So, it should come as very little surprise that the nuclear industry has the same ‘flexible’ view on ethics, legality and basic decency when dealing with its own people. In fact, not even the CEO of France’s nuclear giant, Areva, was safe: the Financial Times has recently revealed a catalogue of incompetence, espionage and massive financial failure (follow-up article) swirling around the French nuclear industry:

• Areva purchased a uranium mine for €1.8 billion that was valued at only €1.4 million two years earlier
• after purchase of the mine it became apparent that it contained a fraction of the uranium deposits that the Areva board believed
• a senior Areva executive was exposed as having hired a Swiss private investigation firm to spy on then Areva CEO, Anne Lauvergeon (known as ‘Atomic Anne’ in France)
• Lauvergeon alleges that her husband’s phone was hacked as part of this and is now starting legal proceedings
• the web of intrigue goes as high as the president of France, Sarkozy, who became personally involved when he forced Lauvergeon out and installed a friend of his, Henri Proglio who also happens to be CEO of EDF, one of the largest energy companies in France and the UK
• Areva have now written off almost €2 billion as a result of the failed uranium mine purchase, amid accusations of fraud – although no evidence for this has been revealed so far

This debacle is piled on top of the disastrous nuclear projects that are unravelling in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France where Areva are trying to build their new “Nuclear Renaissance” power plants.

It all paints a picture of a desperate industry in turmoil as nuclear power continues its long-term trend of global decline, with the IEA reporting that nuclear is down 10% year-on-year as renewable energy climbs 24%. Given that the industry operates more like a crime syndicate than a legitimate business, it is a little difficult to feel any sympathy.

Along with flying atomic cars and glittering cities on the Moon, the claims of “unlimited, clean and safe energy” that is “too cheap to meter” that the nuclear lobby began promising in the 1950s have been utterly discredited. Let’s hope that the nuclear piranhas continue eating their own and finish themselves off quickly so that the planet can focus its full resources on deploying clean, safe and truly sustainable renewable energy in order to mitigate the worst of climate change.

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

“Greenpeace activists secretly entered a French nuclear site before dawn and draped a banner reading “Coucou” and “Facile”, (meaning “Hey” and “Easy”) on its reactor containment building, to expose the vulnerability of atomic sites in the country,” AJE reports.

Greenpeace’s point with this action was to highlight the vulnerability of nuclear plants and to criticize France’s failure to have proper safety procedures against terrorists. “This action shows just how vulnerable the French nuclear plants are,’ said Sophia Majnoni d’Intignano from Greenpeace in a statement. D’Intignano said that French nuclear plants are considered safe just because it is believed that they can withstand a flood or an earthquake. “But those aren’t the real risks for our nuclear industry,” D’Intignano said. “It’s the risk of [an] external, non-natural attack, like the risk of terrorism.”

Safety experts have warned about the threat of terrorism to nuclear reactors before. The Italian nuclear engineer and safety expert Cesare Silvi says that the threat of terrorism is one of the reasons why he left his former pro-nuclear stance for solar and other renewable energy sources.

I am sure many of us agree that it would be a good idea to have a strong protection against outside threats, such as terrorism, at our nuclear power plants. And I am also sure that many people would claim that their country’s nuclear safety is in good standard. But apparently this is not the case for nuclear plants in France, and potentially other countries as well. For example, the UK government excluded terrorism as one of the things to consider when they participated in the European wide nuclear stress tests after the Fukushima accident. In fact, most nuclear operators around Europe never stress tested their plants vulnerability against technological or human threats such as a nuclear reactor being struck by a large aircraft.

The proposed energy plan would have four central deadlines. Under the new plan the government wants to see Denmark generate 52% of its energy from renewable sources, such as wind power, as early as 2020. This target alone would cut Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions with 35% based on 1990 levels. By 2030 all coal-fired power plants in Denmark will be phased out and replaced by biomass and other renewable energy sources. And in 2035 the Danish government expects that all of the country’s power and heat will come from renewable energy sources. And if their plan is followed, the country’s entire energy supply could come from renewables in 2050.

Denmark’s climate minister, Martin Lidegaard, said that the new energy plan is designed to combat the climate crisis, the country’s current economic crisis and future resource crisis at the same time.

“We want to address all three crises at once. It doesn’t make any sense to solve the economic crisis if that affects the climate crisis and vice versa.”

According to estimates the energy plan will cost Denmark 5.6 billion crowns, or about $1 billion, in additional spending in 2020.

“The conclusion being it has a cost to make a green transformation, but it also has a cost not to do it. I think this will work out to be the best insurance Denmark has ever (bought),” Lidegaard said.

Denmark may already be a world leader when it comes to wind energy, which supplies the country with around 20% of its energy, but these targets will still be difficult to reach. Fossil fuels remain a large part of the country’s energy portfolio, accounting for approximately two thirds of the total production. Last year 44% of the energy generated in Denmark came from coal-powered plants.

But still faced with this I am confident that Denmark’s energy plan is very much achievable. Truthfully, it must be a success. And since neighboring country Sweden has lost the will to lead, Europe badly needs a new climate leader. And hopefully the new socialistic government in Denmark wants to take that on that role. Next year Denmark will take over the presidency of the European Union. It will be during these six months that we will see if Denmark is serious about promoting ambitious climate policies and targets for all of Europe.

They have chosen to label the Tar sands as “ethical oil” on the basis that it is not “conflict oil” as well Canadians, aren’t they all friendly and green and everything? Well actually no! Much of the fossil fuels consumed in America (oil, gas and coal) comes from North of the border, as Canada compete with Venezuela for the title of America’s leading source of energy imports (and thus the primary source of America’s carbon addiction). In addition much of the Uranium that powers America (and Canada’s) nuclear reactors comes from Canadian mines. Northern Canada is also home to many large open cast mines for various minerals. I would also note that energy consumption of the average Canadian is actually higher than that of the average American  (7.4 toe for Canada against 7 for the US). Finally I would note that like any country Canada is made up of different provinces with very different regimes in each state. Alberta province, where the Tar sands are based, happens to be the most right wing state in the Union with the worst environmental record. Indeed they are often described as the “Canadian Texas”.

Should anyone reading this be unfamiliar with the whole tar sands controversy, tar sands are basically a mixture of moisture, soil, sand, clay and heavy oil. They are usually the consequence of oil escaping at some point in the past from its underground source rock and migrated up to the surface. Here it became mixed with the soil and also came under attack from the biosphere. Given a few more hundreds of thousands of years it would all get broken down into an unusable form (this is the same mechanism that has over the last 250 million years destroyed much of the oil that ever formed on this world, only a tiny fraction survived to the present day). Extracting oil from Tar sands, the world largest and most accessible deposits are in the Athabasca region of Northern Canada, is more of an open cast mining operation. This would involve tearing down large quantities of pristine old growth boreal forests, possibly an area the size of the England and Wales may ultimately be destroyed.

The major problem with the Tar sands is thus, the enormous environmental pollution caused by this mining and processing, see here for a summary of the problems it creates and see pictures of the destruction here. Or actually just go to Google Earth and pop in “Fort McMurray”. I don’t need to be any more specific than that, as they are literally creating a mess big enough to see from space! Also this processing consumes large quantities of energy, meaning you’re energy payback from oil sands (EROEI) isn’t nearly as good than you get with conventional oil (indeed it may prove to be an order of magnitude less). This also means you need a substantial source of energy to power you’re oil sands extraction process, and the carbon emissions resulting from this process are increased (some figures say Tars sands produces 20%  to four times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional oil, depending on who you ask). It also requires substantial quantities of water, both to aid in oil processing, but also to “flush” away the many chemicals contained within the associated tailings (which can include a toxic mix of known or suspected carcinogens, heavy metals, POP’s, arsenic, etc.)….this “flush” often seeing large amounts of sediment laden with toxins finding its way into mountain rivers and streams. In short if you think the conventional oil production is bad, Tar sands are much worse. An order of magnitude increase in Tar sands production will produce a significant spike in pollution (again in the middle of an boreal wilderness) and carbon dioxide levels (Guardian article on the Canadian governments to hide these facts here). It is no wonder that environmentalist recoil in horror.

So I think we can safely say that from an environmental prospective this “ethical oil” claim is completely unjustified, unless you consider destroying one of the world’s last great wildernesses while clubbing baby seals to death (another Canadian “pastime”) as “ethical”! But what about this claim that Canadian Tar Sands isn’t “conflict” oil? They put a picture of Hugo Chavez on one poster under the term “conflict oil” then imply that Canadian oil is conflict free. Let’s pick that one apart. Who exactly is Venezuela at war with? While they are having a few border disputes with Colombia, as far as I’m aware the country is not engaged in any formal conflict, nor significant informal conflict with any of his neighbours. Ironically of course Canada has troops serving in Afghanistan, whose presence there is ultimately funded in part by revenue raised by the Tar sands. So actually if you want to buy “non-conflict oil” my advice would be to give Hugo a call and the Canadians a miss.

The also accuse Hugo Chavez, in the poster, of promoting “forced labour”. While I’m not necessarily a fan of old Hugo, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of his regime, which has sought to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor. By contrast a bunch of labour union supporters showed up at the Occupy Calgary camp  recently to highlight the problems they face with Alberta’s lax protections of employee rights. I also recall meeting during my travels a year or so ago in Canada, a local farmer who was ultimately in danger of loosing his land to the tar sands through a compulsory purchase order they we’re likely to hit him with. Pushing farmers and locals off their land so multinationals can exploit oil reserves (under the farmer’s feet mind!) doesn’t quite fit in with the “ethical oil” image I think. In short you could easily reverse many of these posters and accuse Canada of being the warmongering nation with a dreadful environmental record who tramples on human rights and pushes people off their land.

Indeed reading through this “ethical oil” propaganda there seems to me to be a dangerous and bigoted undercurrent. They tar (oh! the irony!) all the OPEC countries with the same Saudi brush (awful of course tho the Saudi’s human rights record is), ignoring the diverse nature of the many Middle East nations (and their attiudes to Islam or womens rights). And of course not all OPEC states are in the Middle East nor are they Muslim! And the world’s largest oil producer? Russia!

So what these “Ethical oil” lot seem to be saying is that oil pumped by white anglo-saxons is ethically and morally superior to that pumped by those nasty evil foreigners with their dark skin, strange religions and funny languages. I’ve not come across such fascist crap and misinformed bigotry since I last saw a Mel Gibson film. And again ironically, if this is the intended point our “ethical oil” spinster’s are making, then even this is factually inaccurate. The bulk of the finance behind the Tar sands is coming not from Canada, but from abroad (economist article mentions that here). Chinese, Russian, Indian and American firms are indeed all major investors in the tar sands (see wiki page here for info and links on this). Indeed I would argue that the problem for the Canadians here is they are loosing control of the situation. Ultimately decisions on the Tar sands (how much will be produced and how bad the environmental mess which the Canadians will have to clean up afterwards) will be made in foreign countries by foreign multinationals.

In fact can I play this game too? I could for example come up with a poster labelling Canada brutal treatment of native Americans in past centuries, or indeed the present day (one tribe down river from the Tar sands (Fort Mckay) have had their water source polluted by Tar sands runoff with a growing cancer cell springing up) with Saudi Arabia who are so multicultural they actually prefer to hire workers from India or Pakistan  Or how about their positive attitude towards women, while Canadian women are forced to drive their own cars, the Saudi’s provide their women with chauffeurs and male chaperons instead Yes buy Saudi oil, the “ethical” oil!

Jokes aside, the fact is there is no such thing as “ethical oil”. The stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in Canada is as dirty as the stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in the Middle East, possibly dirtier in fact.

But we need those jobs here in Canada, the Tar sands supporters will say, if the tar sands aren’t promoted all those jobs will go abroad along with North America’s energy security. And how many jobs could be created if Canada exploited instead its vast renewable energy potential? North America has some of the best and most varied renewable resources on the planet, if only our American cousins would only get over their whole “real men don’t use solar panels” attitude. And if the point of tar sands oil is to improve north American energy security then why are they building pipelines to Texas and West Coast ports from the tar sands? That sort of implies that the bulk of the oil will ulitmately be exported, or at the very least if America wants the oil it will have to pay the market price (which could be high in the future).

But we need the Tar sands to rescue the world from peak oil, is the other argument. Again, as will all tar sands propaganda this one too falls flat. I’ve seen estimates for the maximum tar sands ranging from 1 million bbl/day to 8 million bbl/day with 5m bbl/day often been quoted as a “best guess”. However this is but 6% of the current global demand of around 80million bbl/day and even that 8m bbl/day figure (wildly optimistic thought it is) is but 8% of the projected 2030 demand figure for oil of 100million bbl/day. Were does the other 94-96% of the world’s oil come from?

Furthermore, again we have to consider the issue of EROEI. I’ve seen EROEI estimates for the tar sands ranging from 9 to 0.7 (with a ratio in the range of 3-7 being probably a more credible range of values), substantially worse than any existing oil fields (EROEI ranging from 10 – 100). Remember that because an IC engine is typically just 20-30% efficient (and the primary consumption path of oil is ultimately transport fuels) we need to achieve an EROEI of at least 5-3.3 just to break even energy wise (else our tar sands count as a net energy sink rather than a source).

Inevitably the above means we’ll need to divert huge quantities of natural gas to power the whole operation. Indeed its questionably if there is sufficient quantities of gas (or coal) to spare within the whole of North America – a fear that seems justified given recent talk about bringing in nuclear reactors to meet demand. When I first heard about this plan to use nukes to extract tar sands I assumed it was a hoax perpetrated by Republicans trying to yank Greenpeace’s chain, but unfortunately no its for real. Of course even a number of pro-nuclear campaigners aren’t entirely happy about this one, describing it to me as “perverse” and “an abuse of nuclear technology”. After all, it involves (as they see it) taking high grade zero-carbon nuclear energy and using it to produce a load of low grade carbon intensive energy! Would you not be better just building reactors closer to cities and generating electricity and heat they argue? When the nuclear lobby calls you environmental terrorists you know you’re goose is cooked! And of course I would point out, ridiculous as this idea is, it can only be sustained as long as we can keep feeding Uranium into the nuclear reactors. And who is going to pay the decommissioning costs of those reactors and what happens if one of them pops its cork in the middle of the Canadian Boreal forests?

While nuclear power would reduce the net carbon output from the Tar sands we are still looking at a situation where the tar sands will still produce much more greenhouse gases, both from disturbance to the eco system as well as from the oil itself and the refining and processing of it, compared to existing oilfields. A global policy of climate change mitigation and tar sands (or shale gas) extraction are simply not compatible.

The Tar sands are thus in summary not ethical, not eco friendly, not a solution to peak oil and arguably not even Canadian anymore! The only people who will ultimately gain from tar sands extraction are the shareholders of a small number of foreign multinational oil companies…or certainty greedy PR types happy to sell their souls and they’re nation’s credibility for a few (tar splattered) bucks.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system that will transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States and then expand to the U.S Gulf Coast. The U.S Department of State has extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. The Obama administration has the final say in approving the pipeline. A final environmental review of the prospective project is expected from the State Department in August.

The Partnership to Fuel America campaign is the first time the U.S Chamber has overtly aligned with the Canadian company’s project. According to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, it will be “comprised of American businesses and industries that understand the need for more energy in the United States and believe that Canada’s significant resources can help achieve that goal.” When visiting The Partnership to Fuel America’s website, the only source of energy listed at Canada’s tar sands, and most listed are directly related to the Keystone XL project.

This particular pipeline is controversial because it is a tar sands pipeline, it’s different than those that carry conventional crude oil. These lines are much more prone to leaks and spills, and spills are bad for the environment. Because this is a tar sands pipeline, the oil that is extracted is different. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

This type of oil is more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. It is up to sevety times more viscous than conventional crude oil. It also contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentration, and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crude oil. The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening of pipelines. Imagine having to transport a glass of water in a paper cup by driving out of your garage door to the other side of the country without even a spill. The chemical composition also makes it much more difficult for monitors to detect a crack in the pipeline.

The Keystone I pipeline has infamously spilled twelve times in under a year of operation. The company had initially claimed that the pipeline would leak only once every seven years. Finally, after the tar sands oil does spill, cleanup is harder than normal crude spills. A year after a spill in Western Michigan, one reporter stated that surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists were still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. They now believe a full clean up could take years.

But, and this is the largest ‘but’ I will ever type, the technology still has some immense hurdles to cross yet.

Nuclear fusion, in layman’s terms, has all the benefits of nuclear fission, our current nuclear energy source, but with none of the radioactive material which will have an environmental impact lasting far past the life time of our children’s children.

Nuclear fusion is the chemical process where two lighter nuclei are essentially slammed together with such force that they fuse into one heavier nucleus. As they fuse they emit large quantities of energy.

Nuclear fusion is occurring in the Sun, a process called nucleosynthesis, the heat and light released in the reaction allowing life on Earth to flourish.

Having a stable reaction here on Earth is incredibly difficult as there are no materials able to withstand temperatures in excess of 100 million Kelvin which nuclear fusion reactions can reach.

This means that these plasmas need to be contained in an electric field with no part of the reactor in contact with the fusion reaction.

The two nuclei that come together can be no heavier than iron, with hydrogen atoms, the lightest element the usual candidate making the potential source of fuel for a fusion reactor the most abundant element in the Universe. Nuclear energy sources will no longer be shackled to scarce uranium deposits and suddenly we can look to the oceans for our energy.

The president of the Institute of Physics, Sir Peter Knight, claimed that a demonstration plant would be operational within the next 18 months, showing that in principle fusion can generate more energy than is required to start and maintain the fusion reaction.

He hopes that by demonstrating that this is possible, the first step to scaling the process up will begin and then the enormous benefits of fusion can be realised.

Of course however, it is not that straight forward. It never is.

Even if it possible to utilise nuclear fusion to its full potential and generate massive quantities of accessible, clean, cheap electricity we do not have the ability to effectively utilise this electricity.

Our cars and lorries currently require petrol or diesel, we have gas boilers to heat our water and warm our homes, our planes need aviation fuel to fly etc.

One solution to this, as David MacKay writes in his beguiling and sometimes scary book, Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, is to electrify as many devices as possible.

This means electric: cars; trams; boilers; machinery; ships; all lighting; heaters; you name it, everything. If fusion can provide clean, cheap, accessible electricity then everything that can use batteries, should.

Job done you might think. But then there is the very obvious question:

Is it possible to produce all the batteries needed?

And the simple answer is, no. Not in the form that batteries are currently produced. There are just not enough of the rare earth metals, such as lithium, needed to produce the batteries to substitute all our energy sources. Some people highlight the fact that we will just shift our economy and lifestyle from one dependent on oil to one dependent on rare earth metals.

So, to sum up this rather dispirited article, there have been some bold claims made recently that critical advances are occurring in our fifty year exploration for nuclear fusion. If the incredible is achieved however, there are enormous obstacles to overcome both technically and in our natural resources.

It is my opinion that it is our lifestyle, which is currently so tightly bound to high energy consumption, which is our true Achilles Heel. By reducing our energy consumption we liberate ourselves from the need for complex, technical, and possibly impossible solutions to our energy problems. Fusion may solve some of our energy problems, but it won’t solve them all.

The Chinese government announced this on the back of record investment in renewable technology in 2010 overtaking the U.S. for the first time in 2010 with an astounding $54.4Bn being invested in the renewable sector. This compares with the US at $34Bn and the UK about a tenth of that at $3.3Bn. $54.8Bn equates to about 56,000MW of installed hydro power, 44,000MW of installed wind capacity and 800MW of installed solar power. The BBC reported that a total of $211Bn was invested globally last year with a 32% growth rate in the renewable sector. Using my back of the envelope calculation, this equates to the renewable market doubling every two-and-a-bit years, a formidable growth.

China, it would seem, is a good place to invest in renewable technology. So good in fact, that back in June of this year the World Bank awarded China and seven other countries grants to be used directly in organising, implementing and developing climate change mitigation technologies.

This all sounds very promising but, as with nearly every bit of good news, there is an important addendum which highlights a more subdued reality. Last year China emitted 7.7Bn tonnes of carbon equivalent which is a 13.3% increase on last year’s total. Since 2000 China’s CO2 emissions have risen by 170.6% and have been closely related to the country’s Gross Domestic Product growth. This is why the huge investment in renewable technologies is so important, as it is the only way to break the link between carbon emissions and GDP growth. In a world where GDP growth is king, the Chinese government could be showing the way in sustainable energy production and low carbon emissions.

The coming few years are going to be very interesting.

Calculation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of leaked natural gas

Natural gas is about 85% methane (CH4) and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 2.75 tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus gas is not “clean” as asserted by pro-gas lobbyists and politicians and is in fact a dirty source of energy. However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be 3.3% in the US from US EPA data) [1], then one must also consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect of the leaked methane which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale with aerosol impacts included [2-5]. These considerations render false the position of pro-gas lobbyists who plead for a coal to gas transition, falsely arguing that gas burning is “cleaner” than coal burning.

Thus in Victoria, Australia, gas-fired power stations (0.60 – 0.90 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, average 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) are roughly twice as efficient in producing energy as brown coal-burning power stations (1.21-1.53 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) according to a report by Green Energy Markets commissioned by Environment Victoria (EV) [6]. However, at a systemic leakage of 0.94% the GHG pollution due to gas-fired power would roughly double to about 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, equivalent to that of Hazelwood, the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Victoria.

If the systemic gas leakage rate is 3.3% (US average) then the combustion of gas for power would 2.3 times as dirty GHG-wise as coal-fired Hazelwood. If the systemic gas leakage rate is 7.9% (the upper estimate with shale formation-derived gas) [7]) then a coal to gas transition would yield power sector GHG pollution roughly 4.7 times as dirty as from coal-fired Hazelwood.

Because methane leaks and is so much worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG), Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York has concluded that “The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”. [7].

Gas GHG impact ignored by Mainstream media (MSM) in Western Lobbyocracies

US President Barack Obama has outrageously and falsely lumped planet-threatening natural gas under “clean energy”; permitted a massive expansion of offshore gas and oil drilling; and supported the Alaska Gas Pipeline, massive expansion of on-shore gas drilling and an oil-to-gas shift for transportation. One would have hoped that the 2010 Gulf oil and gas disaster tragically devastating the coastal environments of the US Gulf States would have prompted sensible, informed public discussion about the immense threat that natural gas (mostly methane) poses to Humanity and the Biosphere.

At least one news report in 2010 sounded the alarm about methane from the Gulf oil spill disaster (variously known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout): “According to John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the BP oil spill, the crude oil emanating from the seafloor [up to 100,000 barrels oil equivalent per day = 0.013 million tonnes oil equivalent] contains about 40% methane compared to about 5% found in typical crude oil deposits. The risk is great, as marine life will be suffocated as a result of the increased methane levels. The Gulf of Mexico will eventually have “dead zones” to deal with where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. This is significant and can forever alter the water/life composition. “This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history,” Kessler said.” [8].

The amount of methane released over the 86 days between the initial blow-out and capping the well-head (20 April – 15 July 2010) can be estimated at 0.4 x (0.013 million tonnes methane /day) x 86 days = 0.447 million tonnes CH4 = 0.447 Mt CH4 x 105 x (44/16) (Mt CO2-e / Mt CH4) = 129 Mt CO2-e. Fortunately, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “John Kessler of Texas A&M University and colleagues surveyed the Gulf waters during the leak as well as after the wellhead was sealed, and their results indicate that a vigorous bloom of bacteria degraded virtually all of the methane released form the well within 120 days of the initial blowout.” [9].

Australian novelist Peter Carey recently observed that the really important news is the news that is not reported. Ditto, “The holes in history are what makes sense of the thing” (Aarons and Loftus, “The Secret War Against the Jews”, p12). This is well exampled by President Barack Obama avoiding mention of natural gas in his recent speech on the Gulf oil disaster from the Oval Office – completely missing from Obama’s Gulf oil-and-gas disaster speech was one key word: gas. Read through his speech and you will find that he used the following words in descending order of occurrence: oil (24 times), energy (14), drilling/drill (8), clean energy (6), environmental (4), God/He (4), Al Qaeda (1), recession (1), gas (0). [10].

Similarly, a search of the entire ABC site for “Robert Howarth” yielded one (1) result relating to the Cornell professor (and that due to me in a reader comment thread), noting that the ABC is the Australian equivalent of the BBC). Searches of The Australian newspaper (Australian national flagship of the Murdoch media empire) and of The Age ( the Melbourne quality newspaper of the Fairfax media empire and arguably Australia’s most progressive Mainstream medium) reveal zero (0) and one (1) report, respectively of the findings of Professor Robert Howarth (The Age report being a letter from me that it kindly published).

Shale deposit and coal seam fracking, coal seam gas (GSG) and gas-based GHG pollution in Australia

Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Australia is also part of the global gas rush, gas boom and fracking-based GasLand scenario (see the movie GasLand about the impact of fracking in the US). However the Liberal National Party-National Party Coalition opposition and the Labor Governments (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) have identical overall climate policies of “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution” coupled with expanding coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. The Libs gave a “direct Action “policy (too ;little too late) whereas Labor has a disastrously counterproductive Carbon Tax-ETS plan that yields massive increases in Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 and 2050 over that in 2000. Thus the following estimates of Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in Mt CO2-e and based on Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data (noting that coal and gas exports are predicted to increase annually by 2.6% and 9%, respectively):

2000: 496 (Domestic) + 504.9 (coal exports) + 16.8 (LNG exports) = 1017.8.

2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,409.

However these estimates do not take into account an approximate doubling of electricity sector GHG pollution due to a Labor Government-adumbrated coal to gas transition (and indeed an approximately 5 fold increase if fracked shale gas is used). Hydraulic fracking of shale seams is becoming controversial throughout the world, including Australia (see the movie “GasLand”). Thus the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking) of shale deposits with water containing numerous chemical additives has been banned in France and England and New York has imposed a moratorium on the practice. In Australia there are bipartisan concerns about fracking procedures violating prime agricultural land and contaminating and depleting aquifers e.g. the Great Artesian Basin, a huge source of water in this dry continent.

The main arguments against “fracking” of shale deposits and shallower coal seams for gas are destruction of prime agricultural land in a hungry world; pollution and depletion of underground aquifers; and that gas is dirty, generates CO2 on combustion and due to leakage can be much dirtier GHG-wise than coal or oil (if there is a coal to “fracked gas” conversion. there will a circa 5-fold increase in electricity sector GHG pollution in Australia).

However a fundamental objection to “fracking” and a coal to gas conversion is that the World is rapidly running out of time to deal with the worsening climate emergency. Thus in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) issued a report entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” in which it estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World must emit no more than 600 billion tones of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. In mid-2011 Australia has already exceeded its “fair share” of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and any Australian GHG pollution now is at the expense of the entitlement of all other countries. [11].

Summary

Natural gas represents a huge threat to the World if, as adumbrated by corporations and governments, there is a coal to gas transition. Ignored by MPs, mainstream media and MPs in the Western Lobbyocracies is the reality that because methane (85% of natural gas) leaks (3.3% US average, up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame with aerosol impacts included, a coal to gas transition represents a huge threat to a World that must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by about 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. Hydraulic fracturing for shale deposit gas destroys agricultural land in a hungry world, pollutes and depletes aquifers and increases the systemic GHG pollution associated with heat and power generation. All countries and intranational jurisdictions must follow the examples of France, England and New York State and ban shale deposit and coal seam fracking. The World is running out of time to seriously tackle the worsening climate emergency. The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 394 parts per million (ppm) but top climate scientists and biologists say that it must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org:) [12] but the World is remorselessly heading in the opposite direction . Stop the coal to gas transition and stop fracking the Planet.

For references, see page two:

The particular environmental requirements necessary to produce substantial outputs of energy are difficult to come by outside of tourist-popular coastal areas. While wind turbines are cleaner and make much better neighbors than coal and nuclear power plants, that does not mean that sight-seeing tourist attractions want 350 ft wind turbines popping up along misty mountain ridges where locals make their income from beautiful sunsets and the sights of colorful fall leaves and bursting spring buds. That’s why locations like Pasquotank County and Perquimans County in North Carolina are becoming prime real estate for wind energy investors like Atlantic Wind LLC. These rural locations are close enough to the coastal winds to produce 2 megawatts of electricity per tower, yet still rural and undeveloped enough to ask crops and grazing cattle to be neighborly to the huge towers instead of beach-going tourists or commuters in major cities.

Atlantic Wind LLC will pay farmers and other landowners $6,000 each year per turbine erected on their property, and they can still farm around the concrete bases of the turbines. There isn’t a crop that can match that return per acre, and in this case, they can still produce their crops in addition to their wind-generated income. The huge project planned for these rural/coastal areas could potentially produce 300 megawatts of clean, renewable electricity, increase landowner income, and power 50,000-60,000 homes.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the United States produces about 2 percent of our total energy with 850 utility-scale wind farms much like the one proposed for NC. The turbines in the utility-scale wind farms produce enough electricity to power 10 million American homes, and Atlantic Wind LLC intends to contribute to that number in the near future.

Virginia has approved a 19 windmill farm for the beautiful mountains of Highland County, but construction has not yet begun. To entice the wind farmers to their areas, counties and states offer tax breaks, subsidies, and other financial “carrots” to bring attention to the wind potential of their areas. Atlantic Wind LLC will recoup one third of its $600 million dollar investment through the federal government. The company has already had its local tax bill reduced on a permanent basis from $25,000 per windmill down to $5,000 per turbine. The incentives turn out to be good for everyone though, and even with a 75% local tax reduction, Atlantic Wind will still be the county’s largest taxpayer by 300%. That’s 3x more tax revenue for the county, a boost in income for the landowners, and a reliable source of clean energy for the state.

With dollar signs in their eyes and clean energy in their hearts other states are lining up to invite the wind developers to check out their locations.