another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

I would be fine with eliminating both energy and agri subsidies completely. The marketplace will decide what is important. But then the EPA comes along and mandates a technology, and research into [possibly better] alternatives stops.

The EPA must stop telling people how to reach goals, tell us the damn targets and get the hell out of the way. EPA mandates ethanol (or a hundred other technologies), farmers say that they can't meet the mandated demand without serious capital investment so Congress gives them a subsidy, the refineries have a mandate to add ethanol and it just doesn't matter that they have another oxegenator that costs less and does a better job without the side effects of a hydrophillic liquid, but the EPA has mandated corn-ethanol.

In a rational world, the EPA would just go the hell away set CO and NOX limits at vehicle tailpipes and let the marketplace meet the limits or face sanctions. If ethanol was the answer, then the price of ethanol would become an incentive to make it, and so on. If ethanol were absolutely the best chemical to use for this function, then I'm betting there is a way to synthesize it from natural gas instead of from farmland. The marketplace would have done that without the subsidies if the playing field were level.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[beej67]

I don't personally think that CO2 is the only source of warming. Possibly not even the primary source. But if it is, then we already have a highly technically advanced way to generate carbon neutral fuel from nothing but sunlight, water, and atmospheric carbon, without spending any energy to produce it.

They're called trees.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[moltenmetal]

Regrettably we could never grow enough trees to satisfy our current energy demand, even for stationary uses. Remember that both coal and the car were solutions to environmental problems originally. Coal reduced deforestation from firewood demand, and cars took away the horse effluent and dead horses from the major cities.

We can definitely reduce our energy demand- drastically. But we won't do it unless and until energy costs more. I agree with most of David's post above- except that I think we need to add an effluent tax to deter wasteful consumption and to provide a fund to help people reduce their consumption. People don't actually like spending a significant fraction of their income on energy, but they do like what energy does for them. We need to help them achieve their desired results with less energy, since all energy production and consumption has effects on people not involved in either the production or consumption.

 

[cranky108]

I am more than willing to try to work from home (and not drive so much), however the communications system is not available at a reasonable cost. Just maybe if I wasen't still paying for the Spanish-Ameriacn war the cost of communications would be in a more reasonable price range.

Here's the problem: Any new power source, communications source, or way of making money that dosen't incure enough taxes, will soon be over taxed to the point it is of no advantage over the other technologies.
Basically said, I burn fossel fuels because it is of no advantage for me to not do so. The cost of working from home, and educating my children at home is more than the fossel fuels.
To have an impact on my consumption you need lower taxes and more availability on and of communications. But the goverment can't support that because it needs the money to give to other people.

 

[zdas04]

Moltenmetal,
I think that this is the closest you and I have ever come to agreement. Guess we both had to make an effort to leave out loaded terms.

In principle, we are already paying effluent taxes (my water bill has a line item for waste disposal, it is tied to water usage and is not a small number since the majority of my water usage is irrigation).

In Oil & Gas we generate a LOT of water associated with production, some of it is discharged directly into rivers (it meets EPA effluent standards). This water came from formations inaccessible by agriculture or municipalities (too deep and too much associated hydrocarbons), so adding it to the rivers is actually creating a resource that benefits the biosphere. Sometimes we have to spend considerable money to get the water to an appropriate quality (we can't inject ultra-pure water, we can't inject hot or cold water, etc). Would an additional tax benefit the planet or would it drive people to do the less expensive deep-well injection? I don't know that answer to that question, but I always ask it in projects. The answer is often "if I'm going to be vilified for anything that I do, what do I have to do to exactly meet the EPA requirements and nothing more?" Not my favorite answer, but certainly an understandable answer. I would like to see an accommodation between the interested parties that would allow solutions to these problems that have both longevity and sustainability. The biggest roadblock in the way of rational behavior is the e-NGO's hard-line position. In too many cases the e-NGO's seem to be fighting the battles of the 1960's and not adjusting to the huge strides that have been made in the last 60 years. So much more could get done if we could talk to each other without the threat of a law suit hanging over every conversation.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

Some how I think it more a matter of, we don't like the answer, so we will ignore the facts. Yes I choose to ignore the fact that traffic colming is better for me (however those fact drtails have never been offered).

Why is it that the hard line positions seem to come from people who have no idea how to solve a problem. The rest of us are concerned about where we live, but we are willing to make a trade off for a better living position. And it is true we need to reevaluate it from time to time, but the solutions always seem to be some goverment croney getting richer.

 

[rb1957]

"Regrettably we could never grow enough trees to satisfy our current energy demand" ... i wasn't suggesting that trees would solve (or even contribute significantly to) out energy needs. i was suggesting trees as a means to reduce atmospheric CO2; although i thought that bio-mass contains only a small portion of the earth's carbon.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[moltenmetal]

David, we agree more than you think. I'm an escapee from environmental engineering, and like you I now work on front-end solutions. For me personally I am absolutely assured that I do more good for the planet as a result of my front-end work than I ever did working at the end of the pipe or dealing with historical contamination.

There are many environmental issues which are politically impossible to solve despite having perfectly reasonable, feasible technological solutions. The "do nothing" approach is always viewed as zero risk against any "do-something" approach that involves the use of a technology such as incineration. Shockingly, this seems to be less true in Europe on some issues: for instance, they permit the incineration of chlorinated wastes in cement kilns there, which to me makes excellent sense. The poor bastards exposed to PCBs after the Ste. Basile la Grande warehouse fire in Quebec learned that one the hard way: local people fought the incineration of the PCBs, but storage in that case was far worse in terms of impact to people than it would have been to use even 1950s incineration technology to destroy those materials.

There are other instances where the do nothing approach is absolutely the most sensible thing- fortunately, that applies to a great many petroleum-impacted sites now, whereas 20 or 30 years ago we spent billions trying to remediate them- a process which in many cases was happening naturally anyway. A friend of mine recently showed me a calculation which compared the 1/1,000,000 cancer risk from a particular contaminated site against the risk of increased traffic fatalities associated with the truck traffic required to haul the impacted soil offsite- the road risk was over 4 orders of magnitude worse.

The e-NGOs are definitely part of the problem, but the problem is broader than that. The prevailing public attitude is that all technical people are fundamentally suspect. There's a long social memory out there on these issues, and there are of course occasional instances of gross negligence or worse that reinforce the underlying suspicion.

I've seen several anti-fracking documentaries that are so distorted in their point of view on the issues that I literally couldn't finish watching them. When I consider the (tiny) risks associated with the hydraulic fracturing of shales for natural gas, against the rather obvious and enormous environmental impact of mining and burning coal, it just makes my blood boil.

We do have effluent taxes for many wastes- sewage, landfill etc., but they're only really intended to recover the costs of treatment (or storage in the case of landfill)- they're not intended to deter emissions, though they do to some degree as do all costs. We don't have emission taxes on water or air emissions per se: instead we set limits on the concentration of particular harmful contaminants. We can't set a limit on CO2 concentration in emissions, so we need to do something else, and a tax on the source fuels is the simplest and the hardest to cheat. Government should gradually put those taxes in place, gradually increase them, and then let the market sort out the best way to solve the problem. If the new tax revenue is spent helping people and businesses make the capital investments necessary to reduce their fuels consumption, all the better.

 

[cranky108]

The whole problem with any tax based solution is that the goverment always wants more tax revenue, so the taxes always end up unfairly balanced. The schools need more money so that test scores can be made lower. The whole problem is accountability in the goverment. I pay road taxes here, and the money is spent on the governers driveway.

I don't disagree that fracking has some risk, or that natural gas is a lower carbon fuel. If anything I disagree with is that the issues that have developed with fracking have not been fixed properly, because if they had we would not be hearing the issues in the public. The fact with fracking is the few issues that develop are being swept away as minor, and not being fixed.

Coal does have it's issues also, but the coal companies seem to be doing a better job of fixing the issues at the mining sites (in the public perception). However coal is also used in the manufacture or some plastics, and the production of some steel (like used for wind farms), as well as most of it used for power generation. It's not all bad, so a hard line position is just mistaken.

What needs to happen is better technology, however the public does not trust it, and if you look at the public outcry agenst nucular energy, it would be the same for any new technology.
The public is agenst new technology, but look at the rise of cell phones?? Makes one wonder.

Here's a suggestion, if coal plants can be refitted with new burners, many can burn gas, but at the present time coal is less expencive. So maybe we need cheeper gas so it can compete.

 

[KENAT]

"Here's a suggestion, if coal plants can be refitted with new burners, many can burn gas, but at the present time coal is less expencive. So maybe we need cheeper gas so it can compete."

I thought gas was competing quite well lately in the US.

I still kind of feel large scale use of NG for stationary power generation is a bit of a waste, and it would be nice if the US could look at what happened with the 'UK dash for gas' though there are definite differences.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

Moltenmetal,
If Jimmy Carter's response to the Oil Embargo had been a small tax on motor fuels that escalated with inflation (without Congressional posturing every year), then the US would look much different today. Back then there were a dozen out-of-control sprawls in the country that probably were not salvageable, but the next tier of city size were at a cusp where they could build freeways or light rail. The low cost of motor fuel made that decision easy, and wrong for the long term. It made mega-malls economic. It created super markets. It created Wal-Mart style shopping. It made suburbs "reasonable". It killed inner cities and made the concept of walking to the market impossible. Instead we have an economy absolutely dependent upon motor fuels to an extent that would be impossible to unravel at this point. We are not going to put that genie back into that particular bottle. Today motor fuels in the U.S. are so inexpensive that the problem just keeps getting worse and the suburbs keep getting farther out (I talked to a guy a while back who was commuting from Chula Vista [south of San Diego] to Downey [LA Basin] every day to work). Gasoline should be around $10/US gallon and we are bitching about $4. I would prefer for the extra $6 to go to producers, but could live with it going into the insatiable Federal maw (if the producers got $200/bbl, drilling would explode and drive prices back down, unfettered supply and demand doesn't care about "energy policy", but then neither does Congress).

As to taxing effluent to control GHG, I'm currently working with the API to help companies comply with the new SubPart W of the Clean Air Act. My read is that the last inventory (that the regulation was based on) had an uncertainty band of something like +/-75%. Complying with the new law should push that to something like +/-90%. No one in the EPA will ever be able to process the terabytes of data they are requiring and the producers are not able to develop a format that is consistent from division to division within a single company let alone across a company or an industry. I'm pretty good at dealing with large data sets, but the preliminary data I'm looking at is incomprehensible to me, so I expect the EPA to grab the 20% that is usable and develop policy based on that. Oh yeah, the only people that know there is a deadline in February, 2014, are the large companies that participate in organizations like API. I have clients that are a lot smaller that have never heard of it, don't want to hear it from me, and will wait until they are caught to anything at all.

Cranky108,
There has never been a case of frac fluid contaminating an aquifer. The case in Pennsylvania that Josh Fox made such a big deal out of was fabricated data. Made up out of whole cloth. When the EPA took several samples over a year with a proper chain of custody the water met all potable water standards. When the EPA asked for a copy of the report that was referenced in Fox's propaganda film they were thrown out of the people's house. The case in Wyoming was the same thing. Unscrupulous environmental fanatics (there are several redundancies in that phrase) fabricated a story, Thieves with cameras broadcast the fabricated data without verification, but with a lot of volume. The media knows that controversy sells papers and advertising so they ran with it. Whores in Congress pandered to the lie and we have a "controversy" around 70 year old technology that is well developed and safe.

The government could do two things: (1) stop the insanity around frac'ing; and (2) repeal the STUPID anti-export regulations on hydrocarbons that arose from the oil embargo. Those two things would eliminate the trade deficit in the first year, eliminate the budget deficit within 2 years, pay off the national debt within a decade. Simple right? Not going to happen because it would increase the cost of domestic natural gas from around $4/MSCF at the wellhead to something like $7/MSCF at the wellhead, and increase home heating by 40% and electricity by 15% (while motor fuel costs would go down). Our Congress-whores lack the political will to allow that so it takes 20 years to permit an LNG terminal, and then another 10 years to get an export license.

KENAT,
I looked up "Dash for Gas" (I'd never heard of it) and can't see the problems in a quick read. Care to elaborate.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[KENAT]

Zdas so it seems the term 'dash for gas' might be getting re used but I was referring to the massive increase in NG power plants during the 90's in the UK. If I recall/understand correctly (possibly too big of an assumption) the dash for gash took off just as North Sea/ domestic gas production was starting to peak and increased demand essentially led to Britain needing to start importing NG. This at a time when coal industry was being run down in what was perceived by many as at least in part revenge for the miners strike of the 80's. There are a bunch of factors including pollution and AGW concerns over coal and the effect of privatization of the Electrical utilities.

Basic implication is that the people making the decisions were mainly looking short term not long - medium term.

A quick google search now has me a bit less confident in what I originally implied, though using so much NG for stationary power generation when there are alternatives still seems potentially a little wasteful.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[SomptingGuy]

Would it be childish of me to titter at KENAT's unfortunate typo?

- Steve

 

[cranky108]

zdas, good to know. That is exactly the type of information that should be in the other media.
My experence is not with fracking to speak of, but more of failures in natural gas storage facilities (not experences but cases I know of). One in the middle of Kansas where the gas seeped into the water table, the other had to do with gas explosions in Hutchinson Kansas from over pressure of equipment and seepage.

In the first case the solution was the company bought out most of the town. Sort of looks strange now, two houses, a grain elevator, and the gas storage facility.

The second case from what I read was from failure to inspect, and keep records of equipment, and with a rush to increase capacity.

KENAT, most of the newer natural gas generation plants being built today are of a shorter life design than the older coal, or simular made natural gas generation. And with current accounting practices they will be kept on the books for the same 30 years, so I believe we will have a problem in a number of years with generation on the books, but can't perform.

While true enough gas turbins are more efficent, and are quicker to build, they just don't have the life expectency of the old steam plants. The other problems in part of the US is that the derates for other than sea level operation, and very cold tempeture can really have an impact. We go through that yearly as to what is the real capacity that we can expect.

Another factor is the rush for land fill gas, which is of a lower quality because of the sulfur compounds, tends to eat generation equipment very quickly.

 

[TheTick]

Temperature has risen but leveled off. Ice caps shrinking. No mention of latent heat?

 

[KENAT]

OK Sompting, my dyslexia must be in full flow or I should have studied more for my spelling & grammar tests but...

What typo am I missing when I re-read my post?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

A movie called Fracnation was produced to try to bring out the facts about Frac'ing that "GasLand" glossed over, misrepresented, and outright lied about. It was on an obscure TV channel in January 2013. You can buy it at the link above. It is amazingly well done. The impact of that outstanding movie has been approximately zero (HBO even commissioned Josh Fox to do "Gasland II" which made me consider canceling my HBO subscription). I wish I knew how to get the facts out. Anything from API or SPE would be ignored as "industry propaganda". Truth doesn't have much access to the mainstream media unless you have film of people dying.

Pretty much any class of industrial accident that has ever happened in the world has also happened in the Oil & Gas industry. We've done some amazingly stupid things in the last 150 years. Some [hopefully different] amazingly stupid things are still going on to this day. But frac'ing is not one of them.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[ewh]

KENAT,

"... the dash for gash took off..."

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[rb1957]

"the dash for gash" ... i liked it too ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[KENAT]

Wow, I read it like 3 times and didn't see that - oops.

So many puns that could upset so many people.:-(

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​