irish environment

A recent report from the United States shows that New York State can produce all its energy needs from renewable sources without any natural gas, from fracking or conventional methods, or from any other fossil fuels.  The renewable sources are wind, water and sunlight.  The researchers, in Energy Policy, calculate that energy for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry can be produced by: 10% from onshore wind; 40% from offshore wind; 20% from solar power plants; 18% from solar panels on rooftops; and a small amount of geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal (1%) and wave (0.5%). 

This conversion to renewable energy could happen by 2030, in only 17 years, and it would reduce New York State’s end-use power by about 37% and fuel costs would be zero.  It would also save about 4,000 deaths each year.

Irish Wind Energy Association

The report proceeds to demonstrate how the conversion to renewables can be done.   Along the way, the authors explain which energy technologies they selected for this conversion, and which they excluded.  Natural gas was excluded for several reasons. Note 1.

Proponents of natural gas, including supporters of fracking, have argued that natural gas can serve as a “bridge fuel” between reliance on coal and development of renewable energy sources on the grounds that natural gas causes less global warming per unit of electric power than coal.  The researchers reject this notion as unfounded.

First, when they compared the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of natural gas with wind, water and sunlight over a 10-30 year period, they found that natural gas produces greater global warming and is a danger to Arctic sea ice because of the leaked methane and black carbon emissions.  Moreover, when they examined the mining, transport and use of conventional natural gas for electric power alone, they found that it results in 60-80 times more carbon-equivalent emissions and air pollution mortality per unit of electric power generated than wind energy over a 100-year time frame.  They also determined that natural gas from unconventional resources, as in fracking for shale gas, has larger methane emissions and greater GHG footprint than gas from conventional sources, and is therefore even more problematical for GHG emissions.

Second, they compared natural gas with coal as sources for electric power.  They found that natural gas does emit less carbon dioxide (CO₂) per unit of electric power than coal, but when methane emissions and sulfur dioxide (SO₂), both strong GHGs, are included in the analysis then natural gas increases global warming more than coal.  As pointed out above, the natural gas from fracking has an even higher GHG footprint than conventional gas.

The study also found that when used as a transportation fuel, natural gas has greater global warming potential than oil because of the CO₂ footprint and the methane emissions from natural gas in the venting of fuel tanks and losses during refueling.

There likely will be some attacks on the study by fossil fuel interests on the grounds that several of the authors (Anthony R. Ingraffea and Robert W. Howarth) have been highly and publically critical of fracking, and the authors took “suggestions and comments” from Mark A. Ruffalo and Josh Fox, also well-known opponents of fracking.  But the authors note that the study was not funded by any interest group or government agency.  Also of importance is the fact that two of the authors, Jacobson and Delucchi, have published other peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the same conclusion — that renewables can replace fossil fuels for all energy needs — as applied to the US and to the world.  See, e.g., Jacobson and Delucchi (2011).  Thus, the current study is simply an application of their basic premise to the conditions in New York State.

Moreover, another new study from researchers (Budischak et al.) in the US and Denmark shows that the US could be powered almost entirely with renewable energy by 2030 at a cost comparable to current dirty power.  The authors propose that one way to offset the variable power from renewables is by over-building the supply.

Note 1 In another article by two of the authors, they also explain why nuclear power and coal with carbon capture are also excluded as power sources.  See below, Jacobson and Delucchi (2011).

Sources

Jacobson, M.Z., et al., “Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight,” Energy Policy (2013) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001213  See corrected version.

Cory Budischak, DeAnna Sewell, Heather Thomson, Leon Mach, Dana E. Veron, Willett Kempton, “Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time,” Journal of Power Studies, Vol. 225 (1 March 2013), at 60-74. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

Jacobson, M.Z. and Delucchi, Mark A., “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials,”  Energy Policy (2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510008645

TO: Steering Committee of the EPA; Department of Environment, Community & Local Government; Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources; the Geological Survey of Ireland; Commission for Energy Regulation; An Bord Pleanála; Northern Ireland Environment Agency; and, the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland.

RE:  Submission on PROPOSED TERMS of REFERENCE for Research Programme on Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration & Extraction (UGEE) a/k/a Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking (herein referred to as fracking).

FROM:  Robert Emmet Hernan

A.  Background

In order to assist government bodies in making informed decisions about possible future licensing and management of fracking on the island of Ireland, the steering committee has developed Proposed Terms of Reference for an extensive and comprehensive programme of research addressing the potential environmental impacts of fracking.  The public has been invited to make submissions commenting on these Proposed Terms of Reference.  The research is supported by and applicable to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI).

There are of course a host of specific technical issues arising from any possible fracking on the island of Ireland, including but not limited to: fractures and other geological conditions that would promote seismic impacts from fracking; types and levels of toxic chemicals used as additives; potential pollution of water resources from fracking; handling of flowback waters and waste; truck traffic impacts (as many as 6,790 one-way trips for each fracking well in US); methane and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operations and use/consumption of the natural gas; and other matters. 

The Proposed Terms refer to “the potential environmental impacts” of fracking.  Environmental impacts from fracking arise not only from specific technical matters, e.g., types of well casing or nature of chemical additives, but also from policy considerations.  For example,  any assessment of the methane emission impacts from fracking has to also, at the same time, consider the increase in methane emissions that will result from the Harvest 2020 policy.  The policy implications of fracking need to be addressed through this research programme along with the narrower technical elements of fracking. Both are necessary to fully protect the people from the adverse consequences of fracking.

B.  Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference

 1.  Fracking and Water Supply and Usage:

Comments related to Project A-1 and Project B, including for Project A-1:

Task #6: Assessment of the vulnerability of groundwater resources from both surface and subsurface UGEE activity related (including fracking) potential hazards and pathways.

Task #7: An assessment of the direct (e.g. abstraction) and indirect impacts (e.g. drinking water, other receptors) of using of local water sources for UGEE and specifically, fracking.

These comments relate to Tasks #6 and 7, as well as to other tasks outlined in Project B, Issue 1: Water Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Proposed terms describes the fracking operation as using “water-rich fluid”  — in other words, huge amounts of water that include toxic chemicals.  Besides also containing toxic additive chemicals, the fracking fluids require massive amounts of water. 

According to studies in the United States, each fracking well (not well pad) requires from 2.4 million gals to 7.8 million gals, for an average of 3.6 million gallons of water.  All this water has to be delivered to the well site by trucks or pipeline, absent a water source adjacent to the well pad.  

The availability of such large amounts of water for fracking operations needs to be assessed on a general scale applicable to the areas being considered for fracking, but also for each fracking well, if fracking is permitted.

Certainly the overriding concern for members of the public is the risk of contamination of their drinking water, either through contamination of surface water or groundwaters.  The risks come from drilling the wells, the actual fracking, the failure or leaking of well casings, the handling and disposal of flowback waters, and spills of chemicals on the surface.  Many people likely will submit comments to EPA and NIEA on the risks to individual water sources from any pollution from fracking operations. 

But a larger issue also needs to be analysed, certainly for the RoI.  What is the potential impact from fracking on the Shannon River watershed and the potential future use of water from this watershed for drinking purposes by large populations in Dublin and surrounding communities.  The costs of developing this water resource for Dublin and environs has been estimated at a cost of €500 million.  If fracking constitutes a threat to drinking water, and it does, then the risks have to include the impact on Dublin water resources.

The State of New York, which has carried out one of, if not the, most extensive assessment of fracking, has already made clear that even if fracking is permitted in parts of New York — and that is a very big “if” —— no fracking will be permitted in the watershed that supplies water to New York City or the City of Syracuse because water contamination from fracking does occur and the threat to these very large water resources is too great a price to pay.

To the extent any fracking would occur in or near the Shannon River watershed, any accidents, surface spills, leaks and other releases from fracking operations could adversely impact the quality of that water for all the communities that depend on it.  If fracking creates too great a risk for the NYC drinking water supply, is there any reason to believe the same risks do not exist for Dublin’s water supply.

An issue of equity and justice remains.  If fracking presents too great a risk of contaminating the drinking water for residents of the metropolis, including surrounding populous counties, why is the risk acceptable for the individual farmers and small communities outside the metropolis?  What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

2.  Fracking and Energy Matters

Comments related to Project B, including but not limited to Issue 2 on global “(i.e. CO₂)” and “climatic factors,” and Issue 3 on “assessment of other energy sources.”

Fracking is an operation to generate natural gas to be used as an energy source, presumably on the island of Ireland but also available for export. The benefits and risks of fracking must be seen in the context of each government’s total energy policy, to the extent that such policy exists.  If no such policy exists, then an overriding energy policy needs to be adopted before fracking is allowed, if at all.

In this context, the movement toward low-carbon energy sources is espoused by both governments in order to reduce as far as possible GHG emissions on the island, to meet existing European Union legal requirements and, hopefully, to avoid the devastating impacts from global climate change, including more and more-intense extreme weather events, more rain in winter in the west and drier water-shortage in the east, as well as other impacts.

The continual reference to “low-carbon” activities is dangerously misleading.  It completely ignores the critical issue of methane emissions from the agriculture sector.  Methane is a much more intense, although short-lived GHG, and GHG emissions from agriculture, predominately methane, constitute about 29% in RoI and 26% in NI.  The Harvest 2020 policy adopted and on the way to being implemented in the RoI by the government will increase the methane emissions from agriculture.  The only unknown is to what extent.  NI also hopes to increase the level of farm production in the near future.

Any analysis of fracking must account for the increased loading of methane to the environment, from leaks, productions, and venting, and how such increases will fit with the plans for increases in methane from agriculture.  Any proposed plans for more efficient farming practices to reduce the intensity of methane have to be examined with a sharp eye toward the scientific, realistic and cost-efficient basis for such plans.  Moreover, the absolute increases in methane emissions have to be considered, not just any reductions in GHG emissions per unit of production.

Given the inevitable, and likely significant, increase in methane from agriculture, and from fracking if it is allowed to proceed, just what other sector is going to pay for any such increases in order to comply with EU GHG emission reductions?

How can Ireland support the release of more methane gas into the environment from fracking when it cannot control or reduce the methane emissions from farming and where the government plans on doubling dairy farm production.

A clear, comprehensive energy policy —and particularly how methane emissions will be controlled —must inform the analysis of the possible impacts from fracking.

 3.  Regulatory and Enforcement Regime on the Island of Ireland

 Comments related to Project B, including but not limited to Issues 5 and 6 on monitoring, and to Project C on the regulatory framework.

Suppose that the governments in RoI and NI came up with the toughest, most strict regulatory regime in the world to control the technical dangers from fracking, then what?

Regulations are useless unless backed up by legal authority and authorities that enforce the regulations.  Who is going to do this on the island of Ireland — local authorities?  They have neither the financial resources nor the legal and technical expertise for such oversight.  The current financial crisis only worsens the chances that resources will be made available to supervise fracking operations, especially since the shale gas formations are located in areas where the local authorities are most vulnerable to these deficiencies.  

EPA has general expertise in many areas but likely would require expanded legal enforcement authority and extensive training for its staff to oversee, monitor, inspect and enforce fracking regulations when developed.  There is no sign of this to come.

In addition to regulatory monitoring and oversight, there needs to be put in place an enforcement regime that provides the appropriate penalties and legal authority to pursue fracking operators that abuse their responsibilities, flaunt the law, and/or put people and their environment at risk.  There is no independent enforcement regime on the island with sufficient financial and legal resources to prosecute environmental polluters.

The explosion and resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, by BP and others, resulted, in part, from a failure of the well casing.  We learned from the US President’s Commission that that “technical” failure was in turn the result of a “culture of complacency” within the governmental regulatory agency, with little inspection or enforcement, that created the conditions for that worst environmental disaster in US history.  We need to be watchful that fracking does not become the island of Ireland’s environmental disaster for those same reasons.

For further reviews of numerous studies on fracking, from Pennsylvania, New York, the European Union, and Ireland, see the Reports section of irish environment electronic magazine: “The European Commission’s Three Studies on Fracking: On Risks, Climate Impacts, and Market Possibilities” (November 2012); “International Energy Agency’s Golden Age of Gas and Golden Rules on Fracking” (July 2012); “The Irish EPA Preliminary Assessment of Fracking:   A Good Start but a Long Way to Go” (June 2012); “New York Plans to Frack, The Public Reacts:  Implications for Fracking on the Island of Ireland” (May 2012); “Fracking in New York: accidents, spills, releases, ETC” (December 2011); and the Commentary section for Frank Convery and Yvonne Scannell, “Fracking and Local Credibility in Ireland” (June 2012) and Jim Morris on “The Pennsylvania Experience With Methane Extraction, or Fracking,” (November 2011).  www.irishenvironment.com

Robert Emmet Hernan

“Eye on Earth,” an online mapping tool from the EEA, shows the mean percentage of each European city covered with impervious surfaces such as buildings, concrete or asphalt, where the soil is ‘sealed’.  During heavy rain, cities may be flooded if the water cannot drain quickly into the ground and the sewage system in cities cannot cope with the amount of water. Increased flooding is likely to be one of the most serious effects from climate change in Europe over coming decades.

A high amount of artificial areas also increases the temperature in cities. 

The EEA notes that it is important to be aware that soil sealing is only one factor contributing to increased risk of urban flooding.

The map provides the mean percent soil sealing of the urbanised area of the following cities on the island of Ireland:

Waterford:      69.53%

Belfast:            57.22%

Limerick:        53.80%

Dublin:            51.79%

Lisburn:          46.82%

Galway:           44.90%

Cork:                43.81%

Derry:              38.12%

For contrast, Glasgow is 45.96%; London is 45.40%; and, Paris is 74.47%

For the EyeOnEarth map, see: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/climate-change-and-flood-risk?&utm_campaign=climate-change-and-flood-risk&utm_medium=email&utm_source=EEASubscriptions

 See also the Listing on the irish environment homepage for the First Eye on Earth User Conference in Dublin March 4-6, 2013

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been, since 1921, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the US Congress.  The GAO maintains a program to focus attention on government operations that it identifies as high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. In its biennial update, in February 2013, it identified new high-risk areas needing attention by Congress and the executive branch.  For the first time, the GAO added climate change as a “high risk” area in need of major reform:

Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks. Climate change creates significant financial risks for the federal government, which owns extensive infrastructure, such as defense installations; insures property through the National Flood Insurance Program; and provides emergency aid in response to natural disasters. The federal government is not well positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by climate change, and needs a government wide strategic approach with strong leadership to manage related risks.

At the same time, it added another, related risk: 

Mitigating Gaps in Weather Satellite Data. Potential gaps in environmental satellite data beginning as early as 2014 and lasting as long as 53 months have led to concerns that future weather forecasts and warnings–including warnings of extreme events such as hurricanes, storm surges, and floods–will be less accurate and timely. A number of decisions are needed to ensure contingency and continuity plans can be implemented effectively.

See, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652133.pdf

As the Biennial report states, without ambiguity, “Climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems—including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health—and presents a significant financial risk to the federal government.”  At 15.

“Although the exact details cannot be predicted with certainty, there is a clear scientific understanding that climate change poses serious risks to human society and many of the physical and ecological systems upon which society depends, with the specific impacts of concern, and the relative likelihood of those impacts, varying significantly from place to place and over time.  These impacts will result in increased fiscal exposure for the federal government in many areas, including, but not limited to its role as (1) the owner or operator of extensive infrastructure such as defense facilities and federal property vulnerable to climate impacts, (2) the insurer of property and crops vulnerable to climate impacts, (3) the provider of data and technical assistance to state and local governments responsible for managing the impacts of climate change on their activities, and (4) the provider of aid in response to disasters.”  At 60-61.

The report is a welcome antidote to the many US Congressional climate skeptic and deniers.  It also reinforces a recent report, Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis, issued by The National Research Council, part of the US National Academy of Sciences.  That report was commissioned by the US intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to assess the connections between climate change and political and social stresses that may impact on U.S. national security concerns.   The language of the report is unequivocal: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”  At 1-5.   See discussion “Carbonification, or How We Are Condemning Ourselves to Hell Because of Our Lust for Carbon,” in the Reports section of irish environment (November 2012),  http://www.irishenvironment.com/reports/carbonification-or-how-we-are-condemning-ourselves-to-hell-because-of-our-lust-for-carbon/

In the last Post on ieBLOG we wrote about “Is Ireland’s Grass-Fed Family Farm Headed Towards Industrialisation?”  In a recent posting on Huffington Post Green, Eric Holt Gimenez offers an interesting, hard-hitting and well-written analysis of the distinctions between small farms and industrial farms, and how Mark Lynas and others, particularly supporters of Big Agriculture, get agriculture wrong.

Contrary to supporters of Big Agriculture — and Gimenez includes World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy as supporters — genetically modified crops (GMOs) and other industrial practices do not yield more pounds of crops per acre than small peasant and family farms.  Rather these smallholders regularly out-produce plantation agriculture when the yield is measured in pounds per acre.  Only when the measurement is per-acre yield of a single crop does plantation agriculture produce more.  The reason, as explained by Gimenez, is that smallholders cultivate multiple species and varities in the same field at the same time so any one crop does not compare in yields from an acre of monoculture.   

The single-species plantation, or monoculture — often soy, corn or sugarcane — requires substantial investment for expensive seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, leaving the “farm” devoid of weeds, insects and mammals.  It is “capital-rich, but species-poor.”

Gimenenz also points out that industrial plantations grow their food not for the hungry, but for meat and energy needs of the middle class, while smallholder farms feed the rest of the world.  Moreover, he points out, we already produce food for 10 billion but about one billion go hungry as they cannot afford what food is available.  Note 1.

The analysis provides support for the efficiency of, and environmental benefits accruing from, small family-owned farms in Ireland and elsewhere.

Note 1.  The poor also do not get the food they need because of the inadequacies of the food distribution system.  See “Should We Starve or Burn:  The Heated Competition Between Food Production and GHG Emissions,” in the Report section of irish environment (August 2012).

Sources:

Eric Holt Gimenez, “Of Myths and Men: Mark Lynas and the intoxicating Power of Technocracy,” Huffington Post Green (04 Feb 2013).  see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/of-myths-and-men-mark-lyn_b_2591502.html?view=print&comm_ref=false