This Friday at noon Eastern Time I'll be participating in a webinar on The Energy Collective covering the application of innovation to the emissions from oil and natural gas. The topic is timely, not just because of the current debate over the fate of the Keystone Pipeline, but because despite the growing importance of renewable energy, oil and gas will constitute a major part of our energy diet for decades to come. As I was thinking about my remarks, it occurred to me that the best starting point might be a refresher on how the industry's current emissions are distributed along the value chain. For all the heavily-publicized concerns about higher emissions from the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons such as oil sands crude and shale gas, combustion by end-use applications accounts for the biggest slice, to the tune of 80-84% of the average lifecycle emissions from gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Even for fuels refined from oil sands, our tailpipes still put out more than two-thirds of the total emissions attributable to oil. The proportions are similar for natural gas.
The data I'm using come from a presentation of the National Energy Technology Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy, and the NETL reports on which it was based. I could have chosen other sources, but they all reach pretty much the same conclusions, and I liked the way this one displayed the differences among various source crudes. It also goes beyond dividing the total "well-to-wheels" lifecycle (WTW) into well-to-tank (WTT) and tank-to-wheels (TTW) sources, those that happen before the fuel gets to your car and those that happen in your car, respectively. The former category was further broken down into segments of extraction, crude oil transport, refining, and finished fuels transport. All of these are amenable to improvements through innovation, and I plan to focus on the four WTT categories on Friday.
However, as helpful as it would be from an emissions perspective to get oil out of the ground with less expenditure of energy and less leakage of methane and other gases, and then to transport and refine it as efficiently as possible, the most effective emission-reduction strategies by far are those that address vehicle emissions from transport. That includes all the ways we normally think of to improve fuel economy, including hybridization and dieselization, which reduce CO2 emissions in direct proportion to fuel savings. Yet it also includes a whole gamut of strategies for reducing vehicle miles traveled, which are currently below the record set in 2007 but remain about 10% above year-2000 levels. Trip consolidation, telecommuting, carpooling, and using public transport can all make an important dent in emissions, and in the long run they eliminate upstream WTT emissions, too, as less oil is required for the same economic activity.
I'm sure that most of this is old hat to those who are well-informed on energy issues, but it's important periodically to remind ourselves of the basics, before we get overly enamored with all the exotic technology we could apply to other portions of the value chain. Deploying wind and solar generation in oil fields, generating geothermal energy from the hot fluids brought to the surface with oil and gas, and making the liquids shipped through pipelines slipperier can all contribute to reducing greenhouse gases, but we should understand clearly that these techniques can only tackle the 20% of emissions that happen before the fuel gets to the local gas station.
Applying Innovation to Oil & Gas
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
New Budget Reflects Inefficient Energy Priorities - February 16, 2012
Biofuels: Value vs. Volume - February 14, 2012
Why Are Gasoline Prices So High in February? - February 10, 2012
British Columbia Aims to Sell Cleaner LNG - February 8, 2012
Cleantech Firms Paying the Price for Subsidies - February 2, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
RickEngebretson said:
Geoff, of course all of biology manipulates hydrogen:carbon ratios by starting with carbon rich CO2 and hydrogen rich H2O. Suggesting that fuels refining might adapt and innovate to changing sources is hardly cause for "relocation."
Geoffrey Styles said:
relocate comment
RickEngebretson said:
Looking at the Keystone route on a larger map, it is clear that there is too much carbon in organic fossil fuels being pushed through an area that has too much hydrogen in organic cellulosic biofuels grown in increasing abundance. I've got to believe somebody realizes organic chemistry of fossil resources CAN be complimentary with organic chemistry of agriculture. Profound wealth potential in a Republican region using technology Obama didn't campaign on will be hard for this President to accept. But long term, low emissions fuel security is explicit on the map.
But hey, we live in a time when bronze age wind energy is considered innovative. I used to show maps to wind advocates and say how windmills capture microdots of energy, agriculture is the map.
Anyway, innovation can be different from what you expect. I think Yogi Berra or Ed Reid said that.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Rick,
More than half of oil refining these days is manipulating hydrogen:carbon ratios and using H2 to remove impurities like sulfur. If you've got some ideas about combining agricultural products and fossil fuels inside the refinery to optimize that chemistry, rather than simply blending them together after the refining is done, I'd love to see you elaborate on them. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels still trump the energy density of the best batteries by orders of magnitude, and we are a long way from tapping their full potential in vehicle engines. EVs are going to pose a big challenge to ICEs as batteries improve--especially if the government pays for all the infrastructure they need--but I also recall someone pointing out that many of the innovations in sailing technology occurred after they had competition from steam.
Rethinking the Nuclear Energy Renaissance (759 views)
A Renaissance for NiMH? (686 views)
The toxic debate over climate science (468 views)
The Cost of $100 Crude (369 views)
Rethinking the Nuclear Energy Renaissance (757 views)
A Renaissance for NiMH? (686 views)
The toxic debate over climate science (468 views)
The Cost of $100 Crude (369 views)
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tim Haab
- Tyler Hamilton
- Arno Harris
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Tim Hurst
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Geoffrey Styles
- Michael Tobis
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Todd Woody
- Dan Yurman
NERC CIP Compliance Training
When: Thu, 2012-02-23 08:00
Africa Energy Indaba
When: Thu, 2012-02-23 08:00
2012 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit
When: Mon, 2012-02-27 12:27
4th Annual Thin Film Solar Summit Europe
When: Mon, 2012-03-05 09:00
O&M and Lifecycle Management Strategies for CCGT Power Plants
When: Tue, 2012-03-06 09:00
2nd Polymer Apps in PV
When: Mon, 2012-03-12 08:00

About Social Media Today



