Growing up in the 1960s, certain radio headlines seem to remain engrained in my pre-mp3, auditory memory: Wayne Morse, James Meredith, murders of civil rights workers, Diem, Medicare (yes, Medicare).
I understood neither the context nor parental answers ("He wants to go to school"), but I am certain the hourly news and daily repetition on classical WQXR (hey, I didn't have choice) created a permanent mental image not unlike an image etched into an old CRT monitor.
Recently, other distant names have surfaced: permafrost and Alaska pipeline, Torrey Canyon and a very far-away place with beautiful birds and beaches called Santa Barbara.
It was a long, long time ago, so long ago that only aging sailors had tatoos. But I remember.
Rather than complain about the relative guilt of BP, George W Bush, Obama or our addiction to oil, I want to do a calculation - something useful to get a feeling about how much oil has spilled into the Gulf.
For example, if all of the spilled oil had been gasoline, how many gallons would every California car get? Let's try.
How Much Oil Has Spilled in the Gulf?
BP said 1,000 then 5,000 bbls a day. After BP released a short video, NPR started reporting that scientists thought it was 20 -80,000 bbls per day.
Let's assume oil is flowing at a rate of 20,000 bbls each day. There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel and it has been spilling for 40 days. If you multiple this out, it is about 34 MM gallons of crude oil.
Since the explosion on April 20, 2010, today's papers say about 18-40 MM gallons oil have spilled, so I in the right ball park. Let's split the difference the assume the real number is 29 MM gallons of crude oil have spilled into the Gulf.
Ok, 29 MM gallons of oil sounds like a lot. 17% of Louisiana jobs are related to oil. If you are a Louisiana Brown Pelican, it is an awful lot of oil! But what does 29 MM gallons mean to us?
Crude Oil to Gasoline?
A gallon of gasoline is not the same as a gallon of oil. Both are mixtures of all kinds of chemicals and hydrocarbons.
Gasoline sold in California has about 100 different molecules.
But let's assume each gallon of crude oil results in 1/2 gallon of gasoline, give or take. This is a "guesstimate."
So the 29 MM gallons of oil in Gulf, comes down to about 15 MM gallons of gasoline.
15 MM gallons of gasoline
Ok, we are get close. Now California consumed 360 MM barrels of gasoline for transportation in 2008, i.e. all of us in California collectively consume 1 MM barrels gasoline EACH DAY (360/365) for our cars. This is 42 MM gallons of gasoline each day in California.
Here we are then: the total amount of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico would power every California car (yours and mine) for less than 1/2 day (15/42)! Morning rush hour, barely!
May 30, "Plans for the Worst" New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/us/31spill.html?ref=global-home
WQXR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WQXR
Louisiana & Energy, the Pelican State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana#Energy
California - 360 MM Barrels Gasoline, Transportation (2008)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html
Permafrost and Alaska Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Pipeline#Conservation_objections
1962 James Meredith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith
1967 Torrey Canyon Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrey_Canyon
1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
California Energy Commission - CCS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration)
[Note: This is first post on a complex, technological ambitious - and controversial - effort called Carbon Capture & Sequestration. Errors are my own. My purpose is not to spread more misinformation.]
This was asked at the April 22 Panel meeting. Unfortunatly, I missed the answer. California has little coal, so using CCS for coal-fired power plants has limited applicability in California. [However, much California electricity is produced by 'dirty' out-of-state coal-fired plants.] California does have significant geological formations, esp. in the Central Valley, which might be useful for Sequestration. And California does have SB 1368 will requires new coal-fired plants be as clean as natural gas fired plants (500 g CO2 released, for each MW-hour of energy produced.)
At its May 19, 2010 business meeting (blog post), the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved continued funding for WESTCARB, a Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) project managed by CEC and one of several regional, DOE-funded projects to evaluate CCS.
Commissioner Byron said that Calfornia should be a leader in this technology, as it is in energy-efficiency.
CCS means capturing carbon (actually CO2) from power plant or industrial plant processes and injecting the carbon dioxide underground for indefinite storage in aquifers, old mines or oil fields. (here or here ). The injection of CO2 is well known, and frequently used in oil industry to extract a bit more oil from aging wells. (Enhnaced Oil Recovery - EOR). The Sequestration is part of the unknown: Will CO2 stay underground and not leak; who is responsible? But another challenging part is the large scale separation of CO2 from the gaseous stew when fossil fuel (with its sulfur and impurities) are combusted, as in coal or natural gas plants, industrial processes, etc.
At this meeting CEC approved a $4MM contract for WESTCARB to build upon Phase II (a small test injection is scheduled for later this year) and begin Phase III, a larger test facility. Note, the amount of CO2 to be tested (1MM tons) is still small compared to the billions of tons of CO2 produced annually by US industry.
WESTCARB includes 7 states & British Columbia (international, but no China), and over 80 partners. From WESTCARB's promotional materals: "Sequestration allows ... continuing use of today's fossil fuel reserves, thereby 'buying time' ...."
Phase I (2004 -2005)
"....Phase I CCS research evaluated regional opportunities and potential barriers to implementation of the technology."
Phase II (a 5 year effort)
"....to perform three geological sequestration field validation pilots at which CO2 injection will take place—two in California’s Central Valley and one in northern Arizona. Phase II research also includes detailed site-characterization pilots—one on coal-bed methane and saline formations near a coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington, and the other on saline formations and oil fields near Bakersfield, California."
Phase III (a 10 year effort) will be inject CO2 from a commercial power plant or oil refinery as a field test.
California has a CCS Review Panel to the advise the CEC, CPUC, ARB and other agencies about specific CCS policies and the significant legal/regulatory framework. It had its first public meeing on April 22, 2010; the next one is this week: June 2, 2010. I don't want to miss "Association of Irritated Residents" presentation, listed on the agenda.
At the April meeting, the Panel was clear that CCS is no "magic bullet." But the discussion soon turned to regulatory and legal issues (who has underground CO2 storage rights?) , i.e. an implicit assumption that the technology, much not yet created, will be will invented, reliable and done in time.
The panel was very concerned about public acceptance of CCS and avoid things like "not in my backyard."
[I think science should drive policy, not lawyers, so I don't get a vote. I've been meaning to spend more time with this presentation because it is an assessment of state-of-the-art and how much further we need to go. In English, author seems to be saying CCS isn't ready for prime time yet, but he does outline possible paths. ]
A California Example
Aside from WESTCARB trials, a company called Hydrogen Energy is proposing an ambitious project to combust a discharged residue of oil refineries (oil coke) to produce electricity, H2 and very pure CO2. This CO2 will then be transported and injected into old oil wells to try to recover additional crude oil. It is clean, ambitious and expensive. Pure CO2 is valuable to the oil industry. Note, ARRA funding is at stake, too, in this siting - adding to the pressure on regulators like CEC.
But Why Caifornia?
CCS - has opponents
However, as all seem to acknowledge, CCS is hardly a proven technology. Here is recent NYTimes article cautioning on use of more public money for CO2. This particular letter: caught my attention, although the author appears to be pro-nuclear and doesn't mention energy-efficiency. I, too, am concerned about use of public money for industry.
To the Editor:
Robert Bryce’s opposition to financing carbon sequestration development is right on point. Tax dollars should be devoted exclusively to financing research and development on clean energy. If “clean coal,” including sequestration, is a sound approach, the mining and fossil fuel industries should be able to finance their own research and development after more than a century of support from us taxpayers.
Renewables as far as possible and closed-cycle nuclear need our help until they are on a pay-as-you-go basis. We need a new leader of the Department of Energy whose head is not turned from scientific and economic fact by political expediency. We have Congress for that.
Avrom Handleman
Indianapolis, May 14, 2010
California CCS Review Panel - June 2, 2010 Meeting
Hydrogen Energy Siting
WESTCARB
WESTCARB - Phase II
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/environmental/project_summaries/PS_WESTCARB_Geologic_PhaseII.PDF (2007)
'It allows society to reduce the carbon intensity of the economy while continuing use of economical fossil fuels, thereby “buying time” to develop and construct affordable non-CO2-emitting energy systems.'
WESTCARB - Phase III
NYTimes Letters
TUESDAY, October 27th
Avrom HandlemanA RATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAMAvrom Handleman, inventor, peace activist, entrepreneur, consultant, MIT grad., and former President of the JTDC, will present "A Rational Energy Program" at the October meeting. Ave will propose his "long-range program to get energy while putting Americans to work".
NYTimes Op-Ed
MIT's Sequestration Page
California Energy Commission - Jobs, Retrofits, CSS, Tomatoes, PHEV & Smart Grid
To get a glimpse at the range of activities of California Energy Commission, the regular business meetings are a good place to start. At the May 19, 2010 meeting, about $58 MM were awarded in grants, loans and contracts to an interesting set of green jobs programs, energy retrofits, PHEV and Smart Grid studies, and even new way to process tomatoes.
All agenda items here:
A few highlights:
-$19 MM contract - to retrofit the kind of refrigerators found in grocery stores (commercial retail refrigeration) and train people to do do the retrofits, In conjunction with the State's California Conservation Corps
-$3 MM contract with UC Davis - to examine the issues related to Electric Vehicles and the Smart Grid. What if we all want to charge our cars at 7 pm?
-$3 MM contract with UC Davis - to examine the issues related to Electric Vehicles and the Smart Grid. What if we all want to charge our cars at 7 pm?
[Ex: "We re gravely concerned...[that electric cars] will drive up our need for peak power," CPUC Commissioner Grueneich recently said]
-$2 MM grant to the Gas Technology Institute (industry group?) - "To help design future energy efficiency [commercial] appliances", according to CEC's Valerie Hall - things like commerical ovens, cooking, woks. Sounds good, but can't industry finance this?
-$400K grant for a Frito Lay Plant - a pilot demonstration of direct steam generation, using solar thermal. Again, sounds good to support a new industrial process which claims to reduce energy, GHG use. But again can't industry finance? Frito Lay apparently also gave CEC an award, a year so back. Unfortunately, the agendas list only project summaries and do not link to the full information the Commissioners and Staff have. I just hope taxpayers are not funding greasy potato chips, even if the underlying industrial technology is cleaner. Here are a few links I did find:
-2009 - page 50 - https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-069/CEC-500-2009-069.PDF
-2004 - potato chips - https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/iaw/presentations/FIER_LOWE.PDF
-$400K grant - carrots! - to demonstrate a technology which energy and cost-efficiently extract some of the remaining lipids (fats for fuel?) and nutrients from fruits and vegetables after they have been juiced.
-$400K grant - carrots! - to demonstrate a technology which energy and cost-efficiently extract some of the remaining lipids (fats for fuel?) and nutrients from fruits and vegetables after they have been juiced.
-$2.5 MM loan @ 3% - for Hayward to put a 1 MW PV system at its water pollution facility. Alas, Hayward will forgo a 1% rate because it is far cheaper to purchase the the solar panels overseas. (Can't somehow combine CEC awards and build the panels here?)
However, some of the discussions during the meeting raised a few good questions.
"Move the Needle" on the Rosenfeld Effect
After the $11 MM contract for a Bay Area home energy retrofits was approved, Commissioner Byon made a timely comment: we need to "move the needle" forward with the promise of energy-efficiency (the famous Rosenfeld Effect that energy efficiency is the cheapest and easiest way to avoid more power plants; usually stated that California's per capital energy use has been flat - because of efficiency - while the rest of the US has grown.)
Commissioner Byron added we need to "quantify results," and the consenus appeared to agreed that we need to 'change the slope.'
Yes, let's see the data.
"I love data" and Oversight
CEC's Ms. Chandler, speaking for CEC managment, promised Commissioner Eggert a t-shirt with "I love data." Sounds good to me.
However, with so much money already awarded through ARRA and other programs, we hope this is not an after thought. As I have written before, ARRA has been working with CEC staff on the financial oversight (public information?) and it is wise to substantiate claims made in proposals and be sure that public money go to the public good. Numerous awards are "passed through" to contractors or "public-private partnerships," whose agenda may not quite be what ours is.
But back to energy, the CEC needs to be sure to take full advantage of the data that will stream back about effectiveness and maturity of the various programs, technologies, vendors, funding mechanism and so on that will be integral to future policy. Mr. Eggert made no follow-up to his comment a week ago about asking a University to do an indepedent, rigorous analysis pro-bono.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
Among the awards was approval of DOE-supported WESTCARB, a large regional (several states & British Columbia - but not China?) effort to test feasibility of CCS. CEC manages and co-funds WESTCARB.
Commission Byron remarked "California wants to be a leader in CCS as well as in energy-efficiency." Indeed, CEC approved a $4MM contract to build upon Phase II (a small test CO2 injection is scheduled for later this year) and Phase III, a larger test facility, will begin.
However, CCS is hardly a proven, or non-controversial technology, which even WESTCARB admits is "buying time" to continue using fossil fuel.
I will post more on CEC activities and CCS in the coming week.
But here is a recent letter to the NYTimes about public financing of CCS, although the author appears to be pro-nuclear and doesn't mention energy-efficiency.
To the Editor:Robert Bryce’s opposition to financing carbon sequestration development is right on point. Tax dollars should be devoted exclusively to financing research and development on clean energy. If “clean coal,” including sequestration, is a sound approach, the mining and fossil fuel industries should be able to finance their own research and development after more than a century of support from us taxpayers.Renewables as far as possible and closed-cycle nuclear need our help until they are on a pay-as-you-go basis.We need a new leader of the Department of Energy whose head is not turned from scientific and economic fact by political expediency. We have Congress for that.Avrom HandlemanIndianapolis, May 14, 2010
Committees, Committees ...
How many unique committees of 2 can you form from a pool of 5 Commissioners?
Several references were made to these Committees, statements like this or that was approved or vetted by a certain Committee.
I certainly aware of the Siting Committee, now grappling with a number of large solar desert projects with possible ARRA funds. And I know of the Efficiency Committee for its work on decertifying a refrigerator and its work on low-carbon fuels, but I could not find meeting references to some of the Committees referred to here, where project decisions, apparently, seem to be taking place. Is it public?
Public Process
I have heard that "Not all committee meetings are public, it depends on what the purpose is. " Hmmm.
And CEC awards are publicly announced by NOPA (Notice of Proposed Award). For example, here is one for the organization that will help
Measurement, Verification, Evaluation and Reporting, which was later approved at a CEC Business Meeting.
However, for many items on the May 19th agenda, I could not find a NOPA announcement; nor a Commttee meeting.
So I have a bit more to learn about the process and when the public can be involved in its review.
I know from experience and the advice of many more seasoned hands that business meetings are not place for debate issues.
(By my count, 10 unique committees of 2 can be formed from 5 Commissioners, meaning 2 Committees must have the same members but cover different topics.)
NYTimes Letters
NYTimes Article
CEC - May 19 Agenda
CEC - Committees
CEC - $314.5 (MM) ARRA? programs
CEC - ARRA contracts
NOPA (Notice of Possible Award)
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Schwarzenegger's Office - Continues to Block Release of China Documents
In a previous post, I outlined efforts to obtain information about an energy cooperation agreement California signed with Jiangsu Province on October 3, 2009.
The Governor's office refused to release any documents, except its original press release.
After I asked about the CPRA (California Public Request Act) philosophy favoring public disclosure over non-disclosure, I received this May 17, 2010 reply "public disclosure does clearly favor nondisclosure in this case"
Why a secret?
Of course, I do not know. There are several private groups with indirect or direct ties to California, China and this MOU. C3, for example, was started by CalEPA under this MOU, but seems to operate privately. (CPRA request is pending.) Other private groups claim involvement with the MOU, but the State has refused to release information.
Last year, the The Sacramento Bee wrote about one such private group, CFEE.net, which pays for regulators and legislators to take overseas trips.
Because California businesses join on these private trips, there is potential for conflict-of-interests, according to the Bee article.
CFEE.net (California Foundation on Energy and the Environment) turned up in a recent CPRA request of the California Public Utilities Commission. CFEE paid for A "Legislative and Regulatory Delegation" to China last fall, some two weeks after the MOU was signed. Two CPUC members participated, asserting benefits to California. The CPUC referred questions to CFEE for more information about the trip.
In private communications, CFEE.net denied any knowledge of the California-Jiangsu MOU. However, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is represented on its Board and the same NRDC was also one of the champions of the California-Jiangsu MOU.
I hope the State will shed light on these and other MOUs that the State has signed with China or elsewhere. People such as Susan Kennedy (Gov Chief of Staff), Dian Grueneich (CPUC) promised to reply with information, but did not. I have asked the ARB, CEC and gotten nowhere (CPRA requests have been filed.)
If "public-private partnerships" are to be believed, the public has a right to know.
The Governor's office refused to release any documents, except its original press release.
After I asked about the CPRA (California Public Request Act) philosophy favoring public disclosure over non-disclosure, I received this May 17, 2010 reply "public disclosure does clearly favor nondisclosure in this case"
Why a secret?
Of course, I do not know. There are several private groups with indirect or direct ties to California, China and this MOU. C3, for example, was started by CalEPA under this MOU, but seems to operate privately. (CPRA request is pending.) Other private groups claim involvement with the MOU, but the State has refused to release information.
Last year, the The Sacramento Bee wrote about one such private group, CFEE.net, which pays for regulators and legislators to take overseas trips.
Because California businesses join on these private trips, there is potential for conflict-of-interests, according to the Bee article.
CFEE.net (California Foundation on Energy and the Environment) turned up in a recent CPRA request of the California Public Utilities Commission. CFEE paid for A "Legislative and Regulatory Delegation" to China last fall, some two weeks after the MOU was signed. Two CPUC members participated, asserting benefits to California. The CPUC referred questions to CFEE for more information about the trip.
In private communications, CFEE.net denied any knowledge of the California-Jiangsu MOU. However, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is represented on its Board and the same NRDC was also one of the champions of the California-Jiangsu MOU.
I hope the State will shed light on these and other MOUs that the State has signed with China or elsewhere. People such as Susan Kennedy (Gov Chief of Staff), Dian Grueneich (CPUC) promised to reply with information, but did not. I have asked the ARB, CEC and gotten nowhere (CPRA requests have been filed.)
If "public-private partnerships" are to be believed, the public has a right to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
