Methane From Aliso Canyon a Tiny Blip Globally

Subtitle: No Noticeable Increase In Global Methane

Much has been written on the natural gas leak that occurred in late 2015 and into the first two months of 2016 from the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility near Los Angeles, California.   SLB has articles on this.

This article puts the quantity of methane emitted into perspective.  Rather than take the hysterical approach as many writers have done and will continue to do, it is important to view the amount of methane released in context of the total annual methane emissions world-wide.  In short, it was a tiny blip on the radar.  A tiny, almost inconsequential amount.  Three units out of almost 7,000 units.  On a percentage basis, that is 0.04 percent. 

Published data on world-wide methane emissions, and their global-warming potential or CO2-equivalent (stated as CO2e), show that approximately 7,000 million metric tonnes CO2e are emitted from all sources, annually.  see link   For perspective, the Aliso Canyon

source: EPA Report 430-R-06-003

leak sent out approximately 3 million metric tonnes CO2e.  That is 3 out of 7,000.  

The world is not going to overheat overnight and we all wake up to temperatures like Death Valley, California on a hot August day.

As can be seen from the chart at right, and recognizing that 100 percent represents 7,000 million metric tonnes CO2e, the Aliso Canyon leak was 100 times smaller or less than the amount from Agriculture Manure.  

Or, to put the situation in the same light as would nuclear proponents when a nuclear plant spews radiation across the landscape and into the atmosphere, the methane was diluted by natural air currents to a level so low as to be almost undetectable (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Dai-Ichi at 3 reactors).  The methane dissipated into the natural background.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Natural Methane Seeps - Very Common

Subtitle: Aliso Canyon Leak Is Nothing New 

An article today (Los Angeles Times, known for False-Alarmism) harps on and on about the leaking methane gas from the Aliso Canyon gas storage system near Los Angeles, California.   The article complains that the methane released will create massive global warming.    What utter rubbish.   (see link to LA Times article)

The fact is that methane is seeping into the atmosphere, naturally, and from thousands of locations worldwide.  It has been seeping, or even venting, for thousands of years.   The tiny bit from Aliso Canyon will not even be a blip on the radar.  

Here is what a 2014 news release from the USGS had to say about newly-discovered natural methane seeps offshore the US Atlantic coast:  (see link)

"Natural methane leakage from the seafloor is far more widespread on the U.S. Atlantic margin than previously thought, according to a study by researchers from Mississippi State University, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other institutions.

Methane plumes identified in the water column between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Georges Bank, Massachusetts, are emanating from at least 570 seafloor cold seeps on the outer continental shelf and the continental slope.  Taken together, these areas, which lie between the coastline and the deep ocean, constitute the continental margin.  Prior to this study, only three seep areas had been identified beyond the edge of the continental shelf, which occurs at approximately 180 meters (590 feet) water depth between Florida and Maine on the U.S. Atlantic seafloor."

Other natural methane leaks have existed (and still do) in many places around the world.  One such leak was offshore Santa Barbara, California, with such volume that bubbles were frequent at the ocean surface.  Lightning strikes sometime ignited the gas, and it appeared that the ocean was on fire.   That must have been a strange sight.  Eventually, an oil company obtained permission to cap the methane seep on the ocean floor, trap the gas and pipe it to shore for beneficial use.  

Other natural seeps occur in Indonesia, and many locations in the Middle East.    In fact, one of the several ways that oil companies collect data for decisions on where to drill is to measure methane concentration in water just above the ocean floor.  The idea is that cracks in the seabed allow methane to flow upward into the ocean.  Even if no bubbles form, the methane is dissolved in the water and can be detected.  

Also, here in Los Angeles, one can see methane vents along many streets.  These are associated with underground vaults, such as electric companies install for their equipment.   The methane is prevented from collecting in the underground vaults, and creating an explosive or toxic atmosphere.   The natural leaking of methane is widespread over a huge area of Southern California.  

More examples of natural methane leaks are the explosions a few years ago in a mall in Los Angeles in 1989 and another in 1985.    

One cannot believe the false-alarmism of the global warming crowd.   Natural gas has been seeping out of the ground, and under the sea, for millenia.    Any trip to the Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles will display the frequent bubbles bursting on the liquid tar's surface.   Those bubbles are not air.  Those are methane.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Long-Term Energy Supply

Subtitle: If Not Nuclear, What Then?

One of the grand questions for those who think about the future, especially the long-term future, is "what type of energy source will the world need?"   A corollary question, following the usual statement of "we will someday run out of fossil fuels", is "what will we do after we run out of fossil fuels?" 

The most common answer to the "what will we do?" question is "use nuclear power, of course!" as if that is the obvious answer.   Many, many scientists and others have concluded that nuclear power is the only long-term source of energy for society. 

I have a different view, and will expand on that here and in other posts.  One of the purposes of the Truth About Nuclear Power series on this blog is to show that nuclear power has many, many disadvantages and should never be the energy source of choice.  

Brown bear.  source: wiki commons

A story illustrates.  Two men were camping in the wilderness, which was known to have bears.   Each night before going to sleep, one man carefully put on his socks and track shoes.  The other man said, "that is silly.  If a bear wants you, wearing track shoes is not going to help you outrun the bear."   The first man replied, "I don't have to outrun the bear.  All I have to do is outrun YOU."

In the complex scheme of evaluating and developing energy supplies, a long-term source is not required to be economically superior to natural gas with its high efficiency and low construction cost, or coal with its very low energy cost.  All the long-term energy source must do to "beat the bear" is to be lower cost and safer than nuclear power.   Of course, to be used on a modern grid, the electric power must be, by law, safe, reliable, low-cost, and environmentally responsible.  

The TANP articles have shown that nuclear power cannot compete economically, and has structural or inherent flaws that make being competitive impossible.  Reasons include but are not limited to the inherent danger of radioactive fuel, extra safeguards to prevent radiation release, larger equipment due to low plant efficiency, more equipment needed just to run the plant, difficulty in following the grid's load, ridiculously long construction periods that add to interest and inflation costs, government subsidies in many forms just to coax utilities to build the plants (without the subsidies in their many forms, no one would build a nuclear plant), and smaller, modular plants have far worse economics than the grand, 1000-MW or larger plants.   The ultimate issue, though, for long-term sole-source nuclear energy is that power prices must be increased by a factor of 8 to 10 compared to present prices (this was covered in Part Two of TANP, see link)

If not nuclear power, what, then, will be the energy source of the future?  The answer is a mix of energy types, but in general they can be classified as 1) renewable and 2) regenerated.     Under the renewable heading, there are hydroelectric, onshore wind, offshore wind, solar in at least three forms, geothermal, cellulosic ethanol, photosynthesis of algae to oil, synthetic photosynthesis to split water into hydrogen for fuel and oxygen for sale, organic liquids as bio-diesel, ocean waves, ocean current, OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion), and river mouth osmosis.   

Under the regenerated heading, there are methane capture from landfills, methane capture from cattle feedlots, methane from steam hydrogasification of organic sludge (sewage treatment plant sludge) see link, municipal solid waste to energy (see below), and the ultimate energy source: Carbon dioxide conversion to methane.  It has long been known how to convert carbon dioxide back to methane by removing the oxygen and adding hydrogen.   What is needed to make this economic is simply very low-cost energy.  More on this, a bit later in this article. 

Some of the above energy sources are non-steady, variable, and intermittent and thus require a grid-scale, economic energy storage system.  Such systems have been developed.  The most promising system is one developed by MIT and is one of the simplest: submerged hollow spheres in the medium-deep ocean to serve as pumped storage hydroelectric systems.   The surrounding ocean serves as the upper body of water, and the interior of the hollow sphere serves as the lower body of water.   Such systems can also be placed in lakes that are sufficiently deep, such as Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.   Another SLB article (see link) showed that presently, the US has grid-scale, pumped storage hydroelectric capability at just over 22 GW.  The PSH capacity is expected to increase to approximately 30 GW,

A bit more than 5 years ago (March, 2009), SLB had an article on Renewables in Outer Continental Shelf (see link).  That article quoted the US Department of Energy 2009 study that concluded there is 900 GW of energy in the offshore wind in US territorial waters.  That is very close to the installed US electrical capacity.  After allowance for intermittency issues, and a 20 percent loss from pumped storage systems, approximately 275 GW of reliable power is available from offshore wind.  

With offshore wind coupled to grid-scale storage, onshore wind providing energy to existing pumped storage hydroelectric systems or expanded to their 30 GW potential, cellulosic ethanol from the recently-published breakthrough in genetically modified lignin Poplar trees, recovered methane from landfills, cattle lots, and methane from reprocessing of bio-sludge, fossil fuel reserves can be extended for many, many years.   Even if such reserves were to finally deplete and no new technologies can be found to recover, for example, the 50 percent of oil that is estimated to remain in depleted oil fields, and methane hydrates are found to ultimately be uneconomic to recover, the renewables and regenerated fuels will be here forever.  

The municipal solid waste as a renewable fuel has great potential.  A U.S. utility patent, 7,452,392, was issued in 2008 to Peter A. Nick and his team of Southern California chemical engineers.  The system produces a medium-Btu gas from waste, and produces power by burning the gas in a power plant.  

Converting carbon dioxide to methane can be accomplished with cheap power at night, perhaps from wind.   The wind energy would split water to form hydrogen, then combine the CO2 with the hydrogen to yield methane and water.  

This has focused on the USA, to this point.  The rest of the world also has similar opportunities.  Conversion of sewage sludge to methane requires first that the sewage be captured and treated.  From there, the conversion to methane is straightforward.  Landfill and cattle waste methane are certainly available world-wide.   Different geographic features will dictate what each country selects as its power source.  It may be solar in the Sahara, for example.

Worldwide, the most significant ocean current in the world has the potential for vast electrical generation.  That current is the Southern Current, that circles the entire continent of Antarctica.  While it is in a remote area, the potential is incredible.   Similarly, the wind also blows strong and steady around Antarctica, in what are referred to as the Roaring Forties.  

The reality of renewable, and regenerated, power is the costs per kWh are steadily declining.  Meanwhile, the cost to construct nuclear power plants is increasing.  The beauty of renewable and regenerated power is there are no radiation concerns, and no long-term toxic spent fuel concerns.   

The future looks bright, indeed. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Marina del Rey, California

Bad News for Nuclear - Natural Gas from Sludge

Subtitle:  Steam Hydrogasification Places Upper Limit on Natural Gas Price

One of the arguments made by nuclear power proponents is that nuclear is very profitable when natural gas prices are high.  They maintain that natural gas prices have been high in the past, and although low at the moment, the prices will rise again.  On this basis, they maintain that nuclear power plants should be built and operated now.  

It is interesting to consider the problem.  Natural gas in large quantities causes the price to drop, which is not news but is basic economics of supply and demand.   For many decades, natural gas wells produced an adequate supply and the price was low.  But,

Waste Treatment Plant - source: EPA

conventional gas wells began to have production declines and the gas price increased.  Then, a fairly new technology was applied, hydraulic fracturing, and more natural gas is available today from shale formations.  Natural gas prices is once again very low, at approximately $4 per million Btu - US prices.   Overseas prices are somewhat higher.  

Recent research conducted by Dr. Chan Park of University of California at Riverside shows promise in producing methane from the sludge from waste treatment plants.  See link.   I was privileged to hear Dr. Park make a presentation a few months ago to chemical engineers, in which he described the research, the current status, and the encouraging economics and yields.   The process was evaluated by the US Department of Energy, DOE, who had this to say:

"The steam hydrogasification reaction, which CERT engineers began developing in 2005, has been found to be 12 percent more efficient, with 18 percent lower capital costs, compared to other mainstream gasification technologies when evaluated by the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy."

Dr. Park has patented the process, which turns any carbonaceous material including waste from yards, wood, food, sewage sludge, into transportation fuels or natural gas (methane).   The pilot plant stage is completed, and the demonstration plant is now in process.  An agreement with the City of Riverside, California, has been reached in which raw material, sludge, will be provided from the waste treatment plant.  

With further development, Dr. Park's SHG process (steam hydrogasification) will produce commercial quantities of methane.  The process is renewable, the feedstock is virtually free, and as long as people eat and excrete, the sludge will be available.  

The natural gas from the process would be priced at approximately $7 per million Btu, as I recall Dr. Park's presentation.  That places an upper limit on natural gas pricing, which effectively eliminates the hopes of the nuclear power advocates for ever being able to compete in the electricity market.  

i have no commercial interest in the SHG process, nor any agreement with Dr. Park.  I would invite any readers who are interested to contact Dr. Park, especially those who might want to invest.   This is a technology that is sound, based on fundamental chemical engineering principals, and has great promise.   Contact information can be found at the UCR website: see link. 

The greatest benefit, though, is it puts another nail in the nuclear coffin. 

See previous article on Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete: (see link)


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California