Notes On Texas Tea
It’s my guess that there are a good deal more producable hydrocarbons in the subsurface than most people estimate. 70 percent of sedimentary rocks are shales – a type of fine-grained, low-porosity rock that has been classically viewed as a trap for hydrocarbons. I.e., the oil and gas flows through coarser sandstones and is held in place by overlying shales for people to dig it out from the high-porosity rocks. Now it turns out that shales themselves can house gas by the boatload (e.g. the Barnett Shale in North Texas). New (1990s-era) stimulation techniques have turned 70 percent of the sedimentary rocks out there, previously thought to be barren of useful hydrocarbons, into potential reservoirs. (I exaggerate: nobody is saying all shales will produce like the Barnett. Still, it seems there is lots of carbon left to burn.)
As someone who believes in the link between CO2 emissions and climate change, this is bittersweet news to me. I think we can make natural gas a long-term (five decades, say), affordable energy source. Most Republicans seem to agree, and so: the motion to remove the restrictions on US offshore drilling. I think we’re going to cook ourselves to death. The emissions we’ve belched out since the start of the Industrial Revolution were enough to melt the icecaps, and we have not yet begun to fight. Economic recovery and expansion in India and China, in combination with a fancy new hydrocarbon production technique, will probably mean we’ll emit more CO2 in the future than we have in the past. We may well make the Earth too hot a place to live, and in a hundred years our planet will be as life-sustaining as Venus.
That’s obviously a worst-case scenario, and most experts’ predictions aren’t quite so sour. But even environmental rose-tinters can pick their reason of the day to kick the carbon habit. National security. Economic stability (though like I said above, the key to that, for now, seems to be dig more up). Conventional pollution (air quality, Exxon Valdezes, etc.). Ancillary benefits of technological innovation.
Still, it’s not unreasonable, today, to be environmentally and economically rosy, and lots of people are. Oil leaks into the ocean naturally, from seeps. More CO2 is emitted by volcanoes than vehicles. Ice has been disappearing since the Ice Age. Once oil becomes too expensive we’ll naturally move to an alternative. Let the market work. Et cetera. And perhaps we’re seeing the market work now: SUV sales are down, and hybrid sales up, with gasoline at $4/gallon. But right now, with offshore drilling on the table, Americans have the choice between continuing our progress away from oil and gas, which even geological optimists like me must admit has to continue at some point, or we can open the Pandora’s Box that is offshore drilling, committing substantial infrastructure towards digging up more hydrocarbons that we’re darn-sure gonna burn.
How easy would it be to let the remaining oil and gas lie, and diversify our nation’s energy resources? Writing for Physics Today, Thomas W. Murphy, Jr. estimates it would take solar panels covering an area of the southwest about 160 km by 160 km to entirely cover our nation’s electricity usage. A large area, yes, but: entirely. T. Boone Pickens writes:
which makes no literal sense, but he seems to be saying that wind energy has potential for supplying non-trivial amounts of electricity. Geothermal energy is clean and cost-effective. This blog has argued for expansion of nuclear energy in the past.
There is no rule saying that we can’t both drill offshore and develop these alternative energy sources. For those who say oil use isn’t environmentally pernicious, I can only ask that they meet me at this halfway mark. But if hydrocarbon emissions are influencing the climate, then offshore drilling and any other further serious investment into getting more oil and gas out of the ground are likely to exacerbate the effects intensely especially with increased demand from the East. We need to curb our emissions, quickly.
Our president agrees – in theory. He is, however, “realistic enough to tell you that if China and India don't share that same aspiration, that we're not going to solve the problem.”
If we don’t solve the problem, it will be because the people who had the ability to do something about their oil addiction, and therefore to show budding economies by example how green technology can work, chose not to. Chose not to tackle the problem, others’ reluctance notwithstanding. Chose not to undertake the difficult task in favor of the quick fix. Chose not to – what’s the word? – lead.
Don’t take my word for it:
http://www.bseec.org/
Murphy, Jr., Thomas W. “Home photovoltaic systems for physicists.” Physics Today, July 2008, p. 42-7.
http://www.pickensplan.com/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/07/business/AS-G-8-Bush.php
As someone who believes in the link between CO2 emissions and climate change, this is bittersweet news to me. I think we can make natural gas a long-term (five decades, say), affordable energy source. Most Republicans seem to agree, and so: the motion to remove the restrictions on US offshore drilling. I think we’re going to cook ourselves to death. The emissions we’ve belched out since the start of the Industrial Revolution were enough to melt the icecaps, and we have not yet begun to fight. Economic recovery and expansion in India and China, in combination with a fancy new hydrocarbon production technique, will probably mean we’ll emit more CO2 in the future than we have in the past. We may well make the Earth too hot a place to live, and in a hundred years our planet will be as life-sustaining as Venus.
That’s obviously a worst-case scenario, and most experts’ predictions aren’t quite so sour. But even environmental rose-tinters can pick their reason of the day to kick the carbon habit. National security. Economic stability (though like I said above, the key to that, for now, seems to be dig more up). Conventional pollution (air quality, Exxon Valdezes, etc.). Ancillary benefits of technological innovation.
Still, it’s not unreasonable, today, to be environmentally and economically rosy, and lots of people are. Oil leaks into the ocean naturally, from seeps. More CO2 is emitted by volcanoes than vehicles. Ice has been disappearing since the Ice Age. Once oil becomes too expensive we’ll naturally move to an alternative. Let the market work. Et cetera. And perhaps we’re seeing the market work now: SUV sales are down, and hybrid sales up, with gasoline at $4/gallon. But right now, with offshore drilling on the table, Americans have the choice between continuing our progress away from oil and gas, which even geological optimists like me must admit has to continue at some point, or we can open the Pandora’s Box that is offshore drilling, committing substantial infrastructure towards digging up more hydrocarbons that we’re darn-sure gonna burn.
How easy would it be to let the remaining oil and gas lie, and diversify our nation’s energy resources? Writing for Physics Today, Thomas W. Murphy, Jr. estimates it would take solar panels covering an area of the southwest about 160 km by 160 km to entirely cover our nation’s electricity usage. A large area, yes, but: entirely. T. Boone Pickens writes:
The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from
wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a
quarter of the country.
which makes no literal sense, but he seems to be saying that wind energy has potential for supplying non-trivial amounts of electricity. Geothermal energy is clean and cost-effective. This blog has argued for expansion of nuclear energy in the past.
There is no rule saying that we can’t both drill offshore and develop these alternative energy sources. For those who say oil use isn’t environmentally pernicious, I can only ask that they meet me at this halfway mark. But if hydrocarbon emissions are influencing the climate, then offshore drilling and any other further serious investment into getting more oil and gas out of the ground are likely to exacerbate the effects intensely especially with increased demand from the East. We need to curb our emissions, quickly.
Our president agrees – in theory. He is, however, “realistic enough to tell you that if China and India don't share that same aspiration, that we're not going to solve the problem.”
If we don’t solve the problem, it will be because the people who had the ability to do something about their oil addiction, and therefore to show budding economies by example how green technology can work, chose not to. Chose not to tackle the problem, others’ reluctance notwithstanding. Chose not to undertake the difficult task in favor of the quick fix. Chose not to – what’s the word? – lead.
Don’t take my word for it:
http://www.bseec.org/
Murphy, Jr., Thomas W. “Home photovoltaic systems for physicists.” Physics Today, July 2008, p. 42-7.
http://www.pickensplan.com/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/07/business/AS-G-8-Bush.php
posted by john at
2:42 PM
1 Comments:
and you wonder why you got stuck in whatever country it was! total conspiracy! hasn't the government taught you to not communicate and think at the same time?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home