Posts tagged coal
What is Clean, Abundant, Affordable and the Best Alternative Energy Source We Have?
Jan 25th
If you answered cold fusion, eeehhhhh! Your time’s run out! If you answered natural gas, have a 
cigar. Natural gas for the simple reason that it is one of the quickest ways to achieve a future in which an oil importing nation is no longer held hostage by foreign oil and carbon and other harmful emissions are sharply curtailed.
Seems like a heretical statement coming from someone who spent the last 15 years helping to develop an installed base of renewable energy projects. With 2010 Total Energy Production of 1.2% and 0.1% of wind and solar, respectively, the impact of renewable energy is a long way off. In fact, there are signs that the industry maybe softening in the U.S.
Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. The combustion of natural gas emits significantly lower levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide than does the combustion of coal or oil. When used in efficient combined-cycle power plants, natural gas combustion can emit less than half as much CO2 as coal combustion, per unit of electricity output.
Are there “issues” with the extraction of natural gas from shale plays? Most certainly. Can the issues be managed? Again the answer is “Yes.”
Problems, and there were fewer than one would think, were as much a “Drill First – Figure Out Regulations Later” attitude than and real technical issues with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing “Fracking.” The issues were traced to use of unproven methods buy unqualified drillers and frackers as well as misconception and perception.The fact of the matter is there were only 42 (<0.3%) documented incidents of casing failures from improper cementing out of over 15,000 shall gas wells drilled in U.S.
Another misconception is the public outrage over benzene emissions for wells. Again the facts show that there were little of no benzene emissions in the Barnett shale. Measurements ran about 0.001% or 1/1,000 of 1% benzene, compared to 0.5% to 1% in gasoline.
Environmental concerns with shale gas production are being raised throughout the global landscape where it is technically feasible to extract the natural gas. The primary driver is hydraulic fracturing’s impact on drinking water. The fracturing slurry is a mixture of 99% water and sand in combination with a proprietary mix of 1% chemical additives. The fluid is injected underground to fracture rock containing natural gas. This can impact drinking water from contaminated aquifers and wells. The other concern is the potential for water and air contamination by fugitive leakage of natural gas during extraction and delivery. Natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas with the ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.
The brouhaha over water contamination arose from an unfortunate situation in Wyoming. Many news articles about the situation failed to highlight some key clauses in the EPA’s decision. First, the Agency was not definitive in blaming fracking for the water problems. Second, the EPA released the study before it had gone through the peer review process. Third, and most importantly, the Wyoming field is very different from most fracking areas. The gas-bearing rock being fractured in Wyoming was only about 1,220 feet deep and some water wells reached as far as 800 feet. By comparison, the gas-bearing rocks targeted by fracking operators in Texas and Pennsylvania are several thousand feet below any water supplies. Unlike shale formations like the Marcellus in Pennsylvania and the Barnett in Texas, the Wyoming gas was in a sandstone reservoir and did not have a geologic barrier or “cap” atop the gas-bearing layer. With so many major geologic differences between the fracked wells near Pavillion and those in shale basins, industry experts caution against extrapolating any conclusions from the Wyoming study.
Worldwide technical recoverable shale gas reserves is estimated to be about 32,500 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) U.S.’s reserves have the potential to produce 845 Tcf including “wet gas” wells that produce liquid petroleum condensate along with natural gas. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that there are 1,279.5 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas resources in the United States.
Natural gas can change the region’s economic landscape. Recently the IHS Global Insight reported:
“….. natural gas “shale gale” that began in the Barnett Shale is having “profound economic impacts” on the U.S. economy — creating jobs, reducing consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and escalating federal, state and local tax revenues,”
“….. shale gas development, after contributing $76.9 billion to the nation’s economic output in 2010, will add $118.2 billion in 2015 and $231.1 billion in 2035.”
“….. in 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; that number will likely grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015 and 1.6 million-plus by 2035.”
“….. savings from lower natural gas prices, as well as associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, will add an average $926 in disposable income per household annually from 2012 to 2015 and more than $2,000 annually by 2035.”
“….. the shale gas industry and related jobs pay higher wages — an average $23.16 per hour — than those in manufacturing, transportation and education.”
“….. the boom in domestic gas production has held down natural gas prices and thus electric rates in Texas because gas is burned to generate much of the power.”
“….. as a transportation fuel, compressed natural gas is cleaner-burning and much cheaper than gasoline,”
The primary economic consideration is the need to boost demand of natural gas. As supplies increase, unless there is a corresponding increase in demand, the price will plummet until it becomes financially sound to stop productions.
The two primary sectors that use fossil fuels are electricity generation through coal-fired power generation stations and the transportation industry through petroleum. T Converting coal-fired to natural gas-fired electricity generation plant is on a relative basis a no brainer. However, the transportation sector is somewhat more problematic in terms of converting vehicles internal combustion energy from gasoline to natural gas. The cost of conversion can range from $12,000 for light-duty to over $35,000 for heavy-duty vehicles. When gasoline retail prices fall below $3.00 a gallon, it’s a difficult proposition to justify the cost to convert vehicles to run on CNG. However, over $3.25 a gallon, conversion is a sound investment.
Natural gas can also play an essential role in the export market. An article that ran early last year in the Huffington Post points in this direction.”U.S. Becomes Net Exporter Of Fuel For First Time In Nearly 20 Years”. Diesel and other oil-based fuels led the increase.
So what can be said about natural gas can be summed up in one phrase: “A thousand workers can provide it, hundreds of countries can benefit from it, billions can use it, and one earth can be protected by it.
In closing, more than any other fuel source today and for the near future, natural gas is the only fuel that can be utilized across major fossil fuel hungry sectors. As a sustainabilist would say, it supports the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit. Renewable fuels fail to satisfy these criteria.
References:
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0103
- The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study:http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html
- NaturalGas.org http://www.naturalgas.org/business/analysis.asp
- IHS Global Insight: http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx
- Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/us-becomes-net-exporter-o_n_857085.html
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of emerging and mature technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Natural Gas: The Clean Alternative
Dec 12th
It has been common knowledge for quite sometime now that natural gas is a suitable clean alternative to all fossil fuels. Natural gas can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its reserves are abundant. Sure, it’s not on par with renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. But let’s get real; solar, wind, biomass, geothermal lack the installed base to make a difference.
A quick review of the supply source and demand sector data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) given below shows that:
- Coal is the primary supply source for Electric Power Generation; the largest energy demand sector.
- Petroleum is the primary supply source for the Transportation industry; the second largest demand sector.
- The 8% contribution of renewable energy to U.S. energy pathway is primarily from biomass (50%) and conventional hydroelectric power (35%). Not including these sources, solar and wind makeup only 0.8% of the entire energy supply for the U.S. economy; see EIA Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009.
OK, the U.S. and for that matter most developed countries of the word are fossil fuel based economies. Will renewables ever make an impact on the economy? As far back as the mid 90’s, some of us thought they would. But due to the high capital cost, poor reliability, site specificity, intensive real estate requirements, and the need for local, state and federal incentives, renewables are creeping forward at such a small pace society needs an interim alternative to alternative energy.
In such a scenario, natural gas comes to the rescue and serves as the clean energy bridge to the future. Shale gas the new source of today’s natural gas, which has contributed to an increase in domestic reserves, has had a deep impact on the U.S. economy. A report from IHS Global Insight points out that shale gas created jobs, reduced consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and increased local, state and federal tax revenues. Furthermore, natural gas requires no innovation to burn in an electric power generation station or combust in any internal combustion energy on the road. And finally, natural gas is cheaper. If this is not what is needed to bolster our economy, then someone better come forth ASAP with a more viable solution.
Although, environmentalists will argue that natural gas is a limited fossil fuel, it seems like the industry is Robbing Peter to Pay Paul! On face value this appears to be true, but as we wait to realize the benefits of clean energy, society is burning lots of coal and petroleum, while exporting dollars to feed our thrust for harmful fossil fuels. For the foreseeable future, burn we must!
The following chart clearly shows that natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than other more ‘conventional’ fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuel Emission Levels | |||
Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input | |||
| Pollutant | Natural Gas | Oil | Coal |
| Carbon Dioxide | 117,000 | 164,000 | 208,000 |
| Carbon Monoxide | 40 | 33 | 208 |
| Nitrogen Oxides | 92 | 448 | 457 |
| Sulfur Dioxide | 1 | 1,122 | 2,591 |
| Particulates | 7 | 84 | 2,744 |
| Mercury | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
Source: Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998 | |||
The only conundrum is the slow rate of adoption of compressed or liquefied natural gas vehicles (CNG and LNG) in the transportation industry. Here too, natural gas is cheaper than fossil fuels, the cost of conversion is significantly less than Electric Vehicles (EV), and does not have the range anxiety of EVs. NGV America reports that there are about 112,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and more than 13 million worldwide. Considering the fact that there are about 255 million registered vehicles in the U.S. the number of CNG and LNG vehicles are pitiful.
In closing, either go natural gas today or live with an ever-increasing environmental and economic threat from coal and petroleum. As of now, seeing our economy run by a large percent of truly clean and renewable fuels is unfortunately a distant dream.
References:
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html
- IHS Global Insight: http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx
- NGV America: http://www.ngvc.org/about_ngv/
- Bureau of Transportation Statics: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of new and emerging technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Oil Hypocrisy Exposed on Capitol Hill!
Nov 21st
Almost every U.S. politician over the last 40 years pledged unwavering support to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and imported oil for reasons of national security, energy security, economic prosperity and environmental stewardship. With all this flag waving, talk of renewable, clean and sustainable energy, and furor over foreign oil, what has actually been achieved?
The U.S. Energy Information Association (“EIA”) , Short-Term Outlook Report, September 7, 2011 concludes:
U.S. Liquid Fuels Consumption.
Total consumption of liquid fuels in 2010 grew 410 thousand bbl/d, or 2.2 percent, the highest rate of growth since 2004. In contrast, projected total U.S. liquid fuels consumption in 2011 falls by 170 thousand bbl/d (0.9 percent). Motor gasoline consumption accounts for almost all the projected decline for the year.
EIA expects total liquid fuels consumption to increase by 80 thousand bbl/d (0.4 percent) to 19.1 million bbl/d in 2012, down from the 170 thousand bbl/d increase projected in the previous Outlook because of the downward revisions to the U.S. economic growth forecast. Projected motor gasoline consumption rises by 40 thousand bbl/d (0.5 percent) as highway travel increases modestly, and distillate fuel consumption increases by 30 thousand bbl/d (0.9 percent) as growth in industrial activity and non-petroleum imports continues to slow as a result of continuing weak economic growth in 2012.
U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply and Imports.
Domestic crude oil production, which increased by 110 thousand bbl/d in 2010 to 5.5 million bbl/d, increases by a further 140 thousand bbl/d in 2011 and by 60 thousand bbl/d in 2012 (U.S. Crude Oil Production Chart), driven by increased oil-directed drilling activity, particularly in unconventional shale formations.
Liquid fuel net imports (including both crude oil and refined products) fell from 57 percent of total U.S. consumption in 2008 to 49 percent in 2010 because of rising domestic production and the decline in consumption during the economic downturn. EIA forecasts that liquid fuel net imports’ share of total consumption will decline further to 47 percent in both 2011 and 2012.
In simple terms, the report states:
- U.S. consumption of crude oil jumped in 2010, may decline slightly in 2011 and should rise again in 2012 for a total net increase of 1.7% from 2010.
- Domestic production of crude oil is projected to show an increase from 2010 to 2012.
- The percent contribution of imported oil to domestic consumption is projected to continue to decline through 2012.
However, a review of “U.S. Annual Crude Oil Net Imports,” shows a horse of a different color. In fact, the decline in crude oil imports is not really a decline at all. According to EIA data (see following graph):
- Oil imports increased 51% from 1992 to 2012 (projected).
- Oil imports shall remain relatively stable over the next few years.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
So if what we hear is not exactly true, then what is at play? The underpinnings of U.S.’s energy policy rests with The Department of Energy (“DoE”), which is mandated to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.
In a dramatic demonstration of the difference between actual and perceived, the DoE’s FY2012 Budget stipulated that the request of $29.5 billion “reflects increases for priority areas such as clean energy, nuclear security, and research and development. Savings are achieved through cuts to inefficient fossil energy programs.” True, allocations towards renewable energy projects increased to 3.9% of DoE’s entire budget from 2.2% in their FY2000 budget. But to think a paltry $1.16 billion in renewable energy expenditures in 2012 will have a major impact on achieving energy security and independence is unrealistic and downright nonsense.
If the DoE’ is nothing more than a political subterfuge then what programs and initiatives, if any, are driving changes to free us from oil based economy. The answer is obviously nothing. In reality it’s not a clean energy economy or freedom from foreign oil our lawmakers are actually striving for.
The final test of our government’s interest in these lofty goals will be in what Congress does with the issue of tax subsidies to the oil industry. Reflected in the International Center for Technology Assessment’s (“CTA”) 2003 Progress Report, “What Gasoline Really Costs Us,” and New York Times’ July 2010 article “As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies,” “oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses.”
CTA cites the reason “the federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks is to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.” In addition to direct tax subsidies to the oil industry, other federal handouts and hidden costs lie in Government Program Subsidies; Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. In total, these programs keep the price of petroleum artificially low, encourage its use and discourage use of other forms of clean energy.
In closing, after knowing the facts, it’s easy to deduce, that our elected officials on Capitol Hill are less than sincere in their efforts to adopt alternate sources of energy and reduce oil imports. If they are, then this is a supreme example of incompetency. If they are not inherently interested in getting us off oil, which seems to be the case, then deceit is the only remaining option. Additionally, with all the economic uncertainties in our economy, it would seem to be a no brainer and a win-win situation, to remove these subsidies.
Seems our trusted lawmakers are playing a most dangerous game.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading technology driven enterprises through ideation, development and commercialization. To read his other discussions, please visit: http://barryonenergy.wordpress.com
U.S. Support for Renewables is Miniscule…and Erratic
Nov 7th
It’s time to ponder a rational comparison of historical U.S. energy incentives. In a thoughtful analysis called “What Would Jefferson Do?” authors Nancy Pfund and Ben Healey of DBL Investors offer some revealing insight to inform the debate.
There is no free market in energy … and calls to action for renewables “to stand up to competition without any government support” would be better informed by a look at historical efforts to promote energy transitions in the U.S.
Coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy did not emerge as fully matured, low cost energy sources. Instead, they were the beneficiaries of decades of permanent and significant federal government incentives and supportive regulation. As part of a larger push to create jobs, support expansion, and fuel economic growth, the U.S. government has used a variety of financial and regulatory incentives to support energy innovation for over 200 years. Here are some of my favorites:
• In 1789, to promote the nascent domestic coal mining industry, the federal government enacted a tariff on imported coal, insuring that domestically produced coal would have a major cost advantage. The goal? To incentivize development of this strategic and emerging energy resource. The result? Higher short term prices for consumers.
• Throughout the 19th century, timber and coal interests benefitted from below market land grants, state sponsored geological surveys identifying resources, federal support to build out railway and waterway transportation systems to enable the extraction of these energy resources as well as a host of policies to spur growth.
• In 1950, Congress passed a subsidy that allowed owners of coal mining rights to reclassify income traditionally subject to income tax as royalty payment, for which a lower capital gains tax rate is paid. This special tax treatment is still available to members of the coal industry today and totaled well over $1.3B in forgone tax revenue between 2000 and 2009.
• And the nuclear industry got a huge boost when Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, which provided federal indemnification of utilities in the event of nuclear accidents. At the time, the Edison Electric Institute testified that without such immunization from the risk, “no utility company … will build or operate a reactor.”
So how do those incentives compare to current investments in renewables?
The level of support in the early days of the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries, as a percentage of the overall federal budget, dwarfs what is being spent to promote renewables. The report concludes that nuclear subsidies accounted for more than 1% of the federal budget over the industry’s first 15 years (as a percentage of inflation-adjusted federal spending). Oil and gas subsidies comprised 0.5% of the federal budget from 1918-1933. Meanwhile, support for renewables constituted only 0.1% of the federal budget since 1994. As you can see on the chart below, in inflation adjusted dollars, nuclear spending averaged $3.3B over the first 15 years of the subsidy life, oil and gas averaged $1.8 and renewables clocked in at less than $0.4B.
What’s even more surprising is that 50% of the Department of Energy’s research and development spending from 1948-2010 supported the nuclear industry. During that same period, 25% was spent on fossil fuels, 12% on renewables and 9% on energy efficiency.
Equally important is the fact that support for oil, gas, coal and nuclear has made its way in the permanent tax code, whereas tax incentives for renewables have traditionally been short term and renewed or not renewed on a sporadic basis. That causes a boom/bust market where investors fear making long term bets.
So what’s the take-away?
Energy policy is intricately related to government strategy for economic development. In the 1800s, the U.S. favored expansion and development of coal resources. In the 1900s, it promoted development of oil and gas resources in the first half of the century and hydro-electrical and nuclear energy sources in the second half.
If we want to insure leadership in the transition to the next predominant energy source – a transition underway in every major economy in the world – we need to use rational policy and sound regulation to steer us in that direction.
Written by Cathy Boone. Cathy defines and articulates the voice of Applied Materials’ solar business, while advocating for the widespread adoption of solar PV around the world. As the senior director for solar and government relations, Cathy also ensures that Applied Materials and its technology, equipment and service products are recognized as providing the premier solar solutions.
Source: http://blog.appliedmaterials.com/us-support-renewables-miniscule-and-erratic
Sino Clean Energy’s Transparency Showcases Company’s Positive Growth
Sep 8th
Mr. Baowen Ren, Chairman and CEO of Sino Clean Energy, discusses his company’s outlook for the rest of the year and offers some insight into their emphasis on making their operations more transparent and their growth plans for the next 3-5 years.
Investors Salivating Over Mongolian Energy Resources
Jun 9th
Sometime in the next 12 months, an energy IPO offering in distant Mongolia already has foreign investors salivating.
The darling of the international energy community is coal company Erdenes-Tavan Tolgoi (“Five Hills”) Ltd., popularly known as TT, which has yet to begin operations.
To give an idea of the potential foreign interest, analysts believe that the IPO will be handled by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG.
What is TT bringing to the market that has caused such interest? A massive deposit located in the east Tsankhi area of the Gobi desert and estimated to hold over 6.4 billion metric tons of coking coal, the world’s biggest untapped deposit of its kind.
Mongolia’s government is currently selecting an operator for the massive deposit and is expected to be a large, experienced foreign mining company. Heightening investor interest was a successful public offering last fall in the autumn of 2010 by Mongolian Mining Corp., Mongolia’s largest privately held domestic producer and exporter of coking coal, whose Ukhaa Khudag (UHG) mine is within the Tavan Tolgoi coal formation in southern Gobi. Mongolian Mining Corp.’s IPO was floated on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and raised $651 million.
In contrast, analysts are predicting that the TT IPO could raise as much as $10 billion.
What makes the TT IPO unique is that the Mongolian government has just given each citizen 538 shares in the Erdenes-Tavan Tolgoi IPO. If the IPO hits its anticipated $10 billion, each Mongolian shares would be worth about $360. The government stock giveaway totaled 1.5 billion shares, equal to 10% of TT and reserved another 1.5 billion TT shares for thousands of Mongolian business enterprises. Besides the 20 percent handed out to local enterprises and citizens, the government aims to retain 50 percent of TT, with the remaining 30 percent to be listed on an overseas stock exchange.
The TT stock giveaway is an integral part of a governmental effort to convince its citizens that its decision to pursue large-scale mining in Mongolia will have a direct bearing on their well-being, following several earlier contentious mining deals.
Mongolians complained bitterly about the arrangements surrounding the $6 billion Oyu Tolgoi project, jointly owned by Canada’s Ivanhoe Mines , Rio Tinto and the Mongolian government, which will be the world’s biggest copper mine outside Chile once full operation starts in 2013.
Underwriting Mongolia’s mining boom, two years ago the Ulsyn Ikh Khural (State Great Hural, or Parliament) finally repealed the 68 percent windfall profit tax on foreign mining operations, which came into effect in January, setting the stage for massive foreign investment.
Even Russia has gotten into the act. Earlier this month, Mongolian President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj visited Moscow and met with Russian President Dmitrii Medvedev, who commented on rising bilateral trade possibilities, “We need new powerful projects such as nuclear projects or Tavan-Tolgoi, which will promote bilateral cooperation.”
Besides coal, copper and gold, Mongolia has massive deposits of other materials the world desires, including uranium and rare earth elements (REEs.) As these deposits are developed, analysts predict the economy will flourish, with the International Monetary Fund predicting that Mongolia’s annual economic growth may surge to 23 percent in 2013 as Oyu Tolgoi and other projects begin production.
With energy-hungry China next door, a Mongolian energy or mining investment is looking like one of the global economy’s more certain bets, and in the case of TT, one doesn’t need the resources of a Goldman Sachs to buy in – yet!
Written by. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit www.oilprice.com
Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Investors-Salivating-Over-Mongolian-Energy-Resources.html
The Availability of Coal
Jan 24th
Coal is America’s power. It is our Nation’s most abundant and affordable energy resource. Coal powers nearly half of America’s electricity – more than twice any other source – provides affordable electricity to millions of households and remains a vital energy source for keeping American industries competitive in a challenging global economy. Upwards of 154,000 Americans owe their livelihood directly to coal; many thousands more – approximately 555,000—rely on coal to support their families and communities. More >
How Much Energy Does the U.S. Military Consume
Jan 3rd
Since the beginning of the 20th century energy has been a critical factor for armed forces worldwide. From the end of the Cold War to the first years of the 21st century, the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) energy consumption dropped by some 40 percent, but with the Global War on Terror consumption has raised again. More >
Why Methanol Is A Reliable Transportation Fuel
Jan 2nd
For any alternative to gasoline or diesel to be considered a reliable transportation fuel, four factors need to be addressed. The alternative fuel must: (1) have a large energy resource base; (2) a positive impact on the economy; (3) be cleaner and greener; and (4) be acceptable to the consumer. Let’s look at the methanol factors with this checklist.
Loading ...
Recent Comments