How is electricity generated where you live? That question was addressed in a New York Times story by Nadja Popovich on 24 Dec 2018. Electricity is made from several energy sources including coal, natural gas, petroleum, nuclear, water flow, wind, solar, and biomass. The mixture of sources for each state is quite different and depends on the availability and cost of resources for that state.
The article looked at the range of time from 2001 to 2017. The mixture of energy sources has varied over time for each state and for the United States as a whole. Here we see the sources charted for the United States. Note the increase trend of natural gas and the decrease of coal. Nuclear and hydroelectric have remained constant. Wind grew to 6%. Solar in yellow is barely visible in the lower right. Click image for detail.
New York Times | Nadja Popovich and Josh Williams | 24 Dec 2018
It is important to look at the big picture. The way I see it, few people are aware of the sources of energy they utilize each day. Some energy is paid for directly such as gasoline for our cars. Gas for home heating, electricity for lights and air conditioning, etc. are often seen only as utility bills that come each month. What are the various energy sources we use?
Energy utilization was always an important topic in my physics classrooms. I wanted the students to know where their energy came from and how it was consumed by them and the general public. We discussed why efficiency was important. They were going to face and decide the actions on many complicated, technical, and politically charged issues in their future such as climate change. Those decisions would affect their quality of life and that of future generations.
We started with a simple flow diagram like the one below. The diagram shows how sources of energy are delivered to systems and devices that convert it into forms useful to the consumer. In the process, a useful amount of energy is delivered. But the conversions are never 100% efficient. As a result, much useless energy is wasted to the environment. We discussed examples of some common systems and how efficient they were. They soon got the point that increased efficiency and efforts to reduce wasted energy were actually very important issues. If we are unable to come up with more cheap sources, there are ways to reduce inefficiency and waste. Improved efficiency can be considered a source of energy and a lot of it. The diagram shows the gray box of Useless Wasted Energy quite large. It is actually much larger than the Useful Energy Output.
This post is NOT meant to argue for or against the highly controversial technology of hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’. There are many published pieces which argue both sides of the issue effectively. Instead, it is meant to inform more people about the technology of hydraulic fracturing. The goal is to avoid getting so deep into the details that readers give up.
According to this research study by the EPA published June 2010, ‘fracturing is a well stimulation process used to maximize the extraction of oil, natural gas or geothermal energy.’ The Saturday Essay of April 2, 2011, in the Wall Street Journal entitled Stepping on the Gas by Daniel Yergin, peaked my interest in the topic. I realized I had seen or heard the word ‘Fracking’ used for the technology countless times. But, I really had no clear idea what the concepts were behind it. As with most things, understanding is an essential part of being able to make informed decisions. And, this issue certainly begs for that.
With any of the following publications, consider the context and the source. The intent of this diary is to illustrate the basic process and does not necessarily agree with the claims of the articles.
A little history of the technology taken from the WSJ article …
In the early 1980s, George P. Mitchell, a Houston-based independent energy producer, could see that his company was going to run out of natural gas. Mr. Mitchell’s company was contracted to deliver a substantial amount of natural gas from Texas to feed a pipeline serving Chicago. But the reserves on which he depended were running down, and it was not at all clear where he could find more gas to replace the depleting supply.
Perhaps the natural gas that was locked into shale could be freed and made to flow. The laboratory for his experiment was a sprawling geologic formation called the Barnett Shale around Dallas and Fort Worth. The payoff came a decade and a half later, at the end of the 1990s. Using a specialized version of a technique called hydraulic fracturing (now widely known as “fracking” or “fracing”), his team found an economical way to create or expand fractures in the rock and to get the trapped gas to flow.
According to the author Daniel Yergin…
As late as 2000, shale gas was just 1% of American natural-gas supplies. Today, it is about 25% and could rise to 50% within two decades. Estimates of the entire natural-gas resource base, taking shale gas into account, are now as high as 2,500 trillion cubic feet, with a further 500 trillion cubic feet in Canada. That amounts to a more than 100-year supply of natural gas.
Two illustrations of the process… From the EPA study, drilling is done to the rock layer followed by a horizontal turn to follow the layer.
Large amounts of water, sand, and chemicals are needed. The wastewaters from the drilling and fracturing process require proper disposal. Public concerns and potential risks of contamination of water supplies appear in many reports.
I hope this set of information helps you understand what is going on in the fracking process. Many areas of the country are experiencing fracking, or will be. My goal was to de-mystify the process and arm more people with some facts. Then, they may speak their minds more confidently and eloquently as they make their cases in public and private.
How I See It 