Skip to content

THE DEFROCKING OF THE FRACKERS-A CASE STUDY:

August 31, 2013

MY INTEREST IN MARCELLUS AND HIS RAGE

A COMPARISON OF METHANE EMISSIONS AND ENERGY CAPACITY OF NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING POWER STATIONS THAT CONSUME COAL, NATURAL GAS OR OIL

DATA USED:

Source: Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America: http://www2.cec.org/site/PPE/

Specific database consulted (Methane Emissions): http://www2.cec.org/site/PPE/ch4emissions?order=field_plant_total_emissions_value&sort=asc

Total North American electricity power stations of any fossil fuel source: 2600 (2010)

Canada: 58

Mexico: 101

USA: 2441

I. POWER STATIONS BY METHANE EMISSIONS AND ENERGY EFFECTIVENESS (SEQUENTIAL SAMPLE OF SOME OF THE WORST 250)

1: 421.57 / 167,039.39 (MWh)-Nat.gas-Transcanda Energy, Red water Power Plant, Alberta, Canada

2: 267.79 / 24,093,772.00 (MWh)-Coal-Scherer, Georgia (US)

74. 109.58 / 13,3888,803.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Sanford, Florida

88. 103.52 / 6,200,268.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Iberdorla Energia Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mex.

99: 96.47 / 580,101.56 (MWh)-Nat.gas-Bucksport Mill, Maine

115: 89.73 / 27,678.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Fermicaise, DF-Mexico

129: 82.92 / 5,463,761.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Fuerza Energia Tuxpan, Vercruz

131: 82.53 / 1, 675, 122.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Transalta Enery Corporation Sarnia, Ontario

150: 74.13 / 9,818,556.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Fort Myers, Florida

154: 73.18 / 4,741,652.88 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-CFE CT Valle de Mexico, Mexico

156. 72.69 / 6,142,876.00 (Mwh)-Coal Generation LLC, Illinois

157: 72.50 / 8,379,529.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Mystic Generating Station, Massachusetts

159: 71.63 / 3, 600, 737.00 (Mwh)-Oil-Possum Point, Virginia

165: 70.03 / 6, 585,217.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Morgantown Generating plant, Maryland

170: 67.79 / 5, 886,744.00 (Mwh) Coal-South Oak Creek, Wisconsin

177: 64.21 / 3,760,549.66 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-CFE CCC, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

178: 64.01 / 6,415,484.00 (Mwh)-Coal-GG Allen, North Carolina

179: 64.00 / 1,108,585.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Shell Canada Energy-Shell Albian Sands, Alberta

180: 63.60 / 5,577,373.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Springerville, Arizona

184: 61.47 / 4, 220,700.00 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-Energia Azteca VIII, Cuanajuato, Mexico

187: 60.53 / 5, 262,435.00 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-Sabine, Texas

189: 60.05 / 1,563,764.00 (Mwh)-Oil-Waterford 1 & 2, Louisiana

190: 59.58 / 5, 117, 830, 00 (Mwh)-Coal-Milton R Young, North Dakota

191: 59.51 / 3, 828,886.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-CFE CT Presidente Juarez, Baja California

192: 59.32 / 7,460,870.00 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-HL Culbreath Bayside, Florida

193: 59.00 / 1, 368,725.59 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-Kelson Canada Inc-Island Cogeneration No. 2 Inc., British Columbia

194: 58.91 / 4,995,200.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Cherokee, Colorado

195: 58.76 / 4,843,480.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Dolet Hills, Louisiana

197: 58.03 / 5, 008,182.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Crist, Florida

198: 57.84 / 1,920,950.53 (Mwh)-Nat.gas-TransAlta Congeration LP-Merdian Cogeneration, Saskatchewan

199: 57.72 / 535,048.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Cogen South, South Carolina

200: 57.64 / 1,642,456.00 (Mwh)-Oil-Port Jefferson, New York

217: 53.94 / 2.961,268.03 (MWh)-Nat.Gas-CFE CCC Francisco Perez Rios, Hidalgo, Mexico

218: 53.94 / 6,715,816.00 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-Forney Energy Center, Texas

219: 53.10 / 3,192,340.90 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-CFE CCC El Sauz, Queretaro, Mexico

220: 52.82 / 4,216,263.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Rodemacher, Louisiana

221: 52.66 / 337,076.00 (MWh)-Coal-Bay Front, Wisconsin

222: 52.37 / 2,919,532.53 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-CFE CCC Chihuahua-TG El Encino, Chihuahua, Mexico

223: 52.36 / 4,303,896.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Sandow No 4, Texas

224: 52.35 / 3,373,791.00 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-AES Merida III, Yucatan

229: 51.28 / 6,857,784.00 (MWh)-Nat.Gas-Mesquite Generating Station, Arizona

231: 51.14 / 5,077,593.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Alberta Power (2000) Ltd. Battle River Generating Station, Alberta

232: 51.07 / 4,623,168.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Nebraska City, Nebraska

233: 50.84 / 1,160,737.00 (Mwh)-Oil-Newington, New Hampshire

235: 50.68 / 4,319.006.00 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-Nine Mile Point, Lousiana

236: 50.66 / 3,096,652.05 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-CFE CCC Benito Juarez (Samalayca II), Chiuahua

237: 50.65 / 5,201,870.00 (MWh)-Coal-AES Somerset LLC, New York

238: 50.50 / 4,190,501.00 (MWh)-Coal-JK Spruce-Texas

241: 49.96 / 3,340.028.40 (MWh)-Nat.Gas-Electricidad Aguila de Tuxpan, Veracruz

242: 49.80 / 4,346,022.00 (MWh)-Coal-Oklaunion, Texas

243: 49.64 / 550,879.81 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-Transcanada Energy-Carseland Power Plant, Alberta

244: 49.43 / 5,190,768.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Wateree, South Carolina

245: 49.42 / 6,712,599.00 (Mwh)-Nat.Gas-Midlothian Energy Facility, Texas

249: 48.59 / 1,324,694.00 (Mwh)-Oil-Waiau, Hawaii

250: 48.41/ 3,865,846.00 (Mwh)-Coal-Charles R Lowman, Alabama

( MWh= ‘Miliwatt hour’)

___________

BEGIN NOW (Preliminary)

1.Coal could be more energy efficient in terms of methane emissions.

2. Oil seems to be just as energy efficient in terms of methane emissons as natural gas.

3. Natural gas can be more or less energy efficient in terms of methane emissions.

4. Canadian natural gas-powered electricity appears to be less energy efficient than the production in the Unites States and Mexico; US natural gas-powered power plants appear to be the most energy efficient in terms of methane emissions of all natural gas-powered plants.

.

II. INFERENCES FROM OVERALL (COMPLETE DATABASE) OBSERVATION:

1. Canadian oil-powered plants are extremely efficient in regards to emission/energy production comparison; less true, generally, in regards to US oil-powered plants.

2. At lower levels of emission ( under 14.00) natural gas-powered plants generally are perhaps a 3rd more efficient at the same levels of methane emissions as coal powered plants.

3. Some (one or two) coal-powered plants are almost just as efficient in terms of energy production at lower levels of methane emission as natural gas-powered plants.

4. Oil (except in regards to Canadian plants) produces substantially less energy output then coal or natural gas at lower levels of methane emissions; Canadian oil-powered electricity production, on the other hand, is highly efficient.

5. Coal-powered electricity producing power plants that are beyond the general parameters of natural gas-powered plants in terms of methane emissions and energy production capacity:

-H B Robinson (South Carolina) is a coal-powered plant that is incredibly efficient ar lower level methane emission levels (12.46 / 6, 955,748.00 (MWh))!!!!!

-Archer Daniels Midland Decatur (Illinois) goes beyond normal range for coal-powered

plant in terms of methane emissions/energy efficiency (9.08 / 1,538,477 (Mwh)).

-Green Bay West Mill, Wisconsin-Coal: 3.56 / 558,483.54 (Mwh)

-PPG Natrium Plant, West Virginia-Coal: 2.89 / 554,215.83

-Abitibi Consolidated Snowflake, Arizona-Coal: 2.43 / 411,663.93

-Muskogee Mill, Oklahoma-Coal: 2.36 / 455, 522.93

-Canton North Carolina, North Carolina-Coal: 1.42 / 308,869.72

-Univ of NC Chapel Hill Cogen Facility, North Carolina-Coal: 0.75 / 113,307.59

-Trigen Syracuse Energy, New York-Coal: 0.64 / 119,349.64

-Seaford Delawar Plant, Delaware-Coal: 0.61 / 127,221.34

-Stone Container Ontonagon Mill, Michigan-Coal: 0.61 / 102,345.78

-Hercules Missouri Chemical Works, Missouri-Coal: 0.54 / 77,851.47 (double (close) of NatGas at same or similar methane emission level)

-American Crystal Sugar Hillsboro, North Dakota-Coal: 0.53 / 86,684.97 (“ “)

-Neenah Paper Munising Mill, Michigan-Coal: 0.41 / 38, 166.54; slightly higher than natGas range at same or similar methane emission level.

-Wilmar, Minnesota-Coal: 0.41 / 41,741.86

-Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia-Coal: 0.41 / 39,819.00

-Virginia, Minnesota-Coal: 0.40 / 43,904.96

-Rhinelander Mill, Wisconsin-Coal: 0.39 / 66,996.35

-Procter & Gamble Cincinnati Plant, Ohio-Coal: 0.31 / 41,177.54

.

6. Natural gas-powered electricity producing plants that are exceptionally beyond the general paramaters of what appears to be the normal methane emission/energy capacity efficiency for natural gas-powered plants:

-ExonMobil Beaumont Refinery, Texas (natural gas) is beyond normal range in emissions/energy efficiency (11.05 / 3,248,975.77 (Mwh))

-Brandy Branch (Florida) goes beyond normal rage for natural gas-powered plants in terms of methane emissions/energy capacity (8.67 / 1,128,514.56 (Mwh)).

-Tenask Virginia Generating Station-Nat.gas: 8.05 / 1,113,394.00 (Mwh).

-Caledonia, Mississippi-Nat.Gas: 8.04 / 1,076,577.00 (Mwh).

-El Segundo Cogen, California: 6.29 / 1,021,262.44 (Mwh)

-Bethlehem Energy Center, New York-Nat.Gas: 5.36 / 1,004.966.00 (Mwh)

-Sam Rayburn, Texas-Nat.Gas: 4.55 / 505,946.80 (Mwh)

-Oxnard, California-Nat.Gas: 4.50 / 502,169.58

-Johnson County, Texas-Nat.Gas: 4.47 / 529,539.49 (Mwh)

-Auburndale Power Partners, Florida-Nat.Gas: 4.44 / 608,369.28 (Mwh)

-Rowan, North Carolina-Nat.Gas: 4.38 / 507,723.00

-ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Turbine Generator, Lousiana-Nat.Gas: 4.11 / 619,715.68 (Mwh).

-BASF Freeport Works, Texas-Nat.Gas: 3.99 / 567,632.26 (Mwh)

-Sterlington, Lousiana-Nat.Gas: 3.83 / 536,265.00 (Mwh)

-Orange Cogeneration Facility, Florida-Nat.Gas: 3.60 / 428,351.89 (Mwh)

-EG178 Facility, Texas-Nat.Gas: 3.25 / 410,105.94 (Mwh)

-Sabine River Works, Texas-NatGas: 3.24 / 498,895.04 (Mwh)

-Equilon Los Angeles Refining, California-NatGas: 3.15 / 459,381.83 (MWh).

-JCO Oxides Olefins Plant, Texas-NatGas: 2.91 / 465, 632.25 (Mwh).

-Doswell Energy Center, Virginia-NatGas: 2.76 / 1,773,671.00

-Grays Ferry Cogeneration, Pennsylania-Nat.Gas: 2.69 / 565,027.73

-Chevron Oil, Mississippi-NatGas: 2.51 / 1,020,688.93

-Selkirk Cogen, New York-NatGas: 1.05 / 2, 329,686.83

-Dearborn Industrial Generation, Michigan-Nat.Gas: 1.02 / 1,941,331.72

-Hal C Weaver Power Plant, Texas-NatGas: 0.97 / 332,658.59

-Nevada Cogen Assoc#1 GarnetVly, Nevada-NatGas: 0.82 / 693,998.98

-Chocolate Bayou Plant, Texas-NatGas: 0.81 / 247,515.87

-UCLA So Campus Central Chill Cogen Proj, California-NatGas: 0.77 / 244,390.36

-Texas City Plant Union Carbide, Texas-NatGas: 0.64 / 167,756.15

-Perryman, MD-NatGas: 0.63 / 127,437.00

-Union Carbide Seadrift Cogen-NatGas: 0.58 / 734,320.89

-Mcintosh, Alabama-NatGas: 0.43 / 106,165.07

-Newark Power Plant-NatGas: 0.40 / 44,036.89

-PowerSmith Cogeneration Project, Oklahoma-NatGas: 0.38 / 532,570.62

-Greenleaf 2, California-NatGas: 0.31 / 243,446.65

-Anadarko, Oklahoma-NatGas: 0.29 / 799,488.00

-Saranac Facility, New York-NatGas: 0,21 / 1,998,646.20

-Aera South Belrige Cogen Facility, Illinois-NatGas: 0.21 / 537,738.76

-Stone Container Seminle Mill, Florida-NatGas: 0.17 / 783,063.43

-Domino Sugar Arabi Plant, Lousiana-NatGas: 0.16 / 36,732.87

-Tenaska Fendale Cogeneration Station, Washington-NatGas: 0.13 / 513,163.90

-SEGS VI, California-NatGas: 0.10 / 59,209.00

-SEGS IV, California-NatGas: 0.07 / 61,030.00

-Midland Cogeneration Venture. Michigan-NatGas: 0.07 / 6,238,067.15

-Moline, Illinois-NatGas: 0.01 / 17,223.98

.

7. OIL (ABOVE NATURAL GAS PARAMETERS OF CAPACITY)

-Chester Operations, Pennsylvania-Oil: 2.12 / 372,016.23

-Fermi, Michigan-Oil: 0.05 / 8,757,011.00

-CFE CT Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Yucatan-Oil- 5.44 / 1,514,129.21 (Mwh).

-PSEG Salem Generating Station, New Jersey-Oil: 0.03 / 18,344,483.00

-Blewett, North Carolina-Oil: 0.02 / 129,484.00

.

8. “OTHER” FUELS

-Burns Harbor Plant, Indiana: 7.05 / 893,524.06 (Mwh)

-2 AC Station, Indiana: 3.20 / 15,413.17 [Far below Coal or Natural Gas]

-ExxonMobil Oil Joliet Refinery, Illinois: 2.62 / 150,964.47

-[similar to nat.gas range] Engineered Carbons Borger Cogen, Texas: 1.19 / 118,575.88

-[similar or beyond natGas range] Clairton Works: 0.98 / 128,138.84

-Borger Plant, Texas: 0.84 / 139,942.76

-Formosa Utility Venture Ltd, Texas: 0.71 / 3,993,091.15

-Mandan Refinery, North Dakota: 0.45 / 69, 247.15

-Pascagoula Cogen, Mississippi: 0.16 / 18,352.34

.

9. Archer Daniels Midland Cedar Rapids, Iowa-Coal: seems to double natural gas-powered plants in energy capacity at similar methane emission levels: 5.28 / 874,426.94 (Mwh)-as well as other coal plants, also.

10. Exception to Canadian natural gas-powered rule: SaskPower-Queen Elizabeth Power Station: 4.20 / 830,465.25 (Mwh)

.

11. EQUIVALENCY (Approx.)

1.58 / 110,536.96 Alloy Steam Station, West Virginia COAL

1.58 / 110,835.00 Butler-Warner Generation Plant, North Carolina NATGAS

1.54 / 270,136.18 BP Wilmington Claciner, California OIL

1.55 / 227, 943.12 DAI Oildale, California NATGAS

1.56 / 379,195.13 Mon Valley Works, Pennsylvania OTHER FUELS

.

12. At even lower levels of methane emission (under 2.0) appears to be a general convergence at production capacity of all sources of fuel.

13. At lower levels of methane emission (under 1.0), coal has more energy capacity than natural gas, even substantially more.

.

14. AT O.27 METHANE EMISSION LEVEL

-US Gypsum Oakfield, NY-NatGas: 30,660.21

-Calumet Energy Team LLC, Illinois-NatGas: 23,491.00

-East Hampton, NY-Oil: 6,333.00

-North East Cogeneration Plant, PA-NatGas: 29,430.67

-CFE CTG Juarez Parque, Chihuahua-Other Fuels: 7,967.47

-Neil Simpson Gas Turbine #2, Wyoming-NatGas: 26,385.96

-Archer Daniels Midland Lincoln, Nebraska-Coal: 45,581.21

-Doyle Generating Facility, Georgia (US)-NatGas: 20,093.00

-SEGS VIII, California-NatGas: 138,708.00

-American Eagle Paper Mills, Pennsylvania-Coal: 41,789.43

.

15. AT O.23 METHANE EMISSION LEVEL

-American Crystal Sugar Crookston, Minnesota-Coal: 35,845.31

-Indian River Plant, Florida-NatGas: 16,373.00

-New Mexico State University-NatGas, New Mexico: 29,384.27

-Mead Rumford Cogen, Maine-Oil: 123.00

-Warner Lambert, Michigan-NatGas: 25,532.76

-Plymouth Univeristy State College Cogeneration, New Hampshire-Oil: 7,911.50

-Cornell University Central Heat, NY-Coal: 25,891.12

-Paxton Creek Cogeneration, Pennsylvania-Oil: 6,305.22

-Chaney Dell Plant, Oklahoma-NatGas: 8,399.95

-American Crystal Sugar Moorhead, Minnesota-Coal: 35,130.44

.

MORE INFERENCES

1)Overall, it is truly difficult to identify-at least for me-a clear relationship between Natural gas, coal and oil in terms of methane emissions and energy capacity, other than a general tendency to produce less energy the lower emission levels are-but even this is not always true in regards to all three fossil fuels!

2)Coal has-apparently-no further application in regards to vehicles or transportation; natural gas-apparently-does: cars, buses, and planes.

3) Does the existence of a multitude of hardly efficient natural-gas powered plants throughout parts of the US (as of 2010) reflect a possible strategy of pipelining the United States to some degree with an idea of a future distrubtion system in regards to especially automobiles and a potential mass market as consumer need for natural gas for cars?

[Corollary question for 3: Is it correct to assume that gas-powered electric plants are in fact pipelined to receive natural gas through underground viaducts from Marcellus-rich sediment areas of the country, and that natural gas delivery, really, could not be ultimately conceivable by truck?]

4) It seems (because of several examples- PSEG Salem Generating Station, New Jersey-Oil: 0.03 / 18,344,483.00 ) oil might be just-or even more-efficient at low levels of methane emission than natural gas.

5) Thorough cost analysis would be necessary to understand the technical seriousness, ultimately, of Fracking, but the political use it lends itself to is evident.

6) I do not address environmental issues in regards to Fracking and the threat of contamination of soil and ground water sources.

7) Based on 5), the question immediately becomes a contemplation, really, of the psychology behind the silent but starkly clear shift in US industrial policy-underground (literally) and to some extent behind the backs of the public-since the late 90s or early 2000s; it is clear that the Pentagon as dictator, ultimately, of US foreign policy, is thoroughly committed-body and soul-to stiff arming the former US-Saudi Arabia (Israeli) balance of world structural power in regards to oil-and they have embarked on this at a ferocious pace, in clear co-ordinance with all levels of power input in the US-and probably, also, European (as well as Australian) societies.

8) If 7) is solid, the true nature of Internet control through a ploy of constant semiotic appeal to terrorism and a cosmic Manichean struggle of a Darth Vader-Luke Skywalker good and evil fight to the death as something of a substitute for the better, good old simple days of the Cold War, needs to be forced on the conscience of people as a necessary-and necessarily painful-exercise of a moral re-grounding of sorts in the name of Democracy and, ultimately, of world stability.

9) The issue of 28: all of the above is unfortunately entwined with the pressure put on world society in regards to global warming; and part of the duplicity and deception that has been demonstrated in regards to Pentagon Democracy policy has been directly dictated and even exploited because of it; but everybody, to one degree or another, gives some form of credence to a shift or apparent alteration of the world’s climate due to what appears to be an overall but still mild rise in world temperatures;

But I don’t. I consider this-this is how I am to consider this from the standpoint of Orange-as something that has been manipulated as part of a planetary learning experience for humanity-a test or proposition, if you will, that has been erected more as a stimulus for you, than due to any other reason.

It does, however, pose an interesting question with regards to how you are to see me, for 28 (a planetary decline in human demographics and the ensuing economic crisis) is completely incompatible with the logic as science you base your understanding of global warming on.

If it is true that the cause of global economic decline is due to the waning of human vital activity itself on the planet, it does not makes sense-I would think-to worry in the slightest about atmospheric pollution due to, ultimately, human need and consumer activity, yes?

And ultimately-or even already-this will necessarily become apparent in terms of planetary statistics and demographic data-just the way it is in fact real now in regards to certain aspects of aggregate economic data, everywhere, in fact, in the world and not just in Europe or the rest of the Western world.

But contrary to what may be the opinion and perception of some of you, I work to benefit-according to how I see things-the whole of humanity; and the bottom line for me as thinker, writer and servant, is the empowering of society through a rational understanding of the real issue humanity is now faced with.

And because I work for life-for the highest possible dignity of the living through reason as, ultimately, a form of survival in itself-and even as a form of systemic opposition as role in regards to my superiors (Orange)-I see the 28/Global Warming dichotomy as a form of parallax, as an option as vital space to be posed to the individual, before which she (the individual) will have to define her self, in one or another sense-and that this, ultimately, becomes a duality as vital modus operandi; and it should be finally understood as a form of choice as personal autonomy that in the end allows for everyone to co-exist even if it is according to slightly different personal interpretations of the world, life and reality.

But as I have plainly said in several instances of my writing-and that you may very well have been able to infer for yourself at this point-there is no way to avoid or deny what I stand for, now, at the current point in human history as human time itself.

You may live in denial-in some degree or another-but you will come to understand it as just that: a form of psychological denial as an individual and even cultural logic.

And this is by no means a negative thing, exactly.

Hope is in fact in your very understanding of it as strategy of dealing rationally, ultimately, with life itself.

Trust me.

Exactly in this way is how I live.

SK

Advertisements

From → Modus Operandi

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s