Clearing The Air

Getting More Than You Pay For

“Unleash market creativity.” “Ingenuity and innovation of the American people.” “Collaboration and cooperation.” These are all terms that tend to be used quite often in policy debates regarding a specific problem or issue America must contend with, and our energy crisis is no exception. Indeed, as regular readers know, they are terms that appear quite often in this very column, as they are key elements of what ACSF is all about.

But as I learned first-hand years ago as a newly-minted lawyer, the most high-sounding and well-meant phrases don’t mean much unless you’re able to define them, and the most effective definitions include real-world examples.

The incredible growth and promise of unconventional natural gas production, which is becoming conventional is a perfect example of what can happen when you “unleash market creativity,” and “collaboration and cooperation” becomes a reality. Such production includes producing gas from shale and from coal beds.

At the recent 2008 annual meeting of the Mid-America Regulatory Conference,
MIT Energy Initiative associate director Melanie Kenderdine, Research Partnership to Security Energy for America (RPSEA) President Michael Ming, and Chris McGill of the American Gas Association shared the astounding results of the research that has been done thus far into unconventional production. The numbers were no doubt eye-openers for the state energy regulators in attendance, and show what can happen when the above phrases are put into action.

Take coal bed methane. As Kenderdine noted, the unique research partnership created to do research and development of what was then a largely theoretical proposition has paid huge dividends. Industry provided a 50 percent match to go with the federal funding of what amounted to a research project that totaled 140 million dollars over ten years. It was a partnership of researchers, academia and industry. The end result? Coal bed methane production now accounts for about 10 percent of our domestic gas production, with an estimated value of more than five billion dollars.

When it comes to shale production, the fact is no one knows just how big the payoff could be from research. The reason is simple: the amount of natural gas that we know can be produced from shale is a number that grows monthly. Thanks to the efforts of Kenderdine, Ming, McGill and others, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a provision that creates a public/private partnership similar to, but larger than, the one that tackled coal bed methane production. Total cost: $50 million a year for ten years.

Is it worth it? As Ming pointed out, about 10 years ago the official government estimate of the natural gas resource afforded by the Barnett shale formation in Texas was zero. Thanks to research and development that has for the most part been funded by industry, production from the Barnett shale is a reality, and the Barnett’s resource potential could be 50 trillion cubic feet or more. And the Barnett is just one formation. That is a pretty big bang for your buck. And there are many such formations in the United States, and exploration and production has started on relatively few others. Shale production, while still in its infancy, is a key reason why our natural gas reserves have shown growth for the past eight years, and natural gas production has increased over 9 percent just in the last year.

These are real world examples of what can happen when resources are brought to bear in a sustainable, logical, collaborative manner. They are proof-positive of the results that can be found when research is conducted as defined by biochemist Albert Szent-Gyorgi: “Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.” Kenderdine, a former Department of Energy official, noted that the Department of Energy spends only about 8 percent of its budget on actual research and development of energy sources, and a tiny fraction of its time.

ACSF is dedicated to fostering the environment for education and research. After all, as Carl Sagan noted: “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

posted @ Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:08 PM | Feedback (0)

Count the Cost

A friend of mine was walking through a parking lot the other day when he came upon an acquaintance (we’ll call him Ralph) in an SUV, the motor running and the A/C on. It’s worth noting that Ralph is a highly successful, generous person, noted for his expertise in his career and his community involvement.

When my friend remarked on the obvious waste of gas, Ralph replied, “My gas is free.” It seems his employer pays for his fuel.

Your initial reaction to this is probably pretty much the same as mine was. But don’t be so quick to judge. The fact is that we all waste energy. The only difference is the degree of subtlety, social acceptability, and perhaps most importantly, awareness. When we use a drive-up window at a business instead of parking and going inside to conduct our business, when we drive far faster than we really need to, when we keep the thermostat too high in the winter and too low in the summer, we are no different than Ralph. But on a much larger scale, the fact remains that there are built-in inefficiencies of how we use energy. In the U.S., more than half of the energy (58%) we generate every day is wasted. In an average car, only 20 percent of gasoline is used and only 31.2 percent of the energy consumed in an electric power plant is delivered to consumers as electricity. As a nation, we are sitting in a parked SUV with the motor running.

Why? Because we, like Ralph, tend to use energy without considering (or even grasping) the fact that its inefficient use — whether by personal behavior, government policy, or technology — has a real cost to us personally and to our nation that goes beyond the wallet. In other words, the traditional American energy policy of “cheap energy at any price,” is deeply engrained in our society. I think that’s one of the key reasons why conservation, an essential element of any energy policy, doesn’t seem to get the attention it deserves.

Consider the debate underway at all levels of government and society regarding our present energy crisis. Most of it is limited to the monetary aspects of the crisis. Yes, the dollar cost of energy is extremely important, but if our approach to solving the current energy crisis is only based on dollars, we will be a living example of my favorite definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.”  We know from past history and from the present situation faced by nations that subsidize their citizen’s energy costs that any contrived effort to make energy “cheap,” is only, at best, a temporary fix that in reality makes things worse down the road.

It is absolutely critical that conservation be included in any approach to solve our energy crisis. But let’s define the term: I think too many of us think of “conservation” as “going without.” Not so. In a proper approach to energy policy, conservation means “wise use.” Such “wise use” applies not only to personal energy consumption, but also to the question of what energy technologies we encourage and adopt, their environmental impact, and the need for sufficient supply.

Our use of energy has all kinds of costs. There are monetary costs, social costs, security costs, and environmental costs. But it is possible to have, in the truest sense, an affordable energy future. How? With a “portfolio approach” to meeting our country’s present energy crisis and future energy needs. This portfolio includes traditional and alternative fuels, improvements to existing technology, development of new technology, and the true meaning of conservation.

posted @ Monday, June 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Feedback (0)

Imagine

As part of what could be considered a Washington tradition, every Sunday morning in and around the Beltway thousands of those involved in government, politics, lobbying, policy and other fields related to running the country tune in to what could be called “the political lineup”; hours of political news and discussion shows that air in the Sunday morning time period. Be it “Meet the Press,” “This Week,” “Face the Nation,” “The McLaughlin Group,” or any of the other members of that genre, they are a “must watch” for many.  They have this in common: They all revolve around the machinations of government, and they all seem to have three-word titles.

Next week a new player will join that lineup offering something completely different, but just as timely and vital to our nation (and with a three-word title). It’s called “Clean Skies Sunday,” and it will focus every week on two of the most pressing issues facing our country and world: energy and the environment.

“Clean Skies Sunday” is the next step in the growth of CleanSkies.tv, an online channel that offers comprehensive and useful energy/environmental programs as well as a forum for debate and discussion to educate and inform its audience on the entire spectrum of energy/environmental choices and decisions facing our communities, our country, and our world. But what is perhaps most important is what CleanSkies.tv is not. It is not a platform for any one point of view. While part of the mission of the American Clean Skies Foundation (ACSF) is to educate the public, decision makers and others about natural gas, another is to reach across boundaries to facilitate the growth in knowledge about environmental and energy issues and find ways to use our differences of opinion and viewpoints, not as walls to divide, but as a starting point to build a rich, diverse base of knowledge which can benefit us all. Like ACSF, CleanSkies.tv is a very different model than what many are used to. Through CleanSkies.tv (and now, “Clean Skies Sunday”) we are working to provide an outlet for all points of view on energy and the environment in order to create a national forum that will serve as a critical element in providing answers to the very important questions we face.

“Clean Skies Sunday” will feature, among other things, highlights of the news-making and insightful interviews and roundtable discussions offered in full on CleanSkies.tv. It will also offer commentary and analysis on the key energy and environment news items of the preceding week, and a look at the coming week, featuring Susan McGinnis, who came to CleanSkies.tv from CBS, and veteran energy journalist Margaret Ryan, formerly of Platts, the noted energy news operation of McGraw-Hill. Segments from those organizations that make up the very diverse base of ACSF will be yet another part of the 30-minute television program.

“Television,” said Stan Freberg more than 40 years ago, “broadens the mind – up to 21 inches.” (Nowadays you could change that to “up to 72 inches”). In part, he was lamenting the fact that “imagination” and “television” are words that are rarely found in close proximity to one another. CleanSkies.tv and “Clean Skies Sunday” aim to be an exception. Indeed, it could be said that imagination is at the heart of what ACSF is all about. ACSF involves people and organizations of very different viewpoints. What they all have in common is the realization that we must work together to find the answers to ensure our energy and environmental future, and the imaginations needed to tackle such a job. It is a tragedy that in today’s society, “imagination” is wrongly made synonymous with “imaginary.” In the imaginary, we find only things that never were and never will be. In imagination, we find the things that could be and start on the path toward making them a reality.

Want real-world examples? You can find them anytime at www.Cleanskies.tv, and starting next week, on “Clean Skies Sunday,” airing at 9:30 AM each Sunday, on WJLA Channel 7 here in Washington, D.C.

Just be sure to bring your imagination.

posted @ Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:34 AM | Feedback (0)