Cape Wind is a wind energy company started in Cape Cod, sometime around the beginning of the Millenium. Their current project has been going since then, with local and federal approval being given in 2009 and 2010, respectively. However, since 2001, an opposition group calling itself the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound was working to stop building. Another group , Clean Power Now, arose to help with grassroots support for the project, though. Both were citing environmental reasons for supporting or opposing the project, demonstrating just how polarizing the project was.
But the reasons for the debate (between the different environmentalist factions, anyway) were mostly centered around the location of the project, the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. But there were also other voices that came into play. Several prominent personalities have taken positions on the matter, including Bill Koch (who owns an estate in the area), who funded the Alliance with about 1.5 million, citing aesthetic and economic reasons for why the windmills shouldn't be installed. He was supposedly working under the idea that "It could undermine Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket’s $1
billion-a-year tourist industry, impair radar for boats and planes, kill
birds, hurt fishermen and be an eyesore in a body of water that’s
equivalent to a national park." No mention of his interest in the energy field that this would possibly conflict with, and his spokesperson said that it didn't play a factor. But when such a prominent businessman takes a role in such a conflict, its hard to think that they don't have some sort of angle. And on the matter of aesthetics, only 14 percent of Cape Cod residents opposed the project, according to a poll. Another poll also found that the class least likely to support the project were high-income residents of the area.
Another personality who played a role in the issue was Walter Cronkite, who also has a seaside property on the cape. When he first heard about the project, he was dead set against it, having a knee-jerk reaction to what he viewed as a hostile invasion of a peaceful body of water. However, he eventually had a change of heart, and in an interview said '"I must say, as [the wind farm] was presented to me, I had to clench my
teeth to be sure I didn't get hysterical," Cronkite said in a phone
interview. "It sounded like such a ghastly invasion of this wonderful
body of water, which is Nantucket Sound. I will confess, also, that I
did not do my own homework as I should have before making the
statements. I did not and I can only regret that now."' His image and opinions had been used for ad campaigns for the Alliance, but after thinking about it and taking an opportunity to speak with the founder of the project, he found that the worst of his fears on the matter where not as severe in reality as he initially perceived.
The project itself is in the initial stages now, with testing being done in the area to see how the bases of the turbines should be designed to be best suited for their install locations. The project seems to be taking its time, and not rushing development, in the interest of making sure the impact is low during installation, and that accidents are not likely to happen. While they still need to get a portion of their funding together, the company is perhaps planning a bit too far ahead by beginning the process to purchase a marina that they plan to use as headquarters to manage and maintain the windfarm. However, they see it as a measure of their commitment to the project.
Only time will tell the long term effects of the project, but it seems that at least the Cape Wind company is doing what they can to try and minimize the adverse effects in both the short and long term. For the most part, it seems that those opposed to the project are either overreacting, or focusing on the wrong reasons for countering the project.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Colder It Is, The Harder It Gets
In the summer of 2010, an oil spill unlike any before occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason that the incident was so particularly disastrous was that, instead of a ship with a certain quantity of oil spilling partially purified crude on the surface of the ocean in a short period of time. Instead, a well from which the raw crude was coming out under high pressure was gushing underwater, over a period of about 12 weeks. Even after the worst of the leak has been stopped, there was still seepage coming from the well over a year later, escaping the supposedly sealed well. Since much of the oil was coming straight from the source under high pressure, denser components created a phenomenon that had been rarely, if ever, documented before: oil plumes were spreading under the water's surface, following an underwater "channel" and spreading out where it was harder to track and contain. These factors helped to make this oil "spill" one of the largest (if not the largest) in US history, with approximately 5 million barrels released into the waters of the Gulf by August of 2010. And while such a large quantity of oil being released is bad enough, it occurred in an area that was incredibly sensitive to the toxic compounds being released, and very hard to clean when the oil would slip into the swamps and estuaries of the region. Death tolls of various species are high, but many believe that there are many unaccounted for, as individuals would either be lost at sea or possibly go into the swamps where the bodies would not be found after they perished. With all of these impacts and disastrous side effects, it would seem that some sort measure would be made to actively prevent another such incident. However, the Obama administration approved for exploratory drilling to begin in a much more dangerous region: The Arctic Circle.
The Arctic Circle is a largely inhospitable region, especially on the seas. Normally, it is covered in sheets of ice, that sometimes shift and move instead of remaining a single entity. However, with recent climate change trends, the ice of the region has receded further than ever before during the warmer months, and oil companies have moved to try and capitalize on the newly accessible waters, in the hopes of drilling for portions of the supposedly sizable quantity of petroleum that was formerly sealed beneath the region.While the UK has deigned to stop all such activity until at the very least, a system to deal with an accident could be established, the US is allowing for prep work to be done while security measures are developed, with the mindset of preventing an incident like the Deepwater Horizon spill in the gulf. However, if an accident occurs in the Arctic, it will be due to novel causes more likely than not. The sea ice in the region is the most significant factor, being more than a barrier to initial drilling. When the sea freezes back over, the ice will sometimes move in an inexorable fashion, capable of doing extreme damage simply because it moves slowly and can't be redirected (similar to a glacier). Also, apparently, the ice can get "so tall that it scrapes the sea floor," posing a particular danger to the drill site, at the lowest point, where it is hardest to get at and repair. There is also the factor of how thick crude oil gets when exposed to extreme cold, which is standard for the region. This can create a problem with oil flow, causing pressure issues or flow problems. There are various compounds that can be used to counteract the issue of decreased viscosity, but that just adds another risk factor in terms of possible pollutants. Who knows? Maybe they are capable of damaging an organism's fat layer, which would be sure death in a region as cold as the Arctic.
Besides the risk of a spill occurring, the response to clean and fix an incident would run into all sorts of problems due to the fact that the rig would be rather far from land, especially considering that ports would usually be even further away from that, probably in regions where the ice doesn't bind all the boats in the winter. But an accident at a rig in the Arctic Circle would most likely occur at a time of year when support ships won't be able to reach it due to ice and the rough winter weather waters of unfrozen portions. Then there's the matter of how much oil would be on top of the ice, compared to under. I'm sure that even less oil would be recovered, and more allowed to escape if there were a spill in the arctic. Considering how difficult the environment already is to live in, there could be a possibility of the already rather sparse ecosystem disappearing altogether if a leak or spill were to take place in the region. Even the migratory whales would likely suffer buildup of toxins from the spill, as they consume vast quantities of plankton and krill, which are bound to have had some interaction with them. And while the effect of these disappearances would be difficult to figure out before they happen, I would rather not have to find out the hard way.
Deepwater drilling is difficult enough as it is, but due to the dwindling supplies of petroleum in easy to access regions, oil companies are forced to look to alternatives... which, one would hope, would include alternative energy sources to develop, instead of risky drilling locations, but no such luck on the whole.
Extra links:
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/09/05/BP_says_old_oil_from_spill_exposed_by_Isaac/
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling.htm
The Arctic Circle is a largely inhospitable region, especially on the seas. Normally, it is covered in sheets of ice, that sometimes shift and move instead of remaining a single entity. However, with recent climate change trends, the ice of the region has receded further than ever before during the warmer months, and oil companies have moved to try and capitalize on the newly accessible waters, in the hopes of drilling for portions of the supposedly sizable quantity of petroleum that was formerly sealed beneath the region.While the UK has deigned to stop all such activity until at the very least, a system to deal with an accident could be established, the US is allowing for prep work to be done while security measures are developed, with the mindset of preventing an incident like the Deepwater Horizon spill in the gulf. However, if an accident occurs in the Arctic, it will be due to novel causes more likely than not. The sea ice in the region is the most significant factor, being more than a barrier to initial drilling. When the sea freezes back over, the ice will sometimes move in an inexorable fashion, capable of doing extreme damage simply because it moves slowly and can't be redirected (similar to a glacier). Also, apparently, the ice can get "so tall that it scrapes the sea floor," posing a particular danger to the drill site, at the lowest point, where it is hardest to get at and repair. There is also the factor of how thick crude oil gets when exposed to extreme cold, which is standard for the region. This can create a problem with oil flow, causing pressure issues or flow problems. There are various compounds that can be used to counteract the issue of decreased viscosity, but that just adds another risk factor in terms of possible pollutants. Who knows? Maybe they are capable of damaging an organism's fat layer, which would be sure death in a region as cold as the Arctic.
Besides the risk of a spill occurring, the response to clean and fix an incident would run into all sorts of problems due to the fact that the rig would be rather far from land, especially considering that ports would usually be even further away from that, probably in regions where the ice doesn't bind all the boats in the winter. But an accident at a rig in the Arctic Circle would most likely occur at a time of year when support ships won't be able to reach it due to ice and the rough winter weather waters of unfrozen portions. Then there's the matter of how much oil would be on top of the ice, compared to under. I'm sure that even less oil would be recovered, and more allowed to escape if there were a spill in the arctic. Considering how difficult the environment already is to live in, there could be a possibility of the already rather sparse ecosystem disappearing altogether if a leak or spill were to take place in the region. Even the migratory whales would likely suffer buildup of toxins from the spill, as they consume vast quantities of plankton and krill, which are bound to have had some interaction with them. And while the effect of these disappearances would be difficult to figure out before they happen, I would rather not have to find out the hard way.
Deepwater drilling is difficult enough as it is, but due to the dwindling supplies of petroleum in easy to access regions, oil companies are forced to look to alternatives... which, one would hope, would include alternative energy sources to develop, instead of risky drilling locations, but no such luck on the whole.
Extra links:
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/09/05/BP_says_old_oil_from_spill_exposed_by_Isaac/
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling.htm
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Fracking and Flights of Fancy (or Fear)
I have a friend who actually lives on an area of the Pennsylvanian Marcellus Shale. They have told me a little bit about what it is like to live in an area where there are various drilling operations going on at the same time. They are an eyesore, and the work is unpleasant to most senses. These are qualities that are not unique among various construction and natural resource collection jobs. However, they told me about a particular aspect of the fracking in the area that negates one of the biggest points that companies try to say is not a risk. The water on their land comes from a well, a source of what should be clean, underground water, without contamination due to filtering as it reaches the water table, and usually free of infestations. Fracking is often claimed to not prove a risk to groundwater, due to the depth of the wells and the many layers of rock supposedly providing a barrier to prevent easy contamination of water, and their supposedly effective well casings and safety protocols. But my friend has told me, from personal experience, that they have been able to light the water coming out of their tap ON FIRE due to the amount of methane that has managed to get into their well from the fracking activities. Perhaps there is a missed element of determining cause and effect in this situation. However, considering that methane is a flammable gas, that is to some degree soluble in water, and being released in abundant quantities from sequestration in the ground, the evidence paints a rather easily convincing story.
While it is known that America is trying to find ways to pre-empt the energy crisis going critical, they seem to be taking part in practices that are perhaps more dangerous than the sum of their parts with fracking. While methane does burn cleaner than typical gasoline, any methane that escapes and makes it into the atmosphere is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, which is also released in surprisingly large quantities during the acquisition practices of the companies extracting the methane from the earth. And while methane may not last as long in the atmosphere as CO2 before it is removed through natural processes, it lasts long enough that it would play a role in the possibly upcoming "tipping point" that some expect will rock the global climate within the next few decades. Meanwhile, underground, the weakened rock left behind has to be supported somehow, or there is a high risk of something collapsing and taking some surface features with it. This leads to waste elements being used to help make up for the weakened structural integrity of the now broken and shattered stone. Commonly, waste water (complete with unknown, possibly toxic chemicals) from the project is injected under high pressure to kill two birds with one stone. However, the wells are sometimes used for carbon sequestration, and there are even some points that could prompt a shift from the use of water to CO2 gas in fracking operations, which would help reduce the usage of water that could otherwise be used for drinking water. Either case, however, seems to increase the risk of small earthquakes being generated. While the earthquakes that seem to be linked with fracking and carbon sequestration activities don't typically register as being particularly dangerous, I can think of a few situations which, while unlikely, have a certain level of high danger that might be worth considering.
First, I'll keep it relatively simple. With all of the structural damage to a layer of sturdy rock done by fracking, it has to be prone to shifting, either from the weight above it settling, or from small natural quakes. If there were enough wells spread out over an area, but close enough where such shifting manages to extend the cracks in the rock to meet with the cracks from another well, a large network of unstable sub-bedrock will be generated, and some sort of large stimulus could manage to turn it into some sort of collapse or large scale shifting/rearrangement, which could cause a "butterfly effect" type incident to occur on the surface, like a drop in land height, or other sudden changes in topography. Then again, considering the depths of such shale beds, perhaps the intervening layers of stone would provide a buffer region that would absorb any such risks.
The other situation that springs into my mind on the subject of hypothetical and possibly ludicrous situations, is the possibility that the well wasn't completely exhausted, or that there might be a couple of reservoirs of gas that escaped notice and extraction. If enough gas was still permeating the stone, and a shift in the ground occurred, would it be liable to ignite (given a possible sparking element being set off during the tremor/shift) and explode? Most likely not, given that the main factor in such a reaction is oxygen, to provide the necessary component for the combustion reaction. Unless there was some severe mix-up or an exceedingly bad compression system, there would most likely be no oxygen for such an event to occur. But hey, there could always be the day, where the CO2 reacts with one of the unknown chemicals left behind from an operation, and produces the O2 needed for the worst case scenario here. And even if it is unlikely, maybe it is right on some level. If that is the case, I do hope that it occurs as another unnoticed oddity of geology, or someone will most likely be hurt.
While it is known that America is trying to find ways to pre-empt the energy crisis going critical, they seem to be taking part in practices that are perhaps more dangerous than the sum of their parts with fracking. While methane does burn cleaner than typical gasoline, any methane that escapes and makes it into the atmosphere is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, which is also released in surprisingly large quantities during the acquisition practices of the companies extracting the methane from the earth. And while methane may not last as long in the atmosphere as CO2 before it is removed through natural processes, it lasts long enough that it would play a role in the possibly upcoming "tipping point" that some expect will rock the global climate within the next few decades. Meanwhile, underground, the weakened rock left behind has to be supported somehow, or there is a high risk of something collapsing and taking some surface features with it. This leads to waste elements being used to help make up for the weakened structural integrity of the now broken and shattered stone. Commonly, waste water (complete with unknown, possibly toxic chemicals) from the project is injected under high pressure to kill two birds with one stone. However, the wells are sometimes used for carbon sequestration, and there are even some points that could prompt a shift from the use of water to CO2 gas in fracking operations, which would help reduce the usage of water that could otherwise be used for drinking water. Either case, however, seems to increase the risk of small earthquakes being generated. While the earthquakes that seem to be linked with fracking and carbon sequestration activities don't typically register as being particularly dangerous, I can think of a few situations which, while unlikely, have a certain level of high danger that might be worth considering.
First, I'll keep it relatively simple. With all of the structural damage to a layer of sturdy rock done by fracking, it has to be prone to shifting, either from the weight above it settling, or from small natural quakes. If there were enough wells spread out over an area, but close enough where such shifting manages to extend the cracks in the rock to meet with the cracks from another well, a large network of unstable sub-bedrock will be generated, and some sort of large stimulus could manage to turn it into some sort of collapse or large scale shifting/rearrangement, which could cause a "butterfly effect" type incident to occur on the surface, like a drop in land height, or other sudden changes in topography. Then again, considering the depths of such shale beds, perhaps the intervening layers of stone would provide a buffer region that would absorb any such risks.
The other situation that springs into my mind on the subject of hypothetical and possibly ludicrous situations, is the possibility that the well wasn't completely exhausted, or that there might be a couple of reservoirs of gas that escaped notice and extraction. If enough gas was still permeating the stone, and a shift in the ground occurred, would it be liable to ignite (given a possible sparking element being set off during the tremor/shift) and explode? Most likely not, given that the main factor in such a reaction is oxygen, to provide the necessary component for the combustion reaction. Unless there was some severe mix-up or an exceedingly bad compression system, there would most likely be no oxygen for such an event to occur. But hey, there could always be the day, where the CO2 reacts with one of the unknown chemicals left behind from an operation, and produces the O2 needed for the worst case scenario here. And even if it is unlikely, maybe it is right on some level. If that is the case, I do hope that it occurs as another unnoticed oddity of geology, or someone will most likely be hurt.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
When Things Become Too Big To NOT Fail
Something that I am often bothered by regarding economics is the obsession with a growing economy, a growing business, whatever the term can be applied to. But I always have to wonder: how much can an economy grow? Whenever something real grows, it has to do so by creating additional aspects and/or mass with available materials. Organic life uses nutritional input for chemical energy and chemical "building blocks;" a structure needs wood, steel, concrete, or some such material of choice to be built; a mess gets larger as more things are tossed into it. However, there are usually limits of some sort on growth, such as a limitation on nutritional availability, the possibility of a structure collapsing under its own weight, or a mess getting so large that the area it occupies can no longer be traversed. These limits are usually dealt with to some degree, though; an organic system will limit it's growth based on environmental factors, a building is designed to account for forces acting upon it, and even a mess can be cleaned up to at least keep a route available to pass through. There is an equilibrium level, at which a given system can balance its available resources and conditions to keep from becoming to large to function or sustain itself. But do you ever hear about such balance in the growth of economies? And perhaps more importantly, does a bigger economy necessarily mean a better economy?
I found a nice, concise definition of economic growth with a brief analysis of the concept here. There is something about the second portion that strikes me, though. They mention that "the growth of an economy is thought of not only as an increase in productive capacity but also as an improvement in the quality of life to the people of that economy." I can't help but think that the two are not proportionally related. Considering that various US corporations have recorded record profits for the last three years, while the unemployment rate in the US has been at its highest since 1983. However, it looks like both trends are starting to reverse, lending more to the possibility that the two are inversely related in the country in modern times. Considering that part of economic growth is increased production and provision of services, while the highest rate of production is often attained with automatic systems (which are also usually cheaper in the long run), perhaps it shouldn't be that surprising. But since economic growth partially relies on having someone to buy what gets produced, and people without jobs often can't fill that role, such trends are non-sustainable. The basic rule of having a source to continue building from is violated, and it begins to collapse.
The constant work of large corporations to expand their business and increase profits is doomed to fail at some point- perhaps especially when they seem to be "too big to fail." If they have expanded to the point where there is no one else to sell their product to, and they keep spending to try and attract new buyers, they begin suffering a net loss of capital. Instead of deciding at some point that they can work to maintain their current consumer base and smartly manage profits and development, to obtain some sort of equilibrium state, they just keep trying to expand and make more money than there may be to gain. If they took the time to try and balance things, to create that equilibrium state, they could grow at a more organic and reasonable rate, or even downsize in such a way that it doesn't ruin the lives of workers or dedicated clientele.
What expands on this even more, is how companies that have gotten too big have the capacity to directly effect politics with lobbyists and sizable political funding, another expenditure that by all means should accelerate net loss of capital. The corporations that participate in such activities tend to be protecting their own interests, in the process holding up political processing of more culturally relevant and possibly more important legislation. But sometimes, such lobbying can be genuinely destructive. Big Oil lobby members are the biggest spenders when it comes to the practice, some also helped fund the Tea Party. Considering the environmental and cultural impacts that oil drilling is known to have, I don't think that term is too strong in this context. But for something a little more horrible, there is actually a lobby against labor rights in China... I... I don't really know what to say to that, actually. I mean, I know that businesses disliked the way unions in the past made it so that they actually had to create safe working conditions and provide livable wages and the like, but this seems a bit ridiculous. I thought we were past the point of purposely making the lives of others miserable just to make a qui- okay never mind, they never did make it past that. And the fact that they have to power to actually affect this boggles me a bit. Especially since, when you think about it, the money that companies probably put into this could probably have gone toward any of the changes that would have been effected through political means, and they would have suffered minimal monetary maladies.
Besides all of this, there is just too much disconnect when a company gets as large as this. At least if there were a number of smaller businesses filling the role of such a large company, there would probably be a greater degree of concern for fellow workers, and better association with the customers that would allow them to affect things at higher levels of a company's operations by simply talking to someone working in a store they are visiting. But that isn't something that would be likely to happen too soon- "too big to fail" often entails "no room left"... going back to the mess analogy that I made earlier.
Perhaps what needs to happen is for these corporations that have a stranglehold on particular sections of the economy to collapse. There would be a long recovery, and probably some measure of fallout. But, it would hopefully allow for smaller operations to take the place of what was, probably staffed by former employees with extensive experience and skill. And hopefully, in the process, there would be a new independence of market development and political procedure, without a conglomerate dictating events and guiding them from behind the scenes.
I found a nice, concise definition of economic growth with a brief analysis of the concept here. There is something about the second portion that strikes me, though. They mention that "the growth of an economy is thought of not only as an increase in productive capacity but also as an improvement in the quality of life to the people of that economy." I can't help but think that the two are not proportionally related. Considering that various US corporations have recorded record profits for the last three years, while the unemployment rate in the US has been at its highest since 1983. However, it looks like both trends are starting to reverse, lending more to the possibility that the two are inversely related in the country in modern times. Considering that part of economic growth is increased production and provision of services, while the highest rate of production is often attained with automatic systems (which are also usually cheaper in the long run), perhaps it shouldn't be that surprising. But since economic growth partially relies on having someone to buy what gets produced, and people without jobs often can't fill that role, such trends are non-sustainable. The basic rule of having a source to continue building from is violated, and it begins to collapse.
The constant work of large corporations to expand their business and increase profits is doomed to fail at some point- perhaps especially when they seem to be "too big to fail." If they have expanded to the point where there is no one else to sell their product to, and they keep spending to try and attract new buyers, they begin suffering a net loss of capital. Instead of deciding at some point that they can work to maintain their current consumer base and smartly manage profits and development, to obtain some sort of equilibrium state, they just keep trying to expand and make more money than there may be to gain. If they took the time to try and balance things, to create that equilibrium state, they could grow at a more organic and reasonable rate, or even downsize in such a way that it doesn't ruin the lives of workers or dedicated clientele.
What expands on this even more, is how companies that have gotten too big have the capacity to directly effect politics with lobbyists and sizable political funding, another expenditure that by all means should accelerate net loss of capital. The corporations that participate in such activities tend to be protecting their own interests, in the process holding up political processing of more culturally relevant and possibly more important legislation. But sometimes, such lobbying can be genuinely destructive. Big Oil lobby members are the biggest spenders when it comes to the practice, some also helped fund the Tea Party. Considering the environmental and cultural impacts that oil drilling is known to have, I don't think that term is too strong in this context. But for something a little more horrible, there is actually a lobby against labor rights in China... I... I don't really know what to say to that, actually. I mean, I know that businesses disliked the way unions in the past made it so that they actually had to create safe working conditions and provide livable wages and the like, but this seems a bit ridiculous. I thought we were past the point of purposely making the lives of others miserable just to make a qui- okay never mind, they never did make it past that. And the fact that they have to power to actually affect this boggles me a bit. Especially since, when you think about it, the money that companies probably put into this could probably have gone toward any of the changes that would have been effected through political means, and they would have suffered minimal monetary maladies.
Besides all of this, there is just too much disconnect when a company gets as large as this. At least if there were a number of smaller businesses filling the role of such a large company, there would probably be a greater degree of concern for fellow workers, and better association with the customers that would allow them to affect things at higher levels of a company's operations by simply talking to someone working in a store they are visiting. But that isn't something that would be likely to happen too soon- "too big to fail" often entails "no room left"... going back to the mess analogy that I made earlier.
Perhaps what needs to happen is for these corporations that have a stranglehold on particular sections of the economy to collapse. There would be a long recovery, and probably some measure of fallout. But, it would hopefully allow for smaller operations to take the place of what was, probably staffed by former employees with extensive experience and skill. And hopefully, in the process, there would be a new independence of market development and political procedure, without a conglomerate dictating events and guiding them from behind the scenes.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
On Tar/Oil Sands and Political/Corporate Machinations
Oil sands, or Tar sands as they are often referred to, is a type of unconventional oil deposit. It is a conglomeration of sand, clay, and water, that is saturated with a very heavy, viscous form of petroleum. The form of petroleum that is present in oil sands is technically known as bitumen, but due to similarities in appearance, may be called tar due to similarities in appearance and other qualities. They are typically rather hard to extract and process, with only Canada having actually made a sizable commitment to refining of this particular resource. However, the Alberta Oil Sands project, has been called the "Most Destructive Project on Earth." There are a variety of factors that make it a contender, if not the recipient of this dubious title. One of the factors that I find most worrisome from the project is the over 50 square kilometers of tailing ponds that are so toxic that if ducks try to stop down for a spell, they will die before they take off again. The people who lived in the area being mined currently have a complex relationship with the issue as well, especially since unemployment is lower than just about anywhere else, about 5%. But the environmental impact is undeniable, and can only become greater while the project continues.
Canadian oil imports accounted for the largest portion of American imported oil in 2009, "about 19 percent of its total foreign supply, and around half of that [then came] from the oil sands." However, the production of petroleum products from these sources is inefficient, and requires a large quantity of other resources, including natural gas and water, the latter of which is of particular concern, since they use so much and it becomes so dangerous after usage. There are various compounds that are used in processing that accumulate in the water, but can those who work the process really be sure that it won't leak out? There have already been various reports of possible contamination outside of their supposed containment area, and the typical dam used to hold back the tailing ponds are made of sand and the particulates that come out in the expelled water from the factory... not something that I would typically regard as remarkably sturdy.
A particular move being made in regards to the Alberta Tar Sands has been going on for about three years as of this posting. Something called the Keystone XL pipeline has been a matter of rather strong contention in the last few years, though I have only heard of it while looking up information on Oil sands. A matter that has received a strong resistance in various regions of the country, as well as several protest actions, it has been brought before congress and the president more than once; Keystone has had to re-apply for a permit for the pipeline to cross the U.S./ Canada border, after being denied the permit in January of this year. Bill McKibben, one of the main organizers of protest movements regarding the pipeline, said this about Obama's denial of the permit, when put under pressure by Republican members of congress: "When Republicans in Congress forced the issue again by passing a 60-day time limit on the President’s final decision, he stood strong and denied the permit. And that was despite the most explicit threats from Big Oil: that they would exact ‘huge political consequences’ if he did the right thing on Keystone." While he didn't make mention of what kind of channels such threats were delivered through, I wouldn't doubt that they at least believe they have such power (and to some extent do), considering that they have been using the concept of "Eminent Domain" (repeatedly, it's worth noting) to begin construction of sections of pipeline, before the permit has even been passed. Also, there is this account of what happened to two protestors at the hands of local police in Texas (on a different section of the pipeline) who were preventing logging that would have made way for the pipeline. The officers involved were to some degree following requests or orders from the TransCanada employees on how to deal with the two protestors who had locked themselves to some logging equipment. This is a serious sign of a situation deteriorating, I believe, when a corporation has a police force acting almost as their own personal mercenary unit.
Oil Sands are not the answer to the energy crisis. They should be the backup backup source for when the world is hopefully on a greener supply of energy and some extra or different energy source is used. But more than this, to what extent are people willing to go to simply maintain the status quo? Things need to change, and yet still so many are trying so hard to keep things from progressing to a new era, for better or worse... though in this case, it would be rather hard for things to get worse. I'll admit that I am quite worried by how things are going with this pipeline thing, and I do hope that Obama is able to prove to the Big Oil conglomerates that they don't have the power that they think they do.
Canadian oil imports accounted for the largest portion of American imported oil in 2009, "about 19 percent of its total foreign supply, and around half of that [then came] from the oil sands." However, the production of petroleum products from these sources is inefficient, and requires a large quantity of other resources, including natural gas and water, the latter of which is of particular concern, since they use so much and it becomes so dangerous after usage. There are various compounds that are used in processing that accumulate in the water, but can those who work the process really be sure that it won't leak out? There have already been various reports of possible contamination outside of their supposed containment area, and the typical dam used to hold back the tailing ponds are made of sand and the particulates that come out in the expelled water from the factory... not something that I would typically regard as remarkably sturdy.
A particular move being made in regards to the Alberta Tar Sands has been going on for about three years as of this posting. Something called the Keystone XL pipeline has been a matter of rather strong contention in the last few years, though I have only heard of it while looking up information on Oil sands. A matter that has received a strong resistance in various regions of the country, as well as several protest actions, it has been brought before congress and the president more than once; Keystone has had to re-apply for a permit for the pipeline to cross the U.S./ Canada border, after being denied the permit in January of this year. Bill McKibben, one of the main organizers of protest movements regarding the pipeline, said this about Obama's denial of the permit, when put under pressure by Republican members of congress: "When Republicans in Congress forced the issue again by passing a 60-day time limit on the President’s final decision, he stood strong and denied the permit. And that was despite the most explicit threats from Big Oil: that they would exact ‘huge political consequences’ if he did the right thing on Keystone." While he didn't make mention of what kind of channels such threats were delivered through, I wouldn't doubt that they at least believe they have such power (and to some extent do), considering that they have been using the concept of "Eminent Domain" (repeatedly, it's worth noting) to begin construction of sections of pipeline, before the permit has even been passed. Also, there is this account of what happened to two protestors at the hands of local police in Texas (on a different section of the pipeline) who were preventing logging that would have made way for the pipeline. The officers involved were to some degree following requests or orders from the TransCanada employees on how to deal with the two protestors who had locked themselves to some logging equipment. This is a serious sign of a situation deteriorating, I believe, when a corporation has a police force acting almost as their own personal mercenary unit.
Oil Sands are not the answer to the energy crisis. They should be the backup backup source for when the world is hopefully on a greener supply of energy and some extra or different energy source is used. But more than this, to what extent are people willing to go to simply maintain the status quo? Things need to change, and yet still so many are trying so hard to keep things from progressing to a new era, for better or worse... though in this case, it would be rather hard for things to get worse. I'll admit that I am quite worried by how things are going with this pipeline thing, and I do hope that Obama is able to prove to the Big Oil conglomerates that they don't have the power that they think they do.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Their fatigues aren't the only thing green about them now.
Throughout history, armies have historically been a hugely significant expenditure of resources. Whether it be materials to produce weapons, or the food required to feed a large host of soldiers, a military is always going to be difficult to maintain. In our modern era, one of the prime examples of this is the military demand for fuel, to operate most of their machinery. Whether it simply be operating equipment around the base, or keeping a line of tanks moving toward an objective, fuel is consumed in vast quantities by the branches of the military. And while they only account for a small percentage of worldwide demand, the US military is still one of the largest consumers of petroleum in the world, consuming about 340,000 barrels per day. While there seem to be those who would claim that this isn't enough consumption to change the alternative energy market, they are basing these arguments on current status of alternative fuel production, and the fact that there isn't much research into making it cheaper or better. If a large consumer like the military were to begin putting money toward alternative energy sources, even if it is by buying it instead of funding research, I'm sure that some sort of headway would be made by the extra cash flow that companies would receive if they had a reliable customer. One could argue that they played a role in popularizing the markets for coal, gas, and nuclear power as these came into play. Besides, it can be easier to enact change through purchasing power when a select few are the ones receiving the money to produce something, and there aren't that many biofuel companies currently operating at commercial capacity.
"'You need that big anchor customer. And the Navy can afford a premium, because it knows how much petroleum really costs,' explains Brook Porter, an investment partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has put more than $1.5 billion into so-called 'clean tech' companies. For some of these firms, a big military contract could mean the difference between life and death."
While I do think that energy sources other than combustible fuels would be an optimal choice environmentally, it is hard to deny the power and usefulness of liquid combustibles. Many military vehicles get less than a mile to a gallon of fuel, but while they do need to try and improve efficiency to improve operating times and the weight of fuel needed to travel, this means they probably can't switch to most other types of alternative energy, as they wouldn't be able to provide the power needed to, say, fly a multi-ton aircraft carrying a multi-ton tank over 26,000 miles. However, there are other applications for other alternative energy sources, which the marines have been pushing research for research and development into self-sufficient power sources to keep equipment running, which besides reducing reliance on batteries from a supply train, the weight carried by a "patrol of 35 soldiers shed[s] 700 pounds." So really, this brings back a talking point that I often think needs to be addressed whenever alternative energy is discussed: There is no one solution for everything. One of the beautiful things about the alternative energy sources being developed is that there is a variety. Something that doesn't work in one place can be switched out with another type, or weaknesses in one system can be compensated with an additional system being available. For example, solar cells might not work as well in a rainforest environment, with the thick foliage and lack of constant sun. But if there were a system that could take advantage of all the water that is readily available in such an environment, such as a hydrogen fuel cell generator that could produce the hydrogen with electrolysis from a hand crank generator (may not help with battery-type needs, but just throwing something out there). So, while the military should look into improving fuel efficiency and alternative fuels for their vehicle fleet, they should look into every field to try and find ways to reduce the need for resupplies and reliance on some other producer.
Something that the military does understand is that they do have a problem with fossil fuels, though not on an environmental aspect. Relying on a foreign source for such an essential resource is a tactical vulnerability of the worst kind. But we are so deep in our reliance on fossil fuels that ways to combat said reliance are difficult, and viewed as impossible by many conservative individuals, though whether that is due to actual perceived difficulty or oil lobbyists is a different issue. In fact, there is a bill in the works to make it so that alternative fuels practically can't be bought or produced by the military, if they exceed the cost of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. The fact that the military was testing large scale use of alternative fuels, instead of making a push to a full transition, may be an indication that this is a push by oil lobbyists. The Air Force was testing a much more expensive fuel than the "Great Green Fleet" that prompted the bill, but because they were doing it on a smaller scale it slipped under the radar. But those who participate in such testing are of the firm belief that the US needs to try and improve energy self-reliance, and are trying to take steps to make the transition easier and sooner than civilian economics can.
With the way things are going, we need to make a shift away from petroleum fuels as the primary energy source, even if we don't simply get rid of them. However, if we want to have them as an alternative in case something happens in the future, we need to start the shift now. The military taking an interest in this matter may seem like an odd place to start, given the destructive nature of such a body, but their purchasing power is unrivaled in terms of getting high tech and experimental resources. Besides, if they can manage to reduce reliance on petroleum, then it may be a pretty good indicator that anyone can.
"'You need that big anchor customer. And the Navy can afford a premium, because it knows how much petroleum really costs,' explains Brook Porter, an investment partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has put more than $1.5 billion into so-called 'clean tech' companies. For some of these firms, a big military contract could mean the difference between life and death."
While I do think that energy sources other than combustible fuels would be an optimal choice environmentally, it is hard to deny the power and usefulness of liquid combustibles. Many military vehicles get less than a mile to a gallon of fuel, but while they do need to try and improve efficiency to improve operating times and the weight of fuel needed to travel, this means they probably can't switch to most other types of alternative energy, as they wouldn't be able to provide the power needed to, say, fly a multi-ton aircraft carrying a multi-ton tank over 26,000 miles. However, there are other applications for other alternative energy sources, which the marines have been pushing research for research and development into self-sufficient power sources to keep equipment running, which besides reducing reliance on batteries from a supply train, the weight carried by a "patrol of 35 soldiers shed[s] 700 pounds." So really, this brings back a talking point that I often think needs to be addressed whenever alternative energy is discussed: There is no one solution for everything. One of the beautiful things about the alternative energy sources being developed is that there is a variety. Something that doesn't work in one place can be switched out with another type, or weaknesses in one system can be compensated with an additional system being available. For example, solar cells might not work as well in a rainforest environment, with the thick foliage and lack of constant sun. But if there were a system that could take advantage of all the water that is readily available in such an environment, such as a hydrogen fuel cell generator that could produce the hydrogen with electrolysis from a hand crank generator (may not help with battery-type needs, but just throwing something out there). So, while the military should look into improving fuel efficiency and alternative fuels for their vehicle fleet, they should look into every field to try and find ways to reduce the need for resupplies and reliance on some other producer.
Something that the military does understand is that they do have a problem with fossil fuels, though not on an environmental aspect. Relying on a foreign source for such an essential resource is a tactical vulnerability of the worst kind. But we are so deep in our reliance on fossil fuels that ways to combat said reliance are difficult, and viewed as impossible by many conservative individuals, though whether that is due to actual perceived difficulty or oil lobbyists is a different issue. In fact, there is a bill in the works to make it so that alternative fuels practically can't be bought or produced by the military, if they exceed the cost of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. The fact that the military was testing large scale use of alternative fuels, instead of making a push to a full transition, may be an indication that this is a push by oil lobbyists. The Air Force was testing a much more expensive fuel than the "Great Green Fleet" that prompted the bill, but because they were doing it on a smaller scale it slipped under the radar. But those who participate in such testing are of the firm belief that the US needs to try and improve energy self-reliance, and are trying to take steps to make the transition easier and sooner than civilian economics can.
With the way things are going, we need to make a shift away from petroleum fuels as the primary energy source, even if we don't simply get rid of them. However, if we want to have them as an alternative in case something happens in the future, we need to start the shift now. The military taking an interest in this matter may seem like an odd place to start, given the destructive nature of such a body, but their purchasing power is unrivaled in terms of getting high tech and experimental resources. Besides, if they can manage to reduce reliance on petroleum, then it may be a pretty good indicator that anyone can.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Can Coal Be Clean?
Clean coal is kind of a pipe dream. It's pretty much a rock that can be burned, and since it can be burned without any kind of purification process (in fact, I'm not sure if you can do anything to purify a solid like that) it is bound to have all sorts of nasty things, like heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide (which is one of the worst ingredients for acid rain) and the like. That's not even mentioning the significant quantity of CO2 that is released from burning coal. Most so-called "clean coal" tech has focused on removing the toxic compounds and dangerous particulate from emissions, and to a lesser degree reducing CO2 in emissions. In the past, coal burning plants used to respond to complaints in the local communities about their smoke and dust by making their smokestacks taller, thus making it so that the smoke and gasses would be blown further away from the local populace... thus spreading the problem into a larger area, and affecting more sensitive habitats. Nowadays, they try to improve filters and carbon capturing systems, which is only mitigating the larger problem. And while it is just about impossible to burn something that doesn't produce CO2, the sheer quantity that coal is able to produce gives it unique status as an especially dirty pollutant.
Something that may have an impact on how coal can be used is a method known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a process that can be used to make liquid hydrocarbons from pretty much any combustible carbon-containing compound, such as biomass, natural gas, and coal. It does so by first generating carbon monoxide, then combining it with hydrogen. The process was first discovered by German scientists during the 1920's, and was subsequently used to convert coal to liquid fuel during WWII to power German war machines. While CO2 is still produced during the production and combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuels, it can be captured more easily in the lab, and the other pollutants can be stripped from the gas stream during the production process as well, thus making a cleaner burning fuel. The process has been considered for mass use several times throughout US history, though economic aspects usually brought any advancement to a halt. In fact, some of these events may have been engineered to some degree: "The last time investors started lining up money for Fischer-Tropsch plants, in the 1970s, the OPEC oil cartel opened up its spigots and pushed the price of crude down to $10 a barrel, and that was that". Meanwhile, South Africa has based the majority of their fuel consumption on Fishcer-Tropsch fuels produced from local coal deposits. While it isn't the best alternative to petrol based fuels in terms of CO2 emissions, synthetic fuels are comparable in power, have fewer side products, and in some ways are easier to obtain than oil. After all, we would be able to make it from local sources, instead of having to import most of the ingredients.
Whatever the case, the one thing that is easiest to take from what I've learned is this: If there's a trick to clean coal, it is to not burn it as coal.
Extra links:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
http://www.economist.com/node/13235041?story_id=13235041
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)