After opposing the Natural Gas Act and seeking to repeal the EPA Air Toxic Rule, both of which benefit substantially natural gas, Senator Inhofe is adding to his substantial anti-natural gas positions by attacking the EPA proposed carbon pollution standard of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour for new power plants. One wonders whether Senator Inhofe is being driven to his anti-gas positions by blind allegiance to conservative ideology or blind opposition to whatever the Obama Administration proposes. Interestingly, The Houston Chronicle woodsheds Inhofe in a blistering editorial, while urging support of the EPA proposed greenhouse gas rule (see the link at end of this posting).
Natural gas plants already meet the proposed EPA carbon pollution standard of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour, but new coal plants do not, as they would emit about twice the proposed standard, unless equipped with full carbon capture and sequestration technology. CCS technology is currently expensive, barely commercially available, and should be a priority for research and development.
As with his past attacks on the Air Toxic Rule and the Natural Gas Act (sometimes called the Pickens Plan), Senator Inhofe is likely to have substantial Republican support and face large Democratic opposition to his latest assault on an EPA rule that benefits natural gas, this time the 1,000 pound per megawatt-hour pollution standard. The politics of natural gas is fluid, with supposed friends like Senator Inhofe aligned on big policy questions with some of the strongest opponents of "fracking." Sometimes, while initially heading in opposite directions, the political extremes can end up meeting.
Exhibiting a willingness to reject the political extremes, the American Natural Gas Alliance's (ANGA) first reaction to the EPA carbon pollution standard was tentatively supportive. Perhaps, ANGA's position and the Houston Chronicle editorial indicate that Senator Inhofe and other mainly Republican members of Congress, who have blocked the Natural Gas Act, fought to repeal the Air Toxics Rule that will increase natural gas demand by about 1 trillion cubic feet per year, and now attack the EPA carbon pollution standard, may feel some blowback from the gas industry itself.
Certainly, the near solid Republican opposition to these 3 big initiatives that would boost natural gas demand hurts significantly natural gas investors and shareholders, as well as the environment and the broader economy. With "friends" like Senator Inhofe and his allies in Congress, natural gas cannot afford any enemies.
This last point is motivating the Houston Chronicle that editorially called for Texas's two Republican Senators to support the EPA greenhouse gas rule and specifically singled out Senator Inhofe as someone not to be followed. http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Proposed-EPA-caps-make-sense-3442402.php.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Read Professional Analysis Of EPA Dimock Test Results
B.F. Environmental Consultants recently submitted a great comment to this blog's March 21 posting about Answers to Kate Sinding's Questions about EPA's Dimock water test results for 11 homes that linked to the firm's analysis of the EPA water tests. http://pennsylvania-solutions.blogspot.com/2012/03/well-hw-12-dimock-1262012-review.html.
The B.F. Environmental Consultants analysis is consistent with the EPA finding that the samples of water in the 11 homes was safe to drink, though at least one home had methane levels that required venting and were unsafe (methane itself is not toxic). The analysis finds that iron and manganese--secondary drinking water pollutants and not health standards--were above established levels. B.F.Environmental Consultants note that high levels of iron and manganese are common in water wells and can be relatively easily remedied with available water treatments. They also note that iron and manganese can affect the appearance or color of water.
I recommend the B.F. Environmental Consultants' analysis to you.
The B.F. Environmental Consultants analysis is consistent with the EPA finding that the samples of water in the 11 homes was safe to drink, though at least one home had methane levels that required venting and were unsafe (methane itself is not toxic). The analysis finds that iron and manganese--secondary drinking water pollutants and not health standards--were above established levels. B.F.Environmental Consultants note that high levels of iron and manganese are common in water wells and can be relatively easily remedied with available water treatments. They also note that iron and manganese can affect the appearance or color of water.
I recommend the B.F. Environmental Consultants' analysis to you.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule Spotlights 1 of 3 Big Manipulations In Howarth Study
Professors Howarth and Ingrafea must be displeased with the historic EPA proposed greenhouse gas standard for carbon pollution of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour for new power plants, a standard that gas plants meet, while coal plants without expensive and barely commercially available carbon capture and storage equipment do not. Without such CCS equipment coal plants emit from 1800 to 2200 pounds of carbon per megatwatt-hour of electricity produced, approximately twice what natural gas plants emit.
How could gas plants meet the EPA carbon standard, while coal plants do not, when Howarth/Ingrafea say that shale gas is as dirty or even dirtier than coal? The answer to the question highlights one of the 3 big manipulations in the Howarth/Ingrafea paper.
Unlike all other researchers, Howarth/Ingrafea stopped their life cycle analysis of carbon pollution from coal and gas before the fuels are combusted. Howarth/Ingrafea refused to include the carbon emissions from actually burning coal in a power plant, where nearly 100% of coal is combusted and typically inefficiently. Indeed coal plants convert fuel to electricity much more inefficiently than gas plants do, making the carbon pollution from coal even higher, when it is finally used in the real world.
Including the emissions from coal, after it is actually combusted in the real world, would have destroyed the conclusion of Howarth/Ingrafea that gas is as dirty or dirtier than coal. The solution to this problem for Howarth/Ingrafea, uniquely and alone, was to stop the calculation of pollution before coal is combusted. Presto! Problem solved.
The two other manipulations in the Howarth/Ingrafea study were to use extreme methane leakage rates by, as just one example, assuming falsely ubiquitous venting of shale gas in part of the well development process, and to reject, again uniquely and alone, the 100-year IPCC global warming potential factor and to substitute a 20-year global warming potential. Methane dissipates almost completely within 15 years in the atmosphere, and so the use of a 20-year global warming potential was essential to reach a false conclusion that gas is dirtier than coal.
One good, unintended benefit of the historic EPA greenhouse gas standard for new plants is highlighting one of the three big manipulations in the Howarth paper. The failure of Howarth to include carbon emissions, when coal is combusted at a power plant, is one of several decisions he made that makes his paper appear as an exercise in working back from a desired result and fitting his analysis to that desired result. It is one of three big reasons that all other life cycle analysis studies of coal and gas contradict Howarth's false conclusion.
Hopefully, the EPA proposed rule will reaffirm a fact--gas emits less mercury, soot, arsenic, lead, and carbon than coal without full pollution controls, including carbon capture and storage technology.
How could gas plants meet the EPA carbon standard, while coal plants do not, when Howarth/Ingrafea say that shale gas is as dirty or even dirtier than coal? The answer to the question highlights one of the 3 big manipulations in the Howarth/Ingrafea paper.
Unlike all other researchers, Howarth/Ingrafea stopped their life cycle analysis of carbon pollution from coal and gas before the fuels are combusted. Howarth/Ingrafea refused to include the carbon emissions from actually burning coal in a power plant, where nearly 100% of coal is combusted and typically inefficiently. Indeed coal plants convert fuel to electricity much more inefficiently than gas plants do, making the carbon pollution from coal even higher, when it is finally used in the real world.
Including the emissions from coal, after it is actually combusted in the real world, would have destroyed the conclusion of Howarth/Ingrafea that gas is as dirty or dirtier than coal. The solution to this problem for Howarth/Ingrafea, uniquely and alone, was to stop the calculation of pollution before coal is combusted. Presto! Problem solved.
The two other manipulations in the Howarth/Ingrafea study were to use extreme methane leakage rates by, as just one example, assuming falsely ubiquitous venting of shale gas in part of the well development process, and to reject, again uniquely and alone, the 100-year IPCC global warming potential factor and to substitute a 20-year global warming potential. Methane dissipates almost completely within 15 years in the atmosphere, and so the use of a 20-year global warming potential was essential to reach a false conclusion that gas is dirtier than coal.
One good, unintended benefit of the historic EPA greenhouse gas standard for new plants is highlighting one of the three big manipulations in the Howarth paper. The failure of Howarth to include carbon emissions, when coal is combusted at a power plant, is one of several decisions he made that makes his paper appear as an exercise in working back from a desired result and fitting his analysis to that desired result. It is one of three big reasons that all other life cycle analysis studies of coal and gas contradict Howarth's false conclusion.
Hopefully, the EPA proposed rule will reaffirm a fact--gas emits less mercury, soot, arsenic, lead, and carbon than coal without full pollution controls, including carbon capture and storage technology.
Wind Generation Rises 50% Plus Nationally & In PA In January 2012
January 2012 was a really good month for wind power across America and in Pennsylvania.
Nationally January 2012 wind generation was up 54.8%, compared to January 2011. In Pennsylvania wind generation rose from January 2011 to 2012 by 59.6%. All data from the EIA.
www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_17_a.
Discussion in Congress about an extension of the wind production tax credit that expires at the end of 2012 continues. The delay in Congressional action has already causes project delays for 2013 and some avoidable job loss. Recently the idea of linking the extension of the production tax credit to a phase out date has been floated.
Nationally January 2012 wind generation was up 54.8%, compared to January 2011. In Pennsylvania wind generation rose from January 2011 to 2012 by 59.6%. All data from the EIA.
www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_17_a.
Discussion in Congress about an extension of the wind production tax credit that expires at the end of 2012 continues. The delay in Congressional action has already causes project delays for 2013 and some avoidable job loss. Recently the idea of linking the extension of the production tax credit to a phase out date has been floated.
Pennsylvania Gas Generation Jumps 68% From January 2011 to 2012
The latest EIA data confirms that Pennsylvania is getting a lot more electricity from gas plants than just a year ago. Gas generation plants increased production 68% from January 2011 to January 2012.
EIA reports that gas plants produced 4,252 thousand megawatt-hours in Pennsylvania in January 2012, compared to 2,520 thousand megwatt-hours. See the Monthly Energy Report at www.eia.gov. This rise in gas generation came at the expense of coal generation that declined by an amount similar to the increase in gas generation. As in the nation, gas is displacing coal generation in Pennsylvania.
Nationally gas generation rose 22.5% from January 2011 to January 2012.
EIA reports that gas plants produced 4,252 thousand megawatt-hours in Pennsylvania in January 2012, compared to 2,520 thousand megwatt-hours. See the Monthly Energy Report at www.eia.gov. This rise in gas generation came at the expense of coal generation that declined by an amount similar to the increase in gas generation. As in the nation, gas is displacing coal generation in Pennsylvania.
Nationally gas generation rose 22.5% from January 2011 to January 2012.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Gas Drilling Nationwide Declines Twice As Much As In Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania's Marcellus gas drilling is withstanding low, low gas prices much better than gas drilling nationwide. The number of gas drilling rigs nationwide has declined twice as much across America compared to Pennsylvania's shale, as gas prices plummeted.
Nationally the gas rig count has declined by 30% since October 2011, according to the Baker Hughes data for the week of March 23rd, and is near a ten-year low.
Pennsylvania has not been immune to the nationwide decline but has seen a much smaller reduction--about 15%--in the number of gas drilling rigs. Currently 98 rigs are drilling for gas in Pennsylvania, down from 116. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/03/27/gas-drilling-rigs-decline-in-pa-and-nationwide.
The fact that gas drilling rigs have declined twice as much nationwide as in Pennsylvania is another indicator of the powerfully positive economics of the Marcellus.
While the national gas drilling rig count is near a ten-year low, the oil rig count is approaching a 25-year high as a result of the sustained high price of oil that is made even more attractive by the sustained low price of natural gas.
The decline in gas drilling rigs demonstrates that coal is not alone in being unable to compete with $2.50 natural gas. Gas itself cannot compete with prices that low and so the drill rig decline.
Nationally the gas rig count has declined by 30% since October 2011, according to the Baker Hughes data for the week of March 23rd, and is near a ten-year low.
Pennsylvania has not been immune to the nationwide decline but has seen a much smaller reduction--about 15%--in the number of gas drilling rigs. Currently 98 rigs are drilling for gas in Pennsylvania, down from 116. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/03/27/gas-drilling-rigs-decline-in-pa-and-nationwide.
The fact that gas drilling rigs have declined twice as much nationwide as in Pennsylvania is another indicator of the powerfully positive economics of the Marcellus.
While the national gas drilling rig count is near a ten-year low, the oil rig count is approaching a 25-year high as a result of the sustained high price of oil that is made even more attractive by the sustained low price of natural gas.
The decline in gas drilling rigs demonstrates that coal is not alone in being unable to compete with $2.50 natural gas. Gas itself cannot compete with prices that low and so the drill rig decline.
Key VP Cheney Heart Transplant Facts
Good wishes to Vice President Cheney for a full recovery, after receiving a transplanted heart over the weekend. He is one of the millions of beneficiaries of the tremendous advances in heart care since 1981, when my father died during heart surgery, and a few years after the former Vice President had his first of 5 heart attacks at age 37.
Here are key facts about Cheney's transplant:
1. Cheney was on the heart transplant waiting list for 20 months.
2. Cheney took the first heart offered to him.
3. The average wait for a heart is 9 months so Cheney clearly did not receive preferential treatment in receiving a heart.
4. The one-year survival rate for someone receiving a heart who is over 65 is 84%. Cheney is 71.
5. The odds are favorable for the Vice President to have a life expectancy of 10 years.
Vice President Cheney has had 4 major heart procedures, including the heart transplant, as well as advanced medications. His life has been extended and enriched as a result.
For those who have full access to America's medical treatments, miracles can and do happen.
Here are key facts about Cheney's transplant:
1. Cheney was on the heart transplant waiting list for 20 months.
2. Cheney took the first heart offered to him.
3. The average wait for a heart is 9 months so Cheney clearly did not receive preferential treatment in receiving a heart.
4. The one-year survival rate for someone receiving a heart who is over 65 is 84%. Cheney is 71.
5. The odds are favorable for the Vice President to have a life expectancy of 10 years.
Vice President Cheney has had 4 major heart procedures, including the heart transplant, as well as advanced medications. His life has been extended and enriched as a result.
For those who have full access to America's medical treatments, miracles can and do happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)