You know Bill Gates, the multibillionaire
of Microsoft fame. Less well-known is Steven Chu, US Sec. of energy. I have
never commented on Bill Gates's operations, but I have called for the
resignation of Sec. Chu on the basis that he has done more damage to the US
energy program than any other single person.
With that background, I now
review a report by Jeff Johnson in the March 19 Issue of Chemical and
Engineering News concerning a meeting between Gates and Chu, at which they
discussed the long-term aspects of the energy market.
In the meeting,
there was no discussion concerning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas. All
discussion was on so-called replaceable energy, such as solar, nuclear, and
biofuels. While I consider this a strong deficiency, because it is unknown just
how long fossil fuels will last us, it at least removes from present
consideration my major objection to Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy.
Both Gates and Chu agree that taxpayers should be supporting government
research, which will hopefully lead to cheaper and more replaceable energy
sources. When Chu took over the DOE he provided the first funds to nurture some
180 research projects over the past three years. The context of the meeting was
that this is admirable. My comment is how much did it cost, and what did we get
out of it? If any of the 180 projects brought something important to light, I
have not heard of it. We have private companies in the energy business, with
substantial assets. Most of their business is based upon existing cheap energy
sources, of which they are trying to further improve the economics. They
additionally recognize that perhaps fossil fuels will be depleted, and they also
spend money on research with respect to replaceable energy. These private
companies have done a good job in helping bring the US citizen to a high
standard of living, and I have confidence that they will continue to do so
without a separate program by the federal government.
The Gates
Foundation has a program to end world poverty. This is an impossibility, because
of our inability to define poverty. Let's better say that the Gates Foundation
has an objective of improving the standard of living on a worldwide basis. Bill
Gates believes this can be best accomplished through cheap energy. I agree
completely and I am working separately on an essay showing that a high standard
of living is consistent with high energy use.
Bill Gates finds that the
delivery of electrical energy to many peoples of the world is limited by lack of
transmission facilities. He feels that in-house production is a better way to
proceed and the best candidate is electricity generated by a solar device,
coupled with batteries to equalize energy availability on a time basis. I agree
with this completely. However I do not agree with any application that uses
something that the US government should be spending money on. The US already has
good transmission facilities and a relatively high population density, so that
energy supply to remote areas is not a significant problem. The problem is
primarily applicable to unpopulated areas, or those populated but significantly
underdeveloped with respect to transmission facilities. Black Africa would be a
prime candidate, but I am primarily interested in the US. As US citizens have
economic capabilities, they can contribute to private organizations to conduct
necessary research or help directly those in need through installation of
workable equipment. The US government has no business in improving the global
standard of living by mandating that US citizens pay for it.
Gates is
particularly intrigued with the possibilities of nuclear energy. There's no
doubt that nuclear energy can be generated in very small plants, wherein many
plants could be used to obviate the need for transmission facilities. Nuclear
power generation for submarines is now an old technology showing the possibility
of small nuclear operations. Gates could put some money into a research
organization which might be able to improve on this further. Again they are
would be absolutely no need or justification for US government
involvement.
Gates also touched on the need for large electricity
generation plants, which he said should be looked at from the financial
viewpoint of a 40 to 50 year cycle. I was pleased to see that he considered
"government regulations, as well as state and utility commission oversight and
policies that litter the energy sector" as hindrances, with the implication they
should be eliminated.
But again, both Gates and Chu agree that the US
government should be involved in a major research program on alternate energy
development. They agree the best way to fund this is with a tax on carbon
dioxide emissions from present fossil fuel use, although Chu hesitates to call
this a tax. I absolutely disagree with the need of the federal government to be
involved in this program. I have said before that it can be done by private
industry, which will be charging some reasonable amounts to present energy users
for the required research and development. This would put the greatest charges
on the largest users of energy, which is as it should be. Alternatively, a
federal program would equally charge every citizen in the usual socialistic
concept of unreasonableness.
Covers energy sources, economis of energy, fossil fuels, solar and wind, government and private programs
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Much Ado about Nothing - Carbon Dioxide
Cheryl Hogue again reports on EPA's actions with carbon dioxide in her Chemical and Engineering News, April 2 article.
EPA has proposed that any power plants built after this year must control carbon dioxide emissions. Congressional Republicans attacked EPA's proposal on the basis that it is equivalent to a tax on energy. Industry groups are opposed on the basis that it bans construction of conventional coal-fired power plants in the US. Environmental and health groups are favorable to the proposal on the basis that the regulation would help create a cleaner, healthier and more modern energy future.
The Congressional Republicans are correct in that additional mandated equipment would lead to increased energy costs, which are an indirect tax. Industry groups are correct in that the increased costs of electricity from the new, more expensive coal-burning plants would make them uncompetitive. Environmental and health groups are incorrect in that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with a cleaner and healthier environment and the term "modern energy future" is a pie-in-the-sky gobbledygook.
EPA is making this proposal on the basis that carbon dioxide threatens the health and welfare by adding to human-induced climate change. On the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, I ask the EPA to supply information on how it comes to that conclusion.
EPA has proposed that any power plants built after this year must control carbon dioxide emissions. Congressional Republicans attacked EPA's proposal on the basis that it is equivalent to a tax on energy. Industry groups are opposed on the basis that it bans construction of conventional coal-fired power plants in the US. Environmental and health groups are favorable to the proposal on the basis that the regulation would help create a cleaner, healthier and more modern energy future.
The Congressional Republicans are correct in that additional mandated equipment would lead to increased energy costs, which are an indirect tax. Industry groups are correct in that the increased costs of electricity from the new, more expensive coal-burning plants would make them uncompetitive. Environmental and health groups are incorrect in that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with a cleaner and healthier environment and the term "modern energy future" is a pie-in-the-sky gobbledygook.
EPA is making this proposal on the basis that carbon dioxide threatens the health and welfare by adding to human-induced climate change. On the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, I ask the EPA to supply information on how it comes to that conclusion.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Methane: A new Fracking Fiasco
Jeff Johnson has a four-page article entitled, "Methane: a New Fracking Fiasco", in the April 16 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
In one of my blogs entitled, "EPA's Fracking Rules", in http://arthur-energy.blogspot.com , I explained the fracking process and the process for recovery of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from well gas. I pointed out that the EPA is overreaching in specifying use of equipment, since it's primary mission is only to establish limits of air contamination by chemicals detrimental to human health. I reviewed the problem of VOCs reacting with nitrogen dioxide (NOx) to form ground-level ozone, which is a health hazard. I discussed the health hazards of benzene separately unrelated to the ozone generation problem. I made suggestions on how control limits for individual VOCs could be placed on specific generators. Lastly, I pointed out that natural gas producers have an inherent interest in controlling loss of methane, which they are trying to sell.
In another of my blogs entitled, "Debunking Global Warming Theory" in http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com , I explained greenhouse gases in broader terms than normally used, by pointing out that nitrogen and oxygen, which are major components of the atmosphere, are also greenhouse gases. I explained that a greenhouse gas effect is a function not only of its resistant to the passage of heat, but also to its concentration in the atmosphere. I pointed out that global warming enthusiasts use terms such as Global Warming Potential and Radiative Forcing Capacity, but these equations do not take into consideration comparisons with the major gases of the atmosphere, nor the concentration in which the so-called deleterious greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere.. Lastly, I point out that carbon dioxide is only 1.7 times more effective at absorbing heat that nitrogen. Primarily on the basis that there is no order-of-magnitude differences between carbon dioxide and methane, compared to nitrogen and oxygen, I conclude that carbon dioxide and methane are not deleterious greenhouse gases.
I now return to Jeff Johnson's April 16 article.
He indicates that methane is a "potent greenhouse". I have already disputed that.
Jeff says that environmental groups and others embrace the change from coal to gas in new electricity production, because the gas fired plants produce 40% less carbon dioxide and no mercury. He left out sulfur dioxide. I have already said that carbon dioxide is not a deleterious greenhouse gas, and is not a favorable reason to switch from coal. The reduction in mercury and sulfur dioxide would definitely be advantageous, since those emissions are health hazards.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that methane is 72 times more potent as a deleterious greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. I would like to see the calculations, but in their absence, I point out that neither methane nor carbon dioxide are significant as deleterious greenhouse gases (see above).
Jeff says that in the fracking operation for natural gas production, the following materials come from the well: methane, VOCs, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants. I expect methane would come from the well, since that's the major objective of drilling. Some of the VOCs and sulfur dioxide are toxic air pollutants. I wonder what he means by "toxic air pollutants" in his mixture?
The EPA estimates that installation of $754 million worth of new recovery equipment for the industry would capture $783 million worth of valuable products now being lost. This is a good return on investment, if It occurs. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, says the captured methane alone would be worth $2 billion. If believable, this would be a great return on investment, and the industry should spring for it. However, I recommend they make their own calculations first.
Just says that methane's Global Warming Potential is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide. He also points out that methane is far less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide; about 9% versus 82%. Hooray! We finally see some consideration of gas concentration effects in the atmosphere. When will the next jump be made to actually consider methane and carbon dioxide concentrations in relationship to the major greenhouse gases of nitrogen and oxygen?
Drew Shindell, a climatologist at the National Aeronautical and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies has apparently said that global temperature increases of 1.5 to 2°C could occur over the next 35 years, because of methane. I wonder what calculations and assumptions he uses to make what I consider to be this ridiculous assertion.
The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Shale Gas Production Subcommittee advised the EPA to include methane explicitly in its air regulations and to have the regulations cover existing and new wells. Fortunately, the EPA chose to concentrate on ozone, through the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic components of natural gas other than methane. There is some basis for the EPA approach, but there would have been none for the panel, because methane is not a deleterious greenhouse gas. The only justification for including methane would be if it reacts with nitrogen oxides
In one of my blogs entitled, "EPA's Fracking Rules", in http://arthur-energy.blogspot.com , I explained the fracking process and the process for recovery of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from well gas. I pointed out that the EPA is overreaching in specifying use of equipment, since it's primary mission is only to establish limits of air contamination by chemicals detrimental to human health. I reviewed the problem of VOCs reacting with nitrogen dioxide (NOx) to form ground-level ozone, which is a health hazard. I discussed the health hazards of benzene separately unrelated to the ozone generation problem. I made suggestions on how control limits for individual VOCs could be placed on specific generators. Lastly, I pointed out that natural gas producers have an inherent interest in controlling loss of methane, which they are trying to sell.
In another of my blogs entitled, "Debunking Global Warming Theory" in http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com , I explained greenhouse gases in broader terms than normally used, by pointing out that nitrogen and oxygen, which are major components of the atmosphere, are also greenhouse gases. I explained that a greenhouse gas effect is a function not only of its resistant to the passage of heat, but also to its concentration in the atmosphere. I pointed out that global warming enthusiasts use terms such as Global Warming Potential and Radiative Forcing Capacity, but these equations do not take into consideration comparisons with the major gases of the atmosphere, nor the concentration in which the so-called deleterious greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere.. Lastly, I point out that carbon dioxide is only 1.7 times more effective at absorbing heat that nitrogen. Primarily on the basis that there is no order-of-magnitude differences between carbon dioxide and methane, compared to nitrogen and oxygen, I conclude that carbon dioxide and methane are not deleterious greenhouse gases.
I now return to Jeff Johnson's April 16 article.
He indicates that methane is a "potent greenhouse". I have already disputed that.
Jeff says that environmental groups and others embrace the change from coal to gas in new electricity production, because the gas fired plants produce 40% less carbon dioxide and no mercury. He left out sulfur dioxide. I have already said that carbon dioxide is not a deleterious greenhouse gas, and is not a favorable reason to switch from coal. The reduction in mercury and sulfur dioxide would definitely be advantageous, since those emissions are health hazards.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that methane is 72 times more potent as a deleterious greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. I would like to see the calculations, but in their absence, I point out that neither methane nor carbon dioxide are significant as deleterious greenhouse gases (see above).
Jeff says that in the fracking operation for natural gas production, the following materials come from the well: methane, VOCs, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants. I expect methane would come from the well, since that's the major objective of drilling. Some of the VOCs and sulfur dioxide are toxic air pollutants. I wonder what he means by "toxic air pollutants" in his mixture?
The EPA estimates that installation of $754 million worth of new recovery equipment for the industry would capture $783 million worth of valuable products now being lost. This is a good return on investment, if It occurs. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, says the captured methane alone would be worth $2 billion. If believable, this would be a great return on investment, and the industry should spring for it. However, I recommend they make their own calculations first.
Just says that methane's Global Warming Potential is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide. He also points out that methane is far less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide; about 9% versus 82%. Hooray! We finally see some consideration of gas concentration effects in the atmosphere. When will the next jump be made to actually consider methane and carbon dioxide concentrations in relationship to the major greenhouse gases of nitrogen and oxygen?
Drew Shindell, a climatologist at the National Aeronautical and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies has apparently said that global temperature increases of 1.5 to 2°C could occur over the next 35 years, because of methane. I wonder what calculations and assumptions he uses to make what I consider to be this ridiculous assertion.
The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Shale Gas Production Subcommittee advised the EPA to include methane explicitly in its air regulations and to have the regulations cover existing and new wells. Fortunately, the EPA chose to concentrate on ozone, through the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic components of natural gas other than methane. There is some basis for the EPA approach, but there would have been none for the panel, because methane is not a deleterious greenhouse gas. The only justification for including methane would be if it reacts with nitrogen oxides
EPA's Fracking Rules
Jeff Johnson has an article entitled, "EPA Issues Fracking Rules", in the April 23 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
Fracking is an improved technique of recovering natural gas from underground deposits. The previous technique was to drill into an underground reservoir, similar to oil drilling, and then pipe natural gas to the surface. In time, the production from that particular well decreased. The fracking technique involves pumping water into a gas well at high pressure. This breaks up the underground structure and releases significantly more gas to be pumped to the surface. The use of fracking techniques have increased availability of natural gas, which has decreased its price to about one half.
`The environmental groups, Wild Earth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance, sued EPA to issue regulations controlling air contaminating emissions from the fracking wells. Given the previously observed ideology and regulatory track record of the EPA, it may be a willing partner to the suit.
In a separate article, it was stated that more than a year ago, a court order required EPA to issue final air regulations for oil and gas drilling under the Clean Air Act. The EPA issued its regulations on April 18 of this year. The new regulations require fracking operations to install equipment by January 2015. The new equipment must reduce emissions of ozone-producing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants, such as benzene and hexane. There is no mention in the C&E News article concerning the VOC emission from each well. However, there is mention that the equipment will automatically reduce emission of methane to the atmosphere, which EPA indicates is a noxious greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Although I don't know the details of the court order, I consider the EPA order to be the EPA's usual overreach. The EPA has no business telling the natural gas production industry how to run its business. The EPA is a regulatory body set up to implement laws passed by Congress. The EPA is supposed to set limits on production emissions, which have been shown to be detrimental to health. In other words, the EPA can decide what emissions should be controlled and amounts allowable to the atmosphere. It must be left to industry to decide how that can be accomplished. Of course, the EPA must have some idea of practicality, so as not to set impossible limits.
The basis of Jeff Johnson's article is the emission of VOCs by natural gas producers from fracking operations. However, whether fracking or traditional production, the same considerations involving VOCs are involved. A little consideration on natural gas processing is in order.
Natural gas contains variable amounts of VOCs, in addition to the major constituent methane, as it comes from the well. Well gas is always almost processed to remove VOCs, which generally have a higher value per pound than methane. There are basically two processes to remove VOCs. It is not clear how much VOCs are still contained in each of the treated gases, which are then known as pipeline gas, but the likelihood is that it is very low. One process extracts the VOCs in a tower using an oil which dissolves the VOCs. The loaded oil is then heated to remove the VOCs, which are collected, and may be separated into further components by distillation. The second process involves cooling the total well gas to a level where the VOCs condense as liquids, which are then separated from the remaining methane. Again, the mixed VOCs may be separated into components by distillation.
Since EPA's regulation of April 18 first mentioned ozone, we will now take a look at that.
Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC.
The detrimental health effects of breathing ozone contaminated air are respiratory compromise and increased tendency to leukemia. Mortality effects have been noticed at 60 parts per billion. The EPA has set a limit of 75 parts per billion.
It is apparent from the chemical reaction generating ozone that its decrease could be accomplished by limiting the availability of the reactants NOx and VOCs. However, the source of these substances is so ubiquitous that no simple solution of control is available. The only way to do this is by broad brush. We could start with further study of the chemical reaction to determine ozone yields, when considering individual VOCs.
In 2009, the EPA standard for NOx in air was 58 parts per billion, which was the national average at the time. Whether that's a good number or not is conjectural, but with all the sources of NOx emission, it would seem almost impossible to get a good handle on this. Perhaps we can be more successful in controlling the second reactant generating ozone; namely VOCs.
Some typical VOCs are acetone, benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, toluene, xylene, and 1,3-butadiene, but there are many more. Again, it seems almost impossible to establish a concentration limit in air for each VOC.
The best approach might be to look at the problem on a global scale, starting with the fact that the total weight of Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 1.2 E19 pounds. However, dangerous ozone exists only at the ground level and an estimate would have to be made on the weight of the global atmosphere at some arbitrary elevation. Another difficulty would be in assuming that only the US is responsible for VOC generation. However, an estimate could be made on US contribution. From there, and a better understanding of the capability of each VOC to produce ozone, the total globally allowable quantity of each VOC could be calculated and divided among the generators as a "maximum allowable weight".
The EPA's April 18 regulation also covers specific hazardous chemicals, unrelated to ozone generation. One of these as benzene, which can be considered separately.
OSHA recommends that workers use special breathing equipment when the benzene content of the air is 100 ppb. From that we can likely assume that a permissible concentration in the air may be one part per billion. It is probable that benzene vapor mixes completely with the atmosphere, and we could use total weight of the atmosphere and calculate a permissible weight of benzene. This can then be divided as allowable among various emitters.
From most of the above, it is apparent that a limited benzene allocation could be assigned to each emitter. This could be done by a quantity to each type of emitter, such as natural gas frackers, or even to an individual fracker. The calculations would be extensive, but the mathematics is simple and the EPA has lots of people and computers to easily accomplish this task.
Using the same technique and a more developed understanding of the chemical equation, the EPA could then go on to calculate category limits for NOx and VOCs generators.
Lastly, the EPA's April 18 regulation mentions reducing methane emissions as a favorable aspect related to installation of emission control equipment. However, the whole purpose of gas drilling is to obtain methane, and it is likely that every driller will make a reasonable effort to control methane loss. In addition, we have separately shown that methane is not likely a significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, because of its very low concentration. See "Debunking Global Warming Theory" in http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.
References:
1. Read more at Suite101: Weight of Earth's Atmosphere: Gravity, Force, and Pressure in Fluids & the Power of Physics | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/weight-of-earths-atmosphere-a56021#ixzz1xyN0uBUW
2. http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp#oil
Fracking is an improved technique of recovering natural gas from underground deposits. The previous technique was to drill into an underground reservoir, similar to oil drilling, and then pipe natural gas to the surface. In time, the production from that particular well decreased. The fracking technique involves pumping water into a gas well at high pressure. This breaks up the underground structure and releases significantly more gas to be pumped to the surface. The use of fracking techniques have increased availability of natural gas, which has decreased its price to about one half.
`The environmental groups, Wild Earth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance, sued EPA to issue regulations controlling air contaminating emissions from the fracking wells. Given the previously observed ideology and regulatory track record of the EPA, it may be a willing partner to the suit.
In a separate article, it was stated that more than a year ago, a court order required EPA to issue final air regulations for oil and gas drilling under the Clean Air Act. The EPA issued its regulations on April 18 of this year. The new regulations require fracking operations to install equipment by January 2015. The new equipment must reduce emissions of ozone-producing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants, such as benzene and hexane. There is no mention in the C&E News article concerning the VOC emission from each well. However, there is mention that the equipment will automatically reduce emission of methane to the atmosphere, which EPA indicates is a noxious greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Although I don't know the details of the court order, I consider the EPA order to be the EPA's usual overreach. The EPA has no business telling the natural gas production industry how to run its business. The EPA is a regulatory body set up to implement laws passed by Congress. The EPA is supposed to set limits on production emissions, which have been shown to be detrimental to health. In other words, the EPA can decide what emissions should be controlled and amounts allowable to the atmosphere. It must be left to industry to decide how that can be accomplished. Of course, the EPA must have some idea of practicality, so as not to set impossible limits.
The basis of Jeff Johnson's article is the emission of VOCs by natural gas producers from fracking operations. However, whether fracking or traditional production, the same considerations involving VOCs are involved. A little consideration on natural gas processing is in order.
Natural gas contains variable amounts of VOCs, in addition to the major constituent methane, as it comes from the well. Well gas is always almost processed to remove VOCs, which generally have a higher value per pound than methane. There are basically two processes to remove VOCs. It is not clear how much VOCs are still contained in each of the treated gases, which are then known as pipeline gas, but the likelihood is that it is very low. One process extracts the VOCs in a tower using an oil which dissolves the VOCs. The loaded oil is then heated to remove the VOCs, which are collected, and may be separated into further components by distillation. The second process involves cooling the total well gas to a level where the VOCs condense as liquids, which are then separated from the remaining methane. Again, the mixed VOCs may be separated into components by distillation.
Since EPA's regulation of April 18 first mentioned ozone, we will now take a look at that.
Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC.
The detrimental health effects of breathing ozone contaminated air are respiratory compromise and increased tendency to leukemia. Mortality effects have been noticed at 60 parts per billion. The EPA has set a limit of 75 parts per billion.
It is apparent from the chemical reaction generating ozone that its decrease could be accomplished by limiting the availability of the reactants NOx and VOCs. However, the source of these substances is so ubiquitous that no simple solution of control is available. The only way to do this is by broad brush. We could start with further study of the chemical reaction to determine ozone yields, when considering individual VOCs.
In 2009, the EPA standard for NOx in air was 58 parts per billion, which was the national average at the time. Whether that's a good number or not is conjectural, but with all the sources of NOx emission, it would seem almost impossible to get a good handle on this. Perhaps we can be more successful in controlling the second reactant generating ozone; namely VOCs.
Some typical VOCs are acetone, benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, toluene, xylene, and 1,3-butadiene, but there are many more. Again, it seems almost impossible to establish a concentration limit in air for each VOC.
The best approach might be to look at the problem on a global scale, starting with the fact that the total weight of Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 1.2 E19 pounds. However, dangerous ozone exists only at the ground level and an estimate would have to be made on the weight of the global atmosphere at some arbitrary elevation. Another difficulty would be in assuming that only the US is responsible for VOC generation. However, an estimate could be made on US contribution. From there, and a better understanding of the capability of each VOC to produce ozone, the total globally allowable quantity of each VOC could be calculated and divided among the generators as a "maximum allowable weight".
The EPA's April 18 regulation also covers specific hazardous chemicals, unrelated to ozone generation. One of these as benzene, which can be considered separately.
OSHA recommends that workers use special breathing equipment when the benzene content of the air is 100 ppb. From that we can likely assume that a permissible concentration in the air may be one part per billion. It is probable that benzene vapor mixes completely with the atmosphere, and we could use total weight of the atmosphere and calculate a permissible weight of benzene. This can then be divided as allowable among various emitters.
From most of the above, it is apparent that a limited benzene allocation could be assigned to each emitter. This could be done by a quantity to each type of emitter, such as natural gas frackers, or even to an individual fracker. The calculations would be extensive, but the mathematics is simple and the EPA has lots of people and computers to easily accomplish this task.
Using the same technique and a more developed understanding of the chemical equation, the EPA could then go on to calculate category limits for NOx and VOCs generators.
Lastly, the EPA's April 18 regulation mentions reducing methane emissions as a favorable aspect related to installation of emission control equipment. However, the whole purpose of gas drilling is to obtain methane, and it is likely that every driller will make a reasonable effort to control methane loss. In addition, we have separately shown that methane is not likely a significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, because of its very low concentration. See "Debunking Global Warming Theory" in http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.
References:
1. Read more at Suite101: Weight of Earth's Atmosphere: Gravity, Force, and Pressure in Fluids & the Power of Physics | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/weight-of-earths-atmosphere-a56021#ixzz1xyN0uBUW
2. http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp#oil
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Noxious Emissions of Coal Burning Electricity Plants
Jeff Johnson has an article entitled, "Stuck on Fossil Fuels", in the June 4 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. In his article, Jeff reviews a report by the Government Accountability Office, which is an investigating arm of Congress.
Jeff's report indicates that when the Clean Air Act was passed by Congress in 1978, new construction of electricity fossil-fuel generation plants were required to install pollution control equipment. Plants built before 1978 were exempted.
There are 1485 of these old plants, which is 43% of the total. The old plants produce about 45% of all fossil-fuel generated electricity, and many of these are coal-burning. These plants also emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. SO2 and NOx are reactive gases. CO2 is non-reactive, and can be ignored.
SO2 and NOx have been linked to respiratory illnesses and acid rain, contributing to premature death, aggravated asthma, and chronic bronchitis. However, concentration is always a factor in the damage a material could cause. There is little doubt that we want to keep concentrations of these two noxious gases at a low-level, but the question is what concentration. The information can be developed only through some significant health studies.
It is likely that we already have a good idea of what concentrations would be permissible and still allow significant control of the health problems. We may already be at that control level. Unfortunately, EPA studies and regulations usually do not take those factors into consideration. The EPA tends to beat problems with a club. In this case, the EPA likely wants to push regulations to eliminate noxious gas emissions to zero. EPA also does not look at costs of any of these controls.
Before we impose any additional emission restrictions on coal-burning plants, we need to establish minimum permissible concentrations relative to achievable health benefits and within a limit of costs. While the public will possibly be gaining in health benefits, it will pay through increased electricity prices. The track record of the EPA shows that it is not capable of directing such operation, in its present conformation and ideology.
Jeff's report indicates that when the Clean Air Act was passed by Congress in 1978, new construction of electricity fossil-fuel generation plants were required to install pollution control equipment. Plants built before 1978 were exempted.
There are 1485 of these old plants, which is 43% of the total. The old plants produce about 45% of all fossil-fuel generated electricity, and many of these are coal-burning. These plants also emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. SO2 and NOx are reactive gases. CO2 is non-reactive, and can be ignored.
SO2 and NOx have been linked to respiratory illnesses and acid rain, contributing to premature death, aggravated asthma, and chronic bronchitis. However, concentration is always a factor in the damage a material could cause. There is little doubt that we want to keep concentrations of these two noxious gases at a low-level, but the question is what concentration. The information can be developed only through some significant health studies.
It is likely that we already have a good idea of what concentrations would be permissible and still allow significant control of the health problems. We may already be at that control level. Unfortunately, EPA studies and regulations usually do not take those factors into consideration. The EPA tends to beat problems with a club. In this case, the EPA likely wants to push regulations to eliminate noxious gas emissions to zero. EPA also does not look at costs of any of these controls.
Before we impose any additional emission restrictions on coal-burning plants, we need to establish minimum permissible concentrations relative to achievable health benefits and within a limit of costs. While the public will possibly be gaining in health benefits, it will pay through increased electricity prices. The track record of the EPA shows that it is not capable of directing such operation, in its present conformation and ideology.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
A Local Look at Plug-In Vehicles
Jeff Johnson has an article entitled, "A Local Look at Plug-In Vehicles" in the April 30 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, in which he is reviewing an April 16th report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
There will be more plug-in electric vehicles on US roads, because nearly all automakers are planning to make them. In addition, electric utilities are moving to better pricing options that could lower the operating costs, although it is said that the average operating cost for electric vehicle will be $750-$1200 less per year than for a gasoline vehicle. Let's say $975 per year average.
A study published in 2011 by the Belfer Center, Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Price) says electric vehicle costs $4800 more than an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle. With a $975 per year average saving on fuel, the return on investment is 4.9 years, which is not a very good ROI. While the electricity costs may decrease, there is also reason to believe that gasoline prices may also decrease.
There are other factors, which contribute to a vehicles popularity. I live in Lubbock, TX, where we have many light trucks on the road. Texans, especially young people, like light trucks. They ride higher, for improved "status", and young people like the burst of power they can get from a gasoline powered vehicle.
There will be more plug-in electric vehicles on US roads, because nearly all automakers are planning to make them. In addition, electric utilities are moving to better pricing options that could lower the operating costs, although it is said that the average operating cost for electric vehicle will be $750-$1200 less per year than for a gasoline vehicle. Let's say $975 per year average.
A study published in 2011 by the Belfer Center, Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Price) says electric vehicle costs $4800 more than an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle. With a $975 per year average saving on fuel, the return on investment is 4.9 years, which is not a very good ROI. While the electricity costs may decrease, there is also reason to believe that gasoline prices may also decrease.
There are other factors, which contribute to a vehicles popularity. I live in Lubbock, TX, where we have many light trucks on the road. Texans, especially young people, like light trucks. They ride higher, for improved "status", and young people like the burst of power they can get from a gasoline powered vehicle.
Electricity Production Costs in Perspective
Electricity Production
US
Production of electricity in 2010 was 4,125,060 megawatt hours. The production
portions by plant type was as follows:
(http://205.254.135.7/electricity/annual/html/tablees1.cfm)
Coal Fired 44.6%
Natural Gas Fired 23.9
Nuclear 14.7
Hydroelectric 6.3
Other Renewable 4.1
Present Production Costs
Since
the above productions are from existing plants, let's consider only their
operating costs (cents/kilowatt hour), which are fuel and maintenance:
Nuclear
(1) 2.3
Coal (1) 3.0
Hydroelectric (2) 2-5 Natural
Gas (1) 8.2
Other Renewables (2) 5-125
Notes:
(1) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
(2) http://www.hydro21.org/div_media/pdf/pdf_economie_en.pdf
Observations
The US economy is
primarily based on manpower using cheap energy. Our cheapest available energy
source is our nuclear plants, but we don't have enough to supply all our
electricity needs.
Our next cheapest source is coal. Providing we don't burden
it with unnecessary regulations that will increase cost. Coal-fired plants have been our traditional
electricity source and we already have many of them. With proper maintenance,
they don't wear out. We should be using our existing coal-fired plants to their
maximum capability.
Similar to nuclear, our hydroelectric plants are cheap to
operate, but their total production capacity is limited. We should again be
using them to their maximum capability and again fall back to coal, as will be
necessary.
Electricity production from natural gas has been
traditionally high in cost, and the number of existing plants is limited.
However, with fracking, natural gas prices will fall. and we may be able to use
the existing natural gas-fired plants more efficiently.
Future Growth
We will not have
sufficient electricity as our population continues to grow, and we develop more
efficient production of goods through use of electricity. Therefore, we will
need to build new electricity generating facilities. This is especially true,
if we convert much of our internal combustion vehicles to electricity.
With production of new electricity generation facilities,
amortization costs on capital for normal plant construction and special
equipment required by government regulation are added to the operating costs of
fuel and maintenance. Costs for various facility types have been estimated for
construction in 2016. The electricity production costs for each type have been
"levelized" to a consistent annual cost over plant life expectancy.
The
estimated electricity costs in $/megawatt hour are as follows:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources)
Natural Gas 66-124
Hydro 86
Coal 95-136
Wind 97-243
Biomass 113
Nuclear 114
Solar 211-311
Observations
New natural gas-fired plants are the apparent first
choice for electricity expansion, providing the new construction is not loaded
with mandated federal control, which would appear to increase the cost to the higher
$124. The apparent low cost for natural
gas is likely based on the simplicity of the equipment.
New hydro production looks good, but the
geographical limitations reduce the practicability.
The reference explains that coal is loaded with
carbon capture and sequestration equipment, but even without that, the cost is
higher than for natural gas. This may be because coal plants handle solid fuel,
which is more difficult to handle than pipeline gas.
Even the low value for wind is above the other
three. It also has the disadvantage of geographical limitation and the erratic
behavior of wind.
Overall, our best course of action is to operate
existing coal, nuclear and hydro facilities to maximum capacity, while
minimizing unnecessary government mandates. Carbon control on coal plants
through sequestration is a prime example.
New plants should favor natural gas. Again with the
avoidance of government mandated controls.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Shell: Protect Your Business!
Shell Energy North America
Two Houston Center, Plaza Level I
909 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77010
I really wanted to direct this message to your CEO, Marvin Odum, but his address appears to be unavailable. Similarly, I am forced to send this message by mail to anyone at Shell who may consider this message his area of responsibility. My first suggestion is that you revise your website to designate individuals and their responsibilities and also include e-mail addresses so that we may be able to contact them with specific appropriate information, which could be materially beneficial to Shell Energy.
I heard on Fox news this Saturday morning an indication that Shell would be addressing the subject of fracking for natural gas production. The commentator showed water flaming in the sink from natural gas, which had apparently contaminated the water. I waited with the anticipation to hear what Shell would have to say about the subject. As a chemist, I know much about it myself, but I wanted to hear something relating to Shell's general defense to the American public concerning their franking process for improving natural gas production. In other words, I saw a ray of hope, in that a major company would try to defend with the American public a particular production operation which might appear to negatively affect the American public.
I was disappointed by not seeing or hearing anyone from Shell. What I saw instead, was a weasel-worded presentation by Dr. Timothy Considine from the University of Wyoming. I think that his presentation actually harmed Shell's position on the fracking process.
My strong position on this issue is that major companies should be spending a part of their budget to protect their businesses from incorrect advertisements and general publications from negative influences. It is not only the facts of whether fracking is environmentally harmful, it is also a matter of public perception. An incorrect public perception can doom positive technological development, not only to the public itself but also to suppliers like Shell.
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net
Two Houston Center, Plaza Level I
909 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77010
I really wanted to direct this message to your CEO, Marvin Odum, but his address appears to be unavailable. Similarly, I am forced to send this message by mail to anyone at Shell who may consider this message his area of responsibility. My first suggestion is that you revise your website to designate individuals and their responsibilities and also include e-mail addresses so that we may be able to contact them with specific appropriate information, which could be materially beneficial to Shell Energy.
I heard on Fox news this Saturday morning an indication that Shell would be addressing the subject of fracking for natural gas production. The commentator showed water flaming in the sink from natural gas, which had apparently contaminated the water. I waited with the anticipation to hear what Shell would have to say about the subject. As a chemist, I know much about it myself, but I wanted to hear something relating to Shell's general defense to the American public concerning their franking process for improving natural gas production. In other words, I saw a ray of hope, in that a major company would try to defend with the American public a particular production operation which might appear to negatively affect the American public.
I was disappointed by not seeing or hearing anyone from Shell. What I saw instead, was a weasel-worded presentation by Dr. Timothy Considine from the University of Wyoming. I think that his presentation actually harmed Shell's position on the fracking process.
My strong position on this issue is that major companies should be spending a part of their budget to protect their businesses from incorrect advertisements and general publications from negative influences. It is not only the facts of whether fracking is environmentally harmful, it is also a matter of public perception. An incorrect public perception can doom positive technological development, not only to the public itself but also to suppliers like Shell.
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net