IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation — SRREN

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation — SRREN.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

Overview of IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy

Statement of Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, at the 11th session of the IPCC Working Group III, May 2011, Abu Dhabi

New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact May, 2011

 New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact –

For Release 12 May 2011Tod BrilliantPOST CARBON INSTITUTEtod@postcarbon.org707-823-8700 x105
New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact

San Francisco, CA (May 12) A detailed new energy report argues that the natural gas industry has propagated dangerously false claims about natural gas production supply, cost and environmental impact. The report, “Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century” is authored by leading geoscientist and Post Carbon Institute Fellow J. David Hughes.

The most significant of the natural gas industry’s claims – one that has been bought hook, line and sinker by everyone from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the Obama Administration, to leading environmental groups – is that the United States has a 100-year supply of cheap natural gas. The report shows this to be a pipe dream. Natural gas would require higher costs and unprecedented drilling efforts to meet even baseline supply projections. In fact, the U.S. faces a decline in domestic gas supplies in the very near future unless drilling rates quickly increase.

Also debunked is the perception that shale gas is better for the climate than coal. Building on other recent analysis, the report shows that shale gas is worse than coal over a 20-30 year timeframe, even after efforts to mitigate fugitive methane emissions. This should have major implications for those who have touted natural gas as a near-term bridge to a clean energy future.

Download the report at: http://bit.ly/pcinatgas

Report author David Hughes will present his findings and participate in a Q&A session next week.

LINK: http://bit.ly/jZfykT
TELECONFERENCE ONLY: Toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Access Code: 492 172 835
For international toll free access: http://bit.ly/jgcUWx

Post Carbon Institute’s report concludes that we face serious, and heretofore unacknowledged, production constraints with shale gas that mean the following three things are very unlikely to happen:

  1. Meeting the Energy Information Agency’s projections for natural gas to 2035.
  2. Replacing significant amounts of coal-fired electricity with natural gas (not included in EIA projections).
  3. Transitioning significant % of the vehicle fleet to burn natural gas (also not included in EIA projections).

All of three of these would require much higher levels of drilling and higher prices than projected by the EIA. At least 35,000 new wells will need to be drilled each and every year to meet EIA projections. More still to provide more natural gas-fired electricity and far more than this number to transition the vehicle fleet.

Bottom line, we will be living with less domestic natural gas in the future, not more, unless we are prepared to pay higher prices and tolerate a major scale up of climate and other environmental impacts. This is a major challenge to the nearly ubiquitous assumption that we will have abundant, cheap, and “clean” natural gas to power our future.

ABOUT J. DAVID HUGHES

J. David Hughes is a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He developed the National Coal Inventory to determine the availability and environmental constraints associated with Canada’s coal resources. As Team Leader for Unconventional Gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee, he coordinated the recent publication of a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s unconventional natural gas potential. He is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Canada and is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute. He is currently president of a consultancy dedicated to research on energy and sustainability issues.

ABOUT POST CARBON INSTITUTE
Post Carbon Institute provides individuals, communities, businesses, and governments with the resources needed to understand and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, and environmental crises that define the 21st century. PCI envisions a world of resilient communities and re-localized economies that thrive within ecological bounds.

In addition to Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute Fellows include Bill McKibben, Sandra Postel, Wes Jackson, David Orr and 24 others.

POST CARBON INSTITUTE
Tel: +1.707.823.8700 • Fax: +1.866.797.5820
http://www.postcarbon.org   •   media@postcarbon.org

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate.

Unconventional gas drilling is emerging as one of the most controversial energy & environmental issues in the United States and around the world today.

Advancements in extraction technologies, particularly horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), have enabled drillers to reach previously inaccessible gas in geological formations underlying several areas of the U.S.

Increasing public awareness of the threats posed by America’s dependence on foreign oil and dirty coal to public health and the global climate have led many – including some environmental organizations and progressive politicians – to embrace gas as a “bridge fuel” to help America kick its dirty energy addiction.

54 page report at: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf

But recent revelations about the dangers that unconventional gas drilling poses to drinking water supplies, public health and the global climate are raising important questions about how “clean” this gas really is.

Scientists studying the impacts of unconventional gas drilling warn that gas is likely to have a greater influence on water, air and climate than previously understood. Major scientific bodies have cautioned against a national commitment to gas as a bridge fuel, citing the need for further research into the potential consequences of continued reliance on this fossil fuel.

A growing number of land owners, former gas industry executives and elected officials are also challenging the notion that gas is as clean as its proponents argue, and questioning whether unconventional gas drilling can be done without threatening drinking water supplies, air quality and the global climate.

Yet the gas industry continues to benefit from lax oversight and several exemptions from existing public health protections, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and parts of the Clean Water Act that apply to other fossil fuel extraction industries. Recent attempts by federal agencies and lawmakers to improve oversight of gas operations have been met with strong resistance from the gas industry and its alliance of front groups and defenders in the media.

The gas industry’s influence in Washington has grown tremendously thanks, in large part, to the rapid consolidation of the gas industry into the hands of the largest oil companies in the past few years. Not long ago, the industry was made up primarily of what its proponents call “mom and pop” companies—small operators that drilled chiefly for conventional gas.

But with recoverable deposits of that relatively ‘easy’ conventional gas dwindling in the Lower 48, larger drillers have turned their focus to the more difficult and expensive unconventional gas plays.

Oil giants such as BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron now dominate the gas industry. The industry’s chief front group, Energy In Depth (EID), goes to great lengths to maintain the “mom and pop” image of the industry, claiming it represents small and independent gas producers.

However, its own documents prove that its early funding – and ongoing financial support – comes from many of the largest oil and gas interests.

EID and other gas lobby groups argue that federal oversight and increased scrutiny and accountability measures would harm the industry’s development and risk jobs. But big oil companies have made that same “economy-killing” argument for decades – a strategy they learned from tobacco companies and the chemical industry – while amassing record profits and enjoying spectacular growth.

Through intensive lobbying, campaign contributions and other forms of influence, these oil and gas companies have successfully thwarted efforts to hold the gas industry accountable for its impacts on health and the environment.

Now the same companies that brought us the Exxon Valdez spill, the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron’s destruction of the Amazonian rainforest in Ecuador and countless other pollution examples, want the public to blindly trust them – with zero federal oversight – as they pursue drilling for much riskier unconventional gas throughout the country.

The question is, given the oil industry’s track record of environmental and health disasters, can the public trust them to get it right with the more challenging unconventional gas?

This report is designed to shed light on the rapidly changing composition of the gas industry and to raise important questions about whether the rush to exploit unconventional gas may be coming at too high a cost to the environment.

While coal and oil certainly pose their own significant challenges to health and climate, it is important to recognize that unconventional gas is also a dirty fossil fuel and does not belong in any credible definition of “clean energy.”

Given the extensive uncertainties surrounding the impacts potentially connected to the unconventional gas industry’s current drilling practices, it is only prudent at this point to insist on a pause for further evaluation. In fact, as a direct result of the recent Chesapeake gas well blowout in Pennsylvania that spilled drilling chemicals onto nearby properties and waterways, a former gas company executive called for a moratorium on all fracking operations near waterways in Arkansas’s Fayetteville shale region, stating that:

“There is no reason on Earth, if they are going to close it down there, they shouldn’t close it down here.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the unconventional gas boom is happening too fast, too recklessly and with insufficient concern for the potential cumulative impacts on our most critical resources – clean air, safe drinking water and a stable climate.

DeSmogBlog joins those who are calling for a nationwide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other troublesome practices in the unconventional gas industry. Until independent scientists and experts conduct further studies, the public simply cannot trust the fossil fuel industry to continue with this dirty energy boom.

See:  http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf  for the full 54 page report

Worldwatch Institute Report Shows Nuclear Industry Was in Decline Even Before Fukushima

New Worldwatch Institute Report, Timed in Conjunction with Chernobyl Anniversary, Shows Nuclear Industry Was in Decline Even Before Fukushima

Washington, D.C.—Even before the disaster in Fukushima, the world’s nuclear industry was in clear decline, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute. The report, which Worldwatch commissioned months before the Fukushima crisis began, paints a bleak picture of an aging industry unable to keep pace with its renewable energy competitors.

To download a free copy of this report, click here.

“The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of the nuclear industry is written, Fukushima is likely to begin its final chapter,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the new report, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World, and an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy.

Some of the report’s key findings include:

  • Annual renewable capacity additions have been outpacing nuclear start-ups for 15 years. In the United States, the share of renewables in new capacity additions skyrocketed from 2 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2009, with no new nuclear capacity added.
  • In 2010, for the first time, worldwide cumulative installed capacity from wind turbines, biomass, waste-to-energy, and solar power surpassed installed nuclear capacity. Meanwhile, total investment in renewable energy technologies was estimated at $243 billion in 2010.
  • As of April 1, 2011, there were 437 nuclear reactors operating in the world, seven fewer than in 2002. In 2008, for the first time since the beginning of the nuclear age, no new unit was started up. Seven new reactors were added in 2009 and 2010, while 11 were shut down during this period.
  • In 2009, nuclear power plants generated 2,558 Terawatt-hours of electricity, about 2 percent less than the previous year. The industry’s lobby organization headlined “another drop in nuclear generation”—the fourth year in a row.

Despite predictions in the United States and elsewhere of a nuclear “renaissance,” the report concludes that the role of nuclear power was in steady decline even before the Fukushima crisis. The disaster will make the construction of new nuclear plants and extensions to the lifetime of current plants even more unrealistic.

“U.S. news headlines often suggest that a nuclear renaissance is under way,” said Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. “This was a big overstatement even before March 11, and the disaster in Japan will inevitably cause governments and companies that were considering new nuclear units to reassess their plans. The Three Mile Island accident caused a wholesale reassessment of nuclear safety regulations, massively increased the cost of nuclear power, and put an end to nuclear construction in the United States. For the global nuclear industry, the Fukushima disaster is an historic—if not fatal—setback.”

Notes for Media

For media in North America, please email Russell Simon at rsimon@worldwatch.org to interview Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. For media in Europe, please email Mycle Schneider at mycle@orange.fr. Other media may contact either Russell Simon or Mycle Schneider for more information.

Further Resources

About the Worldwatch Institute:

Worldwatch Institute delivers the insights and ideas that empower decision makers to create an environmentally sustainable society that meets human needs. Worldwatch focuses on the 21st-century challenges of climate change, resource degradation, population growth, and poverty by developing and disseminating solid data and innovative strategies for achieving a sustainable society. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than 20 languages.

About Mycle Schneider:

Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s General Directorate for Research, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. He is a member of the Princeton University based International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM).  In 1997, along with Japan’s Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize.”

Worldwatch E-mail List:

If you would like to receive Worldwatch press advisories regularly, please sign up at www.worldwatch.org/press-room.

Department of Energy Foresees Solar, Wind Power as Cheap as Fossil Fuels – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Department of Energy Foresees Solar, Wind Power as Cheap as Fossil Fuels – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views.

The Oil Drum | Don’t count on natural gas to solve US energy problems

The Oil Drum | Don’t count on natural gas to solve US energy problems.

Don’t count on natural gas to solve US energy problems

Posted by Gail the Actuary on February 18, 2011 – 11:26am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: canadian natural gas, natural gas, shale gas [list all tags]

We often hear statements suggesting that by ramping up shale gas production, the US can raise total natural gas production and solve many of its energy problems, including adding quite a number of natural gas vehicles, and replacing a large share of coal fired electricity generation. While there is the possibility that shale gas will allow US natural gas supplies to increase for a few years (or even 10 or 15 years), natural gas is only about one-fourth of US fossil fuel use, so it would be very difficult to ramp it up enough to meet all of these needs.

One issue is whether a rise in shale gas will mostly offset other reductions in natural gas supply. In Annual Energy Outlook 2011, EIA forecasts that shale gas production will increase from 23% of US natural gas production in 2010 to 46% of US natural gas production by 2035, but that these increases will mostly offset decreases elsewhere. Even with this huge increase in shale gas production, the EIA only sees US natural gas production increasing by an average of 0.8% per year between 2011 and 2035, and US natural gas consumption increasing by an average of 0.6% per year per year to 2035–not enough to make a very big dent in our overall energy needs.

Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 111th Congress CRS Report

Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 111th Congress
Molly F. Sherlock
Analyst in Economics
Donald J. Marples
Section Research Manager
September 20, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40999R40999.pdf (application/pdf Object)
.

Gas Leaks on the Path to a Post-Fossil Future

 

Opinion
By By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 25, 2011
More evidence that leaks from wells and pipes blunt the climate value of natural gas and that industry needs to tighten up its act.

//