Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition' 61 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Robert Hefner’s new book, The GET: Grand Energy Transition, is beautifully simple. Although the book is full of the complexities involved in the history of energy exploration, statistics, logic, and policy, the picture on the book’s cover sums up everything quite simply: society is transitioning from an unsustainable past based on solid and liquid energy sources (coal and oil) to a future of sustainable life based on energy gases (natural gas, wind, solar, hydrogen). Having seen the cover and read the book, it seems so obvious to me now. Yet the mindset unveiled in this book is unique, ground breaking, and critically relevant today.
Mr. Hefner certainly has the credentials to speak authoritatively about energy and natural gas. He is a geologist, geophysicist, and a true pioneer in natural gas exploration. After working for Philips Petroleum Hefner founded his own company, GHK. In 1969 GHK, and its partners drilled a well over 24,000 feet deep in the Anadarko Basin. The well has produced 21 Bcf of natural gas (the equivalent of 3.6 million barrels of oil) and is still producing today. In 1997, GHK discovered the Potato Hills natural gas field in southeastern Oklahoma, one of the larger North American conventional onshore natural gas fields discovered in recent decades. Mr. Hefner has frequently spoken to Congressional committees, serves as Advisory Director of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), is a Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society in London, and is a member of the International Council at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He holds a Petroleum Geology degree from the University of Oklahoma. He has been in the natural gas business for some 50 years.
In The GET, Mr. Hefner describes the evolution of man’s energy use from solids (woods, dung, coal) to liquids (gasoline) to gases (natural gas, wind, solar, hydrogen) as a progression from dirty, carbon heavy complex chemical structures to cleaner, carbon light, fuels of a simpler chemical structure. The chart below summarizes this transition:
As man travels down the energy path from solid wood and coal to liquid gasoline and to gaseous natural gas and hydrogen, the progression is one of carbon heavy to carbon light; from complex chemical structure to simple; from toxic particulate emissions to no particulate emissions; and finally, from high CO2 emissions to no CO2 emissions. Hydrogen, the holy grail of energy, is the simplest and cleanest of all fuels.
Hefner includes wind as an energy gas because after all, the atmosphere is gaseous. Solar too is gas energy because the sun is a big ball of burning hydrogen. Hefner also makes a strong case that we are evolving from scarce energy sources to abundant energy sources as hydrogen is the most abundant element and makes up 90% of the observable universe. Though we know natural gas is produced in many diverse biological processes, Hefner presents a strong logical case for the origination of non-biologically created natural gas. He believes it is quite possible, indeed probable, that the Earth contains more energy in the form of natural gas than that of coal and oil combined. Natural gas is always found with coal and oil discoveries, but it is possible to find huge natural gas reserves where there is an absence of oil or coal.
Hefner introduces a graph which shows waves of energy use. He explains how the normal declining wave of coal and increasing wave of natural gas were interrupted by government interventions which regulated well head prices and prohibited natural gas usage for power generation and industrial usage. The government enacted these policies after being convinced by Exxon (XOM) that the US was running out of natural gas. Hefner’s recollection of the governmental hearings where he went toe-to-toe with big oil is fascinating. Unfortunately, the government believed Exxon instead of Hefner.
Exxon’s testimony was that the US had a total of 300 Tcf of natural gas resources. Hefner’s estimation at the time was for US natural gas reserves to be on the order of 1,500-2,000 Tcf (his current estimate is 3,000 Tcf). History has since vindicated Mr. Hefner as now most experts estimate remaining natural gas resources at 1,500-2,000 Tcf. Governmental policies based on big oil’s faulty natural gas estimates led to huge increases in US coal and oil consumption and resulted in the “three intolerables” we face today: economic contraction, environmental degradation (including some 15-20 billion tons of CO2 from coal plant additions since 1978 that are now in our atmosphere that otherwise would not have been there!), and geopolitical and geostrategic tensions. How ironic (and tragic) that Oklahoma, the state in which Hefner and Boone Pickens call home, went from generating 95% of its electricity from natural gas to 50% from coal.
The “real inconvenient truth,” Hefner says, is that government subsidies are impeding the adoption of abundant, cleaner and cheaper natural gas by extending the life of oil and coal well beyond what otherwise would have been their natural rates of decline. If government policy instead allowed the full external costs of coal and oil (military costs to secure supply, health care costs due to toxic emissions, environmental costs, efficiency costs, etc.) to bleed through to the consumer, the superior energy solutions of natural gas, wind, and solar would come to the fore. Natural gas would then attain its destiny as the “go-to” fuel of choice and accelerate the decline of coal and oil consumption while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Going forward, with recent production and reserve estimates coming from the Barnett, Haynesville, Marcellus shale formations, among others, have vindicated Mr. Hefner’s testimony of decades ago. His contention was and is that “peak oil” does NOT mean “peak natural gas” and he has been proven correct - US and world natural gas supplies are abundant and can be relied upon by policymakers for 100 years. The government should recognize that natural gas is the only domestic fuel that can be scaled-up over the next decade in order to achieve significant reductions in the use of coal and foreign oil as well as significantly reducing CO2 and particulate emissions. Hefner presents energy policies to reestablish the industrial might of America by becoming the world leader in CNG vehicles and CNG refueling capabilities.
Hefner refers to several instances where the power of words should not be underestimated. He urges the media and policymakers to be mindful of the nuances. For instance:
- What big oil refers to as “unconventional natural gas” should really be termed “conventional”. It is a critical matter of perception as “unconventional” conveys to policymakers that this natural gas is somehow uncertain and limited when in fact, the Haynesville shale (which big oil refers to as unconventional) could well become one of the most prolific natural gas fields in the world and hold some 2-300 Tcf of recoverable natural gas! Or, as much as the Exxon’s early 1980’s estimate of total US natural gas reserves.
- The term “fossil fuels” lumps coal, oil, and natural gas together. Hefner suggests policymakers and journalists refrain from using the term “fossil fuels” because it mixes the historical big energy problems (coal and oil) together with the 21st century solution (natural gas). Each fuel should instead be discussed on its own merits. Also, it is important to note that while coal and oil are definitely fossil fuels, Hefner’s argument that natural gas was also created by non-biological origins is a strong one.
Hefner is a rare mind indeed. The book is chock full of “Hefnerisms”. My favorite:
Coal-to-liquids is an attempt to convert a nineteenth-century solid energy source to a twentieth-century liquid source that has no place in the twenty-first century.
This is classic Hefner.
The great energy transition has already begun. The nations who successfully adopt and accelerate the energy gases trend will be successful and enter an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity. Those who resist and stay addicted to coal and oil will not succeed. After reading The GET, I was left with a sense of optimism based on the knowledge that there are indeed policy solutions to protect America from peak oil. The challenge is making it happen.
From an investment perspective, Mr. Hefner’s energy policy suggestions would obviously have positive effects on the overall economy and US equity markets. Specifically, the policies would favor companies with high reserves of natural gas (CHK, COP, BP), independent natural gas producers (RRC, APC, and APA), energy services companies (SLB, NBR), clean energy infrastructure plays like GE in wind turbines and compressors, hydrogen infrastructure plays like APD, and perhaps even the moribund automotive industry players like TM, F, and GM. Ultimately natural gas transportation would be bullish for the natural gas ETF (UNG).
I encourage everyone to learn more about Robert Hefner III and obtain a copy of The GET, which you can do here.
Disclosures: the author (of this book review, Mr. Fitzsimmons) owns COP.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 61 comments:
On Mar 11 05:43 PM Paulus wrote:
> Remember that Hefner and T Bone are big NG investors
aquaculture: Mr. Hefner's company, GHK, is focused on natural gas exploration and production (not oil). i don't believe i "pumped" the company in the article. my intention was to simply review the book. listing the credentials of the author is part of the book review. as for why the SA editors put the article in the alternative energy section, perhaps their feeling is that anything other than coal and oil is alternative. NGV's are certainly a cleaner, cheaper, and US powered alternative to dirtier imported oil fueled cars and trucks.
I've been disappointed thus far with the Obama administration's position on natural gas. It's been lumped into the "bad" category because it is a fossil fuel. Yes it results in CO2, but it is considerably cleaner.
Greenhouse gasses are treated worse now than the really nasty particulate pollutants, SO2, O3, etc that actually make people sick and destroy the ecosystem. Let's not lose perspective here: humans result in less than 1% of the Earth's C02 production...but continue to produce the majority of the toxic stuff. The global warming fad has caused us to lose focus on what we should be cleaning up right now.
jljamup: in this time of US economic, environmental, and energy crisis your comment is, well, simply not helpful. if you care to debate the logic contained in the book, then i'm happy to oblige. if you'd like to present your own solution, i am all ears. otherwise, i just assume that you are happy with the status quo and therefore a waste of time.
tedfoo: you said "LNG" (liquified natural gas), did you mean CNG? i don't mean to nitpick, but natural gas produced in the US doesn't need to be liquified, just put it in the pipelines, and use compressors to fuel the CNG tanks in the cars, buses, trucks, etc. etc. no need for costly liquification. wrt particulates, you are onto something. everyone focuses on CO2 emissions from coal, but anyone who has visited kingston, TN lately can see the results of over 50 years of coal burning. as you are aware, natural gas is clean CH4, no particulates! i share your concern with obama wrt natural gas....i don't think he GET's it. time will tell.
You make the most sense.
Agree with you 100%.
When comes to energy, politics sometimes are so negative and thus delays many good changes needed.
Many scientists believe that natural gas from our own land can support this country for the next 1000 years.
With the money saved from oil, everyone will be benefited.
i wonder what hef has to say about shale-to-liquid hydrocarbons, i have not read the book.
> jack
Of course he won't find himself at a conference with my good self because I have never heard of this man. I've heard of people with ideas that are similar to his, but like Mr H. they would hardly be welcome to flaunt their wisdom in a scientific forum.
I know that I'm naive, but I can't understand why someone with as much on the ball as Michael Simmons would be impressed by Robert Hefner.
PeteK: right on
john gordon: from your past comments, i think you would really enjoy this book. it is fascinating. however, why liquify the gas when you can use it much cheaper in gaseous form, the pipeline infrastructure is already in place and goes to 63,000,000 homes?
Banks: what *exactly* is it that you disagree with? why do you criticize someone without giving your reasons? from your previous posts, i would have thought you were a prime candidate to read the book. btw, my last name is "Fitzsimmons".
nakedjaybird: i believe mr hefner, after exploring and producing natural gas for 50 years, is quite aware that natural gas is a fossil fuel, and states as much in the book. hefner is also quite aware that sun is fusion...hdyrogen fusion, and states that as well. you probably shouldn't read the book as it is obviously over your head.
man, what a sad list of comments for such a great book.
And "Big Oil" has not been the driver for the US unconventional plays, again it is the independents.
WHAT TRIPE!!!
SO HOW DO WE GET HYDROGEN?
DOES IT GROW ON TREES?
CAN WE DRILL FOR IT?
OR DO WE HAVE TO BURN SOMETHING TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY
TO PRODUCE.....
Author should get (sic) the fact that Western-Europe is completely running out of natural gas. Japan has little to none. Russia and north-africa are not reliable partners for investment. The U.S. 'going natural gas' would create a cultural/economic dichotomy visavie the rest of the world.
The chances of another post-peak-oil business-cycle with natural gas as an energy source is zero.
I'm putting this at the top of my "To Read" books.
Thank you.
ripskii: well, i guess we disagree. as soon as you spend the energy to liquify nat gas, the cost goes up, as does the equipment to handle it. australia is probably doing this because they have vast areas of empty land. no need for that in the US when we already have, in place, a vast nat gas pipeline grid going to 63,000,000 homes. we should keep the cost down, and simply stay with what is available, and fully adequate. just ask the californians and folks in utah. it works great just the way it is.
bassmaseter: i'm not selling my COP...
chuckokie: i disagree with you. it was big oil's (exxon) testimony that convinced congress we were running out of nat gas. it was this testimony that was responsible for the huge switch to coal electric generation from nat gas generation and for well head price controls on nat gas. and yes, GHK did lobby the Carter administrtation - to take remove the interstate regulation of natural gas prices. wrt your second comment, i never said that big oil was the driver for US "unconventional" plays?? i am very aware CHK and others kicked big oil's butts in shale development, which, as far as i am concerned are not
"unconventional" (big oil's term), but are
"conventional".
jimmy46: ok, you don't like hydrogen for some reason. you disagree that it is the simplest and cleanest of all fuels. interesting. please, enlighten me .... tell me, what is your "energy holy grail"? someday humans will figure out hydrogen fusion, and when they do, remember the words you wrote here today.
aquaculture: the chart in the article clearly shows the carbon content of methane (CH4). the point is, compare it to gasoline (also in the chart). it emits none of the particulates of gasoline, and 30% less CO2. thanks for trying to teach me something...but i am flly aware of western europe's energy woes (see my previous articles on russia and the caspian sea). so you believe the US shouldn't go to natural gas because western europe and japan don't have it and we have a 100 year supply?? well, we're on oil now, and they don't have that either!! your logic escapes me. i think you are a good candidate to read the book...
as far as your last statement, if the comments to this article are any indication, i would have to agree with you. overall, these exchanges have been pathetic. i expected more from americans who are in the midst of an economic, energy, environmental, and national security crisis. i guess we'll just follow the long list of historically defunct countries that got fat, lazy, and ignorant. they all collapsed - just as we will if we do nothing about our addiction to foreign oil as we head into the era of peak oil with a bankrupted government. after $145/barrel oil and a collapsing financial system, i guess i expected alot more from the folks on here. oh well, life goes on. remember this article and the solutions put forth in the book the next time you're paying $4.50/gallon...folks in CA with Honda Civic GX's were paying slightly over $2 for natural gas. folks in utah are paying $0.88 now. the rest of us are chumps.
Most of us will be dead before hydrogen becomes a viable, cost effective, and practical fuel. A lot of us older guys will be dead before solar has any significant impact for our energy sources. Solar works a bit locally, but the transmission loss to pump it from sunshine states to the rest of the country makes it impractical to be more than a minor component of a varied energy source. The same is true of wind, hydro, and tidal electric generators.
The environmentalist are incharge at the white house and congress, so we will dream the dream of "clean energy", subsidize unprofitable producers, and squander opportunities for practical solutions.
Those who see nat gas as the most viable transportation fuel are correct. Nuclear is the best for electric production, buy Harry Reid is killing this alternative by preventing a solution to the waste storage area problem. Electric cars are ok if they are hybrids using waste energy from the vehicle's motion, but if you consider the transmission loss on energy for true battery powered vehicles, you find that the total "cradle to grave" cost is prohibitive.
Foreign oil is among other things, a national security threat. We must get off of it as fast as we can.
Man-made global warming and CO2? Anyone who believes in this is either a fool or in on the scam.
most heavy duty, long range,or high torque reqts will require LNG. REFERENCE CLNE[two current high capacity LNG plants[TEX/CALIF]. Westport and Westport Cummins web sites. also ngvammerica. taxi, auto fleets, trash/utility, buses focus on CNG. the toughies use LNG. many large facility stations supplying both CNG, LNG will use LNG feeders.
On Mar 11 10:32 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> Jimbo: sorry to hear about your Seven Seas investment. i guess i
> should investigate the matter as i must plead ignorance. i agree
> with the rest of your comment only to add why stop at buses and fleets?
> natural gas goes to 63 million homes..why not refuel why we sleep?
> we could reduce oil imports by 6-7 million barrels within 5 years
> if we put our minds (and our industry) to it, and create lots of
> good jobs at the same time.
>
> jljamup: in this time of US economic, environmental, and energy crisis
> your comment is, well, simply not helpful. if you care to debate
> the logic contained in the book, then i'm happy to oblige. if you'd
> like to present your own solution, i am all ears. otherwise, i just
> assume that you are happy with the status quo and therefore a waste
> of time.
>
> tedfoo: you said "LNG" (liquified natural gas), did you mean CNG?
> i don't mean to nitpick, but natural gas produced in the US doesn't
> need to be liquified, just put it in the pipelines, and use compressors
> to fuel the CNG tanks in the cars, buses, trucks, etc. etc. no need
> for costly liquification. wrt particulates, you are onto something.
> everyone focuses on CO2 emissions from coal, but anyone who has visited
> kingston, TN lately can see the results of over 50 years of coal
> burning. as you are aware, natural gas is clean CH4, no particulates!
> i share your concern with obama wrt natural gas....i don't think
> he GET's it. time will tell.
On Mar 12 03:56 PM jimmy46 wrote:
> Hydrogen, the holy grail of energy, is the simplest and cleanest
> of all fuels.""""""""
>
> WHAT TRIPE!!!
>
> SO HOW DO WE GET HYDROGEN?
> DOES IT GROW ON TREES?
> CAN WE DRILL FOR IT?
>
> OR DO WE HAVE TO BURN SOMETHING TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY
> TO PRODUCE.....
fran: thanks for your comments. now, i wasn't debating the fact that LNG was used in transportation. i was merely pointing out that to make the biggest reductions in foreign oil, we merely need to make use of natural gas as it exists at our houses: in it gaseous non-liquid form. andfocus on NON fleet cars and trucks. i don't agree with boone pickens that nat gas should only be used in fleets and shouldn't be used in electric power generation. we can cut out much more foreign oil by having middle class american's non-fleet vehicles running on natural gas. and, further, since we have such an abundance of it, i think we should being replacing coal fired electric generation plants with nat gas generation. we can start with the coal plant in kingston, TN which just decimated the entire tennessee valley....
koolsool: you're welcome, and i hope you do get to read the book. yes, i am very dissapointed with obama wrt natural gas. here's a letter i wrote to john podesta the other day on this subject:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
wrt big oil, i believe you are correct that they lobby against NG. i believe the reason is that their profits are more heavily weighted toward oil: producing and refining it. natural gas is a big threat to remove those requirements. that said, oil production and use will be around for decades, and if big oil would just get WITH the program, instead of fighting against it, the US would be in much better shape today. in fact, i would go so far as to say it is their patriotic duty to support natural gas transportation.
AT&T's CNG fuled NGV announcement:
earth2tech.com/2009/03.../
www.skirsch.com/politi...
It just seems funny as a casual investor that Nat Gas was sitting at $3.75 the other day because we have an enormous amount of reserves in the ground that will supposedly keep the price low.
I don't hear that same argument with oil.
Sign me up for at least looking into Nat Gas until we advance other tech especially given this recent over supply idea.
Currently natural gas is the only fuel that can be used to quickly supply electric power when demand rises unexpectedly. Wind power, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, and even coal cannot do that as quickly as natural gas. Currently natural gas is the cheapest source of hydrogen. In effect, burning natural gas IS burning hydrogen as most of the energy comes from the 4 hydrogen bonds.
There is no reason that natural gas cannot be used to substitute for transportation fuel (gasoline and diesel), yet wind and solar cannot do that with any efficiency. I converted my vehicle to natural gas in 1974. Large fleets of buses and garbage trucks in my area have been converted for years.
The real problem for natural gas is that the current administration is throwing the baby out with the bath water, by limiting natural gas production and doing nothing to improve natural gas distribution systems. Currently the natural gas industry is facing higher taxes, serious restrictions on technology applications, revocation of Federal leases, increasing royalties and severance taxes at both federal and state levels, and a supply glut that is forcing most producers to stop drilling and cancel programs that would have been our supply several years from now. Boom and bust, while decried by Obama, seems to be the real result of his administrations policies for the natural gas industry. Maybe Al Gore (who was once a proponent of natural gas) needs to read this book so that maybe the Whitehouse will get the message.
The dumbing down of America never ceases to amaze me. Judging by the responses here, I agree with the author. People are so blinded by their prejudices and political ideology that they have completely lost the ability to think.
On global warming, a recent poll of scientists found that 80% of scientists in general agree with the AGW theory, and 97% of active climate scientists agree. But a poll of Americans found that over 75% of republicans think they are smarter than the world scientific community, and what's worse they actually believe the absurd conspiracy theories concocted by the denier propaganda campaign. And they call the scientists alarmist! Even among Democrats only 59% think the theory is correct.
That means less than half of Americans agree with the scientists. Ok, how many believe the theory of gravity? According to some of these luddites, Al Gore dreamed up the whole thing. My God. I'm sure the 50,000 members of the AGU and every major scientific organization in the world, and the earth science faculty of every major university in the world are all just following Al Gore's lead.
People aren't keeping up with the science, which gets stronger every day. Climate models that were questioned ten years ago have gotten more and more accurate and in fact are proving to have been far too conservative. Without exception, every new observation or bit of scientific data shows that the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report which came out just two years ago, is proving to be far too conservative. Estimates for global temperature increase by 2100 have doubled from those estimates, based on more recent data and observations.
Those are the facts. Opinions are worthless.
Most deniers, are not what science calls skeptics, who they give a bad name. When you repeat every skeptic argument which has ever been thought of, which is typical strategy in denier land, even though they often contradict each other, you are not dealing with reality. Most of these arguments were disproven 10-20 years ago. No matter how many times scientists show that they have been disproven, deniers bring them up over and over again, hundreds if not thousands of times a day on the internet as if they were ALL true. They have become urban legends believed religiously by some. That is scientific skepticism?
Hardly.
Actually they have all been discredited in the scientific literature but deniers assume they are all true. just amazing.
The most popular myth currently, is that we are now cooling. This is another urban legend with absolutely no scientific foundation. Every bit of data says it is wrong, but deniers repeat it endlessly. Then they make up another phony argument that says scientists changed the name from global warming to climate change because the warming has stopped. Scientists actually have been using the two terms interchangably since the mid 70s. And the IPCC or (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE)
was named in 1988, twenty years ago. Somehow they missed these small details in their headlong rush into stupidity.
If you want to actually know something about climate change, rather than just cling to your false and politically motivated assumptions, then I recommend going to the websites of actual climate scientists. You could start with
www.realclimate.org
www.skepticalscience.c.../
www.logicalscience.com/
gristmill.grist.org/sk...
environment.newscienti...
greenfyre.wordpress.co.../
scienceblogs.com/delto.../
tamino.wordpress.com/
Unless of course you want to stay comfortably in your fairy land world of opinions and prejudices.
If a skeptic mentions Al Gore, you can be sure they don't have a clue what they are talking about. These are ad hominem attacks on the messenger, and have absolutely nothing to do with scientific skepticism. It's the kind of argument someone makes, who has nothing else to go on.
Others offer factually unsupported statements about how alternative energy can't do the job. More disinformation. Do your homework. These are largely empty talking points that you repeat because they fit your political ideology and prejudices about environmentalists.
We can build hundreds of gigawatts of solar and wind in the next two decades. No fuel ever, to pay for, mine, transport, store, refine, prospect for, burn, clean up the mess from, or fight wars over. In ten years, all forms of solar will be competitive with fossil fuels, and wind already is.
In five years PV solar will be directly competitive, or at grid parity, over 40% of the country.
In ten years it will be there nationwide.
Same is true for solar thermal.
Technology may solve the problem of how to produce hydrogen on a large scale, in an economically and environmentally sound way.
In the meantime we can use the tools we have to transition to cleaner energy.
I recommend the new book "The Carbon Age"
by Eric Roston. It puts what we are doing with fossil fuels in the larger perspective of the history of the earth and it's atmosphere and lifeforms, and the delicate balance of the carbon cycle that makes life as we know it possible. Read it, and then come back here and explain how global warming is just a natural cycle.
"Wind power's ecological footprint is so small — a million times smaller than ethanol's — that if all the cars driven in the United States were battery-electric, they could be fueled by wind turbines whose total land footprint, not counting spacing in between, takes up less than 1.2 square miles, Stanford University environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson found."
[wind turbines only use about 2 1/2% of the land where they are sited, allowing them to coexist with agriculture]
"To fuel the same number of battery-electric vehicles with cellulose ethanol would require an amount of land equivalent to eight Californias – literally a million times more land and equivalent to the amount of land harvested in the U.S. in 2003."
solveclimate.com/blog/...
As for the fears of government intrusion and massive efforts to solve the global warming problem, which is what is behind much of the denier opposition, you might want to consider the following ideas presented by Joseph Romm at Climate Progress.org. Romm is a physicist who did his doctorate on the physical oceanography of the Greenland sea and is a former assistant secretary of energy.
".....Well, if we follow the talk-much do-little climate strategy of conservatives, then we are all but certain to end up at 1000 ppm by century’s end, and that would be economically ruinous and socially destructive ."
"If you hate government intrusion into people’s lives, you’d better stop catastrophic global warming, because nothing drives a country more towards activist government than scarcity and depravation."
"Here is where the conservatives have it backwards. The solution to global warming — the strategy needed to avoid 450 ppm — does not require rationing food or energy. It primarily requires a government-led strategy to aggressively deploy clean energy technologies . That strategy preserves the energy abundance that has made modern civilization possible."
"But if we hold off today on government action that focuses for several decades on preventing catastrophe, we will almost guarantee the need for extreme and intrusive government action in the post-2030 era, perhaps lasting centuries. Only Big Government–which conservatives say they don’t want–can relocate millions of citizens, build massive levees, ration crucial resources like water and arable land, mandate harsh and rapid reductions in certain kinds of energy–all of which will be inevitable if we don’t act now."
"The scarcity and deprivation of 1000 ppm could last for hundreds of years. Conservatives can’t stop 1000 ppm by their anti-science anti-government rhetoric. But they can prevent progressives and moderates from stopping 1000 ppm by blocking aggressive climate legislation. How ironic — and tragic — it would be if conservates’ short-term quest to avoid a bigger government led to a permamently huge government."
He's being conservative. 1000 ppm would most likely end civilization and possibly the human species.
It would guarantee that all the ice in the world melts, which would mean sea levels 250 feet higher than now. And that's only one of the problems it would create. More than half the species on earth would be extinct, the ocean would be dead, and a third of the world would be in a drought for 1000 years. Temperatures in the American heartland would be 10-15 F hotter than now. One sixth of the world population would have no fresh water because there would be no snowpack or glaciers that they now depend on.
Food production would cease to exist over much of the globe. An enormous amount of food is grown in coastal areas that would be impacted by rising sea levels.
And his 450 ppm is probably too high. Many climate scientists now think it is imperative that we bring CO2 concentrations below 350 ppm by mid century. Romm uses the higher figure, mostly because he doesn't think we have the political will do do more. Based on the poll I mentioned in my previous post, he's right.
Here's an article at Scientific American on the conservative nature of the IPCC
www.sciam.com/article....
And more on the prospects for renewables/verses coal.
climateprogress.org/20.../
Romm is very knowledgable in terms of climate science as well as energy. He's a prolific writer at Climate Progress, and while you might not agree with everything he says, he has a lot of valuable insights in regard to the problems and solutions.
Of course this assumes one is interested in real science and analysis and cares enough to be informed.
One of the issues with natural gas, that Joseph Romm pointed out in one of his articles, is that it's about 50% more efficient to burn NG in power plants than in cars. Whether this is outweighed by the ability to have, at least, a transitional transportation fuel for the near and intermediate term is a good question. The argument that it also helps with energy independence, compared with oil, is another factor in NG's favor.
T Boone Pickens was talking about using NG in cars instead of in power plants. It makes much more sense to phase out coal plants, which are much dirtier, and let the gas plants run at least for the foreseeable future. Even aggressive energy transition plans like the Google plan, or the Repower America plan, allow for letting NG plants run while other cleaner renewable sources are developed.
Also, Pickens wanted to replace gas plants with wind farms. The wind farms are a good idea, but not for replacing gas plants. Gas can produce power immediately on demand, something even coal or nuclear can't do, as others here noted.
We need to start turning gas fired plants into cogeneration plants. The heat that goes up the stack is an enormous waste of energy.
Gas plants can also be converted to fuel cell plants or fuel cells can augment the burning of the gas. Fuel Cell Technology (FCEL) does this.
The same fuel cells can operate on methane.
And the fuel cells are combined heat and power.
Fuel cells have much less emissions than burning the same fuel.
Some of the problems with new nuclear is that it will be expensive compared with solar or wind and will take much longer to build. Estimates for electricity from new nuclear plants are twice as much as solar and wind will be in ten years. Wind is already half the price. S0lar CSP will be half the price in ten years. So will PV solar.
And all three can be built two to three times faster than nuclear. While I don't know a lot about nuclear tech, what sounds most promising to me is thorium based nuclear. But again, it is decades away from commercialization.
It takes a decade, at minimum, to get a nuclear plant built. New nuclear technology is more likely a mid term solution, not something we should throw money at the commercialization of now. Research and eventual pilot plants sure.
My main opposition to nuclear is that it's a stepping stone to nuclear weapons. Think Iran. Now imagine thousands of more nuclear plants all over the world in many more countries than now. Nuclear fuel and waste would be spread worldwide on a massive scale. They would be much more accessable to terrorists and rogue nations.
The guy in Maine who got caught trying to build a radioactive dirty bomb yesterday is another example, and he was stockpiling thorium, which we're told is safe. Ok, I guess you can't build a real nuclear bomb with it. This individual case may not be related to the existence of nuclear power plants but that doesn't mean future attempts won't be.
Nuclear plants are dependent on enormous quantities of cooling water, which may not be so available in the future, with the exception of plants built on the seashore.
France which is held up as the example of what can be done with nuclear energy has enormous nuclear waste storage problems and has had repeated leaks and accidents. Areva, their nuclear authority, has big problems in Africa where they mine uranium.
www.beyondnuclear.org/...
www.everythingnuclear....
"France's decision to reprocess reactor fuel has contaminated the seas as far as the Artic Circle and may have led to leukemia clusters near the reprocessing plant. Its decision to try breeder reactors was an expensive failure. Its plutonium fuel program has not reduced its surplus stockpile of plutonium which is calculated at greater than 80 metric tons sitting in tens of thousands of vulnerable containers and with no disposal option. France has no radioactive waste repository."
"In the summer of 2008, France experienced a cascade of accidents at its nuclear facilities. While leaks and spills, including uranium that contaminated groundwater, caused a ban on drinking and bathing and local vintners to change the labels on their bottles, Areva downplayed the gravity of the releases. But the black summer of radioactive leaks and spills shed doubt on the nuclear industry's - and in particular Areva's - ability to uphold fundamental safety standards according to an article in the International Herald Tribune."
"Read here about Areva's 40-year uranium mining track record in the Niger and support the collective"Areva Shall Not Make the Law in Niger" of which Beyond Nuclear is a member."
www.beyondnuclear.org/...
We import 90% of our uranium and have signed up to have Russia supply 20% of our future needs.
I'm sure nuclear will be part of the energy mix but is not the silver bullet many imagine. We were promised electricity too cheap to meter about 50 years ago. After 50 years and about $500 billion in subsidies it has failed to make good on that promise. And now it will be among the most expensive sources of energy. And it isn't as green as the renewables. In fact, it only has low emissions at the final step, when the fuel rods are used in the reactor. Everything up to that point has high emissions, plus the negative effects of mining and milling uranium with it's radioactive tailings.
Here are two more relevent articles on energy solutions.
climateprogress.org/20.../
climateprogress.org/20.../
tunaman4u2: natural gas is low for two reasons: huge new shale supply, and industrial demand falling off a cliff following the economy off a cliff. that said, nat gas drilling rigs are dropping rapidly every week, so it will come back. the energy yoyo we are on is all due to our addiction to foreign oil. imagine what would happen if the US went into iran. anyhow, glad you are tuned into the fact that we have abundant nat gas in the US. however, in 2008, even when nat gas was over $10, CNG refuelers in california were barely paying $2 when gasoline was $4.50. folks in utah were paying $1.25 (now $0.88!).
carbonates: yup, you are right-on nat gas is lumped in with "fossil fuels". hopefully that will change now that the nat gas guys have finally decided to organize their own lobbying effort in washington (until now it was "oil and gas" with "oil" driving the cart...). your second and third paragraphs are also right on the money. man, it sure is nice to get a comment like yours now and again - thanks!
gottgreen: great hands-on article! thanks for posting.
frflyer: zow-eee. yeah, i agree, it's like the skeptics think mentioning gore's name is a substitute for factual debate.
frflyer (post2): thanks for the wind energy facts and statistics - they help put wind deployment in perspective.
frflyer (post3): i'm not so sure i agree with the 50%. however, i do agree that there have been big efficiency gains recently in natural gas fueled electric generators. i am sure NGV's would get better to if we just started building them in volume! there are many advantages to NGVS:
- reduce foreign oil
- reduce gasoline CO2 emissions by 30%
- reduce gasoline particulate emissions by 100%
- refuel at home while you sleep
- create many good jobs in the US (auto, energy, etc)
- keep our energy dollars at home!
wrt pickends, i don't know why he wants nat gas out of electrical generation, i think he is wrong. there is enough nat gas to fuel both generation and transportation. most of the wind/solar arrays need nat gas generation backup for intermitancy. wrt nuclear, we should build some new plants, but also keep funding research on hydrogen fusion. wrt cooling, you're right, nuclear plants in TN and SC were shut down last year because of the drought. i had not heard of France's nuclear woes last summer...although i did hear they don't store the waste in their country, and that they actually pay the US to store it here. where, i don't know (that's all speculation). anyhow, thanks for your posts, your passion, your concern, and your thinking.
Including hydrogen into the table of energy sources is total bullshit. There are no known natural sources of pure hydrogen on our planet. Everything written about "hydrogen energetics" is actually about making hydrogen intermediate energy carrier. Energy supposed to be made on electric plants (i.e. 80% from coal, in case of US), then used to split water to oxygen and hydrogen by electolysis, hydrogen then is liquified and used in fuel sell or combustion engines. BTW, currently the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from natural gas, producing a lot of CO2 in process.
I'm afraid one bullshit in the source might make it all bullshit.
There is something else about Hydrogen that the book discusses 137-140, Hydrogen based nuclear fusion reactors, which are being researched in many countries today... Apparently these types of nuclear reactors produce no nuclear waste!
The Fitz is right, the book is a great read.
Here in Canadachuk we embraced "socialism" years ago, that is why as the result of a few regulations (such as only letting those who can afford it buy houses, crazy, I know!) we now have the strongest banking system in the world! Now if only we could unload our coal powered fighter jets! :)
User283977: thank you for giving it back to poor "alex" who apparently needs to read the book more than anyone else. that said, i am very glad you got to read it! i wish more people would...i am very dissapointed at the general response on here..i hope hefner doesn't hold it against me! did you read it because of my review, or did you already hear about the book? just curious.
Vancouverite: we may well all be screwed, but i don't see how your vitriolic post is helpful in the least. there is a saying from the old west: "a weak neighbor weakens me". so, before you continue hoping for a US collapse, you might want to consider what effects such a collapse may have on canada and on yourself.
Sadly, for us as well. it is sick system, the USA is bailing out yesterday at the expense of tomorrow.
Sorry for misprint, yeah, it's fuel cell. Technology exists, theoretically. Again, it's 5 years in future for the last 15 years. And, unfortunately, it needs pure hydrogen, which you can't get anywhere on Earth. Unless, of course, you split water using electricity, which requires more energy than you get from released hydrogen (read elementary chemistry course, for Pete's sake!). Or, again, you can produce hydrogen from natural gas or oil, and produce a lot of CO2 in process.
On Mar 14 08:44 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> alex filonov: "including hydrogen into the table of energy sources
> is total bullshit". that has to be the most idiotic assertion i have
> ever seen. actually, it was the first good laugh of my day. alex
> - do you realize how the sun heats the earth? do you have any idea
> why NGVs work? no, you don't, so i'll tell you: it's the energy released
> from ***hydrogen***. you just don't get it do you? as far as BS goes,
> your comment (which unfortunately for you cannot be deleted) documents
> just exactly who is full of it (clue: it ain't me). by the way, it's
> fuel "cell".
>
> User283977: thank you for giving it back to poor "alex" who apparently
> needs to read the book more than anyone else. that said, i am very
> glad you got to read it! i wish more people would...i am very dissapointed
> at the general response on here..i hope hefner doesn't hold it against
> me! did you read it because of my review, or did you already hear
> about the book? just curious.
>
> Vancouverite: we may well all be screwed, but i don't see how your
> vitriolic post is helpful in the least. there is a saying from the
> old west: "a weak neighbor weakens me". so, before you continue hoping
> for a US collapse, you might want to consider what effects such a
> collapse may have on canada and on yourself.
This is just hogwash. There are limited supplies of all fossile fuels and for the last 100 years we have generally been burning all we can get our hands on as soon as we have extracted it from underground.
Alex Filonov is completely right about hydrogen being only an energy carrier, and not a very good one at that. There are very limited sources of natural gas, just as oil, and there are NO natural direct sources of hydrogen. Separating water into hydrogen and oxygen using a green power source (electric wind power) is literally a waste of energy. One would be better off just sending the electricity directly out on the grid.
Controlled fusion of heavy hydrogen is nowhere near practical,
and has yet to break even in terms of energy in/out.
In summary, all this talk about "gases being better" is very unproductive. Sure it would be better, if only we had abundant or unlimited sources of the valuable gases. We don't.
There really is no substitute for understanding basic physics and chemistry, This book is a perfect example of how wrong the lay-person can be.
Yeah, wind is a concerted motion of a gas (or rather a mixture of gases). What's your point? Solar energy emanates from nuclear fission reactions in the hot gases (actually plasma) of the sun. So what? That does not imply that natural gas somehow is the solution to all our energy problems on planet earth. This whole thing that "gas is common to all our solutions" is very disingenuous and totally misleading.
This book and the review is as ill-informed as people who go around thinking that their weight problems are caused by "toxins" in their food, and that "cleansing their body" will fix it. Of course the problem is simply that they ate too much fat and other energy-rich foods (fat, by the way is the human body's form of long term energy storage).
Fitz, I have to say Charley agrees with Alex, Hydrogen as a cheap fuel is a dream that won't happen soon.
Charlie agrees that NG should be mandated for all Federal Vehicles this year, State vehicles next year and infrastructure for Trucks and autos in no less that three years. He also says it makes sense to use NG for electricity production but in the end, nuclear is the only way to produce electricity cheap and with a minimum of pollution, it's being done around the world and the U.S, is way behind the curve. He also says that one of the things we need to do now to get some immediate relief is energy conservation.
Politics being what they are Charley thinks it's unlikely any of these things will happen before oil prices go up and he realizes that there is a lot of public resistance to nuclear but feels it's unfounded and time and money is slipping through our fingers every day we put it off.
I am recounting the interview with Mr. Maxwell as best as I remember but at 71 my memory aint what it used ta be!
Thanks for the review Fitz.
The book contains a good deal of references at the end of each chapter, so its not just a journalistic "opinion" piece, it represents a good beginning framework for understanding the large scale utilization of energy over time from a systems perspective. Hefner's section on the amount of natural gas available in the US is a must read, and the author should send a copy directly to Obama.
The book mentions the ITER - the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project sponsored by Russia, Japan, the United States, the European Union, China, and South Korea that is expected to cost up to $13 billion to develop. Its located in Cadarache in southern France. It seems that 13 billion is chicken feed given the money being thrown at these large financial institutions today. Imagine what could be done with a 50 - 100 billion dollar R&D Manhattan style project directed towards removing this countries dependence on foreign energy resources with the development of clean, green energy. Now that is a worthy goal, and with resources at that level, the probability of success in a shorter time frame is more likely. It would also provide a big shot in the arm to making this country a world leader in energy systems and the long train of related technology and developed products.
I have a background in Physics, and Hydrogen fusion power is absolutely possible. The primary barriers are economic, technological and understanding that large scale power generation does not necessarily have to be continuous when linked with large scale methods for storing power. Yes, fusion power has been under examination for some time now, but the resources provided for research in this area have been tiny. I think we can all agree that that you can't extrapolate rates of progress from a minimally funded research area to the rate of progress in a well funded research area.
I think allowing existent economic forces to drive country level energy policies is intellectually bankrupt because making an energy transition requires long lead times, planning and R&D investments. The first step is recognising that such a change is absolutely necessary for our countries survival as a world power. This book provides a good starting point to that realization. The key to making a change of this magnitude happen is through education by out of the box visionary thinkers who have the ability to see further into the future then most of us.
I think FitzSimions and Petersen's articles are highly informative, and represent must reads in their subject areas. I also highly value the back and forth between these authors and their readers which surfaces more information in these subject areas.
user225084: we *have* made the wrong choices by continuing to burn coal and oil at the expense of nat gas. any objective scientific analysis will show this to be true, so obviously i don't think the book or the review are "hogwash". we have not been burning ALL fossil fuels as fast as we can get our hands on them, only coal and oil. that is the point!! we should switch to natural gas as a bridge to future cleaner sources. hydrogen IS the optimal energy source, so we disagree again. i am NOT saying (as alex also assumes) that it is hydrogen economical NOW. i am only saying "it is the optimal fuel", i.e. as the chart shows, no carbon and no toxic emissions. also, the point of the book is that natural gas sources are NOT "very limited" as you say. the book isn't about chemistry and physics, it builds a logical case about right and wrong energy choices. from your comments, you are a prime candidate for reading the book because like alex, you make alot of assumptions that weren't said or written, but that you merely inferring on your own.
user225084: the book and review are ill-informed? would you mind stating specific examples? if natural gas is not the solution, can i assume you are quite happy with the effects of coal and oil consumption on america today? if you are, i would suggest it is you that are ill-informed. if you are not, what is your solution? energy gases ARE common solutions to our energy problems, but they cannot cure blind idiology and closed minded assumptions.
anarchist: but captain, hydrogen IS the fuel in natural gas (CH4). does charley maxwell know definitively that man can never harness hydrogn fusion? that's quite a conclusion for old charley to come to considering the sun that rises every morning proves otherwise. i am not against nuclear power, it's in my energy policy.
"before oil prices go up" haha, you're joking right? did charley sleep through 2008? wrt wind energy transmisson, please refer charley to the AEP website where they explain the low-loss, high voltage line technology that AEP will use to ship wind energy from the dakotas to chicago. wrt your last comment, i agree that wind and solar will continue to be small (but fast growing) percentage energy contributors for the next decade, but we still need to do it, but at the same time we need to leverage a tremendous existing American asset: the 2.2 million miles of natural gas pipelines that go to 63,000,000 homes and abundant US natural gas resources :) you're welcome for the review, and thanks for commenting.
johnpeterson: right on. i haven't had time to read what you've been up to lately (sorry - too busy with a bunch of NGV issues). but, i know i will learn something and i plan to catch up soon on your writings soon. have you read the book? it's fascinating and very informaive. thanks for stopping in.
Usre283977: good action! glad to hear you read it. yeah, obama....did you notice john podesta's quote at the beginning of the book? interesting that podesta is an obama point man on energy, yet no robust nat gas policy in the stimulus plan?! so, i wrote podesta a letter recently and posted it on my blog:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
i agree with you on hydrogen fusion. your second to last paragraph is perfect! as far as the nice comment at the end, i agree that JohnP's articles are very informative and helpful. he's all over electric vehicles and battery technology. thanks for the comment!
MrEd: right on! i didn't send a copy to Gore or Obama, but i did send letters to them telling them they need to read it! the thing about hefner is, he runs in these circles. he was at the recent Clean Energy Summit in washington. gore, pickens, podesta, secretaty chu, they were all there. hefner apparently has alot of visibility, and has for some time. why they keep ignoring his policies when he has been proven to be right over and over and beyond me. apparently the big oil and coal won't go down without a fight..and they certainly have the money to influence the worthless politicians. anyhow, good post...you GET it.
wow - three nice posts in a row! time to stop :)
thanks all for commenting and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
While many object to nuclear power generation, my difficulty is with the long life waste generated by the current generation of light water reactors. A solution for this exists with more advanced fast reactors and Argonne Labs has built and tested such a solution, the IFR reactor. This system does away with the uranium mining issues as it consumes present nuclear waste and depleted uranium which are available now in quantity. This solution can be placed into service with additional development in a reasonable time frame while research continues on fusion technology which most think is quite some time in our future even if research efforts are ramped up. We will require a significant amount of baseload electrical power generation if we are to replace coal and wind and solar cannot produce those quantities with current technology. It seems we are being side tracked by thinking "clean coal" might be a solution and are not pushing forward on advanced nuclear technology as a result. That is a huge mistake in my opinion, but it is being sold by vested interests.
www.csmonitor.com/2006...
www.microchap.info/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
BTW, just so all of you can point fingers. I am a Petroleum Landman, own royalty interests and stocks in energy related companies, so yes I am biased.
The shales keep getting larger from what I have read, not mention the trains that have been built in Russia & Qatar and the massive finds made in New Guinea.
I would love to own a CNG vehicle. Glad I stumbled across this article, have been reading SA for some time.
Keep up the good work we have an uphill battle. Kind of reminds me of the people that don't want the windfarms because it tarnishes their view.
Keep up the good work Michael, it appears you have some rather thick skulls to bore through.
On Mar 12 07:32 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> User32463: natural gas burns very efficiently (and cleanly) in NGV's
> in california, utah, latin america, brazil..and around the world.
> i'm all for electric cars, but if we want to significantly reduce
> foreign oil imports and greenhouse gases over the next 5 years, only
> natural gas can be scaled up for the job. otherwise, we just burn
> coal to charge the cars. i think you should get a copy of the book.
> if you think the guys just want the money, then i ask you this: who
> would you rather give your energy dollars to, american men in the
> nat gas exploration and production business to create american jobs,
> or, to the leaders of venezuela, saudi arabia, russia, iran, iraq??
> please *think*
>
> ripskii: well, i guess we disagree. as soon as you spend the energy
> to liquify nat gas, the cost goes up, as does the equipment to handle
> it. australia is probably doing this because they have vast areas
> of empty land. no need for that in the US when we already have, in
> place, a vast nat gas pipeline grid going to 63,000,000 homes. we
> should keep the cost down, and simply stay with what is available,
> and fully adequate. just ask the californians and folks in utah.
> it works great just the way it is.
>
> bassmaseter: i'm not selling my COP...
>
> chuckokie: i disagree with you. it was big oil's (exxon) testimony
> that convinced congress we were running out of nat gas. it was this
> testimony that was responsible for the huge switch to coal electric
> generation from nat gas generation and for well head price controls
> on nat gas. and yes, GHK did lobby the Carter administrtation - to
> take remove the interstate regulation of natural gas prices. wrt
> your second comment, i never said that big oil was the driver for
> US "unconventional" plays?? i am very aware CHK and others kicked
> big oil's butts in shale development, which, as far as i am concerned
> are not
> "unconventional" (big oil's term), but are
> "conventional".
>
> jimmy46: ok, you don't like hydrogen for some reason. you disagree
> that it is the simplest and cleanest of all fuels. interesting. please,
> enlighten me .... tell me, what is your "energy holy grail"? someday
> humans will figure out hydrogen fusion, and when they do, remember
> the words you wrote here today.
>
> aquaculture: the chart in the article clearly shows the carbon content
> of methane (CH4). the point is, compare it to gasoline (also in the
> chart). it emits none of the particulates of gasoline, and 30% less
> CO2. thanks for trying to teach me something...but i am flly aware
> of western europe's energy woes (see my previous articles on russia
> and the caspian sea). so you believe the US shouldn't go to natural
> gas because western europe and japan don't have it and we have a
> 100 year supply?? well, we're on oil now, and they don't have that
> either!! your logic escapes me. i think you are a good candidate
> to read the book...
>
> as far as your last statement, if the comments to this article are
> any indication, i would have to agree with you. overall, these exchanges
> have been pathetic. i expected more from americans who are in the
> midst of an economic, energy, environmental, and national security
> crisis. i guess we'll just follow the long list of historically defunct
> countries that got fat, lazy, and ignorant. they all collapsed -
> just as we will if we do nothing about our addiction to foreign oil
> as we head into the era of peak oil with a bankrupted government.
> after $145/barrel oil and a collapsing financial system, i guess
> i expected alot more from the folks on here. oh well, life goes on.
> remember this article and the solutions put forth in the book the
> next time you're paying $4.50/gallon...folks in CA with Honda Civic
> GX's were paying slightly over $2 for natural gas. folks in utah
> are paying $0.88 now. the rest of us are chumps.