With many renewable energy companies facing hard financial times ("Weeding Out Solar Companies"), a lot of the big energy news this year was coming out of Washington, DC, with massive federal stimulus funding for batteries and renewable energy and programs such as Energy Frontier Research Centers and Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ("A Year of Stimulus for High Tech").
 |
|
Credit: Roy Ritchie
|
But there was still plenty of action outside the beltway, both in the United States and around the world. One of the most dramatic developments ("Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map") was the rush to exploit a vast new resource; new drilling technologies have made it possible to economically recover natural gas from shale deposits scattered throughout the country, including in Texas and parts of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Advances in drilling technology have increased available natural gas by 39 percent, according to an estimate released in June. The relatively clean-burning fuel could cut greenhouse gas emissions by becoming a substitute for coal. Natural gas might even provide an alternative to petroleum in transportation, especially for buses and taxis--if only policymakers could take advantage of the new opportunity.
Meanwhile a number of technologies promise to cut down on emissions from coal plants. Feeding heat from the sun into coal plants could at once increase the amount of power that can be generated from a given amount of coal and reduce the cost of solar power ("Mixing Solar with Coal to Cut Costs"). And technology for capturing carbon dioxide ("Scrubbing CO2 Cheaply") and storing it ("An Ocean Trap for Carbon Dioxide") is finally emerging from the lab and small-scale projects into larger demonstrations at power plants, even while researchers explore potentially cheaper carbon-capture techniques ("Using Rust to Capture CO2 from Coal Plants").
Story continues below
This year was also the year of the smart grid, as numerous test projects for improving the reliability of the grid and enabling the use of large amounts of renewable energy got underway ("Technology Overview: Intelligent Electricity"). The smart grid will be enabled by key advances, such as superconductors for high-energy transmission lines ("Superconductors to Wire a Smarter Grid") and smart networks being developed by companies such as GE ("Q&A: Mark Little, Head of GE Global Research").
Cellulosic ethanol--made from biomass such as grass rather than corn grain--moved closer to commercialization, with announcements of demonstration plant openings ("Commercializing Garbage to Ethanol") and scientific breakthroughs that could make the process cheaper ("Cellulosic Ethanol on the Cheap"). But at the same time, a number of companies are moving beyond cellulosic ethanol to the production of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel from biomass--fuels that can be used much more readily in existing infrastructure and in existing vehicles. Exxon-Mobil announced substantial investments in algae-based fuels ("Big Oil Turns to Algae"). Remarkably, one startup declared its process--based on synthetic genomics and algae--could allow biofuels to replace all of transportation fuels without overwhelming farmland ("A Biofuel Process to Replace All Fossil Fuels").
E-mail
Audio »
Print
Favorite
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Add to Twitter
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
This article, in what I used to consider a thoughtfully informed publication, has really dropped the ball with this very very one-sided coverage.
Thank you. Tom Noonan - Hancock, New York
tom@tomnoo...
12/29/2009
Posts:1
After more than a decade of argument in the courts, and lobbying congress and public opinion the gas industry got what it wanted from Congress when it amended existing law, in 2005 exempting hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations from federal law (Safe Drinking Water Act) protecting drinking water. The industry argued at that time that by far most of the pollutants and chemical additives that would be injected into these bore holes would be recovered and safely disposed of.
Now -- after having gotten the laws changed to enable them to pollute our groundwater -- the industry is now admitting that as much as 85 percent of the fluids used during hydraulic fracturing is being left underground after wells are drilled in the Marcellus Shale.
What are the chemical additives that are being added to the water/poppant slurry that is used to frack the gas containing shale so that natural gas may be recovered from these deposits? Your article utterly fails the requirements of good journalism and makes no mention of the some 260 chemical additives that are closely guarded trade secrets of the drilling companies and that will be injected into the ground water supplies of a huge area covering western Pennsylvania, parts of New York, Ohio and West Virginia. Some of the chemical additives that will be injected and left to pollute the aquifers of vast regions are known carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde.
For those who want to read about these problems here is a link to an eye opening article: http://bit.ly/8HLtg0 "In New Gas Wells, More Drilling Chemicals Remain Underground"
I am very disappointed with the lack of journalistic integrity that this puff piece for the Natural Gas Lobby displays; I expected better from the Technology Review.
Sincerely,
Chris de Morsella
cdemorsell...
12/29/2009
Posts:1
The net is that shale gas is a huge environmental win compared to practical alternatives. Alternate / renewable energy sources and aggressive conservation are required and must be pursued with all possible speed. None the less, there is a huge need for cleaner transition energy sources to bridge the time between now and when conservation and clean alternate energy sources provide the majority of our energy. Natural gas is one of a very small number of sources to meet this need.
timetested
12/30/2009
Posts:5
You are the one dropping the ball.
Yes, the piece directly above these comments is not a one-sided puff piece. However, if you read what the 1st 2 commenters said you will see that they are referring to the Natural Gas article that is linked near the top of this summary of the year in energy.
The purpose of this summary of the year's developments is to get folx to click on the links scattered throughout the piece. MIT is an educational institution and they have as a goal educating the public. As a quasi-commercial endeavor, this website has an interest in getting people to see as many ads as possible.
These interests coincide when they write these summaries in such a way as to encourage people to read stories that they missed, that they don't remember well, or that passed up the first time around because the importance of the article wasn't obvious immediately.
This means that for both TechReview and the above commenters, the article they were discussing was a symbiotic piece of this summary here.
Perhaps you would prefer they comment at the original article, but just as this is a new opportunity for the public to read their comments, folx at tech review are unlikely to be paying attention to the criticism at that months-old story and this summary represents a new opportunity to ensure that the attention of TR staff is brought to their message critiquing TR's journalistic standards.
I thought those comments were reasonable, accurately portrayed the "puff piece" as such, and are very reasonably located here...
cripdyke
01/01/2010
Posts:39
I am sure the first two poster believe they are doing a service to society by identifying all of the negative things stated in their postings. However the one thing missing is some form or type of alternative or recommendation for improvement. ANYONE can find lots of negative stuff to post, criticize, condemn and bad mouth. Just open the newspaper or turn on the evening news. There is no shortage of negativity around us. Personally I really don't care if someone is negative as long as they also offer up some alternative or some solution. Impress us with your intellect by offering solutions not just problems.
I never attended MIT but sure would have liked to. I believe it is probably a very good school and is probably respected in most countries around the world. Do they do everything right - of course not. Did Bush do everything right - heck no - and neither will our current president either.
However, everyone in our country has the right to speak their mind in a fashion that suites them.
So since I complained here is my two cents worth or some recommendations. I don't know what chemicals they are using and what affect the mystery chemicals will have on our society or drinking water. What I do know is that natural gas burns one heck of a lot cleaner than coal and if possible, we should convert our coal plants to use natural gas whenever and wherever we can. We should also start augmenting these coal plants with solar where feasible.
Furthermore, we should be building and installing wind, solar and geothermal power stations as quickly as we can and stop fiddling around with just another form of carbon based fuel. For every renewable energy plant/device we build means one less coal plant that will be built or maybe even one we might be able to shut down. You know it doesn't take a Phd to figure out that if we build enough renewable energy we wouldn't even need coal or natural gas burning power plants.
That's my opinion - what's yours?
tomgarven
12/30/2009
Posts:29
I find the first 2 commenters rather uninformed. How can anyone drink water from any source without getting some of old mother natures mess inside their bodies?
hippo55
01/02/2010
Posts:1
Let us convert our transportation to on demand systems and do what Smart Grids have done for energy to Smart Transport for our travelling needs. I believe the key is optimization of existing resources before we worry about creating new resources.
You can read more in my blog at http://dancrissco.wordpress.com/
dancrissco
12/31/2009
Posts:54
Where I live the local utility is building a much needed power plant and you'd think from the response of the environmental lobby that the utility had basically set off a nuclear bomb and whole community was DOOMED ("Doomed I tell you!").
Your constant attempts to drag us back to the Stone Age economically speaking makes you the enemy of progress and improved lives. Your constant proclamations that the sky is falling makes the average person turn away from you because they increasingly regard you as nutjobs who will never be satisfied until we are all reading by candlelight and heating with....well, nothing since EVERYTHING we can heat with is bad for the environment.
In the end, I am more inclined to believe that environmentalists are the more dishonest people given Climategate and your insistence that EVERYTHING IS DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT.
SeanNC
01/03/2010
Posts:1
I don't know the answers but I do know that drinking water is essential and so is the environment but all opinions are just opinions until they become facts so keep reading until the answers are found.
two cents of a high school graduate
almost forgot to point out that hypocritical comment of an engineer type saying commenting is a right and then saying you must offer something with your comment (solution).
Retired is tired.
oh and what about the fact that there are two theories of where the oil comes from. Microorganisms under pressure deep within the earth or deep piles of dead dinosaurs and plants. I have yet to see proof of man made global warming disasters and I don't need any proof that I need drinking water.
flip doubt
01/03/2010
Posts:1
Old Engineer Responds. As a self proclaimed high school graduate you have recognized that water is essential to life and of course I share your concerns. I also hope we don't end up back in the pre-industrialized period because as an old Minnesota farm boy shoveling all that brown stuff was never very much fun LOL. And yes, I do wish everyone who posts negative comments would, could, may, or should; offer some recommendation or solution along with their comments. I have found over the years that the terms; 'must', shall and will rarely get the job done. At one point in my career I taught Team Works and know how valuable the creative ideas of a group can be.
I also worked in the nuclear power industry for about 20 years and yes nuclear can be a good transition energy source 'between now' and our clean renewable energy future. I just checked the IAEA website and here is where we stand as of 2009 worldwide.
437 nuclear power reactors in operation with a total net installed capacity of 370.506 GW(e)
5 nuclear power reactors in long term shutdown
56 nuclear power reactors under construction
Of those 56 under construction or restart only 2 are in the US.
1. Restart after a long term shutdown: Browns Ferry 1, 1065 MW(e), BWR, USA
2. Construction reactivation: Watts Bar 2, 1165 MW(e), PWR, USA
Not much nuclear activity in the US is there? This is probably the result of one or more of the following.
1. No one wants one in their backyard.
2. Utilities have less costly alternative to the $4-12 billion cost, and;
3. Very few banks [or utilities] care to take the finance risk.
In closing, working together, finding solutions and helping our society is everyone's responsibility. That's my opinion, what's yours?
tomgarven@hotmail.com
tomgarven
01/04/2010
Posts:29
On the other hand solar and other technologies are advancing so fast that by the time they build nuclear it may not be needed except for very heavy power users like mines. Perhaps small portable nuclear plants like the company "Hyperion" is working on would be good.
Ideally I would rather see personal power generation for individuals such as solar because then we can be free of the grid and use as much energy as we want with out big brother bitching at us or the terrorist shutting us down; Freedom Baby.
As I read about the incredible breakthroughs in TR, I am very encouraged about the future. However, technology must also advance far enough to overcome the special interest of the politicians (both sides) and the current investments in infrastructure. This tempers my hope to a degree.
StupidPeas...
01/05/2010
Posts:73
rbrtwjohns...
01/06/2010
Posts:5
or if the link is out of commission search for "water powered torch"
Amazing how fast this was swept under the rug. Then again perhaps not, using water as fuel! how dare they! It would even create terrible H2O emissions!
Honestly though, I think they have a real fear of this sort of power source destroying the pipeline from our wallets to the oil and utility companies bank accounts.
Here's what happens when you become a threat to the system... another guy that offered the same solution to our energy problems...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw&feature=fvw
Lurch
01/19/2010
Posts:1