Whether your TV tastes run to Fringe, 24, or the serials, like My Friend Flicka, or The Lone Ranger, there is always a recap from previous episodes. So here goes. “In our last episode,” I talked about how Steve Fludder from GE and Richard Cohen from Bank of America are embracing green efforts because they are good for the bottom-line. In this post I will look at the view from “big oil”. Peter Voser, Royal Dutch Shell, was interviewed for ECO-nomics. U.S. CAP (the U.S. Climate Action Partnership); he believes that market-based energy legislation is needed in this country and others and only by participating with the other stakeholders will it be effective. His thinking is that to be effective, “energy legislation (must) drive supply security, drive lower fuel emissions, drive new jobs and preserve old jobs.” “We will quite clearly look out for natural gas developments, which we see as a long-term source of energy that has a lot of positives.” (new projects)
We all think of Shell as an oil company, but they are big in the natural gas industry, too, having started 30 years ago and continue with innovation. (new projects) “By 2012, we will have more (natural) gas production world-wide than we have oil.” His answer to the question of what will be needed as far as answering our environmental problems, his answer is “From a global perspective, the demand for energy will double by 2050. So we will need most of the energy forms that we know today.” Look for my next post about an alternative source and it’s not wind or solar, but something very different.)
Finally, his thoughts about future transportation; Mr. Voser thinks that by 2050 we will go from 1 billion cars world-wide to 2 billion cars, and about 40% of those will be electric. That leaves about 1.2 billion to be fueled by other forms. So hybrids, low-carbon-fuel cars, and more efficient engines are needed (all new or continuing projects)
There is much more in this Wall Street Journal section that we find very interesting, including a view from “big oil”, and a top ten ranking of “clean-tech” companies. Look to future posts for some more information on these and other topics.
“Green Projects” are being implemented at breakneck speed. It is hard to keep up with the sheer volume. That’s exciting news for project managers embracing the “green wave”. One particular project caught our attention, not only because it garnered national attention, Parade Magazine, April 18, 2010, but because it is local to Earthpm and my wife is an alum. The University of New Hampshire (UNH), and Waste Management (WM), are powering the college with garbage. Yes, garbage! According to the recent article, Waste Management, the operators of a landfill a dozen or so miles from the campus of 15,000 students, was dealing with surplus gas containing 50% methane. Most landfill operators are forced to burn the gas because it is a pollutant, but can be used as fuel. WM realized that UNH could use methane, but how to get it there was a problem. $49 million dollars and 12.7 miles of pipeline later, UNH has its methane.
I’m Going to Wash That Carbon Right Out of My…..
According to eassortment , “The technical definition of fossil fuels is “incompletely oxidized and decayed animal and vegetable materials, specifically coal, peat, lignite, petroleum and natural gas”. The technical definition of fuel is “material that can be burned or otherwise consumed to produce heat”. In our modernized western world, fossil fuels provide vast luxurious importance. We retrieve these fossil fuels from the ground and under the sea and have them converted into electricity. Approximately 90% of the world’s electricity demand is generated from the use of fossil fuels. Combustion of these fossil fuels is considered to be the largest contributing factor to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In fact it is believed that energy providers are the largest source of atmospheric pollution today. There are many types of harmful outcomes which result from the process of converting fossil fuels to energy. Some of these include air pollution, water pollution, accumulation of solid waste, not to mention the land degradation and human illness.”
According to several sources there is between 1.4 and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the United States. A significant amount and if managed correctly could greatly reduce our need for foreign oil. However, even though natural gas may be one of the cleaner fuels, when it is burned, it produces carbon dioxide, water, and energy. It’s just a fact of combustion. However, a new technology (project) developed by a Canadian company, Atlantic Hydrogen Inc. of Fredericton, New Brunswick, may be able to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent and can capture that black gunk (solid carbon), “a substance that can be used in making tires, laser printer toner, and other products.” Makes sense to us. Let’s get it out before it gets in and, if we have a usable byproduct, all the better. Read the full article here. My question to you is: Where in the “green” spectrum is this project (Green by Intent; Green by Project Impact; Green by Product Impact, or Green General)?