(Page 2 of 2)
Still, most people think biofuels will only supply a fraction of our transportation needs ("Briefing: Transportation"). To eliminate carbon emissions and drastically curtail petroleum consumption will require plug-in hybrids ("Driving the Volt") and other electricity-powered vehicles ("Nissan's Leaf: Charged with Information"). Advances that could double (or more) the energy capacity of batteries and lower their costs could one day make such vehicles affordable to the masses. These include new formulations such as lithium-sulfur batteries ("Revisiting Lithium-Sulfur Batteries"), metal-air batteries ("High-Energy Batteries Coming to Market") such as lithium-air batteries ("IBM Invests in Battery Research"), and batteries that rely on nanowires and silicon ("More Energy in Batteries"). A novel concept for super-fast charge stations at bus stops could make electric buses practical ("Next Stop: Ultracapacitor Buses").
Getting the electricity to charge these vehicles--without releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide--could be made easier by a number of advances this year. A new liquid battery could cheaply store energy from wind turbines and solar panels for use when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing ("TR10: Liquid Battery"), making it practical to rely on large amounts of renewable electricity. Vast arrays of mirrors ("Solar Thermal Heats Up") are being assembled in the desert to convert solar heat into electricity, and photovoltaic solar farms for converting light directly into electricity ("Chasing the Sun") are getting a boost from the federal stimulus money. And researchers are finding ways to increase the efficiency of solar cells ("More Efficient, and Cheaper, Solar Cells") and are discovering new photovoltaic materials to make solar power cheaper ("Mining Fool's Gold for Solar"). And although progress on nuclear power is moving slowly, some advances on the horizon could help this low-carbon source replace fossil fuels ("TR10: Traveling-Wave Reactor"). Researchers even fired up the world's largest laser system--one that's the size of a football stadium--for experiments that could lead to a new form of fusion ("Igniting Fusion").
Last, and almost certainly least, researchers have decided to look beyond the conventional sources of renewable energy--solar, wind, and waves--to hamsters. Researchers at Georgia Tech fitted the rodents with zinc-oxide nanowire jackets ("Harnessing Hamster Power with a Nanogenerator"), and watched as they generated an electrical current while scratching themselves and running on a wheel. See a video of the powerful hamsters here.
As Congress prepares to vote on a comprehensive spending bill, U.S. energy projects such as ARPA-E hang in the balance.
During the past 12 months, robots got better at grasping, smiling, and avoiding angry humans.
Natural Gas Fracking will pollute the ground water
Your poorly researched cheer-leading article seems like a PR puff piece produced by the natural gas industry lobby. It paints an unfocused rosy picture and fails to mention the very serious environmental and human health problems that will be created if these projects go ahead.
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
I disagree that this is a puff piece produced by the natural gas industry. It's a very brief summary of major events in energy in the last year. A focus on a single aspect of natural gas as an energy source is a disservice to environmental awareness. The only short term viable alternative to natural gas is coal. Compared to coal, natural gas reduces CO2 emissions by about 45%, CO and NOx by a factor of five, SO2 by a factor of about 4,000, and completely eliminates Mercury emissions. Regarding radiation, background radiation is everywhere. In drilling for natural gas, most radioactivity is locked in the stone at the drilling site and never comes in contact with the public. Coal releases radioactive materials into the air and disperses them widely. The Marcellus shale is between 4,000 and 8,500 feet underground. Drinking water is pumped from aquifers that are generally hundreds, not thousands of feet deep. Migration of water from the shale to drinking water aquifers will be slow and minimal. There is between 2100 and 7500 feet of rock between the top of the pay and the bottom of treatable water. In addition, the shale is "tight". There is very little porosity to allow water to migrate long distances.
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:
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...
As I write this blog entry I realize one thing. The first two entries here describe in some detail the problems associated with the drilling process and the terrible nature of some of the unidentified chemicals. I guess they must be pretty bad since no one can find out what the chemicals are? It would have been helpful if at least one or two of the chemicals were identified. Has anyone talked with or personally called the drilling companies and asked them what they are using?
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?
You might try looking here for the chemicals. http://www.baroididp.com/
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?
An engineer who never wants to retire
They say an engineer never retires. There is so much to learn and so much to conquer in the world. Sometimes we waste a lot of time on arguing on what is wrong and what is right in our opinion. My take on this is simple. Let us go after all energy sources and get the best out of them. We have large deposits of coal in the world. Let us find ways of using clean coal technology. Let us go after Solar, Wind, Geo-Thermal, Shale and make them all work efficiently and cleanly.That is what real engineers and scientists do best. My focus is now on Smart Cities, Smart Meters, Smart Appliances, Smart Transport, Smart Buildings. Let us optimize what we have in terms of energy consumption, as energy saved is energy made.
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/
The problem I have with the environmentalists here in the comments is that, to you and your kind, EVERYTHING is destroying the environment. EVERYTHING is causing global warming (oops, climate change). The only thing that would make you people happy is if we went back a thousand years and lived in mud huts. Or better yet, if mankind went extinct.
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.
I worry a lot more about ground water pollution than co2 emissions since drinking water is essential. I myself would lean towards nuclear power for the time between now and the "clean energy future". The coming global depression will solve a lot of the problems everyone is worrying about by taking us to a pre-industrialized world where we will still require drinking water. Energy will be a personal problem of how far your horse will go in a day.
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.
blather said [in part]: "I worry a lot more about ground water pollution than co2 emissions since drinking water is essential. I myself would lean towards nuclear power for the time between now and the "clean energy future".
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
On one hand nuclear fits the bill for emissions.
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.
Aneutronic fusion reactor is an advanced energy concept, clean and safe, no neutron radiation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMovXzVOzc4
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
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
tom@tomnoonan.com
1 Comment
Natural Gas Drilling
I found your article on natural gas drilling to be astoundingly uninformed and basically just cheerleading for an industry that has a terrible track record as regards the environment. The natural gas industry is destroying the water systems of seven states and counting: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, and Louisiana - and soon New York State because of it is no longer subject to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Superfund Law, and 42 other Federal environmental laws because of the 2005 Energy Act, pushed through under the Republican Congress - and the technology used by the gas companies is, to a one, bought from Halliburton (Dick Cheney's Halliburton). The waste water from the natural gas drilling (5 million gallons per well - 40,000 wells and counting planned in the PA / NY area) is highly toxic and in many cases radioactive (the Marcellus Shale is where radioactive elements concentrate in the Eastern United States). And there are only a handful of waste water treatment plants that can handle this drilling waste water - the rest is being dumped wherever gas companies find convenient (in PA, it is being dumped down only coal mine shafts, only later to seep into ground water and contaminate extensive ground water supplies).
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
Reply