October 02, 2008
Below are a few letters we received on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Buffett Makes Bid for Constellation - September 26, 2008
MidAmerican is a very regional player whereas Constellation is a national player. MidAmerican often loses business to Constellation, because it lacks the ability to handle the complex deals. With Constellation and MidAmerican married, MidAmerican will have the opportunity to compete on the national stage, which is something that they had been unable to do effectively.
Sean Reilly, CEM
This is why the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) should not have been repealed. The electric utility industry is critical to our nation and should not have it's assets pledged to support high risk ventures outside the industry. It is fine if Buffet or Constellation want to invest in regulated electric utility endeavors to get a return on utility assets, but they should not be allowed to leverage utility assets to pursue unregulated and risky investments.
Jim White, P.E.
Promising Shale Foundations - September 19, 2008
When you prepared this glowing review of gas shale drilling, did you even consider the consequences or costs documented in the article linked here? Your description leads one to believe that this process is issue free and it is not. It takes tremendous quantities of water, pollutes that water and much of the water throughout the well hole column to the bottom and may destroy more resources than it makes available. Please be more balanced in your reporting.
Chet McLaughlin, PE
The alarmist statement below by an environmental attorney for the great name 'Natural Resources Defense Council' is not only without merit, it embarrasses the other good, talented, and well informed experts associated with NRDC.
"Horizontal gas drilling carries the risk contaminating the drinking water supply that serves half of the state -- including all of New York City -- with dangerous chemicals," says Kate Sinding, staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The state needs to determine what regulatory revisions are required to establish an appropriate system for regulating the drilling to make sure it's practiced in a way that is environmentally sound and allows for meaningful public participation."
The Biggest risk to NYC water is contamination by 'beaver fever' and airborne coal ash (loaded with mercury, et al.)
Tight Shale is not a water bearing strata, and it is much deeper than any aquifer.
Keith E Bowers
Your article left out some critical information. I'm afraid we're getting more desperate for solutions, and are all too willing to jump on the shale bandwagon without carefully considering the downsides:
- A May 2008 analysis by Larry Benedetto, Howard Weil Incorporated, shows that the typical gas shale decline rate is a startling 65% the first year. And although U.S. natural gas production overall is up -- due to the Barnett -- we are nonetheless in an "exploration treadmill," drilling more and more wells for less and less gas.
- According to recently retired Senior Geologist (33 years) and Potential Gas Team Lead (8 years) for the Canadian Geological Survey, Dave Hughes:
- the number of wells drilled in the U.S. (and Canada) has tripled, but production is flat;
- average well depth has increased 43% since 1993 (per Raymond James in a presentation in February 2004 sponsored by NETL);
- and well depletion rates are a stunning 28% every year! -- meaning that the average well is completely depleted in 3-4 years.
- So we're supposed to believe that shale gas, which experts agree may start to deplete as soon as next year, will last for the next 30 years? Take a closer look at the person who is making this amazing claim, Aubrey McClendon. Mr. McClendon's personal net worth is about $3 billion (yes, billion) and he has single-handedly bankrolled the euphemistically-named American Clean Skies Foundation with profits from Chesapeake Energy, worth $30 billion. And that optimistic report from Navigant? Why, it was bankrolled by McClendon!
Can you connect the dots?
The other thing that isn't mentioned is that drilling for shale gas is dirty, polluting, uses a lot of water, and is creating havoc in neighborhoods in Ft. Worth Texas, where some residents have gas rigs just outside the front door. Gas companies often don't reveal what chemicals they are using, so researchers can only guess about toxic effe! cts. Conventional gas production and distribution adds another 24% of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the National Renewable Energy Lab -- so that carbon dioxide reduction of 50% as compared to coal is cut in half.
And most natural gas is used for gas peaking turbines, so the emissions are even higher.
What do you think clean water is worth? More than a few more years' worth of a rapidly depleting fossil resource that is poisoning our air and water?
We need energy sources that will not destroy the planet, exacerbate global warming, cost a lot of money, and run out.
Nancy LaPlaca, J.D.
Energy Consultant
Bardwell Consulting Ltd.
Lighting Up the Campaign Trail - September 17, 2008
Fortunately the November election is about more than energy, because if energy were the key issue - which it isn't - I would forget that I am a Democrat and prefer McCain and Palin. What has been overlooked by many Democrats is that economics is not about 'affordable' choices, but about OPTIMAL choices. For the record, the optimal choice here is an inexpensive and reliable energy base, on top of which are such things as the decreased use of fossil fuels and the increased use of renewables. The inexpensive and reliable base that I am thinking of is nuclear, by which I mean at least as much nuclear as today, and probably somewhat more. What is the justification for this claim? Well, in the best energy forum - EnergyPulse - Len Gould cited a case in which it only required 4 years from 'ground-break' to grid power for a (CANDU) nuclear facility, and it is certain that eventually that period will be reduced to less than 4 years. Combine that prospect with a reactor 'life' of ! at least 70 years, in conjunction with the verified amount of uranium and thorium reserves, and the result is the most inexpensive electric power (which has also received an environmental OK from the founder of GreenPeace). What about reliability? The Swedish nuclear sector demonstrated what could be accomplished here - before deregulation and Sweden joining the EU of course.
Ferdinand E. Banks
Uppsala, Sweden
Storing Green Energy - September 12, 2008
So, let me get this straight. The plan is to take marginal forms of energy production (wind - only available 30% of the time with actual capacity factors of 15% being more realistic or solar - only available 40% of the time and then only operating at 10% efficiency) and further reduce their efficiency by using this power to compress air which will then be avaialble to be used within the next 26 hours. And this is going to be cost effective? Well, I guess if it only replaces peak power which is selling at a huge mark up.
Why not just use excess energy from nuke plants. Their efficiencies are in the order of 40% and their capacity factors are 95%. Then you wouldn't have to worry about cloudy or windless days. Am I missing something here? Or is this all just a Rube Goldberg way of avoiding construction of new nuclear plants?
Paul Stevens
Senior Technical Officer
Fire Protection
The sodium salt storage strategy associated with solar thermal generation appears to be the most efficient (lowest cost) out there. Heating the melted salt from its ~500 degF low temperature to the 1000+ degF high temperature limit (where it's still liquid), the heat can be retained economically loosing less than 1%/day. Given the power to run compressors, it appears that it could be better to use perfectly efficient resistance heating for eutectic salt energy storage because more will come back, the storage capital cost is lower, and there's more flexibility to configure the storage for longer black-out periods. The fact that creating the heat is so cheap with solar only adds to the appeal of this strategy.
But that's in general. Since there can be niches that the compressed air strategy makes better sense, it would be helpful for your sources to identify them - it would add a dimension to the coverage.
Jeff Sutter
Respond to the editor.
