionally obsolescent so quickly'.
To Monbiot's query on how to find the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles … ceramics and soap, Simon replies: 'Take bricks: for several years I lived in a cob house – built in 1911 from rammed unbaked earth – which was warm and delightful. I have also made unfired bricks with a device called a block ram, and 30 years later they are weathering fine.'
He goes on to say very pertinently that reducing consumption of goods is not a recipe for abject poverty. Half the world still lives without superabundance, but where there is misery 'it is because of lack of food, water, simple medicines and adequate shelter – not because of a shortage of cheap T-shirts, factory-fired bricks, or 17 varieties of cleaning product.'!! How true.
A large populace the world over is led to believe taht techno-fixes that will allow us to go on extracting the world's resources at an ever accelerating rate. What a fallacy.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Big time solar
The US administration provided a loan guarantee of $737 million to SolarReserve on Thursday to construct the first large-scale solar power plant that stores energy and provides electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The plant utilizes what is called thermal energy storage to store heat collected from the sun, which is then utilized by the power plant to boil water and produce steam. The steam then turns a steam turbine which generates electricity. Various versions of solar thermal plants exist.
Some collect heat and stores it in molten salt which is then circulated to the boiler. The boiler turns water into steam which then rushes through a steam turbine.
This type collects heat and stores it in molten salt which is then circulated to the boiler where water is converted to steam to drive a turbine!
17,500 heliostats focus or concentrate sunlight onto the collector at the top of a 640-foot tall tower until it reaches a temperature of 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit.
The power plant’s electricity generation capacity is 110-MW, which makes it one of the larger-scale solar power plants.
For those who oppose solar on the grounds of storage and intermittency, here then is the answer. Still, it does require land! But wastelands and deserts would be ideal, right?
The plant utilizes what is called thermal energy storage to store heat collected from the sun, which is then utilized by the power plant to boil water and produce steam. The steam then turns a steam turbine which generates electricity. Various versions of solar thermal plants exist.
Some collect heat and stores it in molten salt which is then circulated to the boiler. The boiler turns water into steam which then rushes through a steam turbine.
This type collects heat and stores it in molten salt which is then circulated to the boiler where water is converted to steam to drive a turbine!
17,500 heliostats focus or concentrate sunlight onto the collector at the top of a 640-foot tall tower until it reaches a temperature of 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit.
The power plant’s electricity generation capacity is 110-MW, which makes it one of the larger-scale solar power plants.
For those who oppose solar on the grounds of storage and intermittency, here then is the answer. Still, it does require land! But wastelands and deserts would be ideal, right?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
