The Energy Blog

US Energy consumption.

---

---

I was trying to follow a lecture about energy needs the other day, and make sense of the speaker's numbers. I know most energy statistics, but his numbers were not adding up. I started wishing I had an energy "crib sheet" with simply the big numbers to help me understand. So, I made one. Here it is. This is the amount of energy the US used in October of 2009. I did not make any correlations between units or types, these are the raw figures. Here is this country's overall energy use:

U.S. Energy use for the month of October 2009.

Type of energy	Trillions of BTU's	Millions of Megawatt Hours	Amount
Electricity	1,200	351	Not Applicable
Natural Gas	1,800	527	1.8 Trillion Cubic Feet
Gasoline	1,364	399	11 Billion Gallons
Diesel Fuel	700	205	6.2 Billion Gallons
Totals	5,064	1,482

 (The amount column is the amount of the fossil fuel we used. Electricity is generated by various means. It is an energy carrier, not a fuel.)

Those are BIG numbers. To clarify the units, the totals equal:

5,064,000,000,000,000 BTUs. and 1,482,000,000,000 Kilowatt hours.

If that were YOUR electric bill for October, at ten cents per kWh, the amount due would be: $148,200,000,000.00! That is 148 Billion dollars. Your electric rate may vary.

According to the EIA, on a BTU Basis, the US uses 21% of the worlds energy. So, multiply those numbers by five and you know (roughly) how much the world uses.

One final note on electrical generation.

This country has slightly more than 1,000,000 megawatts (1,000 GigaWatts) of nameplate generation capacity installed. Of that total, about 550,000 megawatts is available at any one time. The rest is down for maintenance, repairs or other factors. There are 720 hours in a month. So we can actually generate about 396 Million Megawatt Hours each month.

Our Natural Gas supply – The numbers game.

---

---

It does not take long to realize that there are more varied predictions on how much Natural Gas this country has, than there are flavors in your local store’s Ice Cream freezer. And, unlike that Ice-Cream, many of the natural gas numbers leave a sour taste in the mouth. Which numbers are correct, which are biased towards an agenda, and which are just plain old pie in the sky – (a-la-mode)?

Now, I am not a geologist so I cannot offer my own independent conclusions, although that does not seem to inhibit many others. What I can do, is to look at those numbers, compare them, and attempt to derive some sensible compromises based on reality, technical awareness, and just plain common sense.

First, lets look at the numbers reported by what are considered by most to be credible and reliable sources. Unlike some, these sources also have facts and figures to back up their analysis.

The United States Geological Survey in their latest report ( Dec 2008) says we have 742 Trillion cubic feet of proved conventional reserves, 378 Trillion Cubic feet of Unproved reserves, and  743 Trillion Cubic Feet of technically recoverable Unconventional resources (Shale and tight gas).
Ref: http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga00/natl/tabular/2008/summary_08.pdf

The Energy Information Administration in Jan 2007 puts US total recoverable conventional reserves at 211 proved  and 373 unproved,  and technically recoverable unconventional reserves (Proved and unproved)  at 1,366 Trillion Cubic feet.  Ref: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/oil_gas.pdf

Already we have some serious disagreement, although both sources agree on Unproved Conventional gas. The difference in the unconventional reserves likely centers around the definition of  “Technically recoverable”.

The big difference comes in the proven reserves. For some reason the EIA comes up with a very low figure for this, (I did the math 3 times).  Yet, both sources add up to roughly the same total of 1,800 Trillion Cubic feet of reserves.

Now, lets turn to the Natural Gas Association. First of all, they agree with me that there is a wide disparity in these assessments. I feel so good!  They base their own assessment on EIA data as above with total proven reserves at 211 Trillion Cubic Feet, and a total of  1,536 Trillion Cubic feet of unproven reserves.

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp (Very useful page!).

OK. The above references, ignoring what they consider to be technically recoverable, all predicate that we have a total of about 1,800 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural gas reserves in the  US. Now, I could fill a few pages with references to other reports that “grow” this estimate in leaps and bounds. It all culminated for me in a purported report from JP Morgan Chase that our reserves are NOW 8,000 Trillion Cubic Feet. I have not been able to find the actual report, only references to it. It does strike me that  many of these inflated numbers are coming, not from geologists, or even energy companies, but  from institutions with a financial stake in the trading of Natural Gas. Hmmmm.

I would like to point out also, that there is wide disparity on how much of that gas can be recovered. Certainly not all. According to the Natural Gas association, about 10% of the unconventional. Many sources put it closer to 30 percent. So far shale gas production in the Barnett shale has not lived up to expectations, and they are recovering about maybe 35% of what they thought they would. http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/08/lessons-from-the-barnett-shale-suggest-caution-in-other-shale-plays/

One final issue I would like to address. A common talking point is how many years this supply of Natural Gas will last us. First some baseline numbers. We used 22 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas last year. That is 1.8 TCF per month, or 60 Billion Cubic Feet a Day!  In the same month we will use about 11 Billion gallons of gasoline,  5 billion gallons of diesel fuel and 342 Million-Megawatt hours of electricity.

Well, if we change nothing, and manage to recover all 1,800 TCF of our natural gas, we are good for 81 years. If we manage to only recover  35%, then about  28 years worth.

But, what if we try to replace our gasoline use with natural gas? That 11 Billion Gallons of gasoline a month is about 1,364 trillion BTUs. Equivalent to 1.3 trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas, increasing our consumption by 72%.  If we add in the diesel, that would equal  .65 Trillion more Cubic feet. So replacing our transportation fuel would more than double our consumption of Natural Gas, and reduce our remaining supply to 14 or 40 years, depending on your optimism level. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5615.

Let’s replace electricity from coal instead. Coal supplies 48% of our electricity, or  164 Million-Megawatt hours a month. Each one has 3.414 BTUs of energy. So, that is 560 Trillion BTU’s. (I checked the decimal point). It would require .6 trillion Cubic Feet of Natural gas to replace our coal. About a 33% increase, assuming the power plant  efficiency is the same – it is close. That would make our natural gas last anywhere from 19 years to 54 years, again depending on how much natural gas we can actually recover.

Finally, I would recommend reading this report on The Oil Drum. It addresses some of these points, and also makes the point that the whole natural gas reserves picture is steeped in unfounded numbers and hype.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5676

As for me, I think I will have some Ice Cream.
 

Bloom Energy Server Revealed -

---

---

VM7MS3RMU35U

Well, the Bloom Box – Now called the Bloom energy server – was formally revealed on Wednesday. Most of the technical details are now on their website. So, naturally, after all my previous commentary, I must comment once more.

It is, indeed a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC). It generates 100 Kilowatts of power. According to the specs it requires 661000 BTUs per hour from the natural gas input (apx 700 Cu Ft). That is 193 KWh worth of Natural Gas in, for 100 kWh out for an efficiency of 51.8 percent (Which is, indeed “greater than” 50% as quoted on the web site).

I assume this is the total efficiency of the unit (including inverter), and, as such, it is a modest increase over other Solid Oxide fuel cell efforts I have seen. Good for them.

It weighs Ten Tons! And, my head weighs as much as I bow it to apologize for a mis-statement in an earlier post. I stated that the device would still need a reformer to produce hydrogen for the fuel cell. For most fuel cells this is true. However, because of the high temperatures a SOFC works at, they can apparently do “self reformation” within the cell itself. A small “pre-reformer” is still necessary, but not all the complexity of a complete steam reformer. I was not aware of this, although apparently to the people who actually design these things, you know, scientists, it is common knowledge. Neither do I know how this process works – yet. But, I do apologize for the inaccuracy.

CO2 emissions are 773 pounds per MWh. A typical coal plant, according to the EIA, emits about 2000 pounds per MWh. So this emits about 1/3 the CO2 of a coal power plant. The same source quotes natural gas turbine plant CO2 emissions at 1300 pounds per MWH, so it is about half as much as those, although I am not sure I quite buy their CO2 emissions number. Since the carbon is not used in the process, I would think it would be closer to the natural gas turbine plant. Still, much less than coal, and I’m no chemist.

One problem with a SOFC is the extreme temperatures they operate at.- up to 1800 degrees F. At those temperatures reliability has been a problem with other designs. There is no mention of this on their web site. Bloom is offering a 10 year guarantee on the units. Time will tell how reliable they are.

So far, so good. But, then, there is a matter of cost. Oh, there is always a rub. No where on their web site can I find information on cost, so I went looking elsewhere. According to an article on Forbes (as well as a couple of others I found), the box costs approximately $700,000. ($7,000 per kW) There are reports that Bloom is hoping to get the cost down to about $2,500 per kW in about five years. That would put the cost of the box at $250,000. Now there are government rebates and subsidies. Especially in California, which is where all of the initial units have been installed. You can read the Forbes article below for info on that.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/25/fuel-cell-costs-technology-ecotech-bloom-energy.html

But, let us look at the economics of the Bloom Energy Server. Specifically as relates to a residence, as their stated goal is to use these to replace the electric grid to homes.

My only reference to the cost of natural gas and electricity is my own residential bills. To Produce 100 kWh of electricity, which at my rate of 8 cents per kWh would cost $8.00, the box requires 6.6 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of gas. That gas, at about $0.90 per CCF delivered would cost me $5.94. So for every 100 kWh of electricity, I would save $2.06. - Stay with me-  I currently average using about 1400 kWh per month. That means I would save $28.84 every month. Or  $346.08 per year getting my power from the Bloom Energy Server rather than staying with the grid. OK, not a lot, but still a savings. So, let’s rip out the grid connection. But wait, there’s more, I have to purchase this thing. And, therein lies a rub or two.

Certainly, I wouldn’t need this big of a unit. However, if I were to replace my electric service with a Bloom Energy server, it would have to supply my entire 200 amp home service. That is 44,000 watts worth. See, while I normally don’t use that much at once, there is the electric stove, water heater, air conditioner, power tools, and they might have to all be on at once. That is why we have the 200 amp service, and since we are replacing the electric grid entirely, we need to replace it’s entire capacity. So, 44 Kilowatts times even his target price of 2,500 per Kilowatt is an $110,000 investment.
I still have to pay for the fuel, so my savings stay the same - $346.08. So, that works out to a Payback (break-even) time of 317 years. Wait, did I do that right, yep. 317 years. For a box guaranteed for 10 years?

That is the rub with completely replacing the electric grid, especially to a home. See, I don’t normally use anywhere near 44,000 watts at once. But, sometimes I do, or at least come close. So, the capacity has to be there for those times. With the electric grid I do not have to purchase ALL that capacity, just what I need at the moment. My capital cost is spread out over all the users. With the Bloom Energy Server (or any other private power plant). I have to make that entire investment up front.

OK, that would be silly. So lets make one more calculation, one closer to reality. Lets stay connected to the grid for those high power times, and we will put in a more reasonably sized Bloom Energy Server to supply my average needs,  Like, say, 2500 watts. Now, the good thing is I can sell excess power back to the grid – store it there if you will -  so that 2500 watts running constantly should just about eliminate my electric bill. I might even make a little extra. Sell it back. But, I still have to pay for the gas, so my actual savings are still $346.08 per year (Minus whatever the electric company charges me just to stay connected). The box costs $6,250. At  $346.00 per year, that payback time is still 18 years. And, what about those days the stove and a/c are running? I may still have to purchase some electricity from the grid. Or, if I get a new Plug In Hybrid, or a hot tub. I will need to purchase the extra power from the grid. I am sure, with subsidies, and proper financing the numbers can work out a bit better, but it is still not a very viable proposition, and we do not know if the box will even last that long, or what maintenance costs are incurred,


Other than the economics, and despite the unwarranted hyperbole, I think Bloom may have a winner here. But are there enough customers? It will not work for a typical home or small business. It may not work for the average factory. It is only going to work, even then with modest savings,  in a place with a steady, continuous and predictable electrical load – like an office building, or a data center… Hmmm.

Previous posts on the bloom energy server:

Bloom energy possible progress or hyperbole or both

Bloom energy and the bloom box cbs 60 minutes coverage

Bloom Energy - Possible progress, or Hyperbole? Or Both?

---

---

Bloom Energy, and their magic “Bloom Box” appear to be all the buzz at the moment. While it may be true that they have achieved a method to reduce the cost of fuel cells, or increase their efficiency, what is being presented in the news is mostly a lot of spin. Much of it has come out of the Sunday Night (2/21/10) segment on CBS 60 Minutes. A segment that provided little actual information, and very shallow depth along with it’s spin.

I guess, I am calling Sham. At least the hyperbole surrounding the Bloom Box. The Bloom Box is a fuel cell. Technically, what it would appear to be is a  Solid oxide fuel cell, using a ceramic electrolyte.

Now, a fuel cell does not magically “create” electricity. Indeed, that is impossible. What it does is convert the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electrical energy. All of the reporting, and the 60 Minutes segment, would appear to be dismissing the need for a fuel as a trivial thing. It is glossed over, and barely mentioned.

In actual fact, all of the energy that comes out of this box, or any fuel cell, has to be supplied by the Fuel. And since no process is, or can be, perfect, that conversion comes at a loss.

But, before discussing that little triviality, lets back up, and look at some of the other spin.

The segment quotes the K.R. Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy, with the following: “The Bloom bakes sand which it then cuts it into squares that become a ceramic.”

Mr. Sridhar has just described, in suitable double-talk,  the process of creating ceramics from sand. Not exactly a new, or revolutionary process.

He then continues, “The ceramic squares are coated with green and black inks.”   These would be the anode and cathode, the same as in any conventional fuel cell. While his “secret ink” may be cheaper than current materials, the technology is not new. And, if this is indeed a SOFC, since the cell operates at extremely high temperatures, the traditional  rare and expensive materials are not necessary.

The segment makes a lot of hay about the 6” square that Mr. Sridhar holds up, proclaiming that little cube can power an entire American Home. What is conveniently glossed over is the rest of the equipment and piping in the actual, real Bloom  Box.

Now, about that fuel. The Bloom Box uses Natural Gas as the energy source. There is also mention that Biogas can be used. Both of these fuels are primarily Methane. But, methane cannot be used to supply a fuel cell. The methane has to first have the Hydrogen extracted from it. In most cases this is done with Steam Methane Reforming – quite likely what all that plumbing, and other stuff is in the real “Bloom Box” a methane reformer. The Hydrogen is what is used in the fuel cell to generate electricity. While there is the possibility that Bloom has created a fuel cell that directly uses the methane, I seriously doubt it, and, I believe, so would the principles of science. Another completely ignored fact is the reformation of methane leaves behind carbon, indeed, as much carbon as would be generated by burning the gas directly.

Finally, the 60 Minutes piece quotes one of the early adopters as saying the Bloom Box makes their electricity cheaper. Cheaper than what? Certainly a fuel cell can make electricity from natural gas much cheaper than burning it in a heat engine. Fuel cells are more efficient than heat engines. IF their natural gas supply is cheap enough, it may even be cheaper than grid power, but I doubt it. I’m suspecting these are replacing diesel generators at these places – just a guess? Since a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell operates at a very high temperature, and creates a lot of waste heat, it is possible they, or the Bloom Box itself, are making use of that extra energy as well.

So, what we likely have is a Fuel Cell, using natural gas as the fuel. The ironic thing is, if Bloom Energy has managed to find a way to make the fuel cell cheaper, that would be the significant achievement. Yet that is not even mentioned, instead relying on snake oil to make it look like a magic source of energy. 60 Minutes does not disappoint me often, but they have this time. I can only hope they haven’t sold out.

As to these replacing the power grid? Forgetting the need to supply all of them with natural gas, the increased need for infrastructure, and the tremendous multi-times increase in our need for natural gas (and resulting major price increases), I doubt the economics would ever support that. Our grid supply of electricity is in place, and already our most economical source of energy.

For many uses of fuel cells, reducing the tremendous cost of those cells would be a major step forward, and would bring them much closer to mainstream practicality. I Hope Bloom Energy has succeeded in some way on that front, and in doing so, will be prosperous, But, as to the Hyperbole surrounding this, and the implications of magic – I call sham.

Other posts on the Bloom Energy Server:

Bloom energy server revealed

Bloom energy and the bloom box cbs 60 minutes coverage

Bloom Energy and the "Bloom Box" - CBS 60 Minutes coverage

---

---

I just watched a segment on CBS 60 Minutes about the “Bloom Box”, made by Bloom Energy, and promoted prior to the segment as a box that “creates” electricity. As I normally do with mass market news stories covering a technical topic, I had some problems with the presentation. The Bloom Box Creator shows the 60 minutes correspondent how he creates this “magic box” from ordinary beach sand, and a “special paint”. He then holds up a small 6” cube and says it can create enough power for an American Home. The whole segment smacked of “snake oil”. Not a normal product for 60 minutes, whom are usually busy uncovering Snake Oil.

The “Bloom Box” ends up being a fuel cell. Apparently a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. The “beach sand” was used to make the ceramic substrate or electrolyte. The special paints are proprietary secrets, and used to make the anode and cathode. None of this is new, or revolutionary. When an actual “Bloom Box” was revealed, we find that small 6” cube is surrounded by a complex maze of support equipment and piping, in a much bigger container.

The segment did not dwell on, and barely mentioned, the fuel that was necessary to run this fuel cell. The fuel ends up being Natural Gas, or Biogas. Yes, once again, no free energy, and no magic. We put a fuel source in, and get electricity out.

What is missing is all the details. In every fuel cell I am aware of using natural gas or Biogas – methane – the methane still has to be reformed (in a process similar to Steam Methane reforming) in order to separate the hydrogen in the fuel. That hydrogen then has to be carefully filtered and purified, as fuel cells do not tolerate contaminants very well. The resulting Hydrogen is then sent to the fuel cell, where along with atmospheric oxygen, electricity is produced. The process still releases all the carbon inherent in the fuel, the same as burning it. A fuel cell will, however, be far more efficient than a heat engine at recovering the energy of the fuel.

A Solid Oxide Fuel cell also produces a large amount of heat, as they run a temperature approaching 1000 deg C. This heat can hinder reliability – as was alluded to in the segment. It can also be used to provide additional heat for, say, space heating.

The Bloom Box apparently has some high profile installations, with Ebay and Google data centers among them.  Perhaps Bloom Energy has achieved some breakthrough in either the cost, or the efficiency of fuel cells. These would both be good things. The extreme cost of today’s fuel cell technology is one major thing that is keeping them out of mainstream use. The ability to convert Biogas from waste water treatment plants, or landfills into electricity is very promising, as is evidenced by the large number of companies working on fuel cells for that purpose. Although none of this would put much of a dent in America’s energy usage, the potential for rural areas, and third world use is large.

I wish Bloom Energy Well. They are to be watched. Bloom Energy reports they are going public the first of the week. I’ll be waiting! I hope they have managed to address the high cost of fuel cells, and reduce that cost to more manageable levels. This would be a significant contribution to our (and the worlds) energy picture. However, I do wish we could leave the spin, snake oil, and promises of free energy out of the rhetoric.

Here is the 60 Minutes article
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml

The company Website.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/

More:
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/bloombox-energy-kr-sridhar-bloom-energy-fuel-cells-2580564.html

Other The Energy Blog posts on the Bloom Box:

Bloom energy server revealed

Bloom energy possible progress or hyperbole or both

Hydrogen Snake Oil - Part 1. The myth of a hydrogen economy

---

---

Hydrogen Snake Oil – Part 1 – Making Hydrogen.

As it was with the snake oil salesmen, and often is with our politicians, we are being sold a bill of goods, and a panacea solution to a very real problem. The problem is our insatiable thirst for energy, and the solution is The “Hydrogen Economy”. While it is being sold as a “futuristic way” to solve our energy problems, I am going to offer my opinion here that it is deflecting our vision and efforts from more serious and realistic goals.

Hydrogen as a transportation fuel is fraught with technical problems. Serious and debilitating problems …..

The first problem is that hydrogen is NOT a fuel at all. It is an energy carrier, the same as electricity. For every watt, BTU, Joule, or gigadyne that we get out of hydrogen, we have to put at least that much into it. And, since in the real world of physics there is no free lunch, we actually have to put in much more.

Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet. We cannot drill for it, mine it, or make a magic box that will spit out limitless amounts of it. We have to manufacture it. This is not a trivial task. Hydrogen has an affinity for just about everything. It binds to carbon to create hydrocarbons – our fossil fuels, and it binds with oxygen to create water – the substance of life. In order to manufacture it we have to break those bonds – and then, akin to keeping a pack of wolves separated - we have to keep it from re-bonding with what it likes until we can use it. So, we will stop calling hydrogen the “fuel” of the future. If anything, it is the energy distribution system of the future, although I seriously doubt that.

This essay will be in four parts. The first part will look at how we manufacture hydrogen, the second will explore how we transport and store it, and some of the challenges that entails. I will devote the entire third part to using hydrogen in our vehicles. Finally, in  part 4, I  will explore what is really behind this deception, (did I mention money?), describe the one or two, utopian, scenarios where hydrogen COULD be a viable energy carrier, and take a brief look at the state of the hydrogen art today.

There are currently two major ways to manufacture hydrogen today. The first is via that again futuristic sounding process “electrolysis”. It is really simple, you may have done it in a science class. Many more are doing it to generate small amounts of hydrogen, and large amounts of cash. We take water, pass an electric current through it, and out comes hydrogen at one end, and oxygen at the other. It IS that simple.

But, wait, did I mention “pass an electric current”? Therein lies the rub. We need an electric current. A large electric current. Ignoring a little bit of heat energy we need, we also have to input at least as much energy (BTUs) in the form of electricity into the process, as there will be energy contained in the hydrogen that comes out.  In fact, in actual practice, the most efficient processes operate at about 70% efficiency. So, we have to input 30% more energy than we get out.  So here is our real world, 70% efficient formula for getting hydrogen from electrolysis.

Water – plus -  48 Kilowatt-hours (KWh) of electricity = 1 Kilogram of hydrogen and .5kg of oxygen.

Let’s put that in perspective. 1 Kilogram of hydrogen is 11.1 Cubic Meters (392 Cubic Feet) at atmospheric pressure. That amount of Hydrogen contains 125,000 BTUs – About the same as a gallon of gas. About the same as 37KWh of electricity. We put 164,000 BTUs into this process via electricity. We recovered 125,000 BTUs out. What we have done, so far, is to WASTE 11 KWh of electricity to manufacture a substance that contains the same energy as one gallon of gasoline. A substance that takes up over 3000 times as much space as that gasoline, and, a substance that still has to be distributed, stored, and used in some way to power a vehicle, complete with many more significant losses along the way.  And that is with a very efficient form of the process. Many electrolysis cells only obtain 50-60% efficiency.

Consider briefly, that same 48KWh of electricity, applied to a current, viable, production EV like, say,  the Tesla Roadster  (at .217 KWh/mile) will  take you about 221 miles down the road. In style, comfort and at a high level of performance.  How does Hydrogen compare in a vehicle? Well, we will address that thoroughly in part 3. Hint  – not very well… But, back to our supply discussion.

The fact is that electrolysis, in addition to it’s energy losses, is not a cost efficient way to create hydrogen.
Because of this, virtually all the industrial and commercial hydrogen in this country, and in the world, is created by another process. Steam reformation of natural gas (Specifically the methane that constitutes 80-95% of natural gas).

Did I say Natural Gas? Why yes. The most common and cost effective way to manufacture hydrogen is by converting a fossil fuel. A non-renewable hydrocarbon resource.

It turns out, if you heat natural gas to a hot enough temperature, and pass it through a catalyst, the chemical bonds holding the hydrogen and carbon together are broken. We get hydrogen out one end, and carbon, in the form of both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, out the other.  The heat is about  900-1000 degrees Celsius, that’s 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for us Americans. The catalyst is a precious metal, like platnium.

If you remember, all the energy we hope to eventually get from our hydrogen has to be put into it to “make” it. Plus a little – actually a lot – more to allow for the process losses. The energy we put into the steam reformation process is primarily the BTU (energy) content of the natural gas feedstock.

In addition to the natural gas, we also need the afore-mentioned heat, to make steam, to make the process work. Well, fortunately, a steam reformation process can make use of waste energy (energy not put into the hydrogen) to make that heat, improving the overall efficiency of the process from poor, to sort of good.

And, just what is that efficiency? For a typical large SMR (Steam Methane Reforming), the energy efficiency is quite high – 80-87%. Of course, throw in extensive maintenance requirements, the regular replacement of expensive catalyst material, and a little bit of electricity to run all the pumps and compressors, and the economic efficiency suffers quite a bit. But, in our non-economic model , we don’t care about that. So, here is the result from an actual plant:

We put in 141 Cubic Feet of Natural Gas, we get out our 1 Kilogram of Hydrogen. 144,000 BTUs of natural gas in,  125,000 BTUs of hydrogen out. MUCH better than electrolysis – which is one reason this is the preferred method.

(Of course, we could have just burned that Natural gas in an existing Natural Gas Vehicle and saved the losses, but again, that is for part 3… Sorry.)

But, wait, there’s more. Remember I mentioned one of the products was carbon? Well, since we started with a hydrocarbon (natural gas), if we take out the hydrogen, we are left with the carbon as a byproduct. Indeed, steam reformation produces the same amount of carbon emissions as would have happened had we just burned the natural gas. So, Will Robinson, we have another problem, one of the ones we have been trying to eliminate with all this alternative energy stuff – Carbon emissions. To be fair, they are much easier to trap and sequester here than in, say, a coal burning power plant. But deal with them we must. More cost, complexity, and another hit on hydrogen’s ever-poorer performance.

Just a short word about Steam reformation in a sensible recent quote from the US DOE (energy.gov)

“DOE is not funding research activities for large-scale central production of hydrogen from natural gas. DOE efforts are focused on distributed natural gas reforming for the transition period only. Large-scale hydrogen production from natural gas reforming is a mature technology, and natural gas resources in the United States are limited—15% of the natural gas we use is imported. Producing large amounts of hydrogen from natural gas in the long term would only trade U.S. dependence on imported oil for U.S. dependence on imported natural gas.”

 I also would like to point out that, to my knowledge, all of the ballyhooed methods of producing hydrogen from things such as biofuels, or biomass, depend on steam methane reformation as described above.

There are a couple more exotic ways to create hydrogen. But, no matter the method, the basic laws of physics say we not only have to put as much energy into it as we get out, but, because no process is perfect, we have to put in more. Believe me, there are no “magic boxes”. magic catalysts,  or free energy processes. Indeed, if there were, they would violate a number of fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. While some might argue – well we don’t know everything (and they would certainly be right) these are BASIC, well proven and accepted laws of science. The chances are mighty slim.

And, so finally, I do want to mention one other way that we can conceivably produce hydrogen. Coal Gasification.

The first thing we do is make syngas (town gas) from coal. We do that by injecting oxygen and water into a reactor (the gasifier) under high heat and pressure. The output of this reaction is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (the syngas). We can then put that gas through the same reformation process as above and get hydrogen and carbon dioxide out. Yes, it produces nearly the same amount of CO2 as if we had burned the coal. Amazing how these things work out.

Coal gasification is really a subject for another article. While the process is being examined for the production of syngas (and gasoline via the Fischer-Tropsch process.), it is quite controversial, and in the very earliest stages of research. This article is about hydrogen, and to my knowledge there are no serious considerations of making transportation hydrogen from this process. It is dirty, inefficient, produces a number of toxins, and is still using a non-renewable fossil fuel (that, incidentally, we rely on heavily for our electricity).

I will write that article soon. In the meantime, here is a link to more information on Coal Gasification:

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

That’s it for part one. Stay tuned in the upcoming week or two for parts 2, 3 and 4. There is much more to cover, and many, many, more challenges facing that hydrogen economy. We have just scratched the surface.

I know you can’t wait.


Reference conversion factors;
1 Gallon = .133 Cubic Feet
1 KWh = 3414 BTUs
1 kg Hydrogen = 1.003 GGE (Gallon Gasoline Equivalent)
1 kg Hydrogen = 392 Cubic Feet at 1 atmosphere.
Tesla roadster reported energy usage is .217KWh per mile. Or 4.7 miles per KWh.

Ten steps to a better energy future.

---

---

Last year this country used 4,110,259,000 Megawatt-hours of electricity.  23.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and  7,117.5 Million Barrels of oil. All of this went to supply our never ending thirst for energy. We are an energy happy society. Seventy percent of that electricity was generated by fossil fuels – Coal and Natural Gas. Seventy Eight percent of the Oil we used went to move us, and our stuff, around – transportation. In fact, over 85 percent of ALL our energy came from non-renewable, finite, fossil fuels. Only 7% came from renewable or replaceable sources. The rest came from nuclear generated electrical power.

It is simple common sense that we cannot go on like this, even without the average annual 3.4% growth in energy consumption. Fossil fuels were created millions of years ago, after mass extinctions of animals and plants. Over those years, sediment built up over the dead matter, which rotted, and then, under mounting pressure from the built up layers of sediment, became the Oil & Gas we use today. So far, in just the last 100 years we have consumed well over half of the known or suspected Oil on this planet. We have consumed well over 1/3 of the known Natural Gas and Coal.  Much of what is left of all of these resources has to be recovered by ever more complex, challenging, expensive, and time-consuming methods than were used previously. At this rate we will be completely out of obtainable fossil fuels well within the next 100 years. And, to get any more, the earth will have to go through a mass extinction of life, and still wait a million or so years for it to “cook”.

Of course, eventually, we hope science will find a way to generate unlimited amounts of power. Eventually, someone will develop warp drive, and the associated matter-antimatter power plant. Shortly after that, we will meet Vulcans for the first time. Yet, in the lore of science fiction, even that  happens well past when we run out of our current fossil fuels. So, until that day, we need to make the best of what we have, and find other ways to power our society. The clock is ticking. Time is running out.

To be sure, I like my technology. And technology takes energy. I am not one who advocates we should do without. I believe that with reasonable conservation, new sources of energy, and a firm, unwavering commitment to putting those sources in place, we can continue to enjoy today’s technology, and whatever tomorrow will bring. Along the way, we will be saving those finite fossil resources to be used in ways that cannot be replaced – such as that ’66 GTO for Sunday drives.

So, Presented here is my roadmap to energy wealth. With 10 points, this is the path I believe we have to set upon to feed our need for energy, allow us to enjoy our technology, show respect for our planet and it’s environment, and provide for our future needs. In the vernacular,  to have our cake, and eat it too.


1 - We need to encourage green building practices and conservation where appropriate and effective.

We are not going to stop driving our cars. We are not going to stop running our Air Conditioners, furnaces, microwaves and lawn & garden equipment. Where we CAN make a difference is in places like making our homes more passively efficient. Installing insulation, plugging air leaks, putting in weather stripping. Building green. We can take advantage, where appropriate and economically sound, of newer appliances and lighting methods. Government can require increasing, but readily achievable, efficiency standards for our gadgets, toys, and tools. We can try to turn our lights off when not in use, without running around in the dark.

2 - We need to start integrating Plug-In Hybrids and Electric vehicles into our transportation system.

Electricity is the most efficient, widely available, and most useable means we have to transport energy. It is also highly amenable to powering our vehicles. With the sole exception of batteries, electric vehicles are mature technology, easily manufactured, and work, drive, and perform virtually the same as current vehicles.

Electricity, from an engineering standpoint, is actually a simpler, more desirable and more flexible drive system than current internal combustion drivetrains. Except for those darn batteries. But, as a couple of manufacturers are already proving, the battery technology is already there to support a large part of our short trip, and commuting driving. The only difference to the owner is plugging it in at night – verses stopping at the gas station.

While we currently generate most of our electricity with fossil fuels, large electrical generating plants are far more efficient at using resources than a conventional internal combustion vehicle. While those plants produce pollutants and greenhouse gasses, it is much easier to control those at a relatively small amount of places, as opposed to a couple hundred million point sources. Electricity can be distributed with relatively little loss, and electric vehicles themselves are quite efficient at making use of the electricity. With all things considered, electric vehicles are still several times more efficient at using our fossil fuels than gasoline powered ones. Electric vehicles also remove the source of emissions away from crowded inner cities, contributing to a cleaner local environment in our cities.

But, more important, most alternative energy sources – wind, solar, hydro, wave & tidal, Biogas fuel cells, produce electricity as their end product. That makes them a natural for integrating into our larger electric grid. As all these distributed sources feed their, maybe small, portion of power to the grid, electric vehicles can use the amalgamated sum of their energy.  Eventually these alternative sources will start displacing our fossil power plants, moving us closer to the goal of total renewable energy, and less fossil fuels. Every time we convert energy to another form, we lose some of it, It is much more efficient to use the energy in the form it is created – electricity.

Of course, many people do not have one car for commuting, and another one for longer trips. Most vehicles have to support many uses, For that reason, Plug-In hybrids are a sound alternative.  With a plug-in, short trip driving is accomplished with electricity from our grid. When there is a need to drive further, old, reliable gasoline is still  there to provide the range. A win for practicality, energy, and the environment.

3 –  We need to encourage the conversion of fleet vehicles and long haul trucks to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

There are some places where electric vehicles or plug ins do not make sense right now, either for technical, or economic, reasons. Fleet vehicles – Busses, city trucks, taxi cabs, the list is long. These vehicles have to make many short stops, often with longer distances mixed in. These are conditions that will deplete a battery rapidly. However, these vehicles are normally fueled at centralized locations, where infrastructure can be put in place readily. These vehicles should be encouraged to use CNG – Compressed Natural Gas. Simularly, long haul and inter-city trucks make long trips, and need significant levels of power. This is also well outside the capacity of current battery technology. But, the fueling points for these are also contained to a relatively small number of places that could also easily support CNG refueling infrastructure. The technology for CNG fueled vehicles and trucks currently exists and is readily obtainable.

CNG is also a highly suitable bridge fuel for our other vehicles. Currently CNG is much cheaper than gasoline per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent (GGE), and it creates less pollution and greenhouse gasses than gasoline.  There are many CNG vehicles available already, and many more on the way. Fueling with CNG is also getting easier. There are currently as many CNG fueling stations in the US as there are E89 stations, and more are being put in every week. Unfortunately they are most concentrated in certain areas, but that will change as the market expands. You can also purchase a compressor station for your home, and use your own natural gas supply to refuel. There are currently some subsidies and tax credits in place for purchasing both the vehicle, and the fueling station. The conversion is a simple one for a manufacturer, and dual fuel vehicles are becoming common. CNG tanks do take up room in the vehicle, and their range is normally shorter than a comparable gasoline or diesel one. However, these are things that are easy to live with. Finally, a plug-in hybrid using CNG for it’s internal combustion engine would be the best of both worlds.

We must keep in mind though,  CNG is only a bridge to eventual electric when the battery technology is there or replaced by something else. Our current natural gas supply is getting smaller, and new supplies are more expensive to recover. This, along with increased demand, will certainly drive prices much higher. And, remember, it is still a finite, fossil fuel.

4 - We need to strengthen, expand, and upgrade our electric distribution infrastructure.

Of course, to power all these new electric vehicles, and in order to power our existing homes, buildings and industry, we need to get the electricity from all these generation sources to the end user. We also need to be able to combine the outputs of the many smaller distributed generators. That is the job of our electric grid.

Currently our nation's electric grid is frail, outdated, and in many places, overburdened. It also does not have the control capacity currently to accept large amounts of power from wind farms or other power producers, nor can it presently take advantage of a large amount of distributed generation. We need to expand, enlarge, and update the grid. Larger, more efficient conductors, better, more flexible switch and distribution yards, and many more ways to allow power to be fed into the grid from many more, smaller, sources of electricity. Supply and demand of the electric grid has to be managed in real time. The grid cannot store electricity – yet – we must make exactly as much electricity as we use, no more, no less. So, achieving the goal of distributed generation requires better and more flexible control systems.

This is the purpose behind Smart Grid. Putting in place more flexible and robust control mechanisms to allow this management. At the user end, Smart Metering will allow, not only better monitoring, but the ability to control individual distributed generation at our homes and offices (such as Solar PV), and allow for the accounting and  measuring of the energy produced or consumed. Smart metering will enable the economic benefits of distributed generation.

5 - We need to find ways to incentify large scale wind power projects, and make it easier for them to supply power to our national grid.

Wind power scales up nicely. Large wind turbines are very efficient, and can be sited where many of the objections to them - noise and aesthetics are two - are not as relevant. However they are an expensive initial investment, they require much maintenance, and the electric infrastructure has to be in place to deliver the power they produce. There are also many ecological concerns - bird strikes, and even concerns by Air Traffic Control with radar interference. While wind has the potential to be a formidable source of our electrical needs, we need to aggressively identify and resolve the issues facing it's adoption. This is a place where government, in the arenas of regulation, rights, licensing, and subsidies or tax abatements, can have a significant positive impact.


6 - We need to encourage and promote residential solar Photovoltaic power, and distributed generation.

Solar Photvoltaics, unlike wind, scale DOWN very well. A large solar installation is very expensive, uses a lot of land, and is complex. A small installation however, which can supply a significant percentage of a homes electrical needs is simple, reliable, and becoming much more cost effective every day. This kind of distributed generation removes much of the burden from our electrical grid, brings our homes closer to energy self-sufficiency, and is the ultimate in environmentally friendly. Again, government, via subsidies to homeowners, and regulatory oversight, can do much to get this technology in place.


7 - We need to rebuild our Railroads, and encourage more use.

Railroads are the second most energy efficient way we have to move goods - after Ships. They are four times more efficient than trucks for moving large amounts of material long distances. Although I truly do lament the effect it would have on our trucking industry, we need to move more of our long distance shipping to this old, stable, and efficient method.

8 –  Biogas

While Biogas is not sufficient in quantity to power our vehicles, it is already proven as an effective source for small, distributed, electrical generation. It also can serve well in third world countries for cooking, refrigeration, and some space heating. In combination with Large Scale Wind, and small-scale Solar PV, biogas from landfills or agricultural and livestock waste, can make a significant contribution to our overall supply of electricity.

9 – Small-scale electric generation – distributed generation.

From small hydro, to tidal currents, there are many ways to generate electricity from natural phenomena. By promoting, and encouraging these small-scale systems, and not trying to make them the be all – end all of power, they can also make a significant contribution to our overall electricity supply. We need to encourage small scale innovation, and make it easier and economically possible for small companies, with a good idea, to put their creations in place, and connect them to our infrastructure. With appropriate modernization, our electric grid is an enormous resource. It has the potential of allowing the interconnection of a multitude of small scale power producers, all contributing their share to the national need for energy. Not only will this reduce our need for fossil fuel generation, but it can be the incubator for the creation, and proliferation of profitable and innovative small business. Combining residential and small commercial solar photo-voltaics, with the outputs of thousands of producers like “Bob’s tidal power”, we can switch this country from centralized fossil fuels to decentralized, reliable, and environmentally sound distributed power sources.



10 – Industry and manufacturing.

While there is much basic research into alternative energy going on in this country, the sad fact is much of the applied research, design, and especially manufacturing of alternative power systems is happening in other parts of the world. We need to find ways to bring both the technology, and the industry back home. This is again a place where local, state and federal government can rightfully encourage progress. By encouraging technology transfer from basic research to private industry. By providing financial backing to those industries to support and develop innovation. By economic and political incentives to re-purpose idled production assets, factories, and facilities into the production of the physical hardware we need to accomplish our energy goals. By making it easier and less expensive for companies to acquire and retain skilled workers, engineers and managers. By a vigorous, directed, and unrelenting push to rehabilitate our basic educational systems. By a purposeful, and high profile campaign to enhance science, technology, engineering and math education and interest in our schools. By encouraging Americans to once again embrace science and technology.



Finally, incorporating all ten of these steps, I would propose a project, and an investment, by this country and it’s citizens. A project on the scale of, and in the spirit of, Apollo and the moon landing in the sixties. We need to set forth an agenda, a time-line, and a goal. We need not have all the answers, we need not specify how we will accomplish it, but only what it is we will accomplish. We need to make it not only a national priority, but a national agenda, and a national passion. We have spent many billions propping up our financial systems. Whether that was necessary is not the subject of this dialog. However, moving forward, we need to dedicate the same level of resources, financially, politically, and spiritually, to achieving not only energy independence, but responsible, renewable, abundant energy. We CAN do it. We have the technology - now. We have the need – now. We only need the intestinal fortitude from our politicians, our government, our leaders, our industry, and our citizens, to make the commitment, and follow through.

So, there it is. My Ten steps to a better, cleaner, more vibrant and sustainable energy future. I am available for consulting work if the fee is right. Drop me a line!

No, really, I want your thoughts. Please comment!

The US Natural Gas Supply

---

---

In 2008 this country used 23.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Of that 2.9 trillion cubic feet was imported, primarily (90%) from Canada.

Here are the pertinent figures from the EIA (Energy Information Administration).

• Natural gas - production: 582.2 billion cubic meters ( 20.5 trillion cubic feet)
• Natural gas - consumption: 657.2 billion cubic meters (23.2 trillion cubic feet)
• Natural gas - exports: 28.49 billion cubic meters ( 1.0 Trillion cubic feet)
• Natural gas - imports: 112.7 billion cubic meters ( 3.9 trillion cubic feet )
• LNG – Imports: 416.8 Billion Cubic Feet.

The United States is the Number one consumer of Natural gas, and the worlds second largest Producer. We have the 5th largest amount of proven reserves, and we are the number one importer, importing 17% of our natural gas consumption in 2008.

Five states: Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming, currently produce about 80% of our domestic natural gas supply.

The existence of pipelines is a very important part of natural gas recovery. Indeed, if natural gas is produced by a well, and there is not a nearby pipeline to transport it, it is often burned off. Natural gas cannot reasonably be transported by trucks, or ships until it is either compressed into CNG, or liquefied into LNG. CNG is natural gas compressed to less that 1% of it’s volume, and is usually stored in tanks at about 2200 PSI. In terms of energy content (energy density), CNG takes up about 2 times the volume of LNG, and 4 times the volume of diesel fuel. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to about minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature natural gas becomes a liquid. It has to be maintained at this temperature in special cryogenic (refrigerated) tanks, which adds to the high cost of LNG.

Here is an interesting discussion (and map) of current major natural gas pipelines in the  US:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/index.html

And, here is a map of conventional Gas Production wells in the US:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/conventional_gas.pdf

While not as complex as Crude Oil refining. Natural gas from the well is nowhere near pure. It has many other constituants from water to natural gas liquids (liquids closer to our familiar petrochemicals).. These have to be removed via various processing stages before the gas (now called dry gas) can be placed into a pipeline.

The actual methodology of quantifying and classifying reserves is rather complex. I am going to use the EIA's system (also used by the Natural Gas Association). I am also going to simplify a bit. In discussions, these distinctions are important, because various people will quote different numbers often to support a claim. There are also various different organizations with different estimates, albeit they normally end up pretty close.

The widest measure is the total estimated Resource base. This is an estimate of all possible estimated gas. For the US, this number is 1,747 trillion cubic feet. The vast majority of this gas is unrecoverable for various technical reasons. But the number pops up. It can be ignored!

Another distinction is between Conventional sources (Those trapped in reservoirs), and unconventional, gas trapped in structures that require non-conventional, and sometimes extreme, methods to recover them. These sources are further broken down into proved reserves – those that we know are there, and can be recovered, and unproved reserves – another way of saying we THINK they are there based on geology and surveys. The Unconventional reserves estimate below includes both proved and unproved, as it is hard to separate them. So, some numbers:

• US Conventional Proved Reserves - 211.9 Trillion Cubic Feet
• US Conventional Unproved Reserves - 373.4 Trillon Cubic Feet
• US Unconventional Reserves - 644.9 Trillion Cubic Feet.
(This includes)
• Tight Gas – 309.5 Trillion Cubic Feet
• Shale Gas – 267.2 Trillion Cubic Feet
• Coal Methane – 68.1 Trillion Cubic Feet

It is important to note, that according to the Natural Gas Association, Tight Gas is extremely hard to extract. As to shale gas, the above number is from EIA. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) puts the estimate at  742 Trillion Cubic Feet. However, according to the Natural Gas Association it is expected only about 10% of the shale gas can actually be extracted (Produced).

You can learn much more about our resources, and how they are measured at:

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

A recent (December 2009) report on Gas shale was produced by Advanced Resources International and presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. This report focuses on the “Magnificent Seven” North American Gas Shales – the primary resources on the North American Continent. 5 are in the US, and 2 are in Canada. They reached the following conclusions as to our North American Supply.

• US (5 basins) – Total reserves: 3,760 Trillion Cu Ft. - Recoverable reserves: 475 Trillon Cubic Feet
• Canada (2 Basins) - Total reserves: 1,380 Trillion Cu Ft. - Recoverable reserves: 240 Trillon Cubic Feet

This report puts our total recoverable US Shale Gas at 475 Cubic Feet. Less than the FERC, but more than the Natural Gas Association, and a little less than the EIA Estimates. As should be obvious there is just a little bit of uncertainty and disagreement about how much Gas shale actually exists and is recoverable. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle...

You can read the entire report here:

http://www.adv-res.com/pdf/Kuuskraa%20Condensed%20Worldwide%20Uncon%20Gas%2012_12_09.pdf

And, at the EIA Website:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_top.asp

Finally, This quote is taken directly from the Natural Gas Association Web Site:

“In recent years, demand for natural gas has grown substantially. However, as the natural gas industry in the United States becomes more mature, domestically available resources become harder to find and produce. As large, conventional natural gas deposits are extracted, the natural gas left in the ground is commonly found in less conventional deposits, which are harder to discover and produce than has historically been the case. However, the natural gas industry has been able to keep pace with demand, and produce greater amounts of natural gas despite the increasingly unconventional and elusive nature. The ability of the industry to increase production in this manner has been a direct result of technological innovations.”

You can read more about our Natural Gas Supply at their website:

http://www.naturalgas.org/business/supply.asp

Residential Natural Gas use

---

---

According the EIA (Energy Information Administration), in 2008 our homes accounted for 21% of all natural gas use in this country. 29% went to generating electricity, and another 29% went to industry. The rest went everywhere else.
 
Fortunately, it would appear that our efforts to improve the efficiency of  our homes and heating equipment is paying off. (It may also appear that our winters are getting warmer, but, that is so much  another topic for another day).

According to the EIA  data on residential use of Natural gas, our residential consumption has stayed nearly constant since 1966. In fact, in many of those years it has actually gone down a slight amount!  In 1966, residential customers used 4,138 Billion Cubic feet ot Natural Gas. In 2008 they used  4,866 Billion Cubic feet of the stuff.   

Here is the data. This data agrees with both other EIA documents and the Natural Gas Association.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0605.html

This is despite the fact that our population has grown by over 100 million people, And despite the fact that the number of single family homes has at least doubled.

Indeed ,The US census reports that in 1970 there were 46,790,055 single family homes and townhouses in the United States, By the 2000 census that number had increased to 76,313,410. Although the actual figure is not available for 2008, it is safe to assume a modest increase since then.

So, what has caused this? Good question, and I certainly don’t have the definitive answer. I do know that According to the Natural Gas association, 51% of all homes in the US are heated with natural gas. They state that percentage has remained relatively unchanged during this period. So, it must be something else.

Well, furnaces are getting more efficient. From the old clunkers of the past at 80% efficiency, to modern condensing furnaces that are better than  92% efficient. But, there are many older furnaces still out there. Only in 1992 was the Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency required to be 80% or better. New standards are going to bump that to 90% soon.

I came across this study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study the Average Fuel Utilization Efficiency of gas furnaces during the period since 1980 has rose from 72% to 83%, a gain of 11%. (it is on page 22)

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/842111-8abomb/native/

And, we have certainly been making our homes more efficient. According to the EIA, the efficiency of our homes has improved by 35% between 1980 and 2005 from 65,000 BTU per square foot to 41,000 BTU per square foot, annually.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/recs_5c_table.pdf

So, we have twice as many homes, using the same amount of gas. Have we improved our overall efficiency by 50 percent? As I said at the beginning, that is a subject for a future discussion.


For further reading. Here is an article about Furnace efficiency standards.
http://www.aceee.org/press/0904furnace.htm

The ARTI Biogas generator

---

---

I stumbled upon this interesting bit of technology while researching something else. It captured both my interest and my imagination. This unit is designed for use in underdeveloped areas to provide methane gas primarily for cooking. It is intended to offset the LPG normally used. It requires some effort, and the output is not much, but it is adequate for it's purpose. This is cool!

The unit is the size of a medium refrigerator, and reportedly costs about $200 USD. After setting it up, you provide it with about 4.5 pounds (2kg) of food waste, and 2 gallons of water. This is enough to produce 500 liters of methane gas a day. 500 liters is about 17 cubic feet of gas. Looking at my gas bill (heat & hot water) this would run my house for about 20 minutes. But, it appears to be enough to supply the cooking needs of a family. 17 cubic feet is equal to about 1/7 gallon of gasoline, so it is not for powering your CNG car unless you make really short trips! These units are apparently geting popular in India. Lets hope they catch on elsewhere. Below is a link to the ARTI Website, as well as a link to a technical analysis of the unit, and a very good Youtube video about the unit.

http://www.arti-india.org/content/view/45/40/

Technical analysis:

http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_swm/downloads_swm/arti_biogas.pdf

Video about the unit

Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas wells and The Marcellus Shale (Paper)

---

---

This link is to a very good, and informative paper on Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas Wells. It concentrates on the Marcellus Shale region of the Northeast US, but, it covers many general topics about shale gas (including a map of deposits in the US).

http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/GWPC_092008_Marcellus_Frac_Arthur_et_al.pdf

The Marcellus shale region which stretches from the Middle of NY State, through much of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and on into the middle of Ohio is one of the largest natural gas reservoirs in the US. Covering an area of about 95,000 square miles, it is estimated to contain 225 to 500 Trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Getting that gas OUT of shale, however, involves some what are called unconventional methods. Horizontal drilling being one, and hydraulic fracturing of the rock formation (fracking) being the most controversial. 

Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping large amounts of water under high pressure into the wells. This causes the rock to fracture, and allows the gas to escape up the well. Of course, it is not just water, that would be too easy. Mixed with the water are various chemicals and additives designed to make the process work better.  Also included are "propping agents" designed to keep the fractures open. Many of the concerns about this process revolve around these additives, and their potential to contaminate our drinking water. This paper describes some of those additives.  There is currently no requirement for drilling companies to disclose what chemicals they are using (under the guise of being "proprietary"). Fracking has become a common way to improve recovery (or allow recovery) from wells.

The potential is certainly there, and in a widespread area. The studies indicate a need for up to 16 wells for every square mile (640 acres) of the development. Each of these wells will have to be fraced individually. Each well could use from 500,000 to 1,500,000 gallons of fracturing fluid. And it may have to be done on an ongoing basis. 

Much of the area in question receives 40 inches of rain a year.  This amounts to 731,000,000 gallons of water falling on each square mile. (http://mo.water.usgs.gov/outreach/rain/index.htm). 16 wells could contribute at least 24,000,000 gallons of fracturing fluid to the groundwater. This is 3% of total rainfall. A lot? No worries? Will it escape to the groundwater? Therein lies the debate.

Read the paper. For a view from another perspective, read these :-)

http://www.earthworksaction.org/hydfracking.cfm

http://www.earthworksaction.org/FracingDetails.cfm

Finally, here is Natural Gas dot org's article on wells.

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/well_completion.asp

Time will tell.

More recent articles about fracking: While I have not made up my mind one way or the other, the only information I can find on this process is either about the process itself, or negative.

http://www.chem.info/News/2009/10/Chesapeake-Energy-Succumbs-To--Fracking--Pressure/

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002189/full-disclosure-schlumberger-hydraulic-fracking-and-the-public-access-debate/

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/cabot-hydraulic-fracturing-business-energy-fracking.html 

http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.20/frack-2-scene-1 

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10353

http://www.propublica.org/feature/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-handle-1109