The Energy Thread

even if it does turn out that fracking is an issue that can be largely addressed by improved processes and safeguards, that just highlights the dire need for it to be strongly and consistently regulated, aka, the opposite of now

so the us energy department is 'cautiously recommending' fracking

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0811/Yes-let-s-frack-with-caution

yet a recent, peer reviewed study from duke university has found evidence of methane contamination of wells in areas with fracking

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/0509/Fracking-for-natural-gas-is-polluting-ground-water-study-concludes

good job guys

(last thread spam, promise)

Some of you may have heard about the Tar Sands protests at the White House, running every day from Aug 20th - Sept. 3rd. 322 arrests have been made so far.

The media coverage is starting to pick up steam:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/tar-sands-xl-keystone-pipeline-protest.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/why-far-off-canadian-tar-sands-have-become-a-make-or-break-issue-for-obama-with-enviros.php?ref=fpb
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61837.html#ixzz1W4D5RzZZ

If any of you are willing to join me on Sept. 3rd, here's a pretty detailed account of what you're in for:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/adam-maynard-we-shall-overcome-tar-sands/
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/update-from-legal-support-team/

"Processing once we arrived at the jailhouse was relatively painless. One by one they snapped off our plastic cuffs and led us to a long table staffed with officers who had us fill out paperwork for our release. Because of the low severity of our crime – we were charged with failure to obey a lawful order (aka get off the sidewalk) – and the benevolence of the Park Police, we were granted a “post and forfeit” release. Under these terms we could pay a $100 fine instead of staying overnight in jail and arranging a date in court. Thankfully we were instructed to have cash on us beforehand, and we were all out of police custody by 2:00 or so. Not so bad considering arrests had started around 11:30. I also want to make a point of saying that the DC Park Police were courteous and professional throughout the process, and I hope they spend my $100 wisely."

After being relative assholes on the first day (the Park Police decided to try to deter future protesters by holding them for 2 days overnight in jail), all of the protesters are now getting charged with "Failure to Obey" (a traffic charge less than a misdemeanor) and a "post and forfeit" release, which entails a $100 fine and an immediate release.

Sept. 3rd is the last day of the protests, and will probably have the most people and the most coverage. If any of you want to kick it in the paddywagon with me for an hour or so on the 3rd I'd welcome your company. Or, of course, if you can make it on any other day, even just to register your support (no arrest/fine), please do.

so anyway...

nice piece by kevin drum here. nothing new, really, but it's a nice brief summary that will reach a much greater audience than oildrum.com stuff ever does.

Basically, we're stuck with two stubborn observations. First, world demand for oil is very near its production ceiling, which means that even small increases in demand (or small disruptions in supply) now result in large oil price spikes. And increases in demand are inevitable every time the economy starts growing even modestly. Second, even small increases in the price of oil cause large GDP losses. Price spikes of 20 to 30 percent are likely to be common in the future as we periodically bump up against production ceilings, and if Hamilton's model is correct, this will produce subsequent declines in GDP of 3 to 5 percentage points. That's huge. The effect on world GDP may be less pronounced, but it will still be significant.

If this model is accurate—and if the ceiling on global oil production really is around 90 mbd and can be expanded only slowly—it means that every time the global economy starts to reach even moderate growth rates, demand for oil will quickly bump up against supply constraints, prices will spike, and we'll be thrown back into recession. Rinse and repeat.

Ruffalo's Tar Sands protest video was posted on the Mark Ruffalo thread :)

i think i've said this before but larry elliot predicted a few months ago that near-term the price of oil would be around $80/barrel (because of the "coming recession" as he put it then) and long-term, $300/barrel

mazeltov

Ruffalo's nice and all, but the real reason that I'm doing it is the potential presence of Danny Glover

I wouldn't worry. The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C.will ensure that the ultimate onus for oil sands related climate change will fall upon the Chinese rather than the great South. The US will (desperate to keep its 70 year malinvestment in suburbs viable) end up sourcing from liquids sources with still higher carbon costs like Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids. Progressives will continue their opposition to actual low carbon energy like offshore-wind and 4th gen nuclear, at least those who aren't starving.

i'll just go back to sitting on my hands then, thanks!

progressives oppose off-shore wind? huh

still don't know why we haven't filled the chihuahua desert with mirrors and gotten on with our lives

Desert tortoises might be impacted. As for offshre wind, self-idntified environmentalists want it off somebody else's shore.

Barring environmentalists purchasing Suncor, Syncrude, etc. the Athabasca oil sands will be produced, and its eminently plausible that producers will eventually place some Candu reactor to produce steam should carbon taxes become high enough. I'm just much less concerned about this than the concurrent attempts to build NW export terminals for powder river coal, which gets a small fraction of the press and which could be an order of magnitude more important as emissions go.

^mea. Ulpa on typos. Posting from ipad in sickbed.

Yep, agreed that RFK Jr.'s opposition to offshore wind is/was impossibly frustrating. And yeah, agree that the PRB coal terminals to China are just as likely to push us over the tipping point than the exploitation of tar sands, if not more so. but the presence of other energy/climate debacles doesn't mean that protests against Keystone XL are pointless or misguided. you have to go to where the energy is (no pun intended), and if a bunch of prominent environmental leaders, activists, organizations and danny glover are rallying around the largest display of green civil disobedience in 20 years and putting pressure on the Obama administration to exhibit a hint of global leadership on this cause, that's worth supporting.

I was under the impression that opposition to offshore wind power was largely the result of astroturfing by oil companies.

would like to setup a script so that whenever anyone on the internet posts something similar to "if only obama would support domestic drilling, THEN we'd have lower gas prices!!!", this image is automatically posted in response:

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/298734_10150284423800959_638030958_7862025_1975161_n.jpg

He or whomever succeeds him needs to say "enough is known about the geology of the US to say with some confidence, that all the "easy" oil, save a few spots around Alaska, is gone. All that's left is low flow rate shale beds, small satellite deposits, and very deep water, none of which are economic at <$3/gal gas. The throughput possible if all of these were put into production isn't enough to budge global supply by more than a few percent a year, a supply that will be rapidly absorbed by developing market demand in a couple of years even at current prices. The east coast and west coast north of Los Angeles haven't been drilled not because they've been off limits, but because oil companies found them to be non-prospective (source rocks hadn't been buried deep enough for maturation) before the Federal Government put them off limits. All of the oil with positive energy return on energy invested will be produced someday, including ANWR, but its best for our grandchildren to keep some in reserve till later this century when it will be deperately needed as a chemical feedstock, rather than to be merely blow it out the exhaust of present day commuter's SUVs."

tl, dr

lol sanpaku, presidential speechwriting is not your thing.

also dude, a few environmental purists who care (too much) about the desert tortoise /= "progressives"

none of which are economic at <$3/gal gas

This is the key point that needs to be made. The fact that far from reducing gas prices, building the infrastructure for unconventional oil actually locks us into a dependency on a source of fuel that MUST be expensive.

I made a very similar point in a facebook note I posted a few hours ago (the ultimate tl;dr) explaining my arrest this coming Saturday at the Tar Sands action.

For all the effort that Obama apparently makes toward being perceived as the Adult in the Room, he needs to speak honestly about our energy options.

posting this on a friday night probably guarantees zero response, but this seems big

A study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research finds that models the impact of replacing the use of coal with natural gas and takes into account the leakage of methane during production finds that the conception of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to mitigate climate change is wrong.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/coal-v-methane.jpg

We consider a scenario where a fraction of coal usage is replaced by natural gas (i.e., methane, CH4) over a given time period, and where a percentage of the gas production is assumed to leak into the atmosphere. The additional CH4 from leakage adds to the radiative forcing of the climate system, offsetting the reduction in CO2 forcing that accompanies the transition from coal to gas. We also consider the effects of methane leakage from coal mining; changes in radiative forcing due to changes in the emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbonaceous aerosols; and differences in the efficiency of electricity production between coal- and gas-fired power generation. On balance, these factors more than offset the reduction in warming due to reduced CO2 emissions.

any reactions? if this is true, this is very, very very important.

important caption to the chart that I neglected to include:

Note this is a figure of temperature change relative to baseline warming of roughly 3°C (5.4°F) in 2100.

bumping this because it was the middle of night last night and i'm curious to hear feedback.

If I'm reading it correctly, current methane leakage from natural gas production is quoted as 2.4% in the article, which makes the 2.5 orange line applicable. So substitution of gas for coal would lead to worse than baseline outcomes till 2055, but better outcomes thereafter for the next 145 years of the model. Forr the unitiated, uncombusted methane/natural gas is about 20x more potent a greenhouse gas, but has a much shorter atmospheric residence time, a few decades rather than the centuries for carbon dioxide.

So, if the quality of environment for every future generation is equally weighted, AND the choice is just btween natural gas and coal, then natural gas seems to come out ahead. If only the lifetimes of the currently living is considered, than coal has a slight advantage in climate (though not particulate and heavy metals) emissions.

The real problem with natural gas is that after the shale land rush, drillers were forced by lease stipulations to drill leases in order to retain them. This has forced natural gas below economic break-even for shale resources (around $6/mcf), and also below the $8/mcf at which some renewables (wind, geothermal, but probably not ev or thermal solar) become competitive. Ideally, government would tax / credit, or set quotas (as the Texas Railroad commission did to support crude oil prices when Texas was the world's marginal producer pre-1970), so that renewables could exist without fickle subsidies.

2.4% methane leakage seemed to be the rock bottom conservative estimate, with a strong possibility of much higher figures (2 to 3 times higher).

So, if the quality of environment for every future generation is equally weighted, AND the choice is just btween natural gas and coal, then natural gas seems to come out ahead. If only the lifetimes of the currently living is considered, than coal has a slight advantage in climate (though not particulate and heavy metals) emissions.

heh, if the well-being of future generations was equally weighted with the well-being of today's population (effectively, a 0% discount rate), today's policies would be quite different! of course, we heavily weight toward ourselves, which is natural i suppose. i don't think the researchers intent was to make people see coal as the "winner" between natural gas and coal, but rather that they're both losers. coal consumption is the greatest driver of the mess we're in, and natural gas, far from being a "bridge fuel" to some sort of sustainable future, is actually worse over the next 100 years. that's a significant finding, if it's true. to me, the conclusion isn't "we have to choose between coal or natural gas, so let's go with coal i guess" but "coal and natural gas are BOTH terrible, so we need to ramp up clean energy, conservation and energy efficiency as quickly as humanly possible".

meanwhile, Exxon is heavily investing in drilling sites that are opening up because of global warming.

Despite the varying accounts of the overall potential value of the agreement, a fact sheet released by the companies indicated an initial commitment to invest $3.2 billion in exploration in the Kara Sea, the body of water between the northern coast of European Russia and the Novaya Zemlya island chain.

Once seen as a useless, ice-clogged backwater, the Kara Sea now has the attention of oil companies. That is partly because the sea ice is apparently receding — possibly a result of global warming — which would ease exploration and drilling.

...the United States Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds one-fifth of the world’s undiscovered, recoverable oil and natural gas.

"possibly a result of global warming"? fucking new york times. anyway, $3.2 billion is just the investment they've already committed to. Exxon itself expects to spend at least "tens of billions", and the initial Russian reports quoted Putin as stating figures up to the insane FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

in some slightly more upbeat news:

http://www.itworld.com/data-centerservers/202221/softbank-founder-backs-japans-shift-renewable-energy

Masayoshi Son, founder and CEO of Softbank, spoke at the launch of his Japan Renewable Energy Foundation. He said Japan could shift to renewable energy sources for 60 percent of its electricity requirements over the next two decades, calling for a 2 trillion yen (US$26 billion) "super grid" across the country, and underwater off the coast, that would zip electricity around cheaply and efficiently to meet demand.

no idea how realizable this plan is but it's good to see that it's at least on the table, with a wealthy backer

http://climaterealityproject.org/

xpost to dayo,

very realisable. Japan is current world leader in grid scale energy storage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/asia/chinese-protesters-accuse-solar-panel-plant-of-pollution.html

darker side of solar panel production

I heard a 'stat' a long time ago that claimed it takes much more energy to produce a solar panel than the solar panel will make in its lifetime. how true is that?

also depressed that once again, china is the dumping ground of the_west

I heard a 'stat' a long time ago that claimed it takes much more energy to produce a solar panel than the solar panel will make in its lifetime. how true is that?

not true for either of the two primary solar power systems, Photovoltaic (PV) or Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

for solar PV, the Dept. of Energy says:

Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1).

In other words, DOE is estimating that it currently takes between 1 to 4 years to recover the energy that went into making the PV systems. DOE is also assuming that the life expectancies of the PV systems are 30 years. If that's the case, a PV system with an energy payback estimate of 2 years would end up generating 15 times as much energy over 30 years as compared to the initial amount invested.

for CSP, estimates vary (as usual), but trade associations have put the energy payback at about 5 months. of course, the Solar Energy Industries Association is likely to be on the optimistic side of things, but generally CSP is seen as a very efficient energy source.

The important thing to keep in mind is that solar technology is developing so rapidly that the energy payback for PV and CSP has substantially improved (for example, in 2000 the estimated energy payback period for Solar PV was about 10 years; now DOE conservatively pegs it at 1 to 4 years) and will continue to improve in the future as more R&D piles on and economies of scale take hold. This is in stark contrast to fossil fuels, which operate very much on a "low-hanging fruit" model - the highest quality (most energy-packed) and easiest to extract (lowest energy investment) fossil fuels were exploited a long, long time ago. nowadays, we're drilling in the fucking arctic and blowing up mountaintops just to get to the stuff. A good example of this is U.S. oil. In the early days (think There Will Be Blood), the Energy Returned Over Energy Invested (EROEI) was around 100:1 - that is, you'd get 100 times as much energy from the easy to extract oil gushers than it would take to extract. Nowadays, that number is anywhere between 5:1 - 15:1, depending on where it's extracted. And that ratio will continue to decline.

aw man thanks for that - will whip those facts out at appropriate times. holy shit @ declining EROEI. gonna take that to the suburbs thread

it's not the prettiest graphic, but:

http://i53.tinypic.com/s15m52.png
Figure 5.5. “Balloon graph” representing quality (y graph) and quantity (x graph) of the United States economy for various fuels at various times. Arrows connect fuels from various times (i.e. domestic oil in 1930, 1970, 2005), and the size of the “balloon” represents part of the uncertainty associated with EROI estimates.
(Source: US EIA, Cutler Cleveland and C. Hall’s own EROI work in preparation)

dude that graph makes me so sad

ha, which part(s) of it?

the lack of effort ... looks like they just made some random-sized circles w/ text in them, c+p'd them into the graph and them resized them all willy-nilly

spend more than ten minutes on the graph OR get an intern who can figure out omnigraffle or whatever

lol

i thought you were going to be all bummed about the difficulty of kicking the coal habit within 20-30 years (which, we pretty much have to do to avoid the worst impacts of climate change) given the relatively high EROEI of coal and the huge chunk of our energy portfolio that it serves.

but yeah, it's very possible that chart was made in MS Paint. the shapes and sizes of the circles have meaning, though - they represent uncertainty on both axes, in terms of the EROEI on the Y axis and the quantity of energy provided on the X axis.

it's not the size/shape of the "circles" that bums me out ... it's the fact that they should have put the text on afterward, not before! also poor choice of font and font size.

obviously what you are talking about is a *gigantic* bummer but i was acquainted with the magnitude of that bummer before i saw that chart

i have a question about that EROI - which externalities does it include?

probably the right ones, those dudes seem like they have pretty good credentials

i have a question about that EROI - which externalities does it include?

the methodology and the availability of good data differs for each energy source, but in general, EROEI can be defined as "the energy that one obtains from an activity compared to the energy it took to generate that energy. The procedures are generally straightforward; simply divide the Energy Gained (Out) by the Energy Used (In), resulting in a unitless ratio."

for externalities, they try to simplify things a bit by calculating EROEI at the extraction stage (for fossil fuels). For example, in one of Cutler Cleveland's studies (a leading EROEI dude, and cited underneath the terrible MS Paint graph), he says:

The EROI for petroleum and coal is calculated at the extraction stage of the resource transformation
process. Only industrial energies are evaluated: the fossil fuel and electricity used directly and indirectly
to extract petroleum. The costs include only those energies used to locate and extract petroleum and
prepare it for shipment from the lease. Transportation and refining costs are excluded from this analysis.

ok so that's a best case scenario

heh, pretty much. one of the terrible aspects of being an energy realist is that even when people are already rolling their eyes at how pessimistic you are, you have that voice in the back of your head that says "and that's the OPTIMISTIC VIEW, actually!"

yeah it's one of those subjects where if you just give people the basic numbers and facts they'll think you're a conspiracy theorist

the other subject being the suburbs

imagine if they included health/environment externalities everything in that graph would be scaled down on the y-axis but how much?

well, i'm with you that the impacts to human health and the environment are the most important externalities of fossil fuels, but it wouldn't affect the Y-axis, which measures the energy return / energy invested. a ton of coal produces about 21 gigajoules of energy, regardless of whether or not it contributes to droughts, hurricanes, rising seas, asthma, etc.

that is gross energy return ... like what if we counted the energy expenditure related to irrigation after a drought?

i realize that is farfetched right now but i have a friend working on a phd measuring the "el nino effect" on flood insurance costs in california