Shale gas, coal seam gas… what’s the difference?

By Tsuey Cham

A few weeks ago we took a look at coal seam gas (CSG) and the hydraulic fracturing (‘fraccing’) process used in its extraction. You may have also heard of shale gas, another type of natural gas found deep underground.

So what exactly makes them different?

In terms of their gas content they’re really quite similar, with both made up predominantly of methane – the type of gas used in homes for cooking and heating.

However, when it comes to extraction and production CSG and shale gas can be quite different. For example, CSG can be found up to about 1000 meters underground, whereas shale gas is found much deeper, usually 1500 to 4000 meters below the surface.

In Australia, hydraulic fracturing – a technique that increases the rate of gas flow for extraction – is used in CSG production 20-40% of the time, whereas in shale gas production it’s used every time.

Another interesting difference is that the process used to extract CSG produces more water than it uses – so there are large quantities of water produced as a by-product. Conversely, for shale gas, the extraction process uses more water than it produces.

Watch our latest short animation to find out more about shale gas, how it’s extracted and some of the potential environmental challenges involved in its production:

If you missed the animation on CSG extraction, watch it here.

You can also find out more from our fact sheets on CSG, shale gas and hydraulic fracturing in coal seams.


Four ways to lose weight and feel ‘electric’ this summer

As the mercury rises and our focus turns to hitting the gym and shedding those cuddly winter kilos, we thought we’d take a look at a few ways we could be making our workouts really count.

While the idea of working up a sweat and electricity might sound like a recipe for disaster, you’d be surprised how people and businesses are using sport and exercise to create electricity – with a conscience.

Giving light to rural communities


A company in the US has created a soccer balled called Soccket which can generate three hours of light with just thirty minutes of play. The ball is being used in rural off-grid areas of Mexico. Soccket stores the kinetic energy built up while you play using a pendulum-like mechanism.

Creating greener stadiums
At the Homes Stadium in Kobe City, Japan, the floorplan has been designed to harness vibrations made by cheering fans to create electricity. The electricity generates is fed back into the stadium’s power supply. The more fans cheer the less power the stadium needs to take from the ‘grid’.

Building safe places for kids to play


Soccer superhero Pele recently teamed up with global energy company Shell to launch a new type of pitch in a Rio. It is made from tiles which capture kinetic energy created by the movement of the players. The light is being used to power the pitch at night, resulting in a safe and secure community space.

Keeping your gym green
A gym in the UK made history by becoming the first self-powered gym using the energy of bikes, cross trainers and ‘vario’ machines to power its lights. Each machine feeds around 100w per hour back into the gym’s power supply. Treadmills also generate enough energy to power their own information screens.

And for those of us who may not be able to book a round the world trip purely for exercise purposes, why not try signing up for our new Total Wellbeing Diet online trial? Visit the website for more information and to sign up.

 


Tell me s’more: Five alternate ways to charge your mobile phone

In 1973 when Motorola engineer Martin Cooper created the first mobile phone prototype it weighed around 1.1 kilos (iPhone 6 weighs 129 grams) and had enough power for 20 minutes of talk time before requiring a ten-hour recharge. But back in the day that wasn’t an issue because most people weren’t strong enough to keep the brick-like handset hoisted to their ear for much longer.

Today, the problem we face is not developing forearms of steel to handle our phones, but how to keep them powered up with so many apps ticking away in the background. It turns out it is easier than you think. Forgotten your charger? Never fear. Chuck on a t-shirt, fire up the camp stove or grab your suitcase.

Roast some marshmallows
Ahhh, there’s nothing quite like the great outdoors. The hours of serenity provide the perfect time for quiet reflection as you feel yourself become at one with nature. But wouldn’t it be better if you’re phone wasn’t dead and you could share your favourite s’more recipes on Facebook? Now you can, thanks to a camping stove that converts heat from the flames into electricity.

Turn up the volume
A few years ago music lovers at the Glastonbury festival in the UK got to try out a new t-shirt that powered up their mobile phones while they pulled their moves. Made of a special material called piezoelectric film, the t-shirt turns vibrations from the music into an electrical charge.

Tee off like Tiger
Finally, golfers can be rewarded for playing poorly. Fitted to the handgrip of the club, the smart device harnesses the kinetic energy generated by the golfer repeatedly swinging the club. Depending on how good your game is, you could generate up to two hours of charge.

Run like Forrest
Keeping on the kinetic energy theme, so-called green gyms are using the energy burnt off by gym users to generate electricity. One gym in Berlin has installed special plug-ins to the machines that allow people to charge their phones with the energy they produce while working out.

Pack your suitcase
Designer Jung Inyoung has come up with the concept of a rolling suitcase that provides power to devices using kinetic energy. There are two gears on the bag’s wheels that collect energy as you stroll around the airport. You can plug your phone into the suitcase to charge it.

We have been working on new battery technologies for a number of years, including flexible batteries which can be integrated into fabrics and clothing. Read more about our wearable electronics work.


Taking a measured approach to CSG

CSIRO through the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) is undertaking a comprehensive study of methane seeps in the Surat basin.

By Tsuey Cham

Our scientists are taking to the sky above the Surat basin in south-west Queensland to answer a big question – is coal seam gas (CSG) green?

Not literally green, of course: CSG is invisible to the naked eye. What we’re actually looking to determine is the CSG industry’s greenhouse gas footprint. The industry is set to increase production in Australia in coming years, so it’s important to be able to adequately monitor current and future CSG developments and provide information that will help limit any potential environmental impact.

One way to determine the CSG industry’s greenhouse gas footprint is by measuring methane seeps. Methane seeps occur naturally from underground, as well as in soils, swamps and rivers. Another key component is measuring fugitive methane – methane that leaks from CSG well heads, pipes and other infrastructure.  Initial findings show that fugitive methane emissions are lower in Australia than the US.

In south-west Queensland, the Surat basin is where CSG activities are in full swing, with its network of production wells, pipelines, access tracks and warning signs. With CSG development in the basin increasing over the next few years, we are trying to establish the amount – and source – of methane emissions now,  so that in the future we can determine what is attributable to natural sources, and what is attributable to CSG activity.

Taking CSG measurements.

A four wheel drive-mounted methane detector, with onlookers.

To do this, our scientist are using airborne sensors aboard helicopters to measure natural methane emissions. With this data in hand, they then calibrate and validate it with land-based sensors to identify how much methane naturally occurs from the ground.

Findings from this research will provide a methane emissions data set that can be used to compare against changes in methane emission as CSG production increases; and will add to the bigger picture of assessing the industry’s whole-of-life-cycle greenhouse gas footprint.

For more information, visit GISERA or our website.


Holy sunbeams batman: Five places you never thought you’d see a solar panel

Garden gnome

Gnome-on-a-log… of course.

As the price of producing solar panels starts to fall and people are finding smarter, thinner and more flexible materials to create them, it seems like no place is safe from these sun sucking devices. Even the humble garden gnome is getting in on the act. To celebrate the arrival of spring and the advent of slightly warmer weather, we thought we’d share some of the more unusual places we’ve seen solar panels popping up.

Batmobile lawn mowers
If your dream is to own a batmobile, but you can’t afford it, then this might be the next best thing – a solar powered mower by Husqvarna. But at around $2k it might be cheaper to buy a goat.

Bikinis
If checking Facebook at the beach is that important to you a US-based designer is intricately stitching panels together in the form of a bikini so you can charge your iPhone on the beach.

Sun-powered cinema
In the UK, The Sol Cinema is a unique mobile cinema powered by the sun. It accommodates eight people and features a library of short videos, many with environment themes.

Catwalks
Last year the Chanel runway show at Paris Fashion Week featured a catwalk that looked like it was made from solar panels. Unfortunately it was more power dressing that power generating as the panels were fake, but it looked fancy.

 Magazine ads
Nivea broke new ground for advertisers last year when they launched a concept video featuring a solar panel in a magazine which you could use to charge your phone.

CSIRO is also working on new applications for solar panels and recently launched a printer that can print cells the size of an A3 sheet of paper. Read about some of the potential applications of this technology on the ABC news website.

 


Extracting the facts on Australian attitudes to mining

Mine with dump truck

A dump truck drives through an open cut mine. Image by CSIRO Publishing

It’s no secret that mining is important to Australia, but that doesn’t necessarily make it popular with society at large.

We wanted to have a better understanding of what Australians think about mining, so in 2013/14 we conducted an online survey of 5,121 Australians.

The survey results have now been published as Australian attitudes toward mining: Citizen Survey – 2014 Results

Surveying community attitudes helps us to understand the impacts and benefits of mining, and how the relationship between the mining industry, government and society affects what Australia’s citizens think about it, and how much they accept the mining industry. It gives us insight into what needs to happen before mining has a ‘social licence to operate’ in Australia.

Importance of mining to Australia

Is mining important to Australia?

We’ve gone beyond basic descriptions of attitudes towards the extractive industries, and looked at the relationship between mining and society in a more constructive and sophisticated way.

We wanted to know what goes into influencing trust in the mining industries, and the government, over mining developments. What, for example, is the relationship between good governance and social acceptance of the extractive industries? What are the key issues for a productive dialogue between the extractive industries and other stakeholders?

Acceptance of mining

How much do Australian accept the mining industries?

Some of the important findings from the survey are that:

  • People view mining as central and significant to Australia’s economy and standard of living. They see it as a ‘necessary’ industry for Australia, which is important to Australia’s future prosperity
  • Australians generally understand what it means to have a significant mining industry. Overall, they think that at present the benefits of mining outweigh its impacts.
  • The more the benefits of mining outweigh the costs, the higher the level of acceptance. If this balance is perceived to move toward the negative impacts of mining, acceptance of mining will be eroded.
  • Australians trust and accept the industry more when they believe the industry is listening to them and will respond to their concerns, when benefits from mining are shared equitably, and when the legislative and regulatory frameworks in place make them confident that industry will do the right thing.
  • Governments and industry need to work with communities to earn and maintain the ‘social licence to operate’ and develop effective, constructive, mutually beneficial relationships.

Global carbon report: emissions will hit new heights in 2014

By Pep Canadell, CSIRO and Michael Raupach, Australian National University

As heads of state gather in New York for tomorrow’s United Nations climate summit, a new report on the state of the world’s carbon budget tells them that greenhouse emissions hit a new record last year, and are still growing.

The Global Carbon Project has released its annual report card on the global and national trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

It shows that global emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production reached a new record of 36 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2013, and are predicted to grow by a further 2.5% in 2014, bringing the total CO2 emissions from all sources to more than 40 billion tonnes. This is about 65% more fossil-fuel emission than in 1990, when international negotiations to reduce emissions to address climate change began.

Meanwhile, deforestation now accounts for just 8% of total emissions, a fraction that has been declining for several decades.

Global emissions chart

Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel and cement production.
Source: CDIAC, Friedlingstein et al. 2014, Global Carbon Project 2014

The growth of global emissions since 2009 has been slower than in the prior period of 2000-08. However, projections based on forecast growth in global gross domestic product (GDP) and continuance of improving trends in carbon intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) suggest a continuation of rapid emissions growth over the coming five years.

Global emissions continue to track the most carbon-intensive range among more than a thousand scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If continued, this situation would lead to global average temperatures between 3.2C and 5.4C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Graph of possible IPCC scenarios

Global carbon dioxide emissions from human activity, compared to four different possible futures as depicted in IPCC scenarios.
Fuss et al. 2014

There have been other striking changes in emissions profiles since climate negotiations began. In 1990, about two-thirds of CO2 emissions came from developed countries including the United States, Japan, Russia and the European Union (EU) nations. Today, only one-third of world emissions are from these countries; the rest come from the emerging economies and less-developed countries that account for 80% of the global population, suggesting a large potential further emissions growth.

Continuation of current trends over the next five years alone will lead to a new world order on greenhouse gas emissions, with China emitting as much as the United States, Europe and India together.

Country emission profiles

There are several ways to explore countries’ respective contributions to climate change. These include current emissions, per capita emissions, and cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution.

Cumulative emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and cement production for five regions. Cumulative emissions, production emissions (emissions generated in the region where goods and services are produced), consumption emissions (emissions generated in the region where goods and services are consumed), population, and GDP. 2012 is the most recent year for which all data are available.
CDIAC, Global Carbon Project 2014

The largest emitters in 2013 were China, the United States, the 28 EU countries (considered as a single bloc), and India. Together, they account for 58% of global emissions and 80% of the emissions growth in 2013 (with the majority the growth coming from China, whereas the EU cut its emissions overall).

Here’s how the major emitters fared in 2013.

China

Emissions grew at 4.2%, the lowest level since the 2008 global financial crisis, because of weaker economic growth and improvements in the carbon intensity of the economy. Per capita emissions in China (7.2 tonnes of CO2 per person) overtook those in Europe (6.8 tonnes per person).

A large part of China’s high per capita emissions is due to industries that provide services and products to the developed world, not for China’s domestic use. China’s cumulative emissions are still only 11% of the total since pre-industrial times.

United States

Emissions increased by 2.9% because of a rebound in coal consumption, reversing a declining trend in emissions since 2008. Emissions are projected to remain steady until 2019 in the absence of more stringent climate policies, with improvements in the energy and carbon intensity of the economy being offset by growth in GDP and population. The United States remains the biggest contributor of cumulative emissions with 26% of the total.

European Union

Emissions fell by 1.8% on the back of a weak economy, although reductions in some countries were offset by a return to coal led by Poland, Germany and Finland. However, the long-term decrease in EU emissions does not factor in the emissions linked to imported goods and services. When accounting for these “consumption” emissions, EU emissions have merely stabilised, rather than decreased.

India

Emissions grew by 5.1%, driven by robust economic growth and an increase in the carbon intensity of the economy. Per capita emissions were still well below the global average, at 1.9 tonnes of CO2 per person, although India’s total emissions are projected to overtake those in the EU by 2019 (albeit for a population nearly three times as large). Cumulative emissions account for only 3% of the total.

Australia

Emissions from fossil fuels declined in 2013, largely driven by a 5% decline of emissions in the electricity sector over the previous year (as shown by the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts). Fossil fuel emissions per person remain high at 14.6 tonnes of CO2.

National fossil fuel emissions

National carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
Source: CDIAC, Friedlingstein et al. 2014, Le Quere et al. 2014

Per capita emissions fossil fuels

Per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels for the top emitting nations.
Source: CDIAC, Global Carbon Project 2014

Is it too late to tame the climate?

Our estimates (see here and here) show that, at current emissions levels, average global warming will hit 2C in about 30 years.

Despite this apparently imminent event, economic models can still come up with scenarios in which global warming is kept within 2C by 2100, while both population and per capita wealth continue to grow. Are these models playing tricks on us?

Most models invoke two things that will be crucial to stabilising the climate at safer levels. The first is immediate global action to develop carbon markets, with prices rapidly growing to over US$100 per tonne of CO2.

The second is the deployment of “negative emissions” technologies during the second half of this century, which will be needed to mop up the overshoot of emissions between now and mid-century. This will involve removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in safe places such as saline aquifers.

These technologies are largely unavailable at present. The most likely candidate is the production of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, a combination of existing technologies with high costs and with environmental and socio-economic implications that are untested at the required scales.

There are no easy pathways to climate stabilization, and certainly no magic bullets. It is still open to us to choose whether we halt our CO2 emissions completely this century – as required for a safe, stable climate – or try instead to adapt to significantly greater impacts of climate change.

What we have no choice about is the fact that the longer emissions continue to grow at rates of 2% per year or more, the harder it will be to tame our climate.

The Conversation

Pep Canadell received support from the Australian Climate Change Science Program.

Michael Raupach has previously received funding from the Australian Climate Change Science Program, but does not do so now.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,706 other followers