Perpetual Innovation

Category: greenhouse gasses

  • Oil & Gas Spills in North America Since 2010

    Oil & Gas Spills in North America Since 2010

    This was posted over in SustainZine originally, but it does pertain to Innovation. The costs of the old systems of fossil fuels are far greater than the price we all pay at the pump. Plus they are crazy subsidized (one estimate is 1% of GDP directly and about 6% indirectly).

    But here’s the article. *** SustainZine ***

    A question I sometimes ask of people who think that fossil fuels are here forever more and that electrification of everything will never happen… 

    Has there ever been an oil spill in Yellowstone National Park? If so, how many?

    The answer I get is surprisingly often, none. It is, after all, a National Park, right?

    ArcGIS does a map overlay with the data of your choice. In this case the data is documented oil and gas spills since 2010, by type of spill and the SIZE of spill. Map for North America here. The size of the circle indicates the size of the spill. Note the big circles; size of the circle indicates the size of the spill. Blue is refined oil (gasoline, diesel, etc.). Red is NatGas. Since NatGas just vents into the atmosphere (unless it catches fire or is flared), it’s a “clean” spill. Kinda. Natural Gas is a wicked greenhouse gas, with a warming factor of 80x more than carbon dioxide. 

    The next chart just shows oil & gasoline spills. Crude oil in green (ironically), refined petroleum in blue.

    Yellowstone is in the northeast corner of Wyoming. Yellowstone has had two notable oil spills since 2010: an oil spill on the Exxon-Mobil pipeline in 2011, and another spill in 2015 from the pipeline owned by the True Companies. Those spills seem tiny compared to the thousands of spills throughout North America. No info from Canada though. There have been many oil spills in the Alaska pipelines that run all the way through Canada to the US.

    Note that there are tens of thousands of old wells that have been abandoned; many have never been capped or have been poorly capped. Old wells are leaking massive amounts of oil and natgas. The big oil companies sell off the depleted wells to small companies. Those companies milk the well for a while and then go out of business. 

    “According to the Government Accountability Office, the 2.1 million unplugged abandoned wells in the United States could cost as much as $300 billion.[2]” from this Wikipedia article on Abandoned Wells in the United States. There are abandoned oil wells everywhere: in the gulf, in Pennsylvania, in Texas, in California.  And that is in the USA where there are better regulations than most countries. Read about the Biden effort to go out and cap them at the NRDC. There are lots of other sources, but you get the idea.

    When you think of the costs to the environment, the costs to clean up, and the costs to not cleanup, the costs are massively greater than what you pay at the gas meter or at the pump. And yet the world’s governments still subsidize fossil fuels at the rate of $1T per year. According to the IMF, explicit fossil fuel subsidies are about 1% of GDP, but implicit is 6% to 7% of GDP (about $6T USD).

  • PetroCoins, Oil Sands Extraction and Blockchain.

    Oil sands are seriously back in play with patented technology. Combine that with blockchain tech, and you have an investment that you simply gotta get into, or not!…
    Petrotech Energy Inc. is touting both patents and blockchain in a penny, over-the-counter, stock (PQEFF).
    Well, maybe not investing, but here is a hyped-up “sponsored” Ad that looks slightly like an article over at OilPrice.com: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/This-New-Technology-Could-Transform-The-Oil-Industry1.html
    Two things that are interesting in the penny stock that’s now up to $1.50 level. It has patented tech on oil sands extraction that is a closed loop system that sounds interesting. With the dry sands of Utah it apparently has the ability to extract 99% of the heavy oil and leaves only sand as the byproduct. That is pretty cool because oil sand extraction has historically been a very, very dirty and expansive business. They want to expand their patents to the countries where lots of (dry) oil sands deposits live and make a fortune. Unfortunately, two of the biggest candidates are Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Russia and China — not exactly the worlds heaven of intellectual property (IP) protection countries.
    In fact, the bitcoin IP (ICO) backed by oil reserves by Venezuela in an interesting ploy. We thought the initial coil offering should more aptly be called an IKO, for Initial Kleptocurrency Offering.
    A cybercurrency like bitcoin is, however, an interesting way to do business in any world, especially a kleptocratic country. And blockchain is the underlying transaction technology. So the marriage of blockchain to this company has real merit (they call their technology PetroBLOQ). However, bitcoin and blockchain technology are publicly available — open source — technologies.
    Petrotech says that they can produce oil at $22 per barrel. Maybe even as low as $18. That’s impressive for oil sands. Transportation and the extra costs of processing heavy (“dirty” vs “sweet” West Texas type crude) change that dynamic some; but still impressive.
    What’s somewhat funny is this statement: “It extracts over 99 percent of all hydrocarbons in the sand, generates zero greenhouse gases and doesn’t require high temperatures or pressures.”
    Generates “zero greenhouse gases”? It has to be transported, refined, transported to the pump and then burned in a vehicle where it produces between 19 and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon, depending on the type of gas/diesel.
    Yes, more green than the tar sands of Alberta, but certainly not as green as wind or solar. 
    Look, as well, at the trillions of barrels of oil in sands around the world. Even if we could extract it all and burn it, does not mean we should burn it.
    Check out a sister blog on the scenarios associated with the demise of oil (excluding any discussion about greenhouse gas issues).


  • Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess – WSJ

    Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess – WSJ:

    Bjorn Lomborg may have been best know for his massive tomb of a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg (2007) in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World “may be the best source for reviewing the facts about quality of life, global
    warming, and the optimal approaches for addressing the issues.” (Hall, Taylor, Zapalski, & Hall, 2009, p. 5)

    Apparently he has since gone off to consult for oil & gas interest. That’s not all bad, but it does mean that he may not be unbiased as seemed to be the case during his Skeptical days.

    Bjorn talks about, essentially, the bang for the buck ($US, in this case). The current Obama plan doesn’t do much to move the global warming needle, especially given the costs. On the one hand, Obama will say that we have to start somewhere. In this case, and in several others, Bjorn simply says that this won’t do much good. A smart guy like that should suggest better alternatives.

    We, at SBPlan, argue that there are two monster places to start. AND neither requires the special help of government, really. Both are energy efficiency (EE) focused. Two EE business models that SBP especially likes are related to telecommuting using remote work centers and a pay-forward model
    of promoting energy efficiency in all buildings – residential, commercial and
    government. Since both of these initiatives save money, they offer a special win-win-win of sustainability (Employees, Employers and Environment, in this case).

    I’m a little disappointing that Bjorn has been simply complaining about the expense and the likely lack of success from various government initiatives, not offering up his own recommendations. It’s easy to complain and stop progress, but I give no respect to someone who does not offer up better alternatives. In the case of our non-sustainable practices of energy, the olde business as usual (BAU) model is a failed business model; it is only a matter of time for this living beyond our means model of existence will come crashing down.

    Bjorn offers up more research, presumably to make renewables more affordable. And touts the Fracking-NatGas revolutions as a massive windfall for reducing our pollution and greenhouse gases away from coal. NatGas is both good and bad; it shifts us away from really dirty energy associated with coal. Yeah!:-) But it reduced the costs and availability of all oil, gas and coal such that we may have tagged on another 50 years worth of fossil fuels to global economies before we really start to run low(er) and basic economics starts to really solves our addiction to fossil fuels. 

    If you read Bjorn’s Skeptical Environmentalist, you will find that he totally believes that there is global warming and that man is a big (?major?) contributor. When you read this book you will agree, even before including the 10 record hot years since he published in 2007. What he does say, forcefully then, and now, is that we need to focus on the efforts that will result the move benefits. Huge government spending on reducing CO2, especially in developing countries, may have little, none, or even negative results. 

    Bjorn ended up in a big tiff over the 2007 book Skeptical Environmentalist. If it was an opinion piece then it would be okay to take the liberties that he did with interpreting the results; but as a scientific book, he had gone way to far. The  Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) in Bjorn’s home country, charged him with academic dishonesty in the book. This ruling went against Bjorn. On appeal the charge of scientific dishonesty was sent back for a do-over, where it stalled out.

    Bjorg’s follow Skeptical Environmentalist book(s) have titles that start with “Cool it!”, concentrating on what to do that will likely have the most (short-term) benefits. 

    Bjorg, don’t just complain in op-eds about Obama and the other 200 countries who signed the Paris greenhouse deal this April (agreed to in Dec 2015). The average person reading this op-ed would think that we all should do nothing and wait for Bill Gates Foundation to find a cure. Give people real suggestions for actions. Or, are you simply trying to sell your books and consulting?

    References

    Hall, E., Taylor, S., Zapalski, C., & Hall, T.
    (2009). Sustainability in education: Green in the facilities, but not in the
    classrooms. Proceedings of the Society for Advancement of Management,
    USA.
    Lomborg, Bjorn. (2007). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. NY:
    Cambridge University Press.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Invest Yourself – Roaches, Never Just One

    Free Investment Newsletter | Invest Yourself:

    I really like what they (Robert B. Rinear) say on the currency. That all seems very very
    true.  The currencies in the world are
    all crap. The best may be Japan and they can’t keep the Yen low enough to be a     competitive exporter so it is wreaking havoc on their economy…
    The Yankee Dollar is a piece of crap. But we are less crappy then the
    Yuan or the Euro.  We are the best house
    in a slum-blighted neighborhood. 
    You can only have all the currencies in the world artificially low for
    so long. Especially if all the effects are compounding, year over year. I
    really do think that real assets, like land and gold, will slingshot into the
    stratosphere sometime rather soon, say 1 to 3 years.
    But the same thing that they complain about, the talking heads at CNN,
    they did themselves. Go look at any of the databases, since recorded history,
    on any of the measures you chose, and you will see that the global warming is
    very real, and accelerating. It also     coincides well with populations explosion and industrialization.  And it is a compounding effect. Panicking certainly doesn’t make
    sense, but ignoring facts and data supporting global warming means the “hoax”
    is on you.
    Give a look at: https://www.skepticalscience.com/
    (Real science and no crap, discussing the real facts and actual data about
    Climate Change & Global Warming. It is very real by every measure that is
    measurable.)
    Want to know about Sustainability, look at my book (www.TinyURL.com/SustainYBook/) created
    from live Wikipedia links on Sustainability. The Intro is by Elmer Hall and created the
    dynamic links to carefully selected Wikipedia articles (pages). The pages in
    this book represent the best, most current and most accurate single source of
    information related to sustainability and climate change in the world.

    Sustainability. The world currencies are not!… 
    Ever growing greenhouse gas emissions,  sustainable we are not.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • A frosty G20 puts global warming on ice – Comment – Voices – The Independent

    A frosty G20 puts global warming on ice – Comment – Voices – The Independent:

    Great article. Like many such meetings, the major part of the the G20 meeting gets diverted to North Korea or Egypt or Syria. Too bad, there’s a lot the the G20 can do, besides putter with the politics that’s taken over the news today.

    Surprisingly, there was movement on making progress on the very best places to push hard related to our impact on the environment, greenhouse gases (GHGs) and global warming.

    Most people who don’t focus on sustainability don’t realize what a wicked impact hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs) have on the (atmosphere) environment. Most HFCs are released into the atmosphere from Freon, the gas that has an ugly impact on the Ozone layer in the atmosphere. But the other problem with florine-based gasses is that they last in the atmosphere for centuries, not decades. Look at the global warming potential of various gases here: GWP at INTCCC and wikipedia GHGs.

    So continuing to use Freon is a gift for the future that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving.

    The approach to CFCs is one of the great success stories of our time. Starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the international community has banded together to address and reduce CFCs. Most countries, that is. Progress has been especially strong because of the progress in alternative refrigerants that are still cheap and efficient. Not so much so, the progress in other greenhouse gases.

    As you can see, the GHGs of carbon dioxide and the noxious oxides are increasing in the atmosphere unabated. Methane seems to be slowing down a little. Remember that these increased levels are above and beyond the levels that the atmosphere has become accustom to. Longer duration graphs are equally as telling.

    But as you can see, CFC emissions have plateaued, but not necessarily reduced. The problem is that several countries, apparently, have not bothered to make the leap to replacement FREON  refrigerants, namely India and Brazil. One of the best, easiest, cheapest and greatest-impact methods to address GHG issues is to pressure those rogue countries to join the rest of the world on HFC reduction.

    Turns out the G20 meeting, lead by China and USA, are looking to “encourage” these rogue countries to pick up the pace on HFCs.

    Making progress on the most important things first, is a great approach to sustainability. HFCs is a great place to push. Even the G20, and the UN that don’t agree on much, have taking this approach.

    EE is probably the greatest place to focus, however. Energy efficiency (EE) and similar types of inefficiencies are the great untapped places to save money, energy and the environment. Everybody wins, except, maybe the power companies. But that’s the focus of other books and blog posts.

    ‘via Blog this’