Wind and solar need natural gas to balance intermittent, variable, and seasonal power

Preface. The highest wind states are getting more and more dependent on natural gas to balance wind and solar as they live and die. Yet conventional natural gas in the U.S. has peaked (half of our national gas, and declining at 5% a year).  Shale “fracked” natural gas is expected to peak by 2020, and can decline by 80% within a few years, and is already $400 billion in debt, so it may fail financially before it does geologically.

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of wind and solar are “cheap” because they don’t include Natural Gas LCOE, yet they rely nearly 100% on natural gas (and sometimes hydropower in the 10 states that have 80% of it).  So actually wind and solar cost twice as much, because you have to have a backup natural gas power plant. Utility scale batteries are far too expensive for most utilities, and typically can last for 1 hour at most, a few 4 hours, but 6 weeks of backup is needed since wind and solar are seasonal. Nor do LCOE costs for wind and solar include the transmission system and other infrastructure.

Related:

Bryce R (2021) This Blizzard Exposes The Perils Of Attempting To ‘Electrify Everything’. Forbes.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy”, 2021, Springer; “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report

***

USEIA (2016) Natural gas generation and electricity imports used to follow load in California. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

graph of hourly average CAISO electricity production, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, California Independent System Operator (CAISO) as accessed through ABB Velocity Suite

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the entity responsible for maintaining the balance between supply and demand for electricity throughout most of the state, where demand peaks in the late afternoon or early evening on summer days. Because of differences in the hourly output of certain electricity generators, some of which are nearly constant (nuclear) and some of which can vary considerably during the day (solar, wind), output from mainly natural gas and electricity imports from other regions are used to balance overall electricity supply and demand in the region.

Thermal generation in CAISO, mostly comes from natural gas, contributes the largest share of electricity generation in CAISO and has the widest range in hourly generation. Based on hourly data in June, July, and August, on the average summer day in 2016, in-region thermal power output ranged between 7.3 gigawatts and 15.2 gigawatts (GW). Over the entire summer, hourly thermal power output was as high as 25.6 GW at 5:00 p.m. on July 27, when total system demand was high, and was as low as 2.6 GW at 9:00 a.m. on June 12, an hour when demand was relatively low and renewables output was relatively high.

The only nuclear facility in CAISO, Diablo Canyon, consistently provided about 2.2 GW of power. Large hydroelectric facilities combined for about 2.3 GW to 4.8 GW of power on a typical day. Hydroelectric facilities, the most flexible renewable sources, were generally dispatched to coincide with electricity demand, meaning output was often highest during hours of peak electricity demand and lowest during times of low electricity demand.

graph of hourly CAISO electricity production by fuel type, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, California Independent System Operator (CAISO) as accessed through ABB Velocity Suite

Some renewable fuels have more variable levels of output, particularly wind and solar. Most of CAISO’s utility-scale solar generation comes from solar photovoltaic systems, whose output is dependent on sunlight during daylight hours. The CAISO area includes a few solar thermal facilities, some of which have energy storage that allows them to produce electricity after the sun has gone down, but these generators make up a relatively small portion of CAISO’s solar output. On an average summer day, utility-scale solar output ranged from 0 GW to 7.6 GW, the largest range among renewable fuels and the only fuel to have many hours without any output.

graph of hourly CAISO electricity production for selected renewable fuels, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, California Independent System Operator (CAISO) as accessed through ABB Velocity Suite

Wind generators provided about 2.2 GW on average, but they ranged from near zero (0.06 GW) to more than 4 GW several times during the summer. Wind output is often at its lowest point during the middle of the day, when solar output is near its highest. Geothermal, biomass, biogas, and small hydroelectric facilities had lower but more consistent output with relatively small differences between their highest and lowest hourly output.

Electricity imports are another option to supplement electricity produced by in-region sources to balance total supply with system load. Data from EIA’s new electric system operating tool show electricity trades among different balancing authorities. CAISO imports electricity from nearby regions such as the Northwest and Southwest. On an average summer day, these imports range between 6.5 GW and 9.4 GW.

 

Posted in Natural Gas, Solar, Wind | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Wind and solar need natural gas to balance intermittent, variable, and seasonal power

The effects of Middle East events on U.S. Energy markets

[ Of note from this U.S. House 2011 hearing:

John Hofmeister, former President of Shell OilMatt Simmons, who passed away this past summer, used to speak of the Straits of Hormuz as, we live one day away from an oil Pearl Harbor [because the] Straits of Hormuz transport between 20% and 25% of daily consumption of global oil, and were they to be shut in, the world would be in a panic overnight if it were not possible to pass oil… The immediate impact on crude oil prices would … double or even triple the current crude oil price… it is such a critical pinch point and so much of that oil goes both east and west that it is not only energy security for the United States, it is energy security for the world’s second largest economy, China. And so the consequence would be dramatic.

While it is great to have a million new vehicles hybrids and battery cars on the roads by 2015, 250 million automobiles and tens of millions of trucks, tractors, planes, boats, buses and other vehicles depend upon a daily supply of crude oil.

[And]  we should not forget that within that 20-million-barrel-per-day demand  is a petrochemical industry that needs crude oil as feedstock [to produce]  the fiber [in] our clothing, pharmaceuticals,  lubricants, and the food that we use to eat in this country.

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts. Yesterday, this subcommittee held a hearing on Republican legislation that will bar EPA from doing anything further to reduce oil use from cars, trucks, planes, boats or any other source. The legislation might even nullify the progress that has already been made at the EPA in reducing demand for oil from cars and trucksThe Republican bill could result in an increase in our oil dependence of more than 5 million barrels a day by the year 2030, more than we currently import from OPEC [yet] … here we are holding a hearing on the effect of Middle East unrest on the oil market as though the Republican legislation that will dramatically increase our dependence on Middle Eastern oil didn’t even exist.

Mrs. Lois Capps. California… rejected the Koch Brothers’ attempt to remove all the clean air regulations in California by voting down Proposition 23.   We hear from the majority today that the way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to drill our way out of the problem. … I think we know that is not true by a long shot.  There is no way we could produce enough to meet our needs domestically. If we had adopted … efficiency standards for our vehicles, homes and appliances in the 1990s [which Democrats and a few Republicans tried to do], we may not have found ourselves in the situation we are in today.

Mr. Pete Olson, Texas. I think you believe as I do that we have to develop all the oil and gas resources that God has given our country. That means the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, the West Coast, Alaska, the public lands, wherever it is, we need to develop that oil.

John Sullivan, Oklahoma.  We have the resources to drill at home and the American people deserve an affordable national energy policy that takes advantage of the fact that we have more energy within our borders than our nation will ever need or want.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts:  KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity]

House 112-4. February 10, 2011. The effects of Middle East events on U.S. Energy markets. House of Representatives, subcommittee on energy and power 112th congress. 231 pages

Excerpts:

Source: EIA (data estimates based on APEX tanker data) from House 112-4. February 10, 2011. The effects of middle east events on U.S. Energy markets. House of Representatives hearing

Source: EIA (data estimates based on APEX tanker data) from House 112-4. February 10, 2011. The effects of middle east events on U.S. Energy markets. House of Representatives hearing

ED WHITFIELD, KENTUCKY.   We convene today’s hearing to have a discussion on recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa and their effect on world energy markets.

Violent protests and political uncertainty in Egypt 2 weeks ago caused a sudden spike in oil prices that, over the past few days, has gradually subsided. The price increase was driven by investor fears over the possible shutdown of the Suez Canal and Su-Med Pipeline, which transport up to 3 million barrels of oil per day. Events in the Middle East [show that] political events can play a major role in influencing the price of oil.  Half the world’s oil is produced in OPEC member states and Russia. Some of these nations are politically and economically unstable, and in a tightening market, unreliable sources of oil will prove increasingly detrimental to price stability and international security. Events in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria and Yemen show how uncertain and dangerous this world is. Furthermore, these developments show how the price of oil can bend to the will of protesters thousands of miles away from our shores.

The National Petroleum Council estimates we have upwards of 40 billion barrels of oil locked away in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, on- and offshore Alaska, that are currently off-limits for production.

These 40 billion barrels are double the proven reserves in the United States today. These resources could easily double our domestic production capacity and replace our imports from the Middle East.

Failing to produce domestic energy guarantees environmental harm elsewhere in the world.

John Hofmeister, former President of Shell Oil.  With respect to the choke points, the 3 most serious are the Suez Canal, the Hormuz Straits, which is separating Iran from Yemen— I am sorry—Oman and Iran, and the Straits of Malacca, which is between Malaysia and Indonesia. These choke points carry enormous amounts of crude oil.   Matt Simmons, who passed away this past summer, used to speak of the Straits of Hormuz as, we live one day away from an oil Pearl Harbor [because the] Straits of Hormuz transport between 20% and 25% of daily consumption of global oil, and were they to be shut in, the world would be in a panic overnight if it were not possible to pass oil….The immediate impact on crude oil prices would … double or even triple the current crude oil price… it is such a critical pinch point and so much of that oil goes both east and west that it is not only energy security for the United States, it is energy security for the world’s second largest economy, China. And so the consequence would be dramatic.

The decline in the Gulf of Mexico I believe will be sharper and deeper than what anyone is currently projecting because the decline rate from existing wells, particularly deep water, fall off naturally very quickly, and the reason we had 34 rigs drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was not so much to increase the rate of production but to sustain the rate of production in the Gulf of Mexico. While there may have been some increase, absent drilling, we have made a horrible error as a country. The rest of the world did not discontinue offshore drilling.

Every consumer in this country uses crude oil in one way or another, and we do face the political uncertainties as evidenced most recently by Egypt and the threat to the Suez Canal and the Sumed pipeline. I am reminded that while this Administration has strangled oil production in the Gulf of Mexico for an unpredictable period, China, according to Professor Wenren Jang at the University of Alberta, is going in exactly the opposite direction.

China is planning to build 1.5 million kilometers of highways over the coming decade, and in order to assure a steady crude oil supply to China has loaned the following countries the following amounts of money:

  • Brazil, $10 billion
  • Kazakhstan, $10 billion
  • Venezuela, $20 billion
  • Ghana, $16 billion
  • Democratic Republican of Congo, $7 billion
  • Nigeria, $23 billion
  • Russia, $25 billion

China expects crude oil demand of 18 million barrels a day by the end of the decade. They are currently at about nine. Meanwhile, in the United States, today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, we will consume about 20 million barrels a day, producing only seven domestically.

As long as the United States produces so limited amount of its own supply, we are vulnerable to whatever happens anywhere in the world. The United States forfeited its energy security over a sustained period of decades by prohibiting drilling on 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf, by prohibiting drilling on 97% of federal land, by standing the way of many infrastructure developments that would otherwise enable enhanced oil production in many parts of old oil fields. While people focus on transportation and the use of oil, we should not forget that within that 20-million-barrel-per-day demand, there is an entire petrochemical industry that needs crude oil as feedstock. That petrochemical industry produces the fiber which we use for clothing and other industrial purposes. It produces the pharmaceuticals, the lubricants, the food that we use to eat in this country. We have many more needs for oil than simply transportation purposes. While it is great to have a million new vehicles hybrids and battery cars on the roads by 2015, the 250 million automobiles and tens of millions of trucks, tractors, planes, boats, buses and other transportation vehicles depend upon a daily supply of crude oil.

BOBBY RUSH, ILLINOIS.  Energy supply and demand are key components to the American economy. They all affect all dimensions of our lives from driving to work, feeding our families to heating and cooling our homes. Notwithstanding energy’s fundamental important, the markets and exchanges on which are energy sources are traded remains extremely volatile and unpredictable. I think I can safely say that a consistent theme we will be hearing throughout this morning is that it is in America’s best strategic and economic interests to become less and less dependent on foreign oil, gas and other fossil fuels in as short a time frame as possible.

The Obama Administration understands this perfectly well, which is why it has set the ambitious goals of, one, putting 1 million electric automobiles on America’s streets and highways and into America’s families’ garages and parking lots by 2012; 2), unleashing a clean energy revolution to double the supply of renewable energy by the end of 2012; 3), doubling America’s exports by the end of 2015; and 4), dramatically decreasing American dependence on traditional fossil fuels so that by 2035 approximately 80% of America’s electricity is sourced by renewables.

Our dependency as individuals, families and businesses on imported energy sources is still far too great.

Today’s hearing should not be used, Mr. Chairman, to criticize EPA’s permitting process to build refineries or to sanction more domestic drilling. In case you have forgotten, let me remind you that EPA’s mission, as it name indicates, is to protect the American environment and the country that we inherit. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you

John Shimkus, Illinois.  I am an Obama skeptic when it comes to energy security. We have the resources available in North American energy supplies to be energy independent when we talk about North American.

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA. The recent events in Egypt have once again exposed our dependence on foreign oil. Although Egypt isn’t a major producer of oil, the Suez Canal and the Suez-Mediterranean pipeline are crucial shipping links for global oil and gas markets. Instability there has increased oil prices around the world. For decades, the Energy Information Administration projected that U.S. oil consumption would grow year after year, and it did. By 2005, nearly 60% of U.S. fuels were imported. And the future looked bleak: higher oil consumption and more imports far into the future. The solution offered by the Bush Administration was to drill out way out of the problem, and I know we are going to hear this proposed solution again today. We will hear that increased domestic production is the answer. But more U.S. production is never going to be enough to appreciably reduce global oil prices or U.S. imports of foreign oil. We use 25% of the world’s oil but we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves. So we can double it and we could even triple it, and it is simply not going to affect global oil prices much. The key to making progress is to focus on how much oil we use. Reducing our share of global oil consumption from 25% can have a real impact both on global oil prices and on imports.

As the second chart shows, by requiring improvements in how efficiently we use oil, the Administration has reversed a dangerous trend. The Administration wants to build on this success with stronger standards after model year 2016. And it is also working on standards for trucks and other commercial vehicles. These standards could save even more money at the pump while further reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Incredibly, the new Republican majority in Congress is opposed to these efforts. Chairman Upton and Senator Inhofe have proposed legislation to block EPA from setting new motor vehicle standards.

We need to use oil more efficiently so that we can import less of it, but the Upton-Inhofe bill would take us in exactly the wrong direction. It would block one policy that has proven that it works. The Upton-Inhofe bill is great for oil companies like Koch Industries, which spent millions of dollars electing Republicans. But it is a public health, economic and national security disaster for all the rest of us.

RICHARD G. NEWELL, PH.D., Administrator, Energy Information Administration.  Given Egypt’s small role in the global supply-demand balance for both oil and natural gas, the primary issue for global energy markets is driven by two other concerns. First, there is the concern that unrest could spread to countries with a larger role in supplying world oil markets. There is no doubt that the Middle East and North Africa are a major source of oil supply and other petroleum liquids, supplying about 28% of global liquids consumption.

The EIA has looked at a concern more directly related to Egypt involving the possibility of disruption of the Suez Canal or Sumed pipeline, which together carry about 3 million barrels a day of oil. The canal and pipeline continue to operate normally, and for reasons outlined in my written testimony, we would expect the direct effect of any closures to be manageable, although there would be undoubtedly an adjustment period.

Mr. POMPEO. Dr. Newell, in your analysis, there is the theory of peak oil.

Mr. NEWELL. We are projecting an increase in both U.S. domestic production of crude oil in the next 25 years as well as a significant increase internationally in crude oil, so we at this point in time, for the next 25 years, which is how far our projection goes out, we don’t see a peaking of world oil production capacity.

Gary Mar, Minister- Counselor, government of Alberta, Canada.  For the past 5 years, Canada has and continues to be the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States. In 2009, Canada supplied 23% of America’s oil imports, more than double the imports that come from Saudi Arabia and more than four times the imported oil that comes from Iraq. The lion’s share of Canada’s exports comes from Alberta’s oil sands. If you look at Alberta in isolation, we provide 17% of your total crude oil imports, and that is in volume 1.5 million barrels of oil per day that comes to you from Alberta in a transportation system that doesn’t move called a pipeline.

I should talk about the overall size of the resource of the oil that is in place in Alberta in the oil sands. It is roughly 1.7 trillion barrels of oil of which with current technology and prices about 10% of it is accessible, so roughly 170 billion barrels. So there is certainly ample room to move up our production to the 3.3 million barrels a day. It is a very realistic target.  In terms of the policies of Alberta, there are policies in place to recognize that the upfront costs of developing oil sands are very, very high. There are no exploratory costs to speak of really because we know exactly where it is, but there are enormous costs upfront in terms of capital investment that is required by private sector investment to do that. The government policy permits those who will invest to pay royalties only after payout from their original investment and so that is really the only incentive that is the strongest incentive that the government puts in place to ensure that there is purchases of land leases to develop oil sands.

Chris Busch, Policy and Program Director for the Apollo Alliance. We are a national alliance of labor, business, environmental, and community groups working towards clean energy solutions that also grow the economy and improve American competitiveness.

Every president since Nixon has sought to lessen our dependency on imported oil. Though we have started to turn the corner thanks to policies like the 2010 clean car standards, America still faces this challenge. Nearly 60% of U.S. demand is now met by imported oil. The United States accounts for 22% of the world’s oil consumption but we only possess 1.4% of the world’s proven reserves. Those numbers are slightly different than Mr. Waxman’s but those are according to the EIA’s 2009 data. These numbers tell a simple truth. No matter how deep we will, domestic oil supplies cannot solve this problem. We must put in place policies to address the demand side of the problem.

We have experienced six significant price shocks in the past 40 years. We all remember oil nearing $150 per barrel in 2008. Oil price shocks have been a reality of world oil markets, and surging demand from China and other countries suggests they will become more common, not less.

CHRIS JOHN,  Chairman of Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. I represent all of the companies that explore, produce, market, transfer from the ground to the tank,  and the fact of the matter is, when we look at energy policy in this country, it cannot be an either/or. The fact of the matter is, we need all drops and all kinds of energy to make America more energy secure. But I think the real factor, the factor that we must keep in focus like a rifle shot as we debate some of these is the energy reality that we have in this country. I think it is very important not to deviate from it because we can talk about assumptions and we can talk about politics and we can look at it from a geographical standpoint. The fact of the matter is that you must be grounded in our conversations about the energy reality in this country, and that is what I would like to spend a little bit of my time on.

The fact of the matter is that 78%—the energy reality today, not tomorrow, not yesterday, but today is that 78% of our fuel needs, our energy needs is going to come from fossil fuels, 78% from fossil fuels. You will have 12% from nuclear, you will have 3% from hybrid, 1% from wind, a half a percent from solar and then it goes down from there. I think that is an important point as we discuss the future of energy policy in this country because even DOE says that 60% of our energy needs over the next 25 years is going to come from fossil fuels. There have been experts that obviously have said higher than that, and I believe it is closer to 80% for the next 50 years that fossil fuels are going to play a very important part in providing energy security for America.

With respect to the choke points, the 3 most serious are the Suez Canal, the Hormuz Straits, which is separating Iran from Oman and Iran, and the Straits of Malacca, which is between Malaysia and Indonesia. These choke points carry enormous amounts of crude oil.   Matt Simmons, who passed away this past summer, used to speak of the Straits of Hormuz as, we live one day away from an oil Pearl Harbor. In other words, those Straits of Hormuz transport between 20 and 25% of daily consumption of global oil, and were they to be shut in, the world would be in a panic overnight if it were not possible to pass oil.

The production curve of what is in the Gulf and what can be produced in the Gulf shows somewhat of a decline. However, it is important to understand that you just don’t turn the switch on and off. In a deep water project where you have a billion-dollar piece of equipment in a floating drill ship from start to finish, by the time you actually lease the property until you explore, then produce, pipeline and it gets into the market is somewhere in the 2- to 5-year range. In fact, the deep water Macondo well, the lease sale of that piece of property was in 2008, so that was a 2-year span and they weren’t in production.

The bottom line is, we can’t afford to not improve the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive. That is our number one weapon against the Middle East. That is where we are teaching them a lesson. That is President Kennedy telling Khrushchev we are putting a man on the moon in 10 years and bringing him back, you are not controlling outer space, we are using our technology to dominate you. That is our message to the Middle East. They have 70% of the oil reserves in the world, the Middle East. We cannot beat them at that game with only 3% of the oil reserves. It is irresponsible to talk about basically tying the hands of the EPA to improve our ability to make ourselves efficient to back out this oil from the Middle East, and next week’s vote if we have it will be a historical one.

There are 33 drill ships. There are 240 people per drill ship that work, full-time equivalent. If you multiply that out, that is about 38,000 people whose job is at risk today. Now, 6 drilling ships are gone, and those drill ships, as I mentioned earlier, a billion-dollar piece of equipment, you don’t just move them one day in an area of the world and move them back 6 months later. They are gone for 3 years to 5 years because that is the contractual obligations that they are insisting on having. Those drill ships are $400,000 a day, a day rate. That is how much they were getting. Some of the companies now negotiated a day rate below 100. How long can they stay? I think we are getting towards the end of that. I think that you see that we have got 27 drill ships that are idled right now kind of waiting to see, but at some point in time, two of which are already in the middle of negotiations, that are going to leave, and when they leave, it is 5 years, and it is about 2,000 jobs per drill ship when you multiply the factor of 4.1 to each job that is created.

Mr. Jay Inslee, Washington. I wanted to explore with Dr. Newell whether or not substantially increased opening of federal lands would have an impact on the price of fuel at the pump, and I want to read your agency’s evaluation of this issue. It is a study called Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. It is a study in 2009. Now, a lot of folks would think if we just open up the spigot off the Outer Continental Shelf and other places, problem solved on prices. I want to read what your agency concluded after looking at it. You concluded: ‘‘The average price of imported low-sulfur crude oil in 2030 in 2007 dollars is $1.34 per barrel higher and the average U.S. price of motor gasoline price is 3 cents per gallon higher than in the reference case.’’ Now, as I understand what you are saying, when you looked at this issue and really looked at the economics of this issue, your agency concluded that if we essentially removed all federal restrictions on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. In 2030, after everything had been exploited to the extent the human mind can consider, the price would be 3 cents different in 2030. Now, that is pretty stunning because a lot of people, particularly on the other side of the aisle, figure we will just solve this cost problem by just opening up the spigot everywhere in the United States including Yellowstone National Park and the Mall. But your conclusion seems to suggest that there is a negligible, almost infinitesimal difference of we do that in price. Now, my understanding would be the reason for your conclusion is essentially it is a world market for oil, and since we have such a small amount of the world market at 3% top of the world market, we are not to affect the cost very much no matter where we drill in the United States, Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic, you name it. Secondly, there is a phenomenon that every time we increase our drilling OPEC can decrease theirs to maintain the price that they desire because that is where the oil is in the world. Now, are those the primary reasons that you concluded there would be a negligible, if almost infinitesimal, difference of price or are there others that I have not alluded to?

Mr. NEWELL. I think you have captured some of the main factors that would come into play in analyzing that kind of question.  In the previous analyses that EIA has done, the magnitude of increased production that tends to be associated with some of these actions is measured in the hundreds of thousands of barrels per day, which is a significant magnitude, but in the global scheme of things, it tends to be significantly less than 1% of global oil supply and so therefore in terms of global impacts on price, it tends to be small.

Mr. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts. Yesterday, this subcommittee held a hearing on Republican legislation that will bar EPA from doing anything further to reduce oil use from cars, trucks, planes, boats or any other source. The legislation might even nullify the progress that has already been made at the EPA in reducing demand for oil from cars and trucks and through the development of homegrown renewable fuels. The Republican bill could result in an increase in our oil dependence of more than 5 million barrels a day by the year 2030, more than we currently import from OPEC [yet] … here we are holding a hearing on the effect of Middle East unrest on the oil market as though the Republican legislation that will dramatically increase our dependence on Middle Eastern oil didn’t even exist. It reminds me a lot of when Monsignor O’Malley used to go up into the pulpit on Sunday and lecture to the congregation that on Wednesday in the church hall, Father Ganney will lecture on the evils of gambling; on Thursday night in the church hall, bingo. Well, yesterday we are lectured on the evils of the EPA. Today, bingo, Egypt, bingo, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, bingo, bingo, bingo, bingo. So let me ask each of you. Let us go down the list and I would like a yes or no on whether or not you feel it is important for us to stop $162 billion a year going to OPEC, going to Middle Eastern countries that are paid for by American consumers at $90 a barrel so that we are not subsidizing religious fanaticism in Saudi Arabia, we are not subsidizing rockets being constructed in Iran that are then used by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel and against our country.

Mrs. Lois Capps. California, where do have a strong labor movement, rejected the Koch Brothers’ attempt to remove all the clean air regulations that we have in California by voting down Proposition 23 in the last election.   We hear from the majority today that the way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to drill our way out of the problem. … I think we know in our country that that is not true by a long shot. We use so much oil in this country. I think it is actually too precious to waste on energy because of the other products that oil can offer us, lifesaving products. There is no way we could produce enough to meet our needs domestically. If we had adopted what many of us on this side on the dais and some on the other side as well had called for in the 1990s like efficiency standards for our vehicles, homes and appliances, we may not have found ourselves in the situation we are in today. Dr. Busch, the Republican Majority also claims that taking action to reduce carbon pollution would be too expensive, but that is not what you found when you looked at the demand side, and that is what I want to ask you about today. You and your colleagues examined the effects of California’s clean energy law, which will lead to the adoption of more-efficient vehicles and lower carbon fuels. California’s standards will reduce the amount of oil used by cars. Dr. Busch, what impact on oil demand in imports did California’s measures have?

Mr. Busch. Well, we actually built on the analysis of the California Air Resources Board, and so using their numbers, we found that AB 32 policies would lead to a reduction of 75 million barrels per year. About an 18% reduction is the forecasted reduction.

Mrs. Capps. And that is going to save California a little money? About how much?

Mr. Busch. At $114.50 per barrel, that is about $11 billion reduction in the import bill.

Mr. Pete Olson, Texas.   I want to talk about national security and the Middle East. I think you believe as I do that we have to develop all the oil and gas resources that God has given our country. That means the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, the West Coast, Alaska, the public lands, wherever it is, we need to develop that oil. We are very vulnerable geographically particularly with these Straits of Hormuz and with the Suez Canal where most of the oil that our country depends upon flows through, and I was in the Navy for 10 years, flew P-3s and did many, many patrols through the Straits of Hormuz, and it is a very, very, very narrow choke point, about 10, 15 miles wide at its widest, and when we flew through there, we had devices on our aircraft that we were being tracked by fire control radar from the Iranians, and I can guarantee you that they are doing that with the tankers that are coming through. I mean, if they want to cause big, big trouble for the world, take out a tanker right there in the middle of the straits and cut off the whole Persian Gulf to traffic. And so, my point here, we are depending right now—we have got two very unstable nations, Egypt with what is going on there internally and Iran with a leadership who doesn’t live on this planet.

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman.

  • Oil and turmoil coexist in several regions, most significantly the Middle East. The unfolding events in Egypt, coming on the heels of similar unrest in Tunisia and other Middle Eastern and North African nations, is of great importance to us for a number of reasons, but today’s hearing will focus on the implications for the global oil market.
  • Events in that part of the world can disrupt oil production, or in the case of Egypt, jeopardize the transport of that oil to end users. The stronger the global demand for oil, and the smaller the cushion provided by spare capacity, the more likely any actual or threatened disruption of supplies will destabilize markets and elevate prices.
  • It’s simply a reality that the Middle East will remain volatile. Today it is Egypt, tomorrow it may be Iran or Saudi Arabia. Every few months will bring incidents of minor and sometimes major concern. How to deal with this instability is an ongoing challenge.

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma.  I am concerned with the political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East. From Friday January 28th to Monday January 31st the price of crude oil futures suddenly jumped 6% on the security fears of the Suez Canal which is considered a world oil chokepoint due to the volume of oil traveling through such a narrow route and the Sumed pipeline in Egypt. These events prove once again that our nation’s dependence on OPEC oil is a national and economic security issue. We import 5 million barrels of oil per day from OPEC but yet we continue to restrict domestic oil resources in our country, yet the simple fact is we live in a hydrocarbon economy and we will be one for long into the future. We have the resources to drill at home and the American people deserve an affordable national energy policy that takes advantage of the fact that we have more energy within our borders than our nation will ever need or want.

My concern today is that the U.S. does not have a backup for our demand. We are at the mercy of unstable countries like Yemen, and now, potentially Egypt. If their economies fail, or worse, fail and fall into the hands of terrorists, our energy supply fails as well. The US imports over half of what it consumes, so if Egypt collapses and terrorist forces take hold, they may very well decide to restrict access to the Suez Canal, for example. We are then talking about a severe disruption in the oil supply. Rising prices, which we are experiencing today due to the crisis in Egypt, will be the least of our concerns when the wrong people control the energy supply. Demand for oil and gas is not going away.

Posted in Chokepoints, Threats to oil supply, U.S. Congress Energy Policy | Tagged | Comments Off on The effects of Middle East events on U.S. Energy markets

Minerals: Natural gas from Ugo Bardi’s “Extracted”

Preface. This is just a small sampling of what Bardi thinks might happen post fossil fuels, mostly shortened and reworded.

Here are 7 other posts from this great book:

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report

***

Bardi, Ugo. 2014. Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet. Chelsea Green Publishing.

The average EROEI required to run industrial society as we know it is around 8 to 10. Prieto and Hall (2013) found the EROI of solar to be 2.4 in "Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution. The Energy Return on Investment" and Ferroni and Hopkirk in 2016 to be NEGATIVE .85 in journal "Energy Policy" on May 8

Figure 1. The average EROEI required to run industrial society as we know it is around 8 to 10. Prieto and Hall (2013) found the EROI of solar to be 2.4 in “Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution. The Energy Return on Investment” and Ferroni and Hopkirk in 2016 to be NEGATIVE .85 in journal “Energy Policy” on May 8

NATURAL GAS.  As figure 1 shows, the average EROEI required to run industrial society as we know it is around 8 to 10.   Shale gas and coal seam gas are both at, or below, that level if their full costs are accounted for, as are shale oil and tar sands.  Thus fracking, in energy terms, will not provide a source on which to develop sustainable global society.

The problem is that storing natural gas requires heavy, expensive pressurized vessels, and transporting it requires complex and expensive infrastructure. On land, gas is transported through a network of pipelines. To travel by sea, gas must undergo cryogenic liquefaction to obtain a sufficiently high-energy-density liquid (liquefied natural gas, or LNG) for transportation in special refrigerated tankers. These methods are far from being satisfactory: pipelines cannot cross oceans, and cryogenic transportation is expensive. So gas remains mainly a regional resource, and it makes little sense to speak of a global production peak for gas in the same way we would for oil. But local gas peaks are possible. Several have been observed, such as the 1971 peak in the United States. However, in recent times the development of technologies to extract gas locked in shale deposits (“shale gas”) has prompted a return to high levels of gas production, especially in the United States. Because of this achievement, some have been speaking of a new era of prosperity based on shale gas. Most likely that is an exaggeration.

Fracking, or more accurately, hydraulic fracturing, is the process of opening up fractures in tight subterranean geological formations by injecting fluid at high pressure. Fracking was initially developed by the oil and gas industry in the late 1940s and has since been widely applied.  Today over 50% of conventional oil and gas wells around the world are fracked.

Conventional oil and gas reservoirs are primarily sandstone or limestone with relatively high porosity and permeability. Fracking in this context is used to improve what are already fairly high flow rates. The process requires relatively small amounts of energy, fluid, and other materials. Non-conventional oil and gas resources, on the other hand, are contained within reservoirs such as shale beds or coal seams, which have much lower porosity and permeability. In both shale and coal seam fracking, the process injects fracturing fluid under high pressure to create the fractures and carry proppant material into the formation to keep the fractures open. In contrast to conventional reservoirs, the tightness of non-conventional reservoirs means that high volumes of fluid injection are required to be successful.

Unlike conventional oil and gas wells, shale beds and coal seams extend over wide areas. These reservoirs lack uniform oil and gas quality and content, so developers will try to access the “sweet spots” first. Typically the quality of the reservoir then deteriorates over time.

However, the greatest production challenge lies in the fact that shale and coal seam gas wells exhibit a “shooting star” production profile. Once fracking has been carried out, production rises rapidly to a peak, but it then declines rapidly, too, often by 80 to 95% over the first three years, as the oil or gas around the fractured area is exhausted. As a result the countryside has to be peppered with wells to maintain the production required to provide a return on investment, often several thousand wells in a single shale play.

 

Posted in EROEI Energy Returned on Energy Invested, Oil & Gas Fracked | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

21 scientists explain why Jacobson’s renewable schemes are a delusional fantasy

Preface. Seldom have I seen such a vitriolic fight among scientists.  Though I think Clack and the other 20 scientists (2017) miss the main problems with trying to create a 100% renewable energy system(Friedemann 2015c).

Many authors have been writing for years about why Stanford scientists Jacobson and Delucchi’s (J & D) plans for a 100% low-cost renewable energy is a cloud cuckoo-land fantasy.  But never so many, so loudly, and in such a prestigious journal (Clack 2017).

The 21 authors of the PNAS article felt compelled to write this because J & D’s irresponsible fairy tales are starting to influence actual policy and waste money.  Clack et al believes that cities and states set renewable goals of 100% and try to achieve them using the J & D plan, their spending will be wasted [RIGHT!] because the J & D plan leaves out biofuels, grid-scale battery storage, nuclear, and coal energy with CCS [WRONG! energyskeptic posts show why none of these are solutions to the coming oil shortages].

Renewable contraptions cannot outlast finite fossil fuels, because they are utterly dependent on fossil fuels from birth to death to mine, crush, and smelt the ore, deliver the ore to a blast furnace, fabricate 8,000 wind turbine parts at hundreds of manufacturing plants all over the world, and deliver the parts to the assembly plant.  For each turbine, dozens of trucks are needed to prepare the wind turbine site so that dozens of cement trucks can pour tons of concrete and steel rebar for the platform, deliver pieces of the huge parts of the turbine, and diesel powered cranes to lift the parts hundreds of feet into the air.

When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation explains why heavy-duty trucks are the basis of civilization, that they run almost exclusively on diesel fuel, and why they can’t be electrified, run on CTL, hydrogen, catenary, biofuels, natural gas and so on. Renewable energy must be able to construct themselves and the transportation segments they depend on, but they can’t.

In Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy I explain why manufacturing depends on the high heat of fossil fuels (up to 3200 F), and other reasons why factories can’t run on electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, and so on. Manufacturing plants depend on transportation of raw materials and parts, and many around the clock power for years, not a good match for intermittent wind and solar. So once again, renewables can’t manufacture themselves.

In their 2011 paper, the J & D 100% renewable system would be accomplished with 3.8 million 5-MW wind turbines (50% of power), 49,000 solar thermal plants (20%), 40,000 solar PV plants (14%), 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems (6%), 5350 geothermal plants (4%), 900 hydroelectric power plants (4%), and marine hydrokinetic devices (2%).   Their 2015 paper has somewhat different but equally unrealistic numbers.

It is questionable whether there’s enough material on earth to build all these contraptions and continue to do so every 15 years (offshore wind turbine lifespan), 20 years (onshore wind) and 18-25 years (solar).  If peak oil was indeed in 2018 (citations in Life after fossil fuels chapter 2), that means cement, steel, rare (earth) metals, and so on will decline as well.  Keep in mind that a 2 MW turbine uses 1,671 tons of material: 1300 tons concrete, 295 tons steel, 48 tons iron, 24 tons fiberglass, 4 tons copper, .4 tons neodymium, .065 tons dysprosium (Guezuraga 2012, USGS 2011).  The enormous demand for materials would likely drive prices up, and the use of recycled metals cannot be assumed as explained in Why rare and valuable metals are not recycled

The PNAS authors propose grid-scale batteries, but the only kind of battery for which there are enough materials on earth are Sodium-sulfur NaS batteries (Barnhart 2013).  To store just one day of U.S. electricity generation (and at least 6 to 8 weeks would be needed to cope with the seasonal nature of wind and solar), you would need a 923 square mile, 450 million ton, $40.77 trillion dollar NaS battery that needs replacement every 15 years (DOE/EPRI 2013).  Lead-acid: $8.3 trillion, 271.5 square miles, 15.8 million tons.  Li-ion $11.9 trillion, 345 square miles, 74 million tons.

There are dozens of reasons why wind power will not outlast fossil fuels, including the scale required, the need to increase installation rates 37-fold in 13 years (Radford 2016), population increasing faster than wind turbines to provide for their needs can be built, wind is seasonal – very little in the entire U.S. in the summer, no commercial wind year round in the South East, a national grid, no commercial energy storage at utility scale in sight, plus a financial crisis or war will likely break the supply chains as companies go out of business.

Since a major factor in the Jacobson and Delucchi paper is that we can use Underground Thermal Energy Storage (UTES), here is my critique of that in my book “When Trucks Stop running”:

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) with Underground Thermal Energy Storage (UTES)

You won’t find a CSP plant on your neighbor’s roof. CSP is a large power plant requiring considerable acreage—5.5 square miles for California’s Ivanpah—where mirrors focus bounties of sunlight to boil water for steam generation. CSP contributes only 0.06 % of U.S. electricity. The United States has 1861 MW of CSP operating or under construction, mainly in California (64 %) and Arizona (24 %) because extremely dry areas with no humidity, haze, or pollutants are required. Of the 1861 MW, only about one-quarter can also store electricity using thermal energy storage. Energy is stored as heat, usually in molten salt, with total CSP storage rated at 510 MW. CSP is more capital expensive than any other power generation plant except nuclear. Eight plants cost a total of $9 billion (Solana, Genesis, Mojave, Ivanpah, Rice, Martin, Nevada solar 1, Crescent Dunes (NREL 2013). Almost all CSP plants also have fossil backup to diminish night thermal losses, prevent molten salt from freezing, supplement low solar irradiance in the winter, and for fast starts in the morning. You can’t hurry a sunrise. CSP electricity generation in winter is significantly less than other seasons, even in the best range of latitudes between 15° and 35° (Fig. 17.4). To provide seasonal storage, CSP plants would need to use stone, which is much cheaper than molten salt. A 100 MW facility would need 5.1 million tons of rock taking up 2 million cubic meters (Welle 2010). Since stone is a poor heat conductor, the thick insulating walls required might make this unaffordable (IEA 2011b). Nevada’s 110 MW Crescent Dunes opened in 2015 with 10 hours of storage and is expected to provide an average of 0.001329 Twh a day. Multiply that by 8265 more Crescent Dune scale plants and presto, we’ll have one day of U.S. electrical storage (11.12/0.001329 TWh). Without storage, solar CSP and solar PV do nothing to keep the grid stable or meet the peak morning and late afternoon demand.

The authors briefly point out that one way to counter wind and solar intermittency is an energy source that can be dispatched when needed.  But they neglected to mention that natural gas plays most of this role now.  But natural gas is finite, and has equally important uses of making the fertilizer that keeps 4 billion of us alive, generating 40% or more of electricity, heating homes and buildings, and more.

J & D propose a month of hydrogen storage to power transportation. Well, that ain’t gonna happen: Hydrogen: The dumbest & most impossible renewable

J & D propose thermal energy storage in the ground.  The only renewable that has storage are concentrated solar plants, but CSP plants provide just 0.06% of U.S. energy because each plant costs about a billion dollars each (and less than a quarter of them have storge).  Scaled up, CSP would need to use stone, which is much cheaper than molten salt. A 100 MW facility would need 5.1 million tons of rock taking up 2 million cubic meters (Welle 2010). Since stone is a poor heat conductor, the thick insulating walls required might make this unaffordable (IEA 2011b). J & D never mention insulating walls, let alone the energy and cost of building them.  The PNAS paper also says that phase-change material energy storage is far from commercial and still has serious problems to solve such as poor thermal conductivity, corrosion, material degradation, thermal stress durability, and cost-effective mass production methods.

The PNAS authors suggest bioenergy, but this is not feasible. The billions of diesel engines in trucks and equipment can’t burn ethanol, diesohol, or even gasoline.  Most engine warranties don’t allow biodiesel, or up to 20% at most.  Biofuels (and industrial agriculture) destroy topsoil, which in the past was the main or a major reason why all past civilizations failed.  Industrial farming also depletes aquifers that won’t be recharged until after the next ice age.   As I mentioned earlier, biomass simply doesn’t scale up.  Burning it is far more energy efficient than the dozens of steps needed to make biofuels, each step of which takes energy (into a negative energy return if the boundaries are wide). Yet even if we burned every plant plus and their roots in America, the energy produced would be less than the fossil fuel energy consumed that year, and we’d all have to pretend we liked living on Mars for many years after our little experiment. Friedemann (2015a) has many other examples of the scaling up issues, ecological, energy, and other issues with biofuels.

Nuclear is not an option due to peak uranium, and the findings of the National Academy of Sciences about lessons learned from Fukushima. It’s also too expensive, with 37 plants likely to shut down (Cooper 2013).  And leaving thousands of sites with nuclear waste lasting hundreds of thousands of years for our descendants to deal with after fossil fuels are gone in an industrially poisoned world is simply the most evil of all the horrible things we’re doing to the planet (Alley 2013).  And since trucks can’t run on electricity, there’s no point in building them.

The book “Our renewable future” (Heinberg & Fridley 2016) was written to show those who believe in Jacobson and Delucchi’s fairy tales how difficult, if not impossible it would be to make this happen. Though I fear many of their major points were probably ignored or forgotten, with readers deciding that 100% renewables were possible, even if difficult, since the book was too gentle and abstract. For example, they mention that there are no ways to make cement and steel with electricity, because these industries depend on huge blast furnaces that run for 4 to 10 years non-stop because any interruption would cause the brick lining to cool down and damage it.  It is not likely a 100% wind and solar electricity system to be up 24 x 7 x 365.  That’s a real  showstopper.  But the average person believes in infinite human ingenuity assumes that an electric solution can be found, even if it has to overcome the laws of physics…

J & D include wave and tidal devices, but these are far from being commercial and unlikely to ever be due to salt corrosion, storm waves, and dozens of other problems (NRC 2013).

I’m not as concerned about the incorrect J & D calculations for GHG emissions, because we are at or near peak oil and coal, and natural gas.  Many scientists have published peer-reviewed papers that based on realistic reserves of fossil fuels, rather than the unlimited amounts of fossils the IPCC assumes, and there is a consensus that the worst case scenario likely to be reached is RPC 4.5 (Brecha 2008, Capellan-Perez 2016, Chiari 2011, Dale 2012, Doose 2004, Hook 2010, Hook 2013, and 10+ more).

The PNAS authors mention of coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) won’t work. First, coal is finite (and probably peaking globally now or soon), and carbon capture and storage technology so far from being commercial, and uses up 30 to 40% of the energy contained in the coal, that it’s unlikely to be used when blackouts start to happen more and more often (https://energyskeptic.com/category/energy/coal/carbonstorage/).

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com Women in ecology  author of 2021 Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy best price here; 2015 When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Podcasts: Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity

***

Clack CTM et al (2017) Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The main PNAS criticisms are:

  1. J & D used invalid modeling tools, had modeling errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible and inadequate assumptions.
  2. Claimed that a 100% renewable system would be low cost and exceed current electric-utility reliability standards
  3. Their portfolio of options of wind, water, and solar, with no coal, natural gas, bioenergy, or nuclear power is not broad enough.
  4. Wind and solar are variable, so energy storage is essential. But “there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone”.
  5. Parts of the economy are difficult to electrify: airplanes, cement manufacture, etc.
  6. Their solutions include technologies that have not been commercially proven at scale, can provide adequate and reliable energy; be built rapidly enough, and not violate environmental regulations.
  7. Their papers include innovations that don’t exist: hydrogen-powered airplanes and steel, multi-week energy storage systems with a capacity twice the U.S. generating and storage capacity today, underground thermal energy storage (UTES) systems in nearly every community to provide services for every home, business, office building, hospital, school, and factory, yet doesn’t account for the pipes and distribution lines.
  8. They vastly underestimate the cost and environmental impact of expanding hydroelectric dams, scaling up hydrogen production, or a national grid.
  9. J & D assume we can store 1 month of U.S. electricity in hydrogen by using twice as much energy-generating capacity as we have now.
  10. J&D assume that 63% of industries are flexible and can reschedule all energy needs with an 8 hour window of time. My comment: That’s simply not true, many industries can’t be rapidly curtailed, and there are many products made with continuous processes around the clock (refineries, chemical plants, blast furnaces, etc).
  11. J & D assume the capital cost of building all of this renewable energy at 30 to 50% of what most other studies assume.
  12. Hydropower is not a dependable source for always available (dispatchable) power, due to droughts and maintaining a large reservoir to provide water to cities, farms, and fish. Plus there are very few places left to put (pumped) hydropower dams physically and won’t cause ecological harm.
  13. Underground Thermal Energy Storage (UTES) is a central requirement of their vision because energy storage is essential once natural gas is gone. But UTES is far from commercial with just two small-scale demonstration projects for about 300 homes. But only to heat them, yet J & D propose to provide most air-conditioning and half of refrigeration with this (and ice-based systems).  On top of that UTES requires energy for heat pumps but they don’t model this energy requirement.  They don’t provide any reliable figures for how much this would cost, but estimate $37 to $900 billion.  Yet the Drake Landing system costs if scaled up would cost at least $1.8 trillion dollars and leaves out the heating and cooling systems of homes and businesses in new homes.  Retrofits are very costly.  Finally the performance and cost depends on the thermal properties of the soil and total absence of groundwater (which removes the stored heat).   

Other reasons listed in the PNAS paper:

  • Their proposal would require 6% of the continental U.S. for wind turbines, and 100,000 square kilometers to install large-scale centralized solar PV and CSP system (an area the size of Kentucky).
  • 150,000 5 MW turbines would be built offshore
  • lack of electric power system modeling of transmission, reserve margins, and frequency response
  • the climate/weather model used for estimates of wind and solar energy production has not shown the ability to accurately simulate wind speeds or solar insolation at the scales needed to assure the technical reliability of an energy system relying so heavily on intermittent energy sources
  • their numbers in the supporting information of Jacobson (2015a) imply that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW, which is 50% more than exists in the United States today, but figure 4B of shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW
  • There are conflicting and exaggerated figures for the amount of flexible load
  • They don’t explain how we can provide an extreme excess of high power for short periods of time to industrial, commercial, and residences
  • Germany is the most committed of any nation to achieving an 80% renewable energy system and made a huge effort from 2007-2014, which J & D propose we can do 14 times faster than the U.S. average for 55 years and 6 times the peak rate
  • The need of AC grids to cope with power flows and need for a constant frequency. It’s questionable whether the radical changes to grid architecture required by J & D is feasible, and they don’t even attempt to model or analyze transmission capacity , power flow, transmission constraints, operating reserves, logistics, frequency regulation, or operation reliability.
  • They assume perfect predictions of electricity demand and variable wind and solar so they don’t bother to calculate what the reserve requirements would be if their crystal ball isn’t always right, let alone how a drastically expanded grid with a new architecture could cope

The most devastating part of the 21-scientist PNAS critique is in the technical supplement that finds errors line by line (here).

The Jacobson and Delucchi rebuttals of the PNAS article are here and here.

 

Other articles that critique Jacobson and Delucchi:

Best articles about the PNAS paper

References

Posted in ! PEAK EVERYTHING, Alternative Energy, Electric Grid & EMP Electromagnetic Pulse, Electricity Infrastructure, Infrastructure & Fast Crash | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

An invasive green monster that can double in 2 days and impossible to control threatens 20 states

 

Mike Turner sprayed herbicide recently on the weed Salvinia molesta on Caddo Lake near Uncertain, Tex. The weed suffocates all life beneath it. The furry green invader from South America is threatening to smother the labyrinthine waterway, the largest natural lake in the South, covering about 35,000 acres and straddling Texas and Louisiana. Blumenthal, R. July 30, 2007. In East Texas, Residents Take On a Lake-Eating Monster. New York Times. Photo credit: Michael Stravato.

Mike Turner sprayed herbicide recently on the weed Salvinia molesta on Caddo Lake near Uncertain, Tex. The weed suffocates all life beneath it. The furry green invader from South America is threatening to smother the labyrinthine waterway, the largest natural lake in the South, covering about 35,000 acres and straddling Texas and Louisiana. Blumenthal, R. July 30, 2007. In East Texas, Residents Take On a Lake-Eating Monster. New York Times. Photo credit: Michael Stravato.

 

[ The 2011 House of Representatives hearing below is a discussion of how to control salvinia.

We spend about $135 billion on invasive species a year – what will happen when the fossil energy to remove them is no longer available?  It’s likely the carrying capacity of vast regions of the country will be lowered as irrigation canals fill up with giant salvinia and other invasive water plants, fishing in lakes impossible as oxygen levels plummet and kill fish, as well as becoming unnavigable from thick mats of salvinia and other invasive water plants.  Salvinia also provides great habitat for disease-bearing mosquitoes, further lowering carrying capacity.

A quick search of the internet turned up these as some of the most invasive plants and animals: Asian Carp, Asian citrus psyllid, Asian Long-horned beetle, Asian-tiger mosquito, Burmese Python, Canada geese, Cane toad, Cotton Whitefly, Cownose Ray, Emerald ash borer, Eurasian watermilfoil,  Hemlock wooly adelgid, Kudzu, Lionfish, Mountain pine beetles, multiflora rose, Nile perch, Nutria, privet, Rabbits, Rats, Snakehead fish, spiny waterflea, starlings, Sudden oak death, Tamarisk (salt cedar), Tumbleweed, vine mealybugs, Zebra mussels.

For all of the United States 1,230 invasive PLANT species go here, and www.invasive.org has 2,892 species listed

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts:  KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity]

Summary: why you should be afraid of Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta):

  1. The United States Geological Survey calls Salvinia molesta one of the world’s most noxious aquatic weeds, with an ability to double in size every two to four days and cover 40 square miles within three months, suffocating all life beneath.
  2. Giant salvinia reduces the oxygen in the water, which increases water treatment requirements and costs. The 1-meter-mats clog waterways and block sunlight from reaching other aquatic plants below the surface, reducing the amount of oxygen in the water. As these plants die and sink to the bottom where decomposer organisms use up even more oxygen in the water. The mats also impede the natural exchange of gases between the water and the atmosphere, which can lead to stagnation of the water body. Ultimately, these processes will kill all plants, aquatic insects, and fish living below the mats. There is also evidence that salvinia mats cause acidification of lakes and ponds. If left untreated, giant salvinia can completely take over and destroy the ecological system of any freshwater body.
  3. Decreases floral and faunal diversity and impacts threatened and endangered species
  4. Increases mosquito breeding habitat for species that are known to transmit encephalitis, dengue fever, malaria, and rural filariasis or elephantiasis.
  5. Water management structures are damaged or rendered useless, water quality is decreased, it threatens property values, boating and commercial navigation is impeded, intakes for municipal drinking water or industrial facilities are clogged, and recreational uses such as fishing, waterfowl hunting, paddling, or swimming are stopped.  It can clog and burn up boat motors.
  6. They’re useless for biofuels because they are 95% water, leaving just 5% of dried out salvinia to use for cellulosic fuels. The economics of harvest are poor – you’re moving a lot of water weight onshore and then transporting it inland to a processing plant. Other countries that have tried to convert aquatic plants to biofuels have been unsuccessful.  It’s hard to even harvest them with mechanical harvesters because the mats are so huge.
  7. It can prevent navigation in slow-moving rivers (but not in fast flowing waterways). For example, the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea is huge, but very slow moving, and covered with salvinia. Whole villages were moved because the people couldn’t get into the river to fish.
  8. Florida water hyacinths pile up against bridges and take them out, it’s possible salvinia will do the same
  9. Hurricanes can spread salvinia widely to new areas
  10. In the United States, it is now found in at least 90 localities and is especially troublesome in southern states including Texas, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and west into Arizona and California. It is established in at least 11 states, and has the potential to devastate freshwater habitats in 20 states.
  11. Its range is increasing worldwide and is now causing significant problems in over 20 countries including Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Papua, New Guinea, the Ivory Republic, Ghana, Zambia, Kenya, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Madagascar, Columbia, Guyana, and several Caribbean countries (including Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad). This list increases yearly.
  12. Intakes for industrial water or municipal drinking water get clogged. Cross Lake now has giant salvinia in it, and that’s where the City of Shreveport gets their water from.
  13. Habitat is destroyed for air-breathing animals like otters, diving birds, turtles and frogs, which cannot penetrate the mat.
  14. Caddo Lake is one of only 27 wetlands in the United States recognized by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The bald cypress forests of Caddo Lake, including trees as old as 400 years, host one of the highest breeding populations of wood ducks as well as prothonotary warblers and other neotropical birds. The forests and wetlands of Caddo Lake are critical for migratory bird species within the Central Flyway, including tens of thousands of migrating waterfowl that utilize Caddo Lake (and other nearby lakes) as resting and feeding grounds. Giant Salvinia forms dense floating mats that prevents growth of natural vegetation, a food source for waterfowl, and eliminate open water for waterfowl to rest on.

 

Summar: Why giant salvinia is so hard to kill:

  1. Can live up to a couple of weeks out of water
  2. It’s hard to kill with chemical sprays because of tiny, white hairs that capture herbicides just above the plant’s surface
  3. The best chemical spray is Galleon that kills by saturation and must remain in the water 60 to 90 days. But if it rains or floods, the chemical is diluted and doesn’t work. And it’s expensive — $1,850 per gallon.
  4. The rapid growth rate of salvinia allows it to easily outpace the application of chemicals.
  5. Using chemicals to kill salvinia’s thick 1-meter mats is like peeling an onion. You have to peel off layer after layer after layer after layer. It’s expensive and requires a lot of tenacity to go out and spray the same body of water every two weeks for the rest of your life.
  6. No one knows what effect massive amounts of herbicides will have on wildlife and fish, much less the humans that consume them…and may be as detrimental (or more so) than leaving the plants in place. Chemicals include: diquat, glyphosate, fluridone, carfentrazone-ethyl, penoxsulam and flumioxazin.
  7. Hard to kill with chemicals because of the ability of salvinia to re-grow from small buds or plants that are missed during chemical application, especially in backwater coves where overhanging vegetation can hide small plant populations or where plant growth is dense and underlying layers are protected from surface sprayed herbicides. These plant fragments can be smaller than 1/4 inch. It also hides under water hyacinths, alligatorweed, and hydrilla.
  8. Chemicals might aid salvinia, in that invasive species take advantage of disrupted ecosystems and have a much harder time if every niche is filled with a native species in a healthy ecosystem. Chemicals disrupt ecosystems and degrade habitat, priming the area for even more invasion.
  9. Though susceptible to saltwater, it takes too much to reach the level you need. Before you kill the salvinia, you’ll be killing the cypress trees and the bass and the freshwater fish.
  10. Fish and animals won’t consume giant salvinia because it has a metabolic inhibitor (thiamine inhibitor) that is toxic. So it can’t be used for cattle feed either.
  11. The Brazilian salvinia weevils that can kill/reduce salvinia die in cold weather
  12. Biological control with weevils can take several years and may not be particularly effective in the more northern extreme of salvinia’s distribution
  13. It’s possible that some or all of the chemicals will kill or reduce the weevil population
  14. Salvinia weevils are about the only weevil that doesn’t fly, so someone to hand move them to nearby bodies of water, which is very labor intensive.
  15. But weevils will try to swim to another pond, but in south Louisiana, they’re all consumed by fire ants, another invasive species—and none of the weevils made it more than about 20 feet from the pond.
  16. It spreads easily: it can hitchhike on boats to other lakes and waterways. All it takes is one alligator, one nutria or other wildlife, to move from an infested water body into an area where giant salvinia hasn’t yet taken root, and the spread continues.
  17. Draining or lowering lake levels to dry out salvinia doesn’t work because there are massive deposits of nutrient laden biomass on the lake bottom. When the lake was refilled this decomposing biomass provided a ready source of nutrients to perpetuate the growth of more plants. and scattered the salvinia throughout the water body making treatment even more difficult
  18. Even flamethrowers can’t kill it
  19. Even frozen in ice doesn’t kill it because the mats are so thick the salvinia in the middle survives
  20. It can’t be fenced off or booms deployed until winter comes to kill it off
  21. The only solution is physically harvest and remove the biomass and limit herbicide spraying to only those areas that are not accessible to harvesting.
  22. If Salvinia is pushed over a dam into a river, no harm is done if the river keeps flowing rapidly, but slow moving rivers and oxbows are at risk.
  23. It keeps getting fed by nutrient runoff from agriculture, which also has created 9600 square miles of dead zone in the Gulf
  24. Spraying can be incredibly difficult. Many areas are also inhabited by the iconic cypress tree, making it incredibly difficult for spray crews and their boats to access parts of these infested water bodies. When the tree loses its leaves each year, the debris further fuels the degradation of the aquatic habitat. While we advocate for moderate tree removal, this is both expensive and, at times, unpopular with the public.
  25. Giant salvinia cannot simply be eradicated. This deft plant is far too integrated into our environment to kill off
Giant salvinia (salvinia molesta) range in 2014. A total of 20 states are potential habitat.

Giant salvinia (salvinia molesta) range in 2014. A total of 20 states are potential habitat.

 

House 112-47. June 27, 2011. Giant Salvinia: How do we protect our ecosystems? U.S. House of Representatives.  88 pages.

Excerpts:

JOHN FLEMING, LOUISIANA. The purpose of today’s hearing is to obtain testimony on efforts to control and eradicate one of the worst invasive weeds in the world.  Giant salvinia is a free-floating aquatic fern, native to South America and introduced to the United States by the water garden industry. Since then, giant salvinia has proven to be an aggressive invader that can double in size in four to 10 days under favorable growing conditions, and its expanded mats of vegetation degrade fishing habitat, decrease water quality, create unsafe boating and fishing access and threaten property values. Caddo Lake was first infested with giant salvinia in 2006 and within two years the plant expanded its coverage on the lake from less than two acres to more than 1,000 acres. Efforts conducted to control giant salvinia thus far have yielded moderate success but have not completely eradicated the species from the lake.

Native to Brazil, giant salvinia, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has recently issued a publication that states invasives can kill a lake, and giant salvinia is the worst of the lot. Dr. Randy Westbrooks of the United States Geological Survey has noted that giant salvinia plants do not die quickly. In fact, they can live a few days or even a couple of weeks out of water.

There’s been a comprehensive effort to control and eradicate giant salvinia. These efforts have saved lakes from becoming giant dead zones. The fight to eradicate giant salvinia will be a long and arduous battle. Once an invasive species has become established, it is difficult, if not impossible, to completely remove it. There’s no silver bullet to kill giant salvinia.  We will continue to contain this invasive species by utilizing a number of different strategies, including simple things like making absolutely sure that once a boat is removed from the lake, the boat owner does not allow giant salvinia to hitchhike home.

LOUIE GOHMERT, TEXAS. I was first notified in 2006 that there was a tiny little innocuous- looking plant that had been found that year on Caddo Lake. Maybe if it was a giant blob or something, they would make a movie about it and everybody would get scared, but anything that doubles in size in less than a week is something to be concerned about. Giant salvinia has been discovered in 90 different locations affecting 41 freshwater drainage basins in 12 states. It doesn’t pose the threat apparently in the north because of the cold winters that it does to freshwater bodies here in the south of our country.  It was first discovered in Caddo Lake in May of 2006, and two years after that, it was discovered that this tiny, innocuous plant that started as basically nothing apparently had grown to over a thousand acres in just two years.

A single plant has been found to cover 40 square miles in three months. If left untreated, giant salvinia can completely take over and destroy the ecological system of any freshwater body.

It may live for weeks even when dry and out of the water on a boat trailer, and if it gets back in the water goes right back to reproducing and doubling in less than a week. For those who are concerned in our country with endangered species, it is important to note that 42 percent of all endangered species in our country are mainly threatened or most threatened by non-native invasive species.  I have watched numerous activities on Caddo Lake to remove it mechanically. Australia has tried to eradicate it biologically, chemicals, using weevils, and also with saltwater.

Robert Adley, Louisiana state senator, district 36.  Spraying has been beneficial but depends greatly on the weather for its effectiveness. Spraying requires a specific ratio of water to the sprayed chemical. After spraying, it takes time to establish and begin to kill the salvinia. If much wet weather is encountered after the spraying, the benefit of spraying is reduced due to change in ratio. The plant grows in three layers, and spraying kills only the top layer. Hence the amount of chemical needed is three times the initial amount used. Beetles in giant salvinia were transported to the lake in trucks and put it into the lake at specific points. The use of beetles has met with some success, but they’re greatly diminished during cold winters. Hence, the use of beetles is part of control, but not sufficient by themselves. It’s my understanding that beetles do a much more effective job in Brazil because they can survive the winters that are more moderate there.

The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries tried lowering the lake to allow the plants to dry out and die, but that’s been of limited effectiveness.

Gary M. Hanson, Director, Red River Watershed Management Institute, Louisiana State University Shreveport.   I have served as a member of the Louisiana Hypoxia Subcommittee for a number of years.

This group has been tasked with evaluating the massive low oxygen or dead zone that occurs off the coasts of Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi each summer. The dead zone has been increasing over time and is considered a serious threat to our gulf fisheries. Early predictions for this year indicate that the dead zone will cover a record area of over 24,000 km2 or 9300 square miles. The excessive nutrients flowing from Mississippi River tributaries into the Gulf of Mexico each summer is the cause of this worsening situation. This year’s record floods will be a major contributing factor if the anticipated record dead zone forms. The nutrients stimulate excessive plant (phytoplankton) growth, which eventually die and as their biomass is oxidized most of the dissolve oxygen is removed from the water column.

Most experts agree that one key factor that is responsible for Giant Salvinia inundating and taking over fresh water aquatic habitats is the increase in nutrient levels in targeted water bodies (urban and agricultural runoff, leaking septic systems and land disturbance).

The COS has been working diligently to control Giant Salvinia and Hydrilla in Cross Lake, the only source of water for Shreveport and Barksdale Air Force Base. Already this year these plants have advanced to growth stages that are equivalent to late July or August because of the drought and unseasonably high temperatures.

The Lake Bistineau Task Force has also been working relentlessly to control the Giant Salvinia. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries have been trying a spectrum of approaches that includes, introducing Salvinia weevils, spraying large amounts of herbicides, removing cypress trees and draining the lake. The Task Force is considering modifying the dam so that the Giant Salvinia can be floated out of the lake into Loggy Bayou and ultimately the Red River.

There have been some short-term successes. The Task Force has spent about $2 million to date with $400,000 spent for herbicides in one year. Draining the lake leaves massive deposits of nutrient laden biomass on the lake bottom. As the lake is refilled this decomposing biomass provides a ready source of nutrients to perpetuate the growth of more plants. These various strategies and methods that are intended to manage and control Giant Salvinia all have drawbacks and disadvantages. It appears no one knows what affect the massive amounts of herbicides will have on the wildlife and fish, much less humans that consume them, In some cases, the strategies and methods already used may be considered to be as detrimental (or more so) as that of leaving the plants in place.

The draining of the lake should be a desperate last resort which is devastating to the lakes’ ecosystem and only provides temporary control of the spread of the plants. Therefore, the only solution is to use a coordinated holistic approach to physically harvest and remove the biomass in a cost effective manner and thereby limit herbicide spraying to only those areas that are not accessible to current and future harvesting methods.

I am convinced that the only strategy going forward that will work is to cut through the jurisdictional red tape that causes time delays and increases the expense to fight the menace, by bringing in the private sector to work through joint public-private ventures to first, harvest and transport the biomass and then second, find alternative uses for it as biofuel and/or soil amendment, etc. Transportation will be the key cost factor in the future that will affect all aspects of the strategy and methods to harvest and remove the biomass from the water and then move it to commercial users and areas that may use the biomass cost effectively.

The Salvinia could be moved over the top of the existing dam in high water conditions. Hence, much of the Salvinia was removed from the lake last year by flowing Salvinia over the top of the darn. However, in normal weather that will not work because the actual control of water levels is at the bottom of the dam

Additionally, the Wildlife and Fisheries expressed the need to remove some of the trees in the lake that are retarding the movement of the plant towards the channel and retarding the ability to spray more efficiently. To my knowledge, no trees have yet to be removed for various reasons.

When the Salvinia flows from the lake over the dam, it eventually makes its way into the Red River. As long as the Salvinia is flowing within the Red River, it will not establish itself. However, oxbows in the river are at risk. Hence, I withdrew the amendment to fund the restructuring of the dam until the matter can be resolved. As of now, Wildlife and Fisheries tells me they are allowing the lake to fill again and will continue with spraying. Additionally, it is my understanding that they are evaluating so-called skimming methods for the removal of Salvinia.

HENRY L. BURNS, LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.   Lake Bistineau has had a torrid history with invasive plants going back to the 1940s. Some of the types were water hyacinths, alligatorweed, hydrilla, water primrose, and now the giant. Salivinia can double in 3 to 14 days depending on conditions.  Lake Bistineau is the perfect nursery. This shallow, nutrient-rich inland water body spanning over 17,000 acres with over a million acres of watershed that feeds it from rich agricultural land, towns and cities, and industries discharging [waste] water. Half of Lake Bistineau is forested with cypress trees, providing a perfect nursery. What type of impact do we have, whether it’s economic, there’s recreational, hunting, fishing, water sports has been at best the last few years hit and miss. Congressman Fleming, it is the number one complaint that we get. In fact, it’s kind of dangerous sometimes to go to ball games because people’s hunting spot or fishing spot has been hit. And then, of course, there’s property values and broken dreams from people who have bought homes along these scenic river areas wanting to make their retirement there, to a place to bring their grandchildren out to fish.

The biggest question, the number one question I’m asked is when are we going to get our lake back? There are numerous unintended consequences that has taken place, and let me just share a couple of those with you. One, my son’s in-laws live on Lake Bistineau. They went out to have a day of fun and recreation. The motor clogged with all this invasive plant and it burned up the motor, so they struggled to get the boat back to the shoreline. Well, he thought he was in three or four feet of water because with the canopy there, you couldn’t really tell. He jumps out of the back of the boat to push it to the shore, breaks his leg. Now, that’s just from one family’s point of view. A story that’s even more outlining on what unintended consequences, and, Congressman Fleming, you have Shawn that works for you. Her sister Dotie Horton and Gary were out fishing on Bistineau. Their boat got hung up in a lot of aquatic invasive plant material, and he tried to push it in. When they pushed the boat, it finally jettisoned and clipped Dotie on the head, just barely, and Gary pulled his back muscle, so all the attention was given to her husband. Two days later, we were at LSU Medical Center and having lifesaving surgery because of the contusion and the hematoma that was caused from just that slide.

HON. ROBERT BARHAM, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.

We have two congressmen representing two states here. It won’t be long and you’re going to have a whole panel of congressmen that’s going to include Mississippi, Alabama, and certainly Florida. It’s going to happen to us. I wish I could tell you we’re winning this battle. We’re not winning the battle. My budget is just under $8 million.

On the leaves, it’s got these little fibrous hair that protect it from chemical spray, and we just can’t get to it.

One of the effective tools we have is Galleon. It’s a saturation complex that must remain in the water column from 60 to 90 days. Now, we’re in a drought now and it will work in a drought, but if you get a rain event, it dilutes it and it doesn’t work, and Galleon cost over $1,850 a gallon, so you can see with my budget, I don’t have the money to use Galleon everywhere, and it’s not the silver bullet. I could go on and on, but this is a horrific problem, and all the help you can give us, we need it.

The green monster, as some call this plant, works 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In as few as three days, it is capable of doubling its biomass. And in as little as seven days, giant salvinia can double surface coverage of water bodies. It spreads incredibly quickly, devouring the resources and damaging the habitats within water bodies across our state. There is no easy answer to this dilemma. We can’t simply spray every area to kill it. We can only introduce a predator and hope for the best. We can’t fence it off or deploy booms and wait till the winter comes to kill it off. And no matter what efforts we take to prevent the spread, all it takes is one alligator, one nutria or other wildlife, to move from an infested water body into an area where giant salvinia hasn’t yet taken root, and the spread continues.

While this rootless aquatic fern flourishes during the summer months, it is incredibly hardy. Stress, lack of water and cold winters won’t necessarily kill off the plant. And in water bodies like the Barataria and Terrebonne basins, the temperature doesn’t drop nearly enough to produce a large scale kill-off of the plant.

Giant salvinia even comes armed with its own defense mechanism in the tiny, white hairs that capture herbicides just above the plant’s surface, seriously challenging the efficacy of any spray treatment.

For this year through May 31, the Department has utilized 21 spray crews and contractor air boat treatments to control 10,730 acres of giant salvinia. These herbicides provide us with the ability to kill off the plant during the spring and into the warm summer months when it would flourish. However, spraying can be incredibly difficult. Many areas, such as Lake Bistaneau, are also inhabited by the iconic cypress tree. The close proximity of trees can make it incredibly difficult for spray crews and their boats to access parts of these infested water bodies. And as the tree loses its leaves each year, that debris further fuels the degradation of the aquatic habitat. While we advocate for moderate tree removal, this is both expensive and, at times, unpopular with the public.

Spraying is also an incredibly expensive treatment method. For each gallon of Galleon, the herbicide our Department utilizes, it costs us $1,851 per gallon. With more than 25,000 acres infested, simply spraying would be an incredibly expensive and likely ineffective task. And the costs not included in the cost per gallon for herbicide are the manpower costs to the state, the cost of the equipment, the boats and the fuel.

Shallow cypress tree stands have provided refuge for the giant salvinia. Biologists and spray crews are unable to access the plants in shallow areas.

Because this rootless plant can completely cover the surface of water bodies, it severely limits public access for boating and fishing. It can be burden for property owners with waterfront access and it can be unsightly for residents who are used to enjoying the simple pleasure of viewing an uninfested lake.

While we don’t expect the actions of residents and those tourists who enjoy the lakes and rivers across Louisiana to be able to wholly prevent the spread of giant salvinia—a 10 inch rain event can do more damage in a short amount of time.

Let me be clear, giant salvinia cannot simply be eradicated. This deft plant is far too integrated into our environment to kill off. This will be an ongoing issue that will require local, state and federal dedication of funds to battle.

Michael J. Grodowitz, Ph.D., Research Entomologist, Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Giant salvinia ( Salvinia molesta), a native of Brazil, is a floating fern introduced into the United States through the aquatic nursery trade. Since its introduction in the middle to late 1990’s, giant salvinia has dispersed naturally and by humans, and in less than 20 years can now be found as far west as the Hawaiian Islands, east into the peninsula of Florida, and north into Virginia. It is one of the world’s worst weeds and is causing manifold problems throughout the sub-tropical and tropical regions of the earth. Impacts are varied and include hindering navigation; disrupting water intake for municipal, agricultural and industrial purposes; degrading water quality; decreasing floral and faunal diversity;

It impacts threatened and endangered species; and increasing mosquito breeding habitat for species that are known to transmit encephalitis, dengue fever, malaria, and rural filariasis or elephantiasis.

Giant salvinia causes significant problems in over 20 other countries including Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Papua, New Guinea, the Ivory Republic, Ghana, Zambia, Kenya, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Madagascar, Columbia, Guyana, and several Caribbean countries (including Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad). This list increases yearly. In the United States, it is now found in at least 90 localities and is especially troublesome in southern states including Texas, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and west into Arizona, and California.

Giant salvinia reaches damaging infestation levels because of its tremendous growth rate. While it has been shown to only reproduce vegetatively (i.e., viable spores are not produced) this is more than enough to allow it to form surface mats up to 1 meter thick with plant numbers approaching 5000/m2 and biomass production of upwards of 100 tons/ha/year. Even greater production is possible under more favorable conditions. It has been known to double in number in one to eight days, depending on environmental conditions.

Numerous control strategies have been implemented for the management of salvinia. These include the use of traditional methods such as mechanical control (i.e. cutting or plant removal) and chemical applications. Mechanical control options are not particularly effective. They are expensive and often do not produce results needed for even partial management.

The use of chemical technologies can be effective but tend to produce only short-term control and can become expensive, especially when multiple treatments are needed over the course of a growing season. The use of alternative control methods such as biological control is highly promising and has been shown to produce long-term sustainable control. One agent has been approved for release in the United States, the salvinia weevil (Cyrtobagous salviniae), and is the method of choice for management in many overseas locations. While effective, biological control can take several years and there is some concern that it may not be particularly effective in the more northern extreme of salvinia’s distribution.

Other methods employed for salvinia control in the United States include flushing and drawdowns. Increasing water flow to ‘flush’ plants out of a waterbody or drainage can reduce biomass locally but may increase the distribution of salvinia downstream. Drawdowns (which serve to desiccate and kill the plant) do reduce biomass and can isolate the plant into smaller areas allowing easier access for mechanical removal or chemical treatment. However, when water levels increase remaining plants can be scattered throughout the water body making treatment even more difficult.

Currently, chemical control is the most widely used management strategy in the United States for the control of salvinia. A wide variety of products are employed mainly those containing diquat, glyphosate, and to a lesser extent fluridone and carfentrazone-ethyl. Active ingredients recently labeled for aquatic use including penoxsulam and flumioxazin, have been evaluated and are effective but have yet to be used on a wide scale. As indicated earlier, chemical applications can be highly effective, producing dramatic control 90%, in a manner of days or months. However, several factors often dictate the need for repeat applications and diligent post- treatment monitoring. One important factor is the rapid growth rate of salvinia which allows the plant to easily outpace the current application of chemicals.

Probably a more important factor is the ability of salvinia to re-grow from small buds or plants that are missed during chemical application, especially in backwater coves where overhanging vegetation can hide small plant populations or where plant growth is dense and underlying layers are protected from surface sprayed herbicides. These plant fragments can be smaller than 1/4 inch.

In addition, the plant can easily be transported by a variety of human mediated means. Thus, water bodies where salvinia has been eradicated can be easily re-infested. Therefore, the rapid growth rate of salvinia and its excellent dispersal ability necessitates the use of greater amounts of chemicals with increased labor costs for application which leads to a never- ending cycle of chemical use.

It is important to understand and address underlying causative factors allowing the formation of damaging infestations of giant salvinia. One of the more important causative factors is high nutrient levels that allow for increased and explosive plant growth. While it is difficult to minimize nutrient influx into water bodies, several strategies have been used with varying success. These include repairing leaking septic systems or positioning the septic fields away from the water body, implementation of regulations prohibiting fertilization of lawns right up to the water’s edge, and ensuring that sewage treatment plants use tertiary treatment processes to limit nitrogen and phosphorus loading. One potential method is the use of re- vegetation techniques to establish a diverse community of non-invasive native vegetation that will act as nutrient sinks to reduce nitrogen levels thereby limiting plant growth and reducing the chance of new infestations by salvinia as well as other invasive species including water hyacinth, hydrilla, and Eurasian watermilfoil, among others.

Randy Westbrooks, Invasive Species Prevention Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Giant salvinia is a small, free-floating aquatic fern that is native to southeastern Brazil and northeastern Argentina. It is somewhat similar in appearance to our native duckweed (Lemna minor), but bigger. Its most notable feature is the rows of ‘‘hairs’’ with 4 branches that join in a cage-like tip. The tip traps air that helps the plant float on the water surface. Giant salvinia prefers tropical, sub-tropical, or warm temperatures and grows best in nutrient-rich, slow-moving waters such as ditches, canals, ponds, and lakes. It is a freshwater plant but can tolerate salinity levels in estuaries up to levels of about 10% that of seawater.

It is no exaggeration to say that Giant salvinia is one of the world’s worst weeds. It takes only a fragment of a single plant to multiply vegetatively and produce a thick floating mat of plants on the surface of standing water. The mats clog waterways and block sunlight from reaching other aquatic plants below the surface, reducing the amount of oxygen in the water. As these plants die and sink to the bottom, decomposer organisms use up even more oxygen in the water. The mats also impede the natural exchange of gases between the water and the atmosphere, which can lead to stagnation of the water body. Ultimately, these processes will kill all plants, aquatic insects, and fish living below the mats. The mats also provide ideal conditions for mosquitoes to breed, block access to boat docks and boat ramps, and interfere with navigation.

Despite the success of using weevils to control Giant salvinia in some regions, the Salvinia weevil is not a fully effective control method in every case because it is less tolerant of cold temperatures than Giant salvinia. For this reason, the Salvinia weevil was unsuccessful controlling Giant salvinia in Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of Australia.

 

SALVINIA CAN’T BE USED FOR BIOFUELS

Dr. GRODOWITZ. Salvinia is 95% water.  The economics of harvest are poor – you’re moving a lot of weight just from the water. So biofuel production, salvinia is not a very good candidate. And other aquatic plants that have been attempted to use for biofuels haven’t worked.   You have to be careful when you try to promote the use of an invasive species because how are people going to use it and if you spread it around you’re going to have problems with it again. So I would rather see some kind of native plant that’s not as invasive as salvinia used for biofuels.

Dr. WESTBROOKS. The idea of getting it back to the land was an issue to begin with in Caddo Lake is when you have mechanical harvesters, they have a huge mass of this plant, how do you get it back to the land. So transportation of it back out to some place where you could actually go process it, unless you could process it there on the lake, if you had a processor on the lake where you’re removing the water and if you’ve just got the biomass of the cellulose left of the plant.

Dr. FLEMING. So if it’s desiccated, then obviously there’s very little fuel left then because the weight is—vast majority is water to begin with.

 

THE PROBLEMS WITH USING SALT WATER TO KILL SALVINIA

Dr. GRODOWITZ. We know for sure that they’re not very tolerant of saltwater. But it can handle  even  higher salt concentrations than recent research that was done in our Dallas facility. And putting saltwater into freshwater will create huge problems, so I’d stay away that if I could.

Mr. BARHAM. It will take too much salt to reach the level you need. Before you kill the salvinia, you’ll be killing the cypress trees and the bass and the freshwater fish.

Dr. SANDERS. If you added salt instead of saltwater, the lethal level of salt for giant salvinia is around six parts per thousand or six pounds of salt for every thousand pounds of water. Water weighs about nine pounds per gallon.  So it would take 750 18-wheeler loads of salt for Caddo lake and kill all your cypress trees.  Over time the water would desalinate if it is a flow-through lake and the saltwater would move downstream or dilute itself out with enough rainfall.

 

EVEN ICE WON’T KILL IT

Dr. WESTBROOKS. When you have a mat—it’s like insulation.   I’ve seen the plant in ice in North Carolina and, of course, that would die. But if you get a mat—plants in the middle survive.   

 

CHEMICALS HELP BUT CAN’T ERADICATE IT

Dr. GRODOWITZ. There are two really broad types of herbicides that are used for salvinia control. Some are contact herbicides. Some you spray on top of the plant. Kills the plant fairly quickly. There’s also contact herbicides that are systemic. 24D is one. It takes a little longer to kill. But what you know about Fluridone and Galleon, as you put it in the water, you have to maintain a certain concentration at a certain length of time to kill the plant, but it’s good because you’re killing plants over a larger area, but very, very expensive and hard to maintain concentrations up there. There are several new registrations, chemical registrations that have come out, penoxulam and flumioxazin, that the Corps of Engineers has been testing right now to look at their effectiveness, especially in combination with the weevils. So if you have weevils out there, you spray these herbicides, what kind of impacts on the weevils, can you maintain weevil populations, will the weevils come back afterwards.

Mr. GOHMERT. We’re dealing with freshwater, in some cases drinking water. What threats do those—whether it’s Galleon, Sonar, 24D, what do they pose to other vegetation or to the freshwater itself? Do we know of any risks.

Dr. GRODOWITZ. Any of those contact herbicides will kill any plant that gets sprayed, so you have to be very careful. Your application techniques are very important. We want to keep hydrilla and water hyacinths because they add some beauty to lakes.

Dr. WESTBROOKS. The EPA would say if there were concerns about drinking water.   I think most of the water you’re talking about is in rivers and lakes and ponds and stuff like that. There wouldn’t be drinking water concerns, I guess, unless you had a well beside the lake.

 

SALVINIA CAN ALSO INVADE SLOW-MOVING RIVERS

Dr. GRODOWITZ. [In response to navigation problems in flowing water]. It won’t accumulate in fast flowing water, but it will in slow-moving waters. For example, the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea is huge, but very slow moving and covered with salvinia. Whole villages were moved because the people couldn’t get into the river to fish.

Dr. WESTBROOKS. In Lake Victoria near Kenya four years ago the mats would get so thick trees would grow in them, so they became floating tree islands. In spring floods these floating mats could clog the backwaters of rivers and cause problems downstream.

Dr. GRODOWITZ. If you start having flooding events with salvinia in the waters, you’re going to have more damage because you’re looking at all this huge biomass in the water being pushed further downriver and cause even more damage.

Dr. WESTBROOKS. I don’t know about salvinia, but I know Florida water hyacinths would pile up against bridges and push the bridges out, so I don’t know if it’s comparable, but it probably could.

 

Mr. GOHMERT. One of the problems that is a result of having all these invasive species, the water hyacinths, hydrilla, and now giant salvinia, this stuff does die and  goes to the bottom. And in the old days a giant flood would sweep all that sediment out and you’d get fresh native growth again. I had one landowner say he bought his property because he liked how deep it was right there at that point in the lake, which means it’s normally more expensive property because it’s deeper, and it was 15 feet right there where he was located, and now it’s seven feet because of all the dead masses that go down and build up.  I’m just curious in either Texas or Louisiana, is there any money that’s been allocated and from the Federal Government toward dredging out some of this old plant mass?

Mr. BURNS. I’m not aware of any dredging for the reason of the plants. Only dredging I’m aware of is for navigational issues.  One of the problems you’ve got, I will say that you’re describing a situation that is striking fear in all of our hearts about losing bodies of water to this plant. One of the areas I’m most concerned with is the Atchafalaya Basin. It’s the largest swamp area in the country—shallow, trees, slow-moving waters.

We just opened the Morganza Spillway. Fortunately we’re not seeing a lot of salvinia at this point. Now, ultimately it’s going to get there because it’s coming out of the Red River. It’s coming down to the Atchafalaya, but that’s the place that it will take. We almost lost Henderson Lake due to water hyacinths. And so we’ve got some real threats from these types of plants in certain environments, these shallow, slow-moving, tree-strewn, nutrient-rich environments across the Deep South.

Dr. WESTBROOKS. To begin with, all we know is that it takes oxygen out of the water and is killing fish and stuff like that, but if this organic matter builds up like peat in the bottom of these lakes, you may have an entirely different problem. It’s going to change the  ecological characteristics of the lake.

 

Dearl Sanders, Edmiston Professor and Resident Coordinator: Bob R. Jones- Idlewild Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center

With the discovery of giant salvinia near Cameron, La., in 2000, a biological control program was initiated. It is interesting to note that the only effective eradication of giant salvinia in Louisiana was accomplished at the Cameron site by using salt water. The traditional drainage and pumping facilities were temporarily reversed, and the infested canals and associated ponds were filled with high salinity water from the nearby Calcasieu Navigation Channel. After the salvinia had died, the process was reversed, removing the salt water from the system with little, if any, negative effect on the native plant life.

Studies at the Golden Ranch site confirmed reports in the literature from Australia that under ideal growing conditions giant salvinia can approach an 80 percent daily coverage rate, or, stated another way, the giant salvinia can reach a point where it can double the area of water covered every 1.5 days

In southern Louisiana it takes a minimum of two full years for the population to reach a threshold where the weevils consume the salvinia faster than the salvinia can reproduce.

An extensive grass carp biological control trial was conducted at the Golden Ranch site in 2009. The trial confirmed that grass carp will not eat giant salvinia even when it is the only plant material available. This was not unexpected, since grass carp usually do not consume floating plants and giant salvinia contains a metabolic inhibitor (thiamine inhibitor) that if consumed in quantity is toxic to the fish (and other animals).

It should be noted that the salvinia weevil never eradicates giant salvinia. As in its native Brazil, it consumes salvinia to the point it can no longer maintain huge population numbers—allowing some salvinia to survive.

The results of over more than two dozen herbicide trials conducted by the LSU AgCenter since 1999 have identified a number of herbicides that are effective in controlling giant salvinia when applied according to directions. A number of the effective herbicides have obtained federal registration from the EPA and are available for use. These herbicides can be divided into two groups:

Foliar sprays and total water treatments. Diquat (Reward), flumioxazin (Clipper) and glyphosate (numerous trade names) are foliar treatments shown to be effective with multiple applications. Fluridone (numerous trade names) and more recently penoxulam (Galleon) are total water treatment herbicides (the giant salvinia absorbs the herbicide through root uptake) often are effective from a single application, but the contact time (time the plants are exposed to the herbicide) may be as long as 60 days. Exchange of water (rainfall, normal current flow, etc.) with the minimum exposure time negates control.

Even with these herbicides proven to be effective, chemical control of giant salvinia is problematic for several reasons:

  1. All of the foliar applied herbicides require multiple applications to have a significant effect on matted giant salvinia. Multiple applications are expensive and labor intensive.
  2. The total water treatment herbicides require long contact times. This works well in small confined areas (ponds with little watershed area), but it often does not work well in larger water bodies with larger watersheds and does not work at all in areas of moving water.
  3. All of these herbicides are expensive (as high as $1,600 per gallon on the upper end), and state budgets are limited.
  4. With the phenomenal growth rate of giant salvinia (Attachment 1), complete control is difficult to achieve, since only a few surviving plants can repopulate and area in a brief time.

The foliar materials that are out there are effective, but it’s like peeling an onion. You just have to peel off layer after layer after layer after layer. It’s expensive and requires a lot of tenacity to go out and spray the same body of water every two weeks for the rest of your life.

The total water volume treatments that were mentioned, like Galleon, is very expensive, just 500 gallons costs a million dollars, and if you apply it betting it won’t rain for 35 days – that’s a hard bet to make.

Salvinia weevils are about the only weevil that doesn’t fly, so someone to hand move them to nearby bodies of water, which is very labor intensive.

Basically our hope now is to continue with the weevil releases in south Louisiana. We continue to screen herbicides. We’re doing all these other tests that really haven’t amounted to a whole lot. We’ll continue to do it hoping

 

MICHAEL MASSIMI, Invasive Species Coordinator, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary program

This area is about four million acres between the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya, roughly triangular, down on the coast, coastal estuaries. We very much appreciate the weevils down there.

It’s an area that has a lot of environmental problems. We’re the fastest disappearing land mass. Everybody knows about Louisiana’s trouble with land loss. The invasive species is no less an issue down there. We have plenty of them.

Since I’ve been there for seven years, we have six new invasive species recorded in the Barataria-Terrebonne. Plenty of salvinia in the coastal estuaries. It’s not just up here in the northern part of the state. After Hurricane Katrina, we started finding giant salvinia in several new locations. The hurricane definitely spread it around, and my fear is that this river flood of 2011 is going to really spread it a lot farther, into the Atchafalaya basin and then, of course, into the Barataria-Terrebonne system as well. It’s found in the Barataria system, the north rim of Barataria Bay, including in Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, and I believe that we’re going to see severe impacts very soon in the Penchant Basin system of Terrebonne. That is where all the Atchafalaya River water eventually went.

The impacts are very severe. Total shade, blocking gas exchange on the surface, no oxygen getting through. As the plant decays, that sucks oxygen out as well, and causes fish kills. We’re seeing that in the southern part of the state.

The mat is so thick that even your air-breathing animals, even big ones like otters, don’t want to go through that. Ducks will relish our native duckweed, which is a similar floating plant, but it’s a thin mat, and ducks can get through it. Ducks will completely avoid a water body covered with giant salvinia.

Water management structures get overwhelmed. Boating is impossible, even sometimes for larger vessels. A mat three feet thick is going to impede a pretty big boat.

Intakes for industrial water or municipal drinking water get clogged. Cross Lake now has giant salvinia in it, and that’s where the City of Shreveport gets their water from.

And speaking just generally about invasive species biology, invasives love to stir up habitats. They have a much harder time invading an area if every niche is filled with a native species and it’s a functioning healthy ecosystem. You do something to disturb that, the invasives come in. They’re great generalists and they’re great pioneers of disturbed habitats. Using chemicals repeatedly knocks back not just your target species, it knocks back a lot of species. You’re degrading the habitat in that way, and so it can be a negative feedback or positive feedback, rather, where a further degraded habitat is now primed for further invasion. And we see this with invasive species helping one another. An invasive actually degrades a habitat, clearing the way for another invasive to come in. Common in invasion biology. So one thing we can do that hasn’t been mentioned is good restoration and restore native vegetation, cut back on the nutrients. That’s going to be part of a comprehensive plan as well.

I’d like to just say that in invasive species management, we’re constantly caught in a reactionary mode, so we’re here today to talk about giant salvinia, but we really should take a much more high altitude view and much more widespread and talk about invasives in particular pro-action rather than reaction. There is a nutria bill. There is a feral hog bill, and maybe there will be some salvinia action at some point, but if we can have stricter regulations on what gets imported into this country to begin with, we might avoid the next giant salvinia.

The invasive floating fern giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) is possibly the most noxious of all aquatic weeds.

Introduced and spread mainly as an ornamental by the horticulture and pond garden trade, it has become established in tropical and subtropical regions on four continents.

In the US, giant salvinia is established in at least 11 states  has the potential to devastate freshwater habitats in as many as 20 states.

Giant salvinia is currently considered established in at least 15 parishes, mostly in the southeast and northwest of the state, and the river flooding of 2011 will most certainly result in additional introductions. Giant salvinia can thrive in any freshwater area of the state, and I believe that we are, unfortunately, only on the leading edge of the giant salvinia invasion. The growth rate of giant salvinia is exponential. It doubles its coverage area in as little as a week under good growing conditions. A single plant could cover 40 square miles in three months. Waters infested with giant salvinia quickly become covered by a thick mat of vegetation. The mat can be up to three feet thick at the surface, making navigation impossible, even for relatively large boats. The mat is also much denser than other floating plants, blocking sunlight almost completely and greatly inhibiting oxygen exchange at the surface. The decay of plant masses further deoxygenates the water. The result is catastrophe for native flora and fauna. Hypoxic waters can cause fish kills. Submersed native aquatic plants are shaded out and they die. Habitat is destroyed for air-breathing animals like otters, diving birds, turtles and frogs, which cannot penetrate the mat. Ducks, which relish surfaces covered with the much thinner native duckweed, will completely avoid surfaces covered with salvinia.

There is also evidence that prolonged presence of salvinia mats causes gradual acidification of lakes and ponds.

Giant salvinia infestations have severe human impacts too. Water management structures are damaged or rendered useless, boating and commercial navigation is impeded, intakes for municipal drinking water or industrial facilities are clogged, and recreational uses such as fishing, waterfowl hunting, paddling, or swimming are stopped.

Harvesting salvinia mechanically can be effective only in very small infestations; otherwise the sheer weight and volume of the wet plants are unmanageable. Booms and other structures to prevent the movement of salvinia can protect small areas, but often get overwhelmed by the massive mats when pushed by wind or current.

 

KEN WARD, PROJECT MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, CADDO PARISH

1,700,000 gallons of water every day are used to provide quality drinking water to Caddo Parish residents.  But Giant salvinia reduces the oxygen in the water, increasing treatment requirements.

Manpower for spraying is also very limited. Spraying cannot be applied in the rain or high wind conditions. Boat launch barriers have been installed at Caddo Parish’s Earl Williamson Park in Oil City to help assist giant salvinia from entering the boat launch areas. This helps keep the plant from attaching to boat trailers during launch and release, but during high winds, giant salvinia can be blown in the barriers, which mean—which cause problems in the launching areas. Caddo Parish has passed and posted ordinances on the prohibition of transportation and spreading of giant salvinia. Enforcement of such ordinances are very expensive and time consuming.

Caddo Lake is one of only 27 wetlands in the United States recognized by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The bald cypress forests of Caddo Lake, including trees as old as 400 years, host one of the highest breeding populations of wood ducks as well as prothonotary warblers and other neotropical birds. The forests and wetlands of Caddo Lake are critical for migratory bird species within the Central Flyway, including tens of thousands of migrating waterfowl that utilize Caddo Lake (and other nearby lakes) as resting and feeding grounds. However, these internationally-recognized wetlands are threatened by Giant Salvinia, one of the world’s most noxious aquatic weeds introduced from Brazil as part of the pet industry. Giant Salvinia grows rapidly and spreads across water surfaces, forming dense floating mats that reduce light penetration and result in oxygen depletion of the lake. This prevents growth of natural vegetation, a food source for waterfowl, and the mats of Giant Salvinia also eliminate open water on lake for waterfowl to use for resting purposes.

Invasive species like Giant Salvinia are one of the greatest threats to fish, wildlife, and plant biodiversity facing the United States and disrupt the economy and ecology of our nation. Invasive plants threaten private working lands and publicly protected lands and infest over 100 million acres in the United States. On public and private lands and waters of this country, invasive species negatively impact the natural systems on which we all depend and economic losses are estimated at over $100 billion annually.

 

DAMON E. WAITT, SENIOR DIRECTOR AND BOTANIST, LADY BIRD JOHNSON WILDFLOWER CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN.

I’ll add to the bulleted list of problems with invasive species, that they reduce habitat for endangered species and also to the cost of $137 billion annually, they’re also the second greatest threat to native biodiversity, second only to habitat destruction.

My experience with Caddo Lake came later in life and was primarily secondhand from a woman who grew up in Karnack, Texas. With her mother dead, her much older brothers gone, and her father running the local general store, there was little time for five-year old Claudia Alta Taylor. As a child, Claudia found solace in nature paddling the dark bayous of Caddo Lake. The sense of place that came from being close to the land never left her. She would devote much of her life to preserving it. It helped define her and started her down a path that led to the White House, Highway Beautification, and the National Wildflower Research Center. That young girl was, of course, Lady Bird Johnson. And when I talked to her about invasive species when she was still alive, she said to me, ‘‘Damon, those are plants that have no socially redeeming value.’’ One of Lady Bird’s most famous quotes goes, ‘‘The environment is where we all meet; where we all have a mutual interest; it is the one thing all of us share. It is not only a mirror of ourselves, but a focusing lens on what we can become.’’

 

Dr. SANDERS. After 130 days, the grass carp that had only giant salvinia to eat had—a number of them died, and all of them had lost weight from the time we put them in there. Basically it boils down to two things; one, they don’t like floating plants to start with and, two, something that hasn’t been addressed here is that the giant salvinia contains a metabolic toxin, contains a thiamine inhibitor. The grass carp nibbled on it until they got sick and decided that they would eat mud after that and then die, which is what they did. We cut the stomachs open and simply full of mud. I’ve gotten requests for why can’t we use this for animal feed, cow feed.  Same situation. You have to overcome this thiamine inhibitor problem to keep the cows from getting sick, so it works the same with fish.

Mr. LOWERRE.  In the Caddo Lake watershed we are working with some Federal and state money on a watershed protection plan to get agricultural producers to use better management practices to reduce the extra nutrients that come into the system, since the run off of phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers helps giant salvinia to grow.

Dr. SANDERS. Weevils actually swim out of the pond trying to seek another batch of salvinia somewhere, and in south Louisiana, they’re all consumed by fire ants, another invasive species—and none of the weevils made it more than about 20 feet from the pond  

 

CYPRESS VALLEY NAVIGATION DISTRICT MARSHALL TEXAS 75661 GIANT SALVINIA RESPONSE PROGRAM PRESENTED TO THE RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION IN TEXARKANA, JUNE 1st, 2011

Caddo Lake has long had a problem with invasive species. . .namely Water Hyacinth. Some say this problem dates back to the Late 1950’s when Lake of The Pines was impounded. Other invasive species are also present in Caddo, some cause little problem and some are or have the potential to be major problems. The worst offenders include; Giant Salvinia, Hydrilla, and Alligator Weed. Others that tend to be more localized are: Water Millfoil, FanWort, Water Primrose, Elodea Parrot, Feather Pennywort, Frog’s Bit, Spatterdock Duck weed, and  Watermeal . All types of lilies like Egieria Coontail and American Lotus. There are three main control regimes for invasive species: Bio Controls, Herbicide Application, and Containment/Removal of material. The Containment/Removal of Giant Salvinia has been tried on Caddo in recent years. A trial using a barge with a conveyor system was used to remove and transport the material to shore was conducted. The trial was successful in that it removed the material from the shallow stumpy environment without breakdowns, however, the overall process was slow and not cost effective for large areas.

CVND’s efforts on Giant Salvinia started in 2007 when Giant Salvinia was first reported in the Jeems Bayou area of Caddo Lake. A plan was devised to put up a barricade 2 miles long across the middle of the lake to intercept the floating salvinia. The fence was erected and patrolled daily. It was effective on stopping large quantities of salvinia but could not stop it all. The fence was destroyed by winds from Hurricane Ike and was subsequently removed from the lake.

ROSS MELINCHUK, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT.  For the last ten years, the Department’s annual statewide budget for management of invasive aquatic plants has ranged from several hundred thousand dollars to 1.5 million. A comprehensive plant management program would require in our estimation about $2 million annually to implement, at least $600,000 of which would be targeted at giant salvinia.

Targeted outreach programs can be effective, but they, too, are expensive. The Department spent about $275,000 in 2010 for a one-month media campaign focused on Caddo, Lake Conroe, Toledo Bend, and Sam Rayburn reservoirs. The campaign included radio, television, print ads, online advertising, billboards, ramp buoys, pump station toppers, pretty comprehensive campaign. The boater survey conducted following the campaign showed us that 51% of boat owners had seen advertising or information about giant salvinia and that awareness had increased. Key point, in fact, 96% of boaters surveyed reported that the campaign made them more likely to clean their boat and trailer in the future.

Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences submitted for the record:

  1. Establish, operate and maintain a salvinia weevil rearing facility near Caddo Lake to serve as a ready source of weevils for release on Caddo Lake and also provide a living laboratory and nursery to develop a better knowledge of salvinia weevils and their behavior. So far about 75,000 adult weevils have been released on Caddo Lake into 4 isolated areas from the rearing facility and 250,000 weevil larvae. Larvae are the primary killer of giant salvinia as they bore their way out of the plant after hatching from eggs laid by adult weevils in the stems of the plant, thus seriously damaging the Salvinia
  2. Currently in the process of hiring a private applicator to chemically treat giant salvinia on Caddo Lake in 2011 to support and complement other spraying efforts

Mr. GOHMERT. You’ve talked about 1.3 million weevils costing $35,000 and how you mechanically can move them and all. Who counts those things?

Dr. SANDERS. Another one of these myriad studies, how many weevils are in a pound of salvinia and the first question we tried to answer. There’s actually entomologists came up with a system decades ago that they run a series of plant matter through, it’s called a berlese funnel. What it is is a—just like the name sounds, it’s a funnel with a screen in it. You put a heat source over the top, in this case a fluorescent light bulb, and the heat and the light forces the live insects down through the plant mass, through the neck of the funnel, down the funnel into some type of collection device. We use little plastic bags. But after the plant matter is completely dry, we pull them out, we pour them out, we count the numbers of weevils that are in there. We put a kilo of stuff in, we count however many weevils are at the bottom, and that’s how we make the determination, and we make hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these determinations.

 

Posted in Biodiversity Loss, BioInvasion, Peak Food | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Anyone who whines about airplanes should have to take the Oregon Trail

Source: Book cover of “Oregon Or Bust: True Short Stories from the Descendants of Oregon Trail Pioneers, Prospectors, Trappers, and Settlers in the Great Northwest Hardcover” by Gentry Ward Cutsforth (2012), XLibris.

Preface. Also listen to the Louis CK rant about airplane whiners here.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of 2021 Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy best price here; 2015 When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report

***

Sarah Lyall whined about traveling on airplanes in the leading story of the Business section in the New York Times (Lyall 2017).

To gain some perspective, let’s consider what traveling was like on the Oregon and other migrant trails.

The odds of dying were 1 in 5 (10,000 of 50,000 migrants died) from cholera, dysentery, typhoid fever, diphtheria, smallpox, firearm accidents, and Indian attacks (400 people).  The odds of dying in an airplane crash are just 1 in 11 million.

It took migrants up to six months to reach their destination.  A jet travels that distance in 4 hours.

Source: Flight attendant, wikiwand.com

Migrants often had to jettison most or all of their possessions to reach a safe place before winter.  Just 3 bags are mishandled by airlines per 1,000 passengers.

Migrants suffered from hunger, malnutrition, dehydration, lack of water, bad water, and lack of fuel to cook and heat with.  Airplanes have food, water, and comfortable temperatures.  Lyall has this to say about airplane food:

  • It is perpetually dinnertime at the airport, but I do not want the food.
  • On the flights, those of us sitting in the back tend to avoid buying from the snack cart, making do with the tiny free packets like Savory Snack Mix, blobs of cracker-like material coated with unpleasant flavoring.
  • The lady by the window, who had raised our mutual armrest so as to better squeeze over the line into my seat, whipped out a Chick-fil-A fried-chicken sandwich. The distressing scent of dill pickles and processed chicken wafted through the air.
  • The yogurt had spent the flight in the seat pocket, building up internal pressure. As I removed the top, it exploded, spraying blobs onto me
  • As the flight attendants dole out our sole free snack on this flight of six and a half hours – the aroma of something delicious wafts in from the front.

Lyall  whines about being in the middle seat, delayed flights, cramming luggage in overhead compartments, paying for once free services, crammed into small seats like sardines, a cast system like the Hunger games – jostled and fretted into lines staffed by overburdened agents, the envy of elite status passengers, eyes irritated from too much flying, independence taken away, having to affix your own bag-routing tag, boarding lines, A passenger attempts to use the first-class bathrooms but is ordered to the back of the plane, and broken entertainment systems. Plus a great deal more using 4059 words, which takes up over 6 pages in a word document that’s entirely single-spaced.

Don’t even get me started on the hardships of the 1620 Mayflower voyage and thousands of other voyages, or the Cherokee “Trail of Tears” where 5,000 of 15,000 native Americans died.

So instead of whining, remember that for most of history nobody flew — not even kings or queens. Instead of whining, be grateful.  Think of yourself as a God or Goddess flying above the earth through towering clouds over sparkling water, forests, and cities lit by hundreds of billions of kilowatt hours of mostly fossil-fueled electricity.

Airplanes will never be electrified with wind and solar power charged batteries.  A 200-seat airplane weighs about 115 tons at take-off. About a third, or 38 tons of that weight is the kerosene fuel. The other 77 tons are the passengers, their luggage, and the airplane itself. An electric, battery-powered airplane would require nearly 3,000 tons of lithium-ion batteries.  The batteries would weigh 39 times more than the plane, passengers, and their luggage. Nor would fuel cells do much better (Schrope 2010).

This is a temporary privilege.  Enjoy it.   We’re burning through finite fossil fuels exponentially. Our descendants will one day daydream about what it must have been like to fly.

Source: National Archives at catalog.archives.gov.jpg

References

Lyall, Sarah. June 9, 2017. Paying a Price for 8 Days of Flying in America. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/business/what-its-like-to-fly-for-a-week-straight.html

Schrope, Mark. November 6, 2010. Fly Electric. New Scientist.

 

Posted in Airplanes, Lithium-ion, Transportation What To Do | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

California hits the solar wall

[ What is a solar wall?  Read part 1: California could hit the solar wall and then excerpts from the following article in the financial times, Britain’s Wall street journal.  I’ve also reworded some of it.

Renewables are rendering existing natural gas and coal plants unprofitable, plants that cost $2.5 to 5 billion and were able to borrow money because the banks believed they be generating power much of the time.

It may be that natural gas and coal plants are in or will become in as much financial trouble as nuclear power plants.  In 2013 Mark Cooper wrote a paper making the case that at least 37 nuclear power plants were in danger of closing called “Renaissance in reverse: competition pushes aging U.S. nuclear reactors to the brink of economic abandonment“.

Since this article was published in 2013, 10 of the 37 at risk plants Cooper listed have been or are scheduled to close down: Diablo Canyon, Clinton, Fitzpatrick, Ft. Calhoun, Indian Point, Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Quad Cities, Three Mile Island, Vermont Yankee.  Plus four plants he didn’t list are scheduled to shut down as well: San Onofre 2 & San Onofre 3, Diablo Canyon 1 & Diablo Canyon 2. In addition, not long before this article was written, Kewaunee (2012) and Crystal River (2009) closed for financial reasons.

Here are the remaining plants Cooper listed that have yet to close: Browns Ferry, Callaway, Calvert Cliff, Commanche Peak, Cook, Cooper, Davis-Besse, Dresden, Duane Arnold, Fermi,  Ginna, Hope Creek, LaSalle, Limerick, Millstone, Monticello, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Perry, Point Beach, Prairie Island, Robinson, Seabrook, Sequoyah, South Texas, Susquehanna, Turkey Point, Wolf Creek
Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

Dizard, J. June 2, 2017. Forget Trump, there’s still money in the climate business. Financial times.

Far mMore significant than Trump’s walking out on the Paris Climate agreement was the administration’s legal move in March to abandon Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). If the rejection of the CPP happens, that will make it much more difficult for fossil fuel-dependent regulated utilities to get new renewables and gas-fired plants paid for by their ratepayers.

Because of low natural-gas and power prices, renewable energy development  has more challenging economics than it did a couple of years ago.

And politically, the alliance of convenience between the gas-fired power sector and the renewables industry is fraying to breaking point. As long as both could face off against the coal industry, the gas-fired generators were fine with having green activists demanding reductions in carbon emissions. Gas barons could contribute to environmental groups, smug in the belief that the greens were helping them get market share.

The natural gas drillers, though, became far too efficient at finding and producing the stuff for their own good, so prices went down and stayed down. Therefore the Exploration & Production industry has not, collectively, managed to cover its costs from operating cash flow, but that has not mattered. Even when gas producers were facing insolvency, they were able to borrow money, sell shares and keep drilling. So the Saudis and the Russians lost their betAs did the gas-fired generators.

Power prices are set, at the margin, by natural gas prices, and the independent natural gas power producers are in financial distress. Wind and utility-grade solar plant owners, in contrast, have long-dated fixed-price contracts to back up their project financing. [Thanks to all the Americans unknowingly plowing their money into 401K and IRA mutual funds with investments in money-losing oil and gas companies, who would be out-of-business otherwise.  But keep giving them money and they’ll keep on drilling].

The gas barons had figured that their generators would be complementary, rather than competitive, with intermittent renewables. [Because natural gas is essential for balancing intermittent wind and solar power now since there is no scalable energy storage system of any kind remotely close to being commercial].

In recent years, though, in states such as California and Texas, renewables generation has been crushing the power markets on which the gas generators depend. In Texas, tax credit-supported wind generation can be economic even in hours when power prices are negative: when you have to pay the grid manager to take your energy.

In California, ratepayers who install rooftop solar panels receive “net metering”, which means they receive retail power rates for their intermittent production. In effect, during the hours their panels work, the cost of maintaining the transmission and distribution grid, along with the back-up capacity of hydro, nuclear and fossil-fuel plants, is borne by ratepayers who do not have rooftop solar.

This did not matter when rooftop solar was just a cute green gadget. Now solar generation in California can lead to rapid swings in net load of up to 16,000MW, or about one-third of the total demand in the state, which is about equal to that of the UK grid. Much of the rooftop and “utility scale” solar generation occurs in the middle of the day, which creates the so-called duck curve, or cat’s ears of net requirements for the grid operator.

This means that the very time in the middle of the day when the gas generators were supposed to make money is a time when they are idle, just spinning away without any revenue but with the same requirements for debt service. So they are going broke.

[Yet because of the huge 16,000 MW ramp up, which wasn’t expected until 2020, another natural gas plant may need to be built, even though solar provides only 5.5% of California’s power.  Huh? Isn’t renewable energy supposed to shut down fossil fuel plants?]

The gas generators’ owners, and, with them, the transmission and distribution utilities, are not taking this assault on their cash flow lying down. They are responding, in the passive-aggressive electricity professionals’ manner, by changing the rules for solar and wind generators’ access to the grid.

In several states, including Nevada, Arizona, Indiana and even, hesitantly, California, regulators are making it less financially attractive to sell intermittent renewable power to the grid. Subsidies are being limited for new renewables, and will eventually be eliminated.

Of course the greens and the renewables owners are pushing back, but the old alliance with the gas crowd has been broken. As the renewables and gas plant owners fight over generation market share, the distribution utilities and even electricity storage developers are gaining power, so to speak. Because balancing the variations in power load is an increasingly demanding task, state regulators are more willing to allocate revenue to those who can manage the process.

Also, while the Trump administration has decided to dump the Paris climate accord and the Clean Power Plan, corporate America is still under political pressure to use green power. Big tech already contracts for renewable energy. As that preference filters down to other companies, Wall Street is ready to intermediate the trade.

So whatever the White House announces, there is still money to be made from the climate business.

Posted in Natural Gas, Solar | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Electromagnetic Pulse weapons & cyberattacks can bring down the electric grid

Preface.  At some point of energy decline the electric grid will fail, and civilization will take a giant step downward (financial systems gone, knowledge stored gone, computers / phones inoperable) and so on. Vaclav Smil (2015) in his book Energy & Civilization wrote: “Reliance on this most flexible and most convenient form of energy has rapidly developed into an all-encompassing dependence. Without electricity, modern societies could not farm or eat the way they do: electricity powers compressors in both ammonia plants and domestic refrigerators. They could not prevent disease (now controlled with refrigerated vaccines) and take care of the sick (with diagnoses dependent on electricity-powered machines, from venerable x-ray machines to the latest MRI, and with extensive monitoring in intensive care units), control their transportation networks, or handle their enormous volume of information (with data centers becoming some of the largest point consumers of electricity) or urban sewage.  operating the machines that make parts with amazing precision and exact tolerance for jet engines, medical diagnostic devices, and much more”.

Below is about malware, and also cyberweapons that generate EMPs. Just as likely perhaps is a very strong solar flare like the Carrington event of 1859, one of the most violent solar storms of the past 200 years. The telegraph network collapsed in large parts of northern Europe and North America. According to estimates, the associated flare released only a hundredth of the energy of a superflare. Today, in addition to the infrastructure on the Earth’s surface, especially satellites would be at risk.

It turns out that these flares may be far more common and much stronger. Stars similar to the Sun produce a gigantic outburst of radiation on average about once every 100 years per star. These superflares release more energy than a trillion hydrogen bombs and make all previously recorded solar flares pale in comparison. This estimate is based on an inventory of 56450 sun-like stars, which shows that previous studies have significantly underestimated the eruptive potential of these stars. In data from NASA’s space telescope Kepler, superflaring, sun-like stars can be found ten to a hundred times more frequently than previously assumed. The Sun, too, is likely capable of similarly violent eruptions. Vasilyev V et al (2024) Sun-like stars produce superflares roughly once per century. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.adl5441

According to the Russian malware article blow, the outages would last a few hours and probably not more than a couple of days, because the U.S. electric industry has trained its operators to handle disruptions caused by large storms. They’re used to having to restore power with manual operations. On the other hand, an EMP would fry transformers that can take 1 to 5 years to replace (all made abroad) A 1-year blackout could kill 90% of Americans

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Nakashima, E. June 12, 2017. Russia has developed a cyberweapon that can disrupt power grids, according to new research. Washington Post.

Hackers allied with the Russian government have devised a cyberweapon that has the potential to be the most disruptive yet against electric systems that Americans depend on for daily life.

The malware, dubbed CrashOverridebriefly shut down one-fifth of the electric power generated in Kiev and left 225,000 customers without power. With modifications, it could be deployed against U.S. electric transmission and distribution systems to devastating effect.  And Russian government hackers have shown their interest in targeting U.S. energy and other utility systems, researchers said.  It’s the culmination of over a decade of theory and attack scenarios. It’s a game changer.

The revelation comes as the U.S. government is investigating a wide-ranging, ambitious effort by the Russian government last year to disrupt the U.S. presidential election and influence its outcome. That campaign employed a variety of methods, including hacking hundreds of political and other organizations, and leveraging social media, U.S. officials said.

“The same Russian group that targeted U.S. [industrial control] systems in 2014 turned out the lights in Ukraine in 2015,” said John Hultquist, who analyzed both incidents while at iSight Partners, a cyber-intelligence firm now owned by FireEye, where he is director of intelligence analysis.  “We believe this group is tied in some way to the Russian government…perhaps the security services.”

“U.S. utilities have been enhancing their cybersecurity, but attacker tools like this one pose a very real risk to reliable operation of power systems,” said Michael J. Assante, who worked at Idaho National Labs and is a former chief security officer of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, where he oversaw the rollout of industry cybersecurity standards.

CrashOverride is only the second instance of malware specifically tailored to disrupt or destroy industrial control systems. Stuxnet, the worm created by the United States and Israel to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capability, was an advanced military-grade weapon designed to affect centrifuges that enrich uranium.

In 2015, the Russians used malware to gain access to the power supply network in western Ukraine, but it was hackers at the keyboards who remotely manipulated the control systems to cause the blackout — not the malware itself, Hultquist said.

With CrashOverride, “what is particularly alarming . . . is that it is all part of a larger framework,” said Dan Gunter, a senior threat hunter for Dragos.

The malware is like a Swiss Army knife, where you flip open the tool you need and where different tools can be added to achieve different effects, Gunter said.

Theoretically, the malware can be modified to attack different types of industrial control systems, such as water and gas. However, the adversary has not demonstrated that level of sophistication, Lee said.

Still, the attackers probably had experts and resources available not only to develop the framework but also to test it, Gunter said. “This speaks to a larger effort often associated with nation-state or highly funded team operations.”

One of the most insidious tools in CrashOverride manipulates the settings on electric power control systems. It scans for critical components that operate circuit breakers and opens the circuit breakers, which stops the flow of electricity. It continues to keep them open even if a grid operator tries to close them, creating a sustained power outage.

The malware also has a “wiper” component that erases the software on the computer system that controls the circuit breakers, forcing the grid operator to revert to manual operations, which means driving to the substation to restore power.

With this malware, the attacker can target multiple locations with a “time bomb” functionality and set the malware to trigger simultaneously, Lee said. That could create outages in different areas at the same time.

Bob Adelmann. May 6, 2015. EMP Threats Force NORAD Back Into Cheyenne Mountain. The New American.

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) is moving back into its previous Cheyenne Mountain underground bunker in Colorado Springs because it is EMP-hardened, and due to threats from enemies who now possess the capabilities to launch an EMP nuclear weapon from the south where NORAD is blind.

North Korea now has operational the KN-08, a nuclear-weapon-armed missile, that can be launched undetected and set off a nuclear explosion sufficient to shut down the entire North American electric grid.

NORAD is prepared to defend the country from attacks from North Korea and Iran (even if negotiations are successful), provided that those attacks come over the North Pole. But all eyes are facing north, with none facing south.

Peter Vincent Pry, executive director of the EMP Task Force, has written frequently in attempts to warn citizens of the danger. Back in August he and James Woolsey, former CIA director said in a Wall Street Journal that North Korea and Iran will soon match Russia and China in their ability to launch an EMP attack with 1) simple ballistic missiles such as Scuds launched from a freighter near our shores, 2) space-launched vehicles able to loft low-earth-orbit satellites, or 3) simple low-yield nuclear weapons that can generate gamma rays and fireballs.

Pry said it wouldn’t take much to melt the grid with an EMP strike, most likely from the detonation of a nuclear weapon in space, which would destroy unprotected military and civilian electronics worldwide, blacking out the electric grid and other critical infrastructure for months or years. Iran should be regarded as already having nuclear missiles capable of making an EMP attack against the U.S. Iran and North Korea have successfully orbited satellites on south-polar trajectories that appear to practice evading U.S. missile defenses, and at optimum altitudes to make a surprise EMP attack.

Such costs were spelled out in a dystopian novel that made it onto the New York Times best-sellers list back in 2011: One Second After, by William R. Forstchen. It’s the story of how one man struggles to deal with a world that no longer works, first evidenced when cars passing by on the highway come to an immediate and permanent halt thanks to internal computers that no longer work. In the afterword, Forstchen quotes a letter from Captain Bill Sanders of the U.S. Navy, who notes that One Second After is not so much a novel as it is a warning: “An Electronic Pulse (EPM) explosion over the continental United States would have devastating consequences for our country….A well-designed nuclear weapon detonated at a high altitude over Kansas could have damaging effects over virtually all of the continental United States. Our technologically oriented society and its heavy dependence on advanced electronics systems could be brought to its knees with cascading failures of our critical infrastructure. Our vulnerability increases daily as our use and dependence on electronics continues to accelerate.”

Joan Trossman. 21 Nov 2012. Fire in the Sky. Scientists warn of a solar flare large enough to paralyze our electrified world. Pasadena Weekly.

If you have never heard of an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, then you have not spent any time worrying about an EMP causing the end of civilization as we know it. But scientists and some policymakers worry about such a thing happening, and for very good reason.

If an EMP were to occur over the United States, caused either by a particularly violent solar storm or by a small nuclear device detonated many miles above the ground, chances are high that the country’s entire electrical grid would fail, as a massive surge of electricity would fry the huge transformers that keep the grid humming. Satellites we rely on for navigation and communication would be damaged beyond repair, and society would crumble into a dysfunctional scramble for survival. The very necessities of life, such as clean water, food, medications, transportation, even government, would all either disappear or be in very short supply.

Given the fact that extreme solar events happen once or twice a decade, “It is just a question of not if, but when the Earth happens to be in the path of these kinds of [solar] storms,” according to Dan Baker, director of Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado.

Solar flares are not unusual.  On March 13, 1989, one blew out power in Quebec, leaving 6 million people in the dark. In 1921, a solar storm hit, but didn’t cause much damage. Today, such an occurrence would have darkened half of North America.

Last summer, Baker said there was a very close call. “Just on July 22, there was a very ugly, mean-looking active region on the sun that had moved across the face of the sun. A satellite was watching it. A huge flare, and then a CME, came at the spacecraft and it was moving at the highest recorded speed that has been seen in the modern Space Age. It reached the satellite in 17 hours. That’s an hour faster than the Carrington Event, and it led to extremely intense magnetic fields in the interplanetary medium. For all intents and purposes, that was a Carrington Event that just missed us. We dodged the proverbial bullet there. Now we know there have been others like this.

Can it happen again? “Some people say that the Carrington Event is a moldy old event and these things happen only once in 1,000 years,” Baker said. “I think recent work has suggested quite the contrary. The probability of any of these occurring during one 11-year cycle of solar storms is like 10 percent, a pretty significant probability. It’s not a rare thing.

Ultimately, whether triggered by a rogue nation’s high-altitude detonation of a small nuclear weapon or set off by a rare but possible extremely strong solar flare, the result will be the same if we continue to do nothing.

Congressional committees have acknowledged the danger since 2001. There have been studies ordered, hearings held, admissions of lack of knowledge and lists of problems. Still, it remains in the talking stages and no action has been taken to lessen the danger. The Department of Homeland Security admitted as recently as this past September that it has no estimate of the costs associated with an EMP. But experts, including Baker, have placed the cost at $1 trillion to $2 trillion. Estimates of the cost of meaningful preparation are $150 million to $200 million.

On Sept. 12, the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Cyber security, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a hearing on the electromagnetic pulse threat. Rep. Dan Lungren of California chaired the hearing.

Lundgren, a former California Attorney General, said in his opening statement that an EMP from either a geomagnetic storm or an attack would wipe out the entire country’s electrical grid. Referring to a 2010 computer simulation conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lundgren said the power system collapse could take four to 10 years from which to fully recover.

“In 2004 and 2008, the EMP Commission testified before the Armed Services Committee that the US society and economy are so critically dependent upon the availability of electricity that a significant collapse of our grid…could result in catastrophic civilian casualties,” Franks said. “This conclusion is echoed by separate reports recently compiled by the DOD (Department of Defense), DHS (Department of Homeland Security), DOE (Department of Energy), NAS (National Academy of Sciences), along with various other agencies and independent researchers.

On Oct. 18, federal regulators took the first step toward mitigating the effects of an EMP. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said present standards have “a reliability gap” and “do not adequately address vulnerabilities” from a destructive solar storm. FERC called for the agency that oversees the national grid to draft rules requiring power companies to assess their weaknesses and upgrade their grids to withstand the electrical onslaught.

Most power companies in the country are privately owned. As such, those companies have categorized the danger of an EMP as highly unlikely and have refused to officially assess their own vulnerabilities. In Baker’s opinion, that’s a big mistake.

“What would a Carrington Event look like in modern times? We need to be constantly vigilant, we need to keep our eye on our beautiful but dangerous partner here, the sun,” Baker said. “Knowing what’s coming at us is going to be very advantageous.”

 

Nov 22, 2012.  Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million … But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix. WashingtonsBlog

Government Spends Tens of Trillions On Unnecessary, Harmful Projects … But Won’t Spend $100 Million to Prevent the Greatest Threat.

 

Newt Gingrich.  12 July 2012.  Newt Gingrich: Preparing for the next outage. Washington Post.

Gingrich is a former speaker of the House and a Republican candidate for president.

Without power, the comforts of home become worthless. You sit in the sweltering heat, realizing you are living in a box that, without electricity, is a trap. You pray for the “juice” to return before your groceries go bad. You either make do in the heat or find refuge with friends who have electricity.  I write this now because of my concern for national security and our power grid, which are susceptible to doomsday-level damage if hit by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) strike or a major solar storm.

It is almost unthinkable, yet possible, that an enemy could detonate a nuclear weapon over the atmosphere over the continental United States, triggering an electromagnetic pulse. This would short-circuit our power grid, taking power off­line for months, perhaps even years.

A similar crisis could be sparked by a solar storm like the Carrington Event of 1859, a type of geomagnetic disturbance that occurs about every 75 years. Statistically, we are long overdue for such a storm. There have been some recent examples of the potential impact, such as the millions in Quebec who lost power for several hours in 1989 as a result of a space storm.

Our nation’s communications infrastructure, modes of transportation and many fundamentals of survival all rely on a power grid that is vulnerable. The current system lacks safety features needed to prevent damage to critical electrical infrastructure.

In 2009, my friend — and sometimes co-author — William R. Forstchen published a truly frightening book, “One Second After.” The story is fiction but based on hard facts. It is a cautionary tale about the threat of EMP strikes and major solar storms, known as coronal mass ejections.

Suppose that, rather than being a temporary disruption in our lives, the power outage lasted weeks or months, or even years. Consider what state all of us, from the richest to the poorest, would be in if we were still literally in the dark. Millions could be trapped in houses or apartments that were never designed for this climate without air conditioning. No cool air; months with no food shipments and every pharmacy shut down — no refills for life-sustaining medications.

In a crisis, many in the Washington area could not even flee because the impact of an EMP attack would disable most cars and public transportation. The water supply would go dry without electricity to pump water from rivers and wells. Imagine if you could find a bottle of potable water for, say, your children. How much would you pay? What would you pay with if every bank and ATM were shut down? Public safety? Forget it. No power means no police cars, no communications and no 911 emergency service. For criminals, it would be time to run rampant.

An exploding high-altitude (25 to 250 miles) nuclear weapon can generate an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) that can zap electronic systems over a wide area — several could potentially take out electronic systems across the country.

Periodically there are also solar flares emitted from the sun that could also have this effect.

This could lead to a cascade of catastrophic failures of electric power, energy, telecommunications, satellite, transportation, financial, and other essential infrastructure.  The result would be a very long, difficult recovery that would cascade into the financial system and our ability to produce goods and services and get food, water, medical care to citizens.  Since all these systems all depend on one another, it will be very hard to recover.  Potentially the mutually reinforcing outages will irreversibly affect the ability of the United States to support its population.

“The North American economy and the functioning of the society as a whole are critically dependent on the availability of electricity, as needed, where and when needed. The electric power system in the US and interconnected areas of Canada and Mexico is outstanding in terms of its ability to meet load demands with high quality and reliable electricity at reasonable cost. However, over the last decade or two, there has been relatively little large-capacity electric transmission constructed and the generation additions that have been made, while barely adequate, have been increasingly located considerable distances from load for environmental, political, and economic reasons. As a result, the existing National electrical system not infrequently operates at or very near local limits on its physical capacity to move power from generation to load. Therefore, the slightest insult or upset to the system can cause functional collapse affecting significant numbers of people, businesses, and manufacturing. It is not surprising that a single EMP attack may well encompass and degrade at least 70% of the Nation’s electrical service, all in one instant”.

ELECTRIC POWER INFRASTRUCTURE After EMPs take out electric power systems, emergency power supplies will be limited by supplies of stored fuel, which are increasingly diminishing for fire safety and pollution reasons.

“The North American economy and the functioning of the society as a whole are critically dependent on the availability of electricity, as needed, where and when needed… over the last decade or two, there has been relatively little large-capacity electric transmission constructed and the generation additions that have been made, while barely adequate, have been increasingly located considerable distances from load for environmental, political, and economic reasons. As a result, the existing National electrical system not infrequently operates at or very near local limits on its physical capacity to move power from generation to load. Therefore, the slightest insult or upset to the system can cause functional collapse affecting significant numbers of people, businesses, and manufacturing. It is not surprising that a single EMP attack may well encompass and degrade at least 70% of the Nation’s electrical service, all in one instant. P 18-19.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS plays a key role in US society in terms of its direct effect on individuals and business and due to its impact on ..critical infrastructures, such as the financial industry.

BANKING AND FINANCE  The financial services industry comprises a network of organizations and attendant systems that process instruments of monetary value in the form of deposits, loans, funds transfers, savings, and other financial transactions. It includes banks and other depository institutions, including the Federal Reserve System; investment-related companies such as underwriters, brokerages, and mutual funds; industry utilities such as the New York Stock Exchange, the Automated Clearing House, and the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications; and third party processors that provide electronic processing services to financial institutions, including data and network management and check processing. Virtually all American economic activity depends upon the functioning of the financial services industry. Today, most financial transactions that express National wealth are performed and recorded electronically. Virtually all transactions involving banks and other financial institutions happen electronically. Essentially all record-keeping of financial transactions involves information stored electronically. The financial services industry has evolved to the point that it would be impossible to operate without the efficiencies, speeds, and processing and storage capabilities of electronic information technology.

FUEL/ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE Process control systems are critical to the operation and control of petroleum refineries.

FOOD  “Technology has made possible a dramatic revolution in US agricultural productivity. The transformation of the United States from a nation of farmers to a nation where less than 2 percent of the population is able to feed the other 98 percent and supply export markets is made possible only by technological advancements that, since 1900, have increased the productivity of the modern farmer by more than 50-fold. Technology, in the form of knowledge, machines, modern fertilizers and pesticides, high-yield crops and feeds, is the key to this revolution in food production. Much of the technology for food production directly or indirectly depends upon electricity, transportation, and other infrastructures. The distribution system is a chokepoint in the US food infrastructure. Supermarkets typically carry only enough food to provision the local population for 1 to 3 days. Supermarkets replenish their stocks on virtually a daily basis from regional warehouses that usually carry enough food to supply a multi-county area for about one month. The large quantities of food kept in regional warehouses will do little to alleviate a crisis if it cannot be distributed to the population in a timely manner. Distribution depends largely on a functioning transportation system”. (page 40).

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE   Combustion engines are vulnerable to EMPs because they have a lot of electronics to make the engine more efficient, reduce pollution, and so on.  “significant degradation of the transportation infrastructures are likely to occur in the immediate aftermath of an EMP attack. For example, municipal road traffic will likely be severely congested, possibly to the point of wide-area gridlock, as a result of traffic light malfunctions and the fraction of operating cars and trucks that will experience both temporary and in some cases unrecoverable engine shutdown. Railroad traffic will stop if communications with railroad control centers are lost or railway signals malfunction. Commercial air traffic will likely cease operations for safety and other traffic control reasons. Ports will stop loading and unloading ships until commercial power and cargo hauling infrastructures are restored.”

America’s transportation sector consists of several separate infrastructures. Rail includes the freight railroad and commuter rail infrastructures; road includes the trucking and automobile infrastructures; water includes the maritime shipping and inland waterway infrastructures; and air includes the commercial and general aviation infrastructures.  “Increasing utilization of IT make large-scale, multimodal disruptions more likely in the future. As the infrastructure becomes more interconnected and interdependent, the transportation industry will increasingly rely on information technology to perform its most basic business functions. As this occurs, it becomes more likely that information system failures could result in large-scale disruptions of multiple modes of the transportation infrastructure

WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE …

GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, …

SPACE SYSTEMS Satellites (and their ground control systems) are vulnerable.  Commercial satellites support many significant services for the Federal government, including communications, remote sensing, weather forecasting, and imaging. The national security and homeland security communities use commercial satellites for critical activities, including direct and backup communications, emergency response services, and continuity of operations during emergencies. Satellite services are important for national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications because of their ubiquity and separation from other communications infrastructures (page 44)

History

Although we’ve known about EMPs for a long time, our infrastructure wasn’t built to withstand them because we have depended on MAD to deter an attack.  But now there are terrorist groups as well as rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran.

“Another key difference from the past is that the US has developed more than most other nations as a modern society heavily dependent on electronics, telecommunications, energy, information networks, and a rich set of financial and transportation systems that leverage modern technology. This asymmetry is a source of substantial economic, industrial, and societal advantages, but it creates vulnerabilities and critical interdependencies that are potentially disastrous to the United States. Therefore, terrorists or state actors that possess relatively unsophisticated missiles armed with nuclear weapons may well calculate that, instead of destroying a city or military base, they may obtain the greatest political-military utility from one or a few such weapons by using them—or threatening their use—in an EMP attack. The current vulnerability of US 2 critical infrastructures can both invite and reward attack if not corrected.” (Foster)

The 1962 bomb exploded 250 miles above the Johnston Island affected the Hawaiian islands 870 miles away. Street light systems failed, burglar alarms were triggered, and a telecommunications relay facility was damaged.

In 1962 the Soviet Union also set off 300 kiloton detonations from 37 to 300 miles high that affected both overhead and underground buried cables up to 375 miles away, as well as surge arrestor burnout, spark-gap breakdown, blown fuses, and power supply breakdowns.

Implications of EMP’s to the Nuclear command and Control system (Rosenbaum)

Mutually assured destruction, or MAD, is at the basis of our nuclear deterrent system.  If we’re attacked, we’ll counterattack. EMP’s from a high-altitude nuclear blast blow MAD apart. EMPs can fry the entire nation’s ground-based electronic nuclear command and control system. We couldn’t strike back.  We wouldn’t even know it was coming.  So our MAD strategy is hollow and virtually invites a surprise nuclear attack.

References

There are hundreds of articles on the web about this topic.  The Foster article is the most comprehensive one that I found.

Foster, J., et al. 2004.   Executive Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).

Just found an even longer, better, and more up-to-date version of the above (2008) here:

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

Rosenbaum, Ron. 2011. “How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III”.  p 106

 

Posted in Electric Grid & EMP Electromagnetic Pulse, Nuclear spent fuel fire | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Minerals: Coal from Ugo Bardi’s “Extracted”

Preface. This is just a small sampling of what Bardi thinks might happen post fossil fuels, mostly shortened and reworded.

Here are 7 other posts from this great book:

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report

***

Bardi, Ugo. 2014. Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet. Chelsea Green Publishing.

True large-scale coal mining started only during the 18th century in Europe, and in particular in England and France.

Initially coal was considered a poor fuel, but with the development of coking (baking coal to burn off impurities), mineral coal could be used for the same tasks as wood charcoal, but at a much lower price.

That changed many things. For instance, for most of human history iron had been smelted with charcoal, which made it such an expensive commodity that it was used to make little more than weapons and armor.

Now, produced in coal-fired forges, it became so cheap that it was possible to make everyday items in iron, such as pots, pans, and more.

Coal did more than make iron cheap; it powered the steam engine. The first steam engines were used to pump water out of coal mines. They were very inefficient, but it didn’t matter. Coal was inexpensive and abundant. The pumps made it possible to extract more coal, and more coal could power more pumps, leading to more coal being extracted.

With time, the steam engine became efficient enough that it could power ships and locomotives as well as factories. As William Stanley Jevons wrote in 1865, “Coal in truth stands not beside but entirely above all other commodities. It is the material energy of the country—the universal aid—the factor in everything we do. With coal almost any feat is possible or easy; without it we are thrown back into the laborious poverty of early times.”

With coal, Britain experienced the first industrial revolution. An awesome complex of factories, people, and machines became the inner powerhouse of the British Empire. The idea spread quickly to other countries. France had started her coal revolution perhaps even earlier than Britain; in fact the French Revolution that started in 1789 was born from the need to get rid of the old landed aristocracy to make room for a new, coal-based economy. Germany, too, developed its national mines, and slowly the revolution spread to eastern Europe, to Poland and Russia, and later on to North America.

But the domain of King Coal was not destined to last forever. Coal was perhaps the first important mineral resource of modern times to show depletion problems. England’s production peaked in the 1920s and was soon followed by Germany’s. France would peak a couple of decades later, but without ever approaching the production magnitude that England and Germany had achieved.

Coal had created the European world empires; its decline was to spell their demise. [ My comment: Just as deforestation had collapsed empires before this, see John Perlin’s “A forest journey” for the rise and fall of civilizations when wood was the main energy resource.]

King Coal was abdicating, at least in Europe. The history of coal didn’t end with the decline of the European producers. The lead was picked up by new producers in North America, China, and Australia, and coal is now the fastest growing energy resource in the world. But the importance of coal was destined to decline anyway thanks to the appearance of a new mineral commodity: crude oil, which was more versatile, more powerful, and easier to transport. The modern history of crude oil starts around the mid-19th century, and it had a very humble beginning.

 

Posted in Coal, Peak Coal, Ugo Bardi | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Minerals: Coal from Ugo Bardi’s “Extracted”

Mineral: Soil from Ugo Bardi’s “Extracted”

soil health globally ugo bardi extractedFIGURE 1. The state of soil health globally.

Preface. Ugo Bardi’s book on minerals covers a wide-ranging territory, including soil, which is a mineral.  In this section of the book he shows how humans have damaged the soil so much we have greatly overshot carrying capacity by lowering its capacity to grow food, and he explains why there is no way to fix this with GMO crops or other solutions.

Here are 7 other posts from this great book:

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Bardi, Ugo. 2014. Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Today, it is estimated that the land biosphere produces 56 billion tons of new biomass every year. Of the elements that are part of this mass, most come from the atmosphere, but about 1% must be extracted from the ground. Therefore, plants are mining about half a billion tons of materials from the crust every year. The cycle is very efficient: plants have never been in danger of “running out” of minerals at the planetary scale.

Nowadays humans extract from the ground several billion tons of materials every year. We use all 88 of the elements present in the Earth’s crust and even unstable elements that didn’t exist on Earth in measurable amounts before we started creating them. We dig at depths unthinkable for plant roots: our mines are hundreds of meters deep and our drills reach tens of kilometers into the crust, even under the sea.

Soil Fertility and Human Survival

Perhaps our most important source of minerals can be found in the rich, complex ecosystem that blankets most of the Earth’s land surface: soil. This all-important organic matter was formed over thousands of years as rock broke down into tiny particles that were gradually infiltrated by living organisms. Running anywhere between a few centimeters and several meters deep, soil sustains a diverse mix of plants and animals that forever change it as they live and die. It is moved about by wind, water, ice, and gravity—sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. As history has shown us, it can make or break civilizations. It’s little surprise that many ancient civilizations began where the topsoil was richest and farming was most productive. But many of these civilizations mismanaged the soil, and as their agricultural productivity declined, so did their civilizations. Occasionally they vanished entirely. Studies suggest that the 1,700-year-old Mayan civilization in South America collapsed around 900 CE because its fertile ground eroded away due to bad soil management. 3 Soil and survival are so intricately entwined because fertile soil supplies most of the elements that higher plants need to support photosynthesis and other metabolic processes.

Soil depletion occurs in many ways. In agriculture, depletion can result from excessively intense cultivation and inadequate soil management. For instance, in tropical zones where the nutrient content of soils is low, widespread soil depletion has resulted from over-tilling (which damages the soil structure), insufficient nutrient inputs (which leads to mining of the soil’s nutrient bank), and salinization.

The combined effects of growing population density, large-scale industrial logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, ranching, and other factors have in some places reduced soil fertility to nearly zero. In fact, billions of tons of soil are being physically lost each year.

The most serious losses arise from erosion— the washing or blowing away of surface soil, sometimes down to bedrock.

While some erosion takes place naturally, without human help, natural soil loss and new soil creation normally stay in balance. However, the rates of soil erosion associated with agricultural practices are accelerating, to the point of exceeding soil-loss tolerances over most of the Earth’s cropland regions.

The irrigation systems that have played an important role in increasing crop production have also had negative impacts on soil quality, with some researchers estimating that excessive watering has caused salinization.

As figure 2.1 shows, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimates that 34 million hectares (Mha), or 11% of irrigated areas, are affected by some level of salinization, with China, the United States, and India representing more than 60 percent, 21 million hectares (Mha), of the total impacted land.

An additional 60 to 80 Mha are affected to some extent by water logging and related salinity.

The uncontrolled application of chemical and industrial wastes has degraded soil as well.

Not all soil loss is from farming, though. Millions of hectares of what would otherwise be good farmland are being flooded for reservoirs or paved over for highways, airports, parking lots, and expanding urban areas. Agriculture is also experiencing rising competition from fast-growing cities and urban settlements, resulting in smaller areas of productive agricultural land at a time when world population is growing and expectations are rising among people everywhere for a better life. Global warming, too, is expected to increase the rate of nutrient loss in soils, since microbial decomposition occurs faster under warmer temperatures.

The Impact on Food Supply

The world is facing a series of challenges to human survival. Water is growing increasingly scarce, water pollution is becoming more widespread, and water-related ecosystems are degrading. Global warming, air and land pollution, and the depletion of natural and mineral resources are escalating. These are all serious threats to human welfare, but the loss of suitable land and soil quality for agricultural production is no less important and no less serious.

The total land area of the world exceeds 13.2 billion hectares, but less than half of it can be used for agriculture, including grazing. The remainder is either too wet or too dry, too shallow or too rocky. The single most serious drawback to farming additional land is generally lack of water. In addition, some land is toxic, some is deficient in the nutrients that plants require, and some is permanently frozen.

A report of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture showed that:

  • Some of the world’s land productivity has declined by 50 percent.
  • Desertification can be observed on 33 percent of the global land surface and affects more than one billion people, half of whom live in Africa.
  • Crop yield reduction in Africa due to past soil erosion may range between 2 and 40 percent, with a mean total loss of 8.2% for the continent.

The report estimated that in 2001 southern Asia lost an estimated 36 million tons, or $5.4 billion, of cereal production to water erosion and $1.8 billion to wind erosion. On a global scale the annual loss of 75 billion tons of soil costs the world about $400 billion per year.

Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions to these gigantic, complex problems. We cannot expect that technology will come to the rescue with some miracle crop. The so-called green revolution that took place during the second half of the 20th century did increase crop yields, but in the process it used large amounts of artificial fertilizers and crops that required increased amounts of pesticides in order to survive.

The productivity of the land is limited by basic factors such as the efficiency of natural photosynthesis, which cannot be modified by humans—not even by using fancy GMO crops. We must recognize that we are in a state of deep overshoot for practically all the natural resources available to us.

What we are facing may be no different from the fate of many civilizations of the past. When farm productivity declined, society attempted to maintain production by expanding the land base under cultivation and putting more effort into cultivating the depleted areas. That led to accelerated soil loss, which became a major factor in the collapse of entire civilizations—such as the Mayan one.

World production of some mineral commodities in 2010 based on data from the British Geological Survey

Figure 2.1 World production of some mineral commodities in 2010 based on data from the British Geological Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.1  shows some data for the total minerals produced in 2010. This amount becomes even larger if we consider the “extraction” of fertile soil in agriculture—consumed by erosion—as mining. It is estimated that about 4 billion tons of agricultural soil is eroded in the United States and dumped into the oceans every year. 61 Global estimates have ranged from 75 billion tons per year to 120 billion tons. 62 These amounts dwarf those created by natural erosion, which is at least one order of magnitude smaller.

Posted in Peak Food, Soil, Ugo Bardi | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Mineral: Soil from Ugo Bardi’s “Extracted”