Slashdot Mirror
MIT Says Natural Gas Best To Lower Carbon Emissions
eldavojohn writes "This week MIT released a comprehensive, hundred-page report entitled 'The Future of Natural Gas' that outlined the many scenarios the United States faces when aiming to reduce carbon emissions. From the New York Times recap: 'The scenario goes like this, according to MIT: Nuclear power, renewable energy, and carbon capture and sequestration are relatively expensive next to gas. Conventional coal is no longer a major source of power generation in the United States. "Natural gas is the substantial winner in the electric sector: The substitution effect, mainly gas generation for coal generation, outweighs the demand reduction effect."' Will this urging help to produce a policy shift from renewable energy (like wind) to natural gas for the United States?"
That's nice and all, but you should keep in mind how lots of places in the U.S. get their natural gas these days. Through phracking.
It's not a good thing. There are huge environmental concerns. Flamable drinking water, Neurotoxins and other poisons in drinking water. There's even a movie about it.
TFS says:
Conventional coal is no longer a major source of power generation in the United States.
I call shenanigans. Coal is the #1 energy producer in the US. The US gets 30% of it's power capacity and nearly 50 percent of it's produced power from coal. I would love for that to be different but that is the current state of affairs and it is unlikely to change soon since the US has large coal reserves and it is much cheaper to produce power using coal than any other current fuel.
Enigma
Too bad that extracting natural gas usually involves pumping massive quantities of toxic chemicals directly in to the ground.
Thanks to the incredibly corrupt Bush Administration, Fracking isn't even subject to the clean water act. The Halliburton Loophole, named after Dick Chaney's true employer, has allowed entire towns to be polluted beyond repair.
Thousands have been sickened by this polluted water. Pets are losing their hair. People are getting cancer. The water out of some homes' faucets is actually flammable!!
citation needed?
Natural Gas is mostly Methane. Since methane has the smallest ratio of carbon to hydrogen at 2 carbons, per 6 hydrogens, it is the best hydrocarbon to burn if you are trying to reduce carbon emissions.
Yeah, other sources produce no carbon, but they can't compete with Natural Gas's price.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Yep, right now you see natural gas electrical generation at peaking plants as they can come on-line very quickly.
For jump starting a conventional plant that would be called "black start capability" as most power plants do not have enough electrical generating capacity to bring the plant on-line. Natural gas powered plants and hydroelectric are also referred to as facilities that are "black start".
Tisha Hayes
The report is from the MIT Energy Initiative, which counts among its members: BP Technology Ventures, Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Total, Hess.
The Board of Advisors includes: "Tony Hayward Group Chief Executive, BP p.l.c."
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Watch Gasland.
These people:
"A major sponsor of the report is the American Clean Skies Foundation, a Washington think tank created and funded by the natural gas industry."
Sig this!
Please mod parent up. Gasland is a documentary on natural gas and completely relevant to this discussion.
Better check your sources...
Natural gas: 53.6 MJ/kg
Anthracite Coal: 32.5 MJ/kg
Bituminous Coal: 24 MJ/Kg
Natural gas has around twice the energy per gram of coal, depending on whether you're looking at Anthracite or Bituminous.
Now, it's tilted way the other way if you look at volume - Coal is 72.4 or 20 MJ/Liter, vs .0364 MJ/L or 9 if you compress it.
As John pointed out, Coal is mainly carbon. 'Natural Gas' is mainly Methane, or CH4.
C+O2 -> Energy +CO2
CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 Energy + 2 H2O + CO2.
Add in that NG plants can be more efficient than coal plants, 60+% vs ~30%, and you get a LOT less carbon dioxide from NG than coal.
I don't read AC A human right
This is such a bunch of FUD. Several UK studies show that very substantial carbon savings can arise from wind power even at 30% of total electricity provision.
The point about backup is that we have it already for existing plants; adding quite a bit of wind will have minimal impacts on this requirement, both in carbon and cost terms. Having substantial amounts of wind just means more intelligent load balancing from the grid operator, more flexible generation from existing fossil fuel/nuclear plant, and more demand management of consumption.
Again in the UK context, the Centre for Alternative Technology's recent Zero Carbon Britain report shows how the UK could fully decarbonise without gas by 2030 (though it would take quite radical action).
All taxicabs in the main cities in India run on Compressed Natural Gas. So do the public transport buses in many cities. It takes 800$ to convert a regular petrol burning to car to run on either petrol or CNG. Some individual owned cars all have also been converted. CNG prices are around 60% of petrol prices in India, so it takes a year or two (depending on how much you drive) to break even on your 800$ conversion cost.
From TFA:
That doesn't invalidate it, but it's important for readers to know and should probably be in the summary.
It proposes increased CNG use while ignoring the energy density and transportation issues.
It's among the easiest of fuels to transport as you can pipe it around easily and it doesn't have nearly as great a problem with groundwater contamination as heavier hydrocarbons. The energy density argument is rather bogus too; gas power plants are more efficient these days than oil or coal plants as they're run at much higher temperatures, and you don't transport it in the same way. One of the main ways in which the UK has reduced its carbon output over the past 2 decades has been by switching to producing electricity using gas, and this is despite the amount of electrical power required not decreasing (I think it's increased).
You would think, based on this, that natural gas is the be-all, end-all of fuels and is damn near perfect in every way. While it is lower carbon than coal, and slightly lower than oil, this is absolutely not the case. Effectively, this focuses on only the best aspects of gas and only the worst of nuclear and every other energy source. it uses the best case for gas and worst case for all others
OTOH, they can point to real case studies where the benefits are directly quantifiable. The technology exists now, and has done for decades; the kinks in it have been ironed out. It's definitely practical. (It also doesn't preclude investing in other technologies as well.)
Now, this should not surprise anyone: the major funding for this came almost entirely from the gas industry, who has recently been using heavy PR to cultivate a much "greener" image than it really is entitled to. The major funding and supporting agency is "The American Clean Skies Foundation." This foundation is funded almost exclusively by Chesapeake Energy corporation - one of the largest natural gas producers in the US. YES, THAT'S RIGHT - THIS WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY A GAS COMPANY
You'd rather it was funded by the nuclear industry? Or the RIAA maybe? (Powering America on the burning ambitions of a generation of artists!!) Seriously, while you're absolutely right to be careful of what they say, you can't just reject it out of hand because there actually is evidence that it is better (i.e., more flexible, cheaper, more efficient per ton of CO2, etc. There's quite a few metrics.) The companies involved think they can make money (duh!) and serve some other goals at the same time. To claim that their natural financial interest makes them ineligible to say anything on the topic just marks you out as one of the Loony Left (or perhaps the Raving Right; I've lost track of which part of the political spectrum is currently claiming the forefront of rabid anti-corporatism at the moment).
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
wind, the need for 100% backup of generating capacity
SOURCE
I'll give you some sources to the contrary. please read.
http://www.no-fuel.org/index.php?id=242
http://130.226.56.153/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Not "petroleum", petrofuel.
Nuclear fuel is an extracted mineral. That's a rock. Greek for rock is "petro", which is why petroleum is called that: "rock oil". Nuclear fuel is a petrofuel. It's exhaustible, not renewable.
--
make install -not war
The DOE table you linked to runs from 2003-2007, as shown below. Not sure where you got the '08 number. One surprise for me at least, is that from '06 to '07, the percentage actually decreased. Looking at the chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USRenewableElectricity.jpg) that you provided, shows a continued downward swing in that percentage, which is likely due to our constantly increasing demand. One other thing that needs to be made clear is that hydroelectric currently makes up 5.74% of all the renewable energy in the U.S...and I suspect that won't be increasing since there's so much opposition to dams. So, if you take out hydro, the amount of energy that renewables are producing is much smaller.
Energy Source 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Renewable Energy 6.150 6.261 6.424 6.909 6.813
I attempted to look further into the comments about CA, but some of the references on Wikipedia didn't work. http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/EC_Fact_Sheets/Factoid20.pdf for example.
Just another day in Paradise
Renewables already constituted 7.4% of US energy consumption [doe.gov] by 2008
Well, following a link from the DoE source you cite, the picture is a bit less clear. Of the 6.813 quadrillion BTUs (sorry non US readers, for the non SI units, but it is from a US Gov't. website) attributed to "renewable" energy, 53% comes from biomass and 36% comes from hydroelectric dams. Of the remainder, wind energy accounts for 5% and solar for only 1%. America's hydroelectric capacity is pretty well tapped out -- not to mention the political pressure from environmental groups to prevent new dam building and to actually tear down functioning dams. The majority of the biomass consumption is the burning of wood for heat. Not a bad idea, where applicable, but wood is a poor source of heat for electricity generation and is useless for the transportation sector of our economy. Speaking of transportation, the second largest component of "biomass" energy consumption is biofuels -- largely corn-derived ethanol. Not too smart environmentally or economically speaking, but the farm states loves the subsidies...
When most people think of "renewable" energy, they're thinking solar panels and wind turbines. These energy sources accounted for (0.05 + 0.01)*0.074 = 0.0044 = 0.44% of the energy consumed in the US in 2007. Not so significant, really.
I think the term was...oh, yeah:
C L I M A T E G A T E?
People in this group are natural thinkers. Are we also natural forgettors?
Al Gore shows the two, seemingly identical charts on roll-arounds because he wants to hide a one fact, and create another: that CO2, per the fossil record and no one's opinion, actually COOLS the planet, not heats it. The 800-year delay is the data that gets lost because they're on different charts. After the ocean has been "hot" 800 years, the CO2 in the ocean is released in great quantity and resolves the problem.
Then we have all that "here's how we make this information up" discussions from a dozen various "science" outlets.
So who GIVES A SHIT about tuning for zero-carbon? I think we have much bigger problems.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Unfortunately, the information you link to undermines your case.
The most significant source of renewable power in the United States is hydroelectric power (it accounts for 67% of all renewable power in the US). The amount of hydroelectric power produced in 2008 is the same as it was in 1969.
From 2003 to 2008, the percentage of total power derived from renewables went from 6.26% to 6.70% - an increase of 7% over the course of 5 years. In terms of total energy, the only two renewable sources that showed big gains were biofuels (went from 4/10th of 1% to 1%) and wind (went from 1/10 of 1% to 3/10 of 1%). The biofuel component is mostly ethanol, which is highly controversial in terms of land use and energy return and unlikely to get significantly larger any time soon.
If you look beyond those 5 years, it's far more discouraging. Look at that hydroelectic chart again. In 1949, 30% of all the electricity used in the United States came from hydroelectric power. Today, it's 6%.
Your California numbers are just as bad. The vast bulk of renewables come from three sources - large scale hydro, small scale hydro and geothermal. All three are essentially either tapped out or have significant problems getting larger (you can't dam anything else and natural geothermal is largely tapped out - and injecting water into deep hot rocks has some significant geological dangers in a state full of fault lines).
I, too, want to move to a non-carbon economy. But even among the nerd-herd that is Slashdot, hardly anybody understands the sheer magnitude of power that is used to keep our 21st century civilization working. Wind has to grow 800% just to reach the current levels of hydroelectricity, and that's just 6% of electrical usage. And that hydropower is going to get smaller and smaller, as no one is creating new dams and existing dams are being shut down (for different environmental protection reasons). Land siting and usage issues, power transmission from places with good solar/wind potential to existing population centers, water problems - the list goes on and on.
"Significant" impact is decades away on a national scale. On a local scale, it can be transformative, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking we're 10 or 20 years away from being largely carbon-neutral. It simply can't happen - no matter how much we wish it were so. Best to just keep plugging away at it and being realistic and honest with the public - it's going to take a long time, but it can be done.
Re-read the DOE site.
Annual usage is ~20 TRILLION cubic feet. - 22,834,120 Million cubic feet is 22.8 Trillion.
Our proven reserves are only about 8 years worth, extended to ~50 years if you assume level use and that the unproven reserves(IE guesses) are accurate.
I don't read AC A human right
http://web.mit.edu/mitei/about/members.html
Mod parent up.
Although to add more detail than the AC had:
I haven't had an opportunity to read the MIT report, but the article summary indicates that it is describing a solution to lower carbon emissions.
We need to see the forest through the trees - who cares if it reduces carbon emissions if it poisons our water? There are numerous cases of groundwater aquifers becoming undrinkable shortly after gas drilling (specifically modern hydraulic fracturing drilling) began. The gas industry continues to defend themselves by saying there is "no conclusive evidence" - But how is it that multiple towns have perfectly drinkable water for decades and then the water becomes undrinkable (saturated with pollutants including methane itself - some people near drilling sites can light their tapwater on fire.) within a year or two of drilling operations commencing?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I'd guess you've never seen or experienced a superinsulated residence.
I guess you've never paid for one. Just because these exist, doesn't make them a good idea. Economically, there are diminishing returns from insulating your house and at some point the cost of insulating a house is going to exceed the value gained. My view is that current insulation of homes in the US is pretty close to that sweet spot. I'm not surprised that Germany is further along. They have a combination of higher real estate prices, longer winters, and ideological distortion of the energy markets that encourage more insulation in homes. There, the sweet spot would be a more insulated home. Not necessarily a so-called "superinsulated" residence though.
If energy prices continue to climb, then that eventually will be incentive to build these sorts of homes. I think however, that energy cost is ultimately capped by things like nuclear power and solar power which at worst won't go up significant in cost. So we're probably not going to see significantly higher energy costs in the future unless politics somehow plays a role (as it did in Europe).
The fact that most of the US does not have long winters cripples your argument. Sure there's a lot of underinsulated homes and apartments, but the superinsulated home doesn't work out all that well when it's dumping heat to a hot, moist environment. A regular home with a light roof gets most of that benefit without the extra cost.
Finally, it doesn't take much damage to a superinsulated home to disrupt the internal environment. Lose a window and the "small supplement" of heating isn't going to keep up, even if you board up the window while waiting for another triple pane. Maybe the homes you build come with ample heating systems already, but my experience with home builders is that they put in the minimum of such things that they can. Regular homes, because they have to be engineered with beefier heating/cooling systems, are more forgiving of such circumstances. It's not the end of the world, but you might end up with frozen pipes or dead plants.
planned air intake and exhaust with a heat exchanger
I'd be interested in learning more about this aspect. Ventilation is a key problem with such homes and it is good to hear that there are ready, off the shelf solutions. I also might be able to use such things for other purposes.