A scary strategic problem - no oil

[cupper]

This isn't really all that new an idea.

I remember from my previous building technology courses that some of the concepts discussed in the article are used in design of commercial buildings to reduce energy consumption.

For example, take your typical suburban shopping mall (where the storefronts are mainly accessed from within the main building, as opposed to a strip mall where you have a bunch of stores built adjacent to each other, all with individual external access). Much of the mechanical and service corridors are on the perimeter of the building, with the stores and public areas internal to the perimeter corridors. This provides a separation between the climate controlled public areas and the exterior walls, reducing the heat transfer directly to the outside. Further zoning of the HVAC systems allows energy consumption to be controlled by cutting back on heating / cooling in unused areas or stores, and adjusting for higher occupancy areas. You also see this in office high rises with a central HVAC plant / system.

 

[a_majoor]

True, the idea of an air gap for insulation is not really new. What these experiments are getting at is to transfer the heat energy from the "air gap" into the central living area. Since the air will be somewhat warmer than outside air (which is where heap pumps usually draw their energy from), then the energy savings are expected to be quite large.

On a re read, I'm not sure how keen people would be to have the dining room or spare bedrooms at 50C, and of course any energy savings will be eliminated when guests arrive and actually want to use the spare bedrooms. This is why I suggested that this may be more practical in public or government buildings, where the work space can be cocooned and the machinery and storage spaces used to buffer the system and act as the energy reservoir for the heat pump.

 

[cupper]

Here is an example of how the interrelationship of the energy sector and the food sector effects prices in ways you wouldn't think. An extreme take on the whole supply vs demand equation. Although not as significant as corn based ethanol as a fuel additive, it does make one think over their ice cream.

How fracking affects a bean grown in India

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/how-fracking-affects-bean-grown-india

Many people may not know what guar gum is, but chances are they've put it in their mouths or on their hair. Guar gum is made out of the seed and it’s used to thicken things like ice cream, shampoo and paper. It’s also a key ingredient in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the controversial oil drilling process.

Frackers inject guar gum into cracks in the earth, after they blast into shale rock miles underground.

"You have to have something to keep it open," says Kelly Youngblood, director of investor relations at Halliburton, one of the biggest frackers in the world. "You can fracture the earth and open it up, but, over time, the earth will settle and all the channels that you have created will essentially close."

As fracking took off, so did guar gum prices. Then there was a bad harvest in India, the guar gum capital. Guar gum went from about a $1 a pound in 2010 to $12 earlier this year. Halliburton’s profits took a hit and the company took action.

"We went out and bought a significant supply, a strategic reserve of guar," says Youngblood, "to make sure that we didn’t run out."

The global supply of guar gum got even tighter and prices got even higher. That’s when market forces stepped in, says Dan Manternach, agriculture services director for Doane Advisory Services in St. Louis.

"High prices are the best cure for high prices," he says, quoting an economic adage. "High prices discourage consumption and encourage production."

True to form, farmers planted guar like crazy just as companies like Halliburton started developing cheaper substitutes. Supply soared, demand fell. And, just as quickly as guar gum prices spiked, they dove.

"Prices are now regressing to where they were just a few years ago," says oil trader and analyst Stephen Schork.

Guar gum is now cheaper than the substitute Halliburton developed -- at least for now.

For those who are wondering what guar gum is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guar_gum

 

[a_majoor]

China has a huge amount of shale gas. The question is can it be extracted in an economical manner. The usual gerfluncting to the church of global warming at the end of the article should not distract us from the essential points being made here. An energy secure China will reduce a lot of internal tensions and worries, and at the same time undercut both Russia and other Middle Eastern countries by lowering prices of natural gas world wide:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/508146/china-has-plenty-of-shale-gas-but-it-will-be-hard-to-mine/

China Has Plenty of Shale Gas, But It Will Be Hard to Mine

The country aims to use computer simulations to overcome significant challenges in extracting shale gas.

    By Kevin Bullis on December 11, 2012

Why It Matters

If China can produce large amounts of natural gas, this might slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions.

The discovery of vast amounts of shale gas in the United States has already had a big impact on the country’s energy use—prompting a shift away from coal and helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see “A Drop in U.S. CO2 Emissions” and “King Natural Gas”). By some estimates, China has even more shale gas. But it will be difficult for China to access these resources, which are bound up in shale rock, without significant advances in extraction technologies—including the use of powerful computer simulations of the physical properties of shale deposits.

China has set itself an ambitious goal of obtaining 60 billion cubic meters of shale gas by 2020, enough to produce about 6 percent of all of its energy, up from almost none today. But China faces a number of challenges in developing these resources. Most of the gas is found in arid areas, and the current approach for freeing the gas—hydraulic fracturing—requires a lot of water. What’s more, the geology is different in China than in the United States, which could make hydraulic fracturing more difficult.

“China has a lot of natural gas in shale,” says Julio Friedmann, chief energy technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “But we don’t know how much of that gas they can produce, and what’s necessary to get it out of the ground; we don’t know how much it will cost to produce.”

New fracking techniques could help. For example, ways to reduce water consumption are being developed in the United States, where some of the shale gas is in dry areas, such as parts of Texas. New water treatment methods are making it possible to recycle more water (see “Can Fracking Be Cleaned Up?”). In the future, extremely fine particles that flow “like ball bearings” might replace much of the water used now, says Franz-Josef Ulm, a civil and environmental engineering professor at MIT. The particles could be pumped into a shale deposit under pressure to fracture the shale, along with just a small amount of liquid.

Addressing the differences in geology will likely require a much better understanding of the specifics of each formation—such as temperatures, pressures, mineral composition, and the way organic materials interact with the rock. “Whenever you talk about gas shale, every area is completely different. Each gas play has its own features, depending on its geologic history,” Ulm says. For example, shale rock in China tends to contain considerably more clay than the shale in much of the U.S., and clay deforms rather than fractures under pressure. The amount of clay in some shale deposits in China may be small enough that the rock can be fractured simply by increasing the hydraulic pressure. Where that doesn’t work, new techniques may be required.

Ulm is developing computer simulations that can predict the behavior of shale rock from the interactions of different minerals and organic materials in a deposit. The simulations suggest that injecting solvents into a formation to dissolve specific organic materials that act as glue could reduce the amount of pressure needed for fracking, Ulm says. But such an option should be a last resort because the chemicals could be dangerous, he notes.

Ulm’s simulations also suggest potentially easier ways to improve the efficiency of shale gas extraction. Since temperature, pressure, and geology vary with depth, in some cases precisely selecting the depth of a well could be enough to free previously inaccessible gas, Ulm says. Injecting carbon dioxide or heating up the formation with steam—as is done now with tar sands in Canada—could also help.

But even if such techniques prove successful, it is unlikely that producing and using shale gas will have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions in China, as least in the next several years, Friedmann says. China lacks a pipeline infrastructure to carry natural gas from western China, where most shale gas is, to the population centers in the east to be burned in power plants instead of coal. Instead it’s likely to be used first for chemical production. Friedmann estimates that even so, emissions from coal consumption are likely to be reduced by 100 to 150 million tons a year, since coal is now used to produce some chemicals in China. But China is estimated to produce over 9,000 million tons of greenhouse gases a year, and that number is expected to grow substantially.

“If shale gas production scales up in China, we’ll get some offsets of produced coal. But it’s not a panacea for [addressing] climate [change],” he says.

 

[a_majoor]

As more and more North American oil production hits the market, we will see the further eroson of OPEC, and secondary effects on other oil producers like Russia and the 'Stans. How this will play out is interesting to contemplate; these nations will have fewer resources while the United States will have a much better cash flow and balance of payments in the years and decades to come:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/12/us-energy-boom-deals-blow-to-opec/

US Energy Boom Deals Blow to OPEC

The members of OPEC meet in Vienna this week with nothing major to discuss. Despite economic uncertainty and political turmoil in the Middle East, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel, and production has not wavered far from the quota of 30 million barrels per day in quite some time.
But OPEC workers had to hustle to maintain the calm. In particular Saudi Arabia, which has the most flexibility in production, has revved it up to a 30-year high this year. If not for this increase, sanctions against Iran might have administered a severe shock to oil supply. In the past, Saudi Arabia has been happy to play the role of swing producer, but the FT reports that those days may be quickly coming to an end. Saudi Arabia is thinking of stepping back in 2013, when OPEC will likely face additional issues:

The Saudis’ zeal is now moderating. Figures published by Opec on Tuesday showed that the kingdom cut its crude production to its lowest level this year, pumping 9.5m b/d in November, significantly less than its June high and 230,000 b/d less than in October.
Analysts warn that monthly production figures can show seasonal fluctuations. But the numbers do appear to indicate that Riyadh is running its own production policy, with little reference to Opec.

Prices have stayed strong for much of this year, but Saudi is now adjusting production to slowing global demand growth and a big jump in domestic US crude output thanks to the shale boom. In 2013, the risks might be harder to manage.

It’s the last point here that’s most important. Saudi’s are cutting back their production for a number of reasons, but high among them are the oil and gas reserves in North America, many of which are only now beginning to come online.

This is the beginning of a trend. The American energy boom is already changing Saudi thinking regarding its own oil reserves, and OPEC’s influence is in an even more advanced stage of decline. Divisions within the cartel and the threat of competition from “vast” North American reserves pose a serious threat to a tight-knit organization that isn’t used to external competition. And as its influence wanes, the remaining members will begin to compete for portions of a continually shrinking pie, weakening the organization’s cohesion and further reducing its influence.

It will take time for the full effects of the shale boom to fully manifest themselves, but even at this very early stage OPEC can feel its power slipping away. The rest of the world will do its best to contain its sorrow.

 

[a_majoor]

The only thing "Green" about this is the money. Considering the flood of money being spent by governments on so called "green" energy, the field is ripe for scams like this. Soylendra anyone?:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/19/mystery-biodiesel-train-credits.html

Biofuel credits behind mystery cross-border train shipments
Back and forth shipments prompt accusation of fraud, EPA and CBSA probes
By John Nicol and Dave Seglins, CBC News
Posted: Dec 19, 2012 4:58 AM ET
Last Updated: Dec 19, 2012 10:47 AM ET

Biodiesel rail shipments that went back and forth across the Sarnia-Port Huron border were part of a deal that made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program Cross-border train shipment fraud?

CN's $2.6M mystery U.S. trips never unloaded biodiesel

The mystery of the trainload of biodiesel that crossed back and forth across the Sarnia-Port Huron border without ever unloading its cargo, as reported by CBC News, has been solved.

CBC News received several tips after a recent story about a company shipping the same load of biodiesel back and forth by CN Rail at a cost of $2.6 million in the summer of 2010. It turns out the shipments were part of a deal by a Toronto-based company, which made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program.

The entire U.S. biodiesel market has been the centre of controversy and even legislative hearings this summer over problems with the regulatory program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The fallout and distrust of a market-based biodiesel credit system has had several repercussions for the industry, particularly for fledgling biodiesel companies trying to produce environmentally friendly fuel. The recent CBC reports on that train to nowhere have prompted an investigation by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), as well as a further investigation by the EPA.

The company that organized the train shipment was Bioversel Trading Inc. of Toronto. Its principal, Arie Mazur, gave CBC a detailed explanation this week explaining that the trip was all about RINs — renewable identification numbers — the credits set up by the EPA to promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

The complicated deal unfolded in the final two weeks of June 2010.
Train records used to generate millions in RIN credits

Bioversel Trading hired CN Rail to import tanker loads of biodiesel to the U.S. to generate RINs, which are valuable in the U.S. because of a "greening" policy regulating the petroleum industry. The EPA's "Renewable Fuel Standard" mandate that oil companies bring a certain amount of renewable fuel to market, quotas they can achieve through blending biofuel with fossil fuel or by purchasing RINs as offsets.

Because RINs can be generated through import, the 12 trainloads that crossed into Michigan would have contained enough biodiesel to create close to 12 million RINs. In the summer of 2010, biodiesel RINs were selling for 50 cents each, but the price soon fluctuated to more than $1 per credit.

Once "imported" to a company capable of generating RINs, ownership of the biodiesel was transferred to Bioversel's American partner company, Verdeo, and then exported back to Canada. RINs must be "retired" once the fuel is exported from the U.S., but Bioversel says Verdeo retired ethanol RINs, worth pennies, instead of the more valuable biodiesel RINs. Bioversel claims this was all perfectly legal.

However, one of the companies Bioversel approached to be the ‘importer of record’—Northern Biodiesel Inc. of Ontario, N.Y. — discovered that the same fuel was going back and forth across the border and the same gallons were being used to repeatedly generate new RINs under their company’s name. The company called the EPA and also sent a letter that would become an open letter to the biodiesel industry, accusing Bioversel of “trying to perpetrate a fraud against NBI and the Renewable Fuel Standard program.”

The EPA, which has a buyer beware policy for oil companies that buy RINs, did not act immediately, and the industry has been begging for it to play the role of sheriff on this case and others. The EPA won’t comment on continuing investigations, but insiders said the case is still under investigation.
Trust in US biodiesel credits shaken

Many observers of the Bioversel deal of 2010 doubt the RINs repeatedly generated on the same gallons of fuel are legal.

Invalid RINs

Since 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified more than $100 million in invalid RINS and accused three companies of violating regulations:

    In June 2012, Rodney Hailey, CEO of Maryland-based Clean Green Fuel, was convicted of selling $9 million worth of fraudulent credits to traders and oil companies. Hailey used the money to buy jewelry, property and a fleet of 22 luxury cars; he was found guilty of wire fraud, money laundering and of violating the Clean Air Act.

    Two Texas companies also face similar accusations: Last week, Jeffrey Gunselman, head of Absolute Fuels, pleaded guilty to the sale of more than $40 million worth of invalid credits, the profits of which he’d spent on real estate, cars, a demilitarized tank and a personal jet. Gunselman faces a maximum sentence of up to 1,268 years in prison and a fine of nearly $20 million.

    This spring, Houston-based Green Diesel, helmed by Philip Rivkin, received a Notice of Violation from the EPA for allegedly generating 60 million fake RINS over a two year period. The investigation is ongoing.

"If the facts in your story bear out, there needs to be some people go to prison," said Joe Jobe, CEO of the U.S. National Biodiesel Board. “It’s not a victimless crime. [RIN fraud] has impacted the livelihoods and jobs of absolutely everybody in this industry, and it has cost the folks in the petroleum industry who have to comply with this, millions and millions of dollars and it has put small- and medium-sized biodiesel producers completely out of business.

    CN's $2.6M mystery U.S. trips never unloaded biodiesel

"We've taken this very seriously. I testified before the House energy oversight committee this summer. Congress has been whopping mad about [RIN fraud] as well.”

CBC has contacted the EPA repeatedly in recent days asking for an opinion on whether the Bioversel imports were legal. The agency has refused to comment.

Northern Biodiesel owner Bob Bechtold says his company’s role in the deal made it a victim. His firm agreed to act as importer to generate the RINs, but when the paperwork wasn’t forthcoming from Bioversel, one of his employees called CN Rail to find out what was happening at the border.

"All we got from [CN Rail] was that there was a curious thing happening, that there were a number of cars that just kept going back and forth across the Canadian border," he told CBC News. "When we started smelling something that was weird, we called the EPA, and notified them that this was happening, and then we called the company that we were doing this transaction with and said we’re not doing any more business with you."

Bechtold said Bioversel had a "fit."

"First they threatened us that we were breaking the contract," he said. "One person came here and tried to insist that I would be in a lot of trouble because of breaking the contract, and I assured him that I thought he would be in a lot more trouble if this continued. Then they offered to buy our company, which we thought was pretty absurd, and I basically sent him on his way."

In its letter to the EPA, Northern Biodiesel cautioned its RIN company codes had been compromised, alleging that Bioversel’s partner company, Verdeo, took its numbers and made up new RINs “as if the biodiesel has been blended into the U.S. transportation fuel stream and separated from the renewable fuel. Then they were illegally sold by Verdeo to parties obligated to acquire RINs by the Renewable Fuel Standard.”

    "One person came here and tried to insist that I would be in a lot of trouble because of breaking the contract, and I assured him that I thought he would be in a lot more trouble if this continued."—Bob Bechtold, Northern Biodiesel owner

Northern Biodiesel insisted the RINs issued were not valid because it had never received any bills of lading or chemical analysis reports from Verdeo, and thus Northern Biodiesel never reported/certified them with the EPA. However, millions of these RINs were sold in its name.

As a result, Northern Biodiesel RINs became tainted within the industry and Bechtold said that put him out of business.

"That was about the dumbest thing we ever did," said Bechtold about the letter and coming forward to the EPA. "We thought we were saving the industry, doing good to protect the industry, but it ended up being the kiss of death for us, because we are no longer able to participate in the field."

Beyond this case, the entire U.S. biodiesel RIN system has been plagued by problems, loopholes and even outright frauds. It has all undermined efforts to get U.S. industry to use more renewable fuels and has left big oil companies and other major fuel purchasers wary of smaller producers.
Biodiesel plant set for Welland, Ont.

Bioversel Trading told CBC News this week that everything it did was legal and insisted they never directly generated or sold RINS. The company also distanced itself from its partner Verdeo, even though one of Verdeo’s former names was Bioversel Trading (US), and Arie Mazur of Bioversel Trading (Canada) was a former director and executive of the US company.

Bioversel Trading of Toronto is at the centre of a probe by the European Union and the CBSA, which claims in search warrant documents (executed on their Toronto office last spring) that the firm is suspected of exporting American biodiesel to Romania and Italy while saying it was Canadian, to avoid huge duties. That would amount to violations of the Customs Act – but have never been proven. Bioversel Trading flatly rejects the CBSA allegations.

The Bioversel family of companies has changed its names in Canada and the U.S., and has also been embroiled in several lawsuits in the U.S. over its trading in biodiesel fuel.

One of the companies that shares the same Toronto office space, once known as Bioversel Sarnia Inc., is now known as Great Lakes Biodiesel (GLB), which is planning to open a biodiesel plant in Welland, Ont. Mazur’s lawyer said Mazur is no longer a director of Great Lakes but confirms Mazur is involved in Einer Canada, which is a shareholder of GLB.

If it opens in early 2013 and meets its production targets, Great Lakes Biodiesel is eligible for $65 million in Canadian government subsidies over the next five years under the federal eco energy biofuels incentive program.

Send tips to dave.seglins@cbc.ca and john.nicol@cbc.ca

 

[a_majoor]

Funding for artificial tornadoes? A Canadian company devises a new way to harness waste heat and other low quality energy:

https://www.breakoutlabs.org/news-events/news-event-item/article/power-a-city-with-tornados-latest-grants-announced-by-thiel-foundations-breakout-labs-includes-an.html

Power a City with Tornados? Latest Grants Announced by Thiel Foundation's Breakout Labs Includes an Unusual Twist

Canadian company, AVEtec, plans proof-of-concept test to extract energy from a man-made, controlled tornado

San Francisco - December 13, 2012 - The Thiel Foundation announced today three new grants awarded through Breakout Labs, its revolutionary revolving fund to promote innovation in science and technology. The most recent award takes the program into clean energy, with a bold new proposal to harness the power of atmospheric vortexes.

AVEtec is the brainchild of Canadian engineer, Louis Michaud. His Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE) harnesses the physics of tornados to produce extremely cheap and clean energy. In his design, warm or humid air is introduced into a circular station, where it takes the form of a rising vortex, i.e. a controlled tornado. The temperature difference between this heated air and the atmosphere above it supports the vortex and drives multiple turbines. The vortex can be shut down at any time by turning off the source of warm air.

Among its advantages over other sources of energy, AVE power generation neither produces carbon emissions nor needs energy storage. AVEtec projects that the cost of the energy it generates could be as low as 3 cents per kilowatt hour, making it one of the least expensive forms of energy production. An AVE power station could have a diameter of 100 meters and generate 200 megawatts of electrical power, the same order of magnitude as conventional coal power stations.

"The power in a tornado is undisputed," said Louis Michaud. "My work has established the principles by which we can control and exploit that power to provide clean energy on an unprecedented scale. With the funding from Breakout Labs, we are building a prototype in partnership with Lambton College to demonstrate the feasibility and the safety of the atmospheric vortex engine."

Additional Breakout Labs grants were also recently awarded to General Genomics and Siva Therapeutics. General Genomics uses ancestral DNA sequence reconstruction to radically improve the efficiency with which protein- and peptide-based therapeutics, as well as industrially-relevant enzymes, can be developed. Siva Therapeutics is developing therapies with the potential to be more effective, safer, less expensive, and less invasive by exploiting the biophysical properties of gold nanorods engineered to capture infrared light and emit heat that destroys diseased tissue.

"Our three newest grant recipients-AVEtec, General Genomics, and Siva Therapeutics-are vastly different in their technologies, company strategies, and goals," said Breakout Labs Executive Director, Lindy Fishburne. "What unites them is ground-breaking science coupled with the passion, vision, and creativity of their founders. We are delighted to bring them into the Breakout Labs community."

Launched in November 2011, Breakout Labs provides early-stage companies with the means to pursue their most radical goals in science and technology. To date Breakout Labs has awarded a total of twelve grants of up to $350,000 each. Breakout Labs accepts and funds proposals on a rolling basis.

Previous grants, announced earlier in the year, have been awarded to companies working on cultured meat, biomarker detection, brain reconstruction, reversible cryopreservation, human cell re-engineering, universal airborne contaminant detection, artificial protein therapeutics, and antimatter-based fuel. A summary of the 2012 Breakout Labs grant recipients is available at: https://www.breakoutlabs.org/recipients.html

"The world faces enormous challenges-resource scarcity, aging populations, economic mismanagement-and we need more visionary scientists and engineers like those at Breakout Labs making authentic discoveries and bringing world-changing products to market," said Thiel Foundation president Jonathan Cain. "We hope Breakout Labs inspires more investors to fund real innovation; more young people to pursue technology and entrepreneurship; and more nonprofits to foster risky, radical ideas."

ABOUT BREAKOUT LABS Breakout Labs, the newest program of the Thiel Foundation, does not make typical foundation grants-it is a revolutionary, revolving funding model through which successful projects fund the next generation of daring scientific exploration. Breakout Labs is reshaping the way early-stage science is funded, by providing support for young companies to advance their most radical ideas. Successful grantees will return a modest royalty and warrant stake to Breakout Labs and in this way, contribute to the next generation of scientific innovation. For more information, see www.BreakoutLabs.org.
ABOUT THE THIEL FOUNDATION

The Thiel Foundation defends and promotes freedom in all its dimensions: political, personal, and economic. The Thiel Foundation supports innovative scientific research and new technologies that empower people to improve their lives, champions organizations and individuals who expose human rights abuses and authoritarianism in all its guises, and encourages the exploration of new ideas and new spaces where people can be less reliant on government and where freedom can flourish. For more information, see www.ThielFoundation.org.

Return to News & Events

 

[a_majoor]

Yet another demonstration that the "Green" approach to science is situational. Notice the report is almost a year old, yeat has not officially seen the light of day, and it s quite possible that without the actions of this whistle blower it never would have been released, while politicians in New York continued to oppose and prevent fracking:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/05/fracking-safe-in-ny-state-says-leaked-report/

Fracking Safe in NY State, Says Leaked Report

Thanks to a leak from an anonymous insider, we learned Thursday that a report commissioned by the State of New York has given fracking a clean bill of health. The insider “did not think it should be kept secret” and released the document, which is now nearly one year old, to the New York Times, which reported:

The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York.

The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others…[that] delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”…[It] concludes that fracking can be done safely.

The analysis and other health assessments have been closely guarded by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and his administration as the governor weighs whether to approve fracking. Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, has long delayed making a decision, unnerved in part by strident opposition on his party’s left.
This is very good news. Contrary to green fears that fracking is a mortal danger to both humans and the environment, this report finds exactly the opposite, arguing that fracking “can be done safely within the regulatory system that the state has been developing for several years.” With the environmental concerns largely settled, the ground is now set for New York to claim its share of the energy revolution and the jobs and industry that come with it.

Unfortunately, the fact that the Cuomo Administration attempted to keep the report a secret suggests that Albany was nonetheless worried about a green backlash. And rightfully so: New York’s greens have responded to the leak with characteristic force:

Environmental groups have long complained that the state has refused to make documents about its health assessments public.

“The document itself is not a health impact study at all,” said Katherine Nadeau, the water and natural resources program director at Environmental

Advocates of New York, who has reviewed it. “As drafted it is merely a defense or justification as to why the administration didn’t do a rigorous study.”
Greens are quick to defend their climate change position with scientific evidence and have positioned themselves as a movement wedded to science. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that evidence is a flag of convenience for a movement that is rooted in emotion and passion far more than it likes to admit.

Let us hope that Governor Cuomo and his administration see this report for the good news that it is.

 

[a_majoor]

At last, an opportunity to make an almost one to one comparison between regular and hybrid vehicles. Since this hybrid is essentially hybrid technology grafted onto a stock vehicle (as you see in the article, companies like Toyota have interesting dodges like installing a different IC motor in the hybrid version of a regular name-plate, while ground up hybrids like the Prius have very little in common with other brands, making direct comparisons difficult), the benifits and downsides of hybrid technology are now clear for all to see:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/is-the-bmw-activehybrid7-worth-its-weight/

Is the BMW ActiveHybrid7 worth its weight?

David Booth | Jan 4, 2013 1:18 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 3, 2013 3:43 PM ET
More from David Booth | @MotorMouthNP

The 2013 BMW ActiveHybrid7 enjoys a 14% fuel consumption advantage when compared with the automaker’s basic 740, but does that make it worth its premium price?
   
Road Test: 2013 BMW ActiveHybrid7

Ottawa — What do hybrids do and whom do they benefit? As vague and obtuse as that open-ended query may seem, it isn’t a rhetorical question. After 15 years of rampant media hype and the creation of a sub-cult of electrified car acolytes, I still have the same question: Exactly what is it that hybrids accomplish and who benefits — or, more specifically, who benefits most — from their abilities.
Related

    BMW 3 Series hybrid has a sporty soul
    Motor Mouth: ‘Magical’ Tesla S is not our saviour
    Ford C-Max Hybrid: A case of mysterious fuel economy

Ostensibly, the answers would seem obvious. By partial electrification of an automobile’s powertrain, a hybrid system lessens the load on the gasoline engine at appropriate times, thus lessening fuel consumption. Ignoring the benefits of brake regeneration, the electric motor reduces the load on the gas engine while accelerating (when an internal combustion engine is at its least efficient) and recharges itself when the IC motor is either cruising or decelerating (when it is most efficient). There really is no magic to the hybrid equation; the gasoline engine is simply borrowing some energy when the demand is high and then repaying amount when the demand is low. Think of it as an internal combustion Ponzi scheme.

    It’s also problematic looking for “real-world” fuel economy evaluations

How effective hybrids are at this robbing-Peter-to-pay-Peter scheme is a subject of much discussion. First, there is the question of how accurate fuel economy testing really is. Transport Canada’s fuel consumption testing is notoriously optimistic and particularly easy on hybrids. The American EPA’s five-step test is more rigourous, but as recent headline news stories emanating from south of the border indicate, they too are prone to misprints and exaggerations.

It’s also problematic looking for “real-world” fuel economy evaluations. Hybrid owners, especially those fanatical enough to vocally proclaim their fuel economy, are a devoted lot and often found hyper-miling at exactly 92.3 kilometres an hour in the fast lane, their every driving habit modified with the expressed goal of lording their parsimoniousness over we profligate environment destroyers.

And, finally, there is the difficulty trying to directly compare a hybrid with a conventional car. Toyota’s Prius C may be frugal, but it is difficult to compare with a traditional counterpart; its size, dimensions and running gear are not shared with any other Toyota product. Even the Camry Hybrid, outwardly similar to its base model sibling, uses an Atkinson-cycle variant of its 2.5-litre compared with the conventional four-banger in the LE. Comparisons are possible, but they must always be caveated with a fudge factor to accommodate the different powertrains.

Ah, but a little digging reveals that there might be a car similar enough to warrant a direct comparison of hybrid technology’s worth. BMW’s latest big hybrid, the Active 7, may be expensive and out of the reach of most of the environmentally conscious, but it is mostly identical to the company’s 740 Li. The engine, most importantly, is identical, with both cars’ TwinPower 3.0-litre turbocharged inline six pumping out 315 horsepower and 332 pound-feet of torque. And, unlike some hybrids that use constant velocity transmissions (CVTs) to boost fuel economy, the Active 7 uses the same eight-speed automatic as the 740. The biggest difference between the two is the Active 7’s addition of a 55-hp/155-pound-feet electric motor (which replaces the aforementioned transmission’s torque convertor) and its attendant kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery.

That means, among other things, that Active 7 drives very well indeed. I am already on record as saying the 740 Li xDrive is the sweetest of all BMW 7’s and, since the Active 7 drives almost identically, it too reaps the same compliment. And identical is the appropriate descriptor for its performance compared with the 740. Through the addition of that 55-hp electric motor, BMW claims a total of 349 hp and 367 pound-feet of torque (increases of 34 hp and 35 lb-ft over the 740), that’s offset by the extra 150 kilograms worth of batteries and motor the Active 7 has to lug around. In the end, it’s a wash, with the 740 Li and the Active 7 sharing the exact same 5.9-second zero-to-100-kilometres-an-hour acceleration time. From behind the wheel, then, the 740 Li and the Active 7 are almost impossible to tell apart, the performance and handling virtually indistinguishable, since the Active 7’s 150 extra kilos are hardly noticed in a limousine-like sedan that weighs 2,000 kilograms.

One of the few differences is that the Active 7 does offer a modicum of electric-only motoring, though here, like other hybrids, BMW’s claims are a little exaggerated. For instance, BMW says the Active 7 can drive up to 60 kilometres an hour using electric power alone, claiming that, if one is judicious enough with the throttle, one could take off from a standstill and toddle up to those 60 klicks without engaging the gasoline engine.
Advertisement

Not possible. Despite my best princess-and-the-pea impression, no amount of intra-foot delicacy could entice the big Bimmer to travel more than a few feet and perhaps eight kilometres an hour on electricity alone. What the Active 7 can do, however, if you are already travelling below about 50 km/h on a perfectly flat road with no headwind, is shut down the gasoline motor for a short period of time. As well, if you’re creeping along in rush-hour traffic and simply need to lift your foot off the brake to keep apace with the car in front, the Hybrid 7 will do so without activating the turbocharged 3.0-litre. In all other circumstances, however, the two cars are identical save for some minor equipment differences and their respective price tags (more on that later).

That similar performance and comportment, of course, is to be expected. It’s exactly why I chose to make this comparison to determine the fuel economy benefits that the hybridization of an otherwise identical car promises. And, in a surprising rarity, both Transport Canada and the U.S. EPA agree the ActiveHybrid7 enjoys a 14% fuel consumption advantage compared with the basic 740 (10.9/7.3 L/100 km being the 740’s city/hwy. consumption, while the Active 7 is rated at 9.4/6.6). In my real-world testing, I averaged 7.7 L/100 km at my normal 120 km/h cruising speed, 13.5 in the city and 11.1 on a combined route. That overall figure is about a 10% improvement over the 740 I tested — commendable, if not quite outstanding. Most of the improvement, by the way, came in the urban cycle; the Active 7’s highway consumption was little different from the base 740’s.

For comparison purposes, it’s also worth noting that I averaged an only slightly more frugal 7.5 L/100 km on the highway in Ford’s new C-Max hybrid econobox, proving yet again that frontal area and aerodynamics are much more important than weight and size of the engine when it comes to high-speed fuel economy. Perhaps a little more troublesome to hybrid advocates is that I managed to eke 7.6 L/100 km out of a conventional Audi A6 3.0 over exactly the same route. Hybridization does highway fuel economy few favours, then. On the other hand, the 2013 Active 7’s 11.1 L/100 km overall fuel consumption easily bested the 2012’s 12.2 L/100 km I attained on essentially the same route. Credit BMW’s decision to substitute the new 3.0-litre six for the 2012 ActiveHybrid’s 4.4-litre V8 as the reason for the fuel efficiency improvement.

So is the Active 7 worth the expense and technological complication? Or, to address my original question directly, whom does such hybridization benefit? With its $140,200 price tag, the Active 7 is some $33,600 more expensive than the 740 Li. At today’s pump prices and estimating a typical 15,000 kilometres in annual motoring, recouping that premium would require about 100 years — hardly a boon to consumers. Advocates might counter that the true environmentalist is willing to pay such a premium, but methinks it will still be a tough sell. For that large a difference, the wealthy Birkenstocks aficionado could buy a 740 and motor around town completely gas-free in a Nissan Leaf.

For BMW, however, the ActiveHybrid7 may be far more important. All auto companies, especially purveyors of large luxury automobiles, are struggling to meet the ever-toughening fuel consumption regulations that governments around the world are mandating. A 10% (real world) or 14% (Transport Canada’s claim) increase in fuel economy seem be a pittance for anyone able to afford a 7 Series, but it’s a significant boon to a company looking to squeeze every mile per gallon out of its corporate average fleet economy.

7seriesint Type of vehicle  Rear-wheel-drive, full-sized luxury hybrid sedan
Engine  3.0L turbocharged DOHC I6/55-hp electric motor
Power (gasoline motor)  315 hp @ 5,800 rpm; 332 lb-ft of torque @1,300 rpm
Transmission  Eight-speed manumatic
Brakes  Four-wheel disc with ABS
Tires  P245/50R20
Price: base/as tested  $140,200/$147,300
Destination charge  $2,095
Transport Canada fuel economy L/100 km  9.4 city, 6.6 hwy.
Standard features  Power door locks, windows and mirrors, four-zone air conditioning with micron air filter, AM/FM/CD/MP3 player with hard drive media storage, steering wheel-mounted audio controls, hard drive-based navigation system, cruise control, power glass sunroof, information display, head up display, tilt and telescopic steering wheel, leather seats, 16-way power-adjustable Active driver and passenger seats, heated front and rear outer seats, ventilated front seats, heated exterior mirrors, auto headlights, dual front air bags, front knee air bags, side curtain air bags, brake fade compensation, dynamic braking control, dynamic traction control, hill descent control, LED front fog lamps, rearview and side view cameras, automatic soft close trunk lid

In the real world, a diesel engine, shaving off as much weight as practical and paying careful attention to aerodynamics probably would make much more difference at a fraction of the price.

 

[kevincanada]

A practical comparison (shows actual fuel consumption)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Ford2013.shtml

There is 4 factors I know of, number of cylinders, vehicle size, and if it is manual or automatic. If you have a manual 4 cylinder vehicle you will do well in conserving fuel.  A 8 cylinder truck automatic will get terrible fuel mileage.

Hybrid is the only break through in consumption since the invention of the "V' design engine.

 

[tomahawk6]

There is plenty of oil/natural gas,all we need to do is drill for it and ignore the Al Gore acolytes.

 

[cupper]

A practical comparison (shows actual fuel consumption)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Ford2013.shtml

There is 4 factors I know of, number of cylinders, vehicle size, and if it is manual or automatic. If you have a manual 4 cylinder vehicle you will do well in conserving fuel.  A 8 cylinder truck automatic will get terrible fuel mileage.

Hybrid is the only break through in consumption since the invention of the "V' design engine.

You left out the engines which selectively cut out cylinders when the demand for power is reduced, only to maintain speed. Variable Speed Transmissions. Electronic monitoring. The switch to composite materials to lighten the vehicle weight. It's not just the Big Bold innovations that contribute, it's the small incremental changes as well.

 

[kevincanada]

You left out the engines which selectively cut out cylinders when the demand for power is reduced, only to maintain speed. Variable Speed Transmissions. Electronic monitoring. The switch to composite materials to lighten the vehicle weight. It's not just the Big Bold innovations that contribute, it's the small incremental changes as well.

True I left them out on purpose.  Where is the raw data on it?  In my defense I did say vehicle size which affects weight.  They all work, but sadly they are all not very practical.  Hydrogen works.  It works great! clean, abundant.  Drives a bus, car, jeep.  But you can't store the stuff.  Electrical is the best.  But again you can't store it.  These technologies all have serious problems that hold them back.

 

[a_majoor]

The biggest problem with most of these comparisons (as alluded to in the article upthread about the BMW hybrid) is even notionally identical models of gas and hybrid cars use dramatically different systems. A Toyota Camrey uses a very different gasoline engine to the apparently different Camery Hybrid.

When it is all said and done, probably the best option would be for car makers to switch over to small, turbocharged diesel engines connected to CVT transmissions to combine fuel economy, reliability and overall simplicity and cost control.

 

[a_majoor]

An experiment to use "clean coal" in Saskatchewan. The key noted in the article is controlling the parasitic load created by the equipment needed to scrub the exhaust gasses, if too much power is being siphoned off, then the concept will be uneconomical:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/28/canadian-carbon-project-aims-to-prove-clean-coal-works/?__lsa=3022-3bf3

Canadian carbon project aims to prove ‘clean coal’ works

Alister Doyle, Canadian Press | Jan 28, 2013 10:34 AM ET
More from Canadian Press

“Once people hear that the economics are very good, maybe we won’t have everybody dash to gas and throw out coal. We hope the rest of the world can learn from our plant.”

A technology that holds the hope for cleaner use of coal will be tested on a commercial scale for the first time in Canada next year, aiming to resolve big uncertainties about the vast amount of power it will need.

Saskatchewan Power Corp. (SaskPower) hopes that a US$1.24-billion refit of its 45-year-old Boundary Dam power plant to capture carbon dioxide emissions will make investors think twice about shifting to gas-fired plants from dirtier coal.

“This will come in on time and on budget,” Michael Monea, head of SaskPower’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiatives, told Reuters in an interview.

The company hopes that its carbon capture technology will reduce Boundary Dam’s power output by only a quarter or thereabouts, making it the world’s first commercially viable large-scale CCS project at a coal-fired power plant.

Success could spur interest in CCS technology from China to the United States as an effective way to fight climate change.

“We need this as an example of carbon capture and storage actually happening,” said Camilla Svendsen Skriung, of the Norwegian environmental group Zero.

The plant is designed to capture one million tonnes a year of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from April 2014. It will also trap the pollutant sulphur dioxide.

SaskPower agreed last month to sell the carbon dioxide it captures to Canadian oil company Cenovus Energy – when injected into an oil well, the gas raises the pressure and forces more oil to the surface. Monea did not reveal the price agreed.

Monea said that the key to proving that clean coal is possible is to limit the “parasitic load” – the amount of power needed to capture the carbon and sulphur.

“The big deal for us is parasitic load. The old 140 megawatt plant will be new again, so will probably generate 150 to 155 megawatts. Then the capture plant may mean we lose 40 megawatts of power,” he said.

“I am hoping that we will net higher than 110 megawatts (after the carbon has been captured).”

COSTS AND PENALTIES

There are a few other commercial carbon capture projects, such as the one at the Sleipner natural gas field off Norway run by Statoil, which re-injects a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year beneath the seabed.

However, high costs and low penalties for emitting carbon mean that such projects have failed to catch on for coal-fired plants as part of efforts to slow climate change.

“Once people hear that the economics are very good, maybe we won’t have everybody dash to gas and throw out coal,” Monea said. “We hope the rest of the world can learn from our plant.”

SaskPower says that the plant will reduce carbon emissions by about 90 percent – the equivalent, it says, of taking 250,000 cars off the roads in the province every year.

Almost 200 nations have set themselves a deadline of end-2015 to agree a United Nations-led pact to combat climate change, with its implementation set for the start of 2020. But after past failures, there is little prospect of a global price on carbon emissions that would help to make carbon capture more viable.

Monea said that lessons from the Boundary Dam refit, aided by a federal government subsidy of $240 million, will cut costs and mean that future refits can be completed without state aid.

The costs of the Boundary Dam refit were comparable to those for replacing it with a new natural gas plant, Monea said. The plant has ready access to water, which might otherwise be a constraint.

The cost of the refit means that power prices paid by SaskPower’s clients will rise by a few cents from the 10 to 11 cents per kilowatt that they pay now, he said.

The European Commission last month said that it failed to find a winner in a contest to fund EU carbon capture and storage projects, deepening doubts that the technology can soon emerge to help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

© Thomson Reuters 2013

 

[a_majoor]

Another piece of good news. Using this technology to harvest some of the "waste" energy from power generation will create a surge in energy output, and compensate somewhat for the shutting down of existing thermal plants. (Industry could also use this technology to "co generate" energy from the waste heat of various industreal processes). While it also works with some forms of solar energy, it simply makes a niche player better in its niche.

For a typical thermal plant, output is measured in Megawatts or even Gigawatts, so even a small increase in output is a big deal. Look for this in the next 5-10 years

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/breakthrough-for-superefficient.html

Breakthrough for superefficient conversion of heat to electricity could boost coal plant efficiency to 54% from 30-45% and concentrated solar power to 40%

  Arxiv - Thermionics (electronics for converting heat to electricity) previously had efficiency limitations due to “space current” – build-ups of electrons mutually repelling each other and choking the flow of current – so the new system uses external electric or magnetic fields to get the electrons going in the right direction. The system promises a high fraction of the Carnot Limit can be converted directly into electrical power.

54% Efficient Coal Plants for one third less coal for the same power
The new thermoelectronic approach promises efficiencies in the high 40-50% range, achieving the latter by acting as a “topping cycle” to a lower temperature steam system. For example a coal furnace burns at ~1500 C (1773 K), but a steam turbine runs at 700 C (973 K) and outputs at 200 C (473 K). Thus there’s significant loss due to the mismatch between furnace and steam power-cycle. A thermoelectronic converter covering the 1773-973 K range will add significantly to the overall power extracted by the power-plant pushing its efficiency above 50%. In this case a 45% efficient coal plant can be pushed to 54%, thus increasing the power output for no additional fuel costs and NO MOVING PARTS.

40% efficient concentrated solar power

Switching to solar-power applications, imagine a thermoelectronic converter at the centre of a concentrator system which focuses sunlight to 500 times its normal intensity (temp ~1900 K.) By using a Photon Enhanced Thermionic Emission (a cousin of the Photoelectric effect) the system can convert raw sunlight to electrical power at over 40% efficiency

ABSTRACT - Electric power may, in principle, be generated in a highly e cient manner from heat created by focused solar irradiation, chemical combustion, or nuclear decay by means of thermionic energy conversion. As the conversion e ciency of the thermionic process tends to be degraded by electron space charges, the e ciencies of thermionic generators have amounted to only a fraction of those fundamentally possible. We show that this space-charge problem can be resolved by shaping the electric potential distribution of the converter such that the static electron space-charge clouds are transformed into an output current. Although the technical development of practical generators will require further substantial e orts, we conclude that a highly e cient transformation of heat to electric power may well be achieved.

Optimization of the conversion effi ciencies requires the development of metal or semiconductor surfaces with the desired e ffective work functions and electron a nities, respectively, which may also be done by nanostructuring the electrode surfaces. These surfaces need to be stable at high temperatures in vacuum. The tunability of the gate fi eld opens possibilities to alter the converter parameters during operation. Although the need to generate Cs+ ions to neutralize the space-charge cloud is eliminated, adatoms of elements such as Cs can be used to lower the work function of the electrodes, in particular of the collector. For high effi ciency, the devices must be thermally optimized to minimize heat losses through the wiring. Furthermore, thermal radiation of the emitter must be reflected e fficiently onto the electrode. For ballistic electron transport between emitter and collector, a vacuum of better than 0:1 mbar is also required, reminiscent of radio tubes.

Such devices may be realized, for example, in a flip-chip arrangement of oxide-coated wafers separated by tens of micrometers using thermal-insulation spacers. This produces hundreds of Watts of power from active areas of some 100 cm2. The magnetic fields, typically 1 T with large tolerances in strength and spatial distribution, can be generated by permanent magnets or, for applications such as power plants, by superconducting coils. Achieving viable, highly efficient devices requires substantial further materials science efforts to develop the functional, possibly nanostructured materials, as well as engineering e orts to achieve a stable vacuum environment in order to minimize radiative and conductive heat losses, and to ensure competitive costs. Remarkably, however, no obstacles of a fundamental nature appear to impede highly efficient power generation based on thermoelectronic energy converters.

 

[a_majoor]

Another interesting device that converts natural gas into "Syngas"; which has a higher energy content. While it does not seem to scale as ell as might be wished (look at the number of devices that are needed for a modest 500 MW generating station), the fact that it can be used as a suppliment during the daylight hours but can be bypassed on cloudy days and at night with no loss of generation by the plant is good news: no need for expensive back up generators. Since it is powerd by heat energy, versions that recycle waste heat from the turbine exhaust stream might be possible as well:

http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=981

A solar booster shot for natural gas power plants

April 11, 2013 

Frances White, PNNL, (509) 375-6904
PNNL’s concentrating solar power system reduces greenhouse emissions — at a price that’s competitive with fossil fuel power

RICHLAND, Wash. – Natural gas power plants can use about 20 percent less fuel when the sun is shining by injecting solar energy into natural gas with a new system being developed by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The system converts natural gas and sunlight into a more energy-rich fuel called syngas, which power plants can burn to make electricity.

"Our system will enable power plants to use less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity they already make," said PNNL engineer Bob Wegeng, who is leading the project. "At the same time, the system lowers a power plant's greenhouse gas emissions at a cost that's competitive with traditional fossil fuel power."

PNNL will conduct field tests of the system at its sunny campus in Richland, Wash., this summer.

With the U.S. increasingly relying on inexpensive natural gas for energy, this system can reduce the carbon footprint of power generation. DOE's Energy Information Administration estimates natural gas will make up 27 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020. Wegeng noted PNNL's system is best suited for power plants located in sunshine-drenched areas such as the American Southwest.

Installing PNNL's system in front of natural gas power plants turns them into hybrid solar-gas power plants. The system uses solar heat to convert natural gas into syngas, a fuel containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Because syngas has a higher energy content, a power plant equipped with the system can consume about 20 percent less natural gas while producing the same amount of electricity.

This decreased fuel usage is made possible with concentrating solar power, which uses a reflecting surface to concentrate the sun's rays like a magnifying glass. PNNL's system uses a mirrored parabolic dish to direct sunbeams to a central point, where a PNNL-developed device absorbs the solar heat to make syngas.

Macro savings, micro technology

About four feet long and two feet wide, the device contains a chemical reactor and several heat exchangers. The reactor has narrow channels that are as wide as six dimes stacked on top of each other. Concentrated sunlight heats up the natural gas flowing through the reactor's channels, which hold a catalyst that helps turn natural gas into syngas.

The heat exchanger features narrower channels that are a couple times thicker than a strand of human hair. The exchanger's channels help recycle heat left over from the chemical reaction gas. By reusing the heat, solar energy is used more efficiently to convert natural gas into syngas. Tests on an earlier prototype of the device showed more than 60 percent of the solar energy that hit the system's mirrored dish was converted into chemical energy contained in the syngas.

Lower-carbon cousin to traditional power plants

PNNL is refining the earlier prototype to increase its efficiency while creating a design that can be made at a reasonable price. The project includes developing cost-effective manufacturing techniques that could be used for the mass production.  The manufacturing methods will be developed by PNNL staff at the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute, a research and development facility in Corvallis, Ore., that is jointly managed by PNNL and Oregon State University.

Wegeng's team aims to keep the system's overall cost low enough so that the electricity produced by a natural gas power plant equipped with the system would cost no more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. Such a price tag would make hybrid solar-gas power plants competitive with conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The system is adaptable to a large range of natural gas power plant sizes. The number of PNNL devices needed depends on a particular power plant's size. For example, a 500 MW plant would need roughly 3,000 dishes equipped with PNNL's device.

Unlike many other solar technologies, PNNL's system doesn't require power plants to cease operations when the sun sets or clouds cover the sky. Power plants can bypass the system and burn natural gas directly.

Though outside the scope of the current project, Wegeng also envisions a day when PNNL's solar-driven system could be used to create transportation fuels. Syngas can also be used to make synthetic crude oil, which can be refined into diesel and gasoline than runs our cars.

The current project is receiving about $4.3 million combined from DOE's SunShot Initiative, which aims to advance American-made solar technologies, and industrial partner SolarThermoChemical LLC of Santa Maria, Calif. SolarThermoChemcial has a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for the project and plans to manufacture and sell the system after the project ends.

More information about PNNL's concentrating solar power system for natural gas power plants.

REFERENCE: RS Wegeng, DR Palo, RA Dagle, PH Humble, JA Lizarazo-Adarme, SK, SD Leith, CJ Pestak, S Qiu, B Boler, J Modrell, G McFadden, "Development and Demonstration of a Prototype Solar Methane Reforming System for Thermochemical Energy Storage — Including Preliminary Shakedown Testing Results," 9th Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, July-August 2011, http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-5899.

One can only hope this isn't some Soylendra type boondoggle

 

[a_majoor]

The North American continent is afloat on a sea of hydrocarbons. Also, not mentioned in these articles is another source of hydrocarbon energy: Methane hydrates, which is in ice trapped under the ocean floor. The economic consequences of cheap energy (especially post 2016) will include a revival of the American economy as energy prices drop. The downside is other nations which are counting on energy resource sales to power their economies may find the rug cut out from under them. This is bad for these nations, but I suppose the overall effect is situationally dependent. We are pretty good about the Russians getting their comeuppance, but not as pleased when it is us....

Two articles posted here. The consequences of these hydrocarbon discoveries will mean a large rethink of many political, economic and international strategic issues.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-u-s-has-much-much-more-gas-and-oil-than-we-thought-20130430

The U.S. Has Much, Much More Gas and Oil Than We Thought

By Amy Harder
Updated: April 30, 2013 | 10:13 p.m.
April 30, 2013 | 1:17 p.m.

The United States has double the amount of oil and three times the amount of natural gas than previously thought, stored deep under the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, according to new data the Obama administration released Tuesday.

In announcing the new data in a conference call, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell also said the administration will release within weeks draft rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, technology that has come under scrutiny for its environmental impact but that is essential to developing all of this energy.

“These world-class formations contain even more energy-resource potential than previously understood, which is important information as we continue to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil,” Jewell said in a statement.

The formations, called Bakken and Three Forks, span much of western North Dakota, the northern tip of South Dakota and the northeastern tip of Montana. The last time the United States Geological Survey assessed this area for its oil and gas reserves was in 2008. But that assessment did not include the Three Forks formation, which explains the substantial increase in the estimates. USGS estimates that these two formations together hold 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered—but technically recoverable—oil and 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The estimates were requested by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., in early 2011. “This is clearly great news for North Dakota and great news for the nation,” Hoeven said in a statement. “It will further serve to enhance our state’s role as an energy powerhouse for the nation.”
The energy boom’s impact on North Dakota’s economy is undeniable. The state has the lowest unemployment in the country, at 3.3 percent.

These estimates don’t necessarily represent oil and gas resources that could be immediately developed or are even recoverable right now. Many factors must align to compel companies to access energy resources, including prices and environmental regulations.

Nonetheless, the data add more hard evidence of America’s energy boom, which was largely unimaginable just seven years ago. The estimates also underline the opportunities, including economic benefits and energy security, and the challenges, especially President Obama’s commitment to tackle climate change, that come with a major fossil-fuel boom.

“Combined with recent declines in oil consumption, foreign-oil imports are less than 40 percent of oil consumed in America,” Jewell said. “That’s the lowest level since 1988.”

Jewell also announced the department will release “within weeks” reworked, draft rules requiring stricter regulations on hydraulic-fracturing operations. She said the earlier version of the draft rules generated enough comments—roughly 100,000—to prompt the administration to allow for a second round of public input.

The symbolic importance of these rules could have a greater impact than their substantive effect. The regulations apply to oil and gas production only on federal lands, a small portion of the total amount of oil and gas produced in the U.S. According to the Interior Department, 11 percent of the natural gas produced in the country is on public lands, as is 5 percent of the oil.

The rules will provide a marker for states to implement individual regulations and for Congress to debate legislation that could create a federal standard.

“We must develop our domestic energy resources armed with the best available science,” Jewell said. “This unbiased, objective information will help private, nonprofit, and government decision-makers at all levels make informed decisions about the responsible development of these resources.”
This article appears in the May 1, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/01/us-shale-gas-boom-undermining-putins-gazprom/

US Shale Gas Boom Undermining Putin’s Gazprom

The Russian energy firm Gazprom is increasingly off its stride in Europe, its largest export market. Bulgaria has managed to negotiate a 20 percent price cut in its new ten-year contract with the gas giant, an unprecedented reversal of fortune from only a short time ago. Gazprom had cut off gas to the Ukraine in 2006 and 2009 during contract negotiations, which left Bulgaria freezing for several days as they were on the same pipeline. Bulgarians are probably relishing their success now with no small amount of schadenfreude.

The cause of the turnaround, the Wall Street Journal reports, should come as no surprise: the shale gas boom in the United States. The US has begun exporting gas to Europe, and has also ramped up coal exports by more than 250 percent since 2005. The net result has been to knock Gazprom back on its heels. The WSJ reports that the negotiations with Bulgaria were heated, with Gazprom’s negotiators shouting in frustration on several occasions.
In public statements, however, the Russian company remains defiant (and perhaps in a state of denial) about the implications of the shale gas boom:
Speaking on state television on March 30, Gazprom Chief Executive Alexei Miller minimized the impact of gas from U.S. shale fields, extracted using hydraulic-fracturing techniques. He predicted that it was a “bubble that will burst very soon. We are skeptical about shale gas. We don’t see any risks [to us] at all.”

Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov acknowledged that shale-gas development “does have an impact” on contract negotiations. “But we don’t see any tragedy here….Our main competitive advantage is that we can guarantee volumes for a long time.”

Maybe, maybe not. But the immediate impact on Russia should not be underestimated. Vladimir Putin’s plans for reclaiming Great Power status for Russia are predicated on the country’s continuing strong economic performance, and the energy sector is key. Gazprom accounts for more than 10 percent of the country’s exports, and hits to its bottom line this year, the WSJ speculates, will cause Russia to miss Putin’s target of 5 percent annual growth.

Putin’s hardball tactics in his near-abroad when Russia was energy top dog were instrumental in confirming him as an authoritarian bully in the minds of many Westerners. These tactics also inadvertently made Russia more vulnerable to shifts in the global energy market, with many of its main customers desperately seeking out alternative suppliers so that they would never find themselves backed into a corner again. So it’s easy to join the Bulgarians in gloating over this reversal.

But everything in moderation. As we’ve said before, a cagey, resentful and frustrated Russia facing economic decline and increasing powerlessness on the world stage is good for no one at all.

 

[CougarKing]

link

Analysis: Shale oil storm blows U.S. tanker trade out of doldrums

By Anna Louie Sussman

(Reuters) - Thanks to the U.S. shale energy boom, the once-quiet niche of U.S.-flagged oil tankers is in unprecedented flux.

A half-dozen vessels that typically carried gasoline to Florida are now rushing crude oil along the Texas coast. Major investment at the port of Corpus Christi, which now exports more than half of all Eagle Ford shale oil, suggests more to come even as new pipeline projects promise further market shifts.

The shale oil revolution, now in its third year, has already scrambled the inland U.S. crude market, forcing pipelines to reverse direction and fuelling a revival in railway oil trade.

Since the start of this year, the U.S. oil tanker industry has jumped into the act, with traders including BP  and Royal Dutch Shell  racing to charter a handful of the three-dozen U.S.-flagged tankers permitted, per a century-old law called the Jones Act, to carry oil between U.S. ports.

The trade is helping Gulf Coast refiners such as Valero  cut costs and wean plants off imported sweet crude.

Christos Papanicolaou, director of business development for the Greenwich, Connecticut-based shipbroker Charles R. Weber Co Inc, said it's the first time the Jones Act market has been clearly profitable in the 20 years he has worked in shipping.

"The cost of entry and the duration of contracts were such that any venture was a leap of faith," he said. Investment in the Jones Act trade required hiring expensive unionized crews with no guarantee the ship would find a fixture.

"Nobody wanted to trade in the U.S., because there was no oil here."

Shale oil has changed that abruptly, specifically Eagle Ford in south Texas, where output swelled from near zero to more than 500,000 barrels per day in three years. Unlike the land-locked Bakken of North Dakota, the field is less than 100 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and the "refinery row" that lies along the Texas-Louisiana coastline.

While markets have largely adapted to changes in inland trade patterns, the flux in tankers is still evolving. Each new train terminal or pipeline threatens to rewrite the economics of seaborne trade; limited tanker supply and rising rates are squeezing traditional routes like shipping fuel to Florida.

Since February, the number of ships plying the route from crude-loading hubs in Houston and Corpus Christi to eastern Gulf Coast ports such as Beaumont, Texas and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), has jumped to six from one. Daily rates for those ships have risen 50 percent over the past year to historic highs, boosting profits for operators such as Crowley Maritime Corp and Overseas Shipholding Group .

While the eastern Gulf Coast is a refining hub, pipeline capacity to move oil from west Texas is limited and the region has relied largely on imports. Shipments from the port of Corpus Christi have surged from near zero to more than 340,000 barrels per day, over half of total Eagle Ford output, in the past year. Two-thirds of that oil has remained in the Gulf, with much of the rest heading to Canada, shipping data shows.

JONES ACT: SO HOT RIGHT NOW

The Jones Act requires ships moving between U.S. ports to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-made, and U.S.-crewed, making them three times more expensive than foreign-flagged vessels. The majority of large Jones Act tankers and coastal barges in use take refined products such as gasoline from the Gulf Coast to Florida, which is far from refinery centers and not linked to any pipelines.

Fewer than 40 are oceangoing tankers able to carry 235,000 barrels or more; smaller articulated barges and 11 Alaska-trade tankers make up the rest of the 300-strong coastal fleet.

More Jones Act tankers and barges for the non-Alaska trade are on order, but the new tonnage will not be delivered until 2015. That's partly due to backlogs at the few commercial U.S. shipyards, which include Aker Philadelphia Shipyard  and General Dynamics  NASSCO in San Diego.

Limited supplies have traders competing fiercely to charter vessels, and the percentage of ships in long-term charter has gone from around 20 percent to 100 percent over the past year.

Rates for medium-range 330,000-barrel tankers used in the Gulf Coast trade have risen from $45,000 to around $75,000 a day, excluding fuel costs of another $25,000 a day when the ship is in transit, shipbrokers said.

Rates are so high that "the most profitable area right now for a Jones Act tanker owner is to relet it out and ship gasoline to Florida by barge," said Donald Bogden, director of research at Stamford, Connecticut-based shipbroker MJLF.

When a tanker does open up in the spot market or for relet, the day rate can reach $100,000 before fuel, brokers say. ExxonMobil  paid that near-record sum in June when the American Phoenix was relet, shipping brokers said.

"Because of the changing dynamics of the crude oil market in the U.S., most of these vessels that were designed to move petrol products have been trading crude oil," said Basil Karatzas, president of Karatzas Marine Advisors, a shipping finance firm based in New York.

"That's primarily the reason the Jones Act tanker market is so hot right now."

SWITCHING GEARS

The switch in Jones Act traffic has come on fast, as the profit opportunities from the short-haul Gulf Coast cabotage trade upended expectations late last year that the ships would carry Texas crude to East Coast refiners or gasoline to Florida.

"It suggests that (the western Gulf Coast area) is the most acute bottleneck at the moment," said Julius Walker, global energy markets strategist at UBS in New York.

In the six months through June 6, Jones Act vessels have moved over 22.5 million barrels of oil from ports around Houston and Corpus Christi to nearby Gulf Coast refineries compared with around 4.6 million in the six months prior, according to calculations by Reuters based on historical vessel tracks.

A trip from Corpus Christi, which takes much of the Eagle Ford crude, to Nederland, Texas refineries, takes about a week.

Carrying 340,000 barrels at a time, the Overseas Texas City, a Jones Act vessel chartered by BP, made 18 trips in the 180-day period analyzed by Reuters, delivering more than 6.15 million barrels. When BP relet the tanker in January 2013 from Conoco , it had been carrying refined products, or "clean" fuel, to Florida, vessel track data suggests.

Three of the ships plying the inter-Gulf Coast crude oil trade are on charter to Shell, two to BP, and one to Conoco, brokers said. The companies declined to comment.

At a per-day rate of $75,000, it costs around $2 per barrel to ship crude from the western Gulf Coast to oil centers such as Port Arthur and Beaumont in Texas, or LOOP, according to Reuters calculations.

FLUX AHEAD

The rapid build-out in infrastructure suggests more changes ahead for Gulf Coast shipping. If more tankers taking fuel to Florida switch to carrying oil, it may have to import gasoline. The state already buys much of its jet fuel, diesel and ethanol from countries like Venezuela, South Korea and the Netherlands.

Corpus Christi port, meanwhile, is in the midst of a multi-year expansion that will add eight docks to its current 27 by June 2014 and 10 million barrels of crude tanker storage, a 33 percent gain, suggesting plans for even greater seaborne trade.

But some refiners currently taking Eagle Ford crude by tanker may soon have cheaper options. By the end of 2013, the reversal of a crude pipeline from Houston to Houma, Louisiana, will pump up to 250,000 bpd to the eastern Gulf of Mexico for rates as low as 59 cents per barrel.

That capacity would ease some of the sea traffic, but with Houston refiners receiving plenty of shale oil from the Midwest, Eagle Ford oil will likely still need a seaborne outlet.

"The growth in crude production has been so far beyond what anyone anticipated that the infrastructure just isn't there to deal with it," said Andrew Weissman, senior energy adviser at law firm Haynes and Boone in Washington, D.C.

(Reporting by Anna Louie Sussman; Editing by Jonathan Leff, Matthew Robinson and Dale Hudson)

 

[a_majoor]

One issue to look for is will the United States build new oil refineries. No new ones have been built since the late 1970's due to rising costs and regulatory burdens (as well as NIMBY opposition); even radically upgrading existing refineries can only go so far.