Greenhouse emissions growing - World not doing enough

Climate change still remains one of the most pressing environmental and social issues and world leaders are yet to do anything meaningful about it. It's sadly all talk and very little action as the latest climate change talks in Warsaw, Poland showed. The disappointing climate conference in Warsaw, Poland ended without laying the groundwork for a global climate agreement in 2015, which was something that was hoped from many environmentalists and scientists from all over the world.

And in the meantime there is the continued growth in emissions of greenhouse gases. Both negotiators and activists confront not only the fact that carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions reached the highest annual total to date, but also a shifting geographic distribution of emissions. The logical conclusion of this would be that the international community should take rapid and decisive action but sadly we do not live in a logical world.

The latest data by the Global Carbon Project shows that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production reached staggering 9.7 gig tons of carbon (GtC) in 2012, with a ±5 percent uncertainty range, and with the currently expected growth they will likely 9.9 GtC in 2013. In comparison, the 2012 value is 58 percent higher than emissions in 1990, the year often used as a benchmark for measuring the increases in emissions.

Coal (attributing with 43 percent) and oil (attributing with 33 percent) accounted for the majority of these emissions, with natural gas (18 percent), cement production (5 percent), and flaring (1 percent) making up the remainder of the total percentage. The good news in the whole story is that both the U.S. government as well as World Bank is making efforts to limit international financing for new coal projects signal a desire to shift away from this particularly carbon-intensive resource and switch to other, cleaner energy sources.

Regardless of these efforts coal still remains a major culprit behind the increase in CO₂ emissions, accounting for 54 percent of the emissions increase in 2012. Coal use is rising in countries currently undergoing energy sector transitions. Coal-related emissions increased in not only developing countries but also in countries such as Germany (4.2 percent) and Japan (5.6 percent)-both of which are phasing out nuclear power plants. Oil, gas, and cement accounted for 18 percent, 21 percent, and 6 percent of the global increase in 2012 respectively.

Although CO₂ is the primary greenhouse gas emitted mostly through human activities, it is not the only one with negative effects on global warming and climate change. There are bunch of other greenhouse gases that cannot be ignored. They include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The total contribution of each of these gases to climate change depends on such factors as the length of time it remains in the atmosphere, how strongly it absorbs energy, and its atmospheric concentration.

Fossil fuel burning when coupled with deforestation and land use change, has pushed the total atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to approximately 393.9 parts per million (ppm) in 2012, an increase of more than 40 percent since 1750 and of 24 percent since the Scripps Institution of Oceanography began keeping detailed records in 1959.

There seems to be a global scientific consensus that the CO₂ concentration will need to be reduced to at least 350 ppm if we hope to maintain a climate similar to that which has supported human civilization to date and avoid worst possible climate change scenario. Atmospheric CO₂ concentration increased by 2.2 ppm in 2012 alone, exceeding the average annual increase over the past 10 years. The bad news is also that the Scripps Institution's measurements indicate an average of 396.2 ppm for the period of January to September 2013, implying an even greater increase this year, and further negative impact on global warming and climate change.

Although the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed in 2010 that the increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial period must be kept below 2 degrees Celsius, many scientific projections now put the climate on track for warming that is significantly higher than this set mark. For instance, the Global Carbon Project predicts a likely increase in temperature of 3.2-5.4 degrees Celsius while World Bank in its latest report projects an approximate 20 percent likelihood that our planet will get warmer by about 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 if world continues business as usual scenario and fails to mitigate the increase in carbon emissions.

Emissions data also highlight the shifting geographical and historical complexity that makes international negotiations so contentious. The global distribution of emissions in 2012 is very different than it was in 1990, when the Kyoto Protocol was established as the first meaningful global agreement aimed to reduce carbon emissions. In 1990,  industrial countries accounted for 62 percent of emissions; by 2012, that figure had dropped to 37 percent, reflecting rapid industrialization and development in emerging economies such as china and India and shifting patterns in production and consumption.

And despite the fact that the international climate negotiations have focused traditionally on the role and responsibility of nation states new analyses also points to the significant role of different corporations in emitting greenhouse gases. Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute said in Warsaw that the investor-owned corporations have been responsible for 21.7 percent of CO₂ and CH₄ fossil fuel and cement emissions since 1750, with state-owned corporations responsible for an additional 19.8 percent.

The next stop for climate negotiators, experts, and activists after the Warsaw is Paris in 2015, where there will be yet another hope on forging a global deal to tackle climate change and global warming.

Interesting global greenhouse gas emissions facts from latest reports:

• It has been reported that the methane is now the third most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, after CO₂ and water vapor, on a per molecule basis. Although atmospheric methane levels declined during 1983-99 and remained relatively constant during 1999-2006, they have been increasing since 2007. Methane is 21 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
• China is currently the world's largest CO₂ emitter and its emissions increased by 5.9 percent in 2012, an increase that accounted for 71 percent of that year's global increase. Another major emitter such as United States and Australia, although both still major emitters, experienced reductions of 0.05 percent and 11.6 percent respectively.
• In 2012, the top four emitters of CO₂ on global level were China (2,626 million tons of carbon, or MtC), the United States (1,397 MtC), India (611 MtC), and the Russian Federation (492 MtC). 

Shale gas in Europe – Good as geothermal energy?

Shale gas is natural gas found in shale rock. It has been reported that according to the latest estimates North America has around 1,000 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas which is enough to supply U.S. natural gas needs for almost 50 years. The shale gas has taken United States with the storm and it is no wonder that EU is also considering this option when weighing new options for more diversified energy portfolio.

The possibility of producing shale gas in some European countries has caused very heated debate among several different EU industries. There has been plenty of talk about the environmental and social impacts of the technique used to extract gas from shale rocks used in North America, and widely known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

The differences between shale gas and geothermal industry

There have been several different opinions on this matter with part of the gas industry claiming that fracking for shale gas is comparable to the hydraulic stimulation process used for geothermal exploration and that the granting of geothermal exploration permits whilst those for shale gas are rejected is creating a double standard.

Though there are certain well noticeable similarities between these two it is also important to understand the major differences between the two technologies that set these two aside.

First of all, an Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) is an underground reservoir that has been created or improved artificially.  As many of you already know most of today’s geothermal power plants were constructed in areas with highly permeable rocks and high underground temperatures, with the most widely known example being Iceland. Enhanced Geothermal System, on the other hand, allow us to increase the permeability of rocks, which means we can harness the geothermal resources across much wider areas, even in areas where temperatures aren't as high.

Both EGS and shale gas extraction technologies use stimulation techniques based on the high pressure injection of water in order to extract as much mass flow as possible. The end product however, differs greatly, either heat for geothermal or gas for shale rock. Shale gas is locked in rocks, typically with low permeability in sedimentary basins, in a dispersed form without fluid while geothermal power extraction targets semi-permeable rocks, so the pressure of the required injection is lower.

There are also some notable differences in terms of the fluid used for extracting. EGS does not require any specific additives; the fluid includes water, which only may have certain minerals added so that the water’s composition matches that already existing in the subsurface. The advantage of this technology is therefore in the fact that the artificial reservoir is self-sustaining and does not require further stimulation and so the stimulation fluid does not have to be pumped back up to the surface since it eventually becomes an integral part of the newly created reservoir.

This however isn't the case with shale gas extraction as there is always a need to create new fractures. Not only that, in order to keep the fractures open, additives and sand need to be mixed with the water. Since the mix of these fluids can reduce the production efficiency, they need to be pumped back to the surface. What this means is that this absence of a natural fluid in the underground requires the supply of water from the surface. As a result of this, a large quantity (10.000–20.000 m3/well) is required, which doesn't make this process sustainable.

Public has also been concerned about micro-seismic in relation to hydraulic stimulation and because of this the monitoring protocols have been established by the industry, which means that the geothermal drillers install seismometers and use special purpose software to map the faults and assess the local geology. This protocol enables them to monitor what will happen during the stimulation, which is necessary to create a risk management plan, and to control micro-seismic activity.

The latest study by British scientists also studied the difference between geothermal energy and shale gas production. Fracking rock to get out shale gas is different from geothermal energy as it also has unintended effects that can be critically harmful to our environment.

It has been reported that when rocks are fractured to release natural gas so it can be extracted and used, the gas leaks up through the soil and around the pipes for years after the well has ceased production, and from the pipes during extraction. The problem is that natural gas is largely compounded of methane and the leakage of methane is very bad thing for our climate because methane is between 20 and 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Carbon dioxide and methane are the main greenhouse gases causing global warming. There are various negative impacts connected with global warming and climate change such as sea level rise, floods, droughts, wildfires, ocean acidification.

Conclusion

Geothermal power is one of these safer, alternative energy industries while the same cannot be said for shale gas extraction, especially not in relation to climate change and global warming.

When natural gas is burned, it produces about half as much CO2 as burning coal and about 70% as much as burning diesel, which makes it somewhat positive from the environmental point of view However, one has to include potentially massive warming effect of leaks from the drilling process and also from old pipelines, which could in the end mean that the actual use of natural gas is no better for the climate than coal or oil. Current field studies show that there is leakage into the atmosphere of between 4% and 15% of the natural gas processed and sold.

In this sense, it is difficult to fully support the idea of increased shale gas extraction and development throughout the Europe. Geothermal energy still remains significantly better energy option, because it is both renewable and sustainable source of energy. Currently used shale gas extraction technologies have some major deficiencies that need to be fixed before shale gas can be put in the same sentence with geothermal energy.

Quick introduction to energy sources

The energy can take many different forms and this is the main reason why there is a variety of different energy sources. The first thing you need to know about energy sources is the fact that fossil fuels, namely oil, coal and natural gas are still dominant sources of energy, despite the growing popularity of renewable energy sources.

There are two main differences between renewable energy sources and fossil fuels. First of all renewable energy sources are as their name suggests renewable, meaning that they can be constantly replenished unlike fossil fuels that are finite energy resources that will eventually become exhausted. The other difference refers to environmental impact where renewable energy sources do negligible environmental damage when compared with fossil fuels and the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to climate change phenomenon.

The renewable energy sources list includes these energy sources: solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and biomass. Hydropower is the most widely used form of renewable energy because of its very long history.

Solar and wind energy are the most popular renewable energy sources. Solar energy is the most abundant form of energy available on our planet. The main reason why we don't use more of solar energy is because solar panels and other solar technologies are still connected with significant costs, and people do not want to pay higher energy bills, even if this means helping our environment.

Wind energy has more acceptable costs compared to solar energy though it is still far from being able to challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in terms of electricity generation. Wind energy and solar energy are not suited for all areas because they require plenty of wind/sunshine throughout the year.

Geothermal energy on the other hand is available 24-7 because it refers to heat within the Earth's core. However, considering the current technological level of geothermal drilling, geothermal power plants are economically viable only in areas near the tectonic plate boundaries where drilling demands aren't that great.
Biomass as an energy source has excellent potential because biomass material is available in all corners of the world. However, there have bee fears, that using more land for biomass production (instead of growing food crops) would lead to more hunger of the world so biomass as an energy option is still connected with significant level of controversy.

It is very realistically to accept that fossil fuels will remain dominant energy sources throughout this century. The share of renewable energy sources will no doubt significantly increase over the years but fossil fuels should still have the edge because the transition to renewable energy sources doesn't go as fast as some people have expected.

The downside of this prolonged dependence on fossil fuels is big damage to our environment, and the strengthening of the climate change impact.

Energy diversification between US and EU

It is a well known fact that United States and Europe have been following different energy policies over the past 20 years or so. The diversification in their energy goals sees the US leading 'the shale gas revolution' while on the other hand Europe continues to invest heavily in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. This diversification is according to Marianne Haug of the University of Hohenheim, a good thing for the development of both energy sources.

In her latest study she argues that although the United States and European Union continue to be committed to common energy goals which include energy security, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness, there is also the relative priority given to each which has changed substantially since the early 1990s. The reasons for these changes include domestic issues, geopolitical concerns, resource diversification, emerging energy markets, new government policies, public opinions and the choices of investors.

Investments in renewable energy. US investments dropped significantly after shale gas resources become viable solution for energy production challenges.

In order to further confirm her conclusion Haug pointed to the example of the Kyoto Protocol, describing it as a turning point for the differences in energy policy. Before the 1997 agreement in Kyoto, which US failed to ratify, energy security was considered the most important of all energy goals. However, after the Kyoto protocol, European countries gave higher, if not equal, priority to environmental concerns and have entered into partnerships beyond the United States in efforts to develop low-carbon technologies, which include windmills, photovoltaic units, solar thermal hot-water installations and rapeseed biofuel. The EU also developed emission-trading systems, biofuel targets, energy-efficiency guidelines and standards, which all contributed to stimulating the market for renewable energy sources.

In the United States, the general public is not that committed to the potential dangers of continued fossil-fuel use which partially explains why public and private investors have spent heavily on shale gas extraction, mostly building on existing fossil-fuel technology. Many energy experts argue that the ability to extract shale gas efficiently could be an “energy game changer” for the US and other countries by not only contributing to energy security but also accounting for lower prices. On the other hand, the shale gas industry is still in its infancy in Europe, though there are some signs that this might soon change, particularly in UK.

US natural gas production: current and projections. Shale gas will be very important part of natural gas production in US in the future. 

Those two completely different approaches in fulfilling energy demands obviously results with different market prices for energy sources. Paolo Scaroni, chief executive of the Italian oil and gas group ENI, warned that European economies face a long-term structural challenge of competing with industrial operators in the US, which now enjoy far cheaper gas and electricity prices than those prevailing across the EU.

Widely available shale gas is much cheaper energy option and some European countries are already concerned that some industries could move from EU into US to take advantage of cheaper energy sources. This is mainly focused on chemical, steel and fertilizer producers which are particularly exposed to high gas prices across Europe. There are predictions that import of liquefied shale gas from US into EU will reduce gas prices in EU for 20-30%, but those prices will still be much bigger than in US.

This parallel development of shale gas in the US and renewable energy source in Europe diversifies and enriches the world's energy-supply choices. On global level, this means that there are complementary technology pathways that enable limiting import dependence for both EU and United States and contribute to secure, affordable and sustainable energy for all. It is also expected that further cooperation between the transatlantic partners would scale up the development of both forms of alternative energy for the benefit of the global energy supply. 

Hybrid solar-gas power plants

Natural gas is becoming increasingly popular energy option because of its recent low prices, mostly due to the recent shale gas discoveries. In this sense, there are many ongoing talks about ageing coal power plants to be replaced by new natural gas fired power plants, mostly because natural gas fired power plants emit significantly less greenhouse gases as compared to coal fired ones.

The further reductions in natural gas fired power plants can be achieved by involving solar energy in the whole story. The latest study by the Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has proved that natural gas fired power plants can use about 20 percent less fuel when the sun is shining by injecting solar energy into natural gas with a new system that converts natural gas and sunlight into a more energy-rich fuel called syngas, which power plants can burn to make electricity.

What this means is that by using this new system, the existing power plants would use less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity they already make and the another benefit is that at the same time, the system lowers a plant's greenhouse gas emissions at a cost that is said to be competitive with the traditional fossil fuel power.

The United States is becoming increasingly reliant on inexpensive natural gas for energy, and this system can have its practical use in reducing the carbon footprint of power generation. The recent DOE estimates say that natural gas will make up 27 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020 and making it cleaner would certainly account for much greener economy. These new systems would be best suited for power plants located in areas with plenty of sunshine such as the American Southwest.

By installing this new system in front of natural gas power plants turns these plants into hybrid solar-gas power plants. The system uses solar heat to convert natural gas into syngas which is a fuel that contains hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The generated syngas has significantly higher energy content, meaning that a power plant equipped with this system needs around 20 percent less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity.

This reduced fuel usage is made possible with concentrating solar power, which uses a reflecting surface to concentrate the sun's rays like a magnifying glass. The tested system used a mirrored parabolic antenna to direct sunbeams to a central point, where a specially developed device absorbs the solar heat in order to generate syngas.

The next step for researchers is to keep the system's overall cost low enough so that the electricity produced by a natural gas power plant equipped with the system would cost no more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. Achieving this price would make hybrid solar-gas power plants lot more competitive with conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants while in the same time reducing the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural gas to energy - faster and efficient

Natural gas is fast-becoming the darling of global energy industry, especially after the introduction of new shale gas extraction technologies that have made natural gas cheaper compared to many other energy option, both renewable as well as renewable.

Judging by the latest study by the researchers at the North Carolina State University, natural gas could soon become even more popular energy option, not only in terms of efficiency and price but also is terms of positive environmental effects. The University's chemical engineering researchers have been able to develop a new mechanism that can convert natural gas into energy up to 70 times faster, while effectively capturing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) thus making lot cleaner the entire production process.

The lead author of this study Fanxing Li  said that this new mechanism „ could make power generation from natural gas both cleaner and more efficient" thus opening door for even bigger natural gas production in years to come.

The secret to this new process is called „chemical looping“, and refers to state in which a solid, oxygen-laden material – a so called "oxygen carrier" is put in contact with natural gas. During this process the oxygen atoms in the oxygen carrier interact with the natural gas, which results in the combustion that produces energy.

In previous studies the oxygen carriers were made from a composite of inert ceramic material and metal oxides but this has changed after Li's team was able to develop a new type of oxygen carrier that include a "mixed ionic-electronic conductor – the one that effectively shuttles oxygen atoms into the natural gas very efficiently thus making the chemical looping combustion process approximately 70 times faster as compared to previous ones. This mixed ionic-electronic conductor material is held in a nano-scale matrix with an iron oxide, most commonly known as rust. What this basically means is that rust serves as a source of oxygen for the mixed conductor to interact with the natural gas.

In addition to effectively producing energy, the combustion process also produces water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). By removing the water vapor with the process of condensation, the researchers are able to create a stream of concentrated CO2 to be captured for sequestration.

The additional advantage of this new process is that the oxygen carrier combusts natural gas much more quickly than previous chemical looping technologies  thus making smaller chemical looping reactors more economically feasible because they allow users to create the same amount of energy by using significantly smaller system.

The further improving this process could even lead to commercial applications that would use chemical looping, which would help us limit greenhouse gas emissions and thus contribute to global fight against climate change.

Carbon capture and storage can lead to less CO2 emissions

Burning fossil fuels releases large quantities of carbon dioxide, a harmful greenhouse gas which is held mostly responsible for climate change and global warming. This is the main reason why fossil fuels are labeled as the "dirty fuels", and why so many people around the globe want to see them being replaced with renewable energy source such as solar and wind energy. Fossil fuels are oil, carbon and natural gas.

However, there is still a significant number of energy experts who believe in carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) as the key technology in reducing the amount of carbon emissions from fossil fuel fired power plants, and thus making fossil fuels usage less damaging to our environment. In the ideal scenario, carbon capture and storage technology would even lead to CO2-free power plants, though this scenario is still far from reality.

Carbone capture technology sounds excellent in theory but scientists have plenty of work ahead of them in order to find solutions that would make this technology efficient and commercially viable. Greatly increased operational costs have been the most frequent result of currently tested CCS solutions, and this is something that science will need to improve in years to come before this technology can be implemented on global scale.

Scientists are currently researching several different CCS technologies, and currently most intriguing CCS project is the pilot fossil fuel plant at the TU Darmstadt's Institute for Energy Systems and Technology that is being utilized for investigating two brand new methods for CO2 capture. If successful these new CCS methods will allow nearly totally eliminating CO2 emissions and require virtually no additional energy input and entail only slight increases in operating costs. Both of these methods employ natural substances and reduce the energy presently required for CO2 capture by more than half.

The first method is called "carbonate looping" method, and the working principle of this method is based on utilizing the naturally occurring limestone to initially bind CO2 from the stream of flue gases transiting power plants' stacks in a first-stage reactor. The resultant pure CO2 gets reliberated in a second reactor and can then be stored. The main advantage of the carbonate-looping method is that even existing power plants can be retrofitted with this new method.

The other method is called "chemical looping" method. This method should allow capturing CO2 with hardly any loss of energy efficiency. Under this method, a dual-stage, flameless, combustion yields a stream of exhaust gases containing only CO2 and water vapor. The CO2 can then be captured and stored.

The pilot plant has already demonstrated its ability to bind CO2 in conjunction with initial trial runs. The further investigation of these two methods should be done over the next couple of years.

Energy history facts

From ancient times people use various energy sources. Geothermal energy were used for springs and heating, hydro and wind energy were used for mills, sailing, water pumps and other mechanical devices, solar energy was used for heating, biomass and coal were used for heating, illumination, cooking, and so on.  For example, nearly 2000 years ago the Greeks used water wheels to grind wheat into flour.

Steam engines were first serious “modern” power source in the world. Steam engines were mostly powered by biomass and coal. The first commercial steam-powered engine device was a water pump, developed in 1698 by Thomas Savery. It used a vacuum to raise water from below, then used steam pressure to raise it higher.

Edwin Drake's 1859 well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, is popularly considered the first modern crude oil well. In the 1840s, the process to distill kerosene from crude oil was invented by James Young in Scotland and the first refinery was built by Ignacy Łukasiewicz, providing a cheaper alternative to whale oil.

The world's first power plant consisted of 24 dynamo electric generators which were driven by a steam engine. It was built by Sigmund Schuckert in the Bavarian town of Ettal (Germany) and went into operation in 1878. Power plant is industrial facility for the generation of electric power.

The first commercial power plant in the United States using three-phase alternating current was at the Mill Creek No. 1 Hydroelectric Plant near Redlands, California, in 1893 designed by Almirian Decker.

In 1878 the world's first hydroelectric power scheme was developed at Cragside in Northumberland, England by William George Armstrong. It was used to power a single arc lamp in his art gallery.

The first major hydro-electric power plants were built by Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse in 1895 on Niagara Falls (USA). These Power Plants practically started the electrification of the world.

In 1911 the world's first commercial geothermal power plant was built in Larderello, Italy. Experimental generators were built in Beppu, Japan and the Geysers, California, in the 1920s, but Italy was the world's only industrial producer of geothermal electricity until 1958.

Photoelectric effect was first observed 1839 by Edmond Becquerel, a physicist from France. In year 1876 Adams and Day observed the photovoltaic effect in solid selenium.  Modern solar cell was discovered in 1954. The first 1 MWP solar park was built by Arco Solar at Lugo near Hesperia, California at the end of 1982, followed in 1984 by a 5.6 MWP installation in Carrizo Plain.

On June 27, 1954, the USSR's Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant became the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid, and produced around 5 megawatts of electric power. Obninsk is in today’s Russia.

About 500 B.C. the Chinese discovered the potential of natural gas. Finding places where gas was seeping to the surface, the Chinese formed crude pipelines out of bamboo shoots to transport the gas, where it was used to boil sea water, separating the salt and making it drinkable. Britain was the first country to commercialize the use of natural gas. Around 1785, natural gas produced from coal was used to light houses, as well as streetlights.

Opened on the 26th November 1966, the Rance Tidal Power Station is the world's first tidal power station and also the world's second biggest tidal power station. The facility is located on the estuary of the Rance River, in Brittany, France.

An early application of wave power was a device constructed around 1910 by Bochaux-Praceique to light and power his house at Royan, near Bordeaux in France. In 2008, the first experimental wave farm was opened in Portugal, at the Aguçadoura Wave Park.

Shale gas - Transitional energy option?

The popularity of coal is rapidly declining in United States, and the main reason for this latest trend has been natural gas, or to be more precise recent shale gas discoveries that have driven down natural gas prices. And although United States is now burning less coal due to increased shale gas production, millions of tonnes of unused coal are still being exported to other areas of the world, most notably Europe and Asia. As a result of this, the greenhouse gas emissions benefits of switching fuel from coal to natural gas are significantly overstated.

North American Shale Gas. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration based on data from various published studies.

There have been many governmental reports saying that the U.S. CO₂ emissions from domestic energy sources have dropped by 8.6% since a peak in 2005, which is the equivalent of 1.4% per year. Though this is no doubt a positive from environmental point of view we still must not ignore the fact that more than half of the recent greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the domestic energy sector have in fact being displaced overseas by the trade in coal, meaning that the global environmental impact may not be as positive as some have expected or hoped it would be.

The various studies as well as different scientific reports have been primarily focusing on the relative emissions from coal and gas, which does not tell us the global picture. Also, many people seem to have forgotten that shale gas is still a carbon intensive energy source, meaning that renewable energy sources still remain the best possible energy option to improve environmental condition of our planet.

Some environmentalists even fear that the growing popularity of shale gas could lead our entire society into a high-carbon future, and seriously delay our current renewable energy development. These fears seems to be justified up to a certain point because the role of shale gas in a low carbon transition is extremely limited, in fact shale gas could potentially be diverting substantial funds away from genuinely low and zero carbon alternatives, such as solar and wind energy.

The proponents of shale gas have always claimed that it is a lower carbon alternative to coal, and this is true only up to a certain point, namely if the coal is not just burnt somewhere else via its export to other countries. What this means is that without a cap on global carbon emissions, shale gas is burnt in addition to other fossil fuels, leading to further increase in global carbon emissions and increasing global impact of climate change.

Shale gas should be really considered as a purely transitional option to replace coal while renewable energy technologies mature and become cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Building our entire energy future on shale gas would result in even more expressed climate change impact, further deteriorating already poor environmental condition of our planet.

Fossil fuels facts

Fossil fuels are formed by the anaerobic decomposition of remains of organisms including phytoplankton and zooplankton that settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions, millions of years ago.

Fossil fuels are oil, coal and natural gas. In 2006 primary sources of energy consisted of petroleum 36.8%, coal 26.6%, and natural gas 22.9%, amounting to an 86% share for fossil fuels in primary energy production in the world.

Crude oil is a smelly, yellow-to-black liquid and is usually found in underground areas called reservoirs. Scientists and engineers explore a chosen area by studying rock samples from the earth. Measurements are taken, and, if the site seems promising, drilling begins.

Coal is a readily combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock normally occurring in rock strata in layers or veins called coal beds.

Natural gas is a gas consisting primarily of methane. It is found associated with fossil fuels, in coal beds, as methane clathrates, and is created by methanogenic organisms in marshes, bogs, and landfills.

Fossil fuels - current US energy picture.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed.

All fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons store energy in the form of the atomic bonds. Energy stored in hydrocarbons can be released very easy - we just have to burn them.

When fossil fuels are burned carbon and hydrogen react with oxygen in air to carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water (H₂O). During this reaction heat is released which further amplifies the reaction.

One of the biggest benefits of fossil fuels is their cost. Coal, oil and natural gas are abundant right now and relatively inexpensive to drill or mine for.

At current usage, the coal supply will last 1500 years. However at a 5% growth rate the coal supply will last only 86 years. We can expect even greater usage as other fossil fuels become scarce.

Coal energy yield depends on how much carbon is contained in it. Two types dominate US reserves. Anthracite is 95% carbon and is approximately 300 million years old. Lignite is 25% carbon is nearly 150 million years old.

An oil refinery is an industrial process plant where crude oil is processed and refined into more useful petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas.

To run a 100-watt light bulb 24 hours a day for a year we need to use about 714 pounds (325 kg) of coal in coal powered power plant (thermal efficiency of such power plant is typically abut 40%).

Fossil fuels are also overwhelmingly responsible for fueling our transportation system. Petroleum-based fuels are the standard.

One liter of regular gasoline is the time-rendered result of about 23.5 tonnes of ancient organic material deposited on the ocean floor.

The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.

Burning fossil fuels is responsible for environmental issues that are high on the political agenda these days. Examples are greenhouse gas accumulation, acidification, air pollution, water pollution, damage to land surface and ground-level ozone.

Consequence of oil spills. Fossil fuels cause direct and indirect pollution.

LNG - Advantages and Disadvantages

Energy prices are going up all the time together with energy demand. The sharp rise in energy prices and fears about yet another episode of risky gas imports from Russia that were happening for the last couple of years have raised concerns about the security, diversity, reliability and affordability of the Em’s gas supply. Many energy experts see LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) as the solution to this problem which is really no surprise since over the last decade LNG has become one of the world’s fastest-growing energy sectors. So let’s take a look at main LNG advantages and disadvantages.

Currently LNG represents 15% of the EU’s gas imports, which is not only good for securing ever-growing energy demand but also to ensure diversity of supply. Some energy experts believe that this is already optimal percentage and that increased use of LNG would likely negate positive effect primarily because supply is heavily concentrated in the hands of a small number of countries that control more than 85 % of total LNG supply.

Grain Liquefied Natural Gas terminal (near Rochester, Kent, UK). The terminal has facilities for unloading liquefied natural gas (LNG) from specially constructed ships. The LNG is stored in purpose-built tanks and is vaporised to form natural gas which is supplied to consumers via the high pressure transmission system.

One thing that LNG still misses is cost-competitiveness. LNG energy projects are among the most expensive in all energy sectors, and not only that they are also technically very challenging. Considering these two factors it is rational to expect that EU would face higher energy prices if LNG shipments would turn out to be far greater in years to come. Off course scientific discoveries and technology development could drastically improve technical as well as financial perspective of LNG projects.

Regarding the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions LNG supply chain emits more greenhouse gases than for instance the supply chain for pipeline gas, primarily because of the extra processing steps needed for LNG shipment. This difference tends to be much narrower when LNG is compared to remote pipeline deliveries. In most cases the greenhouse gas performance gap is smaller than the energy efficiency gap, largely due to the unavoidable methane leaks from pipelines. Generally speaking LNG isn't exactly something you would refer to as the ecologically acceptable fuel.

One thing that LNG is definitely superior to pipeline gas is its quality. This is because LNG is purer, has more methane as well as other energy content, and also because of its chemical structure since it has more stable composition than pipeline gas. It has to be also said that this superior quality of LNG has its price in higher costs in not only terms of energy but also in total amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Ships that are transporting LNG can be even longer than 300 meters. When being full, minimum water depth must be 12 meters for normal sail.

Of all the LNG advantages its shipping costs look to be the most favorable cost component in the overall LNG supply chain without which LNG supply would totally lack competitiveness. LNG is unlikely to cause significantly bigger shipping costs, even if more ships are needed to meet greater demand, unless stricter safety rules or some security rules for handling LNG carriers are introduced. The only real challenge to LNG ships is the fact that there are too little skilled crew available. With this on mind if LNG becomes more important energy source ships will need more maintenance and more crew which could result in more employment opportunities to many EU workers, especially in South Europe.

As you can see LNG has certain disadvantages that prevent its current usability, most notably high costs and large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions but on the other hand LNG still offers solid alternative to consider, and diversity is something that is always welcomed in energy world, especially now when both energy demand as well as energy prices are constantly going up.

Fossil fuels - dominant but dangerous

Carbon cycle process. Click on picture for full size.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable energy sources since they need millions of years to form and its reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed. Fossil fuels category includes oil, coal and natural gas. Fossil fuels when burning release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and carbon dioxide is very harmful greenhouse gas, mainly responsible for the global warming problem.

More than 6 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide is produced per year because of the burning of fossil fuels and natural processes are only capable in absorbing just about half of this amount and so we have every year increase of about 3 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels currently provide about two thirds of US electricity and about 85 % of all the energy consumed in the US. US dependence on fossil fuels is traditional and therefore dominant because America owes to fossil fuels great deal of its economic power, so it's very likely that this reliance on fossil fuels will continue in the next decades despite some significant progresses in alternative energy sources.

Fossil fuels will not last for eternity and reserves in the ground are very limited (especially the ones of oil and natural gas, better situation is with the coal) while their demand grows significantly every year. Fossil fuel is still "dirty" energy source despite of some technologies that were developed to make their use environmentally cleaner (i.e. coal purification).

Not only does combustion of fossil fuels generate carbon dioxide but it also generates sulphuric, carbonic and nitric acids that result in acid rain. Oil spilling accidents, dangerous coal mining methods are just some of the other negative environmental sides which use of fossil fuels carries.

Cleaner technologies have some potential but their potential is limited only to rich states while other states lack needed funds for this expensive research and stick with that what they already have (which is in many countries coal since it's the cheapest fossil fuel).

Alternative energy sources are getting more attention but reason for this isn't just the ecological awareness of countries' governments; it's more to do with the fact that fossil fuels are limited and so it's necessary to find alternative sources.

And while Earth is warming, world leaders still just debate about global warming and some of them even say "global warming doesn't exist". Who they try to convince? Us or themselves? Fossil fuels really need good alternative and they need it fast. But this alternative must be ecologically acceptable even if this means sacrificing economy.

CO₂ emissions by sector and type in 2005. Click on picture for full size.

Carbon capture technology - Best solution?

Carbon capture technology is technology that tends to reduce negative impact of global warming by capturing carbon dioxide(CO₂) from power plants and subsequently storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Capturing carbon dioxide means nothing without its storage and the storage of carbon dioxide is still relatively unknown in majority of the world countries.

Carbon capture technology has enormous potential and when implanted in modern power plants it could reduce emission of carbon dioxide by about 80-90% compared to the plants without these technology. However capturing carbon needs significantly bigger amount of energy and would increase fuel consumption in power plants for about 10-40%. Capital costs are significant too which all comes down to increase the costs of energy from 30-60%, which is in many countries simply economically unacceptable because of these high costs.

This picture shows working principles of carbon capture technology. Click on the picture to enlarge it.

The storage of carbon dioxide is also the problem because the carbon dioxide is either stored in deep geological formations, deep oceans, or in the form of mineral carbonates. Risk is especially expressed when storing it into deep oceans and it could greatly increase the problem of ocean acidification. Hence the best solution lies in geological formations which by some estimations have capacity of at least 2000 GT CO₂.

Carbon capture technology has significant impact in Norway where they use the method of trapping carbon dioxide and storing it long-term underground, mainly in mature oil-fields. This technology made its way to the ears of the US oil industry too, because it potentially offers a partial solution to the global warming problem without reducing US traditional dependence on oil or curbing consumption.

But this technology is still really in the development stage and would require massive fonds to become economically viable and some even say this technology lacks necessary safety because the underground storage chamber could rupture which would then release a huge bubble of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, worsening global warming at a stroke, and this is also one thing that must be taken into the consideration when talking about the good and the bad sides of carbon capture technology.

However carbon capture technology is still the step in the right direction and the subject worthy of further researching despite of its need for large investments. Quite frankly any technology that could significantly reduce emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is worthy of further researching cause ecology and environment are begging for new cleaner technologies that could put an end to a well known global warming problem. And carbon capture technology isn't exception.

Natural gas and LNG facts

Natural gas is formed primarily of methane and can include ethane, propane, butane and pentane as well.

Natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels.

Natural gas can be found in oil field, natural gas fields and coal beds.

Natural gas storage and transportation is its biggest difficulty because of the low density.

Natural gas is often referred to as just gas, without the word natural.

Natural gas price is in US $7 per 1000 cubic feet (2007).

Natural gas is non-renewable energy source as the all fossil fuels are and is used mostly for generating electricity and heating.

Natural gas releases smaller amount of CO2 than oil and coal and is ecologically the most acceptable fossil fuel.

Natural gas is lighter than air.

Natural gas production by country (click on picture to enlarge).

Natural gas is commonly used in homes for cooking, heating and water heating.

Natural gas doesn't have odor (since is made of methane) and therefore gas companies add "rotten-egg" smell so people could detect possible leakage.

Natural gas was discovered many centuries ago as they are proof of its use in ancient Greece and Persia.

Natural gas wells average 6000 feet deep and it costs close to $80 to drill so it's important to choose the drilling sites very carefully.

US produces about 22 % of the world's total natural gas production.

US imports natural gas mainly from Mexico and Canada.

Natural gas usually gets to consumer by pipelines (in US there's more than one million of underground pipelines).

US has large reserves of natural gas, especially in the Gulf of Mexico.

Natural gas is cleaner fuel than coal and petroleum because it contains less carbon and therefore has cleaner burning and also has smaller amount of sulfur.

LNG tanker (click on picture for full size).

Natural gas can be converted into the liquid state and then is called Liquid natural has (LNG).

LNG is made when natural gas becomes liquid and for this its volume must be reduced 615 times which can be done by cooling natural gas to temperature of minus 260 F.

LNG is much easier for transportation and storage than the natural gas but tanks for storing it are expensive and this is the main reason why LNG isn't widespread as it's not very commercial.

LNG has energy density in the rank of petrol and diesel fuels and does less pollution than these two.

LNG needs LNG plant for its production and transportation and LNG plant consists of one or more LNG trains, each of which is an independent unit for gas liquefaction.

LNG plant construction costs $1-3 billion.

LNG is shipped around the world in specially constructed seagoing vessels.

LNG pollute environment more than natural gas because of the energy needed for liquefy it and transport it.

LNG tankers could be exposed to terrorist's attacks and therefore fats ships are following these tankers.

LNG tanker so far never exploded.

LNG safety must be taken to the highest level in order to prevent LNG accidents.

The largest LNG train is the SEGAS Plant in Egypt with a capacity of 5 million ton per annum.